Obama is Toast?

As I write, the polls are just beginning to close across the nation.  I'm reading an extremely interesting blog entry that has a unique take on politics that I've never really heard before.  The guy, Sean Malstrom, is some sort of part-time or former pollster, and he argues that McCain will win the election.  

I guess you can always find people carrying water for a candidate that will say that his candidate will absolutely win, but I don't get that feel here.  By the time you're reading this we'll know if he was right; even if he isn't correct I'll be really interested to find out if any of his points have some validity...

The Undecideds *have* decided: they have decided not to declare their choice to pollsters... days away from the election and there are like 11% undecideds? No! This is not normal...

Lying to pollsters is frequent and a necessity in Pennslyvania due to the unions. Many union bosses will call their members, posing as a ‘pollster’, and if the member gives the wrong [answer], a thug is sent to the house. The Teacher’s Union there has sent strict orders to vote for Obama “or else”.

Really? In America, today?  Wow...

With polling, the collective delusion is the belief that the product of polling is the data...The product of polls can [be] and often are the readers.

I'd never heard it put that way--readers are the product of polls; that is, the polls are designed specifically to deliver minds of voters.  Of course that's true, but I'd hadn't thought about it exactly that way.  To hear this guy tell it, the main thrust of Obama's campaign is to produce polls and news stories talking about the "inevitability" of his victory.  I don't know if he's right about that, but I have inarguably heard a lot of versions of that story...

Lots of other intriguing points; He thinks Palin has saved this ticket (which is the polar opposite of conventional wisdom at this point); that McCain will definitely win Pennsylvania, and that you can tell by the visits that the candidates are scheduling that their internal polling is completely at odds with the polls we all see.  He goes into great detail on that last point.

While the election was originally a referendum on Obama, it has now become a referendum on socialism. It won’t matter if a minority group (like african americans) turn out in record numbers because everyone else is turning out in record numbers as well. The youth vote is not turning out as it never does. As James Carville says, “You know what we call candidates who rely on the youth vote? We call them ‘losers’.”

Really, really interesting.  We'll see if he's right.

Why the Electoral College?

There seems to be growing sentiment out there to abandon the Electoral College as a anachronistic relic and ensure that the candidate who wins the popular vote wins the presidency.  Example: this article.  Also out to end the Electoral College: no lesser a luminary than rapper and apparent presidential candidate Mos Def (who also provides some interesting ideas that I think both FDR and Karl Marx could be proud of):

Actually, the founding fathers knew exactly what they were doing.  The idea is to ensure that the candidates are responsible to the whole country, and that we don't elect a "regional" candidate with overwhelming support in only a few areas.

Consider this scenario: a new but very well funded party bursts on the national scene.  If there is no electoral college, they can focus all of their efforts on the top few urban centers in the country--they don't care about New Hampshire or Nebraska; they can get enough voters in just a few places to ignore most of the others.  All they really need in most of the country is a small minority, say 20%, and then coupled with their strong support in the top cities that would put them over the top.  With the electoral college, a candidate must work state-to-state to build broad support, and thus they are forced to be true national candidates.  Smaller states matter since they cast all of their Electoral votes together and a candidate knows that 20% of votes in a state means zero Electoral votes.  Candidates can't get by with only a small minority in all but a few states.

So, the Electoral College today forces viable candidates to be national candidates, and it also makes our elections far, far more difficult to buy.  More than enough reason to keep it around, I'd say.

Media Coverage in the US Elections

OK, it's about time for a post, so here we go:

I stumbled onto a site called RussiaToday, which purports to be "a 24/7 English-language news channel" that brings "you the Russian view on the global news".  I don't know what political bias they espouse; judging by this article from the GOP convention (Sarah Palin lays into Russia; Thousands of opponents take the streets and set up vigils outside the jailhouses of their arrested compatriots) it isn't American-style conservative.  Anyway, they have a very interesting take on the role of satirists in American politics.  The article compares the influence Jon Stewart on that of Rush Limbaugh from yesteryear.  My opinion: Limbaugh has never been a balanced source of news, but at least there is discussion of the issues; Stewart's Daily Show and others of its ilk feature a shallow format more geared to a laugh every 7-10 seconds than any type of exchange of ideas.  The result is the host verbally piling on to whatever target he prefers; with left-wing hosts those targets are, of course, overwhelmingly Republican.  The fact that a substantial minority of the American electorate gets its political intelligence from "fake news" and late night shows is disturbing at best.

Speaking of late night shows, they seem to be making Republicans the butt of their jokes over Democrats by a ratio of 7-to-1; the article does bring up some interesting points besides bias as to why that gap exists, especially: Biden is way more boring than Palin.  Actually, I think unbiased observers could find some pretty embarrassing gaffes by Biden, but I guess it's fair to say that Palin is more interesting and thus a much better ratings bet.  And for a little more on late-night political coverage: here's a blow-by-blow of appearances by McCain and Biden on Letterman and Leno, respectively--note the very different tone.  Of course, McCain had blown off and thus personally insulted Letterman, which resulted in what this Huffington Post blogger called "the most scathing performances I have ever seen a late night comedy host give" leading up to McCain finally appearing on Letterman's show.

Finally, here are some interesting thoughts on reasons for unbalanced coverage: lazy reporting in a media echo chamber, and the fact that lots of media people have a crush on him and don't want to know the whole truth.

I Scratch My Head in Salute

The link above features a letter to the editor from Arkansas that attacks Congress for exacerbating global warming by starting Daylight Savings Time early, thus adding an hour of daylight for an extra month. It kind of makes sense if you take it at face value as the worst attack EVER on global-warming theorists. Maybe the author thinks that Miss America is actually bringing us world peace, as well. However, perhaps it is sarcastically attacking conservative global-warming-doubters by making light of their alleged position and simultaneously labeling them as loose-screw right-wing conspiracy theorists.

Maybe I'm just tired, but the more I try to think about what the author was actually thinking the closer my head gets to actually exploding. I have decided that this may be the most confusing three paragraphs ever written by someone other than a lawyer, poet, or addict.

Plus, there's a typo by the editor in the headline.

Enjoy!

Racism and Hypocrisy by Reverends

In the light of Don Imus' racist "jokes" and subsequent firing, racism is on the front pages again. Not coincidentally, America's racial reverends Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson are on the front pages again.

The blog post above (here or click on the title bar) brings up some history on Sharpton and Jackson that you might not know, including their documented antisemitism. That's right, both alleged purveyors of racial harmony have some special nicknames for Jewish people, and Sharpton in particular seems to have incited antisemitic riots that have led to the deaths of eight innocent people. Another quote from the entry has interesting echoes of the recent Duke lacrosse scandal (in which Sharpton also had plenty to say):

The good “reverend” Al Sharpton has a history of using racial attacks to further his cause. As noted in the 2003 column by Jeff Jacoby, in 1987 Sharpton spread a hoax that a 15-year-old black girl was “abducted, raped, and smeared with feces by a group of white men.” Sharpton singled out one particular white man, saying, “If we’re lying, sue us, so we can . . . prove you did it.” The man does sue and wins $345,000.

Hopefully you weren't taking either of these guys too seriously before--when you start fathering illegitimate children (as Jackson has) nobody should call you "Reverend"--but this puts their self-serving racial ambulance-chasing in a new light.

If you think I'm being too harsh, check out this dead-on column by Jason Whitlock. Whitlock is a black sports columnist whose take on racial issues I don't always appreciate, but he provides some much-needed perspective on the damage Imus did versus the ongoing work of gangsta rappers. He says this:

Rather than confront this heinous enemy [hip hop that has been perverted, corrupted and overtaken by prison culture] from within, we sit back and wait for someone like Imus to have a slip of the tongue and make the mistake of repeating the things we say about ourselves.

Let me say that I join everyone on the planet in condemning Imus' comments. I think misogyny and mocking of a person's natural physical traits (whether or not those traits are shared by an entire racial group) are asinine and symptomatic of a tiny mind. However, I completely agree with Whitlock that Imus' comments aren't even in the neighborhood of the worst commentary of that type today. As Whitlock says:

I don’t listen or watch Imus’ show regularly. Has he at any point glorified selling crack cocaine to black women? Has he celebrated black men shooting each other randomly? Has he suggested in any way that it’s cool to be a baby-daddy rather than a husband and a parent? Does he tell his listeners that they’re suckers for pursuing education and that they’re selling out their race if they do?

When Imus does any of that, call me and I’ll get upset.

Al Sharpton has been all over Imus, but if he really cares about the problems facing black people today he should mount a campaign against the poison infecting todays hop-hop culture.

Time Machine: Clinton Fires 93 Attorneys

In the midst of another Bush-flogging scandal over the "political" firings of 8 US attorneys, the mainstream media has failed to recall an eerily similar news item which ought to be extremely relevant. In 1993, new President Bill Clinton fired 93 US attorneys. That's right, Clinton fired all of the US attorneys.

Considering the inquisition that Bush's Attorney General Albert Gonzalez is undergoing, you'd think that Janet Reno would have undergone almost 12 times as much criticism given the fact that she fired almost 12 times as many. But it seems that there was--comparatively speaking-- barely a peep. Apparently it just wasn't considered to be that big of a deal back then. Why? Well, I hate to accuse the media of bias, but it couldn't seem to be more clear in this case.

And as for today's scandal, it's not that nobody that would know is around.

ABC brought on George Stephanopoulos – who defended the Clinton firings as the White House spokesman in 1993 – to describe this as an urgent matter putting pressure on Karl Rove to testify before Congress and for Gonzales to resign!

Most of the electorate (including myself) is unable to weigh the allegations of "politicization" in the Justice Department because we don't know what is acceptable. Do those attorneys serve, like the Attorney General, at the pleasure of the President? We're hearing about how the AG should have some "independence". The man on the street doesn't have the answers to these questions, and it's easy to assume from the media frenzy that these allegations have weight.

However, if independence in an AG is so important, wasn't John F. Kennedy's tapping his own brother Robert as his Attorney General a terrible breach of protocol, at best? And if Bush's firing of 8 US attorneys was bad, wasn't Clinton's firing of 93 US Attorneys much, much worse? And here's another question: rather than sacrificing Gonzalez, as appears imminent, why is the White House not defending itself with the above information? Correction: A few news outlets, mostly in the Mid-South, are carrying this AP story: Rove defends removal of prosecutors, cites Clinton-era dismissals.

And why am I not getting the full story from the press?

Click the headline for the full story...

Secular Humanism: Defined

Secular Humanism is the dominant western viewpoint of our day--but what is it, exactly? This question is answered in detail, with quotes from humanists and a bibliography, by the attached article.

click the title above for the article...

Paradigm: The Story of the Creationist/Evolutionist

A very interesting story here, and with some personal relevance: Dr. Michael Dini, who made national news for refusing to write letters of recommendation for graduate study for creationist students, is referenced in this story and has come up in discussions with friends recently.

KINGSTON, Rhode Island : There is nothing much unusual about the 197-page dissertation Marcus R. Ross submitted in December to complete his doctoral degree in geosciences here at the University of Rhode Island.

His subject was the abundance and spread of mosasaurs, marine reptiles that, as he wrote, vanished at the end of the Cretaceous era about 65 million years ago. The work is "impeccable," said David E. Fastovsky, a paleontologist and professor of geosciences at the university who was Ross's dissertation adviser. "He was working within a strictly scientific framework, a conventional scientific framework."

But Ross is hardly a conventional paleontologist. He is a "young earth creationist" — he believes that the Bible is a literally true account of the creation of the universe, and that the earth is at most 10,000 years old.

For him, Ross said, the methods and theories of paleontology are one "paradigm" for studying the past, and Scripture is another. In the paleontological paradigm, he said, the dates in his dissertation are entirely appropriate. The fact that as a young earth creationist he has a different view just means, he said, "that I am separating the different paradigms."

For the rest of this story click on the headline above...

It's Not WHAT You Know...

Ah, politics. Here's an update on the goings-on in our nation's capitol as the Democrats start the new session in control of Congress...

Sorry, Charlie!

By Denise McNamara, Republican National Committee

It was a simply a mistake, said Speaker Nancy Pelosi, as she was confronted regarding the curious omission of the U.S. territory American Samoa in the new minimum wage hike legislation. Never mind that all of the other U.S. territories were included in the bill. Never mind that StarKist employs 75% of the residents of American Samoa. Oh, and it’s sheer coincidence that the owner of StarKist, Del Monte Foods, Inc., just happens to be in Nancy Pelosi’s congressional district. Sorry, Nancy, but we aren’t falling for that one hook, line, or sinker.

Democrats, who are fond of accusing Republicans of being in the pocket of big corporations, should be ashamed. Americans, who are tired of scandal and corruption and politics as usual, should be outraged. And Pelosi, who pulled this stunt in her first week as Speaker, should apologize to the hard-working people of American Samoa.

Speaker Pelosi has looked into the cameras and denied, with a straight face, that this legislation was purposely written to exempt American Samoa. Charlie, the iconic cartoon tuna in the ‘60s StarKist commercials was known for saying that he had “good taste.” Unfortunately, this type of behavior from the Speaker of the House does not leave a good taste in the mouth of voters.

State of the Nation

Here's an interesting take on the pre-election mood of the country.

Despite their dreams of recapturing one or both houses of Congress this November, the Democrats seem determined to reprise their poor showings of 2002 and 2004. Now, as then, they are dozing in the campaign's homestretch, like Aesop's hare, lulled by rosy predictions and the premature applause of Hollywood and the mainstream press. Soon, however, they may awake to discover that while they snoozed before the finish line, George W. Bush hunkered down in his tough shell, kept his slow legs moving and inched them out.

Chicago Tribune: The Tortoise and those Democratic Hares

The Old News Cycle

I'm always fascinated by the following cycle of events:

1. Media focuses on victims, activists and media hounds making shrill cries for government intervention in the crisis of the day
2. Events run their course and the problem fades away
3. Complete lack of apology or correction regarding overreaction on the part of the media, which is back to step 1 on the new crisis of the day

I found a great article that gets into this phenomenon in detail. Here are some excerpts:

The Dow’s up and oil’s down. And it all seems to have happened so quickly. Just a few weeks back the talk was of doom and gloom, as the price of gas kept inching up above 3 bucks a gallon? Funny how quickly those who swore that the bad days had arrived for good have disappeared from sight! (Well, maybe not so funny if you believed them and sold your stocks before the rally.)

It also talks in depth about the cycles in today's public arena:

It has to do with cycles. There are generally three time cycles that compel political action: Economic cycles, political cycles and news cycles. Each cycle has its own momentum and its own set of consequences. When something shocking happens, like a war or a natural disaster, politicians and the media usually panic. And at no time in our history have news cycles and political cycles moved faster than they do today.

Good stuff.


Fox News: The Free Market Knows Best...Again