I used to consider Real Clear Politics one of the best aggregators of political news and wide-range commentary in the Blogosphere. Not any more. The site, now aligned with Time magazine, has tilted to the Left, and readers should be aware of this. As evidence, I cite RCP’s own commentary on the most significant House races this fall.
Here is what RCP had to say, with an anonymous byline but a clearly partisan attitude, about TX-22, Tom Delay’s old district:
“The absence of public polling in this race is proof that it is over. This is Dem pick up #1.”
That's right, RCP is saying that if you don't hear anything, that must mean that the Democrat is winning. I live near Sugarland, and I can tell you that the best term to describe that sort of opinion begins with "crock". But wait, it gets more obvious. Notes dated August 31 include the following tell-tale smears:
“After initially being indicted by Austin D.A. Ronnie Earle, DeLay ostensibly perceived he could win reelection. His tepid performance in the spring primary, and – in all likelihood – soft internal poll numbers, convinced him otherwise.”
“This is the sort of condition we need to have to see a district as conservative as TX 22 go to the Democrats: either the Republican has to be under indictment or there has to be no Republican on the ballot.”
Only a Democrat would write tripe like that. It is neither valid as analysis nor objective.
AZ-8 is tabbed by RCPas “a pretty safe Democratic pickup”, despite that the polls cited constantly show Undecideds in heavy double-digits, and Giffords appearing to be closing fast with more than two weeks to go.
Once again, this is not analysis, but spin. It's not even subtle.
IN-08 is one more case where you have to look closely, and not just buy the headline. RCP shows the Republican down here by 23 points, BUT – the poll cited is an intermittent poll, not one of the major services. THOSE polls show a much tighter race, and the most prominent of the polls noted, Research 2000, shows a race around the margin of error, and Undecideds at four times the margin between the candidates.
The point is clear – for some reason, the people at RCP are deliberately spinning the contests as clear Democrat victories, when closer examination shows their evidence to be weak, even invalid with regard to the stated contention.
Real Clear Politics is still useful as a barometer. But it is clearly no longer a conservative barometer, or objective by any reasonable definition. This is a Democrat-aligned website, make no mistake about it.
Tuesday, October 24, 2006
The Damned, The Left, and Terrorists
One of the most difficult things about being a fundamentalist Christian, is that you always have to clear away so many false assumptions and misconveyed statements by others claiming the same name, before you can even get around to saying what you want to make plain. To a degree, the same thing can be said for the three groups mentioned in my title here. There is a lot of confusion and a lot of assumption, which muddies the waters and makes it difficult to discuss the key issues and to advance the debate. With that in mind, I am tossing off a few thoughts on these three groups.
First, the damned. When I say the damned, I am not so much talking about humans as the fallen angels. I have noticed that when skeptics want to deny the sovereignty of God and the truth of the Bible, they often point to the rebellion of Satan and his angels, and ask why anyone close enough to see God as He really is, would rebel knowing the eternal consequences of hell. They say that if the angels were really as smart as claimed, they would never have made such a choice. That claim, of course, misses the fact that all creatures make irrational decisions, sometimes for worse, sometimes for better. It’s actually part of our identity; a perfectly rational being cannot be human at all. In fact, I rather suspect that our gracious Lord is not rational Himself, but I suppose I had better let that tangent go for another time.
And this brings me to my admittedly incomplete thought for the day. The Left and Terrorist groups have an awful lot in common. There was a time when I would not have touched such a thought, but more and more I see an echo between them; what one say the other repeats. Most people on the Left, certainly, do not approve of violence against innocents, yet they more and more turn a blind eye to the injustice and atrocity of Terrorism, because they find a common enemy. As cruel as it sounds, the Left is willing to accept a measure of Terrorism if it means the Republicans and Conservatives lose. And the Left is quite willing to use the same dishonest rhetoric and paranoia to advance their argument. Look at the upcoming election. Terrorists threaten violence if they do not get the result they demand, and now the Left is doing the same.
Is it any wonder the Left wants us to pull out of Iraq? Everytime a Marine kills a terrorist, a Leftist considers it the loss of a friend of his.
The Left are enemies of America and all she stands for. It really is that cold, hard, and true.
First, the damned. When I say the damned, I am not so much talking about humans as the fallen angels. I have noticed that when skeptics want to deny the sovereignty of God and the truth of the Bible, they often point to the rebellion of Satan and his angels, and ask why anyone close enough to see God as He really is, would rebel knowing the eternal consequences of hell. They say that if the angels were really as smart as claimed, they would never have made such a choice. That claim, of course, misses the fact that all creatures make irrational decisions, sometimes for worse, sometimes for better. It’s actually part of our identity; a perfectly rational being cannot be human at all. In fact, I rather suspect that our gracious Lord is not rational Himself, but I suppose I had better let that tangent go for another time.
And this brings me to my admittedly incomplete thought for the day. The Left and Terrorist groups have an awful lot in common. There was a time when I would not have touched such a thought, but more and more I see an echo between them; what one say the other repeats. Most people on the Left, certainly, do not approve of violence against innocents, yet they more and more turn a blind eye to the injustice and atrocity of Terrorism, because they find a common enemy. As cruel as it sounds, the Left is willing to accept a measure of Terrorism if it means the Republicans and Conservatives lose. And the Left is quite willing to use the same dishonest rhetoric and paranoia to advance their argument. Look at the upcoming election. Terrorists threaten violence if they do not get the result they demand, and now the Left is doing the same.
Is it any wonder the Left wants us to pull out of Iraq? Everytime a Marine kills a terrorist, a Leftist considers it the loss of a friend of his.
The Left are enemies of America and all she stands for. It really is that cold, hard, and true.
Sunday, October 22, 2006
Decision Points – Why Japan Must Not Go Nuclear
September 6, 1976 – In the darkest hours of the Cold War, following America’s disgraced exit from Vietnam and the subsequent onslaught by the Viet Cong through the perfidy of Congress, during a time when Soviet proxies were enjoying success throughout Africa and South America, a single Soviet pilot took a MiG-25 “Foxbat” and flew it to the island of Hokkaido, and asked for sanctuary. In the following days, the Soviet government put intense pressure on Japan to turn over the plane and the defector to the tender mercies of the KGB, but Japan stood fast, telling the Soviets in uncharacteristic bluntness where they could go. In many ways this incident proved Japan’s friendship to the United States, as the Land of the Rising Sun showed honor and resolve in a time when it was hardly fashionable to be a friend to America. Yet it also started a new train of thought in Japanese international politics – shouldn’t Japan enjoy greater respect and position? Over the next three decades, this thinking resulted in new initiatives, both economically and politically, benefiting the Nikkei, MITI, and Japanese position relative to the rest of Asia. More than a few people began to say that Japan seemed to enjoy a Pacific version of the “Special Relationship” between the United States and the United Kingdom. From that perspective, it is hardly surprising to hear many people suggest that in the light of North Korea’s attempts to create a nuclear weapon, as well as concerns about the People’s Republic of China with regard to their own nuclear arsenal, that Japan should not only be allowed, but encouraged to develop its own nuclear weapon. Yet this would be a very risky course for the United States to pursue, and one which long-term consequences could prove expensive, and bring about conditions the United States would never knowingly wish to bring about.
Japan, regardless of the Constitution under which it now exists, still considers itself an Empire. The military, now officially designated a ‘Self-Defense Force’, is top-of-the-line in equipment; the air forces include various sub-types of F-15s and AWAC Boeing 767s, and the naval force includes Aegis cruisers. The Ministry of International Trade and Industry (MITI) has a history of imposing conditions and personally-advantageous interpretations of treaties and agreements on trading partners such as would make used-car salesmen blush. And the Japanese official version of World War 2 still remains singularly distant from Reality, and which refusal to accept responsibility for specific (and documented) atrocities offends many nations and earns complaints from historians and the families of victims demanding acknowledgment of responsibility and meaningful reparations. In short, Japan is far from a mature or accountable democratic republic, and future loyalty to America or her interests is anything but certain. Remember “A Japan That Can Say No”, by Sony Chairman Akio Morita and politician Shintaro Ishihara?
It should be understood that the path to nuclear weapons is actually a series of decision points; choices made which determine not only the course in a specific situation, but which also direct the color and direction of future decisions. As an example, the United States found itself in large part compelled to use the Atom Bomb on Japan in 1945. Here’s how that chain played out:
The first major step in the nuclear bomb chain is deciding whether it can be done. That was proven mathematically in 1931.
The second decision point is deciding whether a specific nation can make a nuclear weapon. Einstein (and other scientists) wrote a letter to President Roosevelt in 1939 which confirmed that the United States could build such a bomb.
The third decision point is deciding whether a specific nation should attempt to make a nuclear weapon. That same 1939 letter from Dr. Einstein warned Roosevelt that if the United States did not make such a bomb, they would be at the negligible mercy of the Nazis, who certainly were trying to make one.
The fourth decision point is deciding whether to deny progress on a nuclear weapon to another nation. This was an obvious choice for the United States against Germany in 1942-5, but later a much more difficult decision in “peacetime” against the Soviet Union, China, and so on.
The fifth decision point is testing the weapon. Conditions in World War 2 made that choice obvious, as well.
The remaining decision point in 1945 rested on actual use of the bomb. Bearing in mind that the Soviet Union was already sending signals that they intended to take full advantage of this unique opportunity to grab territory, as well as the anticipated cost of invading the Japanese homelands, which would be largely an American cost in lives and material, using the atom bomb to end the war and send a clear message against Soviet ambition was obvious.
The significance of this chain, is that at each decision point there was a strong or compelling need for the United States to continue on that path. With that in mind, here is the situation for Japan:
1. Can Japan do it? Japan faces two significant obstacles to creating its own nuclear weapon; its Constitution and the lack of a Nuclear Forces framework. In both cases the changes necessary to allow for development of a nuclear weapon would be in conflict with all known and recognized legitimate Japanese goals and ideals, and so would inevitably create political chaos, legal fights, and a vacuum in control of the military as its role and duties were redefined. By all existing measures, the foreseeable benefits are outweighed by the known costs.
2. What would Japan do with a nuclear arsenal? The sole argument presented in favor of Japan obtaining nuclear weapons is the notion that this would counter North Korea and possibly also China, perhaps serving to calm the governments in South Korea and other Asian governments. This notion is less than thought-through all the way. For one thing, nations which already have nuclear weapons have never yet abandoned them because a potential opponent acquired them. Also, because of Japan’s unwillingness to resolve issues surrounding Japanese aggression in World War 2, many Asian nations are unwilling to accept Japan as a regional leader, much less consider Tokyo as an appropriate guarantor of their sovereignty. Again, there seems to be no real reason to encourage Japan to obtain a nuclear weapon, and strong reasons to demur.
3. What would the United States do, if at some future time Japan was once again an enemy? If North Korea is a concern now, how much more would Japan be, given its obvious economic and military strength? There is no way to take back nuclear capability, and Japan has never rejected its desire to become an hegemony. They simply have used the available tools of economic and political pressure to gain as much as possible. A nuclear capability could easily tempt Japan into making military overtures, given their history, perceived threats, and resource needs.
In summation, a nuclear Japan would be far worse than a nuclear North Korea. Put away this foolish notion, please.
Japan, regardless of the Constitution under which it now exists, still considers itself an Empire. The military, now officially designated a ‘Self-Defense Force’, is top-of-the-line in equipment; the air forces include various sub-types of F-15s and AWAC Boeing 767s, and the naval force includes Aegis cruisers. The Ministry of International Trade and Industry (MITI) has a history of imposing conditions and personally-advantageous interpretations of treaties and agreements on trading partners such as would make used-car salesmen blush. And the Japanese official version of World War 2 still remains singularly distant from Reality, and which refusal to accept responsibility for specific (and documented) atrocities offends many nations and earns complaints from historians and the families of victims demanding acknowledgment of responsibility and meaningful reparations. In short, Japan is far from a mature or accountable democratic republic, and future loyalty to America or her interests is anything but certain. Remember “A Japan That Can Say No”, by Sony Chairman Akio Morita and politician Shintaro Ishihara?
It should be understood that the path to nuclear weapons is actually a series of decision points; choices made which determine not only the course in a specific situation, but which also direct the color and direction of future decisions. As an example, the United States found itself in large part compelled to use the Atom Bomb on Japan in 1945. Here’s how that chain played out:
The first major step in the nuclear bomb chain is deciding whether it can be done. That was proven mathematically in 1931.
The second decision point is deciding whether a specific nation can make a nuclear weapon. Einstein (and other scientists) wrote a letter to President Roosevelt in 1939 which confirmed that the United States could build such a bomb.
The third decision point is deciding whether a specific nation should attempt to make a nuclear weapon. That same 1939 letter from Dr. Einstein warned Roosevelt that if the United States did not make such a bomb, they would be at the negligible mercy of the Nazis, who certainly were trying to make one.
The fourth decision point is deciding whether to deny progress on a nuclear weapon to another nation. This was an obvious choice for the United States against Germany in 1942-5, but later a much more difficult decision in “peacetime” against the Soviet Union, China, and so on.
The fifth decision point is testing the weapon. Conditions in World War 2 made that choice obvious, as well.
The remaining decision point in 1945 rested on actual use of the bomb. Bearing in mind that the Soviet Union was already sending signals that they intended to take full advantage of this unique opportunity to grab territory, as well as the anticipated cost of invading the Japanese homelands, which would be largely an American cost in lives and material, using the atom bomb to end the war and send a clear message against Soviet ambition was obvious.
The significance of this chain, is that at each decision point there was a strong or compelling need for the United States to continue on that path. With that in mind, here is the situation for Japan:
1. Can Japan do it? Japan faces two significant obstacles to creating its own nuclear weapon; its Constitution and the lack of a Nuclear Forces framework. In both cases the changes necessary to allow for development of a nuclear weapon would be in conflict with all known and recognized legitimate Japanese goals and ideals, and so would inevitably create political chaos, legal fights, and a vacuum in control of the military as its role and duties were redefined. By all existing measures, the foreseeable benefits are outweighed by the known costs.
2. What would Japan do with a nuclear arsenal? The sole argument presented in favor of Japan obtaining nuclear weapons is the notion that this would counter North Korea and possibly also China, perhaps serving to calm the governments in South Korea and other Asian governments. This notion is less than thought-through all the way. For one thing, nations which already have nuclear weapons have never yet abandoned them because a potential opponent acquired them. Also, because of Japan’s unwillingness to resolve issues surrounding Japanese aggression in World War 2, many Asian nations are unwilling to accept Japan as a regional leader, much less consider Tokyo as an appropriate guarantor of their sovereignty. Again, there seems to be no real reason to encourage Japan to obtain a nuclear weapon, and strong reasons to demur.
3. What would the United States do, if at some future time Japan was once again an enemy? If North Korea is a concern now, how much more would Japan be, given its obvious economic and military strength? There is no way to take back nuclear capability, and Japan has never rejected its desire to become an hegemony. They simply have used the available tools of economic and political pressure to gain as much as possible. A nuclear capability could easily tempt Japan into making military overtures, given their history, perceived threats, and resource needs.
In summation, a nuclear Japan would be far worse than a nuclear North Korea. Put away this foolish notion, please.
Friday, October 20, 2006
Election Polling Made Simple – Look Deeper
Like an alley cat in heat, those Democrats and MSM polls are crying "Doom!' well past the point of credibility. But, since it's out there, we need to look at those numbers. Sharpen up those knives, it's dissectin' time!
OK, let's start by clearing out the trash. There are 33 seats in the Senate being decided, along with all 435 of the House Representatives. On the face of it, that makes it seem reasonable that control could change. But historically, better than 90% of incumbents get re-elected. It would take a truly significant set of conditions for the public as a whole to throw over control of Congress in the way that Democrats are predicting, conditions which the facts do not support. And the polls, if you look closely, are no great friend to the challengers.
I went through the Real Clear Politics' list of recent polls for the House and Senate, and here's what I saw:
For 33 Senate races, RCP has poll numbers for only 19 races. For 435 House races, RCP only shows poll numbers for 26 races. Now, I agree that it's possible that RCP is simply posting only the newest data, but I found it hard to find hard specific data on many of the predicted GOP losses. They are just assuming the results on no evidence.
Polling Report, for example, just focused on the generic poll. OK, I grant that there is some effect to a national preference, assuming for now that the polls are not skewed in their demographics or biased in their methodology. But even if we grant that, the notion that a specific Congressional District or State Senate race would ignore its own conditions and requisite politics in order to comply with the opinion from outside their borders is specious at best.
Also, one wonders about the sort of assumptions demanded of a reasonable observer, to accept a claim without something beneath the claim itself for support. Take the 22nd Congressional District in Texas, for instance. Tom Delay's resignation and subsequent dirty tricks by the Democrats certainly made it more difficult for a Republican to win against Nick Lampson, but the notion that voters who gave President Bush 64% of their vote in 2004 and whose Republican position has been unquestioned for a very long time would just hand over the district to the Democrats is laughable. I looked and looked for a poll on Lampson v. Sekula-Gibbs, but only found an old one from the start of September. But that one had Sekula-Gibbs ahead in double digits. Certainly, the need to write-in Sekula-Gibbs will make it tougher, but those people claiming that TX-22 is a sure thing for the Democrats, or even likely at this point, either don't know what they are talking about, they're liars, or both.
My point is, as a starting point for any projection we need to begin with the historical base, then advance conclusions only when there is substance to back them. And the baseline for this election, is that the Republicans hold the majority. It takes substance, not rumor, to change that condition.
Looking at those polls I could find in RCP, in the Senate only four races show polls with the incumbent trailing, and one of those is the Democrat Menendez in New Jersey. You can talk all you want about 'close' here and 'if' there, the fact right now is that the incumbent or incumbent party is leading in 15 of the 19 states where polls were posted. Sure, Chafee could lose Rhode Island, but where's the proof? In fact, from what I could find of the older stuff from September, Chafee was leading and if there is no evidence to the contrary, that's your scoreboard for now.*
In the House, RCP noted 26 races with polls, and the incumbent is leading in 10 of them, with another incumbent behind in one poll and ahead in another. That shows sixteen incumbents with polls showing them trailing, but only nine outside the statistical margin of error and only six where the challenger's lead is greater than the number of undecideds.. Someone tell me please how six seats equals Speaker Pelosi, when they need 15 or more? Yes, it could happen and I will be the first to scream that we all have to get out and vote, but where's the reason for the panic?
I also want to point out something which never seems to get mentioned. Intelligent people will remember that when a margin between two candidates is less than the margin of error, that's a statistical tie. But also, never forget that many of these polls, even as October winds down, still show a large number of undecideds. Dewine, according to the less-than-honest John Zogby, trails challenger Brown, 49% to 45%. Besides being darn close to the margin of error for a poll which queried only 750 people, the number of undecideds - six percent - means that this race is not at all clear. And yes, CBS News did broadcast a much larger margin - 14 points - but that one still only gave 49% to Brown, claiming only 35% for Dewine in a poll which allowed for a sixteen point undecided stake. And the difference between those two unfriendly-to-GOP polls also indicate that there is a lot more doubt in that race than you will hear on the air.
Nothing is over yet, unless you give up.
UPDATE: I went to look up some specific races which, for some reason, were not cited in the link from RCP I originally noted. Here's the detail when you don't just accept the headline:
Chafee: Trails by 5.6 in the RCP average, which accepts as valid polls from Zogby and Rhode Island College, but more to the point cites 13.4% "undecided".
Talent: Within statistical margin of error, with 8.4% "undecided"
Menendez: The link I originally cited had him down by 2, but in any case the average is well within the margin of error, and again cites 12.0% "undecideds"
Burns: None of the polls cited is even close to nominal threshholds for validity, plus again we see 9.3% "undecideds"
Anytime the "undecided" portion exceeds twice the margin of error cited for the poll, that poll is garbage. And traditionally, in Senate and Congressional elections, the undecideds break for the incumbent. Heavily so. I stand by my call.
OK, let's start by clearing out the trash. There are 33 seats in the Senate being decided, along with all 435 of the House Representatives. On the face of it, that makes it seem reasonable that control could change. But historically, better than 90% of incumbents get re-elected. It would take a truly significant set of conditions for the public as a whole to throw over control of Congress in the way that Democrats are predicting, conditions which the facts do not support. And the polls, if you look closely, are no great friend to the challengers.
I went through the Real Clear Politics' list of recent polls for the House and Senate, and here's what I saw:
For 33 Senate races, RCP has poll numbers for only 19 races. For 435 House races, RCP only shows poll numbers for 26 races. Now, I agree that it's possible that RCP is simply posting only the newest data, but I found it hard to find hard specific data on many of the predicted GOP losses. They are just assuming the results on no evidence.
Polling Report, for example, just focused on the generic poll. OK, I grant that there is some effect to a national preference, assuming for now that the polls are not skewed in their demographics or biased in their methodology. But even if we grant that, the notion that a specific Congressional District or State Senate race would ignore its own conditions and requisite politics in order to comply with the opinion from outside their borders is specious at best.
Also, one wonders about the sort of assumptions demanded of a reasonable observer, to accept a claim without something beneath the claim itself for support. Take the 22nd Congressional District in Texas, for instance. Tom Delay's resignation and subsequent dirty tricks by the Democrats certainly made it more difficult for a Republican to win against Nick Lampson, but the notion that voters who gave President Bush 64% of their vote in 2004 and whose Republican position has been unquestioned for a very long time would just hand over the district to the Democrats is laughable. I looked and looked for a poll on Lampson v. Sekula-Gibbs, but only found an old one from the start of September. But that one had Sekula-Gibbs ahead in double digits. Certainly, the need to write-in Sekula-Gibbs will make it tougher, but those people claiming that TX-22 is a sure thing for the Democrats, or even likely at this point, either don't know what they are talking about, they're liars, or both.
My point is, as a starting point for any projection we need to begin with the historical base, then advance conclusions only when there is substance to back them. And the baseline for this election, is that the Republicans hold the majority. It takes substance, not rumor, to change that condition.
Looking at those polls I could find in RCP, in the Senate only four races show polls with the incumbent trailing, and one of those is the Democrat Menendez in New Jersey. You can talk all you want about 'close' here and 'if' there, the fact right now is that the incumbent or incumbent party is leading in 15 of the 19 states where polls were posted. Sure, Chafee could lose Rhode Island, but where's the proof? In fact, from what I could find of the older stuff from September, Chafee was leading and if there is no evidence to the contrary, that's your scoreboard for now.*
In the House, RCP noted 26 races with polls, and the incumbent is leading in 10 of them, with another incumbent behind in one poll and ahead in another. That shows sixteen incumbents with polls showing them trailing, but only nine outside the statistical margin of error and only six where the challenger's lead is greater than the number of undecideds.. Someone tell me please how six seats equals Speaker Pelosi, when they need 15 or more? Yes, it could happen and I will be the first to scream that we all have to get out and vote, but where's the reason for the panic?
I also want to point out something which never seems to get mentioned. Intelligent people will remember that when a margin between two candidates is less than the margin of error, that's a statistical tie. But also, never forget that many of these polls, even as October winds down, still show a large number of undecideds. Dewine, according to the less-than-honest John Zogby, trails challenger Brown, 49% to 45%. Besides being darn close to the margin of error for a poll which queried only 750 people, the number of undecideds - six percent - means that this race is not at all clear. And yes, CBS News did broadcast a much larger margin - 14 points - but that one still only gave 49% to Brown, claiming only 35% for Dewine in a poll which allowed for a sixteen point undecided stake. And the difference between those two unfriendly-to-GOP polls also indicate that there is a lot more doubt in that race than you will hear on the air.
Nothing is over yet, unless you give up.
UPDATE: I went to look up some specific races which, for some reason, were not cited in the link from RCP I originally noted. Here's the detail when you don't just accept the headline:
Chafee: Trails by 5.6 in the RCP average, which accepts as valid polls from Zogby and Rhode Island College, but more to the point cites 13.4% "undecided".
Talent: Within statistical margin of error, with 8.4% "undecided"
Menendez: The link I originally cited had him down by 2, but in any case the average is well within the margin of error, and again cites 12.0% "undecideds"
Burns: None of the polls cited is even close to nominal threshholds for validity, plus again we see 9.3% "undecideds"
Anytime the "undecided" portion exceeds twice the margin of error cited for the poll, that poll is garbage. And traditionally, in Senate and Congressional elections, the undecideds break for the incumbent. Heavily so. I stand by my call.
Thursday, October 19, 2006
Mid-Term Exams: Discussion and Analysis
Time to shift gears again, folks. I have promised to update my work on pursuing my Masters of Business Administration, and since all my Mid-term grades have come back, it’s time to do a review.
It ain’t pretty.
Now, people who know me will not be surprised to read that I consider myself an intelligent person, smart even. That’s partly because a lot of people have been telling me that I am smart, every so often. Well, in times past that has come back and smacked me, as I have mistaken assumptions I liked for actual knowledge. I thought I had been trying to correct that.
With the Mid-Term exam grades in, here is where I stand in each of my three courses:
Business and Society: The Mid-term grade is the only grade received so far, worth 30% of the total. For that exam, I received a score of 80.5% (80.5 out of a possible 100). Remaining grades to come are my Individual Case Analysis (due October 30, worth 15% of the total grade), my Final Exam (December 2, worth 30% of the total grade), and my Discussion Board grade (posted end-of-semester, worth 25% of the total grade. The professor has said she is pleased with my posts on the Discussion Board (“your discussion posts are great”, she wrote), so at least there I have some hope to raise the numbers. I can get a ‘B’ – not that I want to settle for that – with a 79.8% average the rest of the way, and I can work for an ‘A’ if I can average 94.1% the rest of the way. One thing important about the Business & Society Mid-Term, was that this class used a special browser with which I was less familiar than I thought. What I mean is, I took the recommended practice sessions to get familiar with it, but did not realize what would happen if/when I lost my Internet connection during the test – Roadrunner sucks, by the way. I was way stressed by the time I was able to get back in and finish my exam, so I think I can reasonably say that I did not do my best in part due to unique conditions that should not reoccur. That said, I obviously need to work hard on my Individual Case Analysis, and study more effectively for my Final Exam.
Accounting: And things were going so well! Before the Mid-Term, I had grades as follows:
Quizzes: 90%, 100%, 90%, 90%, and 100% (2% of total grade each)
Assignments: 100%, 96.6%, 96.6% (3% of total grade each)
Discussion: 100% (5% of total grade)
Average before Mid-Term: 232/240 or 96.6%
Mid-Term grade: 72% (216 of 300, 30% of total grade)
Average now: 448/540, or 82.96%
Ouch. The Mid-Term had four “problems”, each of which had several parts. What really slammed me was the first section, where I was shown twelve columns of financial summary data, and twelve companies with a very brief description about them. The problem, worth 60 points out of the total 300 for the test, or 20% of the test grade, was to match up companies with the correct column. Not only that, but to get full credit I had to explain my reasoning for the match.
There are several reasons to be unhappy with that problem. First, it’s easy to get it all or almost-all right, or else all or almost-all wrong. That’s because if you put a company in the wrong column, say company A in column 5 when it belongs in column 6, you not only lose company A but also the company which should have gone into column 5. Further, your remaining choices are predicated on the remaining slots, so one error can easily cascade into other mistakes. Insofar as accountants need to understand how a critical error can cause other errors, I agree that this is a worthwhile and important lesson. However, while this type of problem was briefly touched on in the Learning Resources, it was not addressed in any of the assignments of quizzes, nor even discussed in detail by the test or in discussions. In that light, it does not seem to me reasonable that such a problem should count for 20% of the Mid-term examination. Judging from responses I have read from other students, they had the same trouble I did. There is talk about appealing that question, though in honesty I doubt such an appeal would succeed.
My Accounting class has a dozen grades remaining to be issued, constituting 46% of the total grade. They include two group assignments worth 7% of the total grade, one individual assignment worth 4% of the total grade, five quizzes worth 2% of the total grade each for a collective value of 10% of the total grade, the group Final Report worth 20% of the total grade, a peer evaluation worth 1% of the total grade, a survey of the class worth 1% of the total grade, and the grade for the Discussions worth the last 3% of the total grade. I can get a ‘B’ if I average 76.5% the rest of the way, but an ‘A’ is still possible, but just barely, if I can average 98.2% the rest of the way. There is no Final Exam in this class, so the Group Report and series of assignments and quizzes are very important; I cannot afford to slip up again.
Economics: The Mid-Term exam was the third grade received in the class so far. The other two were quizzes, each worth 2.5% of the total grade. I got a 90 and a 100 for those quizzes. My Mid-Term grade started out as a 96% (96 out of 100), worth 30% of the total grade, but the professor gave everyone a four-point bump, which I am happy to accept. The adjusted 100 grade gives me a 99.2% average to this point in the class, but with 65% of the grades still to come, I know I’d better work hard. Remaining grades to earn in Economics are two more quizzes at 2.5% each, an Industry Analysis paper due November 14 worth 15% of the total grade, the Final Exam (December 3) worth 30% of the total grade, my grade in the Discussions, and my Homework grade. Interesting, that last part – we are not automatically required to turn in our Homework, but the professor may demand it if she has any doubts about whether we have done it. Personally, I like the homework, since the homework is great preparation for the quizzes and exams. I can get a 'B' with an average of 69.7% the rest of the way, which again is below the goal, and I can earn an 'A' with an average of 85.0% the rest of the way.
Analysis: I still consider myself to be a reasonably intelligent man, despite the unfortunate results in two of my three exams. Some of that – I hope – may be due to getting back into studying after so many years in the real world, but I also know that I should be careful to avoid excuses or crutches. I could have done better on those tests, and will just have to man up for the remaining work.
I posted this update in part to vent, but also because I know there are other students going through similar trials. Yes, it really sucks to get a grade worse than you expected, or to have a question hurt you which seems disproportionate to what it should have counted, but that happens in Life, and we all have to pull ourselves back up and press on. A bad grade does not automatically make you stupid, and there are a lot of opportunities to pull things back up. Don’t let the good stuff make you overconfident or the bad stuff depress you, and remember there are a lot of us the same boat. To all my fellow students, press on and remember what you’re working for and why.
It ain’t pretty.
Now, people who know me will not be surprised to read that I consider myself an intelligent person, smart even. That’s partly because a lot of people have been telling me that I am smart, every so often. Well, in times past that has come back and smacked me, as I have mistaken assumptions I liked for actual knowledge. I thought I had been trying to correct that.
With the Mid-Term exam grades in, here is where I stand in each of my three courses:
Business and Society: The Mid-term grade is the only grade received so far, worth 30% of the total. For that exam, I received a score of 80.5% (80.5 out of a possible 100). Remaining grades to come are my Individual Case Analysis (due October 30, worth 15% of the total grade), my Final Exam (December 2, worth 30% of the total grade), and my Discussion Board grade (posted end-of-semester, worth 25% of the total grade. The professor has said she is pleased with my posts on the Discussion Board (“your discussion posts are great”, she wrote), so at least there I have some hope to raise the numbers. I can get a ‘B’ – not that I want to settle for that – with a 79.8% average the rest of the way, and I can work for an ‘A’ if I can average 94.1% the rest of the way. One thing important about the Business & Society Mid-Term, was that this class used a special browser with which I was less familiar than I thought. What I mean is, I took the recommended practice sessions to get familiar with it, but did not realize what would happen if/when I lost my Internet connection during the test – Roadrunner sucks, by the way. I was way stressed by the time I was able to get back in and finish my exam, so I think I can reasonably say that I did not do my best in part due to unique conditions that should not reoccur. That said, I obviously need to work hard on my Individual Case Analysis, and study more effectively for my Final Exam.
Accounting: And things were going so well! Before the Mid-Term, I had grades as follows:
Quizzes: 90%, 100%, 90%, 90%, and 100% (2% of total grade each)
Assignments: 100%, 96.6%, 96.6% (3% of total grade each)
Discussion: 100% (5% of total grade)
Average before Mid-Term: 232/240 or 96.6%
Mid-Term grade: 72% (216 of 300, 30% of total grade)
Average now: 448/540, or 82.96%
Ouch. The Mid-Term had four “problems”, each of which had several parts. What really slammed me was the first section, where I was shown twelve columns of financial summary data, and twelve companies with a very brief description about them. The problem, worth 60 points out of the total 300 for the test, or 20% of the test grade, was to match up companies with the correct column. Not only that, but to get full credit I had to explain my reasoning for the match.
There are several reasons to be unhappy with that problem. First, it’s easy to get it all or almost-all right, or else all or almost-all wrong. That’s because if you put a company in the wrong column, say company A in column 5 when it belongs in column 6, you not only lose company A but also the company which should have gone into column 5. Further, your remaining choices are predicated on the remaining slots, so one error can easily cascade into other mistakes. Insofar as accountants need to understand how a critical error can cause other errors, I agree that this is a worthwhile and important lesson. However, while this type of problem was briefly touched on in the Learning Resources, it was not addressed in any of the assignments of quizzes, nor even discussed in detail by the test or in discussions. In that light, it does not seem to me reasonable that such a problem should count for 20% of the Mid-term examination. Judging from responses I have read from other students, they had the same trouble I did. There is talk about appealing that question, though in honesty I doubt such an appeal would succeed.
My Accounting class has a dozen grades remaining to be issued, constituting 46% of the total grade. They include two group assignments worth 7% of the total grade, one individual assignment worth 4% of the total grade, five quizzes worth 2% of the total grade each for a collective value of 10% of the total grade, the group Final Report worth 20% of the total grade, a peer evaluation worth 1% of the total grade, a survey of the class worth 1% of the total grade, and the grade for the Discussions worth the last 3% of the total grade. I can get a ‘B’ if I average 76.5% the rest of the way, but an ‘A’ is still possible, but just barely, if I can average 98.2% the rest of the way. There is no Final Exam in this class, so the Group Report and series of assignments and quizzes are very important; I cannot afford to slip up again.
Economics: The Mid-Term exam was the third grade received in the class so far. The other two were quizzes, each worth 2.5% of the total grade. I got a 90 and a 100 for those quizzes. My Mid-Term grade started out as a 96% (96 out of 100), worth 30% of the total grade, but the professor gave everyone a four-point bump, which I am happy to accept. The adjusted 100 grade gives me a 99.2% average to this point in the class, but with 65% of the grades still to come, I know I’d better work hard. Remaining grades to earn in Economics are two more quizzes at 2.5% each, an Industry Analysis paper due November 14 worth 15% of the total grade, the Final Exam (December 3) worth 30% of the total grade, my grade in the Discussions, and my Homework grade. Interesting, that last part – we are not automatically required to turn in our Homework, but the professor may demand it if she has any doubts about whether we have done it. Personally, I like the homework, since the homework is great preparation for the quizzes and exams. I can get a 'B' with an average of 69.7% the rest of the way, which again is below the goal, and I can earn an 'A' with an average of 85.0% the rest of the way.
Analysis: I still consider myself to be a reasonably intelligent man, despite the unfortunate results in two of my three exams. Some of that – I hope – may be due to getting back into studying after so many years in the real world, but I also know that I should be careful to avoid excuses or crutches. I could have done better on those tests, and will just have to man up for the remaining work.
I posted this update in part to vent, but also because I know there are other students going through similar trials. Yes, it really sucks to get a grade worse than you expected, or to have a question hurt you which seems disproportionate to what it should have counted, but that happens in Life, and we all have to pull ourselves back up and press on. A bad grade does not automatically make you stupid, and there are a lot of opportunities to pull things back up. Don’t let the good stuff make you overconfident or the bad stuff depress you, and remember there are a lot of us the same boat. To all my fellow students, press on and remember what you’re working for and why.
Wednesday, October 18, 2006
Why The Democrats Are Lying to You
They are deceitful and hypocritical, they claim a patriotism they never actually put into practice, and they constantly seek the gains of extremists and special interest groups over the rights and needs of regular people, but you can’t say the Democrats are not savvy; the Democrats have figured out their best chance to grab power in Congress these fall elections – lie, lie, and lie.
Most of the lies are obvious, once one thinks about them. Polls have constantly shown that the voters care almost exclusively about National Security and the Economy, but the Democrats have lied to pretend that the Foley mess will be the deciding factor in this election. Individual head-to-head races show many competitive and close contests, but the Democrats harp over and over again about the generic polls – polls which historically have missed the mark more often than a reasonable person should accept in a barometer. To hear the Democrats, there’s no reason for anyone to bother voting, it’s all over and we should just accept Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Reid. Never mind the mounting legal and ethical problems for Reid, and Pelosi’s – well – conflicts in rational analysis.
Always quick to take offense, especially when they are caught red-handed like this, one may expect the Democrats to point to the pollsters, even to certain Republicans like Romney, whose own somber prognosis is getting play. First off, you might want to check out track records of those pollsters – the ones who are going out and predicting big gains for the Donks are the same ones who made similar predictions in 2004 and 2002. Charlie Cook, Larry Sabato, John Zogby, by and large have given up even the pretense of objectivity in favor of putting on cheerleader outfits for the Democrats. The professional polls, like Gallup, Pew, and Survey USA, show a range of results and are not at all quick to predict results in this election. As for those Republicans who have begun to give up, we’ve seen this before – the sad display of politicians who put a finger to the wind instead of holding fast to what they know to be right. It’s useful enough, though, to use these times of trial to see whose backbone has the metal we need for 2008 and beyond.
But enough about how; the question stands as to why the Democrats would play the campaign this way. Surely they have to know how risky it is to simply abandon the issues as they have, to play on trifles in the hope that significant matters will be ignored. Then again, the Democrats don’t have much on their side when matters of substance are considered. It’s ‘all about the economy’? Well then, with low inflation, constantly low Unemployment, a surging Dow, continued strong GDP growth and deficit reduction to boot, one can hardly blame the Democrats for hoping no one asks about the economic results of Republican leadership. Also, recent events around the world have reminded every intelligent person about how dangerous is this world in which we live, and how vital it is to have responsible persons giving the orders, not panty-waists like Kerry or Gore or Dean. Again, it is no shock that Democrats want to shove National Security behind a curtain, lest Americans be reminded about the Donks’ shortcomings there, as well. For the Democrats, strategy is born of tactics, because no feasible strategy has been acceptable yet to the Democrats. One wonders how such a party would manage to govern, but the fact is they are not at all concerned with this question, so long as they win. And that fact alone is reason enough to make sure they lose.
The tactics I refer to are Apathy and Despair. The Democrats have looked back a few years, and have noticed a salient trend, one they hope to play into victory this year. We need only look at the 1992 campaign to understand how it works.
One year before the 1992 elections, President George H.W. Bush looked unstoppable. The Democrats were putting together a largely symbolic campaign, with little hope for success. Then several things happened to change the tide. First, the economy started to tank, by some analyses cast as much worse than it actually was in order to spin against the President. Remember, in those days there was no effective counter to the MSM, and when Dan Rather lied to the camera, there was no way for ordinary people to catch him out. Next, the Republican Party was caught up in an internal fracas between moderates and conservatives, which resulted in a split as some otherwise-reasonable people decided that H. Ross Perot was somehow a good choice for President; the chaos prevented the GOP from sending a unified message and convinced a large portion of the Right to sit at home rather than vote. And the third factor was Bill Clinton – a man unsuited to the responsibilities of national office, but whose skills in political manipulation were superb, enough to turn opportunities into votes when he needed them. In two elections and one Senate trial, Clinton told enough lies skillfully and carefully to achieve the desired result. Like today’s Democrats, Bill Clinton was unconcerned at the time about meeting his duties, but only about winning the moment.
Recalling the victory of 1992 which gave them the White House and the re-election win in 1996, Democrats matched that against their losses in 2004 and 2002, and noticed a key trend – when Democrats work for high turnout, they do not necessarily win, because the Republicans can match and beat them at that game. If turnout is suppressed, however, the hard core of political activism favors the Left. If enough Republicans can be disgusted and enough Independents made disinterested in an election, the Democrats would win essentially by default. And that is the playbook for this year – the party which pretends to speak for Democracy, can only hope to win by persuading most voters to not vote.
That should make you angry, that a major political party is hoping to win not by earning your vote, but by doing all it can to convince you not to vote. But that, in a nutshell, is the modern Democratic Party – only by opposing Democracy, can the Democrats hope to win.
Most of the lies are obvious, once one thinks about them. Polls have constantly shown that the voters care almost exclusively about National Security and the Economy, but the Democrats have lied to pretend that the Foley mess will be the deciding factor in this election. Individual head-to-head races show many competitive and close contests, but the Democrats harp over and over again about the generic polls – polls which historically have missed the mark more often than a reasonable person should accept in a barometer. To hear the Democrats, there’s no reason for anyone to bother voting, it’s all over and we should just accept Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Reid. Never mind the mounting legal and ethical problems for Reid, and Pelosi’s – well – conflicts in rational analysis.
Always quick to take offense, especially when they are caught red-handed like this, one may expect the Democrats to point to the pollsters, even to certain Republicans like Romney, whose own somber prognosis is getting play. First off, you might want to check out track records of those pollsters – the ones who are going out and predicting big gains for the Donks are the same ones who made similar predictions in 2004 and 2002. Charlie Cook, Larry Sabato, John Zogby, by and large have given up even the pretense of objectivity in favor of putting on cheerleader outfits for the Democrats. The professional polls, like Gallup, Pew, and Survey USA, show a range of results and are not at all quick to predict results in this election. As for those Republicans who have begun to give up, we’ve seen this before – the sad display of politicians who put a finger to the wind instead of holding fast to what they know to be right. It’s useful enough, though, to use these times of trial to see whose backbone has the metal we need for 2008 and beyond.
But enough about how; the question stands as to why the Democrats would play the campaign this way. Surely they have to know how risky it is to simply abandon the issues as they have, to play on trifles in the hope that significant matters will be ignored. Then again, the Democrats don’t have much on their side when matters of substance are considered. It’s ‘all about the economy’? Well then, with low inflation, constantly low Unemployment, a surging Dow, continued strong GDP growth and deficit reduction to boot, one can hardly blame the Democrats for hoping no one asks about the economic results of Republican leadership. Also, recent events around the world have reminded every intelligent person about how dangerous is this world in which we live, and how vital it is to have responsible persons giving the orders, not panty-waists like Kerry or Gore or Dean. Again, it is no shock that Democrats want to shove National Security behind a curtain, lest Americans be reminded about the Donks’ shortcomings there, as well. For the Democrats, strategy is born of tactics, because no feasible strategy has been acceptable yet to the Democrats. One wonders how such a party would manage to govern, but the fact is they are not at all concerned with this question, so long as they win. And that fact alone is reason enough to make sure they lose.
The tactics I refer to are Apathy and Despair. The Democrats have looked back a few years, and have noticed a salient trend, one they hope to play into victory this year. We need only look at the 1992 campaign to understand how it works.
One year before the 1992 elections, President George H.W. Bush looked unstoppable. The Democrats were putting together a largely symbolic campaign, with little hope for success. Then several things happened to change the tide. First, the economy started to tank, by some analyses cast as much worse than it actually was in order to spin against the President. Remember, in those days there was no effective counter to the MSM, and when Dan Rather lied to the camera, there was no way for ordinary people to catch him out. Next, the Republican Party was caught up in an internal fracas between moderates and conservatives, which resulted in a split as some otherwise-reasonable people decided that H. Ross Perot was somehow a good choice for President; the chaos prevented the GOP from sending a unified message and convinced a large portion of the Right to sit at home rather than vote. And the third factor was Bill Clinton – a man unsuited to the responsibilities of national office, but whose skills in political manipulation were superb, enough to turn opportunities into votes when he needed them. In two elections and one Senate trial, Clinton told enough lies skillfully and carefully to achieve the desired result. Like today’s Democrats, Bill Clinton was unconcerned at the time about meeting his duties, but only about winning the moment.
Recalling the victory of 1992 which gave them the White House and the re-election win in 1996, Democrats matched that against their losses in 2004 and 2002, and noticed a key trend – when Democrats work for high turnout, they do not necessarily win, because the Republicans can match and beat them at that game. If turnout is suppressed, however, the hard core of political activism favors the Left. If enough Republicans can be disgusted and enough Independents made disinterested in an election, the Democrats would win essentially by default. And that is the playbook for this year – the party which pretends to speak for Democracy, can only hope to win by persuading most voters to not vote.
That should make you angry, that a major political party is hoping to win not by earning your vote, but by doing all it can to convince you not to vote. But that, in a nutshell, is the modern Democratic Party – only by opposing Democracy, can the Democrats hope to win.
Tuesday, October 17, 2006
Candidate Qualities, Part 2 – Elections 2006
Wow, what a silence. My last article got less interest than a new record at the NYSE. Small wonder, given the meandering way of it, but there is a purpose. I mentioned some of the basics about candidates’ viability, with a thought about how the best-qualified ordinary people may one day actually be considered for the offices which now seem to be controlled by millionaires and celebrities. I mean, not that it’s a bad thing for candidates to look their best, but it’s no secret that many races overlook qualified people simply because someone else is taller, has better teeth, or is simply sexier. After the lessons in the last decade, is Sex Appeal something which should be considered a primary qualification in the nation’s leaders?
But rather than just complain about what sort of people get elected, it seems more productive to observe how the process works, and why. I read Scot Lehigh’s account in the Boston Globe about how Kerry honestly thinks he can win the White House in 2008. His number one avenue? Dredge up the War in Iraq as a lost cause, again. What is interesting about that, though, is that Lehigh’s article claims that Kerry’s speech “brought the crowd to its feet at least a dozen times, and left the Democrats I talked to impressed.”
Think about that. Iraq was clearly owned as an issue by President Bush in 2004, and for all my admiration of the man, Dubs was not all that eloquent. That can only mean that John Kerry was even worse, n’cest pas? And yet, here’s a roomful of Democrats, apparently high-ranking as such beasties go, who think this is a great idea, having John Kerry campaign largely on the War in Iraq. How, seriously, just how stupid does someone have to be to go after someone where they are strong, and where the record has never given them evidence of good odds to win? The reason this is interesting, is that there are intelligent and reasonable Democrats out there, yet over and over again we see those sort get shut out by those who want to pick a fight where they have poor chances. Remember I mentioned yesterday that to win, you need the party’s blessings? It also seems that this is a major problem for the Democrats, that they insist on blessing candidates with poor credentials. Not that the GOP has a wonderful record of listening to its people, but at least they don’t seem to begin by rejecting the people out of hand. This is one reason to have hope for the 2006 elections.
It seems to me that to win, you want the respect of the voters. Maybe the parties could focus on what the voters think. While I take issue with some of the analysis from CNN, their latest poll is intriguing, not least because the results are so contrary to the theme of CNN’s recent spin. When asked about the top issues for this election, respondents offered these top four:
Terrorism
Iraq
The Economy
North Korea
Nothing else was close. And while the Democrats could try to play the situation in Iraq to their advantage to some degree, they have not done so lately, and the other three issues clearly belong in GOP territory. Democrats have no meaningful suggestions about how to address Terrorism or Kim Spitwad Il, and with Unemployment well under 5%, continued strong GDP growth, a declining Deficit, and Inflation well under control, the Donks do not dare discuss the Economy. The Issues favor the Republicans, and in a big way. Suffice to say that the adults who vote will go Red.
Which brings us to Turnout. All this noise about Foley is not just the fact that Democrats want America to forget about their own peccadilloes, or at least to scale them down, or even to divert attention from the growing scandal around Harry “Show Me The Money” Reid. It’s because Donk Command has figured out that running a campaign on the issues is just going to lose. They know that 30-35% of the regular voters are going to go their way, and they know they can spin another 8-10 points off the old Top 10 lie, “Republicans are Eeeeeeeeeeeeeeevil” (even as they claim that the GOP runs campaigns by playing on people’s fears). The whole question of the election, then, comes down to how many Republicans and Independents vote. The Donks want those groups tired, depressed, and apathetic. Think about that, when you are choosing your activities on Election Day.
As unattractive as some of the Republicans are, it’s really this simple: Anything which is not a vote for the Republican, is a vote for the Democrat. So would you rather have a party in charge which did not anticipate the unseemly behavior of a Representative, but which made him resign when they discovered his actions and who are moving forward with criminal investigations, or would you prefer the party which not only did not pursue legal action against a Representative of their side of the aisle who actually had sex with pages, who neither resigned nor was punished for his behavior?
Would you rather support the party who still argues about the best way to stop the flow of illegal immigration, or the party which sees no need to enforce our laws in this area?
Would you rather support the party which is trying to protect America from another terrorist attack, or the party which repeatedly demands we protect the ‘rights’ of terrorists?
Would you rather support the party which demands we stay until we finished the job in Iraq and left the country only when it is stable and a success, or the party which wants to desert our allies and ignore our solemn promises?
Would you rather support the party which most active-duty troops support, or would you rather support the party which historically defunds and disrespects our soldiers?
Would you rather support the party which considers your money to be your money, or would you rather support the party which considers your money to belong to the government?
Would you rather support the party which wants you to speak your mind in places like blogs, or would you rather support the party which is happy with you speaking your mind only when it matches the party line?
That’s really what this election comes down to – one side or the other. Neither one perfect, but by all that’s true there is a great and profound difference between the two parties, what they intend, and the course they would set for America. And I think we all know that.
But rather than just complain about what sort of people get elected, it seems more productive to observe how the process works, and why. I read Scot Lehigh’s account in the Boston Globe about how Kerry honestly thinks he can win the White House in 2008. His number one avenue? Dredge up the War in Iraq as a lost cause, again. What is interesting about that, though, is that Lehigh’s article claims that Kerry’s speech “brought the crowd to its feet at least a dozen times, and left the Democrats I talked to impressed.”
Think about that. Iraq was clearly owned as an issue by President Bush in 2004, and for all my admiration of the man, Dubs was not all that eloquent. That can only mean that John Kerry was even worse, n’cest pas? And yet, here’s a roomful of Democrats, apparently high-ranking as such beasties go, who think this is a great idea, having John Kerry campaign largely on the War in Iraq. How, seriously, just how stupid does someone have to be to go after someone where they are strong, and where the record has never given them evidence of good odds to win? The reason this is interesting, is that there are intelligent and reasonable Democrats out there, yet over and over again we see those sort get shut out by those who want to pick a fight where they have poor chances. Remember I mentioned yesterday that to win, you need the party’s blessings? It also seems that this is a major problem for the Democrats, that they insist on blessing candidates with poor credentials. Not that the GOP has a wonderful record of listening to its people, but at least they don’t seem to begin by rejecting the people out of hand. This is one reason to have hope for the 2006 elections.
It seems to me that to win, you want the respect of the voters. Maybe the parties could focus on what the voters think. While I take issue with some of the analysis from CNN, their latest poll is intriguing, not least because the results are so contrary to the theme of CNN’s recent spin. When asked about the top issues for this election, respondents offered these top four:
Terrorism
Iraq
The Economy
North Korea
Nothing else was close. And while the Democrats could try to play the situation in Iraq to their advantage to some degree, they have not done so lately, and the other three issues clearly belong in GOP territory. Democrats have no meaningful suggestions about how to address Terrorism or Kim Spitwad Il, and with Unemployment well under 5%, continued strong GDP growth, a declining Deficit, and Inflation well under control, the Donks do not dare discuss the Economy. The Issues favor the Republicans, and in a big way. Suffice to say that the adults who vote will go Red.
Which brings us to Turnout. All this noise about Foley is not just the fact that Democrats want America to forget about their own peccadilloes, or at least to scale them down, or even to divert attention from the growing scandal around Harry “Show Me The Money” Reid. It’s because Donk Command has figured out that running a campaign on the issues is just going to lose. They know that 30-35% of the regular voters are going to go their way, and they know they can spin another 8-10 points off the old Top 10 lie, “Republicans are Eeeeeeeeeeeeeeevil” (even as they claim that the GOP runs campaigns by playing on people’s fears). The whole question of the election, then, comes down to how many Republicans and Independents vote. The Donks want those groups tired, depressed, and apathetic. Think about that, when you are choosing your activities on Election Day.
As unattractive as some of the Republicans are, it’s really this simple: Anything which is not a vote for the Republican, is a vote for the Democrat. So would you rather have a party in charge which did not anticipate the unseemly behavior of a Representative, but which made him resign when they discovered his actions and who are moving forward with criminal investigations, or would you prefer the party which not only did not pursue legal action against a Representative of their side of the aisle who actually had sex with pages, who neither resigned nor was punished for his behavior?
Would you rather support the party who still argues about the best way to stop the flow of illegal immigration, or the party which sees no need to enforce our laws in this area?
Would you rather support the party which is trying to protect America from another terrorist attack, or the party which repeatedly demands we protect the ‘rights’ of terrorists?
Would you rather support the party which demands we stay until we finished the job in Iraq and left the country only when it is stable and a success, or the party which wants to desert our allies and ignore our solemn promises?
Would you rather support the party which most active-duty troops support, or would you rather support the party which historically defunds and disrespects our soldiers?
Would you rather support the party which considers your money to be your money, or would you rather support the party which considers your money to belong to the government?
Would you rather support the party which wants you to speak your mind in places like blogs, or would you rather support the party which is happy with you speaking your mind only when it matches the party line?
That’s really what this election comes down to – one side or the other. Neither one perfect, but by all that’s true there is a great and profound difference between the two parties, what they intend, and the course they would set for America. And I think we all know that.
Monday, October 16, 2006
Election Candidate Qualities
One of the nicer compliments I have received since I began blogging, is that some people think I should run for office. While I am flattered by such confidence, I am also well aware that I would not do half so well in office as my supporters believe. This is for a number of reasons, which I mention here in the course of understanding what a mess we have in general with our elected officials.
The American system of politics is, for all its flaws, the best in the world. With an eye towards people named Foley, Reid, Schumer, or Murtha, this suggests that the world in general is really hurting for quality leadership. Part of this is due to the way the system works. Prior to, say, the start of the Reagan Administration, democratic republics were few in practice. In the past quarter-century, this has changed significantly, to such a point that even a oligarchy like Communist China feels a greater need to actually listen to its citizens than in past years. But while installing a system which listens and responds to voters is a good idea, there are always problems to be worked out due to the change in culture and the local conditions. Anyone familiar with American History between the Revolutionary War and the War of 1812 (apparently around one-half percent of the American public) will recall the chaos surrounding the development of the first political party and its opposition. While the first direct conflict began as a result of the 1824 elections, the causes were in place as soon as the Congress realized it could control the course of legislation.
Fast forward to 2006. Running for any office requires not only the desire and a reasonable belief that you are qualified, but the backing of a political party as well and/or considerable personal resources. As an example, look at the four candidates for Governor of Texas – Rick Perry and Chris Bell are backed by the Republicans and Democrats, and by that I mean those parties pretty much locked out any other candidates. This brings up Carole Keaton Strayhorn, a bitter renegade who used to be a Republican, but when she did not get the party’s support, she went guerrilla and started up her own run on the strength of her own bank account, notoriety, and ego. Then there is Kinky Friedman, a man singularly unqualified for an executive position, especially in the public trust, but because of his money and fame there he is on the ballot. Now I have made clear that many people would be better qualified to serve as Governor (including me) than these four candidates. But what these four well-dressed - and more to the point well-known - clowns have in common is that their names are recognized, they have a lot of money to invest into the race, and they have backers behind the scenes who create the marketing for the candidate, everything from focus groups for issue positions to advertising campaigns tailored to key demographics. And this, I think, is one reason why the GOTV effort is so hard for each party - people are unhappily aware that the ticket never offers the most capable person, the person with the highest integrity, or the person least likely to abuse their responsibility. We always get the less-than-excellent, and everyone knows it.
The blogosphere, I hope, can and will address this. But it will take a long time at best, and there will have to be serious reform at the grassroots level, and a willingness to radically alter the mindset that believes that only someone handed down from a national or state committee can be a viable candidate. I am optimistic enough to think this will happen, and in my lifetime. And I suspect it will be the rebirth of the Democratic Party. I say this because only desperate people are willing to try new and unproven things, and between the two major parties the GOP is relatively successful with its routine, and therefore disinclined to accept the risk of nominating ordinary people for office. Democrats continue to lose at every level however, and at some point they will be forced, at the peril of their existence as a party, to reform and regroup. And when that happens, they wil rediscover the party of Grover Cleveland, and of Harry Truman; the party willing to do the hard work to get the job done. Democrats will lose most of their lock on the minority vote, but it will force them to pay attention to the country's core values, and those are best espoused and performed by regular folks.
Why not a police officer for Attorney General?
Why not an engineer for Governor?
Why not a middle-management accountant for President?
Sure, those jobs do not automatically suggest those roles. But why in hell does anyone think that lawyers and career politicians are better fits for the country's leadership, than people who really work for a living and see the world at street level?
Before 1824, regular citizens were not "allowed" to vote directly for a candidate running for President.
Before 1865, only whites could vote.
Before 1869, no woman could vote anywhere in the United States, and before 1920 only men could vote in federal elections.
Things change over time, and we can get past some bad habits. It's time we found a way to get normal people into the jobs which most affect normal people.
The American system of politics is, for all its flaws, the best in the world. With an eye towards people named Foley, Reid, Schumer, or Murtha, this suggests that the world in general is really hurting for quality leadership. Part of this is due to the way the system works. Prior to, say, the start of the Reagan Administration, democratic republics were few in practice. In the past quarter-century, this has changed significantly, to such a point that even a oligarchy like Communist China feels a greater need to actually listen to its citizens than in past years. But while installing a system which listens and responds to voters is a good idea, there are always problems to be worked out due to the change in culture and the local conditions. Anyone familiar with American History between the Revolutionary War and the War of 1812 (apparently around one-half percent of the American public) will recall the chaos surrounding the development of the first political party and its opposition. While the first direct conflict began as a result of the 1824 elections, the causes were in place as soon as the Congress realized it could control the course of legislation.
Fast forward to 2006. Running for any office requires not only the desire and a reasonable belief that you are qualified, but the backing of a political party as well and/or considerable personal resources. As an example, look at the four candidates for Governor of Texas – Rick Perry and Chris Bell are backed by the Republicans and Democrats, and by that I mean those parties pretty much locked out any other candidates. This brings up Carole Keaton Strayhorn, a bitter renegade who used to be a Republican, but when she did not get the party’s support, she went guerrilla and started up her own run on the strength of her own bank account, notoriety, and ego. Then there is Kinky Friedman, a man singularly unqualified for an executive position, especially in the public trust, but because of his money and fame there he is on the ballot. Now I have made clear that many people would be better qualified to serve as Governor (including me) than these four candidates. But what these four well-dressed - and more to the point well-known - clowns have in common is that their names are recognized, they have a lot of money to invest into the race, and they have backers behind the scenes who create the marketing for the candidate, everything from focus groups for issue positions to advertising campaigns tailored to key demographics. And this, I think, is one reason why the GOTV effort is so hard for each party - people are unhappily aware that the ticket never offers the most capable person, the person with the highest integrity, or the person least likely to abuse their responsibility. We always get the less-than-excellent, and everyone knows it.
The blogosphere, I hope, can and will address this. But it will take a long time at best, and there will have to be serious reform at the grassroots level, and a willingness to radically alter the mindset that believes that only someone handed down from a national or state committee can be a viable candidate. I am optimistic enough to think this will happen, and in my lifetime. And I suspect it will be the rebirth of the Democratic Party. I say this because only desperate people are willing to try new and unproven things, and between the two major parties the GOP is relatively successful with its routine, and therefore disinclined to accept the risk of nominating ordinary people for office. Democrats continue to lose at every level however, and at some point they will be forced, at the peril of their existence as a party, to reform and regroup. And when that happens, they wil rediscover the party of Grover Cleveland, and of Harry Truman; the party willing to do the hard work to get the job done. Democrats will lose most of their lock on the minority vote, but it will force them to pay attention to the country's core values, and those are best espoused and performed by regular folks.
Why not a police officer for Attorney General?
Why not an engineer for Governor?
Why not a middle-management accountant for President?
Sure, those jobs do not automatically suggest those roles. But why in hell does anyone think that lawyers and career politicians are better fits for the country's leadership, than people who really work for a living and see the world at street level?
Before 1824, regular citizens were not "allowed" to vote directly for a candidate running for President.
Before 1865, only whites could vote.
Before 1869, no woman could vote anywhere in the United States, and before 1920 only men could vote in federal elections.
Things change over time, and we can get past some bad habits. It's time we found a way to get normal people into the jobs which most affect normal people.
Friday, October 13, 2006
Absence Makes The Mind Go Foggy
Hello again, friends and readers. I have not forgotten my blogging duties entirely, but have been swamped by my academic duties, Two Mid-term exams are finished, and I am still wrestling my take-home Accounting Exam. “Take-Home” makes it sound all convenient and easy, doesn’t it? Don’t you believe it! My answer page is up to page 13, and I am still not done.
More after I get this monster shoved out the door, but for now I want to remind you that yes, the media is still obsessed with the Foley story. You know, the creep who has already resigned and gone home, while certain other creeps – can you say ‘Harry Reid’? – not only remain in office, but catch the traditional pass from the media. But don’t anyone dare suggest they are biased!
One hint of an upcoming article – am I the only person who worries about a Nuclear Japan?
Read up on your history and think about it. More soon.
More after I get this monster shoved out the door, but for now I want to remind you that yes, the media is still obsessed with the Foley story. You know, the creep who has already resigned and gone home, while certain other creeps – can you say ‘Harry Reid’? – not only remain in office, but catch the traditional pass from the media. But don’t anyone dare suggest they are biased!
One hint of an upcoming article – am I the only person who worries about a Nuclear Japan?
Read up on your history and think about it. More soon.
Wednesday, October 11, 2006
What The Coffee Says
First, sorry for not posting in a couple days. Mid-term exams and term papers have claimed an even greater share of my limited resources. As a result, even this posting is a bit rushed and scattered.
First, a gut-call prediction: The Republican Party will continue to hold on to control of both the House and Senate. I expect this for the following reasons:
1. The Republicans have been admittedly timid about pursuing a truly Conservative slate of legislation, which is the primary reason they are in trouble at all. The Democrats, however, still refuse to submit any sort of concrete and detailed plan for the issues which Americans want addressed;
2. The Democrats have thrown a great deal of effort into making this election about Representative Foley, abandoning other issues to focus on a spectacular bit of slime which they may well have timed to be released just now. This is incredibly stupid, as I will explain in a moment;
3. The Democrats have bought their own hype, thinking that large portions of the voting public can and will be swayed in a short time. In reality, just as there were always people who would never vote for George W. Bush in 2004, there are many people now who will refuse to consider changing their Congressman or Senator. For good or ill, the impetus of incumbency is a real force, and rhetoric does not sway it.
Here’s the deal. Somewhere around 35% of those people who vote are Republicans, and another 35% of those people who vote are Democrats. That’s as in they usually identify with one party on most issues. That leaves 30% of people who do not regularly support one party, and those who do not regularly vote. Now, you won’t find that in any media guides, because when people are polled they are pushed towards picking one party, and remember that more and more, people find polls intrusive and do not answer them. So, for my numbers I prefer to go see how people actually vote. Now that can and does get sticky very fast; a Republican in New York is a whole lot different from a Republican in Georgia or Oklahoma, and the same for Democrats. The thing about a national party is that they operate effectively as coalitions, even though they purportedly have a platform and leadership.
With that in mind, there are really not very many national issues which sell in Congressional races. People tend to think of America, sure, but always in the context of their state and district when they are voting on Congress. So the first blunder by the Donks in playing up the Foley story, is that it has no personal meaning to most people. Sure, no one wants to re-elect a creep, but Foley already resigned and there is no evidence that any of the people running for office this election have that same proclivity for misdemeanor.
The second mistake of the Foley story, is the way the Donks jumped off their original tacks. A reasonable person might wonder why the Donks want to go on about Foley instead of Iraq, Jobs, or Gas Prices. Of course, that would lead to consideration that gas prices are plunging, so is the deficit, the Dow just set a record high, Unemployment is at a level awfully close to that classic definition of “full employment”, and even so more and more jobs are being created. As for Iraq, the antics of North Korea and Iran have reminded Americans that our military stands for something, something important and noble, and the Democrats have not exactly done much to support their claim that they back the troops. In fact, once folks start thinking about it, they could easily decide that the Donks are using the Foley story to avoid having to discuss how well the Bush Administration is doing.
That’s the third mistake. For years now, Democrats have tried to lay every sort of nasty event at the feet of President Bush. And sad to say, it’s worked to some extent, so that the President of the United States is blamed for every failing of any department anywhere, anytime. Responsible for everything, but gets credit for none. I mentioned above that with things as they are now, the Donks want very badly to avoid Bush getting noticed. The key to Dubya is that like Reagan, the Donks fear him. To the point of panic, I kid you not. Why? Think back to 2002. The Donks figured they were about to reclaim control of Congress, but Dubs pitched in and made a few appearances and did some campaigning, and instead of a loss the GOP gained seats. The Donks don’t bring it up, but analysts later determined that the 2002 Mid-term elections were clearly won through the efforts of the President. The Democrats really, really worry about that happening again, so they are doing everything they can to make the President look bad and convince Republican candidates that they would be hurt by close connection to President Bush.
But the Donks overplayed their hand, and ignored what would happen if – as happened – Bush was right and his policies led to success and prosperity. The sudden silence about Bush will lead some people to consider why the Donks don’t want to talk about Dubya. And everyone who gives some thought to how Bush is doing, will lean just a little bit towards his party, an imperfect part to be sure, but the only one that seems to want to do the job properly.
Will this be 2002 again? Probably not, but it won’t be 1994 either. For the Democrats to win on a level that would gain them control of the House or Senate, they need to be charismatic, clear, optimistic about America and honest with the public. And the Donks of this moment simply do not rise to that level.
Something more original later. For now, I have to get back to work, get some more coffee, and figure out how to answer those EBITDA and debt ratio problems.
First, a gut-call prediction: The Republican Party will continue to hold on to control of both the House and Senate. I expect this for the following reasons:
1. The Republicans have been admittedly timid about pursuing a truly Conservative slate of legislation, which is the primary reason they are in trouble at all. The Democrats, however, still refuse to submit any sort of concrete and detailed plan for the issues which Americans want addressed;
2. The Democrats have thrown a great deal of effort into making this election about Representative Foley, abandoning other issues to focus on a spectacular bit of slime which they may well have timed to be released just now. This is incredibly stupid, as I will explain in a moment;
3. The Democrats have bought their own hype, thinking that large portions of the voting public can and will be swayed in a short time. In reality, just as there were always people who would never vote for George W. Bush in 2004, there are many people now who will refuse to consider changing their Congressman or Senator. For good or ill, the impetus of incumbency is a real force, and rhetoric does not sway it.
Here’s the deal. Somewhere around 35% of those people who vote are Republicans, and another 35% of those people who vote are Democrats. That’s as in they usually identify with one party on most issues. That leaves 30% of people who do not regularly support one party, and those who do not regularly vote. Now, you won’t find that in any media guides, because when people are polled they are pushed towards picking one party, and remember that more and more, people find polls intrusive and do not answer them. So, for my numbers I prefer to go see how people actually vote. Now that can and does get sticky very fast; a Republican in New York is a whole lot different from a Republican in Georgia or Oklahoma, and the same for Democrats. The thing about a national party is that they operate effectively as coalitions, even though they purportedly have a platform and leadership.
With that in mind, there are really not very many national issues which sell in Congressional races. People tend to think of America, sure, but always in the context of their state and district when they are voting on Congress. So the first blunder by the Donks in playing up the Foley story, is that it has no personal meaning to most people. Sure, no one wants to re-elect a creep, but Foley already resigned and there is no evidence that any of the people running for office this election have that same proclivity for misdemeanor.
The second mistake of the Foley story, is the way the Donks jumped off their original tacks. A reasonable person might wonder why the Donks want to go on about Foley instead of Iraq, Jobs, or Gas Prices. Of course, that would lead to consideration that gas prices are plunging, so is the deficit, the Dow just set a record high, Unemployment is at a level awfully close to that classic definition of “full employment”, and even so more and more jobs are being created. As for Iraq, the antics of North Korea and Iran have reminded Americans that our military stands for something, something important and noble, and the Democrats have not exactly done much to support their claim that they back the troops. In fact, once folks start thinking about it, they could easily decide that the Donks are using the Foley story to avoid having to discuss how well the Bush Administration is doing.
That’s the third mistake. For years now, Democrats have tried to lay every sort of nasty event at the feet of President Bush. And sad to say, it’s worked to some extent, so that the President of the United States is blamed for every failing of any department anywhere, anytime. Responsible for everything, but gets credit for none. I mentioned above that with things as they are now, the Donks want very badly to avoid Bush getting noticed. The key to Dubya is that like Reagan, the Donks fear him. To the point of panic, I kid you not. Why? Think back to 2002. The Donks figured they were about to reclaim control of Congress, but Dubs pitched in and made a few appearances and did some campaigning, and instead of a loss the GOP gained seats. The Donks don’t bring it up, but analysts later determined that the 2002 Mid-term elections were clearly won through the efforts of the President. The Democrats really, really worry about that happening again, so they are doing everything they can to make the President look bad and convince Republican candidates that they would be hurt by close connection to President Bush.
But the Donks overplayed their hand, and ignored what would happen if – as happened – Bush was right and his policies led to success and prosperity. The sudden silence about Bush will lead some people to consider why the Donks don’t want to talk about Dubya. And everyone who gives some thought to how Bush is doing, will lean just a little bit towards his party, an imperfect part to be sure, but the only one that seems to want to do the job properly.
Will this be 2002 again? Probably not, but it won’t be 1994 either. For the Democrats to win on a level that would gain them control of the House or Senate, they need to be charismatic, clear, optimistic about America and honest with the public. And the Donks of this moment simply do not rise to that level.
Something more original later. For now, I have to get back to work, get some more coffee, and figure out how to answer those EBITDA and debt ratio problems.
Sunday, October 08, 2006
Poll Integrity
First Tuesday of November, 2004. Months of wrangling, haranguing, pleading and begging all came down to the bottom line. And as always happens in modern elections, the polling groups had their teams out to ask voters how they voted. Knowing how close the 2000 Presidential Election had turned out, everyone was naturally eager to see how the voters responded, and since the polls would not close until evening, the media was hungry for the exit polls.
And what a story they told. Early (and unverified) reports about exit polls not only showed a Kerry lead, they showed large leads in some of the battleground states. Kerry advocates began to openly claim they were headed for a landslide Kerry victory.
The actual vote was significantly different. The paranoid and the bitter voiced baseless claims of Conspiracy, while even more mature minds asked how such a discrepancy could happen between the exit polling and the actual results. This was not due to any cataclysmic collapse of the polling process, nor any sinister conspiracy on anyone’s part. The exit polls have always been unreliable in their raw form, but this time the rush to a story caused invalid conclusions to be drawn from the data.
The Mystery Pollster did a good run-down right after the election on the problems with exit polls. Suffice to say, exit polls are essentially the same as any other opinion poll, but since they are rushed and inconstant on numerous points, to my mind they have a much higher volatility rate – the chance they will be badly wrong – than other polls. In the case of the 2004 exit polls, early clues were present in the demographics; the early polls claimed 59% of the respondents were women, and a heavy under-30 participation was noted. This conflicted with both historical electorate demographics and observed participation in early voting and film footage – what happened was that the polls used a lot of inexperienced field personnel, who found it more appealing to poll women than men, and young people more receptive than the old. The pressure to get quick results corrupted the sample, in short.
The damage from the poor work on the exit polls has led to all sorts of collateral damage, including fueling some incredibly stupid conspiracy theories, muddying up the issue of improving election transparency, and lowering the public trust in polling institutions. Since 2004, an increasing number of people have begun to claim that they deliberately mislead pollsters in the hopes of skewing the results. While this practice cannot be confirmed in fact and is unlikely to reach a threshold of actually invalidating overall trend analysis in opinion polling, it is a salient concern that such an attitude is on the rise. This brings me, at last, to my topic of Poll Integrity.
I have discussed specific polls before, and plan to do so again. For now, it is important to consider the source when a poll is released to the public. I would be repeating myself to state the most important aspects of a valid poll, but then again, the points are important enough to deserve repeating:
- All valid polls which release results to the public will also release internal data
- All valid polls will use a consistent methodology from one occasion to the next, and will report that method in their summary
- All valid polls will weight according to Census norms and known demographic political balances
- All valid polls will make archive data available for comparison to current polls
The astute reader may have realized that in my mind, ‘valid’ and ‘integrity’ are synonymous for polls. “Integrity”, after all, simply means ‘complete’ or ‘whole’. I have been privileged to exchange phone calls and e-mails with some people in a number of polling organizations, and need to say that in the main, even those polls with which I disagree may well be professional, honest, and careful both in their analyses and their reports. That said, there are clear differences in the classes of performance, and some polls simply do not demonstrate the sort of integrity to set themselves apart from the rest.
In this final month before the mid-term elections, there will be a flood of polling reports from both well-known and some almost-unknown polling groups. In the main, polling groups may be private companies which accept contracts to perform polling for clients (Gallup is the best known of these), they may be a partisan group which clearly prefers one side over the other but whose research is released to the public (Lake Snell Perry or Zogby, for example), they may be a university which conducts ongoing research and builds on empirical samples (Quinnipiac and Pew are well-known here), or they may be associated with a news organization, usually as a sponsor (the Princeton Survey Research, for example). There are many other sorts of polling groups, but the key is to begin by noting who is paying for the survey. Most polls will be direct about who sponsored the effort. If a poll hides this information, this is a big red flag.
Demographics are a critical component to polls. All polls weight their results, because no significant sample correctly matches the public as a whole. Demographics include gender ratio as well as race, urban/suburban/exurban/rural breakdown, as well as key professional and political norms. That last piece, political identification, is the most contentious and the most common factor to be manipulated or slanted, because many polling groups insist on their own preference for political identity among voters; despite the clear trend of Republican gains in the past decade, implying strong identification growth of the GOP, many polling groups – especially those sponsored by media outlets – refuse to correct obsolete balances held over from the Clinton era. Keep that fact in mind.
The next element in poll integrity is methodology. This is both a very stable, yet controversial area. Random Digit Dialing, or RDD, is the dominant method of contacting respondents, generally at their home by telephone in the evening and on weekends. The controversy comes from the fact that fewer and fewer and fewer Americans are likely to be at home, use a landline telephone for their primary contact, or be inclined to participate in unsolicited contact from strangers. Also, both sample sizes and the randomness of the respondent poll has come into question – a poll should automatically suspect which does not show at least 1,024 registered voters as a respondent pool, or which cannot confirm that they have a method in place to prevent repeat contacts with respondents – increasingly, polls have been asking respondents if they can contact them again, a practice which can easily lead to unethical manipulation of the poll for future polls.
And any poll which only queries “adults” is garbage.
Also, if a polling group mixes methodology, as Zogby did by adding phone poll responses to online poll responses, treat that poll as you would a child predator – it cannot be trusted, ever.
In conclusion, many polls can be useful, but not all polls are equal – indeed, some should be rejected from the start. It is a critical factor to know what sort of poll is producing the press release.
And what a story they told. Early (and unverified) reports about exit polls not only showed a Kerry lead, they showed large leads in some of the battleground states. Kerry advocates began to openly claim they were headed for a landslide Kerry victory.
The actual vote was significantly different. The paranoid and the bitter voiced baseless claims of Conspiracy, while even more mature minds asked how such a discrepancy could happen between the exit polling and the actual results. This was not due to any cataclysmic collapse of the polling process, nor any sinister conspiracy on anyone’s part. The exit polls have always been unreliable in their raw form, but this time the rush to a story caused invalid conclusions to be drawn from the data.
The Mystery Pollster did a good run-down right after the election on the problems with exit polls. Suffice to say, exit polls are essentially the same as any other opinion poll, but since they are rushed and inconstant on numerous points, to my mind they have a much higher volatility rate – the chance they will be badly wrong – than other polls. In the case of the 2004 exit polls, early clues were present in the demographics; the early polls claimed 59% of the respondents were women, and a heavy under-30 participation was noted. This conflicted with both historical electorate demographics and observed participation in early voting and film footage – what happened was that the polls used a lot of inexperienced field personnel, who found it more appealing to poll women than men, and young people more receptive than the old. The pressure to get quick results corrupted the sample, in short.
The damage from the poor work on the exit polls has led to all sorts of collateral damage, including fueling some incredibly stupid conspiracy theories, muddying up the issue of improving election transparency, and lowering the public trust in polling institutions. Since 2004, an increasing number of people have begun to claim that they deliberately mislead pollsters in the hopes of skewing the results. While this practice cannot be confirmed in fact and is unlikely to reach a threshold of actually invalidating overall trend analysis in opinion polling, it is a salient concern that such an attitude is on the rise. This brings me, at last, to my topic of Poll Integrity.
I have discussed specific polls before, and plan to do so again. For now, it is important to consider the source when a poll is released to the public. I would be repeating myself to state the most important aspects of a valid poll, but then again, the points are important enough to deserve repeating:
- All valid polls which release results to the public will also release internal data
- All valid polls will use a consistent methodology from one occasion to the next, and will report that method in their summary
- All valid polls will weight according to Census norms and known demographic political balances
- All valid polls will make archive data available for comparison to current polls
The astute reader may have realized that in my mind, ‘valid’ and ‘integrity’ are synonymous for polls. “Integrity”, after all, simply means ‘complete’ or ‘whole’. I have been privileged to exchange phone calls and e-mails with some people in a number of polling organizations, and need to say that in the main, even those polls with which I disagree may well be professional, honest, and careful both in their analyses and their reports. That said, there are clear differences in the classes of performance, and some polls simply do not demonstrate the sort of integrity to set themselves apart from the rest.
In this final month before the mid-term elections, there will be a flood of polling reports from both well-known and some almost-unknown polling groups. In the main, polling groups may be private companies which accept contracts to perform polling for clients (Gallup is the best known of these), they may be a partisan group which clearly prefers one side over the other but whose research is released to the public (Lake Snell Perry or Zogby, for example), they may be a university which conducts ongoing research and builds on empirical samples (Quinnipiac and Pew are well-known here), or they may be associated with a news organization, usually as a sponsor (the Princeton Survey Research, for example). There are many other sorts of polling groups, but the key is to begin by noting who is paying for the survey. Most polls will be direct about who sponsored the effort. If a poll hides this information, this is a big red flag.
Demographics are a critical component to polls. All polls weight their results, because no significant sample correctly matches the public as a whole. Demographics include gender ratio as well as race, urban/suburban/exurban/rural breakdown, as well as key professional and political norms. That last piece, political identification, is the most contentious and the most common factor to be manipulated or slanted, because many polling groups insist on their own preference for political identity among voters; despite the clear trend of Republican gains in the past decade, implying strong identification growth of the GOP, many polling groups – especially those sponsored by media outlets – refuse to correct obsolete balances held over from the Clinton era. Keep that fact in mind.
The next element in poll integrity is methodology. This is both a very stable, yet controversial area. Random Digit Dialing, or RDD, is the dominant method of contacting respondents, generally at their home by telephone in the evening and on weekends. The controversy comes from the fact that fewer and fewer and fewer Americans are likely to be at home, use a landline telephone for their primary contact, or be inclined to participate in unsolicited contact from strangers. Also, both sample sizes and the randomness of the respondent poll has come into question – a poll should automatically suspect which does not show at least 1,024 registered voters as a respondent pool, or which cannot confirm that they have a method in place to prevent repeat contacts with respondents – increasingly, polls have been asking respondents if they can contact them again, a practice which can easily lead to unethical manipulation of the poll for future polls.
And any poll which only queries “adults” is garbage.
Also, if a polling group mixes methodology, as Zogby did by adding phone poll responses to online poll responses, treat that poll as you would a child predator – it cannot be trusted, ever.
In conclusion, many polls can be useful, but not all polls are equal – indeed, some should be rejected from the start. It is a critical factor to know what sort of poll is producing the press release.
Friday, October 06, 2006
On Alert
Captain, enemy vessels approaching fast.
?
Klingons?
Romulans?
The Borg?
Democrats?
No captain, much worse.
Mid-Terms.
Uh-oh.
Evasive action.
No success Captain, their Syllabus has eliminated control of the helm.
Phasers?
Impossible, Captain. We have just enough power for Life Support and a couple extra Study Sessions, along with Assigned Reading Review.
That ... that's just crazy enough to work!
?
Klingons?
Romulans?
The Borg?
Democrats?
No captain, much worse.
Mid-Terms.
Uh-oh.
Evasive action.
No success Captain, their Syllabus has eliminated control of the helm.
Phasers?
Impossible, Captain. We have just enough power for Life Support and a couple extra Study Sessions, along with Assigned Reading Review.
That ... that's just crazy enough to work!
Thursday, October 05, 2006
Thank You, Mike Gallagher
Like vultures and jackals around a corpse, the mad pack calling themselves Westboro Baptist declared that they would be protesting at the funerals of several Amish schoolgirls murdered in Pennsylvania. How anyone could be so craven and evil as to play such an event for publicity is beyond even my normally active imagination, but the bottom line is that Mike Gallagher stepped in and made a deal – if the group would promise – in writing – not to picket the funerals of these innocent girls, he would turn over an hour of his nationally-broadcast radio show to the group. The group accepted, and so far appear to have honored their word, such as it is.
I heard some of that hour this morning, and have no intention of spreading the hate and bile which the Phelps klan was pushing this morning. But I did want to thank Mister Gallagher for his action to save the families grief and anger from these monsters. I also found it interesting to see how these “Christians” have walled off everything in the Bible and the life example of Jesus Christ, except what they could spin to fit their opinion. God in a box, if you will.
The Westboro Baptist bunch basically are Old Testament types – if by that I eliminate everything in the Old Testament except threats and punishment. Not a very joyful lot, they seem. One theme which the lead spokeswoman tossed out – all I will say about her, and all you need to know to catch her base of experience is that she is a daughter of Fred Phelps, well known for condemnation of anyone not just like himself – was the separation between Jacob and Esau. She could play that, because not too many people these days have read the Bible, especially the OId Testament. They might remember something about God saying He loved Jacob and hated Esau. But the woman was wrong.
Jacob was not, to be blunt, a very nice man. He coerced his brother into selling him his birthright by refusing to let him have food until he gave over the right to the family name, even though he knew his brother was starving. Then later when it was time to claim the birthright, Jacob confirmed his dishonesty by posing as his brother in order to deceive his blind father. After getting what he wanted, Jacob ran away. Real class, eh? By the way, this is all in Genesis Chapters 25 through 27. So put away this idea that Jacob was a righteous man.
What happened, in short, was that Jacob’s crime made Esau angry and he turned from God, exemplified by marrying a woman he knew his father would dislike, a daughter of Ishmael (Genesis 28:9). Jacob, on the other hand finally turned to God – ever wonder what that wrestling in Chapter 32 was about? – and returned to face Esau and the consequences of his sin.
But contrary to what many might think, God also touched Esau, for when he met Jacob again, Esau neither attacked him nor condemned him, but ran and hugged his brother Jacob (Genesis 33:4). Through the grace of God, sin was forgiven and the brothers restored. That verse about God hating? That’s from Romans 9:13, where God warned ”Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated”. Loved and hated as in past-tense, the whole book of Romans is about forgiveness and living in hope and love. Sad to think these “Christians” are ignoring amazing examples of Christ-like behavior in those very Amish they thought to torment, but it is an important lesson for the rest of us to observe.
I heard some of that hour this morning, and have no intention of spreading the hate and bile which the Phelps klan was pushing this morning. But I did want to thank Mister Gallagher for his action to save the families grief and anger from these monsters. I also found it interesting to see how these “Christians” have walled off everything in the Bible and the life example of Jesus Christ, except what they could spin to fit their opinion. God in a box, if you will.
The Westboro Baptist bunch basically are Old Testament types – if by that I eliminate everything in the Old Testament except threats and punishment. Not a very joyful lot, they seem. One theme which the lead spokeswoman tossed out – all I will say about her, and all you need to know to catch her base of experience is that she is a daughter of Fred Phelps, well known for condemnation of anyone not just like himself – was the separation between Jacob and Esau. She could play that, because not too many people these days have read the Bible, especially the OId Testament. They might remember something about God saying He loved Jacob and hated Esau. But the woman was wrong.
Jacob was not, to be blunt, a very nice man. He coerced his brother into selling him his birthright by refusing to let him have food until he gave over the right to the family name, even though he knew his brother was starving. Then later when it was time to claim the birthright, Jacob confirmed his dishonesty by posing as his brother in order to deceive his blind father. After getting what he wanted, Jacob ran away. Real class, eh? By the way, this is all in Genesis Chapters 25 through 27. So put away this idea that Jacob was a righteous man.
What happened, in short, was that Jacob’s crime made Esau angry and he turned from God, exemplified by marrying a woman he knew his father would dislike, a daughter of Ishmael (Genesis 28:9). Jacob, on the other hand finally turned to God – ever wonder what that wrestling in Chapter 32 was about? – and returned to face Esau and the consequences of his sin.
But contrary to what many might think, God also touched Esau, for when he met Jacob again, Esau neither attacked him nor condemned him, but ran and hugged his brother Jacob (Genesis 33:4). Through the grace of God, sin was forgiven and the brothers restored. That verse about God hating? That’s from Romans 9:13, where God warned ”Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated”. Loved and hated as in past-tense, the whole book of Romans is about forgiveness and living in hope and love. Sad to think these “Christians” are ignoring amazing examples of Christ-like behavior in those very Amish they thought to torment, but it is an important lesson for the rest of us to observe.
Tuesday, October 03, 2006
Polls, Predictions, and Puke
In the interest of full disclosure and advance explanation of likely snarkiness on my part, I should mention that in four days I begin taking Mid-Terms in three graduate courses. The significance of this fact is that I have had much less time to work on poll analysis than I would like, and so this article will necessarily be more general than usual in thought.
It’s October in an election year, which means that while all the kiddies are picking out imaginative costumes to wear, the pollsters are going all out to find the most imaginative spin for their press releases, because this is their big chance to be – drum roll please – “newsmakers”.
If you find that notion, that polls should be considered news of themselves, more than slightly irritating, join the club. Polls are news in the same way that former Representative Foley would be a good babysitter for your boys, or Nancy Pelosi has a valid comprehension of U.S. National Security. I have spent what little free time I had during the past couple weeks reading predictions for the 2004, 2002, and 2000 elections, and frankly if I were a polling group I would be more than a little bit humble about what I claimed. Granted, most polls played CYA in the late months, making calls both ways so that they could come back later, bury the wrong guesses, shine a light on the lucky guesses and call themselves “experts”. I will claim bluntly that I am as much or more an expert as John Zogby or Larry Sabato on predicting elections, but that’s not claiming much – anyone could hope to do better than those clowns, yet they continue to get paid for shoddy work and biased claims. There was not even one truly reliable predictor of the last three elections, and the reader should be aware of this whenever considering a poll report.
The first reason most reports cannot and do not predict the outcome of an election to any degree of reliability, is the nature of the organization which releases the report. Polls, for example, are at best no more than a snapshot of the mood of the public. And polls are not all that equal, bias finding its way into most of them to varying degrees, sometimes so blatantly as to create comedy rather than veracity. Should the reader find him or herself interested in examining a poll, I will repeat here the basic caveats of poll analysis:
- All valid polls which release results to the public will also release internal data
- All valid polls will use a consistent methodology from one occasion to the next, and will report that method in their summary
- All valid polls will weight according to Census norms and known demographic political balances
- All valid polls will make archive data available for comparison to current polls
To be blunt, very few polls meet this standard. Gallup, Pew, The New York Times, NBC News/Wall Street Journal, Newsweek and Survey USA are the only organizations which perform to these standards (in the case of the NYT, Newsweek and NBC/WSJ, these companies sponsor polls and demand consistent standards as I described) on a regular basis. This does not mean that I agree with their stated conclusions, but rather that their transparency means that suspected bias can be backed out and the numbers examined in an unweighted or rebalanced state if so desired.
It is also in the nature of election predictors to fall into two common blunders. If a group you have never heard of suddenly claims spectacular results from its predictions, it may well not be a coincidence. Many groups which “predict” elections do nothing of the sort – rather than risk seeing their prediction blow up in their face, as Sabato and Zogby had happen in 2004, they post a number of mildly worded opinions, ranging to cover all reasonable possibilities but nothing to call unusual attention to any one position, then later on pretend that their wisdom and mathematical genius foretold the results. The other common practice is the last-minute pick; Tradesports and similar shills make a fair piece of change by promoting the “accuracy” of their positions immediately before election day – they never mention the wild variance in their mid-season numbers. To put this in perspective, the election campaign effectively begins when the general candidates are known, say by late spring. This gives us, roughly, 180 days of campaign during which time someone may make a prediction. To make a call two days before the election is like predicting the winner of a football game with half a minute to go in the fourth quarter; it’s gutless and has no value as a predictor. I will harass John Zogby for being so partisan in the 2004 election, but at least he had the guts to call his prediction in the summer. He was completely wrong and destroyed his credibility as a pollster, but at least he called his shot plainly (though it should be noted that Zogby began back-tracking from his prediction a few weeks later).
Next: Poll Integrity
It’s October in an election year, which means that while all the kiddies are picking out imaginative costumes to wear, the pollsters are going all out to find the most imaginative spin for their press releases, because this is their big chance to be – drum roll please – “newsmakers”.
If you find that notion, that polls should be considered news of themselves, more than slightly irritating, join the club. Polls are news in the same way that former Representative Foley would be a good babysitter for your boys, or Nancy Pelosi has a valid comprehension of U.S. National Security. I have spent what little free time I had during the past couple weeks reading predictions for the 2004, 2002, and 2000 elections, and frankly if I were a polling group I would be more than a little bit humble about what I claimed. Granted, most polls played CYA in the late months, making calls both ways so that they could come back later, bury the wrong guesses, shine a light on the lucky guesses and call themselves “experts”. I will claim bluntly that I am as much or more an expert as John Zogby or Larry Sabato on predicting elections, but that’s not claiming much – anyone could hope to do better than those clowns, yet they continue to get paid for shoddy work and biased claims. There was not even one truly reliable predictor of the last three elections, and the reader should be aware of this whenever considering a poll report.
The first reason most reports cannot and do not predict the outcome of an election to any degree of reliability, is the nature of the organization which releases the report. Polls, for example, are at best no more than a snapshot of the mood of the public. And polls are not all that equal, bias finding its way into most of them to varying degrees, sometimes so blatantly as to create comedy rather than veracity. Should the reader find him or herself interested in examining a poll, I will repeat here the basic caveats of poll analysis:
- All valid polls which release results to the public will also release internal data
- All valid polls will use a consistent methodology from one occasion to the next, and will report that method in their summary
- All valid polls will weight according to Census norms and known demographic political balances
- All valid polls will make archive data available for comparison to current polls
To be blunt, very few polls meet this standard. Gallup, Pew, The New York Times, NBC News/Wall Street Journal, Newsweek and Survey USA are the only organizations which perform to these standards (in the case of the NYT, Newsweek and NBC/WSJ, these companies sponsor polls and demand consistent standards as I described) on a regular basis. This does not mean that I agree with their stated conclusions, but rather that their transparency means that suspected bias can be backed out and the numbers examined in an unweighted or rebalanced state if so desired.
It is also in the nature of election predictors to fall into two common blunders. If a group you have never heard of suddenly claims spectacular results from its predictions, it may well not be a coincidence. Many groups which “predict” elections do nothing of the sort – rather than risk seeing their prediction blow up in their face, as Sabato and Zogby had happen in 2004, they post a number of mildly worded opinions, ranging to cover all reasonable possibilities but nothing to call unusual attention to any one position, then later on pretend that their wisdom and mathematical genius foretold the results. The other common practice is the last-minute pick; Tradesports and similar shills make a fair piece of change by promoting the “accuracy” of their positions immediately before election day – they never mention the wild variance in their mid-season numbers. To put this in perspective, the election campaign effectively begins when the general candidates are known, say by late spring. This gives us, roughly, 180 days of campaign during which time someone may make a prediction. To make a call two days before the election is like predicting the winner of a football game with half a minute to go in the fourth quarter; it’s gutless and has no value as a predictor. I will harass John Zogby for being so partisan in the 2004 election, but at least he had the guts to call his prediction in the summer. He was completely wrong and destroyed his credibility as a pollster, but at least he called his shot plainly (though it should be noted that Zogby began back-tracking from his prediction a few weeks later).
Next: Poll Integrity
Monday, October 02, 2006
God Be With The Amish, And Grant Them Solace
Six young girls are known dead in a shooting at an Amish school in Lancaster County, Pennsylvania. According to MSNBC, there are also three additional shooting victims, also all young girls between the ages of 6 and 12. The girls are listed in critical condition at this time.
The Amish are frequently ignored or mocked for their unconventional beliefs and practices. This makes them easy targets for thugs and monsters, because the Amish are the most peaceful of pacifists, who refuse to condemn anyone, trusting in the Providence of a merciful God and quick to forgive. Do not be deceived by the quiet manner in which these people will bear the pain of today’s abomination – the Amish treasure their children above their own lives, and having given up so much of the material world they focus keenly on their family.
God loved Abraham, says the Bible, because he trusted God enough to give up his own son if that should be required by God, though God spared Isaac. Surely God will love these people greatly, since they were not spared such grief and pain. There is no sense to this, but to depend on faith in such a time.
The Amish are frequently ignored or mocked for their unconventional beliefs and practices. This makes them easy targets for thugs and monsters, because the Amish are the most peaceful of pacifists, who refuse to condemn anyone, trusting in the Providence of a merciful God and quick to forgive. Do not be deceived by the quiet manner in which these people will bear the pain of today’s abomination – the Amish treasure their children above their own lives, and having given up so much of the material world they focus keenly on their family.
God loved Abraham, says the Bible, because he trusted God enough to give up his own son if that should be required by God, though God spared Isaac. Surely God will love these people greatly, since they were not spared such grief and pain. There is no sense to this, but to depend on faith in such a time.
Saturday, September 30, 2006
How To Build Bill Clinton’s Legacy – Lesson One is ‘Shut Up’
By now, everyone has heard about former President (yes, this guy was once a sitting President of the United States) Bill Clinton’s altercation with Chris Wallace on Fox News. The tantrum on national television brought joy to comedians and cartoonists, stress to the political aspirations of a number of politicians (especially a certain Senator for the State of New York), and additional damage to the supposed existence of a “legacy” for William Jefferson Clinton. I have no intention of addressing the specifics of the debate from that noisy interview, as others have already done so admirably, and in any case to advance the Leftist lie even through refuting it is not morally palatable. Besides, this article addresses that most elusive of Clintonian qualities, durable accomplishments. There is a way, actually, for Bill Clinton to ease memories of his less-laudable moments, and to establish something on which he may yet demonstrate that much-vaunted intellect and perceptivity. The road to that goal lies through the example of fellow former President Richard Milhous Nixon.
Yep, old “Tricky Dick” himself. Nixon actually did quite a bit during his two terms which was notable ands even worthy of some praise, but he blew it all away because of Watergate. Humorist Dave Barry once speculated that an enemy must have somehow installed a “stupid ray” in the White House, because every President has moments which are too stupid to explain in any normal way. In Nixon’s case, Barry observed that Nixon was undone by secret tape recordings which proved what he was saying and thinking during the Watergate scandal. Barry pointed out how strange it was, to consider that Nixon was the one person fully aware of the taping and yet was the one person damaged the most by them. A brilliant man undone by an incredibly stupid chain of decisions. Nixon resigned rather than face certain impeachment. Clinton won’t want to admit it, but he has a certain similarity to Nixon on that level, wouldn’t you say?
But I am not here to heckle Clinton, seriously. You see, By the time he died, Richard Nixon had done quite a bit to rehabilitate his reputation, to the point that even Democrats were publicly accepting him as something of an elder statesman. Anyone familiar with the names and descriptions of Nixon circa 1975 would be amazed by that transformation. To be sure, the most rabid Nixon-hater never forgave him, but the average person did. This has figured in creating a legacy for Nixon which focuses on his Administration in a kinder light. No, he will not be thought of as a “great” President, but his name is not ridiculed and his reputation is actually above average. While he may grind his teeth to follow in the footsteps of a hated enemy, Bill Clinton may find that this way is the only viable course.
The first step is often the hardest, and this may be excruciatingly so for Clinton. You see, the first thing Nixon did after resigning was to go home and shut up. Nixon gave no interviews, wrote no books, and made no attempt to stick his nose into things for more than a decade after leaving the White House. He answered Presidents who called on him, yes, and he continued personal writings and research at home, and when the time was appropriate he did produce books and essays and interviews, but not while the emotions were still raw and the hatred still venomous. One of the biggest post-office mistakes which Bill Clinton has made, is to continue stoking those fires by shooting his mouth off at every opportunity.
You don't seem a bad sort, Mister Clinton. Lots of people find you likable and intelligent. But if you really want to have that legacy, you are going to have to learn when to shut up and sit down.
Yep, old “Tricky Dick” himself. Nixon actually did quite a bit during his two terms which was notable ands even worthy of some praise, but he blew it all away because of Watergate. Humorist Dave Barry once speculated that an enemy must have somehow installed a “stupid ray” in the White House, because every President has moments which are too stupid to explain in any normal way. In Nixon’s case, Barry observed that Nixon was undone by secret tape recordings which proved what he was saying and thinking during the Watergate scandal. Barry pointed out how strange it was, to consider that Nixon was the one person fully aware of the taping and yet was the one person damaged the most by them. A brilliant man undone by an incredibly stupid chain of decisions. Nixon resigned rather than face certain impeachment. Clinton won’t want to admit it, but he has a certain similarity to Nixon on that level, wouldn’t you say?
But I am not here to heckle Clinton, seriously. You see, By the time he died, Richard Nixon had done quite a bit to rehabilitate his reputation, to the point that even Democrats were publicly accepting him as something of an elder statesman. Anyone familiar with the names and descriptions of Nixon circa 1975 would be amazed by that transformation. To be sure, the most rabid Nixon-hater never forgave him, but the average person did. This has figured in creating a legacy for Nixon which focuses on his Administration in a kinder light. No, he will not be thought of as a “great” President, but his name is not ridiculed and his reputation is actually above average. While he may grind his teeth to follow in the footsteps of a hated enemy, Bill Clinton may find that this way is the only viable course.
The first step is often the hardest, and this may be excruciatingly so for Clinton. You see, the first thing Nixon did after resigning was to go home and shut up. Nixon gave no interviews, wrote no books, and made no attempt to stick his nose into things for more than a decade after leaving the White House. He answered Presidents who called on him, yes, and he continued personal writings and research at home, and when the time was appropriate he did produce books and essays and interviews, but not while the emotions were still raw and the hatred still venomous. One of the biggest post-office mistakes which Bill Clinton has made, is to continue stoking those fires by shooting his mouth off at every opportunity.
You don't seem a bad sort, Mister Clinton. Lots of people find you likable and intelligent. But if you really want to have that legacy, you are going to have to learn when to shut up and sit down.
Thursday, September 28, 2006
DEFCON What? The War Quality of a Candidate
“Sir, wake up. An event has occurred.”
I didn’t have to open my eyes to recognize the voice. Not the individual, but the type. Young, male. military, calm but urgent. Which meant that something somewhere had gone very wrong, very fast, and could get worse if nothing was done soon or the wrong choice was made. I sighed, swung my legs over the side of the bed onto the floor and got up.
And I was alone in my bedroom at home. There was no one there at all. A dream had awakened me.
Thinking about that dream, I gave up trying to sort out specifics, but chewed on a few generalities in my mind. And one of those is what it means to be President of the United States.
One of the more stupid charges tossed out from time to time, is to try to insult the President for taking “vacation”. That word is a misnomer, because Presidents do not get the chance to get away from the job and relax. The plain fact is, Presidents never get vacations; even former Presidents find that they cannot simply visit a mall or take in a movie – the current culture requires advance planning for even the most mundane activity – ask Bill Clinton how easy it is for him to go to a McDonald’s these days, or G.H.W. Bush to decide on the spur of the moment to go golfing. And for the sitting President, that “vacation” is all work. All it really means is a change of location, and some pretty scenery – a lot of people are clueless to how often Presidents hold private conferences with key foreign and Congressional leaders while on “vacation”; Carter’s Egypt-Israel peace treaty started with phone conversations during one of Carter’s “vacations”. Dubya has met with Tony Blair, Ariel Sharon, Prime Minister Koizumi, and many other leaders while on “vacation”. And do I really need to remind the reader that every President, regardless of party or circumstance, is never far from the “football” or aides who will not hesitate to inform him of serious events? You know, now I think about it it’s no wonder no President ever had a child conceived while he was in office – the knowledge that a Secret Service agent could enter without any warning would “kill the mood” for anybody. Well, almost anybody.
But getting back to the topic under discussion, when Americans are choosing a President, it is important to realize that the war condition of the nation is a critical factor. I would suggest that when people are worried about conflict, they are less likely to consider changing the party in leadership, but when things are relaxed and going well in national security terms, they will consider alternatives more readily. Sometimes the more competent leader is seen in the light of who can lead effectively in time of war. In other times, war seems unpopular or irrelevant and a war leader is less respected than an economic leader. With that in mind, consider the war qualifications of the following failed candidates:
Dewey 1948 Economic leader, not seen as a war leader
Stevenson 1952, 1956 Intellectual, not a war leader
Nixon 1960, 1968 Not seen as a war leader, hurt him in 1960 but
helped him in 1968 (seen as war leader in 1972)
Goldwater 1964 Depicted as emotional and unstable
Humphrey 1968 Not seen as a war leader
McGovern 1972 Not seen as a war leader
Ford 1976 Not seen as a war leader (given Vietnam and Carter’s Navy experience)
Carter 1980 Seen as militarily incompetent
Mondale 1984 Not seen as a war leader
Dukakis 1988 Not seen as a war leader
Bush 1992 War experience seen as irrelevant
Dole 1996 War experience seen as irrelevant
Gore 2000 Not seen as a war leader
Kerry 2004 Not seen as a war leader
This overly-simple description of these men is not meant to slap them, but examine them in the context of their election year. Truman looked tougher than Dewey, General Eisenhower more than Stevenson, former Navy officer JFK over Nixon, reasonable Nixon over indecisive Humphrey or partisan Wallace, war-hardened Nixon over McGovern, reasonable Carter over reflexive Ford, decisive Reagan over timid Carter and Mondale, war veteran GHW Bush over wanna-be Dukakis, peacetime-priorities Clinton over war relics Bush and Dole, “Dubya” Bush tougher than Al “Treeman” Gore.
It’s probably too soon to get an accurate fix on the 2004 election, though. Did Bush win over Kerry because Bush was seen as tougher than Kerry, who trotted out tired old overdone stories whenever he wanted to sell his cred, or was it that Kerry seemed to dwell on Iraq all the time, while Bush seemed more reasonable talking about job growth and Social Security reform? I have a sneaking suspicion that Bush carried more cred than Kerry because of his record – what moron thought you could sell a ex-Vietnam protestor as a war hero? But I also suspect that Bush sold his case in more than one dimension, while Kerry droned on about magic hats and his wounded pride.
In conclusion, it seems to me that we are all aware that every single President is awakened sooner or later by that aide or young officer. And we elect Presidents in some measure on the assumption of how they will address the issue. The optimal candidate will have the foresight to anticipate the crisis; the wisdom to place the best-qualified officials to address the specific needs and to trust them to know their job; the intelligence and diligence to develop a plan and make changes or adjustments as necessary; and the courage to stand – alone if necessary – behind the plan through its completion. In retrospect, the decisions of the past elections make these points clear, and it is significant to consider who, among the many who want the job, is really capable to carry that burden in the next Administration.
I didn’t have to open my eyes to recognize the voice. Not the individual, but the type. Young, male. military, calm but urgent. Which meant that something somewhere had gone very wrong, very fast, and could get worse if nothing was done soon or the wrong choice was made. I sighed, swung my legs over the side of the bed onto the floor and got up.
And I was alone in my bedroom at home. There was no one there at all. A dream had awakened me.
Thinking about that dream, I gave up trying to sort out specifics, but chewed on a few generalities in my mind. And one of those is what it means to be President of the United States.
One of the more stupid charges tossed out from time to time, is to try to insult the President for taking “vacation”. That word is a misnomer, because Presidents do not get the chance to get away from the job and relax. The plain fact is, Presidents never get vacations; even former Presidents find that they cannot simply visit a mall or take in a movie – the current culture requires advance planning for even the most mundane activity – ask Bill Clinton how easy it is for him to go to a McDonald’s these days, or G.H.W. Bush to decide on the spur of the moment to go golfing. And for the sitting President, that “vacation” is all work. All it really means is a change of location, and some pretty scenery – a lot of people are clueless to how often Presidents hold private conferences with key foreign and Congressional leaders while on “vacation”; Carter’s Egypt-Israel peace treaty started with phone conversations during one of Carter’s “vacations”. Dubya has met with Tony Blair, Ariel Sharon, Prime Minister Koizumi, and many other leaders while on “vacation”. And do I really need to remind the reader that every President, regardless of party or circumstance, is never far from the “football” or aides who will not hesitate to inform him of serious events? You know, now I think about it it’s no wonder no President ever had a child conceived while he was in office – the knowledge that a Secret Service agent could enter without any warning would “kill the mood” for anybody. Well, almost anybody.
But getting back to the topic under discussion, when Americans are choosing a President, it is important to realize that the war condition of the nation is a critical factor. I would suggest that when people are worried about conflict, they are less likely to consider changing the party in leadership, but when things are relaxed and going well in national security terms, they will consider alternatives more readily. Sometimes the more competent leader is seen in the light of who can lead effectively in time of war. In other times, war seems unpopular or irrelevant and a war leader is less respected than an economic leader. With that in mind, consider the war qualifications of the following failed candidates:
Dewey 1948 Economic leader, not seen as a war leader
Stevenson 1952, 1956 Intellectual, not a war leader
Nixon 1960, 1968 Not seen as a war leader, hurt him in 1960 but
helped him in 1968 (seen as war leader in 1972)
Goldwater 1964 Depicted as emotional and unstable
Humphrey 1968 Not seen as a war leader
McGovern 1972 Not seen as a war leader
Ford 1976 Not seen as a war leader (given Vietnam and Carter’s Navy experience)
Carter 1980 Seen as militarily incompetent
Mondale 1984 Not seen as a war leader
Dukakis 1988 Not seen as a war leader
Bush 1992 War experience seen as irrelevant
Dole 1996 War experience seen as irrelevant
Gore 2000 Not seen as a war leader
Kerry 2004 Not seen as a war leader
This overly-simple description of these men is not meant to slap them, but examine them in the context of their election year. Truman looked tougher than Dewey, General Eisenhower more than Stevenson, former Navy officer JFK over Nixon, reasonable Nixon over indecisive Humphrey or partisan Wallace, war-hardened Nixon over McGovern, reasonable Carter over reflexive Ford, decisive Reagan over timid Carter and Mondale, war veteran GHW Bush over wanna-be Dukakis, peacetime-priorities Clinton over war relics Bush and Dole, “Dubya” Bush tougher than Al “Treeman” Gore.
It’s probably too soon to get an accurate fix on the 2004 election, though. Did Bush win over Kerry because Bush was seen as tougher than Kerry, who trotted out tired old overdone stories whenever he wanted to sell his cred, or was it that Kerry seemed to dwell on Iraq all the time, while Bush seemed more reasonable talking about job growth and Social Security reform? I have a sneaking suspicion that Bush carried more cred than Kerry because of his record – what moron thought you could sell a ex-Vietnam protestor as a war hero? But I also suspect that Bush sold his case in more than one dimension, while Kerry droned on about magic hats and his wounded pride.
In conclusion, it seems to me that we are all aware that every single President is awakened sooner or later by that aide or young officer. And we elect Presidents in some measure on the assumption of how they will address the issue. The optimal candidate will have the foresight to anticipate the crisis; the wisdom to place the best-qualified officials to address the specific needs and to trust them to know their job; the intelligence and diligence to develop a plan and make changes or adjustments as necessary; and the courage to stand – alone if necessary – behind the plan through its completion. In retrospect, the decisions of the past elections make these points clear, and it is significant to consider who, among the many who want the job, is really capable to carry that burden in the next Administration.
Wednesday, September 27, 2006
When Zombies Go Suicidal
I am not much of a fan of horror movies. It’s not just that I don’t find much to like about the gore and carnage of such fare, but the plots frankly strain credulity. The present state of the Democratic Party of the United States certainly strikes me the same way; like a bad zombie movie where nothing makes sense, yet the show remains popular.
Bill “Braaaaaaains” Clinton is suddenly a classic example. If he really believed his spiel, all he really needed to do was ignore the ABC movie and answer Chris Wallace’s questions with the same dignity and maturity which the Bushes in office have done for the past two decades, and he could establish something of credibility. If he had pointed out the fact that every significant investigation into 9/11 has shown flaws and mistakes on the part of both Administrations to encounter bin Laden, and admitted his errors while explaining the context of his decisions, Clinton could have supported both his reputation and that of Democrats. Instead, former President Clinton threw a tantrum, tossed out lies and excuses, and reminded America why his party could not be trusted with Crisis Management decisions.
I wrote a factually sound article about why our next President needs to be as much like George W. Bush as possible. I posted that article on both Wizbang Politics and Stolen Thunder, where it was largely well-received by those adults who read it ( turns smirk off ).
On Wizbang Politics, one type-capable zombie using the name “Alex” presented a series of statements which purported to “recap” the George W. Bush administration. These statements are fascinating not only in their degree of dishonesty, but also as a text to the mindset of the Zombie Left. I present them here:
“1. Before 9/11 Bush spent 42% of that time on vacation, while ignoring all warnings about Bin Laden; such as a report entitled "Bin Laden determined to attack within the United States".
2. Bush lied to the country when he said that there were WMDs, that Saddam Hussein had a connection to 9/11, and that Saddam Hussein was buying Yellow Cake Uranium from Niger.
3. When we had Bin Laden cornered in Tora Bora, Bush redirected troops to Iraq where there was absolutely no threat to us.
4. He has purposely used terror to scare voters into voting for him as demonstrated here
http://movies.crooksandliars.com/Countdown-Terror-Nexus-8-14-06.mp4
5. He has created the largest deficit in US history, out of the biggest surplus in US history created by President Clinton.
6. It took him days to order federal response units into Louisiana after Hurricane Katrina.
8. He has repeatedly condoned torture, and violated the Geneva convention.
9. He has also violated the constitution by authorizing warrantless wiretaps on innocent Americans.
10. He has vetoed only one bill, for stem cell research, a bill that would save lives. Instead the stem cells will just be discarded.”
Like scratching an itch, answering these lies is something of a reflex, but I will do so anyway.
1. Anyone who thinks “vacation” for a sitting President means relaxing and ignoring the world is brain-dead. Every President, Bush included, spends his “vacation” making decisions, meeting with world leaders and leadership from both major parties, and is kept briefed on all major events. Alex seems to be unaware of this, just as he seems to have forgotten that the August brief he referenced had zero actionable information, and was no more than a summary of general intentions. It is also a poor tactic for Alex to play, since questioning Bush’s focus during his eight months prior to 9/11 naturally invites attention to what President Clinton did during his eight years in office. That’s just zombie-dumb …
2. Like children who won’t give up on fairy tales, the Left must cling to the “Bush Lied” canard long after it died from lack of substance. But just for the exercise, here are the facts. First, the war was never just about WMD, but even if we focus just on that for this lie from Alex, “WMD” is Nuclear, but also Biological and Chemical weapons. The fact is that Saddam had active programs in all three categories, hid evidence for all three from inspectors, and literally hundreds of chemical warheads for shells and missiles – that would be those “stockpiles” the Zombie Left kept denying. One warehouse in Iraq held 1.77 metric tons of enriched uranium, by the way - more than enough to make several crude but very real nuclear weapons. As for Saddam Hussein’s shopping habits, Alex has listened keenly to Joe Wilson lie about various things, but has missed the fact that British Intelligence still stands by its report that Saddam did, in fact, plan and attempt to buy uranium from Niger. Alex is not even telling original lies, much less believable lies …
3. While Alex may possess psychic abilities, the claim that we had bin Laden “cornered” is an opinion not shared by professionals, nor is it truthful to pretend that the President of the United States micromanages to the degree of troop allocation between locations. It is similarly false – and laughable, since the Zombie Left is usually moaning about casualties – to pretend that there was no threat from Iraq. But I have not read a military overview yet from a Zombie Liberal which demonstrated a sense of orientation, much less mission acuity…
4. Pretending that discussing the issues which concern voters the most is somehow “scaring” them into voting for him is almost as absurd as submitting a Zombie Leftist website as a valid source to prove his claim. But I should not be too harsh; Alex would be hard pressed indeed to find evidence to support this lie from any objective source …
5. Leftists must cross their fingers every time they toss out that lie, because even a grade-school education in Social Studies would catch them out. Congress makes the budget, not the President. And those deficits and surpluses come from the actual spending decisions made by Congress. Now, it is true that the White House submits a budget – and those submissions by Clinton are not especially impressive. I also have a good laugh at that “biggest deficit” and “biggest surplus” lie – as a percentage of GDP the current deficit is far from the worst, and by the way even that deficit is shrinking. You might note the “record revenues” part from that report before the next time you lie about tax cuts being ‘only for the rich’ or ‘bad for the country’. And while I’m thinking about it, the ‘Clinton Surplus’ was just another one of those fables told by Democrats – Clinton promised a surplus but there was never a real surplus – the Clinton Administration changed its method of Accounting (they created the so-called “unified” system, which does not follow GAAP) and projected possible surpluses in the future, based on best-case conditions which do not occur in real-world conditions. But Liberals are not on good terms with real-world conditions …
6. Yet another big lie. As I have mentioned before, President George W. Bush authorized federal assistance for the Gulf Coast in general and the State of Louisiana in particular on August 26 2005, more than two days before Hurricane Katrina landed on the shores of Louisiana and hit New Orleans. If you want to find someone who delayed giving authorization for relief and help to get where it needed to be, you will have to look to people like Mayor Nagin and Governor Blanco. My personal “most guilty”, as I have always said, is Major General Bennett C. Landreneau, whose duck n’ deny method of accountability showed up ugly and often in how he advised the people who needed information and coordination of action. Alex is destitute where facts and honesty come into consideration…
7. was empty. Apparently Zombie Central lost the signal to tell Alex what lie and insult to enter on this line.
8. Alex has never read the Geneva Convention or he would know what that treaty prescribes for non-government combatants who kill civilians, and like all Zombie Liberals his definition of “torture” always comes down to mean any action he can defame in order to smear the military and the President. We don’t saw people’s heads off, we don’t kidnap kids off the streets, but Alex can’t tell the difference…
9. Alex should actually read the U.S. Constitution sometime. Maybe that part about the President being “Commander-in-Chief” of the military, or noting that Constitutional Rights cannot and do not apply to foreign agents, especially those attempting to kill Americans? But this would likely still be lost on Alex, who talks about “warrantless” where no warrant is needed, “wiretaps” where no wiretaps were used, and “innocent Americans” where the subjects were reasonably believed to be neither innocent nor American. Alex’s charge is as stupid as it is dishonest …
10. And like a lame “Top Ten” routine on a particularly bad night for Dave Letterman, Alex finishes with the charge that not vetoing bills is bad unless one happens to like the bill. And as for any bill ‘saving lives’, give me a break. Not one person’s life was saved by stem cell research. Maybe such research has value, maybe not, but that is a contentious moral and scientific issue still in hot debate, and whether fetal cells are necessary or even the best choice for such research is also a point far from decided. The notion that a President who has been very consistent in pro-Child decisions would continue to do so in this arena is not an area where I would think Liberals would want to shine a light. As with all his other charges, Alex’s attempt here not only fails to persuade, but even small consideration of the facts leads one towards the Right side of the question.
Which brings me to the reason for this article. Republicans and Democrats are once again in that stupid Dance-Of-The-Stuffed-Suits we see every couple years. Predictable as those Zombies I mentioned at the start of this article, these men and women go after political targets of opportunity full bore. It’s almost frightening to see the mindless pack of politicos in action.
But this season the Democrats have started something different. Those zombies are increasingly attacking each other, even as they seem to believe they are attacking the Republicans. While Alex’s dishonest and stupid allegations are easy to refute, it’s strange to see how many on the Left have embraced such tactics. As I mentioned, Bill Clinton could have made a measured statement or two to deflect attention to his National Security decisions, but instead made sure the whole country noticed his record. Democrats could have shown Hugo Chavez the door and made clear their support for civil politics, but instead tried to play it both ways, condemning Chavez while sponsoring events for him. Liberals could have shown that despite dissenting with the President about going to war, they support the troops by supporting the success of their mission and trusting the men in the boots over there, but they chose not to do so. Democrats could have come up with specific and constructive plans for the economy and National Defense, but instead fell back on the same old screech and whine plays they have tried in past elections, and which always lost. It’s a lot like seeing a mob of zombies go after each other. Bring popcorn.
Bill “Braaaaaaains” Clinton is suddenly a classic example. If he really believed his spiel, all he really needed to do was ignore the ABC movie and answer Chris Wallace’s questions with the same dignity and maturity which the Bushes in office have done for the past two decades, and he could establish something of credibility. If he had pointed out the fact that every significant investigation into 9/11 has shown flaws and mistakes on the part of both Administrations to encounter bin Laden, and admitted his errors while explaining the context of his decisions, Clinton could have supported both his reputation and that of Democrats. Instead, former President Clinton threw a tantrum, tossed out lies and excuses, and reminded America why his party could not be trusted with Crisis Management decisions.
I wrote a factually sound article about why our next President needs to be as much like George W. Bush as possible. I posted that article on both Wizbang Politics and Stolen Thunder, where it was largely well-received by those adults who read it ( turns smirk off ).
On Wizbang Politics, one type-capable zombie using the name “Alex” presented a series of statements which purported to “recap” the George W. Bush administration. These statements are fascinating not only in their degree of dishonesty, but also as a text to the mindset of the Zombie Left. I present them here:
“1. Before 9/11 Bush spent 42% of that time on vacation, while ignoring all warnings about Bin Laden; such as a report entitled "Bin Laden determined to attack within the United States".
2. Bush lied to the country when he said that there were WMDs, that Saddam Hussein had a connection to 9/11, and that Saddam Hussein was buying Yellow Cake Uranium from Niger.
3. When we had Bin Laden cornered in Tora Bora, Bush redirected troops to Iraq where there was absolutely no threat to us.
4. He has purposely used terror to scare voters into voting for him as demonstrated here
http://movies.crooksandliars.com/Countdown-Terror-Nexus-8-14-06.mp4
5. He has created the largest deficit in US history, out of the biggest surplus in US history created by President Clinton.
6. It took him days to order federal response units into Louisiana after Hurricane Katrina.
8. He has repeatedly condoned torture, and violated the Geneva convention.
9. He has also violated the constitution by authorizing warrantless wiretaps on innocent Americans.
10. He has vetoed only one bill, for stem cell research, a bill that would save lives. Instead the stem cells will just be discarded.”
Like scratching an itch, answering these lies is something of a reflex, but I will do so anyway.
1. Anyone who thinks “vacation” for a sitting President means relaxing and ignoring the world is brain-dead. Every President, Bush included, spends his “vacation” making decisions, meeting with world leaders and leadership from both major parties, and is kept briefed on all major events. Alex seems to be unaware of this, just as he seems to have forgotten that the August brief he referenced had zero actionable information, and was no more than a summary of general intentions. It is also a poor tactic for Alex to play, since questioning Bush’s focus during his eight months prior to 9/11 naturally invites attention to what President Clinton did during his eight years in office. That’s just zombie-dumb …
2. Like children who won’t give up on fairy tales, the Left must cling to the “Bush Lied” canard long after it died from lack of substance. But just for the exercise, here are the facts. First, the war was never just about WMD, but even if we focus just on that for this lie from Alex, “WMD” is Nuclear, but also Biological and Chemical weapons. The fact is that Saddam had active programs in all three categories, hid evidence for all three from inspectors, and literally hundreds of chemical warheads for shells and missiles – that would be those “stockpiles” the Zombie Left kept denying. One warehouse in Iraq held 1.77 metric tons of enriched uranium, by the way - more than enough to make several crude but very real nuclear weapons. As for Saddam Hussein’s shopping habits, Alex has listened keenly to Joe Wilson lie about various things, but has missed the fact that British Intelligence still stands by its report that Saddam did, in fact, plan and attempt to buy uranium from Niger. Alex is not even telling original lies, much less believable lies …
3. While Alex may possess psychic abilities, the claim that we had bin Laden “cornered” is an opinion not shared by professionals, nor is it truthful to pretend that the President of the United States micromanages to the degree of troop allocation between locations. It is similarly false – and laughable, since the Zombie Left is usually moaning about casualties – to pretend that there was no threat from Iraq. But I have not read a military overview yet from a Zombie Liberal which demonstrated a sense of orientation, much less mission acuity…
4. Pretending that discussing the issues which concern voters the most is somehow “scaring” them into voting for him is almost as absurd as submitting a Zombie Leftist website as a valid source to prove his claim. But I should not be too harsh; Alex would be hard pressed indeed to find evidence to support this lie from any objective source …
5. Leftists must cross their fingers every time they toss out that lie, because even a grade-school education in Social Studies would catch them out. Congress makes the budget, not the President. And those deficits and surpluses come from the actual spending decisions made by Congress. Now, it is true that the White House submits a budget – and those submissions by Clinton are not especially impressive. I also have a good laugh at that “biggest deficit” and “biggest surplus” lie – as a percentage of GDP the current deficit is far from the worst, and by the way even that deficit is shrinking. You might note the “record revenues” part from that report before the next time you lie about tax cuts being ‘only for the rich’ or ‘bad for the country’. And while I’m thinking about it, the ‘Clinton Surplus’ was just another one of those fables told by Democrats – Clinton promised a surplus but there was never a real surplus – the Clinton Administration changed its method of Accounting (they created the so-called “unified” system, which does not follow GAAP) and projected possible surpluses in the future, based on best-case conditions which do not occur in real-world conditions. But Liberals are not on good terms with real-world conditions …
6. Yet another big lie. As I have mentioned before, President George W. Bush authorized federal assistance for the Gulf Coast in general and the State of Louisiana in particular on August 26 2005, more than two days before Hurricane Katrina landed on the shores of Louisiana and hit New Orleans. If you want to find someone who delayed giving authorization for relief and help to get where it needed to be, you will have to look to people like Mayor Nagin and Governor Blanco. My personal “most guilty”, as I have always said, is Major General Bennett C. Landreneau, whose duck n’ deny method of accountability showed up ugly and often in how he advised the people who needed information and coordination of action. Alex is destitute where facts and honesty come into consideration…
7. was empty. Apparently Zombie Central lost the signal to tell Alex what lie and insult to enter on this line.
8. Alex has never read the Geneva Convention or he would know what that treaty prescribes for non-government combatants who kill civilians, and like all Zombie Liberals his definition of “torture” always comes down to mean any action he can defame in order to smear the military and the President. We don’t saw people’s heads off, we don’t kidnap kids off the streets, but Alex can’t tell the difference…
9. Alex should actually read the U.S. Constitution sometime. Maybe that part about the President being “Commander-in-Chief” of the military, or noting that Constitutional Rights cannot and do not apply to foreign agents, especially those attempting to kill Americans? But this would likely still be lost on Alex, who talks about “warrantless” where no warrant is needed, “wiretaps” where no wiretaps were used, and “innocent Americans” where the subjects were reasonably believed to be neither innocent nor American. Alex’s charge is as stupid as it is dishonest …
10. And like a lame “Top Ten” routine on a particularly bad night for Dave Letterman, Alex finishes with the charge that not vetoing bills is bad unless one happens to like the bill. And as for any bill ‘saving lives’, give me a break. Not one person’s life was saved by stem cell research. Maybe such research has value, maybe not, but that is a contentious moral and scientific issue still in hot debate, and whether fetal cells are necessary or even the best choice for such research is also a point far from decided. The notion that a President who has been very consistent in pro-Child decisions would continue to do so in this arena is not an area where I would think Liberals would want to shine a light. As with all his other charges, Alex’s attempt here not only fails to persuade, but even small consideration of the facts leads one towards the Right side of the question.
Which brings me to the reason for this article. Republicans and Democrats are once again in that stupid Dance-Of-The-Stuffed-Suits we see every couple years. Predictable as those Zombies I mentioned at the start of this article, these men and women go after political targets of opportunity full bore. It’s almost frightening to see the mindless pack of politicos in action.
But this season the Democrats have started something different. Those zombies are increasingly attacking each other, even as they seem to believe they are attacking the Republicans. While Alex’s dishonest and stupid allegations are easy to refute, it’s strange to see how many on the Left have embraced such tactics. As I mentioned, Bill Clinton could have made a measured statement or two to deflect attention to his National Security decisions, but instead made sure the whole country noticed his record. Democrats could have shown Hugo Chavez the door and made clear their support for civil politics, but instead tried to play it both ways, condemning Chavez while sponsoring events for him. Liberals could have shown that despite dissenting with the President about going to war, they support the troops by supporting the success of their mission and trusting the men in the boots over there, but they chose not to do so. Democrats could have come up with specific and constructive plans for the economy and National Defense, but instead fell back on the same old screech and whine plays they have tried in past elections, and which always lost. It’s a lot like seeing a mob of zombies go after each other. Bring popcorn.
Tuesday, September 26, 2006
IQ 086 and Falling?
Work is insane right now.
Various stresses at home right now.
I have two tests this week, one more next week, two assignments due plus starting on two term papers ... then mid-terms in eleven days.
Blogging will be intermittent, sorry.
Various stresses at home right now.
I have two tests this week, one more next week, two assignments due plus starting on two term papers ... then mid-terms in eleven days.
Blogging will be intermittent, sorry.
Monday, September 25, 2006
Loss and Remembrance
Kitty Myers’ mother has passed away. Her article is poignant and articulate, far better than I could manage when my father passed away in April of this year.
I have not really been able to face my father’s death. When I started blogging again, I simply went back to political nit-picking and the usual fool-foorah for a mind on auto-pilot, and shoved grief into a neat little box. That box is still there, waiting in the back of my psyche for me to deal with it. I have busied myself with family, work, and my MBA studies, but I realize that someday I will have to come to terms. For here and now, my heart goes out to Kitty, and I pray the Lord will grant her family comfort in this time.
I have not really been able to face my father’s death. When I started blogging again, I simply went back to political nit-picking and the usual fool-foorah for a mind on auto-pilot, and shoved grief into a neat little box. That box is still there, waiting in the back of my psyche for me to deal with it. I have busied myself with family, work, and my MBA studies, but I realize that someday I will have to come to terms. For here and now, my heart goes out to Kitty, and I pray the Lord will grant her family comfort in this time.
Chief Hurtt Must Resign
The performance of Houston Police Department Chief Harold L. Hurtt has reached unacceptable levels. The recent death of Officer Rodney Johnson at the hands of an illegal migrant from Mexico is simply the latest and most obvious example of Hurtt’s incompetence and stone-faced apathy to the needs of his officers and the city.
Hurtt was the guy who thought that red-light cameras at intersections to increase ticket revenue was better than protecting safety by using police officers.
Hurtt is the guy who decided HPD officers could not pursue suspects in chases, a decision which ran directly counter to the officers’ experienced opinion.
And when Rodney Johnson was gunned down by an illegal who should never have been in the United States at all, Hurtt refused to allow HPD officers even ask suspects if they are in the United States legally, much less take them off the streets. Mayor Bill White asked Chief Hurtt to reconsider his – well, his consistently stupid and dangerous decision – last December, but Hurtt did not bother to reconsider, and now a police officer is dead in part because of that policy.
Chief Hurtt is not even available to answer questions and criticisms from Houstonians; he went off on a trip to give speeches in Arizona and North Carolina immediately after Officer Johnson's death. Almost as if the murder of one of his officers brings him no worry or grief.
Resign, Chief Hurtt.
Now.
Before your policies and politics get more people killed.
Hurtt was the guy who thought that red-light cameras at intersections to increase ticket revenue was better than protecting safety by using police officers.
Hurtt is the guy who decided HPD officers could not pursue suspects in chases, a decision which ran directly counter to the officers’ experienced opinion.
And when Rodney Johnson was gunned down by an illegal who should never have been in the United States at all, Hurtt refused to allow HPD officers even ask suspects if they are in the United States legally, much less take them off the streets. Mayor Bill White asked Chief Hurtt to reconsider his – well, his consistently stupid and dangerous decision – last December, but Hurtt did not bother to reconsider, and now a police officer is dead in part because of that policy.
Chief Hurtt is not even available to answer questions and criticisms from Houstonians; he went off on a trip to give speeches in Arizona and North Carolina immediately after Officer Johnson's death. Almost as if the murder of one of his officers brings him no worry or grief.
Resign, Chief Hurtt.
Now.
Before your policies and politics get more people killed.
Sunday, September 24, 2006
America Needs Another Bush
It is said, and truly, that a wise man never dissents with a wise woman. I fear I am about to prove I am not a wise man, but I must.
In her article Saturday, The Anchoress said the following:
“I am more convinced than ever that I don’t want to see another president named Clinton or Bush for a very long time. I’ve had enough of this whole Hatfield/McCoy scene. I don’t think the wide rift that exists between parties can possibly be healed - for the better of our nation - while these two families are in power.”
I am sorry to differ, milady, but you are wrong. And the error must be challenged*.
I am not anti-Clinton, per se. Recently I wrote an article defending President Clinton somewhat, with regard to his efforts on National Security. While I agree with criticism in some specific instances, I agree with The Anchoress that people who use only hindsight demand an unreasonable perfection, and hold officials to an impossible standard.
I also wrote recently about a disturbing article in the off-mainline press which tried to cast Clinton as a madman, and if true in its specifics it admitted to a deliberate attempt to weaken National Security rather than allow the President to do his job.
But that said, the attempts to equivocate between elected officials named Clinton and elected officials named Bush are disingenuous and more, dangerous in their falsity. While I do not blame pre-9/11 officials for not being able to foresee and therefore prevent that monstrous wrong, I stop short of suggesting that such a viewpoint is appropriate or tolerable in a national official now. To show what I mean, just consider that Tom Harkin, Democrat, claimed that immediately after the 9/11 attacks, that every nation on earth, including (and Harkin emphasized this part) Islamic governments. Harkin charged that President Bush “squandered” that “good will”. (ht Powerline)
Think about that. First off, we’ve heard a lot things like that from Democrats for the last five years, so Harkin can fairly be said to represent the Democrats’ voice. And I challenge his claim. We all knew within days that the Taliban, Al Qaeda, and Osama bin Laden were all directly responsible for the attacks. Did Afghanistan offer to turn them over for trial? Did Saddam Hussein offer to help round them up? Did any Islamic government step up and offer to catch the monsters?
Obviously, no, not one of them made any such offer. They made public gestures of sympathy, but in action they were silent, or worse. I do not know whether the threat attributed to Mr. Armitage is true or not, but if so it raises my estimate of the man; that was precisely what needed to be said at that place and time.
I am old enough to know the evils of war. But I am also old enough to have learned that such evils show up many times when someone believes that cowardice will be safer, that the expedient will somehow cost less; the butcher’s bill is always paid, and always by those with the resolve to say “This ends here” to men like bin Laden, Hussein … and men like Ahmahdinejad, Assad, and Jintao.
And so I look forward to 2008. Uneasily, because the Democrats have abandoned almost all pretense of a fair fight, and they will use pretty much any device or method to gain control of the White House. The Republican candidate therefore must win in 2008, of the nation will suffer for it, because – and it is sad to have to say this about a major political party – there is no chance at all that the Democrats’ nominee will be competent or resolute in the charge to defend the nation. Thus the GOP nominee must be attractive to the public in a way the Left cannot easily pervert, and I believe this is what The Anchoress means. That said, this nation cannot stand a Republican in the White House either, if that Republican lacks the vision, resolve, or backbone to face down the enemy, whether in Teheran or across the aisle in Washington. Therefore, this nation cannot afford to see someone named McCain, Frist, Hagel or Tancredo. We need another George “Dubya” Bush.
No, I am not saying find a way for the man to run again, nor do I mean that it’s time for Jeb. But whomever plans to represent the party had better be planning to learn from our current President and apply his doctrine. They can make their own name on a host of domestic issues and pressing concerns, but where defending the nation is concerned, there must be a strong Crawford flavor to the next President’s policies and directives.
(*UPDATE The Anchoress has kindly reminded me that my statements ought to be logical, and so I have corrected this one at her suggestion. Thank you, lady. )
In her article Saturday, The Anchoress said the following:
“I am more convinced than ever that I don’t want to see another president named Clinton or Bush for a very long time. I’ve had enough of this whole Hatfield/McCoy scene. I don’t think the wide rift that exists between parties can possibly be healed - for the better of our nation - while these two families are in power.”
I am sorry to differ, milady, but you are wrong. And the error must be challenged*.
I am not anti-Clinton, per se. Recently I wrote an article defending President Clinton somewhat, with regard to his efforts on National Security. While I agree with criticism in some specific instances, I agree with The Anchoress that people who use only hindsight demand an unreasonable perfection, and hold officials to an impossible standard.
I also wrote recently about a disturbing article in the off-mainline press which tried to cast Clinton as a madman, and if true in its specifics it admitted to a deliberate attempt to weaken National Security rather than allow the President to do his job.
But that said, the attempts to equivocate between elected officials named Clinton and elected officials named Bush are disingenuous and more, dangerous in their falsity. While I do not blame pre-9/11 officials for not being able to foresee and therefore prevent that monstrous wrong, I stop short of suggesting that such a viewpoint is appropriate or tolerable in a national official now. To show what I mean, just consider that Tom Harkin, Democrat, claimed that immediately after the 9/11 attacks, that every nation on earth, including (and Harkin emphasized this part) Islamic governments. Harkin charged that President Bush “squandered” that “good will”. (ht Powerline)
Think about that. First off, we’ve heard a lot things like that from Democrats for the last five years, so Harkin can fairly be said to represent the Democrats’ voice. And I challenge his claim. We all knew within days that the Taliban, Al Qaeda, and Osama bin Laden were all directly responsible for the attacks. Did Afghanistan offer to turn them over for trial? Did Saddam Hussein offer to help round them up? Did any Islamic government step up and offer to catch the monsters?
Obviously, no, not one of them made any such offer. They made public gestures of sympathy, but in action they were silent, or worse. I do not know whether the threat attributed to Mr. Armitage is true or not, but if so it raises my estimate of the man; that was precisely what needed to be said at that place and time.
I am old enough to know the evils of war. But I am also old enough to have learned that such evils show up many times when someone believes that cowardice will be safer, that the expedient will somehow cost less; the butcher’s bill is always paid, and always by those with the resolve to say “This ends here” to men like bin Laden, Hussein … and men like Ahmahdinejad, Assad, and Jintao.
And so I look forward to 2008. Uneasily, because the Democrats have abandoned almost all pretense of a fair fight, and they will use pretty much any device or method to gain control of the White House. The Republican candidate therefore must win in 2008, of the nation will suffer for it, because – and it is sad to have to say this about a major political party – there is no chance at all that the Democrats’ nominee will be competent or resolute in the charge to defend the nation. Thus the GOP nominee must be attractive to the public in a way the Left cannot easily pervert, and I believe this is what The Anchoress means. That said, this nation cannot stand a Republican in the White House either, if that Republican lacks the vision, resolve, or backbone to face down the enemy, whether in Teheran or across the aisle in Washington. Therefore, this nation cannot afford to see someone named McCain, Frist, Hagel or Tancredo. We need another George “Dubya” Bush.
No, I am not saying find a way for the man to run again, nor do I mean that it’s time for Jeb. But whomever plans to represent the party had better be planning to learn from our current President and apply his doctrine. They can make their own name on a host of domestic issues and pressing concerns, but where defending the nation is concerned, there must be a strong Crawford flavor to the next President’s policies and directives.
(*UPDATE The Anchoress has kindly reminded me that my statements ought to be logical, and so I have corrected this one at her suggestion. Thank you, lady. )
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
