The political world is filled with polls that are targeted toward audiences that agree with the questions. These polls are generally sent only to those who are predisposed to "positive" answers to the questions. The Democratic National Committee does it. The Republican National Committee does it. News media with a particular slant do it. Political offshoots of all kinds do it.
I generally avoid polls of all kinds, no matter what the source. I don't even like the follow-up calls from businesses with whom I plan to buy again and again.
My Congressional Representative, Chip Cravaack, is one of the worst offenders in the biased presentation of polls. His latest is about "What Would You Cut", a list of three items he would like to cut from the budget - replacing TSA employees with private contractors, dispose of excess baggage scanners, and "Terminate a National Science Foundation program aimed at shaping public opinion on climate change". On the last he writes, "A review of prior grants made by the program shows a repeated pattern of funding activities intended to sway public opinion on a controversial topic about which the facts remain in heated dispute." The controversy is coming from those who ignore the facts and have a lot of money to lose if there is to be a serious mitigation of climate change.
This particular poll is at http://cravaack.house.gov/press-releases/cravaack-what-would-youcut/ as of 2012-05-15. Cravaack's staff will probably reuse this URL for a subsequent poll.
Rather than submit my answers, I sent the following webmail to Rep. Cravaack:
"With regard to your "What would you cut" email and many others, please have a chat with Bill Frenzel on how to communicate with constituents.
Rep. Frenzel wrote facts about what Congress was doing, not what he wanted constituents to agree with.
Each one of your "What would you cut" items makes it very clear what you want constituents to answer.
There are many much larger costs for things that are not really needed but have large constituencies supporting them.
I hope I don't have to tell you what these are; that would tell you what my biases are."
Bill Frenzel was the Representative from the suburbs of Minneapolis. He would be considered a RINO by today's Republicans. He wrote quite interesting newsletters about Congress that hardly ever touted what he was doing.
Showing posts with label Chip Cravaack. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Chip Cravaack. Show all posts
Tuesday, May 15, 2012
Thursday, January 26, 2012
Political manipulation - begging the question
Rep. Chip Cravaack, R-MN8, has sent out an email in support of the PolyMet mining project in St. Louis County, Minnesota. The title of the article is "In case you missed it: Environmentally sound mining vital to Minnesota's economy". You can also find it at http://cravaack.congressnewsletter.net/mail/util.cfm?gpiv=2100082997.10586.164&gen=1.
What he does is conflate not very controversial iron and steel projects with a very controversial sulfide copper mining project. Then he phrases a poll question: "Do you support responsible expansion of precious and strategic metal mining operations in MN?" The choices are yes, no, and not sure. My gosh, most people are for responsible operations of any kind, but is the Poly Met project a responsible operation?
Rep. Cravaack implies it is because a panel he assembled says "Mining without harm is the only way to build a sustainable, responsible minerals-exploration industry in northern Minnesota." One, he doesn't say if the panel stated if the PolyMet project would be without harm. Two, he doesn't say in the email or the web page who is on the panel. Did it include town boards who will have to maintain the limited weight roads damaged by heavy equipment? Did it include the Indian tribes who say wild rice yields will be adversely affected? Did it include all the guides and outfitters who will see their business evaporate?
Let's draw the curtain aside and look at who's supporting this project and another sulfide mining project. Tony Hayward, CEO of BP when the Deep Horizon oil rig blew up, was hired as the "executive expert in charge of environment and safety" for Glencoe, one of the backers of the PolyMet project. Twin Metals is proposing a sulfide mine near the Boundary Waters Canoe Area; it has hired URS Corporation to do an environmental impact study. URS Corporation declared the I-35 bridge in Minneapolis safe six months before it collapsed. URS cut corners because it was too expensive to do a proper job. See "Proposed mining operations get their environmental advice from strange quarters" by C. A. Arneson in MPR News. I recommend that you follow all the links you can, especially to Don Shelby's article at http://www.minnpost.com/donshelby/2011/07/26/30314/remember_bps_tony_hayward_hes_trying_to_get_his_life_back_in_northern_minnesota.
"It is by this superior knowledge of [the merchants and manufacturers] own interest that they have frequently imposed upon [the country gentleman's, often a member of Parliament] generosity, and persuaded him to give up both his own interest and that of the public, from a very simple but honest conviction, that their interest, and not his, was the interest of the public." - Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations
What he does is conflate not very controversial iron and steel projects with a very controversial sulfide copper mining project. Then he phrases a poll question: "Do you support responsible expansion of precious and strategic metal mining operations in MN?" The choices are yes, no, and not sure. My gosh, most people are for responsible operations of any kind, but is the Poly Met project a responsible operation?
Rep. Cravaack implies it is because a panel he assembled says "Mining without harm is the only way to build a sustainable, responsible minerals-exploration industry in northern Minnesota." One, he doesn't say if the panel stated if the PolyMet project would be without harm. Two, he doesn't say in the email or the web page who is on the panel. Did it include town boards who will have to maintain the limited weight roads damaged by heavy equipment? Did it include the Indian tribes who say wild rice yields will be adversely affected? Did it include all the guides and outfitters who will see their business evaporate?
Let's draw the curtain aside and look at who's supporting this project and another sulfide mining project. Tony Hayward, CEO of BP when the Deep Horizon oil rig blew up, was hired as the "executive expert in charge of environment and safety" for Glencoe, one of the backers of the PolyMet project. Twin Metals is proposing a sulfide mine near the Boundary Waters Canoe Area; it has hired URS Corporation to do an environmental impact study. URS Corporation declared the I-35 bridge in Minneapolis safe six months before it collapsed. URS cut corners because it was too expensive to do a proper job. See "Proposed mining operations get their environmental advice from strange quarters" by C. A. Arneson in MPR News. I recommend that you follow all the links you can, especially to Don Shelby's article at http://www.minnpost.com/donshelby/2011/07/26/30314/remember_bps_tony_hayward_hes_trying_to_get_his_life_back_in_northern_minnesota.
"It is by this superior knowledge of [the merchants and manufacturers] own interest that they have frequently imposed upon [the country gentleman's, often a member of Parliament] generosity, and persuaded him to give up both his own interest and that of the public, from a very simple but honest conviction, that their interest, and not his, was the interest of the public." - Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations
Wednesday, January 18, 2012
PROTECT-IP, SOPA, and corporate interests
I sent variants of the following to Sens. Al Franken and Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) and Rep. Chip Cravaack (R-MN8).
Have you read Senate 968 (or the House equivalent ) in its entirety? Do you understand every statement in the bill? You can find an easier-to-read version at http://magree.blogspot.com/2012/01/text-of-protect-ip-senate-bill-968.html.
Are you aware of the ambiguity of the subtitle? What are the "other purposes"?
Are you aware that there is at least one grammatical error in the bill?
Are Republicans aware that this bill is more regulation on businesses and that it expands the bureaucracy?
Is this bill in the interests of corporations or in the interests of people? For example, can I simply write a letter to the Attorney General stating that a certain site is using one of my copyrighted pictures? Or will I have to spend hundreds or thousands of dollars for a lawyer to make a complaint on my behalf?
This bill does give service providers a standing for denying service to those they deem acting inappropriately. But doesn't it also give a "hunting license" to companies that will go after any company or person they deem aiding and abetting inappropriate sites. For example, might these "hunters" give a long list of sites they consider inappropriate to ISPs or domain name servers? And then won't these latter have to spend resources vetting that list and acting on their findings?
This bill requires various agencies to give Congress an annual report not only an assessment of the bill's effectiveness, but a list of each instance that the Attorney General took action enforcing this bill. See Section 7. Guidelines and Studies. Will all these agencies be given sufficient resources to do this work? And will that not require more taxes?
Have you read Senate 968 (or the House equivalent ) in its entirety? Do you understand every statement in the bill? You can find an easier-to-read version at http://magree.blogspot.com/2012/01/text-of-protect-ip-senate-bill-968.html.
Are you aware of the ambiguity of the subtitle? What are the "other purposes"?
Are you aware that there is at least one grammatical error in the bill?
Are Republicans aware that this bill is more regulation on businesses and that it expands the bureaucracy?
Is this bill in the interests of corporations or in the interests of people? For example, can I simply write a letter to the Attorney General stating that a certain site is using one of my copyrighted pictures? Or will I have to spend hundreds or thousands of dollars for a lawyer to make a complaint on my behalf?
This bill does give service providers a standing for denying service to those they deem acting inappropriately. But doesn't it also give a "hunting license" to companies that will go after any company or person they deem aiding and abetting inappropriate sites. For example, might these "hunters" give a long list of sites they consider inappropriate to ISPs or domain name servers? And then won't these latter have to spend resources vetting that list and acting on their findings?
This bill requires various agencies to give Congress an annual report not only an assessment of the bill's effectiveness, but a list of each instance that the Attorney General took action enforcing this bill. See Section 7. Guidelines and Studies. Will all these agencies be given sufficient resources to do this work? And will that not require more taxes?
Friday, January 06, 2012
Politics - the pot calling the kettle black
Republicans are complaining that President Obama is abusing his power by appointing Richard Cordray to lead the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Rep. Chip Cravaack, R-MN, complains bitterly in his weekly newsletter:
"President Obama’s extraordinary ‘recess appointments’ circumvents the American people and harms the economy. The appointment of Richard Cordray to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) is an assault on the U.S. Constitution and an unprecedented abuse of executive power. Attempting to make a ‘recess appointment’ when the Senate is not even in recess epitomizes unaccountable Washington politics."
On the other hand, Nancy Pelosi complained in 2005 when George W. Bush made a recess appointment of John Bolton to be the U.N. Ambassador:
“For President Bush to use a recess appointment for such a controversial nominee not because there was a compelling case that Mr. Bolton was the best person for the job, but merely because the President had the power to do it subverts the confirmation process in ways that will further harm the United States’ reputation in the eyes of the international community. The American people deserve better.” - Nicholas Ballasy, The Daily Caller, 2012-01-06, http://news.yahoo.com/pelosi-05-bush-recess-appointment-mistake-harms-u-211510801.html.
Now she calls Obama's appointment "bold".
First, back in the days when Congress didn't meet so often, recess appointments were necessary to keep the government functioning. This is in the Constitution:
"The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the
Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session." - Article II, Section 8.
Is the U.S. Senate in recess or not? According to the Senate Calendar, the Senate had a "pro forma session" on Jan. 3 that lasted less than a minute and another "pro forma session" today. I don't know how long today's session was, but I bet it didn't last into lunchtime.
I'm inclined to believe that the recess appointments of Bolton in 2005 and of Cordray in 2012 don't really turn on a question of law but of politics. "We don't like what you did and so we say you are violating the Constitution."
"President Obama’s extraordinary ‘recess appointments’ circumvents the American people and harms the economy. The appointment of Richard Cordray to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) is an assault on the U.S. Constitution and an unprecedented abuse of executive power. Attempting to make a ‘recess appointment’ when the Senate is not even in recess epitomizes unaccountable Washington politics."
On the other hand, Nancy Pelosi complained in 2005 when George W. Bush made a recess appointment of John Bolton to be the U.N. Ambassador:
“For President Bush to use a recess appointment for such a controversial nominee not because there was a compelling case that Mr. Bolton was the best person for the job, but merely because the President had the power to do it subverts the confirmation process in ways that will further harm the United States’ reputation in the eyes of the international community. The American people deserve better.” - Nicholas Ballasy, The Daily Caller, 2012-01-06, http://news.yahoo.com/pelosi-05-bush-recess-appointment-mistake-harms-u-211510801.html.
Now she calls Obama's appointment "bold".
First, back in the days when Congress didn't meet so often, recess appointments were necessary to keep the government functioning. This is in the Constitution:
"The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the
Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session." - Article II, Section 8.
Is the U.S. Senate in recess or not? According to the Senate Calendar, the Senate had a "pro forma session" on Jan. 3 that lasted less than a minute and another "pro forma session" today. I don't know how long today's session was, but I bet it didn't last into lunchtime.
I'm inclined to believe that the recess appointments of Bolton in 2005 and of Cordray in 2012 don't really turn on a question of law but of politics. "We don't like what you did and so we say you are violating the Constitution."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)