Over the week of Thanksgiving, I traveled to South Korea to spend time with my oldest son, who is teaching English at an elementary school there.
What amazed me most about the experience more than anything else is that capitalism, the bastion of free people everywhere, is alive and well in Korea. Yes, Korea.
As I walked down the streets of Pyeongtaek, Anjung and Seoul, I witnessed a bustling economy with large and small shops everywhere. People even sold their wares on the sidewalk, from garlic to fried fish, vegetables and craft items. During my week in Korea, I ate at several restaurants where my dining mates and I cooked meat on a small grill within the table in front of us. After we determined that the meat was done, we combined the small pieces of beef, pork, chicken and lamb with vegetables and sauces provided by the restaurants into a tasty wrap.
I also experienced a country with very little crime, a country in which one can safely walk down the street at night without being mugged. I also saw a country where families regularly eat meals together and a level of respect is inherent in the culture. Instead of saying "yes ma'am" or "yes, sir" as we did growing up in America, Koreans show respect with gestures such as a simple bow or by receiving something from someone by using two hands.
I also did not see a single person sleeping on the street, or even one person begging for my change. I did see Koreans heading to work early in the morning to factories making automobiles or high-tech products, many of which we purchase in America (i.e., Samsung, Hyundai, Kia). I also saw very small yards in the middle of the city turned into gardens in order to grow cabbage, one of the staples of the Korean diet. I also witnessed Koreans working diligently on a housing project, without the typical "one person working, two people standing around" mentality we see on many projects in America. Clearly, Koreans are very industrious people with a strong work ethic.
As I was experiencing Korea, I began to remember that this was what it was like in the U.S. in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s, when parents allowed their children to play in their neighborhoods after dark, when people had respect for one another, when people actually worked hard and didn't expect a handout from their government, and when anyone in America could start a business without worrying about all of the government red tape and outlandish lawsuits that are killing our economy today.
What would the county or state health department think about allowing customers to cook their own raw meat until it is safe to eat? What would attorneys think about the dangers of potential lawsuits arising from customers burning themselves on grills or eating meat that isn't properly cooked? Could these restaurants even obtain insurance in America? How would our city leaders treat those street vendors who are simply trying to make a living for their families? What would the unions think about a workforce that isn't bloated?
Sadly, what I witnessed in Korea would not be allowed to occur in America today. Attorneys would close down those restaurants, if health departments didn't prevent them from opening in the first place. Cities certainly would not allow so many street vendors, and our unions certainly would not allow the level of work activity seen on Korean job sites.
While I certainly understand safety and environmental regulations that protect the health and welfare of a country's population, I strongly believe that America has taken them too far. Regulations are so complex and cumbersome today that most small businesses have to hire an accountant and attorney before they open their doors to their first customers.
Sadly, as I was boarding my plane home, I began to wish that America was more like Korea. Yes, Korea.
Sunday, November 25, 2012
Thursday, November 15, 2012
The Voice of Reason: Capitalism for Dummies (or Liberals)
When my youngest son was probably 10, I thought I would give him a lesson in capitalism.
I placed 25 pennies out on the table in front of us, and divided the pennies into five groups of five pennies each. I told my son that each group of five pennies represented a company owned by one person, with each company hiring dozens of workers that receive paychecks.
Next, I added three pennies to each group, telling my son that these additional pennies signified profit earned by those companies. Next, I took one penny away from each group, saying that this represented the taxes paid by each company on that profit. With the profit that was left, 10 pennies in total, I divided them into two additional groups of five pennies each, telling my son that this signified that the owner used the profit to created two more businesses that hired people.
I then added three additional pennies to each of the seven groups of pennies, signifying profit earned, and then took one penny away as their taxes. With the additional 14 pennies of profit left, I created two more groups of five pennies each, and put aside the other four pennies to form yet another company, once we were able to earn enough profit to form another company of five pennies.
We continued the exercise until my son realized that profit was being used to create more profit and thus more businesses, and that with each new company, more and more people were being put to work. I also explained that the taxes paid by the company helped to support government programs for the poor, our military and many other programs that needed money to operate. He learned that as we grew those companies and earned more profit, more taxes were being paid and more people were being put to work. I also explained that each of those workers paid taxes, on top of the taxes that were being paid by the companies.
Next I returned the pennies back to where they were before the first profit was added -- five groups of five pennies each. Once more I placed three additional pennies into each group as profit, but then took two pennies away in taxes from each group instead of just one. As a result, our total remaining profit from the five groups was only five pennies, which I split off into one other company that I told my son was able to hire employees.
We continued the exercise, taking two pennies of profit away each round, watching our companies grow much more slowly this time and thus fewer people being put to work by those companies.
I asked my son what was the difference between taking two pennies away and taking one penny away for taxes.
"You don't have as many pennies left to form another company," he said.
"And what happened to the number of new jobs we were able to create?" I asked.
"You only were able to form one instead of two and the companies didn't grow as fast, so there were fewer jobs," he replied.
He also recognized that fewer employees meant fewer people actually paying taxes, on top of the taxes that the companies paid.
With that small pile of pennies, I was able to give my 10 year old a lesson in capitalism. He now understood that more money taken away to pay taxes means less money to build and grow businesses and thus fewer employees.
For some reason, most Americans today don't understand what I was able to explain very clearly to a boy who wasn't even a teenager.
I have to think that if more Americans understood the basic principles of capitalism, Barack Obama would never have been reelected because of his "make the rich pay their fair share" platform, which seems to be his only plan to improve our economy. More people would understand that higher taxes means less money to grow businesses and hire more employees.
If this lesson worked with a 10 year old, maybe it will even work with liberals? The only problem with this simple demonstration is that it would have to be dumbed down even further for Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi.
I placed 25 pennies out on the table in front of us, and divided the pennies into five groups of five pennies each. I told my son that each group of five pennies represented a company owned by one person, with each company hiring dozens of workers that receive paychecks.
Next, I added three pennies to each group, telling my son that these additional pennies signified profit earned by those companies. Next, I took one penny away from each group, saying that this represented the taxes paid by each company on that profit. With the profit that was left, 10 pennies in total, I divided them into two additional groups of five pennies each, telling my son that this signified that the owner used the profit to created two more businesses that hired people.
I then added three additional pennies to each of the seven groups of pennies, signifying profit earned, and then took one penny away as their taxes. With the additional 14 pennies of profit left, I created two more groups of five pennies each, and put aside the other four pennies to form yet another company, once we were able to earn enough profit to form another company of five pennies.
We continued the exercise until my son realized that profit was being used to create more profit and thus more businesses, and that with each new company, more and more people were being put to work. I also explained that the taxes paid by the company helped to support government programs for the poor, our military and many other programs that needed money to operate. He learned that as we grew those companies and earned more profit, more taxes were being paid and more people were being put to work. I also explained that each of those workers paid taxes, on top of the taxes that were being paid by the companies.
Next I returned the pennies back to where they were before the first profit was added -- five groups of five pennies each. Once more I placed three additional pennies into each group as profit, but then took two pennies away in taxes from each group instead of just one. As a result, our total remaining profit from the five groups was only five pennies, which I split off into one other company that I told my son was able to hire employees.
We continued the exercise, taking two pennies of profit away each round, watching our companies grow much more slowly this time and thus fewer people being put to work by those companies.
I asked my son what was the difference between taking two pennies away and taking one penny away for taxes.
"You don't have as many pennies left to form another company," he said.
"And what happened to the number of new jobs we were able to create?" I asked.
"You only were able to form one instead of two and the companies didn't grow as fast, so there were fewer jobs," he replied.
He also recognized that fewer employees meant fewer people actually paying taxes, on top of the taxes that the companies paid.
With that small pile of pennies, I was able to give my 10 year old a lesson in capitalism. He now understood that more money taken away to pay taxes means less money to build and grow businesses and thus fewer employees.
For some reason, most Americans today don't understand what I was able to explain very clearly to a boy who wasn't even a teenager.
I have to think that if more Americans understood the basic principles of capitalism, Barack Obama would never have been reelected because of his "make the rich pay their fair share" platform, which seems to be his only plan to improve our economy. More people would understand that higher taxes means less money to grow businesses and hire more employees.
If this lesson worked with a 10 year old, maybe it will even work with liberals? The only problem with this simple demonstration is that it would have to be dumbed down even further for Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi.
Sunday, November 11, 2012
The Voice of Reason: What a Difference a Generation Makes
Over the weekend, I thought back to the tumultuous days of the 1960s and early 1970s.
I remember the images on my black and white television of those anti-war protests all over the U.S., with young people in the tens of thousands marching in various cities and occupying college administration buildings. Young people marched on the 1968 Democratic National Convention in Chicago, protesting the Vietnam War and our federal government. They were met by police, who used mace indiscriminately on protestors and bystanders. The protestors chanted, "The Whole World's Watching," as television cameras captured images of the police fighting back the protestors.
The young people in those crowds were the offspring of those who experienced World War II, a generation that nearly saw its rights taken away by the Germans, Japanese and Italians. Many of those young people had parents who were killed or injured in World War II, and they also had many friends and family members who were either injured or killed in the Vietnam War. With the military draft still in force, these young people certainly had skin in the game, so to speak. They protested the Vietnam War with a passion, perhaps because at any time they could be forced by their government to fight in a war they didn't feel was necessary or just.
Although I was a little too young to participate in those protests, my father was seriously injured in World War II and had to live with pain every single day for the rest of his life. I knew a lot of young men from my hometown who never made it home from Vietnam. I learned from my father, who grew up in the Great Depression, that our rights were worth worth fighting for, even if it meant giving up your own life.
During this time period, young people, more than any other age group, questioned the decisions and motivations of our federal government, and rightly so. Young reporters Carl Bernstein and Bob Woodward of the Washington Post were among those from this age group who doggedly asked tough questions and uncovered sources within the federal government in order to report the truth about the Watergate break-in and subsequent coverup. Their reporting, and the reporting of others, forced a President, Richard Nixon, to resign, not because of the original burgulary of political offices at the Watergate Hotel, but because he was deeply involved in the coverup to keep others from learning who was involved in the original break-in.
While thinking about life in the 1960s and 1970s this weekend, I began comparing the young people of today to the young people of yesteryear. Young people from both time frames are similar in some ways, including their impatience, but they are vastly different in other ways, including their belief in and support for our federal government. While young people of 40 and 50 years ago had a healthy disbelief for anything the government told them, the young people of today seem to blindly follow the federal government, especially this President.
I have to wonder how the young people of yesterday, as well as the reporters in their age group, would have reacted to a President who clearly avoided calling violence on our consulate the result of terrorism, although intelligence before the attack pointed to a growing terrorist threat, and intelligence immediately after the attack indicated that a terrorist group had carried out a well-planned, coordinated assault.
Young people back then became very angry when their President and government clearly lied to them. Young people of today don't even seem to want to know the truth.
I wonder how those young people of yesterday would have reacted to an Administration that ignored pleas for additional security at the consulate or to an Administration that clearly dragged its feet in sending in military assistance to save American lives. I also wonder how those same young people would have reacted to a federal government whose policies have devastated so many of their peers economically, with only one out of two recent college graduates able to find a job in their field. Young people in the 1960s and 1970s would have been protesting in the streets if jobs weren't available to them. After their parents had sacrified life and limb so that their children would have a better life, those children, as well as their parents, would have demanded opportunities better than the previous generation of Americans. Today, being out of work and living with your parents is apparently the new normal in America.
For some reason, the young people of today just don't seem to care with the same fervor how easily our rights can all be taken away. They also don't even seem to believe that our federal government should be viewed with a cynicism. That's always been the American way -- to distrust government. This friction between citizens and government was ingrained in our fabric even before America was a country. We forged our own union because of an oppressive British government, and we have remained a country because our citizens have fought valiantly to preserve those rights and also to hold our government accountable to we the people.
Somewhere along the way, the healthy skepticism our young people have had for government has become an unhealthy allegiance. Sadly, if young people blindly follow government, our democratic form of government is at great risk for this and future generations of Americans.
I remember the images on my black and white television of those anti-war protests all over the U.S., with young people in the tens of thousands marching in various cities and occupying college administration buildings. Young people marched on the 1968 Democratic National Convention in Chicago, protesting the Vietnam War and our federal government. They were met by police, who used mace indiscriminately on protestors and bystanders. The protestors chanted, "The Whole World's Watching," as television cameras captured images of the police fighting back the protestors.
The young people in those crowds were the offspring of those who experienced World War II, a generation that nearly saw its rights taken away by the Germans, Japanese and Italians. Many of those young people had parents who were killed or injured in World War II, and they also had many friends and family members who were either injured or killed in the Vietnam War. With the military draft still in force, these young people certainly had skin in the game, so to speak. They protested the Vietnam War with a passion, perhaps because at any time they could be forced by their government to fight in a war they didn't feel was necessary or just.
Although I was a little too young to participate in those protests, my father was seriously injured in World War II and had to live with pain every single day for the rest of his life. I knew a lot of young men from my hometown who never made it home from Vietnam. I learned from my father, who grew up in the Great Depression, that our rights were worth worth fighting for, even if it meant giving up your own life.
During this time period, young people, more than any other age group, questioned the decisions and motivations of our federal government, and rightly so. Young reporters Carl Bernstein and Bob Woodward of the Washington Post were among those from this age group who doggedly asked tough questions and uncovered sources within the federal government in order to report the truth about the Watergate break-in and subsequent coverup. Their reporting, and the reporting of others, forced a President, Richard Nixon, to resign, not because of the original burgulary of political offices at the Watergate Hotel, but because he was deeply involved in the coverup to keep others from learning who was involved in the original break-in.
While thinking about life in the 1960s and 1970s this weekend, I began comparing the young people of today to the young people of yesteryear. Young people from both time frames are similar in some ways, including their impatience, but they are vastly different in other ways, including their belief in and support for our federal government. While young people of 40 and 50 years ago had a healthy disbelief for anything the government told them, the young people of today seem to blindly follow the federal government, especially this President.
I have to wonder how the young people of yesterday, as well as the reporters in their age group, would have reacted to a President who clearly avoided calling violence on our consulate the result of terrorism, although intelligence before the attack pointed to a growing terrorist threat, and intelligence immediately after the attack indicated that a terrorist group had carried out a well-planned, coordinated assault.
Young people back then became very angry when their President and government clearly lied to them. Young people of today don't even seem to want to know the truth.
I wonder how those young people of yesterday would have reacted to an Administration that ignored pleas for additional security at the consulate or to an Administration that clearly dragged its feet in sending in military assistance to save American lives. I also wonder how those same young people would have reacted to a federal government whose policies have devastated so many of their peers economically, with only one out of two recent college graduates able to find a job in their field. Young people in the 1960s and 1970s would have been protesting in the streets if jobs weren't available to them. After their parents had sacrified life and limb so that their children would have a better life, those children, as well as their parents, would have demanded opportunities better than the previous generation of Americans. Today, being out of work and living with your parents is apparently the new normal in America.
For some reason, the young people of today just don't seem to care with the same fervor how easily our rights can all be taken away. They also don't even seem to believe that our federal government should be viewed with a cynicism. That's always been the American way -- to distrust government. This friction between citizens and government was ingrained in our fabric even before America was a country. We forged our own union because of an oppressive British government, and we have remained a country because our citizens have fought valiantly to preserve those rights and also to hold our government accountable to we the people.
Somewhere along the way, the healthy skepticism our young people have had for government has become an unhealthy allegiance. Sadly, if young people blindly follow government, our democratic form of government is at great risk for this and future generations of Americans.
Friday, November 9, 2012
The Voice of Reason: The End of Freedom of Speech, Press in America?
While pondering yesterday evening how America could possibly elect a President with such a horrific record to a second term in office, I began thinking about how much the country I love so much has changed in just the last four years.
I thought back to the venom directed to actress Stacy Dash from the left when she announced she was supporting Mitt Romney, the lack of media coverage and the Administration's response to the killing of four Americans in Benghazi, the dearth of coverage about the horrible suffering in New York and New Jersey following Hurricane Sandy, the lack of context and depth in the media's coverage of economic issues facing this country, and the hate-filled responses I received on Facebook when I attempted to point out facts about the major issues facing our country.
It suddenly dawned on me. Our First Amendment Freedoms of Speech and the Press, outlined in the Bill of Rights, are slowly being eroded through attempted censorship from within our own citizenry and by a media censoring its own news to avoid appearing to be negative towards their President. Let me explain further.
When the violence in the Middle East erupted on the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, the Obama Administration pointed to a YouTube video as the cause, calling it "despicable" and communicating that America had nothing to do with this slanderous video. The President even spoke before the U.N., essentially apologizing for and attacking this anti-Muslim video. A few weeks later, the person who made this video was jailed by the government on a probation violation charge. A clear message was sent in words and actions by the Obama Administration: No one can speak out against Muslims in America.
As this story began to unfold, Fox News was excluded from an intelligence briefing on Benghazi. The one news organization that has had the courage to probe deeper into what happened and why it happened was excluded from this briefing. (This is something that would wouldn't have even occurred in the Nixon White House.) Again, a clear message was delivered by the Obama Administration: Speak out against the government, and we will retaliate by limiting your access to news.
When Dash announced she was supporting Romney, you would have thought she had sexually abused a child. Twitter was filled with hate-filled Tweets from the left, including threats. Once more, a clear message was delivered by the left: How dare anyone in Hollywood speak out against our President.
The same type of hate-filled messaging was delivered to black conservatives who had the courage to vocalize and publicize their convictions. The same people who rightly rallied around those courageous enough to speak up for civil rights in the 60s were suddenly trying their best to keep other blacks from speaking up for their conservative views in the 2010s.
Even on Facebook, I and others were practically accosted for writing posts and posting links to articles that were less-than-flattering of the Adminstration's response to Benghazi, the facts about our economic recovery and FEMA's response to Hurricane Sandy. One poster wrote sarcastically about how apparently I and others thought the President was a "Muslim bastard," while another defended the Administration's response to Hurricane Sandy when I compared the response to Katrina. Although I didn't mention the President even once in my post about the response to Sandy, the person responded that I was just trying to make the President look bad. Interestingly, those in New York and New Jersey themselves are comparing the slow response to Hurricane Sandy to the response after Katrina. Another liberal friend on Facebook claimed that racism was the reason why people weren't supporting President Obama.
Another Facebook friend posted a picture on Election Day indicating that she "Voted for Democrats." This was the same Facebook friend who derided me in an e mail a couple of months ago for "liking" something on Facebook that she felt didn't represent the fair and reasonable person she had always found me to be. And yet, she was proud that she only voted for those who are members of one political party, not the candidate or the issues? If this isn't hypocracy at its worst, I don't know what is.
In the 1960s, it became politically correct to fight against the government. Today, it has become politically correct to attack anyone who says anything against the government.
The reason why I and others wrote posts on Facebook or posted links was to inform Americans about issues that were not being covered by the national news media fairly and thoroughly. With 23 million Americans struggling to find work, 40-some months of 8%+ unemployment and an economy that has clearly not recovered, one would think that coverage of the economy would have dominated every evening newscast in the months leading up to the election. In the past, the news media would dive deeper into these issues, helping to put them into context for the average American. Instead, as I pointed out in an earlier blog, the mainstream evening news most often focused on anti-Republican issues, while investing precious minutes of a newscast on such important topics such as Rosie O'Donnell taking an aspiran that saved her life or the death of Phyllis Diller -- instead of probing more deeply into our nation's economic or debt woes.
Has the media coverage been biased? A study from the Pew Research Center discovered that 19% of the coverage of President Obama was positive, while 30% was negative. In comparison, only 15% of the coverage of Romney was positive, while 38% was negative.
Interestingly, though, up until before the President's abysmal performance in the first debate in early October, just one month before the election, news media coverage of the President was twice as positive as it was towards Romney. Prior to that debate, 22% of the coverage of the President was positive, compared to just 11% for Romney. This means that for months on end, when the vast majority of voters were making decisions about whom they would vote for, the coverage was twice as positive for the President as it was for the challenger, even though millions were out of work, millions more were forced into poverty and in some months more Americans went on disability than actually found a job.
http://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2012/11/02/study-romney-obama-both-get-negative-coverage
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/study-msnbc-had-more-negative-coverage-of-romney-than-fox-had-toward-obama/
Until the news media begin covering this President, the two major parties and the issues facing Americans thoroughly and equitably, Republicans will not have any chance at retaking the White House. Until fairness returns to journalism, Americans will only be given the news the media want us to learn.
Until fairness returns, it will be up to bloggers like myself, and Americans like you, to hold this Administration accountable and to let other Americans learn the truth about what is truly going on in our country. Twitter, Facebook and our blogs will become the source of news for Americans who want to learn all the news that's fit to print, to borrow from the slogan of the New York Times that clearly no longer applies to that newpaper or to the majority of media outlets in America.
Sadly, no one else is going to do it but us. We must fight just as valiantly and tirelessly as those who fought for civil rights in the 1960s. This time, though, we'll be fighting for the soul and the future of the America we love so dearly.
I thought back to the venom directed to actress Stacy Dash from the left when she announced she was supporting Mitt Romney, the lack of media coverage and the Administration's response to the killing of four Americans in Benghazi, the dearth of coverage about the horrible suffering in New York and New Jersey following Hurricane Sandy, the lack of context and depth in the media's coverage of economic issues facing this country, and the hate-filled responses I received on Facebook when I attempted to point out facts about the major issues facing our country.
It suddenly dawned on me. Our First Amendment Freedoms of Speech and the Press, outlined in the Bill of Rights, are slowly being eroded through attempted censorship from within our own citizenry and by a media censoring its own news to avoid appearing to be negative towards their President. Let me explain further.
When the violence in the Middle East erupted on the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, the Obama Administration pointed to a YouTube video as the cause, calling it "despicable" and communicating that America had nothing to do with this slanderous video. The President even spoke before the U.N., essentially apologizing for and attacking this anti-Muslim video. A few weeks later, the person who made this video was jailed by the government on a probation violation charge. A clear message was sent in words and actions by the Obama Administration: No one can speak out against Muslims in America.
As this story began to unfold, Fox News was excluded from an intelligence briefing on Benghazi. The one news organization that has had the courage to probe deeper into what happened and why it happened was excluded from this briefing. (This is something that would wouldn't have even occurred in the Nixon White House.) Again, a clear message was delivered by the Obama Administration: Speak out against the government, and we will retaliate by limiting your access to news.
When Dash announced she was supporting Romney, you would have thought she had sexually abused a child. Twitter was filled with hate-filled Tweets from the left, including threats. Once more, a clear message was delivered by the left: How dare anyone in Hollywood speak out against our President.
The same type of hate-filled messaging was delivered to black conservatives who had the courage to vocalize and publicize their convictions. The same people who rightly rallied around those courageous enough to speak up for civil rights in the 60s were suddenly trying their best to keep other blacks from speaking up for their conservative views in the 2010s.
Even on Facebook, I and others were practically accosted for writing posts and posting links to articles that were less-than-flattering of the Adminstration's response to Benghazi, the facts about our economic recovery and FEMA's response to Hurricane Sandy. One poster wrote sarcastically about how apparently I and others thought the President was a "Muslim bastard," while another defended the Administration's response to Hurricane Sandy when I compared the response to Katrina. Although I didn't mention the President even once in my post about the response to Sandy, the person responded that I was just trying to make the President look bad. Interestingly, those in New York and New Jersey themselves are comparing the slow response to Hurricane Sandy to the response after Katrina. Another liberal friend on Facebook claimed that racism was the reason why people weren't supporting President Obama.
Another Facebook friend posted a picture on Election Day indicating that she "Voted for Democrats." This was the same Facebook friend who derided me in an e mail a couple of months ago for "liking" something on Facebook that she felt didn't represent the fair and reasonable person she had always found me to be. And yet, she was proud that she only voted for those who are members of one political party, not the candidate or the issues? If this isn't hypocracy at its worst, I don't know what is.
In the 1960s, it became politically correct to fight against the government. Today, it has become politically correct to attack anyone who says anything against the government.
The reason why I and others wrote posts on Facebook or posted links was to inform Americans about issues that were not being covered by the national news media fairly and thoroughly. With 23 million Americans struggling to find work, 40-some months of 8%+ unemployment and an economy that has clearly not recovered, one would think that coverage of the economy would have dominated every evening newscast in the months leading up to the election. In the past, the news media would dive deeper into these issues, helping to put them into context for the average American. Instead, as I pointed out in an earlier blog, the mainstream evening news most often focused on anti-Republican issues, while investing precious minutes of a newscast on such important topics such as Rosie O'Donnell taking an aspiran that saved her life or the death of Phyllis Diller -- instead of probing more deeply into our nation's economic or debt woes.
Has the media coverage been biased? A study from the Pew Research Center discovered that 19% of the coverage of President Obama was positive, while 30% was negative. In comparison, only 15% of the coverage of Romney was positive, while 38% was negative.
Interestingly, though, up until before the President's abysmal performance in the first debate in early October, just one month before the election, news media coverage of the President was twice as positive as it was towards Romney. Prior to that debate, 22% of the coverage of the President was positive, compared to just 11% for Romney. This means that for months on end, when the vast majority of voters were making decisions about whom they would vote for, the coverage was twice as positive for the President as it was for the challenger, even though millions were out of work, millions more were forced into poverty and in some months more Americans went on disability than actually found a job.
http://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2012/11/02/study-romney-obama-both-get-negative-coverage
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/study-msnbc-had-more-negative-coverage-of-romney-than-fox-had-toward-obama/
Until the news media begin covering this President, the two major parties and the issues facing Americans thoroughly and equitably, Republicans will not have any chance at retaking the White House. Until fairness returns to journalism, Americans will only be given the news the media want us to learn.
Until fairness returns, it will be up to bloggers like myself, and Americans like you, to hold this Administration accountable and to let other Americans learn the truth about what is truly going on in our country. Twitter, Facebook and our blogs will become the source of news for Americans who want to learn all the news that's fit to print, to borrow from the slogan of the New York Times that clearly no longer applies to that newpaper or to the majority of media outlets in America.
Sadly, no one else is going to do it but us. We must fight just as valiantly and tirelessly as those who fought for civil rights in the 1960s. This time, though, we'll be fighting for the soul and the future of the America we love so dearly.
Wednesday, November 7, 2012
The Voice of Reason: Uninformed Liberals and Lamestream News Media Tilted Election
I started writing this blog with the idea that I would help to educate America, one uninformed liberal at a time. I, and other conservatives, made some progress this election, but we clearly didn't make enough progress.
I would like to share a couple of anecdotes that may help to explain why Barack Obama was elected to a second term.
Several weeks ago I wrote a post on Facebook, to which one of my liberal friends responded. This 20-something replied that the economy had turned around significantly and that America had created 4.5 million new jobs under this President. Clearly, my friend had listened to the talking points from the Democratic National Convention and believed they were 100% true.
Instead of arguing with him, I posted a link to a fact check article, one which explained that the Administration had created 4.5 million jobs, but only if one looked at the statistics from a timeline most advantageous to the Administration. If you looked at the total number of jobs in America when Obama took office and compared it to the number of jobs at the time my Facebook post was published, America actually had fewer jobs.
My friend thanked me for pointing him to the facts. He realized that he had succumbed to the political spin often found in Presidential campaigns. He was amazed that America had fewer jobs than when the President took office, after hearing so many times that 4.5 million jobs had been created. That mantra was probably repeated 100 times at the Convention.
Earlier this week, I had a Facebook exchange with this same friend. He pointed out how the President had saved the U.S. car industry by keeping GM from bankruptcy. This friend insinuated that Mitt Romney and I wanted GM to fail.
I took the time to explain that GM actually went through a bankruptcy, but that this was controlled and decided by the federal government, not an impartial bankruptcy judge. I also pointed out that the union was essentially made whole during this structured bankruptcy, while investors received pennies on the dollar. I also shared with him that thousands of employees at Delphi, a non-union parts company owned by GM, received little or nothing, unlike their union brethren. I also communicated that according to many experts, GM may be racing toward another bankruptcy because it didn't rid itself of unprofitable assets and outrageous union contracts as would have been done in a typical bankruptcy. Lastly, I pointed out that the two most "American" cars today are the Honda Accord and Toyota Camry, based on where they are assembled and the percentage of parts that are made in America. As a result, the American car industry saved by the President is so much more than just GM and Chrysler.
Once again, this friend was astounded to discover the truth. He couldn't believe that he did not know all of the facts and thanked me for taking the time to explain them to him. I'm certain that he voted for Obama yesterday, but I'm also sure that he began to have some second thoughts about his choice and the truthfulness of what he's been spoonfed by the Democratic Party.
The problem isn't that my friend is stupid or that he doesn't want to learn the truth. The problem is that my friend hasn't been provided with the facts by a mainstream news media that have spent all of their time publicizing President Obama instead of reporting on him. To sway this one voter, I would have had to spend hundreds of hours reprogramming him from the thousands of hours of biased media coverage.
Our news media have done a horrendous job. The economy was reported on at a very high level, without the context that makes data meaningful. For example, a jobs report showing 90,000 new jobs in one month sounds as though we're making real progress, until one learns that America needs to create between 125,000 and 200,000 new jobs each month just to keep pace with population growth. I watched newscast after newscast essentially ignore the economy, or spin the data in a way that was most advantageous to the President.
Even such issues as the growth in our Gross Domestic Product (GDP) was spun much differently when reported by the news media the past couple of years, compared to how it was reported during previous administrations. Three percent growth under Bush was often reported as "disappointing." Under Obama, growth half that amount was reported as "slow and steady" by the news media, trying their best to put a positive spin on the slowest economic recovery in history.
Benghazi should have been the topic that dominated news coverage the past two months, but other than Fox News, you really haven't heard much about it. The American people were clearly lied to by this President and the Administration for at least two weeks following the deaths of four Americans. Serious mistakes in judgement and communications were made before, during and after the attacks and these mistakes should have been investigated and explained to the American peoople. More video of an interview President Obama did with "60 Minutes" was released quietly in the days before the election. This video showed that the President lied during his debate when he said that he had labeled the violence in Benghazi as a terrorist attack the day after the attack. One of Steve Croft's questions pointedly stated that the President had avoided calling the attack a terrorist attack, to which the President did not object. Where was this video when the issues of what the President said and what he believed were being discussed immediately after the debate when voters were most interested and still making their decisions about how to cast their votes? Clearly, a decision was made at the highest levels of major news organizations to not investigate this issue until after the election.
Frankly, I'm sickened by the results of the election, the number of uninformed Americans who voted for Obama and the bias of the news media. I thought I would set a trap for liberals. In a Facebook post earlier today, I wrote the following:
Congratulations to Barack Obama, who ran a very positive campaign, focusing on the issues of the time, not attempting to just tear down his opponent, but striving to delineate his detailed plan to put Americans back to work, to tackle the enormous debt our nation faces and to address the looming bankruptcy of Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare. I also commend the news media, which focused its attention on the economy, on asking hard-hitting questions that allowed Americans to discover the truth about Benghazi, and whose unbiased reporting gave Americans a clear view of this election.
The trap was set, and it didn't take long. My friend responded snarkily, indicating that my post showed a true lack of class.
I responded, of course, indicating that if my post weren't true and it were sarcastic, then Americans made a serious mistake in electing someone who hasn't laid out his plans for a better future, and that the news media was complicit in helping to mislead the American people into voting for this man. I also explained to him that his belief that my post was sarcastic actually proved my point.
(Believe it or not, this liberal actually wote in an e mail to me that he wished the President had spent more time explaining his plan for the future. If you don't know what someone is planning to do in the future, why in the world would you vote for that person?)
Once more, I educated America, one uninformed liberal at a time.
It's the only solace I have today as our country moves ever more closely to becoming a socialist nation of mediocrity.
I would like to share a couple of anecdotes that may help to explain why Barack Obama was elected to a second term.
Several weeks ago I wrote a post on Facebook, to which one of my liberal friends responded. This 20-something replied that the economy had turned around significantly and that America had created 4.5 million new jobs under this President. Clearly, my friend had listened to the talking points from the Democratic National Convention and believed they were 100% true.
Instead of arguing with him, I posted a link to a fact check article, one which explained that the Administration had created 4.5 million jobs, but only if one looked at the statistics from a timeline most advantageous to the Administration. If you looked at the total number of jobs in America when Obama took office and compared it to the number of jobs at the time my Facebook post was published, America actually had fewer jobs.
My friend thanked me for pointing him to the facts. He realized that he had succumbed to the political spin often found in Presidential campaigns. He was amazed that America had fewer jobs than when the President took office, after hearing so many times that 4.5 million jobs had been created. That mantra was probably repeated 100 times at the Convention.
Earlier this week, I had a Facebook exchange with this same friend. He pointed out how the President had saved the U.S. car industry by keeping GM from bankruptcy. This friend insinuated that Mitt Romney and I wanted GM to fail.
I took the time to explain that GM actually went through a bankruptcy, but that this was controlled and decided by the federal government, not an impartial bankruptcy judge. I also pointed out that the union was essentially made whole during this structured bankruptcy, while investors received pennies on the dollar. I also shared with him that thousands of employees at Delphi, a non-union parts company owned by GM, received little or nothing, unlike their union brethren. I also communicated that according to many experts, GM may be racing toward another bankruptcy because it didn't rid itself of unprofitable assets and outrageous union contracts as would have been done in a typical bankruptcy. Lastly, I pointed out that the two most "American" cars today are the Honda Accord and Toyota Camry, based on where they are assembled and the percentage of parts that are made in America. As a result, the American car industry saved by the President is so much more than just GM and Chrysler.
Once again, this friend was astounded to discover the truth. He couldn't believe that he did not know all of the facts and thanked me for taking the time to explain them to him. I'm certain that he voted for Obama yesterday, but I'm also sure that he began to have some second thoughts about his choice and the truthfulness of what he's been spoonfed by the Democratic Party.
The problem isn't that my friend is stupid or that he doesn't want to learn the truth. The problem is that my friend hasn't been provided with the facts by a mainstream news media that have spent all of their time publicizing President Obama instead of reporting on him. To sway this one voter, I would have had to spend hundreds of hours reprogramming him from the thousands of hours of biased media coverage.
Our news media have done a horrendous job. The economy was reported on at a very high level, without the context that makes data meaningful. For example, a jobs report showing 90,000 new jobs in one month sounds as though we're making real progress, until one learns that America needs to create between 125,000 and 200,000 new jobs each month just to keep pace with population growth. I watched newscast after newscast essentially ignore the economy, or spin the data in a way that was most advantageous to the President.
Even such issues as the growth in our Gross Domestic Product (GDP) was spun much differently when reported by the news media the past couple of years, compared to how it was reported during previous administrations. Three percent growth under Bush was often reported as "disappointing." Under Obama, growth half that amount was reported as "slow and steady" by the news media, trying their best to put a positive spin on the slowest economic recovery in history.
Benghazi should have been the topic that dominated news coverage the past two months, but other than Fox News, you really haven't heard much about it. The American people were clearly lied to by this President and the Administration for at least two weeks following the deaths of four Americans. Serious mistakes in judgement and communications were made before, during and after the attacks and these mistakes should have been investigated and explained to the American peoople. More video of an interview President Obama did with "60 Minutes" was released quietly in the days before the election. This video showed that the President lied during his debate when he said that he had labeled the violence in Benghazi as a terrorist attack the day after the attack. One of Steve Croft's questions pointedly stated that the President had avoided calling the attack a terrorist attack, to which the President did not object. Where was this video when the issues of what the President said and what he believed were being discussed immediately after the debate when voters were most interested and still making their decisions about how to cast their votes? Clearly, a decision was made at the highest levels of major news organizations to not investigate this issue until after the election.
Frankly, I'm sickened by the results of the election, the number of uninformed Americans who voted for Obama and the bias of the news media. I thought I would set a trap for liberals. In a Facebook post earlier today, I wrote the following:
Congratulations to Barack Obama, who ran a very positive campaign, focusing on the issues of the time, not attempting to just tear down his opponent, but striving to delineate his detailed plan to put Americans back to work, to tackle the enormous debt our nation faces and to address the looming bankruptcy of Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare. I also commend the news media, which focused its attention on the economy, on asking hard-hitting questions that allowed Americans to discover the truth about Benghazi, and whose unbiased reporting gave Americans a clear view of this election.
The trap was set, and it didn't take long. My friend responded snarkily, indicating that my post showed a true lack of class.
I responded, of course, indicating that if my post weren't true and it were sarcastic, then Americans made a serious mistake in electing someone who hasn't laid out his plans for a better future, and that the news media was complicit in helping to mislead the American people into voting for this man. I also explained to him that his belief that my post was sarcastic actually proved my point.
(Believe it or not, this liberal actually wote in an e mail to me that he wished the President had spent more time explaining his plan for the future. If you don't know what someone is planning to do in the future, why in the world would you vote for that person?)
Once more, I educated America, one uninformed liberal at a time.
It's the only solace I have today as our country moves ever more closely to becoming a socialist nation of mediocrity.
Saturday, November 3, 2012
The Voice of Reason: The Last Appeal to Undecided Voters
You're an undecided voter. You may lean slightly to the left or slightly to the right, but you're not sure whom you will vote for on Tuesday.
Perhaps you bought into Barack Obama's promise of Hope and Change in 2008, but are now disillusioned because you have seen many of your friends and family members lose their good-paying jobs in the last four years. Maybe you're even out of work yourself, and don't see things turning around quickly enough. There just aren't any good-paying jobs out there, and it worries you that your children and grandchildren will not have the opportunities you have. In fact, if things don't turn around quickly, you may not have the same opportunities your parents had. Maybe you're considering voting for Mitt Romney because of his experience but aren't sold on his positions on social issues, perhaps believing that he's a little too conservative. Maybe you lean to the right and don't think Romney is conservative enough.
No matter which way you're leaning, the fact is that your vote will decide this election and the future direction of this country -- not to put put any pressure on you.
As someone who is a registered Democrat who thinks more like a Republican but who votes for candidates of either party, I would like the opportunity to try to persuade you to vote for Mitt Romney.
If you're like me and millions of other Americans, you believe that the growing national debt and our stagnate economy are the two biggest issues facing our country over the next four years. You believe as I do that if we don't get our debt under control we will pass on a credit card bill to our children and grandchildren that they will never be able to pay. You also know as I do that this economy is dead in the water. There aren't thousands of new, good-paying jobs being created and millions of Americans are unemployed or underemployed.
I would urge you to forget about all of the other hot button issues, such as gay marriage or abortion or birth control. If we don't get our debt under control and our economy moving again, we may not have a country four years from now. The other issues will not matter if we don't quickly address the two most important issues facing our country.
In order to address these and other major issues, America will need a leader who is able to reach across party lines to get things done. In the past four years, President Obama has not been able to do this even once. He has devoted most of his time blaming his predecessor and the Republican Party for his inability to move legislation through Congress. But even members of his own party failed to give his proposed budgets even one vote the past two years, which should tell all of us how effectively he leads even his own party. President Obama rarely meets with the top four leaders of Congress and has never tried to develop a strong relationship with other key leaders of Congress, even among his own party. As a result, our President has been unable to accomplish anything of substance that has required bipartisan support. Our President has even admitted that he would rather spend more time with his family than "schmoozing" with Congress. I'm not sure if anyone has told him this, but a large part of the job as President is to spend that time developing relationships with members of the Legislative Branch of our government.
Republicans and Democrats have worked together before with great success, even when our country was greatly divided. President Reagan did it. President Clinton also did it. Each of these Presidents was a leader who realized that developing strong relationships with members of Congress was the key to getting anything done for the good of the country. President Obama hasn't done this at all and has spent little effort even trying to reach across party lines. As a result, our country is more divided than the day he took office and neither party is able to pass much-needed legislation.
In contrast, as Governor of Massachusetts, Romney worked collaboratively with his legislature, who overwhelmingly were Democrats, to pass major legislation. He has proven that he is able to reach across party lines. He's done it. If you watched the debates as I did, you didn't hear President Obama mention even once that he had worked with Republicans to pass legislation, while Romney talked about this experience on numerous occasions. Romney used this same talent as a collaborative leader to help companies prosper and to add thousands of jobs while at Bain Capital, and also as head of the Olympics.
If our country is able to move forward and address the major issues of our growing national debt and a stagnate economy, as well as other issues, we will need a strong leader who understands how to work with members of the other party for the good of the country. Mitt Romney has proven that he can do this; President Obama has failed miserably at this.
If for no other reason than this one, undecided voter, Mitt Romney deserves your vote and President Obama does not. It's really that simple.
Thursday, November 1, 2012
The Voice of Reason: Why Most Polls Are Wrong
I'm one of those rare people who actually reads the small print at the end of advertisements. By examining the print most people can't even see, I can tell the difference between how the deal is being framed by the advertiser and the reality of the deal.
I take this same care with polls and while doing my research. Earlier this week, I happened to see a headline on the gallup.com website that captured my attention: "2012 Electorate Looks Like 2008." I clicked on the link and read the article as well as the data behind the article. http://www.gallup.com/poll/158399/2012-electorate-looks-like-2008.aspx
As I read the article, I noticed that the demographics of likely voters in the 2012 election are expected to be pretty much the same as they were in 2008. The proportion of men to women, ethnicity and age are expected to be very close to what they were in 2008, according to Gallup's polls. The proportion of voters in different areas of the country, as well as the voters' educational levels are also expected to be very close to 2008.
But then I noticed some data almost buried at the bottom of the page that showed a significant shift in likely voters. Unless you took the time to read the entire article, you wouldn't have even noticed it. The headline didn't even hint at this shift. The fact is that the percentage of "likely voters" in 2012 has shifted significantly to the Republican side, when compared to 2008 voters.
In 2008, voters identified as being Democrats were 39% of the electorate, with independents making up 31% and Republicans coming in at 29%. In 2012, the numbers of likely voters have shifted to 35% Democrat, 29% independent and 36% Republican. In other words, based on Gallup's polling Democrats are expected to vote at a rate four percentage points lower than in 2008, but Republicans are expected to vote at a rate seven percentage points higher than in 2008. Interesting. That's an 11-point swing.
If you look at the projected likely voters in terms of those who are leaning Democrat compared to those leaning Republicans, Republicans are expected to vote in higher nunbers than Democrats, 49% to 46%. In 2008, the electorate was 54% Democrat or leaning Democrat, vs. 42% Republican or leaning Republican. That's a 15-point swing to the Republican side.
What does all of this mean?
According to Gallup's numbers, all of the polls that are oversampling Democrats by 5% or even more are dead wrong. In a poll showing President Obama winning by 5% with 5% oversampling of Democrats, Mitt Romney should win by 3%. In polls with 5% oversampling of Democrats that show the President winning by 3%, Romney should win by 5%. To put this simply, a few of those states that are leaning Obama may actually turn out to Romney wins, and those states that show a dead heat may actually turn out to be Romney wins of 8%. This election could turn out to be a rout in Romney's favor.
Polls of early voting by the same Gallup group seem to reinforce the notion that Republicans are going to out vote Democrats in 2012. Through Sunday, 15% of those surveyed said that they had already cast a ballot in person or via absenstee ballot. Of those surveyed who had already voted, 52% of those polled said that they had voted for Romney, while 46% said that they had voted for President Obama. Of the 63% surveyed who plan to vote on Election Day similarly plan to support Romney by a 51% to 45% margin.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204846304578090820229096046.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
I'm glad I actually take the time to read the fine print. That's the only way I would know that the vast majority of polls are so biased in favor of President Obama that they are bordering on the ridiculous.
I take this same care with polls and while doing my research. Earlier this week, I happened to see a headline on the gallup.com website that captured my attention: "2012 Electorate Looks Like 2008." I clicked on the link and read the article as well as the data behind the article. http://www.gallup.com/poll/158399/2012-electorate-looks-like-2008.aspx
As I read the article, I noticed that the demographics of likely voters in the 2012 election are expected to be pretty much the same as they were in 2008. The proportion of men to women, ethnicity and age are expected to be very close to what they were in 2008, according to Gallup's polls. The proportion of voters in different areas of the country, as well as the voters' educational levels are also expected to be very close to 2008.
But then I noticed some data almost buried at the bottom of the page that showed a significant shift in likely voters. Unless you took the time to read the entire article, you wouldn't have even noticed it. The headline didn't even hint at this shift. The fact is that the percentage of "likely voters" in 2012 has shifted significantly to the Republican side, when compared to 2008 voters.
In 2008, voters identified as being Democrats were 39% of the electorate, with independents making up 31% and Republicans coming in at 29%. In 2012, the numbers of likely voters have shifted to 35% Democrat, 29% independent and 36% Republican. In other words, based on Gallup's polling Democrats are expected to vote at a rate four percentage points lower than in 2008, but Republicans are expected to vote at a rate seven percentage points higher than in 2008. Interesting. That's an 11-point swing.
If you look at the projected likely voters in terms of those who are leaning Democrat compared to those leaning Republicans, Republicans are expected to vote in higher nunbers than Democrats, 49% to 46%. In 2008, the electorate was 54% Democrat or leaning Democrat, vs. 42% Republican or leaning Republican. That's a 15-point swing to the Republican side.
What does all of this mean?
According to Gallup's numbers, all of the polls that are oversampling Democrats by 5% or even more are dead wrong. In a poll showing President Obama winning by 5% with 5% oversampling of Democrats, Mitt Romney should win by 3%. In polls with 5% oversampling of Democrats that show the President winning by 3%, Romney should win by 5%. To put this simply, a few of those states that are leaning Obama may actually turn out to Romney wins, and those states that show a dead heat may actually turn out to be Romney wins of 8%. This election could turn out to be a rout in Romney's favor.
Polls of early voting by the same Gallup group seem to reinforce the notion that Republicans are going to out vote Democrats in 2012. Through Sunday, 15% of those surveyed said that they had already cast a ballot in person or via absenstee ballot. Of those surveyed who had already voted, 52% of those polled said that they had voted for Romney, while 46% said that they had voted for President Obama. Of the 63% surveyed who plan to vote on Election Day similarly plan to support Romney by a 51% to 45% margin.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204846304578090820229096046.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
I'm glad I actually take the time to read the fine print. That's the only way I would know that the vast majority of polls are so biased in favor of President Obama that they are bordering on the ridiculous.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)