Game Scores:
Ford at McKinley, 37-32 McKinley
W Harrison at GW Bush, 36-31 GW Bush
Lincoln at Washington, 36-35 Washington
Reagan at B Harrison, 37-22 Reagan
T Roosevelt at Hoover, 30-23 TR
Jefferson at Jackson, 33-28 Jefferson
Madison at Polk, 33-21 Polk
Fillmore at Coolidge, 29-22 Fillmore
Carter at F Roosevelt, 33-22 FDR
Kennedy at Pierce, 31-18 JFK
Truman at JQ Adams, 30-27 Truman
Nixon at Cleveland, 31-28 Cleveland
Taylor at Wilson, 30-25 Taylor
GH Bush at J Adams, 30-26 J Adams
Hayes at Eisenhower, 30-29 Ike
Monroe at Arthur, 29-24 Monroe
A Johnson at Taft, 30-23 Taft
L Johnson at Tyler, 28-21 Tyler
Garfield at Grant, 27-25 Garfield
Buchanan at Clinton, 25-21 Clinton
Harding at Van Buren, 30-23 Harding
One President has one loss, another two have 2 losses, another three have 5 wins, and another two each have 2 wins.
Saturday, June 09, 2007
Friday, June 08, 2007
Get A Job? Plan For A Career!
I was reading through the new issue of BusinessWeek, and came across an article about problems for a “generation” of folks in Japan. Well, that sounded serious, so I read through the thing. Turns out, “generation” was rather an exaggeration, and the article implied that Japan meant to use some rather Socialist practices to “fix” the problem, which seems to me a bit worse than the problem it is meant to address. I suspect that a lot of folks are somehow unclear on how employment works in a free society.
That is not as uncommon as you might think. Socialism and it’s more radical brother, Communism, are founded in the insipid notion that artificial controls on an economy will not prevent it from effective function, a notion long disproved by the histories of the Iron Curtain countries, and “worker’s paradise” locations like Cuba and North Korea. Labor unions, which were created for good reason and which have served great causes in the past, have also killed strong companies through their greed and mindless demands. And an appalling number of people under 30 seem to think that their company “owes” them their job, benefits, raises, and promotions. And they get bitter when reality refuses to let them live like Paris Hilton. Which explains a lot about why so many otherwise-sane people can support Democrats, but that’s another topic.
After reaching this point, I realized that it might actually be necessary to state the obvious. That whole ’Common sense is not very common’ idea. Take that BusinessWeek story on Japan, for example. The first guy they cited was a fellow by the name of Sadaaki Nehashi, who has a degree in Marine Biology but is working as a contract worker, effectively as a mailboy. All right, I have had hard times too, working for jobs well below my skill set, but it occurred to me that no one seemed to ask Sadaaki if he had checked with potential employers before getting his degree, to make sure that it mad sense to get a specialized degree like Marine Biology. Yes, the world needs Marine Biologists, and I am sure that Sadaaki Nehashi is a smart guy, but nowhere in the article did it seem that anyone asked whether he had some responsibility for his own financial condition. In the interest of disclosure, I will say that my undergraduate degree was in English, and that was a very poor panning decision on my part. And it cost me in my early work, as a direct consequence of my choices. That’s life folks, good things and bad things both happen, but some of them are the result of your choices, and simply are not someone else’s responsibility.
Basically, there are four kinds of jobs. There’s the temp job, which you do for a short time and get basic pay, which is fine for students and for a little pocket money, but you can’t really live on it. There’s the pay-the-bills job, where you take the job you can get fast, because you have bills to pay and don’t really have any options. A lot of folks go this route, and start down a dismal road that they never enjoy. There’s the vocation, which is a fancy word for finding a job that pays you to do what you love; most of us never have a chance at that job. So what’s left? The career.
What sets the career apart from the other types of jobs, is that you plan ahead for it, you acquire the specific skills it needs, you seek jobs which fit together in a pattern to show improved ability and accomplishments in that field, and you build a network that opens the opportunities for you. It takes more thinking, more commitment, and yes, more work, to create a career rather than just work a job, but in the end, the career is more satisfying, more rewarding financially and in opportunities, and the career is more stable.
Here’s how it works. To get a job, you simply find someone willing to hire you for a job you are willing to do under the proposed conditions of employment, and – boom – you have a job. In most states, the employment is ‘at will’, meaning your boss can fire you or you can quit, at anytime. You would work this job until you did something to get fired, you decided to quit, or unless your employer offered you another position in the company, which you accepted. Generally, because jobs are not that hard to get, it means you could be replaced easily by someone who doesn’t need much training, and so the company won’t offer you much money for the job. Also, since you were hired for a specific task, you won’t be a decision-maker in the company, and so you will often feel – correctly – that you have no real influence or power.
To build a career, you have to be able to make decisions independently, and to show discipline. You will have to decide your field, find out what is needed to get work in that field, earn the necessary educational certification for it (and plan on more school later; most serious fields require an advanced degree or Continuing Education Units), keep your grades up and look for entry positions in companies with openings in your field of interest. The first few years in that work, you will probably not be paid all the much, but you will make contacts with people who can either get you a better position within the company, or an interview with someone who will offer you a better opportunity. After that, your work will make your name, open doors, and buy your house. It’s a long process, takes a lot of work and a dedication to a core made of Integrity, Diligence, Inspiration, and Optimism. It also helps to enjoy life and have a sense of humor. You will likely find that the same skills which build a good career, will also help you find a good spouse and build a family. More work, but also well worth it.
Somewhere along the way, you will need a dog.
Good luck.
That is not as uncommon as you might think. Socialism and it’s more radical brother, Communism, are founded in the insipid notion that artificial controls on an economy will not prevent it from effective function, a notion long disproved by the histories of the Iron Curtain countries, and “worker’s paradise” locations like Cuba and North Korea. Labor unions, which were created for good reason and which have served great causes in the past, have also killed strong companies through their greed and mindless demands. And an appalling number of people under 30 seem to think that their company “owes” them their job, benefits, raises, and promotions. And they get bitter when reality refuses to let them live like Paris Hilton. Which explains a lot about why so many otherwise-sane people can support Democrats, but that’s another topic.
After reaching this point, I realized that it might actually be necessary to state the obvious. That whole ’Common sense is not very common’ idea. Take that BusinessWeek story on Japan, for example. The first guy they cited was a fellow by the name of Sadaaki Nehashi, who has a degree in Marine Biology but is working as a contract worker, effectively as a mailboy. All right, I have had hard times too, working for jobs well below my skill set, but it occurred to me that no one seemed to ask Sadaaki if he had checked with potential employers before getting his degree, to make sure that it mad sense to get a specialized degree like Marine Biology. Yes, the world needs Marine Biologists, and I am sure that Sadaaki Nehashi is a smart guy, but nowhere in the article did it seem that anyone asked whether he had some responsibility for his own financial condition. In the interest of disclosure, I will say that my undergraduate degree was in English, and that was a very poor panning decision on my part. And it cost me in my early work, as a direct consequence of my choices. That’s life folks, good things and bad things both happen, but some of them are the result of your choices, and simply are not someone else’s responsibility.
Basically, there are four kinds of jobs. There’s the temp job, which you do for a short time and get basic pay, which is fine for students and for a little pocket money, but you can’t really live on it. There’s the pay-the-bills job, where you take the job you can get fast, because you have bills to pay and don’t really have any options. A lot of folks go this route, and start down a dismal road that they never enjoy. There’s the vocation, which is a fancy word for finding a job that pays you to do what you love; most of us never have a chance at that job. So what’s left? The career.
What sets the career apart from the other types of jobs, is that you plan ahead for it, you acquire the specific skills it needs, you seek jobs which fit together in a pattern to show improved ability and accomplishments in that field, and you build a network that opens the opportunities for you. It takes more thinking, more commitment, and yes, more work, to create a career rather than just work a job, but in the end, the career is more satisfying, more rewarding financially and in opportunities, and the career is more stable.
Here’s how it works. To get a job, you simply find someone willing to hire you for a job you are willing to do under the proposed conditions of employment, and – boom – you have a job. In most states, the employment is ‘at will’, meaning your boss can fire you or you can quit, at anytime. You would work this job until you did something to get fired, you decided to quit, or unless your employer offered you another position in the company, which you accepted. Generally, because jobs are not that hard to get, it means you could be replaced easily by someone who doesn’t need much training, and so the company won’t offer you much money for the job. Also, since you were hired for a specific task, you won’t be a decision-maker in the company, and so you will often feel – correctly – that you have no real influence or power.
To build a career, you have to be able to make decisions independently, and to show discipline. You will have to decide your field, find out what is needed to get work in that field, earn the necessary educational certification for it (and plan on more school later; most serious fields require an advanced degree or Continuing Education Units), keep your grades up and look for entry positions in companies with openings in your field of interest. The first few years in that work, you will probably not be paid all the much, but you will make contacts with people who can either get you a better position within the company, or an interview with someone who will offer you a better opportunity. After that, your work will make your name, open doors, and buy your house. It’s a long process, takes a lot of work and a dedication to a core made of Integrity, Diligence, Inspiration, and Optimism. It also helps to enjoy life and have a sense of humor. You will likely find that the same skills which build a good career, will also help you find a good spouse and build a family. More work, but also well worth it.
Somewhere along the way, you will need a dog.
Good luck.
Thursday, June 07, 2007
A Modest Proposal For Conservatives
Emotions among Conservatives have run high at times during the Bush Administration. Let’s – for once – step aside from the yelling and start with common ground. I think it is reasonable, as a starting proposition, to contend that everyone with a strong opinion on the issues under debate has thought about them at some length, and their emotion is the result of their concern for this country. So, for the first step in this article, I propose that we leave the weapons of ad hominem and character attacks outside the door; we do not need them, and they are not useful for the purpose of discussing the issues.
If that can be done (sadly, a doubtful prospect at the moment), I would also suggest that we should also leave behind the baggage of past debate. Guilt trips are not effective debating tools, and we will have quite enough on our hands to even begin working on the issues which matter most. I would further submit that, especially as Republicans are the minority party in Congress, and even among Republicans there is a wide range of opinions on certain issues, we must demonstrate a reasonable tolerance for different opinions. No, you don’t have to agree to a bill you find unacceptable, but at the same time it is suicidal for a faction to refuse to discuss points of a bill under consideration, or to refuse the possibility that getting some of what you want is better than getting none.
Let us also forego that practice of mis-portraying the other side. Let a proponent say what they would like to see done, why they think it will work, and how they would see that put into action. Those opposed or unconvinced could then properly ask for information, challenge assumptions and faulty contentions, and – most important – offer feasible solutions. This would be, of course, much lengthier and complex than the present smear-fest we see on radio shows and web forums, and it would require a much higher level of maturity than is usually presented in these debates, but it would have the salient effect of actually moving the debate forward. Deal with what people are actually and genuinely believe, rather than some ‘gotcha’ strawmen, and there is much better foundation for building a real solution.
Since Border Security and Immigration Reform are two of the most contentious issues at present, I think we might next consider the key problems to address in those issues. My list is not the be-all, end-all, but I think we could use it as a launch point for the forum to follow in this thread:
1. The presence of at least 12 million foreigners in the United States who arrived illegally and who continue to stay here illegally, represents a serious problem for the United States, which must be addressed in a manner which, in effect, closes the door to such numbers of illegal immigration.
2. There are organized groups who would desire to attack the United States, either as criminals (gangs) or as terrorists. This is the chief reason why the borders must be secured against entry by foreign nationals, especially organized operations.
3. The Immigration laws of the United States simply do not work as intended. Not only is there a serious enforcement problem with the laws already in place, but those immigrants who try to comply with the bureaucracy find the rules illogical, punitive, and arbitrary.
4. There are a number of American businesses which have no intention of complying with U.S. law regarding the hiring of illegals. Therefore, there is a strong market able and willing to subsidize illegals, and any legislation considered needs to contend with this problem.
5. There are a number of state and local authorities who oppose federal efforts to control illegal immigration. Substantive legislation should consider this interference, and legal recourse should be prepared for these conditions.
6. The overwhelming majority of these illegal immigrants are non-violent and could function as valuable members of society under the right circumstances. Accordingly, any plan to address the long-term situation must provide an opportunity for eventual citizenship for those families and individuals who can demonstrate the ability and will to act responsibly under American law, allegiance to the United States, and penalties for their illegal entry. Any plan must consider legal applicants first and with strong preference.
7. Because the Democrats can be counted on to oppose any substantive solution to Illegal Immigration, Republicans must maintain a united public face. Consensus therefore is the sine qua non for Republican in-house debate, and under no circumstances should a Republican, no matter his opinion, commit an action or statement which weakens the GOP’s position or advances the Democrats’ agenda.
All of these have been considered or proposed before, but unfortunately have been ignored by opponents, mis-characterized or mis-stated, or simply mocked. We have the means to find answers, but only if we act like the adults in this debate. We surely cannot expect the Liberals to even try to resolve these problems, and ignoring the problem is simply out of the question.
If that can be done (sadly, a doubtful prospect at the moment), I would also suggest that we should also leave behind the baggage of past debate. Guilt trips are not effective debating tools, and we will have quite enough on our hands to even begin working on the issues which matter most. I would further submit that, especially as Republicans are the minority party in Congress, and even among Republicans there is a wide range of opinions on certain issues, we must demonstrate a reasonable tolerance for different opinions. No, you don’t have to agree to a bill you find unacceptable, but at the same time it is suicidal for a faction to refuse to discuss points of a bill under consideration, or to refuse the possibility that getting some of what you want is better than getting none.
Let us also forego that practice of mis-portraying the other side. Let a proponent say what they would like to see done, why they think it will work, and how they would see that put into action. Those opposed or unconvinced could then properly ask for information, challenge assumptions and faulty contentions, and – most important – offer feasible solutions. This would be, of course, much lengthier and complex than the present smear-fest we see on radio shows and web forums, and it would require a much higher level of maturity than is usually presented in these debates, but it would have the salient effect of actually moving the debate forward. Deal with what people are actually and genuinely believe, rather than some ‘gotcha’ strawmen, and there is much better foundation for building a real solution.
Since Border Security and Immigration Reform are two of the most contentious issues at present, I think we might next consider the key problems to address in those issues. My list is not the be-all, end-all, but I think we could use it as a launch point for the forum to follow in this thread:
1. The presence of at least 12 million foreigners in the United States who arrived illegally and who continue to stay here illegally, represents a serious problem for the United States, which must be addressed in a manner which, in effect, closes the door to such numbers of illegal immigration.
2. There are organized groups who would desire to attack the United States, either as criminals (gangs) or as terrorists. This is the chief reason why the borders must be secured against entry by foreign nationals, especially organized operations.
3. The Immigration laws of the United States simply do not work as intended. Not only is there a serious enforcement problem with the laws already in place, but those immigrants who try to comply with the bureaucracy find the rules illogical, punitive, and arbitrary.
4. There are a number of American businesses which have no intention of complying with U.S. law regarding the hiring of illegals. Therefore, there is a strong market able and willing to subsidize illegals, and any legislation considered needs to contend with this problem.
5. There are a number of state and local authorities who oppose federal efforts to control illegal immigration. Substantive legislation should consider this interference, and legal recourse should be prepared for these conditions.
6. The overwhelming majority of these illegal immigrants are non-violent and could function as valuable members of society under the right circumstances. Accordingly, any plan to address the long-term situation must provide an opportunity for eventual citizenship for those families and individuals who can demonstrate the ability and will to act responsibly under American law, allegiance to the United States, and penalties for their illegal entry. Any plan must consider legal applicants first and with strong preference.
7. Because the Democrats can be counted on to oppose any substantive solution to Illegal Immigration, Republicans must maintain a united public face. Consensus therefore is the sine qua non for Republican in-house debate, and under no circumstances should a Republican, no matter his opinion, commit an action or statement which weakens the GOP’s position or advances the Democrats’ agenda.
All of these have been considered or proposed before, but unfortunately have been ignored by opponents, mis-characterized or mis-stated, or simply mocked. We have the means to find answers, but only if we act like the adults in this debate. We surely cannot expect the Liberals to even try to resolve these problems, and ignoring the problem is simply out of the question.
MLP Round 038
Game Scores:
McKinley at Madison, 33-25 McKinley
GW Bush at T Roosevelt, 37-33 GW Bush
Grant at Lincoln, 37-28 Lincoln
B Harrison at Ford, 35-23 Ford
Washington at Hayes, 36-28 Washington
Hoover at Reagan, 31-26 Reagan
Arthur at Jefferson, 34-26 Jefferson
Polk at Carter, 30-26 Polk
Clinton at Fillmore, 314-23 Fillmore
F Roosevelt at GH Bush, 30-28 FDR
Cleveland at Kennedy, 33-32 Cleveland
Van Buren at Truman, 32-25 Truman
Coolidge at Taylor, 30-25 Taylor
J Adams at Monroe, 31-30 Monroe
Eisenhower at Buchanan, 28-19 Ike
Jackson at L Johnson, 29-21 Jackson
JQ Adams at Taft, 30-29 Taft
Tyler at Nixon, 30-29 Nixon
Garfield at A Johnson, 27-19 Garfield
Wilson at W Harrison, 25-23 W Harrison
Pierce at Harding, 27-25 Harding
One President has one loss, another three have 2 losses, another three have 5 wins, and another two each have 2 wins.
McKinley at Madison, 33-25 McKinley
GW Bush at T Roosevelt, 37-33 GW Bush
Grant at Lincoln, 37-28 Lincoln
B Harrison at Ford, 35-23 Ford
Washington at Hayes, 36-28 Washington
Hoover at Reagan, 31-26 Reagan
Arthur at Jefferson, 34-26 Jefferson
Polk at Carter, 30-26 Polk
Clinton at Fillmore, 314-23 Fillmore
F Roosevelt at GH Bush, 30-28 FDR
Cleveland at Kennedy, 33-32 Cleveland
Van Buren at Truman, 32-25 Truman
Coolidge at Taylor, 30-25 Taylor
J Adams at Monroe, 31-30 Monroe
Eisenhower at Buchanan, 28-19 Ike
Jackson at L Johnson, 29-21 Jackson
JQ Adams at Taft, 30-29 Taft
Tyler at Nixon, 30-29 Nixon
Garfield at A Johnson, 27-19 Garfield
Wilson at W Harrison, 25-23 W Harrison
Pierce at Harding, 27-25 Harding
One President has one loss, another three have 2 losses, another three have 5 wins, and another two each have 2 wins.
Wednesday, June 06, 2007
The Knives of False Patriots
Readers may recall I used to write for a site called Polipundit. Nice place, often producing thoughtful ideas by the writers and readers. Good for the mind, good for the Conservative movement.
Then President Bush did the unforgivable: he used his own authority and opinion. Turns out some of the folks at Polipundit.com thought they should be able to control the President, that those 62 million votes for Bush in 2004 didn’t count unless he did as he was told.
I pointed this out, and immediately found myself shown the door by the site owner. And I was also falsely accused of all sorts of terrible things by people whose notion of “Debate” begins with character assassination.
At that same time, other writers on the site were also evicted, for having their own minds. It made some noise, and Polipundit’s readership dropped significantly. I found a new home at Wizbang, went back to school, was diagnosed with Cancer and got a dog. Meanwhile, the environment at Polipundit, sad to say, devolved to an echo chamber.
A few days ago, I wrote about a faction within the Republican Party, which I contend seeks to deny open debate on the key issues, but instead demands that they alone speak for the party and Conservatives. I rather strongly disagree with their contention that the extremists who resort to name-calling and threats are somehow the “base” of the Conservative Movement. I discovered today that I was referenced by Oak Leaf at Polipundit.com. The strange thing is, Oak Leaf mentioned my post but did not link to it. Instead, he linked to a post an another site which attacked not only my contention, but lobbed more than a few insults at me.
Interestingly enough, neither Oak Leaf nor the writer he praised made any attempt to address the contention in substance, and what’s more, I was amused to discover that the tactics employed by the readers in the comments amply demonstrated the problem in the tactics embraced by “the base”.
In that section, no effort was made to address the question, as I said, but I was called, just in passing, these sorts of things:
“Blind Loyalty”
“mindless republican”
“What Al Gore is to Global warming, DJ is to Bush/Republicans”
“the most appalling example of party hack i have EVER read”
“his clueless world view.”
This is not debate, nor does it seek to find common ground among Republicans or build a consensus. Such behavior by these people has gone on for several years now, prompted every time the extremists do not get what they demand, or any time the President dares to show his own mind on an issue. This is not to say, at all, that disagreement is not allowed; ironically, these character butchers try to shout down anyone with an opinion different from their own, yet they are quick to play the victim whenever they are called on it, a tactic we all to quite reasonably rebuke when the Democrats did it. Putting it bluntly, these people are trying to kill the Republican Party out of spite, and if they do they will try to frame President Bush for what they did. They trashed GOP control of Congress in order to ‘send a message’, and they are simply not willing to address the issues in substance or context.
Pray to God they do not become more powerful. The Republican Party should be the party of ideas and open discussion, not malignant thuggery.
Then President Bush did the unforgivable: he used his own authority and opinion. Turns out some of the folks at Polipundit.com thought they should be able to control the President, that those 62 million votes for Bush in 2004 didn’t count unless he did as he was told.
I pointed this out, and immediately found myself shown the door by the site owner. And I was also falsely accused of all sorts of terrible things by people whose notion of “Debate” begins with character assassination.
At that same time, other writers on the site were also evicted, for having their own minds. It made some noise, and Polipundit’s readership dropped significantly. I found a new home at Wizbang, went back to school, was diagnosed with Cancer and got a dog. Meanwhile, the environment at Polipundit, sad to say, devolved to an echo chamber.
A few days ago, I wrote about a faction within the Republican Party, which I contend seeks to deny open debate on the key issues, but instead demands that they alone speak for the party and Conservatives. I rather strongly disagree with their contention that the extremists who resort to name-calling and threats are somehow the “base” of the Conservative Movement. I discovered today that I was referenced by Oak Leaf at Polipundit.com. The strange thing is, Oak Leaf mentioned my post but did not link to it. Instead, he linked to a post an another site which attacked not only my contention, but lobbed more than a few insults at me.
Interestingly enough, neither Oak Leaf nor the writer he praised made any attempt to address the contention in substance, and what’s more, I was amused to discover that the tactics employed by the readers in the comments amply demonstrated the problem in the tactics embraced by “the base”.
In that section, no effort was made to address the question, as I said, but I was called, just in passing, these sorts of things:
“Blind Loyalty”
“mindless republican”
“What Al Gore is to Global warming, DJ is to Bush/Republicans”
“the most appalling example of party hack i have EVER read”
“his clueless world view.”
This is not debate, nor does it seek to find common ground among Republicans or build a consensus. Such behavior by these people has gone on for several years now, prompted every time the extremists do not get what they demand, or any time the President dares to show his own mind on an issue. This is not to say, at all, that disagreement is not allowed; ironically, these character butchers try to shout down anyone with an opinion different from their own, yet they are quick to play the victim whenever they are called on it, a tactic we all to quite reasonably rebuke when the Democrats did it. Putting it bluntly, these people are trying to kill the Republican Party out of spite, and if they do they will try to frame President Bush for what they did. They trashed GOP control of Congress in order to ‘send a message’, and they are simply not willing to address the issues in substance or context.
Pray to God they do not become more powerful. The Republican Party should be the party of ideas and open discussion, not malignant thuggery.
The Impossible Just Takes Longer
I love reading books, and at one time my greatest love was Science Fiction. But wheeeeeew, there’s a lot of bad Sci-Fi out there, and I don’t mean just the fanfic. Sometimes that comes down to bad story-telling, but more often it’s because the author misjudged what things would be like, and cast a world which was obsolete soon after the publication of his story. In a perverse manner, I find it fascinating to read some of these visions of the future, and consider what happened to send them off-track. I am happy to say that a principal cause of the mistakes comes from the writer being too pessimistic in many cases; a lot of future histories assumed the continued rise of tyrannies like the Soviet Union, central-government bureaucracy, and the failure of capitalist economic and ecological systems. That is, the good guys really do win most of the battles, and God watches over us with grace and care. I don’t suppose I need to mention that many failed predictions fail to consider the power of faith and the intervention of God in human affairs. As if we managed half a century of intercontinental nuclear weapons stockpiles without blowing ourselves off the planet because we were, what, a mature race which never made big mistakes?
That’s not to say everything is better. The world of the 21st Century is no Nirvana or Utopia. We have millions of offenders in sordid varieties of criminal behavior which were far fewer in ages past. Slavery and Piracy have once again become common practices in parts of the world. We face serious threats from groups which eagerly contemplate the deliberate extinction of entire classes of ‘inconvenient’ people. Financially, the divide between Rich and Poor remains unacceptably wide, especially since being poor still includes threats from Famine, Disease, and dismal prospects for the rising generation. And while long proven invalid, many people still embrace Fascism, Communism, Caste systems and Racial/Gender prejudice. And we must add to this the increasingly radical tide of violent protests, from the insanity of individuals who speak for the ‘sanctity’ of life by bombing buildings, people who show their love of Diversity by vandalizing the offices and property of the opposing political party, and people who “support” their nation by cheering on monsters who want to kill innocent civilians, in the name of ‘dissent’. We have schools which neglect core academic skills in favor of politically correct curriculae, we see media which sometimes showcases entertainment which is vulgar and promotes immorality and violence, and we see a judicial system which rewards the side which has the most clever lawyer, but does not protect the innocent or encourage conscientious idealism. We obviously have a lot of work to do.
So we seem to be looking at a future somewhere between ‘Star Trek’ and ‘1984’. But in general, I’d say the good outweighs the bad. I was diagnosed with a form of Cancer which a generation ago meant dying within a couple years with no hope at all, but which today can be treated in a number of ways with excellent survival prospects. Systems like the Amber Alert, Code Adam, and Escape School provide the means for children to avoid abduction, and if abducted, for law enforcement to find them quickly. In most developed nations, the rule of law protects the rights of citizens far more consistently than ever before, and more nations have effective constitutions which make government accountable to the citizens than ever before. A person in the United States who is willing to make the effort, has better educational and occupational opportunities than ever before. My daughter, who is the result of a mixed-race marriage, has better reason than ever before to expect that she will not be punished for her race or gender, but allowed the same opportunity as anyone else to show her ability and character. Conduct by elected officials which used to be passed-over as ‘the way things are done’, is now regularly scrutinized by law enforcement, and when a crime is committed arrests are made and the official is tried in court. We have safer cars with better fuel efficiency than ever before, we have phones and music players that can go virtually anywhere conveniently and at low cost, more Americans own homes than ever before, and more nations are allowing private investment and ownership of property than ever before.
Sure, there are obstacles, problems, and challenges. But while we will never create a perfect world, we have the opportunity to improve everything along the way. It’s not impossible, and even the parts which are impossible, will not always be so.
That’s not to say everything is better. The world of the 21st Century is no Nirvana or Utopia. We have millions of offenders in sordid varieties of criminal behavior which were far fewer in ages past. Slavery and Piracy have once again become common practices in parts of the world. We face serious threats from groups which eagerly contemplate the deliberate extinction of entire classes of ‘inconvenient’ people. Financially, the divide between Rich and Poor remains unacceptably wide, especially since being poor still includes threats from Famine, Disease, and dismal prospects for the rising generation. And while long proven invalid, many people still embrace Fascism, Communism, Caste systems and Racial/Gender prejudice. And we must add to this the increasingly radical tide of violent protests, from the insanity of individuals who speak for the ‘sanctity’ of life by bombing buildings, people who show their love of Diversity by vandalizing the offices and property of the opposing political party, and people who “support” their nation by cheering on monsters who want to kill innocent civilians, in the name of ‘dissent’. We have schools which neglect core academic skills in favor of politically correct curriculae, we see media which sometimes showcases entertainment which is vulgar and promotes immorality and violence, and we see a judicial system which rewards the side which has the most clever lawyer, but does not protect the innocent or encourage conscientious idealism. We obviously have a lot of work to do.
So we seem to be looking at a future somewhere between ‘Star Trek’ and ‘1984’. But in general, I’d say the good outweighs the bad. I was diagnosed with a form of Cancer which a generation ago meant dying within a couple years with no hope at all, but which today can be treated in a number of ways with excellent survival prospects. Systems like the Amber Alert, Code Adam, and Escape School provide the means for children to avoid abduction, and if abducted, for law enforcement to find them quickly. In most developed nations, the rule of law protects the rights of citizens far more consistently than ever before, and more nations have effective constitutions which make government accountable to the citizens than ever before. A person in the United States who is willing to make the effort, has better educational and occupational opportunities than ever before. My daughter, who is the result of a mixed-race marriage, has better reason than ever before to expect that she will not be punished for her race or gender, but allowed the same opportunity as anyone else to show her ability and character. Conduct by elected officials which used to be passed-over as ‘the way things are done’, is now regularly scrutinized by law enforcement, and when a crime is committed arrests are made and the official is tried in court. We have safer cars with better fuel efficiency than ever before, we have phones and music players that can go virtually anywhere conveniently and at low cost, more Americans own homes than ever before, and more nations are allowing private investment and ownership of property than ever before.
Sure, there are obstacles, problems, and challenges. But while we will never create a perfect world, we have the opportunity to improve everything along the way. It’s not impossible, and even the parts which are impossible, will not always be so.
Tuesday, June 05, 2007
Handing Weapons to Our Enemies
One of the strangest phenomenae I have seen in my life, is the way political sorts will swoon for a person at one point, then turn completely against them later. Mood swings worthy of a mental institution have become commonplace in recent years, and never more so than the present “Love You/Always Hated You” hypocrisy of the Right Wing.
Writing for Salon magazine, Glenn Greenwald is unfortunately all too aware of the hypocrisy, and worse for the Right, he has documented it in his latest article. While he pursues the obligatory “Bush is evil, inept, and a total failure” meme which is required of all Liberal writers these days, Greenwald is devastatingly ruthless in showing the way many Conservative pundits have ruined their integrity by changing their opinion of the President solely because of poll numbers. Greenwald simply posts what each pundit said, along with the opinion poll numbers at the time. The results are damning indeed, but not for the President.
Jonah Goldberg for instance, just a few days ago wrote that if you “look at Bush from the right angle, he looks an awful lot like a liberal”. But back in 2003, Goldberg wrote this about the President:
"Georrge (sic) W. Bush has proved that he's a Reaganite, not a "Bushie." He may not be a natural heir to Reagan, but that's the point. The party is all Reaganite now. What better sign that this is now truly and totally the Gipper's Party than the obvious conversion of George Bush's own son?”
Was Goldberg lying then, or is he lying now? That is, after all, how the Liberals will cast it, and it’s hard to claim Goldberg was honest in both places.
But Greenwald is not short of examples. He shows the same dishonest embrace-then-run-away from the President by Rush Limbaugh, by Bob Novak, and by Rich Lowry. It’s bad enough that such prominent pundits have engaged in such unethical practices, but it hurts the Conservative Movement that the Left can use it to claim moral superiority. Greenwald quotes Rod Dreher, who explains the behavior succinctly:
“It is tempting to blame Bush for everything. But it's not fair, and it's not honest. Bush is today who he always was. The difference is we conservatives pretty much loved the guy -- when he was a winner.”
I understand the frustration among Conservatives. I am still a Conservative myself, though many of the Bush-haters have pretended otherwise. And that’s the problem. We know there are many more Conservatives than Liberals, and we know that any serious consideration of the Conservative vs. Liberal arguments would prove the superiority of the Conservative position. We also know that the American people will follow a Conservative leader, indeed are hungry to do so. The only way Conservatives can lose, therefore, is when they allow themselves to become fragmented and factionalized. The only way that regular people can come to believe that Democrats are a better choice for leadership than Republicans, is if Republicans attack other Republicans and prove they cannot seek answers and solutions.
It’s too much, perhaps, to expect apologies from the people who have poured gasoline on the fire. But at least the rest of us can try to work with the other Republicans, and the other Conservatives, for the good of the nation and the hope of the future. Because if we do not, History shows us how painful the price of that hubris can be.
Writing for Salon magazine, Glenn Greenwald is unfortunately all too aware of the hypocrisy, and worse for the Right, he has documented it in his latest article. While he pursues the obligatory “Bush is evil, inept, and a total failure” meme which is required of all Liberal writers these days, Greenwald is devastatingly ruthless in showing the way many Conservative pundits have ruined their integrity by changing their opinion of the President solely because of poll numbers. Greenwald simply posts what each pundit said, along with the opinion poll numbers at the time. The results are damning indeed, but not for the President.
Jonah Goldberg for instance, just a few days ago wrote that if you “look at Bush from the right angle, he looks an awful lot like a liberal”. But back in 2003, Goldberg wrote this about the President:
"Georrge (sic) W. Bush has proved that he's a Reaganite, not a "Bushie." He may not be a natural heir to Reagan, but that's the point. The party is all Reaganite now. What better sign that this is now truly and totally the Gipper's Party than the obvious conversion of George Bush's own son?”
Was Goldberg lying then, or is he lying now? That is, after all, how the Liberals will cast it, and it’s hard to claim Goldberg was honest in both places.
But Greenwald is not short of examples. He shows the same dishonest embrace-then-run-away from the President by Rush Limbaugh, by Bob Novak, and by Rich Lowry. It’s bad enough that such prominent pundits have engaged in such unethical practices, but it hurts the Conservative Movement that the Left can use it to claim moral superiority. Greenwald quotes Rod Dreher, who explains the behavior succinctly:
“It is tempting to blame Bush for everything. But it's not fair, and it's not honest. Bush is today who he always was. The difference is we conservatives pretty much loved the guy -- when he was a winner.”
I understand the frustration among Conservatives. I am still a Conservative myself, though many of the Bush-haters have pretended otherwise. And that’s the problem. We know there are many more Conservatives than Liberals, and we know that any serious consideration of the Conservative vs. Liberal arguments would prove the superiority of the Conservative position. We also know that the American people will follow a Conservative leader, indeed are hungry to do so. The only way Conservatives can lose, therefore, is when they allow themselves to become fragmented and factionalized. The only way that regular people can come to believe that Democrats are a better choice for leadership than Republicans, is if Republicans attack other Republicans and prove they cannot seek answers and solutions.
It’s too much, perhaps, to expect apologies from the people who have poured gasoline on the fire. But at least the rest of us can try to work with the other Republicans, and the other Conservatives, for the good of the nation and the hope of the future. Because if we do not, History shows us how painful the price of that hubris can be.
MLP Round 037
Game Scores:
Carter at McKinley, 37-19 McKinley
Reagan at GW Bush, 36-35 GW Bush
Lincoln at Garfield, 31-29 Lincoln
Ford at Hoover, 31-23 Ford
Buchanan at Washington, 36-22 Washington
T Roosevelt at Wilson, 28-25 TR
Jefferson at J Adams, 34-30 Jefferson
GH Bush at Polk, 33-28 Polk
Fillmore at Eisenhower, 31-30 Fillmore
Monroe at F Roosevelt, 33-27 FDR
Kennedy at Tyler, 32-28 JFK
Truman at Pierce, 33-18 Truman
Harding at Cleveland, 31-26 Cleveland
Taylor at Clinton, 30-25 Taylor
Nixon at Jackson, 28-27 Jackson
Taft at Van Buren, 33-23 Taft
A Johnson at JQ Adams. 27-21 JQA
Hayes at Grant, 29-25 Hayes
L Johnson at Arthur, 24-21 Arthur
W Harrison at Coolidge, 29-22 W Harrison
Madison at B Harrison, 24-22 Madison
One President has one loss, another three have 2 losses, another three have 5 wins, and another two each have 2 wins.
Carter at McKinley, 37-19 McKinley
Reagan at GW Bush, 36-35 GW Bush
Lincoln at Garfield, 31-29 Lincoln
Ford at Hoover, 31-23 Ford
Buchanan at Washington, 36-22 Washington
T Roosevelt at Wilson, 28-25 TR
Jefferson at J Adams, 34-30 Jefferson
GH Bush at Polk, 33-28 Polk
Fillmore at Eisenhower, 31-30 Fillmore
Monroe at F Roosevelt, 33-27 FDR
Kennedy at Tyler, 32-28 JFK
Truman at Pierce, 33-18 Truman
Harding at Cleveland, 31-26 Cleveland
Taylor at Clinton, 30-25 Taylor
Nixon at Jackson, 28-27 Jackson
Taft at Van Buren, 33-23 Taft
A Johnson at JQ Adams. 27-21 JQA
Hayes at Grant, 29-25 Hayes
L Johnson at Arthur, 24-21 Arthur
W Harrison at Coolidge, 29-22 W Harrison
Madison at B Harrison, 24-22 Madison
One President has one loss, another three have 2 losses, another three have 5 wins, and another two each have 2 wins.
Monday, June 04, 2007
Online MBA – An Update
This past Tuesday, I began the summer semester at the University of Houston at Victoria. I took the spring semester off, as you may recall, to address my abdominal cancer, which I am happy to say has largely decided to behave itself and so far has responded well to treatment. Anyway, I had promised to report on the progress of my studies, I also want to warn that the frequency and topic choice of my posts is going to change a bit, and for those who are interested, I need to keep my promise of progress reports, even if they are a bit sporadic.
First, a recap about studying online. There are three kinds of students who might consider university study; those seeking Continuing Education Units (CEUs), which many professions require these days, those seeking their Bachelor’s degree, and those seeking their graduate degree. These three groups have sharply different goals and needs. This is because the school and the degree/certification are designed for different purposes. With the exception of those pedigreed scions who merely need, hmm, “finishing”, most folks get their college degree so they can hope to get a good job, and start a good career. Again repeating what I wrote before, the person seeking to begin their life work should take time and think well about what, precisely, they want to do for a career. They should then find out what is necessary to get into that career with good prospects, and from there find out which school provides the best opportunity for them. When someone is applying for a position with a company, they will find that work experience is the best quality which will get them a chance to interview for the position, and the ability to discuss their skills and abilities well will help them stand out from other candidates in the running. To that end, certain schools have a good reputation in general, and some stand out as excellent in the selected field. This is the chief knock against many online schools; the name sometimes suggests a lower level of academic quality. I hate to play into the tactic of snob appeal, but it has to be remembered that employers make hiring decisions on what attracts them, and until you have experience that tells someone you can do the job, the best indicators will be your grades, your specific degree, and the school where you earned your degree.
The school name is much less important with CEUs and the advanced degrees, but it still counts in the case of chasing the Masters’ degree. As I mentioned back when I explained my choice, what you want to do is start by finding the key attributes, which in my case was making sure the school was AACSB-accredited. If you are considering online education, you will need to understand that you will be gaining some convenience, but you should still seek a program which is every bit as challenging and thorough as any classroom-attendance course, because the first priority is learning the material well enough that your career abilities reflect it. Also, studying online means you will have to be very disciplined with your time; you will have just as many assignments, tests and term papers, and unlike the regular classes, where the professor may or may not note your participation every time, in the online class your participation will be documented to the second, and the quality of your answers will be there in print, which is very bad for the slacker but great support for the hard-working student.
I got some additional work to do for my concentration. Because I did not get my Bachelor’s degree in Accounting, and I intend to earn my MBA with a concentration in Accounting, UHV is requiring me to take some undergraduate Accounting courses as prerequisites to some of the higher-level Accounting courses. This is both bad and good. Obviously, the additional courses, which could be two more, three more, or five more courses depending on how the Department Head sees my work, means more time, work, and cost, which is a bit frustrating, especially since I will probably not be able to take those courses online. That part greatly complicates things. On the other hand, I have been advised that some of the prerequisites may be waived, since after this summer (presuming I pass my current schedule) I will have earned six hours of graduate Accounting credits, demonstrating a certain level of comprehension. Also, since I intend to sit for the CPA exam after I earn my MBA, and since I want to be sure I have full command of the subject in which I want to base my future career work and positions, taking these classes may well be essential to my plan, even from my personal point-of-view. But that will wait until after the Summer semester, which is already looking at me the same way an alley-cat looks at a trapped mouse.
I am, craftily or most unwisely, taking three courses this summer, which are Strategic Accounting, Management and Organizational Behavior, and Quantitative Statistics and Research Methods. All three have the usual complement of assignments, discussion boards, case studies or term papers, group work, and examinations/quizzes. The difference this time from the fall, is – first - that in two of the three classes the teams will be assigned by the professor, rather than letting us choose our groups. I certainly want to carry my weight, but I also hope that my group members feel the same way. The second difference is that the summer semester is shorter, and so we will be hitting due dates much sooner, and I am scrambling to cover my bases already. Nothing is actually due yet, except for an information sheet which I turned in two days before it was due. But since my plan all along was to stay ahead of the pace if at al possible, I am well aware that some of my classmates have already taken the lead, which means that the pace is definitely up-tempo. I have homework to do in all three classes, our group has an assignment to work on and present in QMS, and my outline for my term paper in Management is due within a week. Oh well, sleeping is over-rated.
And that’s where I am right now. The lessons for those considering online studies would include the following:
[] If you are considering getting your degree online, make sure you are disciplined enough to keep up the pace and stay on schedule;
[] If you have not chosen your school, make sure you know what you expect to get out of the degree, and use that information to determine whether the school is worth what it will cost, in money and effort, compared to what you hope to get back;
[] Know your degree plan, and look out for surprises before they cause bigger problems;
[] Do the job right. Make sure you respect the challenge, because you want the best result for all the work you have to do for it.
Good luck to my fellow students, and thanks to everyone for stopping by.
First, a recap about studying online. There are three kinds of students who might consider university study; those seeking Continuing Education Units (CEUs), which many professions require these days, those seeking their Bachelor’s degree, and those seeking their graduate degree. These three groups have sharply different goals and needs. This is because the school and the degree/certification are designed for different purposes. With the exception of those pedigreed scions who merely need, hmm, “finishing”, most folks get their college degree so they can hope to get a good job, and start a good career. Again repeating what I wrote before, the person seeking to begin their life work should take time and think well about what, precisely, they want to do for a career. They should then find out what is necessary to get into that career with good prospects, and from there find out which school provides the best opportunity for them. When someone is applying for a position with a company, they will find that work experience is the best quality which will get them a chance to interview for the position, and the ability to discuss their skills and abilities well will help them stand out from other candidates in the running. To that end, certain schools have a good reputation in general, and some stand out as excellent in the selected field. This is the chief knock against many online schools; the name sometimes suggests a lower level of academic quality. I hate to play into the tactic of snob appeal, but it has to be remembered that employers make hiring decisions on what attracts them, and until you have experience that tells someone you can do the job, the best indicators will be your grades, your specific degree, and the school where you earned your degree.
The school name is much less important with CEUs and the advanced degrees, but it still counts in the case of chasing the Masters’ degree. As I mentioned back when I explained my choice, what you want to do is start by finding the key attributes, which in my case was making sure the school was AACSB-accredited. If you are considering online education, you will need to understand that you will be gaining some convenience, but you should still seek a program which is every bit as challenging and thorough as any classroom-attendance course, because the first priority is learning the material well enough that your career abilities reflect it. Also, studying online means you will have to be very disciplined with your time; you will have just as many assignments, tests and term papers, and unlike the regular classes, where the professor may or may not note your participation every time, in the online class your participation will be documented to the second, and the quality of your answers will be there in print, which is very bad for the slacker but great support for the hard-working student.
I got some additional work to do for my concentration. Because I did not get my Bachelor’s degree in Accounting, and I intend to earn my MBA with a concentration in Accounting, UHV is requiring me to take some undergraduate Accounting courses as prerequisites to some of the higher-level Accounting courses. This is both bad and good. Obviously, the additional courses, which could be two more, three more, or five more courses depending on how the Department Head sees my work, means more time, work, and cost, which is a bit frustrating, especially since I will probably not be able to take those courses online. That part greatly complicates things. On the other hand, I have been advised that some of the prerequisites may be waived, since after this summer (presuming I pass my current schedule) I will have earned six hours of graduate Accounting credits, demonstrating a certain level of comprehension. Also, since I intend to sit for the CPA exam after I earn my MBA, and since I want to be sure I have full command of the subject in which I want to base my future career work and positions, taking these classes may well be essential to my plan, even from my personal point-of-view. But that will wait until after the Summer semester, which is already looking at me the same way an alley-cat looks at a trapped mouse.
I am, craftily or most unwisely, taking three courses this summer, which are Strategic Accounting, Management and Organizational Behavior, and Quantitative Statistics and Research Methods. All three have the usual complement of assignments, discussion boards, case studies or term papers, group work, and examinations/quizzes. The difference this time from the fall, is – first - that in two of the three classes the teams will be assigned by the professor, rather than letting us choose our groups. I certainly want to carry my weight, but I also hope that my group members feel the same way. The second difference is that the summer semester is shorter, and so we will be hitting due dates much sooner, and I am scrambling to cover my bases already. Nothing is actually due yet, except for an information sheet which I turned in two days before it was due. But since my plan all along was to stay ahead of the pace if at al possible, I am well aware that some of my classmates have already taken the lead, which means that the pace is definitely up-tempo. I have homework to do in all three classes, our group has an assignment to work on and present in QMS, and my outline for my term paper in Management is due within a week. Oh well, sleeping is over-rated.
And that’s where I am right now. The lessons for those considering online studies would include the following:
[] If you are considering getting your degree online, make sure you are disciplined enough to keep up the pace and stay on schedule;
[] If you have not chosen your school, make sure you know what you expect to get out of the degree, and use that information to determine whether the school is worth what it will cost, in money and effort, compared to what you hope to get back;
[] Know your degree plan, and look out for surprises before they cause bigger problems;
[] Do the job right. Make sure you respect the challenge, because you want the best result for all the work you have to do for it.
Good luck to my fellow students, and thanks to everyone for stopping by.
Sunday, June 03, 2007
National Cancer Survivor Day
Today is National Cancer Survivor Day. The odds are high that you know one, or your life has been touched in some way by Cancer.
Please think about it, and let someone with Cancer know you have not forgotten them.
Thanks.
Please think about it, and let someone with Cancer know you have not forgotten them.
Thanks.
MLP Round 036
Game Scores:
McKinley at GH Bush, 37-28 McKinley
GW Bush at Ford, 35-34 Ford
Lincoln at Hayes, 31-28 Lincoln
Washington at Fillmore, 34-31 Washington
Wilson at Reagan, 31-26 Reagan
Coolidge at T Roosevelt, 33-25 TR
F Roosevelt at Jefferson, 34-32 Jefferson
Polk at Monroe, 33-30 Polk
Jackson at Kennedy, 32-29 JFK
Cleveland at Truman, 32-30 Truman
Eisenhower at Taylor, 31-30 Taylor
J Adams at L Johnson, 31-21 J Adams
Pierce at Taft, 30-21 Taft
Tyler at Harding, 31-27 Tyler
Arthur at Nixon, 30-29 Nixon
Garfield at JQ Adams, 28-27 Garfield
Clinton at W Harrison, 25-23 W Harrison
Grant at Buchanan, 28-19 Grant
B Harrison at Carter, 26-21 Carter
Hoover at Madison, 25-23 Madison
Van Buren at A Johnson, 26-19 Van Buren
One President has one loss, another three have 2 losses, another three have 5 wins, and another two each have 2 wins.
The new Rankings are as follows:
After Thirty-Six Rounds
.1. McKinley (35-1) beats LBJ, Jefferson, Monroe, GH Bush
.2. Lincoln (34-2) beats Taylor, Fillmore, Buchanan, Hayes
.3. Washington (34-2) beats TR, W Harr, Taylor, Fillmore
.4. Ford (33-3) beats Clinton, Coolidge, Wilson, GW Bush
.5. GW Bush (34-2) beats GH Bush, Carter, Madison, loses to Ford
.6. Reagan (32-4) beats Ike, Clinton, Coolidge, Wilson
.7. Teddy Roosevelt (31-5) beats Ike, Clinton, Cool, loses to Wash
.8. Polk (29-7) beats Nixon, LBJ, Jefferson, Monroe
.9. Jefferson (27-9) beats B Harr, FDR, loses to McKinley, Polk
.10. JFK (25-11) beats J Adams, Arthur, Jackson, loses to FDR
.11. Truman (25-11) beats Arthur, Jackson, Tyler, Cleveland
.12. J Adams (24-12) beats Harding, Nixon, LBJ, loses to JFK
.13. Fillmore (25-11) beats Hayes, Grant, loses to Lincoln, Washington
.14. FDR (24-12) beats JFK, LBJ, loses to Nixon, Jefferson
.15. Taylor (22-14) beats Grant, Ike, loses to Lincoln, Washington
.16. Cleveland (23-13) beats JQA, A Johnson, Taft, loses to Truman
.17. Taft (20-16) beats Jackson, Tyler, Pierce, loses to Cleveland
.18. Monroe (21-15) beats Hoover, B Harr, loses to McKinley, Polk
.19. Eisenhower (20-16) beats W Harr, loses to Reagan, TR, Taylor
.20. Garfield (18-18) beats Buchanan, Van Buren, Hayes, JQA
.21. Nixon (18-18) beats FDR, Arthur, loses to Polk, J Adams
.22. Jackson (19-17) beats Harding, loses to Taft, Truman, JFK
.23. Tyler (17-19) beats A Johnson, Harding, loses to Taft, Truman
.24. JQ Adams (16-20) beats Pierce, Van Buren, loses to Cleve, Garf
.25. GH Bush (15-21) beats Hoov, B Harr, loses to GWBush, McKinley
.26. Hayes (15-21) beats Buch, loses to Fillmore, Garfield, Lincoln
.27. W Harrison (12-24) beats Grant, Clinton, loses to Wash, Ike
.28. Arthur (13-23) beats Harding, loses to Truman, JFK, Nixon
.29. Grant (10-26) beats Buchanan, loses to W Harr, Taylor, Fillmore
.30. Carter (10-26) beats B Harr, loses to Wilson, GW Bush, Hoover
.31. Wilson (11-25) beats Carter, Madison, loses to Ford, Reagan
.32. Madison (9-27) beats Hoover, loses to Cool, Wilson, GW Bush
.33. Clinton (9-27) loses to Ford, Reagan, TR, W Harr
.34. Harding (9-27) loses to J Adams, Arthur, Jackson, Tyler
.35. Van Buren (6-30) beats Pierce, A Johnson, loses to Garfield, JQA
.36. Coolidge (6-30) beats Madison, loses to Ford, Reagan, TR
.37. B Harrison (6-30) loses to Jefferson, Monroe, GH Bush, Carter
.38. Hoover (5-31) beats Carter, loses to Monroe, GH Bush. Madison
.39. LBJ (5-31) loses to McKinley, Polk. FDR, J Adams
.40. Buchanan (5-31) loses to Garfield, Hayes, Lincoln, Grant
.41. A Johnson (2-34) beats Pierce, loses to Tyler, Cleve, Van Buren
.42. Pierce (2-34) loses to Van Buren, JQA, A Johnson, Taft
McKinley at GH Bush, 37-28 McKinley
GW Bush at Ford, 35-34 Ford
Lincoln at Hayes, 31-28 Lincoln
Washington at Fillmore, 34-31 Washington
Wilson at Reagan, 31-26 Reagan
Coolidge at T Roosevelt, 33-25 TR
F Roosevelt at Jefferson, 34-32 Jefferson
Polk at Monroe, 33-30 Polk
Jackson at Kennedy, 32-29 JFK
Cleveland at Truman, 32-30 Truman
Eisenhower at Taylor, 31-30 Taylor
J Adams at L Johnson, 31-21 J Adams
Pierce at Taft, 30-21 Taft
Tyler at Harding, 31-27 Tyler
Arthur at Nixon, 30-29 Nixon
Garfield at JQ Adams, 28-27 Garfield
Clinton at W Harrison, 25-23 W Harrison
Grant at Buchanan, 28-19 Grant
B Harrison at Carter, 26-21 Carter
Hoover at Madison, 25-23 Madison
Van Buren at A Johnson, 26-19 Van Buren
One President has one loss, another three have 2 losses, another three have 5 wins, and another two each have 2 wins.
The new Rankings are as follows:
After Thirty-Six Rounds
.1. McKinley (35-1) beats LBJ, Jefferson, Monroe, GH Bush
.2. Lincoln (34-2) beats Taylor, Fillmore, Buchanan, Hayes
.3. Washington (34-2) beats TR, W Harr, Taylor, Fillmore
.4. Ford (33-3) beats Clinton, Coolidge, Wilson, GW Bush
.5. GW Bush (34-2) beats GH Bush, Carter, Madison, loses to Ford
.6. Reagan (32-4) beats Ike, Clinton, Coolidge, Wilson
.7. Teddy Roosevelt (31-5) beats Ike, Clinton, Cool, loses to Wash
.8. Polk (29-7) beats Nixon, LBJ, Jefferson, Monroe
.9. Jefferson (27-9) beats B Harr, FDR, loses to McKinley, Polk
.10. JFK (25-11) beats J Adams, Arthur, Jackson, loses to FDR
.11. Truman (25-11) beats Arthur, Jackson, Tyler, Cleveland
.12. J Adams (24-12) beats Harding, Nixon, LBJ, loses to JFK
.13. Fillmore (25-11) beats Hayes, Grant, loses to Lincoln, Washington
.14. FDR (24-12) beats JFK, LBJ, loses to Nixon, Jefferson
.15. Taylor (22-14) beats Grant, Ike, loses to Lincoln, Washington
.16. Cleveland (23-13) beats JQA, A Johnson, Taft, loses to Truman
.17. Taft (20-16) beats Jackson, Tyler, Pierce, loses to Cleveland
.18. Monroe (21-15) beats Hoover, B Harr, loses to McKinley, Polk
.19. Eisenhower (20-16) beats W Harr, loses to Reagan, TR, Taylor
.20. Garfield (18-18) beats Buchanan, Van Buren, Hayes, JQA
.21. Nixon (18-18) beats FDR, Arthur, loses to Polk, J Adams
.22. Jackson (19-17) beats Harding, loses to Taft, Truman, JFK
.23. Tyler (17-19) beats A Johnson, Harding, loses to Taft, Truman
.24. JQ Adams (16-20) beats Pierce, Van Buren, loses to Cleve, Garf
.25. GH Bush (15-21) beats Hoov, B Harr, loses to GWBush, McKinley
.26. Hayes (15-21) beats Buch, loses to Fillmore, Garfield, Lincoln
.27. W Harrison (12-24) beats Grant, Clinton, loses to Wash, Ike
.28. Arthur (13-23) beats Harding, loses to Truman, JFK, Nixon
.29. Grant (10-26) beats Buchanan, loses to W Harr, Taylor, Fillmore
.30. Carter (10-26) beats B Harr, loses to Wilson, GW Bush, Hoover
.31. Wilson (11-25) beats Carter, Madison, loses to Ford, Reagan
.32. Madison (9-27) beats Hoover, loses to Cool, Wilson, GW Bush
.33. Clinton (9-27) loses to Ford, Reagan, TR, W Harr
.34. Harding (9-27) loses to J Adams, Arthur, Jackson, Tyler
.35. Van Buren (6-30) beats Pierce, A Johnson, loses to Garfield, JQA
.36. Coolidge (6-30) beats Madison, loses to Ford, Reagan, TR
.37. B Harrison (6-30) loses to Jefferson, Monroe, GH Bush, Carter
.38. Hoover (5-31) beats Carter, loses to Monroe, GH Bush. Madison
.39. LBJ (5-31) loses to McKinley, Polk. FDR, J Adams
.40. Buchanan (5-31) loses to Garfield, Hayes, Lincoln, Grant
.41. A Johnson (2-34) beats Pierce, loses to Tyler, Cleve, Van Buren
.42. Pierce (2-34) loses to Van Buren, JQA, A Johnson, Taft
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
