One of my favorite movies is "The Hunt for Red October" ( I watch it any time I get a chance ). In the movie there is a scene where the Captain of the submarine orders that the ship turn around and head straight into the path of an oncoming torpedo. This made no sense to the other people on board (or even to the US navy personnel watching the events on sonar). He is able destroy the torpedo by ramming it before it has a chance to arm (torpedoes have safety settings to only arm after a period of time in case it is faulty).
You can watch the clip here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PWU9g1Fce3U&feature=related
Now, what does this have to do with the election and attack ads you ask. To answer this question I ask you to view another video called "Attack Watch" which is a snarky video that makes fun of political attack ads.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-XYKRokgX00
To me this video is to "Political Attack Ads" as the "Hunt for Red October" is to torpedoes. By making an attack ad that is SO off the wall it shows how utterly ridiculous they are and you will never watch another attack ad the same way again. This goes counter to the current thought (like turning a submarine around) which is to issue statements in response to these attacks. For example, the latest Biden speech where he tells a black audience that Romney will "put you back in chains". Even though this is absolutely ridiculous and no one for a second believes Biden's hyperbole, current political wisdom would require Romney to issue a statement to counter Biden's remark. But this only substantiates Biden's statement and gives it credence, further fueling future bombastic remarks and keeping Obama from talking about what's really important: jobs and the economy.
Romney should employ people like the makers of Attack-Watch to destroy all future attack ads or speeches. By ridiculing them you disarm them and make them nonsensical. (I, for one, do not look at any political attack ads any more without hearing the irritating voice of "Attach Watch" ringing in my ears and reminding me of how silly they really are).
Love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul and with all your MIND
Wednesday, August 15, 2012
Monday, August 13, 2012
TRYING is not good enough!
Here is a link to a portion of Obama's speech in which he makes the case for a "new direction" in which prosperity is "shared".
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=HzgWOXzMJ1Q
Obama says that EVERYONE no matter who they are are should be able to come to this country and make it if the "TRY". To me this like saying "Every child that shows up to school and tries should be given an A on their report card and a diploma at the end of 12 years of school". The fatal word in Obama's political view is TRY. We all use this word.
- I will TRY to make your party on Saturday
- I will TRY to get the report done by Monday
- I will TRY to be a better parent
- I will TRY to be a better spouse
- I will TRY to get to work on time.
- I will TRY to be late next time
And the list goes on and on and on..
Try is one of those nebulous words which lacks any level of clarity. It can mean anything from, "I will think about it", to "I will give it my 110% to make it happen". It gives us enough wiggle room such that if we do not live up to expectation we have an "out" (Hey! I said I would TRY!). Is TRY good enough? Is that the American Dream? Did our ancestors come to this country to "TRY" to make it? I don't think so. Many came here with all of their worldly possessions put into a small suitcase and the clothes on their back and no return ticket home. They did not come here to TRY but instead came here to SUCCEED. Some did and others did not. The American Dream is that only the best get the trophy and we all have the opportunity to prove ourselves worthy. (As one person put it, "If everyone gets a trophy then trophies become meaningless").
President Obama has spent too much time in academia where "showing up" is the new C, "trying" is the new B and "sucking up" is the new A. This is what is wrong in our schools and Obama wants to make it the standard for our nation as well. He wants it to be where we can make it if we "try". If we show up most of the time, don't create any new problems, don't get into any fights, don't upset the boss, don't show up drunk or intoxicated, give a minimal amount of effort to perform our duties and above all have an excuse for our failures.
Seems to me President Obama just wants the same standard for us that he uses for himself. Like a student begging the teacher for "just a little more time" because they procrastinated and under-estimated their abilities to deliver on the assignment, Obama is begging the American public for 4 more years to, as in his words, "Get this done!". He tried to fix the economy, but there were "head winds from Europe and natural disasters he could not foresee". He tried to close Guantanamo but "no countries would help out in taking them". He tried to cut the deficit in half after 4 years but it proved too hard so he claims he needs an extra term to get that accomplished. He would try to bring the troops home in a year but he did not anticipate all "Islamic Spring" and how daunting of a task it was. He tried to work with Congress, but they would not take his proposals without any changes.
You see Mr. President, our country does not reward TRYING. We only reward SUCCESS which is why you will not be re-elected come this November.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=HzgWOXzMJ1Q
Obama says that EVERYONE no matter who they are are should be able to come to this country and make it if the "TRY". To me this like saying "Every child that shows up to school and tries should be given an A on their report card and a diploma at the end of 12 years of school". The fatal word in Obama's political view is TRY. We all use this word.
- I will TRY to make your party on Saturday
- I will TRY to get the report done by Monday
- I will TRY to be a better parent
- I will TRY to be a better spouse
- I will TRY to get to work on time.
- I will TRY to be late next time
And the list goes on and on and on..
Try is one of those nebulous words which lacks any level of clarity. It can mean anything from, "I will think about it", to "I will give it my 110% to make it happen". It gives us enough wiggle room such that if we do not live up to expectation we have an "out" (Hey! I said I would TRY!). Is TRY good enough? Is that the American Dream? Did our ancestors come to this country to "TRY" to make it? I don't think so. Many came here with all of their worldly possessions put into a small suitcase and the clothes on their back and no return ticket home. They did not come here to TRY but instead came here to SUCCEED. Some did and others did not. The American Dream is that only the best get the trophy and we all have the opportunity to prove ourselves worthy. (As one person put it, "If everyone gets a trophy then trophies become meaningless").
President Obama has spent too much time in academia where "showing up" is the new C, "trying" is the new B and "sucking up" is the new A. This is what is wrong in our schools and Obama wants to make it the standard for our nation as well. He wants it to be where we can make it if we "try". If we show up most of the time, don't create any new problems, don't get into any fights, don't upset the boss, don't show up drunk or intoxicated, give a minimal amount of effort to perform our duties and above all have an excuse for our failures.
Seems to me President Obama just wants the same standard for us that he uses for himself. Like a student begging the teacher for "just a little more time" because they procrastinated and under-estimated their abilities to deliver on the assignment, Obama is begging the American public for 4 more years to, as in his words, "Get this done!". He tried to fix the economy, but there were "head winds from Europe and natural disasters he could not foresee". He tried to close Guantanamo but "no countries would help out in taking them". He tried to cut the deficit in half after 4 years but it proved too hard so he claims he needs an extra term to get that accomplished. He would try to bring the troops home in a year but he did not anticipate all "Islamic Spring" and how daunting of a task it was. He tried to work with Congress, but they would not take his proposals without any changes.
You see Mr. President, our country does not reward TRYING. We only reward SUCCESS which is why you will not be re-elected come this November.
Friday, August 10, 2012
Polls == Donations.
I have written several blogs on polling data having to do with the election and I have shown that we need to pay attention to WHO is doing the polls and WHO are being polled.
But here I want to tell you WHY various polling institutions are showing Obama moving ahead right now.
The most important reason for giving Obama favorable polling data now is not so Obama can sleep good at night. Instead it is meant to help stimulate donors to give more to Obama and less to Romney. Money is the life-blood of elections and restricting the giving of money to a campaign will keep it from being successful. This is true in investments as well. When a stock analyst gives a bad "futures" report on a company, the stock tanks. When another analyst gives a good report, the stock rises. We often pull money from investments based on other data. The same holds true for elections. The "analysts" are the "polling-companies" they say which investments are working and which ones aren't. We tend to withhold money from candidates if we "perceive" that they are a bad bet. On the flip side, we tend to give MORE money to candidates that are ahead because everyone wants to support a "winner" (Get on the band-wagon!). The polling data today is meant to help Obama raise money and slow down Romney.
Later (probably end of October) we will see the polls tighten and may even see Romney with a "slight lead". The purpose here is that the donor season is over and now it's time to get the voters worried that their candidate (Obama) might not make it and they need to get to the polls and hit the streets.
We must NOT let the polls affect our donations to the Romney campaign. We must fight the urge to think its a bad bet and go with our gut instinct that our country will chose Romney over Obama come this November.
If you have not given yet.... GIVE NOW!
But here I want to tell you WHY various polling institutions are showing Obama moving ahead right now.
The most important reason for giving Obama favorable polling data now is not so Obama can sleep good at night. Instead it is meant to help stimulate donors to give more to Obama and less to Romney. Money is the life-blood of elections and restricting the giving of money to a campaign will keep it from being successful. This is true in investments as well. When a stock analyst gives a bad "futures" report on a company, the stock tanks. When another analyst gives a good report, the stock rises. We often pull money from investments based on other data. The same holds true for elections. The "analysts" are the "polling-companies" they say which investments are working and which ones aren't. We tend to withhold money from candidates if we "perceive" that they are a bad bet. On the flip side, we tend to give MORE money to candidates that are ahead because everyone wants to support a "winner" (Get on the band-wagon!). The polling data today is meant to help Obama raise money and slow down Romney.
Later (probably end of October) we will see the polls tighten and may even see Romney with a "slight lead". The purpose here is that the donor season is over and now it's time to get the voters worried that their candidate (Obama) might not make it and they need to get to the polls and hit the streets.
We must NOT let the polls affect our donations to the Romney campaign. We must fight the urge to think its a bad bet and go with our gut instinct that our country will chose Romney over Obama come this November.
If you have not given yet.... GIVE NOW!
Olympic Track and Obama's misleading polls
I wrote a blog a while back talking about "Likely Voters (LV)" verses "Registered Voters (RV)" and "Adults (A). As I watch the poll numbers, Obama's margin over Romney "seems to be widening", but not when you take only the LV polls. There his margin has shrunk to less than zero. Also when you throw out known leftist organizations like MSNBC/NBC or Democracy Corps or CNN you see Romney is in much better position than you might think.
I actually think that these crappy polls will work into Romney's favor in the end. An analogy I like to use comes from Track and Field (watch the Olympics and you will see what I mean). When you watch the 200m or 400m races, the runners are "staggered" (they don't start on a straight line) because going around a circle, the outside running would end up running farther than the inside runner. To make up for this, the outside runner starts out "ahead" of the other runners so that in the end ALL the runners run the same distance. The outside runner still has a disadvantage however because he starts out in a position that he cannot see how far the other runners are behind him and he may think himself to be winning when we may in fact he may be losing. The runner in the back has an advantage for just the opposite reason. He sees himself as being behind and runs harder to "catch up". He can also see ALL the runners and judge better where he stands in the race.
The polls that put Obama in the lead actually put Obama in a position of a false-lead like the runner staggered in front of the other runners. While it may give Obama an easier time sleeping at night one must ask, "Will the voters in November feel the urgency to come out and vote if all the polls show Obama as having a somewhat comfortable lead?". Likewise, "Will the voters for Romney see the urgency of getting their family and friends out to the polls?".
My advice to all who watch the polls like I do is this: "Ignore them, when they show Obama UP, work HARDER!"
I actually think that these crappy polls will work into Romney's favor in the end. An analogy I like to use comes from Track and Field (watch the Olympics and you will see what I mean). When you watch the 200m or 400m races, the runners are "staggered" (they don't start on a straight line) because going around a circle, the outside running would end up running farther than the inside runner. To make up for this, the outside runner starts out "ahead" of the other runners so that in the end ALL the runners run the same distance. The outside runner still has a disadvantage however because he starts out in a position that he cannot see how far the other runners are behind him and he may think himself to be winning when we may in fact he may be losing. The runner in the back has an advantage for just the opposite reason. He sees himself as being behind and runs harder to "catch up". He can also see ALL the runners and judge better where he stands in the race.
The polls that put Obama in the lead actually put Obama in a position of a false-lead like the runner staggered in front of the other runners. While it may give Obama an easier time sleeping at night one must ask, "Will the voters in November feel the urgency to come out and vote if all the polls show Obama as having a somewhat comfortable lead?". Likewise, "Will the voters for Romney see the urgency of getting their family and friends out to the polls?".
My advice to all who watch the polls like I do is this: "Ignore them, when they show Obama UP, work HARDER!"
Obamacare.... the Trojan Horse of destruction
For those not familiar with the story about the Trojan's, let me refresh your memory. The city of Troy was under siege by the other city-state of Sparta. After a long battle and not being able to penetrate the walled fortress, the Spartans retreated back to their ships. They dismantled several of their ships and built a large wooden horse on wheels and left it at the city gates as a "present" to the Trojans and then left in their remaining boats. The Trojans believed this was a gift to the city and had it brought into the city walls. The Trojans celebrated their "victory" long into the night. Then when everyone had gone to sleep (or was passed out) the Spartans hiding inside the wooden horse came out, opened the city doors and Troy was destroyed in a single night. From this story we get the famous phrase, "Beware of Greeks bearing gifts".
Can there be another American Revolution?
My son and I have become big fans of the TV series "Falling Skies" and we try not to miss an episode. For those of you who have not seen it, I recommend that you take a look at it. Its on Sunday evenings on TBS. The show is about a band of people in Massachusetts that is trying to survive and destroy the invading aliens from another planet. In the show they refer to "2nd Mass" (the second Massachusetts) and they carry on many of the traditions of the United States. They carry flags and still say the pledge of allegiance.
My thoughts today however wonder, "Will it take an alien invasion to bring that about?". The US has been protected on both sides by 2 oceans and 2 countries on both sides that are militarily non-threats to its existence. This strength has also been our weakness. Strength, because we can build and grow as a nation without concerning ourselves about what will happen if we are attacked. Weakness, because we can sleep at night that no invading army can seriously attack us, we have become complacent about our history and our way of life.
My thoughts today however wonder, "Will it take an alien invasion to bring that about?". The US has been protected on both sides by 2 oceans and 2 countries on both sides that are militarily non-threats to its existence. This strength has also been our weakness. Strength, because we can build and grow as a nation without concerning ourselves about what will happen if we are attacked. Weakness, because we can sleep at night that no invading army can seriously attack us, we have become complacent about our history and our way of life.
Wednesday, August 8, 2012
How to improve education
I have been thinking a lot lately about what is ailing our education system and how to improve it. But before you jump in and yell "We need to get rid of the stupid teacher unions" let me say that there is more to it than that (although I must agree with you on that statement as well).
The first thing we must do as parents is put education above EVERYTHING ELSE in our kids lives. I have seen parents who put there children in "select soccer teams" and then drive them 500 miles to a soccer tournament that lasts 2 days and pay gas, food and lodging to see their child play for a few hours. But ask these same parents to spend a few hours a week working with their children and their education and you would have thought you asked them to accompany them on a trip to the moon. You must ask yourself, "Is my child going to make a living out of soccer, baseball, football or any other sport?" If you answer is NO, then you need to put education before any sport or after school activity they have.
The second thing you must do is show your child where the stand in regard to their global peers. They need to see that the US is 20th in rankings for science and math. They need to see that California is 40th in state-rankings for science and math. Therefore being in "honor roll" means you are at the TOP of the BOTTOM of the BOTTOM. They need to see that their global peers go to school on average 220 days a year while we in the US only go to school 180 days a year. Compounding this with the fact that many of the countries have their students spend 6-7 hours a day in class verses in the US we only spend about 4-5 hours in class, and you see that we on average spend almost 400 hours per year LESS than other countries. To put this way, every 3 years our children spend in school the Indian children are getting 4 years of education so by 3rd grade, children in India are learning 4th grade math, by 6th grade they are learning 8th grade math and by 9th grade they are learning 12th grade (senior) math. Get the picture? We used to make fun of India and how they were the world's "call center", but given this trend, in 20 years the US will become the world's "call center" and India will become the predominate technology developer. Therefore we as parents must be willing to supplement our children's education with "After School Education" (supplied by a professional or by our own energy) to give our children the same hours of education otherwise they will be mathematically eliminated from the job market.
The third thing you must do with your children is TEACH THEM HOW TO LEARN! This seems odd, but it is very much true. Imagine teaching a person to drive by sitting them in the car, handing them the keys and telling them, "Now drive safe!". Would the person learn how to drive? Probably over time they will and probably after lots and lots of accidents. But they will of course develop many bad habits in the process such as not using their mirrors, blinkers or giving other drivers the right-of-way. Learning how to drive this way would be ludicrous and dangerous at the same time. But that is what we do to our kids when we send them to school and tell them "Now make sure you listen to the teacher and learn!". We as parents need to show our children proper learning skills. This includes reading for comprehension which is different than reading for pleasure. Here in lies the other problem with our education system which teaches our children how to read books like "Harry Potter" (pleasure reading) but never teach them how to read articles on biology or history (informational reading). Not that pleasure reading is bad, but as far as careers go, unless you plan on being a novel editor or proof-reader, there is very little use for pleasure reading to earn a living. Informational reading requires the reader to extract dates, places, names, numbers, definitions and concepts whereas pleasure reading only requires the reader to extract names and plots (which is why kids today tend to read serial-novels like Harry Potter because after the first book the reader already knows the names and plot-lines and can read the follow-on books while in auto-pilot).
How do you read for learning? It's actually quite simple..
1) Read first and last paragraphs of the article. This gives you a clue as to what the article is about.
2) Scan the article for all bold or italicized words. These are often important words or definitions you must know to understand the article. Look up in the dictionary any words you don't understand and write them down.
3) Read the first and last sentence of each paragraph. This shows you overall what the article is going to discuss and gives you a "map" of the article for your mind to categorize the information it extracts.
4) Finally read the entire article from beginning to end.
This type of reading takes practice to perfect but like all things gets better with use. (Note: it's important to use this method on ALL types of articles ... even BORING ones you find now enjoyment in at all).
Finally, help your children become familiar with difficult subjects. Fear is often one of the biggest hindrances to learning as these become mental roadblocks. To illustrate this I will use my experience with deer hunting. I did not grow up hunting deer, but a friend of mine introduced me to it and showed me where he hunted on a camping trip. He familiarized me with the hunting trail and made me feel less fearful about getting lost. Over time I have become very familiar with the area and enjoy the hunting aspect all the more. By showing children more difficult subjects earlier in life and encouraging them that over time they will understand these topics as well we take away the fear of learning and when the time comes to take them on, they will be old topics they saw long ago.
The first thing we must do as parents is put education above EVERYTHING ELSE in our kids lives. I have seen parents who put there children in "select soccer teams" and then drive them 500 miles to a soccer tournament that lasts 2 days and pay gas, food and lodging to see their child play for a few hours. But ask these same parents to spend a few hours a week working with their children and their education and you would have thought you asked them to accompany them on a trip to the moon. You must ask yourself, "Is my child going to make a living out of soccer, baseball, football or any other sport?" If you answer is NO, then you need to put education before any sport or after school activity they have.
The second thing you must do is show your child where the stand in regard to their global peers. They need to see that the US is 20th in rankings for science and math. They need to see that California is 40th in state-rankings for science and math. Therefore being in "honor roll" means you are at the TOP of the BOTTOM of the BOTTOM. They need to see that their global peers go to school on average 220 days a year while we in the US only go to school 180 days a year. Compounding this with the fact that many of the countries have their students spend 6-7 hours a day in class verses in the US we only spend about 4-5 hours in class, and you see that we on average spend almost 400 hours per year LESS than other countries. To put this way, every 3 years our children spend in school the Indian children are getting 4 years of education so by 3rd grade, children in India are learning 4th grade math, by 6th grade they are learning 8th grade math and by 9th grade they are learning 12th grade (senior) math. Get the picture? We used to make fun of India and how they were the world's "call center", but given this trend, in 20 years the US will become the world's "call center" and India will become the predominate technology developer. Therefore we as parents must be willing to supplement our children's education with "After School Education" (supplied by a professional or by our own energy) to give our children the same hours of education otherwise they will be mathematically eliminated from the job market.
The third thing you must do with your children is TEACH THEM HOW TO LEARN! This seems odd, but it is very much true. Imagine teaching a person to drive by sitting them in the car, handing them the keys and telling them, "Now drive safe!". Would the person learn how to drive? Probably over time they will and probably after lots and lots of accidents. But they will of course develop many bad habits in the process such as not using their mirrors, blinkers or giving other drivers the right-of-way. Learning how to drive this way would be ludicrous and dangerous at the same time. But that is what we do to our kids when we send them to school and tell them "Now make sure you listen to the teacher and learn!". We as parents need to show our children proper learning skills. This includes reading for comprehension which is different than reading for pleasure. Here in lies the other problem with our education system which teaches our children how to read books like "Harry Potter" (pleasure reading) but never teach them how to read articles on biology or history (informational reading). Not that pleasure reading is bad, but as far as careers go, unless you plan on being a novel editor or proof-reader, there is very little use for pleasure reading to earn a living. Informational reading requires the reader to extract dates, places, names, numbers, definitions and concepts whereas pleasure reading only requires the reader to extract names and plots (which is why kids today tend to read serial-novels like Harry Potter because after the first book the reader already knows the names and plot-lines and can read the follow-on books while in auto-pilot).
How do you read for learning? It's actually quite simple..
1) Read first and last paragraphs of the article. This gives you a clue as to what the article is about.
2) Scan the article for all bold or italicized words. These are often important words or definitions you must know to understand the article. Look up in the dictionary any words you don't understand and write them down.
3) Read the first and last sentence of each paragraph. This shows you overall what the article is going to discuss and gives you a "map" of the article for your mind to categorize the information it extracts.
4) Finally read the entire article from beginning to end.
This type of reading takes practice to perfect but like all things gets better with use. (Note: it's important to use this method on ALL types of articles ... even BORING ones you find now enjoyment in at all).
Finally, help your children become familiar with difficult subjects. Fear is often one of the biggest hindrances to learning as these become mental roadblocks. To illustrate this I will use my experience with deer hunting. I did not grow up hunting deer, but a friend of mine introduced me to it and showed me where he hunted on a camping trip. He familiarized me with the hunting trail and made me feel less fearful about getting lost. Over time I have become very familiar with the area and enjoy the hunting aspect all the more. By showing children more difficult subjects earlier in life and encouraging them that over time they will understand these topics as well we take away the fear of learning and when the time comes to take them on, they will be old topics they saw long ago.
Tuesday, August 7, 2012
Backpacking is the solution
Every society collapses, not from want, but instead from being spoiled. When societies grow and prosper future generations take the hardships that their parents, grand-parents and great-grand-parents went through for granted. To illustrate, look at the Occupy-Movement. Many of these are young people "camping out" in the city with their iPads and iPhones, eating at restaurants and getting their coffee at Starbucks all the while cursing the very people who give them these "necessities of life" (Reminds me again of the plaque my Uncle Carl had on his farm that said "Don't curse the farmer with your mouth full!"). These people have never had it so good and yet they don't realize it.
This past weekend I was out camping and we took a hike up to hills to look for deer. We brought our own bottles of water, but the hike took longer than expected and we were low. Phil, knew of a place where we could get fresh water so we went there and just as expected the spring was still running (in the heat of summer) and we were able to refill our bottles to get us back to camp. It was while we were filling our bottles that I realized how precious that water is and how we take it for granted back home. We turn a little knob and gallons of water per minute flow out into our sinks and baths for our use and pleasure. But it wasn't always that easy. Men and women coming to California had to find their own water. They had to dig wells deep into the earth to access these springs. Later they had to move large amounts of dirty and concrete to build dams and reservoirs and canals to hold back and divert the water to where we live. They had to later build complex filtering and pumping facilities to insure we had disease-free water no matter where you chose to live whether int he valley or up in the hills. All this, we take for granted.
If I were made President, I would require all children 12 and older to go backpacking 3 days a year. They could only bring what they could carry on their backs for food and water and shelter. Most likely they could survive the first day on what they had brought, but the last 2 days they would have to live on what they could find. No water faucets to turn on... only springs , lakes and streams to drink from (hopefully they packed a filtration system). No McDonalds or Taco-Bell to "forage" from when they became hungry... only fruits, berries and roots to munch on (or a rabbit if they are able to capture it). Like the SurvivorMan show on the Discovery Channel, they would have to live by their wits and would LONG for hot meals we got from our microwave ovens or our fast food restaurants. They would gain a new appreciation for the safety of their homes when they don't have to make huts out of branches and tree limbs to sleep under. They will hold in high value the hospitals that are there if we hurt ourselves (Trust me! You have a different view of healthcare when you are hiking 30 miles to the nearest hospital). They would appreciate the ability to turn a dial or press a button to turn up the heat in their homes when cold or turn on a light when they have to struggle for hours to get a small fire lit from rubbing two sticks together. When they go to bed at night they will notice the soft pillow-top mattresses provided to them because they didn't have to go out and gather leaves or branches to lay on in order to sleep.
To me, 3 days of hell should be enough to make all of our young people realize just how good they have it.
This past weekend I was out camping and we took a hike up to hills to look for deer. We brought our own bottles of water, but the hike took longer than expected and we were low. Phil, knew of a place where we could get fresh water so we went there and just as expected the spring was still running (in the heat of summer) and we were able to refill our bottles to get us back to camp. It was while we were filling our bottles that I realized how precious that water is and how we take it for granted back home. We turn a little knob and gallons of water per minute flow out into our sinks and baths for our use and pleasure. But it wasn't always that easy. Men and women coming to California had to find their own water. They had to dig wells deep into the earth to access these springs. Later they had to move large amounts of dirty and concrete to build dams and reservoirs and canals to hold back and divert the water to where we live. They had to later build complex filtering and pumping facilities to insure we had disease-free water no matter where you chose to live whether int he valley or up in the hills. All this, we take for granted.
If I were made President, I would require all children 12 and older to go backpacking 3 days a year. They could only bring what they could carry on their backs for food and water and shelter. Most likely they could survive the first day on what they had brought, but the last 2 days they would have to live on what they could find. No water faucets to turn on... only springs , lakes and streams to drink from (hopefully they packed a filtration system). No McDonalds or Taco-Bell to "forage" from when they became hungry... only fruits, berries and roots to munch on (or a rabbit if they are able to capture it). Like the SurvivorMan show on the Discovery Channel, they would have to live by their wits and would LONG for hot meals we got from our microwave ovens or our fast food restaurants. They would gain a new appreciation for the safety of their homes when they don't have to make huts out of branches and tree limbs to sleep under. They will hold in high value the hospitals that are there if we hurt ourselves (Trust me! You have a different view of healthcare when you are hiking 30 miles to the nearest hospital). They would appreciate the ability to turn a dial or press a button to turn up the heat in their homes when cold or turn on a light when they have to struggle for hours to get a small fire lit from rubbing two sticks together. When they go to bed at night they will notice the soft pillow-top mattresses provided to them because they didn't have to go out and gather leaves or branches to lay on in order to sleep.
To me, 3 days of hell should be enough to make all of our young people realize just how good they have it.
Thursday, July 26, 2012
Is the Internet the "assault rifle" of Free Speech?
In my previous post on "Why the 2nd Amendment does not mention muskets" I talk about how vague the Bill of Rights is and why. After posting it I realized that a similar argument for our access to certain kinds of guns (note: they never talk about stopping the use of such guns or the manufacture of such guns) could be made for our access to the internet. We have all heard the stories of "cyber-bullying" where some 11 or 12 year-old bullies another student by pretending to be someone the know or care about and in the end the person being bullied commits suicide. Not that I condone such behavior, but often these stories are followed by endless regulations instituted to "prevent such atrocities from ever happening again".
The question I have for you today is this:
Could the government make the argument that the Internet is the "assault-rifle of Free Speech" ?
The arguments are strikingly similar.
Argument #1: 2nd Amendment is only for trained "militias" therefore guns don't belong in everyday citizens hands. It's okay for military, police and other trained federal agents to have guns but not your average citizen.
Argument #2: The Founding Fathers never saw the day when one gun could shoot 20 rounds a second and be reloaded in less than 2 seconds. Clearly such guns should be kept out of everyday citizens hands as they are too dangerous and could fall into the wrong hands.
Let's look at these arguments and apply them to the 1st Amendment and the Internet.
Argument #1: Freedom of the "press" was clearly meant only for "trained press agents" and not for "everyday citizens". Clearly the Internet gives too much power to untrained "press agents" who have no education in how to properly disseminate "truth to the masses" in a way that keeps them from rioting or voting in ways that are not in their basic self interest.
Argument #2: The Founding Fathers never saw the day when 1 letter/video/web-site could be viewed by millions of people in less than a second. Clearly they would never have given an individual this immense power to inform the masses as such communications could inflict countless losses (at the voting booth) and cause serious harm to the people (who want such information to remain secret). Oh the humanity! This "assault-rifle" must be controlled at all cost!!
I think when you see things in this light, you understand better why protecting the 2nd Amendment is key to protecting all the others..
The question I have for you today is this:
Could the government make the argument that the Internet is the "assault-rifle of Free Speech" ?
The arguments are strikingly similar.
Argument #1: 2nd Amendment is only for trained "militias" therefore guns don't belong in everyday citizens hands. It's okay for military, police and other trained federal agents to have guns but not your average citizen.
Argument #2: The Founding Fathers never saw the day when one gun could shoot 20 rounds a second and be reloaded in less than 2 seconds. Clearly such guns should be kept out of everyday citizens hands as they are too dangerous and could fall into the wrong hands.
Let's look at these arguments and apply them to the 1st Amendment and the Internet.
Argument #1: Freedom of the "press" was clearly meant only for "trained press agents" and not for "everyday citizens". Clearly the Internet gives too much power to untrained "press agents" who have no education in how to properly disseminate "truth to the masses" in a way that keeps them from rioting or voting in ways that are not in their basic self interest.
Argument #2: The Founding Fathers never saw the day when 1 letter/video/web-site could be viewed by millions of people in less than a second. Clearly they would never have given an individual this immense power to inform the masses as such communications could inflict countless losses (at the voting booth) and cause serious harm to the people (who want such information to remain secret). Oh the humanity! This "assault-rifle" must be controlled at all cost!!
I think when you see things in this light, you understand better why protecting the 2nd Amendment is key to protecting all the others..
Why the 2nd Amendment does not mention muskets!
When one reads the Bill of Rights, one often sees that the Founding Fathers were extremely "vague" in their details. They often talked in generalities rather than specifics. And for good reason too! They knew that the world was changing and changing FAST! They knew that being too specific would lead to the downfall of the Bill of Rights because future lawmakers could argue that the "new" was not mentioned in the "old" Constitution and therefore was not applicable.
Take for example, the freedom of the press does not go into detail of the kind of "press" used for making the newspapers, or pamphlets. It does not go into how the information is distributed whether its from a newspaper, a book, a magazine or even just a poster. It just says :
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
That is all. No less. No more.
Had they given MORE detail such as the use of a "metal fixed type manual printing press" then one would argue that other forms of information such as the internet, email, television, radio were not mentioned and therefore not legitimately covered by the Constitution and therefore must be "regulated". They could argue that "Clearly the Founding Fathers never saw the day when every person could have access to the ability to send information to thousands of people at the same time over the internet".
It is the same reason why the Founding Fathers made no mention of "muskets" in the Bill of Rights. Instead all they wrote was:
A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
That is all. No less. No more.
The lack of details was their genius in writing the Bill of Rights for had they mentioned "muskets", then newer guns like , rifles, pistols , semi-automatic and automatic guns could be regulated as well since they too do not meet the specific wording. We would each be left with the right to own a single shot musket gun (most likely not rifled) similar to what the Revolutionary War soldiers used. No less... No more.
Beware of those who argue that automatic rifles were not mentioned in the Constitution and therefore they MUST BE CONTROLLED for there are a lot of things not mentioned in the Constitution as well that they could use as an argument for controlling.
Here are just a few:
1) Websites - Freedom of Speech
2) Email - Freedom of the Press
3) Television/Radio - Freedom of the Press, Speech and Religion
4) Speaker and Amplifiers - Freedom of Speech
5) Twitter/Facebook - Freedom of Speech
6) Electronic Books - Freedom of the Press, Speech, Religion
7) Electronic Body Scanners - not mentioned in searches and seizures.
8) Drones - Freedom of Warrant-less Searches
9) Cars, Cell-phones, Computers - not mentioned when discussing searches and seizures.
If you allow them to control the types of guns allowed under the 2nd Amendment, then you will also be opening up the door to arguments for limiting our Freedom of Speech, Freedom of the Press and Freedom of Religion as well.
Like I always say: Be careful what you ask for... you might just get MORE than you asked for.
Take for example, the freedom of the press does not go into detail of the kind of "press" used for making the newspapers, or pamphlets. It does not go into how the information is distributed whether its from a newspaper, a book, a magazine or even just a poster. It just says :
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
That is all. No less. No more.
Had they given MORE detail such as the use of a "metal fixed type manual printing press" then one would argue that other forms of information such as the internet, email, television, radio were not mentioned and therefore not legitimately covered by the Constitution and therefore must be "regulated". They could argue that "Clearly the Founding Fathers never saw the day when every person could have access to the ability to send information to thousands of people at the same time over the internet".
It is the same reason why the Founding Fathers made no mention of "muskets" in the Bill of Rights. Instead all they wrote was:
A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
That is all. No less. No more.
The lack of details was their genius in writing the Bill of Rights for had they mentioned "muskets", then newer guns like , rifles, pistols , semi-automatic and automatic guns could be regulated as well since they too do not meet the specific wording. We would each be left with the right to own a single shot musket gun (most likely not rifled) similar to what the Revolutionary War soldiers used. No less... No more.
Beware of those who argue that automatic rifles were not mentioned in the Constitution and therefore they MUST BE CONTROLLED for there are a lot of things not mentioned in the Constitution as well that they could use as an argument for controlling.
Here are just a few:
1) Websites - Freedom of Speech
2) Email - Freedom of the Press
3) Television/Radio - Freedom of the Press, Speech and Religion
4) Speaker and Amplifiers - Freedom of Speech
5) Twitter/Facebook - Freedom of Speech
6) Electronic Books - Freedom of the Press, Speech, Religion
7) Electronic Body Scanners - not mentioned in searches and seizures.
8) Drones - Freedom of Warrant-less Searches
9) Cars, Cell-phones, Computers - not mentioned when discussing searches and seizures.
If you allow them to control the types of guns allowed under the 2nd Amendment, then you will also be opening up the door to arguments for limiting our Freedom of Speech, Freedom of the Press and Freedom of Religion as well.
Like I always say: Be careful what you ask for... you might just get MORE than you asked for.
Some advice for young people looking for a job
I recently went home to see family back in Southern Illinois (note: anyone about 100 miles from Chicago refers to them being from "Southern" Illinois). There I heard old stories recounted about the family which I relish even though I have heard many of them over a dozen times. I heard the story of how my great-grandfather Karl Vogel came over to America when his uncle, who was already here, paid for his voyage and gave him a job working on his farm. I heard the story about how he slowly earned land from his uncle and eventually had over 120 acres. I heard about how my grandfather Henry Vogel, eventually took over the farm and he employed a man named Jerry Rockers as a hired hand. Jerry would later get his own land and become one of the areas wealthier farmers.
Then I heard the story of "Hinky". Growing up (the youngest of the cousins) I never met Hinky but often heard about him. He was a hired hand that my uncle, Carl Vogel, took on to help on the farm. Carl had taken over the farm after grandpa had retired (although he never really retired fully and kept working on the farm). I asked how he met Hinky and I was told the story of Uncle Carl was driving down the road from Centralia one day when he saw a young man walking on the road. Hinky was one of 16 children and he survived by eating out of trash cans and begging for food. Carl pulled up and asked if he needed a lift to somewhere. Hinky replied, "No. I need a job". Carl asked him if he ever worked on a farm and Hinky replied "No". Carl then asked him if he would like to work on a farm and Hinky replied "Yes" , whereby Carl answered him, "Get in the truck". Hinky came home and became almost one of the family. He ate at the dinner table (it took him a few days to realize that they ate 3 meals EVERY day and he didn't have to shovel down all the food in front of him) and slept in the spare room upstairs. Hinky never asked how much he was going to get paid, or how many hours or days he was going to work, or if the work was dangerous or difficult. He just got in the truck. He never asked about a pension or healthcare or vacation days... he just got in the truck. He never asked about job security or who he was going to work for... he just got in the truck.
Hinky worked for several years for Carl and became a very good farm-hand. Later, he went on to the Air Force where he worked for many years and moved to Oklahoma. But it was Carl driving down the road who picked Hinky up and gave him his first taste of work that got him started. To this day, when Hinky comes to visit his old stomping grounds, he doesn't visit any of his 15 siblings, but instead only comes and visits the Vogel family.
We can learn a lot from Hinky. He shows us the value of work and taking that first step. Too many of our youth are waiting for that "dream job" to appear before them which gives them money, security, healthcare, 3 weeks vacation, retirement plans and stock options. They often pass on that "first job" and fail to "get in the truck". They then wonder why no one will hire them and how they are supposed to get started.
My answer to them is simple: GET IN THE TRUCK!
Then I heard the story of "Hinky". Growing up (the youngest of the cousins) I never met Hinky but often heard about him. He was a hired hand that my uncle, Carl Vogel, took on to help on the farm. Carl had taken over the farm after grandpa had retired (although he never really retired fully and kept working on the farm). I asked how he met Hinky and I was told the story of Uncle Carl was driving down the road from Centralia one day when he saw a young man walking on the road. Hinky was one of 16 children and he survived by eating out of trash cans and begging for food. Carl pulled up and asked if he needed a lift to somewhere. Hinky replied, "No. I need a job". Carl asked him if he ever worked on a farm and Hinky replied "No". Carl then asked him if he would like to work on a farm and Hinky replied "Yes" , whereby Carl answered him, "Get in the truck". Hinky came home and became almost one of the family. He ate at the dinner table (it took him a few days to realize that they ate 3 meals EVERY day and he didn't have to shovel down all the food in front of him) and slept in the spare room upstairs. Hinky never asked how much he was going to get paid, or how many hours or days he was going to work, or if the work was dangerous or difficult. He just got in the truck. He never asked about a pension or healthcare or vacation days... he just got in the truck. He never asked about job security or who he was going to work for... he just got in the truck.
Hinky worked for several years for Carl and became a very good farm-hand. Later, he went on to the Air Force where he worked for many years and moved to Oklahoma. But it was Carl driving down the road who picked Hinky up and gave him his first taste of work that got him started. To this day, when Hinky comes to visit his old stomping grounds, he doesn't visit any of his 15 siblings, but instead only comes and visits the Vogel family.
We can learn a lot from Hinky. He shows us the value of work and taking that first step. Too many of our youth are waiting for that "dream job" to appear before them which gives them money, security, healthcare, 3 weeks vacation, retirement plans and stock options. They often pass on that "first job" and fail to "get in the truck". They then wonder why no one will hire them and how they are supposed to get started.
My answer to them is simple: GET IN THE TRUCK!
Friday, July 20, 2012
The Tale of Two Crimes
In the past week we have seen two different crimes with dramatically different outcomes. The first occurred in Florida at an internet-bar where TWO masked men came in with one brandishing a gun and the other a baseball bat. The two came in smashing computer screens and demanding the people there to hand over their money. But the robbery was cut short when a 71 year-old man with a Concealed-Weapon-Permit took out his gun and shot the would-be robber holding gun. He then chased the two suspects out and managed to hit both of them.These two hoodlums were later apprehended at a local hospital when they sought medical attention for their gun wounds. The man was called a "hero" but he said he was just protecting his wife who was with him at the time.
The second case happened last night when a 24 year-old wearing a gas mask entered a movie theater and began to shoot at the crowd. Over 12 are dead and many more injured. Sadly, no one was in the crowd at the time with a CWP to take down this lunatic and so he was free to rampage until he ran out of bullets because it took several minutes before the police could respond.
Yet, knowing the media and our President, they will paint this story as a reason for MORE gun control. "How did he get those guns? Why wasn't there a 90 day waiting period instead of a mere 10 day waiting period? Why do we need hand guns and rifles anyway? .... and on and on and on...". Obama, who never likes to waste a good crisis will most likely make use of this to his advantage. Our only hope is that because this is an election year he will lay low on the gun-control-parade.
I believe that rather than restricting guns we need to arm more of our citizens so that when things like this happen, WE THE PEOPLE can prevent such madmen from harming anymore than they are allowed.
ON A SIDE NOTE:
The media took no time in trying to connect this madman with the Tea Party. They checked the local Tea Party registry and found a Jim Holmes listed, but later had to retract it as it was not the same person. Great reporting ABC! You show how unprofessional you all are every day we get closer to the election.
The second case happened last night when a 24 year-old wearing a gas mask entered a movie theater and began to shoot at the crowd. Over 12 are dead and many more injured. Sadly, no one was in the crowd at the time with a CWP to take down this lunatic and so he was free to rampage until he ran out of bullets because it took several minutes before the police could respond.
Yet, knowing the media and our President, they will paint this story as a reason for MORE gun control. "How did he get those guns? Why wasn't there a 90 day waiting period instead of a mere 10 day waiting period? Why do we need hand guns and rifles anyway? .... and on and on and on...". Obama, who never likes to waste a good crisis will most likely make use of this to his advantage. Our only hope is that because this is an election year he will lay low on the gun-control-parade.
I believe that rather than restricting guns we need to arm more of our citizens so that when things like this happen, WE THE PEOPLE can prevent such madmen from harming anymore than they are allowed.
ON A SIDE NOTE:
The media took no time in trying to connect this madman with the Tea Party. They checked the local Tea Party registry and found a Jim Holmes listed, but later had to retract it as it was not the same person. Great reporting ABC! You show how unprofessional you all are every day we get closer to the election.
Thursday, July 19, 2012
Are we breeding our brains out?
This thought came to as we were driving past a herd of cows and my kids were talking about how stupid cows were because you scare one cow and they all take off running. They asked me if cows were always this stupid and I replied, "No. they were quite smart animals, but over the years we have bread their brains out of them..
I began to wonder if we are doing the same in our country. The reason I say this is because with all of our societies focus on BEAUTY and NOT BRAINS are we become a more stupid nation? I am not saying that in the past beauty and sexual attraction were not factors, but clearly our society placed high importance on a persons ability to earn a living and support a family in what people looked for in a spouse (and if you look at some of their wedding photos you often come away feeling like "looks" were not a major factor). Today we put so much importance on personal outward beauty that we are prone to overlook other factors such as intelligence and inner-strength. Over a long period of time this can have a genetic effect on a society or country.
Much of this has to do with our media and its promotion of what to look for in a spouse. Through programs like "The Bachelor" and "The Bachelorette" we give our youth the view that all they have to look for in a mate is someone who is "good-looking" and not someone who has character, inner-strength, faith, good work ethic and trustworthiness. (although I have to say from the 2 shows of the Bachelorette I saw this year I have hope, because this girl seems to have her head on straight and is looking for someone who has strength of character and opted-out of the "fantasy room").
Too often I feel our young men and women opt for the good-looking spouse on their "first marriage" and create good-looking but less intelligent and weaker children. Later on their "second marriage" they wake up and realize there is more to a spouse than big-"you know whats" or a tight-butt. But by that time they have had their kids (the good looking stupid ones) and they have no desire to procreate with their new "smarter" and "stronger" spouse.
Eventually I think we will become a nation of TV anchors with all looks and no brains...
Just a thought for consideration...
I began to wonder if we are doing the same in our country. The reason I say this is because with all of our societies focus on BEAUTY and NOT BRAINS are we become a more stupid nation? I am not saying that in the past beauty and sexual attraction were not factors, but clearly our society placed high importance on a persons ability to earn a living and support a family in what people looked for in a spouse (and if you look at some of their wedding photos you often come away feeling like "looks" were not a major factor). Today we put so much importance on personal outward beauty that we are prone to overlook other factors such as intelligence and inner-strength. Over a long period of time this can have a genetic effect on a society or country.
Much of this has to do with our media and its promotion of what to look for in a spouse. Through programs like "The Bachelor" and "The Bachelorette" we give our youth the view that all they have to look for in a mate is someone who is "good-looking" and not someone who has character, inner-strength, faith, good work ethic and trustworthiness. (although I have to say from the 2 shows of the Bachelorette I saw this year I have hope, because this girl seems to have her head on straight and is looking for someone who has strength of character and opted-out of the "fantasy room").
Too often I feel our young men and women opt for the good-looking spouse on their "first marriage" and create good-looking but less intelligent and weaker children. Later on their "second marriage" they wake up and realize there is more to a spouse than big-"you know whats" or a tight-butt. But by that time they have had their kids (the good looking stupid ones) and they have no desire to procreate with their new "smarter" and "stronger" spouse.
Eventually I think we will become a nation of TV anchors with all looks and no brains...
Just a thought for consideration...
DEAL WITH IT!
I am tired of all the whining that I see today around me!
Life ain't perfect... DEAL WITH IT!
- Thank God it's short and doesn't go on for an eternity!
You made bad choices in the past..... DEAL WITH IT!
- The choices were yours. Own them!
You got caught up in the mortgage bubble and you are upside down now?.... DEAL WITH IT!
- Pay off your mortgage and don't be a weeny and "walk away"
You can't get the HIGH PAYING dream job you want? ..... DEAL WITH IT!
- Take the job that PAYS THE BILLS and PUTS FOOD ON THE TABLE!
You can't be as happy and fulfilled as those around "seem to be"? ..... DEAL WITH IT!
- It's all a mirage. They are just as miserable as you!
You can't do all the things your friends/family are able to do? .... DEAL WITH IT!
- We all have 24 hours a day to spend the same amount of energy. Stop wasting your time and
energy looking at how your friends and family are spending their time and energy!
You can't afford the same medical care as the rich guy? .... DEAL WITH IT!
- At least you HAVE a doctor. So many in this world DON'T!
You can't go on European vacations like all your friends?.... DEAL WITH IT!
- Europe is overrated (and collapsing). Go camping!
You might have to put off your plans to retire at age 55 or 65? .... DEAL WITH IT!
- When Social Security was passed the average life-expectancy was 59 years! Only a small
fraction of people were expected to collect Social Security. Now are life expectancy is 79!
You got sucked into going to college to get a worthless degree and no job? .... DEAL WITH IT!
- Put your diploma in a nice little frame and accept it. Then educate yourself! Read, Go to
Lectures. Go to your Junior College and take some meaningful classes. Also, pay off your
loans and make good on your promise.
You don't like what I or others have to say? .... DEAL WITH IT!
Freedom of speech is a two way road. You can't tell others to shut up if you don't want them
to shut you up! You don't like what I have to say? You don't have to listen! It makes you
sad or upset? Then the problem is with you. You never grew up out of childhood and learned
to be an adult.
Life ain't perfect... DEAL WITH IT!
- Thank God it's short and doesn't go on for an eternity!
You made bad choices in the past..... DEAL WITH IT!
- The choices were yours. Own them!
You got caught up in the mortgage bubble and you are upside down now?.... DEAL WITH IT!
- Pay off your mortgage and don't be a weeny and "walk away"
You can't get the HIGH PAYING dream job you want? ..... DEAL WITH IT!
- Take the job that PAYS THE BILLS and PUTS FOOD ON THE TABLE!
You can't be as happy and fulfilled as those around "seem to be"? ..... DEAL WITH IT!
- It's all a mirage. They are just as miserable as you!
You can't do all the things your friends/family are able to do? .... DEAL WITH IT!
- We all have 24 hours a day to spend the same amount of energy. Stop wasting your time and
energy looking at how your friends and family are spending their time and energy!
You can't afford the same medical care as the rich guy? .... DEAL WITH IT!
- At least you HAVE a doctor. So many in this world DON'T!
You can't go on European vacations like all your friends?.... DEAL WITH IT!
- Europe is overrated (and collapsing). Go camping!
You might have to put off your plans to retire at age 55 or 65? .... DEAL WITH IT!
- When Social Security was passed the average life-expectancy was 59 years! Only a small
fraction of people were expected to collect Social Security. Now are life expectancy is 79!
You got sucked into going to college to get a worthless degree and no job? .... DEAL WITH IT!
- Put your diploma in a nice little frame and accept it. Then educate yourself! Read, Go to
Lectures. Go to your Junior College and take some meaningful classes. Also, pay off your
loans and make good on your promise.
You don't like what I or others have to say? .... DEAL WITH IT!
Freedom of speech is a two way road. You can't tell others to shut up if you don't want them
to shut you up! You don't like what I have to say? You don't have to listen! It makes you
sad or upset? Then the problem is with you. You never grew up out of childhood and learned
to be an adult.
Wednesday, July 18, 2012
Interesting trend of Obama's Job Approval
As I have mentioned before I like to check out the polls at RealClearPolitics.com regularly. The people at this website take polls from a variety of sources and averages them together. However, you must understand that not all polls are equal. When polling the public pollsters will ask the person if they are a registered voter (or not) or if they are likely to be voting this election (or not). Normally we don't really concern ourselves with these differences, but in an election year they become more and more important.
I did some compiling of some poll data and found an interesting trend in the President's Job Approval Rating poll that I think is being missed by many of the news sites by only looking at the LIKELY VOTER polls.
What I found was that the Presidents numbers are much worse and also trending to even worse. Below is a graph showing the running average of all poll numbers from January 2012 of "Likely Voters".
As you can see the President's Job Approval Number among those who will most likely be voting is not good and is trending towards lower and lower. I think this shows how most Americans REALLY feel about what he is doing.
I did some compiling of some poll data and found an interesting trend in the President's Job Approval Rating poll that I think is being missed by many of the news sites by only looking at the LIKELY VOTER polls.
What I found was that the Presidents numbers are much worse and also trending to even worse. Below is a graph showing the running average of all poll numbers from January 2012 of "Likely Voters".
As you can see the President's Job Approval Number among those who will most likely be voting is not good and is trending towards lower and lower. I think this shows how most Americans REALLY feel about what he is doing.
Friday, July 13, 2012
Polling data: unsure and outliers
I often go to Real Clear Politics website to get the latest opinion polls on Obama's approval rating. I think they do an admiral job at trying to remain bi-partisan in their reporting of the many polls taken on politics and the president. However, there are two things I have come to conclude:
1) Some polling groups come out with some WILDLY out of norm responses.
2) There are still a lot of "not sure" people out there.
Out of norm polling data
As to the out of norm responses, what I mean here is that in the world of statistics you have what if commonly referred to as "outliers". These are statistical anomalies that should be thrown out if their are outside of the statistical norm. Let me first say, there is no mathematical algorithm for determining an outlier and it can be quite subjective (you know it when you see it). For example, lets say we have the following numbers reported: +2, +1,0,-2,-3,+10. The statistical variation of the first 5 is 14/6 = 2.33 so therefore +10 is outside of the variation since its closes neighbor is a difference of 7 (10-3). It should be considered to be outlier and therefore rejected as a acceptable poll. About a month ago, such an anomaly did occur as MOST of the polls for Obama were negative (or trending negative), yet out of the blue, Bloomberg showed a +9 rating for the president.
Below is a screenshot from RealClearPolitics website showing a sampling of the various polls taken around the 6/15-6/18 time frame.
As you can see, most of the polls at that time showed approximately a -1 rating for Obama. But LO AND BEHOLD, Bloomberg comes to the rescue and gives Obama a +9 bump, sending the average from a negative (-2/5 or -0.4) to a positive level of +7/6 ( 1.16 ). (Personally, I hope someone in the Obama administration sent the Bloomberg polling group some flowers and candy in thanks for their gift to the president)
Not sure ??
The next issue I see that is not taken into account is the high number of "not sure". Frankly at this point (3.5 years into his administration) we as Americans should have SOME OPINION as to how we think the President is doing. To me, you get a WHOLE different view when you take into account the "not sure" and place them in the "disapprove" category.
Below is a snapshot from www.realclearpolitics.com on Friday 7/13/2012 at 10:00 am PST
If you took at missing "not sure" as "Disapprove" you would get a rating of -5.5 instead of -1.3 (a much more clearer view on how the President is REALLY doing).
Note: In my opinion, all Presidential polls should only offer Approve or Disapprove as their only two choices. We cannot be all "mamby-pamby" when it comes to the direction our country is going. Either you are FOR HIM or you are AGAINST HIM. So .... MAKE A CHOICE!
In conclusion, let me say I am not putting down Real Clear Politics fr their coverage of the President's approval rating. Like I said in the beginning, overall I think they do some good work and try not be partisan in their approach. and so they just take the numbers that are given them. But we as citizens need to understand statistics better and see that there is often more to the numbers than just averages and spreads. We need to use also our gut instincts as well
1) Some polling groups come out with some WILDLY out of norm responses.
2) There are still a lot of "not sure" people out there.
Out of norm polling data
As to the out of norm responses, what I mean here is that in the world of statistics you have what if commonly referred to as "outliers". These are statistical anomalies that should be thrown out if their are outside of the statistical norm. Let me first say, there is no mathematical algorithm for determining an outlier and it can be quite subjective (you know it when you see it). For example, lets say we have the following numbers reported: +2, +1,0,-2,-3,+10. The statistical variation of the first 5 is 14/6 = 2.33 so therefore +10 is outside of the variation since its closes neighbor is a difference of 7 (10-3). It should be considered to be outlier and therefore rejected as a acceptable poll. About a month ago, such an anomaly did occur as MOST of the polls for Obama were negative (or trending negative), yet out of the blue, Bloomberg showed a +9 rating for the president.
Below is a screenshot from RealClearPolitics website showing a sampling of the various polls taken around the 6/15-6/18 time frame.
As you can see, most of the polls at that time showed approximately a -1 rating for Obama. But LO AND BEHOLD, Bloomberg comes to the rescue and gives Obama a +9 bump, sending the average from a negative (-2/5 or -0.4) to a positive level of +7/6 ( 1.16 ). (Personally, I hope someone in the Obama administration sent the Bloomberg polling group some flowers and candy in thanks for their gift to the president)
Not sure ??
The next issue I see that is not taken into account is the high number of "not sure". Frankly at this point (3.5 years into his administration) we as Americans should have SOME OPINION as to how we think the President is doing. To me, you get a WHOLE different view when you take into account the "not sure" and place them in the "disapprove" category.
Below is a snapshot from www.realclearpolitics.com on Friday 7/13/2012 at 10:00 am PST
If you took at missing "not sure" as "Disapprove" you would get a rating of -5.5 instead of -1.3 (a much more clearer view on how the President is REALLY doing).
Note: In my opinion, all Presidential polls should only offer Approve or Disapprove as their only two choices. We cannot be all "mamby-pamby" when it comes to the direction our country is going. Either you are FOR HIM or you are AGAINST HIM. So .... MAKE A CHOICE!
In conclusion, let me say I am not putting down Real Clear Politics fr their coverage of the President's approval rating. Like I said in the beginning, overall I think they do some good work and try not be partisan in their approach. and so they just take the numbers that are given them. But we as citizens need to understand statistics better and see that there is often more to the numbers than just averages and spreads. We need to use also our gut instincts as well
Monday, July 9, 2012
Would you vote for an ATHEIST?
There was a survey done by Gallup and the results were very disheartening as 54% said YES they would vote for an atheist.
The idea here is we would vote for atheist if they would return our country to its former level of "prosperity" (i.e. - I have a job, a house , a car, vacations, and all the medicine I need). 54% are willing to sell their souls in return for all of those things fore-mentioned.
Here again we see how Americans have been con-ed into the idea that religion is "worthless" and "unnecessary" in a modern world and all the matters is "the Dow is UP and unemployment is DOWN". We have also been duped by the historians who have re-written history and told us that the founding fathers were all "deists" and that this is synonymous with "atheist" when it was not the case at all. Writers like Richard Dawkins have spewed their ideology that atheists are more trustworthy and moral than the best of the religiously-minded. They believe that they can be "Good without God" and some ancient code handed down by priests and rabbis is unnecessary and ridiculous.
But really! You would rather trust a person who believes that he only has these few short years here on earth to accumulate all that he can and enjoy as much as he can before he dissolves back into dirt only to be used by some flower sitting next to his headstone. You would trust the person who has no one to be held accountable to once he ends this life? A person who believes he can be as immoral as he wants to be and that he only needs to hide his immorality enough to go undetected by those around him until he dies. That he is UN-accountable to anyone?
The word to look at here is : accountable. This words root word is of course "account" and is synonymous with bookkeeping (a tracking of debits and credits). If we know someone is keeping score we have a different outlook on life and it alters the choices we make. Children make different choices if they KNOW Mom and Dad will find out (or might find out). They may walk away from drugs if they know Mom and Dad might drug test them when they get home from a party or a sleep-over. Children might also alter what they say or share on-line if the KNOW Mom and Dad can see what they say and do.
Atheists refute this either of two ways.
The first way is they make the absurd claim that man is basically good and is evolving to becoming even better. We have "evolved" our way to goodness and morality and have no more need for a "God". We have in effect become God. We are all powerful (Have you see what we can do with an atom?). We are all knowing (We've discovered the Higgs-Boson particle!). We can be everywhere at the same time (have you seen all the cameras we have around the world and our drones flying over head?). We can know your thoughts (Okay, we can't read your thoughts, but we can read your emails and your facebook pages and get a good idea of what you are thinking). We are all good (Have you seen how much money we have thrown at defeating poverty?). But the truth is we are not evolving to goodness, but instead we are becoming more and more evil. We can spew more lies to more people than ever before. We can kill more children with more efficiency than Hitler would have imagined possible. We can edit video and make the unreal.. real, a lie into the truth. We can wipe out peoples savings and steal peoples credit with a few clicks of a mouse.
The second argument they use is that we will hold each other accountable and we have no need for an invisible "boogey-man" to hold us in line. Atheists claim that the news media will hold our politicians accountable and make sure we the voters know what they are doing. But looking at this administration and how it treats the mainstream media as its personal lapdogs (attack dogs when they need them) we see this just is not the case. They hide behind terms like "Executive Privilege" and sealed documents labeled "Confidential" and our media complacently bends to their will as if under a "Jedi-mind-control" (these are not the memos you are looking for).
I am not saying that we need to only vote for Bible-thumping-Praise-Jesus-born-again politicians, but we do need to find those individuals who respect faith and have a healthy fear of their future judgment. People who know that no one ever "gets away with murder" (or any other offense for that matter). Maybe they won't ask "What would Jesus do?" but at least they might ask "Will God hold me accountable for this and be pleased with me?"
The idea here is we would vote for atheist if they would return our country to its former level of "prosperity" (i.e. - I have a job, a house , a car, vacations, and all the medicine I need). 54% are willing to sell their souls in return for all of those things fore-mentioned.
Here again we see how Americans have been con-ed into the idea that religion is "worthless" and "unnecessary" in a modern world and all the matters is "the Dow is UP and unemployment is DOWN". We have also been duped by the historians who have re-written history and told us that the founding fathers were all "deists" and that this is synonymous with "atheist" when it was not the case at all. Writers like Richard Dawkins have spewed their ideology that atheists are more trustworthy and moral than the best of the religiously-minded. They believe that they can be "Good without God" and some ancient code handed down by priests and rabbis is unnecessary and ridiculous.
But really! You would rather trust a person who believes that he only has these few short years here on earth to accumulate all that he can and enjoy as much as he can before he dissolves back into dirt only to be used by some flower sitting next to his headstone. You would trust the person who has no one to be held accountable to once he ends this life? A person who believes he can be as immoral as he wants to be and that he only needs to hide his immorality enough to go undetected by those around him until he dies. That he is UN-accountable to anyone?
The word to look at here is : accountable. This words root word is of course "account" and is synonymous with bookkeeping (a tracking of debits and credits). If we know someone is keeping score we have a different outlook on life and it alters the choices we make. Children make different choices if they KNOW Mom and Dad will find out (or might find out). They may walk away from drugs if they know Mom and Dad might drug test them when they get home from a party or a sleep-over. Children might also alter what they say or share on-line if the KNOW Mom and Dad can see what they say and do.
Atheists refute this either of two ways.
The first way is they make the absurd claim that man is basically good and is evolving to becoming even better. We have "evolved" our way to goodness and morality and have no more need for a "God". We have in effect become God. We are all powerful (Have you see what we can do with an atom?). We are all knowing (We've discovered the Higgs-Boson particle!). We can be everywhere at the same time (have you seen all the cameras we have around the world and our drones flying over head?). We can know your thoughts (Okay, we can't read your thoughts, but we can read your emails and your facebook pages and get a good idea of what you are thinking). We are all good (Have you seen how much money we have thrown at defeating poverty?). But the truth is we are not evolving to goodness, but instead we are becoming more and more evil. We can spew more lies to more people than ever before. We can kill more children with more efficiency than Hitler would have imagined possible. We can edit video and make the unreal.. real, a lie into the truth. We can wipe out peoples savings and steal peoples credit with a few clicks of a mouse.
The second argument they use is that we will hold each other accountable and we have no need for an invisible "boogey-man" to hold us in line. Atheists claim that the news media will hold our politicians accountable and make sure we the voters know what they are doing. But looking at this administration and how it treats the mainstream media as its personal lapdogs (attack dogs when they need them) we see this just is not the case. They hide behind terms like "Executive Privilege" and sealed documents labeled "Confidential" and our media complacently bends to their will as if under a "Jedi-mind-control" (these are not the memos you are looking for).
I am not saying that we need to only vote for Bible-thumping-Praise-Jesus-born-again politicians, but we do need to find those individuals who respect faith and have a healthy fear of their future judgment. People who know that no one ever "gets away with murder" (or any other offense for that matter). Maybe they won't ask "What would Jesus do?" but at least they might ask "Will God hold me accountable for this and be pleased with me?"
This is a test... this is ONLY a test...
Kids today no longer have to sit through the 10 seconds of irritating off-key notes with a person telling them that "this is a test ... this is ONLY a test..." as the FCC no longer requires TV stations to participate in this protocol.
I bring this up because as we watch the lies coming out of the White House lately we wonder how they can be so bald-faced in their approach. For example, recently a White House official claimed on the air that they "never used the word TAX when making their argument to the Supreme Court", yet the court record is FILLED with them referring to it as a TAX and NOT A PENALTY. In another example, they were confronted with making false statements about Mitt Romney that had been debunked by CNN and the Washington Post, they continued in their lie and would not admit they made a mistake.
How can they be so audacious and blatant in their lying?
Because back in 2008 they TESTED the media to see how COMPLACENT they would be if confronted with an absolute bald-faced-lie. See the following video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E7QxgN5YegE
(go to 1:50 in the video)
So Obama claimed that his parents getting together was because of the Selma Alabama marches. But there's a big problem with his story. The Selma marches occurred in 1965 and Obama was born in 1961.. 4 years EARLIER!
What reporter watching this was thinking ... "Wait a minute! That can't be possible!". Yet no one reported it. ABC,CBC, NBC all went silent. They knew it was a lie and divulging it would end the Obama campaign and they were not going to do it... no matter how much coverage they would get by showing it to the public.
This was a TEST of the media convictions (or lack thereof), and their complacency with lies and corruption and sadly enough, they passed the with flying colors. Having shown that they would not make an issue of a lie so black as black, they knew the media would not reveal any lie of lighter shades of gray. To me, I don't see how today's "reporters" (they should be called "talking-point-messengers") can look themselves in the mirror and have any sense of self-respect. If I were in their shoes I would be saying "I am nothing more than a mouth piece for the DNC and the radical left" and I would need to be kept away from guns and objects with sharp points out of fear of a giving myself a self-inflicted-mortal-wound.
Let's hope that some reporters somewhere regains their self-respect and decides to report the truth no matter where it leads.
I bring this up because as we watch the lies coming out of the White House lately we wonder how they can be so bald-faced in their approach. For example, recently a White House official claimed on the air that they "never used the word TAX when making their argument to the Supreme Court", yet the court record is FILLED with them referring to it as a TAX and NOT A PENALTY. In another example, they were confronted with making false statements about Mitt Romney that had been debunked by CNN and the Washington Post, they continued in their lie and would not admit they made a mistake.
How can they be so audacious and blatant in their lying?
Because back in 2008 they TESTED the media to see how COMPLACENT they would be if confronted with an absolute bald-faced-lie. See the following video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E7QxgN5YegE
(go to 1:50 in the video)
So Obama claimed that his parents getting together was because of the Selma Alabama marches. But there's a big problem with his story. The Selma marches occurred in 1965 and Obama was born in 1961.. 4 years EARLIER!
What reporter watching this was thinking ... "Wait a minute! That can't be possible!". Yet no one reported it. ABC,CBC, NBC all went silent. They knew it was a lie and divulging it would end the Obama campaign and they were not going to do it... no matter how much coverage they would get by showing it to the public.
This was a TEST of the media convictions (or lack thereof), and their complacency with lies and corruption and sadly enough, they passed the with flying colors. Having shown that they would not make an issue of a lie so black as black, they knew the media would not reveal any lie of lighter shades of gray. To me, I don't see how today's "reporters" (they should be called "talking-point-messengers") can look themselves in the mirror and have any sense of self-respect. If I were in their shoes I would be saying "I am nothing more than a mouth piece for the DNC and the radical left" and I would need to be kept away from guns and objects with sharp points out of fear of a giving myself a self-inflicted-mortal-wound.
Let's hope that some reporters somewhere regains their self-respect and decides to report the truth no matter where it leads.
When pigs fly....
Well 2012 might be the year that everything that was impossible ... will become possible! I say this not because of the upcoming election or the Myan calendar, but instead because of a recent change in the Department of Transportation (DOT) to allow PIGS to fly commercial airlines.
See article:
http://radio.foxnews.com/toddstarnes/top-stories/dot-wants-to-allow-pigs-horses-onboard-jetliners.html
Now all those times when we would say something would happen....WHEN PIGS FLY! are about to all come true at once.
But of course not all of those predictions will be bad either:
1) We will have a Mormom president ... WHEN PIGS FLY!
2) We will cut entitlements ... WHEN PIGS FLY!
3) We will get rid of the IRS .. WHEN PIGS FLY!
4) We will get a Balanced Budget Amendment passed ... WHEN PIGS FLY!
5) We will overthrow Roe-vs-Wade ... WHEN PIGS FLY!
6) Hollywood would become a bastion of conservatism .... WHEN PIGS FLY!
But on a serious note, just what is the DOT doing allowing HORSES and PIGS on commercial airlines? Have you seen the rates for flying commercial today? Does the DOT think that making airlines provide services to accommodate passengers with pigs or horses to board these flights will NOT affect the price we all pay? The airline industry as a whole already is depressed and having troubles and now to add this to their list of requirements will only cause more harm than good.
See article:
http://radio.foxnews.com/toddstarnes/top-stories/dot-wants-to-allow-pigs-horses-onboard-jetliners.html
Now all those times when we would say something would happen....WHEN PIGS FLY! are about to all come true at once.
But of course not all of those predictions will be bad either:
1) We will have a Mormom president ... WHEN PIGS FLY!
2) We will cut entitlements ... WHEN PIGS FLY!
3) We will get rid of the IRS .. WHEN PIGS FLY!
4) We will get a Balanced Budget Amendment passed ... WHEN PIGS FLY!
5) We will overthrow Roe-vs-Wade ... WHEN PIGS FLY!
6) Hollywood would become a bastion of conservatism .... WHEN PIGS FLY!
But on a serious note, just what is the DOT doing allowing HORSES and PIGS on commercial airlines? Have you seen the rates for flying commercial today? Does the DOT think that making airlines provide services to accommodate passengers with pigs or horses to board these flights will NOT affect the price we all pay? The airline industry as a whole already is depressed and having troubles and now to add this to their list of requirements will only cause more harm than good.
Thursday, July 5, 2012
Freedom is our ONLY natural resource
When you look at the United States of America and compare it to other countries you realize that FREEDOM is the only "natural resource" that WE HAVE that other countries simply don't have. We have embodied in our Constitution that the INDIVIDUAL is more important than the government. Other forms of government (socialism and communism) put society and the "community" over the individual, but not here. That is why our Declaration of Independence says, "all men are created equal", and lays that belief at the feet of "the creator".
Other countries have oil, gas, coal, iron, copper, gold, diamonds, etc all in great supply. But all of that doesn't matter which is why so many flock from those countries of "wealth of material" to our country with its "wealth of freedom". The freedom to believe what you want to believe, say what you want you want to say, own what you want what you want to own.
But sadly, that freedom is being squandered by some and destroyed by others. Some are trading in their freedom for comfort. As Ben Franklin said, "Those desire security over freedom deserve neither freedom or security". Many would rather receive a handout from the government and become their slaves rather than work their own way and provide their own security. Many others would rather receive "free healthcare" that will ultimately reduce the length of their own life rather than pay for their own.
Let's not squander the one resource our country has: FREEDOM. Let us reclaim that freedom and take back our country from those who fear and loath it. But remember, FREEDOM IS NOT FREE! We cannot wait on the sidelines for someone else to contribute money to the candidates we support. We cannot wait for the public schools and our public school teachers to change their ways and teach our child to love our country. If we must pay money to send them to private schools and forgo trips to Hawaii or Florida then that is what we must do. Our kids may want to spend the summer on the beach, but if they will get a better appreciation for our country by visiting historical sites, then that we must do too. If talking to our "friends and neighbors" about the corruption in Washington and why we must not re-elect Obama to a second term will cause you to lose "friends and neighbors" then SO BE IT!
Our Founding Fathers put their lives and the lives of their children on the line because by signing the Declaration of Independence they were signing their own death warrants. If we lost, they would have been executed by being drawn-and-quartered (disemboweled while still alive) for high treason against the king. Their families would have lost all their property and would have been destitute for the rest of their lives. They risked everything to give us what we have today.
So we must also.
Other countries have oil, gas, coal, iron, copper, gold, diamonds, etc all in great supply. But all of that doesn't matter which is why so many flock from those countries of "wealth of material" to our country with its "wealth of freedom". The freedom to believe what you want to believe, say what you want you want to say, own what you want what you want to own.
But sadly, that freedom is being squandered by some and destroyed by others. Some are trading in their freedom for comfort. As Ben Franklin said, "Those desire security over freedom deserve neither freedom or security". Many would rather receive a handout from the government and become their slaves rather than work their own way and provide their own security. Many others would rather receive "free healthcare" that will ultimately reduce the length of their own life rather than pay for their own.
Let's not squander the one resource our country has: FREEDOM. Let us reclaim that freedom and take back our country from those who fear and loath it. But remember, FREEDOM IS NOT FREE! We cannot wait on the sidelines for someone else to contribute money to the candidates we support. We cannot wait for the public schools and our public school teachers to change their ways and teach our child to love our country. If we must pay money to send them to private schools and forgo trips to Hawaii or Florida then that is what we must do. Our kids may want to spend the summer on the beach, but if they will get a better appreciation for our country by visiting historical sites, then that we must do too. If talking to our "friends and neighbors" about the corruption in Washington and why we must not re-elect Obama to a second term will cause you to lose "friends and neighbors" then SO BE IT!
Our Founding Fathers put their lives and the lives of their children on the line because by signing the Declaration of Independence they were signing their own death warrants. If we lost, they would have been executed by being drawn-and-quartered (disemboweled while still alive) for high treason against the king. Their families would have lost all their property and would have been destitute for the rest of their lives. They risked everything to give us what we have today.
So we must also.
Tuesday, July 3, 2012
Other things government should make us purchase
Here are a few other things the government should make us buy and why
1) Home Computer
Why: Eventually we will all gave to use one to make it in this world and our children need to
learn as soon as possible. Also, if everyone had a computer, we can make the fed gov.
more "green" since we could get rid of all paper documents.
2) An American made electric car (ahemm.. GM Volt)
Why: Get us off of ugly fossil fuels (but of course we will still be generating most of the power
from oil/gas burning power plants). and stimulate the US economy.
3) Life Insurance
Why: Just as we all pay taxes,.... we all eventually die and therefore we should all have to make
sure we take care of our families.
4) Buy home safety equipment
Why: We all need to be prepared for ANY kind of emergency. Flood, Fire, Tornado, Hurricane,
Pestilence, Plague, Civil Unrest, Zombies, ...
I would like to hear from you. What other areas do YOU think the government should force us to buy products in for our own good and WHY ?
1) Home Computer
Why: Eventually we will all gave to use one to make it in this world and our children need to
learn as soon as possible. Also, if everyone had a computer, we can make the fed gov.
more "green" since we could get rid of all paper documents.
2) An American made electric car (ahemm.. GM Volt)
Why: Get us off of ugly fossil fuels (but of course we will still be generating most of the power
from oil/gas burning power plants). and stimulate the US economy.
3) Life Insurance
Why: Just as we all pay taxes,.... we all eventually die and therefore we should all have to make
sure we take care of our families.
4) Buy home safety equipment
Why: We all need to be prepared for ANY kind of emergency. Flood, Fire, Tornado, Hurricane,
Pestilence, Plague, Civil Unrest, Zombies, ...
I would like to hear from you. What other areas do YOU think the government should force us to buy products in for our own good and WHY ?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)