The national average score on this quiz is 50%, and for those below 30 it’s 30%. I scored a 91%.

Where do you fit?

Links

[ Where Do You Fit? | pewresearch.org ]

The rift between us…

RIFT.

Reads In Free Time

Those who are not in intellectual (see lucrative) professions have a strong inverse correlation with reading for fun. So the next time you hear an adult speaking like they’ve never been to school, while serving you fast food, think about the odds that they have books at home. Or the odds that they’ve read anything other than a pop culture publication outside of being assigned to do so in school.

RIFT.

People who read in their free time (because reading is fun) are far more likely to be “successful”. Yes, I know, citations needed. I’ll get some as the idea develops. For now I just like the acronym and the concept that goes with it.

Thoughts?

Reminder: if you’re not reading reddit, you should be.

Links

[ Parent Comment ]
[ My Comment ]

From the examiner:

That Obama attracts support from some in the military is evident in dollars and cents: Among people who have donated at least $200 to a presidential campaign this election cycle, Obama has collected more than $327,000 from those identifying themselves as military personnel, while McCain has collected $224,000, according to an analysis of Federal Election Commission data by The Associated Press.

Oh, and in case you’re wondering if that “over $200″ bit is skewing the results, it does — but in McCain’s favor. Over 90% of Obama’s donations are less than $100 dollars, so if we were to factor in sub-$200 donations the rift would likely be far larger.

Besides, if McCain had anything like the military support he claims to have, the numbers would massively slanted in his favor — like by 10/1. The fact that it’s in Obama’s favor at all — to whatever degree — tells you there’s something very wrong with his message of being on the side of the military.

You Can’t Have It Both Ways

Some pro-war types might be eager to say that the military just wants Obama in office because he’s said he’ll bring them home. But that would mean these Military donors aren’t truly evaluating the situation logically and strategically; in other words, they’re putting their own desires above those of the U.S.

So which is it? Either a) the military knows what’s going on over there and still thinks it’s best that we leave (which supports Obama’s plan), or b) they know it’s best to stay but they’re voting for Obama because they want to go home anyway (which is, in effect, calling these donors poor soldiers).

I think it’s a, and if the neocons want to say it’s b then let them do so. I just think it’s amusing that they are going to be forced to call our troops cowards if they insist on clinging to their position of “everything’s fine”.:

The admin for our team came in today (her name is Denise) with bad news from the weekend. One of her kids had his car stolen, and upon returning to his house he found the door wide open. A 52″ TV, as well as two laptops and a number of other valuables were stolen. This was in a nearby state.

She sits 4 feet from me.

So then one of my team members comes in and says he had a bad weekend as well. His two sons were held up at gun point on the south side of the city I live in. They didn’t just take their belongings; they also beat them up pretty good.

He sits 4 feet from me, behind me.

My other teammate, Chris, has had two cars stolen in our town in two years.

Then there was the story of the 71-year-old man who was in a Subway in Miami over the weekend. Two guys guys came in with guns and held the place up, and then tried taking the old man into the bathroom in the back.

He had a legal firearm, concealed, which he then drew and used. He shot one in the head and one in the chest. The one shot in the head died shortly afterwards, and the second one ran away and was captured by police after he hid in a bush. I’m just glad that old man had his pistol with him.

No charges were filed.

The mother of the man that was killed is upset because the old man fired on her son. She should be ashamed of herself.

–

I expect the crime numbers for 2008, country wide, to be alarming. More to follow.

I feel a surge of energy right now — a sense of excitement. The feeling comes from realizing how little I actually know about our country. Everything I know about our current political struggle exists in something of a historical vacuum, devoid of historical context.

It’s repugnant, really.

Well, perhaps not quite that bad, but close. History has just become fascinating to me. It’s the knowledge that supports well-vetted positions. It’s the foundation on which to build solid arguments.

History is to political ideas as experimental data is to a physics experiment. Without this data it’s impossible to temper fledgling ideas into something that can withstand the heat of debate.

So, this is my declaration of war against ignorance of our country. Here is a short list of people/concepts that I intend to become extremely familiar with:

• The Constitution
• The Bill of Rights
• The Federalist Papers
• Thomas Jefferson
• George Washington
• Alexander Hamilton
• Aaron Burr
• The Federalists
• The Anti-Federalists
• The Democratic-Republicans

If you are well-versed in political science and would like to help with my education I would be ever so thankful.

Also, I’d like to explicitly thank my friend Brooks Garrett (http://brooksgarrett.com/) for helping me on this path of discovery. If it weren’t for our discussions on gun law I might not have stumbled onto this line of thought for some time.

I’m no economist, and I’m not even very strong with the fundamentals (that would make me an economist, I suppose). But I am starting to pay more attention.

Out of all the explanations and models that I hear, this one laid out below encapsulates my current understanding the best.

A great quote from the piece:

Consider a different view of cause and effect. If the recession is a correction to an overly pumped economic boom, matters change. The recession, then, is not an aberration crying out for correction; it is itself the correction for the unsustainable economic bubble that preceded it. It should be welcomed in the same way we welcome a sober day after a drunken evening, or the detoxification of an addict after a period of addiction.

[ Grand Theft Society | mises.org ]

Obama said two things regarding the recent supreme court decision:

1. He agrees that the 2nd amendment is an individual right
2. But he also thinks local government should be able to place restrictions on guns to keep them out of the hands of “gangbangers and children”.

My question is simple: exactly what made him think anyone wants those people to have guns? Of course those people shouldn’t have guns.

• Gangbanger implies a record of doing something wrong. And I do agree that if you’re convicted of engaging in some sort of gang-oriented activity you should maybe temporarily lose your right to carry a gun (perhaps for a few years?). That seems fair. But the key is that it’s due to a person doing something wrong, not just as a blanket policy.

• He also mentioned children. Um, children shouldn’t have guns. It’s illegal for them to have guns. It should remain illegal for them to have them. I’m not sure why we’re talking about this.

I think Obama is saying that too many people have guns that shouldn’t have them. And in that case I’m in total agreement. But law-abiding citizens should be able to own and carry them as desired, assuming they get licensed and trained according to local regulations.