More phony polls

[Rasmussen Reports (Polling company) Aug. 11, 2010.]

The very best poll is on an election day, and on election day, 2008, Barrack Obama had a whopping 53% following. That's huge.

Tracking for today (Wednesday) shows 24% of the nation's voters strongly approve of the way Barack Obama is performing as president. Obama currently has a 46% approval rating, not that bad, I suppose, meaning that 46% of the electorate at least "somewhat" approves of the president's performance.

At this same time, 19 months into his presidency, George Bush had an approval rating of just over 60%, (down from a high of 92% after the attack on New York) It took Bush longer to drop below 50% approval rating than it has Obama to underachieve this, but Bush continued to drop throughout the remainder of his presidency. Obama still has lots of time left to recover, probably.

In the "Well, DUH!" department: 70% of registered voter poll respondents say they believe congress takes payments in return for their votes. In fact, 56% say they believe THEIR congressman is on the take.

Letter to Barack

I came across the above picture today in my web surfing. Supposedly, outgoing presidents leave notes or a short letter in the desk in the Oval Office of the White House to give little tidbits of private advice to the new incoming president.

Now, I don't really believe this is true - if only because outgoing presidents take their desks and other furniture with them when they leave - but it makes for a bit of humor. This is the letter that Bush supposedly left for Obama.

The good stuff and the crap

I have had the good fortune to read, and even come to know, many good writers since I have been blogging. Some are very good indeed. I say "good fortune" because I like to write too, and I have learned a lot from some of these people.

One of the things one sometimes hears as he visits the blogs of writers is the lament that, too often, "good writing" doesn't get published, but a lot of "bad writing" does get published. Often, this lament is frequently followed by a rather bitter assertion that this situation just isn't "fair."

The fact is, publishers are in business to make money. The way they make money is when books sell. They are not in business to publish "good" writing or "bad" writing; only writing which sells.

Let me tell you what kinds of books I buy: I buy books that I find interesting. Others also buy on this basis, as well as buying whatever is on the best-seller list, regardless of whether they like it or not. I'm not sure of the psychology of the latter, but it is true.

I don't really buy books based on whether or not they are "well-written" when compared to the standards or the Classics, or the talents of past "great" writers. Nor do I NOT buy books because everyone says they are garbage and shallow, poorly written and mistaken in their theses. I simply buy books which look like they would be interesting and/or are on a subject I want to know more about.

If you were a publisher, would you put up the money to publish and publicize a book because it was written well? Because it was authoritative? Or because your experience told you it was salable? Which would be your primary criterion?

And so, a lot of books that are disdained by literary professors as simply poof and puff get published and make millions.

Is this "fair"? If not, why not?

This doesn't apply only to books and publishing. There is a huge amount of crap being sold today. It's plastic. It's made in China. It isn't hand crafted and polished "good stuff."

None of us demand the "good stuff" when we select our politicians. You don't believe me? Look around you.

Shall we talk about "good" movies? Some people love the Sense and Sensibility genre, but more go to see Harry Potter and Avatar. And, collectively, even more still will go to see blood and guts and things being blown up. True or false?

Who gets to tell us what we should read, what we should go see, what we should eat? Who among you are the quality police? McDonald's is crap, according to the nutrition police. Why do they sell so much of it? Because lots of people like me like it a lot, that's why. Cheap, too.

I think the answer, in all cases, and in all of these examples, is simple: PEOPLE WANT IT.

All markets, food, cinema, toys, BOOK SALES, are driven by what people - buyers - want to buy. Give people what they need and you will do well. Give them what they WANT and you will make a killing.

True, sometimes something sells because of its packaging or because it is well hyped. A lot of people take things at face value and buy simply because it glitters, or because everybody else is buying the thing. Later, after you have made your purchase, you find the thing is not as advertised, or that it is found wanting in substance or performance. Barack Obama comes to mind. So does George Bush and most of congress. But it is up to you to investigate before you buy.

Is this "fair?" Damn right it is. If you want to write to please yourself, fine. If you want to make money writing, then write what people want to read. I wish I could.