"Facts Schmacts" in the News, according to Wiley Miller

I was given a non-sequitor calendar for Christmas, though I'm not really sure why, other than because I like comic calendars.    Non-sequitor, to me, is one of the most inane of the big comics.  Take this one that came up recently: 



Seriously, Fox News?  I'm sorry, but maybe he's confused.  You see, I recall CBS being the one who made up facts about George Bush.  Or how about the fact the New York Times and Washington Post putting up recently that "Survey Reveals Broad Support for President" and "Obama Gets High Marks for 1st Month" respectively about Obama's opinion poll.  On the other hand, ABC said "A Strong Start for Obama- But Hardly a Bipartisan One"

Now, consider this.  Barack Obama has lost about 5% approval, and is not average accross the board with the rest of the presidents since Nixon, the exact same as George Bush senior, and 1 point higher  (which would be statistically insignificant) than George W Bush.  I first read this here.

Tell me then, how is Fox News the problem.  If you ask me Fox News may be guilty of bias, but no more than any other.  I genuinely feel that most news programs try to cover their stories fairly.  Yet, the real bias can show through (see WP and NYT above).  Also, the bigger bias shines through in what is covered more than how it is covered.


Or, read this article titled on Yahoo news: "Early study shows AIDS-fighting gel promising".  Now read the second paragraph, and then again in the seventh paragraph.  Did you catch it.  Evidently not only is yahoo misleading, but the AP "Medical Writer" does not understand the basics of science.  When a study is not conclusive, it means the evidence is not strong enough to make a conclusion.  Surely you see the problem, right?  There was a difference, but the statistical analysis found that the results could just have easily been from confounding factors.  But, no, let's not obscure agenda with facts.

So, yeah, if my family actually ever reads my blog: Thank you for the present.  Next year though, I would prefer Dilbert or even Garfield more than this schlock.

Must Read About the Economy and Investing

This wisdom of great investors


For those of you who are worried about and freaking out over the economy.  Two recommendations.  First, turn off the TV news.  Way to much drama there to actually learn anything.  Secondly, read the above link.  It gives a very straight forward but smart talk about how to invest and 'weather' an economic crisis.

Irony, we have found thee

CitizenLink: TV Stations Cancel Paid Ad about Homosexual Agenda

A beautiful little piece here, detailing how a TV station wants to silence a Christian paid ad for...talking about Christians being silenced? 

There is no recession...

What does Best Buy, AMC Theaters, and UPS all have in common?  They are suffering from a decline in business for no real reason.  You see, we are suffering a recession, yet why?  Real estate is facing a real problem.  Almost every area of real estate was living in a bubble caused by people who had no money being able to get loans for houses well beyond their means.  Bubble burts, market begins correction by swinging the opposite direction a while.  Which leads to the mortgage sector, which suffers from a number of foreclosures on bad loans.  The bigger problem comes from mark-to-market rules, since no one wants these bad loans, banks are forced to mark their assests down considerably.  The banks involved with this are understandably suffering from liquidity problems.

Beyond that, why are the rest of us hurt?  Well, the reality is, we aren't.  If you are not involved directly in sub-prime lending, you should not be hurt.  Yet we are in a recession, and the question is why?  Yes, there are inter-connected factors, but as I listen to news, I'm more convinced that the reality is that we are facing a socio-psychological problem more than anything.  With the Drama Queens, I mean the media, and the sychophants, I mean politicians, screaming bloody murder every single day about how we are living in the apocolypse, we are all convinced life is terrible.  The reality is, most of us are not making less money.  With slashes in retail prices, we actually have practically more money!  We are just freaked out.  Those of us who want mortgages and car loans can still get them, if we have MONEY to pay those loans. 

So what's the problem?  We are scared.  Me, I refuse to be scared.  Not that I will be spending wildly.  After all, I'm a student with a part time job, wife and daughter to support.  Yet, I refuse to be frightened by the media and the politicians.

Now coming to an economy near you!

We, the people, in order to further our own selfishness, do refuse to learn.  Or at least that's what it appears we believe about the nature of the world.  I mean, look at two things about the government and our current economic woes.

1) The stimulus plans:  We are now onto Stimulus Plan 3: The Social Engineering coming to a Theater near YOU! It follows in the footsteps (supposedly) of the last one, Stimulus Plan 2: The Bailout, well, except that the money is earmarked for social things, and not, you know, economic things.  And that itself followed upon Stimulus Plan! where we all got hot shiny checks.  The problem is, if 1 and 2 didn't work, why in the world are we trying the same thing a third time?  I think Alcoholic's Anonymous has a saying about repeating the same action and expecting different results...

2) The principles of learning:  A basic idea of learning is we learn through rewards and consequences.  If I do A, and good things happen, I'll continue to do A.  If I do B, and bad things happen, I'll stop doing B.  Skinner lays this all out very handily in his writing on Behaviorist theories.  The thing is, after writing big checks to banks, they start buying airplanes, giving bonuses, going to Hawaii, and redoing their offices.  Now, people are understandably upset, but they are upset at the wrong people!  We showed them that if they are stupid with their own money, then Washington will reward them!  We reinforced bad behavior, and now we are mad that they are continuing on in bad behavior.  Except, we should be mad at Washington for rewarding idiots who misbehave.

Oh, but wait, it gets better.  After Stimulus Plan 2 you all voted your guys back into office!  Therefore, all of you who did not vote against congressmen who voted for the bailout reinforced voting for bail outs, so it's all your fault!  You reinforced bad behavior, you encouraged Washington to be this way, and therefore, executives to be this way.  Fortunately for me, none of my congressmen voted for it. 

Now, it's time to learn about how to change behavior.  Remember, punishment to extinguish behavior.  E.g. You vote for huge spendings of my money to fund corporate retreats, I will send you home.  On the other hand, rewards encourage behavior.  E.g. You vote that people should be responsible for their own actions then I will vote for you again.  Sound hard?  Let's try to remember this in two years.

The pursuit of selfishness

You have no right to be alive.  You should realize that of course, but maybe you have not thought about it.  Theoretically, after you were born you then somehow gained that right, but people are working at limiting that.  The idea is to put it somewhere between 1 week and 1 year, though honestly I don't know why those specific ages should matter.  I guess you could make an argument for 18.  After all, once you reach that age you are no longer under your parents legally. 

I'm talking about abortion, of course, the single most sickening legal practice I have heard about in America.  Under such laws you nor I have no real right to be here, our mere existence is at the whim of our parents.  Why, once abortion is accepted, we make such arbitrary inferences of where we can end that life.  Why is birth the limit?  After all, birth can easily vary across a 4 week span of time, and even more so and still survive with limited assistance.  So why cut off birth?  Seems reasonable to move it to 1 week, 1 year, or heck anyone who has teenagers would tell us 17 is prime age to do away with our children.  There seems to me to be no reason there should be a distinction across those ages.  And it sickens me.

Transfered

Yay, I figured out how to transfer over my last blog to this one.  Since I'm in a google account now, thought it'd be better to stream line over.  Anywho, fun times.