BOOBS ON THE TUBE (and other media errors of the last week)

The first print version I saw of this story said Kate had been caught sunbathing at a chateau belonging to the Queen in northern France. Wrong.

 

The chateau was in southern France, and was owned by a relative of the Queen (and she has many).

 

CBS mis-spelled the name of the chateau.

 

ABC said the pix were taken from a mile away by a woman photog. By week's end, NBC said it was a half-mile away and by a male.

 

BTW, wherever and whoever was shooting, these were small potatoes. Anyone who has seen the Duchess knows that. It is her smile that lights up the Palace, any chateau, and our world.  Fortunately, I am a "smile man", too.

 

Meanwhile back at home, our local media had its hands full with other errors. One sportscaster reported.."he was DRUG out of bounds at the nine."  Another reminded us a Cincy team manager had "an IL-regular heart beat."

 

Our media, as usual,  went overboard on Big Blue Madness, tho it is a great feature. But they never told me WHO is "Stone Cold Willow" and why did he get to go one-on-one with Nerlens? This story needed backgrounding. In another game played for the benefit of the 600 tenters camping out for free tickets, the 9 foot Nerlens stumbled over a 2 foot tall kid in making a shot. One channel asked "Hope the big guy wasn't hurt?" I was wondering if the little tyke was injured. No report on that.

 

My fave Lexington morning paper keeps reporting that something "has gone viral" and tho I have e-mailed them for a definition of that phrase..which they won't send it to me..it appears that if it's on YouTube it's gone viral." Meadow muffins. There ought to be a minimum number of hits, maybe a million, before that phrase could accurately be used.  Not all entries ring up such a score. The media should be more specific.

 

Speaking of errors, bless my fave Lexington morning rag for pointing out the errors in those TV political ads. Wish our local TV stations would do the same.

 

I'm just sayin'...

 

 

A WORD...OR TWO..ABOUT POLLS

 Distrust them.

 

At least for now. Presidential election polls make little sense until after Oct. 15th most years..because of a maddening tendency for Americans not to make up their minds until the last minute.

 

And there is always lurking an "October surprise."  Who knows what they might be, if indeed it ever happens, but it has in the past and that can change things...quickly.

 

The conventions, both, ignored foreign policy. This week that's campaign topic number one. Who knows what next week might bring? (hopefully a new War on...Poverty, or how to counteract the growing income inequality of our citizens).

 

It was supposed to be about jobs...but the impact of the economy appears to be less, now that some economic indicators are improving...slowly.

 

Maybe the polls will reflect this; maybe not.

 

But not all polls are created equal. Which do you trust? (none, right now, too early).

 

But even supposedly reputable polls, using accepted methodology vary widely.

 

An AP story last week exemplified this. In Florida one poll had Obama up by 2 points, another by 4, while a third had Romney by 3. You can NOT square these. Something is wrong. Even if we knew their MOE--the margin of error, but that wasn't in the AP story. (Do not trust any poll that does not tell you some basic facts...size of sample, how conducted, and MOE are essential).

 

It's not just Florida. In Minnestoa one poll had the president winning by 10, another poll only 7. (And it's still too early).

 

In my own thinking, a MOE of 3-4 percentage points is acceptable, though I don't like it. And the pollsters are starting to fudge, some trying to tell us that maybe 5-6 points are OK. They're not.

 

The respected Bluegrass poll run by the Courier-Journal has Romney winning Kentucky right now (it's too early) by  53 to 39, with a MOE of 4.1. Don't like that. If 4.1, why not 4.2, or 4.6..gotta draw the line somewhere. Mine is 4.0.

 

BTW, that (early) poll means Obama may be as high as 43, and Romney as low as 49. Or Romney may be as high as 57, and Obama as low as 35. Quite a swing there.

 

So, pay attention my fellow citizens..to the issues, not the alledged polls. (Already I've been called by 3-4 "push" polls, which under the guise of a legit survey, actually try to further some candidate by the way the questions are phrased..pushing the results, not reflecting your views).

 

And do vote. Nothing is more important.

 

When you come out of the polls, should there be an "exit poller" there, run do not walk away. Do not stay and answer their questions. They will want to know how you voted..and too many Americans have died over the years preserving your rights, one of the main ones being our secret ballot to give that right away so easily now.

 

I'm just sayin'...

 

DON'T CONFUSE ME WITH FACT CHECKERS, I'VE MADE UP MY MIND!!!

The most regretable line from either convention was that uttered by a GOP official on one of the Sunday morning talk shows, when reporters pointed out certain factual differences between what veep candidate Paul Ryan had said and the truth.

 

Bet he'd like to take back his response.."we're not going to let the fact checkers determine our policies."  Unfortunately, probably true, just not to be uttered out loud. (And, I suspect, something a Democratic official might also have said, in his unguarded moment.)

 

I mean, why let the facts get in the way of a good ad, especially a good, negative ad?

 

Only because the parties have an obligation to talk sense, truthfully to the American people. There is room for disagreement over many important issues:  health care, foreign policy, taxes, the deficit, defense spending...reasonable people can disagree...but..that disagreement should not be over inaccuracies, but over the best course for America. Indeed, without the facts, disagreements over policies become meaningless.

 

I'm glad there are fact checkers. I'm glad the Herald-Leader has waded in already to a couple of major local issues, such as the big, fundamental disagreement between Ben Chandler and Andy Barr over medicare and health care. But where are the broadcast fact checkers, especially the tv ones? TV stations get the lions share of campaign dollars; they can afford to have someone on their news staffs spending time checking the accuracy of the ads they run. Indeed, I would argue they can't operate "in the public interest, convenience and necessity"--as the law requires--unless they do.

 

They might start with a very easy fact to check.  Barr is a Republican, I think.  Chandler is a Democrat, I think. I say "I think" because neither puts his party affiliation in their ads. Are they ashamed of their parties? Are they ashamed of being a member?  Are they afraid to tell the voters that? Do they not believe in party responsibility? All basic questions and easy for the stations to check.

 

If we have to wait til election day, and then find out under which party label Chandler and Barr fall, by then it may be too late.

 

Sic 'em, fact checkers!  Your role is vital.

 

(You might also ask them where they stand on some issues both conventions failed to touch on much..poverty, Afghanistan, Syria, foreign policy, etc..that is, if they are party members.)

 

 I'm just sayin'...

WHAT TWO PARTY SYSTEM???

To me, growing up, it was self evident. America was so diverse, so wide ranging with so many people having come here from different lands and cultures (we are all immigrants... even the "Native" Americans!), and we had so many differing beliefs..about  social issues, ethics, morals, economics, and especially politics... why in the world would anyone expect this nation to have only two major political parties?

 

Then I went to college.

 

Both there and later in grad school my major was poli sci. The vast majority of my professors (some really good ones) held fast to the two party system. "The purpose of a party is to govern" was the mantra, whenever that party won an election. Many parties meant less chance for a majority to be formed for governing, for a "stable" administration, and more chances for chaos and disunity.

 

Certainly history provided my teachers with many examples. Especially the Italians, and often the Greeks where governments could last a few weeks because no parliamentary majority could be found among a half dozen or more parties. But Britain has had three parties for several generations, Germany and Israel and often France sustained viable governments for years with shifting majorities among multi-parties. This, too, is history.

 

So is this, and recent history, too:  I grew up with the "Solid South"---solidly Democratic.  LBJ and the '64 Civil Rights Act (long overdue) changed that. Before long the South was pretty solidly Republican (when it wasn't Dixiecrat or worse.). Many mountain states of the West also shifted traditional party allegiances.  

 

Politics is fluid---as people are changeable. And those many, many differences among Americans--a diversity which is often our strength--have led us to where we are right now..a two party system that can't govern, that has failed the American people, and which seems determined to perpetuate that system in Power. Each of the two tries to manipulate voting laws in states they dominate to help themselves, and put down the other party. See court cases in Texas last week (and probably soon in Ohio, Pa,, and N.C.) Remember the redistricting squabble in Frankfort the courts had to settle?  That's only temporary, by the way.

 

But Washington is my prime example. Henry Clay, Kentucky (and America's)  " Great Compromiser", would be tossed out of Mitch's Senate on his ear. (And when Nancy Pelosi was running the House, Republicans complained, correctly, there were times they were not allowd to even offer amendments. It was  her way or the highway).

 

Ron Paul's Libertarian Party deserves to be heard, deserves to be on the ballot in many states. So does the Tea Party. So does the Green Party (which is running a Presidential candidate in at least 20 states; had you heard about her?) And yes, the Flat Earth Party and the Gold Standard Party and the Vegatarians and the Prohibitionists should all have the right to be heard--because it is in the contest of "ideas" , of issues that we learn, and America advances.

 

Am I holding my breath that this will happen in this year's election? No, but..to coin a phrase.."let us begin." Begin by being willing to listen to others, evaluate their ideas, and then decide..not rule them out at once because they are advanced by a member of a group other than our own.

 

I hope more "independents" are elected this year, and Libertarians and Green party members, too.  The history of America is the history of small groups forming around an idea or issue and, if their idea was a good one, convincing the rest of us. We got only a few Prohibitions for every Child Labor Law and Eight Hour Days.

 

If the Democrats and Republicans want to stay in Power, paradoxically, they need to open up power..to new ideas, new people, and new parties. Their record, the record of just two parties in Washington recently is shameful..downright Un-American.

 

I'm just sayin'...

 

 

THE QUIET AMERICAN

 

Yes, I do remember what I was doing when man first walked on the moon.

 

As a young radio reporter I had paid my own way, and taken vacation time to cover some of the Mercury launches at Cape Canaveral, because my South Carolina station wouldn't pay for the trip. I felt I was just too close to one of the most important news stories of all time to miss them. But I sent back phone reports which were featured on our newscasts. They must have caused a good reaction, because the station did pay my way back thereafter...and I was a confirmed space fan..as America, too, was becoming. 

 

I covered some of the first batch of astronauts, those who definitely had "The Right Stuff". But as I moved back North, and married, it became difficult to get back to the Cape.  So, as millions did, I was looking at my old black and white TV the night Neil Armstrong first, and later Buzz Aldrin, stepped onto the lunar surface.

 

By then I was a TV station news director in Fort Wayne, Indiana, not that many miles from the small Ohio town where Armstrong  was born. Our station had done some home town reports on him before his epochal flight, and we planned extensive coverage of his triumphant return to Wapakoneta. We even did  a piece on the "Moon Sauce" the local bottler came up with to mark his return--green, naturally.

 

He looked uncomfortable to me in his open top parade convertible, even among his home town friends. He almost always looked uncomfortable in network interviews, or being praised for doing what he thought was his job--a job he loved--and when NASA decided he was too valuable to go back into space, and risk losing him in some accident, he quit and quietly taught engineering for the rest of his life.

 

He avoided interviews, gave no endorsements, signed very few autographs (so they couldn't be put on sale at a later time) and stayed out of the limelight as best he could.  What he did do, when he felt the space program was threatened--as it later was many times, was to use the bully pulpit of his fame to talk about mankind's "unquenchable thirst" for adventure and knowledge.  He wanted a man on Mars, not a Rover. and so do I. We need a national project such as putting a man on the Moon to rekindle this nation's historic spirit of adventure.

 

If you go up I-75, you'll find "Wapak" not too far south of Toledo, and visible from the interstate exit is a geodesic dome type building which houses the Neil Armstrong Space Museum. The Kurtz family often visited it, as we tried to convince our daughters they, too, could have a future in space.

 

Mankind has such a future. When we get there, however long it takes, it will be, in large part, because of a retiring, self-proclaimed "nerd" and one of the greatest Americans I ever met.

 

Thanks, Neil Armstrong, for making us so proud of you and your achievements---and proud to be Americans.

YOUR VOTE DOES NOT COUNT!!

If you are a Kentucky Democrat voting for Romney, your vote doesn't count.

If you are a Kentucky Republican voting for Obama, your vote doesn't count.

Ditto if you plan a straight party vote; your vote does NOT count.

There are two reasons for this. The big one is the Electoral College, the minor one is polling.

You've probably heard "this election will be decided by the swing states." And whether that number, which changes, is 10 or 12 or whatever, the reason is that the two major parties have calculated, through their polling,  that certain states are "locked in." They will vote red or blue and nothing is likely to change that by November. Their vote, specifically, their electoral vote seems set.

But the "swing states" are different. There, polling--a far from exact science, very far in some cases--says these states could go either way. So the parties concentrate in those states. One of the networks reported that the "undecided" vote in those states, variously polled (!) at from 3 to 6% is what will decide who is to win. (Wouldn't you love to be among that 3-6%? Think of all the junk mail you will get, the people knocking on your door and calling your phone, legally excluded from the national "do not call" list by-- guess who? Congress), pollsters, some legit and some not...2 "push pollsters" have already called me) want you to violate the secret ballot and tell them...who? Lucky you, undecided.

And it's going to stay this way unless..we remind each other that in a democracy one person's vote is supposed to be just as good as another's; no more, no less. As long as the Electoral College is in the Constitution, a Kentucky vote is NOT the equal of a vote in Nevada or South Dakota or, gasp, Tennessee.

Now, this does not mean..don't vote. In fact, I urge you to vote..after you ask Andy Barr and Ben Chandler if they will support an end to the Electoral College. And any time you get the chance, get Senators Paul and McConnell on record too.

No matter how they quibble, and they will, the bottom line is this: either one American's vote is the equal of another, or it isn't. Don't let them convince you otherwise.

America's future as a true democracy hinges on it.

I'm just sayin'...

The Flies Of The Lord

One of the things that distinguishes my neighborhood is that so many of our homes have porches. Indeed our neighborhood occasionally holds a porch festival, which draws several hundred people from all over this area to visit with us in what to many is a throw back to the gracious living of another era.  Weather permitting, there are few things I like to do better than read the papers and drink coffee on my porch.

I like it.  So do the flies.

Now, not every day..if it's just coffee, no flies. But if, as on a recent morning, I make the mistake of having more than just coffee, say a doughnut as well, it doesn't take long..ten minutes at the most and one or two come from somewhere to disrupt  my routine. How do they know?

The other morning it was glazed doughnut from Spaldings--a traditional Lexington  morning delight. Two came along to join in my meal. They must have been Spalding fans because they certainly were persistent.

Now I often do like something with my coffee..toast and jelly attracts flies also. But not like those sugary doughnuts did. I think I'm going to have to run an experiment--see how long it takes before the flies appear. I may start with cake doughnuts from Magees, then caramel glazed from Dunkin' Donuts, a sticky bun from Kroger's and so on.

I'm betting on the glazed from Spaldings. Maybe I could get a grant from UK Sociology to study this..especially if some federal research funds are available. It wouldn't be as silly as some federal grants I've seen..and the results, for me and for others, could be both delicious and helpful in keeping flies away from what should be a tranquil part of our day.

I'm just sayin'...