I read an article the other day about the state of unemployment in our country. What struck me was the headline. In a moment, I'll share with you the title of the article.
I found the heading of the article so fascinating that I did some research about how the situation was handled in the past. I found that, historically, unemployment and the president were inexorably connected. As the article dealt with the fact that we have a high jobless rate right now, I focused my research on that specific situation. Here are some of the headlines I found from the past:
From G. W. Bush's era:
"Bush's Economy: Unemployment Soars"
"Bush Can't Revive Economy"
"How the Bush Tax cuts reduced employment."
From the Bush Senior era:
"Bush can't create jobs"
From Carter's era:
"Carter's jobless rate a big plus for Reagan"
Now, here we stand, close to a year since Obama's Economy saving stimulus package was unveiled and distributed. This package was to create 3.5 million jobs. Where are they? In February, when the stimulus passed into law the unemployment rate was 8.1%. It had increased from 6.8% when Obama was elected. Now it stands at 10.2%. Not only did the stimulus package not create jobs, it didn't even save the ones that were already in existence!
California, that received over $7.2 Billion currently has a 12.5% unemployment rate. Michigan stands at 15.1%. According to the US Department of Labor nine states saw a "significant change" in their unemployment rates since September, all of them increased.
So what are the current headlines saying?
"Obama's stimulus can't revive economy"
"Stimulus unsuccessful at creating jobs"
"White House needs a new plan to cut Unemployment"
"Obama can't create jobs"
One would think this is what we'd be reading.
Here is the headline that I saw:
"Higher Jobless Rates Could be the New Normal"
As though the jobless rate were completely unrelated to the efforts of the current administration. "It's not their fault, it's the new normal." It doesn't matter that historically we've blamed to the president in times like these. We can't point a finger at this president because it's just the new normal.
Why do I have such a hard time believing that there is no such thing as the Liberal Media?
Friday, November 27, 2009
Friday, November 20, 2009
Boo! Facebook!
I once had an average of 30 people a day visiting my blog.
I once had posts with 15+ comments.
I once had friends who would post interesting, intelligent, thought provoking things. Funny, poignant, and occasionally some mundane things. I had friends who would post.
Then came "Facebook"
My friends stopped posting on Blogspot. My comments dwindled. My hits suffered.
Why?
Because once we have a taste of convenience we can't go back. One can go on their own Facebook page and see the comments, status', and thoughts of all of their friends.
People began "posting" through their Twitters and Facebook status. So few people now take the time to formulate a cohesive argument, put it in logical order, type it out in a cognitive fashion, and post it for others to read. Instead of theological treatises, we get sound bytes. Instead of well founded political discussions we get "Yes we can" or "The postal service lost 3.8 Billion dollars this year. I have an idea: Let's put the federal government in charge of healthcare."
What did I do? I caved. I set up my Facebook to read my Blogspot and automatically post it in Facebook. So people read my posts but I once put a lot of effort into my Blogspot. I had an ever changing sidebar. I had bi-monthly opinion polls, links to my friends' blogs, A "This Day in History" segment, I'd update funny or timely quotes, I had a list of every movie I'd watched with a quick rating and a place for people to request that I do a more thorough review. (For those of you reading this on Facebook: To see what I'm referencing, visit my blog here.) Now all of that is missed. Why?
Facebook.
Please. Stop using Facebook. Come back to Blogger. Start posting again. Start commenting again. Let's not let "technology" dictate how we share our thoughts, let's let how we share our thoughts dictate what type of technology booms.
I once had posts with 15+ comments.
I once had friends who would post interesting, intelligent, thought provoking things. Funny, poignant, and occasionally some mundane things. I had friends who would post.
My friends stopped posting on Blogspot. My comments dwindled. My hits suffered.
Why?
Because once we have a taste of convenience we can't go back. One can go on their own Facebook page and see the comments, status', and thoughts of all of their friends.
People began "posting" through their Twitters and Facebook status. So few people now take the time to formulate a cohesive argument, put it in logical order, type it out in a cognitive fashion, and post it for others to read. Instead of theological treatises, we get sound bytes. Instead of well founded political discussions we get "Yes we can" or "The postal service lost 3.8 Billion dollars this year. I have an idea: Let's put the federal government in charge of healthcare."
What did I do? I caved. I set up my Facebook to read my Blogspot and automatically post it in Facebook. So people read my posts but I once put a lot of effort into my Blogspot. I had an ever changing sidebar. I had bi-monthly opinion polls, links to my friends' blogs, A "This Day in History" segment, I'd update funny or timely quotes, I had a list of every movie I'd watched with a quick rating and a place for people to request that I do a more thorough review. (For those of you reading this on Facebook: To see what I'm referencing, visit my blog here.) Now all of that is missed. Why?
Facebook.
Please. Stop using Facebook. Come back to Blogger. Start posting again. Start commenting again. Let's not let "technology" dictate how we share our thoughts, let's let how we share our thoughts dictate what type of technology booms.
Thursday, November 19, 2009
Indy Is Not Undefeated
Indianapolis was handed a victory this week. Handed over. Given by the refs. Terribly officiated. Ripped from the Patriots. And, as we've grown accustomed to, I have visual evidence.
This was called pass interference.
Please note: The cornerback is playing the ball. The wide receiver is stopping. This contact is initiated by the stopping wide receiver and therefore, if there is any penalty, it is offensive pass interference. It certainly is not defensive. This was a 40+ yard penalty. The Colts scored.
Then came the most controversial decision of the game. Fourth and two, up by six, on your own 28 yard line. The Patriots go for it. If they succeed, they are brilliant. If they fail, they should have punted. What's the verdict? The Patriots converted the first down but the refs made sure the Colts got the ball.
Here is my proof:
Please note: Kevin Fault, at this point has complete control of the ball. His down field foot is on the thirty yard line (what they needed to cross for the first down) and the ball is in his upfield hand. There is no way that the ball is behind the 30. Here is a close up look so you can see that he has the ball and it is further up the field than his left foot.
Faulk was tackled backward and the ball was placed at the 28 yard line, where he hit the ground. The referee needs to be reacquainted with the concept of forward progress. I know it's a new concept and the Colts can't win if you call the play the way it actually happened. But Patriots first down is the right call!
The call on the field was Colt's ball. They were incorrectly given the ball at the Patriots 28 yard line. They scored and won the game by 1 point.
NFL network does a segment called "Official Review" where they ask Mike Pereira (VP of NFL refs) to account for or explain some of the more difficult or questionable calls from the previous week. Here is the Week 10 episode. Now, usually, the really egregious game changers are not discussed so I was shocked when they opened with the 4th and 2 play. Occasionally, Mike says "we blew the call." Of course, he only says that when it didn't decide the game. He couldn't say that now, because blowing the call means giving the game to the Colts. Here is what he said about the call on the field: "It's almost near impossible to tell where the receiver had possession." Why don't you just say, "Nearly, almost, somewhat, close to being, kinda really hard to know." Way to make an excuse as to why the wrong call was made on the field. But he did say, "The one thing that I appreciate is that it was a quick decisive decision by [the referee]." Give me a break! Oh, that's right, I want a fast call. Forget about making the right call. I don't care if it's right or wrong ~ you better make that call fast! I want the same thing in other things, like pregnancy tests. I don't care how accurate it is but that test better be fast! It was the wrong call. The Colt's lost.
I have now removed the Colt's from the undefeated list on the sidebar. Had either of the above calls been made correctly the Patriots win this game. End of story!
This was called pass interference.
Please note: The cornerback is playing the ball. The wide receiver is stopping. This contact is initiated by the stopping wide receiver and therefore, if there is any penalty, it is offensive pass interference. It certainly is not defensive. This was a 40+ yard penalty. The Colts scored.
Then came the most controversial decision of the game. Fourth and two, up by six, on your own 28 yard line. The Patriots go for it. If they succeed, they are brilliant. If they fail, they should have punted. What's the verdict? The Patriots converted the first down but the refs made sure the Colts got the ball.
Here is my proof:
Please note: Kevin Fault, at this point has complete control of the ball. His down field foot is on the thirty yard line (what they needed to cross for the first down) and the ball is in his upfield hand. There is no way that the ball is behind the 30. Here is a close up look so you can see that he has the ball and it is further up the field than his left foot.
Faulk was tackled backward and the ball was placed at the 28 yard line, where he hit the ground. The referee needs to be reacquainted with the concept of forward progress. I know it's a new concept and the Colts can't win if you call the play the way it actually happened. But Patriots first down is the right call!
The call on the field was Colt's ball. They were incorrectly given the ball at the Patriots 28 yard line. They scored and won the game by 1 point.
NFL network does a segment called "Official Review" where they ask Mike Pereira (VP of NFL refs) to account for or explain some of the more difficult or questionable calls from the previous week. Here is the Week 10 episode. Now, usually, the really egregious game changers are not discussed so I was shocked when they opened with the 4th and 2 play. Occasionally, Mike says "we blew the call." Of course, he only says that when it didn't decide the game. He couldn't say that now, because blowing the call means giving the game to the Colts. Here is what he said about the call on the field: "It's almost near impossible to tell where the receiver had possession." Why don't you just say, "Nearly, almost, somewhat, close to being, kinda really hard to know." Way to make an excuse as to why the wrong call was made on the field. But he did say, "The one thing that I appreciate is that it was a quick decisive decision by [the referee]." Give me a break! Oh, that's right, I want a fast call. Forget about making the right call. I don't care if it's right or wrong ~ you better make that call fast! I want the same thing in other things, like pregnancy tests. I don't care how accurate it is but that test better be fast! It was the wrong call. The Colt's lost.
I have now removed the Colt's from the undefeated list on the sidebar. Had either of the above calls been made correctly the Patriots win this game. End of story!
Sunday, November 01, 2009
Happy Hallo(bama)ween
I can't take credit for this first part, but it really made me laugh:
We should have an Obama Halloween. When the children come to the door, we should use it as a "teachable moment" in regards to how the future of America's economy will be.
We take their plastic pumpkins, pillowcases, plastic bags, back packs, and other candy carriers and we redistribute their candy. That way it doesn't matter how long the children have been out trick-or-treating and it doesn't matter the amount of effort the children put into their costume. Each child will have about the same amount of candy. You've been out for three hours and you just started three minutes ago: You've got about the same amount of candy. You spent weeks planning, designing, and creating your costume, you went to Wal*mart yesterday and bought the last clearanced Transformers costume: Doesn't matter, you've both got about the same amount of candy.
I hope they go home and complain to their parents about the redistribution of candy.
Along the same Obama-line: I also nearly fell off of my couch laughing at SNL this week when they pointed out Obama's lack of accomplishments thus far.
You can see the video here. To quote a few of my favorite lines:
"There are those on the right who are angry, they think that I"m turning this great country into something that resembles the Soviet Union or Nazi Germany. But that's just not the case, if you look at my record it's very clear what I've done so far: and that is: nothing, nada, almost one year and nothing to show for it."
"I said I'd make improvements in the war in Afghanistan. Is it better? No, actually I think it's worse."
and "So looking at this list I'm seeing two big accomplishments: Jack and Squat!"
Good for you SNL for being a comedy outlet, and not a political outlet. Thank you for lampooning both sides of the aisle! Keep it up!
And one final thought. So, SNL finally takes a shot at a Democrat who's name doesn't rhyme with Mo' Slidin' and look who jumps to the rescue: The "non-liberal" media! Even if you don't choose to click on this, the link starts with the word "news". News! What is "news" about coming to the defense of the President? Where was the "news" to back George W.?! It wasn't even listed as a column. No mention of opinion. Nope. This is "news": SNL was wrong in their take on the President's accomplishments (Or, to be more precise, lack thereof). And if you read the biased opinionated "news" story, they don't even say that SNL is inaccurate; just that the things SNL claimed he hadn't done yet were planned! They are yet to come, in the future, on the way! I guess I'm a success at giving that big presentation at work because it's in my calendar to do next month! I'm also great in that new position because I hope to have it by the end of next year!
How long will we allow ourselves to be deceived by accepting that which is NOT news as though it were news? And why does that deception so often lean to the left?
We should have an Obama Halloween. When the children come to the door, we should use it as a "teachable moment" in regards to how the future of America's economy will be.
We take their plastic pumpkins, pillowcases, plastic bags, back packs, and other candy carriers and we redistribute their candy. That way it doesn't matter how long the children have been out trick-or-treating and it doesn't matter the amount of effort the children put into their costume. Each child will have about the same amount of candy. You've been out for three hours and you just started three minutes ago: You've got about the same amount of candy. You spent weeks planning, designing, and creating your costume, you went to Wal*mart yesterday and bought the last clearanced Transformers costume: Doesn't matter, you've both got about the same amount of candy.
I hope they go home and complain to their parents about the redistribution of candy.
Along the same Obama-line: I also nearly fell off of my couch laughing at SNL this week when they pointed out Obama's lack of accomplishments thus far.
You can see the video here. To quote a few of my favorite lines:
"There are those on the right who are angry, they think that I"m turning this great country into something that resembles the Soviet Union or Nazi Germany. But that's just not the case, if you look at my record it's very clear what I've done so far: and that is: nothing, nada, almost one year and nothing to show for it."
"I said I'd make improvements in the war in Afghanistan. Is it better? No, actually I think it's worse."
and "So looking at this list I'm seeing two big accomplishments: Jack and Squat!"
Good for you SNL for being a comedy outlet, and not a political outlet. Thank you for lampooning both sides of the aisle! Keep it up!
And one final thought. So, SNL finally takes a shot at a Democrat who's name doesn't rhyme with Mo' Slidin' and look who jumps to the rescue: The "non-liberal" media! Even if you don't choose to click on this, the link starts with the word "news". News! What is "news" about coming to the defense of the President? Where was the "news" to back George W.?! It wasn't even listed as a column. No mention of opinion. Nope. This is "news": SNL was wrong in their take on the President's accomplishments (Or, to be more precise, lack thereof). And if you read the biased opinionated "news" story, they don't even say that SNL is inaccurate; just that the things SNL claimed he hadn't done yet were planned! They are yet to come, in the future, on the way! I guess I'm a success at giving that big presentation at work because it's in my calendar to do next month! I'm also great in that new position because I hope to have it by the end of next year!
How long will we allow ourselves to be deceived by accepting that which is NOT news as though it were news? And why does that deception so often lean to the left?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)