Political Pond Scum

In this election season, at least in California, you see silly claims every day. For example, a group claims that the proposed redistricting initiative would GASP allow the voters to have ultimate authority over who gets to sit in what seat and GASP their might be some GASP confusion. Or in that Mecca where politics never stops professional harpie Joan Claybrook released a report that the proposed changes in rules for overland truck drivers would result in GASP more accidents and then she cites a study (read political tract) as her source - which when you read the thing says nothing of the sort.

What bothers me about this situation (and indeed does not surprise me) is how these supposed stories are covered. The headlines on the Prop 77 story are "Prop 77 could create quirks" and the follow headline is "Prop 77 could be disruptive, foes say" - How about an alternative "Opponents of Proposition 77 try to throw up some kultursmog"? - the headline would make about as much sense. Proposition 77 would change the way things are done (probably mostly for the good). But do we really allow the opponents to again slyly claim that as Walter Cronkite suggested a couple of weeks ago we are too dumb to make decisions about our future?

At least in the Claybrook story (she serves one incompetent term as the head of consumer safety and then gets to preach to us for the rest of her life?) the attempt to manipulate is pointed out. Dan Walters, the long time political columnist for the Bee points out that Claybrook's claim that "Too many trucks on the highways are sweatshops on wheels," is really just a political attempt to oppose a regulation.