Wednesday, December 18, 2013

Why Are We So Afraid of Failure?

In the era where every kid wins a trophy for competing, we are a society focused on making sure people / children have successes. Hence, we are not pushing kids and forcing them face failures. Nothing prepares us more in life than dealing with failures and adversity. This is what makes us better and stronger people and ultimately defines our personality. While other nations around the globe push their children to face failures, we have become the politically correct nation that does not want to challenge kids – it has become offensive and abusive to push children to face failures. In fact, most schools and teachers only care if our kids meet a “minimum” set of watered down requirements in only reading, writing, and math. Our school system is not designed to “maximize” test scores or overall knowledge.

It seems everything is watered down these days so kids and schools feel successful – requirements are lowered (affirmative action is one example) and tests are easier. Parents and teachers do not have the time or the patience to push their kids. Government funding, such as Title I, are there to help under-performing students – no federal monies are designated for over-performing students. This is partly the problem of our school system which is a one size fits all philosophy. It is based on the philosophy all kids learn at the same rate and in the same manner. This is far from the truth.

I have worked with kids in our school system and I want to push them and challenge them. But once it gets too hard they cry and I cannot get parents or teachers to reinforce what I am teaching them. I find it very frustrating but do not want to hurt anyone feelings since I am just a volunteer. Therefore, each year I conform and scale back my expectations. It is hard to do especially when dealing with kids who have so much potential.

Everyone, who lives long enough, will face adversity and failure. It is how we learn to deal with adversity and failure is what will define our persona. It is what will define if we are doing everything in our power to become a better person and live a better life.

In fact, in life, we should face many more failures than successes if we are truly pushing ourselves.

Failure is only a bad thing if we continually make the same mistakes over and over. For instance, this is why I despise big government because they continually make the same mistakes over and over again (Romney Care to Obama Care, adding another entitlement like Obama Care when other entitlements are bankrupting our country, and so forth).

If we want to succeed in the future, our school system needs to push kids to achieve excellence even if it means they must fail along the way.

Monday, December 16, 2013

Can Christie Beat Clinton in 2016?

It may be possible. As Democrats continue to sink in the latest polls since the ObamaCare lie and rollout, Hillary Clinton is still viewed favorably and would crush most Republican hopefuls if the election were held today (a favorable GOP environment). However, Chris Christie is polling very well and could beat Clinton today. If the polls are correct Paul, Cruz, Ryan, and Bush would lose to Clinton by margins greater than Obama’s victory over Romney and maybe even greater than Obama’s margin over McCain. However, polls show Christie beating Clinton in New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Iowa, Virginia and Colorado – All States won by handily by Obama (at least 5 points). This means Clinton would win the Electoral College 270 to 268 (and this includes having Christie losing both Ohio and Florida). One CNN poll had Clinton beating Christie by 1 point in Ohio and if Christie could win a state like New Hampshire or Nevada (and there have been no polls yet for NH and NV) he would win the White House. Below is a list of the 2016 election polls since Christie won the NJ Governorship on November 5th:


Polling Company



North Carolina: Christie vs. Clinton


Christie 45, Clinton 42

Christie +3

North Carolina: Paul vs. Clinton


Clinton 48, Paul 44

Clinton +4

North Carolina: Bush vs. Clinton


Clinton 46, Bush 45

Clinton +1

North Carolina: Cruz vs. Clinton


Clinton 49, Cruz 41

Clinton +8

General Election: Christie vs. Clinton


Christie 42, Clinton 41

Christie +1

General Election: Paul vs. Clinton


Clinton 48, Paul 41

Clinton +7

General Election: Bush vs. Clinton


Clinton 48, Bush 39

Clinton +9

General Election: Cruz vs. Clinton


Clinton 50, Cruz 37

Clinton +13

Michigan: Christie vs. Clinton


Clinton 43, Christie 40

Clinton +3

Michigan: Paul vs. Clinton


Clinton 48, Paul 39

Clinton +9

Michigan: Bush vs. Clinton


Clinton 46, Bush 42

Clinton +4

Michigan: Cruz vs. Clinton


Clinton 49, Cruz 38

Clinton +11

New Jersey: Christie vs. Clinton


Christie 46, Clinton 43

Christie +3

General Election: Christie vs. Clinton


Christie 45, Clinton 48

Clinton +3

General Election: Paul vs. Clinton


Clinton 55, Paul 40

Clinton +15

General Election: Ryan vs. Clinton


Clinton 56, Ryan 40

Clinton +16

General Election: Bush vs. Clinton


Clinton 53, Bush 41

Clinton +12

General Election: Rubio vs. Clinton


Clinton 52, Rubio 42

Clinton +10

General Election: Cruz vs. Clinton


Clinton 57, Cruz 35

Clinton +22

Colorado: Christie vs. Clinton


Christie 46, Clinton 39

Christie +7

Colorado: Paul vs. Clinton


Paul 47, Clinton 45

Paul +2

Colorado: Bush vs. Clinton


Clinton 47, Bush 43

Clinton +4

Colorado: Cruz vs. Clinton


Clinton 48, Cruz 45

Clinton +3

Iowa: Christie vs. Clinton

Harper (R)

Christie 43, Clinton 38

Christie +5

Iowa: Paul vs. Clinton

Harper (R)

Clinton 47, Paul 41

Clinton +6

Iowa: Ryan vs. Clinton

Harper (R)

Clinton 46, Ryan 43

Clinton +3

Iowa: Rubio vs. Clinton

Harper (R)

Clinton 45, Rubio 41

Clinton +4

Iowa: Cruz vs. Clinton

Harper (R)

Clinton 47, Cruz 40

Clinton +7

Ohio: Christie vs. Clinton


Clinton 42, Christie 41

Clinton +1

Ohio: Paul vs. Clinton


Clinton 50, Paul 40

Clinton +10

Ohio: Ryan vs. Clinton


Clinton 49, Ryan 41

Clinton +8

Ohio: Bush vs. Clinton


Clinton 50, Bush 37

Clinton +13

Ohio: Rubio vs. Clinton


Clinton 48, Rubio 39

Clinton +9

Ohio: Cruz vs. Clinton


Clinton 50, Cruz 35

Clinton +15

Pennsylvania: Christie vs. Clinton


Christie 48, Clinton 44

Christie +4

Pennsylvania: Paul vs. Clinton


Clinton 51, Paul 43

Clinton +8

Pennsylvania: Bush vs. Clinton


Clinton 48, Bush 44

Clinton +4

Pennsylvania: Cruz vs. Clinton


Clinton 53, Cruz 41

Clinton +12

Virginia: Christie vs. Clinton

WFB/The Polling Company (R)

Christie 44, Clinton 42

Christie +2

Virginia: Paul vs. Clinton

WFB/The Polling Company (R)

Clinton 50, Paul 43

Clinton +7

Virginia: Cruz vs. Clinton

WFB/The Polling Company (R)

Clinton 51, Cruz 41

Clinton +10

Florida: Christie vs. Clinton


Clinton 45, Christie 41

Clinton +4

Florida: Paul vs. Clinton


Clinton 51, Paul 41

Clinton +10

Florida: Bush vs. Clinton


Clinton 47, Bush 45

Clinton +2

Florida: Ryan vs. Clinton


Clinton 50, Ryan 42

Clinton +8

Florida: Rubio vs. Clinton


Clinton 50, Rubio 43

Clinton +7

Florida: Cruz vs. Clinton


Clinton 52, Cruz 36

Clinton +16

Colorado: Christie vs. Clinton


Christie 46, Clinton 38

Christie +8

Colorado: Paul vs. Clinton


Paul 47, Clinton 44

Paul +3

Colorado: Ryan vs. Clinton


Ryan 45, Clinton 43

Ryan +2

Colorado: Cruz vs. Clinton


Clinton 44, Cruz 44


General Election: Christie vs. Clinton


Christie 43, Clinton 42

Christie +1

General Election: Paul vs. Clinton


Clinton 49, Paul 40

Clinton +9

General Election: Ryan vs. Clinton


Clinton 49, Ryan 40

Clinton +9

General Election: Cruz vs. Clinton


Clinton 51, Cruz 36

Clinton +15

Friday, December 13, 2013

2012 Election Model: House Races

In the last post I modeled the change in turn out from 2008 to 2012 (at the county level) to see if there was any statistical significance with electorate demographics and economic factors for the presidential race. In this post, I performed the same regression analysis, but instead on the House races. House races, like the Presidency, are on the ballot for every U.S. citizens. On the other hand, governor and Senate races are harder to evaluate for trends because not every seat is up for election during presidential election cycles. Of course, all house seats were up for election during 2010, but this analysis will only look at the voter difference between 2012 and 2008 House races because the turnout is more comparable and much higher than mid-term elections. In fact, the turn-out between 2008 and 2012, though smaller, was very similar demographically – The ideological breakdown favored Democrats in 2008 by +7 and in 2012 by +6; Minorities made up 26% of electorate in 2008 and 28% of the electorate in 2012; and women made up 53% of the electorate in 2008 and 2012. In both cases the economy was also in bad shape. Here is the breakdown:

Age – Just as in the Presidential race, there was plenty of statistical significance, but the results were inconclusive. For males the Democrats had strong statistical significance in 5 age segments, but weak significance in 8 whereas the Republicans has strong significance in 6 age segments and weak significance in 5. On the female side the Democrats were strong in 6 and weak in 5 and the Republicans were strong in 4 and weak in 4 others. Overall the trend was a bit more favorable to Republicans as one would suspect since they won a majority of the vote.

Race – The results were surprising here. Democrats showed not only weak significance among Whites, but with African Americans! Not surprisingly, Democrats were strong with Hispanics. Republicans, on the other hand, had strong significance with Whites and weak significance among Asians and Hispanics.

Income and Employment – Republicans had strong statistical significance among the wealthy and the Democrats among the poor, but there was no correlation along employment status for either group. In other words, the economy had no impact on voters’ decisions.

Gender – Surprising, there was no gender gap that is evident in the Presidential race. There is absolutely no evidence that women overwhelmingly support Democrats and men overwhelmingly support Republicans.

Education – Republicans had strong significance with all demographic groups with at least a high school diploma. Republicans had weak significance with those who did not have a high school diploma. However, surprisingly, the Democrats had significance with any groups.

Food Stamps – People who did not collect food stamps overwhelmingly voted against Democrats, but other than that there was no other statistical significance.

Marriage – No surprise here, married folks broke heavily for Republicans, but single family household showed no statistical significance towards Democrats or Republicans.

So how did Republicans hold the House and win a majority of the vote while Obama defeated Romney by 3.5 points? There are several key differences in voting trends for the Presidency and the House. First, African-Americans may be more likely to abstain from voting in House races. Secondly, women are more likely to vote for a Republican. Thirdly, people on food stamps are also more likely to abstain from voting in House elections.

Wednesday, December 11, 2013

How ObamaCare Infringes on Our Freedoms and Rights

Liberals claim that healthcare is a right of all human beings. But ObamaCare, or for that matter any government run healthcare system, is the antithesis of supplying the populous a human freedom or right.

Nobody likes being told what to do or how to think. And this is what makes America great; everyone has the right or freedom to choose what they want do and how we think. ObamaCare takes away many of the freedoms we have because it takes away our right to choose. Here are several reasons as to why ObamaCare takes away our freedoms and rights:

  • ObamaCare rules and mandates dictate what healthcare coverage we must choose and therefore, cancels our plans of choice if they do not meet the criteria of the law. For instance, old people need to have maternity coverage and young people need to have mental and chronic disease coverage.
  • ObamaCare increases the cost of most insurance plans because it reduces competition, especially across state lines.
  • ObamaCare dictates, in many cases, what doctors and hospitals we must use.
  • ObamaCare decreases competition, and in many cases, people only have one or two insurance companies to choose from. In fact, ObamaCare is the first step to a single payer system in the U.S. And of course a government run single payer system will have absolutely no competition or choice for Americans to choose from. This is ironic since most liberals hate corporate monopolies and created the Sherman Antitrust Act to prevent such cases – another liberal hypocrisy.
  • ObamaCare fines people who choose not to have health insurance because they are young and healthy.
  • ObamaCare fails to treat Americans equally. One reason ObamaCare is over 2000 pages long is because there are many exceptions to laws, rules, mandates, and provisions within the law. For instance, people belonging to unions receive better coverage at lower rates than non-union members. In other words, the law picks winners and losers and that is not a freedom or right; that is an injustice and sham to win votes. There is no question that the winners from this law are the individuals, groups, and companies who had the money to pay for lawyers to lobby for them.

The bottom line is that ObamaCare is simply unfair to most Americans because it infringes on their right and freedom to choose healthcare insurance, doctors, and hospitals of their choice.

Monday, December 9, 2013

Liberal Extortion

Extortion is illegal, but liberals have found a way to legalize it – at least for them to win elections. One definition of extortion is the illegal use of one's official position or powers to obtain property, funds, or patronage. Patronage is defined as the power to distribute or appoint people to governmental or political positions.

Democrats cry foul over rulings such as Citizens United allowing companies and groups to donate as much money as they want (no cap) to political candidates. They are afraid this may yield an unfair advantage to Republicans who are largely supported by corporations. But in the 2012 election Democrats far outraised Republicans. This is mainly due to the fact that Wall Street also backs Democrats and Democrats have a huge advantage in contribution from union factions. In fact, Democrats held nearly a 5 to 1 advantage in funding in the recent Virginia governor’s race. However, in actuality, the funding advantage for Democrats is much greater than what it appears on paper.

Let’s think about this further. Democrats use taxpayer money every single day of the year to buy (extort) votes from the American public to win political elections. State and federal governments spent nearly one trillion dollars this past year on anti-poverty spending. And the people who collect these monies overwhelmingly vote democratic. Sure, it is true the wealthy support Republicans, but there are only a few of them. Nearly half of the American populous receives some sort of government subsidy whereas the top 10% of earners pay for these benefits. To compound matters people collecting food stamps can have earnings 4 times higher than the poverty rate – hence, a large population qualifies for this subsidy.

In a recent election model I ran, the most conclusive reason as to why President Obama won reelection was due to food stamps. There was a high statistical significance between people voting for Obama and people collecting food stamps. Under Obama the food stamp program has doubled in both revenue and populous. And people collecting food stamps were more likely to turn up at the polls. In other words, Obama won the election by extorting votes by expanding entitlement spending. And he and liberals are attempting to do the same thing with ObamaCare.

What’s worse, the model I ran showed no statistical significance to other economic indicators. Unemployed or underemployed people were not more likely to vote for Romney. What this means is that people were okay with being unemployed as long as they continued to receive their welfare checks. Yes, that is right, welfare checks were more important to people than getting a job! Liberals understand this concept and use it to extort votes. It is hard to compete against a Party that has funding at its disposal equivalent to 7% of GDP to win elections.

And to compound matters, one trillion dollars in anti-poverty spending is enough money to completely wipe out poverty (15% of Americans who live below the poverty line). However, when Democrats spread the wealth around to 50% of the American public the result is that poverty continues to grow and persist, but the Democrats win more votes.

Thursday, December 5, 2013

Our Beggar-In-Cheif

How low has the President stooped over the past several years (and I do not mean approval numbers)? He has evolved from whining, blaming, deceit, excuses, and lying to the lowest form or trait of liberalism – begging! Obama is begging people to sign up for ObamaCare on the campaign trail. Yes, Obama is no different than that person begging for money on a street corner. In fact, Obama is worse, because he is actually using taxpayer money and the media sensationalism to target and sell his abysmal law.

If healthcare is right, then why do people have to pay for it and why don’t people want to sign up for it? Because it is not a human right! People are expressing their right of freedom to choose and buy what they want. Rights are not something tangible, but something every person living in America is born with. The right of freedom to live their life anyway they see fit and the right to express their opinions openly and freely. Every person in the United States is afforded the same opportunity to use their rights to be what they want to be. Sure, some people face more adversity than others, but it how we deal with those adversities is what defines us. And usually people who overcome more adversity as a youth end up becoming the better person later in life and have a positive impact on society. Adversity is bad, but everyone who lives long enough will face it so it is imperative that people learn to deal with it in a positive matter. It is easy to give in or give up because times are tough, but winners will overcome and be better for it. That is what life is about; there is nothing easy in life if you are doing it right. Life is a challenge and good people continually push themselves to get better. A person should have the right be able to choose if they want to eat McDonalds every day, or if they want to buy healthcare from the ObamaCare system. A human right is the right to choose and unfortunately ObamaCare takes away human rights – people are losing their affordable plans, doctors, and hospitals of choice. ObamaCare is the antithesis of a human right.

How many CEO’s do you see making commercials begging people to try their product? If you have a good product you merely only have to show it is available and explain what it can do. People will buy the product – For example, Ipads, Iphones, computers, TVs, etc. Obama is begging because he is desperate simply since he’s selling a bad product. The commercials for ObamaCare have been worse because they are riddled with misinformation and bad storylines trying sell the product.

Sure, I believe the responsible thing for people to do is to have health insurance – but we do not need ObamaCare (thousands of pages of rules, regulations, and government control) for that to happen. I also do not believe in eating fast food or junk food, but that does mean I have the right to say others cannot choose this route.

Wednesday, December 4, 2013

Obama's Work Ethic Epitomizes Liberalism

It is obvious that Obama’s foreign and domestic policies mimic liberalism to a tee. Whether it is the trillion dollar stimulus, entitlement spending including ObamaCare, massive deficit spending, or the naïve foreign policy that he can negotiate with terrorists and or rogue nations – these Obama policies are liberalism at its best.

All of that said the way Obama runs his White House also epitomizes liberalism. Here are some common work habits (tricks) of a liberal:

Liberals claim to care about others, but in actuality liberals are all about themselves (actions speak louder than words – for instance see how much a liberal donates to charity). And nobody is more narcissistic than Obama. Think about it; how does Obama spend most of his time as president? The answer to that is campaigning! Even though Obama is term limited, he still spends most of his time campaigning and raising money. In fact, he spent more energy creating a metadata system to help him win elections than what was put into creating the ObamaCare website. Liberals are all about helping others just so long as it does not create any sacrifices on their part. What did Obama do after the Benghazi attack? He got a plane to attend a campaign fundraiser in Nevada. What’s worse, playing golf and basketball are also more important than going to national security meetings.

Another liberal flaw is their inability to be accountable and responsible. No president has blamed their predecessor more than Obama. Today, Obama is blaming Republicans for his flawed roll out of ObamaCare. In fact, Obama has claimed to have known nothing about major scandals within his administration: Fast and Furious, IRS targeting conservative non-profit groups, DOJ targeting conservative journalists, EPA targeting conservative non-profit groups, the Benghazi terrorist attack, NSA spying, and the gross failure of the ObamaCare website, and so forth. I believe this to be true, because liberals are great at being unaccountable for the actions of people who work for them. And if all of this is not bad enough, not one person has been held accountable for any of the Obama administration great screw ups. Nobody has been fired or sent to prison for breaking any rules, regulations, or laws in the Obama administration.

Liberals are also great at creating a crisis to deflect attention or using a crisis to win public favorability. Obama clearly used the Newtown massacre to push for gun control and he was willing to have the government shutdown to avert attention from the failed ObamaCare rollout.

Liberals also like to bend the rules in their favor. No one has flipped flopped more on policy than Obama. Obama has changed his position on the debt ceiling, NSA metadata, drone strikes, trade agreements, filibusters, civil liberties for terrorists, and campaign financing, to name a few. Obama has defied the Constitution and moved unilaterally to go to war (Libya), create czar positions with no congressional oversight, and to change parts of legislation without congressional approval (he has done this numerous times concerning ObamaCare provisions such as the corporate mandate).

The final liberal trait possessed by Obama that epitomizes liberalism is the ability to lie and make excuses. No president since Nixon and Clinton has been caught in more lies. Whether it was the Benghazi cover story or all the lies about the ObamaCare law, the Obama administration is full of excuses, lies, and misinformation. Liberals continuously change the meaning the words to appease their ideology and ego. They will do anything possible to win elections – that is all that matters.

Monday, December 2, 2013

Liberal Words Versus Actions

ObamaCare is a great example of how liberal actions are much different than their words. Now that liberals have seen how the new healthcare law works (and they would have known this had they read the legislation), they are against the law. Why? Because it affects them personally! Sure, liberals say they want everyone to get healthcare coverage and claim it is a human right. That is fine and dandy but liberals did not expect that the law would affect them personally in a negative manner – higher rates, dropped plans, dropped doctors and care providers, and so forth.

Obama’s approval rating has dropped nearly 10 points (now in the high 30 percent range) since ObamaCare implementation started. And the only way this could have occurred is if Democrats have turned on Obama. This also explains why the liberal media has been covering the shortcomings of the healthcare law – because the law has also affected the people working for these outlets negatively.

A majority of liberals will say they support morally superior ideas: higher taxes on the wealthy to pay for entitlements; saving the planet by going green; gun control; multiculturalism; and so forth. But actions speak louder than words. Liberals would be appalled if they were held to the same carbon emission standards as corporations. Can you imagine the outrage if big brother was not only monitoring but placing limits on carbon emissions for each person? Liberals want more wind farms but they do not want them in their backyard. We have already seen from ObamaCare that most liberals are not okay with the idea of sacrificing their healthcare plans and costs to pay for someone else’s healthcare. Liberals may say the morally correct thing, but they expect other people to make the sacrifices to achieve their ideological goals.

Why is this true? We live in the era of the narcissist (you need to look no further than social media outlets to witness narcissism). Everyone is out for themselves. Liberals claim to care about others and say conservatives hate the poor, minorities, the planet, and so forth. None of this is true because a majority of liberals are hypocrites. It is easy to ask other people (such as the wealthy) to pay more taxes because it does not affect them.

I have no business or right to expect another group, organization, company, or individual to make sacrifices that I am not willing to implement on myself. This is a simple rule to live by and would make America a much less divisive place to live.

I do not care what a person’s political ideology is, but I expect that person to practice what they preach.

Friday, November 22, 2013

Final 2012 Election Analysis

I did a regression analysis of the 2012 election results by county versus demographics and economic conditions and the results were for the most part exactly what one would have expected. Since 2012 was an unusual election because the total vote count decreased from 2008, I specifically analyzed the change in voter turnout between 2008 and 2012 versus demographics and economic conditions.

Gender – No surprise here, men broke for Republicans and women broke for Democrats. However, the results were inconclusive for statistical significance when gender was broken down into economic variables such as poverty and employment rate.

Age – Surprisingly, most of the data was inconclusive for any statistical significance between varying age groups. Hard to believe but some young female age groups favored Republicans with strong statistical significance while some older male age groups favored Democrats with strong correlation. The converse was also true. In other words, the data was all over the place. Age groups were broken down into 5 year or smaller increments between 18 to over 85.

Food Stamps – People on food stamps voted Democratic.

Ethnicity – Whites voted Republican while Hispanics and African Americans voted Democratic.

Income – People with higher household incomes voted Republican.

Family – Married couples voted Republican and single families broke for the Democrats.

Education – Democrats did well with those having less than a high school diploma and those with a bachelor’s or better degree. Republicans did better with everything in between.

Economy – For the most part there was no specific statistical significance with the economy and the change in voter turnout. Other than food stamps, there was no significant data indicating an advantage to Republicans and Democrats for either employment or poverty status.

Independents – Their voting trends tracked closer to Republicans than Democrats. However, this data was only analyzed on about half the counties nationwide within states that release data on the ideological breakdown of the voting populous.

From this data, the key to Obama winning the 2012 election was not only the White vote staying at home, but the increase in the food stamp payrolls. The food stamp payrolls include many people above poverty and that worked in his favor to win votes and to get his electorate to the polls. The Republicans were able to cut Obama’s margin of victory from 2008 in half mostly due to more Independents breaking with the Republicans. Republicans lost because they were unable to make Obama pay for the stagnant economy as there is no evidence that employment status played a part in the election outcome.

Wednesday, November 20, 2013

The Joke that is Obama and ObamaCare (Part II)

Now that the media and Democrats have turned on the President, Obama, as he has done so many times in the past, has moved unilaterally to declare the “keep your plan” mandate in ObamaCare will be delayed a year. There are, of course, many problems with this approach that even a simpleton would understand. First, this once again, puts the onus on private insurance companies to undue years-worth of changes. Remember, private insurance companies were ready for ObamaCare implementation. It was the government that was not on time. Once again, this is liberaisml 101 at its best – punish the people that are most accountable in society. Secondly, there is nothing in the Constitution that provides the president or the executive branch the right to a line item veto. In other words, without congressional approval, the President cannot change any part of any law, including ObamaCare. Remember, Obama has already moved unilaterally in the past by delaying the corporate mandate of ObamaCare by a year. And what’s even more troubling is the President has threatened to veto any “keep your plan” fix passed in a bipartisan manner by congress. In other words, only his unconstitutional unilateral mandate is acceptable. Thirdly, the President’s move to delay the “keep your plan” mandate will only work to place more tax burden on the American public to pick up the tab for ObamaCare’s inability to sign people up for health insurance exchanges.

This is politics at its best folks. The only reason why Democrats are scared at this juncture is we just moved within a year of the midterm election cycle. And obviously, Democrats up for re-election are the ones who are most afraid of the ObamaCare consequences.

I have been saying for a long time now that Republicans should let Obama, Democrats, and the American public “eat their cake”. Although I am suffering with outrageous health insurance premium hikes, I am willing to suffer so the rest of America can see what the consequences of liberalism on them. Until people feel the pain of ObamaCare and liberalism, they will continue to vote for bad candidates. Liberals will care once they are affected by ObamaCare policies – it is in their DNA.

Even if the “like your plan” fix is implemented, in a year we will still be in the same boat except it will only be worse. Why will it be worse? Even as millions are given the opportunity to plan ahead for losing their health plans, millions more will be surprised to find out they will be losing their plan because of the corporate mandate. Corporations will drop healthcare for spouse and for employees and elect to pay the fine because it is much cheaper.

Let’s face facts, the ultimate goal of the ObamaCare is to enroll as many people as possible on government run healthcare exchanges. Liberals are pushing forward to obtain the ultimate goal – a one payer system run solely by our federal government, and in particular the untrustworthy IRS and HHS.

Monday, November 18, 2013

The Joke that is Obama and ObamaCare (Part I)

Let’s reconstruct what has transpired over the past couple of months once ObamaCare implementation began:

First, there was a government shutdown and Obama would not negotiate with Republicans. Ted Cruz and Republicans were made out to be the villains by the media and they took the brunt of the blame. The government shutdown may have been the most likely culprit in costing the Republicans the governor’s race in Virginia (IMO, since many affected by the shutdown live in DC suburbs in Virginia). What did Republicans want from the President and Democrats – at a minimum they would have liked to have delayed the implementation of ObamaCare by one-year. If Obama agreed to this the government would have reopened sooner. Instead, Obama and liberals alike made the Republicans out to be obstructionists, terrorists, extremists, and a few other niceties.

All that being said, during the government shutdown many of the flaws of ObamaCare began to surface as the law opened for business. First, the government website was a total disaster and could not enroll anyone into the healthcare exchanges because it could not handle any volume without crashing. What’s worse, people navigating the website as government employees could be convicted felons and the security of the site was non-existent placing thousands of Americans at risk for identity theft. Secondly, no one was enrolling into any exchanges and the few that were enrolling were already sick and in need of healthcare. In other words, the young healthy people needed to make the system solvent were not enrolling. Thirdly, millions of Americans across the country began to receive notices that there insurance plans were being dropped because they did not meet ObamaCare guidelines. This was contrary to hundreds of promises made by Obama and Democrats that “if you like your plan, you can keep your plan, period!” After all this, the stubborn liberals refused to delay ObamaCare and kept the government shutdown.

Fast forward a month later and the Democrats were preaching a different message and story. They urged the President to fix the “keep your plan” promise. What made Democrats change their minds so quickly? The most important change in events was the media. After the government shut down, the liberal lie that Americans can keep their health insurance plans was the main topic – even on liberal media outlets. Why did this story gain traction where other administration scandals such as Fast and Furious, IRS targeting, Benghazi, EPA targeting, and DOJ targeting could not? The main reason is simply because many liberals are being affected by the ObamaCare lie that Americans could keep their health insurance if they liked it - including many media pundits. Liberals only care about something when it affects them negatively. The other scandals did nothing to affect liberals negatively and the fact these scandals mostly affected conservatives negatively, well that is acceptable. As Hilary Clinton said about Benghazi “What does it matter!” Sure, what does it matter that a few hundred Mexicans died due to Fast and Furious and what does it matter a few people died in Benghazi? After all, it did not affect a plurality of liberals. But now, millions of liberals may be out of luck with their health insurance plans and be forced to pay more when they enroll in health care exchanges.

Friday, November 15, 2013

ObamaCare Working Exactly How Liberals Planned

For all the apologies and concern from Democrats because people are losing their insurance plans, ObamaCare is working exactly how it was written and intended to affect the U.S. population. Most liberals and Democrats made no secret of their intention to have the U.S. move to a one payer government system and many opined that ObamaCare was the first step in that direction. ObamaCare would increase the number of Americans on government run Medicaid insurance plans for not only those that are presently uninsured, but also through the millions of people who will lose their current private insurance plans due to ObamaCare rules. This, ultimately, was the goal of liberals – increase government run insurance plans while taking away business from private companies.

How else could anyone interpret the essential ObamaCare requirements placed on insurance plans? These are the 10 essentials for health insurance plans to meet ObamaCare guidelines:

  • Ambulatory patient services
  • Emergency services
  • Hospitalization
  • Maternity and newborn care
  • Mental health and substance abuse disorder services, including behavioral health treatment
  • Prescription drugs
  • Rehabilitative and habilitative services and devices
  • Laboratory services
  • Preventive and wellness services and chronic disease management
  • Pediatric services, including oral and vision care

And because of these essential guidelines along with accepting all preexisting conditions, health insurance premiums are going to skyrocket. It just does not make sense that a single man’s plan include maternity care or that a couple in their 70’s plan include newborn care. It also does not make sense for young and healthy people’s plan to include chronic disease and mental health coverage (low probability). If insurance companies have to accept preexisting conditions than why can’t people sign up for low probability insurance plans if they need it (a 50 year old pregnant woman or 18 year old with cancer) instead of making it an expensive requirement? To make these essential guidelines mandatory for all insured only has one consequence – It will lead to more people losing their private insurance plans.

So ObamaCare is working exactly how liberals drafted the law – It is the first step to an expensive on payer system controlled by the IRS and Health and Human Services government entities.

Wednesday, November 13, 2013

How People Misuse the Transitive Property

In math the transitive property states:

Whenever A > B and B > C, then also A > C

Whenever A ≥ B and B ≥ C, then also A ≥ C

Whenever A = B and B = C, then also A = C.

Hence, on a test if student A scores 7 points better than student B and student B scores 8 points better than student C, then we can conclude student A scored 15 points better than student C. However, most people make the mistake of thinking they can use the transitive property to evaluate trends and prognosticate future outcomes. This is what I like to call “eyeball statistics” and wrote about it here:

For example, if team A beats team B and team B beats team C, then we like to assume that team A will beat team C. This is not necessarily going to be the case. And if team A beats team B by 10 points and team B beats team C by 10 points, it is highly unlikely team A will beat team C by exactly 20 points. The reason for this is simple, in the real world there are a lot of variables that go into deciding a particular outcome – injuries, illness, matchup styles, mistakes, and of course people have good and bad days.

We see people try to use the transitive property incorrectly in politics all the time. For education the government is using standardized testing to decide if students pass a minimum set of requirements for reading, writing, and math. The standardized test encompasses a few hours of one day. Bureaucrats make the wrong assumption that children doing well in school will translate to higher test scores and conversely children doing poorly in school will translate to lower test scores. But this is not necessarily true. A good student can have a bad day due to extenuating circumstances such as trouble at home, lack of sleep, or other variables that may turn a good student into a poor one on any given day. The same can be said of a bad student; they can have a good or lucky day and pass the test. To assume a few hours of one day correctly assesses the aptitude of students is an insane proposition. The same test can be administered on a different day with drastically different outcomes for each student. It makes more sense to evaluate the student’s overall body of work over the course of the year instead of over a few hours. This is the only way to average out good and bad days.

On climate change we assume if there is a trend of higher global temperatures for a few straight years then we automatically assume the upcoming year will be warmer. If the earth is hit with a few violent storms we all the sudden assume that storms are increasing with intensity. This is human nature because it is what makes sense from a simple mathematical concept – the transitive property. However, climate change is not a simple problem to statistically evaluate using one or two variables – there are thousands of variables that must be considered. The same can be said about education, there are hundreds of unique variables and extenuating circumstances that affect each student.

A day does not pass when I see some genius try to extrapolate world issues by using the transitive property on data – this is wrong and it has to stop.

Monday, November 11, 2013

The Media is Soft

President Obama can sit through a 60 Minutes interview and not face any difficult questions about the struggling economy, his drone program, the Benghazi terrorist attack, why he golf’s so much, why he plays golf with womanizer Tiger Woods, why he goes on so many talk TV programs, why he is always campaigning, the shortcomings of ObamaCare, the failures of the Arab Spring, the failures in Afghanistan, and so forth. Instead, he faces softball questions about his favorite food, his dog, and his hip lifestyle.

The media is not only soft towards the liberal cause, it is soft in sports. Every day we hear sports media types ask the dumbest questions to athletes. After a team wins an event we can expect the following questions to the events MVP:

What does it feel like to win?

What emotions do you feel right now?

What where thinking about during that play?

What would say to the losing team?

What kind of bond do you feel with your teammates?

Did you expect to win the MVP?

Conversely, we can expect these questions to go to the captain of the losing team:

What does it feel like to come this far but fall a bit short of winning?

What emotions do you feel right now?

What would you say to the winning team?

Ever since Howard Cosell interjected nonsense into his interviews and color commentary, sports media coverage has been abysmal. A third grader could come up with these questions. I remember Cosell rambling and making comments like “Do you know that man does not like strawberry ice cream.” Well, I could care less. And I can certainly care less about what an athlete feels after winning and losing because it is obvious. None of these media types would make good lawyers because many structure their questions in a leading manner. For instance, “Isn’t it a great feeling to win?” For once, I would love to hear a player say “I am disappointed we won, it does not feel very good.” “I feel sorry for the other team, and really wish another player was selected to be MVP.” “I feel very sad and angry we won, I wish we did a little less to win the game.”

So it is not just Obama receiving those dumb softball and leading questions that no one cares about. Our media is throwing these questions out to everyone, except of course to a conservative.

Friday, November 8, 2013

The Marijuana Pipe Dream

There is so much discussion about the legalization of marijuana these days, especially after two states voted to legalize the use the drug (Colorado and Washington). Today, 18 states and the District of Columbia have legalized medical marijuana usage. This is the White House’s position on marijuana policy straight from the Office of National Drug Control website: “Marijuana is classified as a Schedule I controlled substance under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA). As a Schedule I drug, marijuana is classified under the following criteria: A. The drug has a high potential for abuse. B. The drug has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States C. There is a lack of accepted safety for use of the drug under medical supervision.” Yet, the federal government has done very little to enforce federal laws as it pertains to legalized medical marijuana. The Supreme Court has ruled numerous times, and most recently on the Arizona Immigration law, that state law cannot trump federal laws citing the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution. So why doesn’t the federal government sue those states who have legalized medical marijuana because their laws conflict with federal laws? Meanwhile, the DOJ has sued numerous states over conflicting immigration policy. This truly shows the hypocrisy of the federal government. Do not get me wrong, I am a big states rights advocate, but the DOJ certainly shows its bias when it comes to enforcing federal laws.

Liberals have argued for years that legalizing marijuana would raise tax revenues for both federal and state governments. Legalization would also be helpful to the environment for several reasons. First, the pesticides and other toxins being used to grow illegal marijuana are poisoning our lands (and many of these illegal marijuana farms are located on pristine state and national park lands). Secondly, it would reduce energy and water consumption to run these illegal marijuana farms. Legal marijuana farms would no longer need to be hid in remote areas and could have clear access to the best and cheapest energy source – the sun. Legalization would also reduce the need for enforcement which would save state and federal governments millions annually. Finally, legalization would provide access to medical marijuana for all.

All of this sounds great, but it is dream for several reasons. First, if marijuana has any medical advantages let the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approve the drug and then let it be dispensed though pharmacies. This is standard procedure for all drugs and those that do not comply are violating federal law. Secondly, higher taxes and reduced enforcement is more than likely going to lead to a black market for cheaper tax free marijuana. To think legalization in the U.S. will suddenly stop the flow of illegal marijuana into the U.S or farmed within the U.S. is just naïve. The only true way to collect tax revenues on marijuana is to implement a flat or fair tax. Hence, environmental gains will be small if any since the demand for marijuana will rise and not go down if it is legalized. Finally, if marijuana legalization leads to higher drug usage and dependency it will cost state and federal governments more in enforcement, healthcare, and entitlement costs than it will receive in tax revenues.

I think states should have the right to enforce marijuana laws as they see fit without federal government intervention (but it will not happen). That being said, I voted against the legalization of marijuana in Colorado because I think it will ultimately be detrimental towards society.

Wednesday, November 6, 2013

There is Only One Type of Disability: Quitting (Part II)

· Set Goals – Disabilities may force you to adjust goals, but that is okay. Treat disabilities as a challenge to overcome.

· Empathy - Don’t feel sorry for yourself and realize as bad as things may be, they can always be worse and there are people who are suffering more than you.

· Acceptance – The sooner you accept your disability the sooner you can move on to achieve. In many instances, family and self-denial only exasperate disabilities.

· Opportunity – Disabilities are an opportunity to be inspirational, motivational, and to educate the public on your disability.

· Complaining – Never complain about your disability unless you offer reasonable solutions and ideas to help solve the problem. When you talk about your disability do so in a positive manner without emotions.

· Exploitation – Many people exploit their disabilities and tell sob stories about them and become a burden on society. People should never exploit their disability nor should they exploit their race, gender, financial standing, or sexual orientation in any manner.

· Failure – Never be afraid of failure, you cannot succeed if failure is not an option.

· Improvement – Improve each day and become a better person. There is truth to the motto “no pain – no gain”.

· True Disabilities – A disability is not self-inflicted nor is it gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, or financially related. As a country we tend to classify minorities, the poor, women, and gays as being disabled, but this is further from the truth. I am not saying these groups of people do not face tough challenges, but living in the United States is the best place to achieve equality.

· Lead – Lead by example and do not be a follower, be the exception not the norm.

· Health – Advocate for your own health and do not rely solely on doctors – I am convinced most are quacks. Exercise daily, it will make you feel better. Yes, even people with chronic pain can find relief from exercise.

· Never Ever Quit

Nothing pains me more to see the fastest growing employment sector in our economy is being disabled. There are 9 million people collecting social security disability and millions more collect these benefits including family members of disabled workers plus disabled spouses and children. I find it hard to believe that 6% (1 in 16 people) of our workforce is disabled and cannot work. I think people are exploiting the system, especially people with self-inflicted disabilities which can be corrected. And to make matters worse, as a country we treat people who impoverished, women, gays, and ethnical minorities as disabled. A healthy person is not disabled. A disability does not discriminate and is not necessarily visual to the naked eye. Disabilities are a uniting issue and problem; they are not a political issue whereas race, gender, financial standing, and sexual orientation are polarizing and divisive political topics.

At some point I hope to add a few posts about achieving some of my goals despite my physical limitations.

Sunday, November 3, 2013

There is Only One Type of Disability: Quitting (Part I)

Most people with disabilities do not want to be viewed as being disabled. Why? Because they are living their lives to their fullest just as every other American, they have not given up. They merely want to be viewed as equals.

On the other hand, some people want to be identified by their gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, wealth, political affiliation, religious affiliation, or disability. Most do not. Most people simply want to be viewed as equal regardless of our skin color, beliefs, sexual orientation, or disability.

There is only type of disability in life and it is not being disabled, poor, or being a minority. It is using your disability, skin color, financial standing, or beliefs as an excuse. Excuses are the real disability in life. Once a person uses excuses for their problems and issues, then you can expect these same people to quit and give up trying to overcome their adversity. There is no way to overcome and achieve once a person quits. Quitters are the people that become a burden on society. People who are afraid of failure will ultimately become failures. People who are afraid to face their fears will ultimately become prey to their fears. These people have quit in the game of life, the game in which we all only receive one opportunity to make a difference. It is a shame to let this opportunity pass.

What’s even more troubling is that many disabilities are self-inflicted. Obesity, substance abuse, and poor mental attitudes lead to disabilities which could easily be overcome with life style changes. And the worst thing anyone can do once they have a disability (especially self-inflicted disabilities) is to quit and become a burden to their family and society.

So many people have come back from horrific war experiences to overcome amputation and post-traumatic stress to become successful and inspirational citizens. These are the people who inspire me. Those who overcome a disability to achieve successes are the most inspirational people.

I am not saying that all disabilities are the same and that disabled people should not collect benefits. What I am saying is that collecting benefits should not be the ultimate goal. Benefits take away incentive and make it too easy to quit. And that should not be the purpose of benefits and charities. It is great we live in a country where it is possible to obtain financial assistance, access to good healthcare, and most importantly technological advances to mitigate disabilities. This may be a starting place for people with disabilities, but it should not be the ending place.

I grew up poor, had a learning disability, was abused, and now have a chronic neurological condition (You can read my posts on Benign Fasciculation Syndrome). I have never and will never accept a handout of any kind: unemployment, disability, or charity. Most neurologists think what I have is “no big deal” because I will not die from my condition. However, living with constant muscle twitching, cramping, fatigue, pins and needles, numbness, pain, and stiffness is stressful and debilitating. Here are a few rules I live by to help me overcome my chronic disability:

Friday, November 1, 2013

ObamaCare Worse Than I Predicted

I predicted doom and gloom once ObamaCare was enacted. Thus far many of the things I predicted have started to come to fruition. Anyone who read any part of the Affordable Care Act would have realized there is nothing affordable about it at all and health insurance premiums would skyrocket. At the rate of increase over the past five years for my health insurance – in 15 years my premiums would be nearly 100 thousand dollars a year for me and my wife. This is true for most people and the reasons are clear - ObamaCare places the onus solely on health insurance companies to shoulder the load for reforming the medical industry. For this reason, and of course having to accept all pre-existing conditions healthcare costs have to go up. I am now hear arguments from Democrats stating that health insurance premiums always go up. This is true, but they are going up faster and what’s worse the President promised premiums would go down dramatically. Another prediction that has come true is that more people are losing their current insurance under ObamaCare. This was another lie that was easy to see coming for several reasons. First, insurance policies had to meet a minimum set of requirements under ObamaCare. Secondly, it is easier for companies to pay a fine instead of insuring employees. Thirdly, higher insurance premiums mean some companies are dropping coverage for spouses to control their costs. Much of this was easy to see, but other things have come to light that I did not predict.

First, who could have imagined that the high tech election machine that is the Obama administration could screw up the website for signing up ObamaCare? This is almost comical that they spent 600 million dollars on a system that has to be completely redone. The government screws up everything they get their hands on and then of course the burden fall on the taxpayers to try to clean up their messes. Secondly, despite pouring billions into advertising, young people are not taking the bait to sign up for ObamaCare and would rather pay the fine (which is cheaper). If the young and healthy do not sign up - insurance and medical costs will skyrocket. The mandate that all Americans have health insurance is supposedly what makes ObamaCare financially achievable. Hence, without the young signing up ObamaCare can fiscally collapse. Time will tell. Thirdly, what’s even more troubling is that most people signing up for ObamaCare already have medical issues which will only increase costs. Fourthly, many people signing up for ObamaCare are Medicaid eligible. In other words, states Medicaid payrolls are expanding which will once again raise costs. Fifthly, the FDA just passed a new law requiring people to see a doctor at a minimum quarterly and in some cases monthly to get prescriptions for pain. The FDA is trying to control prescription abuse, but this will place a higher burden on the medical system. For instance, I usually go to the doctor once a year. Now, at a minimum, I have to go at least four times yearly to get my prescription for Lyrica filled (I use it to control neurological symptoms for a disorder I have). That is a bigger expense on me and ultimately will create a larger demand on doctors and therefore increased medical costs. The fact people will have to go to the doctor more will also work to raise insurance premiums further. Hence, the government is punishing good people and the timing could not have been worse for this law (during the time ObamaCare is being rolled out).

Hopefully, the media finally comes to its senses. Recently, CBS has reported negatively about the ObamaCare rollout, the Benghazi cover up, and the NSA spying on the leaders of many of our allies. Maybe, finally, the media will see how the Obama administration has lied to the American public about ObamaCare and turn against our socialist leader.

I argued that the Republicans should not try to stop the rollout of ObamaCare. Unfortunately, until naïve Americans and media personnel see the effects of ObamaCare on themselves they will continue to support this dunce and his social plans. Sure, ObamaCare is causing me headaches in increased costs (I pay more now health insurance than I have ever paid on a mortgage), but others have to feel the pain as well for this law to be repealed.

Wednesday, October 30, 2013

Obama Pushes the Constitution to the Brink of Extinction

The Obama administration will have yet another case heard in front of the Supreme Court. The Obama administration appointed three members of the National Labor Relations Board (NRLB) as recess appointments last year. A federal appeals court ruled Obama exceeded his constitutional power by making these appointments. Let’s be clear, all presidents make recess appointments. The Constitution gives the President the power to appoint federal positions if Congress is in recess. However, Obama used a gimmick by having Majority Leader Harry Reid end a Senate session even though members were reconvening in a few days. If Obama wins his Supreme Court appeal, it says the President can assign anyone to any post if Congress is merely out to lunch. To make matters worse, Obama never nominated or told Congress who he planned to assign to the NRLB posts. If the Supreme Court puts an end to the Obama madness, then nearly 300 decisions made by the NLRB will be voided. However, thus far, the Obama camp has pretty much gotten their way with the Supreme Court.

In the Arizona Immigration law, the Supreme Court upheld the most controversial provision of the law which allows law enforcement to check the immigration status of any individual they stop or arrest if there is reason to suspect the individual may be in the United States illegally. The court struck down all other provisions of the law citing the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution. Congress passed the Immigration and Reform Act of 1986 which the Supreme Court said could not be preempted by State laws. For instance, the Arizona law wanted to make it a misdemeanor for illegal aliens to apply for work in Arizona, but the 1986 Federal law states it is illegal for employers to hire illegal workers, but the law makes a deliberate choice not to impose any criminal penalties against illegal employees. Also, the Supreme Court also said “It is not a crime for a removable alien to remain in the United States”. This means Arizona authorities cannot hold and or deport an illegal alien assigned for deportation since the Federal law of 1986 sets procedures and guidelines for illegal alien removal. The court sympathized with Arizona citing property damage, environmental degradation, and crime associated with illegal aliens, but their hands were tied by the 1986 law. This is true even though the Court felt the federal government was being negligent with its enforcement of the law.

Since the passing of the Federal Immigration Law in 1986 over 10 million illegal aliens have come to the U.S. from Mexico (an estimated 3.5 million via Arizona). In other words, the federal law has done nothing to diminish illegal immigration and secure our borders. And the one glaring issue with a federal immigration law is it assumes each state is affected equally by illegal immigration. This is not the case; border-states suffer much higher crime and costs associated with enforcement. Yet, the federal government and the Supreme Court fail to see illegal immigration as a state issue. And when the federal government law is failing to protect the citizens of Arizona, local law enforcement and officials are powerless to act. Yet, instead of trying to work with Arizona to help them with their immigration issues, the administration decided to sue them. Remember, Arizona merely created the law because the administration refused to help them with their immigration problem in the first place.

In the Supreme Court ruling on ObamaCare, the court upheld the law citing the Federal government has the right to tax citizens. The Court ruled that the government can mandate people must buy health insurance or face a fine (tax). If this is true, then what is stopping the federal government from mandating that each home have a garden and at least 3 trees on the front lawn or face a fine? Nothing! This is outrageous and basically makes the Constitution moot and it certainly makes the Commerce Clause irrelevant because the Court has given the federal government the right to create interstate commerce through taxation. the Supreme Court handed down a split decision on Arizona's 2010 immigration law. The court unanimously sustained the best-known part of the law, which requires state law enforcement officials to determine the immigration status of anyone they stop or arrest if there is reason to suspect that the individual might be an illegal immigrant. But it blocked the implementation of other provisions.the Supreme Court handed down a split decision on Arizona's 2010 immigration law. The court unanimously sustained the best-known part of the law, which requires state law enforcement officials to determine the immigration status of anyone they stop or arrest if there is reason to suspect that the individual might be an illegal immigrant. But it blocked the implementation of other provisions.the Supreme Court handed down a split decision on Arizona's 2010 immigration law. The court unanimously sustained the best-known part of the law, which requires state law enforcement officials to determine the immigration status of anyone they stop or arrest if there is reason to suspect that the individual might be an illegal immigrant. But it blocked the implementation of other provisions.

So there you have it! If the Supreme Court says Obama’s recess appointments are Constitutional then any president can assign a person to a post during a lunch recess without being formally nominated. Remember, the purpose of the recess clause in the constitution was due to the fact Congress was only in session a few months each year 200 years ago. Obama has already won landmark Supreme Court decisions on immigration and healthcare that yields a great deal of power to the federal government and makes states powerless

Monday, October 28, 2013

Does the Federal Government Treat Americans Equally?

The Equal Protection Clause, part of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, provides that "no state shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." The Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection Clause applies only to state governments, but the requirement of equal protection has been read to apply to the federal government as a component of Fifth Amendment due process. But are “All men created equally” in the eyes of the federal government? No, most laws are not enforced equally amongst people, organizations, corporations, and government.

For instance, ObamaCare funds are not distributed equally amongst the states on a per capita basis. For this reason, it is easier for some states to implement the law while other states are opting out from setting up Medicaid exchanges. Other provisions of the law favor unions over other groups of people; taxes on medical devices and equipment will hit seniors the hardest; and reducing healthcare savings accounts will affect families with special needs children the most. There is even a provision exempting government workers from ObamaCare. ObamaCare itself places the onus of healthcare reform solely on insurance companies whereas individuals, the government, companies (big Pharma), and other groups have no responsibility to lower healthcare costs. If any law were applied equally amongst all, the legislation would not have to be 2,500 pages long consisting of carve outs and earmarks bartered by lobbyists.

Social security is not applied to government workers who are instead treated with pension plans where most will withdraw more than they put in. On the other hand, individuals only receive what they put into corporate contribution based 401K plans. Title IX removes opportunities for male athletes. Diversity or quota systems whose purpose is to lower standards for one group of people are by no means equal. Obama’s green investment program picks winners and losers in industry based on the vicious cycle of campaign contributions and quid pro quo favors. Roe v. Wade provides women the sole right of determining the birth right of a fetus regardless of a partner’s belief. People who collect welfare are not held to the same standards as working individuals – they do not have to be drug tested and their welfare rights are not rescinded for being irresponsible.

Recently, the military proclaimed that women are now eligible for front line combat. This is fair so long as they are required to meet the same standards as men. Otherwise people will be put in harm’s way. Just as it would be ridiculous for college or pro basketball teams to place a quota for Caucasians and individuals under 6 feet, it is just as ridiculous for government to place quotas and lower standards on anything and proclaim that as equality. Not everyone is created equally in terms of talent and abilities. Since I have very limited athletic and artistic ability, no one should be forced to give me an opportunity in these fields. This is not discrimination; it is merely a fact of life.

The government’s interpretation of equal protection basically accomplishes the opposite – it discriminates against one group of people to level the playing field in its estimation. This makes little sense and is counterproductive because it suggests that minorities and women are inferior to White males. And we all know this is not true. While each individual has their own attributes to offer to society; skin color, gender, sexual orientation, religious affiliation, and so forth should not be one of them.

Friday, October 25, 2013

Taking Cover

I discussed the evils of social media and technology in the past. I discussed how technology has made us less personable. Remember, the social media was created by social retards (I am one of those geeky engineers who has worked on creating technological products). Social media is an introvert’s dream. They can send emails and texts without having to talk to anyone in person or even over the phone. People hide behind social media and would be much happier spending an evening on Facebook than in a social environment. It is very sad how technology has made us less personable. It has gotten so bad that we send an email to a person who sits in the office next to us. Really? I understand sending an email to document a conversation, but most people are afraid to have that conversation.

This is a huge problem in many regards. First, words can have many interpretations and without conversing in person or over the phone it can lead to a failure to communicate. This leads to unnecessary conflicts, mistakes, and project errors and or failures. Secondly, the internet and social media is the perfect place for identity theft criminals, pedophiles, and bullies to hide and thrive.

Message forums have turned into a place to go for fight. I do not belong to many forums, but the few I do, are populated with narcissists with no people skills. What is so unfortunate is that people on message forums are discussing issues that they have in common. Hence, one would think there would be little arguing and bullying over subjects people fully agree. But this is not the case. For instance, I belong to a few wrestling forums – including one for Penn State fans. Each week people hide behind aliases to criticize, belittle, and harass comments made by others in a very demeaning manner. And what’s worse, participant comments over performances by team members are not only critical, but opinions based on no facts or data. Calling out a bad performance as “he sucks” or creating a rumor that the person is hurt, does not practice hard, or has family issues is just not proper etiquette.

On the same forum, it is common for people to debate the best pound for pound wrestlers. This is a very subjective issue because the national champ at 133 pounds would never wrestle the national champ at 184 pounds. To try to clear up some of the unknown parameters in the heated debate I created a simple mathematical model to compare wrestlers. Well, I was called every name under the sun from an idiot to a genius. People also hypothesized about what I did for living because they could not understand anyone having the time to do this (But yet they have the time to make thousands of comments). This was my first and only post. I simply lost respect for a forum of people who want to start rumors and be critical while hiding not only behind technology, but doing so with an alias.

If you have something critical to say and are not able to do it in person, then you are a coward. And if you have something critical say and are not willing to do so with your real name (hide behind a computer handle or name), then you are beyond cowardice, you are nothing more than a narcissistic carbon emitting oxygen thief. It is time for people to man up and to stop this technological power grab. It is unbecoming, divisive, and unhealthy.

Wednesday, October 23, 2013

What's the Point?

What’s the point or purpose of all the acting award shows? There are so many: The Academy Awards (Oscars), The Golden Globe Awards, The Screen Actor Guild Awards, The Teen Choice Awards, The Independent Spirit Awards, The MTV Awards, The TV Land Awards, The People’s Choice Awards, The Emmy Awards, and The BET Awards. And if you cannot win an award for doing a good job acting then you may win a Razzie at the Golden Raspberry Award Foundation. If this is not enough, there are awards for singing – The Tony Awards, The Grammy Awards, and the Country Music Awards. And of course there are award shows for sports – The ESPY Awards. What’s worse, all of these shows have many hours of one preshow after another whose purpose is to provide each individual attending their solo opportunity to walk on the red carpet spotlight.

There are no shows in the real world for the best doctor, engineer, lawyer, union worker, cook, waitress, meteorologist, accountant, painter, and so forth. If people do a good job they are generally rewarded with better pay, promotions, bonuses, and other perks. This is how the real world operates. So why does the music, acting, and sporting industries operate so differently? Why are these industries highlighted by dozens of award opportunities? I do not know the answer, but I will try to speculate.

First, Americans watch this garbage and as long we pay attention to these shows and they continue to receive strong ratings, they will continue to have these award shows. I do not watch them anymore partly because I almost always disagree with the choices for nominees and winners. These shows main purpose, in my opinion, is to provide these personalities the opportunity for self-promotion, bragging rights, righteousness, ego boasting, public relations, and to give them a forum to spew their political views. Most of the people attending these award shows have one in thing in common; they are liberal and are free to provide their ideological opinions without any debate at these events. They are merely preaching to the choir. This is the sad state of our narcissistic society. Everyone wants to be showered with gifts and awards for merely doing their job. There are so many awards it is hard to image anyone not receiving some sort of award or acknowledgment within the acting industry.

These events are sad; people should not expect awards and accolades for doing a good job. Is it that hard to expect each person will attempt to do the best they can at any particular job? I would hope so.

The winners usually get on stage and make a political statement about how they support our troops and talk about their charity work such as their efforts in Africa to wipe out genocide or to save our environment. The only criteria to win is that the individual’s views are politically correct which of course is to support the righteous liberal cause.

What disgusts me the most about these shows is the materialism which is on display. Each individual tries to outdo the others with expensive attire and jewels. Many of these performers do not even look real – they look plastic with their identities hidden behind tons of makeup and dozens of plastic surgeries. If these people really cared for others and about our environment more than their personal satisfaction of receiving an award, then they would donate all the money for these shows, attire, jewels, and cost for plastic surgeries to their causes. But that is not what happens because these people only care about one thing and that is their own self-gratification.