themostsearched collected three points mostly overlooked in mass media about Obamas speech yesterday to the schoolchildren.
(1) Parents of concerned children--afraid of indoctrination from a President who unapologetically appoints a radical Communist to his leadership--are mocked for their worry. This is unfair because what the parents were most afraid of was the content of the followup/discussion questions such as, "What can I do to help the President?" It was only AFTER concerned parents spoke up that the controversial discussion materials were removed. themostsearched feels these parents are paying attention to their child's education and praises them.
(2) In a story highlighted by Greta Van Susteren, Greta points out the unfair standards of the previous speech by Bush 41 to children: the Washington Post front page after Bush's speech front page story suggested the speech was staged for the president's political benefit. This turned into a Democratic witch hunt and an investigation was conducted to examine why $26K (read here $26K not $26M not $26B not $26T) was spent by the Bush administration "in an era of scarce resources" (Gephardt).
In contrast, today's front page Washington Post (see image, left) no such accusations of political malfeasance are made. themostsearched condemns such outrageous media hypocrisy.
(3) Final point: it is not the role of federal government to intervene in state affairs. The President could have addressed both parents and children using the internet, radio, or television; the point is he had other options. themostsearched feels that pending an immediate catastrophic national emergency (IE nukes from North Korea or Iran are on their way) really, an address to the schoolchildren of the state should be done by the state's chief executive, the governor. Obama's speech to the children is a mis-education in the proper separation of powers between our state and federal government.
Thanks to the many bloggers, talk radio, Glenn Beck, and others radical, self-proclaimed Communist Anthony Van Jones has been exposed for who he is and the things he has said including being among those who signed a petition calling for an investigation into a government conspiracy causing the 9/11 attacks. It interested themostsearched to note that despite all the coverage, Obama did not take any step to fire Van Jones nor did Obama censure him at any time. This is supported by today's Meet the Press interview with David Axelrod,
Q: "Did he [the President] personally order that [he]Van Jones be fired? A: "Absolutely not. This was Van Jones' own decision."
Q: "But was the President offended by what he [Van Jones] said?" A: "I haven't spoken to the President about this."
Q: "You find it what he [Van Jones] said objectionable?" A: "Well I haven't read all his comments either."
What???? You haven't read Van Jones' comments? What kind of a lazy, misinformed public bureaucrat are you? Do we need to send Katie Couric over there to ask you what newspapers you read, David Axelrod? Do you think you could read the highly publicized comments of a radical appointee in your administration and maybe you could get back to us and let us know if you find it objectionable for a 9/11 truther, self-proclaimed communist, who calls Republicans "a**-holes", to be advising the President of the United States? Is it beyond your job description to do this????
As Van Jones was an Obama appointee one can only surmise lacking any sort of denunciation, that Obama agrees with the radical ideology of Van Jones. themostsearched cannot have confidence in an administration that doesn't know a radical from a patriot and doesn't read highly publicized comments about their own appointees. And Axelrod wants us to trust this administration--who is so thorough with all their appointees--with our health care? Absurd.
In the above broadcast segment this week Rachel Maddow of MSNBC reports:
"...New government provisional statistics show that in 2008 Massachusetts had the lowest divorce rate in the country. Ta-Da! The rate of divorces in Massachusetts was 2.2 per thousand when gay people started getting married in Massachusetts. The rate of divorces per thousand is now down even further to 2.0 per thousand. That's the lowest divorce rate in the county. In fact Massachusetts divorce rates are now down to pre-WWII levels--1940. So awkwardly, turns out gay marriage is a Defense of Marriage Act."
Maddow's conclusion that gay marriage stifles divorce didn't maks much sense to us so we broke it down to see if she were correct and came up with the following four points with which we take issue:
Point #1: Maddow's conclusion that the MA divorce rate is 2.0 per thousand is false.
As Maddow premises without pause or caution for the listener, the 2008 Massachusetts divorce statistics are provisional. These statistics are published by the CDC and are found here. The graphic below is taken directly from table 2b near the bottom of the link page:
From this table, we gather that Massachusetts had 12,992 provisional divorces in 2008. The divorce rate is calculated by dividing that number into the population of MA from the 2000 census 6.3M and multiplying by 1000. The resulting divorce rate figure (12992/6.3M x 1000) is 2.o46 or rounded down to the "2.0 per 1000" as Maddow quotes.
The footnote #1 cautions: "Figures based on monthly counts and may be underreported." Indeed it cautions:
There is considerable variability among the states in the procedures that are used to submit the counts of marriages and divorces to NCHS and in the extent to which the states update their counts of marriages and divorces as new information is received. Therefore, counts vary in their completeness. Marriage and divorce counts, unlike other provisional data, may be updated after the end of a data year if final counts are provided by the state.
Thus the CDC, unlike Maddow's glaring omission, cautions in saying that the number could be larger, but that is the count they have so far. What is concerning is the huge disparity in MA divorces between the provisional December 2008 figure of 147 and the actual December 2007 figure of 1006--a difference of 859 divorces or reduction of 85% versus the prior year. No other state figures such a prominent decline for December year-over-year (check for yourself!) begging the questions:
Are the Massachusetts provisional divorces for December 2008 underreported? If so, could the impact of underreported divorces impact the entire year?
Although we don't know for sure the answer to the first question, the second is answered with a resounding "yes." If the actual December 2008 divorces were, for example, equal to December 2007, the total number of divorces in MA would climb to 13, 851 (12,992+859) the MA divorce rate for the entire year would equal 2.2 per 1000--which is coincidentally, the same exact MA divorce rate Maddow correctly cites as the divorce rate before legalized MA same-sex marriage.
Point #1 concludes that although Maddow correctly cites the word "provisional" in her premise, her conclusion is flawed because the condition is dropped. Maddow could have correctly concluded "If the provisional statistics--which the CDC notes may be understated--are correct, the divorce rate in MA will drop to 2.0 per 1000."
Point #2: Divorce is slightly on the decline nationally
Let's examine the national divorce rate:
2004 = 3.7 (see CDC report here for 2004-2006 figures) 2005 = 3.6 2006 = 3.6 or 3.7 (measured two ways) 2007 = 3.6 (see table A2 here) 2008 = 3.5 (provisional)
A logical conclusion from this data is that divorce nationally has been on a small decline during the time since MA legalized same-sex marriage. All things equal, MA should realize a decline as well. In order to support Maddow's conclusion that MA same-sex marriage contributes to the decline of divorce rates, additional data would needed to show how MA declined more than other states.
Point #3: Massachusetts historically has the lowest divorce rate in the nation.
Maddow's "Ta-Da" fact that Massachusetts had the lowest divorce rate in the country for 2008 is trite news. In fact, it would be noteworthy "Ta-Da" if Massachusetts didn't have the lowest divorce rate. By examining historical statistics, MA is clearly stingy on divorces compared to any other state perhaps foremost due to the massive numbers of Catholics in the state. Legalized same-sex marriage has nothing to do with Massachusetts' 2008 divorce rate viz-a-viz other states.
Point #4: Massachusetts divorce rate actually increased after passage of same-sex marriage.
Again, by examining the CDC's historical statistics on Massachusetts' divorce rates we find the following divorce rates per 1000 population:
2004 = 2.2 2005 = 2.2 2006 = 2.3 2007 = 2.3
Thus we see that the divorce rate actually increased in 2006 and 2007 from its 2.2 level Maddow cites. But Maddow neglects to mention this increase and focus only on the 2008 number which is, as we stated (point #1 above), provisional. The latest non-provisional--and therefore wholly accurate--numbers is for year 2007 and indicate that while the country is seeing modest decreases in the divorce rate (point #2 above), Massachusetts is experiencing modest increases in the divorce rate!
In conclusion, could it be that Maddow, herself openly gay (wikipedia), has misrepresented the facts to support the gay agenda of legalized same-sex marriage? Is in reality the exact opposite happening that same-sex marriage isn't defending or preserving marriage but contributing to divorce? Because of blatant misrepresentations of fact such as this by Maddow, themostsearched does not rely on Maddow nor the MSNBC network for accurate reporting. But what say you?
Blogger Right Klik found a TOTALLY AWESOME Aug. 29th C-SPAN2 vid of Rep. John Culberson (R-TX) talking about social media with the Republican viewpoint on the broken promises of Obama and attempts by Nancy Pelosi to stifle truth strewn throughout the media.
It was also our first introduction to Qik. The vid is well worth the 25 minutes and we could have gone 60.
How Do I Get My Web 2.0 and Social Networking World All Working Together in Synchronized Harmony? Finding the most efficient ways of using photos, blogs and videos to promote your company on the Internet, far and wide!
...from our July 2009 Gay Business Report, we went into great detail as to how and why to use Twitter, and over the past two months, even more has evolved on this topic that provides even greater relevancy to using Twitter in our business lives. But Twitter is still only part of the story, as it is both one of our primary TOOLS?for managing our online content and one of our primary TOUCH POINTS?for communicating our content’s message to a wide and relevant audience worldwide...
Other Highlights
Updates on our Social Network Marketing Webinars
How To: Manage Social Media Goals and Expections
Interview with Scott Monty, Global Digital Communications Manager at Ford
13 Steps That Transformed One Company From Invisible King to Sought Leader
9 Rules of Facebook Promotion Every Small Business Should Know
New Study Shows How Different Generations Use Facebook
Ooh la la NLGJA: National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association focusing on new media, economic pressures and professional development at Montreal convention this month
(2) In a story highlighted by Greta Van Susteren, Greta points out the unfair standards of the previous speech by Bush 41 to children: the Washington Post front page after Bush's speech front page story suggested the speech was staged for the president's political benefit. This turned into a Democratic witch hunt and an investigation was conducted to examine why $26K (read here $26K not $26M not $26B not $26T) was spent by the Bush administration "in an era of scarce resources" (Gephardt). 
