Are you a Sucker?

This may sound like a silly question, but let's face it: there are lots of stupid people in the world. So I've created a simple test, which if you fail, confirms that you are a sucker.

TEST: Should paid shills' rationalizations of the conclusion they were tasked with supporting be given equal consideration when opposed by multiple, nonpartial scientific studies?

If you answered yes, then you are a sucker.

UPDATE: Ladies and Gentleman, we have our first contestant. His name is Chris Reed and he is a sucker. But Reed goes beyond being a sucker and actually says that he believes the shills more than nonpartial, scientific studies.

If anyone wants to have some fun with Mr. Reed, I recommend telling him the election is just around the corning and counting how many times he circles the block.

Question of the Day

Mark Matthews of ABC 7 points out:

After we did a piece on Proposition 89, Bob in Guerneville e-mailed to tell me about something he saw on the No on 89 Web site.

Now this is the proposition that wants to take the money out of politics by publicly funding elections. And the Chamber of Commerce, business groups and the Teachers Union are fighting it. Obviously they are also big donors to political candidates.

So Bob is reading the No on 89 arguments on their Web site and he comes across this: "The measure also prohibits state contractors or anyone seeking state contracts from contributing to any candidate for or holder of an office with which the contractor has or seeks a contract."

And he wonders why the No on 89 folks would put this forward as an argument. I mean, if you have a contract or if you are seeking a contract isn't it a little unethical to be offering money to the candidate or office holder who has control of that contract?

Good question Bob.

Indeed.

Proposition 89