Saturday, July 4, 2015

The Confederate flag has to come down but no one calling for it now is a hero.





After the tragedy in Charleston and pictures of the psychopath who committed the mass murder surfaced showing him posing with a confederate flag, there was and still is a chorus of calls from politicians both conservative and liberal and civil rights activists for the confederate flag to come down from official state government sites and monuments.
 
The flag has to come down.  But no one calling for it to come down in the wake of the mass murders is a hero. Nor should they consider themselves to be. 

Everything that is offensive about the Confederate flag and what it stood for was offensive a day before the murders, it was offensive a year ago, 5 years ago,10 years ago, 25 years ago, 50 years ago and 150 years ago. 

Many in the south say the flag doesn't represent racism it represents heritage. The south has an awful lot of things to be proud of. That flag and everything it represents isn't one of them. 

It doesn't just represent racism. That is the nice way to put it. What it really represents are atrocities. Atrocities sanctioned by Southern state governments committed against a large segment of the American population. And the Confederate battle flag represented the right to continue those atrocities without federal interference. 
 
That it took 9 African Americans getting murdered in a Charleston church by a psychopath who posed with the Confederate flag for people, black as well as white, to say that flag has no place in a government office or building or to be flying at state houses or be part of a state flag, and to call for its removal 150 years after the Emancipation Proclamation and the end of the civil war, doesn't make any one a hero.
 
Though the flag has few supporters now, some who do support it's display say it's not about slavery but States rights. What they don't say is that the states rights they are talking about was the right of those states to commit atrocities as part of their way of life and economy. That is the principle they were fighting for.  That the federal government had no right to interfere and force those states to end those atrocities. Yet those flags continued to fly at southern state houses or were integrated into the flags of the states that were once part of the confederacy.
 
Which means no one calling for the removal of those flags now including Obama  is demonstrating an act of courage. Those flags should have come down from state capitols and schools and universities as something that was part of official business a long time ago.
 
About 25 years ago on a Saturday afternoon I settled down in front of my TV to watch a college football game. Ole Miss was playing at home. I don't remember the other team but it was a team from the SEC.
 
Before the game started, running out of the tunnel into the field with the Ole Miss football team running behind him, was a black male cheerleader carrying a Confederate flag about the size of 10 bed sheets while the crowd cheered. I almost fell out of my chair. I thought to myself, " what's wrong with that guy? How could he do that? How could he agree or take part in carrying that flag"?  I never gave it another thought since whatever that black cheerleader wanted to do was his own business not mine, nor was it my place to criticize something the university sanctioned, people cheered and the announcers said nothing about.  So I settled in to watch the football game. But I was still flabbergasted by it.
 
Why  black lawmakers who went to work at southern state legislatures every day where those flags were flying didn't object to it sooner is something only they know.  Why there wasn't some public debate about what those flags represent and whether or not they were appropriate to still be flying anywhere connected to any government function, has more to do with benign neglect. 
 
That flag represented state sponsored atrocities, it represented treason against the United States and, it represented racism as a way of life. Some try to defend it by bringing up the courage of the southern boys who fought under that flag. No one ever questioned their courage or bravery in battle so it was never about that. Its always mentioned that hardly any of them owned slaves and that was true. But all that means is they were duped into fighting for the rich plantation owners under the guise of it being something else.
 
At Gettysburg during Pickets Charge General Lewis Armistead put his hat on his saber and egged his confederate soldiers on shouting, " for your mothers, for your wives,your sisters and your sweethearts".  Well, not exactly. Those boys may have believed it but it was for the plantation owners whose wealth depended on slavery and all the atrocities that went with it.  One thing is certain however. Any one man on either side of that battle had more courage than all the politicians and activists calling for the flag to come down now in the wake of the Charleston murders put together.
 
Bree Newsome who some are incredulously calling a hero for climbing a flag pole and taking down the confederate flag at the state capitol in South Carolina is no hero either.  Neither is Obama who could have appropriately used his election in 2008 to say it was way past time to bring that flag down.  However Mr."I know what I'm doing and I'm fearless" didn't say a word.
 
Neither did Bree Newsome for most of her adult life.  Which didn't stop CNN and their usual pandering from trying to treat her like she was.
 
Had Bree Newsome did the same thing a week before the Charleston murders, had she did it 6 months ago, or a year ago or 5 years ago and sparked the debate, caused the debate, forced the debate instead of cashing in on the debate, she would have been a hero and forced everyone to examine their conscience.
 
Had Bree Newsome did the same thing then she might have qualified for a small place in the history books.
 
Doing it after every politician in the country including southern conservative Republicans,  the Republican governor of South Carolina, the conservative Republican senator from South Carolina, governors of Mississippi, Georgia and Alabama, and every major retailer in the country from Amazon to Walmart,  who announced they are removing items with the flag from their shelves and inventories, when even the head of NASCAR said they are going to remove the confederate flag from NASCAR related events and asked fans not to bring it or display it at events,  it took no courage to climb that flag pole and take down the flag.  It was going to come down anyway as soon as the legislature met to vote.  
 
It wasn't a political statement, those had already been made.  It  was something that didn't rise much beyond the level of a prank and knew she'd have political,  public and news media opinion on her side.  The only courage it took was the risk of slipping and falling down the pole though it looked like she had the equipment to make sure that didn't happen. 
 
The people who do deserve some credit are the retailers and NASCAR. At least they are putting their money where their mouth is and are doing it even though they are risking disturbing a large segment of their customer base. In other words they are putting principle ahead of profits and self interest,  something no politician from the president to state and local politicians were ever willing to do until the tragedy in Charleston.
 
It's true that one can argue better late than never. But people calling for the flag to come down now who think they are heroes hopefully will not dislocate their elbows patting themselves on the back.
 
There is an old disparaging comment about those who in the field of battle find their courage in a bottle. For many politicians and those in the news media who are now loudly calling for or supporting the removal of that flag from any and all official government property, they could be considered to have found their courage at Walmart.   That flag should have been removed a long time ago. And no one calling for it now should consider themselves heroes.

Tuesday, June 30, 2015

Obama's new overtime proposal more smoke and mirrors.And he knows it.





Obama newest economic initiative, something he is now publicly touting as an example of his new found economic populism,  is like so many other Obama initiatives, nothing more than snake oil, smoke and mirrors designed to sound good but which will accomplish nothing.


It's a proposal by which millions of Americans who currently work overtime without getting paid for it, would now be paid.

This newest bit of  sleight of hand consists of raising the base salary for which workers are entitled to overtime from a current ridiculously low $23,000 a year to $50,000 a year.  Sounds good right? Sounds like something long overdue, right? Sounds like trying to strike a blow for fairness and income equality right?

Not exactly. It's more fakery and snake oil,  a proposal that sounds good for what ails you but on closer examination is like flavored water - empty and meaningless. It should be labeled "for entertainment purposes only" because that's what it is.

And it's meaningless because of one very important fact -- there is nothing in Obama's proposal or law that would prevent an employer from cutting the base salary of an employee who would qualify for the overtime under the new law to offset the new overtime increases, resulting in a net gain for the worker of zero. Nothing. And cutting base salaries to compensate for increased overtime pay is the first thing employers will do if the law passed. Then the employees that Obama is claiming to help will have two choices -- take the pay cut or quit.

It's a proposal that does nothing for workers who work overtime without getting paid for it. But it does give Obama something to talk about. And talk he is. He announced his proposal with the statement " I believe in middle class economics". Which is why not a single Wall Street or bank executive whose greed caused the economic crisis that threw millions of people out of work and out of their homes was ever prosecuted for fraud even though they admitted to it and were allowed to  cut a deal by paying big  fines instead of going to prison. While tax payer dollars bailed them out. If that isn't believing in middle class economics I don't know what is. 

Obama's new proposal is hollow and gives the pretense of  doing something to benefit workers while at the same time giving a wink to employers and will have no affect on doing what it pretends to do -- put more money in the pockets of workers who put in overtime but don't get paid for it. 

Obama said in announcing his new proposal, "  The current rules leave millions of Americans working long hours which take them away from their families without giving them the overtime pay they deserve".   That's all true.  And under Obama's stirring new proposal it still will. Which means if there was ever an offer of help that deserved the reply, " thanks for nothing" this is it.


Saturday, June 20, 2015

Tiger's Not Back! Tiger's Not Back!





Tiger Woods shot the worst round of his life in the US Open, missed the cut and finished tied for 151 out of 156 players. Finally even sports writers  and those specifically covering golf  who had been making excuses for Woods for 7 years despite the fact that he was only a shell of his former self are finally admitting he's not what he was and probably wont ever be.

But for the last seven years, despite the fact that Woods game had deteriorated beyond recognition and he wasn't even competitive, you wouldn't have known it from the sports news media until now. But they are still afraid to say why.

Over the last seven years, showing the kind of double standards that define contemporary journalism as bad, incompetent and dishonest no matter what the story, despite his disastrous play, if Woods ate a bowl of soup without dribbling down his chin the writers covering golf and sports in general would be proclaiming, " Tigers back, Tigers' back". Jim Nance of CBS was one of the biggest cheerleaders. Woods could play three holes decently without tripping over his club and Nance was proclaiming Woods was showing his old form and he was good as ever. Not exactly.

The hypocrisy and dishonesty of the news media covering Woods hung in the air every time he played and was evident even as one of Woods' tee shots would veer off into the spectator area. Any criticism of Woods would mean his agent would shut them out, no interviews, no nothing. And maybe even counter attack which they did when a broadcaster at the Golf Channel accused Woods of trying to cheat and break the rules while playing a hole in a tournament a year ago.

So none of them wanted to touch the obvious -- what it was that brought about Woods' demise. 

When the story first broke in 2007 that Woods had been cheating on his new wife and new baby, and not just cheating but cheating with women most people wouldn't bring home to meet their goldfish, I said privately that Woods was finished. Not so much finished in terms of advertisers and endorsements or even public opinion, though in the immediate aftermath advertisers understandably left him, but that he was finished as an athlete, as a force in the world of professional golf and that he'd never be the same again, never be able to perform at the level he had been. His demise was predictable.

 Golf is not a team sport. You are out there by yourself. If anything is off by a millimeter, if timing or eye - hand coordination is off by a fraction it can be the difference between shooting 70 and shooting 80 and at the pro level of competition that means disaster. So how does he go out there and play at the same level knowing his carefully crafted image is now in tatters? 

To make matters worse some of the women were making public text messages Woods had sent them,  some incredibly insulting to his wife and others revealing that Woods had some sexual proclivities that most people wouldn't want broadcast to the world. This isn't to judge Woods or what anyone enjoys sexually which is no ones business but their own. But Woods did go out of his way to concoct a facade of a squeaky clean image, someone with an almost Boy Scout- like moral character which  made it even more embarrassing. And hypocritical.

So even back in 2007 I wondered how Woods would be able to play golf at the level  he had been accustomed to in front of thousands of spectators and tens of millions watching around the world, while knowing he was the center of attention and knowing that the whole world knew not only that he had been cheating on his wife and child,  but  knowing what Woods liked these women to do to him  sexually. ( no, there is no reason to repeat it here -- this is about lousy journalism not Woods sex life).

How do you compartmentalize that? How do you shut it out? The answer is Woods couldn't.

But you wouldn't know any of this was even an issue or part of the mix by how Woods was covered by the news media. No one said a word. It was all hush hush. It wasn't  an 800 lb gorilla in the room but an entire zoo. And the sports and golf journalists covering Woods just pretended it didn't exist.

And for the same reasons that political and domestic journalists always play the same game whether it's George W Bush in the White House or  Obama -- to preserve their access  and fear of criticism from any sizeable audience where they might feel professionally threatened.

Any golf or sports writer touching on the real reason behind Woods demise knew they would be denied access to Woods in the future. They were also big fans of Woods (as most everyone was) who in his prime was one of the greatest golf pros ever and so there was fear of potential backlash from Woods' fans if he wasn't treated with kid gloves. 

So for the last seven years while watching Woods game deteriorate into something almost farcical considering what he once was, and all of it happening after the whole mess was made public, they all  pretended they had no idea why Woods wasn't what he used to be. And talked about every possible reason. Except the real one.

It's been a case in point of how corrupt and dishonest journalists can be when covering a story and how they will slant or corrupt the truth based on their own bias and self interest and like so many in journalism, bury the truth rather than run the risk of the truth burying them, a risk any real journalist would take as part of their job.

No one covering Woods wanted to talk about those events and how public knowledge of those events  could have affected Woods' play.  Instead they reported that Woods blamed it on his swing.  Golf analysts gave us countless slow motion video clips of the old Woods and new trying to analyze the differences in the swing .  But the only swinging that caused Woods' game to deteriorate was the swinging he did with what some might call bimbos that became public knowledge.

Woods paid, not millions but tens of millions, maybe more to keep these women quiet,  to get them to stop revealing the text messages or details of their encounters with Woods and to keep them out of the tabloids  or making  TV appearances. He bought their silence with tens of millions. The sports news media was happy to do it for free. As long as they could get an interview.

 As part of the settlements the women were required to stay silent. They couldn't even mention the name Tiger Woods in public or anything about a settlement or for how much. Otherwise they'd forfeit everything Woods agreed to pay them to keep them quiet.

And since 2008 every broadcaster and journalist covering Woods has been happy to go along,  avoiding mentioning it like the plague. Even this year at the Open they never reported that someone had hired a plane to carry a banner over the golf course calling Woods a cheater.

Now having had the worst tournament round of his career in the Open, he missed the cut again, finishing tied for 151 out of 156 players. Even amateurs beat him.

But this time we're no longer hearing the farcical  "Tiger's back ! Tiger's back!" if he manages to even play par for a few holes. His two day total of 156 was the worst of his career. But the denial in the news media continues exemplified by a sports reporter named Joe Thomson writing for both ESPN and The Score web sites  who wrote of Woods missing the cut, " nobody seems to have answers for Tiger's flagging game".

 It still says a lot about journalism,  how they play favorites, how dishonest they are when it comes to pure reporting and how much they are willing to hide or  ignore when they want to no matter how relevant.

 They still wont say why Woods isn't what he used to be.  Instead, like journalists of all kinds they run with the herd, each mimicking the other, none with the courage to step away from the herd and tell the truth. Which makes the real plague the dishonest way journalists cover stories now and how that plague affects and infects  everything they do. No matter what story they are covering. So while Tiger's ex-wife learned she couldn't trust him, the country's Tiger problem is we can't trust the news media. 

Friday, June 12, 2015

With TPP now stalled but scheduled for a new vote Democrats should remember how Obama was caught lying about NAFTA.




News outlets are calling it a " humiliating defeat for Obama". On Friday a bipartisan vote which included 144 Democrats voted down 126-302 a key part of the TPP for retraining displaced workers that was part of the  TPP package that would give Obama fast track authority on trade deals. The TAA portion of the bill was voted down in a resounding defeat despite Obama's personal visit to the Capitol to lobby Democrats to support the bill.

Boehner  is scheduling a new vote on Tuesday,and while  there is no reason to think any Democrats will change their vote,for any Democrats on the fence and feeling shaky in the face of a new round of Obama arm twisting, or even succumbing to potential bribes,  it might help for them to recall how regarding another trade deal,  NAFTA,  Obama was caught in one of the most cynical,  dishonest, callous and self serving lies ever told by a candidate for any office much less the presidency. It was a lie so egregious it was proof that Obama could never  be trusted about anything and revealed a degree of dishonesty and duplicity that would have ended not just the candidacy of any other presidential candidate  but most likely their entire political career.  Had Obama not been carrying the symbolism of electing the First Black President which had become cause celebre to many in the Democratic party and news media,   it would have.

 It happened during the Ohio presidential primaries in 2008 where polls showed Obama trailing Hillary Clinton by a landslide margin.  At the time, even before the economic crisis, Ohio had been dealing with massive unemployment especially in manufacturing jobs and had at the time, 286,000 unemployed. In his effort to gets votes, Obama blamed their unemployment on NAFTA, the North American Free Trade Agreement Bill Clinton had signed with Mexico and Canada and then tried to tie Hillary Clinton to the trade deal. 

Politifact quickly labeled Obama's assertions that NAFTA was the sole cause of Ohio's high unemployment untrue.  But that turned out to be the least of Obama's falsehoods.

Obama in his speeches in Ohio looked the unemployed in the eye and told them emphatically that not only was NAFTA to blame for their unemployment but that if  he was elected president he would get rid of it.

What was exposed days later,  was that at the same time he was telling the people of Ohio that NAFTA was the cause of their problems and he would end it, he sent Austan Goolsbee, one of his economic advisors to the Canadian embassy in Chicago to tell them to ignore what Obama was saying publicly about getting rid of NAFTA, he had no intention of getting rid of it and what he was saying publicly in Ohio was just politics.

Someone at the Canadian embassy not taken with Obama's duplicity, leaked the substance of the meeting to the AP who reported it. Obama immediately denied it and lied about it for 7 straight days.  

First he denied there was even anyone by the name of Austan Goolsbee working for his campaign. When it was pointed out that Goolsbee was listed as one of his economic advisors Obama's reaction was almost " Oh that Austan Goolsbee". He  then conceded Goolsbee worked for his campaign but said he never sent him to the Canadian embassy in Chicago. When the log books were checked and it was reported that Goolsbee did indeed go to the Canadian embassy on the date reported, Obama said, well  okay, maybe he did, but he went on his own for his own reasons and not as part of his campaign,

When the log book entry confirmed that Goolsbee was indeed sent there on behalf of the Obama campaign Obama's response was, well okay,okay maybe he did go there on behalf of his campaign but he never told Goolsbee to tell the Canadians that what he was saying about getting rid of NAFTA was just politics and that he had no intention of getting rid of it. That,Obama said,was untrue.

This final lie was apparently too much for someone inside the Canadian embassy who was present at the meeting and they leaked the actual physical written minutes of the meeting to the AP who published them. The minutes showed Goolsbee told the embassy that he was sent there by Obama  to reassure them that despite what Obama  was saying publicly in his speeches he had no intention of getting rid of NAFTA, it was just politics.

While the news media made a story of it momentarily it was dropped soon after the primary and Obama was never held accountable for his serial lying about the incident not to mention the substance of his duplicity. Obama's supporters for the most part turned a blind eye to the release of the minutes and all the proof of how cyncially Obama lied and played politics with people's lives, since none of them wanted to deal with Obama's dishonesty and lack of integrity and cynical politics because of the cause celebre at the time of electing the First Black President. And few in  the news media wanted to be responsible for  sending that train off its tracks. So no one held Obama's feet to the fire as evidence of both a lack of character, untrustworthiness and duplicitous policy. It was easier to bash Clinton instead. 

The Clinton campaign responded but it was mild, even tepid, because behind the scenes they were were being  pressured by the DNC  not to attack Obama too hard. 

In the end, Clinton beat Obama in the Ohio primary by landslide numbers, the candidates moved on and the news media, unlike raking Anthony Weiner over the coals for weeks and parking satellite trucks in front of his home  for a consensual online sex chat, dropped and ignored the whole episode. 

It was revived momentarily during the 2010 Olympics in Canada as a result of a Canadian version of the Freedom of Information Act filed by Canadian journalists for access to the emails between the embassy in Chicago and Ottawa at the time. The emails  were made public and showed that some inside the government applauded the release of the minutes exposing Obama's duplicity while others were more interested in damage control should Obama get elected. But all the emails confirmed one thing: the validity and truthfulness  of what had happened which both Obama and Goolsbee had tried to deny.

By that time the U.S. news media was more interested in the Olympics than Obama's lies concerning NAFTA in 2008 and nothing more was made of it.

What's relevant now is that TPP is about giving Obama fast track authority to make deals that congress can't modify. And with a Republican majority in the House and senate its likely that Republicans are not going to be concerned about the same issues as Democrats, like  jobs. In fact one of the Republican proposals was to cut Medicare by $700 million and use the money to help or retrain those who will lose their jobs as a result of the TPP, something Obama had no problem doing. Which is in effect an admission that the trade bill Obama is pushing would cost jobs. The provision didn't fly because too many Republicans up for re-election didn't want to be tied to Medicare cuts.

The vote on Friday was a clear rebuke to Obama from Democrats whom he tried to woo in a closed door meeting by questioning their integrity. Which is like Bernie Madoff complaining about excessive bank fees for bounced checks. But while the bill is now stalled it's not yet killed entirely and Boehner will bring it up for a vote again on Thursday with Obama colluding with Mitchell and Boehner to get it passed. 

So it's still useful for Democrats to remember what happened in Ohio in 2008 and what it said about Obama since the real issue for Democrats is about whether Obama can be trusted to negotiate deals that Democrats can't modify in a Republican controlled congress.  Based on his history,  not as far as you can throw an unemployment check.  

And based on the House vote on Friday most Democrats seem to have gotten the memo.  Including the one from the Canadian embassy in 2008. 

For those interested, the entire memo of the meeting in 2008 that Obama at first said never took place can be read here.

Friday, June 5, 2015

Dennis Hastert: another "do as we say not as we do" Republican.







News of  Dennis Hasterts indictment for violating banking regulations and lying to the  FBI over large cash withdrawals he was making for hush money to cover up his having sexually molested at least one underage male while a teacher and wrestling coach in Illinois has left a lot of Republicans " shocked". Why they are shocked is hard to say.
 
Hastert was the Speaker of the House for 7 years. He became Speaker in 1998 replacing Bob Livingston. Bob Livingston had been Speaker for only 24 hours before having to resign, having  just replaced Newt Gingrich the one time conservative Republican Speaker who had been found guilty of ethics violations and who resigned in the wake of Republicans being swept out of the House ( as an aside Gingrich is now a regular contributor on CNN proving that being unethical is  no stumbling block for employment at CNN which makes their coverage of everything from Ferguson to politics understandable).
 
Livingston had to resign just 24 hours after being elected Speaker because it was at the height of Republican attacks and news media lunancy over Clinton and Monica Lewinsky, and it was revealed that Livingston was too having an affair while continuing to criticize Clinton over Lewinsky but had no problem accepting the Speakership anyway. Then he was caught, his affair made public and was forced to resign.

Gingrich  too, it was subsequently revealed,  had been cheating on his wife with his own "female subordinate" as Republicans liked to refer to Lewinsky, at the same time he also was criticizing Clinton. Gingrich in fact said at the time that he "would not let a day go by when I will not remind the country of what Clinton did". While doing the same thing. 
 
House judiciary committee chairman, the late Henry Hyde who presided over Clinton's impeachment  was also exposed as having been cheating on his wife at the same time and was not only cheating on his wife but he was cheating on the woman he was cheating with by lying to her about being married.
 
After Hastert became Speaker he was strongly criticized in 2005 for not taking stronger, harsher and faster action against Mark Foley a House Republican who had been sending sexually explicit instant messages to underage male House pages. Obviously the hypocrisy of that would've been too much for Hastert. 
 
All these Republicans by the way, including Hastert had voted for The Defense of Marriage Act in 1996 designed to prevent gays from getting married. 
 
Then there was Tom DeLay, former Republican whip in the House who was recently released from prison after being convicted of money laundering and sent to prison.  And Duke Cunningham, another conservative Republican congressman was sent to prison for accepting bribes on defense contracts.  And let's not forget former Republican senator Larry "wide stance" Craig  who was arrested for soliciting sex through a stall in the mens room at an airport.
 
Most recently the Republicans had conservative senator from Louisiana David Vitter, who was re-elected by the conservative Republican majority in Louisiana who was caught cheating on his wife with prostitutes provided to him by the Washington D.C. Madam. 
 
Now we have  Dennis Hastert, former Speaker of the House, lobbyist, member of the board at Wheaton College, a Christian school, now under federal indictment for lying to the FBI while making $3.5 million in hush money payments to a man who as a minor,  Hastert sexually molested repeatedly as a school teacher and wrestling coach back in the 60's and 70's. There is news that there is another man and possibly a third with a similar story.
 
Hastert has pled not guilty to the charges against him , resigned from his law firm,  resigned as a lobbyist, resigned his position at Wheaten College,there is  pressure to remove Hastert's portrait from the halls of the Capitol and Hastert has asked the Illinois state legislature to put on hold a $500,000 statue of him they planned to erect in his honor, though given the reasons for the hush money maybe "erect" isnt the best choice of words.
 
Hastert has turned out to be another in a long list of  "do as we say not as we do" Republicans who over the decades, dating back to the Nixon White House,  and HR Haldeman who have two sets of values , one for them and one for everyone else having  constantly moralized about everything setting themselves up as the arbiter of "values" and "morality" only to be exposed as hypocrites and the first to violate those same "values". Which doesn't stop them from continuing to try to impose their "values" and "principles" on everyone else. Principles like keeping government out of the private lives of American citizens, opposing "undue government influence in people's lives" to quote a conservative member of congress, except of course, when it comes to government forcing women seeking an abortion to have vaginal ultrasounds. Or to have government pass laws to prevent gays from marrying. 
 
Had they all been more honest back in 1996, instead of persecuting gays and lesbians , what they would have passed was The Defense of Cheating on Your Wife and We Define Morality Any Way We Want Act.  It would have passed by a wide margin.
 
 
 
 
 

Tuesday, June 2, 2015

CNN polling, not Clinton, hit new lows.






CNN's headline was "Clinton favor ability rating hits 14 year low". Another was "New CNN poll says 57% believe Clinton not honest and trustworthy". 

Only a month ago a CNN poll showed 59% believed she was honest and trustworthy and 63% said they'd be "proud" to have Clinton as president. They don't say how it could change so dramatically without a single news event to explain it. They muse. They try and tie it to Obama's falling approval ratings. But the answer is simpler. The poll is completely bogus. 

What really happened in the last month to cause Clinton's approval rating to plummet?  The answer is nothing. Because based on CNN's history of grossly inaccurate and incompetent polling the probability is it didn't plummet at all and that it's CNN's polling that has hit new lows in incompetence not Clinton's favorability. 

Remember this is the news organization who, after Bin Laden was killed thought it was newsworthy and intelligent and informative and valuable to do a poll asking "Do you think Bin Laden is in hell"?  The result which CNN displayed without any embarrassment was that 75% said yes. Which also says something about who CNN appeals to, who they poll, who is willing to respond and who is watching.

CNN never said  if they had  a hell correspondent to verify the poll numbers but you don't need one to know that as a news organization CNN went to hell a long time ago . 

So this isn't about Clinton as much as it's about CNN and their  history at least over the last 15 years of  gross incompetence and even stupidity in their polling while their anchors and guests and analysts discuss these polls with a straight face as if they have any validity. 
CNN did a poll two days ago regarding the NSA in the wake of the Patriot Act expiring that also hit new lows in idiocy and incompetence. Their pollsters asked "Do you want NSA surveillence to continue"? The result was 63% said yes .
CNN's crack journalists concluded that meant a majority of Americans wanted to continue the bulk phone record collection exposed by Edward Snowden. 

Did CNN ask if people wanted the NSA to continue to collect all their phone records ? No. Did CNN ask if people wanted the NSA to secretly collect all their emails? No. Did CNN ask if they wanted the NSA to track all their internet activity without a warrant? No.  CNN asked if they wanted surveillance to continue as if even Edward Snowden ever advocated the end of all surveillance. That is how stupid the CNN poll is and how stupidly they framed the question. 

Then based on this, CNN concludes that Rand Paul is in big political trouble for his stand against NSA surveillance and the bulk collection of the phone records as Chris Cuomo tried to point out in an interview with a Kentucky  congressman who is a Paul supporter. Which means even  Chris Cuomo ignored CNN polling that showed Paul in a statistical dead heat with Clinton. 

Cuomo also ignored another conclusion - that if Paul is in trouble then so are the 400+ members of congress who voted overwhelmingly for the USA Freedom Act and to end the bulk phone records collection of American citizens that was at the heart of the NSA controversy exposed by Edward Snowden and that a federal judge has already ruled illegal.


That CNN's pollsters and editors didnt know enough, either out of lack of simple competence or for more nefarious reasons, to make a distinction between surveillance in general and the NSA's illegal phone records collection of U.S. citizens is just another reason to dismiss any CNN poll as lunacy and a bunch of kids playing in a sand box or having a food fight.

During the Iraq war  CNN conducted two polls which taken together would lead to the conclusion that the American people didn't value the lives of American soldiers, if you can believe that. Either that or the American people didn't know the Iraq war was being fought with live ammunition.  One poll asked if respondents supported American soldiers fighting in Iraq. Over 60% said they did . A second poll asked if they felt Iraq was worth American soldiers dying for. Over 60% said they didn't.No one at CNN said anything about the obvious moral discrepancy or that if more than  60%  supported Americans fighting in Iraq  but thought it wasn't worth  dying for what that would say about the value Americans placed on the the lives of American soldiers.  Maybe because to bring it up would have more to do with the value of a CNN poll.

The latest CNN polls are supposed to be bad news for Clinton. But they also show that only 12% of Republican voters want Rand Paul to be the Republican nominee and only 14% want Marco Rubio.   But  in CNN's poll of Clinton vs. Republican challengers head to head, Rubio gets  46% of the vote while Clinton gets 49%.  Rand Paul who yesterday was in deep political trouble over CNN's NSA poll has 47% against Clinton's 48%. So are we to believe that only 12% of Republican voters want the candidate with the best chance of beating Clinton to be the nominee? 



 A month ago a  CNN poll showed Clinton with a 17-23 pt lead over her nearest Republican  challenger.  So what happened? Are the head to head match ups an entirely new and separate  poll from the poll dealing exclusively with Clinton? If so where are Rubio's voters coming from? Or Rand Paul's?  Democrats? Independents? Aliens? Gnomes? Did CNN ask? Do they care? They don't notice anything that's an itsy bitsy witsy out of whack?  

The numbers don't add up. And neither does the one month free fall in Clinton's honesty or approval rating when there has not been a single news event to explain it. Nor the change in 63% saying they'd be "proud" to have Clinton as president only a few weeks ago to a sneering 57%  saying she is not honest or trustworthy. 

Nevertheless blind CNN anchors ignoring how preposterous the polls are taken together, instead of questioning their validity  then proceed, along with their guests, to discuss what they "mean". 

What they mean is what they have meant for years - CNN polling is the most incompetent inept unprofessional,  laughable and easily dismissed polling in the business.  They have more in common with Kafka than the Koch Brothers. And everyone from the Clinton campaign to anyone keeping an eye on politics should dismiss them. 

Polling is generally not much more than a thumbnail version of market research. The difference is that when Proctor and Gamble does market research they really want to know what people think. When CNN or many news organizations do a poll, they dont want to know what people really think, they want something to talk about. And they frame their questions and methods accordingly.  So while CNN pollsters might be good enough for CNN , they'll never be good enough for Proctor and Gamble. 


 

Monday, June 1, 2015

Patriot Act expires: Republicans scrambling for change for the meter.





The oxymoron-like named Patriot Act which was used by the NSA to surreptitiously collect phone records of every American citizen which produced no intelligence  in an NSA version of one person holding the light bulb while ten people turned the chair, expired on Sunday and so far the dire predictions by people who lied on a regular basis to congress and to the American people from the president to the Director of the NSA along with some members of congress,  have gone the way of the Mayan calendar.
 
Republicans who held up voting on the  Freedom Act passed overwhelmingly by the House which does away with the bulk phone records collection and any search without a warrant or probably cause, are now scrambling for lose change to put in the meter afraid that if they don't get the House bill passed, the party could get towed in the next election.
 
Rand Paul who shocked Republicans and some Democrats by actually standing up for something he believed in that had no political motive behind it, forced the expiration of the Patriot Act  and section 215  which was exposed by Edward Snowden who correctly believed the activity was illegal and unconstitutional about which a federal judge has already agreed. Which among other accomplishments puts Snowden about ten rungs higher  up on the food chain than CNN legal analyst Jeff Toobin who in a 2013 New Yorker article attacked Snowden and ripped him to pieces  for, among other things, only being 29 and a traitor.
 
Mitch McConnell, looking around for some spare change in the form of minor amendments to the Freedom Act already passed by the House is hoping to save face if not the constitution,by amending the House version to, in his words, "makes sure the Freedom Act works".  Thanks Mitch.

Unless the amendments really are small change, nickle and dime stuff that does nothing to alter or weaken the content and spirit of the Freedom Act which ended the bulk records collection,  a program which among other things successfully missed the Boston Marathon bombers, that too is liable to be stopped by Rand Paul and other privacy advocates. Which will leave the senate no choice but to pass the House bill as is. How long McConnell and the Republicans will spend patting their pockets looking for change is anyone's guess. For now Rand Paul is sitting in the drivers seat.
 
If there is any amendment McConnell makes to the House bill it ought to be to give Edward Snowden immunity from prosecution. And maybe a job running the NSA. But its unlikely McConnell,  the Republicans or Obama  has enough change in their pockets to do that.