The Evolution of Mediocrity

2012 Election Models (3/16/22)

2012-03-16T05:09:00.000-07:00

Below are poll averages (from Real Clear Politics) for Presidential, Gubernatorial, Senate, and contested House seats. A positive poll average favors the Republican candidate whereas a negative poll average favors the Democratic candidate. From the poll averages a ranking and probability are calculated for each race. A probability above 0.5 (50%) favors the Republican candidate whereas a probability under 0.5 favors the Democratic candidate. The higher ranking, the higher the probability the race will go to the Republican candidate. The lower the ranking, the higher the probability the race will go to the Democratic candidate. Since polling in House races are not very accurate, the formula to calculate the probability is more complex taking into account race ratings by the Cook, Election Projection, and Sabato political reports as well as generic congressional polling results and PVI (Partisan Voting Index). A positive PVI means the percentage of registered Republicans in the district outnumbers registered Democrats whereas a negative PVI means the percentage of registered Democrats in the district outnumbers registered Republicans. The overall probability for the President, Senate, Gubernatorial, and House races are computed to project the number of seats (including the presidency) that are going to be won by Republicans and Democrats respectively. Race candidates will be filled in to the below tables once they are determined by state primaries. I will update and post this information regularly. Below is an overall summary of the predicted outcomes based on probability density function models.

Presidential Electoral Vote: Obama 326; Republican 206 (R +34)

Governor Races: Current - Republicans 29; Democrats 19 (2 Independents); Projection - Republicans 31; Democrats 17 (2 Independents)

Senate Races: Current - Republicans 47; Democrats 53 (Including 2 Independents); Projection - Republicans 52; Democrats 48 (Including 2 Independents)

House Races: Current - Republicans 242; Democrats 193; Projection: Republicans 238; Democrats 197;

Below is an overall summary of the predicted outcomes based solely on election polls:

Presidential Electoral Vote: Obama 326; Republican 206

Governor Races: Republicans 33; Democrats 15 (2 Independents)

Senate Races: Republicans 51; Democrats 49 (Including 2 Independents)

House Races: Republicans 232; Democrats 203

		Presidential Race
State	Democrat Electoral Vote	Republican Electoral Vote	Poll	Rank	Probability	Weighted Probability
Alabama		9	0	2	0.5	3.5
Alaska		3	0	2	0.5	0.5
Arizona		11	0	2	0.5	4.5
Arkansas		6	0	2	0.5	2
California	55		0	2	0.5	26.5
Colorado	9		0	2	0.5	3.5
Connecticut	7		0	2	0.5	2.5
DC	3		0	2	0.5	0.5
Florida	29		0	2	0.5	13.5
Georgia		16	0	2	0.5	7
Hawaii	4		0	2	0.5	1
Idaho		4	0	2	0.5	1
Illinois	20		0	2	0.5	9
Indiana		11	0	2	0.5	4.5
Iowa	6		0	2	0.5	2
Kansas		6	0	2	0.5	2
Kentucky		8	0	2	0.5	3
Louisiana		8	0	2	0.5	3
Massachusetts	11		0	2	0.5	4.5
Maine	4		0	2	0.5	1
Maryland	10		0	2	0.5	4
Michigan	16		0	2	0.5	7
Minnesota	10		0	2	0.5	4
Mississippi		6	0	2	0.5	2
Missouri		10	0	2	0.5	4
Montana		3	0	2	0.5	0.5
Nebraska		5	0	2	0.5	1.5
Nevada	6		0	2	0.5	2
New Hampshire	4		0	2	0.5	1
New Jersey	14		0	2	0.5	6
New Mexico	5		0	2	0.5	1.5
New York	29		0	2	0.5	13.5
North Carolina		15	0	2	0.5	6.5
North Dakota		3	0	2	0.5	0.5
Ohio	18		0	2	0.5	8
Oklahoma		7	0	2	0.5	2.5
Oregon	7		0	2	0.5	2.5
Pennsylvania	20		0	2	0.5	9
Rhode Island	4		0	2	0.5	1
South Carolina		9	0	2	0.5	3.5
South Dakota		3	0	2	0.5	0.5
Tennessee		11	0	2	0.5	4.5
Texas		38	0	2	0.5	18
Utah		6	0	2	0.5	2
Vermont	3		0	2	0.5	0.5
Virginia	13		0	2	0.5	5.5
Washington	12		0	2	0.5	5
West Virginia		5	0	2	0.5	1.5
Wisconsin	10		0	2	0.5	4
Wyoming		3	6	1	1	1
			0
Total	329	206	0.84853		0.51	0.501149425



Governor Races
State	Democrat	Republican	Poll	Rank	Probability			Incumbent
Delaware	Markell		0	3	0.5				-1
Indiana		Daniels	0	3	0.5				1
Kentucky	Beshear		0	3	0.5				-1
Louisiana		Jindal	0	3	0.5				1
Mississippi		Barbour	0	3	0.5				1
Missouri	Nixon		-18	14	0.000405				-1
Montana	Schweitzer		0	3	0.5				-1
New Hampshire	Lynch		0	3	0.5				-1
North Carolina	Bowles	McCrory	4	2	0.7716549	Gain			-1
North Dakota		Dalrymple	0	3	0.5				1
Utah		Herbert	0	3	0.5				1
Vermont	Shumlin		0	3	0.5				-1
Washington	McKena	Inslee	6.3	1	0.8794587	Gain			-1
West Virginia	Tomblin		0	3	0.5				-1
			0
			5.37412		0.5108228

Senate Races
State	Democrat	Republican	Poll	Rank	Probability			Incumbent
Arizona	Carmona	Flake	11	2	0.9385421			1
California	Feinstein		0	9	0.5			-1
Connecticut	Lieberman		0	9	0.5			-1
Delaware	Carper		0	9	0.5			-1
Florida	Nelson	Mack	5	4	0.7584123			-1
Hawaii	Hirono	Lingle	-20	33	0.0025173			-1
Indiana		Lugar	0	9	0.5			1
Massachusetts	Warren	Brown	4	5	0.7125888			1
Maine	Pingree	Summers	-3	27	0.3369788	Gain	Independent King Leads	1
Michigan	Stabenow	Hoekstra	-15	30	0.0177061			-1
Minnesota	Klobuchar		0	9	0.5			-1
Mississippi		Wicker	0	9	0.5			1
Missouri	McCaskill	Steelman	1	7	0.5557652	Gain		-1
Maryland	Cardin		0	8	0.5			-1
Montana	Tester	Rehberg	1.6	5	0.5887713	Gain		-1
Nebraska	Kerrey	Bruning	16.5	1	0.9896654	Gain		-1
Nevada	Berkley	Heller	0	9	0.5			1
New York	Gillibrand		0	9	0.5			-1
New Jersey	Menendez	Kyrillos	-15	30	0.0177061			-1
New Mexico	Heinrich	Wilson	-5	28	0.2415877			-1
North Dakota	Heitkamp	Berg	0	9	0.5			-1
Ohio	Brown	Mandel	-9.5	29	0.0913827			-1
Pennsylvania	Casey		0	9	0.5			-1
Rhode Island	Whitehouse		0	9	0.5			-1
Tennessee		Corker	0	9	0.5			1
Texas		Hutchison	0	9	0.5			1
Utah		Hatch	0	9	0.5			1
Vermont	Sanders		0	9	0.5			-1
Virginia	Kaine	Allen	0	9	0.5			-1
Washington	Cantwell	Baumgartner	-15	30	0.0177061			-1
West Virginia	Manchin		0	9	0.5			-1
Wisconsin	Baldwin	Thompson	5.5	3	0.7797428	Gain		-1
Wyoming		Barrasso	1	7	0.5557652			1
			0
			7.13059		0.4728739


House Races
State	Democrat	Republican	Poll	PVI	Cook	Sabato	Election Projection	AVE	Rank	Probability
Arkansas 1		Crawford	0	7	10	15	15	9.4	13	0.9101278
Arkansas 2		Griffin	0	5	15	15	15	10	6	0.9232349
Arkansas 4	Ross		0	8	5	5	5	4.6	60	0.7442486
Arizona 1		Gosar	0	3	0	-5	10	1.6	76	0.590312
Arizona 5		Schweikert	0	5	15	15	5	8	29	0.8732185
Arizona 2	Giffords		0	3	0	0	-15	-2.4	87	0.3659793
Arizona 9			0	0	-5	0	-5	-2	85	0.3876556
California 3	Garamendi		0	-1	-5	-10	-15	-6.2	105	0.1881196
California 7		Lungren	0	3	0	0	5	1.6	76	0.590312
California 9	McNerney		0	-2	-5	-5	-15	-5.4	95	0.2204503
California 10		Denham	0	5	5	5	5	4	62	0.7159558
California 16	Costa		0	-2	-10	-10	-15	-7.4	111	0.1454595
California 21			0	3	5	0	15	4.6	60	0.7442486
California 23		McCarthy	0	18	15	15	15	12.6	1	0.9639303
California 24	Capps		0	-3	-10	-5	-15	-6.6	106	0.1731132
California 26			0	-3	0	0	-5	-1.6	83	0.409688
California 31		Miller	0	-2	0	-5	-5	-2.4	87	0.3659793
California 36		Bono Mack	0	3	10	10	15	7.6	36	0.8609619
California 41			0	-3	-5	-5	-15	-5.6	97	0.2120824
California 47			0	-5	-10	-5	-15	-7	108	0.1588923
California 52		Bilbray	0	-1	0	0	5	0.8	78	0.54545
Colorado 3		Tipton	0	4	5	10	15	6.8	44	0.8340957
Colorado 4		Gardner	0	6	15	15	15	10.2	3	0.9272644
Colorado 6		Coffman	0	1	5	5	5	3.2	68	0.6760549
Connecticut 5	Murphy		0	-2	-10	-10	-15	-7.4	111	0.1454595
Florida 2		Southerland	0	4	10	10	15	7.8	35	0.8671876
Florida 9			0	-3	-5	-10	-15	-6.6	106	0.1731132
Florida 8			0	2	15	15	15	9.4	13	0.9101278
Florida 10		Webster	0	7	10	10	15	8.4	24	0.884702
Florida 13		Young	0	1	10	15	15	8.2	27	0.8790561
Florida 16		Buchanan	0	5	10	10	15	8	29	0.8732185
Florida 18		West	0	1	0	0	15	3.2	67	0.6760549
Florida 7		Adams	0	4	15	10	15	8.8	23	0.895426
Florida 22			0	-5	0	-15	-15	-7	108	0.1588923
Georgia 12	Barrow		0	10	5	5	10	6	51	0.804085
Illinois 8		Walsh	0	-5	-10	-10	-5	-6	101	0.195915
Illinois 10		Dold	0	-8	-5	-5	-10	-5.6	97	0.2120824
Illinois 11		Biggert	0	-6	0	-5	-5	-3.2	89	0.3239451
Illinois 12	Costello		0	-2	0	0	-5	-1.4	82	0.4208169
Illinois 13		Johnson	0	-1	5	5	5	2.8	72	0.6552775
Illinois 17		Schilling	0	-6	-5	-5	-5	-4.2	92	0.2744489
Indiana 2	Donnelly		0	7	5	5	10	5.4	55	0.7795497
Indiana 8		Bucshon	0	7	10	10	5	6.4	48	0.8194814
Iowa 1	Braley		0	-5	-10	-10	-15	-8	118	0.1267815
Iowa 2	Loebsack		0	-4	-10	-10	-15	-7.8	114	0.1328124
Iowa 3	Boswell		0	1	0	0	-5	-0.8	81	0.45455
Iowa 4		King	0	4	5	5	5	3.8	65	0.7062029
Kentucky 6	Chandler		0	9	-5	-10	-5	-2.2	86	0.3767689
Maine 2	Michaud		0	-3	-10	-10	-15	-7.6	113	0.1390381
Maryland 1		Harris	0	10	15	15	15	11	2	0.9417796
Maryland 6		Bartlett	0	-2	-10	0	-5	-3.4	90	0.3137535
Massachusetts 10	Keating		0	-5	-15	-15	-15	-10	127	0.0767651
Massachusetts 6	Tierney		0	-7	-10	-10	-15	-8.4	121	0.115298
Missouri 2		Akin	0	5	15	10	5	7	43	0.8411077
Michigan 1		Benishek	0	3	5	5	15	5.6	54	0.7879176
Michigan 3		Amash	0	6	15	15	15	10.2	3	0.9272644
Michigan 7		Walberg	0	1	10	10	15	7.2	39	0.8479226
Michigan 11		McCotter	0	1	15	10	15	8.2	27	0.8790561
Minnesota 1	Walz		0	1	-15	-10	-15	-7.8	114	0.1328124
Minnesota 2		Kline	0	1	10	10	15	7.2	39	0.8479226
Minnesota 3		Paulsen	0	0	15	10	15	8	29	0.8732185
Minnesota 6		Bachman	0	7	15	10	15	9.4	13	0.9101278
Minnesota 8		Cravaack	0	-3	0	0	5	0.4	79	0.522762
Minnesota 7	Peterson		0	5	-10	-10	-15	-6	101	0.195915
Montana 1		Rehberg	0	7	10	5	5	5.4	55	0.7795497
New Jersey 3		Runyan	0	1	5	5	15	5.2	58	0.7709956
New Jersey 5		Garrett	0	7	10	15	15	9.4	13	0.9101278
New Jersey 6	Pallone		0	-8	-15	-15	-15	-10.6	131	0.0651649
New Jersey 7		Lance	0	3	15	15	15	9.6	10	0.9146699
New Jersey 8	Pascrell		0	-10	-15	-15	-15	-11	133	0.0582204
New Jersey 9	Rothman		0	-9	-15	-15	-15	-10.8	132	0.0616163
New Jersey 12	Holt		0	-5	-15	-15	-15	-10	127	0.0767651
New York 1	Bishop		0	0	-10	-5	-15	-6	101	0.195915
New York 9		Turner	0	-5	0	15	15	5	59	0.7622585
New York 13		Grimm	0	4	5	10	15	6.8	44	0.8340957
New York 19		Hayworth	0	3	5	10	15	6.6	46	0.8268868
New York 20		Gibson	0	2	5	10	15	6.4	48	0.8194814
New York 22	Hinchey		0	-6	-15	-15	-15	-10.2	130	0.0727356
New York 23	Owens		0	1	-5	-5	-15	-4.8	94	0.2466584
New York 24		Hanna	0	2	10	10	15	7.4	38	0.8545405
New York 25		Buerkle	0	-3	-5	0	-15	-4.6	93	0.2557514
New York 29		Reed	0	5	10	15	15	9	21	0.9005087
Nebraska 2		Terry	0	6	10	15	15	9.2	18	0.9054083
New Hampshire 1		Guinta	0	0	10	5	5	4	62	0.7159558
New Hampshire 2		Bass	0	-3	0	0	5	0.4	79	0.522762
New Mexico 1	Heinrich		0	-5	-10	-10	-15	-8	118	0.1267815
Nevada 2		Amodei	0	5	15	15	15	10	6	0.9232349
Nevada 3		Heck	0	0	0	5	5	2	74	0.6123444
Nevada 4			0	-2	-10	-10	-5	-5.4	95	0.2204503
North Carolina 2		Ellmers	0	2	15	15	15	9.4	13	0.9101278
North Carolina 7	McIntyre		0	11	0	0	5	3.2	67	0.6760549
North Carolina 8	Kissell		0	12	5	5	10	6.4	48	0.8194814
North Carolina 11	Shuler		0	13	10	10	5	7.6	36	0.8609619
North Carolina 13	Miller		0	10	10	10	10	8	29	0.8732185
North Dakota 1		Berg	0	10	10	10	15	9	21	0.9005087
Ohio 6		Johnson	0	5	5	5	5	4	62	0.7159558
Ohio 7		Gibbs	0	4	10	10	5	5.8	52	0.7960968
Ohio 16		Renacci	0	4	0	0	5	1.8	75	0.6013686
Oklahoma 2	Boren		0	14	5	5	5	5.8	52	0.7960968
Oregon 1	Wu		0	-5	-15	-15	-15	-10	127	0.0767651
Oregon 5	Schrader		0	0	-10	-10	-15	-7	108	0.1588923
Pennsylvania 3		Kelly	0	3	15	15	15	9.6	10	0.9146699
Pennsylvania 4	Altmire		0	6	-15	-15	-15	-7.8	114	0.1328124
Pennsylvania 6		Gerlach	0	1	10	10	15	7.2	39	0.8479226
Pennsylvania 7		Meehan	0	1	10	10	15	7.2	39	0.8479226
Pennsylvania 8		Fitzpatrick	0	-1	5	5	5	2.8	72	0.6552775
Pennsylvania 12	Altmire		0	6	-5	-5	-5	-1.8	84	0.3986314
Pennsylvania 11		Barletta	0	6	10	15	15	9.2	18	0.9054083
Pennsylvania 15		Dent	0	2	10	15	15	8.4	24	0.884702
Pennsylvania 16		Pitts	0	6	15	15	15	10.2	3	0.9272644
Pennsylvania 17	Holden		0	6	-15	-15	-15	-7.8	114	0.1328124
South Carolina 7			0	6	10	15	15	9.2	18	0.9054083
South Dakota 1		Noem	0	10	15	10	15	10	6	0.9232349
Tennessee 5	Cooper		0	-3	-15	-15	-15	-9.6	125	0.0853301
Rhode Island 1	Cicilline		0	-13	0	0	-15	-5.6	97	0.2120824
Texas 10		McCaul	0	8	0	10	15	6.6	46	0.8268868
Texas 14		Paul	0	8	10	15	15	9.6	10	0.9146699
Texas 23		Canseco	0	6	0	0	10	3.2	67	0.6760549
Texas 34			0	-3	-10	-15	-15	-8.6	123	0.1098421
Texas 35			0	0	-15	0	-15	-6	101	0.195915
Utah 4	Matheson		0	13	0	0	5	3.6	66	0.6962978
Virginia 2		Rigell	0	5	10	10	15	8	29	0.8732185
Virginia 11	Connolly		0	-2	-15	-10	-15	-8.4	121	0.115298
Washington 1	Inslee		0	-3	-5	-5	-5	-3.6	91	0.3037022
Washington 6	Dicks		0	-6	-10	-15	-15	-9.2	124	0.0945917
Washington 3		Beutler	0	0	15	10	15	8	29	0.8732185
Washington 8		Reichert	0	-3	15	15	15	8.4	24	0.884702
Washington 10			0	-5	-10	-10	-15	-8	118	0.1267815
West Virginia 1		McKinley	0	9	15	10	15	9.8	9	0.9190379
West Virginia 3	Rahall		0	6	-10	-10	-15	-5.8	100	0.2039032
Wisconsin 3	Kind		0	-4	-15	-15	-15	-9.8	126	0.0809621
Wisconsin 7		Duffy	0	0	5	5	5	3	71	0.6657297
Wisconsin 8		Ribble	0	2	5	5	15	5.4	55	0.7795497
			0							0
			0							7.0068612

Drawing Conclusions

2012-03-14T05:27:00.000-07:00

Everybody draws conclusions and takes sides on issues. Some people do their homework, others rely on sources that tell one side of the story, and still others just go along with the consensus. I would like to consider myself as a person that does their homework before drawing conclusions. In fact, I would like to say that I try to “think out of the box” when drawing conclusions. To think out of the box one must be open to information from all sources and one must also be willing to inspect the situation from different perspectives. It is also imperative when drawing conclusions to use and properly analyze bipartisan statistics using acceptable mathematical concepts. Finally, to draw conclusions one must be able to show all their math work as well as all their sources. After all, to properly draw a conclusion, one must be able to defend their position using logic and sound judgment.

Unfortunately, very few people do the necessary work needed to draw “reasonable” conclusions on issues. The biggest mistake people make is drawing a conclusion based solely on what another pundit thinks is correct. To properly draw conclusions each person should prove their point of view to themselves. For example, I may have drawn some of the same conclusions on government spending as say Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, or Rush Limbaugh, but I did not necessarily come to the conclusion in the same manner. While these conservative pundits may bring religion and their historical perspective on data, I use real numbers from government sites to create models to prove to myself what the effects of raising taxes on the wealthy, or the effect of having our economy move to wind or solar energy, or if there is a direct relationship between carbon emissions and global temperatures. And I serious doubt that any economic or political pundit will crunch the numbers to these complex problems as thoroughly as I will. As a recent study indicated – economic and political pundits are correct far less than 50% of the time when prognosticating the outcome of 2 scenarios. For instance, when asked if inflation will go up or down next year, pundits are less likely to predict the outcome correctly than flipping a coin.

Yes, many scientists have created models to prove climate change is manmade or taxing the wealthy reduces consumer spending. However, most scientists refuse to not only show their models and data, but refuse to show their calculations. I tutor two gifted grade school kids in math. Both have a unique a way of seeing and solving math problems, but in the end they generally come to the same conclusion. Yes, they solve the same problem using different methods – and this can be clearly seen because they show their work. Until scientists show their work it will be hard for me to accept what either side is saying is true or false because most of these scientific studies are funded by special interest groups.

The bottom line is it is not enough to accept conclusions just because they agree with those made by specific pundits. Prove it to yourself. You may be surprised to find out that you may come to the same conclusion as pundits, but for different reasons. This will enable people to better understand issues and therefore, better at offering “reasonable” solutions to problems and issues. Political and economic pundits will always draw conclusions, but they will rarely provide “reasonable” solutions to the problems and issues they are debating.

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

Creating Energy

2012-03-13T05:28:00.000-07:00

There have been many discussions over the years on the best way to create energy. Green advocates prefer renewable energies, such as solar, wind, and hydropower. Green advocates like these options because they are environmental friendly since they do not emit pollutants or carbon emissions. However, these types of energy sources are much more costly than traditional and more popular carbon energy sources such as gas, oil, coal, and natural gas.

There are many ways to create energy. The most popular way is by burning carbon fossil fuel sources such as coal and oil. Another way is to capture the natural energies created by our environment such as solar or even geothermal heat produced under the earth’s crust. Many energy sources such as wind and hydropower require the use of barriers to capture the energy – wind turbines and damns. The problem with most of these methods is to find cost effective ways to produce and store the energy as well as transporting it from remote regions around the country where winds are high and the sun is intense.

One energy source, nuclear energy, creates massive amounts of energy using a concept called nuclear fission. Nuclear fission is the process where uranium or plutonium atoms are split. Nuclear energy, like fossil fuel energies, use the heat created by the process to produce steam to turn massive turbines, which in turn, creates energy.

Another great way to create energy is through friction or polarity. Think of all the energy created when two individuals with different ideologies debate politics – too bad we cannot harness that energy into electricity. The same concept applies when creating energy using polarity methods such as antimatter. Antimatter is the opposite of matter. We learned in grade school science that all matter on earth is made up of protons, neutrons, and electrons. Antimatter is made up of positrons and antiprotons. A positron is the same as electron, but it is positively charged and an antiproton is the same as a proton, but it is negatively charged. Many physicists believe the mystery of how the universe was created can be uncovered by understanding antimatter. Scientists have had success creating both atoms of hydrogen and helium into antimatter. However, storing antimatter is an issue because it is quickly annihilated once it comes in contact with matter. When antimatter is combined with matter an equal amount of matter is absorbed and the antimatter disappears in the form of high energy gamma rays. Thus, creating and storing antimatter is both complicated and expensive. In fact, a super collider facility in Switzerland (used to create and store antimatter) cost hundreds of billions to construct. The super collider facility creates antimatter by colliding matter particles at massive speeds – the same way antimatter is created in our universe when comets and asteroids collide with planets.

How much energy can be created, in the form of gamma rays, when antimatter collides with matter? Well, consider that our entire universe may have been created by such a collision. In fact; many scientists fear that the creation of enough antimatter on earth could lead to it engulfing the earth’s matter; this is the same way black holes are created in the universe. An antimatter collision with matter generates magnitudes of more energy than a nuclear power plant.

The bottom line, if we can find a way to harness the energy created by our growing polarity we can solve our energy problems. If we spent less time bickering, complaining, fighting, and setting up one barrier after another and instead harnessed this energy, created by those barriers and ideology fights, we can solve our global energy problems.

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

Painting A Picture

2012-03-09T05:59:00.000-08:00

We have all heard the saying “A picture paints a thousand words”. In fact, a picture may paint more than a thousand words, but billions of words. Pictures and images can make powerful statements. That is why they are used exclusively when it comes to propaganda, especially by our federal government and progressive lawmakers.

I have written many blogs about how the Left (yes, I realize the Conservatives use the same tactics to a lesser extent) uses sob stories to sell its agenda. For instance, to sell ObamaCare, the administration used kids without healthcare as poster children. We hear all the stories of people who lost their healthcare or how health insurance companies dropped them. The Democrats are trying to paint an image in our minds – and it works to influence public opinion to defend the legislation (although they did a poor job since only 30% of all Americans approve of the legislation).

The best example of liberals using pictures or imagery to influence public opinion is on global warming. Liberals understand that 99% of all Americans (including themselves) do not understand global warming science and the math behind the science (although most ignorant Americans claim to understand both the math and science). Hence, when trying to get support for global warming Congress does not talk about sun flares or linear regression models, instead they talk about the poor Polar Bear. Liberals use the extinction of the “cute and cuddly” Polar Bear to scare Americans into believing that global warming is real and will end life on earth. This is a common fear mongering tactic used by progressives to win support for their agenda and beliefs.

Does anyone even consider what crime was committed by those detainees that were “tortured” in Abu Ghraib (the media only showed pictures of them being, in their opinion, “tortured”)? Does anyone consider the fact that the homeless man that is the poster star for healthcare reform or charitable contributions choses to be homeless and live in poverty (refuses to work)? The truth is that people make emotional decisions and judgments based on a single picture or image that clearly does not tell the whole story.

And what’s worse about the use of pictures and imagery, it is an effective way sway public opinion since Americans are becoming more and more ignorant (although most Americans think they understand everything). So, the next time someone uses a single picture to explain a complex problem (such as global hunger or healthcare), demand to see the whole picture – statistics, models, science etc. Generally, the whole picture is vastly different than those fear mongering posters used by progressives with the intent to brainwash clueless Americans.

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

The Speech Police

2012-03-07T06:16:00.000-08:00

Businesses, universities, and organizations generally create speech codes. Speech codes prevent employees, members, and students from engaging in any speech that is found to be offensive and or discriminatory. Sure, businesses, universities, and organizations have the right to create an environment that is friendly and one that will enable them to expand and grow. But there is a fine line between what one may find as offensive and what is protected under the Constitution’s first amendment “freedom of speech”. In 1989, a federal district court, in Doe v. University of Michigan, claimed the school could not enforce speech codes trying to prohibit hate speech. However, in 2007, in Morse v. Frederick, the Supreme Court ruled the first amendment does not prevent educators from suppressing student speech. In this case, however, the student’s speech was promoting an illegal activity: drug use.

Over the years freedom of speech has been expanded by the Supreme Court to include freedom of expression. In Schacht v. U.S. (1970), Spence v. Washington (1974), and Texas v. Johnson (1990), the Supreme Court upheld that flag burning, flag alteration, and anti-war skits were all protected under the first amendment. When polled, a majority of Americans found these acts of expression as offensive. But offensive statements and acts does not make them illegal. More recently, in Citizens United v. the Federal Election Committee, the Supreme Court ruled that organizations and corporations campaign contributions could not be limited. The left argued that money is not free speech. But money contributions can certainly be seen as freedom of expression.

Many expect the Supreme Court to side with Phelps in Snyder v. Phelps. Fred Phelps is the pastor at Westboro Baptist Church and he and his congregation routinely protest at military funerals where they chant and display hateful and offensive signs. But as despicable as this behavior may seem, Phelps certainly seems to be protected by the first amendment.

With the inception of the internet the federal government has created several laws to try to protect children from harmful and obscene content. This may seem reasonable, but in Reno v. ACLU (1997), the Supreme Court said the government’s “Communications Decency Act (CDA)” was unconstitutional. The federal government did not give up. In Ashcroft v. ACLU I (2002) and Ashcroft v. ACLU II (2004), the Supreme Court found the “Child Online Protection Act (COPA)” unconstitutional.

What is causing all this fuss over the first amendment, especially in recent years? Political correctness! Simply put, Americans are becoming overly sensitive to the words and actions of others. So, to some, the solution is to silence any potentially offensive language. This is also part of the new generation of narcissistic Americans, who believe everything is about them and their feelings. Americans can no longer debate and engage in intelligent dialogue about questionable words and actions, instead we say “we are offended” and report the behavior to the speech police. It is gotten so bad people are being fired because they commented on an episode of Seinfeld. If Seinfeld is protected by the first amendment, shouldn’t the employee be as well? People no longer have the ability to ignore statements they may find offensive. The old saying “sticks and stones may break my bones but names will never hurt me” has no meaning in our narcissistic society.

The Supreme Court rulings to date have been somewhat contradictory, but it seems they will protect all forms of free speech, regardless of how offensive, as long as it does not promote illegal activity, break the law, or incite violence. In other words, it is okay to use discriminatory language as long you do not discriminate, but much of this is still open to the opinions of the nine men sitting on the Supreme Court. It could be, in their opinion, that Fred Phelps and his followers are inciting violence. A person preaching hate may or may not be inciting violence – each person will have their own unique view. And in the CDA and COPA rulings the Supreme Court protected free speech over potential child pornography activity. So the fine line between legal and illegal free speech is ambiguous.

Speech Codes and suppressing speech does not solve any problems. It does not end hate, bigotry, or discrimination, it attempts to hide it. If we want to defeat hate, bigotry, and discrimination we need to expose it and defeat it using rational and peaceful arguments. Speech code enforcement is also subject to a wide spectrum of opinions that may turn a seemingly innocent statement into a national calamity. The “Water Buffalo” case at the University of Pennsylvania is a classic example where a seemingly innocent insult was turned into a race discrimination case.

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

An Example of Judicial Insanity

2012-03-06T05:55:00.000-08:00

Anyone who reads my blogs understands that I am not a big fan of our convoluted judicial system. Penalties for violent crimes are too lenient. The system favors criminals by, for instance, allowing ludicrous defenses such as mental defect or temporary insanity. Our judicial system allows for way too many frivolous lawsuits that only help to increase the cost of not only our court system, but goods and services such as health care. The Supreme Court has overstepped its Constitutional powers to rule on cases it has no authority to draw opinions. In effect, the Supreme Court has expanded the Constitution’s Commerce Clause, Contracts Clause, and Necessary Clause to meddle into every aspect of our lives including regulating the size of a family farm and what products we must purchase. Thus, the Constitution is a null and void document because it does nothing to limit the powers of not only the Judicial Branch, but the Executive and Legislative Branches as well. All of this being said, the below example makes me loathe our judicial system even more.

One day when I was watching a college football game on CBS, I was shocked to see them advertise for an idea that I had published and copyrighted (unregistered) nearly 15 years earlier. I thought for sure I had a good case against them because the name and premise for the idea were identical.

My wife and I ran a small publishing business that wrote newsletters and created products in both the areas of sports and education. I published a variety of NFL newsletters on free agency and the draft. In order to promote my products, I created a new version of Fantasy Football called Franchise Football. Franchise Football is similar to Fantasy Football, but instead of annually drafting a new team from accomplished stars, Franchise Football participants would build a Fantasy team from the ground up by drafting rookies and going after free agents. In Franchise Football, each year the participants keep the same the team and try to improve upon it. This is similar to how any real NFL football franchise must operate. Along with my newsletters I created a software package to go along with Franchise Football that enabled participants to keep score and provided them with a method to mathematically rate rookies and free agents.

Needless to say, I contacted a few lawyers to see if I had a case for copyright infringement. They all had the same answer: No! Apparently, copyright infringement is very hard to prove. A plaintiff must prove that the defending party deliberately stole your idea and copyright. A plaintiff can argue the defendant stole the copyright based on the presumption of similarity, but this is not necessarily a smoking gun.

The bottom line is that even though I have published my idea and own an unregistered copyright, it was not enough to protect my work. This is true even though the name and premise of CBS’s Franchise Football game is identical. Apparently anyone can make a few subtle changes to any copyright and claim they came up with the idea on their own.

In other words, our law system protects stupid people who sue McDonald’s because they got fat, but the law fails to protect people who legally do everything within their powers to protect their rights. This is absolutely asinine.

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

2012 Election Polls and Models (3/1/12)

2012-03-02T06:41:00.000-08:00

Presidential Electoral Vote: Obama 326; Republican 206 (R +34)

Governor Races: Current - Republicans 29; Democrats 19 (2 Independents); Projection - Republicans 31; Democrats 17 (2 Independents)

Senate Races: Current - Republicans 47; Democrats 53 (Including 2 Independents); Projection - Republicans 50; Democrats 50 (Including 2 Independents)

House Races: Current - Republicans 242; Democrats 193; Projection: Republicans 242; Democrats 193;

Below is an overall summary of the predicted outcomes based solely on election polls:

Presidential Electoral Vote: Obama 326; Republican 206

Governor Races: Republicans 31; Democrats 17 (2 Independents)

Senate Races: Republicans 52; Democrats 48 (Including 2 Independents)

House Races: Republicans 232; Democrats 203

		Presidential Race
State	Democrat Electoral Vote	Republican Electoral Vote	Poll	Rank	Probability	Weighted Probability
Alabama		9	0	2	0.5	3.5
Alaska		3	0	2	0.5	0.5
Arizona		11	0	2	0.5	4.5
Arkansas		6	0	2	0.5	2
California	55		0	2	0.5	26.5
Colorado	9		0	2	0.5	3.5
Connecticut	7		0	2	0.5	2.5
DC	3		0	2	0.5	0.5
Florida	29		0	2	0.5	13.5
Georgia		16	0	2	0.5	7
Hawaii	4		0	2	0.5	1
Idaho		4	0	2	0.5	1
Illinois	20		0	2	0.5	9
Indiana		11	0	2	0.5	4.5
Iowa	6		0	2	0.5	2
Kansas		6	0	2	0.5	2
Kentucky		8	0	2	0.5	3
Louisiana		8	0	2	0.5	3
Massachusetts	11		0	2	0.5	4.5
Maine	4		0	2	0.5	1
Maryland	10		0	2	0.5	4
Michigan	16		0	2	0.5	7
Minnesota	10		0	2	0.5	4
Mississippi		6	0	2	0.5	2
Missouri		10	0	2	0.5	4
Montana		3	0	2	0.5	0.5
Nebraska		5	0	2	0.5	1.5
Nevada	6		0	2	0.5	2
New Hampshire	4		0	2	0.5	1
New Jersey	14		0	2	0.5	6
New Mexico	5		0	2	0.5	1.5
New York	29		0	2	0.5	13.5
North Carolina		15	0	2	0.5	6.5
North Dakota		3	0	2	0.5	0.5
Ohio	18		0	2	0.5	8
Oklahoma		7	0	2	0.5	2.5
Oregon	7		0	2	0.5	2.5
Pennsylvania	20		0	2	0.5	9
Rhode Island	4		0	2	0.5	1
South Carolina		9	0	2	0.5	3.5
South Dakota		3	0	2	0.5	0.5
Tennessee		11	0	2	0.5	4.5
Texas		38	0	2	0.5	18
Utah		6	0	2	0.5	2
Vermont	3		0	2	0.5	0.5
Virginia	13		0	2	0.5	5.5
Washington	12		0	2	0.5	5
West Virginia		5	0	2	0.5	1.5
Wisconsin	10		0	2	0.5	4
Wyoming		3	6	1	1	1
			0
Total	329	206	0.84853		0.51	0.501149425



Governor Races
State	Democrat	Republican	Poll	Rank	Probability
Delaware	Markell		0	3	0.5
Indiana		Daniels	0	3	0.5
Kentucky	Beshear		0	3	0.5
Lousiana		Jindal	0	3	0.5
Mississippi		Barbour	0	3	0.5
Missouri	Nixon		-18	14	0.0003178
Montana	Schweitzer		0	3	0.5
New Hampshire	Lynch		0	3	0.5
North Carolina	Bowles	McCrory	2	2	0.6478595	Gain
North Dakota		Dalrymple	0	3	0.5
Utah		Herbert	0	3	0.5
Vermont	Shumlin		0	3	0.5
Washington	McKena	Inslee	6.3	1	0.8840689	Gain
West Virgina	Tomblin		0	3	0.5
			0
			5.26943		0.5023033

Senate Races
State	Democrat	Republican	Poll	Rank	Probability
Arizona	Carmona	Flake	9.3	1	0.9508978
California	Feinstein		0	7	0.5
Connecticut	Lieberman		0	7	0.5
Delaware	Carper		0	7	0.5
Florida	Nelson	Mack	0	7	0.5
Hawaii	Hirono	Lingle	-20	33	0.0001881
Indiana		Lugar	0	7	0.5
Massachusetts	Warren	Brown	-0.3	28	0.4787295	Gain
Maine		Snowe	0	7	0.5
Michigan	Stabenow	Hoekstra	-15	31	0.0038251
Minnesota	Klobuchar		0	7	0.5
Mississippi		Wicker	0	7	0.5
Missouri	McCaskill	Steelman	1	4	0.5705634	Gain
Maryland	Cardin		0	6	0.5
Montana	Tester	Rehberg	1.6	2	0.6119841	Gain
Nebraska	Nelson		0	7	0.5
Nevada	Berkley	Heller	0	7	0.5
New York	Gillibrand		0	7	0.5
New Jersey	Menendez		0	7	0.5
New Mexico	Heinrich	Wilson	-5	29	0.1869898
North Dakota	Heitkamp	Berg	0	7	0.5
Ohio	Brown	Mandel	-9.3	30	0.0491022
Pennsylvania	Casey		0	7	0.5
Rhode Island	Whitehouse		0	7	0.5
Tennessee		Corker	0	7	0.5
Texas		Hutchison	0	7	0.5
Utah		Hatch	0	7	0.5
Vermont	Sanders		0	7	0.5
Virgina	Kaine	Allen	0.2	6	0.5141841	Gain
Washington	Cantwell	Baumgartner	-15	31	0.0038251
West Virgina	Manchin		0	7	0.5
Wisconsin	Baldwin	Thompson	5	2	0.8130102	Gain
Wyoming		Barrasso	1	4	0.5705634
			0
			5.62402		0.4622383


House Races
State	Democrat	Republican	Poll	PVI	Cook	Sabato	Election Projection	AVE	Rank	Probability
Arkansas 1		Crawford	0	7	10	15	15	9.4	12	0.9122595
Arkansas 2		Griffin	0	5	10	15	15	9	19	0.9027101
Arkansas 4	Ross		0	8	5	5	5	4.6	60	0.7463307
Arizona 1		Gosar	0	6	0	-5	10	2.2	75	0.6244089
Arizona 5		Schweikert	0	5	15	0	5	5	57	0.7644341
Arizona 2	Giffords		0	3	0	-10	-15	-4.4	93	0.2629875
Arizona 9			0	0	-5	0	-5	-2	87	0.3865756
California 3	Garamendi		0	-1	-5	-10	-15	-6.2	106	0.1857701
California 7		Lungren	0	3	0	0	5	1.6	77	0.5911889
California 9	McNerney		0	-2	-5	-5	-15	-5.4	96	0.2181991
California 10		Denham	0	5	5	5	5	4	62	0.7178651
California 16	Costa		0	-2	-10	-10	-15	-7.4	110	0.1430886
California 21			0	3	5	0	15	4.6	60	0.7463307
California 23		McCarthy	0	18	15	15	15	12.6	1	0.9653155
California 24	Capps		0	-3	-10	-5	-15	-6.6	107	0.1707405
California 26			0	-3	0	0	-5	-1.6	85	0.4088111
California 31		Miller	0	-2	0	-5	-5	-2.4	88	0.3647065
California 36		Bono Mack	0	3	10	10	15	7.6	35	0.8633229
California 41			0	-3	-5	-5	-15	-5.6	98	0.2098
California 47			0	-5	-10	-5	-15	-7	108	0.1565127
California 52		Bilbray	0	-1	0	0	5	0.8	79	0.5458972
Colorado 3		Tipton	0	4	5	10	15	6.8	44	0.8364739
Colorado 4		Gardner	0	6	15	15	15	10.2	3	0.9292331
Colorado 6		Coffman	0	1	5	5	5	3.2	69	0.6776756
Connecticut 5	Murphy		0	-2	-10	-10	-15	-7.4	110	0.1430886
Florida 2		Southerland	0	4	10	15	15	8.8	23	0.8976589
Florida 9			0	-3	-5	-15	-15	-7.6	112	0.1366771
Florida 8			0	2	15	10	15	8.4	26	0.8869896
Florida 10		Webster	0	7	10	15	15	9.4	12	0.9122595
Florida 13		Young	0	1	10	10	15	7.2	39	0.8502997
Florida 16		Buchanan	0	5	10	15	15	9	19	0.9027101
Florida 18		West	0	1	0	0	15	3.2	68	0.6776756
Florida 24		Adams	0	4	15	10	15	8.8	23	0.8976589
Florida 25		Rivera	0	5	15	5	15	8	32	0.8755493
Georgia 12	Barrow		0	10	5	5	10	6	50	0.8064165
Illinois 8		Walsh	0	-5	-10	-5	-5	-5	95	0.2355659
Illinois 10		Dold	0	-8	-5	-5	-10	-5.6	98	0.2098
Illinois 11		Biggert	0	-6	0	-5	-5	-3.2	89	0.3223244
Illinois 12	Costello		0	-2	0	0	-5	-1.4	84	0.4200448
Illinois 13		Johnson	0	-1	5	5	5	2.8	72	0.656731
Illinois 17		Schilling	0	-6	-5	-5	-5	-4.2	92	0.2724777
Indiana 2	Donnelly		0	7	5	5	10	5.4	54	0.7818009
Indiana 8		Bucshon	0	7	10	10	5	6.4	47	0.8218446
Iowa 1	Braley		0	-5	-10	-10	-15	-8	117	0.1244507
Iowa 2	Loebsack		0	-4	-10	-10	-15	-7.8	114	0.1304649
Iowa 3	Boswell		0	1	0	0	-5	-0.8	82	0.4541028
Iowa 4		King	0	4	5	5	5	3.8	65	0.708046
Kentucky 6	Chandler		0	9	-5	-5	-5	-1.2	83	0.4313441
Maine 2	Michaud		0	-3	-10	-10	-15	-7.6	112	0.1366771
Maryland 1		Harris	0	10	15	15	15	11	2	0.9435628
Maryland 6		Bartlett	0	-2	-10	0	-5	-3.4	90	0.3120548
Massachusetts 10	Keating		0	-5	-15	-15	-15	-10	129	0.0747532
Massachusetts 6	Tierney		0	-7	-10	-10	-15	-8.4	120	0.1130104
Missouri 2		Akin	0	5	10	10	5	6	50	0.8064165
Michigan 1		Benishek	0	3	5	10	15	6.6	46	0.8292595
Michigan 3		Amash	0	6	15	15	15	10.2	3	0.9292331
Michigan 7		Walberg	0	1	10	10	15	7.2	39	0.8502997
Michigan 11		McCotter	0	1	15	10	15	8.2	30	0.8813669
Minnesota 1	Walz		0	1	-15	-10	-15	-7.8	114	0.1304649
Minnesota 2		Kline	0	1	10	10	15	7.2	39	0.8502997
Minnesota 6		Bachman	0	7	15	10	15	9.4	12	0.9122595
Minnesota 8		Cravaack	0	-3	0	5	5	1.4	78	0.5799552
Minnesota 7	Peterson		0	5	-10	-10	-15	-6	103	0.1935835
Montana 1		Rehberg	0	7	10	5	5	5.4	54	0.7818009
New Jersey 3		Runyan	0	1	5	5	15	5.2	56	0.7732113
New Jersey 5		Garrett	0	7	10	15	15	9.4	12	0.9122595
New Jersey 6	Pallone		0	-8	-15	-15	-15	-10.6	130	0.0632868
New Jersey 7		Lance	0	3	15	15	15	9.6	9	0.9167635
New Jersey 8	Pascrell		0	-10	-15	-15	-15	-11	132	0.0564372
New Jersey 9	Rothman		0	-9	-15	-15	-15	-10.8	131	0.0597852
New Jersey 12	Holt		0	-5	-15	-10	-15	-9	122	0.0972899
New York 1	Bishop		0	0	-10	-5	-15	-6	103	0.1935835
New York 9		Turner	0	-5	0	15	15	5	57	0.7644341
New York 13		Grimm	0	4	5	15	15	7.8	34	0.8695351
New York 19		Hayworth	0	3	10	10	15	7.6	35	0.8633229
New York 20		Gibson	0	2	10	10	15	7.4	37	0.8569114
New York 22	Hinchey		0	-6	-10	-15	-15	-9.2	124	0.092424
New York 23	Owens		0	1	-5	-5	-15	-4.8	94	0.2445273
New York 24		Hanna	0	2	10	10	15	7.4	37	0.8569114
New York 25		Buerkle	0	-3	0	0		-0.6	81	0.4655438
New York 26	Hochul		0	6	-5	-15	-15	-5.8	100	0.2015941
Nebraska 2		Terry	0	6	10	15	15	9.2	16	0.907576
New Hampshire 1		Guinta	0	0	10	5	5	4	62	0.7178651
New Hampshire 2		Bass	0	-3	0	0	5	0.4	80	0.5229867
New Mexico 1	Heinrich		0	-5	-10	-10	-15	-8	117	0.1244507
Nevada 2		Amodei	0	5	15	15	15	10	6	0.9252468
Nevada 3		Heck	0	0	0	5	5	2	76	0.6134244
Nevada 4			0	-2	-10	-10	-5	-5.4	96	0.2181991
North Carolina 2		Ellmers	0	2	15	10	15	8.4	26	0.8869896
North Carolina 7	McIntyre		0	11	0	0	5	3.2	68	0.6776756
North Carolina 8	Kissell		0	12	5	5	10	6.4	47	0.8218446
North Carolina 11	Shuler		0	13	10	0	5	5.6	53	0.7902
North Carolina 13	Miller		0	10	10	5	10	7	43	0.8434873
North Dakota 1		Berg	0	10	10	10	15	9	19	0.9027101
Ohio 6		Johnson	0	5	5	10	5	5	57	0.7644341
Ohio 7		Gibbs	0	4	10	15	5	6.8	44	0.8364739
Ohio 16		Renacci	0	4	0	5	5	2.8	72	0.656731
Oklahoma 2	Boren		0	14	5	5	5	5.8	52	0.7984059
Oregon 1	Wu		0	-5	-15	-10	-15	-9	122	0.0972899
Oregon 5	Schrader		0	0	-10	-10	-15	-7	108	0.1565127
Pennsylvania 3		Kelly	0	3	15	15	15	9.6	9	0.9167635
Pennsylvania 4	Altmire		0	6	-15	-5	-15	-5.8	100	0.2015941
Pennsylvania 6		Gerlach	0	1	10	15	15	8.2	30	0.8813669
Pennsylvania 7		Meehan	0	1	10	10	15	7.2	39	0.8502997
Pennsylvania 8		Fitzpatrick	0	-1	5	5	5	2.8	72	0.656731
Pennsylvania 12	Altmire		0	6	-5	-5	-5	-1.8	86	0.3976518
Pennsylvania 11		Barletta	0	6	10	15	15	9.2	16	0.907576
Pennsylvania 15		Dent	0	2	10	15	15	8.4	26	0.8869896
Pennsylvania 16		Pitts	0	6	15	15	15	10.2	3	0.9292331
Pennsylvania 17	Holden		0	6	-15	-15	-15	-7.8	114	0.1304649
South Carolina 7			0	6	10	15	15	9.2	16	0.907576
South Dakota 1		Noem	0	10	15	10	15	10	6	0.9252468
Tennessee 5	Cooper		0	-3	-15	-15	-15	-9.6	125	0.0832365
Rhode Island 1	Cicilline		0	-13	-10	-10	-15	-9.6	125	0.0832365
Texas 10		McCaul	0	8	10	10	15	8.6	25	0.8924195
Texas 14		Paul	0	8	10	15	15	9.6	9	0.9167635
Texas 23		Canseco	0	5	0	5	10	4	62	0.7178651
Texas 27			0	-3	-10	15	15	3.4	67	0.6879452
Texas 35			0	0	-15	0	-15	-6	103	0.1935835
Utah 4	Matheson		0	13	0	0	5	3.6	66	0.6980708
Virginia 2		Rigell	0	5	10	15	15	9	19	0.9027101
Virginia 11	Connolly		0	-2	-15	-10	-15	-8.4	120	0.1130104
Washington 1	Inslee		0	-3	-5	-5	-5	-3.6	91	0.3019292
Washington 2	Larsen		0	-3	-15	-15	-15	-9.6	125	0.0832365
Washington 3		Herrero-Beutler	0	0	15	10	15	8	32	0.8755493
Washington 8		Reichert	0	-3	15	15	15	8.4	26	0.8869896
Washinton 10			0	-5	-10	-10	-15	-8	117	0.1244507
West Virginia 1		McKinley	0	9	15	10	15	9.8	8	0.9210915
West Virginia 3	Rahall		0	6	-10	-10	-15	-5.8	100	0.2015941
Wisconsin 3	Kind		0	-4	-15	-15	-15	-9.8	128	0.0789085
Wisconsin 7		Duffy	0	0	5	5	5	3	71	0.6672685
Wisconsin 8		Ribble	0	2	5	10	15	6.4	47	0.8218446
			0							0
			0							6.9382898

A Lesson in Liberalism

2012-02-29T05:36:00.000-08:00

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? (Amazon.com, Barnes and Noble)

We Are Luck to be Alive - Today

2012-02-28T06:10:00.000-08:00

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? (Amazon.com, Barnes and Noble)

Playing God

2012-02-24T06:32:00.000-08:00

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, Amazon.com)

The Regressive Party

2012-02-22T06:05:00.000-08:00

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? (Amazon.com, Barnes and Noble)

Just Say "No"

2012-02-21T06:09:00.000-08:00

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? (Amazon.com, Barnes and Noble)

Obama Mirrors Bush Policies

2012-02-17T06:28:00.000-08:00

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? (Amazon.com, Barnes and Noble)

Eyeball Statistics

2012-02-15T06:13:00.000-08:00

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!

One Question

2012-02-14T05:59:00.000-08:00

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? (Amazon.com, Barnes and Noble)

The Party of the Underdog

2012-02-10T06:34:00.000-08:00

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? (Amazon.com, Barnes and Noble)

Unions and Gangs

2012-02-08T06:02:00.000-08:00

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? (Amazon.com, Barnes and Noble)

A Subtle Word that Polarizes

2012-02-07T06:03:00.000-08:00

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? (Amazon.com, Barnes and Noble)

Why Force Policy and Legislation?

2012-02-03T06:35:00.000-08:00

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? (Amazon.com, Barnes and Noble)