Sometimes I feel like the entire Ron Paul grassroots movement was specifically designed to make me laugh my ass off. I know his supporters are sincere in their love of Ron Paul (even if I think they’re fools for supporting the loon), but some of the publicity stunts these guys come up with are almost like a Paddy Chayefsky-esque satire of ineffective activist naivete.

A blimp? A blimp!

Imagine.. the mainstream media is mesmerized as the image of the Ron Paul blimp is shown to tens of millions of Americans throughout the day (and throughout the month). Wolf Blizter, stunned and as if in a trance, repeats the words “Amazing, Amazing”.

As GPS co-ordinates stream to the website a map shows the Ron Paul blimp’s location in real time. The local Television stations broadcast its every move. The curious flock together and make a trip to see history in the making. Emails with pictures are sent, then forwarded, then forwarded again. Youtube videos go viral and reach tens of millions of views. Ron Paul becomes the first presidential candidate in history to have his very own blimp. The PR stunt generates millions upon millions of dollars worth in free publicity, and captures the imagination of America.

Please join us in our goal to raise $350,000 to make and fly the first ever Presidential Blimp in history.

What planet are these guys from? In 2007, do people descend into a state of reverent awe whenever they see a large gray cylinder flying in the sky? Call my a cynic, I really doubt that the entire nation would collectively pause with wonder to follow the journey of a rented blimp.

Do they really want to invite the obvious joke here?

Finally, am I the only one that finds it ironic that the supporters of Ron Paul, the ultra-libertarian who votes against every bit of government spending he can, want to throw away more than a quarter million dollars so people can look into the air and say “Oh, hey. Is that the Goodyear blimp?”

UPDATE : It gets better. Not only are they wasting money, but this image posted on the official Ron Paul blimp site takes pride in the fact that they’re “dumping” the cash into a ridiculous stunt to hype their next money bombing :

So they’re comparing donating to Ron Paul’s campaign to dumping a bunch of tea in Boston Harbor? If you think giving your money to Ron Paul and his magical blimp is a good idea, you might be better off just throwing your money into the harbor instead.

Mike Huckabee has a new gimicky celebrity endorsement to add to his list of desperate pleas for free media exposure :

Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee’s endorsements now include retired pro wrestler Ric “Nature Boy” Flair, CNN reported Tuesday.

Flair joins Ted Nugent, a rock musician and hunting enthusiast, and Chuck Norris, a martial arts expert and star of TV’s “Walker, Texas Ranger,” in endorsing Huckabee, a former Arkansas governor.

There’s been a lot of talk lately about politicians using coded language to appeal to portions of their base. Reagan used terms like “states rights” and “strapping young buck” to appeal to racists. In 2004, George Bush made an odd reference to Dred Scott as a way of signaling his desire to overturn Roe vs. Wade. Now with Huckabee, the Ric Flair endorsement seems like a wink towards the more hawkish elements of the GOP base (ie. 99% of them) that he shares their view of “the enemy”.

I just just know what to say about CNN anymore. They’ve been declining in quality for a while now a rudderless, low-brow sort of way, just throwing crap on the air and their website in the hopes that it will appear to advertisers. At least Fox News has an ideological agenda to blame for its awfulness. CNN on the other hand seems to be transforming itself from “the most trusted name in news” to “your annoying friend who fowards dumb emails without checking Snopes first”. I mean, how else can you explain a poll like this?

Tuning into CNN these days is like walking into your favorite art gallery and finding all of the walls covered with Thomas Kinkades.

Maybe I’m just jaded, but these ads leave me cold.

These ads would have been great when people were still marvelling about how witty those Mac/PC ads were or delighting each other with faux Chuck Norris facts, but these feel slightly less awkward than your grandpa trying to start a conversation about “the rap music” or people who insist on observing “Obnoxious Jackass Day”.

The Center for American Progress has a few more ads that are also part of the same campaign. Another Apple spoof, one that’s so gushy about progressivism that it doesn’t really contrast itself with conservatism, and this awesome ad that should be the template for the whole campaign :

As for Huckabee, he better hope his primary opponents don’t start hyping this video. Republican voters tend to frown on politicians who seem enthusiastic about raising taxes.

Atrios catches some anti-WGA strike bias on CNBC, a network that prides itself in catering to “business executives and financial professionals that have significant purchasing power”. The chyron reads :

WHAT ARE THEY FIGHTING FOR?

4,434 Hollywood guild writers worked full-time last year.

Average salary: $204,000

Many earned $1 million or more

Well, to answer CNBC’s question, they aren’t fighting for “significant purchasing power”. They’re fighting for the financial security that would allow their members to remain in the middle class.

Middle class? Two hundred grand sounds like a good deal, but remember that’s the average salary. This number was chosen specifically because CNBC and the studios on whose behalf they’re arguing want you to believe that most writers are spoiled brats whining about their six-figure incomes. But in a case like this in which a deliberately-vague “many” WGA members earn over $1 million, the “average” income is misleading. A much more important measurement of writers income is the median.

For a good illustration of the difference between “average” and “median” incomes, let me refer you to this graph from the classic book “How to Lie With Statistics” (used without permission. go buy it now!) :

If you add up all of the salaries and divide it by the number of employees, you come up with an “average” that is a poor indicator of an ordinary worker’s income. After all, Mr. Moneybags at the top brings home more than twenty times what the dozen peons at the bottom of the graph make. And this “average” income is only earned by one person, who earns more than 20 of the 24 employees on the chart. While the “average” in this case is mathematically correct, it doesn’t represent the typical income. Or to use an oft-cited example, if Bill Gates walked into a homeless shelter, the “average” income would skyrocket, but it wouldn’t change the fact that everyone else is poor.

Now let’s go back to the WGA strike. Thanks to our friends at CNBC, we know that the “average” WGA member makes $200K, but what’s the median income? According to an LA Times op-ed written by a WGA board member :

“The median income of screen and television writers from their guild-covered employment is $5,000 a year, in part because almost half our members don’t work in any given year.”

Five. Thousand. Dollars. Now keep that figure in mind when you see these CEOs gush about how much money they’ll be making :

CNBC wants to know “What are they fighting for?”. Well, considering that writers aren’t even being paid for this “golden era”, the WGA is fighting to keep their five thousand dollars from being taken away in the future. Sounds pretty reasonable to me.

So the other night I’m flipping through the channels and see that one of my favorite movies is going to appear on TNT HD. Unfortunately, the idiots at TNT are unaware that older movies weren’t filmed in 16:9 aspect ratio. So what should look like this :

Looks like this :



In the HD version of The Wizard of Oz, everyone’s a munchkin.

Why am I a cranky blogger? Because this has happened 1-2 times a week for the last five years :

Democrats : We’re going to do something about that horrible thing the Republicans are doing

Me : Yay! Give ‘em hell!

Democrats : Nevermind. We didn’t have enough votes.

Of course for these wimpy Dems, this criticism is just seen as the ranting of a vitriolic blogger who’s looking for something to complain about, but one would hope that they could be honest enough with themselves to notice that the disappointment is based on criteria that they set up for themselves. If you keep promising to do something that you’re unable or unwilling to do, then you’re going to keep looking like a failure.

Time magazine has an interesting chart of where the presidential candidates stand on environmental issues (PDF link). On the Dem side, the chart highlights some wonky differences between the candidates, but comparing the GOP candidates positions on environmental issues is a little more difficult. For example, here’s where Giuliani fares in the “Energy Efficiency” column :

Broadly approves of alternative-energy sources and improved efficiency, but has no specific proposals

Contrast that with the energy efficiency stance for McCain…

Generally supports increased energy efficiency but has not announced specific targets

…and Romney.

Generally supports improved efficiency but does not address the issue regularly and offers no targets

Why even give candidates the benefit of the doubt on this? If environmental issues are important enough to chart like this (they are), then why use words like “generally supports” to describe insincere lip-service? Time is really doing a disservice to their readers who care about “The Eco Vote” by not pointing out that this “general” vagueness shows that environmental issues aren’t as important to Republicans as Democrats.

You’d think this troubling economic indicator would generate a different reaction from CNN’s anchor :

ALI VELSHI, CNN CORRESPONDENT: I’m on the floor of NYMEX. This is the oil trading pit. This is where oil is bought and sold. This is where the price is going to be decided. If oil decides it’s going to be $100 a barrel, it’s getting decided righted here.

Now we’re about half an hour into the trading session. We’re looking at about $97.40 for a barrel of crude oil. In about half an hour we are going to get a report about how much oil there is. How much the oil stocks are in the United States. Most people are expecting for a third week in a row for those numbers to be lower than expected.

The issue, Tony, how much lower than the analysts are expecting? If that number comes in too low, you’ll see the price of oil surge and we’ll probably get to that $100 a barrel. If it’s where analysts expect it to be, you probably will see oil hover around here.

But make no mistake, Tony, we’re in that position where oil has been heading and trending up toward $100 a barrel. And for those of us who don’t have to go home with barrels of oil, it doesn’t matter because it works its way into your gas pump, it works its way into your home heating oil if you live in the northeast. And as Gerri and others will tell you, it works it’s way all the way through the economy into everything you buy.

HARRIS: Boy, I love that sight. That shot of you down there in the floor. It reminds me of that scene in a great movie, “Trading Places.” If I could get to New York right now, I would be your Billy Ray Valentine right there on the floor next to you.

Our economy is on the brink of a recession, but gosh, isn’t the trading floor of the New York Mercantile Exchange neat? It sure is crowded! Wouldn’t it be fun to go down there and yell “Sell! Sell!”? Ha ha ha! It’s like that one movie where…I’m sorry, what were you saying about oil prices again?

While I’m bashing fringe candidates, lemme take this opportunity to reply to Salon’s “Stop lying to yourself. You love Dennis Kucinich” by saying “No, I really don’t.” It’s not just because I personally think he’s obnoxious. Hiding in the middle of the article is a single sentence that perfectly explains why he shouldn’t be president :

“He has never passed a piece of legislation”

Life isn’t like those little political X-Y graphs that are all over the internet. The President needs to actually work with people with whom he/she disagrees and try to reach compromises. I think it’s great the Dennis Kucinich supports single-payer universal healthcare, but he’s never demonstrated that he can actually accomplish that task.