Did Obama contradict himself

Without even reading any further than the title some might say, "of course he did." But I just recently read an article from NBC quoting the President making a statement about how race affects his popularity. What the President said just recently seems like a blunt contradiction of what he has said before.

http://nbcpolitics.nbcnews.com/_news/2014/01/19/22360951-obama-pot-not-more-dangerous-than-alcohol?lite

“There’s no doubt that there’s some folks who just really dislike me because they don’t like the idea of a black President,” he said. “Now, the flip side of it is there are some black folks and maybe some white folks who really like me and give me the benefit of the doubt precisely because I’m a black President.”

Now think back to a few years ago during the health care debate. President Obama was addressing a joint session of Congress on his agenda for health reform. In the Speech congressman Joe Wilson shouted "you lie." Former President Jimmy Carter said that some of the opposition to the president was due to racism. The white house press secretary released a statement saying, "[President Obama] does not believe that the criticism comes based on the colour of his skin."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8260109.stm

So did the president change his mind or does he contradict himself to get across the point he wants. I'll let you be the judge. But there's a difference between saying "there's no doubt that there is," and saying "he does not believe that there is."

Patrick Star of the TEA party

Just the other day I thought of an analogy of the Tea party.

There's an episode of Spongebob where Spongebob and Patrick get paint on Mr. Krabs' precious first dollar and are worried about the consequence. There's a scene where Patrick suggests that if they put another dollar in its place nobody would know the difference. Spongebob suggests that Patrick do just that but Patrick is so dumb that he doesn't understand why spongebob is suggesting he pull out his dollar. He ends up using his dollar on a vending machine. Patrick had the right idea and the resources to make it happen, but what he lacked was the ability.

The TEA party reminds me of Patrick. I feel that we might need to raise the debt ceiling a few more times before we lower it but to let the debt get bigger and bigger without having any intention to turn it around is unacceptable. I think the TEA party understands this.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/6-key-obamacare-dates-to-watch-for-in-2014/

The above article says that Obamacare's open enrollment will start about a week and half after the midterm elections. It quotes Senator Chuck Grassley (R-IA) saying "if premiums go through the roof in the first year of Obamacare, no one will know about it until after the election."

Remember when the government was shut down because some politicians were demanding that Obamacare law be changed. Well what Senator Grassley said seems to be a very solid reason to make a few changes to the legislation. And if the TEA party had said this I think a lot of americans would say "that's not right."

But no. We didn't hear that. Instead of hearing about this we heard Senator Cruz reading from Dr. Seuss.

So what I'm saying is that the TEA party might have the right idea, but what I don't think they have is someone who's going to make it happen. Should someone like this end up in the White House, they might have the right idea but I don't think they'll be able to make it happen.

What was he supposed to do?

This last week Governor Christie made the news for probably his first scandal. Had it happened to any other governor it would not have been nearly as big a story. But after his 60% reelection victory and his lead in polls to be the next GOP nominee for president people are going to watching his every move. Whether he accepts bribes, or forgets to start the dishwasher, people are going to be watching his every move.

In my opinion I think this story highlights outcome bias. Outcome bias is evaluating the quality of decision making based on what happens as a result of the decision. Governor Christie may have hired a few staff members who did corrupt things. He has said that he takes responsibility for what has happened. I think this is sound logic but is it really his fault that this Lane closure incident happened. I think the only way to really give him fault is to suppose that he was so cocky and excited about winning that his staff members also got cocky and decided to play political retribution.

What could have stopped this from happening. Perhaps if he had already seen the email correspondence before everyone else did. So that's the scandal? Governor Christie is in trouble because he didn't spy on the correspondence between his staff members? Then why are we giving the NSA such a hard time?

Now back to outcome bias. Another way that Governor Christie could have prevented this from happening would be if he had never hired these staff members. One of them, ironically, was named Bridget. Should he have done more to know that these people would never harm his administration like this? I think he'll do more in the future and hopefully others will learn from his example. If he had increased the state revenue by buying a lottery ticket that so happened to be the winner would that have showed wise decision making and strong leadership? The answer is no, this is the textbook example of outcome bias.

Former Governor Barbour of Mississippi made some interesting comments about the incident that I recommend discussing. In essence he said that Governor Christie accepted responsibility for this incident whereas Hillary Clinton said "what difference, at this point, does it make" when asked if a phone call could shed light on whether or not the attacks in Benghazi were a planned attack or a protest.

Here's the article

http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2014/01/haley_barbour_defends_christie_in_bridge_scandal_lashes_out_at_liberal_media.html

More over analysis of Disney's Frozen

I also thought that the movie was kind of ignorant of economics. At the end of the movie the older princess cuts of trade with their biggest trade partner. My thought was, "that's going to kill their economy." My next thought was, "I'm probably the only person who's going to watch this movie and then think that."

There is such thing a an economic sanction. But those decisions are made very carefully, especially when it's with their biggest trade partner. But Frozen was a family movie. The audience, at least the youth, does not think about economic consequences. They think about how an antagonist got a punishment they didn't want.

Let it go

Has Disney written it's song about coming out of the closet or accepting alternative lifestyles. Take a look at the lyrics to Let It Go from Disney's Frozen and you will find yourself saying "oh my gosh."

Early in the movie the two princesses are taken to some obscure place because one of them was affected by her older sister's condition that it even acknowledges she was "born with."

Not long later she is 'outed' if you will and has to leave the place she grew up in. She then starts singing a song that I think has some striking parallels to how a gay young adult growing up in a religious family would feel after being told for several years to "conceal don't feel."

The first two verses are about how she couldn't keep 'it' in even though she had tried. It then goes on to say that she can't keep up the masquerade and she doesn't care what others are going to say. And she does say that there is no right or wrong or rules for her.

I won't give a one-to-one analysis of every line of the song, but if you take a look at the lyrics and consider my point your jaw just might drop.

If Miley Cyrus, Lady Gaga, Elton John,  or a host of other artists puts this song into their concert with a visual presentation of love and equality then remember. You heard it here first.

Letter to Ordain Women

I have a few questions for your organizations.
Full-time missionary work is a priesthood responsibility and your organization seeks to have women ordained to that priesthood.
What I'm curious about is this. Do you think that latter day saint girls should be expected to serve full time missions like the young men are? If so, do you view an lds girl who doesn't serve a mission the same way you would view an lds boy who does not serve a mission? Do you believe that the mission duration for young women needs to be 24 months like it is for the young men?

 A few minutes later this is what they said.

This organization has many returned missionaries (men and women) who support the cause, and you are welcome to read their profiles and hear for yourself what they have to say!

They completely did not answer my question. Earlier this year I had a chance to ask congressmen Matheson a question about the debt ceiling and the government shutdown and he didn't really answer my question either but he at least addressed the issue. Whereas the Ordain Women organization said basically nothing. At least not yet.

Perhaps they are dodging the question because they don't have a good answer. Perhaps the feel this question highlights the error of their cause. But I think more likely than not they did not answer the question because whoever sits at the computer and answers the emails is not really interested in answering questions. Maybe said person doesn't have discretion to speak for the organization. Which weird because that's exactly what they are assigned to do. The best I can hope for is that someone in the organization will take later take a look at the question.

What I find to be odd is that they seemed to think it was important that they respond to my email quickly, but they didn't seem to think that it was important that they answer my question.

Another possibility is that person who sent that email known that there is a profile on their website that answers my question perfectly and they want me to find the answer for myself through those means.

Theres other things I'd like to ask them but I don't know if they'll bother to answer.

Sochi. I won't be able to attend your wedding because that's when my book club is meeting.

This last week the Whitehouse announced that President Obama and Vice President Biden will not be attending the Olympics in Russia next year because apparently they are to busy.

I don't think this is the real reason.

1. I'm pretty sure he attended the Vancouver Olympics. When the Economy was more rough than it is now.
2. It's not like he forgot that the Olympics were coming up or that he didn't know.
3. The President has a lot of control over his schedule. The whitehouse website has a page that shows the President's schedule. http://www.whitehouse.gov/schedule/president/ If you were to track it during the Sochi games and compare his schedule with the time of the Vancouver games (I don't know if the website goes that far back) I would be surprised if there was much of a difference.
4. He especially has that much control for accommodating something that has been scheduled for about 7 years.
5. I've never seen an episode of The West Wing where President Bartlett was on Air Force 1 and not discussing policy.

Not to long ago Russia passed a law preventing the adoption of their children by families from the United States. That itself might not be a crisis, but I think it highlights the fact that our relations with Russia are a little bit rough. Not as bad as they were a few decades ago, but to good either. This is very frightening to me. 

Attending the games certainly isn't a magic wand that would cure our relations, but I think it would be a good gesture.

I don't think boycotting the Olympics is inherently bad but I'm not sure that Russia has hit the ceiling of what can be tolerated. One of the cliches I've heard of the Olympics is that we are supposed to look past certain things. From what I've heard I think boycott efforts for Sochi's Olympics seem to be gaining more traction than the boycotts for Beijing's. The logic doesn't add up in my mind.