From the Rubber Chicken Advocacy Department

At least we all can agree that everyone is entitled to rubber chickens, and that they are superior to paper ones...

We know that. It is documented. We all share that belief. Whew, glad that discussion is over...or is it?

Seems to me some folks got their hands on enough paper chickens that they decided they could attempt to convince us otherwise...Maybe even try to substitute the rubber ones for paper ones...

Oh, sure, they may appeal to popular prejudices, emotions, fears and expectations to advocate the paper ones, but people can tell the difference, can't they? Or, are they vulnerable? Are they really capable of forgetting that we all agreed the rubber ones rock, and are not to be confused with the paper ones? Maybe they assume you think:

• That rubber chickens don't matter to you.
  
• That free rubber chickens are cool, but a whole bunch of paper ones is cooler.
  
• That other folks can tell the difference, so you can just listen to the kind of chickens they are voting for.
  
• That since collective knowledge is additive, if everyone prefers paper chickens they must be right.
  
• That you lack the confidence to trust your understanding of the merits of rubber chickens. (Wait...I know the free rubber ones are essential, but I will act like I believe they can be substituted with paper anyway until I'm absolutely sure.)
  
• That if the masses like paper chickens, so will you, even though it's obvious rubber chickens are better.
  

But, there is a more subtle psychological influence at work. It is the residual self image disturbance. Suppose you have found the candidate who understands we all need free rubber chickens before we can have paper chickens (or anything else), but, to your dismay, no one is listening to him. If you throw your support behind the guy supporting free rubber chickens, you might ask yourself...

• Will all my esteemed yet uninformed colleagues understand this guy? Probably not. They all think he's confusing rubber and paper.
  
• If they misunderstand him, will I be perceived as a lunatic if I support him? Everyone thinks I'm smoking crack because I keep saying he's all for free rubber chickens.
  
• If all my esteemed colleagues think I'm smoking crack, will I lose credibility with them? Not to mention power and influence over all the delusional paper chicken supporters - who are actually smoking crack?
  

If you trust yourself and your beliefs over the popular perceptions, yet give in to the above in order to retain relevance, you are probably making the assumption that you must retain credibility with folks who either don't care about rubber chickens, or the ones smoking crack. Perhaps you choose to be relevant in case there is a chance your rubber chickens will be under siege again.

My question...When does relevance trump everything else? How far can what is "relevant" and what is correct diverge before the rubber chickens are reserved for only the folks with the most paper chickens? More importantly, who's promise of rubber chickens is most vulnerable to being sacrificed to fallible public perception?

• Someone who's career depends on public perception?
  
• Someone who's career doesn't depend on public perception?
  

If rubber chickens are the reason we get to vote for rubber or paper in the first place, when we no longer have them, I guess that is when we must be satisfied with paper. And, there is definitely not an unlimited supply of paper...

Are we destined to live in a world where we all believe we must live with only hard-earned paper chickens because the guys hoarding most of the chickens are telling us so? Telling us so scarcely saying the word "chicken?"

But, there is evidence the elite crowd is losing some ground to geeks with mad tech skillz, some free time, and compassion for evenly distributed rubber chickens. These guys understand that even sensible people disinterested in public political perception are vulnerable to cheap visual and psychological tricks if they are aligned with powerful intellectual beliefs.

Although unrelated to the bird discussed in this article, I think this captures many people's impression of their importance, so we'll use that analogy. But, basing your opinion on such eye candy rather than the concepts is where disaster starts. Soon, you start thinking you can buy rubber chickens with the paper type. But, as much as you try, that never works. You can't have paper chickens unless you first have rubber ones.

I am bothered by this somewhat, though. Ron Paul is just a normal guy, and painting him in such a messianic light suggests he is the only individual capable of actively resisting an unfair proportion of chickens, rubber or paper. Are these qualities so rare that the one guy who acts on them is held up like some god? Are we really all virtually blind following the king with one eye? How would we handle the temptation of an unevenly balanced distribution of chickens in our favor?

Given the promise of an unlimited supply of chickens would you choose to stick with your principles instead? Would you continue to believe that all of us are equally entitled to our share of free rubber chickens, after which the paper type can be pursued? With issues so complicated no one would blame you or even understand the contradictions. I don't know if I could resist the extra chickens. Maybe he is the only guy that can. I don't know.

I am relieved to see that the battle to win hearts and minds is not restricted to groups hoarding the chickens. Occasionally it is waged by a grassroots organization of individuals bound by principles and ideas only, with nothing particular to gain but the personal knowledge that they are perpetuating the ideals necessary for such ubiquitous universal goals as peace and individual liberty, chickens that are rubber.

Perhaps their belief in rubber chickens over the paper variety is strong enough to endure persistent public attack on their character, beliefs, intelligence, and ideals. Perhaps it is even strong enough to endure such attacks from friends and family members. These ideas would need to be based on rubber so fantastic that they agree to risk every last ounce of their reputation on their knowledge that the primary chickens must made from it.

This person also recognizes that many an idiot does the same thing to protect their paper chickens. Or, they argue against rubber chickens without even knowing it...or, argue for rubber chickens while advocating policies that actually destroy them, and make more paper chickens. Which, of course, is why all opinions must be expressed openly without the influence of forces advocating their suppression (popular prejudices, emotions, fears and expectations of the public). At least we can all agree on that...I hope. Yes, the proper material for chicken construction must be discussed, even if we all agree that paper is inferior to rubber, or even that paper chickens are actually a figment of our imagination.

We couldn't have all agreed that evenly distributed rubber chickens is proper without thousands of years of philosophical study, civil experiments, reason, and an effective method of vulcanization. No amount of trickery will dismantle these things. The benefits of free rubber chickens was established and made law hundreds of years ago, and reinforced time and again by countries who let too many chickens into the hands of a few, which is why we shouldn't really need fancy visual effects to illustrate their proper usage.

Perhaps we fail to recognize the benefits of free rubber chickens because we live in a world obsessed with paper ones. Or, perhaps we do not see that everything we have depends on free rubber chickens.

Imagine free rubber chickens.