Editor, Manteca Bulletin,
The first couple of paragraphs in the most recent letter from Mr. McComas (Obama White House loses powerful psychology tool) March 25 went along pretty smoothly, nothing to get too excited about. Then suddenly, it started to look like the lunar landscape, craters big and small appeared everywhere, especially over to the right.
He begins by bringing up psychology and its use by, who else, Democrats. He then tries in vain to try his own hand at it. But it soon becomes painfully apparent that Psychology 101 wasn’t his best school effort. He fails to realize the first object of using Psychology, which is not to have everyone be aware you are using it. I think that was covered in chapter one, maybe he missed that day. A calculator sale at the campus store maybe.
The first moon crater we encounter on this lunar stroll is about the unemployment rate, he states the years of 2006 and 2007 had the lowest unemployment rate in 50 years, except for 1997 - 1998. He didn’t substantiate that claim but who really cares. Anyway then, that wasn’t 50 years, was it? More like eight, right? Using percentages is misleading. The population 50 years ago was a whole lot less than today or 2006. Real numbers would paint a clearer picture, don’t you think? I know that’s not how it’s taught in Economics 101 but wouldn’t you rather have 10% of one Million dollars than 2% of two Million dollars? In Psychology 101, his first vain attempt would be at making something sound more relevant than it actually is. Covered in chapter 3, I believe. A sick day maybe?
Next crater to stumble into was his attempt to tie two completely unrelated events by two different individuals, trying to make two very different points and making them sound the same. That being the campaign statement by Sen. McCain of the economy being basically sound when all indications pointed to the opposite and the statement by President Obama during a meeting with a visiting Chinese delegate that investing in the US economy was still a sound investment. The attempt to tie those two events together was ludicrous at best. Again covered in Chapter 3.
Crater three was a very transparent attempt to explain away a known result by steering everyone to a single cause when actually there were many. I am referring to his claim that only “rank and file Democrats” believed the economy was in bad condition, therefore bringing about the Democratic election victory. It was, and still is, obvious why the Republicans lost and the Democrats won. The people, and that’s the majority of the people, just couldn’t trust the Republicans to repair the damage they themselves had a very large part in bringing about. To the economy and the general welfare of the country as a whole. A small part covered in Chapter two as I recall.
The next crater is way over to the right, claiming the media labeled the Iraq war a “quagmire” only two weeks into the war. Two weeks? The Humvees hadn’t even used their first tank of fuel yet. Inserting an exaggeration into an event that took place several years in the past in hopes that nobody would remember it anyway, thus passing as truth. Touched on in Chapter 3 with the caveat “careful to limit the extent of your exaggeration”. He surely didn’t read that part.
In the fifth crater he attempts to predict an already known unlikely event and the results of that non-event. He claims the Democrats will fail to solve this nation’s problems within the next four months. Really? Four months? Safe prediction, I’d say. He also points out there is an “overwhelming amount of objective evidence pointing to the actions of the Democrats for causing this banking crisis”. Of course he doesn’t point to any of it but expects evidence to the contrary and the failure of that expectation only proves his claims bringing into question the abilities of one group by disguising the abilities of another. Referred to in Chapter 5 which also covered his next attempt, which was to tie Sen. Chris Dodd to the AIG bonuses, adding “and his fellow Democrats” as if to exclude any other group , again disguising the other group.
Finally he stumbles into a crater of his own making by first admitting he has been on the “hot seat” for several years, eight to be exact, right? Then amazingly enough, asking Democrats to “Man up”, something he failed at miserably when I challenged him to support the troops by visiting my Marine Recruiter. “Man up” isn’t a term I would advise Mr. McComas to be throwing around, even on the lunar surface.
The first couple of paragraphs in the most recent letter from Mr. McComas (Obama White House loses powerful psychology tool) March 25 went along pretty smoothly, nothing to get too excited about. Then suddenly, it started to look like the lunar landscape, craters big and small appeared everywhere, especially over to the right.
He begins by bringing up psychology and its use by, who else, Democrats. He then tries in vain to try his own hand at it. But it soon becomes painfully apparent that Psychology 101 wasn’t his best school effort. He fails to realize the first object of using Psychology, which is not to have everyone be aware you are using it. I think that was covered in chapter one, maybe he missed that day. A calculator sale at the campus store maybe.
The first moon crater we encounter on this lunar stroll is about the unemployment rate, he states the years of 2006 and 2007 had the lowest unemployment rate in 50 years, except for 1997 - 1998. He didn’t substantiate that claim but who really cares. Anyway then, that wasn’t 50 years, was it? More like eight, right? Using percentages is misleading. The population 50 years ago was a whole lot less than today or 2006. Real numbers would paint a clearer picture, don’t you think? I know that’s not how it’s taught in Economics 101 but wouldn’t you rather have 10% of one Million dollars than 2% of two Million dollars? In Psychology 101, his first vain attempt would be at making something sound more relevant than it actually is. Covered in chapter 3, I believe. A sick day maybe?
Next crater to stumble into was his attempt to tie two completely unrelated events by two different individuals, trying to make two very different points and making them sound the same. That being the campaign statement by Sen. McCain of the economy being basically sound when all indications pointed to the opposite and the statement by President Obama during a meeting with a visiting Chinese delegate that investing in the US economy was still a sound investment. The attempt to tie those two events together was ludicrous at best. Again covered in Chapter 3.
Crater three was a very transparent attempt to explain away a known result by steering everyone to a single cause when actually there were many. I am referring to his claim that only “rank and file Democrats” believed the economy was in bad condition, therefore bringing about the Democratic election victory. It was, and still is, obvious why the Republicans lost and the Democrats won. The people, and that’s the majority of the people, just couldn’t trust the Republicans to repair the damage they themselves had a very large part in bringing about. To the economy and the general welfare of the country as a whole. A small part covered in Chapter two as I recall.
The next crater is way over to the right, claiming the media labeled the Iraq war a “quagmire” only two weeks into the war. Two weeks? The Humvees hadn’t even used their first tank of fuel yet. Inserting an exaggeration into an event that took place several years in the past in hopes that nobody would remember it anyway, thus passing as truth. Touched on in Chapter 3 with the caveat “careful to limit the extent of your exaggeration”. He surely didn’t read that part.
In the fifth crater he attempts to predict an already known unlikely event and the results of that non-event. He claims the Democrats will fail to solve this nation’s problems within the next four months. Really? Four months? Safe prediction, I’d say. He also points out there is an “overwhelming amount of objective evidence pointing to the actions of the Democrats for causing this banking crisis”. Of course he doesn’t point to any of it but expects evidence to the contrary and the failure of that expectation only proves his claims bringing into question the abilities of one group by disguising the abilities of another. Referred to in Chapter 5 which also covered his next attempt, which was to tie Sen. Chris Dodd to the AIG bonuses, adding “and his fellow Democrats” as if to exclude any other group , again disguising the other group.
Finally he stumbles into a crater of his own making by first admitting he has been on the “hot seat” for several years, eight to be exact, right? Then amazingly enough, asking Democrats to “Man up”, something he failed at miserably when I challenged him to support the troops by visiting my Marine Recruiter. “Man up” isn’t a term I would advise Mr. McComas to be throwing around, even on the lunar surface.
Larry Baca
Manteca
March 26, 2009
Manteca
March 26, 2009
