Campaign 2016 officially has descended into insanity. Both candidates are hurling serious charges of election rigging. No wonder a recent poll found that 41 percent of registered voters believe there is at least a "possibility" of voter fraud in the presidential election.
Allegations of election tampering are nothing new. Who can forget the 2000 presidential election when Democrat Al Gore blamed voter irregularities for his defeat? But the new wrinkle is the claim that a foreign government is surreptitiously undermining the election.
Democrats and their nominee Hillary Clinton are alleging Russian President Vladimir Putin is behind an stealth effort to rig the outcome in favor of Republican Donald Trump. Putin, the cunning former KGB intelligence officer, has used the furor to cast an ominous shadow over the election.
This is a classic KGB disinformation campaign that the Democrat accomplices in the American media have regurgitated in an effort to help Ms. Clinton, who has repeatedly charged that Putin would like nothing better than to see Mr. Trump lounging in the Oval Office.
Ms. Clinton has huffed there is "credible evidence" from intelligence sources to "pursue an investigation into Russia's efforts to interfere with our election." She went on to assert at a rally that it was no accident the Russian scheme started "about the time Mr. Trump became the nominee."
Of course, Ms. Clinton offered no proof. No U.S. intelligence source has produced public evidence that the Russians are hacking their way into voting machines. Ms. Clinton's unsubstantiated claims have played right into the hands of Putin's effort to undermine public trust in the election process.
For Russia to tinker with the results, rogue agents of Putin would have to infiltrate more than 9,000 precincts to arrange to jigger with voting machines and paper ballots. They would literally have to gain access to every device and ballot without anyone noticing. It is simply mission impossible.
But that hasn't stopped Ms. Clinton and the Democratic Party from making the allegations.
Not one media outlet has challenged Ms. Clinton's screwball assertion. Her "proof" is her familiar refrain that Putin does not want her to be president because she would be tough on Russia. It matters little to the media that Ms. Clinton has a history of a cozy relationship with the Russians.
It was Secretary of State Clinton who famously presented her counterpart in Russia with the sophomoric "reset button" to signal a new era of cooperation between the two countries. What followed was Russian aggression in the Ukraine and the incursion into the Syrian conflict.
Under Ms. Clinton's tenure as Secretary of State, President Putin was able to resurrect Russian ambitions to become a dominant force in both Europe and the Middle East. America made it clear that it had no intention of confronting the Russian military. Diplomacy was the only option.
Putin only needs to look at recent history with the former Secretary of State to recognize future interventions in foreign countries will go unchecked by an America led by Hillary Clinton.
There are other reasons Putin and the Russian oligarchs would be comfortable with a Clinton presidency. As Secretary of State, Ms. Clinton signed off on a deal that allowed a Russian company called Uranium One to acquire significant holdings in the United States.
Prior to the Uranium One deal, former President Bill Clinton became entangled in a Canadian mining firm that eventually sold off its assets to the Russians. A Canadian businessman gave $31 million to the Clinton Foundation after Mr. Clinton aided in an effort to obtain uranium mines in Kazakhstan.
As the Russians were gradually gaining control of the Canadian firm, Uranium One's chairman also took an interest in the Clinton Foundation.
The chairman used his family foundation to make four donations totaling $2.35 million to the Clinton Foundation. The contributions were not publicly disclosed by the Clinton's, despite an agreement with the White House designed to ensure transparency.
For Democrats reading about Uranium One's shady dealings for the first time, this description of the transactions between the Russians and the Clinton Foundation was first printed in The New York Times on April 23, 2015. The charges of a shadowy quid-pro-quid were not concocted by the GOP.
While the deal with Uranium One was under consideration by Ms. Clinton, former president Clinton received a $500,000 speech fee from another connected Russian firm, according to The Wall Street Journal. Democrat apologists contend none of this influenced Hillary's decision.
As a result of Uranium One's wheeling and dealing, they now control one-fifth of all uranium production capacity in the U.S. What difference at this point does it make? Uranium is a strategic component used in nuclear weapons. It is a matter of national security to protect the U.S. supply.
Uranium One now has uranium mining stakes in operations stretching from Canada to Central Asia to the American West. Without the approval of Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton's influence, the Russian firm would never have been able to assemble such a stash of uranium assets.
Yet American voters are supposed to be believe that the Russians and Putin prefer Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton. It is sheer lunacy to even make that assertion based on the Clinton's record of kowtowing to the Russians.
Meanwhile, a smug Vladimir Putin must be laughing as he gulps another shot of vodka. Without lifting a finger, he has managed to corrupt the expectation of a democratic election in the country of his arch enemy. He couldn't have done it without accomplices Hillary Clinton and a corrupt media.
Monday, October 24, 2016
Monday, October 17, 2016
Moderators Muck Up Presidential Debates
The first two presidential debates have been raucous brawls, marked by verbal bolts of lightning crackling across the stage. Media critics have been quick to blame the candidates for the sparring matches, but much of the guilt rests squarely on the shifty shoulders of the moderators.
In the first debate, NBC's Lester Holt seemed to disappear for long periods while the candidates rambled without answering the questions. Did he take a potty break while the cameras locked on the candidates? His performance became the butt of numerous jokes on social media.
No one knows why the Commission on Presidential Debates selected Holt. He appears to be a nice fellow, but his credentials to moderate a presidential debate are skimpy at best. Holt was clearly out of his comfort zone and he lost total control of the debate.
During the opening of the debate, Holt mentioned how "honored" he was to serve in the capacity as moderator. Perhaps, he was overwhelmed by his lofty position under the klieg lights with more than 80 million Americans eyeballing the proceedings. He wilted under the stifling pressure.
Then in last week's melee, moderators Anderson Cooper from CNN and ABC's Martha Raddatz fumbled the town-hall style debate. These two self-important members of the TV news glitterati intruded, interrupted and provoked what became a verbal rumble in the jungle.
Right from the start, Cooper tried to burnish his journalistic chops by quizzing Donald Trump about a leaked "Access Hollywood" tape featuring lurid comments about women. After Trump addressed the question, he attempted to move on and was interrupted three times.
This sparked a Trump tirade about Bill Clinton's sexual assault history, while a stern-faced Hillary Clinton simmered in the background. When he was finished, Ms. Clinton launched her counter attack. This back-and-forth consumed nearly 30 minutes of the town hall.
Although most Americans wanted the "tape" issue addressed, why did it have to be the opening volley? It could have been teed up later in the event. By leading with the tawdry tape, Cooper deliberately set the tone for the spectacle and buried interest in obvious issues in the campaign.
As a result, only a handful of real voters in the room were allowed to ask questions. Even that scanty portion was ruined by pompous pests Cooper and Raddatz, who insisted on inserting themselves into the discussion with a series of follow-up questions.
Town halls are supposed to be about the audience, not the moderators. Cooper and Raddatz, who view themselves as A-list media celebrities, were intent on keeping the camera's eye on them not the voters. As a result of their shoddy performance, they made a mockery of the town hall format.
Who selects these moderators anyway? Glad you asked. That job belongs to the Commission on Presidential Debates, an allegedly non-partisan, non-profit organization established in 1987. The commission is comprised of mostly political hacks.
The co-chairs of the current commission are Frank J. Fahrenkopf, Jr. and Michael D. McCurry. Fahrenkopf served as the Republican National Committee chairman from 1983 to l989. McCurry was press secretary for former president Bill Clinton.
Does anyone believe either man is non-partisan?
Therein lies the problem with selection of the moderators and the debate format. The only way to fix the situation is to have an independent commission filled with people who have not served in any political capacity. How about ordinary citizens with an interest in an honest debate?
Heaping all the blame on the moderators for the first two skirmishes would not be fair either. Both Trump and Ms. Clinton have allowed their rhetoric to degenerate into verbal fisticuffs with each hoping to land a knockout punch to the other's candidacy. Decorum and decency be damned.
The final round on the three-debate card is scheduled October 19. Chris Wallace of Fox News has been tabbed to moderate the donnybrook. Don't expect any change in performance. Wallace, like the other conceited TV bigwigs, has a reputation to polish as a serious journalist.
The moderator's job is to make the debates about the candidates. That won't happen until the Commission on Presidential Debates stops trotting out TV news celebrities to be moderators. The time has come to let real debate moderators run the show.
In the first debate, NBC's Lester Holt seemed to disappear for long periods while the candidates rambled without answering the questions. Did he take a potty break while the cameras locked on the candidates? His performance became the butt of numerous jokes on social media.
No one knows why the Commission on Presidential Debates selected Holt. He appears to be a nice fellow, but his credentials to moderate a presidential debate are skimpy at best. Holt was clearly out of his comfort zone and he lost total control of the debate.
During the opening of the debate, Holt mentioned how "honored" he was to serve in the capacity as moderator. Perhaps, he was overwhelmed by his lofty position under the klieg lights with more than 80 million Americans eyeballing the proceedings. He wilted under the stifling pressure.
Then in last week's melee, moderators Anderson Cooper from CNN and ABC's Martha Raddatz fumbled the town-hall style debate. These two self-important members of the TV news glitterati intruded, interrupted and provoked what became a verbal rumble in the jungle.
Right from the start, Cooper tried to burnish his journalistic chops by quizzing Donald Trump about a leaked "Access Hollywood" tape featuring lurid comments about women. After Trump addressed the question, he attempted to move on and was interrupted three times.
This sparked a Trump tirade about Bill Clinton's sexual assault history, while a stern-faced Hillary Clinton simmered in the background. When he was finished, Ms. Clinton launched her counter attack. This back-and-forth consumed nearly 30 minutes of the town hall.
Although most Americans wanted the "tape" issue addressed, why did it have to be the opening volley? It could have been teed up later in the event. By leading with the tawdry tape, Cooper deliberately set the tone for the spectacle and buried interest in obvious issues in the campaign.
As a result, only a handful of real voters in the room were allowed to ask questions. Even that scanty portion was ruined by pompous pests Cooper and Raddatz, who insisted on inserting themselves into the discussion with a series of follow-up questions.
Town halls are supposed to be about the audience, not the moderators. Cooper and Raddatz, who view themselves as A-list media celebrities, were intent on keeping the camera's eye on them not the voters. As a result of their shoddy performance, they made a mockery of the town hall format.
Who selects these moderators anyway? Glad you asked. That job belongs to the Commission on Presidential Debates, an allegedly non-partisan, non-profit organization established in 1987. The commission is comprised of mostly political hacks.
The co-chairs of the current commission are Frank J. Fahrenkopf, Jr. and Michael D. McCurry. Fahrenkopf served as the Republican National Committee chairman from 1983 to l989. McCurry was press secretary for former president Bill Clinton.
Does anyone believe either man is non-partisan?
Therein lies the problem with selection of the moderators and the debate format. The only way to fix the situation is to have an independent commission filled with people who have not served in any political capacity. How about ordinary citizens with an interest in an honest debate?
Heaping all the blame on the moderators for the first two skirmishes would not be fair either. Both Trump and Ms. Clinton have allowed their rhetoric to degenerate into verbal fisticuffs with each hoping to land a knockout punch to the other's candidacy. Decorum and decency be damned.
The final round on the three-debate card is scheduled October 19. Chris Wallace of Fox News has been tabbed to moderate the donnybrook. Don't expect any change in performance. Wallace, like the other conceited TV bigwigs, has a reputation to polish as a serious journalist.
The moderator's job is to make the debates about the candidates. That won't happen until the Commission on Presidential Debates stops trotting out TV news celebrities to be moderators. The time has come to let real debate moderators run the show.
Monday, October 10, 2016
An Open Letter To Colin Kaepernick
Dear Mr. Kaepernick:
Your refusal to stand during the playing of the national anthem, is a classless gesture that underscores your ignorance. Despite my personal feelings, I will defend your right to air your grievances, even though I disagree with your methods.
You claim you are protesting the oppression of African-Americans. That is a noble cause, but you are an odd spokesperson, considering your enormous personal forture. Although you are only 28 years old, you are playing professional football for an annual salary of $19 million.
When you entered the National Football League, you signed a six-year deal worth $114 million. You pocketed a signing bonus of $12,328,766. Your generous contract guarantees you $61 million, even if you never toss another pass for the San Francisco Forty-Niners.
Don't get me wrong. I applaud your financial bonanza. But I wonder how wealth qualifies you to speak on behalf of an African-American, living in the slums, hand-to-mouth, afraid to walk the mean streets. Can you really identify with the struggles of the average black person?
Let me make it clear. Just because you are wealthy doesn't mean you forfeit your right to speak for the less fortunate. There are many wealthy people making a difference in healing the racial divide. But none of them, as far as I know, take a knee during the playing of the national anthem.
Perhaps, you are feeling a little guilty. After all, your enormous wealth makes you immune to the sufferings of someone chained to the ghetto by failed government programs. If you truly want to fix the problem, there are many things you could do to help.
That's why it seems strange that you elected to show your disapproval by thumbing your nose at our national anthem. Do you even know the background of the "Star Spangled Banner"? What does it have to do with racial oppression?
An American lawyer named Francis Scott Key penned a poem in 1814 during the Battle of Baltimore, which eventually became known as the "Star Spangled Banner." President Herbert Hoover led the effort to declare the song our nation's anthem in 1931.
The anthem was written during the War of 1812 against the British, who burned down the White House in an act of gratuitous aggression. The war had nothing to do with slavery, although there were slaves in the country at that time. The anthem celebrates the American spirit, not slavery.
I would have more respect for you if you had announced you were funding a foundation to aid African-Americans who lack the financial resources to go to college. Or if you vowed to create after-school programs for inner city youth. Or you worked to end black-on-black crime.
Those are the actions of someone who wants to fix the problem. Kneeling during the national anthem doesn't help black people one iota. It does, however, put a glaring spotlight on you. If that's what you wanted, you have succeeded. But you have failed to do a darn thing about oppression.
That's why I disagree with President Obama and others who claim it takes courage to refuse to stand for the national anthem. Nonsense. Anyone can do that. It requires commitment to take a stand and back it up with actions that will make a difference. That's real courage.
President John F. Kennedy said it best. "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country." You are a beneficiary of American freedom, but what are you willing to do in return? Kneel. Really? That's it. That's your answer?
Unfortunately, your protest has done more to widen the chasm between the races. To many of us, your refusal feels like a giant middle finger against patriotism. Now that other black players have followed your lead, this has done nothing but escalate tension between the races.
You have made this a black versus white issue, since the charge of racism by its nature smears all whites as haters. There is no question racism exists in America and worldwide. But so does anti-Semitism. You can add to that list people who dislike Christians, atheists, Asians and Hispanics.
But the haters are in the minority. The vast majority of Americans pursue harmony with their neighbors, regardless of color, creed or religion. Still, we can agree that racism, sexism and all the other ism's need to be eradicated. You will get no argument from me or most Americans.
That's why dishonoring the national anthem is an senseless gesture that angers many. Do you recall September 11, 2001? After the terrorist attacks, all Americans, black and white, rallied behind their country. The playing of the "Star Spangled Banner" united all Americans.
Apparently, many Americans are offended by your actions. Ratings for NFL games are down for the first time in decades. Some research suggests fans are turning off their televisions to send a message to the players and the owners. They want to watch football without the racial bellyaching.
I ask you to please reconsider your form of protest, not your principles. Because when your 15 minutes of fame fades and your football skills erode, you will just be another unhappy, unemployed multi-millionaire. Still, not a bad life for someone concerned about oppression.
Sincerely,
Drew A. Roy
Your refusal to stand during the playing of the national anthem, is a classless gesture that underscores your ignorance. Despite my personal feelings, I will defend your right to air your grievances, even though I disagree with your methods.
You claim you are protesting the oppression of African-Americans. That is a noble cause, but you are an odd spokesperson, considering your enormous personal forture. Although you are only 28 years old, you are playing professional football for an annual salary of $19 million.
When you entered the National Football League, you signed a six-year deal worth $114 million. You pocketed a signing bonus of $12,328,766. Your generous contract guarantees you $61 million, even if you never toss another pass for the San Francisco Forty-Niners.
Don't get me wrong. I applaud your financial bonanza. But I wonder how wealth qualifies you to speak on behalf of an African-American, living in the slums, hand-to-mouth, afraid to walk the mean streets. Can you really identify with the struggles of the average black person?
Let me make it clear. Just because you are wealthy doesn't mean you forfeit your right to speak for the less fortunate. There are many wealthy people making a difference in healing the racial divide. But none of them, as far as I know, take a knee during the playing of the national anthem.
Perhaps, you are feeling a little guilty. After all, your enormous wealth makes you immune to the sufferings of someone chained to the ghetto by failed government programs. If you truly want to fix the problem, there are many things you could do to help.
That's why it seems strange that you elected to show your disapproval by thumbing your nose at our national anthem. Do you even know the background of the "Star Spangled Banner"? What does it have to do with racial oppression?
An American lawyer named Francis Scott Key penned a poem in 1814 during the Battle of Baltimore, which eventually became known as the "Star Spangled Banner." President Herbert Hoover led the effort to declare the song our nation's anthem in 1931.
The anthem was written during the War of 1812 against the British, who burned down the White House in an act of gratuitous aggression. The war had nothing to do with slavery, although there were slaves in the country at that time. The anthem celebrates the American spirit, not slavery.
I would have more respect for you if you had announced you were funding a foundation to aid African-Americans who lack the financial resources to go to college. Or if you vowed to create after-school programs for inner city youth. Or you worked to end black-on-black crime.
Those are the actions of someone who wants to fix the problem. Kneeling during the national anthem doesn't help black people one iota. It does, however, put a glaring spotlight on you. If that's what you wanted, you have succeeded. But you have failed to do a darn thing about oppression.
That's why I disagree with President Obama and others who claim it takes courage to refuse to stand for the national anthem. Nonsense. Anyone can do that. It requires commitment to take a stand and back it up with actions that will make a difference. That's real courage.
President John F. Kennedy said it best. "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country." You are a beneficiary of American freedom, but what are you willing to do in return? Kneel. Really? That's it. That's your answer?
Unfortunately, your protest has done more to widen the chasm between the races. To many of us, your refusal feels like a giant middle finger against patriotism. Now that other black players have followed your lead, this has done nothing but escalate tension between the races.
You have made this a black versus white issue, since the charge of racism by its nature smears all whites as haters. There is no question racism exists in America and worldwide. But so does anti-Semitism. You can add to that list people who dislike Christians, atheists, Asians and Hispanics.
But the haters are in the minority. The vast majority of Americans pursue harmony with their neighbors, regardless of color, creed or religion. Still, we can agree that racism, sexism and all the other ism's need to be eradicated. You will get no argument from me or most Americans.
That's why dishonoring the national anthem is an senseless gesture that angers many. Do you recall September 11, 2001? After the terrorist attacks, all Americans, black and white, rallied behind their country. The playing of the "Star Spangled Banner" united all Americans.
Apparently, many Americans are offended by your actions. Ratings for NFL games are down for the first time in decades. Some research suggests fans are turning off their televisions to send a message to the players and the owners. They want to watch football without the racial bellyaching.
I ask you to please reconsider your form of protest, not your principles. Because when your 15 minutes of fame fades and your football skills erode, you will just be another unhappy, unemployed multi-millionaire. Still, not a bad life for someone concerned about oppression.
Sincerely,
Drew A. Roy
Monday, October 3, 2016
Media Hiding The Truth About Polls
Polls. Polls. Polls. Every day a new poll surfaces on the presidential race. The mainstream media report the poll results as if the data is factual information. Reporters and editors make no attempt to warn the public of the errors inherent in the methodology of most political polls.
First, let's dismiss the idea that polling results represent facts. They do not. Polls are a snapshot in time of the sentiment of a narrow slice of Americans. Most polling organizations interview 1,000 or fewer people and then extrapolate the results to produce a purported representative sample of adults.
To put that into perspective, there are about 200 million adults in the United States, according to the latest U.S. Census. That means the typical poll of 1,000 adults is representative of .0005 percent of the adult population. The media never mention that fact in reporting on polls.
The Roper Polling organization estimates that an adult's odds of being called in any given year for a political survey are more than 100 to one. How many friends and family do you know who have participated in a telephone poll in any presidential election? Crickets.
Secondly, the vast majority of presidential polls are conducted by land line telephone. Ask yourself: How many people with caller ID even answer a call from a polling organization? How many adults accept the call then refuse to answer the questions?
Pollsters have tried other methods, including online surveys and text messages to elicit opinions about politics. However, both political parties have learned how to influence the results by encouraging their supporters to cast votes to sway the poll. That renders the data worthless.
It is a disservice and dishonest for news organizations to keep the public in the dark about all the variables implicit in the polls. Don't take our word for it. The ex-chairman of one of the most-respected polling organizations in America has scolded the media for misleading the public.
"But they (the media) would be better off assuming--as most of the readers surely do--that all surveys and all opinion polls are estimates, which may be wrong," warned Humphrey Taylor, the former chairman of Louis Harris And Associates, Inc., writing in an article in 1998.
Taylor pointed out that the wording of questions, the order of questions, the refusal rate, the non-availability of people and inadequate weighting are factors that make polling results subject to "substantial error."
For that reason, Harris included a "strong warning" in all its polls. "It is difficult or impossible to quantify the errors that may result from these factors (cited above)." So-called journalists are not the least bit interested in these caveats, concluded Harris.
Despite all the admonitions, the media persist in deceitful reporting of results. Unfortunately, too few Americans understand political polling, thus many continue to put stock in the results.
Although political polls enjoy public trust, these samples have a checkered past. In the 1948 presidential race, the Gallup poll had Thomas Dewey ahead of Harry Truman, 45 to 41 percent. Truman won the White House with 50 percent of the vote to Dewey's 45 percent.
In 2008, a consensus of seven polls taken just before the New Hampshire Democratic primary showed Barrack Obama had an eight-point margin over Hillary Clinton. Instead, Ms. Clinton won by three-percentage-points, leaving pollsters red-faced.
American pollsters could learn a few things from the British. After opinion polls were grossly wrong in predicting the outcome of May's general elections in Britain, some smart folks decided to do a face-to-face survey of voters by going door-to-door.
The sample included 3,000 people who fit the profile of those who regularly showed up and voted at the polls, instead of just surveying adults in general. The results were eyeopening. The voters' preferences in the poll accurately reflected the actual vote in the general election.
That begs the question: Why don't more polling outfits employ that same methodology if it is more accurate? The simple answer is money. Telephone surveys are infinitely less costly than door-to-door polling, especially when the research is conducted monthly or even weekly in the U.S.
The big media cabal understands the flaws with U.S. presidential polling. That's why their reporting is a deliberate deception. There is never an attempt to explain the limitations and fallacies of research. Reports on the latest polls are presented as unassailable truth.
Shawn Parry-Giles, a political communications professor at the University of Maryland, argues the media should stop treating polls as if they are authentic. "This is about what the voters say and do, and the media has to be very careful about how they frame the polls," she notes.
In other words, what voters tell researchers often may not be the same as their decision in the voting booth.
Her advice has gone unheeded by a mainstream media intent on using polls to advance their narrative about the race. When polls showed Hillary Clinton leading, it was front page news. Now that Donald Trump has narrowed the gap, there is less media enthusiasm for showcasing the results.
With Ms. Clinton sliding in the polls, the media use data to strengthen the case for Ms. Clinton. When Trump began climbing in the polls, the media quickly noted that he was losing with women, Hispanics and African-Americans. The media snickered that Trump was winning only with white men.
Of course, these conclusions were drawn from polls, too, subject to the same distortions as the presidential samples. In general, people trust polls way too much. The only thing that matters is the actual votes cast on November 8. Everything else is political chatter.
First, let's dismiss the idea that polling results represent facts. They do not. Polls are a snapshot in time of the sentiment of a narrow slice of Americans. Most polling organizations interview 1,000 or fewer people and then extrapolate the results to produce a purported representative sample of adults.
To put that into perspective, there are about 200 million adults in the United States, according to the latest U.S. Census. That means the typical poll of 1,000 adults is representative of .0005 percent of the adult population. The media never mention that fact in reporting on polls.
The Roper Polling organization estimates that an adult's odds of being called in any given year for a political survey are more than 100 to one. How many friends and family do you know who have participated in a telephone poll in any presidential election? Crickets.
Secondly, the vast majority of presidential polls are conducted by land line telephone. Ask yourself: How many people with caller ID even answer a call from a polling organization? How many adults accept the call then refuse to answer the questions?
Pollsters have tried other methods, including online surveys and text messages to elicit opinions about politics. However, both political parties have learned how to influence the results by encouraging their supporters to cast votes to sway the poll. That renders the data worthless.
It is a disservice and dishonest for news organizations to keep the public in the dark about all the variables implicit in the polls. Don't take our word for it. The ex-chairman of one of the most-respected polling organizations in America has scolded the media for misleading the public.
"But they (the media) would be better off assuming--as most of the readers surely do--that all surveys and all opinion polls are estimates, which may be wrong," warned Humphrey Taylor, the former chairman of Louis Harris And Associates, Inc., writing in an article in 1998.
Taylor pointed out that the wording of questions, the order of questions, the refusal rate, the non-availability of people and inadequate weighting are factors that make polling results subject to "substantial error."
For that reason, Harris included a "strong warning" in all its polls. "It is difficult or impossible to quantify the errors that may result from these factors (cited above)." So-called journalists are not the least bit interested in these caveats, concluded Harris.
Despite all the admonitions, the media persist in deceitful reporting of results. Unfortunately, too few Americans understand political polling, thus many continue to put stock in the results.
Although political polls enjoy public trust, these samples have a checkered past. In the 1948 presidential race, the Gallup poll had Thomas Dewey ahead of Harry Truman, 45 to 41 percent. Truman won the White House with 50 percent of the vote to Dewey's 45 percent.
In 2008, a consensus of seven polls taken just before the New Hampshire Democratic primary showed Barrack Obama had an eight-point margin over Hillary Clinton. Instead, Ms. Clinton won by three-percentage-points, leaving pollsters red-faced.
American pollsters could learn a few things from the British. After opinion polls were grossly wrong in predicting the outcome of May's general elections in Britain, some smart folks decided to do a face-to-face survey of voters by going door-to-door.
The sample included 3,000 people who fit the profile of those who regularly showed up and voted at the polls, instead of just surveying adults in general. The results were eyeopening. The voters' preferences in the poll accurately reflected the actual vote in the general election.
That begs the question: Why don't more polling outfits employ that same methodology if it is more accurate? The simple answer is money. Telephone surveys are infinitely less costly than door-to-door polling, especially when the research is conducted monthly or even weekly in the U.S.
The big media cabal understands the flaws with U.S. presidential polling. That's why their reporting is a deliberate deception. There is never an attempt to explain the limitations and fallacies of research. Reports on the latest polls are presented as unassailable truth.
Shawn Parry-Giles, a political communications professor at the University of Maryland, argues the media should stop treating polls as if they are authentic. "This is about what the voters say and do, and the media has to be very careful about how they frame the polls," she notes.
In other words, what voters tell researchers often may not be the same as their decision in the voting booth.
Her advice has gone unheeded by a mainstream media intent on using polls to advance their narrative about the race. When polls showed Hillary Clinton leading, it was front page news. Now that Donald Trump has narrowed the gap, there is less media enthusiasm for showcasing the results.
With Ms. Clinton sliding in the polls, the media use data to strengthen the case for Ms. Clinton. When Trump began climbing in the polls, the media quickly noted that he was losing with women, Hispanics and African-Americans. The media snickered that Trump was winning only with white men.
Of course, these conclusions were drawn from polls, too, subject to the same distortions as the presidential samples. In general, people trust polls way too much. The only thing that matters is the actual votes cast on November 8. Everything else is political chatter.
Monday, September 26, 2016
Alzheimer's Disease: New Drug Holds Promise
The scientific community is cautiously optimistic about a new plaque-busting drug to tackle dementia and Alzheimer's disease. Although there are other treatments on the market, this antidote is the first shown to slow and reverse the buildup of plaque in the brain which is linked to memory loss.
The results of a multi-year trial with 166 people were reported in the journal Nature, but have been largely ignored by the mainstream media. This Phase II trial produced tantalizing data showing the drug reduces toxic plaques in six regions of the brain and slows the progression of memory loss.
Although scientists are still grappling with questions about causes of Alzheimer's, plaques and so-called tangles are prime suspects in cell death and tissue loss associated with the disease. That's why the drug's potential for decreasing plaque is viewed as a game-changer in Alzheimer's treatment.
Up until the ground-breaking trial, the only available treatments for Alzheimers were targeted at the symptoms rather than the underlying causes. The drugs include inhibitors, such as Pfizer's Aricept, which slow memory loss but do not reverse the disease.
The experimental drug, manufactured by pharmaceutical company Biogen, Inc., is called aducanumab. The drug is a monoclonal antibody, which originally was harvested from brain-healthy, older donors. Biogen now makes the drug in its laboratory to mimic the body's immune system.
Scientists theorized that the antibodies from healthy older people had already resisted the onset of dementia and Alzheimer's. Researchers speculated these same antibodies could be used in those with early signs of memory loss, before the ravages of brain disease rendered treatment infeasible.
The peer-reviewed data from the trail rekindled new enthusiasm by clinicians and doctors to enroll their patients in aducanumab trials. A large Phase III study was launched in August of last year, aimed at recruiting 1,350 people for trials at 150 centers in North America, Europe, Australia and Asia.
Phase III trials are designed to confirm the effectiveness of a drug, while monitoring its side effects and comparing it to other treatments. The results of the research will help quantify dosage levels for patients and assess the safety of the drug.
The next step will be garnering the stamp of approval from the Federal Drug Administration. It is the last hurdle before aducanumab can be offered commercially to patients.
For many Americans, the drug cannot come to market fast enough. There are 5.1 million Americans with Alzheimer's disease. Research from the National Institute of Aging indicates that Alzheimer's disease doubles every five years beyond age 65.
That is not good news because the lifespan of Americans is increasing. The Census Bureau projects the number of people age 65 and older will more than double by 2050 to 88.5 million Americans. In 34 years, the number of 85 and older people will leap three-fold to 19 million.
Those numbers underscore the urgency the scientific community feels to find a cure. Alzheimer's is the most expensive disease to treat, costing more than cancer or heart disease. Caring for those with Alzheimer's carries a price tag estimated at $236 billion for this year alone.
Alzheimer's disease is the sixth leading cause of death in the United States.
Unfortunately, the large-scale Phase III trial for aducanumab is expected to run until 2022. If the results remain positive, then the approval process will begin with the FDA. That could take years, even longer.
Meanwhile, the numbers of Alzheimer's victims will grow. Whatever can be done to speed up the trials and government approval, must be done. The clock is ticking and every year without a cure brings death, heartache and financial ruin to millions of Americans.
The results of a multi-year trial with 166 people were reported in the journal Nature, but have been largely ignored by the mainstream media. This Phase II trial produced tantalizing data showing the drug reduces toxic plaques in six regions of the brain and slows the progression of memory loss.
Although scientists are still grappling with questions about causes of Alzheimer's, plaques and so-called tangles are prime suspects in cell death and tissue loss associated with the disease. That's why the drug's potential for decreasing plaque is viewed as a game-changer in Alzheimer's treatment.
Up until the ground-breaking trial, the only available treatments for Alzheimers were targeted at the symptoms rather than the underlying causes. The drugs include inhibitors, such as Pfizer's Aricept, which slow memory loss but do not reverse the disease.
The experimental drug, manufactured by pharmaceutical company Biogen, Inc., is called aducanumab. The drug is a monoclonal antibody, which originally was harvested from brain-healthy, older donors. Biogen now makes the drug in its laboratory to mimic the body's immune system.
Scientists theorized that the antibodies from healthy older people had already resisted the onset of dementia and Alzheimer's. Researchers speculated these same antibodies could be used in those with early signs of memory loss, before the ravages of brain disease rendered treatment infeasible.
The peer-reviewed data from the trail rekindled new enthusiasm by clinicians and doctors to enroll their patients in aducanumab trials. A large Phase III study was launched in August of last year, aimed at recruiting 1,350 people for trials at 150 centers in North America, Europe, Australia and Asia.
Phase III trials are designed to confirm the effectiveness of a drug, while monitoring its side effects and comparing it to other treatments. The results of the research will help quantify dosage levels for patients and assess the safety of the drug.
The next step will be garnering the stamp of approval from the Federal Drug Administration. It is the last hurdle before aducanumab can be offered commercially to patients.
For many Americans, the drug cannot come to market fast enough. There are 5.1 million Americans with Alzheimer's disease. Research from the National Institute of Aging indicates that Alzheimer's disease doubles every five years beyond age 65.
That is not good news because the lifespan of Americans is increasing. The Census Bureau projects the number of people age 65 and older will more than double by 2050 to 88.5 million Americans. In 34 years, the number of 85 and older people will leap three-fold to 19 million.
Those numbers underscore the urgency the scientific community feels to find a cure. Alzheimer's is the most expensive disease to treat, costing more than cancer or heart disease. Caring for those with Alzheimer's carries a price tag estimated at $236 billion for this year alone.
Alzheimer's disease is the sixth leading cause of death in the United States.
Unfortunately, the large-scale Phase III trial for aducanumab is expected to run until 2022. If the results remain positive, then the approval process will begin with the FDA. That could take years, even longer.
Meanwhile, the numbers of Alzheimer's victims will grow. Whatever can be done to speed up the trials and government approval, must be done. The clock is ticking and every year without a cure brings death, heartache and financial ruin to millions of Americans.
Monday, September 12, 2016
Progressives' Attacks on Charter Schools
Battles lines have been drawn in the war against public charter schools. Proponents are parents of minority students, leading education reformers and school choice advocates. Opponents include the NAACP, teachers' unions, liberal Democrats and even the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).
What began as a few skirmishes between politicians and charter schools in urban cities has escalated into a pitched political battle. Each side has developed competing studies that support their narrative. The issue of charter schools is now front and center in many mayoral and gubernatorial contests.
Why the contentious upsurge in interest?
Progressives, the politically sanitized name adopted by liberals, are alarmed at the growth and success of charter schools. In about 20 years, charter schools have exploded on the scene with more than 6,700 facilities in 42 states and the District of Columbia, educating nearly 3 million children.
Those numbers do not sit well with progressive politicians, who are beholden to the National Federation of Teachers (AFT). The union shovel millions into politicians' coffers to protect their members from performance-based pay and promotion. They are hidebound to the status quo.
AFT has political muscle few unions can match. It claims a membership of more than 1.5 million. It dominates union membership in inner city schools, a Democratic Party stronghold. It has more than $100 million in assets and doles out bushels of cash to Democrats, including Hillary Clinton.
Their opposition to charter schools is easily understood. More puzzling is the disapproval voiced by the NAACP (National Association for the Advancement of Colored People), an organization supposedly dedicated to advancing the rights of African-Americans.
Charter schools are mostly located in urban centers with large minority populations. For the record, charter schools are public schools, receiving funding from local, state and federal sources based on enrollment. A few are operated by for-profit private firms, but still get public funding.
However, there are a couple of other important distinctions between charter and traditional public schools. Charter schools are independently run, free from the bureaucracy that hamstrings public education. Teachers do not belong to unions and are paid and promoted based on performance.
Among the biggest supporters of charter schools are minorities. A 2013 poll of black voters found 85 percent were in favor of the government providing parents with as many school choices as possible. More than 50 percent supported charter schools.
Progressive politicians like New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio have discovered waging war on charter schools comes with a price. He ran against expanding charter schools in New York City and won handily. However, he overplayed his hand when he demanded charter schools pay rent.
Black parents fought back. There were rallies in the streets and angry parents demanded charter schools be allowed to co-locate in the same buildings with public schools. De Blasio had good reasons for trying to kick-out charter schools. Charter schools made public schools look bad.
In a highly-publicized case, two New York City middle schools were located in the same building and drew students from similar backgrounds. In the charter school, 80 percent of the students passed the state math test and 59 percent made the grade on the English test.
By comparison, the results were miserable in the public school. Five percent of students managed a passing grade on the math test. The English test had an 11 percent passing rate. No wonder de Blasio didn't want the schools co-located where the comparisons were politically damning.
Charter schools are changing the educational landscape, a prospect unions fear. Charter schools offer innovative curricula. They experiment with new teaching methods. The schools focus on helping every student succeed. Typically, they stress discipline and have no tolerance for misbehavior.
There are waiting lists in every district that offers a charter school alternative, attesting to their popularity with parents. Nationwide, there are more than one million names on charter school wait lists, according to a Manhattan Institute study. In New York City, the wait lists tops 70,000.
Democrats and their accomplices in the NAACP march to the drumbeat of the teacher unions, fighting against the very people (minorities) they claim to champion. Their opposition is strictly a matter of political greed. They value union contributions over children's future.
A national study found that 28 percent of charter school students are African-American, nearly double the percentage for traditional public schools. Without school choice, the families of these students would be stuck inside failing schools with no opportunity for escape.
This election year school choice has been paid little more than lip service. Voters should demand to know the positions of every candidate on charter schools. Those against supporting school choices deserve a failing education grade and are no friends of minorities.
Vote for candidates who want every child to succeed in school with no youngster left behind in a under performing public education facility.
AFT has political muscle few unions can match. It claims a membership of more than 1.5 million. It dominates union membership in inner city schools, a Democratic Party stronghold. It has more than $100 million in assets and doles out bushels of cash to Democrats, including Hillary Clinton.
Their opposition to charter schools is easily understood. More puzzling is the disapproval voiced by the NAACP (National Association for the Advancement of Colored People), an organization supposedly dedicated to advancing the rights of African-Americans.
Charter schools are mostly located in urban centers with large minority populations. For the record, charter schools are public schools, receiving funding from local, state and federal sources based on enrollment. A few are operated by for-profit private firms, but still get public funding.
However, there are a couple of other important distinctions between charter and traditional public schools. Charter schools are independently run, free from the bureaucracy that hamstrings public education. Teachers do not belong to unions and are paid and promoted based on performance.
Among the biggest supporters of charter schools are minorities. A 2013 poll of black voters found 85 percent were in favor of the government providing parents with as many school choices as possible. More than 50 percent supported charter schools.
Progressive politicians like New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio have discovered waging war on charter schools comes with a price. He ran against expanding charter schools in New York City and won handily. However, he overplayed his hand when he demanded charter schools pay rent.
Black parents fought back. There were rallies in the streets and angry parents demanded charter schools be allowed to co-locate in the same buildings with public schools. De Blasio had good reasons for trying to kick-out charter schools. Charter schools made public schools look bad.
In a highly-publicized case, two New York City middle schools were located in the same building and drew students from similar backgrounds. In the charter school, 80 percent of the students passed the state math test and 59 percent made the grade on the English test.
By comparison, the results were miserable in the public school. Five percent of students managed a passing grade on the math test. The English test had an 11 percent passing rate. No wonder de Blasio didn't want the schools co-located where the comparisons were politically damning.
Charter schools are changing the educational landscape, a prospect unions fear. Charter schools offer innovative curricula. They experiment with new teaching methods. The schools focus on helping every student succeed. Typically, they stress discipline and have no tolerance for misbehavior.
There are waiting lists in every district that offers a charter school alternative, attesting to their popularity with parents. Nationwide, there are more than one million names on charter school wait lists, according to a Manhattan Institute study. In New York City, the wait lists tops 70,000.
Democrats and their accomplices in the NAACP march to the drumbeat of the teacher unions, fighting against the very people (minorities) they claim to champion. Their opposition is strictly a matter of political greed. They value union contributions over children's future.
A national study found that 28 percent of charter school students are African-American, nearly double the percentage for traditional public schools. Without school choice, the families of these students would be stuck inside failing schools with no opportunity for escape.
This election year school choice has been paid little more than lip service. Voters should demand to know the positions of every candidate on charter schools. Those against supporting school choices deserve a failing education grade and are no friends of minorities.
Vote for candidates who want every child to succeed in school with no youngster left behind in a under performing public education facility.
Monday, September 5, 2016
Will Hackers Hijack The Presidential Election?
Nearly 16 years after "hanging chads" threw the 2000 presidential election into chaos, a new threat of vote tampering looms over the upcoming contest. Fears of a rigged election gained traction when the FBI director warned states about the potential of hackers invading voting systems in November.
Director James Comey sounded the alarm last week after it was disclosed there have been cyberattacks in recent weeks on voter databases in Illinois and Arizona. He divulged the FBI takes "very seriously" the prospect "of an effort to influence the conduct of affairs in our country."
Comey's assessment comes on the heels of comments by Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, who both expressed concerns about election fraud. In today's overheated climate, the candidates' statements coupled with Comey's assertion have cast a pall over the presidential election.
If Americans cannot trust the voting procedure, then the entire premise of our democracy is at risk.
An investigation reveals that the biggest threat to America's presidential election may be outdated technology rather than hacking, according to a 2015 study by New York University School of Law's Brennan Center for Justice.
Researchers discovered that 43 states will be using electronic voting machines that are at least a decade old. Many of the machines, manufactured in the 1990's, are susceptible to malfunctions and may have serious security flaws. The price tag for replacing the machines is more than $1 billion.
As a result of the replacement costs, many states have delayed purchasing new voting equipment. If the antiquated machines fail, it may fuel longer voting lines and force delays in results thus eroding public confidence in the election outcome. In a close contest, it will ignite a political firestorm.
Although hacking may be a ominous prospect, it would be nearly impossible to rig the election because of the myriad of voting methods used in the 9,000 precincts in the country. Eighteen states still use old-fashioned paper ballots, which are tabulated in most cases by optical scanners.
Others states use infamous punchcard systems and touchscreen devices, which are often referred to as Digital Recording Electronic (DRE) systems. The later employ computers to record votes directly into the computer's memory. The last of the mechanical lever voting machines was retired after 2010.
There is no data available on the exact number of electronic versus paper voting systems. However, most voters will be using paper ballots or punchcards, reports Verified Voting Foundation, a non-profit, non-partisan group that provides data on elections.
A group or foreign country would have to deploy hundreds of its agents to fiddle with computers, punchcards and optical paper ballot scanners. Many voting machines are so old that they are not easily hacked because a cybercriminal would need to be physically located next to the device.
However, this does not mean it is impossible to alter voting results. If someone wanted to fix the election, the hacker could install malware on scanning devices used to tabulate votes. But the individual would have to place the software on the device right before the ballot counting began.
To rig the election, the cybercriminals would have to install the malware on hundreds, perhaps thousands, of vote tabulation scanners across the nation. That kind of widespread tampering would surely be noticed by poll watchers, election officials and party observers.
These assurances aside, there is understandable angst about the voting process. The country was put on notice about the vulnerability of its systems when someone hacked the Democrat Party's emails. Suspicion rests on the Russians, but there has been no confirmation from the FBI.
The best defense against a rigged election remains updating the outmoded voting machines and tabulators. States must spend the money to insure fair elections. With the very foundation of democracy at stake, they can no longer afford to use funding as an excuse for lack of action.
At least all this talk about hacking elections has produced one positive outcome. Officials who support voting over the internet are having second thoughts. Online voting would be a hackers dream come true. Better for the country to have to deal with hanging chads.
Director James Comey sounded the alarm last week after it was disclosed there have been cyberattacks in recent weeks on voter databases in Illinois and Arizona. He divulged the FBI takes "very seriously" the prospect "of an effort to influence the conduct of affairs in our country."
Comey's assessment comes on the heels of comments by Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, who both expressed concerns about election fraud. In today's overheated climate, the candidates' statements coupled with Comey's assertion have cast a pall over the presidential election.
If Americans cannot trust the voting procedure, then the entire premise of our democracy is at risk.
An investigation reveals that the biggest threat to America's presidential election may be outdated technology rather than hacking, according to a 2015 study by New York University School of Law's Brennan Center for Justice.
Researchers discovered that 43 states will be using electronic voting machines that are at least a decade old. Many of the machines, manufactured in the 1990's, are susceptible to malfunctions and may have serious security flaws. The price tag for replacing the machines is more than $1 billion.
As a result of the replacement costs, many states have delayed purchasing new voting equipment. If the antiquated machines fail, it may fuel longer voting lines and force delays in results thus eroding public confidence in the election outcome. In a close contest, it will ignite a political firestorm.
Although hacking may be a ominous prospect, it would be nearly impossible to rig the election because of the myriad of voting methods used in the 9,000 precincts in the country. Eighteen states still use old-fashioned paper ballots, which are tabulated in most cases by optical scanners.
Others states use infamous punchcard systems and touchscreen devices, which are often referred to as Digital Recording Electronic (DRE) systems. The later employ computers to record votes directly into the computer's memory. The last of the mechanical lever voting machines was retired after 2010.
There is no data available on the exact number of electronic versus paper voting systems. However, most voters will be using paper ballots or punchcards, reports Verified Voting Foundation, a non-profit, non-partisan group that provides data on elections.
A group or foreign country would have to deploy hundreds of its agents to fiddle with computers, punchcards and optical paper ballot scanners. Many voting machines are so old that they are not easily hacked because a cybercriminal would need to be physically located next to the device.
However, this does not mean it is impossible to alter voting results. If someone wanted to fix the election, the hacker could install malware on scanning devices used to tabulate votes. But the individual would have to place the software on the device right before the ballot counting began.
To rig the election, the cybercriminals would have to install the malware on hundreds, perhaps thousands, of vote tabulation scanners across the nation. That kind of widespread tampering would surely be noticed by poll watchers, election officials and party observers.
These assurances aside, there is understandable angst about the voting process. The country was put on notice about the vulnerability of its systems when someone hacked the Democrat Party's emails. Suspicion rests on the Russians, but there has been no confirmation from the FBI.
The best defense against a rigged election remains updating the outmoded voting machines and tabulators. States must spend the money to insure fair elections. With the very foundation of democracy at stake, they can no longer afford to use funding as an excuse for lack of action.
At least all this talk about hacking elections has produced one positive outcome. Officials who support voting over the internet are having second thoughts. Online voting would be a hackers dream come true. Better for the country to have to deal with hanging chads.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)