Quote of the Day
No pessimist ever discovered the secret of the stars,
or sailed to an uncharted land,
or opened a new doorway for the human spirit.
Helen Keller
A Rant About FNC Coverage of Polls
I have been a frequent critic of Fox News Channel (with the exception of Bret Baier Special Report and Chris Wallace's Fox News Sunday, which are easily the class of the competition). I do have some minor complaints about the latter because sometimes the guests are predictable and/or exclusive Fox News contributors, and I've heard Wallace make unnecessary apologies to a couple of guests. I've become a less frequent watcher, relying more on the Internet than FNC's pathetic competition. I'm annoyed by the constant whining about liberal/progressives' hypocrisy and snipes at favored political figures (e.g., Palin and Bachmann); of course, the vast majority of media liberals and progressives are elitist, hypocritical, judgmental, and uncivil: what about 8 years of Bush monkey, mangled pronunciation ("nucular" for "nuclear") and other so-called jokes and repetitive or intellectually vapid "8 years of failed policies" hasn't been predictable?
I mean, we're dealing with people whom think among the highest priorities are ensuring service members can talk openly about their sex lives and renaming domestic partnerships/civil unions "gay marriage"; they support a guy in the White House whom preached a post-partisan politics and railed against "special interests": in reality, his whole Presidency has been among the most partisan in American history, and we have seen special interests all over the place, whether we are dealing about deals with health care companies during ObamaCare negotiations, the Solyndra and/or Sunpower loans, or sweetheart deals for unions during the auto bankruptcies.
So I don't really see why we regularly see MRC's Brent Bozell on Sean Hannity's show snickering over the latest double standards in the liberal mainstream media (e.g., favorably contrast the Occupy Wall Street malcontents against a more credible, legitimate grassroots operation, the Tea Party, which does NOT consist of the fabled top 1% but thinks what the progressives are doing constitutes political malpractice and a Ponzi scheme of unconscionable intergenerational theft of the highest order). I find the contemptuous sarcasm of frequent guests Michelle Malkin and Ann Coulter rather pointless. I'm less interested in the constant political spin and fingerpointing from both the left and the right that I hear on Fox.
There's also the heavily rotated news bits; at least we still don't hear Glenn Beck run the same clip like half a dozen times over an hour, but it gets to be boring. One of those bits was the fact that Herman Cain has gotten tagged the "new front runner" as the "anti-Romney" challenger after Perry's debate stumbles, Bachmann, and Perry assumed the mantle earlier this year. Do we remember how Herman Cain got his bump earlier this year? By responding to a question about his lack of experience in Washington by portraying it as a virtue--I'm not part of the inside crowd: in fact, they are the problem. Okay, buster: what makes you think you can negotiate with pieces of work like Harry Reid and Barack Obama any better than John Boehner has? More importantly, didn't we hear the same thing from another African American Presidential candidate 3 years ago with a thin resume and no government administrative experience? So the question is: what makes anyone think this blip is any more substantive than the last one? Do we really expect that Herman Cain is a better candidates to beat Obama than Romney is? What about the fact that Romney, of all GOP candidates, consistently does better in polls--less than 2 points behind? Who has done a better job confronting hecklers and responding to opponents during the debates? What makes anyone think he's anything more than just one gaffe away from heading back to single-digit support range?
Now I'll point out there has been some discussions with Rasmussen and a few Fox contributors have made passing reference to Romney as being the front runner and/or some polls indicating skepticism than Cain will end up with the nomination, but I've probably heard one particular poll (the NBC one) being repeatedly hyped and probably over the past week there's been saturation coverage of Cain stories, interviews, and discussions, discussing Cain as the new front runner, etc.
So, let's just review the latest national GOP polls summarized by nationalpolls.com:
National, Rasmussen Reports, 10/12 - 10/12: , Romney 29, Cain 29
National, NBC, 10/6 - 10/10: Romney 23, Cain 27
National, PPP, 10/7 - 10/10: Romney 22, Cain 30
National, Reuters, 10/6 - 10/10: Romney 23, Cain 19
National, Bloomberg, 10/6 - 10/9: Romney 24, Cain 16
National, Gallup, 10/3 - 10/7: Romney 20, Cain 18
National, Pew, 9/22 - 10/4: Romney 37, Cain 12
I should point out that PPP is a Democratic pollster and the relevant polls tend to be somewhat idiosyncratic and out of step with other polls. I should note that in most of these polls Bachmann, who once was the leading anti-Romney choice is now around the 5% level.
More to the point, even the NBC/WSJ poll cited above shows Cain trailing Obama in double digits but Romney probably within the margin of error. Time also has has Cain trailing in double digits. Only Rasmussen and PPP have Cain trailing Obama by single digits.
I will point out that if I was Obama pulling 46% vs. Romney 44.4%, I would be worried. That basically means almost 9% are undecided. Do you mean you really think most of the undecided are going to break for Obama, with employment all but surely under breakeven during Obama's term?
Guest Editorial: Economicfreedom.org
Episode 2: "Economic Freedom in America Today":
Thumbs UP!
Been There, Done That?
Occupy Wall Street, Obama, et al.
Ron Paul's Presidential Campaign Pro-Life Ad:
Thumbs UP!
There are differences even among libertarians regarding the conflicts of rights; for example, one person doesn't want the government impeding his right to play music at a desired loud volume; a neighbor insists that he has a right to live in a peaceful neighborhood without someone else's music unduly imposing itself across their property line. One of the legitimate purposes of government is to provide a due process mechanism for reconciling these differences.
Any regular reader of this blog can probably infer my point of view on the "music as noise" issue. I had a very strong position against the SCOTUS Snyder v Phelps position, supported by many, if not most libertarians. If you recall, the Westboro Baptist Church has been picketing the funerals of veterans whom died in the Afghan/Iraq conflict/occupation theater, arguing that our casualties are a part of God's righteous vengeance against American pro-homosexual policies. Let me point out that I am a Roman Catholic, and WBC is virulently anti-Catholic, but the fact of my faith is not the issue here. WBC is specifically targeting targets in a provocative manner, crossing the lines of civility, to promote its agenda. Who can forget 9-year-old Catholic girl Christina Green whom died in the unconscionable assassination attempt on Congressman Giffords earlier this year? WBC threatened picketing her funeral as a type of extortion; media sources ended up agreeing to provide the group airtime to express its message.
My objections have to do with the time, place and nature of the protests. I don't have a problem of WBC competing its propaganda in the free market of ideas. I have no problem with WBC picketing the federal government or expressing its unconscionable views on the airwaves or Internet. It has more to do with setting boundaries and respecting cultural norms, including the right to grieve in peace for one's lost friend and family members, not to be attacked in an uncivil manner as whipping boys for federal government policies. I saw and heard some of these protesters: they were engaging in unprovoked emotional assaults on grieving survivors, telling them the world was a better place without their loved one. That is far from the free market of ideas; it's more like government-sanctioned abusive conduct.
Do I think the government should try to arbitrate each and every petty disagreement between people? Of course not. In fact, this blog has been a persistent critic of the legal profession and lawsuit abuse, not to mention an increasingly unmanageable, unsustainable government; you would have figured progressives had learned their lesson from unsuccessfully trying to prohibit others from accessing alcoholic beverages in order to ensure a healthier, sober, more productive populace (to cure but one of the hundreds of flaws in any fallible human being). But when start talking about negative rights, we are talking about keeping the government or other people from unduly restricting, impairing or terminating our own unalienable rights of life, liberty and property. So, for example, I don't have a problem with other people listening to what goes by the name of popular music today; what I do mind is when people to arbitrarily raise the volume to disturb other people. I can still recall having to take my GRE with almost no sleep on a morning after other guys in the dorm had a very loud party, and the dorm staff refused to do anything about it.
When I approach the issue on the rights of the unborn, I think we have to pay special attention to the most vulnerable: celebrities can often hire body guards, well-to-do individuals can hire their own estate security staff, etc. Those of us who are pro-life realize that it's all but impossible in a free society to protect unborn or newly born children from life- or health-threatening decisions or negligence of parents; it's difficult to prevent suicide from a determined individual from taking his own life.
We are have a stake in our children, the future of our nation and the future of the human race; life must go on. None of us underestimate the burdens of being a parent--the time, effort, expense, and the effects on one's social life; for a generation, your life is not your own.
Conservatives who are pro-life are not suggesting government meddling in the internal affairs of households, e.g., Chinese-style birth quotas. The individual's right to life is fundamental, and there is equal protection, e.g., when one family member threatens the safety of another. We believe there is something noble in speaking out on behalf of a child not our own, not in pretending that a child's rights depend on context instead of principle. I find Dr. Paul's statement here eloquent in the context of a born alive infant abortion which reminds me of Jill Stanek's work on the issue.
Political Humor
"Hulk Hogan says he no longer supports President Obama. Yeah. But the president's not worried because he has the support of the Iron Sheik and Triple H." - Conan O'Brien
[Donald Trump, Wrestlemania veteran, isn't surprised. He notes that Hulk Hogan's theme song is "Real American" and Hulk has a real birth certificate... Let me point out that Paul "Triple H" Levesque is the son-in-law of former WWE CEO Linda McMahon, former and current US Senate candidate (R-CT).]
"Big Ben is leaning to one side, but they think that it might be able to somehow correct itself. And I thought well, yeah, look at Mitt Romney. He used to lean to the left, now he leans to the right." - David Letterman
[In fact, Herman Cain calls Romney the "Leaning Tower of Pizza"...]
Musical Interlude: My Favorite Groups
Moody Blues, "Gemini Dream"
