I noticed in yesterday's news from Bama.....some Democratic representative (state-level) from Montgomery had decided to make an open threat against various Republican legislature guys......talking up the idea of exposing their extramarital affairs....IF they don't stop criticizing gay marriage.
Patricia Todd, a representative from Birmingham and Democrat....talked up the suggestion. She's openly gay (the only one in Bama's political scene doing so).
The whole thing goes to hypocrisy, and she figures the threat will wake folks up.
The problem I see with this type threat is that once you suggest these three guys (or six, or ten) who are having extramarital affairs....may or may not be having such affairs and it ends up as slander. This means they hire Bama lawyers, take you into court, and unless you have some evidence (real evidence)....it's not going anywhere and you end up paying damages.
Bama political figures are smart when they finally get into a divorce situation....they make it tough for the wife trying to divorce them to settle up unless there's a form signed that they will never disclose the whole episode. If they fail on this....the husband brings the form back into court and the wife could lose what she won. So, I'd question that Representative Todd has real proof....just gossip. And gossip invites slander episodes, unless you get to absolute facts.
What happens in Bama once you start slanging gossip, slander and political fits? It just gets the state political mess deeper into mud than when you started. We barely have six guys in the whole state who could pass a morals test and complete audit of their character and economic situation. No one wants to be a city mayor, county commission guy, governor, or state representative because they'd get all upset if you found out they were con-artists, three-times married, bankrupt once or twice, into bondage, a swinger, current KKK-member, a Catholic, border-line psycho, a graduate of Auburn, or got arrested in Chattanooga for being drunk and disorderly last year.
Folks in Bama want purity. You can't drink, swear, or be divorced.....if you intend to run for office. You need to swear on a dozen Bibles about your character. Every campaign picture needs to feature your wife, three kids, and dog. You drive only GM, Ford or Chevy vehicles. Your front yard condition is in the top ten priorities of appearance. You must never have tried marijuana, or wasted any time learning a foreign language. We tend to expect our political folks to stout or a bit heavy....always with a fake smile....and be on a first-name basis with the local minister.
This talk of extramarital affairs? Maybe Representative Todd thinks you can cure all ills with this type of talk. But folks get peeved, and basically fire that guy....to bring in the ultra (even more conservative character) candidate to replace the loser who couldn't keep his pants on. On top of that....these pretender conservatives start to look around and think....well....let's ID all the gay or bondage characters in the Bama statehouse. A Democrat or two that was thinking they were all safe....then wakes up and realizes that the whole story is out.
So, I'm not really thinking this suggestion by Representative Todd helps matters. We will simply go to a deeper pit of political turmoil, if you ask me.
Wednesday, 28 January 2015
Saturday, 24 January 2015
This Planet Talk
Over the past week or two, there's been talk by the science guys of two additional planets out there in our solar system. I should note....there's only talk, no pictures and absolute evidence. You see, there are some 'bounces' and disturbances a bit beyond Pluto....which leads the science guys to suggest that two planets must exist beyond it and within a reasonable distance. Size isn't a given, and it's just talk at this moment.
This brings up this topic which will be hotly debated at some point....what do you name the two new planets.
Greek names? Roman names? Could we finally name a planet after Socrates? Might one of the two planets be named just plain "Planet X"?
All of this will transpire into parties and dinners around the astronomy guys....who sit and sip chilled Budweiser and eat peanut butter sandwich while they sip. In the background, music will be played....Memphis blues, Italian opera, and Johnny Cash epics. Guys will talk about their failing car transmission one moment, and define comet name listings the next.
Some folks will eventually come to find the two planets....noting that they aren't that big. Naturally, the number one plan then? You gotta send a probe out there, and it means a $500 million program, more revenue for the space crowd, and designed to answer the question....what's on this planet?
How long might it take to prove this? It might take five years for someone to finally solve this. Maybe it's unsolvable unless we send the probe to prove this. And we might just discover that it's all bogus and dreamed up by one guy with an agenda to simply get more probe money. So, you just don't know.
This brings up this topic which will be hotly debated at some point....what do you name the two new planets.
Greek names? Roman names? Could we finally name a planet after Socrates? Might one of the two planets be named just plain "Planet X"?
All of this will transpire into parties and dinners around the astronomy guys....who sit and sip chilled Budweiser and eat peanut butter sandwich while they sip. In the background, music will be played....Memphis blues, Italian opera, and Johnny Cash epics. Guys will talk about their failing car transmission one moment, and define comet name listings the next.
Some folks will eventually come to find the two planets....noting that they aren't that big. Naturally, the number one plan then? You gotta send a probe out there, and it means a $500 million program, more revenue for the space crowd, and designed to answer the question....what's on this planet?
How long might it take to prove this? It might take five years for someone to finally solve this. Maybe it's unsolvable unless we send the probe to prove this. And we might just discover that it's all bogus and dreamed up by one guy with an agenda to simply get more probe money. So, you just don't know.
The Park Game Being Played Out
For about a hundred years, there's been this law....the Antiquities Act....which basically said that the Executive Branch (the President and Company) would manage and create national treasures (like the Smokies or Rocky Mountain National Park). It was a simple act, and folks were enthusiastic back in 1906 that it was the right thing to do.
Now, if you'd asked folks in 1906...just how far this would go....no one would have really been sure about this. Some would have guessed thirty national parks/monuments. Some might have figured sixty. Today, we have 184 national parks/monuments. If you go out to Kitty Hawk, North Carolina....there's a fifty-odd acre park there, just a thousand feet from the beach. If you go to Russell Cave in Bama....it's a national monument.
What's come up over the last decade or two....folks asking where exactly it stops.
This week, the Republicans in the Senate saw a bill entered....which would require the Executive Branch to consult and have agreement with the House and Senate before declaring a national park or monument. Folks tend to think....it'll pass easily in the House, and probably pass the Senate with fifty-plus votes. The President? No statement yet, but I'd take a guess he'll veto it. Will the House and Senate have enough votes to over-ride it? No idea.
At the current pace of things....if nothing hinders expansion....then I'd take a guess by 2100 (85 years away)....we will have three-hundred parks and monuments. At some point, I'd suspect that the entire coastline of Oregon will be created into five or six national parks. Central Park of New York City might eventually become a national park. And it's possible that vast stretch of the Tennessee River might be one day declared a national park by itself.
Each time you add to the inventory....there's more staff hired up....more support required....and more cash involved. All of this leads to cost. These days....just an entry fee for one car is $25 for some of the national parks.
So, as the weeks go by here in the spring and you hear about this effort to pass the bill....you might want to think about the way it was in 1906, and what people were envisioning then. We are way past that point now.
Now, if you'd asked folks in 1906...just how far this would go....no one would have really been sure about this. Some would have guessed thirty national parks/monuments. Some might have figured sixty. Today, we have 184 national parks/monuments. If you go out to Kitty Hawk, North Carolina....there's a fifty-odd acre park there, just a thousand feet from the beach. If you go to Russell Cave in Bama....it's a national monument.
What's come up over the last decade or two....folks asking where exactly it stops.
This week, the Republicans in the Senate saw a bill entered....which would require the Executive Branch to consult and have agreement with the House and Senate before declaring a national park or monument. Folks tend to think....it'll pass easily in the House, and probably pass the Senate with fifty-plus votes. The President? No statement yet, but I'd take a guess he'll veto it. Will the House and Senate have enough votes to over-ride it? No idea.
At the current pace of things....if nothing hinders expansion....then I'd take a guess by 2100 (85 years away)....we will have three-hundred parks and monuments. At some point, I'd suspect that the entire coastline of Oregon will be created into five or six national parks. Central Park of New York City might eventually become a national park. And it's possible that vast stretch of the Tennessee River might be one day declared a national park by itself.
Each time you add to the inventory....there's more staff hired up....more support required....and more cash involved. All of this leads to cost. These days....just an entry fee for one car is $25 for some of the national parks.
So, as the weeks go by here in the spring and you hear about this effort to pass the bill....you might want to think about the way it was in 1906, and what people were envisioning then. We are way past that point now.
Wednesday, 14 January 2015
The Statistic That Seems to Matter
I'm not an engineer or scientist. Frankly, I'm glad I didn't go off into either such direction as a kid because it'd just be total chaos for me. But I like both professions greatly today and can appreciate what it takes to be either. The one key ingredient? Facts that matter.....numbers that matter.....solid evidence that leads to better conclusions that 'guessing'.
People in the news media and in politics.....come around to tell you things which come mostly out of opinion or just slanted views of life. I'd prefer facts and statistics....because it might be more truthful.
This week, I noticed a report from the kind folks at the Center for Disease Control and Prevention. They put up a simple polling question to thirty-four-thousand American adults.
The poll question was: “Which of the following best represents how you think of yourself?”
You had five possible answers: straight, lesbian/gay, bisexual, “something else” and “I don’t know the answer.”
Now, you can note here.....the transgender folks weren't mentioned. I don't know the reasoning, or if it was purposely done, or just that the Center didn't know such people existed.
Here's the thing....out of thirty-four thousand folks.....only 1.6 percent said they were lesbian/gay. Only .7 percent said they were bisexual.
After that point, the "something else" and "I don't know the answer" crowd ended up with a total of 1.1 percent.
Yeah....roughly ninety-four percent were straight....more or less.
What does this say? There just isn't a large crowd out there who practice anything beyond straight. They didn't split this off into men or women.....or age groups.....which have told more of the story.
To put this into reality.....you leave work this afternoon and go to Wal-Mart. You walk in and assume there are six hundred customers in the store. At best.....seven of those customers are gay/lesbian. Four are bisexual. And six folks are "something else". The other 583 folks are all straight.
The fact is.....there are likely more people in the store who graduated from college with a Master's degree than gay/lesbian. There's likely more more people in the store who've been to an Indian casino in the last year.....than gay/lesbian. And there's likely more people in the store who've read War and Peace....than are bisexual.
Now, if you walked across the street.....to the gay bar there next to Wal-Mart, and noted the sixty folks in there.....fifty-eight which are gay/lesbian....well, it's a statistic but it's not really a number you can use for a CNN journalist's article or round-table discussion.
Bottom line? It might help to work with facts.
People in the news media and in politics.....come around to tell you things which come mostly out of opinion or just slanted views of life. I'd prefer facts and statistics....because it might be more truthful.
This week, I noticed a report from the kind folks at the Center for Disease Control and Prevention. They put up a simple polling question to thirty-four-thousand American adults.
The poll question was: “Which of the following best represents how you think of yourself?”
You had five possible answers: straight, lesbian/gay, bisexual, “something else” and “I don’t know the answer.”
Now, you can note here.....the transgender folks weren't mentioned. I don't know the reasoning, or if it was purposely done, or just that the Center didn't know such people existed.
Here's the thing....out of thirty-four thousand folks.....only 1.6 percent said they were lesbian/gay. Only .7 percent said they were bisexual.
After that point, the "something else" and "I don't know the answer" crowd ended up with a total of 1.1 percent.
Yeah....roughly ninety-four percent were straight....more or less.
What does this say? There just isn't a large crowd out there who practice anything beyond straight. They didn't split this off into men or women.....or age groups.....which have told more of the story.
To put this into reality.....you leave work this afternoon and go to Wal-Mart. You walk in and assume there are six hundred customers in the store. At best.....seven of those customers are gay/lesbian. Four are bisexual. And six folks are "something else". The other 583 folks are all straight.
The fact is.....there are likely more people in the store who graduated from college with a Master's degree than gay/lesbian. There's likely more more people in the store who've been to an Indian casino in the last year.....than gay/lesbian. And there's likely more people in the store who've read War and Peace....than are bisexual.
Now, if you walked across the street.....to the gay bar there next to Wal-Mart, and noted the sixty folks in there.....fifty-eight which are gay/lesbian....well, it's a statistic but it's not really a number you can use for a CNN journalist's article or round-table discussion.
Bottom line? It might help to work with facts.
Friday, 17 October 2014
The Open-Bathroom Discussion
It's a long sordid, and complicated story. Some people are pro-gay and pro-transgender got together in Houston, Texas. They decided that there was enough neighborhood and public support to push up a carefully crafted agenda, which basically said.....depending on how you felt or were biologically (male or female), you could go to the bathroom of your choice. So for example, if you were guy who occasionally liked to dress up as a lady and pretend you were a lady.....if you were in the public library or some basketball arena.....you could walk into the women's restroom.
I know, it's a pretty difficult idea to get across, but apparently....this was the mythical moment when it was believed by some political people as being an opportune time.
So, a number of folks figured out the whole scheme, and then went against it. In order to go against it.....they had to put it on the ballot and make it a referendum. Roughly 17,000 signatures of registered voters in the area were required. The group got over 50,000. When the city clerk got up to roughly 19,000 on the count and certified....they stopped. The minimum had been met.
An odd thing then occurred, as the city deemed roughly thirty thousand of the signatures as null and void. The wording to this....is not exactly clear, and I've yet to find any journalist (even from Houston) who can explain how they failed. One must assume they were either not a Houston resident or they were not registered, but this is never spelled out. These days, petition gatherers are trained and know precisely the three or four questions to ask, to ensure the guy signing is legit.
What happened next is rather odd. The city attorney then lodged a criminal type action, looking at the support group who put up the petition, and deemed that local ministers were behind the action. The big step here? A legal document forwarded to a judge and signed.....demanded that five local ministers of Houston hand over their sermons, personal emails that discussed this entire matter, and any correspondence that had the mention of the city mayor (who is lesbian).
You can imagine the eruption of hostility over this....the ministers have basically said that this stepped over the line of the Constitution, and there's going to be a long and hostile fight to start up.
Violation of religious rights? The Constitution offers up one of the most protective clauses on the face of the Earth for religion. You cannot make any single law which impedes religion of any citizen, period. No exceptions. You cannot interfere with the assembly of a religious group, as long as they are acting in a peaceful manner and not threatening anyone. I don't believe you can find any other government that goes to this extent.
The sermon request? I think the five ministers probably sat there as they got the letter and read it.....coming to just grin and start laughing. Some ministers might admit they have vast scripts and PowerPoint slides. Some might admit a single page with a few quotes. And some will just grin and admit that they have scrap piece of paper with two or three Bible quotes, and lead the entire forty-minute sermon based on those scraps of paper. Some ministers might have video stock of their sermons just because they think these were five-star episodes and great classics.
What would a city prosecutor do with sermons? This leads off to a funny moment or two which would brew up. I'm not sure this city prosecutor or the people behind him have considered what happens in court rooms, and how a minister would be in his "audience".....preaching to the judge.....preaching to the jury.....and preaching to the city prosecutor himself. A court room? No.....the minister can convene the moment into a church, and the whole court affair disappears in a matter of five minutes. It is in effect.....the most bogus use of law that one can imagine, and would be a court circus by all definition.
Saying that the church or ministers have no right to define local laws as hostile or threatening the social environment of their members? You'd have to lay out dozens of things which are allowed by ministers and disallowed. The minute you start this.....it becomes never-ending. What judge would sit there in a court, and allow this to become such a mess? I can't think of any rational judge sitting in America that would want this type of case in their court. Just imagine the minute you call a witness and they want you sworn-in to tell the truth, and the phrase....."so help me God" comes up.
Strangely enough.....all of this goes back to the original concept....letting some guy think he's a woman today, and going into the women's restroom. Or having some woman who thinks she's a guy and going into a men's restroom. Houston has 2.196 million people (at least Google says that for 2013). Out of that, how many people want the dual privilege bathrooms in public areas? No journalist, political figure or commentator has suggested a number yet. That's the surprising part of this story. For all we know......it could be dozen people out of 2.196 million. Maybe it's 216 people. Or maybe there's 16,326 people. You just don't know.
Yes, we've created a massive and frustrating mess, to help some people find the right bathroom for their personal relief. We've wrapped ministers, religious groups, news media idiots, neighborhood groups, Democrats, Latinos, blacks, Southern Baptist Churches, and Republicans into this. All for the sake of a bathroom break.
What idiot dreamed this up....to come a month prior to the November election? You can't find where this started, and you have to wonder if some Karl Rove-type character just sat there a year ago and felt he could trick the Houston Democratic crowd into doing something really stupid.
Roughly 1.6 million people came out in the county and city election of 2012 from Houston. The vote? County-wide, it was almost fifty-fifty for Republicans and Democrats. It's a fair balanced deal.
In this moment? The Democrats rely a fair amount on Latino votes, and I would take a fair guess that half of the Latinos registered to vote.....also attend some local church....and have some opinion about this whole sermon thing, and the transgender bathroom thing. If you ask me.....the leadership in Houston for the Democrats have blasted themselves severely over something of such a minor stumble, which might only benefit a dozen transgender, or a hundred, or a thousand who might want this.
This morning, I read that the State Attorney General has drafted a letter and sent onto the prosecutor involved in this....to simply stop. There are certain things which he might do, but getting the sermons into some legal episode? That crossed a line.
To simplify and tell this? If you had spoken up a decade ago to say that some major city in America would seek to pass an open-bathroom agenda for public facilities in town, then would fuss over a ballot referendum with adequate signatures, and finally go after some ministers and sermons in a courtroom turned church environment.....I would have laughed and said it'd make a great comedy. Well....it came to pass.
The golden moment in this comedy? At some point, if this goes into court with the five ministers, the prosecutor will be hotly frustrated with things, and some minister will say "I'm praying for your lost soul." The judge will get peeved and jerk the minister on the stand giving testimony around, and the minister will turn and respond that he's praying for the judge's lost soul as well. At that point, the fat lady will sung, and the curtain will close.
I know, it's a pretty difficult idea to get across, but apparently....this was the mythical moment when it was believed by some political people as being an opportune time.
So, a number of folks figured out the whole scheme, and then went against it. In order to go against it.....they had to put it on the ballot and make it a referendum. Roughly 17,000 signatures of registered voters in the area were required. The group got over 50,000. When the city clerk got up to roughly 19,000 on the count and certified....they stopped. The minimum had been met.
An odd thing then occurred, as the city deemed roughly thirty thousand of the signatures as null and void. The wording to this....is not exactly clear, and I've yet to find any journalist (even from Houston) who can explain how they failed. One must assume they were either not a Houston resident or they were not registered, but this is never spelled out. These days, petition gatherers are trained and know precisely the three or four questions to ask, to ensure the guy signing is legit.
What happened next is rather odd. The city attorney then lodged a criminal type action, looking at the support group who put up the petition, and deemed that local ministers were behind the action. The big step here? A legal document forwarded to a judge and signed.....demanded that five local ministers of Houston hand over their sermons, personal emails that discussed this entire matter, and any correspondence that had the mention of the city mayor (who is lesbian).
You can imagine the eruption of hostility over this....the ministers have basically said that this stepped over the line of the Constitution, and there's going to be a long and hostile fight to start up.
Violation of religious rights? The Constitution offers up one of the most protective clauses on the face of the Earth for religion. You cannot make any single law which impedes religion of any citizen, period. No exceptions. You cannot interfere with the assembly of a religious group, as long as they are acting in a peaceful manner and not threatening anyone. I don't believe you can find any other government that goes to this extent.
The sermon request? I think the five ministers probably sat there as they got the letter and read it.....coming to just grin and start laughing. Some ministers might admit they have vast scripts and PowerPoint slides. Some might admit a single page with a few quotes. And some will just grin and admit that they have scrap piece of paper with two or three Bible quotes, and lead the entire forty-minute sermon based on those scraps of paper. Some ministers might have video stock of their sermons just because they think these were five-star episodes and great classics.
What would a city prosecutor do with sermons? This leads off to a funny moment or two which would brew up. I'm not sure this city prosecutor or the people behind him have considered what happens in court rooms, and how a minister would be in his "audience".....preaching to the judge.....preaching to the jury.....and preaching to the city prosecutor himself. A court room? No.....the minister can convene the moment into a church, and the whole court affair disappears in a matter of five minutes. It is in effect.....the most bogus use of law that one can imagine, and would be a court circus by all definition.
Saying that the church or ministers have no right to define local laws as hostile or threatening the social environment of their members? You'd have to lay out dozens of things which are allowed by ministers and disallowed. The minute you start this.....it becomes never-ending. What judge would sit there in a court, and allow this to become such a mess? I can't think of any rational judge sitting in America that would want this type of case in their court. Just imagine the minute you call a witness and they want you sworn-in to tell the truth, and the phrase....."so help me God" comes up.
Strangely enough.....all of this goes back to the original concept....letting some guy think he's a woman today, and going into the women's restroom. Or having some woman who thinks she's a guy and going into a men's restroom. Houston has 2.196 million people (at least Google says that for 2013). Out of that, how many people want the dual privilege bathrooms in public areas? No journalist, political figure or commentator has suggested a number yet. That's the surprising part of this story. For all we know......it could be dozen people out of 2.196 million. Maybe it's 216 people. Or maybe there's 16,326 people. You just don't know.
Yes, we've created a massive and frustrating mess, to help some people find the right bathroom for their personal relief. We've wrapped ministers, religious groups, news media idiots, neighborhood groups, Democrats, Latinos, blacks, Southern Baptist Churches, and Republicans into this. All for the sake of a bathroom break.
What idiot dreamed this up....to come a month prior to the November election? You can't find where this started, and you have to wonder if some Karl Rove-type character just sat there a year ago and felt he could trick the Houston Democratic crowd into doing something really stupid.
Roughly 1.6 million people came out in the county and city election of 2012 from Houston. The vote? County-wide, it was almost fifty-fifty for Republicans and Democrats. It's a fair balanced deal.
In this moment? The Democrats rely a fair amount on Latino votes, and I would take a fair guess that half of the Latinos registered to vote.....also attend some local church....and have some opinion about this whole sermon thing, and the transgender bathroom thing. If you ask me.....the leadership in Houston for the Democrats have blasted themselves severely over something of such a minor stumble, which might only benefit a dozen transgender, or a hundred, or a thousand who might want this.
This morning, I read that the State Attorney General has drafted a letter and sent onto the prosecutor involved in this....to simply stop. There are certain things which he might do, but getting the sermons into some legal episode? That crossed a line.
To simplify and tell this? If you had spoken up a decade ago to say that some major city in America would seek to pass an open-bathroom agenda for public facilities in town, then would fuss over a ballot referendum with adequate signatures, and finally go after some ministers and sermons in a courtroom turned church environment.....I would have laughed and said it'd make a great comedy. Well....it came to pass.
The golden moment in this comedy? At some point, if this goes into court with the five ministers, the prosecutor will be hotly frustrated with things, and some minister will say "I'm praying for your lost soul." The judge will get peeved and jerk the minister on the stand giving testimony around, and the minister will turn and respond that he's praying for the judge's lost soul as well. At that point, the fat lady will sung, and the curtain will close.
Saturday, 11 October 2014
The Speech Test Story
Somewhere in the late 1990s....I got introduced to the Flesch-Kincaid Readability Test. Microsoft in some early version of Word....actually had the readability test as part of their package. I admit....from the two hundred folks in my organization.....I was probably only among two or three people who knew of the software test and it's implications.
Flesch-Kincaid works this way.....you wrote a page or two (or forty pages) of a speech or paper. The paper measures the wording....from 3rd grade level of high school.....all the way to graduate school at some university.
It's supposed to help you reach your audience. If you know that your audience needs a speech geared for lower-intelligent folks...say 10th-grade education....then you can build a speech to that degree, and measure it in the end to be certain of the standard desired.
It's a handy product if you give speeches....write white-papers....develop research projects....or putting together an entire book.
So I noticed today....someone finally took Flesch-Kincaid and applied it to Presidential speeches given since the late 1700s to the present. It probably took at least a year to dig up the various speeches, and run them through the application.
What they tend to find is interesting.
Most speeches written in the 1800-period....were mostly at the college-level of understanding. Washington, Adams, and Jefferson wrote comprehensive speeches.....that probably were a bit more difficult than common man of America could take and grasp. The thing is.....they were educated at a certain level, and most of the people they came into contact with.....were of the same level of education. Most of the speeches? They were heard by these same individuals.
From 1850 to 1875....things started to change. Presidential speeches were now being drafted and given....spreading from college-level on down to the seventh-grade level.
From 1925 to 1950....there were no more of the college-graduate level speeches. About ninety percent of the speeches given in this period by Presidents....were of the 12th grade of high school on down to the eighth grade.
Since 1975.....there's not been a single Presidential speech developed that went past the 12th grade of high school. The majority fit for eighth and ninth grade writing skills.
President Obama's noted speeches? They generally fit into the seventh grade to the tenth grade.
A odd fact or two from this study? The Gettysburg Speech drafted and given by Lincoln.....was noted at the eleventh-grade level. The poor notes given to George Bush's speeches? Well....they generally measure up to the same level given by President Obama. No better....no worse.
What does all this say about our national character and leadership? We've developed the remarkable ability to write marginal speeches that get the point across to people with limited or sparse education. We want a leader who seems to think like us.....talk like us.....and educated like us. He may be fake to some degree....walking around with a Master's Degree in law....but he's hired enough people to draft marginal speeches for our entertainment.
Fixing this or cleaning it up? Forget about it. I doubt if the public would be happy with a George Washington-type character today showing up and giving a humble speech which was drafted at the college level. Neither would the public likely stand and vote for a guy like Abraham Lincoln. We've gotten use to gimmick presidents, and it's the current trend. For better or worse, this is the direction we are going.
Flesch-Kincaid works this way.....you wrote a page or two (or forty pages) of a speech or paper. The paper measures the wording....from 3rd grade level of high school.....all the way to graduate school at some university.
It's supposed to help you reach your audience. If you know that your audience needs a speech geared for lower-intelligent folks...say 10th-grade education....then you can build a speech to that degree, and measure it in the end to be certain of the standard desired.
It's a handy product if you give speeches....write white-papers....develop research projects....or putting together an entire book.
So I noticed today....someone finally took Flesch-Kincaid and applied it to Presidential speeches given since the late 1700s to the present. It probably took at least a year to dig up the various speeches, and run them through the application.
What they tend to find is interesting.
Most speeches written in the 1800-period....were mostly at the college-level of understanding. Washington, Adams, and Jefferson wrote comprehensive speeches.....that probably were a bit more difficult than common man of America could take and grasp. The thing is.....they were educated at a certain level, and most of the people they came into contact with.....were of the same level of education. Most of the speeches? They were heard by these same individuals.
From 1850 to 1875....things started to change. Presidential speeches were now being drafted and given....spreading from college-level on down to the seventh-grade level.
From 1925 to 1950....there were no more of the college-graduate level speeches. About ninety percent of the speeches given in this period by Presidents....were of the 12th grade of high school on down to the eighth grade.
Since 1975.....there's not been a single Presidential speech developed that went past the 12th grade of high school. The majority fit for eighth and ninth grade writing skills.
President Obama's noted speeches? They generally fit into the seventh grade to the tenth grade.
A odd fact or two from this study? The Gettysburg Speech drafted and given by Lincoln.....was noted at the eleventh-grade level. The poor notes given to George Bush's speeches? Well....they generally measure up to the same level given by President Obama. No better....no worse.
What does all this say about our national character and leadership? We've developed the remarkable ability to write marginal speeches that get the point across to people with limited or sparse education. We want a leader who seems to think like us.....talk like us.....and educated like us. He may be fake to some degree....walking around with a Master's Degree in law....but he's hired enough people to draft marginal speeches for our entertainment.
Fixing this or cleaning it up? Forget about it. I doubt if the public would be happy with a George Washington-type character today showing up and giving a humble speech which was drafted at the college level. Neither would the public likely stand and vote for a guy like Abraham Lincoln. We've gotten use to gimmick presidents, and it's the current trend. For better or worse, this is the direction we are going.
Friday, 10 October 2014
The Hefty Weight of Democracy
It's one of those odd psychological moments. You have a forum with some political guy or gal running for office, and some idiots are free to ask stupid questions. So you have one gal ask you....knowing you ARE a Republican....if you voted for Bush in 2000. There are basically three answers...."yes", "no", or "I don't remember".
This leads onto a second question....especially if you answered with anything beyond "yes".
The idiot could ask you....if you didn't vote for Bush, then who did you vote for? The quick answer and better comeback would be you didn't vote for anyone....feeling that none of the candidates were competent. Nobody would fault you for such an answer.
If you answered "I don't remember"? They will ask about your memory lapses and how often they occur...making you look foolish.
Out of a hundred Republicans or confessed right-leaning guys.....I would imagine that ninety-nine would just simply say "yes, I voted for Bush". The one guy? He might freak out and say "no", getting the more difficult questions next.
Over the past thirty years, and various Republican candidates.....I'm guessing most right-leaners would go the same way.
Democrats? Well....I'm guessing up to 2000.....the numbers would resemble the right-leaning folks.
This week.....the gal running in Kentucky against Senator McConnell.....was after a newspaper endorsement. They wanted her to appear up against a board, and answer some questions. These weren't rocket-science questions.....just simple position questions. Then they asked if she'd voted for Obama, and she went through various gyrations of avoiding an answer. She couldn't answer "yes" or "no" or "I don't remember".
I wouldn't call this stupidity......but a naive gut feeling that you feel like you screwed up not just once, but twice, and you don't want to admit this in public.
How many of a hundred Democrats would go through this gut feeling answer? I'd take a guess that three or four. It's not a lot, but it's enough that draws some puzzling thoughts.
If these four individuals act this way....what happens in the future? Will they ask some really tough questions of Democrats running for office, and demand some blunt truths? Will they expect more evidence on the table of past performance?
This Kentucky Democrat? I suspect that she lost five-percent of her support from this unique answer, and it won't be coming back this late in the election period.
Influencing the 2016 election period? I'm willing to guess that someone is watching all this stuff, and will make the same question come up on numerous occasions....forcing people to admit who they voted for or against.
Democracy is an odd thing.....now, you have to remember who you voted for in past elections, and be willing to admit this in public. We are lucky to remember who the governor is....the past record of the Dallas Cowboys....the ingredients of a good cocktail.....the pin number for the ATM machine....and when we last did an oil change for the pick-up. Now? Our voting record?
This leads onto a second question....especially if you answered with anything beyond "yes".
The idiot could ask you....if you didn't vote for Bush, then who did you vote for? The quick answer and better comeback would be you didn't vote for anyone....feeling that none of the candidates were competent. Nobody would fault you for such an answer.
If you answered "I don't remember"? They will ask about your memory lapses and how often they occur...making you look foolish.
Out of a hundred Republicans or confessed right-leaning guys.....I would imagine that ninety-nine would just simply say "yes, I voted for Bush". The one guy? He might freak out and say "no", getting the more difficult questions next.
Over the past thirty years, and various Republican candidates.....I'm guessing most right-leaners would go the same way.
Democrats? Well....I'm guessing up to 2000.....the numbers would resemble the right-leaning folks.
This week.....the gal running in Kentucky against Senator McConnell.....was after a newspaper endorsement. They wanted her to appear up against a board, and answer some questions. These weren't rocket-science questions.....just simple position questions. Then they asked if she'd voted for Obama, and she went through various gyrations of avoiding an answer. She couldn't answer "yes" or "no" or "I don't remember".
I wouldn't call this stupidity......but a naive gut feeling that you feel like you screwed up not just once, but twice, and you don't want to admit this in public.
How many of a hundred Democrats would go through this gut feeling answer? I'd take a guess that three or four. It's not a lot, but it's enough that draws some puzzling thoughts.
If these four individuals act this way....what happens in the future? Will they ask some really tough questions of Democrats running for office, and demand some blunt truths? Will they expect more evidence on the table of past performance?
This Kentucky Democrat? I suspect that she lost five-percent of her support from this unique answer, and it won't be coming back this late in the election period.
Influencing the 2016 election period? I'm willing to guess that someone is watching all this stuff, and will make the same question come up on numerous occasions....forcing people to admit who they voted for or against.
Democracy is an odd thing.....now, you have to remember who you voted for in past elections, and be willing to admit this in public. We are lucky to remember who the governor is....the past record of the Dallas Cowboys....the ingredients of a good cocktail.....the pin number for the ATM machine....and when we last did an oil change for the pick-up. Now? Our voting record?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)