No Love for LEFTYS (the First)

    
      The Economy. As your reading this you have already shuddered. This is not an easy subject to just dive into, although it is everywhere on the news and newspapers. However, it is a subject that has so many dynamics, so many various subsets that the topic impacts.

     Let us ask this question, is the problem with the economy the policy, does it cater to the elite and ruling class, or can we place any blame on individuals? From the beginning of Obama’s presidential term there has been an overweening attitude that the current policies support only the elite. In addition to the idea that ones current finical status has nothing to do with the choices made individually. Author and professor David Harvey also share this attitude.

     Harvey wrote the book “Neoliberalism”*, where he has chosen to express his extreme leftist opinions within 208 pages. His views are one that many people today agree with. He supports greater dependence on government to provide for those in need (the 47% as Romney said). Furthermore he strongly opposes free market capitalism in support of public ownership of assets. Moreover, his common tagline is in harmony with the present administrations, “redistribution of wealth”. In conjunction to this he rejects the idea of personal responsibility. He states,

“While personal and individual freedoms in the market place is guaranteed, each individual is held responsible and accountable for his or her actions and well-being. This principle extends into the realms of welfare, education, health care, and even pensions. Individual successes of failure are interpreted in terms of entrepreneurial virtues or personal failings rather than being attributed to any systemic property (such as the class exclusions usually attributed to capitalism).

     His point is this; your problems are not your fault. The system in which you live is designed to enable the rich to gain and the poor to be exploited. The idea of a rising tide floats all boats is not a sufficient argument for Harvey. Furthermore, the system does not provide enough for those that need it. It is the idea that the 1% of the world has exploited those whom fall into the 99% (which is what the Occupy Movement had decided to battle against).

     Without quoting the whole book, his ideology resembles that of a Marxist/Socialist, which in turn mirrors the subversive policies of Obama. Harvey’s ostentatious attack on neoliberalism negates many truths that would appear axiomatic.

     With out having to engender a massive amount of evidence I can easily refute Harvey’s position (which is the position of many Americans currently). I believe Milton Friedman makes the best rebuttal in his book “Free to Choose”. He states

“In every society, however it is organized, there is always dissatisfaction with the distribution of income. All of us find it hard to understand why we should receive less than others who seem no more deserving-or why we should be receiving more than so many others whose needs seem as great and whose deserts seem no less. The farther fields away always look greener-so we blame the existing system. In command system envy and dissatisfaction are directed at the rulers. In a free market system they are directed at the market.”

IF your income will be the same whether you work hard or not, why should you work hard? Why should you make the effort to search out the buyer who values most highly what you have to sell if you will not get any benefit from doing so? If there is not reward for accumulating capital, why should anyone postpone to a later date what he could enjoy now? Why Save?

If everybody owns something, nobody owns it, and nobody has a direct interest in maintaining or improving its condition. That is why buildings in the Soviet Union- like public housing in the United States- look decrepit within two years of construction.

     How much more needs to be said. Take responsibility for your actions and stop blaming the rich. Capitalism supports producers, not moochers. Times are tough right now, yet if your looking for someone to blame you need only to look in the mirror. In the immortal words of Pogo, “We have met the enemy and they is us”.

     One more thing before we close, you do have a choice. If a corporation engages in activates you object to, you can vote with your feet. Get your products from somewhere else or seek alternatives. However, that requires one to be much more proactive. 

In God We Trusted

The demonization of Christians and Christianity has shown to be alive and well in recent years. The fight for a sterile godless society has taken root and appears to be winning. Moreover, the misrepresentation of constitutional rights has emboldened individuals to force secular views onto society as a whole. The bastardization of the First Amendment has castrated the very freedoms upon which this nation was built. Yet, as the nation becomes more secular and iconoclastic, they overlook where the foundation of modern society began.

In order to better understand the world of today, one must understand where we (society) came from. How has religion shaped the world of today? To do this one must first look at the ideals that we have as a capitalistic society. To most easily display this point, let us look at a small period of history and return to the 17^th century Dutch Republic and the Protestant reformation. To give a very brief overview, the Protestant Reformation was the 16th-century schism within Western Christianity initiated by Martin Luther, John Calvin and other early Protestants. It was sparked by the 1517 posting of Luther's Ninety-Five Theses.

During this time the idea of having an individual relationship with God, not needing a priest or religious clergy as a mediator set forth a whole new perspective on ones relationship with God. Emphasis was placed on the ability to read the Bible in order to have a greater relationship with God. In turn this put pressure on individuals to be educated. Prior to this point, only wealth people or clergy typically had the skills needed to read and write. However, if you wanted to have a better relationship with God (as a Protestant) one was encouraged to read the Bible. Inadvertently the spread of religion pushed forth an age of education.

This was further supported by the drive for wealth through labor and discovery through innovation. As people became more educated they began to make mechanical discoveries, which enabled them to work more efficiently. This can be viewed as the early influence of capitalism.

I believe the most dynamic point of the 17^th century Dutch Republic was the tolerance of others. During this time it was not uncommon to find people of Jewish faith being persecuted. In addition those who left the traditional Catholic Church were considered out cast. The safe haven of the Dutch Republic provided a melting pot of culture and religion much like that of America today.

Moreover, one can see the direct pattern of the Protestant Reformation to that of the colonist breaking from the Church of England. A major cry of the American colonies was for religious freedom which mirrored that of the Dutch Republic of the 17^th century. As we “rage against the machine” we neglect to acknowledge what it was the framers of this nation rebelled against. When one looks closely, it is easy to see recidivistic pattern and the impact that religion has had on secular worldviews.

This is hardly doing justice to the Protestant Reformation in regards to its impact on Christianity, which is not the point of my current argument. More so I am stating the effect that religion has on secular societies and the misguided American drive to sterilize the nation from God. To do so would be to deny the foundation of our modern society. It would require one to strip all the benefits given to the needy. To deny medical to those who cannot get it by any other means. It would deny all the advancements of modern technology, education, and equal rights. The demonization of Christianity is essentially the demonization of all.

I said all that to say this, I was once told, “You do not have the right to never be offended”. In other words, others have the freedom to offend you. Likewise, you have the freedom to offend them. The First Amendment guarantees this; “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances”.

Please note that it does not state “separation of church and state” as some believe. What the First Amendment promises as far as religion is concerned is freedom to chose. The population of the United States has become far too intolerant of Christians.  As a Christian, I choose to accept you regardless of what you may think of my faith. I am not asking you to practice Christianity with me, I am asking you to understand that the world is not all about you. Let go of the narcissism and have a cup cake. I’m sorry if my God offends you, but your lack of understand, faith, and respect offends me. Suck it up!

True...Lies (Part 2)

Aside from bias polls, the collected data that is calculated can greatly affect the overall public view of it. There are several different ways to present an “average”. For example, there is the actual arithmetic average, median, mean, and mode. Most will give you different results.

(The sum of x multiplied by f divided by n)

x= numbers to be added

f= frequency of the numbers

n=how many numbers were added

Arithmetic average is essentially the same as the mean. This equation allows one to take raw data and process it, resulting in the average. However, this is not the same as the mode or median.

In most cases, when analyzing data, the median, mean, and mode are going to be so close to the same number that either form will be close to the others. Yet, there are some cases that using the mode or mean will yield a much more desired result.

For example, lets suppose that one is trying to display the average annual income per a household. It is their desire to make America look as though Americans are living well.

Using fictitious data we can make a conclusion;

40% of the population makes $20,000 annually,

50% make $60,000 annually,

and lastly 10% make $1,000,000 annually.

Now if one were to use the mode for displaying this data the results would display that the average annual income of an American citizen is $60,000. However, this would overlook that 40% of the population is only making $20,000. Moreover, this would exclude the 10% making $1,000,000. The mode consists of the most common figure. This figure is used to represent the whole, thus $60,000 can be assumed to be the average annual income.

Lets change the figures a little;

15% make $20,000,

12.5% make $60,000,

45% make $100,000,

17.5% make $1,000,000,

10% makes $100,000,000

Using median to get our “average” we can see that the annual income is $100,000, furthermore we are excluding 80% of the population simply be manipulating the way in which we compute the data. Median is obtained by finding the number exactly in the middle. 45% has exactly 27.5% above and below. Lets assume that the percentage is represented by a number of people, the mean would be $10,230,500 annual income per a household. A drastically different number from $100,000

This is true to most statically data displayed. Before using the data as fact, look at the source and how objective it is.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/politics/election-map-2012/president/?tid=rr_mod

http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/n/newyorktimes-poll-watch/index.html

I need to give credit to "How to lie with statistics" By Darrell Huff, Published in 1954 for providing the majority of my data.

True...Lies (Part 1)

Then there is the man who drowned crossing a stream with an average depth of six inches.  ~W.I.E. Gates

  

Almost all published statistical data consist of fatal flaws that one can never be rid of. For example, bias is just one. For the purpose of the political election, we will use the current statistics as our example. Currently the Washington Post is showing a poll that has Mitt Romney leading by 47% to President Obamas 46%. So, how does bias play a role in this data? First off how was the poll conducted? On the bottom of the poll in small letters I read this;

Source: This Washington Post-ABC News poll was conducted by telephone July 5 to 8, 2012, among a random sample of 1,003 adults. The results have a margin of sampling error of plus or minus four percentage points for the full sample and four points for the sample of 855 registered voters. Sampling, data collection and tabulation by Abt-SRBI of New York. Results may not add to 100 percent because ''Other/don't know'' not included. Full results available at www.washingtonpost.com/polls. 

By looking at how the poll was conducted we can see where the bias affects the results. The poll consists of 1,003 adults whom were called on the phone in July. According to the census bureau taken in 2011, the population of the United States is 311,591,917. Lets assume that half are adults, that leaves us with 155,795,958.5 people to be represented by only 1,003. Another way to view this, 1 person surveyed represents the opinions of 155,329 people. That’s only part of it, depending on what time the calls were made will determine who may have answered the phone. Phone calls made in the middle of the day are more likely to be answered by people that are either working from home, are unemployed, or stay at home moms raising children.

Lets assume that they did call during the day, and lets further assume that it was stay at home moms that answered, they may be more apt to side with Romney because of the story of his wife Ann. That is only one small example of how a bias plays a role in statistics. Furthermore, it is impossible to eliminate all bias in a survey. If you change the time of the call, you may be largely eliminating the group of people that work at night, or stay at home moms, or even those that have evening actives. A factor that is unknown to the reader in this poll is where in the nation were these people called. The results would be different if the call was made only to urban location versus a farming community.

The truth is relative only to the data that is presented. The author of whatever version of the “truth” you are viewing could have manipulated the data as to gain a more favorable result.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/presidential-election-campaigning-sways-few/2012/07/09/gJQAJhANZW_graphic.html

http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/electoral-map