Friday, June 29, 2012
Pithy slogans again?
I'm not a fan of pithy political slogans meant to act as propaganda for a point. However, I do like a good quote because they are usually not trying to persuade to a particular point, but rather a representation of what the individual believes. So, here are some of my favorite quotes regarding politics. These are all very pertinent, I believe, based on recent political events and notorious Supreme Court decisions.
Wednesday, June 20, 2012
Differences in the parties? Is there one?
Recently, the question of whether there is any real difference between the two political parties in America has been nagging at me. I do not affiliate with any political party out of principle. I happen to share the opinion expressed in the federalist papers of the dangers of political affiliation and choose to remain independent. This does not mean that I don't have preferences or beliefs. I have very strong preferences and beliefs. However, as someone who self identifies as a classical liberal, I find that neither major party comes close to fitting my preferences and beliefs. I am also a strong believer in federalism and small federal government. So, take that into consideration when reading all my posts.
However, for me, I generally try to rank myself and those I might vote for on the Nolan Chart. This is a way to see how close to you a particular candidate is. It turns out that I am very far away from most of our modern politicians because I actually believe in something called liberty. Since no modern politician today, from either party, believes in individual liberty, as far as I'm concerned, there is no real difference between the parties. One wants to control you through statist policies that take care of you or do what is best for you while the other wants to control you through statist policies that legislate your behavior. Real liberty does not leave room for either of these ways of thinking. Both of these policies are dangerous and will ultimately lead to an overly powerful executive that answers to no one.
As it turns out, on every major national issue, I can't find any real difference between the parties. Sure, on the fringe issues (this is what I call issues that are social and behavioral in nature and shouldn't be legislated by the federal government at all, such as marriage (gay or straight), abortion and the like) there are some differences, but when it comes to the issues that really matter, there's no difference at all. Take Social Security for example...both parties are for it, they just can't agree on how to pay for it. Debt reduction...well, they are both for that too, although neither one seems capable of it. The military. Who is for what depends largely on whether or not the military is popular right now it seems to me. Nonetheless, both sides vote for continued funding of the military at a relatively stable level. Does anyone think to consider whether it is really the job of the federal government to enslave the elderly with a failing pension system or whether there is really any difference between whether businesses should be taxed at 32 or 35 percent or whether we should even maintain a military at the level we required during the Cold War period? Nobody talks about whether we should use a completely new model for Social Security (there are a couple worldwide that have proven more effective than ours) but simply whether it should be funded with paycheck deductions and by how much? They argue over pennies and then blame each other for gridlock when in fact those pennies make absolutely no difference in the long run. In his first year of office, the President made a huge deal of the 100 million dollars he cut from the budget, yet, that amounted to almost nothing when we are talking about 2.5 trillion dollars. Of course, the President then proceeded to spend 4 trillion over the next 2 years and has yet to pass a single budget in his 3 years. Even his own party rejected his most recent budget with a 99-0 vote in the Senate. At any rate, I digress. I pretty much think that if you named an issue, I could explain how the two parties are more alike on the issue than they are different.
That leads me to the instigator for today's post. I received an email that made me laugh. It was trying to point out the differences in the two parties. I laughed because there wasn't a word of truth in the email, but it was rife with propaganda. It is quoted here:
So, for all of you who read it and thought it sounded good to you, keep reading. For those who thought it sounded awful but don't know why, keep reading. I am going to take this apart sentence by sentence.
This is a rather interesting statement. The founders thought gun ownership was such a necessary right that they enshrined it in the Constitution. The concept being that the rights of the people can only be protected by the people. This is in direct challenge to the actions of the British monarchy during the colonial period. Of course, since we don't teach proper history anymore because it isn't on "the test", most students wouldn't know that anyway. Nonetheless, it enshrines the right of someone to defend themselves. Guns are a commodity and so they can be regulated when they cross state lines, but they can't be banned. Neither can incandescent light bulbs, but that didn't stop the Congress from doing it. Health care is also a commodity. To claim that health care is a right is to say that it is the responsibility of the government to protect your right to good health. Once you've made that declaration, you are no longer free because the government will now have the right to tell you what you can eat, when you can eat, how much you can eat, whether you can smoke, if you can have a snack, if you can go sky diving or bungee jumping, if you can travel on a plane. That is the reality of claiming health care as a right. Inalienable rights MUST be protected. Therefore, the government must protect you from yourself. I reject this concept entirely and so I don't believe the government has any rights over my health decisions whatsoever.
Okay, so there is one true statement in this propaganda monstrosity.
However, for me, I generally try to rank myself and those I might vote for on the Nolan Chart. This is a way to see how close to you a particular candidate is. It turns out that I am very far away from most of our modern politicians because I actually believe in something called liberty. Since no modern politician today, from either party, believes in individual liberty, as far as I'm concerned, there is no real difference between the parties. One wants to control you through statist policies that take care of you or do what is best for you while the other wants to control you through statist policies that legislate your behavior. Real liberty does not leave room for either of these ways of thinking. Both of these policies are dangerous and will ultimately lead to an overly powerful executive that answers to no one.
As it turns out, on every major national issue, I can't find any real difference between the parties. Sure, on the fringe issues (this is what I call issues that are social and behavioral in nature and shouldn't be legislated by the federal government at all, such as marriage (gay or straight), abortion and the like) there are some differences, but when it comes to the issues that really matter, there's no difference at all. Take Social Security for example...both parties are for it, they just can't agree on how to pay for it. Debt reduction...well, they are both for that too, although neither one seems capable of it. The military. Who is for what depends largely on whether or not the military is popular right now it seems to me. Nonetheless, both sides vote for continued funding of the military at a relatively stable level. Does anyone think to consider whether it is really the job of the federal government to enslave the elderly with a failing pension system or whether there is really any difference between whether businesses should be taxed at 32 or 35 percent or whether we should even maintain a military at the level we required during the Cold War period? Nobody talks about whether we should use a completely new model for Social Security (there are a couple worldwide that have proven more effective than ours) but simply whether it should be funded with paycheck deductions and by how much? They argue over pennies and then blame each other for gridlock when in fact those pennies make absolutely no difference in the long run. In his first year of office, the President made a huge deal of the 100 million dollars he cut from the budget, yet, that amounted to almost nothing when we are talking about 2.5 trillion dollars. Of course, the President then proceeded to spend 4 trillion over the next 2 years and has yet to pass a single budget in his 3 years. Even his own party rejected his most recent budget with a 99-0 vote in the Senate. At any rate, I digress. I pretty much think that if you named an issue, I could explain how the two parties are more alike on the issue than they are different.
That leads me to the instigator for today's post. I received an email that made me laugh. It was trying to point out the differences in the two parties. I laughed because there wasn't a word of truth in the email, but it was rife with propaganda. It is quoted here:
So looking at these two platforms - how can anybody possibly say there's no difference between Republicans and Democrats? Republicans want to outlaw pornography, Democrats want to legalize marijuana. Republicans want to get rid of the minimum wage, Democrats want everyone to receive AT LEAST a living wage. Republicans want to deny global warming and teach creationism in schools, Democrats want to move forward with stem cell research and help us again graduate world-class scientists. Republicans want to throw women in jail who get raped and want an abortion, Democrats support a woman's right to choose. Republicans want fat cats to pay no income tax, Democrats want rich people to pay more and working people to pay less. Republicans want more Shoot First laws, Democrats believe healthcare is a more basic human right than gun ownership. The point is - it's easy to get frustrated - and even despair over - our nation's current two-party system. It's true corporations have far too much influence in both. But - there are still monumental differences between the two parties, with one party - the Republicans - trying to take America back to the days of the Puritans, witch-burnings, and feudalism. And the other party - the Democrats - trying to move the nation forward with science, equal rights for all, and a strong social safety net. Just a little something to think about with the elections looming a few months away.
So, for all of you who read it and thought it sounded good to you, keep reading. For those who thought it sounded awful but don't know why, keep reading. I am going to take this apart sentence by sentence.
So looking at these two platforms - how can anybody possibly say there's no difference between Republicans and Democrats?The author of this piece has obviously not read the platforms of either party because the individual party platforms do not say what he/she is claiming. Nonetheless, how can somebody claim there is no difference? As I stated above, I challenge someone to find a real difference on anything that isn't a fringe issue. Next we have:
Republicans want to outlaw pornography, Democrats want to legalize marijuana.First of all, this is not a universally true statement. There are some Republicans who are not in favor of outlawing pornography and there are some Democrats who are not in favor of legalizing marijuana. Most of them, in fact. So, the first sentence of difference are one, a fringe issue and two misleading at best and certainly not stated in either party platforms, unless...just maybe...it is the Democrat party platform for the State of California. Second, we have this:
Republicans want to get rid of the minimum wage, Democrats want everyone to receive AT LEAST a living wage.This is laughably simplistic as well as untrue. The Republican platform does not call for an end to the minimum wage. This is actually from the Libertarian Party platform, so it is interesting that the author can't tell the difference between the two. It also states that Democrats want everyone to receive AT LEAST a living wage. This is an admirable goal, but I'd love to ask the author how they or any Democrat plans to achieve it. After all, Americans are the most well paid folk in all the world. In addition, the author is missing the irony of a statement they'll make later in relation to this one. The idea of a living wage comes from the idea that corporations are morally obligated to provide their employees with enough to live on. This falsehood is born out of antiquated thinking regarding a serf economy, where the lord had all the power and could control the lives of those living under him. In an exchange economy, which is what we actually live under, an employee has the right to take their labor to another employer. This is the incentive for the employer to provide good wages to their employees. If he does not, the employee is more likely to seek employment elsewhere. Therefore, the very idea of requiring a living wage is asking all of us to return to a Middle Age economy. Not to mention that doing so can only be done through the federal government setting wage standards, which is a form of price fixing, which goes far beyond regulation of the economy and moves into the dangerous realm of Keynesian meddling. A Keynesian would of course disagree with me, but since his theories have worked exactly 0 times in history, I'll stick to my assertion. Next we have this:
Republicans want to deny global warming and teach creationism in schools, Democrats want to move forward with stem cell research and help us again graduate world-class scientists.First of all, neither of these statements are in the platforms of the two parties. However, the statement in general sounds plausible...right? After all, there are many Republicans in local school districts who do advocate teaching creationism. There are also many Republicans who deny global warming. That's not what this sentence is about though. It is about trying to convince you that the Republicans are anti-science and the Democrats are pro-science. That's a propaganda statement that only lemmings buy in to. Denying global warming is a stupid thing to do. Obviously, since the 1960s, the globe has warmed. The author is intentionally being disingenuous (at least I'll give them credit for it being intentional because the alternative is that they are stupid). After all, most "deniers" are not denying the globe has warmed, but are actually challenging the idea that man has had anything to do with it. I can cite a ton of scientifically valid material that questions the role of man in the warming and supports various other theories, yet someone who challenges the "consensus" (that doesn't really exist unless you are Al Gore or another politician trying to score points), is branded as a bad scientist, fired, or no longer receives research grants. Is it any wonder that many scientists who question the consensus privately won't do it publicly? At any rate, anthropogenic climate change is far from a foregone conclusion and any politician who tells you otherwise is trying to gain power for themselves, not save the planet. For goodness sake, the same weather models used to predict the weather are being used to predict the planets future. Yet, while we don't believe the weatherman until 36 hours out, we are willing to believe a scientist telling us what will happen 500 years from now? I don't think so. So sure, there are many deniers. I don't judge them based on their denying it, I judge them based on why they deny it. Now, since I just proved that Democrats are no better scientists than Republicans, can we just take for granted that the rest of the statement is absurd? No? Democrats want to move forward with stem cell research and graduate top scientists? Again, the author is being disingenuous. They are intentionally leaving out that Republicans do support stem cell research using stem cells harvested from living adults and Democrats are advocating fetal stem cell research which uses stem cells harvested from aborted fetuses. Scientifically, there has yet to be a single significant breakthrough using fetal stem cells, yet adult stem cells have resulted in several significant achievements. Which party is anti science and pro science now? The one who supports stem cell research that has made a difference or the one that supports stem cell research that has made no difference yet kills a fetus to achieve? As for graduating world class scientists, I can only assume the author thinks we'll ignore the facts of education in this country. That since the federal government got involved in the process back in the 1970s, educational achievement has dropped every single year. Since the no child left behind law was passed, those drops dropped even more. Education should be returned to its rightful constitutional place and be done only by states and local jurisdictions. Having the federal government involved has achieved only one thing. We've dumbed it down.
Republicans want to throw women in jail who get raped and want an abortion, Democrats support a woman's right to choose.Abortion is another fringe issue. It should not be in the hands of the federal government...EVER! Nonetheless, the Democrat platform clearly states they support a woman's right to choose and the Republican platform states they are opposed to abortion in most cases. This is one of the few legitimate differences in the parties. Yet, both parties are entirely inconsistent in how they deal with the issue. After all, not all Democrats agree with abortion and not all Republicans are opposed to it. The statement used by the author is inflammatory, inaccurate, misleading and downright untrue. Nobody wants to throw a woman in jail for being raped and wanting an abortion. Sure, I can go out and find an extremist local politician who says some of these stupid things. The reality is though that I can do it for both sides of the aisle if I bothered to try. There are stupid local politicians on both sides. Didn't you ever wonder why the newspaper headline would read "Republican politician" rather than Congressman, or prominent politician, or state Congressman, or governor? No, they find some absurd local idiot with an R or a D in front of their name and then quote some absurdity in order to paint the entire party with the same brush. Don't fall for it...that is exactly what the author is doing here.
This is laughably wrong. Sure, it is the propaganda Democrats put forth, but it is simply incorrect. Don't get me wrong, I don't support the Republicans stance on taxation any more than I do that of the Democrats. I think they've both got it wrong, but this is one of those issues where the parties are the exact same. There is no real difference in wanting to tax a corporation at 33 or 35 percent. There is no real difference in setting up a progressive taxation system with 5 brackets or 7 brackets or 3 brackets. The result is always the same. The rich will always pay the overwhelming majority of the taxes while the working people will pay less. The Bush tax cuts had a significant impact on middle class and working families, primarily through the increased child tax credits and the elimination of the so called marriage penalty. Yet, this significant impact is ignored. Why? Because the rich got a bigger tax cut. This is how it works though. Say I pay 20 bucks and my friend pays 80 bucks out of every 100 dollar restaurant tab. One day, the restaurant owner gives us a break and only charges us 80 instead of 100 (your tax cut). I either get to pay nothing and my friend pays 80, which he'll likely resent, or I can continue to pay my 20 while my friend gets all the cut and only pays 60 which I will likely resent. Therefore, we can give an across the board cut (this is a common catch phrase for politicians). So, the total was reduced by 20 percent so each person gets to lower theirs by 20 percent. My bill is reduced from 20 to 16 and my friends bill is reduced from 80 to 66. I got a cut of 4 bucks and he got a cut of 16. We are both better off and he is still paying significantly more than I, yet the politician would tell you this is a tax cut for the rich, regardless of the fact that my taxes went down significantly.
Republicans want fat cats to pay no income tax, Democrats want rich people to pay more and working people to pay less.
Republicans want more Shoot First laws, Democrats believe healthcare is a more basic human right than gun ownership.
This is a rather interesting statement. The founders thought gun ownership was such a necessary right that they enshrined it in the Constitution. The concept being that the rights of the people can only be protected by the people. This is in direct challenge to the actions of the British monarchy during the colonial period. Of course, since we don't teach proper history anymore because it isn't on "the test", most students wouldn't know that anyway. Nonetheless, it enshrines the right of someone to defend themselves. Guns are a commodity and so they can be regulated when they cross state lines, but they can't be banned. Neither can incandescent light bulbs, but that didn't stop the Congress from doing it. Health care is also a commodity. To claim that health care is a right is to say that it is the responsibility of the government to protect your right to good health. Once you've made that declaration, you are no longer free because the government will now have the right to tell you what you can eat, when you can eat, how much you can eat, whether you can smoke, if you can have a snack, if you can go sky diving or bungee jumping, if you can travel on a plane. That is the reality of claiming health care as a right. Inalienable rights MUST be protected. Therefore, the government must protect you from yourself. I reject this concept entirely and so I don't believe the government has any rights over my health decisions whatsoever.
The point is - it's easy to get frustrated - and even despair over - our nation's current two-party system.This is hilarious because this author isn't frustrated or despairing, they are in fact, shilling for the Democrat Party.
It's true corporations have far too much influence in both.
Okay, so there is one true statement in this propaganda monstrosity.
But - there are still monumental differences between the two parties, with one party - the Republicans - trying to take America back to the days of the Puritans, witch-burnings, and feudalism. And the other party - the Democrats - trying to move the nation forward with science, equal rights for all, and a strong social safety net.Monumental differences? Hardly. At least not for someone interested in truth. However, it is interesting that the author accuses the Republicans of wanting to return to a feudal society when it is the author who advocated exactly that with their idea of a living wage. As for Puritans and witch-burnings, there are certainly some Republicans I'd accuse of being dangerously close to theocracy, which is why separation of church and state is sacrosanct. I think I've already disproved the idea that the Democrats somehow want to move us forward with science, science (usually some form of pseudo science at that) is only used by politicians on both sides as a means to an end, not to move us forward as a country. Equal rights for all is exactly what many Democrats call for and this is also the very problem I have with them. In order to advocate for equal rights, or equality, one must, by definition, oppose liberty. Liberty and equality as concepts can't co-exist. I have already written a blog post explaining my thoughts on that here. Equality is not the goal the Democrats should be after, but rather equality under the law. The law should be blind to inequality, but it is not the job of the government to ensure equality...that only results in the rights of one being trampled on in order to ensure the equality of another. Finally, the idea that the government exists to ensure a strong social safety net is no longer an idea I can get behind. I used to support this, but I don't anymore. Once the government decides it is their job to take care of those less fortunate rather than the job of churches, charities, etc., then they'll eventually decide they can tell you what you can and can't spend money on. After all, if someone walked up to you on the street and demanded money, you'd deny them. If they took it anyway, they'd be a thief. This is largely what the social safety net is. Thievery. After all, the government forcibly takes money from some guy in Arizona who has a little and then gives it to some guy in Ohio who is "less fortunate". The guy in Arizona should have the right to decide how his money is used. If he doesn't, then it is tantamount to theft.
Just a little something to think about with the elections looming a few months away.Finally he mercifully ends with this. I do think about these things all the time and I know I do not fit into the two party mold, which is why I generally find them both to be disturbing. That Democrats would read this and find it truthful disturbs me. That Republicans would read it and dismiss it as garbage disturbs me. It is important to think about these things. Democrats and Republicans will never agree on anything, even when they are arguing the same thing (they are just two sides of the same coin after all). But we the people should be challenging every statement from every politician and making them represent us. No politicians in Washington is there to represent their district. They are there for themselves and their sole job is to confuse, confound, and muddy the waters enough to make you fear the opposition so much that you'll support them even though every act they do is contrary to your best interests.
Monday, June 11, 2012
My olympic expectations
The summer olympics have been fun for me since I was a kid. Back then, we always wanted to beat out the Soviet Union. Freedom vs. tyranny and all that. Nowadays, we pretty much just want to get the most medals. However, I've learned over the years that other countries care more about the number of gold than they do the total medal count. So much so that they list the countries in order by most golds, not by most overall medals. I don't care for this very much and I'll tell you why. It isn't because it takes the U.S. out of the top spot, although that does happen because we don't always win the most gold. To me, it diminishes the spectacular accomplishment of the rest of the athletes, you know, those who don't win gold. To make the olympic team is an astounding achievement in sports. To compete against the best in the world and win a medal of any color is even more astounding. By saying that only gold is important, you diminish those accomplishments and tell your athletes that silver and bronze aren't an impressive feat of skill.
At any rate, everyone wants their country to perform well. Myself included. In fact, having a multicultural family means I get to root for more than one country, although I admit that the United States always gets the edge. This year, that means that I actually have a mens soccer team to root for though since the U.S. men, well...
So, what do I expect this year out of the summer olympics. I expect a friendly crowd which will help the U.S. perform well. Also, I expect 100 total medals. This has become the norm for the United States. In the last 5 summer olympics, the U.S. has gotten 100 or more medals 4 times and 94 medals the one time they didn't. In the 6 olympics preceding those, the U.S. got 100 or more twice and 90 or more in the other 4. Therefore, it has been a long time since we got less than 90 medals, since 1964. 1960 was the last time we didn't get 90 or more medals. Of course, we did extremely well in Los Angeles in 1984 when we got 174 medals, but this was the year the Soviets boycotted because we had skipped out on the Moscow games in 1980, so Russia and much of the eastern bloc didn't participate. Not to diminish that achievement, just explaining the outlier.
Therefore, I've come to expect that the U.S. will get 100 medals. I'm sure most Americans feel this way. In fact, anything less than 100 seems to be a disappointment. Not that it should be, I'm just saying how I feel based on our historical performance. That said, if we did anything less than 90 medals, I think many Americans would think that to be, not a disappointment, but a disaster. I love sports and the atmosphere of the olympics...I even got to attend the 1996 olympics with my future wife. So, I look forward to this event every 4 years. I even like the winter olympics a lot, but I do wish NBC would figure out what people really want to watch. At any rate, should I be disappointed if the U.S. does not perform as expected? Absolutely not...after all, there is always four years from now when the U.S. team would use a poor showing as motivation. However, what would really constitute a poor showing. Not getting 100 medals? Surely not, my personal bias aside. Not getting 90 medals? Since this hasn't happened since 1960, I'd say that would be considered a poor showing. I look forward to the show this year in London. It'll be fun. I'm even more excited about 4 years from now, when Brazil will host the games for the first time and as the first South American country to do so.
At any rate, everyone wants their country to perform well. Myself included. In fact, having a multicultural family means I get to root for more than one country, although I admit that the United States always gets the edge. This year, that means that I actually have a mens soccer team to root for though since the U.S. men, well...
So, what do I expect this year out of the summer olympics. I expect a friendly crowd which will help the U.S. perform well. Also, I expect 100 total medals. This has become the norm for the United States. In the last 5 summer olympics, the U.S. has gotten 100 or more medals 4 times and 94 medals the one time they didn't. In the 6 olympics preceding those, the U.S. got 100 or more twice and 90 or more in the other 4. Therefore, it has been a long time since we got less than 90 medals, since 1964. 1960 was the last time we didn't get 90 or more medals. Of course, we did extremely well in Los Angeles in 1984 when we got 174 medals, but this was the year the Soviets boycotted because we had skipped out on the Moscow games in 1980, so Russia and much of the eastern bloc didn't participate. Not to diminish that achievement, just explaining the outlier.
Therefore, I've come to expect that the U.S. will get 100 medals. I'm sure most Americans feel this way. In fact, anything less than 100 seems to be a disappointment. Not that it should be, I'm just saying how I feel based on our historical performance. That said, if we did anything less than 90 medals, I think many Americans would think that to be, not a disappointment, but a disaster. I love sports and the atmosphere of the olympics...I even got to attend the 1996 olympics with my future wife. So, I look forward to this event every 4 years. I even like the winter olympics a lot, but I do wish NBC would figure out what people really want to watch. At any rate, should I be disappointed if the U.S. does not perform as expected? Absolutely not...after all, there is always four years from now when the U.S. team would use a poor showing as motivation. However, what would really constitute a poor showing. Not getting 100 medals? Surely not, my personal bias aside. Not getting 90 medals? Since this hasn't happened since 1960, I'd say that would be considered a poor showing. I look forward to the show this year in London. It'll be fun. I'm even more excited about 4 years from now, when Brazil will host the games for the first time and as the first South American country to do so.
Wednesday, June 6, 2012
All the wrong lessons in Wisconsin
I generally pay attention to political races that have national implications, but otherwise, outside of my state, I usually could care less. However, to muster a recall election against a Republican governor in a Presidential election year when some believe the Democratic President is vulnerable has national implications. Watching the news coverage, I am struck by just how many people completely missed what I think is really going on here. They seem to have missed the point entirely. This election was technically (and if you listen to the media...only) about two things. 1. It was a referendum on the performance of Walker and the Republican party in Wisconsin since they took over and 2. it was a referendum on the power and influence of labor unions. Voter turnout was higher this time around than it was in 2010 and both candidates received more votes this time than they did before. However, Walker won this one by 7% where he'd won the previous one by only 6%. So, it seems that a LOT of Wisconsinites came out in defense of their duly elected representatives and completely repudiated the labor unions. This is the take the media has taken, and there is a lot of truth there, but they do us all a disservice by not picking up on other realities.
In order to get the recall election, the unions got 900,000 signatures on a petition. Then they only got 1.1 million votes for their candidate. It seems there weren't a whole lot of people in Wisconsin beyond the 900K petition signers who are particularly upset with their governor. I remember when the unions were marching in the streets and committing acts of violence in the state last year that I felt all they were achieving was to alienate themselves from the majority of the population because most people, regardless of party, don't want to see that kind of behavior. With Walker getting an additional percentage point in this election, it seems I was right. So, this shows support for Walker and a rejection of the unions. Right? If that is what you think, of course there is a lot of truth to that and as I stated earlier, that is largely how it is being reported. But I really see something else here too.
What is that you ask? Well, they are talking about Wisconsin as a state that is in contention for the Presidential race, aren't they? Yes, but that isn't what I'm referring to. They are talking about the loss of power and influence of the labor unions. Yes, but that has been happening over time for quite a while and isn't what I'm referring to. What I'd like to point out is the power of the silent majority. I recently wrote another post on what constitutes "mainstream" in America. I showed that there isn't really a mainstream anything. However, with 40% of the population self identifying as conservative but only 21% as liberal, it seems odd that liberal candidates fare so well, so often. This is largely due to one factor. Independent and non-affiliated voters. In recent polls, 35% of Americans claim to be Republicans, 33% Democrats, and 32% independents. This is quite the voting bloc for the independent voter.
As I stated earlier, 40% of Americans claim to be conservative with 21% claiming to be liberal. 35% claim to be moderate, leaving another 4% to be...something else? I certainly fall into the something else category myself since I don't self identify as any of these three. However, in order to win, liberals MUST win moderates and independents. They also have to win more of them because there are fewer liberals to start with. Therefore, I submit that the real result in Wisconsin is not the loss of union power or the affirmation of Walker and other Wisconsin Republicans (although those are real outcomes and apparently the only ones the media can recognize), but rather the power of the third voting bloc...those who don't affiliate with either of the parties. What this election tells me is that this third bloc is continuing the rightward trend that we saw on display with the 2010 national elections. Perhaps not everywhere, but in surprising locations like traditionally Democratic Wisconsin. It tells me that the 2012 election is going to be very interesting. Let the fun begin! Unfortunately, the fun part of this election that I feel will be most interesting is also the part I think will be generally ignored by the media because they are either too bias, too stupid, or too lazy to actually see what is really going on, in my opinion.
In order to get the recall election, the unions got 900,000 signatures on a petition. Then they only got 1.1 million votes for their candidate. It seems there weren't a whole lot of people in Wisconsin beyond the 900K petition signers who are particularly upset with their governor. I remember when the unions were marching in the streets and committing acts of violence in the state last year that I felt all they were achieving was to alienate themselves from the majority of the population because most people, regardless of party, don't want to see that kind of behavior. With Walker getting an additional percentage point in this election, it seems I was right. So, this shows support for Walker and a rejection of the unions. Right? If that is what you think, of course there is a lot of truth to that and as I stated earlier, that is largely how it is being reported. But I really see something else here too.
What is that you ask? Well, they are talking about Wisconsin as a state that is in contention for the Presidential race, aren't they? Yes, but that isn't what I'm referring to. They are talking about the loss of power and influence of the labor unions. Yes, but that has been happening over time for quite a while and isn't what I'm referring to. What I'd like to point out is the power of the silent majority. I recently wrote another post on what constitutes "mainstream" in America. I showed that there isn't really a mainstream anything. However, with 40% of the population self identifying as conservative but only 21% as liberal, it seems odd that liberal candidates fare so well, so often. This is largely due to one factor. Independent and non-affiliated voters. In recent polls, 35% of Americans claim to be Republicans, 33% Democrats, and 32% independents. This is quite the voting bloc for the independent voter.
As I stated earlier, 40% of Americans claim to be conservative with 21% claiming to be liberal. 35% claim to be moderate, leaving another 4% to be...something else? I certainly fall into the something else category myself since I don't self identify as any of these three. However, in order to win, liberals MUST win moderates and independents. They also have to win more of them because there are fewer liberals to start with. Therefore, I submit that the real result in Wisconsin is not the loss of union power or the affirmation of Walker and other Wisconsin Republicans (although those are real outcomes and apparently the only ones the media can recognize), but rather the power of the third voting bloc...those who don't affiliate with either of the parties. What this election tells me is that this third bloc is continuing the rightward trend that we saw on display with the 2010 national elections. Perhaps not everywhere, but in surprising locations like traditionally Democratic Wisconsin. It tells me that the 2012 election is going to be very interesting. Let the fun begin! Unfortunately, the fun part of this election that I feel will be most interesting is also the part I think will be generally ignored by the media because they are either too bias, too stupid, or too lazy to actually see what is really going on, in my opinion.
Tuesday, June 5, 2012
What's with the unemployment rate?
So, if I didn't know any better and someone told me that the unemployment rate was 8.2 percent, I'd think that 8.2 percent of the working age population was out of work. Of course, there are so many "factors" that go into calculating this rate, that it basically renders it a meaningless number. Here's some real numbers from the Dept. of Labor:
Total working age population: 243 million
Total employed: 142 million
Unemployed: 12 million
Not in labor force: 88 million
So, where does this 8.2% number come from? If you take the total number of "unemployed" and divide it by the working age population, then you should have a rate of about 5%. But no, we have to divide that 12 million by the number of people "participating" in the labor force. This is how they get the 8%. By ignoring about 88 million people. Sure, some of these legitimately do not work in the labor force and so one could argue should not count, such as stay at home moms. According to census data, there are 85 million mothers in the U.S., so even if they all stayed home (we know they don't), that still doesn't account for all 88 million folks.
This brings us to how they really get the rate. They do it through a number they call the "participation rate". The overall participation rate is 64%. Doesn't this mean that 37% of the people don't have a job? Yes...yes it does, but they do have to remove stay at home moms from the equation. After all, it makes up a good chunk of people...right? Men's participate rate is at 73% while women's participate rate is at 58%. So, that surely reflects stay at home moms, but doesn't account for all 88 million folks. In fact, it doesn't even accurately reflect stay at home moms. Census data again shows that 5 million women are stay at home moms. Therefore, that lowers the total participation rate down to 83 million since I legitimately would conclude you can't count stay at home moms in this number.
That brings us to the Civilian non-institutional population. This is where the total working age population is derived. It encompasses everyone in the U.S. who are 16 and up, are not in an institution and are not in the U.S. military. So, that's where the total number comes from. Which brings us back to the "participating" number again. That number is 155 million people. As far as I can tell, it is a completely made up number. However, apparently it does have a meaning. Here is the definition from Barron's Business Dictionary.
Total working age population: 243 million
Total employed: 142 million
Unemployed: 12 million
Not in labor force: 88 million
So, where does this 8.2% number come from? If you take the total number of "unemployed" and divide it by the working age population, then you should have a rate of about 5%. But no, we have to divide that 12 million by the number of people "participating" in the labor force. This is how they get the 8%. By ignoring about 88 million people. Sure, some of these legitimately do not work in the labor force and so one could argue should not count, such as stay at home moms. According to census data, there are 85 million mothers in the U.S., so even if they all stayed home (we know they don't), that still doesn't account for all 88 million folks.
This brings us to how they really get the rate. They do it through a number they call the "participation rate". The overall participation rate is 64%. Doesn't this mean that 37% of the people don't have a job? Yes...yes it does, but they do have to remove stay at home moms from the equation. After all, it makes up a good chunk of people...right? Men's participate rate is at 73% while women's participate rate is at 58%. So, that surely reflects stay at home moms, but doesn't account for all 88 million folks. In fact, it doesn't even accurately reflect stay at home moms. Census data again shows that 5 million women are stay at home moms. Therefore, that lowers the total participation rate down to 83 million since I legitimately would conclude you can't count stay at home moms in this number.
That brings us to the Civilian non-institutional population. This is where the total working age population is derived. It encompasses everyone in the U.S. who are 16 and up, are not in an institution and are not in the U.S. military. So, that's where the total number comes from. Which brings us back to the "participating" number again. That number is 155 million people. As far as I can tell, it is a completely made up number. However, apparently it does have a meaning. Here is the definition from Barron's Business Dictionary.
"All members of the population aged 16 or over in the United States who are not in the military or institutions such as prisons or mental hospitals and who are either employed or are unemployed and actively seeking and available for work. Every month the U.S. Department of Labor releases the unemployment rate, which is the percentage of the civilian labor force that is unemployed. In very bad economic times, the unemployment rate can be deceptive because it does not consider discouraged workers, those who are unemployed but have stopped actively seeking employment."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)