The Portland Thinker

How Adorable!

2014-06-17T15:26:00.001-07:00

North Korea sends Queen birthday congratulations http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/northkorea/10904770/North-Korea-sends-Queen-birthday-congratulations.html

Elliot Rodgers, The Murderer.

2014-05-29T19:20:00.003-07:00

I find interesting that with each major catastrophe people blame the "other" people. We blame the availability of objects, we blame the opposite sex, we blame a president that has no power, we blame people not even remotely associated with it, we blame a Democrat or they blame a Republican. We believe that if we point our crooked little fingers at something else we can change the course of the argument. In this case, this person was a punk and self-entitled douchebag. He was angry because he was a creeper and also had an unfortunate mental illness.

Laci Green (shown here: http://www.upworthy.com/in-the-last-33-years-70-of-the-71-mass-murderers-in-the-us-all-had-1-thing-in-common?c=ufb1), always likes to post videos on youtube blaming men for everything. News Flash: It wasn't society, men, women, or President Obama!

Neither was it guns (he used knives for half of his victims and his car)

It was an already-established healthcare system that was not properly utilized. To prove my point, I'll use FOX news: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/05/27/our-mental-health-care-system-is-joke-even-mass-murderer-elliot-rodger-slipped/

I am so sick and tired of this blame game.

President Obama had nothing to do with this.
Neither did the NRA.
Neither did President Bush.
etc etc

It is not a gun issue. If you think that it is, we should ban knives and cars at the same time.

The Great Depression, Socialists and Portland. Again.

2014-05-14T12:46:00.001-07:00

A common misconception from historians is the belief that the New Deal program “saved” America from greed, capitalism and corporate tyranny. Also, how capitalism itself causes the great depression in the first place (stock market crash).

I wonder how they obtain this information when those who study economics their entire lives will typically have a major disagreement with this notion?

For one, it was the Federal Reserve that caused it. Federally mandated, federally regulated but privately-ran. Making it one of the first and worst government sponsored enterprises. I will not get into the details because well, I don’t need to. Instead, I would highly suggest not reading Paul Krugman or Robert Reich for one.

I would read instead “The Forgotten Man,” anything from Thomas Sowell, Milton Friedman or people who are actual economists. There are several scholarly books and textbooks written about what caused the stock market crash and what made the great depression “great.”

Andrew Berstein even presents a moral case for capitalism. That’s because he’s an actual economist, not a historian that hardly includes economic history from :ahem: actual economists. So, clearly he supports free trade.

You know who doesn’t? Historians like Howard Zinn or Eric Foner. Both of them are prominent historians and their textbooks used widely throughout the nation. Zinn, in particular, lionizes the leftist movements and uses historians that support socialism. No kidding. Zinn was an admitted Marxist.

Eric Foner, on the other hand, is more difficult to figure out. Unless you read his books. Give Me Liberty is an excellent example of a well known history textbooks that sympathizes with socialists in America. I am not saying students should not learn about socialism in school, however. In fact everyone should learn about economics and whatever philosophy involved, which includes marxism. Not simply one or the other. How are students supposed to learn in an objective way if they're only taught about marxism (and all of it’s various ideas from it)?

Anyways….

Even Ben Bernacke’s dissertation (or was it thesis?) was based off of the federal reserve causing the great depression. Funny how economists then and now know this, understand this and keep mentioning it…. all the while liberals, politicians and journalists on the Huffington Post (Huggington Poopst) and NYT continuously keep posting the same nonsense.

If you keep saying something and repeating it throughout history, does it become true?

Person A : “But, Portland Thinker, what would we do if government couldn’t control the interest

rates or money supply?”

Portland Thinker : “They would be more competitive and the rate of inflation would be drastically

reduced.” :)

If one of your questions are “Gee, Portland Thinker, you’re not even an economist, so why do you think you’d know better than one of us?”

My answer is this, so listen carefully. Very carefully.

I am not an economist. I do, however, love to read about the topic and defer to the author’s better judgement than mine. Why, you ask? Because I am not an economist. :)

Just think of all of the textbooks you read in the past about various topics.

Linguistics?

Ancient History?

What about humanities in general?

What about nursing textbooks? Were these nursing textbooks written by astrophysicists? Probably a dumb question you don’t need to answer.

So, next time you hear some “super duper horrible libertarian, hell bent on individualism, touting off evil about free trade,” keep in mind they probably got their information from someone who is considered an expert in their field. And no, this doesn’t include politicians of either party.

However, regardless of how many times I hear these misconceptions or or mention the opposing facts to someone in Portland, I usually get a condescending remark.

Libertarians Should Ally With Conservatives

2014-05-14T12:00:00.000-07:00

Despite differences that libertarian-minded people have with conservative-minded people, politically speaking, they should become allies.

You would think they share similar interests in economists and individual rights. There are a few clashes, especially when it comes to Ann Coulter being a little harsh towards them...

I have seen a lot of conservative-minded people start moving towards libertarianism. How do we fill the gap and get our voices heard? I feel like there are too many people in the media that make libertarians look bad. Not just those who disagree with us but those who attempt to represent us.

Now that my A.D.D. has kicked in, I have realized I put too many "isms" on here.

What Annoys People? Er uh...me?

2014-04-21T12:24:00.000-07:00

What can possible drive someone bananas?

I have noticed since childhood that people who ate their food loudly or had the constant sniffles would drive me crazy. Maybe it has something to do with lettings "things bother me" as my mother would say. She's right....but...

I still find it annoying when the person sitting across from you at the coffee shop seems adamant on chewing their food too loudly, while smacking their lips and licking their fingers. Gross. What ever happened to manners? Especially for people are uh...a little older like in their 30's+. Note: there are exceptions....if the person doing this is disable in some way or is a smaller child, I would have a change of heart. This is only because they either can't help it or don't know any better. For the other 99% of the time, people can close their mouths when they chew!

Can I give you a list to continue this conversation? Sure!
How about people who walk to slow on a narrow path or while you're at shopping and some person blocks most of the isle, looking for their peanut butter in the dairy section. Durp. "Where's the peanut butter? I see the yogurt...but...."
...Durp.

My other huge pet peeve is sniffing. Yeah, you heard me. People just sniffle their way through the day. I know that it annoys a lot of people but it makes me wonder why their parents never told them, "blow your nose, dear..." Instead, I here this constant "sniff sniff." I know that annoys people because I will see other people turn and look towards the person, giving them a look of disgust. The exception to this is if someone who is handicapped or a small child is doing this. They either can't help it or don't know any better...

Bad drivers. This is not just a pet peeve of mine but the entire world. Even bad drivers hate bad drivers!
I can understand that the DMV has a huge challenge of licensing drivers but their is hardly enforcement of bad drivers...
If you know me you'd know I love smart policy and enforcement of various things. Horrible driving is something that should be addressed. Oregon drivers are getting worse. How to fight this issue? Maybe the availability of cameras capturing the red-light runners at intersections? Or the people that block the intersection on purpose? It happens on accident sometimes but when someone does something on purpose.... I think it's time to start giving out fines for bad drivers...

Balance of Power

2014-02-23T16:07:00.001-08:00

Thought of the day…. I am glad that Americans are finally paying attention to what is happening in different countries. Venezuela or Ukraine is just a small taste of what has been happening since authoritarian governments were being "ousted" by their people for the last few decades. Sometimes, it take a few tries (Egypt) or sometimes it creates worse problems and a massive death toll (Syria). Typically, these politicians utilize their power under the guise of promoting equality via central planning. “If you give us power, we will help you in some fashion.” However, it ends up with the same result. This. Just because something sounds good, doesn’t mean it works. We have learned that from several attempts of promoting central planning (getting your government to solve social issues and disparities without considering alternatives that are not practiced). Government is needed, no doubt. Just not on this level. It just creates corruption, disruption of the economy and revolutions. Why are people still wanting to promoting government to have more power? Surely you can advocate for more infrastructure spending but why more? We already spend a lot on that and much of the needed buildings, roads, railroads, bridges and tunnels are already established. Whether it was from Jefferson and the Lousiana purchase or the Eisenhower Administration establishing a highway system, the big stuff is done. Maybe for green energy? That doesn’t work as well as it sounds either. The private market does a better job of innovation and price reduction….

Whether it sparks from a Coup d'état with a sociopath like Pinochet or from the general people fighting their way through, it shows how far their people will go to earn their freedom(s). Maybe they’re already perceived as “free” but still crave for something more.

The Stimulus. What has it done?

2014-02-17T20:19:00.001-08:00

Who wanted it? Why did they even try this?

Krugman wanted a lot more. A lot. What we also forget is that this is not just 680 billion. Over the next few years, with interest, this upwards of at least a trillion, in overall spending. What is also left out of Obama's (and Reich, and Krugman, etc.) rhetoric is the mere fact that much of this money was hardly spent after it was signed. It has taken several years for this stimulus money to actually become circulated.

Keynesian logic: in case of emergency, break the glass. Parable of the broken window. ie: economic fallacy, so I'm told.
It will never go away. I remember trying to explain this years ago to people just to be shut it....

With that said, I would not call it "obamanomics" just like I wouldn't call something "reaganomics" or "bushanomics" or "trickle-down" when there are no such things.

Charlie, I thank you for your dedication to dispell such myths. You are certainly right about Krugman....after the recession was in full swing, even a 2 years later, Krugman would still defend it. Mentioning things like "well, it prevented a huge disaster from actually occuring" even though he and Obama called it the "Great Recession." What made it so great? Just like the great depression, Hoover set the stage for FDR to make it worse.

Reagan inherited a potentially worse recession from the Carter administration and did the polar opposite Obama did. Lower taxes that increased economic growth, which later....(economic policy can take a while to kick in sometimes) help the economic boom in the 1990's....
Although Reagan still spent money but let's not forget who had the majority in congress during most of his presidency.....:ahem: take a guess?

I'll answer for you. Republicans had a slight majority during 6 of his 8 years in the senate. It was less than a 60% majority which made override nigh on impossible....but
the House of Reps has Democratic majority that uh....you really couldn't argue with.

Chomsky Does It Again

2014-02-15T05:29:00.003-08:00

When it comes to consistency, Noam will not disappoint.
When it comes to years without being questioned, even from experts in fields he isn't in, it's called Cognitive Dissonance.
Instead of listening to people who study economics their wholes lives or business professionals....instead, let's learn about a rather complex social science from a linguist professor.
Makes sense.

Noam Chomsky. For being such a prominent intellectual, seems to have missed some several key things in his latest speech. For one, if millions of Americans are not working but "willing" to work because of the super rich hoarding the money, then he forgets about the fundamentals about creating wealth in the first place. Public spending is at an all time high, so why are you losing this argument already? Unemployment rate of 6.6% does not represent the Americans who have stopped looking for work or who have their unemployment benefits run out. Two, blaming banks for causing a domestic financial (and international) disaster is irrelevant without the back story of the federal and many state government's promoting banks give several million housing loans in the first place to promote home buyers. Blaming the government creating and subsidizing false incentives is something you should look more into, Professor Chomsky. This is not something so simply. It didn't take a year. It wasn't Obama's fault.... this is something that was years in the making...

Gender Pay Gap. Facts, Logic and Data? Check, check and check.

2014-02-13T12:41:00.001-08:00

Yes. It exists. Yes there's still biases that are not accounted for. These biases include women making less because a man might be in charge and might have some prejudices. However, when accounting same education and experience in the same field, it still exists. What is not accounted for in this data is child rearing and the amount of time it takes "out" of the job field to take care of children. So, it still exists, but nowhere near the level that everyone thinks of it as....

Generalizing here, it is true that women are paid 0.77 per every $1.00 a man will make but based off of the Government Accountability Office, they have interesting statistics to discuss the reasons for this. Now it would be nice to have a higher sample of people to research, but they did what they could.

I often hear from a multitude of reports of men being awful or sexist and keeping women away from high-paying jobs, or if they’re in these high-paying jobs, they’re paid less. Because men don’t allow women to be paid more. But is this true? When comparing women to men who have the same level of education, same experience, and don’t leave work, who don’t have children, tend to make slightly less and sometimes, more. Especially when younger. I know you probably don’t like hearing that, though. It’s dependent on whether or not the man or woman has the same exact experience in the same exact field and position, same level of credentials and education, they must not be married or have any children or have any along the way.

With that said, I will acknowledge that gender bias exists in all fields. All of them. Including the one I’m in currently.

Now, of course I’m going to verify this. In order to look at some facts, I would prefer using independent, non-partisan, objective data. The GAO was established by the government to find these facts. Why are women paid less than men, on average?

The rest of this information is gathered from various sources that I’ll post. What many articles from Huffington Post and Slate, Salon and others tend to ignore is the other perspectives. The Huffington Post article will bbaarreellyy mention the following points that I have gotten from other sources. Why not use the Huffington Post or Salon? They all argue the same thing, essentially: men are at fault for the gender pay gap. According to the hard data here, it’s not exactly that. If someone tells me to “look at the facts” but doesn’t bother to look at the hard data for these multifaceted causes of the gender gap like this….

….I tell them, “likewise to you, my tolerant friend.”

Ok, here we go.

For one, In case you neglect to even read what these reports mention, you will find that it discusses that women often work less, in terms of overall hours. When comparing men and women of even the same field, women are often presented with less overall amount of hours per year. Even in the same position. This is generalizing, right? Well, even a well-placed and claimed fallacy has a solid nugget of truth behind it. Women, on average, not being sexist here, tend to work less overall hours. They may account to 50% of the workforce but they work less hours. If you work less hours, you make overall less money. That is what the Huffington Post articles do not really discuss.

Two, they also tend to pick professions that often make less than others. This isn’t a bad thing at all. Women who pick less-paying professions often have a different, more powerful yield to society: increasing someone else’s social capital and fulfillment. Example: Women are 80% of the teaching workforce for elementary and middle schools. They make the biggest impact on a child’s life. Though, they get paid less in these positions. But there’s a tradeoff here. For the less pay, they create a bigger impact on society. Should teachers get paid more for doing this? Sure. Should

Three, women tend to take a longer leave of absence between children being born. We know why? Well, men typically in our culture work more hours as women tend to rear children (hence working less to stay at home more often than men). We know that. Other reasons for this? Men cannot breast feed. This renders men useless to an infant’s demanding feeding schedule (unless the mother has plenty of time to pump during her lunch breaks but we know this is really time-consuming).

Four, as a result of these longer absences, women often get paid less when they come back to the work force. Ok, this is where I will end up fighting for a woman’s right to have her old job back, at the same rate of pay. This happens more often, but in the past and still today, women come back to the workforce with a different job…..which means they’re not experienced in that particular field or the company has set wages for new workers.

Five, this is something of a harsh reality in society. As more children are born out of wedlock, they’re less likely to have that second parent earning an income. Any income. Child support barely makes a dent. Instead, you have a lot of single mothers that are left with children and trying to find work at the same time. Possibly going to school as well. This puts women at a further disadvantage as they typically are succumbed to less pay because of the lack of time to find a better job and better schooling…that results in a better job. There are public funds to alleviate this but they hardly make a dent.

Now, if you take this into consideration, even accounting that women are faaarrr more educated than men in this country (these days), they still get paid less. In fact, women are far more likely to get a degree (these days) than a man will. This also increases student loan debt. Guess what? This contributes to a reduction in net pay as well.... some employers will "cut" some of your pay to help you pay back your student loans.... Just another example of a reason of the pay gap....

The overall, over-arching reasons for this gender pay gap is women (1) choose different, less-paying positions and (2) because women tend to take care of children more than men in this country, they often need to be at home after the birth longer to take care of the babies….which means that (2) women are paid less because they work less hours.

Now, when the overwhelming amount of data discusses that women happen to work less hours per year on average to stay at home more often to take care of children, why is this sexist? We know, that it still exists and of course there are cases where women make less money than men when they’re pretty much equal in terms of education, experience, position in field, no children, not married, etc. I am not simply denying this. I am simply proposing a valid argument.

I am simply saying that the simplistic view that “women make less because of men doing something bad” is frivolous. If you believe in this, your own government hired people to find the best possible answers and as a result, have weakened that simplistic view. As of today, there are many changes in society

If you are going to comment on the fact that sexism still exists, then I will more than likely agree with you. Things are different now but some people don’t change. We get that. Now, go back and look at the data…..women work less hours, even in the same field….. Because of why? Children.

Some sources:

http://instructional1.calstatela.edu/mfinney/courses/491/hand/family.pdf

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/11/magazine/the-opt-out-generation-wants-back-in.html?pagewanted=all&_r=1&

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/she-the-people/wp/2013/08/13/why-women-still-earn-less-than-men-its-the-kids-fault/

http://www.gao.gov/assets/590/585721.pdf

http://www.gao.gov/assets/290/287375.pdf (this about federal workforce. There is still a 7% pay gap but it does not discuss amount of hours actually worked or involvement of child-rearing).

http://www.gao.gov/multimedia/podcasts/581612 (podcast and here's the transcript--http://www.gao.gov/assets/590/581613.txt)

http://www.aauw.org/files/2013/03/Graduating-to-a-Pay-Gap-The-Earnings-of-Women-and-Men-One-Year-after-College-Graduation-Executive-Summary-and-Recommendations.pdf (discusses everything that the Huffington Post/Salon articles discuss but doesn't discuss the other reasons. There is still a bias from men and this source discusses this.)

Russia Is Still In Transition

2014-02-10T12:50:00.001-08:00

     A friend of mine posted an excellent article on why we shouldn't stab fun at Russia's standard of living. It is unfair for such a large group of people to have gone through such a rough transition. However, when I see this at their ceremony, I start to wonder if they've really transitioned? I've read about Putin mentioning the rise of small business start ups but this is hardly the case when most Russians do not want "capitalism," per se. I guess this is starting to change, finally. I know why: they're still culturally in tune with over-arching government, controlling much of the economy. It's a slow transition but this is normal. For a socialist country to transition is nothing short of amazing.
        However, they still strive to have their country compete with the global market. Guess what? They have to. No more nationalistic economies.They may have had "full" employment during the soviet era, they may have not experience a real recession but here's the deal: there standard of living is lower that a great deal of industrialized nations and not experiencing a real recession or depression is pointless if your country is in a constant one.... what would rather have? A constant recession, poverty, corruption with the mafia controlling your government or instead, a poorly informed housing committee (Barney Frank and Maxine Waters) that indulge in market socialism. causing a horrible recession? Well, I would pick the latter, as long as people were informed about this.
         It also reminds of Sweden. Once hailed as the socialist utopia of the world had to reform from a socialist/centrally planned market into....guess what...... yeah. You know what I'm going to say....

My Sources of News, if You're Interested

2014-02-07T16:25:00.002-08:00

I currently have several subscriptions.

The Washington Post (online and free for students). This is excellent!

FOX Business (recently as of today). This is also excellent. It does show differing sides but always about businesses and economics.

The Economist. A UK-based news outlet. Similar to "The Week" but shows more various viewpoints. This is probably my favorite as they always mention differing views and make it easy to read on the go. Student discount available.

The Wall Street Journal. Yeah, I know this is favored towards more business/markets but a good overview, nonetheless. Their opinions are moderate-conservative. The news portion is excellent. I love seeing this at my doorstep!

Huffington Post. Despite their obvious biases, it's an excellent source of news and stories. I usually avoid their politics at times because they tend to focus towards one "side" of the fence.

MSNBC is something I have turned away from recently, due to the overwhelming amount of opinion.

The Nation is obviously leftist. They said it, not me! A good analysis of how right-wingers get it wrong!

DailyKos and Moveon I would actively avoid. Too biased for my test. Especially when they focus on making fun of people constantly. Cute internet memes are for children and satire, not politics!

The New York Times is obviously huge. It's an excellent source and features many differing sides.

NPR is great as well. They tend to discuss differences of opinion and they're fairly objective.

EconTalk is another personal favorite. Russ Roberts hosts the podcast and they provide expert, fact-based opinions as to what causes what in economics. Prepare to be bombarded with facts and sources.....

I will update this later. There are many many many more....

I have always wondered....

2014-02-07T14:11:00.000-08:00

When applying for a new job, getting the interview and doing well on it...

I Get Emotional Over Paul Krugman

2014-02-07T13:13:00.001-08:00

Yes, this is certainly true.
Over these last few years of reading from his blog, watching him debate other economists (which is rare for him), it is clear of what he's done for the "left." Along with Robert Reich, they have been a huge voice in not only promoting free trade in the early 1980's through the mid 1990's, they have been a different voice. Now, they have focused largely on inequality and the top 1%.
They seem to be a fuel for the "left" as I hear many of the best arguments are coming from them. Maybe not directly but every time I read something from them, they propose many of these issues.
People like them change political opinion.
I know Krugman for certain.

When Krugman debates, however rare, he is often confronted by lay people about his use of fallacies.

Economic fallacies are different fallacies.

So it's no wonder I get emotional when I read from his blog. I read his and wonder to myself, "How is it possible for conservatives and the republicans to be wrong every time?"
Statistically, this cannot be so simple but Krugman portrays this.

Huffington, FOX and Bias. I will edit later.

2014-02-02T17:44:00.002-08:00

Over these last few years, I have used Huffington Post as one of my primary news sources, along with NPR (business/economics and news), The Economist (subscribed), FOX Business (not news or commentary), EconTalk for economics, Drudge Report, MSNBC, Forbes, Slate, Salon, Time, and many others.
What I have noticed is that Huffington Post will seem to portray anyone on the "left" in a much better light that anyone close to being on the "right" side of politics.
Bill Maher can get away with joking about mass shootings at a country music awards but if a conservative would say anything close to this, Huffington Post would....be...all....over....it.
Face it. Arianna Huffington is a known converted liberal and it makes sense that her pride and joy is a byproduct of herself.
Every time someone from the GOP says something remotely close to be being stupid, the Huffpost is all over it. When it comes to a Democratic politician, however, it's often ignored or portrayed in a different way.
Don't believe me? Then maybe if you're a liberal and wonder why I make this accusation, you should start seeing some of this.

If Liberals dislike FOX news so much for being biased, then why don't they even flinch when Huffington Post makes biased news reports?

People make the claim that Drudge is center-right. Yeah, I can see why. There's a difference though: Matt Drudge and crew only select website and links to news stories on their webpage. Very different from actual "writing" a story or being a "journalist." Instead the Drudge folks pick out several different stories from several different sources. Usually it's because they think something should be more on the headlines that behind them. Especially when it comes to a Democrat or Liberal making a mistake. For that, I thank his crew for doing this. He was made famous from the Lewinski-Clinton debacle. I don't think people should really care about Clinton's personal life, to be honest. For this instance, Drudge was sick of people not reporting enough naughty things that Democrats were guilty of. Typically, the focus was towards the GOP.

The main problem of Conservative bias, however, lies in Conservative talk radio. This is prevalent throughout America but with one major exception: most people do not....do not...listen to talk radio.
I hear Noam Chomsky makes this claim quite often of media bias, which he might agree with me in that it works both ways. However, I know he believes that it works in the "right's" favor more than anything else. It's usually because of the talk radio. Chomsky's arch enemy. However, for being such a bright and intelligent person, it escapes me how he doesn't realize that most people don't use talk radio as a source. Pod casting, more so, when it comes to educational and political shows, maybe.

Here's an example of bias from Huffington Post. Here, the author portrays conservative bias in a negative light without mentioning hardly anything about liberal bias. However, the author makes the claim that "The supposedly liberal media are out to thwart Chris Christie's presidential bid, according to conservative critics. Please." Now that's cute. I wonder if this author is aware that he's just as guilty?

The author mentions a conservative sites that's a watchdog of liberal sites, The Media Research Center. Yeah, and they do a pretty good job about showing videos of liberals in tight situations with their own bias. It's an excellent site if you want to see this. If you're a liberal (that's probably you) then it make you pull your hair out. However, if you really want to be objective and realize how some liberals get their information from biased sources, you might realize something. If you're a conservative, I hope you don't point and laugh at them because I think treating people this is immature. What the author does not mention are the liberal sites that point out conservative bias. This one for liberals, Media Matters, is pretty decent as well. Just as the conservative MRC, this one is biased as well. They're meant to be.
What I notice is that Media Matters will focus on the little things like "FOX didn't say this important thing" or "FOX hides offensive comments from Hannity" from the small stuff. What they seem to focus on is the one this I despise from right or left wing sources: commentary. They don't bash much of the conservative news because they really can't. It's not based off of opinion.... so....the usually leave that alone.

With all due respect to Media Matters and their focus on conservative bias, they hardly touch the actual news. Hannity is not the news, people. The Media Research Center will not only attack commentary from Maher-types but liberal news outlets as well. Something Media Matters does less of.

Regardless, of what you think of this blog, Americans beleive the "media" in general skews more to the left than the right....even with FOX in the picture. Gallup Polls are known to be fairly accurate. Then why doesn't' Huffington Post or MSNBC report this excellent poll data?

From Gallup. What is interesting is that Huffington Post did not report this, according to my search on their website.

And here are some of other examples of liberal bias in the news the last few years. Some really good ones in there. Go figure, Krugman makes the top three of most biased people in the news.....

You think I'm being unfair? Well, yes. Life is. So are people who claim to solidly be objective or bash a "side" of politics.
Here are some examples of conservative bias. This one is about the election.
And FOX. You betcha!

Where I typically draw the line not in favor of liberals is the awful and distorted misrepresentation of several people in the media that, after that last few years of researching this, wrongfully accused of bias and hate speech. Andrew Breitbart is certainly one of them. The Sherrod case is an excellent examples. He was accused of being a whole bunch of things but those who accused him, didn't even read his actual article. It was about the NAACP audience applauding for Sherrods comments about being slightly racist towards a white farmer. Andrew focused on the audiences applause and remarks about Sherrod's comments. Sherrod herself was telling a story about her transformation about why eeeeeveryone should not be so divided. The crown had no clue she was telling a true story about her being biased towards white people and how she overcame this. Andrew Brietbart knew this and even mentioned her humanity with her transformation. He cared more about the NAACP crowd that is supposed to be...well....no racist....or at least they're not supposed to cheer it on, anyways. Well they did. Proof. Breitbart's focused, as was mentioned his original post, was about the crowd applauding her somewhat racist comments. He didn't edit the video, either. You see, this is how it all starts...
This is where I started to realize about bias in media culture. In general.

Breitbart was blamed for something that wasn't even remotely true. Even after his death, many liberals made harsh comments towards him and his family. Still, to this day, people bring this up without actually having a rational discussion about what he really said and how it was taken out of context.

These Mass Shooting Need To Stop! But how?

2014-01-05T10:47:00.003-08:00

Here is one guys opinion. Aside from all of the "anti-this" or "pro-this" sides, I think makes some great points.

Oregon Wages Lower

2013-12-03T17:46:00.001-08:00

This is because Oregon is ran by a bunch of super-uber-mega-conservatives in a horrible Red State. Wait..... Nevermind....Polar opposite!

Adjusting for inflation (always a good thing), we notice low-income wages are not improving. Wierd. Oregon is a progressive "blue" state that has numerous policies that are 'meant' to support the underserved. Very unusual that liberals, progressives and socialists tout Oregon as being "progressive" while some other red states are fairing better, despite the typical criticisms.

http://www.oregonlive.com/money/index.ssf/2013/12/wages_havent_kept_up_with_inflation_for_lowest-paid_workers_not_a_problem_for_top_earners_oregon_the_economy.html#incart_m-rpt-2

How can you blame the "capitalists" or conservatives when they hardly exist in Oregon in the first place? At least not in Portland.....where the majority lives...where the majority vote for liberal Democrats like Merkely...who was voted one of the most liberal of politicians.....hmmmm....

The idea of free trade is not what's happening right now. Free trade theorists propose their arguments for the poor and middle class, for innovations and advances in technology....of course people get rich doing so. It's a necessity. They're not proposing their arguments to get people rich but to at least allow them to.
Corruption, you ask? I hate that too.

President and His Administration Using "Soviet-Style" Tactics.

2013-12-03T17:39:00.001-08:00

Their words, not mine. Interesting read. Apparently, this is worse than other administrations. Wonder why?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/10486935/Media-attacks-Obamas-Soviet-style-publicity-policy.html

Liberals start to lose in Honduras.

2013-11-30T23:27:00.001-08:00

This is actually happening throughout the world, whether Krugman likes this or not...

The Economist | Honduras’s presidential election: Mano dura wins the day http://www.economist.com/news/americas/21590900-new-president-violent-country-will-have-weak-mandate-threatens-brandish-big?frsc=dg%7Cb via @theeconomist

Absolute Tolerance Towards Conservatives

2013-11-18T17:44:00.000-08:00

You should know, before we begin, I am not a fan of Sarah Palin. Neither am I a fan of Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh and a few others. I am also not a fan of Rachel Maddow, Keith Olberman or Cenk, from the Young Turks.
Why? All of them are guilty of saying some inflammatory comments towards the "other side" and it seems like people are not held to a certain standard.

When Rush called that younger women a "slut" because she advocated that the government should pay for all contraceptives, etc. for women in college, it became national news and rightfully so: he was an asshole.
Almost lost his job for that. I wouldn't have cared, however. I could careless about political commentators, of any side on the political spectrum.
What disgusts me, however, is the level of which "side" gets the most negative publicity in regards to their awful statements.
Take Bill Maher for example....called Sarah Palin the C-word and conservatives were fairly angry. Liberals didn't care much. In fact, it was not really in national news. Nobody really cared.....

Now, you have this guy: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AZ_pbzmnxvQ

Despite your views about Sarah Palin's methods or how she talks to people, or her political views, let it be known that many liberal commentators are not held to the same standard as conservative commentators. Even though Rush apologized for his words.....they still hate him. Just like this guy....I wonder how many people will even care about his comments?

What about the above video? He apologized and felt really bad for saying such things....yet, he is known for making similar (though, not as bad) comments towards those he disagrees with....

UPDATE: He resigned.

Occupy Wall Street and other topics...(Updated again, sorry)

2013-11-18T14:03:00.002-08:00

Here, you hear a man discuss major socio-economic issues with members of the Occupy Wall Street movement. Peter attempts to discuss the morality of getting unnecessary regulations out of businesses so they can hire young workers, why college tuition costs so much, why we do not have free trade in this country and why the Occupy Movement was protesting in the wrong direction.... He was sincere and polite, trying to reason with them. Some of them were certainly shocked about his ideas... being an advocated of such ideas myself, I am often labeled with nasty names fairly often. If you have time, it would be important to listen to the amount claims, forms of logic and differing ideologies amongst the crowd.

Listen to the emotions from these poor people.

For the level of intolerance that appears from my fellow Americans, I am surprised of the civil discussions that occurred here.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ahMGoB01qiA

In about 30 minutes into the video, you'll notice someone constantly not letting Peter talk. Accusing him of things like "wanting to go back" to some bad times.... When he does not. The younger fellow does not give him a chance to talk.....hardly ever.
This is actually fairly typical in debates....on both sides. Notice how he constantly tries to discuss that guy's claim every time but is not even given about 2 minutes to rebuttal those claims and accusations?

This is ongoing.

Even for me, people often confuse me of being a right-winger, or something. Even some friends of mine have accused me of such things....or being a "leftist." My favorite is when some believe they know my views yet are surprised at my opinions....

My favorites from social conservatives: "So, if you allow same-sex marriage, people will want to marry their animals." This one I feel like screaming after this is said. It's a ridiculous claim and fairly harsh towards same sex couples. Downright mean, actually. They're undermining someone's relationship based off of their viewpoints.....completely disregarding a couple's love for each other. For these claims, I often ask this person a simple question, after validating their claim: "Why are you, or those similar to you, against same-sex marriage?" Sometimes, the answer is just like the first claim. At this moment, it is nigh impossible to change their mindset on such topics....

My favorite from socialists: "You don't care if people get sick, that's why you're against everyone getting healthcare." This claim, being on par is a similar fallacy, though it's usually referred to the tin-man fallacy, meaning because you're against a politicians legislation to force people to buy health insurance, makes you heartless. No. I am against such policy (although some good things in there) overall because it just ensures something that the socialists hate in the first place: Private Health Insurance. Newsflash, we hate it, too.

I hear arguments about why "we" all need single-payer healthcare because it's better. I hear arguments of why our "free market" healthcare is failing.

I can easily rebuttal these claims using peer-reviewed research. If you don't want to, then fine. I highly suggest that you conduct you're own research. Google doesn't count.

Go into your college's peer-reviewed data base. Search EBSCO, business source premier, etc. and "click" on the scholarly link, to ensure it's only peer-reviewed. Search efficacy single payer or socialized medicine or access socialized or nhs efficacy or whatever words you can come up with. You'd be surprised that there are many things great about socialized medicine. I know this. However, giving people "access" doesn't necessarily mean they'll get actual coverage.....

Also, I know "our" system is also awful but I'll elaborate on that at a different time. Our system isn't so great either...

Some of you of who personally know me, would never say such disgusting things about me. You would know very well of what kind of a person I am. This bigotry in this country needs to stop.

Free Market Healthcare and Why It Works (Soon, November 8th)

2013-11-05T15:19:00.000-08:00

There will soon be a peer-reviewed paper about the complexity of our healthcare system, why the status quo is not working, why insurance companies and government funded insurance companies are making healthcare worse and why parts of the ACA actually induce these. Of course there will be more topics.

Some critics say that we have a "free market" in healthcare but how can that be true if half of healthcare is paid by government and most of it is regulated by government? That was a trick question. These simple facts enable that premise to be false: we barely have a free market oriented healthcare system. In fact, with the government tampering with producers, consumers the third-party-payers, it's no wonder why costs are out of control.

Here's a taste:

Many critics of the U.S. health care system argue that our practice of "freemarket"

medicine has been a failure, and we ought to follow the Europeans and

embrace "socialized medicine." We maintain, ho\\e\er.. that this country's "awkward

flirtation with the marketplace" (Whalen 2003) more closely resembles corporate

welfare than an experiment in free-market medicine. Therefore, we suggest that

before Americans abandon the free market, they ought at least to try it.

Kroncke, C. & White, R. (2009). The Modern Health Care Maze. (2009). Independent Review, 14(1), 45-70.

Republican Healthcare Reform. Proof. Also, Krugman rant.

2013-11-04T20:56:00.001-08:00

If you know me, then you that I cannot stand Paul Krugman. Not because he considers himself a liberal because that would be ridiculous. I have several friends that are considered “liberal.”

I dislike him because he let his Nobel Peace Prize go to his head and at this point, he only blames Republicans and conservative or libertarians for every economic/social ill known to humans.
The following are just a few examples of why he angers me.....

Here’s him being a coward: http://www.humanevents.com/2011/09/11/paul-krugman-coward/

Here’s him trying not to be a coward: http://www.humanevents.com/2011/09/16/paul-krugman-is-back-out-from-under-his-desk/

Here’s the actual evidence: http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/09/11/the-years-of-shame/?smid=tw-NytimesKrugman&seid=auto&_r=0

Him lying about the Bush tax cuts, getting the wrong information (this source has sources): http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/08/paul_krugman_is_a_liar_does_th.html

Lying about Mitt Romney: http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2012/10/paul-krugman-then-and-now.php Seriously, actually making this stuff up… This has many other examples of him well, lying.

Here’s him blaming Republicans for all the effing healthcare problems: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/26/opinion/krugman-republican-health-care-panic.html

And again: http://finance.townhall.com/columnists/ralphbenko/2013/07/24/paul-krugman-shameful-floccinaucinihilipilificator-dies-in-derpistan-n1647538?utm_source=thdaily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl

Making fun of republicans again: http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/08/11/the-power-of-incumbency-health-care-edition/

His idea of what the NHS is like, not really true: Maybe I should send old Krugster some reports that he’s wrong? http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/17/opinion/17krugman.html

Then you have ahem….this….guy. Same horrible idea of “Republican Healthcare Plan: Don’t Get Sick.” Simply childish. Why are some of these people leading our country? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-usmvYOPfco “It was a blank piece of paper” “Don’t Get sick”

Why would someone simply bash the other side? Alan Grayson, with all due respect, why were you so immature about this? This is not even remotely true.

Now.....
Why all of this immaturity towards Republicans? Why say “they don’t believe in reform” when in fact, they’ve attempted several times and you know what happened? DEMOCRATS VOTED NO!!!!

Want proof of these bills? Keep in mind that these are Republican comprehensive healthcare reforms BEFORE the Obamacare/Affordable Care Act (Everyone calls it Obamacare but I don’t like to).

Here’s one from Senator Mike Enzi, a Republican from Wisconsin n 2007: http://www.enzi.senate.gov/public/_files/BillText10StepstoTransformHealthCare.pdf

Another from Senators Burr, Corker, Coburn, Martinez and Dole: https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/110/s1886/text

Bennett and ONE Democrat, my personal hero, Ron Wyden: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-111hr1321ih/pdf/BILLS-111hr1321ih.pdf

Burr, Ryan and Nunes: http://www.coburn.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?a=Files.Serve&File_id=d2f94455-368c-45b5-8d56-fc195a833884

From Tom Price: http://tomprice.house.gov/sites/tomprice.house.gov/files/HR%202300%20Section%20by%20Section.pdf

Not to mention these as well, endorsed by Republicans as a free-market oriented approach to healthcare: http://www.ncpa.org/email/book-article.pdf and it’s summary: http://ushealthpolicygateway.com/vii-key-policy-issues-regulation-and-reform/p-health-reform/national-health-reform/models-for-health-reform/individual-pay-or-play/

Some thought....

If you don’t like the idea of a free-market oriented healthcare system, then please, do not tell me “to look at the facts, read a book or tell me I don’t know what I’m talking about” etc like typically happens from a certain political opposition. I am fighting back.

Here: http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/pa-633.pdf

Here: http://faculty.chicagobooth.edu/john.cochrane/research/papers/Cochrane%20time%20consistent%20health%20insurance%20JPE.pdf

Only abstract: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167629606000105

From Hoover institution: http://media.hoover.org/sites/default/files/documents/9780817910440_1.pdf

Again: http://www.independent.org/store/book.asp?id=99#t-2

Again: http://www.ncpa.org/pdfs/sp_10-Steps-to-Universal-Coverage-without-Mandates.pdf

http://ushealthpolicygateway.com/vii-key-policy-issues-regulation-and-reform/p-health-reform/national-health-reform/models-for-health-reform/universal-health-savings-accounts/

This is a good one about Singapore (you need access from a college website, then search this title): http://www.bmj.com/content/347/bmj.f4797.pdf%2Bhtml

A review of Singapores Healthcare ideas: http://theincidentaleconomist.com/wordpress/tag/singapore/

And another: http://www.aei.org/files/2012/12/12/-constructing-an-alternative-to-obamacare-key-details-for-a-practical-replacement-program_171532844111.pdf

Oh, and here’s some more peer-reviewed literature about free-market healthcare reform and one or two criticisms of it. Usually, the criticisms are “facts” founded by already set-in-the-brain misconceptions about what Republicans want, what conservatives want, how people distort the truth about the free trade.

Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, (2012). Frequently asked questions hospital value-

based purchasing. Retrieved from website: http://www.cms.gov/Medicare/Quality-

Initiatives-Patient-Assessment-Instruments/hospital-value-based-

purchasing/Downloads/FY-2013-Program-Frequently-Asked-Questions-about-Hospital-

VBP-3-9-12.pdf

Bolch, M. (2012). SHIFTING THE BURDEN: Employers Helping Employees Manage Costs.

Financial Executive, 28(10), 40-43.

Delamothe, T. (2008). Universality, equity, and quality of care. BMJ: British Medical Journal

(International Edition), 336(7656), 1278-1281

Kroncke, C. & White, R. (2009). The Modern Health Care Maze. (2009). Independent Review,

14(1), 45-70.

Fixing Medical Malpractice Through Health Insurer Enterprise Liability. (2008). Harvard Law

Review, 121(4), 1192-1214.

Glasper, A. (2013). The quality of care provided in NHS trusts reviewed. British Journal Of

Nursing, 22(19), 1136-1137

Haviland, A. M., Marquis, M., McDevitt, R. D., & Sood, N. (2012). Growth Of Consumer-Directed

Health Plans To One-Half Of All Employer-Sponsored Insurance Could Save $57 Billion

Annually. Health Affairs, 31(5), 1009-1015. doi:10.1377/hlthaff.2011.0369

Herzlinger, R. (2007). Consumerism and controversy: a conversation with Regina Herzlinger by

Robert S Galvin. Health Affairs, 26(5), w552-9.

Herzlinger, R. (2009). Regina Herzlinger: a long-term vision for healthcare reform. Hfm

(Healthcare Financial Management), 63(11), 50-52

Marshall, M. (2009, October 10). Applying quality improvement approaches to health care.

BMJ: British Medical Journal (Overseas & Retired Doctors Edition). pp. 819-820.

doi:10.1136/bmj.b3411

Shepherd, J., & Stafford, K. (2012). Patient-centric? Third-party payers interfere. Journal Of

Family Practice, 61(4), 187

Santias, F., Consuelo, D., & Martínez, I. (2004). Healthcare services in the U.K. PRIVATE SECTOR

AND THE NEW CONSULTANT CONTRACT: KEY STATISTICS AND TRENDS. Revista Gerencia

Y Políticas De Salud, 3(7), 8-22.

Tacchino, A. (2012). Health Care Reform's Effect on the Working Middle Class. Journal Of

Financial Service Professionals, 66(3), 43-50.

Taylor, J. (2012). Market-Based Reforms in Health Care Are Both Practical and Morally Sound.

Journal Of Law, Medicine & Ethics, 40(3), 537-546. doi:10.1111/j.1748-

720X.2012.00687.x

Tinkham, M. (2013). Pursuing magnet designation: the role of structural empowerment. AORN

Journal, 97(2), 253-256. doi:10.1016/j.aorn.2012.11.011

Tozzi, J. (2013). What the GOP Has to Love About Obamacare. Bloomberg Businessweek, (4345),

28-29.

Tu, H. T., & May, J. H. (2007). Self-Pay Markets In Health Care: Consumer Nirvana Or Caveat

Emptor?. Health Affairs, 26w217-w226. doi:10.1377/hlthaff.26.2.w217

Williams, H. F., Lopez, G., & Lewis, K. (2013). Certification -- Good for Business. Nephrology

Nursing Journal, 40(3), 247-254.

Williams, C., & Maruthappu, M. (2013, January). "Healthconomic Crises": Public Health and

Neoliberal Economic Crises. American Journal of Public Health. pp. 7-9.

doi:10.2105/AJPH.2012.300956.

Note: You see how long it takes to dispel these silly little myths? I would defend Obama from the anti-same sex marriage crowd but I already agree with same-sex marriage. Pro-choice or pro-life? I wrote something about that years ago. Back when I could hardly even write. Now, I at least suck at this point. :)

Something that Annoys Me

2013-10-23T20:54:00.002-07:00

I have noticed recently that if you're against the government intervening in every possible fashion, then you're completely against anyone getting help, according to a liberal. Not every liberal. There are those that have that compassion like the rest of us to help others but are understanding that holding people accountable is the best way. Unless of course they're disabled in any way or cannot provide for themselves. The difference between these two ideologies has battled since Plato and Aristotle. No wonder why there's such controversy.
Why do conservatives donate more of their money, blood and volunteer, when liberals want government to solve such social issues? (Source 1.) Even this guy makes a good argument for both sides (Source 2)

Even then, there is heavy criticism that the study was wrong to begin with. For example, asking someone if they're Very Conservative, Conservative, Moderately Conservative, Middle of the Road, Moderately Liberal, Liberal or Very Liberal could have a very different meaning.

Read that again. A very different meaning. Hence why the study wasn't so good in the first place. As it turns out, liberals donate to secular non-profits and conservatives donate to religious-based organizations. Even then, there are far less liberals than conservatives. Conservatives a greater in number, giving them the win of donations (because of greater numbers).

I am considered middle of the road when it comes to my politics but for those that don't even care to know the rest of what I believe in, they assume I'm "very conservative" which is not true.
Nor am I "very liberal."

Update November 2nd:
This still surprises me every time I see that ridiculous bumper sticker "Republican Healthcare Plan: Don't Get Sick" couldn't be further from the truth. If anything, the GOP and a better half of the country agree that people should be held accountable for their actions but also agree (with the other half) that there needs to be a social safety net. Not a permanent safety (unless disabled, etc;) but a temporary fix. Instead, what systems were in place are no longer actually helping people in the manner that was intended.

1. http://www.newsmax.com/ThomasSowell/Conservatives-Donate-Liberals-compassion/2012/09/10/id/451295

2. http://www.gordon.edu/ace/pdf/Spr07BRGrinols.pdf

The Affordable Care Act and It's Website

2013-10-21T21:52:00.002-07:00

The infinite wisdom of the Blue Party, for the last 4 years, really came shining through. Not that I want peopel to get sick or anything. I just simply disagree with some of their views. Despite my views on the Affordable Care Act, I am actually sad that the website is giving people too many problems. The goal was that our government would provide equality for those uninsured but instead, our Federal government simply makes it a law that you must buy health insurance. A law? What is so "equal" about forcing people to buy a crappy deal called health insurance?
I'm sorry, but isn't this a problem to begin with? Our government is appealing to the ideals of crony-capitalist's (the lobbyists) under the premise that it will create "equality."
This same pressure from lobbyists were one of the many causes of the last recession....(the housing boom and bust). Yes, banks were given quotas to give the underserved home loans when they couldn't afford them, under the guise that these mortgages would be secured from Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae.
Same story!!!!
Sure, there are great ideas in the ACA that a lot of people thought of several years before but some of it's parts are potentially disastrous.

But forcing people to buy health insurance? (I will only dive into few flaws, despite there are more) (Also, there are plenty of GOOD things within the ACA, which a lot of the GOP had something to do with. Yes.)

What's worse is the proponents suggest that the younger crowd should opt in this program, so they can help pay for the elders with the worsening diseases. The idea is that the younger crowd pays into the "risk pool" and it helps pay for the rest. First flaw is that rising healthcare costs are unavoidable until you fix the root of the problem, instead of subsidizing it. Second flaw....

Contradiction: the ACA also imposes a law that 26 year olds and under remain on their parents plan. How can we get the younger folds (er uh, force them to buy insurance) when they're already able to be on their parents plan? So, how are we to pay for those attached to the newly formed Medicaid programs when tax revenue is getting lower and lower? How are we going to afford to pay for our elders under this new exchange when so many of our younger crowd refuse to pay into such a program (because of how expensive it is).

Now their government website is down for the health care exchange? All of these millions spent on advertising the ACA and the website is down? I thought this was supposed to help, not hinder.

America is need of healthcare and particularly, preventive medicine. How can we get there if our government is forcing people to buy something they can't afford?

Also, if you believe socializing is better, get this: the healthcare costs will remain the same and continue to grow.

And if you still disregard that last statement, then please do not vote for "fixing" the prices of healthcare costs. Keep in mind that it causes shortages which absolutely result in a lack of equity because only the rich could afford the actual services.

And if you still disregard the last two statements, don't forget how inefficient the government is with your tax dollars....

And if you disregard anything that I say then...ah never mind.

Government Shutdown From Lack of Objectivity Not Compromise

2013-10-06T22:29:00.001-07:00

Many people in our country are blaming one political party or the other. Many are blaming Republicans because their wanting to defund the ACA. This is true. However, what people forget is what happened oh….about since 2006. Many of those on the Republican side were advocating for healthcare reform, many of these reforms backed by economists who heavily research such policy. Well, the other party said “no” every time. Then passed their own with a new president in charge.

However, this bill (it’s now a law) is still being researched and its effects are only known from a historical standpoint from economists (If you want to know their opinions, research that). Mainly because there’s so much in it and that is hard to really know what will happen with so many different, even contradicting aspects, in that bill. However, there are numerous parts that probably should have happened years ago. Guess what? These ideas have been on the table for a while from both parties….but that’s a different subject.

So, if anything, this is simply the straw that broke the Elephant and Donkey’s back.

Both had a common goal

Both had a different means.

Both were wrong completely wrong because they lacked something very important with such issues: objectivity.

What ever happened to the 17 government shutdowns because the Democrats didn’t want to compromise? (years ago) No. It’s more like this: where was EVERYONE and why aren’t thinking clearly?

Politics should have never been about “winning.” Clearly, every political party believes that their side should “be that party that passed healthcare reform” when the other party tried a half-dozen times before hand and “won” against the other. It should have never come to this.

I mean, how many people still believe that everyone will magically get healthcare, when it mainly makes it a law that you have to buy health insurance?

The Affordably Care Act has another name to it. It’s called Romney-Care.