Everyone knows these are confusing times. It can be difficult to know who to trust. However, there is one thing that no one in the Furriners office disputes - and it's not that Justin Bieber never should have cut his bangs, Elijah! - it's that I am a man's man. I like my passing game vertical and the front of the net cleared. Of course, this means I think - nay, I know - that Roger Goodell is turning the NFL into a sissy league. In fact, the only person more of a pussy than Goodell is Harold Ford, Jr. I will not argue about this. It is a fact.
Hence, I was disturbed by the question that I just found on ESPN.com. The question is:
Who is the dirtier player?
A) James Harrison
B) Ndamukong Suh
C) Neither is a dirty player
Like Rick Perry, this is a no brainer. The answer is C. The ANSWER is C. The answer IS C. Anything else is lunacy... like Michelle Bachmann.
So how is that 87% of the respondents picked either Harrison or Suh?!? I will not even elaborate on the breakdown. It does not matter. They are equally and unequivocally wrong. Period. Unless we're playing flag football, which the NFL is getting dangerously close to under the Goodell stewardship, neither is a dirty player.
I am with the 13%. The rest of ya'll can watch Justin Bieber and Harold Ford, Jr. and decide who would prevail in a fight between those two. FYI: my money would be on Bieber.
Wednesday, December 14, 2011
Job killing FCC
That job killing force known as the Federal Government is at it again. In yet another example of government overreach the FCC is instituting another new regulation and as everyone knows regulations kill jobs.
What is the new regulation you ask? Well the FCC has decided to punish companies that want to advertise using the television and force them to make sure that their vehicles of patriotism (commercials) are played on your television at the same volume as the program that you are watching.
I think we all know this is a clear violation of the freedom of speech for some of our countries most important people – corporations.
At this point the best thing we can do is just cross our fingers and hope that the damage isn’t too significant and that the Supreme Court fast tracks the challenges to this clearly unconstitutional regulation that we all know is an obvious attempt by President Obama to simultaneously implement Sharia law, limit the rights of true patriots, and force his socialist agenda down our throats.
May god help us.
What is the new regulation you ask? Well the FCC has decided to punish companies that want to advertise using the television and force them to make sure that their vehicles of patriotism (commercials) are played on your television at the same volume as the program that you are watching.
I think we all know this is a clear violation of the freedom of speech for some of our countries most important people – corporations.
At this point the best thing we can do is just cross our fingers and hope that the damage isn’t too significant and that the Supreme Court fast tracks the challenges to this clearly unconstitutional regulation that we all know is an obvious attempt by President Obama to simultaneously implement Sharia law, limit the rights of true patriots, and force his socialist agenda down our throats.
May god help us.
Tuesday, December 13, 2011
"Sebelius and Obama Should Be Ashamed"
As is often the case, I'm a few days late with this post but I'm sure our loyal follower (the GoogleBot) won't mind.
The latest kick in the balls to the progressive movement by the Obama administration came last week when Kathleen Sebelius (Secretary of Health & Human Services) announced that despite an FDA finding that 'Plan B' posed no health threats and could be sold over-the-counter without restriction, the Obama administration was maintaining the status quo that girls under the age of 17 would need a prescription to receive the medication (despite the fact that it needs to be taken within 72 hours of a sexual encounter to be effective - which essentially eliminates the possibility of getting a prescription quick enough for it to matter).
When asked about this at a press conference last week, Obama replied that he didn't want a 10 year old being able to buy medication next to batteries and bubble gum that "if not taken properly could be harmful".
That is a load of bullshit, no?!?
Couldn't that line of reasoning be applied to just about anything? I seem to recall that some jackhole died in the past year or two during a stupid radio-show stunt when he drank too much water! Does that mean we need to restrict water purchases because it could be harmful if not utilized properly?
It brings to mind a quote that I associate with Ani DiFranco:
Every tool is a weapon if you hold it right.
Moreover, think back to when you were ten... were you perusing the pharmaceuticals looking for medication? When I was ten and happened to get my hands on a few precious dollars, I was buying baseball cards and/or candy. Did I miss out on a rite of childhood? The recreational use of over-the-counter pharmaceuticals? And, by the way, considering Obama bent over for Big PHaRMA during the health care reform debate, you'd think he'd be cheerleading people buying their products.
It also brings to mind an old Jerry Seinfeld joke about laundry detergent ads that stressed how good their product was at dealing with blood stains; Seinfeld observed that if you're dealing with clothes with bloodstains all over it, maybe laundry stains aren't really your biggest concern! This feels like that, if a pre-teen is looking to use B (either legitimately or illegitimately as in Obama's ludicrous scenario), then I'm going to suggest that misusing medication (deemed to be safe by the FDA) is really not the biggest concern in this child's life.
The latest kick in the balls to the progressive movement by the Obama administration came last week when Kathleen Sebelius (Secretary of Health & Human Services) announced that despite an FDA finding that 'Plan B' posed no health threats and could be sold over-the-counter without restriction, the Obama administration was maintaining the status quo that girls under the age of 17 would need a prescription to receive the medication (despite the fact that it needs to be taken within 72 hours of a sexual encounter to be effective - which essentially eliminates the possibility of getting a prescription quick enough for it to matter).
When asked about this at a press conference last week, Obama replied that he didn't want a 10 year old being able to buy medication next to batteries and bubble gum that "if not taken properly could be harmful".
That is a load of bullshit, no?!?
Couldn't that line of reasoning be applied to just about anything? I seem to recall that some jackhole died in the past year or two during a stupid radio-show stunt when he drank too much water! Does that mean we need to restrict water purchases because it could be harmful if not utilized properly?
It brings to mind a quote that I associate with Ani DiFranco:
Every tool is a weapon if you hold it right.
Moreover, think back to when you were ten... were you perusing the pharmaceuticals looking for medication? When I was ten and happened to get my hands on a few precious dollars, I was buying baseball cards and/or candy. Did I miss out on a rite of childhood? The recreational use of over-the-counter pharmaceuticals? And, by the way, considering Obama bent over for Big PHaRMA during the health care reform debate, you'd think he'd be cheerleading people buying their products.
It also brings to mind an old Jerry Seinfeld joke about laundry detergent ads that stressed how good their product was at dealing with blood stains; Seinfeld observed that if you're dealing with clothes with bloodstains all over it, maybe laundry stains aren't really your biggest concern! This feels like that, if a pre-teen is looking to use B (either legitimately or illegitimately as in Obama's ludicrous scenario), then I'm going to suggest that misusing medication (deemed to be safe by the FDA) is really not the biggest concern in this child's life.
Thursday, December 8, 2011
Comparisons
At this point it seems like there is nothing that the President can do that won't have conservative honks coming out of the wood works to complain about. It doesn't matter what the issue is. For these people no topic is too trivial.
The most recent example of this is the belief that President Obama compared himself to Teddy Roosevelt. Regardless of how accurate this claim is I fail to see how this is at all relevant to the troubles facing the country. Are we to assume that the President can no longer make informed decisions on domestic and foreign policy issues because he may have compared himself to another President?
He is after all one of only 43 people in the history of this country to hold the position so it would seem comparisons to his predecessors would be likely. Perhaps history will prove Obama right or the commenter's wrong. Regardless, what I can't find from these same conservative honks is their articles complaining about Newt Gingrich comparing himself to Ronald Reagan and Margret Thatcher, or Dan Quayle comparing himself to JFK, or George W. Bush comparing himself to Ronald Reagan, Harry Truman, and Abraham Lincoln. Also absent from their writing is the reference from the patron saint of the Republican party Ronald Reagan comparing himself to JFK.
It seems like many of these examples should elicit a similar response, but this complaint, of course, is not about the absurdity of the ego of men in power but the vitriol towards a President. This is the beauty of the bully pulpit; no admission of historical facts required.
The most recent example of this is the belief that President Obama compared himself to Teddy Roosevelt. Regardless of how accurate this claim is I fail to see how this is at all relevant to the troubles facing the country. Are we to assume that the President can no longer make informed decisions on domestic and foreign policy issues because he may have compared himself to another President?
He is after all one of only 43 people in the history of this country to hold the position so it would seem comparisons to his predecessors would be likely. Perhaps history will prove Obama right or the commenter's wrong. Regardless, what I can't find from these same conservative honks is their articles complaining about Newt Gingrich comparing himself to Ronald Reagan and Margret Thatcher, or Dan Quayle comparing himself to JFK, or George W. Bush comparing himself to Ronald Reagan, Harry Truman, and Abraham Lincoln. Also absent from their writing is the reference from the patron saint of the Republican party Ronald Reagan comparing himself to JFK.
It seems like many of these examples should elicit a similar response, but this complaint, of course, is not about the absurdity of the ego of men in power but the vitriol towards a President. This is the beauty of the bully pulpit; no admission of historical facts required.
Balanced budget
Republicans have started a new push that has more to do with gaining votes using simplistic rhetoric than help our this country. Rep Tim Walberg summed up the plan on his Facebook page.
"Only a Balanced Budget Amendment and meaningful spending cuts will be able to bring down numbers like these [of the national debt]."
Do you know what people think using a balanced budget approach is asinine? Corporations. No corporation in it's right mind uses a balanced budget form of operating. A business understands that investments in future profits may make them unprofitable in the current year but that doesn't mean they suddenly start making cuts just to end up with a balanced budget for the year.
For a group of people who have been pounding the mantra of "government should be run like a business" a balanced budget amendment is baffling. These two ideas are essentially mutually exclusive.
Abraham Lincoln stated that "The legitimate object of government, is to do for a community of people, whatever they need to have done, but can not do, at all, or can not, so well do, for themselves -- in their separate, and individual capacities."
While the definition of a business states that businesses are "administered to earn profit to increase the wealth of their owners."
If Republicans really wanted to use a business model to reduce the national debt they would look at a combination of spending cuts, increasing their profit margin (raise taxes), and investing in future growth.
Passing a balanced budget amendment solves nothing. With or without it there are still tough choices to be made. Given how Republicans are already back tracking and looking for loopholes to the relatively minor cuts they insisted on in the debt ceiling debate it becomes obvious that this amendment is just a political tool that Republicans will carry home to their districts as a badge of honor. They will ignore the fact that no one in congress has the gravitas to make the cuts and tax increases required by such an amendment.
It should be noted that the highest increase in national debt according to the most useful measure, debt to GDP ratio, happened under George W. Bush. Odd that only now that a Democrat is in charge does a balanced budget become paramount.
Perhaps the most concerning about Mr. Walberg's statement is the "only" part. As if there are no other answers. Amazing that we have had a national debt for over 100 years and no one else has been smart enough to figure out that a balanced budget is the only possible solution. Not only that but a total of zero other countries in the OECD have balanced budget requirements. That includes the much revered Germany. Maybe this is the obvious common sense solution to Mr. Walberg and his colleagues but history would suggest otherwise.
If Tim Walberg and the Republicans really wanted to affect the economy and subsequently the national debt they would focus on health care costs. No other single expenditure takes up a greater percentage of the nations GDP and the costs for our current system far eclipse any other industrialized country. If we reduced the cost per person of health care it would add over $780 billion a year to the economy. Unfortunately of the 33 legislative priorities that Republicans are currently backing to improve the economy none of them address this issue.
Tim Walberg's insistence that a balanced budget amendment is the only solution shows how committed he is to getting re-elected. If only he had the same commitment to improving the prospects for the rest of us.
"Only a Balanced Budget Amendment and meaningful spending cuts will be able to bring down numbers like these [of the national debt]."
Do you know what people think using a balanced budget approach is asinine? Corporations. No corporation in it's right mind uses a balanced budget form of operating. A business understands that investments in future profits may make them unprofitable in the current year but that doesn't mean they suddenly start making cuts just to end up with a balanced budget for the year.
For a group of people who have been pounding the mantra of "government should be run like a business" a balanced budget amendment is baffling. These two ideas are essentially mutually exclusive.
Abraham Lincoln stated that "The legitimate object of government, is to do for a community of people, whatever they need to have done, but can not do, at all, or can not, so well do, for themselves -- in their separate, and individual capacities."
While the definition of a business states that businesses are "administered to earn profit to increase the wealth of their owners."
If Republicans really wanted to use a business model to reduce the national debt they would look at a combination of spending cuts, increasing their profit margin (raise taxes), and investing in future growth.
Passing a balanced budget amendment solves nothing. With or without it there are still tough choices to be made. Given how Republicans are already back tracking and looking for loopholes to the relatively minor cuts they insisted on in the debt ceiling debate it becomes obvious that this amendment is just a political tool that Republicans will carry home to their districts as a badge of honor. They will ignore the fact that no one in congress has the gravitas to make the cuts and tax increases required by such an amendment.
It should be noted that the highest increase in national debt according to the most useful measure, debt to GDP ratio, happened under George W. Bush. Odd that only now that a Democrat is in charge does a balanced budget become paramount.
Perhaps the most concerning about Mr. Walberg's statement is the "only" part. As if there are no other answers. Amazing that we have had a national debt for over 100 years and no one else has been smart enough to figure out that a balanced budget is the only possible solution. Not only that but a total of zero other countries in the OECD have balanced budget requirements. That includes the much revered Germany. Maybe this is the obvious common sense solution to Mr. Walberg and his colleagues but history would suggest otherwise.
If Tim Walberg and the Republicans really wanted to affect the economy and subsequently the national debt they would focus on health care costs. No other single expenditure takes up a greater percentage of the nations GDP and the costs for our current system far eclipse any other industrialized country. If we reduced the cost per person of health care it would add over $780 billion a year to the economy. Unfortunately of the 33 legislative priorities that Republicans are currently backing to improve the economy none of them address this issue.
Tim Walberg's insistence that a balanced budget amendment is the only solution shows how committed he is to getting re-elected. If only he had the same commitment to improving the prospects for the rest of us.
Friday, December 2, 2011
Job creators
Currently Republican rhetoric would have you believe that the rich are the only job creators. As though creating jobs is somehow a tenant of capitalism. While companies do create jobs, they only create the number of jobs that are necessary to maximize profit or to produce the supply of products that consumers will purchase. Employees are a supply that some businesses need to create products.
If more money in the hands of the rich or companies created more jobs then we would be setting records since taxes are at or near record lows for the rich and companies are holding record amounts of cash.
The problem with the belief that the rich create jobs is that it assumes jobs are the motive of companies. Profits are what increases stock prices and nets exorbitant bonuses for the top brass. If job creation was paramount to business success it would be listed on the companies quarterly reports.
The reality is that the true job creators are consumers. Consumers can exist without businesses but businesses can not exist without consumers. Before a monetary system was devised the barter system was the method used for individuals to satisfy their needs and with high unemployment the practice has seen a resurgence.
It should also be noted that in 2008 there were over 21 million firms in the US generating over $930 billion in sales using zero employees. This means that not every company needs employees to survive but without consumers, companies are irrelevant.
So while it may be true that the rich create jobs, they can not do it alone. The success of capitalism requires a balance of companies providing services and products that consumers want and can afford to purchase. If only congress could find a similar balance instead of staking out positions on the fringes like calling the 1% job creators to the detriment of the other 99%.
If more money in the hands of the rich or companies created more jobs then we would be setting records since taxes are at or near record lows for the rich and companies are holding record amounts of cash.
The problem with the belief that the rich create jobs is that it assumes jobs are the motive of companies. Profits are what increases stock prices and nets exorbitant bonuses for the top brass. If job creation was paramount to business success it would be listed on the companies quarterly reports.
The reality is that the true job creators are consumers. Consumers can exist without businesses but businesses can not exist without consumers. Before a monetary system was devised the barter system was the method used for individuals to satisfy their needs and with high unemployment the practice has seen a resurgence.
It should also be noted that in 2008 there were over 21 million firms in the US generating over $930 billion in sales using zero employees. This means that not every company needs employees to survive but without consumers, companies are irrelevant.
So while it may be true that the rich create jobs, they can not do it alone. The success of capitalism requires a balance of companies providing services and products that consumers want and can afford to purchase. If only congress could find a similar balance instead of staking out positions on the fringes like calling the 1% job creators to the detriment of the other 99%.
Tuesday, November 22, 2011
Professional Malfeasance
Yesterday, the whole nation, nay, whole world saw a public acknowledgement of professional malfeasance. Now, the liberal media is all apoplectic about the failure of the so-called Super Committee. Seriously, no one cares!
What people - from Zion to Kankakee - are really outraged about is the Chicago Bears going into the season with Caleb Hanie as their backup QB! How did their GM not take a run when Derek Anderson was available?!?! It's inexplicable. Now Jay Cutler is out indefinitely and you can stick a fork in da Bears.
If I were Keith Olbermann, I would say: Jerry Angelo, you need to RESIGN!!!
However, I am not Keith Olbermann. I am not making $10,000,000+ a year while thinking I am in touch with "the little guy". Sucks to be me.
And sucks to be a Bears fan... because you don't have Derek Anderson to save your season.
Lions, Falcons, and Giants/Cowboys fans rejoice!!
What people - from Zion to Kankakee - are really outraged about is the Chicago Bears going into the season with Caleb Hanie as their backup QB! How did their GM not take a run when Derek Anderson was available?!?! It's inexplicable. Now Jay Cutler is out indefinitely and you can stick a fork in da Bears.
If I were Keith Olbermann, I would say: Jerry Angelo, you need to RESIGN!!!
However, I am not Keith Olbermann. I am not making $10,000,000+ a year while thinking I am in touch with "the little guy". Sucks to be me.
And sucks to be a Bears fan... because you don't have Derek Anderson to save your season.
Lions, Falcons, and Giants/Cowboys fans rejoice!!
Monitoring The Media Monitor
Since I have a short attention span, my favorite segment of CNN's Reliable Sources is Media Monitor - where Howard Kurtz gives his "hits" and "misses" in the media during the previous week. I think he stole this segment idea from The Colbert Report's "Tip of the Hat/Wag of the Finger". Come on, Mr. Kurtz! I'm on to you! If you start doing a segment on the War on Christmas - everyone else will see what you're up to.
Anyway, I wanted to point out a blatant whiff by Mr. Kurtz this past Sunday:
The (actual) liberal media took notice last week that Fox News had labeled the young man who fired an automatic weapon at The White House - and was subsequently charged with Attempted Assassination - as the 'Occupy Shooter' (despite his having no connection to the protests).
How is it this massive media fail evaded the watchful eye of Howard Kurtz? Instead he took a few moments to defend Bill O'Reilly against his critics who have pointed out errors in Bill O'Reilly's new book. Way to take on the big issue, Howie! Glad you were there to catch that one.
Anyway, I wanted to point out a blatant whiff by Mr. Kurtz this past Sunday:
The (actual) liberal media took notice last week that Fox News had labeled the young man who fired an automatic weapon at The White House - and was subsequently charged with Attempted Assassination - as the 'Occupy Shooter' (despite his having no connection to the protests).
How is it this massive media fail evaded the watchful eye of Howard Kurtz? Instead he took a few moments to defend Bill O'Reilly against his critics who have pointed out errors in Bill O'Reilly's new book. Way to take on the big issue, Howie! Glad you were there to catch that one.
Bias
One of the most common comments I receive on my posts is that my information is not reliable because it is from a source that the commenter believes has a liberal media bias. I assume their belief is that data or studies produced by liberal leaning sources cannot be impartial. Their solution; I should use conservative leaning sources.
The thing I find most amusing is how many of these people make this claim and then supply absolutely no information of their own to refute the "facts" in my sources. If my sources are so inaccurate then it should be easy to link an article that proves their inaccuracies.
Media bias is a lazy argument that proves nothing.
Regardless, I thought it would be a good idea to further examine a conservative leaning article that I read in creating my recent post on education.
The Heritage foundation put together a report titled "Assessing the Compensation of Public School Teachers". In their summary statement they ask the question "Do teachers currently receive the proper level of compensation?" followed by the answer "Standard analytical approaches to this question compare teacher salaries to the salaries of similarly educated and experienced private-sector workers, and then add the value of employer contributions toward fringe benefits. These simple comparisons would indicate that public-school teachers are under compensated." and further on stating that "public-school teachers receive salaries that are 19.3 percent lower than non-teachers who have the same observable skills."
So their initial conclusion is in line with other research on the subject except this is a conservative think tank and just like all of my liberal sources the Heritage foundation has an agenda and they must massage the data until it fits their narrative. Which is why the report follows that up with "However, comparing teachers to non-teachers presents special challenges not accounted for in the existing literature."
Luckily for us the Heritage foundation is smarter than all of the other organizations who have studied this topic and will set the record straight. They identify 6 previously unaccounted for categories and oddly enough every single one of them supports their eventual conclusion. I think this would qualify as the definition of bias when you discount the data that disagrees with you and in uncovering the "truth" every metric you decide should also be considered just happens to support your conclusion. A conclusion which took public school teachers from being 19.3% under compensated to "52 percent greater than fair market levels".
Having said that I will give them the benefit of the doubt and assume that there are truly only 6 different metrics that were not previously accounted for and every one of them shows that public school teachers are over compensated.
Unfortunately it doesn't take long to find issues with their claims and the data sets used to uncover the truth.
Most concerning is their claim that public teachers job security leads to them being over compensated. I don't take issue with the belief that job security has a value but to determine job security they use unemployment. First, they only use unemployment numbers up to 2010. Thanks to the stimulus package schools were given extra money over the past couple a years to retain teachers. Those benefits are now ending and so too is the job security that public teachers have enjoyed.
While the 2010 and 2011 unemployment numbers by profession are not available yet, the number of teachers employed is. Over the last 15 months the number of public school teachers has decreased by over 169,000. Accountants, which the Heritage Foundation report references as having a higher unemployment number and subsequently lower job security, have actually seen an increase of over 50,000 jobs in that same time frame.
In addition to this cherry picking of data, it should also be noted that 52% of teachers hold a Master's degree while only 21% of accountants currently have a Master's Degree. Data shows that the higher the level of education, the lower the unemployment rate. Perhaps teachers aren't filing for unemployment because they are able to find other jobs instead. If that is the case then using unemployment as a measure of job security is either intentionally misleading or willfully ignorant.
Of course using only the most advantageous data sets is not the only trick they use. They also frequently use the phrase "authors calculations based on data from the US Census" yet the data they supply the reader does not correlate with their conclusion. In one instance they use a chart to show that public school teachers are overpaid by 9.8% using one measure yet the numbers provided only show an advantage of 1.7%. I guess we are to assume the author has included other data that he felt is not worth providing the reader and since no link or reference is given to the specific data set used the reader must rely on the work of the author.
Other manipulations include is routinely making claims without supporting data, drawing definitive conclusions from extraordinarily small data sets, discounting all other studies on the matter as flawed, using select facts that support their conclusion while ignoring others that don't, making the claim that "no comprehensive data set exists" and then manufacturing a data set that just so happens to prove their point, and perhaps most egregious, listing an article in the reference and claiming it supports your data when the linked article actually says the opposite.
After reading the “study” I choose to ignore their findings not because they are a conservative leaning source but because when I analyze the data there are too many flaws to consider it a reliable source.
Maybe that is what you think of my sources too but using obtuse arguments like media bias as your only support doesn’t prove my sources are wrong or add anything to the debate.
The thing I find most amusing is how many of these people make this claim and then supply absolutely no information of their own to refute the "facts" in my sources. If my sources are so inaccurate then it should be easy to link an article that proves their inaccuracies.
Media bias is a lazy argument that proves nothing.
Regardless, I thought it would be a good idea to further examine a conservative leaning article that I read in creating my recent post on education.
The Heritage foundation put together a report titled "Assessing the Compensation of Public School Teachers". In their summary statement they ask the question "Do teachers currently receive the proper level of compensation?" followed by the answer "Standard analytical approaches to this question compare teacher salaries to the salaries of similarly educated and experienced private-sector workers, and then add the value of employer contributions toward fringe benefits. These simple comparisons would indicate that public-school teachers are under compensated." and further on stating that "public-school teachers receive salaries that are 19.3 percent lower than non-teachers who have the same observable skills."
So their initial conclusion is in line with other research on the subject except this is a conservative think tank and just like all of my liberal sources the Heritage foundation has an agenda and they must massage the data until it fits their narrative. Which is why the report follows that up with "However, comparing teachers to non-teachers presents special challenges not accounted for in the existing literature."
Luckily for us the Heritage foundation is smarter than all of the other organizations who have studied this topic and will set the record straight. They identify 6 previously unaccounted for categories and oddly enough every single one of them supports their eventual conclusion. I think this would qualify as the definition of bias when you discount the data that disagrees with you and in uncovering the "truth" every metric you decide should also be considered just happens to support your conclusion. A conclusion which took public school teachers from being 19.3% under compensated to "52 percent greater than fair market levels".
Having said that I will give them the benefit of the doubt and assume that there are truly only 6 different metrics that were not previously accounted for and every one of them shows that public school teachers are over compensated.
Unfortunately it doesn't take long to find issues with their claims and the data sets used to uncover the truth.
Most concerning is their claim that public teachers job security leads to them being over compensated. I don't take issue with the belief that job security has a value but to determine job security they use unemployment. First, they only use unemployment numbers up to 2010. Thanks to the stimulus package schools were given extra money over the past couple a years to retain teachers. Those benefits are now ending and so too is the job security that public teachers have enjoyed.
While the 2010 and 2011 unemployment numbers by profession are not available yet, the number of teachers employed is. Over the last 15 months the number of public school teachers has decreased by over 169,000. Accountants, which the Heritage Foundation report references as having a higher unemployment number and subsequently lower job security, have actually seen an increase of over 50,000 jobs in that same time frame.
In addition to this cherry picking of data, it should also be noted that 52% of teachers hold a Master's degree while only 21% of accountants currently have a Master's Degree. Data shows that the higher the level of education, the lower the unemployment rate. Perhaps teachers aren't filing for unemployment because they are able to find other jobs instead. If that is the case then using unemployment as a measure of job security is either intentionally misleading or willfully ignorant.
Of course using only the most advantageous data sets is not the only trick they use. They also frequently use the phrase "authors calculations based on data from the US Census" yet the data they supply the reader does not correlate with their conclusion. In one instance they use a chart to show that public school teachers are overpaid by 9.8% using one measure yet the numbers provided only show an advantage of 1.7%. I guess we are to assume the author has included other data that he felt is not worth providing the reader and since no link or reference is given to the specific data set used the reader must rely on the work of the author.
Other manipulations include is routinely making claims without supporting data, drawing definitive conclusions from extraordinarily small data sets, discounting all other studies on the matter as flawed, using select facts that support their conclusion while ignoring others that don't, making the claim that "no comprehensive data set exists" and then manufacturing a data set that just so happens to prove their point, and perhaps most egregious, listing an article in the reference and claiming it supports your data when the linked article actually says the opposite.
After reading the “study” I choose to ignore their findings not because they are a conservative leaning source but because when I analyze the data there are too many flaws to consider it a reliable source.
Maybe that is what you think of my sources too but using obtuse arguments like media bias as your only support doesn’t prove my sources are wrong or add anything to the debate.
Friday, November 18, 2011
It's debatable
I get the feeling that many of the commenter's on my posts believe that I think all of my arguments are infallible. The truth is I enjoy the debate and occasionally the commenter's bring something good to the table.
For example, my most recent post regarding education elicited a few good comments. One from commenter Constitutionally Speaking where he actually took the time to read an article I linked to and pointed out that the first study in the article I linked did not support my argument.
"The problem is, the study says no such thing. The study merely lays out the fact that the higher your education level is, the more you tend to make. That "statistic" HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH SPENDING on education. Decreasing teacher pay has NOTHING to do with what level of schooling kids end up getting."
Subsequent studies in the article do support my claims but so few commenter's actually read the links before pointing out how wrong I am and for that I thank you Constitutionally Speaking.
Also from this post came a well thought out comment from teacher Chris Geerer.
"Why am I the enemy? Because I completed both a bachelor's and master's degree while raising my children, without government assistance? Because I go to work every day to a "job" that is both a profession and a vocation, and earn every penny, being a surrogate parent to so many neglected children? Because I pay my mortgage and taxes on time, put my own children through college, make my car payments and credit card payments, clean my own house, take care of my own family, go to church every Sunday and teach catechism on Tuesdays, buy groceries and spend money in the community? Because I haven't made millions in the stock market, and am counting on my pension - which I pay into, every paycheck?"
All too often the comment section is filled by trolls who value their beliefs over statistics, studies, or linked support and think that tossing out their opinion followed up by a few insults is the best way to get their point across.
The reality is that people like Chris Geerer and Constitutionally Speaking who put a little time and thought into their comments are the people who really make the DetNews political blog what it is.
Of course that doesn't mean that I think the rest of the comments are a waste of time. Most of them are amusing, especially the comments where the writer thinks that he just "nailed" me or another commenter. So fun.
Regardless of which side you are on keep the comments coming. Who knows, maybe we will find some common ground someday.
For example, my most recent post regarding education elicited a few good comments. One from commenter Constitutionally Speaking where he actually took the time to read an article I linked to and pointed out that the first study in the article I linked did not support my argument.
"The problem is, the study says no such thing. The study merely lays out the fact that the higher your education level is, the more you tend to make. That "statistic" HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH SPENDING on education. Decreasing teacher pay has NOTHING to do with what level of schooling kids end up getting."
Subsequent studies in the article do support my claims but so few commenter's actually read the links before pointing out how wrong I am and for that I thank you Constitutionally Speaking.
Also from this post came a well thought out comment from teacher Chris Geerer.
"Why am I the enemy? Because I completed both a bachelor's and master's degree while raising my children, without government assistance? Because I go to work every day to a "job" that is both a profession and a vocation, and earn every penny, being a surrogate parent to so many neglected children? Because I pay my mortgage and taxes on time, put my own children through college, make my car payments and credit card payments, clean my own house, take care of my own family, go to church every Sunday and teach catechism on Tuesdays, buy groceries and spend money in the community? Because I haven't made millions in the stock market, and am counting on my pension - which I pay into, every paycheck?"
All too often the comment section is filled by trolls who value their beliefs over statistics, studies, or linked support and think that tossing out their opinion followed up by a few insults is the best way to get their point across.
The reality is that people like Chris Geerer and Constitutionally Speaking who put a little time and thought into their comments are the people who really make the DetNews political blog what it is.
Of course that doesn't mean that I think the rest of the comments are a waste of time. Most of them are amusing, especially the comments where the writer thinks that he just "nailed" me or another commenter. So fun.
Regardless of which side you are on keep the comments coming. Who knows, maybe we will find some common ground someday.
Thursday, November 17, 2011
This Could Go Either Way
I believe there has been only one occasion have I felt motivated to comment on a movie commercial. I take great pride in my calling out of how awful that stupid Adam Sandler/Jennifer Aniston movie was last winter. Now the resident Furriners buzzkill (Elijah Moon) will probably point out that EVERYBODY could see that was going to suck. Well, I have two points to make.
1. That movie, according to IMDB, grossed over $100m. So, clearly, not everyone knew it was going to suck!
and
2. Okay, Mr. Smartypants, did EVERYONE know that Derek Anderson was going to make the Pro Bowl when he was drafted in the 6th round?!?! I called that. (Now go get your shine box!)
But I digress. Last night was the first time I saw a commercial for a movie called Young Adult. From what I can tell, a woman played by Charlize Theron returns to her podunk hometown wanting to see how her old flame (played by Patrick Wilson) has turned out. When it turns out that he is now married with children, she goes to a bar and runs into an old classmate (played by Patton Oswalt) whom she apparently never would've acknowledged 20 years ago. It looks like they spend time together and they 'click'.
Okay. This is where I am concerned about the plausibility of where they are taking us with this plot. I sure hope they are not going to expect us to follow them to the Hollywood-ending of Charlize Theron learns a life lesson that true love/happiness can be found where you least expect it (in the arms of fucking Patton Oswalt!). YAWN!! We've seen that movie a million fucking times, Hollywood!! And it never gets more believable! If you wanted us to believe that, you should have cast Hillary Swank! Charlize Theron is much too gorgeous to sell that turd.
Now, all that said, this movie is written by Diablo Cody (Juno) and directed by Jason Reitman (Up in the Air, Thank You For Smoking), so maybe it will surprise. This is not a guaranteed stinker - it's not like it's starring Cameron Diaz and David Arquette!
Take that, Elijah Moon! How many other people could see that this movie might really suck and might actually be good?!?
1. That movie, according to IMDB, grossed over $100m. So, clearly, not everyone knew it was going to suck!
and
2. Okay, Mr. Smartypants, did EVERYONE know that Derek Anderson was going to make the Pro Bowl when he was drafted in the 6th round?!?! I called that. (Now go get your shine box!)
But I digress. Last night was the first time I saw a commercial for a movie called Young Adult. From what I can tell, a woman played by Charlize Theron returns to her podunk hometown wanting to see how her old flame (played by Patrick Wilson) has turned out. When it turns out that he is now married with children, she goes to a bar and runs into an old classmate (played by Patton Oswalt) whom she apparently never would've acknowledged 20 years ago. It looks like they spend time together and they 'click'.
Okay. This is where I am concerned about the plausibility of where they are taking us with this plot. I sure hope they are not going to expect us to follow them to the Hollywood-ending of Charlize Theron learns a life lesson that true love/happiness can be found where you least expect it (in the arms of fucking Patton Oswalt!). YAWN!! We've seen that movie a million fucking times, Hollywood!! And it never gets more believable! If you wanted us to believe that, you should have cast Hillary Swank! Charlize Theron is much too gorgeous to sell that turd.
Now, all that said, this movie is written by Diablo Cody (Juno) and directed by Jason Reitman (Up in the Air, Thank You For Smoking), so maybe it will surprise. This is not a guaranteed stinker - it's not like it's starring Cameron Diaz and David Arquette!
Take that, Elijah Moon! How many other people could see that this movie might really suck and might actually be good?!?
Monday, November 14, 2011
The Right solutions for public education
I have done a lot of research on eduction and I have yet to come across a study that finds that cutting teachers pay and lowering revenue for the schools boosts test schools or enhances learning, yet money seems to be the main focus right now of our elected officials regarding education.
In my town of Saline, the people just elected a gentleman named David Holden who, when you get to the brass tacks of his policy, wants to lower teachers compensation because he believes in the well debunked fallacy that teachers are paid too much. Here is a guy who has seen his property tax rates falls for three years straight and works for a company that just gave out a $1.171 million bonus to it's top official. His personal wealth is on the rise and his contributions to the schools are down and his idea of shared sacrifice is that the teachers must sacrifice wages so he can keep his taxes low. I assume it is coincidence that school spending needs to be addressed just as the last of his kids graduates.
Since when did we put money ahead of education? Families and students go into significant debt to pay for a college education. I'm guessing that is because they think a good education is valuable. By all accounts the early years of education are the most important years of a child's development. Yet we are making the biggest cuts in the area with the greatest potential return. If you believe in running government like a business then picking your area of best ROI for cuts is the exact opposite of a good business model. Studies show that cutting money for education hurts the economy and leads to lower earning potential for our children.
Outside of money one of the only "solutions" Republicans are offering is to fire bad teachers. But the reality is that there is no bad teacher epidemic. This is political rhetoric aimed at turning the uninformed against tenure. The statistic Republicans always use when talking about tenure is the number of teachers fired in the New York school systems in 2008. The problem is, that by it self, this statistic proves nothing. Perhaps there are so few teachers fired because the vast majority are good at their job. After all only 1.5% of teachers in the New York school system in 2008 received an unsatisfactory review.
Rather than immediately grabbing our pitch forks and burning all of the "unsatisfactory" teachers at the stake with a "bad teacher" label, wouldn't it first be prudent to understand why a teacher receives such a rating and determine if extra training could improve the areas where these teachers performance is unsatisfactory? Should the knee jerk reaction of "fire the bums" be our first response? After all, replacing teachers already costs the US $2.2 billion a year and teachers are least effective in their first year meaning hiring new teachers lowers the level of education student receive until the new teacher becomes experienced.
This of course assumes that we even have enough qualified candidates to fill all of the openings created by firing these hypothetical bad teachers. Reports indicate that there is actually a shortage of qualified candidates not an abundance.
Additionally, a study about effective teachers found that the traits of an effective teacher become apparent by year two. Most teachers don't get a chance for tenure until year three or four. Perhaps the real problem hear is the evaluation process or the administrators who grant tenure. Also 46% of new teachers leave the profession within five years. Perhaps only the good teachers who are passionate about education survive past the first five years.
Another study by the National Council on Teacher Quality found that one of the biggest problems for education is a lack of good student teaching. Being a good teacher doesn't necessarily mean you are qualified to convey to a student teacher everything that goes into being a successful teacher. If that were to case Michael Jordan would be the best coach the NBA has ever seen.
Perhaps we shouldn't focus solely on firing bad teachers but instead work on creating more good teachers. Placing student teachers with educators who have been trained or demonstrate a skill in training student teachers on the finer points of being a good teacher may be a much better and cheaper use of our resources.
To make matters worse many of the "solutions" Republicans are currently offering to improve our schools are also the exact same things that are driving quality teachers away from the profession. These include the threat of layoffs, low wages, testing pressures, and poor work conditions.
The real problem with education is not the unions, tenure or teachers but the arrogance and ignorance of our elected officials who think that teaching is easy and the solutions are obvious.
If we really want to improve public education we first have to educate our elected officials so they can stop making decisions based on what they believe to be true and start making decisions based on what the data tells us is true.
In my town of Saline, the people just elected a gentleman named David Holden who, when you get to the brass tacks of his policy, wants to lower teachers compensation because he believes in the well debunked fallacy that teachers are paid too much. Here is a guy who has seen his property tax rates falls for three years straight and works for a company that just gave out a $1.171 million bonus to it's top official. His personal wealth is on the rise and his contributions to the schools are down and his idea of shared sacrifice is that the teachers must sacrifice wages so he can keep his taxes low. I assume it is coincidence that school spending needs to be addressed just as the last of his kids graduates.
Since when did we put money ahead of education? Families and students go into significant debt to pay for a college education. I'm guessing that is because they think a good education is valuable. By all accounts the early years of education are the most important years of a child's development. Yet we are making the biggest cuts in the area with the greatest potential return. If you believe in running government like a business then picking your area of best ROI for cuts is the exact opposite of a good business model. Studies show that cutting money for education hurts the economy and leads to lower earning potential for our children.
Outside of money one of the only "solutions" Republicans are offering is to fire bad teachers. But the reality is that there is no bad teacher epidemic. This is political rhetoric aimed at turning the uninformed against tenure. The statistic Republicans always use when talking about tenure is the number of teachers fired in the New York school systems in 2008. The problem is, that by it self, this statistic proves nothing. Perhaps there are so few teachers fired because the vast majority are good at their job. After all only 1.5% of teachers in the New York school system in 2008 received an unsatisfactory review.
Rather than immediately grabbing our pitch forks and burning all of the "unsatisfactory" teachers at the stake with a "bad teacher" label, wouldn't it first be prudent to understand why a teacher receives such a rating and determine if extra training could improve the areas where these teachers performance is unsatisfactory? Should the knee jerk reaction of "fire the bums" be our first response? After all, replacing teachers already costs the US $2.2 billion a year and teachers are least effective in their first year meaning hiring new teachers lowers the level of education student receive until the new teacher becomes experienced.
This of course assumes that we even have enough qualified candidates to fill all of the openings created by firing these hypothetical bad teachers. Reports indicate that there is actually a shortage of qualified candidates not an abundance.
Additionally, a study about effective teachers found that the traits of an effective teacher become apparent by year two. Most teachers don't get a chance for tenure until year three or four. Perhaps the real problem hear is the evaluation process or the administrators who grant tenure. Also 46% of new teachers leave the profession within five years. Perhaps only the good teachers who are passionate about education survive past the first five years.
Another study by the National Council on Teacher Quality found that one of the biggest problems for education is a lack of good student teaching. Being a good teacher doesn't necessarily mean you are qualified to convey to a student teacher everything that goes into being a successful teacher. If that were to case Michael Jordan would be the best coach the NBA has ever seen.
Perhaps we shouldn't focus solely on firing bad teachers but instead work on creating more good teachers. Placing student teachers with educators who have been trained or demonstrate a skill in training student teachers on the finer points of being a good teacher may be a much better and cheaper use of our resources.
To make matters worse many of the "solutions" Republicans are currently offering to improve our schools are also the exact same things that are driving quality teachers away from the profession. These include the threat of layoffs, low wages, testing pressures, and poor work conditions.
The real problem with education is not the unions, tenure or teachers but the arrogance and ignorance of our elected officials who think that teaching is easy and the solutions are obvious.
If we really want to improve public education we first have to educate our elected officials so they can stop making decisions based on what they believe to be true and start making decisions based on what the data tells us is true.
Friday, November 11, 2011
Jon Stewart: Meet Chris Hayes
There was an interesting yet rather frustrating appearance on The Daily Show on Wednesday night by House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (or "Princess Nancy" as she is known by Herman Cain).
It was an appearance where Jon Stewart - who many on the right feel is a hyper-partisan liberal - kind of took Mrs. Pelosi to task for some of the failures of the legislative process and the Democratic Party's role in such failures.
Here a couple questions/comments from Mr. Stewart:
JS: At every turn, what I hear from you is "well, Republicans would have filibustered" or "the Republicans didn't want to do that". As far as I can tell, the Republicans had a much smaller majority than the Democrats had over the those two years and they got to do whatever the hell they wanted!
&
JS: ...while the Republicans might've filibustered, why not make them filibuster?
I have a couple comments about this before turning over the floor to Chris Hayes.
With regards to the first issue. Jon Stewart is informed enough to realize that the Democrats do not have the same caucus discipline as do the Republicans. That is almost inevitable given the "larger tent" that the Democrats have. Some of George W. Bush's most infamous legislative "victories" were aided and abetted by Democrats. Medicare Part D, for example, got plenty of votes from conservative Democrats (including Max Baucus, Mary Landrieu, and Ben Nelson). Ben Nelson also is credited as the deciding vote to enable the passage of the 2003 Bush Tax Cuts. Contrarily, President Obama and congressional Democrats do not have such Republicans to work with.
True, on some high profile issues - the repeal of DADT, for example, they may receive the votes of the the New England Three (Snowe, Collins, Scott Brown) and/or some other random vote - but sometimes they even lose their own members on procedural votes! Last month, Jon Tester and Ben Nelson (grrr!) voted against cloture on President Obama's American Jobs Act. So, yeah, it was filibustered. Does that make Jon Stewart feel better? Did it make any difference whatsover?
It is a bad position for President Obama to be in when you got some liberal observers like a Jon Stewart criticizing the Democrats for not being able to pass legilation over a unified GOP caucus in the Senate. (IT IS IMPOSSIBLE, JON!) Then, when there is a compromise - which have consistently, in the view of the Furriners blog, been more concessions on the part of Democrats - the President gets berated. All the while, the conservative media have fostered a perception of Chicago-style thuggery on the part of the Obama Administration. (Michele Bachmann infamously refers to it as a "Gangster Government").
So I had all these disparate thoughts while watching the show on Wednesday night. Then, as it happens, Chris Hayes was a guest on The Rachel Maddow Show yesterday and he more succinctly summarized the current situation - in a way that I think Jon Stewart could learn from. He says:
Ding-ding-ding! Correct! Think for example of PAY-GO. This was an idea with several Republican sponsors. Then President Obama voiced his support for the idea and every Republican rescinded his or her support. And yet Jon Stewart's confused as to why the Democrats haven't been able to follow through on their entire legislative agenda?
Come on, Jon!
(Now go home and get your shine box!)
It was an appearance where Jon Stewart - who many on the right feel is a hyper-partisan liberal - kind of took Mrs. Pelosi to task for some of the failures of the legislative process and the Democratic Party's role in such failures.
Here a couple questions/comments from Mr. Stewart:
JS: At every turn, what I hear from you is "well, Republicans would have filibustered" or "the Republicans didn't want to do that". As far as I can tell, the Republicans had a much smaller majority than the Democrats had over the those two years and they got to do whatever the hell they wanted!
&
JS: ...while the Republicans might've filibustered, why not make them filibuster?
I have a couple comments about this before turning over the floor to Chris Hayes.
With regards to the first issue. Jon Stewart is informed enough to realize that the Democrats do not have the same caucus discipline as do the Republicans. That is almost inevitable given the "larger tent" that the Democrats have. Some of George W. Bush's most infamous legislative "victories" were aided and abetted by Democrats. Medicare Part D, for example, got plenty of votes from conservative Democrats (including Max Baucus, Mary Landrieu, and Ben Nelson). Ben Nelson also is credited as the deciding vote to enable the passage of the 2003 Bush Tax Cuts. Contrarily, President Obama and congressional Democrats do not have such Republicans to work with.
True, on some high profile issues - the repeal of DADT, for example, they may receive the votes of the the New England Three (Snowe, Collins, Scott Brown) and/or some other random vote - but sometimes they even lose their own members on procedural votes! Last month, Jon Tester and Ben Nelson (grrr!) voted against cloture on President Obama's American Jobs Act. So, yeah, it was filibustered. Does that make Jon Stewart feel better? Did it make any difference whatsover?
It is a bad position for President Obama to be in when you got some liberal observers like a Jon Stewart criticizing the Democrats for not being able to pass legilation over a unified GOP caucus in the Senate. (IT IS IMPOSSIBLE, JON!) Then, when there is a compromise - which have consistently, in the view of the Furriners blog, been more concessions on the part of Democrats - the President gets berated. All the while, the conservative media have fostered a perception of Chicago-style thuggery on the part of the Obama Administration. (Michele Bachmann infamously refers to it as a "Gangster Government").
So I had all these disparate thoughts while watching the show on Wednesday night. Then, as it happens, Chris Hayes was a guest on The Rachel Maddow Show yesterday and he more succinctly summarized the current situation - in a way that I think Jon Stewart could learn from. He says:
(In the senate), things can either pass 94-1... or they can get blocked. It's those two options. There's nothing in the middle. There's nothing in his current political terrain that can pass by a five vote margin, or a six vote margin, or a two vote margin because the habitual use of the filibuster and the political commitment on the part of the minority caucus in the senate to politically destroy the president in the run-up to the election is so strong it means going after everything the president has his name attached to.
Ding-ding-ding! Correct! Think for example of PAY-GO. This was an idea with several Republican sponsors. Then President Obama voiced his support for the idea and every Republican rescinded his or her support. And yet Jon Stewart's confused as to why the Democrats haven't been able to follow through on their entire legislative agenda?
Come on, Jon!
(Now go home and get your shine box!)
Wednesday, November 9, 2011
It's Not Going To Happen!
This is another that is essentially Just For Me - at least amongst those of us in the Furriners offices.
There is a moment in the cinematic classic Mean Girls (yeah, I said it!) where the leader of "The Plastics" played by Rachel McAdams chastizes one of her friends (played by Lacey Chabert) who is trying to introduce a particular slang word into their vocabulary.
Chabert: That is so fetch!
McAdams: Gretchen, stop trying to make "fetch" happen! It's NOT going to happen!
I've thought of that recently watching Hardball where Chris Matthews is plugging his own book on his own show everyday. It's a book about JFK and Mr. Matthews clearly worships JFK and calls him a "true hero".
I just think Whatever, Chris! It's NOT going to happen! I'm not buying your g-d book and I wish you'd quit plugging it on your show. If you want to plug your book, please do a proper book tour like Herman Cain. Maybe you'll run into him on the circuit because Mr. Cain seems to be doing every show that will have him. Who know he was so permiscuous? That doesn't seem like him at all.
There is a moment in the cinematic classic Mean Girls (yeah, I said it!) where the leader of "The Plastics" played by Rachel McAdams chastizes one of her friends (played by Lacey Chabert) who is trying to introduce a particular slang word into their vocabulary.
Chabert: That is so fetch!
McAdams: Gretchen, stop trying to make "fetch" happen! It's NOT going to happen!
I've thought of that recently watching Hardball where Chris Matthews is plugging his own book on his own show everyday. It's a book about JFK and Mr. Matthews clearly worships JFK and calls him a "true hero".
I just think Whatever, Chris! It's NOT going to happen! I'm not buying your g-d book and I wish you'd quit plugging it on your show. If you want to plug your book, please do a proper book tour like Herman Cain. Maybe you'll run into him on the circuit because Mr. Cain seems to be doing every show that will have him. Who know he was so permiscuous? That doesn't seem like him at all.
Herman Cain
After the fourth claim of sexual harassment Herman Cain says that the Democrat machine is out to get him.
I personally don't care about the extra circulars that our elected officials get themselves involved in. That goes for Bill Clinton, Chris Lee, Mark Sanford, Anthony Wiener and Herman Cain. I just don't think that these indiscretions have much correlation to the personals ability to govern. Should they be held to a higher standard? Sure, but in this political climate that is never done without the partisan beer goggles on.
I do, however, find Cain's claim that the Democrat machine is out to get him laughable. This guy may be the least electable candidate the Republicans have trotted out so far. I'm not sure I could pick an easier opponent for Obama. To think that Democrats want to bring down a guy who has arguably the worst formulated tax plan in the history of this country is beyond ridiculous.
Herman. If your listening. We are not laughing with you. We are laughing at you and the Republican party that currently has you leading the polls.
Cain 2012!
I personally don't care about the extra circulars that our elected officials get themselves involved in. That goes for Bill Clinton, Chris Lee, Mark Sanford, Anthony Wiener and Herman Cain. I just don't think that these indiscretions have much correlation to the personals ability to govern. Should they be held to a higher standard? Sure, but in this political climate that is never done without the partisan beer goggles on.
I do, however, find Cain's claim that the Democrat machine is out to get him laughable. This guy may be the least electable candidate the Republicans have trotted out so far. I'm not sure I could pick an easier opponent for Obama. To think that Democrats want to bring down a guy who has arguably the worst formulated tax plan in the history of this country is beyond ridiculous.
Herman. If your listening. We are not laughing with you. We are laughing at you and the Republican party that currently has you leading the polls.
Cain 2012!
Second Amendment? YES! Fifth Amendment? Meh.
I caught a few minutes of Fox News coverage on the elections last night. They were surprisingly rational about what happened - they acknowledged the "overreach" of Gov. Kasich in Ohio and that Republicans would be wise to heed the will of the electorate as it was being expressed in Ohio and in other states.
One comment that I did take note of was by some d-bag named Stephen Hayes of The Weekly Standard (a conservative rag). He mentioned some ballot initiative in Mississippi that restricted eminent domain. I had not heard of the initiative and have no opinion on it. All I wish to point out was his rationale for the lopsided vote was that Mississippi voters were indicating "that private property rights were important and need to be protected". I think that is reasonable observation. HOWEVER, let us not forget that it is the right-wing of the Republican Party who like to pull out their pocket Constitutions and hold them up like they're traffic cops. I just want to make sure they know that the U.S. Constitution grants the federal government the power of eminent domain as long as there is "just compensation". Moreover, Wikipedia research indicates that power was extended to the states with the passage of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Does that make the Mississippi law unconstitutional? Good question, furriners! How the heck should I know? I'm not a constitutional lawyer. I'm barely even a blogger.
One comment that I did take note of was by some d-bag named Stephen Hayes of The Weekly Standard (a conservative rag). He mentioned some ballot initiative in Mississippi that restricted eminent domain. I had not heard of the initiative and have no opinion on it. All I wish to point out was his rationale for the lopsided vote was that Mississippi voters were indicating "that private property rights were important and need to be protected". I think that is reasonable observation. HOWEVER, let us not forget that it is the right-wing of the Republican Party who like to pull out their pocket Constitutions and hold them up like they're traffic cops. I just want to make sure they know that the U.S. Constitution grants the federal government the power of eminent domain as long as there is "just compensation". Moreover, Wikipedia research indicates that power was extended to the states with the passage of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Does that make the Mississippi law unconstitutional? Good question, furriners! How the heck should I know? I'm not a constitutional lawyer. I'm barely even a blogger.
Stop It, MSNBC!! You're Blowing My Mind!!
File this post under Just For Me.
Here is my pet peeve. The 3:00pm hour of MSNBC programming is held down by Martin Bashir. He is a British citizen of Indian heritage. I don't honestly know where they got this guy from - but my initial impression was that he was a serious journalist.
It seems now it was just the accent that was giving him a somewhat distinguished air - because what, over the past year, has Martin Bashir been most visible for? Well, he was all over the Royal Wedding. Seriously! And I could not have cared less about that. Now, this week, Martin Bashir is MSNBC's go-to guy on the trial of Dr. Conrad Murray. More tabloid rubbish if you ask me.
MSBNC might as well bring out Tom Brokaw to talk about Kim Kardashian's divorce! It's that jarring. So stop it, MSNBC. If you're going to have a host doing tabloid fluff, you'd might as well go the FoxNews route and have it done by eye-candy like Megyn Kelly. (I might remind you that do have Contessa Brewer "in the fold" - as Mel Kiper, Jr. would say).
(CORRECTION: Contessa Brewer left MSNBC! Who knew?)
Here is my pet peeve. The 3:00pm hour of MSNBC programming is held down by Martin Bashir. He is a British citizen of Indian heritage. I don't honestly know where they got this guy from - but my initial impression was that he was a serious journalist.
It seems now it was just the accent that was giving him a somewhat distinguished air - because what, over the past year, has Martin Bashir been most visible for? Well, he was all over the Royal Wedding. Seriously! And I could not have cared less about that. Now, this week, Martin Bashir is MSNBC's go-to guy on the trial of Dr. Conrad Murray. More tabloid rubbish if you ask me.
MSBNC might as well bring out Tom Brokaw to talk about Kim Kardashian's divorce! It's that jarring. So stop it, MSNBC. If you're going to have a host doing tabloid fluff, you'd might as well go the FoxNews route and have it done by eye-candy like Megyn Kelly. (I might remind you that do have Contessa Brewer "in the fold" - as Mel Kiper, Jr. would say).
(CORRECTION: Contessa Brewer left MSNBC! Who knew?)
Friday, November 4, 2011
Government spending
In response to one of my recent posts a commenter (kayez) took issue with my statement that President cut government spending saying "I'm still trying to get my head around the statement that Obama has cut federal spending... that's just unreal" and "If someone blows trillions of dollars and then cuts a billion in spending, to me it's being disingenuous to describe that person on a macro level as having cut federal spending."
First, it should be noted that while the president submits a budget, Congress is in charge of putting together the appropriation bills which will become the final budget. In my previous post I linked to an article about one of President Obama's proposed cuts in Federal spending not cuts enacted by Congress. Having said that there are areas of the budget where cuts have already been made under Obama and his record on spending compares favorably to his predecessors.
The 2009 budget, put in place by President Bush, is only $237 billion less than Obama's 2012 budget. An additional $108 billion of the 2009 budget can be attributed to President Obama due to the stimulus package for a total of $345 billion in additional spending from the last Bush budget to the 2012 Obama budget. After adjusting for inflation the increase (including the 2009 stimulus spending) is only $128 billion from the last Bush budget to the 2012 Obama budget.
$156 billion ($130 adjusted) of the increase from 2009 to 2012 is interest on debt we owe. It is difficult to consider the interest we pay on our national debt as increased spending by President Obama especially given the fact that our 2011 federal revenue is below that of the 2000 revenue. Another $143 billion ($123 adjusted) in increases is due to increased spending on Defense, Medicare, Social Security. All of which the President has proposed cuts to.
If Congress were to keep Social Security and Medicare spending rates at their 2010 levels, President Obama will have decreased the budget by 1.5% per year over four years. Additionally under President Obama non-defense discretionary spending falls by a rate of 4.4% per year or a total of $239 billion.
The reality is that as President, Obama has presided over the smallest increase in Federal budget in a term since the end of World War 2, and the largest cut to discretionary spending over the past 40 years, while also proposing further cuts. Blaming him for Congress' failure to act on these proposals because Republicans have decided that their goal is to make Obama a one term president is not proof that he is some sort of big spending liberal.
First, it should be noted that while the president submits a budget, Congress is in charge of putting together the appropriation bills which will become the final budget. In my previous post I linked to an article about one of President Obama's proposed cuts in Federal spending not cuts enacted by Congress. Having said that there are areas of the budget where cuts have already been made under Obama and his record on spending compares favorably to his predecessors.
The 2009 budget, put in place by President Bush, is only $237 billion less than Obama's 2012 budget. An additional $108 billion of the 2009 budget can be attributed to President Obama due to the stimulus package for a total of $345 billion in additional spending from the last Bush budget to the 2012 Obama budget. After adjusting for inflation the increase (including the 2009 stimulus spending) is only $128 billion from the last Bush budget to the 2012 Obama budget.
$156 billion ($130 adjusted) of the increase from 2009 to 2012 is interest on debt we owe. It is difficult to consider the interest we pay on our national debt as increased spending by President Obama especially given the fact that our 2011 federal revenue is below that of the 2000 revenue. Another $143 billion ($123 adjusted) in increases is due to increased spending on Defense, Medicare, Social Security. All of which the President has proposed cuts to.
If Congress were to keep Social Security and Medicare spending rates at their 2010 levels, President Obama will have decreased the budget by 1.5% per year over four years. Additionally under President Obama non-defense discretionary spending falls by a rate of 4.4% per year or a total of $239 billion.
The reality is that as President, Obama has presided over the smallest increase in Federal budget in a term since the end of World War 2, and the largest cut to discretionary spending over the past 40 years, while also proposing further cuts. Blaming him for Congress' failure to act on these proposals because Republicans have decided that their goal is to make Obama a one term president is not proof that he is some sort of big spending liberal.
Wednesday, November 2, 2011
Republicans Do Not Understand The Free Market
Or, at least, some of them apparently do not.
I was watching The Daily Show yesterday and they did a segment on "Moneyed-Americans" backlash (or, at least, the conservative media who protects them) over the Occupy Wall Street Movement. In the segment, a gentleman named Peter Schiff (identified as CEO of Euro Pacific Capital, Inc.) was shown lecturing a protestor saying:
If you raise my taxes, maybe I'll just decide to sell my business and fire 150 people.
Or Bill O'Reilly who said:
If Barack Obama begins taxing me at more than 50% - which is very possible - I don't know how much longer I'm going to do this.
By the way, that is, of course, not at all possible. For one, the President does not set tax policy; that is done by Congress. Secondly, President Obama has not proposed anything close to 50%; he has merely suggested we go back to the tax rates of President Bill Clinton (with the top tax rate being 39.6%).
Regardless, for the sake of this post, we will take these gentlemen at their word.
So what happens if Bill O'Reilly quits? FoxNews will not go dark at 8pm - no matter how much many of us would like it to; some other right-wing jack-hole will fill that time slot; staff will be hired and the effect on net jobs would be negligible. Mr. O'Reilly would fade into TV history like those before him and those that will follow. History stops for no one. Not even Tim Tebow.
As for Mr. Schiff, consider first his statement that if he might "sell his business and fire 150 people". You don't have to have an MBA to realize that if he sells his business, it will no longer be his decision as to who is fired and who is retained. (By the way, if Mitt Romney were to buy it, everybody is fired!) If he does not sell, but rather just decides to "take his ball and go home" (i.e. just close the business because taxes increased by ~4%) - as far-fetched as that is - the free market would fill that void; his market share would be taken by some other business (with people employed to take on that business).
So next time your conservative uncle or father or father-in-law warns you about progressive tax policy vis-a-vis job creation. You just tell him that he should have a little faith in the free market!
I was watching The Daily Show yesterday and they did a segment on "Moneyed-Americans" backlash (or, at least, the conservative media who protects them) over the Occupy Wall Street Movement. In the segment, a gentleman named Peter Schiff (identified as CEO of Euro Pacific Capital, Inc.) was shown lecturing a protestor saying:
If you raise my taxes, maybe I'll just decide to sell my business and fire 150 people.
Or Bill O'Reilly who said:
If Barack Obama begins taxing me at more than 50% - which is very possible - I don't know how much longer I'm going to do this.
By the way, that is, of course, not at all possible. For one, the President does not set tax policy; that is done by Congress. Secondly, President Obama has not proposed anything close to 50%; he has merely suggested we go back to the tax rates of President Bill Clinton (with the top tax rate being 39.6%).
Regardless, for the sake of this post, we will take these gentlemen at their word.
So what happens if Bill O'Reilly quits? FoxNews will not go dark at 8pm - no matter how much many of us would like it to; some other right-wing jack-hole will fill that time slot; staff will be hired and the effect on net jobs would be negligible. Mr. O'Reilly would fade into TV history like those before him and those that will follow. History stops for no one. Not even Tim Tebow.
As for Mr. Schiff, consider first his statement that if he might "sell his business and fire 150 people". You don't have to have an MBA to realize that if he sells his business, it will no longer be his decision as to who is fired and who is retained. (By the way, if Mitt Romney were to buy it, everybody is fired!) If he does not sell, but rather just decides to "take his ball and go home" (i.e. just close the business because taxes increased by ~4%) - as far-fetched as that is - the free market would fill that void; his market share would be taken by some other business (with people employed to take on that business).
So next time your conservative uncle or father or father-in-law warns you about progressive tax policy vis-a-vis job creation. You just tell him that he should have a little faith in the free market!
Tuesday, November 1, 2011
Exxon Mobil's pity party
In late October a website called exxonmobilperspectives.com put together an article titled: "10 little known – or often ignored – facts about gas prices and ExxonMobil’s earnings".
I have some concerns that this site might be biased towards big oil and in particular Exxon Mobil but assuming that simply because the article is paid for an written by a the company that it defends doesn't mean the information it contains is inaccurate.
There are 5 "facts" out of the 10 that while probably factually accurate are a bit misleading.
Often ignored fact: ExxonMobil makes pennies per gallon on gasoline, diesel and petroleum products it refines and sells in the United States
According to this source Exxon Mobil only makes $0.07 to $0.08 of profit per gallon of gasoline sold. The thing they don't tell you is that there are 42 gallons of oil per barrel and Exxon Mobil, as the article points out, refines 5 million barrels a day. This means their profit is $14.7 million dollars per day on their oil refining alone. Just because using one unit of measure makes the profit seem small doesn't mean it really is. Imagine if Target said "sure we make $5 per shirt we sell but we only make $0.01 per stitch on the average shirt". How can they make any money at only $0.01 per stitch?
Little known fact: The oil and gas industry’s overall earnings per dollar of sales are significantly less than many other industries.
In the explanation of this issue the author reports that the oil industry only makes $0.095 per dollar spent which is well below the numbers by some other industries. It also happens to be twice as much as industries like iron, steel, food and paper and still significantly higher than industries like furniture, plastics, rubber , and motor vehicles. I'm not sure that the profit margin for the product that makes the motor vehicles go should be higher than the margin for the motor vehicle it self. Usually the commodities profit margin is less then that of finished goods.
Little known fact: ExxonMobil regularly invests more on energy projects in the U.S. than it earns in the U.S.
The author states this fact like Exxon Mobil's investments are not done for the benefit of the company but for America. After all if Exxon Mobil didn't stand up for the little guys with exploration for new oil sources, who would?
Often ignored fact: ExxonMobil’s U.S. tax bill is often greater than its U.S. operating earnings.
To make this little factoid work Exxon Mobil includes Federal and State gas taxes which consumers pay not Exxon Mobil. They also include payroll taxes that they pay for their employees. It is disingenuous to suggest they have a high tax burden and then include taxes that are paid for by other sources through Exxon Mobil.
Often ignored fact: The people who benefit from “Big Oil’s” earnings are hardworking Americans, from teachers to police officers to public sector workers.
Considering the fact that nearly 82% of all stocks, bonds and mutual funds are owned by the top 10%, I think it is a stretch to suggest some significant portion of Exxon Mobil's stocks are held by people in that other 90%.
I would actually respect Exxon Mobil more if they just said "this is our business model and it is successful", because unlike the rhetoric would have you believe, I and most liberals I know, don't want to "bring down" Exxon Mobil or eliminate their profit.
I do however take issue with the $85 million they spend on lobbyists over the last four years to alter legislation in their favor. I dislike that the CEO makes 247 times that of the average Exxon Mobil employee. I resent the $3 billion in subsidies given to the Oil industry from the Federal government. I wish they weren't on CNN list of companies exporting American jobs. These are all things that have an effect on me as a tax paying gasoline consumer and they make up some of the little known facts that known facts that Exxon Mobil won't be posting about anytime soon.
I have some concerns that this site might be biased towards big oil and in particular Exxon Mobil but assuming that simply because the article is paid for an written by a the company that it defends doesn't mean the information it contains is inaccurate.
There are 5 "facts" out of the 10 that while probably factually accurate are a bit misleading.
Often ignored fact: ExxonMobil makes pennies per gallon on gasoline, diesel and petroleum products it refines and sells in the United States
According to this source Exxon Mobil only makes $0.07 to $0.08 of profit per gallon of gasoline sold. The thing they don't tell you is that there are 42 gallons of oil per barrel and Exxon Mobil, as the article points out, refines 5 million barrels a day. This means their profit is $14.7 million dollars per day on their oil refining alone. Just because using one unit of measure makes the profit seem small doesn't mean it really is. Imagine if Target said "sure we make $5 per shirt we sell but we only make $0.01 per stitch on the average shirt". How can they make any money at only $0.01 per stitch?
Little known fact: The oil and gas industry’s overall earnings per dollar of sales are significantly less than many other industries.
In the explanation of this issue the author reports that the oil industry only makes $0.095 per dollar spent which is well below the numbers by some other industries. It also happens to be twice as much as industries like iron, steel, food and paper and still significantly higher than industries like furniture, plastics, rubber , and motor vehicles. I'm not sure that the profit margin for the product that makes the motor vehicles go should be higher than the margin for the motor vehicle it self. Usually the commodities profit margin is less then that of finished goods.
Little known fact: ExxonMobil regularly invests more on energy projects in the U.S. than it earns in the U.S.
The author states this fact like Exxon Mobil's investments are not done for the benefit of the company but for America. After all if Exxon Mobil didn't stand up for the little guys with exploration for new oil sources, who would?
Often ignored fact: ExxonMobil’s U.S. tax bill is often greater than its U.S. operating earnings.
To make this little factoid work Exxon Mobil includes Federal and State gas taxes which consumers pay not Exxon Mobil. They also include payroll taxes that they pay for their employees. It is disingenuous to suggest they have a high tax burden and then include taxes that are paid for by other sources through Exxon Mobil.
Often ignored fact: The people who benefit from “Big Oil’s” earnings are hardworking Americans, from teachers to police officers to public sector workers.
Considering the fact that nearly 82% of all stocks, bonds and mutual funds are owned by the top 10%, I think it is a stretch to suggest some significant portion of Exxon Mobil's stocks are held by people in that other 90%.
I would actually respect Exxon Mobil more if they just said "this is our business model and it is successful", because unlike the rhetoric would have you believe, I and most liberals I know, don't want to "bring down" Exxon Mobil or eliminate their profit.
I do however take issue with the $85 million they spend on lobbyists over the last four years to alter legislation in their favor. I dislike that the CEO makes 247 times that of the average Exxon Mobil employee. I resent the $3 billion in subsidies given to the Oil industry from the Federal government. I wish they weren't on CNN list of companies exporting American jobs. These are all things that have an effect on me as a tax paying gasoline consumer and they make up some of the little known facts that known facts that Exxon Mobil won't be posting about anytime soon.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
