David Ernst Chats with the World

I woke up from an early evening nap on October 24 and turned on the radio right in the middle of Robert Siegel’s now infamous interview (at least, infamous among NPR listeners) with Republican political mastermind Karl Rove. I have deep respect for Karl Rove. I don’t like what he accomplishes, but you have to respect his knowledge and you have to respect his track record on getting people elected (that is, as long as there really is nothing illegal involved (yes, I am haunted by that Rolling Stone article by Bobby Kennedy)).

So, when he was predicting victory in this interview, I took it very seriously… much more seriously than I’d take the same kind of talk from just about any political analyst. And, his rationale was very believable for why the polls, which showed Democrats taking the house and maybe just maybe the Senate, were wrong. In response to Siegel saying “I’m looking at the same numbers you are,” Rove retorted:

No you’re not, I’m looking at 68 polls a week you may be looking at four or five public polls a week that talk about attitudes nationally, but that do not impact the outcomes of individual races… I’m looking at all these, Robert, and adding them up, and I add up to a Rebuplican Senate and a Republican House. You may end up with a different math, but you’re entitled to your math, I’m entitled to THE math.

This left Siegel momentarily speechless, very understandably to me. Could it really be that the polling numbers that NPR and every other media outlet were reporting were too general to really catch the tide of the election? Certainly for as much as I knew it could have been, but it was hard for me to believe that all of those polling experts were just being sloppy. But, who can tell?

Well, this is one case where we can tell. Mr. Rove, what you called “THE math” was clearly wrong. Sure, the Senate is still too close to call, and I won’t be a bit surprised if the Republicans maintain a majority there (which, by the way, might be a 50-50 “majority”, keeping control only because the Vice President casts the tie-breaking vote. But, I bring this up only as a curiosity, not because I question its validity… this is the way the Senate has always worked, and 50-50 really would be a legitimate majority in this case). But come on… the House was not even close. The Democrats needed to pick up 15 seats to control the House, and CNN is presently reporting that they picked up 28, with 13 still too close to call. If those “too close” elections split 50/50, that would be a gain of 34 seats for the Dems, more the double what was required!

So, was “THE math” just that wrong? Or was Rove being deliberately over-optimistic in a calculated campaign move? I don’t know, but the end result is that I lost some of my respect for the man. I suspect he knew that what he called “THE math” was wrong, but next time I’ll have to remind myself that preserving his image is not his motivation, he’s motivated by winning elections, and who knows what he’ll say to do it.

In any event, I’m glad he was wrong. :)

By the way, there are several election-related things I’d like to write about.  Hopefully I will find the time soon, but right now I have to get to work…

I’ve been out of my normal NPR listening routine recently, but this morning I woke up unexpectedly early and turned on Morning Edition. I was glad that the latest war in the middle east had simmered down enough that it was no longer dominating the news, since it seemed to be the only thing I heard about in the snippets of national/international news that I’d been catching since mid-July. So, there was time to hear about what the House of Representatives did yesterday, which was to pass (263 votes to 146) H.R. 503: the American Horse Slaughter Prevention Act. Apparently there are three slaughter houses in the US that focus on horse slaughter, and together they slaughter some 90,000 horses a year.

The Washington Post has an excellent editorial about this being a poor use of Congress’s time, even if we “stipulate […] that horses should not be slaughtered for human consumption.” I, however, want to take issue with that stipulation.

I’ve been a vegetarian for over 15 years now, if people don’t want to eat horses, I wholeheartedly support them. But, that’s not what the law is about, it’s about making sure that no one else eats horses. Apparently, no one in the US does anyway, the taboo is too strong. But the slaughterhouses ship the meat to Europe and Asia. And apparently Bo Derek led a pack of horselovers to move to ban this practice.

What drives me nuts about this is the make-believe attitude about meat, that is, that it’s just meat, and not an animal, and certainly not one that anyone might have ever thought might have been cute, smart, or helpful to humans. I’ve never worked on a farm, but I’d like to think that traditional farmers have a less make-believe attitude about this. They care for animals, name them, get to know them, and eventually slaughter them and eat them. However they get there, somehow they have a sense of peace about this. After all, that’s why they raise the animals.

Most city-folks, though, just buy their meat in packages. They know that they were once animals, but they probably prefer not to think about that. And apparently there’s a really strong sense that if they might feel something for an animal, they not only don’t want to eat it, but they don’t want anyone else to eat it either.

And so (to take just one of countless examples of arguably inhumane practices in the meat industry), it’s apparently ok that chickens continue to get their beaks burnt off by hot irons so that they can’t peck at anything while they’re being raised in cages so that we can get eggs cheaper. But the House has voted that it’s inhumane to take horses, including many who led long happy (even pampered) lives, and let them be slaughtered for meat. And this is a House controlled by the party who claims to represent freedom and free markets. Embarrassing. Everyone I’ve ever talked with who worked on a farm says that pigs are the smartest animal in the barnyard, but needless to say, no similar bill about pigs would ever get a hearing in congress, much less pass the House. And, I don’t think it should. If no one wants to eat horse meat, then no one will slaughter horses. There’s no rational reason that horses should be granted this exemption. It’s just the “cute factor.” And it’s embarrassing…