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
Saturday, June 02, 2007
MLP Round 035
Game Scores:
Monroe at McKinley, 37-31 McKinley
Madison at GW Bush, 36-23 GW Bush
Buchanan at Lincoln, 37-30 Lincoln
Ford at Wilson, 34-25 Ford
Taylor at Washington, 36-27 Washington
Reagan at Coolidge, 37-22 Reagan
T Roosevelt at Clinton, 33-25 TR
Jefferson at Polk, 33-31 Polk
Fillmore at Grant, 31-25 Fillmore
L Johnson at F Roosevelt, 33-26 FDR
Kennedy at Arthur, 32-24 JFK
Truman at Tyler, 32-28 Truman
Taft at Cleveland, 32-31 Cleveland
Nixon at J Adams, 30-28 J Adams
W Harrison at Eisenhower, 30-28 Ike
Harding at Jackson, 28-25 Jackson
Hayes at Garfield, 29-28 Garfield
GH Bush at B Harrison, 26-22 GH Bush
JQ Adams at Van Buren, 32-23 JQA
Carter at Hoover, 23-22 Hoover
A Johnson at Pierce, 21-18 A Johnson
Two Presidents have one loss, another two have 2 losses, another four have 5 wins, and another two each have 2 wins.
Monroe at McKinley, 37-31 McKinley
Madison at GW Bush, 36-23 GW Bush
Buchanan at Lincoln, 37-30 Lincoln
Ford at Wilson, 34-25 Ford
Taylor at Washington, 36-27 Washington
Reagan at Coolidge, 37-22 Reagan
T Roosevelt at Clinton, 33-25 TR
Jefferson at Polk, 33-31 Polk
Fillmore at Grant, 31-25 Fillmore
L Johnson at F Roosevelt, 33-26 FDR
Kennedy at Arthur, 32-24 JFK
Truman at Tyler, 32-28 Truman
Taft at Cleveland, 32-31 Cleveland
Nixon at J Adams, 30-28 J Adams
W Harrison at Eisenhower, 30-28 Ike
Harding at Jackson, 28-25 Jackson
Hayes at Garfield, 29-28 Garfield
GH Bush at B Harrison, 26-22 GH Bush
JQ Adams at Van Buren, 32-23 JQA
Carter at Hoover, 23-22 Hoover
A Johnson at Pierce, 21-18 A Johnson
Two Presidents have one loss, another two have 2 losses, another four have 5 wins, and another two each have 2 wins.
Friday, June 01, 2007
Presidential Job Approval
It’s Friday, and that means Fun with Numbers time!
One of the most common political numbers touted by media, is the President’s Job Approval. It’s not well understood, frankly. Generally, the media reports a JA as if it were a referendum on an particular issue or personal scorecard, when in fact it is neither. For example, a composite of most major opinion polls gives President Bush a 32% Job Approval rating. If Bush were running again for President and got 32% of the Popular Vote, that would be a poor performance. However, we would have to consider the situation in better context if we wanted to draw that analogy. Would this hypothetical election be against a field of GOP candidates, like a primary? If so, 32% would be enough to win many such primaries. Would it be a one-on-one match-up in a general election against a Democrat? In such a case, the conditions change radically, as many voters who are not especially thrilled with a President, may choose to support him because the alternative is simply not palatable. The Job Approval numbers cannot, therefore, properly be used to suggest election conditions.
Also, Job Approval numbers are not static. In fact, you need to consider a variety of them to really understand what’s going on. What I mean, can be seen by looking at the term average approval ratings, the term lows, highs, and mean-values. This collection can be quite illuminating. For this article, I am taking data from the FDR through GW Bush Administrations. I used and recommend the Roper Center for accessing the requisite data. For this article I considered only the Gallup polls, for reasons of consistent questioning, historical constancy of results, and for a stable base of comparison.
First, let’s rank the President’s average ratings. From lowest to highest, here’s how they did:
Truman..........44.5%
Carter..........45.9%
Ford............47.8%
Nixon...........49.2%
Reagan..........52.5%
Clinton.........54.7%
L Johnson.......54.8%
GW Bush.........54.8%
GHW Bush........62.1%
Eisenhower......64.5%
F Roosevelt.....65.2%
Kennedy.........69.3%
Interesting, to note the difference between a President’s average popularity and his effectiveness. Next, let’s consider the Presidents in terms of their lowest Job Approval tracked by Galllup:
Truman..........22%
Nixon...........23%
Carter..........28%
GHW Bush........29%
GW Bush.........32%
L Johnson.......35%
Reagan..........35%
Ford............37%
Clinton.........39%
F Roosevelt.....48%
Eisenhower......48%
Kennedy.........56%
That’s intriguing. Don’t forget that JFK and Ford never finished a full term, and Gallup does not have numbers available from before 1938 on Job Approval but it’s interesting that FDR and Eisenhower had a low tide of 48%.
Next, let’s look at the Presidents in terms of their highest Job Approval in Gallup:
Nixon...........67%
Reagan..........68%
Clinton.........68%
Ford............74%
Carter..........75%
Eisenhower......79%
L Johnson.......80%
Kennedy.........80%
F Roosevelt.....84%
Truman..........87%
GHW Bush........89%
GW Bush.........90%
Think about that. Reagan, the best President in the bunch, had a high-tide mark of 68% approval, just ahead of Richard Nixon. And looking at the two Bushes and Harry Truman, it’s also obvious that Job Approval can be highly volatile.
If, just for fun, I mix them all up and count the high, low, and average all together and split the result by three, here’s my least-to-most popular results:
Nixon...........46.05%
Carter..........50.10%
Reagan..........51.75%
Truman..........52.00%
Ford............53.58%
Clinton.........53.80%
LBJ.............56.83%
GW Bush.........59.45%
GHW Bush........59.78%
Eisenhower......63.75%
FDR.............65.80%
JFK.............68.33%
Not what you might expect, is it? And more importantly, those who did the best job, may not show it in simple popularity while they were in office. Just something to think about when we choose the next Oval Office jockey.
One of the most common political numbers touted by media, is the President’s Job Approval. It’s not well understood, frankly. Generally, the media reports a JA as if it were a referendum on an particular issue or personal scorecard, when in fact it is neither. For example, a composite of most major opinion polls gives President Bush a 32% Job Approval rating. If Bush were running again for President and got 32% of the Popular Vote, that would be a poor performance. However, we would have to consider the situation in better context if we wanted to draw that analogy. Would this hypothetical election be against a field of GOP candidates, like a primary? If so, 32% would be enough to win many such primaries. Would it be a one-on-one match-up in a general election against a Democrat? In such a case, the conditions change radically, as many voters who are not especially thrilled with a President, may choose to support him because the alternative is simply not palatable. The Job Approval numbers cannot, therefore, properly be used to suggest election conditions.
Also, Job Approval numbers are not static. In fact, you need to consider a variety of them to really understand what’s going on. What I mean, can be seen by looking at the term average approval ratings, the term lows, highs, and mean-values. This collection can be quite illuminating. For this article, I am taking data from the FDR through GW Bush Administrations. I used and recommend the Roper Center for accessing the requisite data. For this article I considered only the Gallup polls, for reasons of consistent questioning, historical constancy of results, and for a stable base of comparison.
First, let’s rank the President’s average ratings. From lowest to highest, here’s how they did:
Truman..........44.5%
Carter..........45.9%
Ford............47.8%
Nixon...........49.2%
Reagan..........52.5%
Clinton.........54.7%
L Johnson.......54.8%
GW Bush.........54.8%
GHW Bush........62.1%
Eisenhower......64.5%
F Roosevelt.....65.2%
Kennedy.........69.3%
Interesting, to note the difference between a President’s average popularity and his effectiveness. Next, let’s consider the Presidents in terms of their lowest Job Approval tracked by Galllup:
Truman..........22%
Nixon...........23%
Carter..........28%
GHW Bush........29%
GW Bush.........32%
L Johnson.......35%
Reagan..........35%
Ford............37%
Clinton.........39%
F Roosevelt.....48%
Eisenhower......48%
Kennedy.........56%
That’s intriguing. Don’t forget that JFK and Ford never finished a full term, and Gallup does not have numbers available from before 1938 on Job Approval but it’s interesting that FDR and Eisenhower had a low tide of 48%.
Next, let’s look at the Presidents in terms of their highest Job Approval in Gallup:
Nixon...........67%
Reagan..........68%
Clinton.........68%
Ford............74%
Carter..........75%
Eisenhower......79%
L Johnson.......80%
Kennedy.........80%
F Roosevelt.....84%
Truman..........87%
GHW Bush........89%
GW Bush.........90%
Think about that. Reagan, the best President in the bunch, had a high-tide mark of 68% approval, just ahead of Richard Nixon. And looking at the two Bushes and Harry Truman, it’s also obvious that Job Approval can be highly volatile.
If, just for fun, I mix them all up and count the high, low, and average all together and split the result by three, here’s my least-to-most popular results:
Nixon...........46.05%
Carter..........50.10%
Reagan..........51.75%
Truman..........52.00%
Ford............53.58%
Clinton.........53.80%
LBJ.............56.83%
GW Bush.........59.45%
GHW Bush........59.78%
Eisenhower......63.75%
FDR.............65.80%
JFK.............68.33%
Not what you might expect, is it? And more importantly, those who did the best job, may not show it in simple popularity while they were in office. Just something to think about when we choose the next Oval Office jockey.
Friday
Hi there. This beautiful animal gracing the header of today's site is Bingo, my daughter's Collie puppy. Bingo has a number of characteristics worth mentioning:
[] She is AKC-registered, which means I paid money to get a piece of paper proving she's really a Collie.
[] Bingo is 15 weeks old, but growing fast. About 3 months from now, she will still be a puppy, but will be almost twice the size she is now, and around 65 pounds in weight.
[] Bingo is what they call a White Sable Rough-Hair Collie. If you look closely, you will notice that her eyes are different colors.
[] Collies are a very smart breed of dog, which means that Bingo is probably smarter than 40% of the voting population, and also smarter than Lindsay Lohan or anyone appearing these days on MTV or "The View".
[] Bingo likes to chase things, and she likes to chew things.
[] And if you are still reading at this point, you probably love dogs in general, and have one yourself.
In other news, I have begun the Summer Semester of my MBA studies. This semester features Strategic Cost Accounting, Management and Organizational Behavior, and Statistics and Research Methods. The decision to pursue an Accounting concentration has added either three or five additional Accounting courses to my degree load, but that is to be expected. The difefrence comes from the fact that I was a moron while an undergraduate, and because my Bachelor's Degree was in Liberal Arts, UHV (being an AACSB-accredited school) demands that I prove I can handle the higher-order Accounting work. Two of the classes may be waived, since I have already passed graduate-level Accounting classes. I need to be careful to consider the overall need, however, since I also plan to sit for the CPA exam after earning my MBA.
In still other news, I will go back to M.D. Anderson for more tests on July 9, basically to make sure the tumors in my abdomen have not been naughty. Hopefully, the present non-surgical regimen will continue to prove effective.
Well, that's all for now.
[] She is AKC-registered, which means I paid money to get a piece of paper proving she's really a Collie.
[] Bingo is 15 weeks old, but growing fast. About 3 months from now, she will still be a puppy, but will be almost twice the size she is now, and around 65 pounds in weight.
[] Bingo is what they call a White Sable Rough-Hair Collie. If you look closely, you will notice that her eyes are different colors.
[] Collies are a very smart breed of dog, which means that Bingo is probably smarter than 40% of the voting population, and also smarter than Lindsay Lohan or anyone appearing these days on MTV or "The View".
[] Bingo likes to chase things, and she likes to chew things.
[] And if you are still reading at this point, you probably love dogs in general, and have one yourself.
In other news, I have begun the Summer Semester of my MBA studies. This semester features Strategic Cost Accounting, Management and Organizational Behavior, and Statistics and Research Methods. The decision to pursue an Accounting concentration has added either three or five additional Accounting courses to my degree load, but that is to be expected. The difefrence comes from the fact that I was a moron while an undergraduate, and because my Bachelor's Degree was in Liberal Arts, UHV (being an AACSB-accredited school) demands that I prove I can handle the higher-order Accounting work. Two of the classes may be waived, since I have already passed graduate-level Accounting classes. I need to be careful to consider the overall need, however, since I also plan to sit for the CPA exam after earning my MBA.
In still other news, I will go back to M.D. Anderson for more tests on July 9, basically to make sure the tumors in my abdomen have not been naughty. Hopefully, the present non-surgical regimen will continue to prove effective.
Well, that's all for now.
Thursday, May 31, 2007
MLP Round 034
Game Scores:
McKinley at Jefferson, 35-34 McKinley
GW Bush at Carter, 33-26 GW Bush
Lincoln at Fillmore, 33-31 Lincoln
Coolidge at Ford, 35-28 Ford
Washington at W Harrison, 36-25 Washington
Clinton at Reagan, 31-24 Reagan
Eisenhower at T Roosevelt, 33-30 TR
Polk at L Johnson, 30-21 Polk
F Roosevelt at Nixon, 31-30 Nixon
J Adams at Kennedy, 32-31 JFK
Jackson at Truman, 32-30 Truman
Cleveland at A Johnson, 29-19 Cleveland
Grant at Taylor, 30-25 Taylor
B Harrison at Monroe, 30-23 Monroe
Tyler at Taft, 30-28 Taft
Garfield at Van Buren, 30-23 Garfield
Hoover at GH Bush, 28-23 GH Bush
Pierce at JQ Adams, 27-25 JQA
Hayes at Buchanan, 26-19 Hayes
Arthur at Harding, 29-27 Arthur
Wilson at Madison, 26-25 Wilson
Two Presidents have one loss, another two have 2 losses, another one has 2 wins, and one President has one win.
McKinley at Jefferson, 35-34 McKinley
GW Bush at Carter, 33-26 GW Bush
Lincoln at Fillmore, 33-31 Lincoln
Coolidge at Ford, 35-28 Ford
Washington at W Harrison, 36-25 Washington
Clinton at Reagan, 31-24 Reagan
Eisenhower at T Roosevelt, 33-30 TR
Polk at L Johnson, 30-21 Polk
F Roosevelt at Nixon, 31-30 Nixon
J Adams at Kennedy, 32-31 JFK
Jackson at Truman, 32-30 Truman
Cleveland at A Johnson, 29-19 Cleveland
Grant at Taylor, 30-25 Taylor
B Harrison at Monroe, 30-23 Monroe
Tyler at Taft, 30-28 Taft
Garfield at Van Buren, 30-23 Garfield
Hoover at GH Bush, 28-23 GH Bush
Pierce at JQ Adams, 27-25 JQA
Hayes at Buchanan, 26-19 Hayes
Arthur at Harding, 29-27 Arthur
Wilson at Madison, 26-25 Wilson
Two Presidents have one loss, another two have 2 losses, another one has 2 wins, and one President has one win.
Tuesday, May 29, 2007
MLP Round 033
Game Scores:
L Johnson at McKinley, 37-22 McKinley
GH Bush at GW Bush, 36-30 GW Bush
Taylor at Lincoln, 37-28 Lincoln
Ford at Clinton, 32-25 Ford
T Roosevelt at Washington, 36-32 Washington
Reagan at Eisenhower, 37-30 Reagan
Jefferson at B Harrison, 34-22 Jefferson
Nixon at Polk, 32-30 Polk
Fillmore at Hayes, 31-28 Fillmore
Kennedy at F Roosevelt, 3-31 FDR
Truman at Arthur, 32-24 Truman
JQ Adams at Cleveland, 32-31 Cleveland
Harding at J Adams, 30-26 J Adams
Monroe at Hoover, 27-23 Monroe
Taft at Jackson, 29-28 Taft
A Johnson at Tyler, 28-23 Tyler
Buchanan at Garfield, 29-23 Garfield
W Harrison at Grant, 28-25 W Harrison
Carter at Wilson, 25-18 Wilson
Madison at Coolidge, 22-21 Coolidge
Van Buren at Pierce, 29-18 Van Buren
Two Presidents have one loss, another two have 2 losses, another one has 2 wins, and one President has one win.
L Johnson at McKinley, 37-22 McKinley
GH Bush at GW Bush, 36-30 GW Bush
Taylor at Lincoln, 37-28 Lincoln
Ford at Clinton, 32-25 Ford
T Roosevelt at Washington, 36-32 Washington
Reagan at Eisenhower, 37-30 Reagan
Jefferson at B Harrison, 34-22 Jefferson
Nixon at Polk, 32-30 Polk
Fillmore at Hayes, 31-28 Fillmore
Kennedy at F Roosevelt, 3-31 FDR
Truman at Arthur, 32-24 Truman
JQ Adams at Cleveland, 32-31 Cleveland
Harding at J Adams, 30-26 J Adams
Monroe at Hoover, 27-23 Monroe
Taft at Jackson, 29-28 Taft
A Johnson at Tyler, 28-23 Tyler
Buchanan at Garfield, 29-23 Garfield
W Harrison at Grant, 28-25 W Harrison
Carter at Wilson, 25-18 Wilson
Madison at Coolidge, 22-21 Coolidge
Van Buren at Pierce, 29-18 Van Buren
Two Presidents have one loss, another two have 2 losses, another one has 2 wins, and one President has one win.
Monday, May 28, 2007
Sunday, May 27, 2007
MLP Round 032
Game Scores:
Washington at Reagan, 36-35 Reagan
Eisenhower at Ford, 35-33 Ford
McKinley at Nixon, 37-30 McKinley
GW Bush at Monroe, 36-30 GW Bush
Lincoln at W Harrison, 31-25 Lincoln
Grant at T Roosevelt, 33-25 TR
Polk at Kennedy, 32-30 JFK
Buchanan at Fillmore, 31-21 Fillmore
Hoover at Jefferson, 34-25 Jefferson
J Adams at Truman, 32-29 Truman
Hayes at Taylor, 30-29 Taylor
F Roosevelt at Harding, 31-27 FDR
Cleveland at Van Buren, 30-23 Cleveland
Arthur at Taft, 30-26 Taft
Tyler at JQ Adams, 29-27 Tyler
Garfield at Pierce, 32-22 Garfield
Jackson at A Johnson, 34-19 Jackson
Wilson at GH Bush, 28-21 GH Bush
Clinton at Madison, 29-25 Clinton
Coolidge at Carter, 28-26 Coolidge
B Harrison at L Johnson, 25-21 B Harrison
Two Presidents have one loss, another two have 2 losses, another one has 2 wins, and one President has one win.
The new Rankings are as follows:
After Thirty-Two Rounds
.1. McKinley (31-1) beats Truman, Harding, JFK, Nixon
.2. GW Bush (31-1) beats Nixon, LBJ, Jefferson, Monroe
.3. Lincoln (30-2) beats Ford, Reagan, TR, W Harrison
.4. Ford (29-3) beats Grant, Ike, loses to Lincoln, Washington
.5. Washington (30-2) beats Carter, Madison, Ford, loses to Reagan
.6. Reagan (28-4) beats Hayes, Grant, Washington, loses to Lincoln
.7. Teddy Roosevelt (28-4) beats Buch, Hayes, Grant, loses to Lincoln
.8. Jefferson (25-7) beats Cool, Wilson, Hoover, loses to GW Bush
.9. Polk (25-7) beats Taft, Truman, Harding, loses to JFK
.10. Fillmore (23-9) beats W Harrison, Taylor, Garfield, Buchanan
.11. FDR (22-10) beats A Johnson, Truman, Harding, loses to Taft
.12. JFK (22-10) beats Hoover, B Harr, Polk, loses to McKinley
.13. Truman (21-11) beats J Adams, loses to McKinley, Polk, FDR
.14. Cleveland (20-12) beats Tyler, Garfield, Pierce, Van Buren
.15. Taylor (20-12) beats Garfield, Buch, Hayes, loses to Fillmore
.16. J Adams (21-11) beats A Johnson, loses to JQA, Taft, Truman
.17. Eisenhower (19-13) beats GH Bush, Carter, Mad, loses to Ford
.18. Monroe (19-13) beats Clinton, Cool, loses to Wilson, GW Bush
.19. Jackson (18-14) beats Pierce, Van Buren, A John, loses to JQA
.20. Taft (17-15) beats FDR, J Adams, Arthur, loses to Polk
.21. Tyler (15-17) beats Pierce, Van Buren, JQA, loses to JFK
.22. Nixon (16-16) beats B Harr, loses to GW Bush, Hoover, McKinley
.23. Garfield (14-18) beats Pierce, loses to Taylor, Cleveland, Fillmore
.24. GH Bush (13-19) beats Clinton, Coolidge, Wilson, loses to Ike
.25. JQ Adams (14-18) beats J Adams, Jackson, loses to Arthur, Tyler
.26. Hayes (14-18) beats W Harr, loses to Reagan, TR, Taylor
.27. Arthur (12-20) beats JQA, A Johnson, loses to Van Buren, Taft
.28. Clinton (9-23) beats Carter, Madison ,loses to Monroe, GH Bush
.29. W Harrison (10-22) beats Buch, loses to Fillmore, Hayes, Lincoln
.30. Wilson (9-23) beats LBJ, Monroe. loses to Jefferson, GH Bush
.31. Grant (9-23) beats Madison, loses to Ford, Reagan, TR
.32. Harding (9-23) beats B Harrison, loses to McKinley, Polk, FDR
.33. Carter (9-23) loses to Washington, Ike, Clinton, Coolidge
.34. Madison (8-24) loses to Grant, Washington, Ike, Clinton
.35. B Harrison (6-26) beats LBJ, loses to Harding, JFK, Nixon
.36. Coolidge (5-27) beats Carter, loses to Jeff. Monroe, GH Bush
.37. LBJ (5-27) beats Hoover, loses to Wilson, GW Bush, B Harr
.38. Buchanan (5-27) loses to TR, W Harr, Taylor, Fillmore
.39. Hoover (4-28) beats Nixon, loses to JFK, LBJ, Jefferson
.40. Van Buren (4-28) beats Arthur, loses to Jackson, Tyler, Cleve
.41. Pierce (2-30) loses to Jackson, Tyler, Cleveland, Garfield
.42. A Johnson (1-31) loses to FDR, J Adams, Arthur, Jackson
For those who have been noting President Carter's rather disapproving verdict of George W. Bush, many have claimed that President Carter is, in fact, the worst of our Presidents. At this time, and with a 146-game season things could change, President Carter has a record of 9 wins and 23 losses, and is ranked 33rd on my list. Not an especially proud accomplishment, but far from the worst. My rankings should be taken with the knowledge that all polls have some degree of bias, but also that I did my level best to quantify abilities and term priorities prior to any potential match-ups.
Washington at Reagan, 36-35 Reagan
Eisenhower at Ford, 35-33 Ford
McKinley at Nixon, 37-30 McKinley
GW Bush at Monroe, 36-30 GW Bush
Lincoln at W Harrison, 31-25 Lincoln
Grant at T Roosevelt, 33-25 TR
Polk at Kennedy, 32-30 JFK
Buchanan at Fillmore, 31-21 Fillmore
Hoover at Jefferson, 34-25 Jefferson
J Adams at Truman, 32-29 Truman
Hayes at Taylor, 30-29 Taylor
F Roosevelt at Harding, 31-27 FDR
Cleveland at Van Buren, 30-23 Cleveland
Arthur at Taft, 30-26 Taft
Tyler at JQ Adams, 29-27 Tyler
Garfield at Pierce, 32-22 Garfield
Jackson at A Johnson, 34-19 Jackson
Wilson at GH Bush, 28-21 GH Bush
Clinton at Madison, 29-25 Clinton
Coolidge at Carter, 28-26 Coolidge
B Harrison at L Johnson, 25-21 B Harrison
Two Presidents have one loss, another two have 2 losses, another one has 2 wins, and one President has one win.
The new Rankings are as follows:
After Thirty-Two Rounds
.1. McKinley (31-1) beats Truman, Harding, JFK, Nixon
.2. GW Bush (31-1) beats Nixon, LBJ, Jefferson, Monroe
.3. Lincoln (30-2) beats Ford, Reagan, TR, W Harrison
.4. Ford (29-3) beats Grant, Ike, loses to Lincoln, Washington
.5. Washington (30-2) beats Carter, Madison, Ford, loses to Reagan
.6. Reagan (28-4) beats Hayes, Grant, Washington, loses to Lincoln
.7. Teddy Roosevelt (28-4) beats Buch, Hayes, Grant, loses to Lincoln
.8. Jefferson (25-7) beats Cool, Wilson, Hoover, loses to GW Bush
.9. Polk (25-7) beats Taft, Truman, Harding, loses to JFK
.10. Fillmore (23-9) beats W Harrison, Taylor, Garfield, Buchanan
.11. FDR (22-10) beats A Johnson, Truman, Harding, loses to Taft
.12. JFK (22-10) beats Hoover, B Harr, Polk, loses to McKinley
.13. Truman (21-11) beats J Adams, loses to McKinley, Polk, FDR
.14. Cleveland (20-12) beats Tyler, Garfield, Pierce, Van Buren
.15. Taylor (20-12) beats Garfield, Buch, Hayes, loses to Fillmore
.16. J Adams (21-11) beats A Johnson, loses to JQA, Taft, Truman
.17. Eisenhower (19-13) beats GH Bush, Carter, Mad, loses to Ford
.18. Monroe (19-13) beats Clinton, Cool, loses to Wilson, GW Bush
.19. Jackson (18-14) beats Pierce, Van Buren, A John, loses to JQA
.20. Taft (17-15) beats FDR, J Adams, Arthur, loses to Polk
.21. Tyler (15-17) beats Pierce, Van Buren, JQA, loses to JFK
.22. Nixon (16-16) beats B Harr, loses to GW Bush, Hoover, McKinley
.23. Garfield (14-18) beats Pierce, loses to Taylor, Cleveland, Fillmore
.24. GH Bush (13-19) beats Clinton, Coolidge, Wilson, loses to Ike
.25. JQ Adams (14-18) beats J Adams, Jackson, loses to Arthur, Tyler
.26. Hayes (14-18) beats W Harr, loses to Reagan, TR, Taylor
.27. Arthur (12-20) beats JQA, A Johnson, loses to Van Buren, Taft
.28. Clinton (9-23) beats Carter, Madison ,loses to Monroe, GH Bush
.29. W Harrison (10-22) beats Buch, loses to Fillmore, Hayes, Lincoln
.30. Wilson (9-23) beats LBJ, Monroe. loses to Jefferson, GH Bush
.31. Grant (9-23) beats Madison, loses to Ford, Reagan, TR
.32. Harding (9-23) beats B Harrison, loses to McKinley, Polk, FDR
.33. Carter (9-23) loses to Washington, Ike, Clinton, Coolidge
.34. Madison (8-24) loses to Grant, Washington, Ike, Clinton
.35. B Harrison (6-26) beats LBJ, loses to Harding, JFK, Nixon
.36. Coolidge (5-27) beats Carter, loses to Jeff. Monroe, GH Bush
.37. LBJ (5-27) beats Hoover, loses to Wilson, GW Bush, B Harr
.38. Buchanan (5-27) loses to TR, W Harr, Taylor, Fillmore
.39. Hoover (4-28) beats Nixon, loses to JFK, LBJ, Jefferson
.40. Van Buren (4-28) beats Arthur, loses to Jackson, Tyler, Cleve
.41. Pierce (2-30) loses to Jackson, Tyler, Cleveland, Garfield
.42. A Johnson (1-31) loses to FDR, J Adams, Arthur, Jackson
For those who have been noting President Carter's rather disapproving verdict of George W. Bush, many have claimed that President Carter is, in fact, the worst of our Presidents. At this time, and with a 146-game season things could change, President Carter has a record of 9 wins and 23 losses, and is ranked 33rd on my list. Not an especially proud accomplishment, but far from the worst. My rankings should be taken with the knowledge that all polls have some degree of bias, but also that I did my level best to quantify abilities and term priorities prior to any potential match-ups.
Saturday, May 26, 2007
MLP Round 031
Game Scores:
Ford at Washington, 36-35 Washington
Kennedy at McKinley, 37-29 McKinley
Jefferson at GW Bush, 36-28 GW Bush
T Roosevelt at Lincoln, 37-34 Lincoln
Reagan at Grant, 37-25 Reagan
Harding at Polk, 32-24 Polk
Fillmore at Garfield, 31-29 Fillmore
Taft at J Adams, 31-30 Taft
Truman at F Roosevelt, 33-28 FDR
Taylor at Buchanan, 28-20 Taylor
Madison at Eisenhower, 30-21 Ike
Monroe at Wilson, 26-25 Wilson
Pierce at Cleveland, 31-21 Cleveland
JQ Adams at Jackson, 30-28 JQA
Nixon at B Harrison, 28-22 Nixon
W Harrison at Hayes, 28-25 Hayes
GH Bush at Coolidge, 27-22 GH Bush
Van Buren at Tyler, 32-26 Tyler
A Johnson at Arthur, 26-23 Arthur
Carter at Clinton, 25-21 Clinton
L Johnson at Hoover, 27-26 LBJ
Three Presidents have one loss, another 1 has 2 losses, another 1 has 2 wins, and one President has one win.
Ford at Washington, 36-35 Washington
Kennedy at McKinley, 37-29 McKinley
Jefferson at GW Bush, 36-28 GW Bush
T Roosevelt at Lincoln, 37-34 Lincoln
Reagan at Grant, 37-25 Reagan
Harding at Polk, 32-24 Polk
Fillmore at Garfield, 31-29 Fillmore
Taft at J Adams, 31-30 Taft
Truman at F Roosevelt, 33-28 FDR
Taylor at Buchanan, 28-20 Taylor
Madison at Eisenhower, 30-21 Ike
Monroe at Wilson, 26-25 Wilson
Pierce at Cleveland, 31-21 Cleveland
JQ Adams at Jackson, 30-28 JQA
Nixon at B Harrison, 28-22 Nixon
W Harrison at Hayes, 28-25 Hayes
GH Bush at Coolidge, 27-22 GH Bush
Van Buren at Tyler, 32-26 Tyler
A Johnson at Arthur, 26-23 Arthur
Carter at Clinton, 25-21 Clinton
L Johnson at Hoover, 27-26 LBJ
Three Presidents have one loss, another 1 has 2 losses, another 1 has 2 wins, and one President has one win.
Friday, May 25, 2007
Modern U.S. History, According to the Democratic Party of the United States
[ the following story was channeled through the mind of former Senator and famous hair model John Edwards ]
Once upon a time, there was a great leader in the White House, a man who loved everyone. His name was Bill. Bill loved everyone so much, he sometimes got carried away and had sex with them. Almost everyone understood this and did not mind, except the mean evil hater Republicans who never have enough sex and so hate the ones who have free love and flowers and stuff. The Republicans said that Bill was bad because some of the people he had sex with, did not want to be raped, but America knew how much Bill loved everyone, and so they did not listen to the haters.
Because Bill was so loving, everyone outside loved America. There was no war or crime or poverty or problems of any kind, and every nation loved America. But the evil Republicans did not like peace and prosperity for other nations, and so they went out and started evil groups like Al Qaeda, who would not have existed except that Halliburton wanted to take over the world, which was not cool. So Osama bin Laden started a group which wanted to help widows and orphans and puppies and kittens, but Halliburton said no, so Osama got mad and started blowing up things and killing people. The evil Republicans said that Osama was a terrorist for killing people, but America knew that was not true, that the real terrorists had to be people who built refineries and gave people jobs, because working cut down the time available for free love and for loving Bill. So Bill arranged for tax hikes, to take away more of the money which was poisoning people and making them evil, and that money went to good useful government programs which were all good and in no way wasteful, because after all Bill was in charge, and he put good people in charge of things, like Attorney General Janet Reno, who never used excessive force, and Secretary of State Madelaine Albright, who always blamed America so that the world would not feel bad about Communism and the things their own despots did, which after all were the fault of American corporations like Halliburton. The evil Republicans said that raising taxes was bad, but everyone knew that the Republicans only said that because they loved money so much, and everyone thanked Bill for taking the evil money away from them. Yaaay Bill!
Halliburton and other evil U.S. corporations continued to do bad things, like build schools and give jobs to people in other countries, which were obviously tricks so that they could take over the world. This was obvious because the jobs paid well and offered a different way of life, one without disease and which promoted independent accomplishment, which the world knew was bad. So Osama got angry and blew up some embassies. But Bill knew that Osama was only angry because the evil Republicans wanted Muslims to think for themselves and not just do as they were told by the Mullahs, so he apologized again for America and Osama calmed down. Everyone was happy again.
The evil Republicans schemed and schemed. They schemed mean schemes, they dreamed mean dreams. They found a woman who had been loved by Bill, but who said she had not wanted his love, which we all know is a lie, because who would not ant Bill’s love? Anyway, this woman sued Bill, because she wanted money, even though she said she wanted her honor back. Silly woman! The Republicans next found a judge who had a reputation for being honest – even Democrats had said so. The Republicans somehow made this judge turn evil like them, so he looked and looked and found a way to trip Bill up so that he would have to lie, because Bill loved America enough to lie to it. Even under oath and on national television. Bill wanted to protect his marriage, and his reputation, so he told the nation that he did not have sex with that woman, even though he did. But America loved Bill and knew he did nothing wrong, even if he committed felonies.
The evil Republicans impeached Bill. Mean Republicans! But AlGore defended Bill, saying Bill was the “best President in history”, and AlGore was right! Smart robot! Bill was better than George Washington, better than FDR, better than even Jimmy Carter! And of course President Bill was a better President than evil President Lincoln and President Reagan or President Eisenhower, because everyone knows that no Republican can be good. Silly Republicans, thinking that saving the Union or defeating the Soviet Union is as good as loving everybody the way Bill does! So America forgave Bill, and he loved America even more. Osama was angry at the Republicans for almost taking Bill from the White House, so he blew up a Navy ship! But Bill knew Osama was not mad at America but only at the evil Republicans, so he made sure no one hurt Osama. Three times the bad men came to Bill and told him how they could kill Osama, and every time Bill made sure no one hurt Osama. Yaaay Bill!
But it was soon time for Bill to leave the White House, because the Constitution said he could not run again, even though Bill said he would like to. Bad Constitution! And America wondered who would be President next? Maybe the good robot AlGore? Maybe Hillary, who forgave Bill for loving everyone else? Either of them could be trusted to keep evil money away from the American people, and to blame America so that the rest of the world would know we were sorry for being strong and successful. The robot AlGore was better programmed than Hillary, so Hillary went off to run New York and AlGore got ready to run America, as he knew the people wanted.
But the Republicans sent an evil trained money monkey they called “Dubya” to steal the election! Bad Republicans! The Republicans tempted many people away, by promising tax cuts – boo! – and a strong defense – boo! – and reforming the courts to do what the Constitution said, instead of listening to loving people like Bill – boo! Boo! AlGore did everything he could to make sure America got what it should get, instead of what the Constitution said, but the courts did not let him claim Florida because he did not win that state. Bad courts! The state court tried to give AlGore the state by counting votes over and over again until they got the result they wanted, but the Supreme Court ruled that the Constitution would not let AlGore claim a state where he did not actually win. Bad Courts! Bad Constitution! Even getting military votes thrown out could not get AlGore elected, and so Dubya became President. Boo! Boo! All across America, the kind and loving people who voted for AlGore decided to reject President Money Monkey. If the Constitution made Money Monkey President, then they would reject the Constitution, and that’s what they did. Every Democrat running for office since 2000 has been careful to ignore the Constitution. Clever Democrats! Yaaay Democrats!
But Dubya the evil Money Monkey was not like Bill. Dubya wanted tax cuts, so that many Americans had to put up with extra money. Boo! Dubya wanted the courts to reform, to obey the Constitution, and so he appointed judges and justices who followed the Constitution. Boo! And over and over again, Dubya did what he promised he would do. Silly Monkey! Real politicians know you have to lie and lie, to show how much you love America.
Osama was angry again because the Money Monkey was President, and he must have been psychic too, because in 2001 Osama attacked the United States, using a plan he began working on years before while Bill was President. Osama must have known about the evil Monkey President plan, and got ready ahead of time. Smart Osama! But many Americans were sad and angry about the attack, which they blamed on Osama and the terrorists, not blaming the Money Monkey and Halliburton, who were the real bad guys, even if it was Osama’s people who actually killed folks. It’s complex, just trust the Democrats and say ‘Bad Republicans’. Bad Republicans! The Republicans wanted a war, a big war, because the Monkey President thought that Democracy is a good thing, even for Muslims, and that we should do what we warned Saddam we would do. Silly Monkey, thinking that Muslims are real people! Everyone knows Muslims cannot be trusted to govern themselves or to have a democratic government! But the Republicans controlled Congress and forced many Democrats to vote for the war, which was obviously mind control, since no Democrat would ever vote for a war, even if they made hundreds of statements indicating they would do so. After all, no war is worth an election! The war went badly at first, as the United States chased the Taliban out of Afghanistan and ejected the regime of Saddam Hussein from Iraq. Boo! Bad Republicans! Bad Army! But the Democrats did not give up, not even when Saddam was captured, not even when the top Al Qaeda operatives were killed or captured, not even when Zarqawi was stopped. Brave Democrats! Little by little, the Democrats made Americans doubt the military, little by little they lied about the Monkey President and his motives so that support would slip, and little by little the Democrats made America believe the war could not be won, and that quitting was the only real option. Clever Democrats!
The Democrats told stories and made up claims to make America realize that they were the party which should be in charge, and after a while America believed them. How clever of the Democrats, to make America hate Republicans for the same things Democrats did, and to ignore criminal action by the Democrats and overreact to mistakes by the Republicans. Yaaay Democrats!
As the next election approaches, America rejoices not only that there is no one like the evil Reagan or Dubya to worry about, but that both the good robot AlGore and the wise and all-knowing Hillary are available to support. America can soon expect the hated tax cuts to be repealed, and once again whenever an evil act is done, America will apologize and blame the Republicans and evil corporations. Bill must have planned this. Clever Bill! Yaaay Bill!
Once upon a time, there was a great leader in the White House, a man who loved everyone. His name was Bill. Bill loved everyone so much, he sometimes got carried away and had sex with them. Almost everyone understood this and did not mind, except the mean evil hater Republicans who never have enough sex and so hate the ones who have free love and flowers and stuff. The Republicans said that Bill was bad because some of the people he had sex with, did not want to be raped, but America knew how much Bill loved everyone, and so they did not listen to the haters.
Because Bill was so loving, everyone outside loved America. There was no war or crime or poverty or problems of any kind, and every nation loved America. But the evil Republicans did not like peace and prosperity for other nations, and so they went out and started evil groups like Al Qaeda, who would not have existed except that Halliburton wanted to take over the world, which was not cool. So Osama bin Laden started a group which wanted to help widows and orphans and puppies and kittens, but Halliburton said no, so Osama got mad and started blowing up things and killing people. The evil Republicans said that Osama was a terrorist for killing people, but America knew that was not true, that the real terrorists had to be people who built refineries and gave people jobs, because working cut down the time available for free love and for loving Bill. So Bill arranged for tax hikes, to take away more of the money which was poisoning people and making them evil, and that money went to good useful government programs which were all good and in no way wasteful, because after all Bill was in charge, and he put good people in charge of things, like Attorney General Janet Reno, who never used excessive force, and Secretary of State Madelaine Albright, who always blamed America so that the world would not feel bad about Communism and the things their own despots did, which after all were the fault of American corporations like Halliburton. The evil Republicans said that raising taxes was bad, but everyone knew that the Republicans only said that because they loved money so much, and everyone thanked Bill for taking the evil money away from them. Yaaay Bill!
Halliburton and other evil U.S. corporations continued to do bad things, like build schools and give jobs to people in other countries, which were obviously tricks so that they could take over the world. This was obvious because the jobs paid well and offered a different way of life, one without disease and which promoted independent accomplishment, which the world knew was bad. So Osama got angry and blew up some embassies. But Bill knew that Osama was only angry because the evil Republicans wanted Muslims to think for themselves and not just do as they were told by the Mullahs, so he apologized again for America and Osama calmed down. Everyone was happy again.
The evil Republicans schemed and schemed. They schemed mean schemes, they dreamed mean dreams. They found a woman who had been loved by Bill, but who said she had not wanted his love, which we all know is a lie, because who would not ant Bill’s love? Anyway, this woman sued Bill, because she wanted money, even though she said she wanted her honor back. Silly woman! The Republicans next found a judge who had a reputation for being honest – even Democrats had said so. The Republicans somehow made this judge turn evil like them, so he looked and looked and found a way to trip Bill up so that he would have to lie, because Bill loved America enough to lie to it. Even under oath and on national television. Bill wanted to protect his marriage, and his reputation, so he told the nation that he did not have sex with that woman, even though he did. But America loved Bill and knew he did nothing wrong, even if he committed felonies.
The evil Republicans impeached Bill. Mean Republicans! But AlGore defended Bill, saying Bill was the “best President in history”, and AlGore was right! Smart robot! Bill was better than George Washington, better than FDR, better than even Jimmy Carter! And of course President Bill was a better President than evil President Lincoln and President Reagan or President Eisenhower, because everyone knows that no Republican can be good. Silly Republicans, thinking that saving the Union or defeating the Soviet Union is as good as loving everybody the way Bill does! So America forgave Bill, and he loved America even more. Osama was angry at the Republicans for almost taking Bill from the White House, so he blew up a Navy ship! But Bill knew Osama was not mad at America but only at the evil Republicans, so he made sure no one hurt Osama. Three times the bad men came to Bill and told him how they could kill Osama, and every time Bill made sure no one hurt Osama. Yaaay Bill!
But it was soon time for Bill to leave the White House, because the Constitution said he could not run again, even though Bill said he would like to. Bad Constitution! And America wondered who would be President next? Maybe the good robot AlGore? Maybe Hillary, who forgave Bill for loving everyone else? Either of them could be trusted to keep evil money away from the American people, and to blame America so that the rest of the world would know we were sorry for being strong and successful. The robot AlGore was better programmed than Hillary, so Hillary went off to run New York and AlGore got ready to run America, as he knew the people wanted.
But the Republicans sent an evil trained money monkey they called “Dubya” to steal the election! Bad Republicans! The Republicans tempted many people away, by promising tax cuts – boo! – and a strong defense – boo! – and reforming the courts to do what the Constitution said, instead of listening to loving people like Bill – boo! Boo! AlGore did everything he could to make sure America got what it should get, instead of what the Constitution said, but the courts did not let him claim Florida because he did not win that state. Bad courts! The state court tried to give AlGore the state by counting votes over and over again until they got the result they wanted, but the Supreme Court ruled that the Constitution would not let AlGore claim a state where he did not actually win. Bad Courts! Bad Constitution! Even getting military votes thrown out could not get AlGore elected, and so Dubya became President. Boo! Boo! All across America, the kind and loving people who voted for AlGore decided to reject President Money Monkey. If the Constitution made Money Monkey President, then they would reject the Constitution, and that’s what they did. Every Democrat running for office since 2000 has been careful to ignore the Constitution. Clever Democrats! Yaaay Democrats!
But Dubya the evil Money Monkey was not like Bill. Dubya wanted tax cuts, so that many Americans had to put up with extra money. Boo! Dubya wanted the courts to reform, to obey the Constitution, and so he appointed judges and justices who followed the Constitution. Boo! And over and over again, Dubya did what he promised he would do. Silly Monkey! Real politicians know you have to lie and lie, to show how much you love America.
Osama was angry again because the Money Monkey was President, and he must have been psychic too, because in 2001 Osama attacked the United States, using a plan he began working on years before while Bill was President. Osama must have known about the evil Monkey President plan, and got ready ahead of time. Smart Osama! But many Americans were sad and angry about the attack, which they blamed on Osama and the terrorists, not blaming the Money Monkey and Halliburton, who were the real bad guys, even if it was Osama’s people who actually killed folks. It’s complex, just trust the Democrats and say ‘Bad Republicans’. Bad Republicans! The Republicans wanted a war, a big war, because the Monkey President thought that Democracy is a good thing, even for Muslims, and that we should do what we warned Saddam we would do. Silly Monkey, thinking that Muslims are real people! Everyone knows Muslims cannot be trusted to govern themselves or to have a democratic government! But the Republicans controlled Congress and forced many Democrats to vote for the war, which was obviously mind control, since no Democrat would ever vote for a war, even if they made hundreds of statements indicating they would do so. After all, no war is worth an election! The war went badly at first, as the United States chased the Taliban out of Afghanistan and ejected the regime of Saddam Hussein from Iraq. Boo! Bad Republicans! Bad Army! But the Democrats did not give up, not even when Saddam was captured, not even when the top Al Qaeda operatives were killed or captured, not even when Zarqawi was stopped. Brave Democrats! Little by little, the Democrats made Americans doubt the military, little by little they lied about the Monkey President and his motives so that support would slip, and little by little the Democrats made America believe the war could not be won, and that quitting was the only real option. Clever Democrats!
The Democrats told stories and made up claims to make America realize that they were the party which should be in charge, and after a while America believed them. How clever of the Democrats, to make America hate Republicans for the same things Democrats did, and to ignore criminal action by the Democrats and overreact to mistakes by the Republicans. Yaaay Democrats!
As the next election approaches, America rejoices not only that there is no one like the evil Reagan or Dubya to worry about, but that both the good robot AlGore and the wise and all-knowing Hillary are available to support. America can soon expect the hated tax cuts to be repealed, and once again whenever an evil act is done, America will apologize and blame the Republicans and evil corporations. Bill must have planned this. Clever Bill! Yaaay Bill!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
