Ron Paul has lately been engaging in the typical Leftist talking point (which…I believe was formally coined “chickenhawk” by Al “The Joker” Franken for his Leftist creed, Rush Limbaugh Is a Big Fat Idiot) that if you haven’t been in the military, and fought in a war—you have no business deciding whether or not America should go to war.

Of course, if Ron were as well up on the Founding Fathers as he so smugly claims, he’d have to hold to the same standard , say…Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, and John Adams.  While George Washington and Alexander Hamilton were off fighting, Ben and John were off in France, negotiating for French intervention—

Wait.  Intervention—Ron Paul’s against intervention in wars that he claims don’t concern us!  “Imperialism,” it is!  Of course…had it not been for a little “foreign intervention”—encouraged by the “chickenhawks” Franklin and Adams—there would not have been a United States today, let alone a Constitution.

Back to the present.  You know…Ron Paul Revolutionaries are funny.  If you weren’t in the military, and you support the War, you’re a “chickenhawk”.  If you’re an officer in the military, and you support the War, you’re a member of the Military-Industrial-Complex.  It’s a win-win propaganda campaign.  (Of course…Ron Paul was only in the military for two years—as a physician.  If we’re going to go by his argument…John McCain had a lot more credibility talking about the War than Ron does.  “But McCain’s a NEOCON!”  So what?  He served his country a lot longer than Ron Paul did….)

Now—we’re fair and balanced, here.  Newt Gingrich is engaging in some disgracefully pathetic talking points, too—with the help of Rick Perry.  That not-so-dynamic duo, in nothing less than sheer desperation, have attacked Mitt Romney’s record as CEO of Bane Capital—the investment firm that helped out such legendary companies as Staples, Toys-R-Us, and Burlington Coat Factory.

Naturally, Bane would become a target for attack from the Left.  However, the kind of anti-Wall-Street rhetoric you’d expect from the Democrats…is now coming from the mouths of Newt Gingrich and Rick Perry—of all people!

The accusation is that Mitt is a “vulture capitalist”—a “corporate raider” who bought out struggling companies, mercilessly breaking them up…and selling off the parts, leaving innocent workers out in the cold.  In short, Mitt’s supposed to be Gordon Gekko—wrecking Bluestar “because it’s wreck-able, all right?!”

Look…Mitt Romney’s nothing if not a good businessman.  And any good businessman knows that if a company can be brought back, it’s more profitable to restore than to destroy—it makes more money, in the long run.  If a company can’t be brought back—if it’s too far gone—then, a break-up is necessary.  Better that than a slow, painful death which would’ve caused even more turmoil for the “victims” in Newt’s 30-minute documentary/hit-job.  Better to have them look somewhere better for work now, than drag them down with a sinking ship.

As Danny DeVito said in Other People’s Money, as venture capitalist Lawrence Garfield, “This company is dead.  I didn’t kill it…don’t blame me…it was dead when I got here….  Let’s have the intelligence—let’s have the decency—to sign the death certificate, collect the insurance, and invest in something with a future!”  Same goes for the four companies Newt’s been ranting about (three of which, by the way, weren’t invested in by Bane until after Mitt left to save the Olympics)—they were dead when Bane got there.  The buggy whips were going out of style…and Newt’s documentary is a prayer for the dead.

(Watch Larry’s entire speech here—it’s a harsh dose of reality, for haters of “vulture capitalism”.)

As convenient these kinds of attacks are for emotional appeals…they have no basis in reality.  Newt and Perry are now running dying campaigns, and Ron’s only a protest vote—he can’t win, as I’ve stated before.  All three should drop out, ASAP—they’re only hurting the causes they claim to support.  The good of the party, the good of the country…their own dignity depend on it.

I must admit, I’m not surprised at the results of this “poll”—released by Fairleigh Dickinson University (who?).  Disappointed, but not surprised.  After all, competition brings out both the best and the worst in people—and often encourages smears of this kind.

Okay, here are just a few of the problems in the story:

The sampling is too limited. The poll surveyed 612 New Jersey natives—and that’s it.  The article smugly asserts the all-too-local results somehow prove that, across the country, Fox News viewers are less informed than, say…readers of The New York Times.  (You know, the paper with Paul “There’s-no-proof-that-Gabby-Giffords’-shooter-was-a-Teabagger-but-the-odds-are-that-he-was” Krugman as the premier liberal voice…and David “I-love-the-crease-in-Obama’s-pants” Brooks as the premier “conservative” voice.  But I digress….)

You want to poll viewers across the country?  Poll viewers across the country.  For all we know, those “results” are just a local phenomenon.  And—His Supreme Awesomeness Chris Christie notwithstanding…NJ, last I checked, is traditionally a blue state.

The sampling demographics are not provided—not in the article, anyway.  Exactly how many Fox viewers did this no-name university poll?  How many MSNBC?  How many New York Times readers?  How many—and I got such a kick out of this part of the poll—how many Jon Stewart viewers?

All we know is that the pollsters have assured us that they accounted for partisanship.  Somehow, that doesn’t reassure me.  Anyhow…for all we know, the poll oversampled FOX viewers, so as to register enough “dumb” viewers to cancel out the smart ones.  Since the article conveniently leaves out the details…we may never know.

What were the questions?  Well, let’s see: “Fox viewers were 18 points less likely [than non-news-watchers] to know that Egyptians toppled their government and 6 points less likely to be aware that Syrians have not yet overthrown theirs.”

Okay…as someone who has his apartment room’s TV nearly always tuned into Fox, I happen to know that Fox leaves no room whatsoever for confusion regarding Syria.  Story after story lately has concerned the Syrian government struggling with the rebellion—and the UN’s condemnation of its “crimes against humanity.”  So…I guess we can assume that these “dumb” Fox viewers conveniently tuned out those stories.  (Translation: the poll failed to distinguish how often said viewers actually watch the channel.)

As for “Egyptians toppling their government”…ah, which government are we talking about?  As my colleague Ronald Rowe  noted last week…Egypt’s got a new government, and a new PM.  Last time I checked, the people haven’t toppled that one…yet.  For all we know, the viewers were confused by the question, to that effect: “Oh, they did it again?  Wow, I didn’t know that!”

Next—apparently, MSNBC fans know better than Fox viewers that Mitt Romney is the front runner.  Wait a minute.  This article came out last week.  Last time I checked, Newt Gingrich was topping the polls.  Before him, it was Herman Cain.  Maybe Mitt was briefly the front-runner amid the transition, but still…it’s a toss-up between him and Newt.  (I wonder how many respondents said, “Newt”?)

In other words…it’s the pollsters that have a problem here, not the viewers.

The only other example of “idiocy” provided by the article concerns party identification of the Occupiers.  The victims are MSNBC viewers.  But you know…they’re not that dumb.

You get the idea.  Other than that, we don’t know what the questions were—let alone, how they were worded.  And considering the known slant of the majority of university professors (and again—this is a no-name university in a traditionally blue state)…I’m not getting my hopes up on “fair and balanced”.

So there we have it: this article, more than anything else, indicates the pure jealousy—and desperation—of a “mainstream media” who can’t handle the competition.  And the constant invoking of “polls” like this—along with an unfortunate incident of the late lamented Steve Jobs, a registered Democrat, misrepresenting Fox—indicates that said desperation extends to their fans, as well.

But, hey—what do I know?  I’m a Fox viewer.

Second: CBS cut off broadcasting the debate after the first hour.  Apparently, the second hour has Lindsey Graham and Jim DeMint make appearances.  If nothing else, this demonstrates the immense inconvenience of network television—and why cable news should probably be the sole forum for these things.

Okay.  Here’s the rundown:

Herman Cain: Herman kicked off the debate, reminding us of the Iranian people’s opposition to Ahmadinejad— and articulating his strategy for handling the country’s nuclear threat.  He analyzed Pakistan’s problems, and the need for clarification on its friend-or-foe status.  He laid out the need for advisors bringing alternatives to the table.  He carefully answered the question on torture — challenging America to define what is torture.  He wins, albeit not as big as usual.

Mitt Romney: Mitt Romney began by articulating Obama’s failures regarding Iran.  His correctly challenging the moderator regarding his time was superb.  The audience cheered his response to the Al-Alwaki question.  Once again, he discussed reining in China, and its “currency manipulator” status.  (Again, he’s more or less taking the reins from Donald Trump on this.)  He wins.

Newt Gingrich: Newt had a most clever remark about Obama’s “ways to be dumb” on Iran.  His analysis of the Taliban—and its sanctuary in Pakistan—was most thought-provoking.  He had great points on foreign aid, Egypt, and the disturbing anti-Christian trends in the Arab Spring.  When Major Garrett asked whether he’d care to criticize Mitt’s foreign policy, Newt smirked, and simply said, “No”—to thunderous applause.  He laid out the defense between criminality and acts of war—to similar cheers.  He wins.

Rick Perry: Rick appeared more confident, more relaxed, and less drunk than last time.  He had good recommendations on the issue of foreign aid—and Pakistan’s dishonesty towards America.  His self-deprecation on his previous flub was golden—and well received by the audience.  His remarks on Communist China, and cyber-warfare, were excellent.  His comments on aid to Israel were well laid out.  Overall, I think this was Rick’s best debate—and this win might well redeem him.

Michele Bachmann:  No one can accuse Michele of lacking knowledge on foreign policy—she began by articulating the many mistakes in the War on Terror, under Bush and Obama.  She pointed out Al-Qaeda’s proximity to Pakistan’s nuclear technology…and a potential nuclear war, centered on Israel.  She defended the CIA’s interrogation policies well.  She wins.  We’ll see if it’ll help reverse her fall.

Jon Huntsman: Jon began by claiming that we no longer need to be in Afghanistan, saying we need to focus more on intelligence and preparing the Afghans to fight on their own.  Fair enough…but his lecture on “values and principles” regarding waterboarding was, of course, based on emotional sentiment, and not facts.  He gets borderline.

Rick Santorum: Rick began seeming rather tired, aside from his brief complaint about not getting enough questions.  His criticism of Bush was interesting, as was his defense of a more aggressive stance towards Iran than Newt’s proposal.  He asserted the necessity to have Pakistan on our side, and brought up an interesting point on foreign-aid spending creating jobs here.  In contrast to Herman, Rick laid out the need for people who agree with you.  He did okay, winning overall…but I don’t see him rising up the polls, unless something surprising happens in his favor.

Ron Paul: Yes, Ron, we know it’s Congress’s power to declare war—that wasn’t the question!  His claim about “war propaganda” was also rather pathetic—Ahmadinejad’s violent threats against Israel are on record.  Still, his answers overall were far superior to his previous statements on foreign policy—at last, he appears open to going overseas, provided it’s done according to constitutional protocol.  His answer on waterboarding, however, was filled with straw men—and based on emotions (shared by the screaming Revolutionaries in the audience), not facts (like the information gleaned from the waterboarding of K.S.M. leading to the foiling of the LA Library plot).  I’ll be generous and give him borderline, because he wasn’t as pathetic on foreign policy as he usually is.

See you next time….

Deniers tend to “counter” this with absurd ramblings about “Faux News” and the Military-Industrial-Complex…conveniently ignoring, for example, the free pass the “mainstream” media’s given the Occupiers…amid all the rapes (settled quietly, “for the good of the group”), all the anti-Semitic rants, the seizing of the Brooklyn Bridge (which led to the first wave of arrests— rightfully so; after all, they held up traffic) — and most recently, the Oakland flash mob engaging in graffiti and window-smashing.  Meanwhile, the cops are smeared for “police brutality”—a claim supported by the media.  Only a few independent outlets like The Blaze—or, as it were, Fox News—show the actual video evidence of who’s really in the wrong.

But the biggest example of media bias and hypocrisy this week can be seen in the treatment of Herman Cain.  Observe:

Last Sunday, the Politico released a story concerning two former female employees of the National Restaurant Association, who claimed that Cain had sexually harassed them, and that the Association had settled out of court.

In case you’re wondering, “Politico has confirmed the identities of the two female Restaurant Association members who complained about Cain but, for privacy concerns, is not publishing their names.”

No identities, no names: “Politico has a half-dozen sources…”  “One source closely familiar with Cain’s tenure in Washington confirmed…”  “…and her identity was confirmed by two additional sources.” All this—amid a constant barrage of “allegedly”, “apparently”, “may have”, etc.

The specifics?  “These incidents include conversations allegedly filled with innuendo or personal questions of a sexually suggestive nature.”

Next: “There were also descriptions of physical gestures that were not regarded as overtly sexual but that made women who experienced or witnessed them uncomfortable, and that they regarded as improper in a professional relationship.”

Yes…you read that right.

As the article reached its end, we finally saw some names—and they all agreed: Herman Cain is not a molester.  That is not the man they know.  He has always been gracious and courteous to those around him—men and women alike.

Of course…that part has been conveniently downplayed.  Equipped with unnamed—but “reliable”, don’t forget—sources, the news swept the press.  Suddenly, a third woman—and a fourth!  Who are they?  We don’t know.  Something about a “confidentiality agreement”.  (Funny…didn’t stop them from leaking in the first place….)

Meanwhile, the only one actually giving any concrete details is…Herman Cain.  Herman told Fox News’s Greta Van Susteren that the only allegation he remembers involved an incident where he compared a woman’s height to his wife, bringing his hand to his chin.  Other than that…he doesn’t recall a thing.  Any settlements were done without his knowledge.  He has never harassed anyone—any claims to the contrary are false.

(Note: Companies often settle with false accusers to avoid the hassle and expense of court.)

The press’s reaction: That’s not good enough!  Cain should come out with the full story, to prove his innocence.

Cain should?  News flash: Last time I checked, in America, we were Innocent Until Proven Guilty!  (Come to think of it, there’s also the right to face the accuser.)  So…why won’t Politico—or anyone else—come out with the details they so confidently claim to have?  Why aren’t those “reliable sources” revealed for all?  In short…where’s the proof?

Nothing.

Some years ago, the late lamented Ted Kennedy drove drunk with a girl—into a river.  He escaped, and ran off.  The girl drowned.  The press forgave it.

They forgave Bill Clinton for Gennifer Flowers, the story buried even when she provided audio evidence.  They forgave him for Paula Jones.  And with Monica Lewinsky…remember, the press actually sat on the story.  It took an internet pioneer named Matt Drudge to reveal the truth—guilting the media into doing their job.  (Drudge had to do it again, when the Blue Dress turned up.)

But with Herman Cain, it’s different—just as it was, to be honest, with Clarence Thomas.  For a black conservative, all it takes is a few “allegations”—equipped with a dubious source or two—and you’re the main story of the week…or the month.

Of course…Anita Hill had the guts to come out and give details. I’d wager Cain’s accusers don’t want to end up like she did: remembered by history as a discredited “source”. . .

Okay.  Fortunately, there are no GOP debates this week—freeing me to discuss this issue.  Let’s look at this in a reasoned, rational manner…and address four common arguments of those who call themselves “pro-choice”:

“You don’t care about those poor, low-income women who’d be forced to raise a child on their own!”

You’ve probably heard this straw man in about…99.99% of discussions involving abortion.  Frankly, people who rant like this either don’t know or don’t care about an alternative we like to call…adoption.

If the mother can’t take care of the child—she should simply give it up through adoption.  There’s certainly enough demand for such “unwanted” children.  If you look at the statistics—and compare the number of couples who want to adopt but can’t, to the number of babies aborted…you’ll see what I mean.

“Hey, you have no right to talk to me about abortion—you’ve never been in that situation!  You men will never get pregnant!  You pro-life women have never been forced to make that choice!”

Okay…calm down.

Feminist icon Susan B. Anthony was once confronted with a similar argument.  See, Susan was a strong believer in traditional family values—something most women’s lib groups never bring up.  (Abortion and leftist values took over feminism with the rise of Margaret Sanger—whose true motives for founding Planned Parenthood involved eugenics.)  The opponent claimed that Susan had no right to lecture him on such, since she was single.  Susan’s reply?  By that argument, people who were never slaves have no right to speak out against slavery!

As for pro-life women never having faced “that choice”…have you ever heard of Jane Roe?

“You pro-lifers just want to suppress women’s rights with your imposed standards of morality!”

Sure we do.  That’s why pro-life groups such as Feminists For Life exist.  That’s why Alice Paul, who wrote the original draft of—you’d better sit down—the Equal Rights Amendment…labeled abortion as “the ultimate exploitation of women.”

And then…there’s Susan B. Anthony again.  Susan was hard-core pro-life.  Revisionists may try to work around this, saying, “Oh, back then, the process was harmful to the mother.  It isn’t now.  If she were alive today…she’d have been with us!”

Alas, they can’t work around this:  In a July 8, 1869 article of her magazine The Revolution, Susan called abortion, in no uncertain terms, “child murder”, saying: “No matter what the motive, love of ease, or a desire to save from suffering the unborn innocent, the woman is awfully guilty who commits the deed.”  (She later noted, in that same article, that “thrice guilty is he who drove her to the desperation which impelled her to commit the crime.”  Translation?  Abortion is, really, psychological exploitation of women.)

Oppressors, all?  Probably not.

“Okay—you believe abortion’s wrong.  Great!  Just don’t make it illegal—you have no right to impose your values on me!”

News flash: we don’t just believe it’s morally wrong.  We believe that it’s murder.  Accepting that premise—I’m sorry, but…if we’re to hold murder as simply a matter of “personal morality” and “individual choice”…

Well, you get the idea.  Somehow, I doubt even the most ardent libertarian (or liberal, for that matter) would argue that we shouldn’t “impose” the belief that murder is wrong, and should be illegal.  Indeed, Ron Paul himself has noted that, as important as personal liberty is to him—and boy, is it important to the good doctor!—innocent life is even more important.

Sorry, but the moment you accept the premise that the unborn are alive…arguments of “personal morality” and “individual choice” become irrelevant, and invalid.

Someone wrote, last week, “People simply spout off without first thinking about what it is they are inferring.”  My response: “Indeed….”

(For more on this debate, I highly recommend Randy Alcorn’s Pro-Life Answers to Pro-Choice Arguments.)

We’ll start off with Lawrence O’Donnell’s take on the police brutality that was shoved into the foreground last weekend. This is a man who is irked at the system of corrupt law enforcement and has the cojones to actually bring it to the forefront in the mainstream press. He correlates the current climate of police confiscation and destruction of video cameras with the amateur-filmed Rodney King beating and makes it very clear that he knows that nothing will be done with these police officers, even though they very clearly broke the law.

Speaking of last week’s police brutality, the hacker collective Anonymous decided to dox the officer in question, posting his (and his family’s) information to the Internet for all to see. Anthony Bologna (Tony Baloney to many on the web), was outed as the man behind the mace and, as of this writing, has not received any official discipline for his actions. Oh, and not only did they leak Tony Baloney’s information, they also threatened the NYPD over the displays of brutality (although we’re not quite sure what taking down the NYPD’s website is going to do at this point).

There’s a live feed you can check out on the OWS protests on LiveStream titled “Global Revolution.” It’s great to be able to see this sort of stuff happening in real-time, as opposed to waiting sometimes hours for footage of events like the kettling on the Brooklyn Bridge which saw the arrests of over 700 protesters.

This is our own little revolution, folks. You can call them unorganized, you can call them hippies, you can call them whatever you want, but their message is pure and clear: End the economic injustice.

Unfortunately for Paul, the media isn’t interested in that sort of stuff. The “news” media is interested in sound bites that create ratings.  When I say “news” media, I am of course referring to the ones that control the vast majority of Americans’ minds by way of their news-entertainment garbage – FOX News, MSNBC, CNN, ABC and even the printed news outlets like The New York Times and USA Today. Incidentally, all of the links in the previous line point to the respective websites of those news outlets with a search for “new hampshire straw poll ron paul” and not a single one contains a reasonable mention of the news out of New Hampshire. Zero. Zilch. Nada. Bupkis. A quick search on Google, however, yields plenty of results and again, none of them are from “respected news outlets.”

If it weren’t apparent by now, it ought to be after seeing the way Ron Paul has been treated in the media – the game is rigged. If the news media were really interested in reporting news and current events, Paul would be receiving equal coverage for his win in New Hampshire when compared to Michele Bachmann and her win in Iowa. Jon Stewart of The Daily Show had an insightful and jaw-dropping bit about the media blackout of the Texas Congressman.

Here’s my take:

The media isn’t interested in news; it’s interested in ratings. What garners ratings? In the past decade it’s been war, terrorism and celebrity politicians. Ron Paul isn’t even on the radar because if he wins the Presidency, the news media won’t be able to report any of that and thereby gain your viewership so they can reap the advertising dollars.

In the Daily Show clip I referenced earlier, Drew Griffin of CNN says the following during his show on the Ames Straw Poll:

“…and guess what, Paul? [referring to the field reporter] If you get video of Sarah Palin or get a sound bite of her, bring that back to us. You can hold the Ron Paul stuff. (chuckle)”

So he wants sound bites from someone who isn’t even in the race, but not clips from a potential candidate? Does this sound like the words of a 3-time Emmy winner and a 9-time Golden Mike winner to you? To me, it sounds like the words of a fraud and a shill.

Ron Paul is not covered by the media because he’s un-electable… He’s un-electable because he’s not covered by the media…

Just admit it, folks. He’s not covered by you and he’s considered un-electable by you because he will cost you money. This is greed and fraud, period.

Or, Al Franken’s Intellectual Dishonesty, Part MMMCDLXIII

Perhaps the quote which best defines now-Senator Al Franken is a little disclaimer he placed in the intro to his laughably-titled Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them: A Fair and Balanced Look at the Right.  It goes, “Everything in this book is true.  Either that, or it’s a joke.  If you see something that doesn’t ring true, you’ve probably just missed a hilarious joke, and should blame yourself rather than me.”

Franken’s career as political activist has basically been one “joke” after another.  He’s claimed Bill O’Reilly “lied” about being born in Levittown (he was).  He’s mocked Rush Limbaugh for saying that “75% of all Americans on the minimum wage are teenagers” (actually, Rush said that 75% of jobs earning minimum wage are “teenage entry level”—which the Bureau of Labor Statistics supports).  And of course, don’t forget the “joke” Al pulled on the people of Minnesota, where a significant lead for Norm Colman suspiciously transformed into a lead for Franken, after a series of convenient recounts.  Hilarious.

Now…Franken hasn’t pulled many jokes lately—probably due to Mitch McConnell’s confronting him with a big “This isn’t Saturday Night Live, Al”.  Last week, however…the Joker returned.

When Thomas Minnery, Focus on the Family’s Vice President for Public Policy, testified before a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing concerning the Defense of Marriage Act, Franken accused FOF of misrepresenting an HHS study, which apparently states that “nuclear families” are more beneficial to children than non-nuclear families.  FOF used said study to support its stance in favor of retaining DOMA, reasoning that “nuclear families” implies heterosexual, “mother-father” parents.

After baiting Minnery a bit, Franken “revealed” that the study defines “nuclear” families simply as “two parents who are married to one another and are each biological or adoptive parents to all the children in the family”.  Franken topped that with: “I frankly don’t really know how we can trust the rest of your testimony if you are reading studies these ways.”  (Poor grammar, but, whatever….)

The study’s author later claimed that Franken’s correct; the term “nuclear family” isn’t limited to heterosexual parents.  Naturally, the Left is elated at Al Franken “owning” yet another right-wing “lying liar”—

Hold on a minute.  A simple look at the dictionary changes everything.   Merriam-Websterdefines “nuclear family” as “A family group that consists only of father, mother, and children.”  Sounds pretty heterosexual to me.

Even assuming that the study’s definition is different—that still hardly condemns FOF.  Their only “misread” was in assuming that the study’s author was using the actual, dictionary definition of the term.  Frankly, it begs the question: would HHS have a reason to rewrite terms like that?   Congress should challenge the  study’s author’s trustworthiness, not FOF’s.

While we’re at it…same-sex marriage wasn’t legalized in any part of the U.S. until very recently—too recently for it to have any noticeable effect on children.  Therefore, any damage caused by FOF’s “misread” is minimal, at best.

Honestly…I think McConnell needs to pay Franken another visit.

(Official photo: Al Franken press kit)

Winners:

Mitt Romney – Not so much by virtue of anything he did, but Mitt Romney is looking more and more appealing to voters as Tim Pawlenty and Michele Bachmann tear each other up. Sitting quietly on the sidelines is starting to look like a really good campaign strategy.

Republicans – The National League won the All-Star Game this week. That is a supposed predictor of big gains for the GOP in the next election. I’m not one for superstitions but I’m thinking that yeah, this might be a big year for Republicans. Plus, there’s a slew of statistics to back it up. Who am I to argue with statistics?

Real Wisconsin Democrats – The Republicans in Wisconsin put “fake” candidates on the Democratic ballots to buy time before the recall elections. The stalling strategy worked, but none of the Elephants-in-Donkeys’-clothing came close to winning the Democratic primary (which is good & right, but if they had it would have made for a very entertaining Fake-Democrat against Republican general election).

Losers:
Rupert Murdoch – It has to be hard to be a pariah in your industry. Rupert Murdoch is reviled by his peers for having the audacity to own the only Conservative news outlet in American television. Now that he’s got a few problems of his own making across the pond, the Mainstream Media is absolutely giddy over the opportunity to pile it on. I don’t think I’ve seen the national media so happy over another person’s misfortune since Dick Cheney shot Harry Whittington.

Global Warming – The globe didn’t get any warmer over the last decade, despite the massive outpouring of greenhouse gasses. Environmentalists were quick to ‘blame’ Asia’s sulfur pollution for offsetting America’s carbon dioxide pollution.  So now Global Not Warming is a bad thing?

NASA – Being the world leader in space exploration was nice while it lasted. I guess we can hitch a ride to the International Space Station with Russia or India or Japan if we need to.

The act in question that has this youth in hot water with Uncle Sam is the linking of copyrighted material on a website he ran up until last November called TVShack, which served up links to other websites who hosted pirate copies of popular TV shows and movies. TVShack itself, it seems, didn’t actually host any copyrighted content. This would put it more along the lines of an aggregator, similar to a search engine like Google that only links to websites.

This behavior on the part of the United States is akin to arresting a person for keeping a list of shops that sell bootleg copies of movies or TV shows and sharing that list with friends. As far as I’m aware, there is no law against that. Unfortunately, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) has made linking to infringing material a legal gray area for which there is no set legal precedent.

There are two problems with this situation. The first is the silly notion that the extradition treaty between the United States and Great Britain is somehow a good idea, especially when you consider that it allows targets to be extradited without the courts being able to weigh the evidence. Team America: World Police, indeed.

The second problem is the continued lobbying efforts and money thrown at the governments of the world by the movie and record companies that are allowing these sorts of draconian laws and punishments to happen. Recently a Canadian man was fined $60,000 by a U.S. court for sharing two adult films via BitTorrent. Not only is the idea of a southern-California court convicting a Canadian citizen living in Canada laughable, but the fine itself is ridiculous.

It’s very clear that the United States’ interests lie with the copyright holders and not with its people. All you have to do is follow the money.