How out of touch with reality is the GOP?

The GOP recently acknowledged that, among other aspects of their party’s alienation from the American mainstream, they need to modify and change not merely their image, but their appeal to Hispanics, which have largely voted for Democratic candidates.

The irony of their acknowledgment is that they want to do the very thing they’ve demonstrated why and how they’ve alienated themselves from the American mainstream… hire a Mexican to do their work.

As reported in VOXXI, by Grace Flores-Hughes on March 19, 2013, “The Republican National Committee plans to hire political directors from the Hispanic, Asian, African American communities as well as from women’s groups.”
Read her story: “The ambitious coming out of the Republican Party”

—

The numbers prove it: The GOP is estranged from America

By Andrew Kohut, Published: March 22

Andrew Kohut is the founding director and former president of the Pew Research Center. He served as president of the Gallup Organization from 1979 to 1989.

In my decades of polling, I recall only one moment when a party had been driven as far from the center as the Republican Party has been today.

The outsize influence of hard-line elements in the party base is doing to the GOP what supporters of

CDC: Heath Data shows Abortions fall 5%, largest drop in a decade

CDC: Abortions fall 5%, largest drop in a decade

By Michael Muskal
November 21, 2012, 1:41 p.m.

The rate of abortions in the United States fell by 5%, the largest single-year decrease in a decade, researchers for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported.

The decline is outlined in the annual abortion surveillance data for the year 2009, the latest available. It was published on Wednesday in the CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.

About 18% of all pregnancies in the United States end in abortion, the CDC noted. Factors from the availability of abortion providers, state laws, the general economy and access to health services including contraception, can

Economic Research: The Dismal Science finds poverty & inequality greater in U.S.

Poverty, inequality and redistribution

Focus

Jan 17th 2012, 20:27 by The Economist online

 Governments can reduce poverty and inequality through taxes and cash transfers. Successful programmes such as Progresa-Oportunidades in Mexico and Bolsa Família in Brazil have helped reduce poverty and inequality in the last couple of decades, but compared with rich countries, Latin American countries still fall short. According to a new report by the OECD, a club of mostly rich countries, Chile is

More Stupid Questions: The “More Cow Bell” Curve, and other Standard Equal (and Unequal) Distribution post

Originally entitled as: More Stupid Questions: The “More Cow Bell” Curve, and other Standard Equal (and Unequal) Distribution post

I have returned to the title which I originally started… though I vascillated between this one, as well:

Yes. More Stupid Questions… and, “I gotta’ have more Cow Bell.”

Okay, the title says it all.

That is, unless you don’t understand statistics, the bell curve and equal distribution.

But, just in the case you don’t, here’s some low-down.

According to estimates by the United States Census Bureau, our nation’s population has recently exceeded 314,469,757. And with 4.47% of the world’s population, we are the 3d most populous nation in the world. China & India, with 1,344,130,000 (19.13%) & 1,241,491,960 (17.19%), are 1st & 2d, respectively. American population is about 25% the population of India. Expressed another way, India has 75% more people than the United States.

I mentioned those figures just to give an idea of how small the U.S. really is by comparison.

Nevertheless, I digress. And so quickly! (My goodness!) Let’s return to statistics, the bell curve and equal distribution.

As you may have read in a previous post entitled “Ask a silly question, get a silly answer. Yes, there’s such thing as a STUPID question.”, “the bell curve is used to display information.”

The Bell Curve measures “Normal Distribution.”

In that post I had explained, writing that,

A Look Back: Wall Street Journal on Presidential Jobs Track Record, from ’39 – ’09

Just in the case we need reminding.

And often, we do.

As Samuel Johnson once wrote, “Men more frequently require to be reminded than informed.”
Johnson: Rambler #2 (March 24, 1750)

—

January 9, 2009, 12:04 PM ET

Bush On Jobs: The Worst Track Record On Record

By WSJ Staff

President George W. Bush entered office in 2001 just as a recession was starting, and is preparing to leave in the middle of a long one. That’s almost 22 months of recession during his 96 months in office.

His job-creation record won’t look much better. The Bush administration created about three million jobs (net) over its eight years, a fraction of the 23 million jobs created under President Bill Clinton‘s administration and only slightly better than President George H.W. Bush did in his four years in office.

Here’s a look at job creation under each president since the Labor Department started keeping payroll records in 1939. The counts are based on

Sickness & Disease in the Summertime? It’s not Lyme Disease. It’s your Air Conditioner. Oh yeah, it makes you fat, too.

It seems there’s something to be said for “fresh air and sunshine.”

Out West, it’s not uncommon on many days for windows & doors to be kept open – albeit with screens – to keep out bugs. And frankly, there’s a thing present in the East, that in large part is absent in the West. Southerners call it “humidity.” Southerners subtract humidity, while Westerners add it. Either way, it’s still cooling by evaporation. It’s just that there’s an abundance of it in the South. And please bear in mind, that without humidity, it just wouldn’t be the Southern experience!

Yet, in all seriousness, I can totally understand the whys and wherefores of these findings. Frankly, they’re not surprising at all. For years, we’ve heard the colloquial voices encouraging us all to “get some fresh air.”

Turns out, there’s some truth to that… a whole lot, in fact.

Read on for the fascinating research from the University of Alabama at Birmingham.

—

Your Air Conditioner Makes You Fat

Ask a silly question, get a silly answer. Yes, there’s such thing as a STUPID question.

The title says it all.

But the title doesn’t explain why.

Read on for more understanding.

On the FaceBook page of Loyola University New Orleans, a photograph was posted of a… well, here it is.

A: 1.4% Q: What is the annualized spending growth rate under Obama & lowest rate of any president since Reagan?

Who’s the Biggest Spender? Obama or Bush?

By BRUCE BARTLETT, The Fiscal Times June 1, 2012

Lately, there has been some controversy about the growth of spending under Barack Obama. It began on May 22 with a column by Rex Nutting of MarketWatch, which concluded that the rate of growth of federal spending under Obama has actually been trivial compared to the last 4 presidents.

According to Nutting’s calculations, spending has grown only 1.4 percent per year under Obama – one-fifth the rate under Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush. Following is a chart accompanying the article.

There has been a considerable amount of debate about Nutting’s calculations, which fly in the face of Republican dogma. Much involves technical accounting issues, such as how to allocate spending during fiscal year 2009. This is important because fiscal year 2009 began on September 1, 2008 during Bush’s administration, reflecting his priorities. By the time Obama took office on January 20, 2009 the fiscal year was almost half over; he didn’t submit his first budget until February 26, 2009 and the fiscal year 2010 budget is really the first one that reflected his priorities.

Nutting assigned the bulk of fiscal year 2009 spending to Bush, an assumption that other analysts have questioned. Glenn Kessler of the Washington Post found that Nutting overstated his argument in various ways. But the PoliFact site of the Tampa Bay Times concluded that the Nutting column was essentially correct.

Aside from the political implications, the reason this debate is important is because there is a tendency for people to conflate spending, deficits and debt, as well as confusing rates of change with absolute levels.

The difference between