This morning, during my pre-dawn drive from Lowell back down to New London, I caught myself grinning ear to ear a few times, and even have to admit to a couple fist pumps that would've elicited some strange looks from fellow motorists (had there been any).
Why?
Not because I went three-for-three on Massachusetts ballot initiatives (the marijuana initiative will be my next entry's subject), but because of words I kept hearing over and over on NPR:
"If there is anyone out there who still doubts that America is a place where all things are possible, who still wonders if the dream of our founders is alive in our time, who still questions the power of our democracy, tonight is your answer."
No one in America is more qualified to say that right now than is President-elect Obama.
It means a lot to me personally, because I love this country, and -- as anyone who has read this blog or spoken to me in the past several months knows -- I cringed every time I heard someone say Obama would not win because either a) "they" wouldn't allow it, or b) the country isn't ready yet. Every time I heard one of those comments, I took it personally, in the way anyone would when they feel they've been judged wrongly by someone who didn't really understand their character, but was impugning it. One comment assumes a conspiratorial elite standing in the way of real progress for many, while the other mis-attributes the feelings of a very small few to a great many (while exempting the speaker, of course)
Even though I never actually went on to become a *real* teacher after the year I spent in Ed School, my time there definitely made an indelible impression on me. It led me to switch my voter registration from "Democrat" to "Independent" and it woke me up to some painful truths about the Far Left in America. It made me fearful for the future to hear supposedly *progressive* people say, in not so many words, that the kids from Newton and Brookline are responsible for their actions and expected to perform at high levels, while the kids from Mattapan and East Boston are not. Essentially, their message was this: because the latter are victims of a system run by a small coterie of white males conspiring to keep them from achieving anything meaningful, they might as well just not try. The irony, of course, is that by propagating that mentality, they were ensuring that their own kids will inherit the material and educational success they've achieved, while ensuring that the *others* don't threaten to take their piece of the pie. I could rattle off a ton of examples of actual quotes that I jotted down while there, but I'll spare you the pain -- suffice to say, I honestly believe that the Far Left in this country is just as divisive, intolerant, and hateful as the more-often villified Far Right.
The election of President-elect Obama sends a stronger message to hate-mongers from the Far Left and the Far Right than any speech, documentary, essay, or book ever could. It should force schoolkids to do a double- or triple-take before swallowing any of the propaganda from the Educracy about why a test that asks you to solve for x is a systemized tool of oppression (and that, by implication they should just give up).*
This country is far from perfect, but it's a wide-open place that's growing increasingly diverse and accepting by the day. As I've certainly noted before in these entries, no other nation has the same history of providing refuge and welcoming those who have left other lands to find something better (just ask the Governor of our most-populous state, or any of the 25,000 residents of our city whose family members escaped one of the 20th century's worst genocides in the late 1970s).
If you don't *get* that, well, then, you don't get it.
* As evidence, check out the work that Pscyhologist Claude Steele did concerning "stereotype threat" and the way students under-perform after being told of biases written into tests.
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
Monday, November 3, 2008
Rest in Peace, Trevor
http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/2008/10/gns_afghan_kia_102908w/
Whoa. I just read about this in Navy Times today, and it definitely personalizes the conventional wisdom about Afghanistan becoming increasingly dangerous for coalition servicemembers.
Trevor Yurista was the Regimental S-2A (that's the assistant intelligence officer for the regiment, which oversees several battalions) for Regimental Combat Team 5, based at Camp Fallujah, for all of 2006. He had the entire AO (Area of Operations) mapped out like the back of his hand after putting in a year's worth of 18-hour days working on a Major's staff...and was fighting like mad to get sent back to Anbar to work on a MITT (Military Interim Transition Team) just a few month's after re-deploying.
I hadn't spoken to him since early 2007 when RCT-5 and RCT-6 turned over, and had no idea he was even in Afghanistan until I saw the picture and short blurb in print today. From the article, I learned that he volunteered to head over to OEF (Operation Enduring Freedom) to be with some of the intel guys he had trained back in the schoolhouse in Dam Neck, VA.
I wasn't surprised to read that.
This country is lucky to have people like Lt. Yurista.
Whoa. I just read about this in Navy Times today, and it definitely personalizes the conventional wisdom about Afghanistan becoming increasingly dangerous for coalition servicemembers.
Trevor Yurista was the Regimental S-2A (that's the assistant intelligence officer for the regiment, which oversees several battalions) for Regimental Combat Team 5, based at Camp Fallujah, for all of 2006. He had the entire AO (Area of Operations) mapped out like the back of his hand after putting in a year's worth of 18-hour days working on a Major's staff...and was fighting like mad to get sent back to Anbar to work on a MITT (Military Interim Transition Team) just a few month's after re-deploying.
I hadn't spoken to him since early 2007 when RCT-5 and RCT-6 turned over, and had no idea he was even in Afghanistan until I saw the picture and short blurb in print today. From the article, I learned that he volunteered to head over to OEF (Operation Enduring Freedom) to be with some of the intel guys he had trained back in the schoolhouse in Dam Neck, VA.
I wasn't surprised to read that.
This country is lucky to have people like Lt. Yurista.
Saturday, November 1, 2008
Why Life Sometimes Needs a Rulebook..
"Neither a borrower nor a lender be." -- Polonius, to Laertes, Hamlet
Three months ago, a co-worker dropped a thick, 600-page hardcover book about foreign policy on my desk with a Post-It note on the top saying, "This is a great book, you'd like it." I saw him later that day, sincerely thanked him for thinking of me, and put it in a corner on my desk where it hasn't moved since.
It's not out of spite or any other negative (or even calculated) emotion that I haven't read it, it's just that (1) We're talking about a book that would require an investment of dozens of hours, and (2) I usually have, at best, a couple hours' free time at any given pop -- weekday or weekend, and (3) I don't always have the best track record at maintaining things -- particularly books -- in the condition that I got them in. So I never took the book away from work with me, never brought it up to Lowell, or anywhere else, and basically just never read it. In fact, I never even opened it. But the good news, from the lender's perspective, should be the fact that it's in the exact same condition in which it was given.
However, the other day, I thought back to the book when I saw the guy (he had just returned from what I'll call a 'mini-deployment' aboard a submersible vessel) and said, "Hey, that book you lent me is on my desk, can I give it back to you?"
Hoping for a quick 'yes' and a conclusion to the story, I was rebuffed.
"Well did you read it?"
"No."
Obviously not happy with this answer, he responded, "Well, the reason I gave it to you was so that you could read it, so just give it back to me when you're done," and abruptly ended the conversation.
So the book remains in its original position on the desk. Again, on the bright side, it hasn't been dog-eared, underlined, highlighted, ketchup- or soy sauce-stained, and the dust jacket is still pristine.
But it also hasn't been read by yours truly. For the record, it won't be -- but, I would posit, that's not justification for the ire of the lender.
So back to the way I titled this entry. There's no Rulebook sitting on a shelf somewhere that guides the way friends, acquaintances, and co-workers handle these sorts of things, but oftentimes I wish there was (maybe I need to write it). But if there were, I would hope it said something like, "If you give someone something that they never asked for in the first place, even with the best of intentions on your part, don't assume this means they incur some multi-hour obligation to try it/taste it/read it/watch it/use it. Just be glad to get it back in its original condition, and move on.
And the corollary would be that when you do offer up something of yours to a friend/neighbor/colleague, etc. try to do a quick check ahead of time to verify the items are desired on the recipient's part, and not just some unsolicited burden.
When I borrow, I'll always prefer to do it from a nameless, faceless institution. The terms are clearly spelled out -- literally, with a signed contract in the case of my Pollard Memorial Library Card or my Bank of America Credit Card -- and I know that if I somehow screw up my end of the deal, there will be clear consequences that may hurt my pocketbook (say, if I lost or ruined the great book the Rand Corporation I just got from the local library) but wouldn't ruin friendships or business relationships that are more fragile and subjectively based.
Believe me, I'm not writing to say that I'm in any way against borrowing or lending among friends. Please don't read this entry that way. However, I've seen the movie enough times to know that it doesn't always end well. Borrowing definitely has its place, but it needs to be kept there, and it never needs to be forced on someone -- in business-ese, the *demand signal* should come from the borrower vice the lender.
Three months ago, a co-worker dropped a thick, 600-page hardcover book about foreign policy on my desk with a Post-It note on the top saying, "This is a great book, you'd like it." I saw him later that day, sincerely thanked him for thinking of me, and put it in a corner on my desk where it hasn't moved since.
It's not out of spite or any other negative (or even calculated) emotion that I haven't read it, it's just that (1) We're talking about a book that would require an investment of dozens of hours, and (2) I usually have, at best, a couple hours' free time at any given pop -- weekday or weekend, and (3) I don't always have the best track record at maintaining things -- particularly books -- in the condition that I got them in. So I never took the book away from work with me, never brought it up to Lowell, or anywhere else, and basically just never read it. In fact, I never even opened it. But the good news, from the lender's perspective, should be the fact that it's in the exact same condition in which it was given.
However, the other day, I thought back to the book when I saw the guy (he had just returned from what I'll call a 'mini-deployment' aboard a submersible vessel) and said, "Hey, that book you lent me is on my desk, can I give it back to you?"
Hoping for a quick 'yes' and a conclusion to the story, I was rebuffed.
"Well did you read it?"
"No."
Obviously not happy with this answer, he responded, "Well, the reason I gave it to you was so that you could read it, so just give it back to me when you're done," and abruptly ended the conversation.
So the book remains in its original position on the desk. Again, on the bright side, it hasn't been dog-eared, underlined, highlighted, ketchup- or soy sauce-stained, and the dust jacket is still pristine.
But it also hasn't been read by yours truly. For the record, it won't be -- but, I would posit, that's not justification for the ire of the lender.
So back to the way I titled this entry. There's no Rulebook sitting on a shelf somewhere that guides the way friends, acquaintances, and co-workers handle these sorts of things, but oftentimes I wish there was (maybe I need to write it). But if there were, I would hope it said something like, "If you give someone something that they never asked for in the first place, even with the best of intentions on your part, don't assume this means they incur some multi-hour obligation to try it/taste it/read it/watch it/use it. Just be glad to get it back in its original condition, and move on.
And the corollary would be that when you do offer up something of yours to a friend/neighbor/colleague, etc. try to do a quick check ahead of time to verify the items are desired on the recipient's part, and not just some unsolicited burden.
When I borrow, I'll always prefer to do it from a nameless, faceless institution. The terms are clearly spelled out -- literally, with a signed contract in the case of my Pollard Memorial Library Card or my Bank of America Credit Card -- and I know that if I somehow screw up my end of the deal, there will be clear consequences that may hurt my pocketbook (say, if I lost or ruined the great book the Rand Corporation I just got from the local library) but wouldn't ruin friendships or business relationships that are more fragile and subjectively based.
Believe me, I'm not writing to say that I'm in any way against borrowing or lending among friends. Please don't read this entry that way. However, I've seen the movie enough times to know that it doesn't always end well. Borrowing definitely has its place, but it needs to be kept there, and it never needs to be forced on someone -- in business-ese, the *demand signal* should come from the borrower vice the lender.
The Bradley What?
Reader "Nick" just sent me this link: http://www.onthemedia.org/transcripts/2008/10/24/04
which has the transcript of a great discusssion including pollsters and campaign staffers who are actually familiar with the 1982 California Gubernatorial election (unlike 99% of those who talk about 'The Bradley Effect'). Definitely worth the read if you have a few minutes..
which has the transcript of a great discusssion including pollsters and campaign staffers who are actually familiar with the 1982 California Gubernatorial election (unlike 99% of those who talk about 'The Bradley Effect'). Definitely worth the read if you have a few minutes..
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
Props to Mayor Caulfield
http://www.lowellsun.com/todaysheadlines/ci_10835198
Wow. It's definitely not every day that you read about your 70 year-old mayor intervening in a drug-related assault, causing the perpetrators to flee, and then still having the wherewithal to capture the license plate number of the getaway van.
I don't know how much press this will get beyond local outlets like the Sun, but it definitely deserves at least a mention on national cable news.
For all the bad things we've seen and heard from national politicians of both parties like Mssrs. Stevens and Mahoney, and with all the virulent rhetoric that's come out of the 2008 election (not to mention the ugliness we've seen, from skinhead plots against Obama to hanged effigies of Palin), it's nice to see some real courage from an elected leader -- not in the way he or she voted, but in the way he or she acted.
Wow. It's definitely not every day that you read about your 70 year-old mayor intervening in a drug-related assault, causing the perpetrators to flee, and then still having the wherewithal to capture the license plate number of the getaway van.
I don't know how much press this will get beyond local outlets like the Sun, but it definitely deserves at least a mention on national cable news.
For all the bad things we've seen and heard from national politicians of both parties like Mssrs. Stevens and Mahoney, and with all the virulent rhetoric that's come out of the 2008 election (not to mention the ugliness we've seen, from skinhead plots against Obama to hanged effigies of Palin), it's nice to see some real courage from an elected leader -- not in the way he or she voted, but in the way he or she acted.
Monday, October 27, 2008
Pants on Fire
"I always tell the truth...even when I lie." -- Scarface, restaurant scene
A buddy of mine had to go through the grueling and sometimes humiliating process of being polygraphed a little while ago. One of the first questions he was asked -- to put him quickly on the defensive, no doubt -- was, "Have you ever told a lie?"
Well, of course everyone has told a lie at some point, so you can see how a questioner could build and build on that to make someone literally squirm in his or her seat about whether he or she can be trusted.
Having thought about the question for a while (not under any spotlight glare or strapped to a machine, but within the luxury of my own quiet thoughts and time) I wondered about when I lie.
The good news is that I really don't lie much. I'm not writing that in a "look at me and how great I am" type of spirit, but remember, one of the major blog themes here is the goodness of being good. Not lying is a lot like not trash-talking your co-workers -- it gives you the peace of mind never to have to worry about covering your tracks, wondering what you said and who knew it, and keeping multiple stories straight. I truly believe that life is better when you can avoid talking smack about people, and that it's also better when you don't lie.
But anyway, back to the fibbing.
The first thing I thought of (but I'll ask you for an exemption on) concerns exaggerations that serve the cause of spinning a yarn. So, if it was actually four guys that walked into the bar wearing cut-off shirts and biker jackets, it suddenly might become ten guys when I retell the story. I would expect no less from you, so I barely consider it a lie.
However, I do think that exaggerations can start to border on a lie when people fall into the "the older I get, the faster I was" bit -- particularly when stories of great athletic or partying prowess quickly go from once sorta maybe to every night ("My friends and I used to go out and drink two cases of beer...every single night..." "We used to skip school every day but still ace our tests..." "It was a different girl every single night of the week...")
But anyway, I digress. Back to the "When do I lie" question -- since I started thinking about it, I found there were two times when I've caught myself out-and-out lying to someone:
(1) Overbearing social overtures. Believe me, I'm one of the more sociable people you'll ever meet, so I'm all about social invitations, offered and received. That is, of course, except when I'm not. So back when I lived in Virginia Beach, I wasn't thrilled about it, and was in a sort of "save up money and time" mode. When I actually had free time, the last thing on earth I wanted to do, especially on a weeknight, was pay a $10 cover to see Fight Night with Kelly "The Ghost" Pavlik, sip beers, and stare at the floor with a bunch of other hapless chums sipping beer and staring at the floor. My time and money were just way too precious. So a conversation or two might have gone like this:
"Hey, you should come out with us tonight."
"Nah, I think I'm going to stay in."
Repeat x 3 or 4.
"It'll be fun, you should go. Besides, what else would you do?"
"Just hang out, I guess."
[Insert ten more minutes of haranguing, add multiple parties and reminders that 'it's not that expensive' or 'it'll be fun.']
Finally, I use the only possible means of extracting myself from the situation: "Hey, my alcoholic next-door neighbor is having personal trouble, I have to stay in to help him with something."
The thing is, that was sort of a half-truth, but basically I lied. To my credit, I tried honesty as a first approach, but when things became overbearing, I took the easy road out by inserting some B.S. that somehow worked. I feel justified because I never understand why people get that way -- it's like, am I really that much fun that it's going to change your night if I go? No way...
I assure you that I will never lie to you as a way out of a social obligation. But after the third or fourth arm tug without any real justification, I may spontaneously generate a drug-addled family member who needs my support.
(2) Intrusive personal questions. $60k. $225k. 193 lbs. There, I just told you how much I'll make this year, how much my house cost me, and how much I weigh. That should show you that I'm pretty open about a lot of things, personal life and finances included. In fact, I'll only stop there out of a general sense of appropriateness -- I don't think there's a single question that I wouldn't answer to someone who asked earnestly and sincerely. But there's the rub. I can definitely tell the difference between a person asking a question out of sincere curiosity or because they have an interest (i.e. "Hey man, I'm looking at buying a condo in Lowell...how much do they tend to run...?") versus someone who asks something in a sneering way or only to prove that either they are a savvier consumer (you paid $____ for a new timing belt?!?!!? Are you stupid?) or somehow disapprove of your personal life.
So, if my Spidey-senses start telling me that someone is going down a not-so-benign road with a line of questioning, I'll just clam up and say, "I don't know," mutter something unintelligible, or, if they really feel the need to badger, feel a sudden bout of amnesia when someone absolutely-insists-on-knowing-just-how-much-I-paid-for-my-couch-and-loveseat-set-from-Bob's-just-so-they-can-tell-me-I-overpaid-for-an-inferior-product. If we're being technical, that sudden onset of amnesia is its own sort of falsehood.
And those were the times that I lied.
A buddy of mine had to go through the grueling and sometimes humiliating process of being polygraphed a little while ago. One of the first questions he was asked -- to put him quickly on the defensive, no doubt -- was, "Have you ever told a lie?"
Well, of course everyone has told a lie at some point, so you can see how a questioner could build and build on that to make someone literally squirm in his or her seat about whether he or she can be trusted.
Having thought about the question for a while (not under any spotlight glare or strapped to a machine, but within the luxury of my own quiet thoughts and time) I wondered about when I lie.
The good news is that I really don't lie much. I'm not writing that in a "look at me and how great I am" type of spirit, but remember, one of the major blog themes here is the goodness of being good. Not lying is a lot like not trash-talking your co-workers -- it gives you the peace of mind never to have to worry about covering your tracks, wondering what you said and who knew it, and keeping multiple stories straight. I truly believe that life is better when you can avoid talking smack about people, and that it's also better when you don't lie.
But anyway, back to the fibbing.
The first thing I thought of (but I'll ask you for an exemption on) concerns exaggerations that serve the cause of spinning a yarn. So, if it was actually four guys that walked into the bar wearing cut-off shirts and biker jackets, it suddenly might become ten guys when I retell the story. I would expect no less from you, so I barely consider it a lie.
However, I do think that exaggerations can start to border on a lie when people fall into the "the older I get, the faster I was" bit -- particularly when stories of great athletic or partying prowess quickly go from once sorta maybe to every night ("My friends and I used to go out and drink two cases of beer...every single night..." "We used to skip school every day but still ace our tests..." "It was a different girl every single night of the week...")
But anyway, I digress. Back to the "When do I lie" question -- since I started thinking about it, I found there were two times when I've caught myself out-and-out lying to someone:
(1) Overbearing social overtures. Believe me, I'm one of the more sociable people you'll ever meet, so I'm all about social invitations, offered and received. That is, of course, except when I'm not. So back when I lived in Virginia Beach, I wasn't thrilled about it, and was in a sort of "save up money and time" mode. When I actually had free time, the last thing on earth I wanted to do, especially on a weeknight, was pay a $10 cover to see Fight Night with Kelly "The Ghost" Pavlik, sip beers, and stare at the floor with a bunch of other hapless chums sipping beer and staring at the floor. My time and money were just way too precious. So a conversation or two might have gone like this:
"Hey, you should come out with us tonight."
"Nah, I think I'm going to stay in."
Repeat x 3 or 4.
"It'll be fun, you should go. Besides, what else would you do?"
"Just hang out, I guess."
[Insert ten more minutes of haranguing, add multiple parties and reminders that 'it's not that expensive' or 'it'll be fun.']
Finally, I use the only possible means of extracting myself from the situation: "Hey, my alcoholic next-door neighbor is having personal trouble, I have to stay in to help him with something."
The thing is, that was sort of a half-truth, but basically I lied. To my credit, I tried honesty as a first approach, but when things became overbearing, I took the easy road out by inserting some B.S. that somehow worked. I feel justified because I never understand why people get that way -- it's like, am I really that much fun that it's going to change your night if I go? No way...
I assure you that I will never lie to you as a way out of a social obligation. But after the third or fourth arm tug without any real justification, I may spontaneously generate a drug-addled family member who needs my support.
(2) Intrusive personal questions. $60k. $225k. 193 lbs. There, I just told you how much I'll make this year, how much my house cost me, and how much I weigh. That should show you that I'm pretty open about a lot of things, personal life and finances included. In fact, I'll only stop there out of a general sense of appropriateness -- I don't think there's a single question that I wouldn't answer to someone who asked earnestly and sincerely. But there's the rub. I can definitely tell the difference between a person asking a question out of sincere curiosity or because they have an interest (i.e. "Hey man, I'm looking at buying a condo in Lowell...how much do they tend to run...?") versus someone who asks something in a sneering way or only to prove that either they are a savvier consumer (you paid $____ for a new timing belt?!?!!? Are you stupid?) or somehow disapprove of your personal life.
So, if my Spidey-senses start telling me that someone is going down a not-so-benign road with a line of questioning, I'll just clam up and say, "I don't know," mutter something unintelligible, or, if they really feel the need to badger, feel a sudden bout of amnesia when someone absolutely-insists-on-knowing-just-how-much-I-paid-for-my-couch-and-loveseat-set-from-Bob's-just-so-they-can-tell-me-I-overpaid-for-an-inferior-product. If we're being technical, that sudden onset of amnesia is its own sort of falsehood.
And those were the times that I lied.
Friday, October 24, 2008
Bay Staters overwhelmingly opposed to tax repeal
http://www.lowellsun.com/todaysheadlines/ci_10803787
I was relieved this morning to see that 59% of Bay Staters are opposed to the ballot measure to repeal the state income tax. Good stuff. And with only 26% actually in favor, it looks like this thing has a snowball's chance in hell of passing.
Polls are often wrong, but those numbers are pretty statistically significant.
Much talk has been made this year of whether the polls for the Presidential race may or may not be off due to the so-called "Wilder Effect" or "Bradley Effect" (for Douglas Wilder of VA and for Tom Bradley of CA, respectively). The idea behind it is that there's some hidden pocket of racism in people that leads them to tell a pollster they will (or have, in the case of exit polls) vote for a black candidate even when the reality is otherwise.
Well, I don't live under a rock, so I know there are some Americans out there who won't vote for Sen. Obama solely because of the color of his skin. I'm also aware enough of my surroundings to recognize there are also many Americans of all colors and backgrounds for whose votes Sen. Obama's identity will be a positive factor. Most won't state that outright -- they'll find other ways to justify their votes, but I really don't believe they'll feel the need to somehow distort that when they talk to a pollster.
But as long as we're going to talk about the "Wilder Effect" I think it's only fair we talk about the Dewey Effect (remember the famous 'Dewey Defeats Truman' headline?), the Gore Effect, and the Kerry Effect.
In fact, why stop there?
What about the Dukakis Effect, the Hillary Clinton Effect (in many of this year's primaries), or even the Howard Dean Effect (Iowa, 2004)?
The point is, polls are flawed.
They contradict each other, they're based on small samples, they can change greatly based on slight wording tweaks, and they don't always capture the portion of the population that actually votes.
I have no formal statistics background, but at least I'll start by admitting that I know what I don't know. On the whole polling issue, I think that's more than most of the cable news media is willing to admit.
But somewhere in America on the morning of November 5, some Sociology graduate student will get his or her hands on some poll that somehow did not accurately reflect the way some slice of America voted on the 4th. And that will somehow be fodder for some Ph.D. thesis about the Underlying Biases of our Epistemiological Dystopian Freudian Self-Conceived Images of the Idealized Forms of Reflected Idolatry.
My tax dollars will help fund it.
But because I make considerably less than $250k (got my W-2 if you ever want to see), President Obama and his Party in Congress will take less of it, and that will be the bright side.
I was relieved this morning to see that 59% of Bay Staters are opposed to the ballot measure to repeal the state income tax. Good stuff. And with only 26% actually in favor, it looks like this thing has a snowball's chance in hell of passing.
Polls are often wrong, but those numbers are pretty statistically significant.
Much talk has been made this year of whether the polls for the Presidential race may or may not be off due to the so-called "Wilder Effect" or "Bradley Effect" (for Douglas Wilder of VA and for Tom Bradley of CA, respectively). The idea behind it is that there's some hidden pocket of racism in people that leads them to tell a pollster they will (or have, in the case of exit polls) vote for a black candidate even when the reality is otherwise.
Well, I don't live under a rock, so I know there are some Americans out there who won't vote for Sen. Obama solely because of the color of his skin. I'm also aware enough of my surroundings to recognize there are also many Americans of all colors and backgrounds for whose votes Sen. Obama's identity will be a positive factor. Most won't state that outright -- they'll find other ways to justify their votes, but I really don't believe they'll feel the need to somehow distort that when they talk to a pollster.
But as long as we're going to talk about the "Wilder Effect" I think it's only fair we talk about the Dewey Effect (remember the famous 'Dewey Defeats Truman' headline?), the Gore Effect, and the Kerry Effect.
In fact, why stop there?
What about the Dukakis Effect, the Hillary Clinton Effect (in many of this year's primaries), or even the Howard Dean Effect (Iowa, 2004)?
The point is, polls are flawed.
They contradict each other, they're based on small samples, they can change greatly based on slight wording tweaks, and they don't always capture the portion of the population that actually votes.
I have no formal statistics background, but at least I'll start by admitting that I know what I don't know. On the whole polling issue, I think that's more than most of the cable news media is willing to admit.
But somewhere in America on the morning of November 5, some Sociology graduate student will get his or her hands on some poll that somehow did not accurately reflect the way some slice of America voted on the 4th. And that will somehow be fodder for some Ph.D. thesis about the Underlying Biases of our Epistemiological Dystopian Freudian Self-Conceived Images of the Idealized Forms of Reflected Idolatry.
My tax dollars will help fund it.
But because I make considerably less than $250k (got my W-2 if you ever want to see), President Obama and his Party in Congress will take less of it, and that will be the bright side.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)