Mon, Nov 30th - 12:31PM

When spin is not enough...

Tue, Nov 24th - 11:53AM

There might be an Accounting in this World -- which is better than in the next...

http://www.mrc.org/biasalert/2009/20091124025623.aspx

The POTUS has his feet to the fire.  Will he respond like David to the Challenge From God that came from Nathan The Prophet?  I understand a Loving Father and Not Sparing the Rod of Correction to a Child He Loves.  Barak Hussein Obama may just be getting a demonstration of this love.  We can hope and pray he will see it this way.  He claims he is a Christian.  This could become a point of epiphany for him.  I have HOPE and PRAY that he will.  It would shock many in America, and the World, and the most powerful man in the world would have to humble himself.  This is no small thing I ask of My God.  But My God is THAT big!

AMEN,

Mel

Fri, Nov 20th - 3:45PM

Does

I don't have time to make a long post.

However, with Government Managed Care just around the corner, it seems that one more thing needs to be considered:

What care will be rationed if we have a one payer system (that the biased Public Option will lead to in less than 14 years, according to the Congressional Budget Office) becomes a reality.

Simple.  It will be those that Government Panels have decided were unneeded.

You should probabaly read this:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/19/AR2009111904053.html

Um.  This was an Official Government Panel.  They work for the Highest Government Authority on Health Care that will be getting all these neat new powers to decide who gets what in the medical world.  Guess what would have happened if we had already had OBAMACARE for 10 years or so?  Probably we would have routinely stopped insuring mamograms for women aged 40-49.  You want one?  Your body -- your choice.  But you'd STILL have to pay for it.

Now this is something to get upset about, ladies!  This study may be right, but are you going to let them TELL you that such a precaution is not worth the money, but an abortion for anyone who wants one is?

Maybe it's not a Death Panel.  I really don't think this one item rises to that level.  This article points out that this Government Study might actually be onto something here:

http://www.newsweek.com/id/223696

However, this is the point to remember:  If we give ourselves a system that becomes "Socialized Medicine", you will have NO choice but to expect that what such a panel as this says, goes.  Expect to loose a lot of health care that is seen as 'unneeded' and 'worthless' in the eyes of the 'experts' who <> may have had it wrong for all these years!  And some things, like cosmetic surgery for washed up movies stars?  Well, there is always the chance we will all foot that bill instead...

In Truth,

Mel

A P.S. Link:

http://voices.kansascity.com/node/6594

Ouch!

Thu, Nov 12th - 4:27PM

The joke is on who???

To one of my previous respondants: As for spinning sex and race, I assume you are saying that my numbers are skewed. Please check this link out. I might be a little high on the Women. My assertion of 60% support is pretty thumb in the air. If you run the numbers here, I might be high with that. So I'll grant that has validiity to see it that way, and may actually be more true than I realize.

However, if you take the numbers for Jan 26(81% Strongly approve), Apr 1(84% Strongly approve), Apr 29(76% Strongly approve), May 5(95% approve) and Jul 20(97% approve) and average them together, you get 86.6% which is slightly higher than 17 to 3 approval that I stated for African Americans. That was also thumb in the air, but not so crazy and wild a guess, since I have seen very similar numbers all over the place. That was not a hard guess to make, and I didn't even say that it was very strong approval, but only stated that he had approval. If you started looking at the strength of the approval, I think you'd have a chance of finding that even more skewed.

Now. I have had conversations along these lines on public transportation - mostly the train. Just so you know what population I am testing the pulse of. I posed the question "why?" and got pretty much the answer that seemed to be the "good" sounding answer: "Because he represents African Americans." When pressed if that is because they thought he was black himself, the answer was almost universally "Yes" and I must admit, it was somewhat a leading question from me. However, when I restated what they said along the lines of "So, because he is an African American, for African Americans, it is alright to support him primarily along Racial Lines?", I was surprised at how many hestitated to go there. You could see them mentally stepping back, because they realized just how "racist" that kind of position was. That was always a pleasant surprise! I am quite jaded in how people really don't seem to understand this.

I still sadly must report that many/most of them glibbly would say "yes" to that. My follow up response was either to say that was racist, to which the most common defense was that it was "postive" racism, or I would just skip that part and state what I would get to eventually ==>> If that was ok, then it was ok for me to vote for McCain because he was a White American for White Americans, paraphrasing it in the exact terms they used for B Obama. At which point the message seemed to sink in that at least they should not continue this conversation because they were loosing -- badly. If it was racist for me, why was it not racist for an African American? There is no good, non racist sounding answer for that one. Answer it, and you have to admit racism or answer as a racist in denial.

Oddly enough, I think that the people who bought that this kind of racism on the part of African Americans was acceptable were people who were not themselves African Americans. I am not sure why that is. I might be reaching, but I'd say that maybe African Americans are more keenly aware of Racism, but at the same time, willing to go there to "justifiably" even the odds, turn the tables, get a leg up, or whatever. They may have come from a disadvantaged background. Does that make getting ahead by any means possible justified? I don't know that this is the mindset.

Maybe someday someone will grace me with a glimpse of understanding on why that is. It might just be a fluke, and that observation was in no way made under any scientific method where I could point to numbers to back up my general impressions. All I can say is that the impression was contrary to what my prejudice in the matter was at the time. Yes, I thought black people would trip down that path a lot quicker than white or other non african americans would. I was wrong.

However, I am not sure if I related about the two students (I think they were students -- just before or after the election, I think) who were arguing about whether or not B Obama was black or not. Well, I thought the arguement was the height of stupidity. However, I may not have had all the facts:

Mr. Obama is 50% Caucasian, that from his mother. What those who want Mr. Obama to write history by becoming "America's first African-American president" ignore is that his father was ethnically Arabic, with only 1 relative ethnically African Negro - a maternal great-grandparent (Sen. Obama's great-great grandparent, thus the 6.25% ethnic contribution to the senator's ethnic composition.).

That means that Mr. Obama is 50% Caucasian from his mother's side. He is 43.75% Arabic, and 6.25% African Negro from his father's side.

Put another way, his father could honestly claim African-American ethnic classification. He was the last generation able to do so.

Sen. Obama could honestly say, "My father was African-American." Racist presumptions led an Ivy League admissions committee, and lazy "newspapers of record" factcheckers, to presume that if his father is African-American, then Sen. Obama must be African-American also.

But it doesn't work that way. Racist presumptions coupled with sloppy vetting don't turn a lie into the truth.

Sen. Obama is one generation too far removed from the ethnic African Negro input to make the same claim as his father, Harvard's Admission's stamp of approval notwithstanding.

As you can see for yourself, Sen. Obama's African-American ethnic claim, when properly researched and documented, is a lie.

The question no one wants to answer - particularly Mr. Obama and his supporters, is, "Why do you think he has an Arabic name? Why does his father have an Arabic name? Why does every ancestor on his father's side have an Arabic name?"

The answer is obvious: They have Arabic names because his father's side of the family tree is Arabic.

I got this out of this site here. I have not researched this out myself, (and am not sure if I can) so at this point consider it this way: If Barack Hussein Obama is really an Arab and not an African American, just how many of us has he bamboozled???  I for one was one who was bamboozled on this point...

Yikes!

In Truth,

Mel

Tue, Nov 3rd - 5:57PM

Poll Spinning

Here is one that came out lately from CNN:

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/11/03/obama.poll/

This is a good discussion of what CNN fails to mention about these numbers that is really more newsworthy then their not so delicate Pro-Obama spinning:

http://hotair.com/archives/2009/11/03/cnn-poll-54-disapprove-of-obama-economic-performance/

If you were to believe CNN, everything is getting better for Obama and You Should Get On Board before the Train Leaves The Station.  The drastic swings in his popularity towards the loosing side is not newsworthy in their eyes.  I am sorry, but the train has already gone, and if you were on board, you are taking a looooong trip to nowhere, and Obama is nowhere on that fantasy train.  Some of the CNN staffers, who believe their own drivel, might be there with you, so you are at least likely to be able to take it out on them if you finally get mad enough to loose your temper over what they did to you...

Another thing that was brought out in critiquing this poll is that party demographics were not addressed.  Neither were the distributions by sex or race.  (although this critique did not point that out)  If you know anything about polling, bringing more of a group that is likely to be more favorable to the possition you are trying to support will skew your results away from reality quite quickly.  Women favor everything about Obama at about a 3 to 2 ratio on the average.  Democrats, almost 4 to 1 for him, at least mildly -- if not enthusiastically.  African Americans are about 17 to 3 pro-Obama, no matter what.  There is very little differentiation in that particular group.  In others, specific items cause great changes in the level of the support, depending upon the issue being addressed.  But for African Americans, that is not very much the case.  The Economy, the War in Iraq, the Health Care Bill, His Nobel Peace Prize, all the other issues score in a very narow band, at least acccording to those Polls that are willing to divulge that information.

I am very suspsicious of CNN's 'spectacular' news.  If they had bothered to mention the obviously newsworthy information, I might be more generous.  However, this strikes me as more PR work than real journalistic reporting.  And CNN, NBC, ABC, CBS, NPR (and the list goes on) want *more* Government money than they already get so that they can tell you whatever they want to without worring about loosing their viewership and their jobs. Oh yes.  They are businesses that have been 'on the take' (well, NPR and some others are truely not for profit) to a small extent for quite some time.  They feel left out with the latest handouts from Uncle Sam, though...

I really expect that CNN deliberately withheld the demographic breakout, not because it would protect any privacy, but because the sample was so badly skewed that a high school teacher in statistics would likely use it as a very bad example of what a polling sample should look like in relation to the population that it is supposed to represent.  I expect at least 10% extra African American Democrat Women are in this poll.  So it likely tells us nothing about reality, but CNN does not care about that.  They are not about reality in news, but favorable liberal spin...

In Truth,

Mel