Random thoughts on a rainy Friday

* Lisa Renee at Glass City Jungle has a post about the Freedom From Religion Foundation's opposition to the prayers said prior to Toledo City Council meetings.

First, I thought the Constitution guaranteed our freedom OF religion, not FROM. Also, despite my Christianity, I'm NEVER offended by someone of another religion offering up a prayer and have never thought that a prayer from a Muslim, Jew, Hindu, etc, prior to any gathering, including a political/governmental one, would in any way whatsoever hinder my participation in the function.

And then I wondered, considering all the talk about 'representing' the community, just what the religious affiliation of Toledo was. The Census Bureau is prohibited by law from tracking religion as a statistic, so it's hard to tell what portion of the city's population identifies itself as religious, or to get a breakdown of which religions. Here's the question: if the majority of citizens identify themselves as 'Christian' and the city council is trying to be representative of the community in their selection people to offer prayers, isn't it likely that the majority of those prayers will have Christian overtones?

Here's the other point: tolerance. I'm tolerant of people who have a different religion than me, or who are atheist/agnostic. Why can't they be tolerant of me and my Christian faith? And if they don't like the prayer being offered, can't they just get up and leave during that portion?

And just who is the person identified in the letter from this organization that is so offended by a prayer that mentions Christianity and Jesus Christ? Are they as offended by the mention of Muhammad by an Imam who practices Islam? The letter doesn't say...

* I'm tired of polls that ask people what they think about something without first finding out if the people can properly define the subject matter PRIOR to offering an opinion. I've written about this in relation to a poll about the recession and am now seeing it in polls about health care.

From a recent Denver Post story:

"Nearly 8 in 10 Americans support a federal health insurance plan for those who can't afford or can't get private insurance, but only 37 percent define "public option" correctly, a new national poll found."

If 63% of the people can't define a 'public option' correctly, why would we trust their support for it? How can they be in favor of something if they don't really know what it is?

At least this poll asked about the definition. Most pollsters don't want to include that aspect in their questions for fear of the criticism I've just given.

* This morning I heard a news clip of Toledo Mayor Carty Finkbeiner saying that the only mayoral candidate he's heard present an economic development plan is Republican Jim Moody. Considering Carty's history, I could only wonder if this was the kiss of death for the Moody campaign.

* I love rainy days when the clouds make it so dark in the house that you need to turn on the lights. I love the sound of the rain on the windows and the way I can watch the heavier downpours move across the surface of Maumee Bay. It's the kind of day where you want to stay in your pajamas, curled up on the couch with a good book or good movies on TV.

Alas, nothing good on TV and, not being able to predict the weather, I spent all day Wednesday reading Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows. So I guess I'll have to get my work done, instead.

Do they even know the definition of a recession in order to be polled?

I came across this latest story by CNN about their polling of American's perspective of the state of the economy.

"WASHINGTON (CNN) — Nearly half of Americans feel the U.S. economy is in a recession, marked by a significant decline in economic activity, according to a survey released Thursday.

The poll by the CNN-Opinion Research Corporation found that while 46 percent of Americans hold that belief, 51 percent don't."

The article does define what constitutes a recession, but offers no explanation of whether or not such definition was read to those polled prior to asking their opinion.

InvestorWords.com offers the following defintion which is a bit easier to understand:

"A period of general economic decline; specifically, a decline in GDP for two or more consecutive quarters."

Interestingly, 2007 second quarter GDP growth was 3.8%, which is an increase over the first quarter growth of .6% (source). Obviously, with an increase between first and second quarters of 2007, we do not have a decline 'for two or more consecutive quarters.' In fact, according to this chart from the Bureau of Economic Analysis (did you even know it existed?), GDP has shown growth in every quarter since the third quarter of 2001 (based on chained 2000 dollars).

About two weeks ago, there was a interesting discussion on Swamp Bubbles about the economic figures that had just been released. The question I asked, which remains unanswered, was 'if these are bad numbers, what do they have to be to indicate a 'good' economy?' Most people judge an economy by their own personal perspectives often attributing the overall economy to be indicative of their personal situation. Some believe that they're doing okay, but based upon stories and news reports, think their neighbors are having a tough time, contributing to the subjective perspective of the economy as a whole.

And that discussion, combined with this poll, makes me wonder why we even bother to conduct such polls. It's clear that if 46% of those polled think we're in a recession, they do not understand how a recession is defined and are thus 'unqualified' to offer an opinion. If we polled economists, those who are supposed to be 'experts' or at least authoritative on the issue, would they say the same thing as the "public"?

So what is the purpose of such polls? And why is that no one asks qualifying questions before asking one's opinion and then extrapolating that into what 'America' thinks?

UPDATE: a rather succinct perspective on WHY 46% think it's a recession is available here.