Politically Hoodwinked

Mr. Gingrich: We Wish You Were Here...

politicallyhoodwinked@gmail.com (Nate) — Thu, 03 Jul 2008 07:18:27 GMT

Mr. Gingrich, we wish you were here. Cause things have changed a lot in fifteen years. And I don't think your contract is working like you planned. Oh Mr. Gingrich, we sure could use a hand.

Energy Solutions

Obama for Change... Really?

politicallyhoodwinked@gmail.com (Nate) — Mon, 23 Jun 2008 16:47:37 GMT

I am not going to make this site anti-Obama. This site will always be more about analyzing the issues and an apparent misconstruction of the facts in the public spotlight. However, I do believe that Obama is completely and utterly representing himself as an agent of change to the American people, and a great number of you are being hoodwinked by this guy.

Take a look at the basic facts. He is an Ivy league trained lawyer, as are most politicians. He became powerful in a local political machine (Chicago) and worked his way up to DC as a springboard to run for the presidency. He has already been linked to a shady real estate player and the associated scandal. He was also part of a religious scandal in which he defended a supposed man of god whose sermon sounded more like hate mongering as opposed to the gospel. He embraced a spiritual advisor while it benefitted his political future and then cut him loose once that advisor became a liability. That sounds like a typical politician to me.

At the core of his policies, being pitched to the electorate, is a a windfall tax on oil companies profits. This an idea that failed thirty years ago and has since been proven to have increased our dependence on foreign oil. If nothing else, this is his way of signaling to the "greenies" that I am your guy. Wouldn't real change include speaking of exploring nuclear power? This is a technology the french have employed safely for that same thirty years. Or wait... he can't do that because that upset his "greenie" base. However, once he is in office we are suppose to believe he will be a great uniter? Please...

He took the American flag off of his lapel until he decided to put it back on... Probably polling data, eh Barack?

Now he is playing the race card, but in a rather atypical fashion. He is stating that Republicans will use it in the general to strike fear in the heart of voters. Isn't the fact he is black already out? Is he really asking for sympathy by suggesting it or just using it to advance his agenda? If he truly wants to unite America, wouldn't he start by speaking of believing that race will not be a factor and he has faith that a seasoned veteran like McCain would take the higher ground?

Also, his campaign staff started to ask that women in veils not stand behind him in photo shoots because of the current political client. I thought he preached celebrating diversity? Would the actions of his campaign staff make him a liar, or just someone who is indifferent to how his staff treats all the electorate?

If you are a liberal, this is your guy. His voting record completely reflects that. However, if you are an independent, do not let this guy dupe you. He has a radical populist agenda, and he will have the Democrat Congress to do it. Pay attention to the facts, all the facts, and you will start to figure out that Obama is just another advantageous politician with his own agenda, and the true change he speaks of represents a far left idealogue much more than the average American.

Re-Launch

politicallyhoodwinked@gmail.com (Nate) — Sun, 15 Jun 2008 22:11:06 GMT

I would like to welcome everyone to the official relaunch of Politically Hoodwinked. All you will find from the previous incarnation of this site is my original writings and the general format. This was done for a reason. Often my viewpoints only came across in interesting news links to articles that explained a certain issue. Now, while there will be some of that, I would like to get more involved in the site and contribute more often.

That being said, if you read what I write, most of you, at sometime, will be offended. If you belong to the mindless zombie Obama cult, expect to be offended. If you believe water boarding is torture, and not, per say, an art form, then expect to be offended. If you put religion before science (like most bible belters), expect to be offended. If you are an environmentalist (all concerned about dirty snow), then go fuck yourself.... and expect to be offended.

My core beliefs are that U.S. citizens and this nation is of the highest sovereignty, and we are a capitalist economy. I holds these ideals in the highest regard, "[a]nd I will strike down upon thee with great vengeance and furious anger those who would attempt to poison and destroy my brothers."

Updates will be fewer, but more involved with analysis. I hope you like the product I put out, and if you don't, then comment. Prove me wrong... I promise not to bitch slap you too strongly across my blog... Unless, of course, you are Keith Olbermann. What a fuck stick and blowhard that guy is...

Oh, and another thing. I don't find any words obscene. I find actions obscene. So if my language offends you, I suggest you break through and obtain a higher level of enlightenment, or don't read me.

That is all. Let's get this thing going...

What We Can Learn From Infant Formula...

politicallyhoodwinked@gmail.com (Nate) — Tue, 04 Dec 2007 09:49:41 GMT

From the 1930s to the 1970s, the infant formula industry used aggressive marketing techniques in developing countries. Mass media promotion was often and vivid using billboards and radio ads as one avenue. Another avenue was the distribution of baby books, posters, and samples throughout the developing healthcare systems. The advertisements posted in healthcare facilities compared images of a healthy baby to that of a sick or malnourished baby, and therefore superficially evoked the endorsement of the healthcare industry. Milk nurses (saleswoman) were often distributed to these facilities and the milk nurses' compensation was partly based upon getting mothers to use the product. These practices may seem abhorrent, but compared to modern day comparisons, they are really nothing out of the ordinary. Companies aggressively go after market share. Nothing has changed.

In 1966, Dr. Derrick B. Jelliffe, the Director of the Caribbean Food and Nutrition Institute, wrote a pamphlet, Child Nutrition in Developing Countries, that the World Health Organization (WHO) published. The purpose of the pamphlet was to warn of the dangers in bottle feeding in "traditional and semi-sophisticated" populations. In 1969, based upon the writings in the pamphlet, he was asked to testify before the Protein Advisory Group (PAG) of the United Nations. During his testimony, he described the worst case scenario of death of an infant through malnutrition and dehydration that resulted from bottle feeding. Despite any actual empirical scientific evidence, his testimony was so shocking that the PAG gave it instant credibility. The conclusion was made that the use of baby formula in developing nations results in an increase in the infant mortality rate of those countries.

A battle would develop and ensue until the mid-1980s between the multinational corporations (MNCs) that supplied baby formula and the non-governmental organizations (NGOs) hell bent on destroying them. All this over a product that supposedly, but never scientifically proven, contributed to infant deaths. Everyone got involved in the fray, including the United States Senate. Teddy Kennedy (D-Mass), in 1977, held public hearings before the Subcommittee on Health and Scientific Research of the Committee on Human Resources. At these hearings Dr. Jelliffe "guesstimated" the number of infant deaths due to baby formula in third world countries to be roughly 10 million a year. It should be noted that Lactation Review estimated that only 5% of the food supply for babies in developing countries was derived from baby formula. If this were true, Dr. Jelliffe's "guesstimate" would be statistically impossible.

The suppliers of infant formula formed the International Council of Infant Food Industries to respond to attacks and develop standard marketing procedures. However, the NGOs had already shifted public opinion through the use of mass media that automatically gave the cause legitimacy. Nestle's image took the hardest hit, as it owned 75% of the market share of baby formula supplied in developing countries. One pamphlet published was titled "Nestle Kills Babies." A movie, Bottle Babies, made in 1975, featured interviews with child nutritionists whom furthered the non-existent cause. I state it as non-existent, because during this time, infant mortality rates were actually dropping in developing countries due to substantial increases in the infrastructure and healthcare systems that ultimately allowed for infants to receive better care. An independent study by WHO and UNICEF verified this.

For decades, Nestle's corporate image was dragged through the mud, and the perception was strong enough to cause a consumer boycott that lasted against Nestle from 1977 to 1984. For seven years, Nestle's bottom line was affected due to nothing more than an international, non-scientific based, public duping. It boiled down to a cause with no evidence that the mass media was glad to assist. And why? Because pestilence sells.

Eventually the combatants would tire, and the infant formula manufacturers were forced to devote unnecessary resources to curbing the cause. Nestle went as far to form a center for nutrition that engaged in dialog with the NGOs. All to try to win a battle that should have never been waged that was based upon only one doctor's idea. An idea that was never substantive.

I have a couple reasons for mentioning this scenario. First, I believe we must all study history. We must look at past events to understand how current events are happening. I do not believe companies should be attacked and corporate images be smeared, just for the fact corporations exist to turn a profit. For example, how many times have you heard colleagues attack Wal-Mart. The stereotypical attacker of Wal-Mart is a younger, educated idealist who has a good job and can afford to shop at higher-end retailers. The attack boils down to several factors. The first being that Wal-Mart treats it employees like crap. The employee, who is free to chose their place of work, is underpaid with no insurance. Another common attack is that Wal-Mart isn't green enough (whatever this means). One among conservationists is the fact Wal-mart gobbles up land to put up these ugly structures. Land someone had to sell them. Or my favorite, and coincidentally the least educated argument, Wal-Mart is "ghetto." However, one should keep in mind that Wal-Mart is a large employer and does provide jobs to many people who need a second job or only feel comfortable in a basic position. Furthermore, Wal-Mart drives down the cost of goods for the consumer, and therefore allows people with less income to better provide for their families. You never hear these counterarguments, unless that yuppie engages someone like me.

Another reason I mention this scenario is it is a great example of "fear selling." Nothing real exists, but we can sell that it does. Therefore, we can hurt these MNCs and propel our own existence into the mainstream. This often happens. The cause only exists for the self-interests of the parties perpetuating it. That is disgusting, in and of itself, but is worsened when you get one old fatass politician involved. Did you ever wonder how many jobs exist and are funded for the sake of finding evidence of global warming? Could PETA exist without finding enemies to rally against? Could Greenpeace? What about MADD?

My point is that just because NGOs exist, and exist for a good cause, do not always take them at face value. Facts and science can be distorted, and the mass media can often act as an accomplice. Why? Because a just or tragic cause sells! As someone who respects the truth, that just irritates me. We should always be questioning what we hear. We should never be at peace by being naive. We need to remember the past and make comparisons to current events, so we never head down the wrong path twice. That is my point, and that is why I chose to present this lesson from infant formula. If it makes one person think, then I have done my job.

What's All This Talk About Fish And Education?

politicallyhoodwinked@gmail.com (Nate) — Wed, 28 Nov 2007 15:22:33 GMT

Give a man a fish; you have fed him for today. Teach a man to fish; and you have fed him for a lifetime”—Author unknown

Even in today’s world, those are very wise words.

I am someone who happens to believe in freedom of choice and personal accountability. Due to these beliefs, I am often singled out as someone who lacks compassion. The finger is often pointed by those on the left toward people who share my beliefs. It is said that we do not care about others and we only want a society to exist in which we can thrive and leave others behind. We want competition, free markets, less government, less taxes, individual responsibility, and individual choice. Basically, we want a return to what made this country great, before we were forced into a new deal or a great society. Because of this, we are said to lack compassion.

I have several questions for my liberal counterparts. What about teaching self-sufficiency lacks compassion? What about hating the idea of a nanny state lacks compassion? What about teaching an honest problem solving approach, as opposed to simply throwing other peoples’ money at a problem, lacks compassion?

Take for example our education system. The schools have been shanghaied by unions that force school systems into contracts that make it impossible to reward the best teachers and next to impossible to fire the bad ones. I am not a parent, but I hope to be one day. And honestly, I do not want the metric for termination of a teacher to be based upon whether or not he or she sexually assaulted a student. Of course, if you live in New York City, the unions are so strong that doesn’t even matter sometimes.

I want to be able to choose which school my child attends, and more importantly, if I choose a public school (since my property taxes already have paid for this service), I want to know that organization is competing for my business. And like it or not, education is a business. A business in which private and parochial schools succeed at the cost of, according to some sources, a third to one half less per student than the public counterparts. Private schools do this because they have to for survival. Public school systems complain of lack of funding. Of course, it is impossible to trim the fat at these public institutions, once again, due to unions.

Problems must be solved at the root. The root of most problems in these

United States

comes from a weak education system. A good education leads to a good higher education or a strong background for vocational training. All of which can lead to higher paying jobs and a self-sufficient lifestyle. The Latin expression post hoc ergo propter hoc comes to mind. Loosely translated this means “after it, therefore because of it.” In most scenarios, this rarely holds true. However, I believe in the

United States

this serves to be a direct indictment of our education system. Who wants a nanny state? Liberals. Who controls the school systems? Liberals (albeit through unions). If the system stays broken, a certain percentage of the population lacks the basic skills required to find a decent job, which limits self-sufficiency and promotes government dependency.

It is time we all face the facts. It is in Liberals’ best interest that the education system stays broken. Is this compassionate? Hardly…

I want everyone to get the best education through schools competing for your business and accountability of the education system. I think wanting everyone to succeed and promoting a system that equips them with the right tools to do so is a good definition of compassion.

What do you think?

Religion: What Does It Mean To Me?

politicallyhoodwinked@gmail.com (Nate) — Mon, 29 Oct 2007 09:02:55 GMT

Let me start this blog out by stating I am not a theologian, and I am an atheist. Therefore, my qualifications to wax philosophical concerning deep religious thought are very limited. However, I do have some thoughts on the matter.

First, I acknowledge and embrace the fact that this country was founded on principles that were partially influenced by reigious teachings. One needs to look no further than the Declaration of Independence for evidence of such fact.

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Second, I do respect tradition, especially when a great majority of my fellow citizens are practioners of religion.

All of that being said, I do not believe the government should emphasize one religion over another, i.e., placing the Ten Commandments in stone outside of a courthouse. However, respecting the deep religious beliefs of some of our former statesmen is fully acceptable, such as the passage concerning god on the Washington Monument (Laus Deo, (Praise be to God) is engraved on the east side of the aluminum cap of the Monument). I do not believe you can properly honor someone without acknowledging his or her deep spiritual convictions.

What I do not understand is why some people hate the practice of religion. Take Bill Maher for example. He often refers to religion as irrational and its practitioners as idiots. That doesn't jive with my concept of freedom of the individual and freedom of choice. As long as you are not imposing your religion on me, what do I care how you practice? Also, it should be noted studies have shown that religious people are generally happier than us atheists. I imagine it is because they live their lives for a purpose and in service for the greater good.

I guess deep down it bothers me to see an anti-religion movement developing here in the United States. Limiting religious activity to me is just another way of limiting thought and debate. Also, the power to take away someone's bible is the power to take away another one's freedom of speech, or my handgun.

Now I understand the argument that some religions and scripture teach hate, and its practitioners often warp the teachings to justify sexism, racism, and war. That is the price you pay in a free society, and one which can be counteracted by a balanced education. Also, I have said it before and I will say it again: ALL WARS ARE FOUGHT FOR ECONOMIC REASONS. That doesn't mean wars are pointless or without merit, just that the underlying basis for all wars is purely economic and not about freedom or religion.

All and all, at this point in my life religion means very little to me, but that will never keep me from respecting what it means to others and to what it has meant to the backbone of this great nation.

Social Security... A Widow's Lottery

politicallyhoodwinked@gmail.com (Nate) — Sat, 27 Oct 2007 11:01:25 GMT

I was thinking about social security, and I stumbled across I scenario I would like to share. Picture a young couple (mid-twenties). Both are educated, so one of them lands a decent job making about $40k a year with the possibility of promotions for good service. The other half takes a decent job too. About five years into the relationship, promotions start to happen for one of them, so the other decides to stay at home. About this time they have their first child. About ten years into the relationship, the professional half of the couple is killed in a car wreck on the way home. This leaves a widow and a five year old child. The couple had insurance through the professional's employment which gives the widow one times the annual salary, which is now around $60,000 a year. The widow also has access to his 401K (which after ten years is vested and worth at least $50k). The widow pays off the family home and decides to start looking for work, until a family friend reminds her she is entitled to social security benefits.

Social security benefits apply to (as well as others):

A widow or widower of the worker, any age, with a child under age 16.
A child of the worker, until age 18.

Both the widow and the child are entitled to 75% of the worker's benefit or "primary insurance amount" (hereinafter, PIA). Family income from social security is limited to 150-180% of the worker's PIA, dependant upon some conditions (which I could not easily find). The question now becomes how do you calculate PIA. For this scenario, it is a 3-point process that isn't that tricky. First we need to know the worker's average monthly income. Over ten years from $40k to $60k, we will assume an average income of $50k (US median houshold income is around $47k). This makes the average monthly income of $4,167. The following chart explains the rest:

PIA Calculation	PIA Amount
0-$680 a month; 90%	$612.00
$680-$4,100 a month; 32%	$1094.00
Over $4,100 a month, 15%	$10.00

Total PIA = $1716.00

This means for the next ten to eleven years the widow is entitled to 75% of $1716, and for the next twelve to thirteen years the child is entitled to 75% of $1716. The total household income is $2574 a month, or $30888 a year. Only a small fraction of which, if any, is taxable.

Over the next ten years, the widow will receive over $150,000 total, in addition to the child's $180,000 total over the next twelve years. That is a $330,000+ family payout.

And what did the deceased spouse contribute to social security? The social security tax is 12.4% This is split between the employer and employee equally. At 12.4% and an average income of $50,000, total contributions equal $62,000 ($31,000 of which can be contributed to the spouse). What a rate of return for the widow and the child!

Around 50 million people a year receive social security benefits, and about 14% of these are survivor beneficiaries (7 million people). At an average US household income of $47k, that is over $100 billion a year we are shelling out for survivor benefits.

It is projected in the next ten years, the burn starts to equal the supply. Within twenty years, the federal government has to start paying back the excess social security loans (surplus is always given to the government in the form of loans) with interest. What do you want to bet the social security tax is raised?

Now would someone please explain to me why I can't have my 6.2% back to invest myself, and my employer can't have it's 6.2% back (to possibly pay me a little more)?

Why should my money go to pay a widow's benefits that look more like winning the lottery than a little push in the right direction?