Monday, July 26, 2010

The weekly report on new unemployment claims (for last week) came out again Thursday. It shows that President Obama lost 464,000 (gross, but that is the way he counts "created/saved" jobs) last week--representing more than 30,000 more jobs A WEEK being lost. In other words, the number was up more than 30,000 from last week's reported number. You will remember that the mainstream media (lol--as if these comic geniuses/corrupt liars are anything but stupid political hacks) HYPED last week's report (falsely) as the "lowest number in two years". In fact, the corrupt liars at the Associated Press, and equally corrupt Yahoo "news", had this headline this morning: "New jobless claims jump from two year low.". The story itself proves the headline a LIE. What really happened here. I told you last week--in foresight rather than hindsight. Last week's reported weekly number of new unemployment claims was 429,000 In isolation, that was a GOOD "news" kind of number--if confirmed to be real. As I told you last week, there were reasons to believe the number was NOT REAL, but a result of a statistical glitch in the "seasonal adjustment caused--at least in part--by a decision by "Government Motors" (GM) not to do the usual July layoffs for retooling. My brother---former co-woner of a trucking company who had to know these things for business reasons--confirmed that GM ALWAYS shut down the first two week's of July. However, now that it is owned by the government, GM chose not to do so this year. That messed up the "seasonal adjustment" all to Hell--along with probably other glitches in the seasonal adjustment made, by formula, every week to get to the reported number. In other words, last week's 429,000 reported number was FICTION--not real at all, but the result of a statistical fluke/glitch. I told you last week that this was very possibly true, but that we would have to wait for this week's number to know for sure. Well, we now know, and it is conclusively proven that last week's reported number was FICTION. The corrupt liars at the AP even say so, in the body of the AP story, while the headline still lies by referring to last week as a "two year low". As I stated last week, even the fictional 429,000 was not statistically a "two year low", because the number had reached that level in the November-December (of 2009) time period. If anything hs proven by the past two weeks, it is that a variation of several thousand in this weekly jobless claims number is MEANINGLESS, from ANY statistical point of view. As I correctly told you last week, the four week average is a better gauge of where we really are on layoffs (every new unemployment claim representing a laid off worker). The four week average for all of December (7 months ago) was 455,000. What is the four week average right now? Right. Essentially that same 455,00000. Obama has FAILED. We have NOT IMPROVED in more than seven months. President Obama said he was "focusing like a laser beam" on "jobs, jobs, jobs", and he has FAILED. Layoffs are the same now as they were in December--not just this last week but the four week average week after week. Does this week's reported number of new jobless claims "erase" last week's number, as the corrupt liars at the AP asserted when the weekly numbers went from 459,000 to 475,000 and back to 458,0000 (the three weeks prior to last week's fictional number of 429,000)? Well, I am not a liar like the people of the AP. This week's number does not QUITE "erase" last week's "improvement". At least, we cannot show that to be tre from these numbers alone. To "erase" the previous drop, the two week average would have to be about 458,000. The two week average (this week and last week's reported numbers) is slightly under 450,000. That has happened a number of times since December, and does not represent any kind of "trend". It does not change that there has been NO IMPROVEMENT in the weekly jobless claims number since December. But we can't quite say that the effect oft eh 429,000, fictional number of last week has been "erased", since the two week average has not returned to the previous week's 458,0000. Can we say that the last two week's represent any "improvement" at all. Nope. That is not true. First, as stated, there have been a number of occasions since December where the two week average--even the four week average--has been below 450,000. That average has always returned above 450,000--above 450,000 being where it is today. Further, the past two weeks have obviously been BAD weeks for the statistical formula used to "adjusts" the weekly reported number--unusual weeks. There is no way we can say that the average of the past two weeks represents a "real" number. It is entirely possible--even likely--that there are still statistical glitches affecting the two week totals (as well as the one week numbers). Thus, again, we have to wait for numbers in future weeks to show us where we really are. However, SEVEN MONTHS of numbers have shown us we have NO IMPROVEMENT over those seven months--whatever the situation over a few weeks here or a few weeks there. (Note that the four week average is not perfect; that 475,0000 number will drop off next week, leaving the 429,00000 fictional number to perhaps distort the four week average--but note that the four week average will still give you a better idea of what is going on than the individual weeks). As I have repeatedly told you, the message here is that these weekly "new unemployment claim" numbers ONLY mean something OVER TIME. Each weekly number means very little, in itself. Last week's 429,000 number would have meant something if it were confirmed by this week's number. As it is, the two weeks together merely confirm that we are at the same position of NO IMPROVEMENT in which we have been for 7 months. The "good news" is that we have not gotten substantially worse. The bad news is that we have had NO IMPROVEMENT--a total FAILURE of Obama's "laser-beam" focus on jobs. Yes, this weekly number (for the week we are in) will again come out next Thursday, as it does every Thursday (holidays excluded--rather postponed). Thus, we woill always have new numbers. The question is: Will the CORRUPT LIARS at the AP--and tose at Yahoo "News" that feature these AP stories and misleading headlines--ever learn to look at these numbers in context, and even report them in context? Well, lyou know my positioin there. "Corrupt liars" is what I said, and "corrupt liars" is what I meant. I don't think this is just stupidity--although stupidity is there. For the AP, it is all about agenda, and you can't believe a word they say. If you want to know what these numbers really mean, in context, you need to read my articles. What this week's new unemployment claims number (for last week) means is: NO IMPROVEMENT for 7 months, although no evidence we have gotten substantially worse (the problem being that we are in a BAD place, and not getting worse is not good enough).

This week's 464,000 number (for new unemployment claims last week) proves that last week's 429,000 number was FALSE--not correct in any meaningful way. Despite the implication in the AP article on the subject, and even in my references to "averaging" the last two weeks above, the converses is not true. In other words, it is pretty likely that tthis week's 464,000 number is CORRECT--not distorted by a problem with the seasonal adjustment. That is often not true. And it will take a week or two or three to be sure, but there is n0ot much reason to suspect the seasonal adjustment for this week, while the lack of GM layoffs because of GM's decision not to do its customary shut down the first two weeks of Jilly is an obvious "explanation" for the problem last week. That "problem" is NOT "reversed" this week, as it may be when weather or other factors are involved, sice GM did NOT choose to do its layoffs one week later. GM just failed to shut down at alll. And it is difficult to evaluate the matter from "news" reports, because you are not getting "news" (just propaganda and "interpretation" from idiots). If the AP--for example, were interested in "news", it would EXPLAIN the "seasonal adjustment" formula, and why last week was distorted (and any reason this week was distorted the other way). The likelihood is that this week was not distorted, although the raw number (another thing NOT reported by the propagandists at the AP) did go down last week--indicating that the correct number might be below 460,0000 for last week (but still 450,0000 or above).

How should the mainstream media report these numbers, if they were not corrupt liars (not to mentin incompetent)? Easy. NEVER "report" a single week, or a single month (for monthly numbers, like the unemployment rate) without putting the number in context. This means putting the number both in context of pssible distortions AND in context of the numbers over time. A number inconsistent with numbers over time, such as last week's 429,000 number, is a candidate to be WRONG. That should be reported, and the importance of looking at all of theses numbers over time should be emphasized. That means REPORTING the numbers over time. For example, the media should--every week--not only emphasize the four week average, but REPORT (say) the monthly averages for six months, or even a year. Similarly, each month's unemployment RATE, and jobs supposedly added (payroll report) should be reported ONLY in context of 6 or 12 month figures. As stated, possible distortions should be reported, including possible red flags raised in the "raw numbers" and seasonal adjustment formula. None of this is ordinarily done, which is why the AP can get away with CORRUPT LIES week after week. Yes, so can President Obama and other politicians, counting on the media not to correctly do their reporting. I am talking about reporting the relevant FACTS here, and not presenting an "interpretation" of those facts as if it is the "news". For example, the "lead" AP paragraph NEVER simply presents the numbers, including the numbers over time, but ALWAYS present the AP "spin" on the numbers. You don't learn--usually--ANY of the numbers until you get down in the article, and then very little "in context" information (unless it happens to fit the AP agenda).

Again, next week's new unemployment claim number will clarify if the 429,000 number reported last week should simply be DISCARDED (for averaging purposes), or whether it represented a "real" fluctuation in the weekly number. However, we can already say that this weekly number--OVER THE LAST 7 MONTHS--shows NO IMPROVEMENT over at least that amount of time. That means Obama HAS FAILED over that period of time--just when his policies should have been showing results.

Monday, July 5, 2010

Remember how we hot to the present point in Afghanistan, where President Obama is looking to General Petraeus to save his ass--after Obama, Clinton and other Democrats TRASHED General Petraeus in hi original confirmation hearings when President Bush appointed him to save us in Iraq. Remember the "General Betray Us" add by, which Democrats refused to really criticize? In fact, Democrats like Hillary Clnton endorsed the substance of the add--virtually calling Petraeus a liar--without endorsing the disgraceful headline of the ad. I noted this in articles of mine at the time. Yet, there was hardly a peep out of the mainstream media about the extraordinary admission by Democrats--without ever saying so--as to how WRONG they were on Petraeus (including the President himself). Instead of pointing this out, the mainstream media could only talk about how "brilliant" the obvious appointment of Petraeus was by Obama.

What happened on Afghanistan when Obama came into office? Come on. You remember this one. Obama had been boxed in by the leftist position that Afghanistan was the "good war", which Bush had ignored in favor of Iraq. Now you and I know that most of the left did not really mean it--including most of the mainstream media--but were merely trying to criticize Bush. Most of the left never really supported the war in Afghanistan any more than they supported the war in Iraq. By the way, did you notice that we pretty much WON in Iraq--why Petraeus was approved 99-0--even after Democrats like Harry Reid had declared the war LOST. I digress, sort of. Obama was elected promising to more vigorously prosecute the war in Afghanistan, even to the point of INVADING PAKISTAN. But Obama was faced with the problem that his leftist base really wanted to pull back in Afghanistan, rather than "choose" Afghanistan as the "good war" that Bush had neglected--rather, in other words, than "choose" Afghanistan as a war to be fought harder. True, Obama had essentially just promised to pursue Bush's policy in Afghanistan, only with more emphasis on Afghanistan than Iraq, but it was still a conscious choice on Obama's part to increase the intensity of the war in Afghanistan.

But. Obama equivocated, agonized, and searched tea leaves (or consulted George Soros and MSNBC about how to get out of the box he was in). /"To be (in Afghanistan), or not to be ()in Afghanistan), that is the question. Whether it is nobler to suffer the slings and arrows of an outraged left, or............cut and run." (Apologies to Shakespeare). The generals said they needed more troops in Afghanistan, if Obama was to follow through on his promise to do what was needed in Afghanistan.

For sis long months, or so, President Obama agonized over the decision as to what to do in Afghanistan (undermining whatever decision he made). Obama have such a good portrayal of Hamlet that he won an Oscar, Emmy AND a Tony award--the first to ever sweep all three awards in a single year. Obama said he was "weighing all options" in Afghanistan. In the end, Obama tried to cut the baby in half. After agonizing all of those months, Obama decided to increase the number of troops in Afghanistan, but arbitrarily (for no apparent reason other than to show he was not giving General McChrystal everything he wanted) reduce the number of additional troops 20 or 30 thousand (I forget) from the number requested. Worse, Obama confused everyone--except the enemy--by saying that we are, indeed, on our way out of Afghanistan (the "cut and run" option), but not until 2011. The confusion as to what this means still exists today.

Did not Obama make Afghanistan "Obama's War", even if it is also Bush's war? Sure, he did. It could even be said that "Afghanistan is a war of Obama's choosing", the way it is now being fought. What else was Obama agonizing over all of those months?

Go back to Vietnam. Vietnam was Lyndon Johnson's war. Johnson was a Democrat. However, that did not stop Democrats from ALMOST running against the Vietnam War in 1968. RFK would probably have done so, as the nominee, if not for Sirhan Sirhan. Democrats DID run against the war in 1972, with George McGovern, even though a Democratic President had got us into the war. In fact, you could say that TWO Democratic Presidents got us into Vietnam with troops, although--in fairness--JFK only put in "ad visors" without committing us to a major war. That did not stop Democrats, in 1972, from trying to make Vietnam "Nixon's war" (even though Nixon was already in the process of pulling us out).

Enter Michael Steele, chairman of the Republican Party (as if anyone but the mainstream media thinks that is important, or that what he says is really important). You will remember that Howard Dean was chairman of the Democratic Party, but that the mainstream media pretty much ignored what Dean said--and what he says now. Here is the hysterical mainstream media reaction to Michael Steele criticizing the war in Afghanistan, and calling it a "war of Obama's choosing":

"As criticism swelled, Steele issued a statement stressing his support for U.S. troops, but he did not acknowledge his factual error about a war launched by former President George W. Bush in response to the terror attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. A senior official in Bush's administration said it would be impossible for the Republican National Committee to speak with credibility on foreign policy if Steele remained chairman."

Yes, before the above paragraph, the mainstream media reporter quoted conservatives, WITH APPROVAL. That, of course, only happens when conservatives criticize a Republican, or another conservative. For example, I actually heard Chris Matthews pretty much trash Obama's Afghanistan policy, and I believe MSNBC regularly does so, but there is not much reporting that "even leftists" are criticizing President Obama on Afghanistan. Note that the story did NOT quote Republican POLITICIANS, but conservative commentators (mostly). Those are the people thqt the mainstream media never mentions in any other context, unless they say something that the mainstream media things can be used against them (and other conservatives, in "guilt by association").

Note how the mainstream media has emphasized that the war was not of Obama's choosing", but "launched" by President Bush (and stated lby Democrats ever since as the war President Bush should have been concentrating on). Yes, the word "choosing" was confusing by Steele, and surely not the best word. But is that all the mainstream media thinks is important--that Steele is trying to "blame" Obama for a war started by President Bush (in an entirely different original manner, supporting the Northern Alliance rather than in a totally American enterprise like in Iraq)?

As usual, the mainstream media is being stupid, for political reasons. What is wrong with Steele's statement is NOT that he is "blaming" Obama for Bush's war. There is, in fact, an isolationist part of the Republican Party, and of old-style (pre-Goldwater) conservatism, that opposed both the Iraq war and the continuing war in Afghanistan. If Ron Paul had taken over the Republican Party, or even become as influential as Howard Dean became in the Democratic Party, there would be little wrong with Steele's statement other than an inartful choice of words ("choosing"). Ron Paul people--as enthusiastic as the Howard Dean people once were, and a fairly significant , if minority, part of the Tea Party movement--generally OPPOSE the war in Iraq, and I think the war in Afghanistan. It is, in fact, perfectly reasonable to say that we should not be bogged down in an extended war in Afghanistan, and that the war in Iraq was counterproductive. Leftists oppose these wars as IMMORAL (evil America), which they are not, unless you are a pacifist). Some on the right--including, I think, Ron Paul--oppose these wars as a MISTAKE in terms of our own treasure and best interest. If the Republican Party had adopted that position, Steele would be fine. And any Republican CANDIDATES taking that position are fine, even if President Bush did get us into Afghanistan. You are not allowed to vote against President Bush. He is not on the ballot. The question is what we do NOW.

Problem for Michael Steele: There may be, and are, a significant number of people--even a majority--who don't really like what we are NOW doing in Afghanistan. As I imply, I don't like the way Obama has done things, including those ridiculous "rules of engagement", although I think it would be a mistake to abandon Afghanistan (unless we have no choice, which I don't think is YET true--having to do with whether there is any potential to end up with an Afghanistan government that can eventually handle the Taliban). Too many people--for Michael Steele--in the Republican Party are like me (even if I am not really any longer in the Republican Party): We generally support Obama's policy in Afghanistan, even if we don't like a lot of the details. Further, we think that we CAN "win" in Afghanistan (if there is any government there, or even potential government, that will not totally undermine our efforts). Further, Republican CANDIDATES are not generally running against the Afghan War.

That is Michael Steele's real problem--not "foot in mouth disease" over one word, hyped by an antagonistic mainstream media. This is not the first time Steele has done this. Even my mother is aware of other statements by Steele undermining the POSITIONS, and people, of the Republican Party (or a large part of it). More and more, Steele has seemed to have one principle: Michael Steele. He certainly does not have conservative principles, and he has not been very smart about that one principle he does have. You can't have the chairman of the Republican Party out there undermining Republican candidates. That is what Steele has consistently done. No, not in an IMPORTANT way, because candidates don't have a problem disavowing the mere chairman of the party, and voters don't pay much attention to that (despite the best efforts of the mainstream media to help Democrats hype this meaningless stuff--meaningless in terms of voting for a particular candidate).

I say these things about Michael Steele with some reluctance. I thought Steele was the most impressive Republican candidate--of any color, running for any office--in 2006. I said that in print, even after he lost his bid for the United States Senate in Maryland. I thought he lost that bid mainly because of RACIST leftist and mainstream media types who refuse to give a black Republican the respect they give a black Democrat. Of course, 2006 was a Democratic year, and that hurt Steele too. You can tell how impressive he was that year in that he came fairly CLOE to winning, despite these handicaps. Yes, I was well aware that Steele was never a "real" conservative, but I still thought he was extremely impressive (much the way I initially thought Scott Brown was impressive, until he actually got in the Senate). Steele may not have believed everything most conservatives believe, but he was very strong in explaining those things where he did agree with me. What happened?

Well, just like Scott Brown, I don't think Michael Steele was ever "real". In fact, he is a lot like Obama. He seems to be good at saying what people like to hear--even people who know better, like me--but with no real core of principle and intelligence to back up that charisma. Sad, but true. Steele will, and should, make little difference in the 2010 elections, even if he stays in his position. The candidates are what matter, and throwing the present rascals out (then throwing the new rascals, like Scott Brown, out, if they fail to come through). Steele has nothing to do with any of that, except to the extent he could have been a positive force helping Republican candidates (and in the media). He will simply, in my view, not be that kind of force, which leaves it up to the individual;al candidates--and US--to handle it without Steele (ignoring him). This may affect money, but Republicans should have no problem with money this time around (if the individual candidate has any ability at all, or if the Democrat is really disliked, which applies to almost all of them). Scott Brown had little money in the beginning, and little support from the RNC

What about Scott Brown? I see the same problem. There is no core of principle and intelligence there, except a short-term ability to tell people what they want to hear (to promote SCOTT BROWN, in other words). Yes, we knew Brown was not really a conservative, but he was saying so many of the right things about government, spending, and taxes. He was even talked about (by that same stupid mainstream media) as a potential PRESIDENT. You don't hear that anymore, for good reason. It is not the Brown VOTES that are so very bad. It is that Brown instantly became the "go to" guy for the Obama Administration to use some cosmetic "concession" to vote for the Obama agenda. The 2300 page financial "reform" bill was an example. Brown gave Democrats "cover" on that bill by getting it initially through the Senate. Now Brown has discovered "problems" with that bill, as it came out of the "conference", even though he KNEW that was going to happen. And no one who really believes in spending restraint and limited government could have voted for the bill in its Senate form. I give Brown--correctly--NO credit for now reversing himself, when the revised bill came out. Nor do I give him credit for getting some taxes (fees) removed from the revised bill. The spending is still there. The vast increase in government power is still there. The REASONS Brown gives for his actions are worse than the votes themselves. It seems that, like Steele, Brown never had any real principles at all.

Does Obama have any real principles? Unfortunately, I think he does. No, not on Afghanistan, where he has tried to have it all ways. But Obama is LEFT to the core. The way he is like Steele and Brown, as well as most politicians, is that Obama is good at telling people what he thinks they want to hear. In fact, Obama was really good at it--better than either Steele or Brown. In other words, Obama is perfectly willing to HIDE his principles with WORDS. However, the leftist principles are there. I have come to the conclusion that Steele and Brown have no core principles at all that they are "hiding". There is just nothing much there. I am disappointed in myself for being fooled by Steele (more than Brown, since what can you expect out of Massachusetts). Steele shows why, even though he is not in a real position of power, we--as voters--have to learn to THROW THE BUMS OUT. It is impossible not to be occasionally fooled by a charismatic politician. We just have to stop electing these people over and over again. Term limits, yes. But WE have the power to impose term limits, if we use it, including the power to limit politicians to ONE term, if they disappoint.

P.S. Remember Obama's speech when he finally quit playing Hamlet, and announced his decision on the troop surge in Afghanistan? He said that his long delay in making a decision did not delay the actual troop surge by even ONE DAY (lol--Obama is a piece of work). That ridiculous statement was far worse--more untrue-obviously untrue--than anything Steele said. The military promptly said so: saying that they could not meet the troop surge target dates fully because they had not even been able to plan to add troops until Obama made his decision. The mainstream media pretty much ignored Obama's obvious lie--in which he was immediately caught. They did not ask, for example, whether voters would hold the lie against Democrats in the 2010 elections, or whether voters would forget by then. (Obama's later, ridiculous, assertion that he was on top of the Gulf oil spill from Day One carried eerie echoes of this earlier "one day" absurdity. Obama says whatever he thinks sounds good--regardless of the truth--and repeats the same type of rhetorical absurdities over and over again, counting on the media to help bail him out by helping people's memories to be short.)

P.P.S. Is the mainstream media really suggesting that voters SHOULD vote against Republican candidates because of what Michael Steele said? Well, almost. They never quite go that far, except maybe on MSNBC, but the mainstream media obviously WANTS to say that--not matter how ridiculous it is. What else can you say about asking whether Steele is bailing out Democrats in November, or whether voters will FORGET by then. Forget what? If voters vote TODAY, only STUPID voters would vote against an actual CANDIDATE because of what Steele said. This kind of reaction actually shows the CONTEMPT in which the mainstream media holds people. They, and leftist Democrats, think people vote for STUPID reasons (partly because they have sometimes been successful in convincing people to do that). I don't share that view. Voters are not generally that dumb, and I think they are getting smarter. That is why the mainstream media is headed for the dustbin of history. Michael Steele's dumb statement--dumb for the reasons I state--should, and will, affect the career of MICHAEL STEELE. It has nothing to do with how voters should, or will, vote on actual CANDIDATES in November.