As IF Times

link More than half of Americans back Obamas Koran apology | Reuters.

When you first read this headline, the natural response is, HUH??  That is until you read further into the article and find out that sample size is a whopping 1143 people…online.  That’s not even a population size large enough to cover Sandra Fluke’s activities at Georgetown.  The average person will not figure this out.  The headline will stick with them and before you know it, the narrative is that half of the population of over 300 million people in the U.S. are supportive of Obama’s apology for the burning of someone’s religious books.   This is the same crazed logic that brought us Climate Change, (nee Global Warming) because someone thought some penguins were missing.

Reuters has not historically been a dubious news source, but when they print outright laughers like this story, it casts skepticism on all of their news stories.  It is unclear when they made the decision to move into the tabloid business.  I guess this particular headline sells more than “Insignificant sample of online geeks think Obama apology is a good idea”.   This headline is the political equivalent of a “Lindsay Lohan Goes Wild” story in the entertainment hype pages.  This so called conclusion cannot even be characterized as a leap of logic, it more closely resembles someone being fired from a cannon into the next county logic.

If statistics are to be deployed in support of some conclusion, then the authors should at least be bright enough to use some valid ones.   Or at least have more respect for the intelligence of their readers.   Interestingly enough, during the 2008 Presidential election, a convincing 96% of Black voters pulled the lever for Obama according to Politico.   This same survey showed that 54% of young white voters also voted for Obama.  To this day, many will deny that these statistics are any indication of racially influenced voting.  I suppose there’s always that 4%.  This same leap of logic is being used to characterize the Occupy Wall Street crowd as the “99%”, a narrative that some math challenged people actually buy.

We conclude then, that journalism schools do not have a mandatory introductory course on statistics as part of their curriculum.   If ‘journalists’ insist on quoting statistics to support their arguments, this should be a minimum requirement.  Otherwise, just stick to telling stories using creative writing skills.  At the very least, there should be disclaimers at the end of stories similar to what you see attached to the end of pharmaceutical commercials wherein all the possible risks are listed.  In the case of news stories, they can say something like, ” statistics quoted may or may not have any connection to the intended conclusion, they are only added to imply validity”.

link A Statement from Rush – The Rush Limbaugh Show.

Well, our boy Rush was probably a bit indelicate in his characterization of Georgetown University law student, Sandra Fluke.   For those unfamiliar with the story, Ms. Fluke  is the law student who insists that the estimated $3000 cost for contraception during her law school career should be covered by insurance.  This seems like an awful lot of money for what many may consider to be a private pursuit.  Limbaugh could certainly have characterized her demands a little differently.  Perhaps she has delusions of grandeur.  Perhaps she is very ambitious.  Perhaps she wants to be the Wilt Chamberlain of law students.  Perhaps she was pursuing a double major.  Like many of us, he was obviously somewhat taken aback by her confident claim that $3000 would be consumed while at the same time studying law.

Naturally, Limbaughs’ clumsy attempt at humor has attracted a firestorm of condemnation from all corners of the public and the lefty media, who as we know, are stout guardians of women’s rights and sensibilities.  In this day and age, most people are probably indifferent to how Ms. Fluke spends her ‘down’ time.  In fact, most would say, ‘you go girl’. However, many in this group may feel a bit put out by the notion of having to subsidize her non-student activities, if only out of jealousy.  In fact, it can be argued that if her activities are to be subsidized by insurance companies, which means all policyholders, then other women should also have an equal chance at fullfullment.

It’s entirely possible that other women, or men for that matter, may aspire to have to spend $3000 on contraception, but don’t have the advantage of natural pulchritude that Ms. Fluke may have.  To even the playing field, there should therefore also be subsidies for make-up, haircuts, waxing and possibly fashion advice.  Lower tier schools can even incorporate this into their recruiting pitches.  Not only will they guarantee the cost of ‘extra-cirrucular’ activity, they will also spend the money to make sure students have a good chance of using it up while in attendance.  That’s one way to get kids to stay in school; heck they may stay 8 years!  After this, to graduate ‘summa cum laude’ will have an entirely new meaning.