Meta- and Pro-Blogging: Ron Paul Edition

Meta-blogging is a term of my own invention about bloggers who blog about blogging (which, unless you are a moron, I bet you could have figured out yourself).

I developed an aversion to meta-blogging, and its kissing cousin pro-blogging, out of a disdain for the types of blogs which are written centered around the idea that the object of blogging is to (a) attract readers and (b) create revenue.

Certainly, it would be wrong of me to suggest that no one should blog for profit, to wit, pro-blogging; however, I can find nothing less interesting in than bloggers talking to other bloggers about the best way to snare readers and the best way to place ads or exploit patronage. That is my personal opinion on the matter. I have drawn criticism on places like stumbleupon for thumbing down meta- and pro-blogging related sites and articles. Incidentally, I've also been called everything from a fascist to a liberal to a racist and everything else, and I suppose I deserve it, since I am opinionated and not very tactful (fuck you if you can't take a joke).

Anyway, in the interest of levity and a little light-hearted hypocrisy I offer you this tip, Bloggers of the World:

If you want to attract attention to your blog, simply mention Ron Paul. -me

Far be it for me to break my own rules and not back it up with some content, I offer you this irc snippit for your arguing pleasure:

<chris> damn dude, youre guy is blowing up
<ian_:#channel> ?
<bruce:#channel> yeah, he is eating all the shrimps
<ian_:#channel> that makes me hungry
* ian_:#channel admits that i'm really just a 12yr old iranian hacker stealing ppl's paypal accounts to vote for ron paul so that we can take over the great satan while they sleep
<bruce:#channel> chris still need to explain what the hell he meant
<chris> what?
<chris> your candidate, he is blowing up
<bruce> yer dood is blowing up
<ian_> 4.2 million in one day
<bruce> yeah, what does that mean
<bruce> that means like 50 things
<chris> ticker tape parade,
<chris> it means what it means in current american urban slang, you idiot
<bruce> chris, when all those republicans were in texas a while back he made more money than all of them put together
<chris> what is it about you kool aid drinkers that makes you so sensitive
<chris> i was paying a compliment, you douche
<bruce> i am a facist, i dont like ron paul :)
<chris> but you're going to vote for him
<chris> i'm still voting for kucinich
<bruce> yeah.
<ian_> people need to be angry about the media's treatment of him regardless of their voting intentions
<ian_> it is an insult to the underlying idea of journalism
<bruce> if it is denise -vs- ron i have to take ron based on gun control
<chris> although, i think its great, great that he's drawing attention to this stuff
<bruce> well ron paul needs to start paying for ads on national tv
<chris> and i'll vote for kucinich because of abortion
<tim> Sweet, so you can buy your way into the house.
<chris> neither candidate is going to win the primary
<bruce> i'm not a chick.
<bruce> i could care less about abortion atm
<bruce> women will go back to what they used to do, pills, hangers, and kicks in the stomach
<bruce> there are greater issues at stake
<chris> well, i'm particularly sensitive to the abortion issue right now, and gun control is a non-starter
<ian_> i'm sick of ppl saying so-and-so can't win.. regarless of the person; it is that faulty logic that perpetuates self-fulfilling defeat
<bruce> bush won, anything is possible
<chris> there will be and never has been any serious gun prohibition in the united states
<ian_> im fine with paul being against abortion because i agree with him that it is not a federal issue
<chris> that is not his position
<bruce> well, i think it is a federal issue.
<ian_> the more important the controversy, the more local the laws should be.
<ian_> Yes, it is.
<bruce> no, that is his position chris
<chris> he is for a federal ban on abortion
<ian_> No, he has stated MANY times that it is not a federal issue
<bruce> he is against it but he does not believe it is up to the federal gobberment to decide that
<ian_> he wants to remove roe.v.wade and make it a state-based deal
<bruce> he has stated very clearly that it is up for the states to decide
<chris> until and unless he says otherwise, i refuse to believe it when his "supports" dismiss that they heard from someone else that he is against a federal abortion ban. if he is against it, get on tv and say it
<bruce> i feel that is incorrect myself, but it lends itself to stronger states rights
<ian_> i dont speak from other ppl, i speak only from what i hear from him... dont act you know where i get my info.
<bruce> please show me something he has said that gave you this confusion
<bruce> i've not seen him back pedal on anything he has said thus far
<chris> well, nevertheless, i havev my criticisms of the guy, i will not vote for him, but i appreciate what he brings to the political discourse or lack thereof in this country
<bruce> i have also not seen denis back pedal
<chris> you guys are free to vote for and support whomever you want to, and may the best candidate win
<bruce> well, we know yer vote is to the obama or the woman
<ian_> do whatever you wish but don't bring up points that arent correct then give them as reasons not to vote for the guy
<bruce> chris, remember when you called kevin all those names because he voted for bush?
<chris> i'll take the obama over the woman any day
<chris> obamas have more soul
<bruce> recall how you felt about him?
<ali> sofrito
<chris> yeah, i felt he was an idiot
<bruce> you have 2 choices, denis or ron, if you vote for anyone else you are the same idiot
<chris> but he has a right to vote for whomever he wants to
<chris> i still think kevin is a moron
<chris> ;)
<bruce> yeah, ppl have a right to be as dumb as they want
<chris> and i'll be happy to remind him if he wants a refresher course
<bruce> so, you can vote for hilary, and i will love you but realize you are a fucken tool.
<chris> well, we do live in the world greatest dumbocrasy
<chris> trust me, i am never, ever voting for hilary
<bruce> i like denis and my views are in line with his except one issue
<chris> unless we are talking about REDACTED
<ian_> mike gravel rocks too
<bruce> a vote for the obama is the same
<ian_> he gets no respect
<bruce> the only acceptable ppl you can vote for and not look like a tool are denis and ron
<chris> gun control is a non-starter, and i will develop a position so that i can make that clearer to you in person
<chris> yeah i like gravel too, and i kinda wished he'd be the left's ron paul
<chris> well, chris dodd scores points for standing up against telco amnesty
<ian_> you must clarify this non-starter idea...
<ian_> gravel is the number one reason why we finally left viet nam
<chris> the kind of gun control that dennis kucinich may advocate, whatever it is, cannot be legislated, enforced or enacted
<ian_> that isnt the point.... someone who--in most ways--points at the constitution should have a better knowledge of taking arms from the people.
<chris> congress makes the laws concerning gun control, and as long as americans love owning guns, and american gun makers love giving money to candidates, there never will be a meaningful ban on guns. however, and i want to make this very clear, guns are easier to get than a driver's license
<ian_> the whole point of us being able to arm our selves is to protect us from our government not foreign.
<chris> and, i think that there are pro and con anguments about the ease with which either should be available, and they should be, as they are, left up to the state
<ian_> guns are not a state issue
<ian_> its a constitutional issue
<chris> in fact, governmental control of driving regulations (seat belts, license requirements and ages, drinking ages) are more stringent than gun control on all cases
<chris> ian, it is, in fact, both a state and a consititutional issue
<bruce> chris, denis is not a protector of the constitution, he is a facist who just happens to support many of our social views
<bruce> he is you or me as president
<chris> and that is what would make kucinich's ideas of federal gun bans impossible
<ian_> i'm against off of it... fokways, mores, and normative community control has--in all human history--been far better at controlling
<bruce> he is for more federal mucking about in our lives
<ian_> off=all
<chris> i would vote for ron paul if he advocated a people's constitutional convention convened to give each american the right to health care and education
<chris> i will vote for kucinich because he is for those things, even if they are extra-constitutional
<tim> chris: You're asking a lot there..
<bruce> the reality is denis doesnt have a chance.
<bruce> ppl laugh at him for seeing ufos
<chris> i haven't seen anything that suggests that ron paul is against the idea of health care, other than the fact that it is not provided for by the constitution
<tim> We'll be living in a marshal-law world soon. So it won't matter.
<bruce> no one is giving him money either
<ian_> health care and education need to be a cultural achievement, not an enforcement.
<chris> in fact, his position on that is very very clear
<tim> You won't be able to fart because it contributes to global warming.
<bruce> so, if it is anyone -vs- ron paul, you need to vote ron paul
<bruce> period
<tim> You'll need a permit to watch TV.
<ian_> he has stated that he'd much rather be spending trillions of dollars on education and welfare rather than war
<tim> and you know, watchign TV is a privledge, not a right.
<ian_> in a lesser of two evils sense
<chris> but as much as he is against the federalized education system as it stands today, he is also against the unconstitutional national security state that has been in existence since 1947 and had its beginnings in 1898
<tim> You'll have no privacy. Your RFID will log you into the internet.
<bruce> which has helped the 5 jew bankers keep the black man down
<ian_> his primary argument against federal level education is that fed level education sucks at doing its job
<chris> spending trillions on healthcase and education is exactly what we *should* be doing
<tim> Sounds a lot like Cyberpunk:2020
<chris> school teachers should mnake as much as plastic surgeons
<ian_> well, chris, no you are going to vote for ron paul :)
<ian_> his stance is to turn all of our war funding into those until we can change our dependence on it.
<chris> if its giuliani versus clinton, i'll think about it
<tim> chris: I think you solved the root of the stupid american problem :)
<chris> but i'm more likely to write in joe walsh
<ian_> yea, stupid americans.
<tim> ian_: It's true, most are fat and lazy.
<tim> and dumb.
<chris> our public education system is third-rate, third world
<ian_> i'm aware ... i'm allergic to stupid
<tim> Kids in other countries know more about the US than our own kids.
<ian_> i agree.. and even on that i agree with you more than i do with ron paul BUT my choice to vote for him is all about methods of argument over issues more than the issues themselves.
<tim> oh, I don't do politics. I just state the obvious.
<chris> we have an ever growing class of restless, jobless and stupid people, mostly inner city and rural, and they think they have nothing in common but when they realize that the toothless rednecks are the same as the yo's on the corner slinging rocks, we're going to have a big problem on our hands
<tim> chris: You're scaring me.
<ian_> cuz he's right
<tim> chris: Since when did you start making sense?
<chris> however, ron paul is correct, good or bad, public education is extra-constitutional and should be federally defunded
<bruce> yes, and if we are lucky the mexican will come in and get good educations and those rednecks will die off
<chris> these are beliefs i have pretty much always held
<chris> but the poilitical dialog is usually so vapid in this country its hard to get these ideas out
<chris> so, hats off to roin paul
<chris> anyway, back to work
<ian_> word
<chris> ron paul even
<ian_> groin paul!
<bruce> chris is gonna vote for hilary.
<tim> chris: I dunno man, you've always just talked in circles and sounded like a babbling idiot. :P OK, more like everything you said had about 30 gallons of sarcasm on it.
<bruce> he still sounds like an idiot here
<tim> GROIN!
<chris> bruce: only if steve jobs is her running mate.. smell ya later!

Also, for your amusement: http://letters.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/11/06/paul/view/index.html

[ ETA - 6th Nov, 2007, 19:12 PDT: ]

Ron Paul is interviewed over at PBS.ORG here, explains his position regarding abortion (follow the link to read the whole interview, which is excellent):

JUDY WOODRUFF: Abortion, you've said you'd like to make it impossible for the federal government to regulate abortion, which would, in effect, I guess, negate Roe v. Wade.

REP. RON PAUL: Yes, it would, because I think that's a state issue.

JUDY WOODRUFF: And then the states would be able to do away with abortion.

REP. RON PAUL: That's right.

JUDY WOODRUFF: I mean, in effect, would you like to see abortion banned everywhere? Or what's your position on that?

REP. RON PAUL: I'd like to ban the federal government intervention in abortion. So since I've only been a federal official -- a congressman and then running for the presidency -- I say that we should keep our hands out of it.

And there are some extreme circumstances that I may not even endorse but I recognize that we're always arguing about it. The states, they should deal with it, because they're difficult. The more difficult an issue is, the more local the solution ought to be.

Once you get into a difficult problem, and then you have one monolithic answer, like Roe v. Wade, then you come up with a solution where the courts legislate and allow abortion to be done a minute before birth, and I can get paid for doing one of those, yet a girl, because she throws her baby away, we arrest her for murder. There's something awfully inconsistent about that.

And I have so much legal responsibility as a physician, if I do harm to the fetus, I can be sued. So the fetus has legal rights, but we should figure that out at the state level on the extreme circumstances and not legalize abortion at any time during pregnancy, which is essentially what the Supreme Court did.

[ ETA - 7th Nov, 2007, 22:19PDT ]
It is difficult to summarize the raging debate that ensued on Salon.com after Greenwald's post about the meaning and impact of Ron Paul's candidacy, however this letter stood out to me, making a point about the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution that I have often had trouble putting into words (except):>

there was a draft during the Revolution? How does THAT square with the 2nd Amendment types that separate well regulated militia and the right to keep and bear arms (for the militia)? Not very libertarian is it? A draft? But there it was, right in the middle of the Founding BY the Founders themselves!

The well regulated militia being a necessity (according to the Constitution), citizens who can be CALLED INTO THE MILITIA have a right to have arms for the purpose of serving in said militia. Of course, that is bad policy in the modern world. Require your soldiers to pay for and keep their weapons? Ever check out the price of a good military weapon these days? I have one...they are pricey. The militia is for the rich then under the R Paul system. Same with edumacation.

I have often said that the 2nd Amendment doesn't guarantee the right for the average citizen to carry an Uzi, or even own one, nor does it say that there cannot be limits on the wait time for getting a fire arm such that you cannot simply walk into your local WalMart and walk out 5 minutes later with a shotgun and shells. I have used guns, and I like them. I have friends who own guns, and are gun enthusiasts. I have friends and relatives for whom owning a firearm is a necessity (for fending off foxes, bears or other predators). I am not for banning guns, but I do not think a gun should be an easy thing to acquire, and I do not think guns should ever be regarded casually.

Most everyone I know who use firearms with any regularity that I have spoken to agree that guns are to be taken seriously. I have never heard any of them ever advocate immediate access to any and all weapons. I think this resistance to waiting periods is driven by the manufacturers. Anyone who "needs" a gun "right away" probably really doesn't need a gun, especially right away(*).

(*) The only exception to this rule I can think of is the coming Zombie Apocalypse. In that case, the laws and bureaucracy will very quickly be superseded by mayhem and bedlam. I'll be going for the liquor and the pills, I'm a terrible shot and wouldn't be much help.