Can a school insist that boys not wear high heels to school?
The answer of course is YES!
We the people, through our government have a right and obligation to define normalcy and insist that
everyone follow the rules.
If you think this means I'm not a true liberal, I ask is there any deviancy (that's popular in some significant quarter) that you're against or is that the standard? What my friends think?
;:
Saturday, March 3, 2012
Friday, March 2, 2012
5 things President Obama should do before 2012 election
I believe President Obama will win re-election with 302 electoral votes over the Republican ticket of Mitt Romney and Marco Rubio. But he can and should strive for a historic performance that solidifies his legacy and most importantly is good for America:
1. Offer a plan to change Health care mandate into a tax credit as part of broader tax reform
2. Stand up and proclaim that he will support traditional marriage for his Presidency
3. Replace Biden with Hillary Clinton; replace Clinton with Bill Clinton
4. Begin a war on gun violence; support gun control and strong enforcement
5. Bring home all troops from Afghanistan
1. Offer a plan to change Health care mandate into a tax credit as part of broader tax reform
2. Stand up and proclaim that he will support traditional marriage for his Presidency
3. Replace Biden with Hillary Clinton; replace Clinton with Bill Clinton
4. Begin a war on gun violence; support gun control and strong enforcement
5. Bring home all troops from Afghanistan
Friday, February 24, 2012
Assault on marriage comes to Maryland
I recognize that the assault on marriage includes from decades past:
no fault divorces
harmful hollywood portrayals
pre-nupital agreements
rampant adultery and infidelity
co-habitation without marriage
abortion
out of wedlock birth
changing the purpose from love and commitment to happiness
which has led us to Maryland passing gay marriage.
It's a shame.
If there's a referendum in Novemenber, I'll vote for all the Democrats
and for traditional marriage. This is not a civil rights issue.
This is an issue of behavior and what we define as normal and good.
Homosexual behavior is deviant and strange. While it should not be illegal, just like
other deviant and strange behaviors (drug use, prostitution, some religions, etc.)
We should not celebrate it, and change our marriage laws to normalize it.
I agree with the blcak pasters in this article:
no fault divorces
harmful hollywood portrayals
pre-nupital agreements
rampant adultery and infidelity
co-habitation without marriage
abortion
out of wedlock birth
changing the purpose from love and commitment to happiness
which has led us to Maryland passing gay marriage.
It's a shame.
If there's a referendum in Novemenber, I'll vote for all the Democrats
and for traditional marriage. This is not a civil rights issue.
This is an issue of behavior and what we define as normal and good.
Homosexual behavior is deviant and strange. While it should not be illegal, just like
other deviant and strange behaviors (drug use, prostitution, some religions, etc.)
We should not celebrate it, and change our marriage laws to normalize it.
I agree with the blcak pasters in this article:
Not long ago, Thomas says, a young gay man came to him and said, “Look, I can’t help being how I am.” The minister embraced the man.
“We are all sinners,” Thomas says. “Christ never turned anyone away. People come to us all the time with issues, some with a stealing demon, some with urges and desires. But love doesn’t mean you go along to get along. I counsel them by showing them God’s word; some receive the word, and some reject it.”
We have had a decades long movement to force America to accept vice as virtue. It would be the equivalent of saying that we all are violent by nature (which we are), so let's change our laws to reflect the true nature of how we were born. Every person needs to be taught to be nice and to share. Needs to be taught about boundaries of acceptable behavior. This is one of many movements that seeks to promote anarchy and chaos. It attacks our notion that we have the capacity for moral behavior.
Thursday, February 23, 2012
For Obama: Rasmussen poll more friendly than Gallup?
Over the past few weeks, the daily Gallup poll which is currently sampling adults has had President Obama's approval rating at a lower level, than the daily Rasmussen poll which uses likely voters and is generally understood as Republican leaning.
What gives?
When Gallup and most other polls for months and years had Obama at much higher levels, Scott Rasmussen claimed it was because his polled sampled likely voters, while others used registered and sometimes "adults". It is widely accepted that Democratic consitutencies are less likely to vote and less likely to be registered voters, so that made sense.
But for the past couple of months Rasmussen has numerous times had the President at 50% and in positive territory (approval - disapproval).
Today Rasmussen has 50% approval 49% disapproval. While Gallup has 45% approval and 48% disapproval.
Could it possibly be that the more likely voters are more in support of the President? That there has been a severe (thanks Romney!) reversal of pattern where Republicans are less involved in the process?
I personally think that Gallup, having received criticism about high poll results for the President changed their methodology and is now offering a false narrative. The gold standard in polling has done strange things before: What's wrong with Gallup?
Conversely, I've suspected that Rasmussen that makes up polls much of the time, so why would he release polls that benefit the President?
At least right now, I think Rasmussen is an honest pollster. It makes the most sense.
But I have noticed that Fox News and the right wing blogs have quoted his polls much less frequently lately.
As a matter of fact, I saw Karl Rove quote Gallup rather than Rasmussen!
Obviously, polling is political.
I'm in favor of having at least one "official pollster" that is paid by we the people through our government that is honest. Sort of like the Congressional Budget Office.
The media and the public use poll numbers to shape and change public opinion, so it is important that they are legitimate from people purporting to be scientific.
Take for example health care. Left leaning pollsters have proven that a majority want to keep the healthcare bill (around 40%) and around 13% want something more liberal. The key is that many of those 13% also would repeal the ACA. So right leaning pollsters can just ask, Repeal or no? and leave the impression that people are against the liberal plan. When in fact, the facts show the opposite. I'm not for censoring pollster and polls, but I am for having people who don't care about Dems or Reps to be fair.
What gives?
When Gallup and most other polls for months and years had Obama at much higher levels, Scott Rasmussen claimed it was because his polled sampled likely voters, while others used registered and sometimes "adults". It is widely accepted that Democratic consitutencies are less likely to vote and less likely to be registered voters, so that made sense.
But for the past couple of months Rasmussen has numerous times had the President at 50% and in positive territory (approval - disapproval).
Today Rasmussen has 50% approval 49% disapproval. While Gallup has 45% approval and 48% disapproval.
Could it possibly be that the more likely voters are more in support of the President? That there has been a severe (thanks Romney!) reversal of pattern where Republicans are less involved in the process?
I personally think that Gallup, having received criticism about high poll results for the President changed their methodology and is now offering a false narrative. The gold standard in polling has done strange things before: What's wrong with Gallup?
Conversely, I've suspected that Rasmussen that makes up polls much of the time, so why would he release polls that benefit the President?
At least right now, I think Rasmussen is an honest pollster. It makes the most sense.
But I have noticed that Fox News and the right wing blogs have quoted his polls much less frequently lately.
As a matter of fact, I saw Karl Rove quote Gallup rather than Rasmussen!
Obviously, polling is political.
I'm in favor of having at least one "official pollster" that is paid by we the people through our government that is honest. Sort of like the Congressional Budget Office.
The media and the public use poll numbers to shape and change public opinion, so it is important that they are legitimate from people purporting to be scientific.
Take for example health care. Left leaning pollsters have proven that a majority want to keep the healthcare bill (around 40%) and around 13% want something more liberal. The key is that many of those 13% also would repeal the ACA. So right leaning pollsters can just ask, Repeal or no? and leave the impression that people are against the liberal plan. When in fact, the facts show the opposite. I'm not for censoring pollster and polls, but I am for having people who don't care about Dems or Reps to be fair.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
