'Tis the Season for Political Polls
Obama is "surging" in Iowa! The latest poll shows him leading Hillary by 4 percentage points! Oh, by the way, if you read the fine print, it says the poll has a margin of error of +/- 4%. Now you might think that means that the worst case for Obama is that they're tied. But that's not what it means. You have to apply the factor to both candidates. In other words, Obama could have four percentage points more than the pollsters think, and, at the same time, Hillary could have four percentage points less. That would actually add up to an eight point swing...and that could go in either direction. So Obama could be 12 points ahead of Hillary, or Hillary could be 4 points ahead of Obama, and it would still be within the margin of error of the poll. So - do we really know who's leading in Iowa? Does this poll really mean anything at all? Well, it does mean that I got to share a little math lesson with you, but that's about it.
Calling all Constitutional Scholars
The media is full of scare stories about how your rights are being eroded by the Patriot Act, or by government surveillance targeted at terrorist communications, but I would submit to you that the one single part of the Constitution that has been more abused over the years than any other is the Tenth Amendment. In case you don't remember it from your civics class, here's what it says:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
The Founding Fathers were justifiably concerned that the federal government would gradually exert more and more power over the states, so the Constitution was specifically amended to say that if the Constitution doesn't specifically grant a particular power to the federal government, or specifically deny that power to the states, then that power belongs to the states or to the people, not to the federal government. This, by the way, is the objection that a lot of people have to Roe v Wade: it's not that the federal government should outlaw abortion, it's that the federal government shouldn't be involved. It should be a matter for the states to decide through their respective state legislators who answer to the people of that state. But I digress.
What I really want to know is this: Given the inconvenient language of the Tenth Amendment, what Constitutional authority does the federal government have to dictate to private industries (in this case, the automobile manufacturers) what gas mileage their cars have to get? Isn't this something that market forces should decide? Or at the very least, the individual states? California has, of course, had more stringent emissions standards than anyone else for many years. I'm OK with that. Those laws were passed by the representatives of the people of California, and if the people of California don't like them, they can elect new representatives to change the laws. The way I read the Tenth Amendment, that's how it's supposed to work.
The Mainstream Media Just Can't Stand Good News From Iraq
In case you're still doubting that most of the media in this country has been ignoring anything out of Iraq that might actually be good news, and focusing on anything it can possibly find to advance the quagmire/failure/lost cause angle, consider this:
Mediaresearch.org monitored all of the Iraq stories that aired on the "big three" evening newscasts (that would be ABC, NBC, and CBS) for the period of September 1 - November 30. Turns out that in September, hard on the heels of General Petraeus' progress report (which they all were duly skeptical about), they aired 178 stories on Iraq, 42 of which were filed from Iraq itself. In October, they aired 108 stories. That's a 40% drop. Only 20 of them were actually filed from Iraq. In November, the number of stories dropped to 68, with only 11 filed from Iraq. So, as it became obvious that the troop surge was working, and things were getting better in Iraq, the coverage of the war declined - not just by a little bit, but precipitously! Coincidence? If you think so, I'd like to talk to you about this beachfront property I have for sale in New Mexico.
He Didn't Block a Single Document!
You know, sometimes you just have to shake your head and laugh. After Hillary was questioned in an October debate about whether certain documents from the Clinton presidency had been withheld, Bruce Lindsey, the former president's "official representative on records issues" released a written statement that said, in part, "Bill Clinton has not blocked the release of a single document." In a story that ran today in the New York Sun, we find that what Lindsey said is literally true: he didn't block a single document, he blocked 2,600 of them. Is anybody surprised by this? After all, even their old buddy David Geffen (who was a strong Clinton supporter until 2001 when Bill refused to pardon David's other buddy Leonard Peltier as part of his orgy of pardons as he left office) is on record as saying, "Everybody in politics lies, but they do it with such ease, it's troubling." Can someone please explain to me why these people have any credibility about anything?
Thanks for listening...and Merry Christmas!
No comments:
Post a Comment