Rasmussen just polled “likely primary voters” and found them—wait for it … uninformed. (If you’re a regular reader of this blog, you should of course not be at all surprised. My most recent thoughts on the subject are here.)

News from outside the blogospheric cocoon:

Separate survey data shows that political pundits and junkies are likely to overestimate the immediate impact of Clinton’s debate performance. Much of the nation was simply not paying attention. A Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey of 800 Likely Voters nationwide found that just 56% knew that the Democrats were the party with a Presidential debate this week. Thirteen percent (13%) thought it was the GOP’s turn while 31% are not sure.

Just 38% could pick immigration from a list of four issues as the topic that caused Clinton to stumble near the end of the debate. Eleven percent (11%) picked the Iraq war, 5% health care, 4% the economy, 6% “some other topic”, and 36% admitted they didn’t know.

Overall, just 28% of Likely Voters correctly identified the Democrats as the party having a debate and immigration as the issue.

A gentle reminder: these are likely primary voters. It kinda makes you wonder why they bother, doesn’t it?

And I am writing about this because…?

Well, because it underscores my thesis: if infotainment rules, which it does (there is nothing serious about the presentation of “news” on television anymore) it rules precisely because it is effective even with an inattentive audience. It delivers messages in such a bold and loud way—sensationally—that it gets through even to the brain-dead.

Those of us who care about the issues can bemoan this state of affairs all we want, but we are powerless to change it. People don’t mind being informed, I suppose, but they are addicted to being entertained. That is why I’m always calling for better infotainment.

The University of Delaware recently came under fire from FIRE, the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, for its “diversity” program, in which students are educated by 7,000 RAs in oppressors vs. oppressees. Attendance at their res-life re-education sessions was mandatory, until FIRE struck and the university immediately caved.

Here’s an excerpt from the University of Delaware Office of Residence Life Diversity Facilitation Training document [e.a.]:

“A RACIST: A racist is one who is both privileged and socialized on the basis of race by a white supremacist (racist) system. The term applies to all white people (i.e., people of European descent) living in the United States, regardless of class, gender, religion, culture or sexuality. By this definition, people of color cannot be racists, because as peoples within the U.S. system, they do not have the power to back up their prejudices, hostilities, or acts of discrimination. (This does not deny the existence of such prejudices, hostilities, acts of rage or discrimination.)” - Page 3

Is our children learning?

 David Brooks elaborates:

BRIAN WILLIAMS: Welcome to Drexel University, the site of tonight’s Democratic presidential debate. Let’s get started with Senator Barack Obama. Senator, you’ve vowed to spend this entire debate standing on Senator Clinton’s windpipe while reducing her to a quivering mass of jelly. How do you plan on doing that?

SENATOR BARACK OBAMA: Well, Brian, as you know the goal of my campaign is to make this country as noble as I am. But without casting aspersion or criticism in any direction, I have noticed that Senator Clinton, probably without meaning to, has not fully contextualized her discourse, which has had the effect of diffusing the national conversation we must have about the tremendous challenges we face.

WILLIAMS: Senator Clinton, I’m going to give you a few seconds to recover from that mauling.

SENATOR HILLARY CLINTON (quietly weeping): Thank you, Brian.

TIM RUSSERT: Senator Edwards, let’s turn to you. Four years ago, you vowed to run an entirely positive campaign. Now you’re running a negative one. What changed?

JOHN EDWARDS: My convictions, Tim. …

Gee, I wonder where Brooks got the idea that Obama is a gushing fountain of “correct” ideas and language [e.a.]:

Senator Barack Obama says he would “engage in aggressive personal diplomacy” with Iran if elected president and would offer economic inducements and a possible promise not to seek “regime change” if Iran stopped meddling in Iraq and cooperated on terrorism and nuclear issues. …

Mr. Obama said that Iran had been “acting irresponsibly” by supporting Shiite militant groups in Iraq. He also emphasized that Iran’s suspected nuclear weapons program and its support for “terrorist activities” were serious concerns.

Yes, of course: Iran has made errors of judgment, and if it doesn’t behave, it definitely needs a time-out, helpfully outlined by Wikipedia:

1. Decide what type of behavior warrants a time-out (such as fighting, arguing or throwing tantrums), and try to enforce this fairly and consistently. All adults involved with the child should follow similar guidelines when using a time-out.
2. Designate a corner (hence the common term corner time) or similar space where the child is to stand during time-outs. Never use their bed.
3. Use an age appropriate time length for the time-out. For a short time-out, approximately one minute per year of age is reasonable; that time may be doubled if necessary if the child pushes their limits during the time-out.
4. Have an incentive for completing the time-out without arguing. This may for instance be a loss of a privilege until the time-out has been completed.
5. The time-out should always have verbal warnings before the discipline to allow the child to make appropriate choices. If their bad behavior continues, they should have an explanation for the time-out as they are being escorted to that area. Even one-year olds understand when they have reached their parental limit, but the explanations should be age appropriate.
6. Afterwards both the parent and the child should try to leave the incident behind.

See how easy it is?

After I came back home to the States from vacation, I was surprised to see so little media coverage of Al Gore’s Nobel Prize, which had been awarded a couple of days before. Did I miss something? This year alone, the guy got an Oscar, wrote a huge bestseller, and won the Nobel Peace Prize and there’s no draft-Gore movement? Then my vacation buzz wore off and I got busy and forgot about it.

Now Tom Maguire floats an intriguing theory about the mystery candidate who is the subject of Ron Rosenbaum’s journalistic-ethical dilemma. (It’s worth reading the post and the comments, especially those that Rosenbaum replied to, and his final reply.)

But here’s Maguire:

Blog speculators are focusing on Hillary and Huma or Bill and a woman.  But I don’t think anyone has mentioned Al Gore, mainly because he is not a declared candidate.  But so what?  Bettors have him trailing only Hillary and Obama in the Dem field; and yet, the “Will he or won’t he” stories following his Nobel Prize disappeared almost immediately two weeks ago.  Is he really staying out of the simply because he thinks he can do more to save the planet and a private citizen wielding a Peace Prize?  Maybe!

Hmmm. Interesting. But I’m also intrigued by the picture Rosenbaum paints of what he calls “journalistic insiderism.”

Mickey Kaus (who said a couple of days ago that he didn’t know the rumor Rosenbaum was talking about) recently mentioned a related phenomenon: “the CW buzz in Mark Halperin’s “Gang of 500.”

Not too many folks seem as troubled as Rosenbaum by the ethical dilemma.  Jonah Goldberg is getting a lot of theories via e-mail.

And now Kaus has come up with a theory about that [emphasis in the original]

 Rosenbaum’s post seems to be functioning as a sort of depth charge that threatens to bring all the various rumored scandals about all the candidates to the surface.

Bring ‘em on!