Obama News Coverage

Yet another article about excessive Obama press coverage.

Racial Tensions

So apparently Obama becoming president will "set back" racial tensions. Some groups will always find reasons to create problems and drama no matter what happens and it really reflects down upon the group as a whole. This happens in many aspects especially in politics where some extremist liberals or conservatives make the whole party that they are apart of look bad.

Also in the article, a columnist for The American Conservative magazine makes an excellent point about white people:

"So many whites want to be able to say, 'I'm not one of them, those bad whites. ... Hey, I voted for a black guy for president' "

Those Racist Black Holes

This politically correct crap has gone over-board with black racists. A black commissioner and a black judge seem to think that black holes are racist. There is a black racism problem in this country that seems to be acceptable (Rev Wright, anybody?). Did these two geniuses really think that this guy invented this scientific term right on the spot to make a racial comment? Could it be called a black hole because light cannot escape them and they look black in space?

Should we rename black widows? Black mumbas? What is a social acceptable term for these creatures? African-American Mumbas? I'm kidding. :P

Media Coverage

It has been obvious to me all along (check previous blog entries) that the media favors Obama to any candidate.

Caution Advised When The Camera Is On

It just goes to show, that you have to be really careful with your words when the camera is rolling. You could have a hot microphone, or things might come back to haunt you years later. This is especially relevant if you are a politician, because the opposition will put together a team that will analyze absolutely every comment you've ever said on video. If you've made diametrical statements, they are going to find it and they will use it against you! This has been especially useful for McCain's team to assemble a video of Obama flip-flopping on his war stance where it appears he has been for and against particular issues within a relatively short period of time.

Warrantless Eavesdropping

Well, it seems more American rights are wiped clean in the name of terrorism as each year passes. The telecom immunity and warrantless wiretap bill passed yesterday (another Obama flipflop) which allows the government to listen into your communications as easily as flipping a switch. It also provides immunity for telecom companies who provided information to the government when it was still illegal. As my previous post discussed, when something is illegal, isn't it still illegal, regardless of what future law is passed?

You and I both know the terrorist label can be thrown around loosely to eavesdrop on anyone they choose. And of course, most spineless Americans are okay with just about anything the government proposes in the name of "security" and "freedom." The sheep just follow the herd.

This bill is, of course, Bush's baby since he was the one who requested telecoms to break the law from the get-go. I'm sure if Bush had his way, we'd all be tagged with GPS chips. Luckily, courts do still have some power and blocked his attempt at keeping white house visitors secret. I think it is pretty important that our political leaders be transparent with matter such as these. I swear our country tries to becomes more like the KGB as each year that passes (especially with Bush running the show).

So, the following is a little off-topic, but my point is to demonstrate negative side-effects of bad laws.

A good example of how a law intended for one thing and snares someone else would be the Spitzer hooker scandal. One of the provisions in The [un]Patriot[otic] Act required banks to report "suspicious" bank transactions. The governor was buying his hookers with quite a few wire transfers. I guess he should have used money orders. Of course, the standard sophomoric American mind, says "good, it caught someone who was breaking the law." Well not so good when you think about how the law was supposed to snare terrorists, not unethical politicians. This is just one highly publicized case that caught someone doing something illegal. What about all the unpublished, insignificant cases that don't lead to headlines?

It doesn't seem completely unreasonable to me the prospect of one person having multiple wire-transfers. Family members who live in a poor country, perhaps? A family member in need of some money but you can't get it all at once. Perhaps a family member's health goes from okay, to poor to really bad in a multi-week period, so you wire money multiple times to take care of a procedure, medicine or other costs. Let's think up some other situations - add a comment to this post!

Would you appreciate having to explain yourself to the government why you are moving your money? Wouldn't having to meet with the FBI make you even a little nervous even though you are 100% sure you did nothing illegal? Would you want them examining your life before even letting you know about it or letting you explain the situation? Welcome to warrantless eavesdropping.

Think about the other provisions that KGB-type Acts allow the government to do that you aren't even aware of? What doesn't get published? You think this is the first time some of these new acts have snared a non-terrorist? Think again.

Return Of The True Parties

Originally, Republicans and Democrats had different roles than they do today. Back in Lincoln's time, Republicans were more like today's Democrats and Democrats were more like today's Republicans. Then their roles switched places at some point in history so that Republicans became known as a the party of smaller government, less taxes and less spending, and Democrats became known as the party with large government, more taxes and more spending.

Stay with me here.

The parties then flipped places again around the late 1970s. This was Reagan's time. Spending skyrocketed and drove the country into a massive budget deficit. Dubya Sr. did the same. Fiscal responsibility went right out the window with these Neo-Republicans, or Neo-Cons, if you must. Then Bill Clinton, a Democrat, had to clean up a big mess. He raised taxes, of course, and created a lot of social programs, but he did manage to leave a budget surplus at the end of his term - the largest in US history. Then Dubya showed up to the scene, and it is obvious this rocket scientist slept through his MBA accounting classes because taxes went down and spending went up. He managed to create the largest budget deficit in US history.

So, as you can see, Republicans became Democrats and Democrats became Republicans in regards to at least fiscal responsibility.

I think the election of 2008 will flip the party roles again. McCain's record definitely shows that he is fiscally responsible and is against wasteful spending such as earmarks. He has made it a campaign priority. Obama has given lip-service to fiscal responsibility, but much is left to be seen. His main budget income source comes from ending the Iraq war, which he has refused to promise any any deadlines for. I don't care what any politician says about ending the war soon; this war will go on until the Iraqis are able to manage their own country and this doesn't appear to be likely for many years to come. This means Obama's plan is going to fall short - way short.

Both proposed budgets seem to fall short of projections, but McCain has at least addressed the fact that spending in America is out of control, and he has also accounted for the inevitability of a long Iraq presence.

Young Women and Old Men

Most people would probably agree that it is disgusting for young women in their 20's to sleep with men in their 60's, and 70's, right? How about a man in his 80's? Before you continue, think about that. What kind of woman comes to mind? This morning I was listening to the radio where a 20 year-old model admits that she sleeps with an 82 year old. At this point, you are probably cringing from disgust.

But then I tell you that the 82 year old is hugh hefner (I deliberately put his name in lowercase so that it wouldn't stand out as you were reading). Suddenly your perception changed slightly, and the 82 year old man doesn't seem as disgusting. Why is that? Nothing has changed except that you've put a name and a face to the 82 year old. I find this to be a weird concept.

I don't buy into the media brainwashing, so I still think it's pretty foul, but obviously the general public doesn't think so. His and his bunnies lifestyle's are glamorized through TV shows, magazines and radio, and there are plenty of people who seem to enjoy the coverage.

The Wage Gap

There is a common misconception in the media, politics and the general public. It is the concept of wage discrimination towards women. Unscrupulous politicians, like Obama, pay lip service to fixing "the problem" in order to garner more votes. It's a frequent sound-bite that captures attention because it uses the word "discrimination" and it sounds "unfair."

Yes, it is true that women on average earn approximately 77 percent of what men earn. The key phrase here is "on average." This means that when you take all the men's salaries and and take all the women's salaries and throw them into separate pots and divide by the total number in each pot, the average salary is the result. This is not the same as picking only a specific job function, like teachers, and comparing the averages. This is also not the same as knowing the difference in salary between your aunt Sally and cousin Frank.

As my above explanation demonstrates, much of what determines what one makes is what they do for a living. (Wow! What an insight, eh?). The point is that women on average choose lower paying careers, such as teachers and receptionists whereas men choose higher paying careers such as scientists and engineers. This by itself makes an important point: If there are more men than women in higher paying careers and fewer men than women in lower paying careers, then clearly, men are going to have a higher average salary. Holding other factors constant, the only way you will get the wages to equalize is if you have an equal number of men and women in every career.

But there are other reasons why women earn less than men. But I thought you said.... Yes, the key phrase was "holding other factors constant." Aren't you paying attention?

Some other factors are personal preferences and experience. Men are more willing than women to work long hours, undertake frequent business travel, work in dangerous (hazard pay) or labor intensive (construction) industries, and stay with a particular company for longer periods of time.

Also, on average, men have more work experience. This is narrowing though because women are holding off on starting a family until later in life or are skipping it altogether. And when they do start a family, they are more likely these days to re-enter the workforce and have shorter durations of maternity leave.

But there are potentially lots of unobserved factors that influence wages that cannot be measured. Perhaps men are better salary negotiators, for example. How do you measure that?

There are tons of reports that come out every year by feminist groups, such as the American Association of University Women, that highlight the news catchers (i.e. women earn less!), barely brush over the facts and reasons and then attribute any unknown to whatever point they are trying to make (i.e discrimination). Whenever you run any economic model, you're not going to be able to account for everything. So just lumping any residual effect together and labeling it as "discrimination" is misleading.

Still not convinced? You have to ask yourself one thing: If a company could pay women less for the same quality of work, why would it ever hire a man? To maximize profits, it would make sense to only hire women!

Flying Without ID

Up until June 23, it will be possible to fly without showing ID. I didn't know this and you probably didn't either because it isn't something well publicized and goes against all the signs at the airport informing fliers to show ID.

I would use a fake name if I could. Why? It doesn't mean I'm a terrorist, it just means I want privacy and don't want my name entering some government database that datamines for information. Or being tracked. I don't want anyone not in my circle to know where I am. Why? It's nobody's business, that's why.

And really, what real security is added by checking a name? I'm sure a well-funded terrorist could get some genuine looking falsified documents and book his or her flight under a pseudonym.