BSODmyself

As most folks who know me well will tell you, I’m a creature of habit. At least in terms of starting my day. Typically I will check my email and turn on the morning news moments after waking up. This morning, I woke up at about 7ish and settled down to watch my favorite morning show, MSNBC’s Morning Joe. Everything was Coolio until the comparison of individual Republican presidential candidates to Islamic factions come up. For whatever reason, David Shuster was there to claim that Ron Paul is part of the Al-Queda faction.

Shit! Dammit! Anyone who intimately knows me also know that I really hate mornings that start off this way. As 2008 is a presidential election year, I have a horse in the race this early (well, sort of), and I thought David Shuster’s commentary was completely off base and deceptive, I decided to fire off an email to the folks at MSNBC and the Morning Joe show. Here is what I sent:

David Schuster should be fired. Any insinuation that Ron Paul is like the people who committed 9/11 is totally reprehensible. Ron Paul is a libertarian. Libertarians don’t believe in starting wars. Ron Paul is also a Constitutionalist. I hope David Schuster isn’t for classifying the Constitution, and those who sincerely respect it, as terrorists.

David Schuster should be fired. He could have said something like “Ron Paul is in the Sufi wing”, but he’s obviously not smart enough to say something vaguely witty. He can only say mean and wrong things about people with whom he so obviously disagrees. Disagreement is cool, but show some respect, wisdom, and civility, please.

David Schuster should be fired because his jab at Ron Paul is kind of like this:

“…David Schuster is like that guy who raped and murdered that woman. Now if you think DAVID SCHUSTER IS A RAPIST, you’re crazy…” Did I just say DAVID SCHUSTER IS A RAPIST?

As a Masters student in marketing and holder of a degree in psychology, I am seriously concerned about the specific language reporters use, what it reveals, and what they are attempting to convey with it.

You really need to cut him loose over this so he get his own show on Faux News with all the other faux journalists who offer little more than opinions and hate wrapped and presented as being “Fair and Balanced”.

I love the show, but I guess I’ll be flipping over to CNN from now on in the mornings. The people on CNN are so lame and do not have the wonderful personality that Joe exudes. Oh well…

Now that I’ve read it for the 42nd time, I might have sounded a little crazy. I’ll try to tone it down next time. And I think I screwed up the spelling of David Shuster’s name. It was early in the morning, okay?

Now bear in mind that I’m not one of those rabid Ron Paul supporters that you here about who jump all over people for one little mistake. I would have probably overlooked this commentary except that I’ve heard him voice such statements before in earlier “journalistic” reports he’s given on MSNBC. As I said, disagreeing is cool, but journalists need to at least have a pretense of being impartial, right? As it happened, Joe Scarborough seemed to back away from David Shuster’s comments almost immediately. But ultimately Shuster’s fix for the comment (which was to say that anyone who actually listened to him for a real journalistic perspective had mental or emotional issues) really didn’t quite cut it in my book or come across as an apology in any sincere sense.

I’m trying to double, triple or quadruple-loop the evaluation of my emotions on this issue.

First, the mainstream media (often referred to as the MSM, or sometimes even the M$M) constantly refer to Ron Paul as either a lowercase-l libertarian or as the 1988 Libertarian Party candidate. Libertarians generally adopt a concept called the “non-initiation of force” (or NIOF) principle. Simply put, this is the principle that you aren’t supposed to initiate force, fraud, or theft against others. Associating a libertarian candidate or libertarian principles such as NIOF with a terrorist organization that targets innocent people to bring about a political or social goal is simply ignorant at best, or evil at worst.

Secondly, and most importantly, I feel this election cycle has broken this camel’s back about the MSM’s constant ridiculing of the concepts discussed by libertarians, Libertarians, libertarian-esque folks, and all other people associated with alternative political parties and political movements in this country. As far as attempts to paint libertarianism as a fringe philosophy, I need only cite Rasmussen polling that shows approximately 16% of Americans are libertarians (second only to one-third of Americans who are centrists).

From my perspective as an MBA student, I would classify people like Libertarians, Greens, Constitutionalists and the like as actually trying to solve problems, while the bulk of those walking the conservative-Republican, moderate-centrist, and/or liberal-Democratic lines as simply seeking to maintain the status quo in their respective quarters. Just remember this strategy: “During the primaries, you Republicans talk about lower taxes, and you Democrats talk about more government programs. When you get to the general election, move to the middle and act like you didn’t say those types of things during the primary.”

During this presidential election cycle, I have seen sincere and idealistic people like Ron Paul, Dennis Kucinich, and Mike Gravel constantly ridiculed by Republican and Democratic candidates and pundits for having actual original ideas and attempting to use these ideas to initiate real change within the system. Organizations by their nature may be resistant to change, but at some point you’ve got to say to hell with the ones that just aren’t getting it. That is why I’m encouraging folks who are concerned with the way things are going (or not going) in this country to do an evaluation of their political souls and get involved with some other political movement locally, in their state, or on a national level.

As a starting point, I would suggest starting with the largest national alternative political parties: the Libertarian Party (for those fiscally conservative and socially liberal folks and moderates who want government out of their lives for the most part), the Green Party (for fiscally and socially liberal people who are concerned with issues like the environment and social justice), and the Constitution Party (for fiscally and socially conservative people who want a good Jesus-centered political party). For a list of other political parties, I will recommend the nearly complete list of political parties provided by Politics1.com.

We can spend all day blaming the media, jumping through hurdles imposed by the establishment’s power brokers, or trying to work within a corrupt system. The alternative is to build something up that we as individuals can philosophically stand behind and use as a vehicle for political change. With what I have seen during this presidential cycle, this has been the conclusion that I feel is best to bring about a lasting change. And that change starts today with me — and you. So who’s with me?

This entry was posted on Thursday, January 17th, 2008 at 11:29 pm and is filed under Politics, Rants.You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.