RADULICH: Fact or Fiction

Every week 411Mania offers a debate column called Fact or Fiction which features a statement that the writers respond to. In said writer's opinion, the statemen is either a fact or it is fiction and then they explain why. Occasionally I contribute to the debate. Here is my latest contribution)

1) The media is biased. Outlets are more concerned with picking and presenting news Their Way as opposed to being objective and impersonal.

Fact - and I'm not going to bother with liberal or conservative slants because that's pointless. It's more about the news being owned by corporations. Corporations have one goal, make money for their investors. The news makes money by being content in which to install expensive commercials. Period. Whether it's CNN or FOX, O'Reilly or Olberman, it doesn't matter so long as people are turning in long enough to be convinced to buy the car, drugs or whatever is being advertised. It's the same thing with print media and radio. These outlets may have a political slant but that's secondary to the belief that whatever content they've chosen is a money maker so that's what gets produced. It's liberal or conservative slant is more a of a reflection of the content producer himself and less of media bias as a whole. As long as the show makes money, that's all the bosses care about. As far as being objective and impersonal, years ago somebody figured out that to get Americans to turn into the news en masse, you had to put on shows that were attractive to mass audiences and not confusing or complex, thus car chases overtook intellectual presentations and analysis. This actually started with the vision of bodies being brought back from Vietnam but that's a story for another day.

2) There is a culture war in this country (note: this term was used before Bill O'Reilly made it recently popular, so don't say Fiction just cause you hate him).

Fact - of course there's a culture war. It's a war between those who don't want to be judged for any behavior and for those that believe restrictions on behavior is a good thing. People like to lay this conflict at the feet of solely the secular progressives because typically they are the ones who are for lowering standards of behavior and making arguments for normalization of all behavior, deviant or otherwise but the far right is just as bad. The far right doesn't want to be judged for its radical behavior either. The culture war goes beyond progressive vs conservative and is really a battle between the selfless and mature vs the selfish and immature. Selfish people care only about themselves to the exclusion of all else and they can be either liberal or conservative. Selfish people are the ones lowering the debate to the benefit of themselves without thinking about the consequences for others. Selfish people do all of this without wanting to be confronted because rationally they have no leg to stand on. That's the culture war in a nut shell and it's been going on since the necessity of having to tolerate your neighbor or family member was replaced by the well-meaning but utterly disastrous notion that the government is responsible for caring for individuals.

3) It really doesn't matter who we vote for, or if we vote at all. Politicans are pretty much all the same.

Fiction - some are smarter and more thoughtful than others. Some are dutiful while others simply seek a kingdom to call their own. Some politicians are guided by their personal ethics while others only act in defense of their own elite position. The system balances things out making some politicians less or more effective than others but ultimately if you don't see the difference between Newt Gingrich and Nancy Pelosi and how they affect Washington differently then you are not really paying attention. Now, do all of these have personal foibles? Of course they do as they are human afterall. But that doesn't mean that all politicians are the same just because they are all fallible. Those are two different issues.

4) Having more than just 2 dominant political parties to choose from is one primary solution to our nation's plights.

Fact - If the Europeans do anything right, it's their electoral process. I like having lots of candidates to choose from with more than one decisive election to determine who should be the main leader. I think the run-off elections are a capital idea. I think people like Ralph Nader and Ron Paul should be viable options for American voters rather than having to choose between two lite brands or safe choices (John Kerry I'm looking in your direction). If the CT election of 2006 is any indication, Joe Lieberman shows us that in today's political culture, there is room for independants in the electoral process. Nowing, establing a viable third party than adequately threaten the big two will be a feat considering both are loathe to give up their dominance.

RADULICH: In Defense of Ron Paul

In 2004, one of the criticisms of John Kerry that was bandied about was that he was too nuanced. In other words, his views of the world and governmental policy therein were as complex as the issues themselves and therefore not clear enough for a public that wants its leaders to speak to them in as plain English as possible. That’s a sad commentary on American political life but a reality nonetheless. The voting public seems to be more comfortable with either Captain America or Dr. Phil as president than someone versed in the issues and knowledgeable enough to that one cannot simply project a black-and-white view of things and expect to accomplish anything of value. Contrary to what many on the right seem to believe, the world is just not divided into simply good and bad.

I felt sorry for Kerry in that when he was being honest with himself and the public, the message got muddled in our sound byte happy media and he was made to look foolish when he in fact was thoughtful. But if the media and voters were mean toward Kerry for having more than a child’s view of complex issues, those same culprits have been downright cruel to poor old GOP presidential candidate Rep. (TX) Ron Paul.

Paul has been a hoot in the past two debates. He’s been brutally honest and he seems to be one of the few people running for the nomination that actually remembers the GOP platform. The Republican’s used to be about nothing more than restricted government intervention, low taxes and non-interventionist policies. In other words, Republican’s are supposed to believe in leaving people to their own device-win, lose or draw. In social work lingo it’s called “rugged individualism” and it means that you take care of yourself and the government will make sure you keep as much of what you make as you can. It is simple math really. Lower or lowest taxes means that the government is only minimally involved in your inalienable rights. This is why traditionally Republicans have been against social service programs and an interventionist foreign policy. Contrary to what the liberals would have you believe, it’s not because all Republican are old, white ogres who hate people, it’s because entitlement programs and foreign wars costs money and money costs people their freedom and privacy. Paul has been trying to remind people of this in the sparingly little time he’s had at the previous two debates.

In fact, at the Fox debate on 5/15/07, Paul made statements that got him eviscerated by the mind-numbingly oafish pundits as well as a jingoistic spanking from the most liberal of the contenders, Mayor Rudy Giuliani. You can hear Paul’s comments for yourself in the embedded video but the crux of what he said was that if you want to fix the economy you have to cut spending and the best places to cut are the monsters of bureaucratic inefficiency, the departments of Homeland Security, Education and Energy. He also said that the reason we were attacked on 9-11 is because we had been bombing Iraq for about 10 years prior and said attack was retaliatory in nature.

For this, Ron Paul has nearly usurped Hillary Clinton as the Right’s new boogeyman.

The problem is that if you actually took the time to think about, and read about what Paul was saying, he actually makes perfect sense and is telling the awful truth. In our sound-byte happy country, it sounds like he blaming the US for being attacked by Al Qaeda on 9-11. However, if given more time and the ability to set the record straight in an arena where the audience doesn’t have Attention Deficit Disorder, I’m sure he would say the following:

We were in fact bombing Iraq after the first Gulf War. That was part of the containment policy. As a matter of fact, part of the reason the liberals thought that Iraq didn’t have WMD’s is because of said containment policy. We were monitoring them night and day as well as enforcing no-fly zones in the South and over Kurdistan. We were based in Saudi Arabia both during the conflict as well as after the war had ended. This was one of Osama Bin Laden’s big demands of the United States. On top of wanting to convert or murder all infidels, he also wanted the US out of Saudi Arabia, or as he likes to call it, the holy land. Now this little wrinkle hardly gets any mention in the news what with all of the focus on the much more easier understand former issue but it was in fact a serious demand. The problem was that he didn’t have much of a right to make a demand. The Saudi Royal Family had us there by request and stayed in Saudi Arabia at their pleasure. In any case, the attacks by Al Qaeda in the 90’s and then 9-11 were partly his answer to our unwillingness to leave Saudi Arabia. This was Ron Paul’s point. Had Osama Bin Laden gotten his way and been allowed by the Saudi Royal Family to lead the Mujahudeen against Saddam Hussein in Kuwait as he did (with CIA help) against the Russians in Afghanistan, there probably wouldn’t be an Al Qaeda today. However, as history has shown us, that’s not what happened.

The other statement he’s being attacked on is his idea that we should cut the department of Homeland Security (and Education and Energy). Again, in sound-byte land that means he suggesting we do not defend ourselves or protect our national interests in time of war. While that assertion made for great television, it was also idiotic. In the land of attention spans, what Ron Paul was getting was that beyond the National Guard and other branches of the military, the job of safety and security is supposed to fall on state agencies and not some monstrous federal bureaucracy that is so convoluted it can’t function in a time of crises. His point was that you don’t keep people safe by creating more red tape; you do so by giving the state agencies all of the resources they need to get the job done. That doesn’t take more bureaucrats, that just takes good common sense and better budgeting.

It’s the same thing with Energy and Education. Instead of having the government control something that it does not understand and is woefully unqualified to govern, you should allow but to be provinces of state and private enterprise exclusively. It is the job of the governors of each state to manage their own affairs and getting the federal government involved only muddies up the waters. More to the point, you end up, as we have, throwing away billions in tax dollars are bureaucratic machines don’t function very well and don’t actually solve the problem.

Ron Paul’s problem is not that he was wrong, it’s that he was too right for an audience that doesn’t have time for long complicated answers.

Gingrich Vs Cuomo, Mark Vs People Who Hate the BIG, John VS Hypocrites, and Bengali Cows VS Chickens

It would have been nice if the Blog Talk Radio system had been working properly. I could finally see the buttons but one of them didn’t work and of course we got cut off again. Meh.

Outside of that, I thought the show went well. It seems like the hour just flies by now. I probably could have done an entire hour on just the economy and the BIG but obviously we had other stuff to get to.

I encourage those of you who write me about my column to call into the show and discuss your points further. I promise not to bite.

Lastly, though John’s already had a break, I need a weekend off. With the changing of jobs taking place and other personal matters I just need a moment to reconfigure my life and get things rolling again. So again, no show next week but when we come back, we should be refreshed and ready to rumble.

Monologue:

Why Our Emerging Robotic Nation Needs a Basic Income Guarantee

The Rise and Fall of a Basic Income Guarantee Bill in the United States Congress

US Economy Risks and Strategies 2007-2017 (V1.2)

Is this really the strong economy we are being lead to believe?

Gingrich Vs Cuomo

the "Lincoln at Cooper Union" dialogue series: Gingrich Vs Cuomo

The BUCGAW Report

Missing chicken mystery in Bengal solved

Narcissistic College Students

Narcissism and the End of Social Cohesion