Battlestar Galactica Final 9: 'Every Man and Woman Over the Age of 15'

I can't recall if this was ever mentioned on Battlestar Galactica before, but in tonight's Final Episode 9, adulthood on Battlestar Galactica was clearly defined as "every man and woman over the age of 15". This makes sense, given the shortage of adults, and all human beings, in that desperate age. And, actually, I think it makes some sense in our age, too - as does Dennis Kucinich, who said at the Democratic Presidential in Dartmouth in September 2007 that the voting age should be lowered to 16 (I think it should be lowered to 14).

But back on Galactica - there's a last call to arms, as Adama realizes that Hera the hybrid needs to be rescued from the Cavil Cylonic Cabal. We'll see the result of that next week, in what promises to be a breathtaking, maybe heartbreaking, two-hour series finale.

Tonight, it was refreshing to see a lot of Caprica before the fall. Everyone was happy except Laura, who suffered the loss of her sisters and father in a car crash. But Baltar and Six looked good together, even if Baltar was not yet committed to their relationship, and it was good to see Kara and Zack get a visit from Lee.

The obvious point that Caprica before the fall was in no way different from our current world was never more clear. No way different, of course, other than that there were Cylons among them, and just over the horizon.

But that world is gone, and the world of Battlestar Galactica will soon be, too, and we're due to find out the "truth" as the teasers say, as well as what the new world will be, next Friday.

---

More Battlestar Galactica - see: Battlestar Galactica, Final 1: Dee, Ellen, and Starbuck ... Final 2: Baby and Mutiny Make Three ... Final 3: Galactica Alamo! ... Final 4: Shout-Outs to Lampkin, Lee, Tyrol ... Final 5: (Almost) All Explained ... Final 6. The Necessity of Hyrbrid ... Final 7. 'Since I Died in Your Arms' ... Father of a Million

---

The Plot to Save Socrates

"challenging fun" - Entertainment Weekly

"a Da Vinci-esque thriller" - New York Daily News

"Sierra Waters is sexy as hell" - curled up with a good book

more about The Plot to Save Socrates...





Read the first chapter of The Plot to Save Socrates .... FREE!

Obama Deserves Credit for Being Against the War

I came across this odd point in a blog post - Why I'm for Hillary and not Obama - yesterday: "On the issue of Iraq, again there are only a few variations on the same stance. Let us dispense with the fact that Hillary voted to give authorization for the war."

I don't see why we should dispense with that fact.

Hillary, and everyone in my immediate family including me, was wrong about this. The only opposition I heard back then was from a wise brother-in-law in Boston.

Obama was right.

Why should he not get the credit?

I was concerned that the war was not declared, as required by our Constitution. I think it's dangerous and destructive of our democracy that we have gone to war so many times since World War II without a Declaration of War.

But I would have urged my representatives in New York to vote for a Declaration of War, had it been presented at the time. I live near New York City, I work in New York City, and I'm still affected by September 11. I was all too ready to believe that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction.

Most people in the country felt the same.

But Barack Obama was able to see through and beyond that. (Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich deserve credit for this, too.)

Clinton and Obama indeed have similar records and positions on most issues. But this difference on authorizing the war in Iraq needs to be highlighted, and should be kept in mind by all voters.

Fox News and ABC News: Missing the Lesson of Mike Huckabee

I'm looking forward to the round of Presidential debates this weekend, but still can't get over the gall - and slap in the face of the American people - of ABC and Fox News not including some of the lower-tier candidates.

In ABC's case, the most egregious dis-invitation comes to Dennis Kucinich, who will not partake in Saturday's debate. For Fox, it's been accorded to Ron Paul, who is barred from the Sunday debate.

The situations are different. Kucinich is doing much worse in the polls, national and locally, than Ron Paul - who got 10% in the Iowa Republican caucus. But both candidates offer points of view - the most outspoken against the war, to cite one example - that Americans deserve to hear, and these media have no right to exclude from the debates.

Are the memories of these media giants so foggy, or are they so unable or unwilling to learn from recent history, that they forgot that Mike Huckabee, winner of the Iowa Republican caucus, was not much ahead of Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich in the national polls a few months ago?

The lame explanation usually given for excluding candidates is time - not enough of it to accommodate all of the candidates. To which my wife just said, as we were talking about this issue, why not just add another hour or whatever is needed to give all candidates a chance to talk.

It's worth it, isn't it?

After all, it's only our democracy at stake...

Obama Has Best Line in Democratic Debate on CNN

Well, the self described "best" team of political commentators on CNN said Hillary Clinton had the best night in the Democratic Presidents debates in Las Vegas just concluded, but I disagree.

Hillary was indeed excellent, and did have memorable lines - most notably that the other Democratic contenders are ganging up on her not because she's a woman, but because she's ahead - but I thought the best line belonged to Obama, and certainly has the most important meaning for the future:

Pressed by Wolf Blitzer about energy choices - in particular, the problems of disposing nuclear waste - Obama insisted that he and the American people not be bound by the confines of current technology. Obama challenged Blitzer to think big, and have an open mind as to what we could do to technologically improve our energy situation in the future.

Maybe it's because I'm an historian of technology, maybe it's because I'm a science fiction writer, but I found Obama's point very profound and indeed crucial to improving our future.

Meanwhile, in general, the debate was about the strongest we've seen among the Democrats, so far. And, although I don't agree with some of Hillary Clinton's positions - especially her Senate vote declaring the Iranian Revolutionary Guard "terrorist" (the last thing we should do is give the Bush administration any more license for military action) - I was moved by what she said about what her election would mean for women in America. It is long since time that a woman was President of this country, and, although Hillary Clinton is far from perfect, her election would be revolutionary and healthy if for no other reason than she is a woman.

So perhaps Hillary Clinton did slow Barack Obama down a bit tonight. Debates are clearly not Obama's medium - he gives much better speeches at rallies than answers at debates. Edwards and the other Democratic candidates were fine, as usual, but did not light any new fires. Kucinich can indeed lay claim to being against the war, and on the best side of the important issues, from the very beginning. In a better world, he would be at least among the top three candidates running for the Democratic nomination for President.

Democrats in Phila: Best Moments: Obama & Planet Earth, Edwards & Hillary Doubletalk

Two best moments in the Democratic debate in Philadelphia tonight, just concluded a few minutes ago on MSNBC:

1. John Edwards was by the far the best he's been in this campaign, and by far the most effective on the stage tonight, in taking on Hillary Clinton. He refused to back down down from his press release headline that Hillary Clinton double-talked, and gave ample examples - the most telling of which was her inexcusable vote for a bill that empowers the Bush administration to start going down a path that could well lead to war with Iraq. Others on the stage, including Obama, was not as clear or as passionate as was Edwards on this point.

2. But Obama had a moment when he was given a question near the end about whether he believed in life on other planets. He answered that he didn't know, but he did know that there was life here on Earth, and we needed to do more to take care of that. Fine answer - and I say this even as committed science fiction author...

Biden continues to impress with his toughness (especially on Giuliani tonight, and I give Kucinich credit for saying, yes, he once saw a UFO (even though I've seen no really convincing evidence myself). And Mike Gravel should have been there (MSNBC ruled him too low in the the polls and finances received to participate - bad move).

I thought this was the best Democratic so far, and I'm looking forward to more.

My Sept 28 2007 Lecture at Fordham University about the Media Misreporting of Ron Paul

This is the lecture I delivered to my "Introduction to Communication and Media Studies" class at Fordham University on September 28, 2007 about the media misreporting of Ron Paul.

The lecture, with student questions at the end, was about 50 minutes. It's divided in five parts on the YouTube video, as follows: 1. history of polling ... ABC May 2007 misreporting of Ron Paul ... 2. ABC continues misreporting Ron Paul (early August 2007).... 3. Mark Levin urges disinformation against Ron Paul on ABC radio ... Kucinich gets cropped ... the First Amendment ... 4. Hannity & Colmes misreport Ron Paul on Fox News ... reasons behind all of this ... 5. I answer student questions ...

Note that the above is, of course, current only as of September 28, 2007, and contains no mention of ABC affiliate WMUR TV in New Hampshire failing to cover the Ron Paul "Family Day" rally on September 30...

Now ABC Affiliate WMUR TV Neglects to Cover Ron Paul in New Hampshire

The Free Market News Network reports that WMUR neglected to cover Ron Paul at his "Family Day" rally in Manchester, New Hampshire this past weekend. WMUR is a state-wide television operation, with headquarters in Manchester.

What struck me most about this was not the lack of coverage itself - infuriating and undemocratic - but the fact that WMUR is ... an ABC affiliate!

Just this past Friday, at the lecture I delivered to my "Intro to Communication and Media Studies" class at Fordham University (we'll have the video up on YouTube soon), I detailed a series of outrageous ABC misreportings of Ron Paul since May - ranging from leaving him out of poll results to using photography to make his supporters seem far fewer at a rally in Iowa than they in fact were. But I concluded, in an effort to be fair, that ABC seems to have been improving in the accuracy of its reporting lately, with Fox making the worst transgressions.

But here we are, once again, with a national ABC television affiliate apparently up to the same old business. If the Free Market News story is correct - and it's been up online all day with no opposing comments offered - then ABC is continuing to dig itself into a hole it may never get out of.

Because, whatever happens in this election, the shameful performance of ABC News at so many junctures - regarding mostly Ron Paul, but also, at least once, Dennis Kucinich - will not be forgotten. Indeed, I expect it will be a section in many a textbook about media and politics. I know I certainly will be putting something about this in my next edition of The Soft Edge: A Natural History and Future of the Information Revolution.


See reviews of the most recent edition of The Soft Edge.

1:30pm Lecture by me today at Fordham Univ: The Media Misreporting of Ron Paul

I'll be delivering my special lecture this afternoon - 1:30-2:20pm - to my "Intro to Communication and Media Studies" class at Fordham University on "The Media Misreporting of Ron Paul"....

I'll be discussing Hannity and Colmes' denigration of Ron Paul's first place finish in their own poll after the last Republican Presidential debate on Fox, ABC's indication of a lone Ron Paul supporter before the Iowa straw poll when his supporters say there were numerous, ABC Radio Mark Levin's call to his listeners to harass Ron Paul headquarters, ABC's cropping Dennis Kucinich out of a photo of the Democratic candidates (Ron Paul is not the only victim of mass media malfeasance in reporting the Presidential campaign), and much more.

My blog post about this upcoming lecture two months ago received 1290 Diggs, 190 comments, and was on the Digg front page for days.

YouTube video will follow next week.

Dems Debate in Dartmouth: Gravel Proud to Stick Credit Card Cos, Kucinich Lower Voting Age to 16, Edwards Shines

You gotta love Mike Gravel. Asked by Tim Russert how he could run for President and be trusted with the nation's fiscal responsibility, when he ran up a big unpaid debt, Gravel proudly shot back - hey, look who got stuck with that debt, I stuck the credit card companies with a $90,000 debt, and they deserved it!

Second best point from an underdog - or maybe it was the best - came from Kucinich, who said he not only favored lowered the drinking age to 18, but the voting age to 16. I seriously support such a lowering of the voting age - I've been saying for years that it should be lowered to 14 - an age at which, according cognitive psychologist Jean Piaget, people have completely adult reasoning processes, and have had them for at least two years.

Among the top tier Democrats, I thought John Edwards did splendidly tonight. He comes across as the most human - the least political - and made some points against Hillary and Obama on stopping the business as usual in Washington. I especially liked Edwards' solution to the social security crisis: rather than raising the cap (it's currently $97,000+), create a window, in which income earners won't pay social security tax above the current cap, until they reach a much higher level of income.(I actually most favor Ron Paul's solution of letting people below a certain age opt of social security - but Edwards' is at least an innovative solution, which doesn't punish people in the upper middle class).

Hillary was good tonight, Barack was not. He was often indistinguishable from Hillary, and he lacked Edwards' passion. Edwards could be set to become the main Democratic alternative to Hillary Clinton.

Rating the News Networks in their Election Campaign Coverage

With the Fall at our doorstep, and the lecture I'm giving to my class at Fordham University about the media mistreatment of Ron Paul just a week away, I thought I'd share with you a little list I put together, which ranks the five major TV news networks on their coverage of Ron Paul as well as other presidential candidates these past six months.

Since I'm not omniscient, I may have missed some network errors and abuses. All corrections and additions are welcome in the comment section.

1. CNN: in first place. They've done nothing wrong that I know of, and get kudos for the YouTube CNN debate a few months ago, in which questions came from people who submitted videos to YouTube, rather than so-called experts in the media. CNN decided which questions to air, but this is still a real breakthrough in the democratization of media.

2. MSNBC has in general done a fine job in its reporting of Ron Paul and the other campaigns. MSNBC commentators Tucker Carlson and Pat Buchanan have been public and explicit in their support of Ron Paul. But MSNBC got off to a bit off a rough start. Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews, discussing the candidates' positions on the war after the debate of May 4, neglected to mention that Ron Paul has been systematically against the war. They both improved their reporting considerably, shortly thereafter.

3. CBS has done nothing wrong in its coverage of the current campaigns, either, as far as I know. But I put CBS in third place because of its continuing graceless treatment of Dan Rather, who was forced out of CBS after courageously reporting about George Bush's military past, in the election of 2004.

4. Now we take a sharp turn downward with Fox News. Hannity and Colmes denigrated Ron Paul's first place finish in the Fox phone-in poll conducted after the last Republican Presidential debate on Fox - the two claimed that Ron Paul's supporters were multiple-dialing. Not only was there no evidence for this, it turns out a second call from the same phone resulted in a text reply that the vote wouldn't count. O'Reilly, to his credit, did have Ron Paul on his show. But to O'Reilly's discredit, he barely gave Ron Paul a chance to get a word in edgewise.

5. ABC is in the cellar. Worse than Fox, ABC failed to mention on at least one occasion that Ron Paul came in first in its post-debate poll. It removed comments from Ron Paul supporters on its online board, and then proceeded to shut it down. ABC also showed a lone Ron Paul supporter before the Iowa caucus, in contrast to big crowds for Romney, when in fact Ron Paul had big crowds of supporters, too. Then there was Mark Levin, in ABC's radio line-up, who called upon his listeners to call up Ron Paul headquarters with advice that Ron Paul couldn't win. And, just for good measure, ABC spread some its abuse around, and cropped Dennis Kucinich out of a photo Democratic contenders.

The good news for Fox and ABC is that the election campaigns are continuing, and they can change their ways. Actually, Fox has been worse than ABC in the past month, and that may be a sign that ABC is finally seeing the error of its ways.

I'd like to see all five major news networks report the election campaigns truthfully. The American people require no less.

I'll continue to keep you posted.

Joan Baez Sings "With God On Our Side" in 1966: Suggested Campaign Song for 2007-8

Joan Baez's 1966 performance of Bob Dylan's "With God On Our Side"...

I don't know how you can not be moved to tears by this song and Baez's performance. She has the voice of angel. And Dylan's words are the most powerful refutation of war as a moral instrument ever written.

Dylan first performed the song at Town Hall in New York City, April 12, 1963. Joan Baez took him by the hand and out on the stage of the Newport Folk Festival for an extraordinary performance of the song on July 25, 1963. You can see a clip from it in Martin Scorsese's 2005 No Direction Home bio-documentary of Dylan.

Here in 2007, the hope expressed at the end of the song that, "If God is on our side, He'll stop the next war," remains unfulfilled.

Ron Paul, the only one of the Republicans, and Dennis Kucinich, Mike Gravel, John Edwards, Bill Richardson, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and to a degree any of the other Democrats, could make that happen if elected President. They could stop this unconstitutional war, started in lies.

Ron Paul could use this song as a campaign song. So could Dennis Kucinich. I hope one of them does.

The lyrics are here.

See also Joan Baez Sings Dylan, Lennon, Earle, and Speaks Obama at New York Town Hall Concert

John Edwards Responds to Bush Address via Commercial

Good for John Edwards for buying air-time on MSNBC tonight to respond to President Bush's address to the nation about Iraq.

The formal Democratic response came from Jack Reed, and it was fine.

But why shouldn't John Edwards - or any of the other candidates - avail themselves of the opportunity to address the nation by buying air-time? What is the difference between buying air-time to specifically respond to the President, and buying air-time for any other political commercial? There is none, other than the response to President is far more important.

And John Edwards is, strategically, ideally situated to give this response. Unlike Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, who in the end voted to continue funding the war a few months ago, Edwards was out of office and did not. (Obama, not in office when the initial, unconstitutional war powers were given to Bush by Congress, is at least untainted by that. Of the candidates then in office, only Kucinich of the Democrats and Ron Paul of the Republicans understood the Constitution well enough to vote against those initial war-enabling powers.) True, it was no doubt easier for Edwards being out of office a few months ago to oppose the continued funding of the war then, but it was nonetheless courageous, given that he was already running for President.

The difference between commercials and news coverage has never been that great, given "infomercials" on the one hand and politically biased reporting of organizations like Fox News, on the other. From the point of view of American viewers, what matters is what candidates and Presidents say, not who pays for it.

John Edwards was therefore courageous tonight not only in responding to the President, but in utilizing the medium of the commercial to do it.

Heads-Up: Hillary's Not On The Side of Video Gamers, or the Constitution

A recent article in U.K's Guardian reminded me of something I already knew, and which has crucial relevance to the current Presidential campaign:

Hillary Clinton is no friend of video gaming. In fact, along with Sens. Joe Lieberman, Tim Johnson and Evan Bayh, she proudly introduced the Family Entertainment Protection Act in November, 2005. As the Wikipedia entry explains, this law if enacted would have exacted "fines of $1000 dollars or 100 hours of community service for a first time offense of selling a 'Mature' or 'Adult-Only' rated video game to a minor, and $5000 or 500 hours for each subsequent offense."

Fortunately, it was not - Hillary, Lieberman, et al's colleagues in Congress had more sense than they - likely aware that similar acts in various states had already been struck down as unconstitutional.

Hillary, unfortunately, comes by her disregard for the First Amendment through her husband. Bill Clinton signed the Communications Decency Act into law in 1996. That affront to the freedom of communication carried as much as $2000 and a two-year-in-prison penalty. Fortunately, the U.S. Supreme Court struck that one down.

Bill Clinton claimed he figured that act was unconstitutional, too, and the Supreme Court would declare it to be. So ... he signs it into law? How about this, instead: the straightforward Presidential action of not signing it, in the first place?

Bill Clinton and his circumlocutions fortunately can no longer threaten the First Amendment.

But Hillary's now running for President, leading many of the Democratic polls, and unless she explicitly says otherwise, a wise assumption would be that her election as President would bring to our nation steep fines, forced community service, and even jail time for forms of communication clearly protected under the First Amendment.

We all want to protect our children. Trampling on the Constitution is not the way to do it. We can do better than run scared from Jack Thompson, and the flawed studies he cites. (See my "debate" with Thompson on CNBC last year.)


We have candidates who understand this. Republican candidate Ron Paul has the best record of respecting the Constitution. Democratic candidate Dennis Kucinich is a close second.

I hope the rest of the candidates will follow their leads, and not Hillary's.

Ron Paul Has Company: Now ABC Crops Out Kucinich, Buries Poll

Well, no one can accuse ABC News of being biased in the way it metes out its destructively biased reporting: MediaBloodhound has published a chilling account of what ABC did to Dennis Kucinich in its reporting of the Democratic debate that took place on ABC News' This Week with George Stephanopoulos on August 19 in Iowa.

ABC cropped Kucinich out a photo of the Democratic candidates, and buried its own online poll which had Kucinich leading. Followers of the abusive reporting ABC News has been giving Ron Paul will be all too familiar with these techniques. ABC News is clearly an equal opportunity abuser when it comes to reporting on the Presidential campaign, and doing the job expected and required by the American people.

What do Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul have in common that they should attract such mistreatment? Both are forthright against the war. Kucinich has a good record of respecting the Constitution (though, unlike Ron Paul, Kucinich forgot about the First Amendment and voted for legislation to make flag desecration illegal - Kucinich forgot that the First Amendment is not about protecting communication you like, which needs no protection, but about protecting communication you do not like).

But Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul's greatest mutual sin in ABC's eyes, apparently, is that ABC does not take them seriously as candidates. And this leads ABC - maybe in a desperate, misguided attempt to be relevant - to commit grievous lies of omission in its reporting on these candidates.

What has gone so wrong at ABC? At least four cases of distortive reporting about Ron Paul, and now this about Kucinich? ABC was once, not that long ago, a pretty good news operation. Nightline with Ted Koppel was on the cutting edge.

It's at least partly due, I think, to ABC being pretty much out of it on cable and online news. Whoever is calling these shots at ABC News doesn't understand what it is obvious to CNN, Fox, and MSNBC: there is a whole new world of politics out there.

But, whatever the reason, ABC is forfeiting whatever right it once had to be taken seriously, or even to keep reporting the election. I would call upon the FCC to look into revoking its licenses, but that would be unconstitutional.

So I'll confine myself to expanding the section on media misreporting I'll be teaching at Fordham University starting in September - if ABC keeps this up, I'll have enough material for an entire course - and urge the American people to stop watching this benighted network.

Talking About Media Misreporting of Ron Paul this Tues Night in Manhattan

Hey - a heads-up for everyone in the New York area, with an interest in the mainstream and Internet media coverage of the 2008 Presidential election, and its current percolating campaigns:

I've been invited to talk to the New York City Ron Paul Meet-Up group at 7:30pm this Tuesday - in particular, about the media's misreporting and in one case outright attack on Ron Paul, and what can be done about it.

I'll be talking at the Village Pourhouse on 11th Street and 3rd Avenue (southwest corner) for 30-45 minutes, followed by 15-30 mins for questions and answers.

The meeting room will be spacious. The general public is welcome. Admission will be free.

I think the media coverage of our election campaigns thus far should be of concern to anyone who values our democracy.

Ron Paul and his supporters, in particular, have received less than truthful treatment from a variety of media. ABC News and its affiliates has had the greatest confluence of misreporting, and I'll be talking in particular about ABC's posting of misleading photos, reporting of Internet poll results which left out Ron Paul's standing, and, in the case of ABC radio talkshow host Mark Levin, about his urging listeners to call Ron Paul headquarters with hostile comments. In short, I'll be discussing the many abuses I've been loudly blogging about here for the past weeks.

Readers of Infinite Regress also know I'd be outraged about such media malfeasance whomever I supported, but I do support Ron Paul for the Republican nomination for President. That's easy for me to do, for two reasons. 1. I think our country's disregard of the Constitution - whether it's trampling on the First Amendment or going to war without the Declaration of War required - has gotten us into enormous difficulties. Ron Paul is the only candidate in either party with a lifelong commitment to supporting the Constitution. 2. My second reason for supporting Ron Paul for the Republican nomination is that the other Republican candidates are simply impossible for me to support - three of them don't believe in evolution, and most support the Bush administration's continuation of the war in Iraq. (In all honesty, the last Republican I voted for in any election was John Lindsay in the 1969 NYC mayoral race. He won, and soon after switched his affiliation to the Democrats.)

But there are Democrats I admire in this Presidential election, too. Indeed, any of them is easily better than any of the Republicans, with the exception of Ron Paul. But the three leading Democratic contenders - Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and John Edwards (in that order for me) also have qualities that would make me consider their candidacies very seriously (not to mention Al Gore, who at this point is not in the running). And "second-tier" candidates Kucinich and Biden have much to commend them, too.

Accordingly, I'm urging everyone to work for the best candidate receiving the nomination in each party. And in the happy event that this happens, we can then decide in the general election who is better - the Democrat or the Republican - to lead this country.

But, whichever candidate you support, I hope you agree that our democracy is best served by truthful media coverage. How can we make a rational decision when we're fed misleading and false information? When that happens, we are being starved of the basis of our democracy.

It would be good to see you on Tuesday. And I'll be posting a postscript here to my talk later Tuesday night or early Wednesday.

complete YouTube video of my talk

Further details on two of the above points:

ABC's Abuse of American Electorate to Be Included in my Curriculum This Fall

Something New: How About We Look for Best Candidates in =Both= Parties?

First YouTube/CNN Presidential Debate!

The first YouTube/CNN Presidential Debate - this one with the the Democrats - just concluded. I said I would wait until I saw it, to say how much of a revolution it was. Having seen it, I think it was revolutionary indeed - and, in fact, as much a leap forward in the debates and democracy as the first Presidential debates on television in 1960.

I don't ever recall seeing a debate in either party with such a refreshing, humorous, frank, and incisive a series of questions. The people asking the questions in the YouTube videos were far more on the money than any panel of experts.

And the candidates rose to the occasion with honest and important answers.

Barack Obama, when asked about whether he is a legitimate African-American candidate - given his access to power - quipped, "Ask the New York cabbies!" (African-Americans unfortunately have a tougher time getting a cab to stop for them and pick them up than Caucasian New Yorkers - I'm Caucasian, I've lived in New York all of my life, and maybe this problem has gotten a little better but it still exists).

Hillary Clinton, responding to a question about the election of Bush in 2000, responded that, actually, Bush was not elected President.

John Edwards, on health care, gave an impassioned plea for the need for all Americans to have it - he did this even though he had exceeded his time, and Anderson Cooper was trying to cut him off.

Joe Biden answered a YouTube question about gun control, asked by someone who was armed with an automatic weapon which he called his "baby". Answered Biden: if that's your baby, you need help....

And that's just a sampler.

Even Anderson Cooper, who did seem to unfairly cut off the minor candidates - such as Mike Gravel - more than the major, was in fine form tonight. The final questioner asked each candidate to cite something liked and disliked about the candidate to the left. Kucinich quipped that they there was no one standing to his left on the stage (true). Cooper replied - we tried to find someone to your left but there was no one...

There's nothing like the fresh of democracy to energize a debate, and give people clearer choices. There was concern, before the debate, about CNN exercising too much control in choosing the YouTube questions to be shown - I don't see how the choices could have been any better.

I'm looking forward to the Republican rendition of this fine experiment - which will become the norm - in September.

but added July 28: Republicans Now Thumb Noses at YouTube as Well as Evolution

And here's a July 26, 2007 article in the Houston Chronicle - "Debate Praised as Fresh and Original", in which I and other media commentators rave about the success of this first YouTube debate...

John McCain's Indecent Double Standard

Well, the Republicans are at it again - cursing out Senators in the halls of government. At least this time, it was a Republican cursing out a Republican.

You may recall that, a few years ago, the Senate hallway featured VP Dick Cheney advising Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont), "Go fuck yourself!"

And now, the other day, John McCain, a leading Republican Presidential candidate in polls not taken via texting on cell phones, said "Fuck you!" to Senator John Cornyn (R-Texas), over a disagreement about immigration policy.

Now, as I've made clear numerous times - see my Of Asterisks, Black Swans, Thom Yorke, and D*ck - I have no problem at all with such language. Whether in private or in public, vulgarity and profanity serve a social purpose. They allow us to express anger without resorting to violence.

What I do have is a very serious problem with Senators cursing each other out like this a day or a month or a year after voting to increase fines for broadcasting of such very language. Actually, it's worse than that: last year the Senate approved an increase in fines from $32,500 to $325,000 for objectionable incidents on the airwaves, which, although (of course) not specifically defined, in practice include words that are a lot milder than "fuck". Infinity Broadcasting had already been socked for millions of dollars for Howard Stern's non-profane language under the old, lower fine system.

And - here's the kicker - John McCain was one of the co-sponsors of that Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act of 2005 - the Act that raised the fines - which was passed by unanimous consent in the Senate on May 18, 2006. The bill was introduced by Senator Brownback (one of the three Republicans now running for President who doesn't believe in evolution), and had many co-sponsors, including Joseph Lieberman, the Democratic Senator from Connecticut. Trampling the First Amendment has broad bipartisan support. The bill had fared only slightly worse in the House, where Representatives Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich - both now running for President in their respective parties - had the constitutional decency to vote against it (but it passed 389 Aye, 38 No, 6 not voting). Ron Paul was the only Republican voting no.

So, this is the country in which we now live. Hypocritical Senators can use the F-bomb - what a stupid construction, they can say Fuck You or Go Fuck Yourself - whenever they please. But a comedian on radio such as Howard Stern can get fined into oblivion for making fart jokes and the like. And, with the latest round of Federal treachery against the First Amendment, Congress is moving to extend its system of fines for objectionable broadcasting to cable....

Fucking outrageous.

Following comments made on original PaulLevinson.net post - feel free to add yours here, any time.

One of the nice things about Canadian TV is the fact that things are a little more free... especially about swearing.
Posted by: MC at May 21, 2007 01:42 AM
Nice ending! HA!
Your country is "land of the free" if I'm correct but there seems to be a lot of arbitrary restrictions on art yet a group of "Christians" can protest outside of funerals of dead soldiers.
Don't get me wrong, I think they SHOULD be allowed to protest but only if you're allowed to swear on air. Equal is equal is equal.
Posted by: rizzo at May 21, 2007 05:15 AM

I love that there are 3 ads paid for by McCain on this page!
Posted by: Brian at May 21, 2007 01:54 PM

So, we draw no distinction between swearing in the course of private conversations, and swearing over public airwaves?
Where does that slippery slope end?
If little Jimmy with the telescope next door peeks in on one of my daughters changing, does that mean it's OK to air girls undressing on public TV as well?
Lame argument, people!
Posted by: pronouncedlimp at May 21, 2007 01:58 PM

I fucking agree.
The one thing I find amusing is that google is serving three John McCain ads on this page right now (plus a you tube ad for John McCain videos...one of them a big red white and blue banner at the top of the page. Hmmm.
Posted by: Joel at May 21, 2007 02:28 PM

pronounced: Of course there are distinctions in all of these situations. But, via McCain's logic, the media can't even report, literally, what he said to the other Senator. If he wants the media not to use those words, then he, as a public figure, shouldn't use them in either, in a public place.
Posted by: Paul Levinson at May 21, 2007 02:34 PM

So, what do we have: the morally ambiguous, the sexually repressed, the jesus freaks and the president/vice president [they're in a league all of their own. If you can strangle the constitution and get applause for doing so, you deserve some kudos along with your impeachment papers].
What all these double standards and blatant abuses are doing is that they serve to ridicule the United States. I don't know if anybody noticed, but Kuwait has disconnected its currency from the Dollar. Other countries will follow. The lack of fiscal responsibility is going to start biting you. While the US is wasting endless amounts of time and effort debating evolution/creationism [another comedy caper] and gay marriage, the world is getting on with the serious business that we are going to have to face as a collective.
The US might like to believe it is above the mere unwashed masses but that chicken is going to come home to roost far sooner than comfortable.
Aside from that, I sincerely wish for all those who read this: peace, love, happiness and harmony. No amount of any of these is ever enough.
Posted by: Anonymous at May 21, 2007 02:58 PM

The hole in your criticism of McCain lies in the significant difference between FCC regulations and regulations regarding office communications. The FCC fines for indecency, however arbitrary, are designed to maintain standards on television above disgusting. I'm sure McCain's outburst was a slip up, and one that should be dealt with with regard to decency standards in Washington, however linking FCC communications and office conduct in my opinion does not qualify as a sound argument.
Posted by: Max at May 21, 2007 03:14 PM

I have to agree with pronounced limp on this one... What McCain says to another individual in a private conversation is a wholly-different situation to that of a shock-jock spouting profanity on the public airwaves.
Any child in any city CANNOT, whilst flipping through their radio dial, listen in on McCain's conversations. They can, however, inadvertently tune their radio to a station where a shock jock is broadcasting and therefore be exposed to language of which their parents may disapprove.
Not so with satellite radio where Stern now resides, but it was entirely the case with respect to the multi-million dollar lawsuit regarding his statements at his previous *public* radio station gig.
You are creating a semblance here, and a perception of a senator's personal opinion that does not exist. Senator McCain is not any more opposed to profanity than you are. He is instead opposed to the broadcasting of profanity. There is a very big difference.
Posted by: Patrick McGonegal at May 21, 2007 03:57 PM

Patrick: I understand the distinction - but see my above comment. What's your response to the fact that, under McCain's system, the public would never have any direct knowledge of one Senator cursing out another - because McCain would fine any stations that broadcast McCain's words. You don't see any problem with that?
Posted by: Paul Levinson at May 21, 2007 04:05 PM

"The FCC fines for indecency, however arbitrary, are designed to maintain standards on television above disgusting."
Cable/satellite television is not subject to FCC regulations (under my understanding), so what keeps its standards up? Advertising. The free market is self regulating.
Posted by: AbsurdParadox at May 21, 2007 04:23 PM

Brian - yeah, about the McCain (and all the political) ads on this page ... Welcome to automated "smart" ad placement! :)
Posted by: Paul Levinson at May 21, 2007 04:59 PM

Sadly, a lot of individuals will read this piece and add it to their list of other non-arguments they haven't applied simple critical thinking to themselves.
Posted by: DM at May 21, 2007 05:16 PM

Excellent commentary
So, on one side you have a hypocritical typical politician who cares about big money and big government and doesn't care about principled positions or the truth.
On the other, you have Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich, who take principled positions on everything yet are called crazed lunatics for doing so and made fun of at every opportunity.
What's the problem here, America?
Posted by: Lloyd at May 21, 2007 07:07 PM

Paul -
I won't comment on the hypocrisy or inconsistency of a politician, particularly McCain, who'd sell his children for the top office.
The suggestion, however - subtle as it may be, and perhaps unintentional or subconsciously woven into the piece - that this is a GOP phenomenon, is misplaced. The attacks on our freedom of speech are bipartisan, and the blame lies with us.
A fat swath of the dim middle of this country is obsessed with "morals" and "values" we flog as queer totems of some fictional Pure American Dream that never existed. The Left and Right get together and, as a wonderful essay in this month's Vanity Fair notes, ensure we export our greatest resource - hypocrisy.
But we're alright in the end. The marketplace wants the honesty and the dirt, and no matter how many Senators grandstand for bigger fines, or how many scalps the Sharptons of the world collect, somebody will Give the People What They Want because it's profitable.
Best,
PL
Posted by: philalawyer at May 22, 2007 12:17 AM

When it comes to the rude and the crude I wouldn't shrivel up in disappointment if we would give it a rest. Hmmm....maybe we should go back to the days when if you called someone a liar you had better have your hand on your pistol. Probably made for a politer society.... grins.
Posted by: George at May 22, 2007 12:21 AM

Hypocrisy and politics are all-american bedfellows. A vote for the Hillary Clinton camp or a vote for the John McCain camp is the nearly the same thing. The only difference is that the Clinton camp might wear a condon when they anally rape you and your constitutional rights.
It was a Democrat, KS Senator Exon, that proposed the Communications Decency Act in the Telecommunications Reform Act. It was the Clinton administration that signed it into law over ten years ago.
Now, a Republican-led FCC, is doing what it feels like doing. It's no big revelation that they would act to limit individual rights in favor of corporate interests. The Bush administration does what it does because it can.
The corporate media in the U.S. makes billions on political activity in the little squabbles between Democrats and Republicans. You get to watch it every night as they form the questions in any debate.
We, as citizens, either eat our scraps of bread and watch the circus or we can change it with our vote. If enough people simply voted for any third party candidate, it could change the system. Complaining is no longer sufficient. You must vote.
Posted by: John Furie Zacharias at May 22, 2007 08:19 AM

Phila Lawyer:
me: "Trampling the First Amendment has broad bipartisan support."
you: "The suggestion, however - subtle as it may be, and perhaps unintentional or subconsciously woven into the piece - that this is a GOP phenomenon, is misplaced."
Yeah, it was so subtle, that I expressly denied it, in plain English...:)
Posted by: Paul Levinson at May 22, 2007 01:56 PM

The fact that hasn't really come up yet and is so interesting in this case is that generally something is only obscene in the eyes of the FCC if someone complains. That's why a few years ago 1/3 of the ABC affiliates refused to show Saving Private Ryan uncut on Memorial Day, despite the fact that they had done so the two years prior... because the FCC basically told these stations that they couldn't tell them if such a showing would result in fines or not, so in essence, the FCC is using an arbitrary standard for what is and is not broadcast worthy.
Posted by: MC at May 22, 2007 03:14 PM