Another gem from the “Impossible to Predict” Department…
Are we through with this mess yet? Are we really going to endure this “evaluation period” for 3 more months?
It never ceases to amaze me how much our president reminds me of a 6 year old. He’s been told to stop playing the video game, repeatedly. “5 more minutes,” he negotiates without taking his eyes off the screen. And Congress, like the pushover parent that should’ve bent him over her knee a long time ago, acquiesces. No doubt, his threat to throw a presidential-sized tantrum made the passive parents avoid the confrontation.
This is one of many questions from a survey by Newsweek, conducted June 18-19, 2007. Yes, 2007! The people who answered this question are over 18, and part of the voting public.
Yes, that’s a warning.
Not only are 41% of people completely ignorant, but that’s up 5% since 2004.
“The United States of America have exhibited, perhaps, the first example of governments erected on the simple principles of nature; and if men are now sufficiently enlightened to disabuse themselves of artifice, imposture, hypocrisy, and superstition, they will consider this event as an era in their history. Although the detail of the formation of the American governments is at present little known or regarded either in Europe or in America, it may hereafter become an object of curiosity. It will never be pretended that any persons employed in that service had interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the influence of Heaven, more than those at work upon ships or houses, or laboring in merchandise or agriculture; it will forever be acknowledged that these governments were contrived merely by the use of reason and the senses.”
- John Adams, A Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America
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.
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.
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!
Gallup has released an annual poll that finds the perception of moral values in America at an all time low. And more than 80% think morality is getting worse.
I found the results not all that surprising, but there were some interesting caveats worth mentioning.
For example, the death penalty (in this so-called “Christian nation” ) enjoys widespread support, with 66% saying that it is morally acceptable for the state to commit revenge killings under the euphemism of ‘punishment’. But hey, at least that’s down from last year’s high of 71%.
At the same time, doctor assisted suicide is only morally acceptable to 49%. And even more baffling is the fact that suicide, without doctor assistance, is only acceptable to 16%. Can anyone tell me why it’s waaaayy more acceptable to ask a doctor to help you commit suicide than it is to just do it by yourself?
I can’t figure that one out.
But on a more positive note, stem cell research is up in the polls:
And in further trending away from scripture as a moral guide, the gays are up in the polls too:
Things look bleak for the likes of Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani, though. Polygamy and adultery are down in the single digits of moral acceptability. The homosexuals are more moral than these guys, and they’re running for president? I think Atheists even enjoy more support for our morally unacceptable - or “Filthy,” as one Christian put it - position.
Just over 1,000 adults were surveyed for this annual Values and Beliefs poll.
“He who joyfully marches to music in rank and file has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would fully suffice. This disgrace to civilization should be done away with at once. Heroism at command, senseless brutality, deplorable love-of-country stance, how violently I hate all this, how despicable an ignorable war is; I would rather be torn to shreds than be a part of so base an action! It is my conviction that killing under the cloak of war is nothing but an act of murder.”
I am creating this post for the purpose of comments on the current poll. Just in case anyone would like to qualify their answer or discuss the various implications.
The current poll is a question about Ron Paul:
Will Ron Paul run independently when he fails to get the Republican nomination?
Feel free to comment or discuss here, if you would like to.
In light of the second, and now somewhat infamous, republican debate in South Carolina, I thought I should revisit my earlier post on Ron Paul. In that post, I mentioned that I didn’t know a whole lot about Ron Paul and his philosophies on issues besides the ones quickly noted on the “About Ron” page on his presidential campaign website. And I wanted to revisit it since neoconservatives are trying desperately to paint him as a quintessential “conspiracy theorist” with regard to 9/11, including everyone’s favorite Patron Saint of Terrorism Aftermath™, Rudy Giuliani.
It seems that, in the debate, Ron Paul made the “controversial” implication that our actions have consequences. And because of that, he is catching a lot of flack from “true republicans” who cheer anyone that threatens a free society and demands that government have the power to do all they can to protect us, even if it is at the expense of that freedom.
Ron Paul made the implication in response to a question about terrorism and 9/11. Here’s the exchange:
REP. PAUL: … Non-intervention was a major contributing factor. Have you ever read the reasons they attacked us? They attack us because we’ve been over there; we’ve been bombing Iraq for 10 years. We’ve been in the Middle East — I think Reagan was right.
We don’t understand the irrationality of Middle Eastern politics. So right now we’re building an embassy in Iraq that’s bigger than the Vatican. We’re building 14 permanent bases. What would we say here if China was doing this in our country or in the Gulf of Mexico? We would be objecting. We need to look at what we do from the perspective of what would happen if somebody else did it to us.
MODERATOR: Are you suggesting we invited the 9/11 attack, sir?
REP. PAUL: I’m suggesting that we listen to the people who attacked us and the reason they did it, and they are delighted that we’re over there because Osama bin Laden has said, “I am glad you’re over on our sand because we can target you so much easier.
Saint Rudy jumps on this as an opportunity to remind everyone where he was on 9/11:
Wendell, may I comment on that? That’s really an extraordinary statement. That’s an extraordinary statement, as someone who lived through the attack of September 11, that we invited the attack because we were attacking Iraq. I don’t think I’ve heard that before, and I’ve heard some pretty absurd explanations for September 11th. (Applause, cheers.)
And I would ask the congressman to withdraw that comment and tell us that he didn’t really mean that. (Applause.)
Why is it that Saint Rudy suggests he answered the question with a resounding “Yes”, and gets away with it? I’m pretty sure Ron Paul could have said anything besides the word “No” after Wendell’s question, and it wouldn’t have mattered to Rudy.
Anyway, in the wake of the exchange, Ron Paul has given Saint Rudy a reading assignment to help educate him on what he means, instead of telling Rudy he didn’t mean what he said. The assignment includes Chalmers Johnson’s Blowback, Robert A. Pape’s Dying to Win, and Michael Scheuer’s Imperial Hubris, and the 9-11 Commission Report - the very report focused solely on the day Rudy was there to… well… be there (remember??? Remember, damnit!).
He even provided Cliff Notes to make the read a little easier and understandable for Giuliani, including among others:
“The suicidal assassins of September 11, 2001 did not ‘attack America,’ as political leaders and news media in the United States have tried to maintain; they attacked American foreign policy. Employing the strategy of the weak, they killed innocent bystanders, whose innocence is, of course, no different from that of the civilians killed by American bombs in Iraq, Serbia, Afghanistan, and elsewhere.”
Since I admire anyone who suggests we take responsibility for our actions instead of creating an external locus of control for everything except the most desirable consequences, this prompted me to take a closer look at Ron Paul. And after some searching I came across what basically amounts to a blog. It’s called The Ron Paul Library.
So I spent some time reading through the library, and I must say that my original inclinations were correct. I certainly don’t agree with him on everything, but the underlying philosophy on the role of government and all that it implies is something this country has desperately needed for at least 7 years, if not longer.
Four U.S. Congresspersons are in the middle of the Food Stamp Challenge, in which they try to live on $21 worth of food stamps for a week.
Why $21? Because that is the national average food stamp allotment per person, that’s $3 a day! The lawmakers that are crazy enough to try this are Rep. Jim McGovern (MA), Rep. Tim Ryan (OH), Rep. Jo Ann Emerson (MO), and Rep. Jan Schakowsky (IL). The goal “for this ‘food stamp challenge’ was to spark a real discussion about the real life difficulties that many in America face in trying to put food on their tables.”
We’re trying to get this debate going. There are more working people today getting food stamps than six years ago. . . . There’s not a member of Congress that doesn’t have hunger in their district.
McGovern and Ryan are blogging about their experiences here and here, respectively.
Jan Schakowsky has also added a post to McGovern’s blog about her first few days on the Food Stamp Challenge, noting that…
Shopping was really hard. Here’s what I learned. It is much easier to afford pasta and bread than it is fruits and vegetables of any kind. It is hard to buy much of anything for $3 a day. It is impossible to get a Starbuck’s coffee or a Diet Pepsi if you don’t want to run out of money pretty quickly. I also learned how miserable it would be to live on food stamps for any length of time.
Mmmm, pasta and bread, and all the carbs your body can turn into fat. Here is Jan’s menu for her first few days:
For $1 per meal, it makes you wonder how these people stay alive. Not the congresspeople. The poor souls who don’t have the luxury of choice.
I’m not saying we should be pouring more money into Food Stamps necessarily, but certainly things like the U.S. Farm Bill that subsidizes (read: makes cheaper) ingredients like sugar and corn syrup and fat don’t help anyone, much less the poor that can’t afford healthy food because of it.
For some extra educational material, Micheal Pollan writes in the New York Times about this egregious government utilitarianism veering down the all-too-common path of unintended consequences…
This perverse state of affairs is not, as you might think, the inevitable result of the free market. Compared with a bunch of carrots, a package of Twinkies, to take one iconic processed foodlike substance as an example, is a highly complicated, high-tech piece of manufacture, involving no fewer than 39 ingredients, many themselves elaborately manufactured, as well as the packaging and a hefty marketing budget. So how can the supermarket possibly sell a pair of these synthetic cream-filled pseudocakes for less than a bunch of roots?
For the answer, you need look no farther than the farm bill. This resolutely unglamorous and head-hurtingly complicated piece of legislation, which comes around roughly every five years and is about to do so again, sets the rules for the American food system — indeed, to a considerable extent, for the world’s food system. Among other things, it determines which crops will be subsidized and which will not, and in the case of the carrot and the Twinkie, the farm bill as currently written offers a lot more support to the cake than to the root. Like most processed foods, the Twinkie is basically a clever arrangement of carbohydrates and fats teased out of corn, soybeans and wheat — three of the five commodity crops that the farm bill supports, to the tune of some $25 billion a year. (Rice and cotton are the others.) For the last several decades — indeed, for about as long as the American waistline has been ballooning — U.S. agricultural policy has been designed in such a way as to promote the overproduction of these five commodities, especially corn and soy.
(Read the rest of the article here. The New York Times website may require a login, which is easily obtainable from bugmenot.com)
) enjoys widespread support, with 66% saying that it is morally acceptable for the state to commit revenge killings under the euphemism of ‘punishment’. But hey, at least that’s down from last year’s high of 71%.
Loading ...
