NCHS Principal: Stop the Presses

Since becoming adviser to Naperville Central's high school newspaper almost 20 years ago, Linda Kane has forged two distinct reputations. One brought national glory to what had been a moribund publication. The other got her fired.


Kane, who took over the Central Times in 1989, developed the monthly newspaper into one of the best in the U.S., earning nine National Scholastic Press Association Pacemakers. That award is given annually to the top 20 to 25 high school papers in the nation.


She also was known for being candid. But she became a little too outspoken for Naperville Unit School District 203 administrators early this month when she publicly criticized her principal after the newspaper published three controversial pieces Feb. 28. On Monday (March 17), after Kane declined administrators' request that she resign, they fired her as newspaper adviser.


"It started out as a 1st Amendment issue and then it exploded," Kane said Tuesday. "Basically, I'm standing up for what I believe is right. I would never sugarcoat things."


http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-hs-newspaper-adviser_19mar19,1,2062973.story


The First Amendment case that deals with student newspaper rights is Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier, in which the Supreme Court determined that a student newspaper could not be deemed a "public forum." In the early 1990s, lobbied by Kane and Naperville Central journalists, the Illinois General Assemby passed a bill that would have given student journalists the same access to cover news stories that their competing professional newspapers would. But Gov. Jim Edgar vetoed the legislation.


Bethel v. Fraser (1983) determined that a school could decide what type of student speech was a distraction to the educational process. The case of Frederick v. Morse, last year determined that the school could supress student expression if it was contrary to the student anti-drug mission ("Bong hits 4 Jesus").


Linked above is not only the story of Linda Kane, a journalism teacher that I shadowed when I thought my journalism career would continue as a high school advisor here, but the stories and columns that the Naperville Central principal found objectionable. Read them and blog your thoughts. Does this editorial content belong in a suburban high school? Or was the principal justified?

Couragous Conversation

Earlier in this longest presidential campaign ever, we had an address compared to John F. Kennedy's address to Protestant ministers in Houston in 1960 -- dispelling concerns among some voters about his core beliefs, analysts and historians said.

Not that we've forgotten Mormon candidate Mitt Romney, but Barack Obama tried to do for race what Kennedy did for religion. From some of the reaction, it may have worked. But race relations are complicated in this country.

Teachers at WVHS have faculty meetings designed at understanding the racial stories of ourselves and our students. It is a work in progress. We have a signifcant achievment gap between black and white students. When many of these sometimes contradictory points are made, educated educators of all races get emotional, frustrated, defensive -- seemingly anything but hopeful.

But Obama was hopeful. About the chance for change to finally bring "A More Perfect Union." Not just his campaign's hope to change the negative news cycle, I think.

What will the impact be? Who knows? Race relations are complicated,but the pundits all have had instant analysis. Over 1 milllion people hit on the full speech at YouTube.com -- the start of the firestorm that had Jeremiah Wright comments heard 'round the world. It was the most watched video on the site.

Linked here is the full speech. Watch the rest of the speech and blog your comments.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23702758/

Time.com had various reactions to the Obama speech, they are linked here:

http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1723442,00.html

And Bloomberg.com compares the Obama speech to the JFK address:

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601070&sid=aVd4NwHD8Tvo&refer=home

Five Years, Three Trillion Dollars Later, Mission Not Accomplished

Today is the fifth anniversary of the U.S. (and coalition of the willing) invaision of Iraq. The human millitary cost is nearing 4,000 men and the length of the Mission is lasted longer than World War II.

The cost in treasure (dollars) is also extensive, as Democratic candidates for president have tried to make on the campaign trail. Republican Presidential candidate John McCain was in Iraq this week speaking on the need to continue the operation, though he missed spoke on a connection between Iran and Al Qaeda.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23697639/

Nobel Prize winning economist Joesph Stiglitz (who many of us read this summer) says the cost of the Iraq War could surpass $3 trillion.

By the Pentagon's count, 527 billion dollars were allocated from September 2001 through December 2007 to finance the war against terrorism, including 406 billion dollars for Iraq.

The Congressional Budget Office reported in October 2007 that Iraq accounts for 421 billion, or 70 percent, of the 602 billion dollars that the Congress has authorized for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The CBO estimates that the total cost of the two wars could reach 2.4 trillion dollars by 2017 including interest on the debt, with Iraq accounting for 70 percent of the spending, or 1.68 trillion dollars.

But even that pales by comparison with estimates put forward by Stiglitz and Linda Bilmes, a Harvard professor, in a book called "The Three Trillion Dollar War: the True Cost of the Iraq Conflict."

According to the authors, the United States is spending 12 billion dollars a month in 2008 to prosecute the war in Iraq. When Afghanistan is included, US war spending bumps up to 16 billion dollars a month.

Looking out to 2017, they contend the conflict will cost more than three trillion dollars.
They argue that administration cost estimates omit several crucial factors: bonuses offered to attract and retain troops; health coverage for veterans, replacing military equipment; and the impact of the war on the price of oil, which in five years has soared from 25 to more than 100 dollars a barrel.

http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5hbQ-N1pwNcepmkYfg_CBXzDV-Fdg

http://www2.gsb.columbia.edu/faculty/jstiglitz/books.cfm

Celebrating the first “comeback kid”

St. Patrick may be the patron saint of Ireland, but he comes in as a close second as the patron saint of politics. Look around at the celebrations today and you will see the residue of our political arena.

The color green is everywhere today.

Green is the official color of politics in America, a lot of green. The money being raised and spent on this presidential campaign is incredible. Before it is all over, it is estimated that the candidates for president will spend over $1 billion dollars. Green issues have also become the rage in our politics. Both Barack and Hillary claim promoting green friendly jobs can repair our economy. Then again many are already green with envy for this whole process to end.

St. Patrick’s Day is also about parades, shamrocks and being Irish.

Politicians love parades. No better place to shake a lot of hands, look popular, secure votes and endorsements then at a good parade. Look for your elected officials to use this holiday for their own personal gain. The ever-popular shamrock, the three-leaf clover, reminds us of our three branches of government. The separation of powers flowers best when divided by threes. Today, everyone is Irish. 2008 could be the first election where both presidential candidates are Irish . . .. . .

McCain and O’bama.

St. Patrick himself was quite a politician in his own day. Born into a Roman family, he was kidnapped by Irish marauders and held captive for years. Upon his escape, he later returned to Ireland as a missionary of the Church. His public approval ratings have never been higher. We all love a great story.

St. Patrick was one of our first “comeback kids.”

Happy St. Patrick’s Day - a holiday in which people feel at liberty to do just about anything they want. Another reason why this is a day politicians love.

(From CitizenU.com)

____________

Two other Irish connections to the rough and tumble game of American politics:

Finley Peter Dunne was a Chicago-based writer and humorist. He published Mr. Dooley in Peace and War, a collection of his nationally syndicated Mr. Dooley sketches. The fictional Mr. Dooley expounded upon political and social issues of the day from his South Side Chicago Irish pub and he spoke with the thick verbiage and accent of an Irish immigrant.

From Dunne's Dooley works comes one of our endearing government and politics quotes:

"Politics ain't beanbag: 'tis a man's game, and women, children 'n' pro-hy-bitionists had best stay out of it."

In Chicago, Irish immigrants became ward-bosses and later aldermen. Meanwhile, Italian immigrats had to get jobs though the Irish gate-keepers. Many later found other ways to make money (illegal?) to get around the legal, but corrupt Chicago Irish politicans. A famous ward-boss, Johnny Powers (Irish) had his substantial house in the middle of what is now Little Italy. There was an old joke that if you wanted to clear out the Irish-ladden City Council chambers, you would go in and yell, "Your tavern is on fire!"

Spinning OUT of control?

Two political stories this week brough a few common themes to the front of the news cycle.

First, the New York Governor and the high-priced prostitute:

Eliot Spitzer was caught in the most embarrassing of predicaments. Having spent a lifetime prosecuting those living outside of the law, Governor Spitzer of New York seemed to forget about the stick in his own eye. No wonder his enemies find pleasure in the headlines.

But what exactly should we learn from this story?

What did we learn from Senator David Vitter (R-LA) last summer when it was confirmed that he visited the infamous D.C. Madam?

What did we learn from Senator Larry Craig (R-ID) last summer after he was arrested for lewd behavior in the Minneapolis-St. Paul airport?

We certainly learn that there is no shortage of such "errors." To err is human.

More importantly, from these errors we learn our most basic civic lesson. "We are a nation of law, not men." Our government must be one of limits. Power cannot be centered in one place because such power will be abused. A system of checks and balances protects us from the expected vices of human behavior. Thankfully these lessons are embodied into our Constitution.

Our Founding Fathers would not be surprised by today's headlines. They built a government that anticipated such news.

And for those who want to debate the fate of Governor Spitzer?

Marcus Aurelius said it best, "Waste no more time arguing about what a good man should be. Be one."

(From CBS2school)

Spitzer announced his resignation on Wednesday. Did he have to? Or should he have? TIME.com, considered the options through a history of political scandal:

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1721095,00.html

Then there is the case of Geraldine Ferraro, who as an economic advisor for the Hillary Clinton campaign and herself a former vice presidential candidate, told the Daily Breeze of Torrance, Calif., "If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position. And if he was a woman (of any color) he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept."

After Obama and his supporters objected, Ferraro told the New York Times, "Every time that campaign is upset about something, they call it racist. I will not be discriminated against because I'm white. If they think they're going to shut up Geraldine Ferraro with that kind of stuff, they don't know me."

Clinton called Ferraro's statements "regrettable."

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=88154039&ft=1&f=1001

In her resignation note to Clinton, Ferraro claimed she was being attacked by the Obama campaign. Obama called her comments, "rediculous."

The letter of her resignation was given to CNN:

Dear Hillary –
I am stepping down from your finance committee so I can speak for myself and you can continue to speak for yourself about what is at stake in this campaign.

The Obama campaign is attacking me to hurt you. I won't let that happen.

Thank you for everything you have done and continue to do to make this a better world for my children and grandchildren.

You have my deep admiration and respect.

Gerry

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/03/12/ferraro-steps-down/

Which is it?

Which is it? Political change or more of the same?



Not in our election season, but rather proposals being raised at the opening of this year's session of the National People's Congress being measured against historical context and current events.

First comes the news from the Economist that:

"IT MAY seem an odd time for China's risk-averse officials to be talking about political change. Yet at the opening of the country's annual session of parliament on March 5th the prime minister, Wen Jiabao, echoed recent calls in the state-owned media to 'liberate our thinking', even as he gave warning of a difficult year ahead, with threats from inflation and from America's subprime mortgage mess...

"In his two-and-a-half-hour speech Mr Wen told nearly 3,000 delegates in the Great Hall of the People that China must 'break the shackles of outdated ideas' and 'boldly explore new ways'. As is the way of things in China, the words were vague; Mr Wen did not spell out what he meant by 'thought liberation' and he did not offer any strikingly bold initiatives. Yet the intention was clear and these vague exhortations will fuel debate in the months ahead. In the build-up to the Olympics, Chinese leaders are anxious to preserve stability (not to mention one-party rule). But they appear ready to think about making the party a bit more accountable. This, they hope, might reduce social tensions caused by rapid economic change...

"Few are expecting much change on the political front in the months ahead. But Mr Wen wants to see checks on government authority strengthened. 'Civic organisations' (to party officials the term NGO sounds too much like organised opposition) would be given a role in 'voicing the concerns of the people', he said."Officials are keen to stress the importance of bureaucratic changes that are expected to be endorsed by delegates in the coming days...

"Recent talk of 'thought liberation', however, has gone far beyond the need to shake up hidebound bureaucrats. Much discussion in the state media has centred on a book published late last year by a group of scholars including several from the heart of the citadel, the party's academy for senior officials, China's equivalent to France's ENA. The work, whose abbreviated title is Storming the Fortifications, tactfully supports the party's continued monopoly of power. But it outlines 'urgent' steps for political reform in unusual detail: turning the legislature and courts into “modern power balance mechanisms” by 2016 and creating a 'modern civil society' with flourishing NGOs and religious groups by 2020.

Freeing up the press, it says, would also help..."

http://www.economist.com/world/asia/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10808798

The subtitle of The Economist article is "China's prime minister lets a hundred flowers bloom. Well, ten."

We should be reminded, or review a previous Chinee, Maoist contradiction: The Hundred Flowers Campaign.

The Library of Congress Country Studies Glossary for China, describes the Hundred Flowers Campaign this way:

Also Double Hundred Campaign. Party-sponsored initiative to permit greater intellectual and artistic freedom. Introduced first into drama and other arts in the spring of 1956 under the official slogan "Let a hundred flowers bloom, let the hundred schools of thought contend." With Mao's encouragement in January 1957, the campaign was extended to intellectual expression and, by early May 1957, was being interpreted as permission for intellectuals to criticize political institutions of the regime. The effect was the large-scale exposure and purge of intellectuals critical of party and government policies.

The Country Study itself is a bit more direct:

• As part of the effort to encourage the participation of intellectuals in the new regime, in mid-1956 there began an official effort to liberalize the political climate.

Cultural and intellectual figures were encouraged to speak their minds on the state of CCP rule and programs. Mao personally took the lead in the movement, which was launched under the classical slogan 'Let a hundred flowers bloom, let the hundred schools of thought contend.'

At first the party's repeated invitation to air constructive views freely and openly was met with caution. By mid-1957, however, the movement unexpectedly mounted, bringing denunciation and criticism against the party in general and the excesses of its cadres in particular. Startled and embarrassed, leaders turned on the critics as "bourgeois rightists" and launched the Anti-Rightist Campaign."

The Anti-Rightist Campaign was also a prelude to The Great Leap Forward.
We should also note that Mao's call for the blooming of a hundred flowers and a hundred schools of thought, was a reference to the 6th century BCE period. The Library of Congress Country Study for China, describes that time this way:

• So many different philosophies developed during the late Spring and Autumn and early Warring States periods that the era is often known as that of the Hundred Schools of Thought. From the Hundred Schools of Thought came many of the great classical writings on which Chinese practices were to be based for the next two and one half millennia. Many of the thinkers were itinerant intellectuals who, besides teaching their disciples, were employed as advisers to one or another of the various state rulers on the methods of government, war, and diplomacy." [Kong Zi (Confucius) and Meng Zi (Mencius) were the most prominent of these thinkers.]

That too will be part of context within which educated Chinese will evaluate Wen Jiabao's call to "break the shackles of outdated ideas" and "boldly explore new ways."

___________________

Meanwhile, it was the same old centralized plan on government crack down last week, the BBC reports

"China is to impose stricter rules on foreign rock and pop stars after singer Bjork caused controversy by shouting "Tibet, Tibet" at a Shanghai concert.

"Her cry followed a powerful performance of her song Declare Independence...

"China's culture ministry said the outburst "broke Chinese law and hurt Chinese people's feelings" and pledged to "further tighten controls"...

"Her behaviour at Sunday's Shanghai concert has not been reported in the state-controlled Chinese media."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/7283097.stm

America at Odds: Fiscal Federalism and Drinking Age

Fiscal Federalism is the power of the national government to influence state policies through grants. In 1984, when the National Minimum Drinking Age Act was passed, it essentially created a national drinking age of 21. States could still make it legal for those under 21 to drink alcohol, but it would forfeit federal highway funding.

In America at Odds By Edward Sidlow, Beth Henschen, the author's outline the "Bridging of the Tenth Amendment" by fiscal federalism. The education reform (ie: testing requirements) in the No Child Left Behind Act rely on fiscal federalism. States receive block grants and in return must meet federally imposed standards relating to testing and accountability. Many state officials express concern that the fiscal federalism used to put NCLB into practice is the beginning of a fundamental shift toward the national government's assumption of control over public schools. This might also be known as marble cake federalism.

http://books.google.com/books?id=0nqiWK6xC14C&pg=RA1-PA68&lpg=RA1-PA68&dq=Is+national+drinking+age+law+fiscal+federalism%3F&source=web&ots=RuslYwIs9R&sig=NwFUv79R6c-huLuAGciQcCBlcMM&hl=en

Why bring this up now? Well, there may be a growing movement to challenge the National Drinking Age Law. It may be layered in a constitutional question. There are those who believe that fiscal federalism and its marbe cake mandates, are basically against the 10th Amendment that gives the power to make all non-constituional policy to the states. They argue that federal highway funding should be allocated in a layer cake format ie: highway funding and drinking age laws should not be mixed.

There are many special interest groups (ie: MADD) that will influence state legislatures and the Congress on this issue. The Tribune reports that more than two decades after the U.S. set the national drinking age at 21, a movement is gaining traction to revisit the issue and consider allowing Americans as young as 18 to legally consume alcohol.

Serious discussions already are under way in several states.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-teen-drinking_bdmar09,0,2713904.story

China one-child rule 'to remain'

Since the regulations were introduced in 1979, China has kept its population in check using persuasion, coercion and encouragement.

And it looks likely that, nearly 30 years after the policy was first introduced, it will not be relaxed to allow couples to have more children.

Many Chinese and foreign academics believe this is a mistake and will result in a number of serious demographic problems in the future.

The Chinese leadership has denied suggestions that it is about to alter its controversial one-child policy.

Family planning chief Zhang Weiqing said there would be no change in the rule limiting families in cities to one child and those in rural areas to two.

His comments come a week after another family planning official said a policy change was under discussion.

Zhao Baige, the vice-minister at the National Population and Family Planning Commission, told reporters she wanted an "incremental" change in the policy, although she said some form of population control would remain in place.

The rule has been blamed for creating a gender imbalance, with families eager to have boys rather than a girls.

From time to time China has considered changes to its one-child policy but has always backed off, fearing a massive spike in population growth.

Strict family-planning controls were introduced during the 1970s to combat China's soaring population.

The BBC reports on the family planning chief's comments here:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7281023.stm

There is also the first of a series of pieces on China's one-child policy, inwhich the BBC's Michael Bristow looks at whether the country's controversial regulations are working.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7000931.stm

And then back to the future, we go back to 1995 to the NY Times reporting of the criticisms then First Lady Hillary Clinton leveled against the Chinese government on women's issues:

"It is time for us to say here in Beijing, and the world to hear, that it is no longer acceptable to discuss women's rights as separate from human rights," Mrs. Clinton told the Fourth World Conference on Women assembled here (9/6/1995).

The article continues....

While her comments concerned abuses that have taken place around the world -- the burning of brides occurs in India for example, and rape has most recently been a tactic of war in Bosnia -- her words took on a special resonance here in China, where the Administration has muted its public criticism of human rights abuses and is struggling to patch up frayed political relations.

China has been widely criticized for forcing women to be sterilized or have abortions as part of its policy of one child per family, and there are wide reports of female infanticide by parents who want a son.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=990CEFDF133DF935A3575AC0A963958260
A couple of questions to consider here: 1) Is China's One-Child Rule a human rights violation; and 2) Campaigning now to be President, will Hillary chastize the Chinese policy that will continue until the end of the current 5-year plan in 2010, or will she be more muted as her husband's administration had been?

The Physicst vs ice cream man

It is believed to be Illinois' first election on a Saturday -- a special election to fill the term of former House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert -- probably the second-most closely watched race across the country today after Wyoming's Democratic presidential primary between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.

In the 14th Congressional District, Republican dairy magnate Jim Oberweis and Democratic former particle physicist Bill Foster have each spent a million or more of their own money, combined with millions from outside sources.

Both campaigns have thrown "the kitchen sink" at each other. Another example that negative ads work. Much of the outside money have come from the Democratic (Cow, can we trust Bill Foster, Nooooooooo) Republican (Foster, "There isn't a problem that can't be helped by throwing more money at it.") Congressional Committees. The one positive ad seen late in the campaign is Barack Obama's endorsement of Foster.

It would be nice to rely only upon dreamy positive ads in which a candidate is depicted as bring Morning back to America. But these types of ads can be easily ignored by TV viewers or seen as lacking substance. Negative ads that inform the public about an opponent's flaws and controversial stances are hard to ignore.

In essence, negative ads provide more bang for the buck.

But enough of the negative. If you are of our students working on the campaign in the 14th District right in our backyard and running nearly to the Iowa boarder, that's a positive. Blog us and tell us your story. Did you get somebody out to vote? Was it worth you time and effort? What interesting things or people did you see?

Because the election is on a Saturday, some schools, churches and other usual polling places may not be available, so voters will have to visit their county clerk's Web sites to find their new polling places.

Hastert's district has traditionally been Republican, but polls show today's election is a tossup.

"We've got, obviously, some challenges," said Rep. Tom Cole of Oklahoma, who heads the GOP efforts to re-take Congress "We're certainly in the center of Obamamania in Illinois."

Obama and 28 Nobel prize winners have endorsed Foster. Hastert and Republican Presidential nominee John McCain have endorsed Oberweis.

Overtime, But No Sudden Death, in this Ballot Bowl

The 2 Regular Guys at CBS 2 School add more sports metaphors to the historic Democratic horserace:

During any campaign, you often hear examples of horserace journalism as the political news closely resembles the description of two thoroughbreds racing neck-and-neck down the stretch.

But with Hillary's clutch wins in Texas and Ohio, even more descriptive sports metaphors are needed to characterize this historic nomination contest.

Tennis

Polls indicated that Barack Obama was on the edge of beating Hillary in Ohio where she had a double digit lead. With her crucial win there, Hillary essentially held serve in the 4th set establishing Texas as the tie breaker. Her close win in Texas now pushes her match with Obama into an all-decisive 5th set that looks like it might be played at the Democratic National Convention.

NASCAR

After trading paint by countering each other's negative campaign attacks, Barack and Hillary are now racing side-by-side. But with John McCain securing the Republican nomination, their attempt to beat each other allows McCain to coast along in the lead.

Boxing

Since the Super Tuesday primaries last month, Obama has kept Hillary pinned to the ropes with his jabs and left hooks. But it now appears that Hillary is skilled in the art of rope-a-dope. Obama's inability to deliver the knockout punch in Texas and Ohio has given Hillary a chance to respond with some big blows of her own.

Texas Hold 'Em Poker

At the beginning of the Democratic campaign, Barack Obama was dealt decent hand equivalent to a 9 &10 of hearts. Hillary was dealt a very strong pair of Aces. But after the flop in Iowa revealed more hearts for Obama, he took the lead with his flush.

Many analysts have been predicting that Hillary would have to fold her hand, but she was dealt another Ace with her wins in Texas and Ohio.

While Obama is still in the lead, Hillary is now all in. She's fully committed to continuing this contest to the end because the 5th and final card could give her the jackpot…if Lady Luck is on Hillary's side.

VIDEO: CBS 2 School: Sports Analogies To Politics

Tiananmen Square: Democracy Crushed, or Seeded?

Every day Chinese citizens will know significantly less, and maybe care less as well, of the Communist government crushing the student-led pro-democracy protests in 1989 than you WVHS scholars.

Why should they bother, given that so few people in China these days display much interest in politics, let alone in Tiananmen? The messy transition to liberal capitalism experienced by former communist societies elsewhere, particularly Russia, is seen by many as a good reason for abandoning any aggressive pursuit of democracy.

For your assignement, due Wednesday 3/12 in a formal essay (2-3 pages) using the documents attatched here answer the question: Did the Chinese government's response at Tiananmen Square crush Democracy, or put it at a more realistic gradual timetable?

First there are two links to the coverage of Tiananmen in June of 1989:

The BBC on this day also has a short video clip:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/june/4/newsid_2496000/2496277.stm

The New York Times account is here. Remember, few foreign correspondents were there.

http://www.nytimes.com/specials/hongkong/archive/89tiananmen.html

On the 25th anniversary of the event, The Economist had this report:

http://polazzo.stuysu.org/where_are_they_now.htm

And this collection of documents from the U.S. National Security Archive:

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB16/index.html

Cleary state you thesis, and back it with citation. Feel free to compare the Chinese transition to the Russian Road to Democracy (and Back?)

Lies, Damned lies and Polling Statistics?

Real Clear Politics http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ reports the average of major polls in Texas and Ohio were breaking towards Hillary Clinton on the eve of the Democratic Primary Contests. Click and check out the charts and graphs under, "Clinton Squeaks Ahead in Texas," and "Late Ohio Polls Break for Hillary."

Will these polls be accurate?

The AP reports that record early voting in Texas -- which might make up anywhere from 1/3 to 1/2 of Texas voters -- might have the election half-over in the Lone Star State. Early reporting might be a good indication in how Texas and the polls will go tonight.

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5i9EB1bZOa3bSVHoLh75KNClKet6AD8V68GR00

Like the undercount of cell phones in the 2004 presidential election, early voting has been problematic for polling services this campaign.

The most notable of the inaccurate polls predicted Barack Obama as the big winner of the New Hampshire and California primaries.

But the cause of the polling errors might have more to do with the big changes we have seen in these elections rather than big changes in public opinion.

To accurately predict whom voters will support on Election Day, a pollster must first determine who will be a voter. Surveys of “likely voters” typically define likely in many different ways.

Besides asking if a respondent will vote on Election Day, they might also ask a series of filters: Have you voted in the last two elections? Have you ever voted in a primary? Have you ever not voted? So when voter turnout is very high, as it has been this primary season, the poll might prove to be inaccurate because so many unlikely voters actually turn out.

The biggest change that has affected the accuracy of opinion polls seems to be the new phenomenon of early voting.Nearly 1 million Californians used early voting before the Super Tuesday election.

Polls that took a snapshot of popular opinion in the days before the election might not have been able to gauge those opinions that had been cast as votes weeks ago. This is yet another reminder that, while polls are crucial in feeling the pulse of American opinion, the Election Day ballot box still remains the most important and most accurate electoral survey.

Will Illinois take the lead in 17-year-old suffrage?

A movement by teenagers in Berkley, CA is pushing to get 17-year-old the right to vote in local elections. But a proposed Illinois Constitutional Amendment would give them the right to full suffrage, no strings attatched .

State Rep. Lou Lang is following the lead of the WVHS Youth & Government delegation, which twice has proposed a law to give 17-year-olds the right to vote. His proposed state constitutional amendment would make Illinois unique in allowing those age 17 to vote with no strings attached.

"I think we need to include more and more people in the process," said state Rep. Lou Lang, a Skokie Democrat and the amendment's sponsor. "I wanted Illinois to break new ground here."

The proposal comes as the youth vote has emerged with newfound political power this campaign season, particularly in the Democratic contest for president.

The Daily Herald reports that 11 states allow 17-year olds to cast primary ballots if they turn 18 before November's general election. Illinois would give new full-suffrage rights to 17-year-olds.

Here in Illinois, the proposal faces a long road, challenging history, and even if successful, 17-year-olds would not be able to vote in the November election.

First, supporters must garner support from 60 percent of lawmakers before May to get the question on the November ballot. Then Illinois voters would have the final say on the voting age.

It's been a while since the state's voters considered the issue. A 1970 Constitutional Convention in Illinois placed a question on the ballot for voters to decide whether the voting age should be lowered to 18 or remain at 21. Illinois voters chose 21.

A year later, as thousands of drafted teens were fighting and dying in Vietnam, the 26th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution gave 18-year-olds the right to vote in any federal or state election. And that amendment does not bar states from lowering the voting age.

http://www.dailyherald.com/story/?id=141894

In California, teens have been rallying for local voting rights for the last few years.

http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.dailycal.org/images/art/07.14.protest.KIM.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.dailycal.org/article.php%3Fid%3D18999&h=490&w=404&sz=64&hl=en&start=2&tbnid=Vg822KhaH7rWNM:&tbnh=130&tbnw=107&prev=/images%3Fq%3D17-year-old%2Bvote%26gbv%3D2%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DG

Personally, I have always felt in that revolutionary concept, of "No Taxation without Representation." If you pay taxes, which you are required to if you work and earn a wage, shouldn't you have a right to have a say in who is using your money?

Birds of a Feather Fly High in Russian Election

Two pigeons seen in front of a giant pre-election poster depicting Russian President Vladimir Putin and First Deputy Prime Minister and presidential hopeful Dmitry Medvedev in St. Petersburg, Russia.

After 24 hours of voting across 11 time-zones, Russians handed Dmitry Medvedev an overwhelming victory in the presidential election Sunday despite a lackluster campaign that was more coronation than contest from the moment last December when President Vladimir Putin endorsed him.

Medvedev won 70.1 percent of the vote, according to an exit poll, nearly matching Putin's tally in 2004 and infusing his victory with the kind of numbers he will claim as a genuine mandate. As expected, he crushed the anemic challenges of three opponents who never got to debate him and were drowned out by a deafening media drumbeat that Medvedev was "Putin's choice" and his victory would ensure the continuation of the popular president's policies.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008/03/02/ST2008030201044.html

More on the Russian lead up to Sunday's election: First, from my post following Dr. Richard Farkas' presentation at the DuPage Social Studies Conference last March and then from The 2 Regular Guys from CBS 2 School, who contrast the Russian election with our competitive democractic primary and the ultra competitive 14th District Congressional Race, which some of you may get involved on Special Election Day on March 8.

Putin not ready to leave Prime Time

In his update on Russia 2007, Dr. Richard Farkas said he is convinced Vladimir Putin will not seek to change the Russian constitution in DeJure (by law) fashion to stay President.

DeFact(o)s, however, indicate that the leader of “Putin’s Russia” is not ready to leave the Prime Time. In fact, don’t be surprised if the Prime Minister position becomes the most powerful position in the Government.

The Russian constitution adopted, but never ratified, in 1993 limits the directly elected president to two four-year terms, and Putin is term-limited. The Prime Minister, appointed by the President, currently is nothing more than a figurehead. “Prime Time” Putin is all but completely independent of any checks and balances from the State Duma. Here’s the rub: Having already managed the Duma elections to his favor, if the legislature changed the power structure from presidential to parliamentary, Russia would remain stable. And who would be the most viable PM candidate?

According to Farkas, “Out of the spotlight, people would not really have the lens on Putin and there would be no limit on how long he could serve as Prime Minster.”

Brilliant!

More tidbits on Putin’s Russia 2007 edition, from his annual “press conference” in front of 1,200 “fair and balanced” journalists. Internet hacks were banned from attending:

Ø “Feelings of national pride and values have been restored in the Russian people and must be supported (ie: less tolerance, more nationalism)

Ø On being a year away from the March, 2008 presidential election with no candidates having emerged yet, “All potential candidates have jobs and are busy,’’ (Not like the U.S. Senate) Putin said, adding he would not hand-pick a successor.

Ø “The next election will not be acrimonious.” (No DNC or RNC talking points)

The December Duma elections and whatever presidential race shapes up should be very congenial. After all, only 4 of the former 44 political parties have >5% support to run a candidate. Two of those “opposition” parties have been managed by Putin to provide center/right and center/left opposition. All that’s left is Putin’s United Russia, and the old Communist Party.

Then there is Rule of Law Russian style, 2007 (modern democratic centralism?). Here are a couple of new laws passed by the legislature, signed and supported, of course, by the president. At least they can pass meaningful campaign finance reform in Russia:

Ø Civil servants have been banned from getting grants (or fund-raising) from foreign sources. They were already banned from getting donations from domestic sources – those would be bribes.

Ø Banned are public marches two weeks before or after the elections. This law is subject to federal authority enforcement.


Still, despite all of the above, Dr. Farkas does not diagnose a seemingly crashing democracy in Russia caused by pilot error.

“Clearly he has been the most competent Russian leader. Markedly better, and more sober, than Yeltsin. The problems are so monumental that even the best and brightest would have problems,’’ he said.

___________________

Putin Projections

With 0% of the vote reported (Friday), the 2 Regular Guys are projecting Putin as the winner.

Russian are not slated to go to the election polls until Sunday, March 2nd, but even the most novice pundit can predict this outcome.

Facing nominal opposition and securing the endorsement of President Vladamir Putin, Dmitri Medvedev is a sure winner in Russia's fourth presidential election since the breakup of the Soviet Union.

But the real winner will be Vladamir Putin, Russia's outgoing president.

For years, the Russian people have given Putin overwhelming support with more than 70% of Russians approving of his leadership. He would surely get elected to a third term, but Putin is abiding by the Russian Constitution that states no person can serve as president for more than two consecutive terms.

Putin named his successor when he announced that Medvedev was his preferred candidate. This essentially made Medvedev the next Russian president as he will not face any serious opponents and since the government controls the broadcast media which heavily favors President Putin. Some experts predict that with these advantages, Medvedev could win with more than 80% of the vote.

This election in Russia shows us that democracy should be considered as more than just voting.

A full democracy holds competitive elections where the ruling power has a chance to be voted out of office.Our primary elections have modeled this type of healthy democracy where the tough nomination battles have lingered far longer than normal as a testament to a field of strong candidates.

Locally, the fight to win the special election in the 14th Congressional District also shows this type of healthy electoral competition. The Democrat Bill Foster and the Republican Jim Oberweis have waged a high-profile campaign showing that the district vacated by former Speaker Dennis Hastert is no longer dominated by just one party.

Perhaps we will someday see this type of vibrant electoral competition in Russia, but their only election night suspense will be whether Putin's candidate wins 81% or 82% of the vote.

VIDEO: CBS 2 School: Russian Elections

You make the call

We've had a Red Phone Moment in the 2008 Democratic race for President. The New York Daily News has the You Tube versions of both Hillary Clinton's Red Phone Ad released late last week and Barack Obama's response.

A quiet home, a sleeping family, an ominous voice talks about a phone call signalling trouble.

Who do you want to answer it? The idea is scare the people witless. Karl Rove is probably chuckling thinking his influence has taken over the Democrats.

But this ad has its real roots in the 1964 Lyndon Johnson daisy ad against Barry Goldwater in which a shot of little girl picking the petals of a daisy is followed by the mushroom cloud of a nuclear explosion. The message (unspoken) was: "Do you want that nutcake to have his finger on the nuclear trigger?" Walter Mondale ran a famous red phone ad with the same message against Gary Hart in 1984.

Politico has a story on how the Texas primary could influence the general election. If Clinton's ad works and she wins Texas (but Obama is ultimately the nominee) the Republican 527 groups are going to go all out trying to scare people.

View the dualing ads here. Also, one of the keysfor Obama is how fast hs campaign has beenable to respond. The Harball technique of, "Leave No Shot Unanwered," was followed within the 24-hour news cycle.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2008/03/01/2008-03-01_barack_obama_video_mimics_hillary_clinto.html

You make the call. Is this type of politicl ad effective?

_______________

On the issue of foreign relations, it is interesting to note that of our recent Presidents, not many have had prior job experience:

George W. Bush (No; Gov. of TX)

Bill Clinton (No; Gov. of AK)

George HW Bush (Yes; VP, Ambassador to UN, Member of House of Reps)

Ronald Reagan (No; Gov. of CA)

Jimmy Carter (No; Gov. of GA)

___________________

We are coming off of an era in which voters have looked for Chief Executive experience. Before Carter, one has to go all the way back to FDR to find no prior foreign policy experience. (Nixon, Johnson, Kennedy, Ike and Truman all had it). Ironically, FDR was rated No. 1 in the International Relations category of a C-Span survey of Presidential leadership

http://www.americanpresidents.org/survey/historians/international.asp