There sure have been a lot of polls lately. The one that got everyone’s interest, of course, was the recent national poll saying that nearly 1 in 4 Americans believe that President Obama is a Muslim. Whenever I read a statistic like that, I can’t help but wonder about the context and the subtext.

The context is important. The way the question is presented can have a heavy influence on the answer. Consider the following question: “Is a potato a vegetable?” The correct answer is obviously, “yes”. But what if I were to spend a minute discussing my diet and watching my carbs and trying to make good food choices before asking the question? Most people would suddenly deny that a potato is a vegetable, instead putting it into the ‘carbohydrate’ category.
The subtext may not change the answer, but it can certainly influence the interpretation.

I wonder how many of those Americans think that he’s just an out and out Muslim (which is just wrong) as opposed to thinking that he’s a closet Muslim bent on destroying America’s Christian values (which is an unproven conspiracy theory). The woefully uninformed and the dangerously suspicious give exactly the same answer, but with a very different meaning.

I saw another local poll in which 18% of respondents said that they were not influenced by negative campaign ads. There are three possible reasons that someone might put themselves into the ‘not influenced’ group: You think you’re above being influenced, you don’t pay attention, or you just don’t care. That nearly one in five of my neighbors falls into one of these three categories is a frightening prospect.

Lastly, a recent USA Today poll reported that 42% of Americans consider the television to be “a necessity of life”. I’m sure right now there’s a meeting going on in the White House basement concerning the government’s responsibility to provide a TV for every illegal immigrant in the US. It’s in the room right next to Obama’s secret underground Mosque.

By now it’s no secret that Fox News parent News Corporation had donated $1 million to the Republican Governor’s Association in June. You wouldn’t know it by reading the Fox wikipedia entry, however, as the blurb about it has allegedly been removed by Fox’s “scrubbers.”

According to Daily KOS:

“On the Fox News main page, someone put this inocuous little statement, heavily referenced, under the controversy section:

‘In June 2010, News Corporation donated $1 million to the Republican Governors Association‘

… Two FNC scrubbers were on the case and according to the history page had that puppy removed.”

It’s not uncommon to see companies editing their own Wikipedia entries and the ethics of that is a debate for another time. What I would like to address here is the “fair and balanced” appearance that Fox News insists on pushing, when it is obviously not.

Let me get this straight: Your parent company donates *one million dollars* to the RGA and we’re expected to believe that you, one of the largest entities owned by News Corp., are not in the slightest bit influenced by the company that pays your bills?

We’ve seen your edits to undesirable Republicans on your T.V. shows. We’ve seen you turn a 180 on the idea of protesting a president’s actions from being un-American to being patriotic. Now we see that your parent company is a direct funder of the Republican Party, so what gives?

Why not just admit it? Either you are an extension of the Republican party, or the Republican party is an extension of you. One of those is clearly true and cannot be denied. And before you assume I’m just some liberal douche, let me clarify that I have the exact same problem with MSNBC.

What I don’t get is these folks who play the “us vs. them” game. Do we not understand it, yet? It’s all a pro-wrestling match; we’re being taken to the cleaners by a bunch of aristocrats who act like they’re against each other, but in fact are out for the same things: Our loyalty and money.

What irks me about this situation is that we finally have something that is clearly in the public eye that can expose these kinds of lies and it’s being swept under the carpet. But that’s what we’ve come to expect from news organizations that aren’t interested in the truth, on both sides of the aisle.

The 2010 Primaries are under way in some states and rapidly approaching in many others. There has been a lot of talk about the mid-term elections and what they mean for President Obama’s administration. But the mid-terms are still a few months off. First, each party has to select their candidates for that election. What can we learn from this mid-term primary season, half way through the first term of the Obama Administration?

• The anti-incumbency movement isn’t as mighty as once thought. There’s a huge theoretical groundswell against incumbents. There’s no doubt about it. Millions of hard working Americans are subscribing to the “Throw the Bums Out” approach and aching for a clean start… except in their home district, which is the only place where their vote actually counts. Voters want the incumbents out in theory, but in practice they’ll take the devil they know over the devil they don’t.
• There’s a battle going on for the soul of the Republican Party. It’s really not Centrist vs. Conservative. For the most part the true Centrists, like Governor Charlie Crist in Florida, have either tergiversated or been forcibly ejected from the party. It’s Conservative vs. Conservativer in the Republican Party right now, with candidates struggling to capture the elusive Tea Party vote to secure the nomination.
• It’s the same old same old in the Democratic Party. The party that holds the White House and both chambers of Congress. The anti-Bush message has carried the party to tremendous success. When you’re winning, you keep doing what you’ve been doing. So there has been little movement within the party. And there probably won’t be until they start losing… which will probably be this November.

Every locality has their own races worth watching this August, but whether or not any trends emerge that will carry over to November and beyond remains to be seen.

According to the Federal Government, whose official motto will soon be changed to “Trust Us, We Know Better Than You Do”, the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico is now just a fading memory.  An astounding 75% of the gazillions of gallons of oil that leaked into the Gulf has now been “collected, dispersed, or evaporated”.  A full three-quarters of the messy, toxic goo has been taken care of already.  That amazing turnaround is just unbelievable.  And I mean that in the literal sense that I don’t believe it.

Where are my skeptics?  Where are the conspiracy buffs who thought that President George W. Bush personally blew up the levees in New Orleans?  What about those of you who were sure that he knew the 2000 election would come down to one county in Florida and strategically planted his operatives there in advance?

OK, I get that the crazies on the Left have no interest in uncovering an Obama conspiracy, but what about their equally unbalanced conspiracy nuts on the Right?  Are you so busy searching for President Obama’s birth certificate that you have no time for a bona fide cover up when it comes along?

I’m not claiming to be the world’s foremost living expert on the dispersing of oil in salt water.  In fact, there may be two or three more qualified experts alive today.  I’m just saying that we, the People, are being awfully trusting when Big Brother tells us that his magic skimmer has collected three quarters of the unknown amount of oil that has spread over an unknown distance in a vast body of water.

If I were the White House Press Secretary, I would immediately call a press conference to announce that 75% of the illegal aliens in the US have been detained, incarcerated, or deported.  Oh, and 80% of the national debt has now been paid.  It’s all good.

For the uninitiated, WikiLeaks is an institution that specializes in the anonymous leaking of information. From their website: “WikiLeaks is a multi-jurisdictional public service designed to protect whistleblowers, journalists and activists who have sensitive materials to communicate to the public.” Having been around since 2007, WikiLeaks has been involved in numerous high-profile leaks such as a supposed Somali assassination attempt, Sara Palin’s Yahoo email contents and most recently the Afghan War Diary.

Based in Sweden, WikiLeaks involves many people from varying countries, and all walks of life. Its spokesman is Julian Paul Assange, a journalist, mathematician and computer scientist who has been involved with the website since its inception in 2007. He’s described himself as the “editor in-chief” of the website, although various other media outlets like to call him the “founder,” which he denies. According to an interview done by Medien-Ökonomie-Blog with Assange, WikiLeaks is run by 5 people and has hundreds of contributors, none of whom are paid. This attempts to ensure that the leaks are done in good-faith, without the seeking of monetary or financial gain.

WikiLeaks has come under its fair share of scrutiny and has been the target of numerous government investigations into the legality of websites such as these, that willfully divulge state secrets or classified military information. Critics of the website often claim that it endangers the lives of citizens and/or military personnel when information such as the Guantánamo Bay procedures or the Baghdad airstrike video is released. However, proponents of the website say that it is necessary and important to have organizations available to aid whistleblowers in exposing corruption and wrongdoing. From Time Magazine: “…if Wikileaks is used with a healthy dose of skepticism, it could become as important a journalistic tool as the Freedom of Information Act.”

When it comes to the freedom of information, there is no place where it is more free than the internet. With many governments attempting to limit speech on the web, it is important for websites such as WikiLeaks to be able to operate without fear of retaliation or persecution. With governments and corporations behaving in increasingly Orwellian fashion, the people of the world need a way to report what they find in a way that protects them, as well as their friends and family for obvious reasons.

If WikiLeaks can keep its head on straight, it may be able to do some real good for the world.

How could this have happened? The Harry Reid era was over and done. His grand arrival on the national stage highlighted his every foible and magnified his failures to the point that he was un-re-electable. It was just a matter of waiting for November.
So how it that Harry Reid is leading the latest Mason-Dixon poll of likely Nevada voters? There’s a perfect 4-part storm swirling about that could easily sweep “Dingy Harry” back into office.

Part 1 – A Weak Opponent. It all started with the Republican Party of Nevada. It would have been a relatively simple thing to select a candidate with more appeal than the Democratic Senator. Instead, they inexplicably chose Sharron Angle.

Part 2 – Big Money. Reid has deep pockets and a big podium. He’s the face of the Democratic Party in Congress with the full backing of their considerable war chest. He’s been able to run a lot of ads in Nevada, none of which are about Harry Reid. Which brings us to the next part of the cocktail…

Part 3 – Going Negative. Reid’s campaign has been on the attack from the beginning. Instead of running on his merits as a long-term senator, he’s going for the “I’m the lesser of two evils” approach. As dopey as that sounds to an outsider, this strategy has been a proven winner in American politics.

Part 4 – None of These Candidates. Nevada is the only state in the Union that offers “None of These Candidates” as an option on every ballot. With voter dissatisfaction with both candidates at historic levels, “None of These Candidates” will probably secure a record high vote. That option cuts into the anti-incumbent vote that would normally go to Angle by default.

Take those four ingredients, swirl in a stinging series of news article continuously ripping Angle while keeping relatively mum about Reid, and top with a liberal dose of voter apathy. That could be a recipe for re-electing the un-re-electable in November.

Zimbabwean president Robert Mugabe wants to use the sale of diamonds from Zimbabwe’s vast reserves in order to revive the country’s economy, reports the AP. At the time of that story, the World Diamond Council and the Kimberley Process (two groups who regulate the sale of blood diamonds) weren’t too keen on the idea due to the Mugabe regime’s alleged human rights violations.

However, according to a new article published by the New York Times, those groups have since changed their tune and have agreed to allow limited sale of Zimbabwe’s diamonds. Under the deal reached on July 16th, Zimbabwe is able to export two lots of rough diamonds no later than September 6, all under the supervision of the Kimberley Process, of course.

The unfortunate thing about this whole situation is twofold. One, the sale of these diamonds will not be able to make a significant dent in Zimbabwe’s debt, which is estimated at USD $5.821 billion. Two, the industry that has historically been Zimbabwe’s bread and butter, agriculture, is still severely suffering from Mugabe’s land reform program. This program removed the competent farmers from their land and replaced them with members of government and their families, who had either no interest in farming, or no idea how to produce. Because of this, Zimbabwe’s previous exports of tobacco and cotton have collapsed and general agricultural production has dropped at least 51% over the past ten years.

I am no economist, mind you, but it seems to me the smart thing would be to reinvest in your farming industry; give the land back to the previous owners and let them do what they do. I can understand Mugabe and his party being pissed off at white-minority rule. After all, it wasn’t very fair of the British to just come in and colonize. However, what Zimbabwe has now is not equality; it’s racism hiding under the guise of nationalism, and it’s killing the country.

Another thing Zimbabwe needs desperately is energy independence. In 2006, Zimbabwe was importing 40% of its energy from neighboring countries due to lack of infrastructure. Since Zimbabwe is geographically mostly a plateau, it would make sense to me to invest in wind energy. This would not only work toward the goal of energy independence, but would also create jobs, which are urgently needed for a country with an unemployment rate of 95%.

At this point, Zimbabwe doesn’t need diamonds; it needs a miracle.

In June, AmericaSpeaks sponsored a little public policy exercise. They got together 3,500 regular Americans from across the country. The gathered them up in 60 different cities, all tied together via the Internet. And they asked them to balance the federal budget.

In six hours, the regular Joe the Plumbers and Sally Homemakers (and, since we live in Politically Correct America I’ll add Sally the Plumbers and Joe Homemakers as well) crafted a plan for a balanced budget, something Congress just can’t seem to do.

Below is the summary, from AmericaSpeaks.org, of what they came up with. My snarky comments are included, since you’ve come to expect that from Camp Campaign.

• Raise the limit on taxable earnings so it covers 90% of total earnings. (Why are we stopping at 90%? What is so magical about that last 10% that it should be tax-free?)
• Reduce spending on health care and non-defense discretionary spending by at least 5%. (Across the board cuts? How un-21st Century-American.)
• Raise tax rates on corporate income and those earning more than $1 million. (The website didn’t say how much we’d have to raise those corporate income taxes in order to balance the budget. It seems like maybe somebody forgot to calculate the impact those higher taxes might have on the consumer.)
• Raise the age for receiving full Social Security benefits to 69. (As much as I’d like to get on the government dole by age 65, this just makes sense. People are living longer. We cannot afford to keep Social Security going the way it has been.)
• Reduce defense spending by 10% – 15%. (This I’m not so sure about. I guess those Afghanis will just have to fend for themselves.)
• Create a carbon and securities-transaction tax. (Yes, let’s tax the crap out of Al Gore’s carbon credit scam. This is an idea I can get behind.)

Now I realize that this is nothing more than a conceptual frame work. These 3,500 regular Americans didn’t really solve anything in their six hours together. But still, it is more than Congress could manage in a year. It doesn’t change anything, but it does highlight just how ineffective our government has become.

It isn’t easy saving the world. Sometimes, you have to make tough choices. Let’s say, for example, that you are on a mission to single handedly save the world from the global warming caused by former President George Bush. Sure, you’ll win a Nobel Prize for making a movie of yourself standing in front of an easel displaying factually-inaccurate slides. That’s good. And you’ll make hundreds of millions of dollars selling nonsensical “Carbon Offset Credits” to corporations willing to buy goodwill with the environmental crowd while continuing to pollute just as much as before. That’s pretty nice, too.

But being the Savior of the Environment is hard on a man. It will make him act like such a complete jerk that his wife of 40 years will have no choice but to leave him. It will make him act, at times, like a “crazed sex poodle”. These things happen. It’s all part of being the Guy Who Saved the World.

Likewise, if you win a Nobel Prize for being elected President of the United States, it brings a lot of pressure. Consider that none of the previous presidents received the Nobel Prize just for being elected. Ronald Reagan bankrupted the Soviet Union, and he didn’t win the Nobel Prize. George H.W. Bush presided over the end of the Cold War, and he didn’t even get reelected.

So, a man who can better the world just be being elected, before he actually accomplishes anything, he can be forgiven if he has to make a few compromises along the way. If he can’t find his birth certificate, well, that isn’t any of your business. He’s got a world to save.

If he made the occasional illicit deal to exchange certain favors for political positions, that’s OK. You don’t know what it’s like; you’ve never single handedly saved the reputation of the United States of America. You’ve never had to deal with bank failures, oil spills, and a terrible economy that was 100% your predecessors fault.

It isn’t easy saving the world. All we, the people, can do to help is continue to heap awards and accolades on the men entrusted with that responsibility, without ever demanding any actual results from them.

Max Baucus, a Democratic Senator from Montana, referred to our current economic climate as “the Great Recession” this week. To be fair to Baucus, he isn’t the first to use the term. But referring to our times as The Great Recession obviously and intentionally invokes the Great Depression. That got me to thinking: just how bad are things out there? Is it fair to start comparing our situation to the Great Depression?

Right now, unemployment is hovering around 10% nationwide. The worst of the worst are the states of Nevada and Michigan, coming in at nearly 14%. During the Great Depression, the number nationwide was 25%. To drive that number home, that is one out of every four people unemployed. That doesn’t count housewives and students. One out of every four people seeking gainful employment was out of luck.

By contrast, the current rate of 10% is bad, but not capital G “Great” bad. Unemployment hit approximately the same levels back in 1983, so this current recession is not unprecedented in our lifetimes, unless you’re under 27, in which case let me tell you how bad things were when I was a boy, sonny…

Sorry; back to the point. It is hard to compare today’s unemployment to that of the Great Depression Era. Consider that in the 1920s, two-income families were a rarity. If Dad was unemployed, the whole family’s income was gone.

In 2010, single-income families have become the exception, rather than the rule. If Dad is unemployed, Mom is probably still holding down a job. I’m not saying that losing half your family’s income is a whole lot better than losing all of it, but it is a different dynamic. Unemployment benefits provided by the Federal Government also make 2010 unemployment very different from 1930 unemployment.

In summary, it is bad out there. Anyone who tells you otherwise is confused, misinformed, or lying. But Great Recession bad? I’m not sure. History will decide. If our grandchildren are reading about the recession of the late 2000s (and well into the 2010s, I’m afraid), then we’ll know Baucus is right. But if we cycle out of this to good times and then back into another, similar recession in another 25 years, then our current problems will be nothing more than a footnote in the cyclical economic history.