We have with the 2012 presidential election a choice, one more divergent than we've had in many elections. We have the choice between the sitting president who weighs the full range of choices, hears all the voices for reason, and then decides. Someone who then explains his choice with reasons.
And we have a presidential candidate who simply cites rhetoric and says, "Trust me." Does he explain anything? Has he explained his religion in his life, his decision and would be in his role as president? Has he explained his financial wealth and income and his income taxes?
Has he told us who's backing his campaign and why he has private, secret meetings with wealthy donors out of the public eye and media? Has he told us who's all in his campaign staff and everyone he's listening to for advice? Has he full explained his position besides rhetoric and attacking Obama?
In short, we have a choice between a President who listen, thinks, decides and then explains and we have a candidate who simply says, "Trust me." Like all those companies Bain Capitol bought and sold and all those employees who lost their jobs, their health insurance and their pensions?
It's our choice, choose wisely. Rememer George W. Bush's "Compassionate conservatism", where did it go with the tax cuts, annual deficit, national debt, two wars and more so the economy and jobs? Did he say, "Trust me"? And how did that choice go for us?
Sunday, August 5, 2012
News Bits
Every Sunday I buy three newspapers, the Tacoma News Tribune, Seattle Times and the New York Times. They don't sell other Sunday papers on Sunday anywhere anymore, but I'd love to read the old Seattle PI and the Washington Post. Yes, it's the age of on-line and download newspapers, and yes I subscribe to the New York Times download edition (great for daily paper).
But I really like print. I love to take over the table, get the endless pot of coffee, some snacks and feast on reading every page. Ok, scanning every page, reading the headlines and the opening paragraphs for the gist of the article, and then more if it's interesting. it all makes for a good Sunday morning.
Anyway, there were two articles of note in the New York Times, one which I'll address directly and one indirectly. First, the article by James Gleick, "Auto Correct Ths!", about how we rely on autocorrection of grammar but mostly spelling to not just help us but save us from our own stupidity.
There is a very simple solution which I do all the time. First, I turn off all automatic checks in all my applications for anything, spelling, grammar, html code, etc. I see what I type and then reread and edit or run checks to correct the errors. It's why there are typos in my posts. Sometimes I catch them while typing, some while editing and some later when reading them after they're posted.
This requires me to think more than just type and hope. I also keep my Oxford American-English dictionary application open on my desktop as well as a print edition of the same dictionary by the desk to access when I write. The app is part of Mac's software for Mac's. I also have the Oxford American-English dictionary app on my iPhone and iPad.
Dictionaries are useful, especially if you actually use them.
Second is the article by Matthew Hutson, "Still Puritan After All These Years." Well, if there is anything I've learned about psychological or sociological studies reported or used in articles, it's not to accept those done by university professors on college students. Why?
We're not college students anymore.
As adults we are far different than we were in college, if we went to college. Doing psychological research studies on college students is a captive and biased audience and population base for studies. They're not normal people from anyone older than 25 years old.
And so any results don't apply beyond being interesting, and any article citing those studies isn't worth much more than interesting and totally useless for the general population. I read the article for their conclusion then ignore those conclusions for the same reasons, just a biased study to prove a point.
And what's more is that all too often the study is a small, very focused study where they or the writers extrapolate big conclusions about all of us. Really? In implying conclusions from the results they forget the rule about assuming too much. And in this article, they simply stated the obvious which they didn't need to cite the study.
Anyway, that's my reading for this Sunday.
But I really like print. I love to take over the table, get the endless pot of coffee, some snacks and feast on reading every page. Ok, scanning every page, reading the headlines and the opening paragraphs for the gist of the article, and then more if it's interesting. it all makes for a good Sunday morning.
Anyway, there were two articles of note in the New York Times, one which I'll address directly and one indirectly. First, the article by James Gleick, "Auto Correct Ths!", about how we rely on autocorrection of grammar but mostly spelling to not just help us but save us from our own stupidity.
There is a very simple solution which I do all the time. First, I turn off all automatic checks in all my applications for anything, spelling, grammar, html code, etc. I see what I type and then reread and edit or run checks to correct the errors. It's why there are typos in my posts. Sometimes I catch them while typing, some while editing and some later when reading them after they're posted.
This requires me to think more than just type and hope. I also keep my Oxford American-English dictionary application open on my desktop as well as a print edition of the same dictionary by the desk to access when I write. The app is part of Mac's software for Mac's. I also have the Oxford American-English dictionary app on my iPhone and iPad.
Second is the article by Matthew Hutson, "Still Puritan After All These Years." Well, if there is anything I've learned about psychological or sociological studies reported or used in articles, it's not to accept those done by university professors on college students. Why?
As adults we are far different than we were in college, if we went to college. Doing psychological research studies on college students is a captive and biased audience and population base for studies. They're not normal people from anyone older than 25 years old.
And so any results don't apply beyond being interesting, and any article citing those studies isn't worth much more than interesting and totally useless for the general population. I read the article for their conclusion then ignore those conclusions for the same reasons, just a biased study to prove a point.
And what's more is that all too often the study is a small, very focused study where they or the writers extrapolate big conclusions about all of us. Really? In implying conclusions from the results they forget the rule about assuming too much. And in this article, they simply stated the obvious which they didn't need to cite the study.
Anyway, that's my reading for this Sunday.
Tuesday, June 12, 2012
Dear MSNBC
Would the hosts of some of the news, opinion and anaysis shows on MSNBC, specifically Ed Schulz, Lawrence O'Donnell and Chris Matthews please stop interrupting your guests and let them speak. If they're off topic or talking too much, then fine, kindly interrupt them to bring them back to the conversation, but you frequently interrupt them for no reason.
And this is why I often turn the channel, or more so, just turn the TV off. I don't want to hear bickering on MSNBC's shows. I want good debate and discussion and occasionally good conversation, such as is found on Martin Bashir and Racheal Maddow show, often with guest host such as Ezra Klein and Michael Eric Dyson, and consistently found on the two weekend shows with Chris Hayes and Melissa Harris-Perry.
That's my bitch with ya'll tonight. After watching Michael Eric Dyson sub for Ed Schulz and Ezra Klein sub for Racheal Maddow, I turned off Lawrence O'Donnell when he did his usual loud interruption of his guests to make his point without listening to their point let alone let them finish. And for that I have stopped watching his show.
If you want to rant, save it for your time, not your guests. Otherwise, you've lost this viewer.
And this is why I often turn the channel, or more so, just turn the TV off. I don't want to hear bickering on MSNBC's shows. I want good debate and discussion and occasionally good conversation, such as is found on Martin Bashir and Racheal Maddow show, often with guest host such as Ezra Klein and Michael Eric Dyson, and consistently found on the two weekend shows with Chris Hayes and Melissa Harris-Perry.
That's my bitch with ya'll tonight. After watching Michael Eric Dyson sub for Ed Schulz and Ezra Klein sub for Racheal Maddow, I turned off Lawrence O'Donnell when he did his usual loud interruption of his guests to make his point without listening to their point let alone let them finish. And for that I have stopped watching his show.
If you want to rant, save it for your time, not your guests. Otherwise, you've lost this viewer.
Saturday, June 9, 2012
Dear Speed TV
I hope you understand that watching qualifying for Formula One is far more interesting than NASCAR qualifying. I like both but watching Sprint Cup car drive around Pocono Raceway does not compare to watching a Formula One car drive around Montreal Ciruit Gilles Villenue.
The decision not to switch to the qualifying at Montreal for the last runners at Pocono is really dumb and stupid for the viewers like me who want to see the whole qualfying sessons at Montreal than Pocono. And the decision to tape delay qualifying for the missed time is even dumber and more stupid as you can track the qualifying in real-time on Formula One's Website from your computer, tablet or smart phone.
And by the time they showed queue three qualifying for the top ten spots, the Formula One Website had already posted the final starting positions for the grid for Sunday's race. Kinda' takes the surprise out of it, ya think? And do your fans a favor, put a sock in Sam Posey. No one likes his hype anymore.
The decision not to switch to the qualifying at Montreal for the last runners at Pocono is really dumb and stupid for the viewers like me who want to see the whole qualfying sessons at Montreal than Pocono. And the decision to tape delay qualifying for the missed time is even dumber and more stupid as you can track the qualifying in real-time on Formula One's Website from your computer, tablet or smart phone.
And by the time they showed queue three qualifying for the top ten spots, the Formula One Website had already posted the final starting positions for the grid for Sunday's race. Kinda' takes the surprise out of it, ya think? And do your fans a favor, put a sock in Sam Posey. No one likes his hype anymore.
Wednesday, May 30, 2012
Romney
Does it occur to you that Mitt Romney is conducting his presidential campaign as if he was taking over a company for Bain Capital? He's using a take no prisoners approach, attack and condemn anyone opposing him, tell everyone whatever they want to hear while not meaning any of it, and do whatever it take to win.
That's his campaign strategy and tactics and not just winning the campaign is the goal but bludgeoning the President into oblivion, like he bludgeoned companies into bankruptcy and employees into unemployment without any retirement or health insurance. His approach is leave no one alive, leave them on the floor of this economy and in their lives, bankrupt.
And that's his plan, just lie. Tell whatever it takes to win votes. The facts and the truth are victims left long ago and never spoken again. That's his style, smile, lie and chuckle if caught telling a lie or contradicting himself. Self-denial of history is his trademark response.
Don't believe it? Well, consider he's never full disclosed his financial records to know how much money he has and earns and where all his money is located. We know much of it is offshore, but after that we don't know how it's invested to earn the income he receives from those investments.
We know he's Mormon, but has he ever spoken seriously about his faith and about his practice of mormonism? We know he has served as a teacher and elder of some stature in the chruch. He hasn't confirmed he contributes the percentage of his income required by the church to the church.
What's he afraid of discussing his faith and mormonism? Don't we know why? He's afraid of the backlash he'll admit he's a true believer of the Mormon faith (religion or cult is your choice). He's afraid to admit his own private and personal faith while he attacks President Obama on his faith.
This is a guy who'll lie to you while keeping a straight face. He only cares about Mormons and rich people, and the latter is optional because they're only there to write the checks for the promises he's made if he becomes president to repay them several times over with tax cuts and taxpayers money in subsidies and contracts.
He sees the government as the bank account of a company to raid, steal and distribute to his the wealthy friends and to the corporations. Just as he did for any company he bought when he worked for Bain Capital, to enrich the company, his friends and more over himself. Rob from the public to help the rich.
That's his plan and do and say whatever it takes. And you think he'd make a good president? With that record? Who would believe or trust him as president?
That's his campaign strategy and tactics and not just winning the campaign is the goal but bludgeoning the President into oblivion, like he bludgeoned companies into bankruptcy and employees into unemployment without any retirement or health insurance. His approach is leave no one alive, leave them on the floor of this economy and in their lives, bankrupt.
And that's his plan, just lie. Tell whatever it takes to win votes. The facts and the truth are victims left long ago and never spoken again. That's his style, smile, lie and chuckle if caught telling a lie or contradicting himself. Self-denial of history is his trademark response.
Don't believe it? Well, consider he's never full disclosed his financial records to know how much money he has and earns and where all his money is located. We know much of it is offshore, but after that we don't know how it's invested to earn the income he receives from those investments.
We know he's Mormon, but has he ever spoken seriously about his faith and about his practice of mormonism? We know he has served as a teacher and elder of some stature in the chruch. He hasn't confirmed he contributes the percentage of his income required by the church to the church.
What's he afraid of discussing his faith and mormonism? Don't we know why? He's afraid of the backlash he'll admit he's a true believer of the Mormon faith (religion or cult is your choice). He's afraid to admit his own private and personal faith while he attacks President Obama on his faith.
This is a guy who'll lie to you while keeping a straight face. He only cares about Mormons and rich people, and the latter is optional because they're only there to write the checks for the promises he's made if he becomes president to repay them several times over with tax cuts and taxpayers money in subsidies and contracts.
He sees the government as the bank account of a company to raid, steal and distribute to his the wealthy friends and to the corporations. Just as he did for any company he bought when he worked for Bain Capital, to enrich the company, his friends and more over himself. Rob from the public to help the rich.
That's his plan and do and say whatever it takes. And you think he'd make a good president? With that record? Who would believe or trust him as president?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
