Saturday, August 28, 2010

Mormons Don't Think Too Highly Of Obama

The Salt Lake Tribune is reporting on a recent poll conducted by the Gallup group concerning Barak Obama's approval ratings among religious groups shows that Mormons are not too thrilled with the current president:
A Gallup survey released Friday shows only 24 percent of LDS faithful approve of the president’s job performance, down from 43 percent a year ago. Mormons have consistently given Obama his lowest ratings among religious groups, according to Gallup polls dating to the beginning of his presidency.
The slide of support among members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is more pronounced than with Catholics, Protestants, Jews and other religious believers in America, the poll shows.
Muslims have consistently offered the president the highest approval rating of any religious group, now at 78 percent, down from 83 percent a year ago, while half of Catholics polled backed the president.
About 43 percent of Protestants and other Christian faithful gave Obama a positive approval rating.
The reason for why members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints give Obama the lowest approval rating among is due to the fact that they are the most conservative religious group in America. Another reason is that much of Obama's policies run counter to the LDS beliefs of personal accountability,  independence and self reliance. This may partly explain why Mormons such as Glenn Beck and Mitt Romney are some of the most vocal critics of the Obama Administration. 

Thursday, August 26, 2010

Meg Whitman Ahead In The Polls!

A Rasmussen poll released today is showing that Meg Whitman now leads Jerry Brown by eight percentage points:
"The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of Likely Voters in California finds Whitman earning 48% support, while Democrat Jerry Brown picks up 40% of the vote. Six percent (6%) prefer some other candidate in the race, and six percent (6%) are undecided."
Her eight point lead is even more significant when you factor in those who are not yet committed to a candidate but are leaning one way or the other are more likely to support Meg Whitman: 
"When leaners are included in the new totals, Whitman posts a 51% to 43% lead over Brown. Leaners are those who initially indicate no preference for either of the candidates but answer a follow-up question and say they are leaning towards a particular candidate.
Early in any campaign, the numbers without leaners are generally more significant. Later in a campaign, the numbers with leaners matter more. After Labor Day, Rasmussen Reports will report the numbers with leaners as the primary indicators of the campaign."
Hopefully, Meg Whitman will keep her lead as November grows near and becomes the next Governor of California. 

It’s Not The Economy, Stupid. It’s Your Manly Bits

Ms. Magazine, has published an article “It Wasn’t Your Resume, It Was Your Vagina" in which it attempts to blame the fact that women cannot find jobs due to gender discrimination. The article conveniently ignores the fact that, for the first time in the American history, more men are out of work than women. They even gave this historical phenomenon a name: mancession.
The New York Times noticed this trend in February of 2009 and became a hot topic during the summer of that year. The Atlantic, in July of 2009, cited a statistic that "eighty percent of job losses in the last two years were among men." In August of 2009, Professor Mark J. Perry, who teaches economics and finance at the School of Management at the Flint campus at the University of Michigan pointed out in his blog that the trend could be traced back to December of 2006. However, some people even questioned whether or not the mancession was real. Despite the minority who question this phenomenon, it is real and it still is an ongoing economic issue. Some people think the mancession is now slowing down and others think the trend is reversing in which they're calling it a "He-covery."
Another interesting claim made in the Ms. Magazine article is that women are not performing as well as men in job interviews because they lack job certain job skills  that are usually associated as being a masculine trait:
"men tend to fare better than women on job interviews, particularly in male-dominated fields, where hiring managers tend to value stereotypically “masculine” qualities such as intellectual rigor and mathematical ability."
This claim fails for a number of reasons. HotAir, in covering the same Ms. Magazine article, has pointed out one reason why this argument doesn't fly:
"there are certain fields in which those characteristics – like mathematical ability -  are required, regardless of gender. It’s called, you know, job qualifications."
Another reason why this claim fails is that the same reason can be said about why men can't find jobs in this economy. They don't possess job skills generally associated with the feminine trait. Julia Margo, writing for the online version of Guardian newspaper, explains:
"The emerging knowledge economy demands a new, softer skill set – empathy, sociability, confidence, resourcefulness. Women are perceived as being better at soft skills, and now they count for more. In the course of just over a decade, Demos research found, these skills became central to life chances: for those who turned 30 in 2000, such character capabilities had become 33 times more important in determining earnings." 
So, which is it? Guys can't get jobs because they don't possess the softer skill set or girls can't get jobs because they don't have the masculine skill sets needed? Could it depend on the type of field that a male or female applicant is applying to? Could it be that today's workplace is looking for both soft and hard skill sets?
To be honest, the argument that women aren't getting hired because they have a vagina isn't very convincing. As I explained above, there is a plausible case to made that men aren't getting hired because they have a penis. But I don't find that argument convincing either. 

Quite frankly, it seems to me that the fact that men and women are having difficulty finding employment has less to do with gender discrimination than it does with education, experience and the type of industry that a person is trying seek to enter into. It also has to do with the current state of the economy and the fact that many industries are going through changes to keep up with the pace of the evolution in technology.  I also suspect that our poor economy and the uncertainty about the government's expansion into the economy could also be a factor in why its hard for men and women to get hired for a job.
Let me make myself clear. I'm not saying men have it harder in finding a job than women do or that men have it harder than women do. A plausible case could me made that having a vagina or a penis can be a barrier to finding a job. I'm not denying that gender discrimination doesn't occur in hiring or in employment either. All I'm saying is that people can't find a job because of their gender isn't the best explanation for why men and women can't find a job. 

Monday, August 9, 2010

Sarah Palin: Road Testing 2012?

Although Sarah Palin was just shooting film for a television show that will air on TLC, she got a taste of how tough the 2012 election might be for her if she decides to run. 
Sarah Palin could have had made the choice to avoid the protester but she decided to approach her and have a discussion with her.
Watch and decide for yourself if she's got what it takes to handle a second run in 2012. 

Thursday, August 5, 2010


Before I give myself a pat on the back, let me say that I have nothing against the T.E.A. party movement or what it stands for. I have given a speech before a crowd of T.E.A. party members. I have attended several rallies. It brings me no joy see that my fears are starting to come true.
I have expressed my disagreement with general path that the T.E.A party has taken by going from a grass root movement to a movement that has been getting involved in getting candidates elected to office.  I voiced my concerns in a previous blog and in that article, I made the following observation about the T.E.A Party: 
Some people believe that this movement might form into an alternative third political party. It is not a political party. And neither should it form into one. Those who leave the two major parties are relegating themselves to political irrelevance. Ross Perot's Reform Party and  Theodore Roosevelt's Bull Moose Party have faded into political obscurity. 
Neither should the T.E.A Party be endorsing those who wish to get into political office. Politicians who rely only on the support of the Tea Party movement have yet to win an election. Debra Medina, Patrick Hughes, Adam Andrzejewski, Doug Hoffman, Larry Naritelli, and J.D. Hayworth are all T.E.A Party favorites who are or will fizzle into the footnotes of political history.
It turns out that this movement hasn't been very successful at the ballot box: as I predicted. Newsweek Magazine has pointed out the lack of success in the 2010 election and are calling it the "weak tea trend." Newsweek Magazine (which is having its own issues of having a lack of success) wrote this:
"So far, the Tea Party has been the major political story of the 2010 election cycle, and in many ways it's a fascinating, vibrant reflection of America's current fixations and frustrations. But given that the vast majority of the movement's favored candidates have lost their Republican primary battles—and given that the few candidates who've won, like Rand Paul and Sharron Angle, seem to be underperforming against vulnerable Democratic opponents—there's little reason to think that it will be a major electoral force any time soon." (Source.)
Why is this movement losing power? There are several main reasons. The establishment Republicans are securing the endorsement of politicians favored by the Tea Party which makes it difficult for Tea Party candidates to win at the elections and the establishment candidates tend to get more political donations from the conservative donors than their tea party candidate which leaves the tea party candidate very little opportunities for new sources of fund raising.

In other words, the T.E.A. party movement has been out maneuvered by the Republican party. 
This would not have been a problem if the T.E.A. party movement not attempted to run candidates for office or make endorsements for office. The T.E.A. party simply should have continued their grassroot campaign of educating, forming rallies and getting the public to hold politicians accountable. 
Once you start endorsing candidates, you get sucked into playing a game the the politicians know well. Its called the elections game.  Once various elements of the T.E.A. party decided to get involved in elections on an official basis, they are playing on the politician's turf.  Moreover, this movement's message and goals have been compromised by participating in fielding candidates for office by getting involved and participating in  the dirty game of politics.
In this case, it pains me to see that I am vindicated on this issue since I believe that had the T.E.A. party movement taken the route I proposed, their goals and objectives would have had better success. 
However, its not too late. This movement can change course and avoid being a movement that will fizzle in time or become a lasting force for good in this country.