Obscene Art

So, I like Ron Paul. His no-nonsense, uncompromising dedication to the Constitutional principles our nation was founded on is exactly what America needs today. I don’t agree with him on abortion or immigration, but we can fight that one out after he’s elected. In the meantime, I’ve just dropped another $500 into the campaign, which is 5x what I’ve been contributing each week since the first money bomb. I’ve quintupled down on Operation Live Free Or Die, as well, giving $25 instead of the “Five for Freedom” the organizers have asked for. I’m not quite able to quintuple down on the blimp, but I’m going to drop another $50 there to keep it flying through the New Hampshire primaries. Good thing my business is doing OK this month.

As I mentioned in a previous post, I believe the day is coming in which there will be an upset in the roles traditional media and polling play in elections, where they will be replaced by the Internet. I don’t know if we’ve reached that day yet, but there is a striking disparity between the two sources of data regarding Ron Paul.

Ron Paul’s website is trouncing the other Republican candidates in visitors, despite being a crappy website:

He’s also beating the leading Democratic offerings:

He’s also winning, or coming in second, on many online or SMS polls regarding the Republican debates.

MSNBC’s California post-debate poll

Fox’ Post-Debate Text Poll (following Rudy Giuliani’s 9/11 outburst)

Paul is the top search on Technorati’s blog search:

But, in traditional polls, Paul is consistently fourth or fifth, after Giuliani, Romney, McCain, and sometimes Thompson (I can’t keep up with which Thompson), with single digit percentages. So, where’s the disparity? How can there be such a big difference? Traditional polling uses land line telephone calls to likely voters. I don’t have a land line. I don’t know anyone, other than my parents and my older sister, with a land line. So, a good percentage of people under about 35 are under-represented in these polls. That’s probably OK for accuracy on the lower end of the age scale, since the people least likely to have a land line (those under about 24) don’t vote…so the skew might be good for overall accuracy. But, telephone polls have become less likely to predict outcomes in elections over the past few election cycles. Internet polls have never been accurate, but maybe they’ll become more accurate as more people begin to get all of their news online and identity becomes more solid on the Internet. Interesting that the mainstream sites are far less likely to know how accurate their voting is than sites like Reddit or Digg or Slashdot, simply because readers aren’t involved in the process and so are unknown anonymous readers rather than editors and participants.

Anyway, despite all that we’d like to think about Democracy in America, the fact is that the candidate with the most money to spend generally wins. Paul isn’t bringing the big bucks, since he isn’t in any corporate pockets like the other candidates, so probably couldn’t win against a fat-pocketed corporate shill. His nomination could save the GOP from itself, however, and would certainly go a long way to convince me that it’s worth saving. Hell, I’d be proud to call myself a Republican if Ron Paul were the nominee. Otherwise, I guess I’ll have to vote Democrat…at least they haven’t been in power long enough to gerrymander, commit voter fraud on a wholesale basis, and otherwise use every despicable trick available to them to win elections at any cost.

Aristotle must have flown recently in America, because he was clearly talking about the TSA. There was a terror scare in the UK a while back involving liquid explosives to be detonated by an electronic device, such as a cell phone. In response, our friends at the DHS or the TSA or at some other extremist organization in DC, have made regulations to restrict the volume, type, and storage of liquids in carry-on luggage. Now, I’m not gonna argue about whether this terror plot was a legitimate threat to human life. It may have been, I don’t know. I also don’t know whether the restriction of liquids is silly, though it seems so on the surface.

But I was astounded by the exchange I saw yesterday between a polite suburban middle-aged woman, traveling alone, and the TSA security person at the checkpoint at Logan International Airport in Boston. The fellow asked her if she had any liquids, gels, or pastes, and she held up one of her carry-on bags and said “Yes, I have lotion and toothpaste.” He took the bag, without asking, opened it, and began pulling things out. The items were loose in the bag, and he explained that they had to be a in a zip-lock bag. So, clearly on top of things and prepared for any contingency (she must be a mom), she pulled out a zip-lock bag from another of her bags and began putting the items into it. He takes the bag from her and says, “No, it’s gotta be a one quart zip-lock bag.”

She was confused. And who wouldn’t be? What’s special about a one-quart zip-lock bag, as opposed to one slightly smaller or larger, that renders liquids stored within it incapable of terror? Actually, what’s special about liquids being in a zip-lock bag at all that removes the threat they might pose to the safety of the plane and its passengers? What the hell is going on here!? This is such a bizarre sickness in our country that I don’t even know what to think of it. Americans don’t act like this TSA fellow I saw yesterday, at least not without apologizing profusely for the supreme stupidity of this rule (and its bizarre specificity). Sure, he’s just doing his job. He said as much in response to her consternation at having to get out of line with all of her stuff to fetch a different zip-lock bag. But it’s clear that the TSA is shaping up to be just the kind of job that attracts the worst kind of people, giving them the ability to bully people without any risk of consequence. Obviously, not everyone in the TSA is bullying people or enjoying this aspect of the job, and in fact most of the TSA people I’ve encountered have been friendly and generally polite, if a bit brusque.

To be fair to Logan International Airport, there was a station setup for folks to get one quart zip-lock bags to put their liquids in. That’s a nice local policy made in the face of extremely stupid regulations, so good for Logan International for being prepared to help folks out in such circumstances. At Austin Bergstrom on my way out to Boston I only saw things being thrown away…I’m not sure if they have a policy in place to assist people who’d prefer not to throw their stuff away, but I spoke to someone in line who had been forced to throw his liquids away on his flight into Austin, so Logan might be the nicer exception to the rule.

Where does one even start to turn back this tide? I’m not at all frightened of a bunch of guys living in caves in Afghanistan, or random dorks like Jose Padilla, but I’m more than a little frightened by how far our country has slipped down into a quagmire of arbitrary and ever-changing rules and pushy federal agents spread across the country at every airport. I’m even more frightened that a few unelected people who head up the DHS and the TSA have the ability to make policies that have the force of law. I can’t vote them out. I can’t gather signatures to bring it up in a referendum. I have no say in these rules-as-law. There is no representation of the wishes of voters, and no accountability. If that’s not a recipe for disaster, I don’t know what is.