If you are wondering: how to monetize your aspiring Blog or Website; get help with your PC; or, any other topic, we are here to answer your questions and to give you hints and direction as to what options are available to you.
Every day that I travel to work, I drive about 2 miles through a city. In parts of the drive, I have to stop at every street and look to make sure that no traffic is proceeding or pedestrians crossing. Thus, I have to look back and forth several times before cautiously proceeding.
When traffic is heavy, I may have to wait a minute or two before the coast is clear. It is then that I have thought to myself:
How many times a day do I move my head?
Silly as this thought is, I've marveled at the durability and reliance of the human body. Whether we are walking, talking to someone, eating, driving, playing a sport, getting dressed or whatever, we are continually moving our heads.
We move our head constantly, and, it never breaks.
To answer my question, I decided to estimate how many times a day I (and others I guess) move my head. At first, I thought that it is moved about once each second while we are awake. To confirm this, I went outside and sampled my theory using 2 rules. First, I defined moving the head as moving its position from one spot to another (up, center, down, left, right, nodded, etc). Second, I used a stopwatch to time folks involved in various activities.
Surprisingly, I found that most people move their head once every 2.5 to 3 seconds on the average. The head is moved more rapidly when people are talking to each other and crossing the street. But, it is moved less frequently when reading or looking at a computer terminal. After several hours of watching, I compiled my notes and averaged the head movements. It is then that I discovered the 2.5 to 3 second interval.
Knowing this, I was able to estimate that people move their heads:
20-24 times a minute
1,200 - 1,400 times an hour
14,400 - 17,208 in twelve hours
28,800 - 34,416 times in a day. (that's my answer)
10,512,000 - 12,614,400 per year.
We take certain mobility functions like this for granted. But just think, what a marvel the human body is. As our heads move about 25,000 times a day, our arms, legs, eyes, and fingers are also moving. All at the same time. And even with all this simple movement, the muscles responsible for these functions rarely break and keep working!
A week ago last Friday, President Obama remarked that the "private sector was doing fine"1 when speaking about the U.S. economy. This set off a fire storm of criticism by Republicans. So, hours later, he attempted to revise his statement and stated "it is absolutely clear that the economy is not doing fine".2
While we realize the contradictory nature of these two statements were said to appease the voting public, the first was given to misrepresent the economical state of the country, and the latter given to appease his critics.
However, we believe the statements following his attempted clarification are more important and deserve a critical review. Mr. Obama stated:
"Listen, it is absolutely clear that the economy is not doing fine.
That's the reason I had the press conference. That's why I spent
yesterday, the day before yesterday, this past week, this past month,
and this past year talking about how we can make the economy stronger."2
Having documented the President's weekly schedule in our blog, The Traveling Fundraiser, we immediately knew that this was a false statement and another brash attempt to deceive the American public who pays his salary, housing, health care, and travel and entertainment expenses.
The truth is that Mr. Obama did not spend the day before his speech, nor that of 2 days before, nor that of the week before working on the economy.
During that period, he had been traveling the country, appearing in multiple fundraising events, for the sole purpose of receiving campaign donations for his re-election campaign. Lets look at the week:
Friday, he delivers the statement
Thursday, he attended a fundraiser in Los Angeles, then flew to Las Vegas and spoke about college affordability
Wednesday, he flew from DC to San Francisco and attended 2 fundraisers. Then he flew to Los Angeles and attended 2 more fundraisers
Tuesday, he had no public schedule
Monday, he flew to New York City and spoke at 3 campaign events
Sunday, he hosted a reception at the Ford's Theatre
Friday, he flew to Minneapolis MN, toured a facility, read his "to do list" and attended 3 campaign events. The, he flew to Chicago IL and participated in 3 more campaign events.
Thus, when he said that he: "spent
yesterday, the day before yesterday, this past week" talking about how we can make the economy stronger, what he really meant to say was that:
He (President Obama) was delivering campaign speeches for the sole purpose of soliciting donations to be spent in his re-election campaign.
The sad reality is that in the week before he implied he was working on the economy, he actually visited 6 different cities and attended 14 different fundraising events.
Yes, he may have spoken about how he could make the economy stronger, but, the speeches made at campaign events are simply political rhetoric targeted at like-minded audiences willing to give the President money.
Let's be truthful here. During that time, the President did not work for and with the country to try to improve the bleak economy. Instead, he took advantage of the perks of his office and used our tax dollars to pay for his lavish fundraising travels.
Attending campaign events and delivering speeches is not really working. While it is indeed time consuming, tedious, and tiring, it is not part of the official duties of the elected office. When a President, such as this one, boldly declines to work for the improvement of the economy and fiscal stability of this country, his attempts to mislead the public by misrepresenting his activities will later become important issues for the voting public.
Total combined fundraisers held for reelection committee and party committee in third and fourth years of first term.3
Sometimes, our political leaders must do the right thing and take a stand to protect the national security of our country. Such is the case of Dianne Feinstein, who is normally a very liberal Senator. However, she, along with 3 other legislators, has taken a hard stance in an effort to investigate and stop the recent public leaking and publication of our sensitive security measures. For this, she should be commended.
At issue are "two New York Times front-page articles about President Obama's 'kill list' and the US governments cyberattacks in Iran's nuclear facilities".1
Apparently, the information presented was known only to a small handful of decision makers. Critics have alleged that only White House personnel were present in the formulation of these plans, and that the intention of the leaks are to portray the President as a tough military leader. Yesterday, a spokesman discredited these assertions, and today, Mr. Obama denounced any White House involvement.
At present, it is unclear how the New York Times obtained their information, but bipartisan congressional leaders are joining forces to investigate this matter. The President has indicated he will investigate as well.
During the 5 weeks, the President has distanced himself from the executive duties of his office. In those 25 weekdays, Mr. Obama has been fundraising outside of DC for 9 days, and posted no public schedule (aside from 1 or 2 daily briefings) on 5 days. This means that he only worked 11 of the 25 days. In addition, he was involved with the G8 and NATO summits on 2 of the 11 days. Except on days that the President is traveling, he rarely schedules meetings before 10AM. (We intentionally eliminated weekend days).
Thus, we can see that Mr. Obama appears to spend little time on national affairs.
But, from his recent news conferences and announcements, we know that he has been working on other matters (such as contraception, education, taxation, etc) although these are not on his public agenda.
Thus, it is possible for him to have been involved in the formulation of the 'kill list' and the cyberattacks. In and of itself, the creation and implementation of these covert operations are not being questioned. By and of themselves, they may be applauded. But, such involvements or operations must not be publicized.
Now, because of the NYT disclosures, the problem the Nation faces is one of trust.
The world looks for the United States for leadership. But, if leadership means the public disclosure of our sensitive actions, then that leadership cannot be trusted in future operations. Since trust is crucial for maintaining the success of international relationships, Ms. Feinstein (et.al.) are stepping up to repair the damage.
However, the President suffers a larger problem. While no one questions whether he should have been involved in these operations, his initial silence casts doubts about his association with the leaks:
if he was directly involved in the disclosures, then his judgement and confidentiality will be lost
if he did not know about the operations, then his lack of leadership and involvement will be confirmed and his reputation will be stained.
if he was involved in the operations and one of his confidants disclosed the information, then his judgement of individuals will be questioned
Unfortunately, the publication of the New York Times articles has severely damaged the reputation of the President. No matter what he or his spokesman says, a shadow of doubt will remain.
Hopefully investigation will reveal that an unrelated individual (not the President or White House staff) inadvertently learned of the covert operations and independently leaked the information to the New York Times. The President has stated he too will pursue an investigation of the leaks and hopefully he will identify the source.
Lastly, one must ask why the New York Times published these articles in the first place. Did they think the stories would help the President? Were they given permission to publish the articles? Did they want to hurt the President or the country? Really, it's hard to imagine their motive.
When Obama became President, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the mastermind of 9/11, had been captured and detained for many years (since 2003). KSM, along with 4 other conspirators, had been charged with war crimes and murder in 2008 by an American military commission and each faces the possible death penalty. (Military Trial of the "Gitmo Five" Underway at Guantanamo Bay).
But, the newly elected President Obama did not want to rush to judgement. Instead, he delayed the proceedings for more than 3 years. It wasn't until last week, May 5th, that the defendants were arraigned before a military tribunal and presented with an 87 page indictment. Their next court appearance is scheduled for June 12th.
So, we must ask:
Why is Obama trying these terrorists now?
It is our opinion that Mr. Obama decided to use these prisoners as last resort "ace in the hole" to help him earn a second re-election term. If they were tried, convicted, and sentenced early in his Presidency, then much of the credit would have been given to the Bush Administration, and Obama would have received little.
Since Mr. Obama is very sympathetic to the Muslim cause, he and the Justice Department accused the US interrogators of torturing (by waterboarding) these individuals. Further, to keep his 2008 promise, he ordered Guantanamo Bay to be closed in January 2009 (Timeline: How Obama Compares to Bush on Torture, Surveillance and Detention). Without Guantanamo, the trial would have to take place in some other location. This had the effect of delaying the trial for a year or so. To help this along, Attorney General Eric Holder decided in November 2009 to move the trials to a New York City civilian courtroom. Thus, any future delay would be viewed as an obstruction of the American public rather than the Obama Administration. As the Obama team expected, New Yorkers were very vocal in resisting the move of the Gitmo terrorists and petitioned the Justice Department to find another location. This action pushed the trial off for another year because Holder refused to make a decision. Finally, in early 2011, two things happened. First, Obama reversed his decision to close Guantanamo in March; and then, Holder announced that he would allow military prosecutors to file the war-crime charges against the 5 terrorists in April 2011 (In a Reversal, Military Trials for 9/11 Cases).
Now that the stage was set, the Obama Administration could safely decide whether begin the trial proceedings in early 2012, or to continue to delay it.
If the economy was doing well, and the Obama re-election appeared to be assured, then we believe that the trials would continue to be delayed.
However, the 2012 Presidential election is not guaranteed for President Obama. So, he is using the:
Try the Terrorist Stunt
to demonstrate his commitment to the country, hoping to arouse patriotic support for his decisive actions, thereby winning over a number of American voters.
Will this work in his favor? We believe it is too late for this stunt to work. Trying the terrorists now only emphasizes the President's reluctance, and his inaction is already engrained in the voting public's mind.
As I listened to the radio this morning, the reporter announced that the Guantanamo prisoners would be facing the tribunal beginning tomorrow. Having always thought that the Obama Administration would use these trials as a key re-election strategy, I thought it is time to begin a series of posts discussing Mr. Obama's re-election stunts.
Below is a list of topics that I will be reviewing in the following weeks. While there are probably more, I think 12 topics will suffice.
We will begin with the Guantanamo Bay trials and explore how these were delayed. Then we will discuss the Osama Bin Laden victory lap, unemployment, race etc. We look forward to your comments and thoughts about these provocative topics.
The Dream Act - a push for allowing illegal immigrants to vote
Fast and Furious
The Race Game
Dividing the country (rich/poor, men/women, black/white, - the 99%)
Changing reality (defying the Constitution, supporting the unions, denying mother in law lives at white house, etc)
Political paybacks (also called kickbacks in the old days) - Solyndra, construction loans, unemployment benefits, legal delays and challenges, birth control, special interest groups, etc.
America's hero - champion for the little guy, fighting for the poor, killing the terrorists, let's play fair.
After reading this list, one song from Les Miserables kept ringing in my ears: Master of the House. Thus, I leave you now with the beginning lyrics.
Welcome M'sier
Sit yourself down And meet the best Innkeeper in town
As for the rest
All of them crooks
Rooking the guests
And cooking the books Seldom do you see Honest men like me
A gent of good intent
Who's content to be
Master of the House Doling out the charm Ready with a handshake And an open palm Tells a saucy tale Makes a little stir
Customers appreciate a bon viveur! Glad to do my friends a favor Doesn't cost me to be nice! But nothing gets you nothing, everything has got a little price.
For example, lets talk about gardening. Easter has already passed and Spring is here. This is an excellent time to work in your garden, do the weeding, and plant flowers, vegetables, and more.
For example, lets talk about gardening. Easter has already passed and
Spring is here. This is an excellent time to work in your garden, do
the weeding, and plant flowers, vegetables, and more.
The
best products that I found for sprucing up my garden are found at my
local grocery store. They have an excellent stock of seeds to plant,
seedlings, and a variety of different bushes and shrubbery.
In theory, I should be able to include related affiliate ads in my gardening section. However, my post editor for this article does not include affiliate links. So, I'm not sure exactly how or when the choice ads will appear.
From the documentation, Google parses your blog content and if it is pertinent, it will display a Gadget section on the right side tool bar beneath the Post Sections area. While my earning section indicate that this blog is Eligible for Affiliate Ads, none of my older posts on this Blog have this option available.
However, I have examined older posts in my 3 other blogs and have seen the widget available.
So, be on the lookout for a "Gadgets " section with an "Advertise products" choice when writing your posts. If it is there, then select an ad and include it in your article!
PS: As an aside, I visited my post about 4 hours later, and the Advertise products Gadget was there! So, I selected a product and added it to this post!
During the past several months, the President of the United States has been running around the country claiming that millionaires do not pay their fair share of taxes. He's championing the "Buffett Rule", which asserts:
"About 55,000 millionaires pay a lower effective tax rate than millions of middle-income Americans".2
"President Obama has proposed
the Buffett Rule, based on the simple idea that people who make more
than $1 million each year pay at least the same share of their income in
taxes as middle-class families do" 1
Then, he switches from millionaires to the affluent, those making $250,000 per year:
"Instead of giving more than a trillion dollars in tax breaks to
the very wealthiest Americans those who make more than $250,000 a year
..."1
".. it makes it
affordable for us to be able to say for those people who make under
$250,000 a year -- like 98 percent of American families do -- then your
taxes don’t go up." 1
But, actually, he means households earning $250,000 per year and individuals making $125,000 per year. 7
So, why is Obama promoting this bait and switch plan?
The answer is two-fold.
First, Mr. Obama needs to receive public support for this tax raising plan. In order to do this, he attacks millionaires because there are there are not many of them, and most people are envious of this successful group. According to various sources (which vary slightly), there are approximately
4.6 million households - 4%4 (in 1998),
5.94 households - 5.08%5 (in 2011), or
3.1 million individuals6 (in 2010),
who can be classified as millionaires. Of these,
"North American millionaires had a combined wealth of $11.6 trillion"6, and
"40,000 individuals had wealth of $30 million or more"6, (2010)
Here we can conclude two fallacies in Obama's logic:
Of the 55,000 millionaires that Obama cites, about 72.7% have wealth of at least $30 million, and
Since the combined wealth of all millionaires is only $11.6 trillion, it is impossible for this entire group to receive more than a trillion dollars of tax breaks each year.
This all means that by taxing the millionaire group as a whole will not yield significant tax revenue for the Obama Administration to lavishly spend and give away to his donors.
Thus, the second reason for bait and switch. To gain sufficient revenue, Obama must tax a larger group. Thus, he switches his logic to those earning $250K per year. This was best explained by FactCheck.org during the 2008 election:
"For simplicity, we’ll just focus on the over-$250,000 group.
Those reporting adjusted gross income of more than $250,000 to the IRS
are projected to make up 2 percent of households next year, when the new
president will take office. Those folks will earn 24.1 percent of all
income, and pay 43.6 percent of all personal federal income taxes, the
Tax Policy Center figures. Under either Obama or Clinton, they might pay
even more".7
Notice that while this group makes up approximately 2% of households (consistent with Obama's 98% of others), they earn 24% of all income and pay 43% of all taxes.
But, since households usually consist of two or more individuals, Obama must insure individual taxpayers pay their fair share as well, i.e. individuals making $125,000 per year:
"Joint returns with more than $250,000 adjusted gross income and
single returns with more than $125,000 adjusted gross income together
are estimated to make up 3.1 percent of households next year. That group
is projected to earn 27 percent of all personal income and pay 47.9
percent of all personal federal income taxes in 2009, according to the
TPC’s calculations".7
So now that the switch is complete, we have increased the taxes of those earning 27% of all income and who pay nearly 48% of the federal income taxes.
Why should you care. All U.S. taxpayers should be concerned about Mr. Obama's Buffett Rule ploy for several reasons:
With a minimum of $125,000 income threshold, single older individuals who are at the peak of their earning potential will suffer most (policemen, firemen, teachers, municipal workers, doctors, health care providers, Obama Administration employees, etc). These are people whose spouse may have died, divorced, or perhaps never married.
With the $250,000 household income threshold, those with two family members working, and children under the age of 22 who are working or saving for college will be forced to pay higher taxes.
The 40,000 individuals worth $30 million or more will simply move their money and primary residences off shore to avoid taxes.
A President who wants to raise your taxes should be blunt and say so directly, not intending to trick the public by pretending to tax one group only.
Aside
As an aside, the President and Vice President released the 2011 Tax returns today. Using the White House Buffett Rule Calculator , we find that:
the Obama's effective tax rate was 23%, and
the Biden's effective tax rate was 26%.
Since both of these households paid less than Mr. Obama's proposed Buffett Rule minimum of 30%, we encourage both the President and Vice President to voluntarily making up the difference now by paying an additional 7% and 4% of taxes rather than waiting for an Executive Order.
By doing this, the President would demonstrate that he is leading by example and not rhetoric.
