The second issue: people don’t like this. You’re probably right. Many people don’t seem to respond positively when things they believe are challenged. I used to be one of those people. Today, I invite people to challenge my positions as I see no better way to improve my positions than to have them challenged. If people can’t handle this, I see that as their problem. I put weight into the idea that you should “speak truth to power.” Rush Limbaugh has power; I’ll speak truth to him and his followers.

Again, you’re probably right that people see me as an “egotistical know-it-all.” That’s probably true. But it doesn’t change the facts, which is what I responded with. Also, you should keep in mind that someone sent Debi (they don’t send them to me anymore) an email that was CC’d to dozens of people. This was a forwarded email filled with lies. The person who sent it was sending it to influence peoples’ opinions. I responded in order to give people another perspective (a.k.a. the truth). Responding to everyone really isn’t any different than the initial offense of sending an unrequested bulk email. The initial sender thought he/she was doing a favor to the recipients. I feel the same way. My email may be more intrusive because I don’t know those people, but my email also has the benefit of accuracy.

Finally, your last point: I don’t defend John McCain nearly as much as Obama. Well, this is both right and wrong. I do defend Obama more, but that’s because there are rumors about him. Name a rumor about John McCain. What is being said about John McCain that needs correcting? Obama and the Democrats do not seem as likely (to me, I could be wrong) to introduce outright lies about their opposition. The biggest rumor ever floated about John McCain was that he fathered an illegitimate child with a black woman. Guess who started that rumor? George W. Bush’s campaign in 2000. If you can find a rumor about McCain, I’ll defend him. My goal isn’t to introduce bias; it’s to give people accurate information.

Let me give another example: You know I am critical of Mormonism. I disagree with a lot when it comes to that religion. But I am also quick to correct anyone who says something untrue about the religion. If someone says Mormons are all polygamists, I’ll quickly correct them. There is a place for opinions, but opinions are not facts and should not be confused with them.

Finally, I send these bulk email rebuttals for all sorts of things. The day after I responded to the Obama email, I received an email from a high school classmate telling me to sign this petition (http://www.snopes.com/politics/immigration/socialsecurity.asp). No Obama, no McCain. It was a political issue having to do with immigration. I regularly tell people I have NO position on immigration because I don’t know enough about it. But I responded to that email (everyone on the list) giving them links to Snopes and telling them the email was basically worthless. My point: I don’t respond because I want to push my particular political agenda. I respond to give people accurate information. If you equate “accurate information” with “political agenda,” you are failing to see an important distinction between the two. Facts are facts and are not open to discussion. Opinions can be formed of a fact, but an opinion cannot be a fact.

And to be the devil’s advocate here, I might change my tune if I saw you defending John McCain to the same extent you defend Obama. Since you are only defending your chosen politician, (and his name is plastered all over your website) it is hard to believe you are unbiased. (Granted I would be hard pressed to defend McCain, I think they are both crooked…)

I’ll email the paper to you. In summary, what they say is: voters are idiots - they use party affiliation, emotion, and short-term memory to make decisions. Okay, “idiots” is my term, here are their words, “voters are better viewed as making do with their accumulated set of biases and habits and with the stimuli provided by the current environment when faced with the prospect of a national election or a major policy conflict.”

I just don’t get the (ir)rationality behind this thinking. Often I get criticized (by my own parents even) for being a “know-it-all” when really all I want are accurate facts. For me, not having the proper facts invites risk. Knowing the truth about events, people and phenomenon helps aleviate that risk. I would think others would want to do likewise.

I mean, I feel my thinking is even a counter to Pascal’s Wager, where even though the believer feels that their “risk” is less in the afterlife, if one examines the facts from an objective point of view, one finds that being duped by Pascal’s Wager is actually the riskier endeavour. At a basic level, at best one simply wastes one’s time worshiping a god that doesn’t exist. At worst, one worships wrong god.

Anyway, long time no talk Ryan. Give me a buzz.