Misleading Numbers?

I was on the mobile web the other day. (For those of you who do not know what that is, it is the text only web sites which you can access from you cell phone.) I was using abcnews.com for viewing news, and I read an article titled "Misleading Numbers." I have tried to find the article on the regular web, but have not been able to find it. If you know someone who works for abcnews and can help me find it I would appreciate it.

In this article the writer writes about how misleading it is for people to talk about the proposed 2% of social security going into private investment. He or she writes that most people believe that social security will still get 98% of the money it would have gotten, 100% - 2% = 98%.

In the article, he or she does their own math, showing that social security funding will actually be reduced by 32%. This person's math is this. I currently pay 6.2% of my income to social security. The reduction of 2% leaves me now paying 4.2%. Therefore, the reduction is 32% since 2 is 32% of 6.2.

After dazzling us with the brilliance of this math, the writer the explains that the reason others in the media don't explain this to you is that they do not have enough confidence in their own mathematical skills.

To the writer, before you break you arm patting yourself on the back for your own amazing mathematical skills, you may want to sharpen you pencil or check the batteries in your calculator.

The proper math is thus: though you only see the 6.2% taken from your check each week, your employer matches that to social security. This means that social security receives 12.4%, or 12.4 cents every time you earn a dollar. (This is only true up to a certain dollar amount of income which doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me.) So, even though your 6.2% may be reduced to 4.2% your employer will still be paying his 6.2%. The correct math shows social security will be getting 10.4% when they were getting 12.4% this means that social security will have a 16.13% reduction in the taxes brought in, NOT the 32% suggested by the slightly math challenged writer of the abcnews.com mobile web article.

The 2% is misleading, but then again so is the 32% supposed to clear things up!

So, to the writer of this piece, before you complain about your fellow journalists not having enough confidence in their mathematical abilities (which may or may not be merited) you may want to make sure that you are not overconfident in you own math skills.

Think for yourself!

Make up your own mind!

Merry Christmas vs. Happy Holidays

Wish me a happy Hanukkah! Though I am not Jewish, I will NOT be offended.

Wish me a happy Ramadan! Though I am not Muslim, I will NOT be offended.

Wish me a happy Kwanzaa! Though I do not celebrate it, and have never known anyone who told me they did, I will NOT be offended.

When someone wishes me a happy (insert any holiday which I do not celebrate), my first thought is that this person wishes me well. And regardless of the holiday, I would appreciate the fact that this person wishes me to be happy.

The vast majority of the time it is intended to bring joy, not to cause offense. When someone says anything with the purpose of offending, that is a problem. However, when someone wishes good will to you, how can you be offended?

And even if I were offended, I have never read any right to not be offended in the Constitution. The last thought in my mind would be to go to court over some person or government entity wishing me happiness. I am most concerned when a government entity wishes me ill.

In the immortal words of the great philosopher, Rodney King, "Can't we all just get along?" I have been offended hundreds even thousands of times in my life. I have NEVER sued over it.

Please, to the ACLU and those duped into allowing the ACLU to file suit on their behalf because of a sign on city hall, a carol sung in school, a sentiment expressed in a card, or even the reading of our own Declaration of Independence, can we not agree that I will not intentionally offend you, you will not intentionally offend me, and when we each are offended by others (and we ALL will be) can we show a little tolerance and not take everyone to court? Or would that require too much maturity?

Merry Christmas!


Think for yourself!

Make up your own mind!

Arafat's Legacy

Let's look at Arafat's life.

First he was a terrorist. He virtually created aircraft hijackings (would al queda have been able to hijack the four planes of September 11th were we not "programmed" to react as we did by Palestinian and other terrorists?). He ordered kidnappings, murders, the list goes on and on. I doubt that ANYONE knows the number of innocent people murdered on Arafat's orders. The terrorist activities of this man would have doomed virtually anyone else to a life on the run from authorities.

Then this murderer, with the blood of innocents on his hands, was somehow accepted into "normal" society. Even worse, he is accepted as a diplomat. I can remember my SHOCK when he was invited to the White house numerous times. He even received the Nobel Peace Prize. All of these things legitimizing a mass murderer. His ONLY claim to fame was his terrorism. Had he been an upstanding member of society no more than a few dozen people in the world would have known his name. However, by the time of his death he was free to travel to most countries, including the United States without being arrested. This is quite a feat!

In the past few days he has been called a statesman, a dreamer, a hero, and a litany of other accolades as though he were some model for all to look up to. And, occasionally, a negative adjective is added, but ALWAYS with an asterisk. Things like, "some" considered him a terrorist. "Some?", as though some don't believe him to have been. As if that terrorist were another man, and this one need not be obligated to stand up accountable for the horrible acts of that first one.

Since September 11th I have often wondered about the "logic" (assuming there is any) behind al queda. Bin Laden has to know that America will not change its entire foreign policy because of terroristic attacks. Bin Laden WILL die. Al queda will be marginallized. The stated goal (which could not possibly be the real goal) of getting America out of the middle east is NOT attainable. Therefore, who in his right mind (obviously he is not) would attempt such a foolish endeavor? Then, this week it hit me. Arafat attempted it, and succeeded! He went from an illegitimate terrorist to a so-called "statesman" who, had he the courage, could have attained most of his stated goals. Unfortunately, he always wanted a little more than was offered to him and he died without realizing the sovereign Palestine which was within his own power to have attained.

For the sake of the Palestinian people, hopefully their next leaders will reach out and bring Palestine to life as a free and peaceful member of the world community. Unfortunately since the world community gave legitimacy to the terrorist Arafat, these new leaders may think that more violence can achieve more of their goals, just as it seemed to have Arafat's.

The world cannot make the mistake of someday granting legitimacy to other terrorists. Whether they are Palestinian, or someone like bin laden, the world cannot afford to give them ANY seat at the bargaining table.

If we do we only invite other "nobodies" to commit acts of terror to become a "somebody" and how many thousands (and unfortunately in the atomic age perhaps millions) of innocent people will have to die for a nobody to get recognized?

pacifism toward terrorists is not an option. We can understand the desperation behind the acts but we can NEVER condone the terroristic acts, or the terrorists themselves if we want not to live in constant fear. If their terroristic acts NEVER get them what they want they may try other means. However, if they achieve their goals, they will never stop.


Think for yourself!

Make up your own mind!