Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

Ron Paul doesn't support writer's strike?

OK, I was provoked to search around a little bit because gavin6942 says he can't support Ron Paul because of his position on the writer's strike. He said Dr Paul actively tried to stop the strike. I haven't found any evidence yet for this. Dr Paul agreed to an interview on The View rather than abstaining from it to support the strike. I am certain that he supports the rights of the writers to strike. He supports everyone's right to unionize. It appears that his appearance on Jay Leno was also during the stike. So the claim is that Dr Paul is against the writers because he interviewed during the strike. And the desire is that he abstain from making television appearances to support the strikers.

Frankly, the writer's strike is far less important to the future of this nation and to the writers themselves than the other issues under consideration. This seems to me to be an example of an individual identifying with a small group whose cause is more important than the greatest issues of our times. A job is a job. A government is a government. A nation is a nation. A planet is a planet. Which is more important?

I understand and support Ron Paul's choice to accept opportunities for media exposure during this crucial time, even with the chance that writers may not see the big picture and may choose to paint him as their enemy because of it.

Is this the evidence that Ron Paul doesn't support the strike?
"Paul is the first candidate to appear on the popular daytime talk show since a writers strike began last month. Democratic candidates have said they would not cross picket lines to appear on The View while the strike persists; a CBS-sponsored debate could also be canceled because of Democrats refusals to participate if that network's news writers call a strike."

Here one blogger puts Ron Paul in the corporate camp because he crossed the writer's picket line.

This blogger calls Paul a "flaming right winger"

This article guesses that the powers that be might try to kill Ron Paul--and I am sure they are right. Anyone who effectively and publicly opposes the powers that be is a target.

Here Sherry Wolf makes her case for why leftists should reject Ron Paul, and her article reveals how ignorant she is. She does confirm for me that Kucinich likes Paul. That would be a great ticket.
"According to the Cleveland Plain Dealer, liberal maverick and Democratic presidential hopeful Dennis Kucinich told supporters in late November he was thinking of making Ron Paul his running mate if he were to get the nomination."


( 15 comments — Leave a comment )
Jan. 4th, 2008 08:40 pm (UTC)
I think you're very, very wrong on this issue. I respect your support of Paul, but don't let your support blind you to the important issues. Paul is against the writers strike, as you pointed out. And it's a CRUCIAL strike.

What a lot of people don't understand is how big this is for the economy. The television and movie industry make up about 14-17% of our country's GDP. We don't actually MAKE anything anymore, we are a service industry nation. One of the very few things we get paid for is selling television and movies overseas.

Paul is right on ONE issue (the war) and wrong on essentially everything else.

And, he IS a part of the "corporate camp" -- in fact, that's his entire platform. Decrease health care, decease public education, and hand more control over to the corporations who will provide these services at a higher cost. Paul's policies help Christian millionaires and very few others.
Jan. 5th, 2008 02:40 am (UTC)
I didn't say that Ron Paul is against the strike. I said it was your claim that he is. I don't believe that he is against the strike. I believe that he is more concerned with his campaign and with getting his message out, and the strike which is crucial to you was not as important to him. His not bowing to your (writers') desire for him to not go on TV is not the same thing as his being "against" the strike. He has other fish to fry. You guys go ahead and fry yours. I doubt his crossing a picket line will make any real difference to the cause of the writers.

If you have evidence of him having actually spoken against the strike, I would like to hear that now.

I think it is time for independent media to rally and rise. Writers and movie makers will find opportunities to work as long as they continue to create a quality product.

When striking, it is important to hold that ultimate position of power: of being willing to say "take this job and shove it" if you don't get your way. If you are dependent on one particular job for your livelihood, that dependence reduces your negotiating power.

On your other comment about the "corporate camp" platform, I expect that smaller local businesses would spring up to fill the gaps, instead of giant corporations, in the free market environment that Dr Paul favors. Why do you think that corporations would get "more control" and that Christian millionaires would benefit most? What do you envision for the future of health care and public education under a Paul regime? It sounds nightmarish, indeed.
Jan. 5th, 2008 08:44 pm (UTC)
I didn't say you said Paul was against the strike. I said you pointed it out, which you did.

If anyone thinks their singular message or campaign is more important than the strike or the economic future of this country, they're not a respectable leader. Right now, we are falling into the recession with unemployment between 7 and 9%, the highest it has been since the 1980s, and it could reach 12% This is due LARGELY to the writers strike, and ignoring it is more or less saying you don't care if the economy of the country fails.

I do fully support independent media, but that's not related whatsoever to the writers on strike.

And I think you're incorrect about smaller businesses filling the gap in free-market society. It doesn't work, or at least never has. Big business doesn't thrive because of government handouts (although these help). They thrive because they're wealthy hegemons. And when you REMOVE the monopoly failsafes, they will only become bigger. Pure (laissez-faire) capitalism does not leave room for independent or small business.
Jan. 6th, 2008 03:48 am (UTC)
I think I pissed you off.

Obviously I need to study more on economics and the writer's strike. I don't understand the extremity that you see in the effects of this dispute. Have you written or found any idiots guides that you could point me to?

Hang in there. I don't want to get into a war of words with you. I want this interaction to be educational, not punishing. I can be educated. Feel free. I know I'm not the most informed. I learn from many sources, one of which is you, and arrive at my own conclusions which are constantly under revision with new inputs.

So thanks for commenting. If you have reached the point that you don't respect me, please feel free to drop me as a friend. I'd rather have a mutually supportive relationship than to find you simply enjoying the process of shooting me down. I'm going for the greatest good. Always.

And as for the solution to what ails our nation, economy and culture----what do you propose??? Fascinated, I assure you.
Jan. 6th, 2008 11:07 pm (UTC)
I don't know that I like the way you became sort of self-deprecating in this response. It is never my intent to imply I look down on you or want to shoot you down. It's Paul I dislike (more than any other candidate)... you, on the other hand, are highly intelligent and respectable.

You and I both need to study more on economics. Every time I think I get it, I realize I've only just begun. The book I read this past week was stressing the need to trade oil in dollars rather than euros, and the effect it has on our entire economy. I understood it, but at the same time it's just so abstract and odd to think a currency has more or less value than any other currency...

I have no desire to get into a war of words with you, either. I'm just waiting to see what your support of Paul is for, since I haven't found where you and him are in agreement. If you agree with him, I likely would, too... but I think he's pure evil.

I don't know any place that summarizes the writers strike and its impact. Which is too bad, because I don't think the media is giving it the exposure it deserves (although the Golden Globes will make it more prominent).

The solution I propose is the same as any other issue I would approach: reform, reform, reform. Trying to bring about any revolution is a mistake in our system, and scrapping entire structures is dangerous and inefficient (such as the IRS). I would rather take what works and bolster it, take what doesn't work and tweak it. I don't think anything needs to be replaced as a whole.
Jan. 6th, 2008 11:19 pm (UTC)
pure evil
Well I'm certain RP isn't that. His heart is open and he is doing his best to do right by all of us. And that is why I have confidence in him. I was able to assess that from watching utube videos of him speaking. He is different from every other politician I have ever met or watched speak, because he actually addresses the question at hand and is not non-committal or nonspecific like the rest. He recognizes the need for compromise and is willing to speak and work with everyone toward common goals. Such openness and reasonableness with regards to ideas is our best hope for finding a path forward. We are beginning it on a small scale here on LJ---respecting all ideas and being willing to discuss even when we disagree.

I appreciate your vote of confidence. Let me know if you do have some good way to educate me more about the import of the writer's strike.

Reform is a good idea. I have a tendency to think that we should swipe the slate clean and start fresh. But it is sometimes possible to restructure without having to eliminate the entire existing infrastructure for a given task. Hopefully we will succeed in reform somehow. It is desperately needed.

At the very least I'd like all these falsely named laws (patriot act, no child left behind, clear air act and the like) to be swept off the books and replaced with something that is more honestly represented by the title.
Jan. 6th, 2008 11:27 pm (UTC)
Re: pure evil
I'll grant you that Paul's plain speaking, rather than using talking points or evading questions entirely, is very welcome. And I can see how he has us all in mind, but I think all candidates think they have us all in mind... so it's a matter of whom is going to bring me what I find most palatable.

Maybe Wikipedia has a good write-up of the strike, but I don't know if it gets into the impact. I was first really notified from Robert Reich, who I take to be pretty reliable on economics matters.

I'm quite in agreement that the Patriot Act, NCLB, and others need to be repealed... and if there was a way to get better name, that wouldn't hurt. This is a relatively easy process, I'd imagine. Once Bush is out, I think these more extreme laws will fade away... my understanding/memory is a bit confused, but aren't most of these things that have to be renewed every few years?
Jan. 7th, 2008 07:39 pm (UTC)
Re: pure evil
Yes, we will see a lot of these bogus laws eliminated when they come up for renewal. And there are some that will need citizen input to force our representatives to take action.
Jan. 4th, 2008 08:46 pm (UTC)
I'm also curious which part of Sherry Wolf's essay was "ignorant". I know Sherry and she's not dumb.

I do think she misinterpreted the education part by thinking we'd be reduced to home-schooling, but all the quotations and such seem accurate. Paul did say all the things that she claims he said.
Jan. 5th, 2008 02:28 am (UTC)
Yes, the education argument was far fetched. There were a few other thought-streams that seemed bogus to me. It is the way that she lined up the quotes and colored them to suit her assertions that I didn't like. It wasn't as ignorant as it was manipulative, but I think that it required some lack of understanding to oversimplify to the extent that she did. Taking quotes out of context and slanting the arrangement to make an unrelated point is the sort of thing that Fox News specializes in. I could reread her article to answer your question more thoroughly...but I'm not going to. Other things to do.

Ron Paul would remove or reduce government contracts with a long list of military-industrial, contractors and security firms that have grown very fat on our tax dollars. He would end government subsidies to corporate farms, pharmaceutical corporations and insurance businesses. He wouldn't limit corporate power but he would remove the federal revenue stream toward corporations. They would have to make it by selling their products to the people, instead of to the government. This makes better sense to me.

I am sure you are not alone in your dismay at the idea of a return to constitutional minimalist government here in the states. Truth be known, of course it won't happen. But we could use to think and move in that general direction. It is so taboo for most people that just being able to talk is a challenge.

People get very frustrated talking about politics because everyone is wrong. Nobody has the whole answer. Democracy isn't the perfect tool, neither is fascism or socialism, or any other ism. I know that I don't have the whole answer, either. I'm merely pushing in a general direction that seems to be the balance for the direction we've been sliding since I've been politically aware. I don't expect Paul to be elected but I do want people to start thinking about what our founders intended, and why, once again.
Jan. 5th, 2008 08:46 pm (UTC)
"I do want people to start thinking about what our founders intended"

Whereas I want people to STOP thinking about it. The founders intended women and blacks to be denied voting rights, they saw blacks as property and abortion would never have been legal. The death penalty wasn't "cruel or unusual"...

We can use them as guidelines, but trying to use a 1787 mindset in a 2008 world is a mistake.
Jan. 6th, 2008 03:54 am (UTC)
This is a far larger topic than I am willing to bite off in the last days before I return to school. Our founders had thought hard about how to build a nation and government, and they had some good ideas in addition to their bigotry. It is worth considering arguments on all sides. We do need to make radical changes to our government, and I see the Libertarian process of stripping down as being a good step in preparation for the rebuilding that will occur when enlightened leaders step in after the purge. If you believe that we can cleanse our government and begin with fresh uncorrupt institutions to care for the people. Anyway....you seem again rather set against my thinking process and more interested in setting your direct disagreement in print than you are in a discussion that leads toward solution. I am sad to see this change in your tone, as I respect your knowledge and insight into government and things political. I do not mean to be provocative, but I figure if Rush Limbaugh can put his uneducated opinion out there then I can too.
Jan. 6th, 2008 10:58 pm (UTC)
My tone is only changed insofar as that the time is becoming scant for pondering and the hard decisions must be made... it's nothing personal.

My opinions, "insight" or "knowledge" should never be respected or taken seriously. I am not an authority on anything or know more than anyone else.

I fully agree much of what the founders said was important (such as the balance of the three branches). But the majority of it becomes more important when re-interpreted in today's world, outside of what they would have wanted. Reading "The Federalist Papers" or looking at the writings of the first few presidents will make it clear even in the beginning no one agreed on what any of the laws really meant... I firmly believe a law is right if it rests on reason, not on who said it. (This is one area where I tend to agree with libertarians, as I think many criminal laws are simply not needed.)

Oh well.

Jan. 6th, 2008 11:04 pm (UTC)
It's funny to me that you say your opinion/insight/knowledge should not be respected. Everyone takes in info from a variety of sources and makes of it what they will. You are exposed to a lot and understand a lot, and you're selling yourself short. Your opinions do deserve respect. And nobody's opinion should be adopted without critical consideration.

Anyway, glad to hear it's not personal. I understand that you're not going to support Ron Paul and I'm interested----who have you decided that you will support? Have you made that choice? I have been working on my plans B-Z, since plan A just about never comes through.
Jan. 6th, 2008 11:32 pm (UTC)
I think I answered my support decision in another thread (Plan A: Kucinich, B: Richardson, C: Edwards, D: Obama).... I voted Kucinich in 2004, and I won't be doing that again. (If we caucused like Iowa or had run-off voting, he'd clearly be my primary choice, but unfortunate voting for a marginal candidate with a straight vote isn't very helpful.)

You're quite right that information comes from many sources, is critically analyzed and then sorted through. In many cases some of the stranger ideas I come across are from people who completely ignorant, simply because that ignorance leads me to uncharted avenues. I would reiterate (or simply iterate, I guess) that my views have very little value to them. When I post news items or links, take them for what it's worth, but my own personal outlook isn't something I intend to pass on (except to my students, but that's largely uninten tional.)
( 15 comments — Leave a comment )



Latest Month

August 2019


Powered by LiveJournal.com
Designed by chasethestars