Wednesday, February 29, 2012

A Lesson in Liberalism

My half-sister, who is much younger than I, considers herself a liberal. She graduated from NY University with a degree in psychology four years ago. She put that degree to work for 6 months working as a social worker in an elementary school. She found that the bureaucracy and red tape made it nearly impossible for her to do her job to help at risk kids or kids with special needs.

One of her goals in life is to be self-sufficient and to live off the power grid. The first step for her to reach that goal was to learn how to farm. She never had a very high opinion of food manufacturers and routinely blames big corporations (not personal responsibility) for making humans addicted to fats and sugars that are making us unhealthy. She believes strongly that organic foods are the only way to go. She spent several years working on a farm learning how to grow crops and how to raise animals to make dairy products.

To learn more about different crops and animals she took a job on a Kauai (Hawaiian Island) farm. She likes the work and loves the scenery of the gorgeous tropical island, but only worked the job for a meager six months. She was anxious to leave, why? She did not care for the people. She classified a majority of the people on the island as “moochers”. As a farmer, my sister did not make much in the way of a salary. Because she was poor, many of the locals tried to coax her into getting “free” meals and “free” care at a variety of different sources including churches. But as a responsible and able human being my sister did not consider herself as being a person who needs or deserves any handouts. She concluded if she needed more money, she can get another job.

What made my sister angry about the whole situation on Kauai is that all of the people receiving handouts were all very well educated people capable of working, but refuse – they were living their dream of being “surfer beach bums”. They lived in tents and each night they would sit around a camp fire drinking and smoking pot. They would brag about all their college degrees, and of course, lecture each other on how to make America a better place to live. Their view of America is not much different than Woody Guthrie’s 1940 song “This Land is Your Land”. In other words, they believe America should be a welfare state supporting them and their surfing hobby.

My sister was obviously puzzled to see normal and smart people unwilling to work, but instead choose to be parasites on society. This was not her vision of welfare. Yes, welfare was for the poor, but not for people who choose to be poor. If everyone lived as Woody Guthrie preaches in his famous song, then where would the wealth come from for those free meals and free clinics? After all, if everyone chose to live as a “deadbeat” there would be no wealth, there would be ingenuity to create products, and there would be no one to grow the crops and cook the free meals.

And what’s even worse was that a majority of these of parasite moochers complained about their free meals and were not in the least bit grateful for what they received. These parasites would complain about everything that is wrong with society, but they refuse to take any action. People have a responsibility to themselves and to others to make a positive impact on society. People should never choose to be a burden on society. And if people refuse to have a positive impact on society, then they should have no right to complain. When people become part of the problem and not part of the solution, they have absolutely no right to complain.

I detest people who choose to be parasites that are nothing more than carbon emitting oxygen thieves. But I can at least credit these deadbeats with educating my sister on how welfare provides little incentive for people to advance themselves. Thus, their actions are making her viewpoints more conservative.

My Book: Is America Dying? (, Barnes and Noble)

Tuesday, February 28, 2012

We Are Luck to be Alive - Today

I have said it before, many people consider me a pessimist, but I am a realist. It may be sad, but in my opinion, those of us who are alive today are the lucky ones. I do not have much confidence in the future of our country, especially in the next 100 years. What are some of the problems facing future generations?

One problem is our national polarity. Problems and issues are not resolved when everyone is more interested in revenge, excuses, and blaming their counterparts for causing all our national problems and issues. In other words, we have become a nation of problem creators and not a nation of problem solvers. There is simply no individual accountability or responsibility anymore and this trend is getting worse each year. Unfortunately, technology has worked more to polarize than to unite Americans, and this trend will continue to get worse as technology expands.

One issue causing polarity is our ever increasing narcissism. Every person seems to be a “know it all” and is only concerned about me, myself and I. Politicians and media pundits are not concerned about doing what is best for the country, but doing what is best for themselves. CEO’s do what is best for them and not for their company and employees. Everyone thinks they understand the math and science behind the problems facing the country, when the fact of the matter is that most Americans are illiterate, especially when it comes to math and science.

Our national fiscal situation is also a major concern. In just the next few decades, the interest on our debt will equal our defense budget. By 2050, the nation faces a 50 trillion dollar unfunded liability for entitlement spending and other union and government retirement plans.

Population increases will place a huge burden on our resources including food, water, healthcare, and energy.

Education continues to be a major issue facing our nation with more kids dropping out each year and more kids failing to have basic math and reading skills to survive in the real world.

Whether or not climate change is manmade or not, solutions to carbon emissions merely slow the process by a few meager percentage points. In other words, nothing is going to stop carbon emissions from going up (unless we use carbon scrubbing technology), and it is going cost our nation trillions of dollars for a negligible difference. Climate change is one example of how government is failing to come up with both a cost effective and efficient methodology to solve the problem. Carbon taxes and expensive green energy solutions will cost our economy jobs and businesses will lose opportunities.

Each year more and more people move into poverty and more and more people are relying on charitable and government handouts to survive. No nation can endure this growing expense as witnessed by Greece and Ireland. In other words, the U.S. is becoming a welfare state. Tough decisions need to be made, but no one has the fortitude to do so.

The bottom line is that our national problems are not going to go away. Every nation faces a breaking a point and for the United States it is closer than what most people realize. If drastic changes are not made soon, then expect the lives of future generations to be one marred in poverty, addictions, starvation, disease, illiteracy, government reliance, and living amongst decaying and crumbling infrastructures. I hate to say it; but better days have passed and we are lucky to be alive today.

My Book: Is America Dying? (, Barnes and Noble)

Friday, February 24, 2012

Playing God

Many liberals may not believe in God or practice religion, but many act as if they are God. No, I am not specifically talking about ego maniacs such as our President and his naïve followers that think he is the Messiah. I am actually talking about ideologies followed by any progressive left wing commoner. That is right, many liberal philosophies not only make little sense, but they are outright hypocritical and contradict many of their basic conceptionalized beliefs.

Liberal fiscal policy is a good example. Liberals support a welfare state and numerous Ponzi scheme programs such as social security, Medicare, Medicaid, ObamaCare, food stamps, and other government handout programs. In order to support these programs they require a massive tax revenue base and therefore, population growth of taxpaying citizens is essential. However, this is not happening? Instead, liberals are playing God promoting abortion and expanding the population base dependent on welfare (ObamaCare is a good present day example). How is this playing God? Well, killing a fetus is playing God. Also, liberals claim to be the Party of science and are more apt to support Darwin’s theory of evolution over the Biblical theory for the creation of the universe and life. But, liberals contradict their own beliefs by attempting to alter Darwin’s theory: “survival of the fittest”. Liberals want to spread massive amounts of wealth from the rich to the poor to support the lives of irresponsible people. Like many conservatives, I believe in helping those that deserve help by practicing compassionate conservatism. Irresponsible people are those who are unwilling to take responsibility for their own lives and are unwilling to work for their charitable gifts. On the other hand, responsible people do not accept welfare and then blow it on drugs, alcohol, and other material things while neglecting their children. There are many people that do not deserve welfare or any assistance of any kind. This includes those educated oxygen thieves that have decided to live on beaches waiting for those big waves. And what’s worse, most compassionate people do not need the government to play God by deciding how to spread their wealth. Educated people can decide which charities to contribute without government interference. The difference between liberalism and conservatism: Liberals want to take “other people’s money” and then they want to play God by deciding how to distribute that money.

Liberals are trying to play God on other subjects including global warming. Once again, they think they can “alter” evolution by squandering “other people’s” hard earned dollars. There is an underlying misguided liberal theme: Liberals feel any issue can be solved by throwing “other people’s” hard earned dollars at the problem. We do this for everything. Let’s improve education by throwing more money at the problem. Let’s improve the homeless issue by throwing more money at the problem. However, money is only one small variable out of thousands. This is why the decline in education is not being corrected even though we spend more money per capita on education. And our national homeless rate is increasing even though the United States spends more on welfare than any other country in the world. Liberals need to stop playing God. If they want to correct a problem then they are more than welcome to donate their hard earned dollars to that cause, but don’t expect to use “other people’s money” to fix your favorite cause. This is simply irresponsible righteous behavior. No one has the right to play to God.

My Book: Is America Dying? (Barnes and Noble,

Wednesday, February 22, 2012

The Regressive Party

One favorite label that progressives or liberals like to place on conservatives is that they call them the regressive party. Regressive is defined as tending to return or to revert. It is also defined as decreasing proportionately the amount of taxes – regressive tax. Regression is defined as a trend or shift toward a lower or less perfect state – for instance a disease, body function, mental state, or motion can all regress. And yes, the definition of progressive is the opposite – moving forward or advancing in incremental steps. At first glance the regressive label does not seem fair. Although I am conservative my philosophies of implementing a fair tax would yield more revenue for both individual citizens and the federal government. My personal story is that I grew up in poverty – but I have given my fair share of income in taxes and charities without ever accepting a penny in federal handouts. I have helped foster advancements in technology that have made our lives easier, less expensive, and safer. If that is regressive then so be it. To be perfectly honest, the regressive generalization angered me.

By the same token, what is progressive about liberal philosophies and ideas? Abortion as a means of birth control – is that a progressive idea? What about labor union concepts of rewarding and protecting bad employees - how exactly is this progressive? If anything, these ideas lead to mediocrity – look at the American automotive industry when compared to other global auto companies or how education has declined in our country with students being less proficient in math, science, and reading and more kids dropping out of school. How have entitlements and quota systems improved corporate competitiveness or individual advancement? Today, on average, more people live in poverty than 50 years ago. Minorities are segregated more than ever living miserable lives fighting crime and addiction in inner city slums. The family unit has disintegrated - most families living on welfare are of the single parent variety. Meanwhile corporate innovation, exports, and technological advancements have slowed. Yes, it is easy to surmise that the regressive party is the Democratic Party. To me, being regressive is being a burden on society – by having others pay for our existence – this is the Democratic way.

The more that I thought about the regressive accusation, the more I began to realize that there is some truth to it. In many respects I would like to go back to the earlier interpretations of the Constitution, a smaller government, and more state rights. Still, another definition of regression is to determine the relationship between two or more correlated variables – usually determined by empirical data – to predict future outcomes. Thus, in order to determine and solve the complex problems of tomorrow we need to first regress. In other words, we need to be able to break down the problem into a set of older individual data points or variables. These are the tool that scientists use to understand the relationship between temperature and carbon emissions; or the relationship between tax rates and tax revenues or consumer spending; or the relationship between increasing Medicaid patient payrolls on healthcare costs or the quality of healthcare. These are indeed complex problems that unfortunately very few people have the capacity or the mathematical skills to build an accurate linear regression model to solve these issues. For what it is worth, I have created models, using data from government sites, to solve the above problems. I am not saying my models are correct (they need to pass the test of time), but at least I have the ability to break down problems to find what set of variables correlate to find solutions. By definition a progressive does not have this ability – but I will not make that generalization. What I will say is that being classified as a regressive is not all bad – especially if you have the ability to break down and solve the complex problems that face the future of our nation (that is progressive).

I do not care that people have opinions, one way or the other, on these complex problems. What disturbs me is that everyone thinks their opinions are the 100% correct even though they not only fail to understand the math behind the problem, they have never seen the model or math solution. This is very sad and it is a testament to our narcissism and “know it all” mentality. But if you want to label me as a regressive – go ahead – I now see it as a compliment.

My Book: Is America Dying? (, Barnes and Noble)

Tuesday, February 21, 2012

Just Say "No"

It is sad, but I think my favorite reply to a request is “no”. And what’s worse, I no longer feel guilty about it. I was not always this way, but changes in technology, trust, and other factors have turned me into a declining machine. Here are some things I refuse to join and donate to:

I refuse to join any clubs, groups, or organizations. I belong to zero, none, zilch, nada! I will not join a political party because I think they are all sold out to special interest groups. I do not even belong to a softball or basketball team anymore. What are my reasons? First of all political, corporate, religious, or other agenda driven organizations take advantage of our privacy. They sell our names to others who fill our mailboxes, voicemail, and email accounts with never ending propaganda, requests for money, and pressure to join their club. To make matters worse, these requests snowball over time. Take my advice, if you want to warship God, do it in solitude with your family. All of these ploys are all smart marketing tricks, but I do not like it. Secondly, other clubs such as a hiking club, chess club, or softball league means we must rely on others for their success. And maybe I am off base, but people to me are much less trustworthy than ever before. People procrastinate and are unwilling to help organize events, and worse of all most people fail to help the team, club, or organization to be a success. If I join a group, I am in 100% and will do my role and then some. Meanwhile, others are more often than not less committed and that is very annoying to me.

I refuse to donate to public charities anymore. The reason is simple, you donate to one and then you have hundreds of solicitors asking for more money. My advice to people is to anonymously donate (cash) to individuals in your community that need assistance. This is one way to help others without being overwhelmed with phone calls, mail, and email. I simply do not trust charities anymore. They are not immune to scandals and, on average, less than 50 cents on every dollar goes to its intended cause. On the other hand, if you donate directly to a family in need, all of that money goes directly to its intended cause. Of course, the down side is that we cannot write off these donations, but you still get more of a bang for your dollar. I would give the same advice to those that want to donate to election campaigns. Donate directly to the candidate of your choice and avoid those middle organizations such as the RNC or DNC. A good example of charity abuse is the scrutiny that Lance Armstrong’s cancer charity Livestrong is receiving. The charity spends more money marketing and maintaining Armstrong’s tainted image than it gives to cancer research or to help people infected with cancer.

I even try to avoid buying things online or using credit cards to pay for items. The reason for this is because this purchasing approach leaves a paper trail. When there is a paper trail there is not only a potential for fraud, but companies will sell your information to others to solicit you to buy more things.

Joining a social network site (like Facebook) can also be a problem. I do belong to Facebook, but we can forget about our privacy rights when we join social networking sites. Every group you join on Facebook and every site you hit is recorded. Facebook and friends can also use your biography and interests for marketing purposes. All of this information is sold so ads, which correlate to your interests, are added to your Facebook page. Another issue with Facebook and social networking sites are viruses. We must rely on friends and hope they are trustworthy and responsible to have a virus free computer. It is essential to upload a good anti-virus software so your computer to block cookies, viruses, spyware, and popup windows. Big brother is watching and wants to know everything they can about us.

It is unfortunate, but if you want a hassle free life, just say “no”. Do not join clubs, organizations, leagues, or groups. Maybe I am turning into an isolationist, but life is much less stressful.

My Book: Is America Dying? (, Barnes and Noble)

Friday, February 17, 2012

Obama Mirrors Bush Policies

The Obama and Bush administrations have been for the most part polar opposites. However, most of what has gone right for Obama has been because he has mirrored or extended Bush policies, especially against terrorism. Here are a few examples:

  • Obama continued the Bush policy of hunting for Osama Bin Laden. And when Obama found him, he did exactly what Bush would have done; he killed him and ignored his civil liberties.
  • Obama continued the Bush policy of keeping terrorists housed in Guantanamo Bay. Obama, like Bush, is holding detainees’ indefinitely without a charge. And when the enemy combatants are charged with criminal acts he is trying these detainees in a military tribunal and not a civilian court. These are all liberal promises broken by the naïve and misguided President elect who seemingly thought extreme Islam was a hoax.
  • Obama has not only continued the Bush policy of using drone strikes to knock out al-Qaida targets in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Yemen, he has escalated the use of this strategy.
  • Obama went to war to overthrow a rogue and genocidal tyrant in Libya similar to how Bush went to war with Iraq. The difference is that Bush had the fortitude to finish the job. In effect, Obama was supporting the Bush “Freedom Agenda” in the Middle East when he went to war against Libya. As other oppressed Arab nations saw Democracies flourish in Iraq and Lebanon (Cedar Revolution backed by Bush), they too wanted the same freedoms. As a result, dozens of revolutions broke out across North Africa and the Middle East. Unfortunately, Obama missed out on many of these opportunities to oust terrorist supporting governments.
  • Obama has continued both the Bush Iraq and Afghanistan wars. In fact, Obama has implemented the Bush “surge strategy” in Afghanistan.

Obama has also successfully mimicked a few alleged successful George Bush domestic strategies:

  • Obama continued the unpopular Toxic Asset Relief Program (TARP) that bailed out banks and financial institutions. To date, many of the loans have been paid back with interest.
  • Obama has continued the Bush tax cuts for all tax brackets. Obama’s economic advisors correctly understand that raising taxes on the wealthy during a recession would be bad for the economy.
  • Obama also continued the Bush policy of bailing out the automotive companies. Although many credit these bailouts for keeping GM and Chrysler solvent, bailouts did not stop them from going in bankruptcy, which ultimately got their financial standing under control.

Obama and Bush also have some troubling policy similarities:

  • Both Obama and Bush will go down as the top Democratic and Republican deficit spending presidents in U.S. history.
  • Both Obama (Democrats) and Bush (Republicans) are responsible for getting us into one of the worst recessions in U.S. history and both were unsuccessful in getting us out of the mess in a timely matter.

Oddly, Obama is quick to blame Bush for all of his failures, but he has never given Bush any credit for his successes. For instance, when the 1 trillion dollar stimulus and quantitative easing techniques failed to alter the recession’s outcome for the better, Obama would routinely blame Bush for getting us into the mess in the first place. And let’s not forget Obama and Democratic policies, under Bush, such as those used by mortgage giants Fannie and Freddie were a leading cause for the financial and housing collapse. Still, Obama has taken no responsibility for the economic calamity and his failed measures to correct the recession. And finally, in his speech following Bin Laden’s death, Obama alluded to the fact that the Bush administration took its eye off the prize (Bin Laden). But, according to reports, information collected under Bush’s watch led directly to the killing of Bin Laden (and some of that information came from enhanced interrogation techniques). Still, Obama gave Bush no credit. It is therefore a fact that had Obama been President after 9-11, we would have never gotten the intelligence necessary to kill Bin Laden. The bottom line, Obama is only successful when he emulates Bush policies.

My Book: Is America Dying? (, Barnes and Noble)

Wednesday, February 15, 2012

Eyeball Statistics

What is “Eyeball Statistics”? It is phrase I haven given to how a majority of people analyze data. In other words, people analyze data merely by what they can deduce by looking at it. Thus, they are not performing the necessary “due diligence” to mathematically analyze the data to find correlation or standard deviations. We are all guilty of using eyeball statistics because it is fast and convenient. Eyeball statistics is certainly acceptable when evaluating a few data points for one or two variables. From this we can ascertain trends. But the human brain is not very good at deciphering trends from a plethora of variables and data points. To do this properly, we must do the math and create complex models.

Let’s evaluate how statistical data can be misleading. One common statistic that most people use is statistical averages. And many people have the ability to compute averages merely by eyeballing the data. Finding the statistical average of a set of data points is easy to compute, but this data can be misleading. In many cases, averages can mean very little without knowing the variance, standard deviation, or even the skewness of the data. For instance, a student who scored 5 points below the class average on a test means very little without understanding the statistical variance of how the class performed as a whole. If the student’s score was within one standard deviation of the average, then they are performing as well as a majority of the class. If their score, on the other hand, was two or three standard deviations below the class average, than they are performing well below the rest of the class. Hence, statistics can be misleading if they are not defined properly. And we cannot define statistics properly merely by eyeballing data.

Most of the economic and scientific problems that face Americans are not easy problems to solve. The effects of carbon emissions on global warming; the effects of Obamacare on doctor availability; the effects of raising taxes on the wealthiest earners on consumer spending; the effects of cap and trade on corporate profits; and so forth. Each of these problems may contain dozens of variables with thousands of data points and no one can eyeball these results. These are the problems and issues that face Americans on a daily basis and we all have an opinion about them. There is nothing wrong with having an opinion. But we must remember that an opinion is neither right nor wrong. The problem is that all Americans feel their opinions are scientifically proven facts that are unequivocally 100% correct. How many people have actually seen and understood a model created by an economist showing the effects of taxing the wealthy on consumer spending or a model by a climatologist revealing the effects of carbon emissions on temperature changes? The answer is pretty darn close to zero. Without seeing these models I cannot agree or disagree with the conclusions. For this reason, I create my own models to better understand these issues, but models are not perfect. If models were 100% accurate to predict the future, we would all be prophets. We could wipe out cancer and solve the world’s problems. But trends change over time, which render models obsolete. And like all statistical models, there is an error associated with them. When I posed this question to one liberal friend about global warming models, he forwarded me a bunch of weather prediction models he found on the web. First, the data within the models was not known and therefore, we could not dispute the results. Secondly, there is a big difference between weather and climate models and for someone arguing that global warming is manmade - he should have understood this fact. Face it; people do not like to show their models because someone can poke holes in them.

Although models are not perfect, they are the only means we have to evaluate complex problems that cannot be solved by eyeball statistics. And anyone who claims to understand the effects of carbon emissions on climate change or the effects of raising taxes on the wealthy has on unemployment are formulating an opinion if they have not done the “due diligence” to understand the math behind the conclusions. This is why the so called experts are wrong over 50% of the time when trying to predict the future – they are guilty of eyeball statistics. I will post this study at a later date (it compiled data over 30 years). For instance, economists were right less than 40% of the time when predicting the future outcome of two possible scenarios. For example, economists where asked will unemployment go up or down next year, or will inflation go up or down next year, and so forth. The average American could guess and get 50% of these questions / predictions correct. Maybe this is why everyone thinks they are an expert - they can guess better than the experts!

Tuesday, February 14, 2012

One Question

When I evaluate local, state, and federal political candidates I ask myself one question – Which candidate do I most trust to run my personal finances? In most cases the answer is none, but this is my litmus test when I evaluate the resumes of politicians. After all, if I do not trust a person to run my personal finances than how can I trust them with taxpayer money? And this question should not be limited to politicians, but other people who hold public jobs that are required to balance a budget. Hence, this question should also be asked of principals, superintendents, and the folks that run public retirement accounts. For instance, far too often we appoint good educators into the role of superintendent or school principal, but they fail to grasp how to run a school district like a business because they have a budget that needs to be balanced. Therefore, a good educator is not necessarily the right person for the job if they lack good business acumen. The same can be said of state and federal bureaucrats running retirement systems that have amassed trillions in unfunded liabilities.

I very rarely view a federal political candidate’s record on social issues as important. Most importantly, political candidates need to be both business and financially savvy. It is not because I think social issues are not important or that I do not have a strong opinion about them. It is because I view social issues as “state” and not “federal” issues that should be resolved independently by each state. The federal government or Supreme Court has no business making laws or decisions about gay marriage, capital punishment, legalizing marijuana, or abortion unless the Constitution is amended. There simply is nothing in the Constitution to support federal government interference in these matters. However, social issues are more important when I am deciding between candidates in local and state races.

A recent poll indicated that fewer than 1 in 5 politicians have a background in business or economics. Over half have college degrees in humanities or some government related field. And what’s worse, nearly all of these candidates are mathematical illiterates. This means they are incapable of performing a simple statistical analysis to determine what economic indicators are the most pivotal for a strong economy nor can they determine which economic parameters correlate. Politicians do not understand the math and science behind global warming nor do they understand the math behind the economics of determining the effects of raising the taxes on the wealthy. I am not only talking about liberals, but conservatives too. Case in point, Tea Party favorite Tom Tancredo was duped by Bernie Madoff. Because of this it very hard to find a candidate who passes this one simple question. Let’s face facts, most politicians are not qualified to write laws and manage budgets on economic issues or controversial issues such as global warming. Simply put, they are not experts in these fields they merely pretend to be experts.

It is no surprise that most elected Presidents are generally governors and not congressional members. The reason for this is simple; governors have practical experience running a state budget, whereas congressional members merely write legislation, but do not run a budget. And congressional members who are responsible for a budget have no problem deficit spending and running up trillions of dollars of debt.

So it should come as no surprise that the Obama administration is failing to fix the economy. Obama and over 90% of the advisors in his administration have no practical business experience. Many are lifetime educators that have failed to try their ideologies in the real world. Hence, most of the Obama administration is not qualified to run a McDonalds let alone a nearly 15 trillion dollar economy. Therefore, I would not trust them to run my finances, nor should anyone else.

My Book: Is America Dying? (, Barnes and Noble)

Friday, February 10, 2012

The Party of the Underdog

As an astute fellow blogger points out (CW – Commonsense Matters), liberals are the party who believe they represent the underdog: the poor, women, minorities, gays, unions, and even the planet. They even view the 1.2 billion global Muslims as the underdog in the conflict with about 15 million Jews (outnumbered nearly 1000 to 1). Progressives are the party that thinks white males have destroyed our planet and have an unfair advantage over other genders and ethnicities. Hence, it begs to reason, that liberals also think that Republicans loathe the poor, women, minorities, gays, unions, and the planet. After all, the GOP sides with big corporations over the planet and who are, for the most part, against any new entitlement programs to support the less fortunate. The Democrats cause may be noble however; there are many flaws with this progressive ideology or way of thinking.

First of all, if it were not for Republicans, African-Americans would have been slaves longer; the women’s suffrage movement would have been delayed; and even the civil rights movement would have had to wait longer for its passage. It was Republicans that championed these movements in both state and federal governments.

Secondly, the U.S. spends more money per capita than any other country in the world on welfare programs to support the less fortunate. In fact, conservatives give more money to charities to help not only less fortunate Americans, but less fortunate foreigners than progressives by nearly a 2 to 1 margin.

Thirdly, the GOP is Party for family values and morals, whereas Democratic policies have worked to denigrate the American family unit. The family unit is arguably the most important ingredient for the future success of any nation.

It’s just nonsense to insinuate Republicans are the party that hates the poor, women, minorities, gays, union workers, Muslims, and the planet. When Republican’s championed the freedom of slaves, equal rights for women, and the civil rights movement they saw everyone as equal regardless of race, gender, religion, or ethnicity. This was not exactly how liberals perceived or interpreted these events over the past 50 years. Progressives have gone out of their way to earn political points by insinuating women, gays, the poor, and minorities are not equal – they believe, in fact, these so called “underdogs” are inferior to white males. Thus, liberal politicians and judges implemented laws, policies, and legislation to bend the rules of life in favor of these so called underdogs. Diversity, quota systems, environmental laws, and other favoritism rules and regulations were formulated by liberals to provide the underdog with an unfair advantage. These polices do not promote excellence, but mediocrity. When one group of people is given more opportunities in both business and education when in fact, they are not the most qualified candidate, this makes America less competitive. This is a big reason why the U.S. economy is losing ground to other emerging markets such as India and China. When an automotive union assembly line worker earns more benefits and wealth than a non-union PhD engineer who designs the safety system for cars, this is a recipe for disaster. Liberals call the anti-union movement as class warfare, but the truth is that in many cases the people that are being discriminated against are the non-union workers. And when corporations are taxed higher than global counterparts and face more environmental restrictions, then this too is a recipe for disaster.

Democrats may demonize Republicans, but conservatives only want everyone to have the same opportunities. The GOP realizes it is not fair when a wealthy female or minority has an unfair advantage to get a job or to earn a place in a higher educational institution than an underprivileged white male. The GOP realizes it is not fair when a high school dropout working on an assembly line earns more wealth than a PhD engineer. The GOP realizes it is not fair that U.S. corporations have to face higher taxes and regulations when competing with global competition. The bottom line is it is never a good idea to solve the problem of equality by diminishing or lowering the opportunities of one group of people with the hope it will elevate the performance of others. Medicaid and other welfare programs have not worked to lower the poverty and homeless rate. In fact, welfare has worked to increase the poverty and homeless rate. After all, why work or be responsible if you can get handouts for doing nothing. Republicans only want people who are living off the wealth of others to be responsible. It just does not make sense to reward mediocrity or irresponsible behavior. And finally, no one is an underdog when the rules in life favor them. In a sporting event an underdog is not given an unfair advantage to level the playing field. Life simply does not work that way.

My Book: Is America Dying? (, Barnes and Noble)

Wednesday, February 8, 2012

Unions and Gangs

I am certainly not going to categorize unions in the same classification as street gangs, but there are many disturbing similarities. My wife, who is a teacher, despises unions and is the one that brought these similarities to my attention. Recently, my wife had a meeting with the district superintendent over the new tenure rules in Colorado since it affected her status. She told the superintendent “I do not care about tenure, if I am not doing my job fire me. No one should be protected when they are doing a bad job whether they have been working days as a teacher or 35 years.” A lot of her resentment towards unions started in her childhood when she saw her father being driven to work in the back of vans to protect his identity because he crossed the picket line. She saw the violence too as one of their neighbors was shot on his door step. So it should come as no surprise that she brought these similarities to me.

  • Both unions and gangs work to kill jobs. No small businesses will open its doors in areas where gang violence is high and likewise, unions make it harder for companies to compete globally.
  • Both unions and gangs prey on the weak. It is not surprising most gang members and even union members come from less education or a lower socioeconomic status. Gangs and unions invite people to become members of their “brotherhood” with false promises of security and protection. They brainwash people and rob them of any independent thought (and of course their money). And if you refuse to conform and join the union or gang, you will be harassed and even threatened with violence. This is a big reason why liberals and unions support card check – so they know exactly who is not conforming to join the movement. My wife received a message after starting a new teaching job to attend a mandatory meeting, but the subject matter was not included in the message. Within a minute she knew the meeting’s purpose was to convince the new teachers to join their union. She left and said “never invite me to these meetings again”. My wife understood that this was the first step in the brainwashing and indoctrination process.
  • Both unions and gangs will resort to violence to get their way and they are both certainly susceptible to scandals and fraud. It is no secret that union and gang leaders advocate for themselves (more money and power) and not their members.
  • Both unions and gangs will build power through member numbers and money. They love to take other peoples hard earned dollars so they can spread the wealth (mostly into the leader’s pockets).
  • It is nearly impossible to get out of a union or gang once you become a member.
  • Both unions and gangs like to flash their logo and colors all over their perceived territory.

These are a few similarities. I am sure others can think of several more detrimental things that both unions and gangs have in common.

My Book: Is America Dying? (, Barnes and Noble)

Tuesday, February 7, 2012

A Subtle Word that Polarizes

I have said it hundreds of times; I am a numbers guy and really have a tough time working with words. One way that I compensate for my reading and writing deficiencies is by using math and creating a program which I refer to as a “word counter”. Word counters are common and the marketing departments of companies use them religiously. For example, ads are placed on our Facebook pages which match our interests. Originally, I created the program because I was proof reading a lot of technical papers written by engineers who worked for me (yes, this proves that most engineers’ writing skills are poor especially if I am the one doing the editing). In any event, the tool helped me in the editing process. Since I retired, I have expanded the program. Today, I can run long texts through the counter and can determine if the writing is liberal, conservative, polarizing, too technical, etc. For instance, if the words “blame” or “fault” are used numerous times and words such as “solution” are not used, then the writing is most likely polarizing because it one sided.

Interestingly, one word that comes up a lot in polarizing writings is the word “annoy or annoying”. Here is one definition of annoying: “Causing vexation or irritation; troublesome: an annoying cough.” In my day the word annoying was used to describe non-personal nouns such as an annoying sound or annoying pain. Today, this definition, in my opinion, has expanded to be more personal and used to attack people: I find John Steward annoying. In my analysis of the word annoying (and observations), it is commonly used in writings where the words such as fault and blame are also used. In fact, stronger divisive words are often used in connection with the word annoy that I rather not list. The word annoy is more likely to be used by liberals; people with social issues (you know those people who can only communicate via social networking sites) are more likely to use the word annoy; younger people are more likely to use the word annoy; people that are “know it alls” are more likely to use the word annoy; people who use the word annoy are less likely to compromise – very opinionated; and people seem to be less self-aware who use the word annoy.

On the other hand, a word that is used instead of annoying that is more positive and less divisive is the word Frustrating. Here is the definition of frustrating: “To prevent from accomplishing a purpose or fulfilling a desire; thwart: A persistent wind frustrated my attempt to rake the lawn. To cause feelings of discouragement or bafflement. To make ineffectual or invalid; nullify.” The word frustrating is more likely to be used in writings were solutions are proposed. People may find something frustrating, but they will try to find a way to remedy whatever they find frustrating. On the hand, people who find something annoying do not try to resolve or remedy that feeling – instead, they are more apt to simply avoid the situation or make the situation worse by finding blame and fault for the annoyance.

I am sure many may disagree with this analysis of the word annoy, but I would have never have noticed the context of which the word annoyed is being used if I did not use math to analyze writings.

My Book: Is America Dying? (, Barnes and Noble)

Friday, February 3, 2012

Why Force Policy and Legislation?

There is nothing progressive about liberal policies; liberals want to force their will on Americans all at once. What is the end result of liberals forcing legislation down the throats of Americans? Stagnation and decline, case in point, the results of the 862 billion dollar stimulus on the economy. When I post my election models a person pointed out that I was biased because I used negative numbers to represent Democrats and positive numbers to represent Republicans. I explained my logical reasoning for this choice: negative numbers are on the LEFT side of the number line whereas, positive numbers are on the RIGHT side of the number line. But yes, the LEFT is the best way to describe liberal policies because they force both the U.S. economy and the social state of Americans backwards in a negative fashion. Here are some prime examples of liberals forcing their political ideology on the American people that have backfired:

In Brown v. School Board the liberal Supreme Court ruled that separate and equal was not good enough and therefore, decided any student should be free to go to any school of their choice. When African-Americans continued to go to black schools the Supreme Court ruled again in Brown v. School Board 2 (Most history teachers do not speak of this second case) which essentially nullified the original ruling and forced students to go to particular schools (students, in particular African-Americans, were no longer free to go to the school of their choice). In other words, the court’s ruling was to force integration. Many lawsuits were filed against this ruling, most by African-Americans, who were concerned because their children were spending up to 4 to 6 hours a day commuting to and from school. Today, are African-Americans better off because of the ruling by the Supreme Court in Brown v. School Board 2? Most are not, and they continue to be segregated in inner cities where school systems are much worse than they were 50 years ago. The decline in the social standing of African-Americans and Native-Americans can be linked to other liberal policies targeted to speed or force a desired result such as diversity and multiculturalism. Attempts at diversity and multiculturalism have only increased resentment between ethnicities and races and has done very little to integrate African-Americans (inner cities) and Native-Americans (reservations) into “mainstream” America.

What about liberal policies to end poverty? Liberals have passed a plethora of welfare policies targeted to help the poor such as Medicaid, food stamps, and low income housing. Today, poverty (16%) and homelessness (2%) are at its highest levels and more people are dependent on government handouts than ever before (50%). So what do liberals propose to correct the mess they started? They want more tax revenue from companies and wealthy individuals so they can redistribute more wealth. This makes absolutely no sense! Liberals want to continue with the same policy of wealth distribution that has failed miserably to wipe out poverty and in fact, has made it worse.

Climate change legislation is another example of liberals trying to force a result. Unfortunately, these types of policies have led to a negative domino effect on the economy. Climate change policies have led directly to higher energy costs which, in turn, have led to less consumer spending which slows the economy which, in turn, have led to the transfer of jobs overseas.

Pro union policies have also led to a negative domino effect on the economy. Unions unrealistically inflate benefits and pay for workers which, in turn, forces jobs to move overseas. And let’s not forget that union protection of bad employees, in particular teachers, has led to horrific consequences on the economy because it leads to failing schools and increased drop- out rates which, in turn, leads to more government dependence which, in turn, leads to more government spending and debt.

Here is an example of how things work when the government and courts do not interfere and force an ideology on Americans. In the Dred Scott ruling the Supreme Court decided not to rule on the case leaving Dred Scott as a slave and not a free man. The Left is still bitter about this ruling today. However, if the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Dred Scott, arguably the freeing of slaves would have been delayed for decades because it would have changed history – Would Lincoln have been elected President or would the Civil War had taken place only a few years later? Probably not, and therefore, the issue of slavery was resolved faster because the Supreme Court did not legislate from the bench and they let the free people of America decide the fate of slavery in a natural manner.

Liberals claim to be the Party of science such as their adamant belief in the theory of evolution. However, in evolution nothing is forced, it happens naturally over time. If there is an imbalance in nature, it is corrected in a natural way so as not to force another imbalance in the system. It is interesting how liberals feel they can alter the effects of evolution (climate change) and survival of the fittest (saving the poor) by taxing people more and throwing money at these issues. This is hypocrisy at its best, yes, we believe in evolution, but we are naïve to think we can alter evolution by throwing money at these problems. Money is only one of millions of variables for these complex problems. Yes, Liberals are Left on the number line because their policies are negative, they promote stagnation at best, and they lead to both the economic and social decline of Americans.

My Book: Is America Dying? (, Barnes and Noble)

Wednesday, February 1, 2012

Are Half of All Southerners Racists?

Are over half of White Southerners racists or bigots? Time magazine attempted to make this assentation in an article they wrote last year marking the 150th anniversary of the Civil War: “150 Years After Fort Sumter: Why We’re Still Fighting the Civil War” by David Von Drehle. Von Drehle’s hypothesis is that people are dismissing slavery as the leading cause of the Civil War because of an April 2011 poll: “Harris Interactive polled more than 2,500 adults across the country, asking what the North and South were fighting about. A majority, including two-thirds of white respondents in the 11 states that formed the Confederacy, answered that the South was mainly motivated by "states' rights" rather than the future of slavery.”

I for one was never taught any the fallacies pointed out in Von Drehle’s analysis of the Civil War (although I was educated in Northern schools). It seems Von Drehle’s objective, as with many liberal historians and writers, is to dream up racial story lines (After all, this type of divisive story sells magazines, but, unfortunately I think Von Drehle believes the righteous drivel and conspiracy theories he spews). It has been 150 years since the Civil War ended and we still need to insinuate that White Southerners are still racists and bigots – that is truly sad, particularly since none of them were alive 150 years ago.

Today, when people say that the Civil War was about states’ rights they are correct. The most important outcome of the Civil War was the ratification of the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments to our Constitution, in particular, Article I of the 14th amendment. And it is important to note that while the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments were ratified to protect African-Americans (former slaves), there is nothing in these amendments specifically referring to blacks, Negroes, African-Americans, or slaves. The amendments were written in generic terms such to be inclusive of all Americans, not just one race or ethnicity. Maybe the Northern politicians and bureaucrats who wrote the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments were also racists? After all, they did not refer specifically to slavery as being the main cause of the Civil War (as Von Drehle’s hypothesis would suggest).

The interpretation of the 14th amendment has expanded over the years. Meanwhile, the importance 10th amendment, which states “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people”, has diminished. Article I of the 14th amendment states: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” Today, people understand that the 14th amendment, in particular the due process clause (second sentence) of Article I, has made the 10th amendment moot or inconsequential. For this reason, States’ rights were forever changed by the Civil War. For instance, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Miranda and Roe based on the due process clause in Article I of the 14th amendment. Hence, the outcome of these decisions, and dozens like them, has changed hundreds of state laws. This is evidence that the Constitution’s 10th amendment, protecting states’ rights, is null and void – a critical outcome of the Civil War.

Also, Supreme Court citizenship rulings were upheld for Hispanics and other races based on the 14th amendment. If we believe Von Drehle’s premise that the 14th amendment was just about slavery, than we can start departing all those children born in the United States from illegal aliens. But the naturalization clause from Article I of the 14th amendment (first sentence) is inclusive of all ethnicities and races, not just African-Americans or former slaves.

Respondents to a Harris Interactive poll suggesting the Civil War was about states’ rights are not bigots (as Von Drehle suggests), but people who understand the modern implications of the Civil War’s most important documents – the ratification of the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments, which were written to protect all Americans, not just former slaves. Von Drehle’s hypothesis is not only misguided and divisive because he obviously fails to understand history and our most important document (the Constitution if he needs to be reminded), but his theory refutes his liberal views on abortion and citizenship to name a few.

My Book: Is America Dying? (, Barnes and Noble)