Over 100 FREE Online Calculators

Friday, December 28, 2007

Hillary don't ask don't tell

Don't ask don't tell at rallys.
Clinton's "don't ask" policy

As she races through Iowa in the days before next week's caucuses, Hillary Clinton is taking few chances. She tells crowds that it’s their turn to “pick a president,’’ but over the last two days she has not invited them to ask her any questions.

Before the brief Christmas break, the New York senator had been setting aside time after campaign speeches to hear from the audience. Now when she’s done speaking, her theme songs blare from loudspeakers, preventing any kind of public Q&A.

She was no more inviting when a television reporter approached her after a rally on Thursday and asked if she was “moved’’ by Benazir Bhutto’s assassination. Clinton turned away without answering.
She knows that someone could ask her a real question requiring a real answer. Because she is a political placard poised to portray a competent woman who can deal with off the cuff answers to complicated questions she must not let this mith be exploded. In reality she has trouble just answering simple questions about everything.

Hillary Clinton? No, not reasonable. I concede her sturdy mind, deep sophistication, and seriousness of intent. I see her as a triangulator like her husband, not a radical but a maneuverer in the direction of a vague, half-forgotten but always remembered, leftism. It is also true that she has a command-and-control mentality, an urgent, insistent and grating sense of destiny, and she appears to believe that any act that benefits Clintons is a virtuous act, because Clintons are good and deserve to be benefited.

But this is not, actually, my central problem with her candidacy. My central problem is that the next American president will very likely face another big bad thing, a terrible day, or days, and in that time it will be crucial--crucial--that our nation be led by a man or woman who can be, at least for the moment and at least in general, trusted. Mrs. Clinton is the most dramatically polarizing, the most instinctively distrusted, political figure of my lifetime. Yes, I include Nixon. Would she be able to speak the nation through the trauma? I do not think so. And if I am right, that simple fact would do as much damage to America as the terrible thing itself.

I agree Ms clinton asks like a cold witch and who wants to be led by this kind of woman. She looks and talks like a cold calculating witch who would do anything to have the power of the president. She is not qualified in any way to be president, mentally or emotionally.

Clinton met bhutto 12 years ago, so what. Obama had tea at an ambassadors office, so what. These are statments by IDIOTS!

Thursday, December 27, 2007

Its time to pick a president?

Hillery says its time to pick a president (Dec 27, 07) and then says the following:
“I want you to ask yourself, ‘Who will be the best president? Who, if something happened that none of us can predict now, would be there able to respond and act on behalf of our country immediately?’.”

Well if you think she can, I would ask you on what do you base this on?
Ms clinton can't even make up her mind on NY drivers license for Illegal Aliens!
She would vacillate if anything happened and would panic, having trouble making a valid national security decision. She has NO gravitas to "be there" whatever this tourched logic means. Acting immediately could mean responding in an illogical manner as has been her pattern in this political campaign.

Oh bama is also an empty suit who would respond to a threat like the empty suit he is. Its time to pick a president. Neither of these liberal deceivers would or could respond in a manner that can make us sleep better at night. Both are foreign policy headaches waiting to happen if elected. Incompetent people really have no clue as to their own failings or others skills. They are blissfully self-assured and ignorant of their own incompetence. Again I challenge anybody to tell me why these two political media blowup dolls could lead this country because of any past experience in dealing with foreign policy! I'm waiting.

Sunday, December 23, 2007

Incompetent People Really Have No Clue, Studies Find

Not only do they reach erroneous conclusions and make unfortunate choices, but their incompetence robs them of the ability to realize it,'' wrote Kruger, now an assistant professor at the University of Illinois, and Dunning. (In other words they are just to stupid to realize it) Barack Hussein Obama is a prime example.
Have You Vetted Barack Obama

Do you know anyone like this? I do. They can be co-workers, management or anyone. "Management" is brimming with these type of people. Incompetent breeds more incompetentence. Overconfident, billegerent amd incompetent! Acquiring a "position" by default, or a waver of qualifications. I have personally known of 2 people who got their jobs by padding their resume which someone else wrote and typed. I know of people who got their job in spite of the fact they failed the qualifying test 3 times and it was waved the fourth time. I also know of a person who got a job by filing an "xxx" played the race card and was put in a postion and was not qualified, simply because of this.

I and others actually compensate for their incompetence daily by doing our own self management and correcting their erroneous conclusions and choices. Of course the upper crust gets falsely compensated and lauded for "their" accomplishments. What is management doing if the manager is delegating the supervision to others because the manager is incapable of supervising because of incompetence? This is what I call "figure head management" and empty suit or dress. Worst of all other supervisors cover for this incompetence. Why? It is easy to understand if you can say the word bonus or job security. Like I said incompetence breeds incompetence and perpetuates itself to the detriment of the EMPLOYEE! (EMPLOYEE is emphysized over employer)


Incompetent People Really Have No Clue, Studies Find
They're blind to own failings, others' skills

Erica Goode, New York Times

Tuesday, January 18, 2000

There are many incompetent people in the world. Dr. David A. Dunning is haunted by the fear that he might be one of them.

Dunning, a professor of psychology at Cornell, worries about this because, according to his research, most incompetent people do not know that they are incompetent.

On the contrary. People who do things badly, Dunning has found in studies conducted with a graduate student, Justin Kruger, are usually supremely confident of their abilities -- more confident, in fact, than people who do things well.

``I began to think that there were probably lots of things that I was bad at, and I didn't know it,'' Dunning said.

One reason that the ignorant also tend to be the blissfully self-assured, the researchers believe, is that the skills required for competence often are the same skills necessary to recognize competence.

The incompetent, therefore, suffer doubly, they suggested in a paper appearing in the December issue of the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.

``Not only do they reach erroneous conclusions and make unfortunate choices, but their incompetence robs them of the ability to realize it,'' wrote Kruger, now an assistant professor at the University of Illinois, and Dunning.

This deficiency in ``self-monitoring skills,'' the researchers said, helps explain the tendency of the humor-impaired to persist in telling jokes that are not funny, of day traders to repeatedly jump into the market -- and repeatedly lose out -- and of the politically clueless to continue holding forth at dinner parties on the fine points of campaign strategy.

In a series of studies, Kruger and Dunning tested their theory of incompetence. They found that subjects who scored in the lowest quartile on tests of logic, English grammar and humor were also the most likely to ``grossly overestimate'' how well they had performed.

In all three tests, subjects' ratings of their ability were positively linked to their actual scores. But the lowest-ranked participants showed much greater distortions in their self-estimates.

Asked to evaluate their performance on the test of logical reasoning, for example, subjects who scored only in the 12th percentile guessed that they had scored in the 62nd percentile, and deemed their overall skill at logical reasoning to be at the 68th percentile.

Similarly, subjects who scored at the 10th percentile on the grammar test ranked themselves at the 67th percentile in the ability to ``identify grammatically correct standard English,'' and estimated their test scores to be at the 61st percentile.

On the humor test, in which participants were asked to rate jokes according to their funniness (subjects' ratings were matched against those of an ``expert'' panel of professional comedians), low-scoring subjects were also more apt to have an inflated perception of their skill. But because humor is idiosyncratically defined, the researchers said, the results were less conclusive.

Unlike unskilled counterparts, the most able subjects in the study, Kruger and Dunning found, were likely to underestimate their competence. The researchers attributed this to the fact that, in the absence of information about how others were doing, highly competent subjects assumed that others were performing as well as they were -- a phenomenon psychologists term the ``false consensus effect.''

When high-scoring subjects were asked to ``grade'' the grammar tests of their peers, however, they quickly revised their evaluations of their own performance. In contrast, the self-assessments of those who scored badly themselves were unaffected by the experience of grading others; some subjects even further inflated their estimates of their own abilities.

``Incompetent individuals were less able to recognize competence in others,'' the researchers concluded.

In a final experiment, Dunning and Kruger set out to discover if training would help modify the exaggerated self-perceptions of incapable subjects. In fact, a short training session in logical reasoning did improve the ability of low-scoring subjects to assess their performance realistically, they found.

The findings, the psychologists said, support Thomas Jefferson's assertion that ``he who knows best knows how little he knows.''

And the research meshes neatly with other work indicating that overconfidence is common; studies have found, for example, that the vast majority of people rate themselves as ``above average'' on a wide array of abilities -- though such an abundance of talent would be impossible in statistical terms. This overestimation, studies indicate, is more likely for tasks that are difficult than for those that are easy.

Such studies are not without critics. Dr. David C. Funder, a psychology professor at the University of California at Riverside, for example, said he suspects that most lay people have only a vague idea of the meaning of ``average'' in statistical terms.

``I'm not sure the average person thinks of `average' or `percentile' in quite that literal a sense,'' Funder said, ``so `above average' might mean to them `pretty good,' or `OK,' or `doing all right.' And if, in fact, people mean something subjective when they use the word, then it's really hard to evaluate whether they're right or wrong, using the statistical criterion.''

But Dunning said his current research and past studies indicated there are many reasons why people would tend to overestimate their competency and not be aware of it.

In various situations, feedback is absent, or at least ambiguous; even a humorless joke, for example, is likely to be met with polite laughter. And faced with incompetence, social norms prevent most people from blurting out ``You stink!'' -- truthful though this assessment may be.