Beware polls, but I love them.

The only credential I have to post on presidential elections is I'm old. I can remember in pretty good detail every presidential election since 1948. So some comments on polls.

We all remember or have read about Truman V. Dewey in 1948. Gallup, and I believe Roper, were the only two nationally recognized polls. They both blew it. Dewey was so far ahead they reasoned why poll the two weeks before the election. So what did they and we learn. CAMPAIGNS DO MATTER. Several elections since'48 have shown this.

Also, of course, POLL UP TO THE LAST DAY.

Today with the proliferation of polls, it's best to taka a poll of polls. They'll all probably be close by election day, but still it's a good thing to check an average of the polls.

Be alert for prejudice. Some polls put R or D after their name to show the runners of the poll are definitely working for one party or another. Some are on one side or the other but don't tell you that. Rasmussen, for example, is run by a far right Republican and is endorsed by Larry Kudlow an equally far right market analyst. It is only fair to say this poll has been pretty accurate at the end (election day) but shows some amazing results before, making it possible the poll is trying to shape opinion rather than measure it.

Watch out for tricks. Zogby used exit polls in 2004 to adjust it findings, showing a big Democratic sweep. Fooled Ted Kennedy and ruined a lot of Kerry election parties.

I think we all love polls. They're a lot of fun. But you have to watch out. They all have a rather low bar to jump. It's called the 'margin of error.' They just have to get close, which most do. Recently Gallup crossed the line a little by putting out three resuls within a day. Two polls had Obama ahead; one had McCain by 4 points. Ah, the secret. Margin of error. The two Obama ahead polls had a margin or error of plus/minus 2.5 percent. The McCain ahead poll had margin of error plus/minus/ 6 percent. No one to my knowledge in the media caught this. Happy polling.

Shame on McCain

Sorry I missed posting yesterday. But I do want to take up the question of biased media coverage of the presidential campaign.

It has long been a staple of popular wisdom that the main stream media has "liberal" bias." This is true and false. Let me explain. I believe very strongly that if we were to poll the writers and broadcasters of the MSM, a clear majority would personally favor the election of Barrack Obama. This is a bias. Liberals would say this bias is present becuse the MSM is better informed on the issues and naturally comes to the conclusion that Obama is better candidate on issues and personally than John McCain. Conservatives would contend this bias comes from the backgrounds of their education and the favoritism which these liberals receive from their older liberal colleagues. So we say the MSM has a liberal PERSONAL bias.

But the real question is: Does this bias show up in the reporting and anlysis of these likely to be liberal media figures? My answer is "no." Why? Because of the attacks and the general impression that the MSM is liberal, that same media overcompensates in a conservative direction to show their objectivity. A survey has been released that shows that Obama gets overwhelming negative coverage. This has been very apparent in the last few days. Hours have been spent by the networks and reams devoted by the newspapers to the issue of Obama NOT visiting a military hospital in Germany. I believe all fair minded people would agree this has little to do with who would make a good president.

But here is how it works. The Republicans put out an TV commercial with the suggestion that Obama does not care about these wounded troops and shows his poor priorities. It is an extension of McCain's suggestion that Obama is not patriotic---'he(Obama) would lose a war to win an election.' Since the commercial is so extreme the MSM runs it again and again even though the McCain campaign pays to air the ad only a few times. The TV networks then ask a Republican and a Democrat to comment on the commercial. The Democrat says it is 'dishonorable'. The Republican says it is justtified and true.

All commentators of the MSM, even most conservative ones, get up their courage and timidly say the commercial is dishonest--making statements and juxaposing images dishonestly. And they are right. But their comments are strictly secondary to the commercial itself and the fighting between the Republican and Democrat surrogates. And McCain gets hundreds of thousands dollars of free 'air' time.

Aristotle once said 'The equality of unequals is inequality.' In the case of this McCain commercial and a couple of other of his, Aristotle was right. This 'wounded soldier' commercial is not just Republican Vs. Democrat. Not just McCain vs. Obama. It is honor vs. dishonor. And McCain should be ashamed.

Roll the dice!!!

When I starting teaching Government in 1958, one of the things my students really loved was the "presidential availability" unit. "Presidential availability" refers not to what the U.S. constitution requires to be elected preident, but to what real world factors would make a person electable. It's best to look at it from the negative. So with a class of 40 students we would list and discuss those things which would keep a party from even nominating a person for president.

Well, first we eliminated about half the class by saying a women could not be nominated. In 1958, that was true, and I guess still applies today (sorry Hillary). Then the couple of blacks in the class were eliminated, then catholics (this was pre-Kennedy), Jews, non-believers, unmarried persons(ya, I know Buchannan), persons with obvious physical deformities, persons with southern European backgrounds, and on and on ---till almost no one in the class could ever aspire to be president!

The years have gone by and some "availibility" factors have fallen. Catholic (Kennedy), southern European background (Dukakis , I think) and we've gotten close on a woman.

Jackie Kennedy, a Republican at one time, once said something to the effect that 'the Democrats are so much more fun than the Republicans.' I think she's right. But fun can be dangerous. The Democrats really rolled the dice this year!!! They could have gone with Edwards---no presidential 'disabilities.' Instead they gave us a choice at the end between a WOMAN and a BLACK (African-American to be correct) , and, and, and, with a white mother and black father from Africa!!!! And with a pastor that knew all four verses of "God damn America." IT TAKES YOUR BREATH AWAY.

Okay, I'm a Democrat. I like to have fun. I like to live dangerously. But I also like to win. We'll just have to see. Maybe you can't have everything!!

The name of the game is "WIN"

As a former philosophy teacher, I have always had a tendency to "reductionism." Reductionism is the effort to reduce seemingly complex phenomena to a simpler explanation. I am a Democrat, but I must say I admire the Republicans mastery of "political reductionism." While the Democrats struggle to explain EVERY issue from war to the price of bread, the Repubs try, and often succeed, in reducing an election to a word or phrase. Nothing fancy or complicated to be sure.

In 2000, with relative world peace and a good economy, the Democrats, with Al Gore, waged a "deep intellectual debate", or tried to, on global interconnections with its myriad implications. The Republicans stuck with "Who would you rather have a beer with.". Pefect. Gore, even to his strong supporters, such as myself, did seem a bit----well, pompous, and pedantic. Yes , Gore won the popular vote but that's not the way we do it. We should, but we don't.

2004. John Kerry, an "intellectual giant", compared to Bush, was easy pickins' for the reductionists Republicans. Wind sailing, 'French ' tendencies, and, most important flip-flopping--I voted for the bill before I voted against it . Three strikes and you're out. Kerry strikes out. Add a fourth strike: Kerry's wife actual name: Teresa Simoes-Ferriera Heinz-Kerry. There's no fourth strike, but you get the point.

Now 2008. Obama trying to have a "deep" position on everything. From stay home African-American dads to 'I can make the Europeans love us again.' Good stuff. Maybe. And the Republicans: Obama, you blitthering idiot, you said the "surge" wouldn't work, but it did. Don't give us that complicated 'excuse' about the 'sunni awakening' being a real cause of reduced violence. The 'Sunni awakening' is a term my polling shows understood by about one per cent of American voters up to last week. And the press loves it, liberal as they might be. The "surge". We all know what that is. The "sunni awakening"; some kind of middle eastern religious revival?

Now, I'm not saying who's right. I'm just talking politics. Those Republicans sure know how to play---change that to know how to win.

Civilian supremacy. Who makes the call?

I mentioned in a previous post the doctrine of "civilian supremacy." Let me expand a bit on this essential of the American way.

Although not mentioned specifically in our constitution, it is accepted that certain principles are the foundation of the success of our democracy. Separation of powers, checks and balances, separation of church and state , and civilian supremacy are some of these bed rocks.

Probably the least known, but maybe the most important, is the doctrine of civilian supremacy. In effect this idea says that all military forces and commanders are, in the final analysis, under the control and direction of non-military (civilian) authority. This is extremely important because only armed (military) forces have the ability to take over control of our government, becaused they ARE armed. South America is a good example of NOT having civilian supremacy--a junta a week.

The closest we have come in my lifetime to abrogating civilian supremacy was the MacArthur-Truman fight over the Korean war. MacArthur desired to invade China after having a great success in driving communist chinese troops out of Korean. Truman favored driving the Chinese out of Korea, but not invading China. MacArthur lobbied American political figures to get the right to invade China. This was a clear violation of civilian supremacy. President Truman was the commander-in-chief and MacArthur had no right to lobby against a president, his commander.

I was there and the outcry against Truman was unbelievable. A clear majority of Americans favored his impeachment; MacArthur, on his return to the U.S. was greeted as no other war hero we had had. MacArthur was asked to address congress to great acclaim. The argument was made that MacArthur knew the situation on the ground in Korean, he was a career military man and thus knew best what to do. In the end, civilian supremacy prevailed, but just by a nose.

In 1964, Barry Goldwater again came close to crossing the line. He argued, with some success, that the use of neclear weapons was a decision to be made by military commanders, not the president.

Now today, McCain flirts with the doctrine of military supremacy. His insistence that the key factor in the debate over when to leave Iraq should be controlled primarily by the commanders in the field, is very close to abandoning civilian supremacy. In fairness, he has not gone completely over the line, but he is close.

The doctrine of military supremacy in war has some surface obvious appeal---after all a general is a military 'expert.' But the danger of final decision being made by those with an army or armed men should be clear.

So McCain be careful. America be careful.

The three faces( images) of John McCain

A common misconception to this point in the '08 presidential election is that the McCain campaign is in disarary and has no winning theme. Quite to the contrary, there is slowly emerging a powerful 'accidental' strtegy which may well be unstoppable.

I say "accidental" because the strategy is not coming from his campaign, but being forced on the campaign by what works.

For the sake of analysis, let's assume three groups of voters: The least informed , the moderately informed, and the well informed. Of course these are not set, rigid groups, but the electorate may fairly be view against these markers, recognizing that the knowkedge of voters is on a continuum. Obama has one face, one image. McCain has three, and each image fits very well into the three electorate categories.

For the least informed , McCain is seen as a Navy pilot, shot down in some war, captured and tortured by a cruel enemy. So McCain in the enemy hospital bed picture.

For the moderately informed, McCain as the maverick. On ocassions disagreeing with his party, and most important, diverging at times from an unpopular President Bush. So McCain battling with Bush for the 2000 Republican nomination and calling Falwell and Robertson "agents of intolerance."

For the well informed, base of the party, McCain as the penitent, eschewing his 'liberal' tendencies by embracing a very hardline, rightwing stance. 'Family values' all the way; use of torture , anti-gay, progun, security at all costs, conservative supreme justices---all , by the way, a reversal in many ways from the image of the moderately informed. This is not 'flip-flopping', but like Romney, a seeing of the light, a conversion.

All three of these McCain's are 'real' in some ways, at some times. As the presidential campaign goes on, his advisors can emphasize each of the three as circumstances determine. The three together may be unstopable.

Is this the DECISIVE election?

In the couple of years I have been reading blogs and having this blog, I have not posted on politics. However, in the last several days some trends have emerged which I want to post on.

I do consider this election the most important in my years of following politics. I vaguely remember the presidential elections of '40 and '44. In '48 and since I have followed each presidential campaign very closely from, as they say today, the events on the ground.

For all of these years I have had my favorite, of course. But I have always contended that, because of our two-party system, which forces both parties to the middle, the outcome of the presidential election has not been totally decisive in determining which direction politics in our country is going. This year, however, I feel very strongly that this election is of vital importance to our country and its politics. Maybe I am jumping the gun. Maybe Obama and McCain are really not that different and economic and foreign policy would not be that much different regardless of which one wins.

But frankly, my concern is the last few days has greatly increased. I may discuss these in detail in future posts, but let me point out two trends I see developing which could have a generational lasting effect.

For many campaign cycles the Republicans have had the upper hand in the minds of voters on national defense matters. But this year this debate is beginning to spill over into the matter of personal patriotism. Dole came very close to this with Clinton. But now McCain has crossed the line. His suggestion that Obama would 'rather win an election' than have America 'win a war' is to call his opponent disloyal, unpatriotic and, indeed, treasonous. Yes. strong words. And I notice that one of the major polls is polling on 'who is more patriotic ,McCain or Obama.?

I am a democrat, but have always had some regard for McCain. But apparently feeling he is behind in the race, he is playing this patriotism card. In the 60 years I have closely followed presidential campaigns, this McCain approach is the most blatant and disturbing thing I have seen. And it comes from a "moderate" Republican. So my fear is this: If this McCain position succeeds, what will follow? Will not both parties see the success of this ploy, and will our elections become nothing but lurid personal attacks on the loyalty to America by each side? Will jingoism became the national touchstone of our parties?

If anyone out there in blogdom thinks such issues should be explored, drop me a comment. On this post I also was going to discuss the issue of 'civilian supremacy' which McCain is raising. But let me wait and see if if this post 'finds' anyone. I mentioned "two" trends above, but am dealing with just one at this time. Jack

Gays and the priesthood

Let me say in the beginning that the Catholic position on homosexuality, at least the American Bishops position, is far more understanable than the "fundamantalist Christian" position. Let me make several comments, however.

1. There is little resarch on whether homosexuality is inborn, learned, or a combination of both.

2. Unfortunately the question of homosexuality has become a political issue mainly, not a science issue. Most of the google and book results on the issue are from those with a vested interest in homosexuality being a learned behavior. I have no objection to people of religious persuasion having an opinion on this issue, but I do discount those who start with their religious convictions and try to find scientific evidence that supports their religious views.

3. Their is a difference, which is sometimes blurred, between sexual behavior and sexual orientation. Behavior can change, of course, but orientation is a different matter.

4. There is no reputable evidence that homosexual orientation can be changed.

5. If learned, there is no reliable evidence as to how it is learned. Also it must be asked if heterosexual behavior is learned, then how?

6. Assuming such behavior is learned, all seem to agree that it was learned quite early in life. And at a time when the person had little or no control over the circumstances.

7. Assuming 6 to be correct, it seems illogical to blame a person for their homosexual orientation.

8.Thus to bar homosexuals from the priesthood, based on their orientation, seems prejudicial.

9. I see a difference , to a degree, between the American bishops and the Vatican on these issue.

Knowing that long posts are often not read, I have only outlined my position. Jack

"Excluded Middle"

Getting a bit off my current discussions, I want to remark on the "excluded middle."

On another blog I ask a women if there was anything in Catholicism that she might disagree with of even have a question about. She answered with a firm "NO." She then ask me to name a catholic teaching I agreed with. I named several, and could have named many. Never heard from her again on this issue.

Let's take atheism (total materialism) as one extreme and move across to the other extreme, total acceptance of everything the church says. To me a false dichotomy. Most of us are someplace on that continuum. Catholic blogs seem to be dominated by those who have no questions:If the Church says it, it has to be true. The only argument they offer is :The Church says it and you are not catholic if you do not fully accept what they think it says. Very primitive to me.

As any who has been here know, I think the church is way off balance on matters of human sexuality. Its position is exactly what you would expect from the thinking of a body of celibate males who are protecting their position. I see no other explanation.

But I'm off-point. There are shades of opinion on most issues, and that is a strength of the Church. Mindless sheep do not a Church make. Jack

Preferencium Latinium vs. I prefer the vernacular.

I have never written on my blog about the "liturgy wars." I saw a post on another blog and thought I might make a comment or two. The blogger I read said the contest was between those who favor 'beautiful, elevated' language over simpler, easier to understand more direct vernacular language.

Let's take Latin vs. Today's English (American). The assumption seems to be that the former is more 'elevated', more 'beautiful' than English. But the purpose of language is to communicate. But, you say, isn't poetry more beautiful than prose. Absolutely not. Poetry is a form of compressing language so that the thought will be stated MORE clearly and more efficiently than a much longer prose statement of the thought.

In evaluating one language against another we should remember that one language is not more "elevated and beautiful' than another. The criterion is which most effectively and efficiently expresses what is being conveyed. "Italia petula est sacramentum" is no more beautiful than "I will go to the store." Which communicates best is the criterion of excellence. In my example, can there be any doubt as to which is the better language?

English has become almost the universal language because it is direct, and efficient. Latin is dead because it was emcumbered with exceptions and rules making it very difficult to convey meaning. And the same with French. Why, for example, should adjectives have gender? "Big" is "Big" regardless of what it modifies. English adjectives do not have gender when they mean exactly the same thing.

Earlier forms of English did have a multiplicity of unnecessary variations, but over the years these have dropped as useless and unnecessary making communication easier. We say
I do
You do
He does
We do
You do
They do."
At one time, each of these verbs was a different word. Now only 3rd person singular remains irregular. But you say: We can't say "he do." It isn't right! But why? Only because we have been taught not to say it. I'm sure if we could bring back an Englishman from hundreds of years ago he would be offended by "You do." He would want a different word for second person.

So the Liturgy War is provoked by those who do not understand the purpose and development of language.

Oh, but the Latin advocates say, we , as Catholics, should all be praying in the same language. Thus when we go to another country we can follow the service. So let's all use Latin. Apparently they desire that we all must be equally ignorant of what is being said or read. That will be the unity of ignorance!

Not to sound provincial, but a majority of students of the history of language say the direct, simplicity of English easily trumps the elaborate, difficult variations of most other languages.
"Goedinium farwellium" or Good bye. Jack

I should point out that the other blogger said there was a distinction between" good" books and "Great" books. And, of course there is. A great book is one that communicates more clearly to more people over the expanse of time. The same goes for the other arts. Bach is great, not because he is "elevated" but because his music communicates to us, those before us, and those to come. Farwellium againium. Jack

Angola. Family Values Catholic Haven

Yesterday I posted a comparison of Brazil and the U.S. on "family values". See previous post. But South America may not be your 'cup of tea.' Today I will give figures for Angola. I have picked Angola because it is an African nation and part of the "family values" rich southern Africa. In gathering information I noticed that Angola is featured by the International Right To Life Federation as a model for anti-abortion countries, prohibiting even any "propoganda" in favor of abortion. Ah, a real haven for you family values folks.

Infant Mortality Rate. U.S. 6.37 per 1,000 live births. Angola. 184.44 per 1000 live bitths.
Life Expectancy. U.S. 76. Angola. 37
Aids adult prevalence. U.S. 0.6 per cent. Angola. 3.9 percent.
Death rate for Aids victims. U.S. 5.8. Angola. 8.5.
Abortion rate. Not available for Angola, but 80 per cent of women refugees report being raped.
WHO rank of health care. U.S. 37. Angola. 181.

I think you can see here why the InternationalRight to Life Federation is so excited about Angola as a showcase for those OPPOSED to the "culture of death." Remember U.S. is debauched, debased, and enjoys tearing babies limb from limb. Thank God for Angola and Family Values!!!

Special Offer for Catholic Family Values Seekers.

To my surprise I have found that I live in a country( U.S.) that is debauched, debased, enjoys tearing babies limb from limb---that is a country with very poor "fanily values." At least according to many in Mother Church. Of course, my country is not alone. Almost all industrialized, well educated Western European countries are in this sorry state. Therefore as a service to any blogger who might stop by, I feel it is my duty as a catholic to suggest alternative countries to which as catholics concerned with "family values" we might move . This may take more than one post, but let me start with a comparison of the U.S. with Brazil. The former is, as stated above, debauched, debased, and enjoys tearing babies limb from limb. Brazil, on the contrary, is what some refer to as a "southern catholic" country with much higher regard for "familiy values."

So a few statistics, as catholics interested in "family vales" and opposed to cultures of death as defined by the Holy Father.

Infant Mortality rate per 1,000 live births. U.S. 6.7. Brazil 27.62.
Abortions per 1,000 women. U.S. 24. Brazil 41.
Life espectancy at birth. U.S. 76. Brazil 72.
Aids prevelance rate for adults. U.S. 0.6. Brazil O.7
Death rate from Aids. U.S. 5.8. Brazil. 7.5.
WHO rank of health system. U.S. 37th. Brazil 125th.

Now as any fool can see the U.S. is a culture of death and debauched, debased, and enjoys tearing babies limb from limb. Brazil is clearly a culture that respects human life and well being at all stages.

You will also be glad to know that I am working on a deal with the Vatican to provide 5 'free' indulgences to those moving to Brazil, thus affirming the culture of life.

The Choice

Let's assume you are a young man of about 18 years. You have noticed that you have a sexual affinity for other males. But you are a catholic. And you know your church has identified this affinity as "gravely disordered." This means , or course, that you are gravely disordered. You try to fight this affinity, but to no avail. You hear your friends and family constantly using the word "queer" in reference to boys/men in your position. Maybe you have heard your mother say " I would die if one of my boys was "queer." The head of your church, the pope, adds, yes you are very perverted. Maybe you can't help it {but I suggest you can), but even if you can't help your feelings they must never be put into action' he says.. The pope adds 'certainly if you are "queer" you should not associate with others like yourself, because then you become part of the "gay" culture and not worthy to serve the church in most capacities.' The church says do not tell your fellow catholics of your situation. because that may cause "scandal."

In a spot---well yes. You try to think it out. Where is your girlfriend? It will be wonderful, your mother says, when you find the 'right' girl and make me a grandmother.

Then it occurs to you. If I could become a priest in our church, then people would think I had given up all sex for a higher duty. My family would be very proud of me. No longer would people think I was a "queer." Of course the training to be a priest wll be hard; but I'm smart and can pull it off. I'll have to be interviewed before I can be accepted as a potential priest, but the chances are good that won't be so difficult. After all there's a good bet one of the interviewers is "queer" himself. And the point of the interview won't be whether I'm "queer", but am I strong enough to repress all sexual thought before it becomes action. Can I be celibate, is the point.

Well, I decide to become a priest. Why not? I am a conscientious catholic, so this minor little flaw nature (God) gave me will be offset by my service to the church and others. I can be whole again.

This blogger believes that this happens thousands of time each year. It's not so bad. A "queer" priest doesn't bother me in the least. Maybe I'm a prude, but I'm so square I really think it's kind of bad taste to spectulate on the "sex' acts of others, straight or "queer." (I had to here to make my point.) I sometimes like to think the Queen of England and certainly the Pope don't have...well, bodily 'functions.':) I don't look down on the young man I described above. I know he is no more likely to sexually abuse a child than is my family lawyer. But I do feel sorry that this young man had to make his career choice the way he did. But I wish him the best of luck and think he will probably serve our church and others well.