QUICK HITTERS. POST #2. STATISTICS AND POLLS; PAY NO ATTENTION. PT 1.

Perhaps the two most misleading and least understood campaign tactics, used by candidates to win an election, are numbers reported through surveys, and conclusions drawn from statistical analysis of previous outcomes regarding certain subjects.

Both of these are easy to manipulate

as the following examples indicate;

WORD THE SURVEY QUESTION IN SUCH A WAY TO ENCOURAGE A CERTAIN RESPONSE;

Example- "Given the poor state of the economy, do you think Incumbent Candidate X can be trusted to fix the problem?"

See the real problems(s)?

#1-  The question does not in any way show justification for concluding that the economy is in "Poor" condition.

2) That there is a question of the "Trust Worthiness"  of Candidate X, yet there is no evidence given that there has been dishonesty in the past.

It is clear, that in cases such as this, that the wording of the question presumes a negative view of Candidate X.  Even answering the question could be construed as agreeing with its assertions.  LOOK FOR PT 2.

Date-  9/4/2014.

Perhaps the two most misleading and least understood campaign tactics, used by candidates to win an election, are numbers reported through surveys, and conclusions drawn from statistical analysis of previous outcomes regarding certain subjects.

Both of these are easy to manipulate

as the following examples indicate;

WORD THE SURVEY QUESTION IN SUCH A WAY TO ENCOURAGE A CERTAIN RESPONSE;

Example- "Given the poor state of the economy, do you think Incumbent Candidate X can be trusted to fix the problem?"

See the real problems(s)?

#1-  The question does not in any way show justification for concluding that the economy is in "Poor" condition.

2) That there is a question of the "Trust Worthiness"  of Candidate X, yet there is no evidence given that there has been dishonesty in the past.

It is clear, that in cases such as this, that the wording of the question presumes a negative view of Candidate X.  Even answering the question could be construed as agreeing with its assertions.  LOOK FOR PT 2.

Date-  9/4/2014.

BLAST FROM THE PAST: MESSAGE TO ALL PROGRESSIVES: DON'T YOU SEE IT, EVEN NOW? PART 3.

No. It is 10/8/2016, and I am not going to address Donald Trumps Comments, caught on audio tape,
about how he Treats Women, and how it is Tied to his "Celebrity Status."

WHY? BECAUSE HIS CHANCES OF BEING ELECTED PRESIDENT ARE LARGELY
DEPENDENT UPON THE FOLLOWING:

THAT ON ELECTION DAY, EXTREMIST VOTERS, AND THOSE WHO SUPPORT
THEM, TURN OUT IN NUMBERS THAT OVERCOME THE PROGRESSIVE VOTE.

YES, THE EXTREMIST ELEMENT PROBABLY CONSTITUTES A DEFINITE MINORITY, SO IT CAN BE OVERCOME RATHER EASILY, RIGHT?

TELL THAT TO THE REPUBLICAN PARTY, AND THOSE MEMBERS
WHO ARE LEFT DISTANCING THEMSELVES FROM IT, DUE TO 
DISAPPOINTMENT AND DISGUST.

There is a simple Truth that Progressives have to learn, if  the advances made during the Obama Administration ARE TO BE MAINTAINED, AND PROTECTED.

IT IS ALSO THE KEY TO FUTURE PROGRESSIVE POLICIES BECOMING LAW, AND THE NEED TO ELECT LEGISLATORS WHO UNDERSTAND THAT THE ADVANCEMENTS MADE IN THE LAST 8 YEARS REPRESENT REAL POSITIVE CHANGE.

MISOGYNY, RACISM, HOMOPHOBIA, XENOPHOBIA etc., ARE NOT DEAL BREAKERS
FOR HARD CORE TRUMP SUPPORTERS.

Do you remember this line from part 2.

What is Rule #1- What Donald Trump has done or said, or will do or say, MEANS ABSOLUTELY
NOTHING AS LONG AS HE TOES THE EXTREMIST LINE.

See part 4.

ETHICS AND MORALITY. BY DEFINITION? DEFINE BEFORE YOU DISCUSS. PT 3.

HUMANIST-  The belief that all decisions regarding moral behavior, either individually or as a society, can be found through intellectual reflection and discourse.  It rejects any faith based grounding of proper ethical behavior.

Christian Humanist-  Accepts the Divine nature of Jesus, but believes that God gave man the ability and mental discipline to find ultimate truths regarding proper moral behavior.  Scripture is not the source for finding ethical absolutes.  The Gospels may be correct, but must be judged on a case by case basis.

Secular Humanist-  Believes that faith based institutions have no place in deciding public policy or law.  Religion is purely an individual choice, and should not influence the legal system in any way.  A Secular Humanist is not by definition an Atheist.

Deistic Humanist-  Closely resembles the Christian Humanist.  Believes in an ultimate power (God), that is the prime mover in our universe.  However, this power created the laws of nature and set reality in motion, but leaves the concept of morality as something the human mind can comprehend without Divine interference.

Keep in mind these are my definitions.  You are free to disregard or accept them. My main goal is to show that we often use blanket definitions on certain belief systems.  However, some of these systems are not uniform, and vary in how they view the nature of God, Reality, Morality, and the Universe in general. 

FEATURE ARTICLES. WHAT DOES THE U.S. CONSTITUTION ACTUALLY SAY ABOUT RELIGION? PT 2. Eternal Vigilance.

In part 1, I quoted Article six of the U.S. Constitution.  I pointed out that this section of the Constitution, along with the First Amendment, are the only two places that religion is referred to in the entire body of the document.   I will now quote from the Bill of Rights, the section that references religion.

First Amendment-  "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

There you have it.  These two passages make it clear what role religion would play in the development of the new republic, and at no time do they contradict each other.

• Congress would not address the subject of religion in any way.
• There would be no religious test to hold public office.  One need only swear allegiance to the Constitution
• Since religious freedom is considered a right that every American has, it cannot be taken away.  In other words, creating and passing legislation that removes this right is not possible.

For those who claim that the founding fathers had an agenda that would establish Christianity as an essential part of our legal system, and that it is justified within the body of the Constitution, ignore certain details.  None of the following appears within the ratified document;

• God.
• Jesus.
• Christian or Christianity.
• Prayer.
• Bible. 

In fact, the only word that could possibly be a reference to a Supreme Being is the use of the term "Lord".  However, this word is used only once in the following fragment; "...in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven...".  This was a common way that dates and times were presented in print, and was not considered to be an expression of faith.

It is amazing that many of todays Lawmakers wish to regulate public policy according to the faiths and beliefs of certain segments of American society.  This completely ignores the obvious intentions of the Framers of the Constitution.  Why would they make it the law of the land to require no religious test to hold public office, and then seek to Legislate by Doctrines found in certain faiths?

(See PT.3 in a future posting.)

Date- 11/11/2013.

Scroll down for future posts.