A quick thought on Ron Paul’s lack of media coverage

I’ve said it already and others have certainly made the argument that Ron Paul’s rather impressive support in the various primaries means he should be considered a “top tier” candidate and not fringe. He’s beaten either Rudy Giuliani or Fred Thompson (or both) in every vote that’s happened thus far, raised millions and has a fanatical fanbase, so why hasn’t he gotten picked up?

To answer that, I think we should look over on the other side of things. Ron Paul lands either fourth or fifth in the GOP primaries and caucuses (cauci?). Can you name the 4th and 5th place Democratic candidates off the top of your head? Don’t look it up, but see if you can answer that without simply naming a random “not Edwards, Clinton, or Obama” Democrat.

Give up? It’s Bill Richardson, who has since dropped out. Prior to that, did you see him getting much airtime or coverage?

That’s my point. The questions shouldn’t be why Paul isn’t getting covered, but why Thompson and Giuliani are.

If Hanlon was President

I often get to hear religious-minded folk talk about how, if put in charge, non-believers would ban the Bible and drive God out of the public square. Christians would be persecuted if not executed and public displays of faith would be strictly banned. So, it got me wondering, what would I do if I was put in charge of the country? I came up with the following.

• Mention of God would be taken out of the pledge and off our money.
• It would not be seen as “required” to swear on a Bible for any reason, but if you want to you’re more than welcome to.
• Churches and the like would continue to be tax-exempt.
• Faith-based initiatives would continue to get federal funds, so long as they demonstrated that their goal was not to proselytize.
• The Bible, Torah, and Koran would be required reading in high schools.
• Sex education would heavily stress abstinence, but give accurate information on safe sex.
• Abortions would be legal but only performed in extreme cases.
• Marriage would be open to all adults. Until children and animals are deemed legally responsible, they’re excluded.
• Christmas and Easter would continue to be federal holidays, and I’ll throw in Darwin’s birthday in there as well.
• Government-owned property cannot put up religious displays, but citizens and privately-owned businesses can do whatever they want.
• The drinking age would drop to 18. (admittedly this has nothing to do with religion)
• At no part of a hosted debate for government office would the moderator “test” a candidate’s faith (asking everyone their favorite Bible verse). Asking a candidate who wears his faith on his sleeve about it is fine.
• “Religious beliefs” would not be an acceptable excuse to do something that would otherwise be illegal/unacceptable, or to get out of doing something one would otherwise be obligated to do.
• Schools would still have a “Christmas concert” and sing carols if they wanted to.
• Science/health classes would only be required to teach what is proposed by scientists.
• Religion would not be banned at all in any form, it would simply be eliminated from the leadership structure.

I think that’s a good start. I have no problem with Wal-Mart putting up Christmas trees or being told “Merry Christmas” at Target, but I also think if they decide to say “Happy Holidays” that’s fine as well. And if you want to put up a giant nativity scene in your lawn or paint a Star of David on your garage, go for it, we just won’t be doing it on the courthouse.

A quick note: subscribing

I finally fixed my little Feedburner widget to say “readers” instead of “listeners”. If anyone was confused by that and didn’t subscribe because they thought I was offering a podcast (as I had been a year or so ago), that’s not the case. That’s a regular old RSS feed.

Additionally, the “LiveJournal mirror” link finally works, it’s off to the right under the “subscribe” heading. I didn’t realize that my switch over to WordPress.com messed with my page redirect, but there you go.

ACLU defending… Larry Craig?

I’ll let this one speak for itself.

According to The Associated Press’s reading of the 12-page document, the A.C.L.U. argues that the police cannot prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the senator was soliciting sex in the airport bathroom without violating privacy rights articulated in a 1970 Minnesota Supreme Court opinion.

To prove its privacy point, the brief even tries to turn the government’s sword on itself. “When it charged the defendant with interference with privacy,” — the offense to which the senator pleaded guilty — “it alleged that he had looked into a ‘place where a reasonable person would have an expectation of privacy.’ ”

The A.C.L.U. goes as far as to argue that no laws would have been broken even if Senator Craig had been caught having sex in the stall. That didn’t happen, of course, and Mr. Craig has denied that he made any of the sexual advances alleged in the police report.

Here’s the $64,000 question: what will the right’s response to this be? Will they ignore it because it’s the defense of a Republican, or will they still assail the ACLU because they’re coming to the defense of a “deviant lifestyle”?

The ACLU jumps to the defense of anyone, no matter their political affiliation, whenever their rights are being threatened. The fact that in America’s political climate this designates them “liberal” speaks volumes about where the divide rests between the left and the right.