Read a column by Bob Ingle today. I believe he is a Jersey guy who writes commentary for NJ Press Media. He is not nationally syndicated.
His commentary was about Romney, Obama and Carter (president in 76-80). Now, I believe everyone is entitled to their opinion regardless of its stupidity. Where I have a problem is when someone with access uses that access to try to convince people of their position using lies and innuendo.
This is exactly what Bob Ingle did! Without going into the details, he trashed Romney, praised Obama and absolutely beatified Carter. He did it by lying and using innuendo to perpetrate more lies. To his credit, he responded to two of my emails. To my dismay, he ignored the most serious charges I laid before him. He would not acknowledge lying, nor would he state he did not lie.
I copied the Editor of the Press in all these emails and have not heard from him as yet. Since it is a weekend, I'll give him Monday to get back to me. What I want from the Press is an acknowledgement that they will review commentary and not publish such articles when obvious lies are a part of it. Isn't that what editors should do? I previously wrote a Press reporter who badly slanted an article on solar power. When I questioned her bias, she did not deny it, but said when the oil companies receive no subsidies, she might (not will), but might change her slant. And here I thought reporters were supposed to present the facts, not any innuendo. The editor in that case, who was told of what she wrote, did nothing to reprimand her and failed to get back to me after promising he would.
This is the same editor! I will let all know what happens.
Sunday, May 6, 2012
Saturday, May 5, 2012
Unemployment Rate
Aren't you a bit tired of labor statistics that do not show the reality of our collective situation? We have a monthly unemployment rate that does not accurately reflect what is actually going on in our country. Look at April's numbers. They show the unemployment rate going down, not because of the number of jobs created, but because more Americans stopped looking for work. The current rate measures the number of jobs created and the number of people supposedly looking for work, but does not count those who are no longer looking. Who are these people no longer looking? Am I included? I have been looking since 2008, but I am sure I am counted among those who stopped looking. But, nobody asked if I stopped. As far as I know nobody checked to see how many resumes I sent out or how many networking events I attended. Why measure (? - not so sure it's measureable) and report an unemployment rate that does not reflect our situation?
We can easily count the number of employed people and we can certainly count the number of people living here of working age, including illegals. So, why not report that number? I believe that number more accurately reflects what is going on in the labor market. Is it because that number would show unemployment at about 30+%? We could also develop the yearly average income and report that as a function of total employment. It would tell us how we are doing not only in employment, but in dollars. What would that tell us? It would tell us whether or not the new jobs were paying a living wage. Not all jobs are good jobs. If we lose a job paying $75,000/year and replace it with a job paying $30,000/year, are we better or worse off?
Politicians love statistics! They can dance around any number reported to show whatever it is they are trying to prove. Remember, "figures lie, and liars figure". Politicians do both. We (the people) need to make it a crime for any politician to lie to us, not the other way around (it is a crime for us to lie to Congress).
So, let's get a new reporting method and stop the reporting that allows Obama to say one thing and Romney another, without either being called a liar.
We can easily count the number of employed people and we can certainly count the number of people living here of working age, including illegals. So, why not report that number? I believe that number more accurately reflects what is going on in the labor market. Is it because that number would show unemployment at about 30+%? We could also develop the yearly average income and report that as a function of total employment. It would tell us how we are doing not only in employment, but in dollars. What would that tell us? It would tell us whether or not the new jobs were paying a living wage. Not all jobs are good jobs. If we lose a job paying $75,000/year and replace it with a job paying $30,000/year, are we better or worse off?
Politicians love statistics! They can dance around any number reported to show whatever it is they are trying to prove. Remember, "figures lie, and liars figure". Politicians do both. We (the people) need to make it a crime for any politician to lie to us, not the other way around (it is a crime for us to lie to Congress).
So, let's get a new reporting method and stop the reporting that allows Obama to say one thing and Romney another, without either being called a liar.
Thursday, May 3, 2012
So much to do
Well, now it's May. Baseball underway, basketball and hockey playoffs, always have some football news and the world of government in NJ and the 2012 election season is upon us. So much to choose from and so much to do!
Today I am commenting on the Bin Laden attack of one year ago. I have always maintained that the office defines the President and that when it comes to defense of the USA, most all presidents would respond in the same way to events.
The CIA, the Army and other governments agencies found Bin Laden, not Obama. Seal Team Six came up with the plan to get him and Obama did what any thinking president would have done, he ordered the attack to go forward!
I was very happy that day and even understood why they buried him at sea and did not release much other info about any part of the events. I also gained some respect for Obama when he said "no one should spike the football". Now, here we are in May of 2012, one year after Bin Laden's death, and Obama is spiking the football and suggesting no one else, but especially Romney, would have done what he did. To that we should all say - "bullshit!"
Today I am commenting on the Bin Laden attack of one year ago. I have always maintained that the office defines the President and that when it comes to defense of the USA, most all presidents would respond in the same way to events.
The CIA, the Army and other governments agencies found Bin Laden, not Obama. Seal Team Six came up with the plan to get him and Obama did what any thinking president would have done, he ordered the attack to go forward!
I was very happy that day and even understood why they buried him at sea and did not release much other info about any part of the events. I also gained some respect for Obama when he said "no one should spike the football". Now, here we are in May of 2012, one year after Bin Laden's death, and Obama is spiking the football and suggesting no one else, but especially Romney, would have done what he did. To that we should all say - "bullshit!"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
