mypetjawa v. 2.0 (beta) "<i>Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to ev

August 04, 2004

Glenn Reynolds, Please Have Pity

I just did the math. The Instapundit is clearing $13k a month in Blogads alone. That's right, $13k a month!!! $3k (x2) for slot one, $2k (x1) for slot two, $1k (x5) for slot three!!

This is on top of his already hefty salary as a tenured professor in a decent law school.

Me: $0 from blogads + a crappy salary as an untenured assistant professor at a not-so-prestigious regional school.

Jealous? Yes. Miffed? Not quite.

Man, what does a guy have to do to get an Instalaunch around here?

Posted by: Rusty at 09:40 PM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 100 words, total size 1 kb.

Happy B-Day Mr. Arafat

Arafat turns 75, IDF celebrates with firework show.

Update: In response to Jeff's comment, I figure the least we could do is get Mr. Arafat a gift. We think a pizza would be fitting, say, one with ham, sausage, and Canadian bacon?

Since I seemed to have misplaced Yassir's address, maybe we can get the IDF to deliver it? Yeah, I hear those guys know where he lives. But I also hear he's a lousy tipper.

Send an IDF Soldier a pizza by clicking here!

And if you forgot about today's special occasion, never fear....the IDF delivers belated gifts too.

Posted by: Rusty at 06:36 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 108 words, total size 1 kb.

Kerry, the Vampire Slayer

Not satisfied with being credited with killing countless women and children in Vietnam, John Kerry's history is about to be rewritten (once again) to include his heroic deeds battling the most dastardly terrorist of all: Nesfaratu!

From the Seattle Times (via FARK):

John Kerry in the latest issue of "Sword of Dracula"....The Democratic presidential candidate turns up for a sighting of the fanged one in an unusual place: Vietnam, 1968, where Kerry served in the U.S. Navy....his appearance as a swift-boat skipper in the Mekong Delta is just a flashback within the modern-day "military horror" story Â— in which writer Jason Henderson reimagines Drac as the world's foremost terrorist.

Wow, John Kerry battles Dracula!!! But don't worry, this isn't an endorsement or anything silly like that

"I didn't put Kerry in to push a leftist doctrine. I just thought people deserved to remember that this man, when he was a young man, actually walked away from a wealthy and comfortable life and went to a place where there were pieces of metal flying around that could tear you apart."

Hold on a second here! You mean John Kerry was in Vietnam? That's news to me.

It's times like this that I wish I knew how to photoshop.

Other vampire slayers: James Joyner

Posted by: Rusty at 04:59 PM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 216 words, total size 2 kb.

'Death Group' Releases Hostages

Thank goodness...four less victims for my 'hostages murdered' count. I take this as a sign that the Murat Yuce execution didn't go over all that well with the locals.

(Also at Wednesday's Terrorism Wrap-Up)

Posted by: Rusty at 04:42 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 42 words, total size 1 kb.

The Wizbang Seven

Kevin Aylward has a brilliant idea. Give til it hurts baby. Redstate has a similar plan. PS-Screw you Kos.

Posted by: Rusty at 04:20 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 25 words, total size 1 kb.

Homophobics...

...say alright! (AS conveniently on vacation)

UPDATE: Scott Talkington (First class blogger, let me add) reminded me that we homophobes win some and we lose some. In a democracy, judges are supposed to make the law.....right? Now, remind me again why the gay marriage ammedment thingy is not necessary?

UPDATE II: Scott Ott shows why fiction is sometimes the best indicator of truth.

Posted by: Rusty at 04:00 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 65 words, total size 1 kb.

Clinton 'Miracle Economy' v. Bush 'Jobless Recovery' 3-D

Jane points out that Ronald Reagan's former Secretary of State, George Schultz, is a frequent visitor to this site and occasional plagiarizer. The evidence? This NY Times Op-ed piece (sorry, subscribers only) that Jane pointed me too:

These charts [reproduced below] show the rate of change in real gross domestic product and in employment from 1990 to last June. The shaded areas show recessions. The vertical lines show when President Bill Clinton took office and when he left. Because the economy has momentum, it's useful to look carefully at the trends in evidence at the time of presidential transitions.When you look at the record, a quick summary is this: President Clinton inherited prosperity; President Clinton bequeathed recession.

Here is the chart, click it for a larger view:

Source: NY Times
George Schultz is expelled for plagiarism. Jane is given detention and three demerits for ratting out a fellow student.

Posted by: Rusty at 03:32 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 162 words, total size 2 kb.

Egalite, Fraternite, Caliphe

French dhimmi watch: Vive Oussama ben-Laden!

Posted by: Rusty at 03:06 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 12 words, total size 1 kb.

Bush Lackey's Manipulate Poll

Who did Rove bribe (or kill) this time? (via Paul at Wizbang)

Or, maybe it was just Bush's new blog that turned the tide. (via Glenn Reynolds)

Update: What I didn't know was that Bush really has a blog. Even better, so do Jenna and Barb! (via Slantpoint)

Posted by: Rusty at 02:45 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 56 words, total size 1 kb.

Moorish Spain Watch

Via Robert Spencer and Doug Harper comes news that Spain is about to officially make Islam a state-sponsored religion. Does it surprise anyone that the new Socialist Government thinks the best way to fight terrorism is to go after 'root causes' and throw money at these Mosques?

Just one step closer to this....one step at a time.

Posted by: Rusty at 12:34 AM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 63 words, total size 1 kb.

1 El Cid's spinning in his grave so fast, all we need to do is strap some magnets to his remains and we'll have a generator capable of powering the entire northern hemisphere!

Posted by: Brian B at August 04, 2004 01:28 AM (OnnW3)

2 I dunno. There are lots of opportunities for subverting the Islamist agenda there. This actually gives me some hope that Spain isn't as clueless as I'd thought. Sigh. If the left and the right (worldwide) would ever listen to each other and respect both 'soft power' (left) and 'hard power' (right), we could win. But neither listens to the other.

Posted by: Kathy K at August 04, 2004 02:08 AM (lOTMi)

3 I'm sorry, Kathy, did you say something?

Just kidding! (Sorry, I couldn't resist).

Posted by: Johnny Walker Red at August 04, 2004 02:24 AM (IHUNl)

4 Left/Right listen? State sponsored religion? Appeasing terrorism? *shake youÂ’re booty now* This decision makes absolutely no sense to me. I guess theyÂ’re just bending over and grabbing their ankles hoping the terrorists strike elsewhere.

Posted by: Scott at August 04, 2004 03:35 AM (zB/H1)

5 Its not Spain; its al-Andalus.

Posted by: Jane at August 04, 2004 06:21 AM (PcgQk)

6 Kathy, 1) How can even a moderate agree with state supported religion? I know some Euroweenie countries already have some form of state sponsorship, but....well, just add that to the list of why I'll never move to Europe. 2)The problem isn't in the al-Andalusion (wink-Jane)government's motivation, of course they are trying to do the right thing, but that is besides the point. The notion that it is Saudi Arabian money to blame for the spread of radical Islam may have some merit, but I would argue that it is Islam itself to blame. Islam is not like Christianity or Judaism or any other major religion. It EXPLICITLY rejects the duality of church and state (ie, sharia law) and is therefore not just a religion but a political ideology. The problem is Islam, and until Islam rejects Sharia law (which, by the way, EXPLICITLY outlines the penalty for apostasy as DEATH) than Islam itself is the enemy and not just a few extremists. Sure, most moderate Muslims reject terrorism, but that is only one of the evils bred by Islam. A far greater evil is the state as envisioned in the Koran. It is a state that relegates Christians and Jews to second-class status. It is a state that would outlaw Hinduism. It is a state that would ban free discussion of religion and free conversion. To use an analogy, yes Che Guevara was a murdering swine, but Karl Marx was far more dangerous. Terrorsts die, but ideas transcend generations.

Posted by: RS at August 04, 2004 02:04 PM (JQjhA)

7 The half researched assertions that pass for fact in this thread are somewhat pathetic. I stumbled into it because I was looking for history books on Moorish Spain. Pat Moynihan said something like: "Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but not their own facts." Any halfwit can have beliefs. The most ignorant forms of belief result in barbarism, whether Christian, Muslim, terrorist, etc.. Try learning something. Who knows? You might find it refreshing.

Posted by: tc at June 18, 2005 01:01 PM (nrDDl)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Carl Rove Shamelessly Ordering Terrorists Nabbed During Election Season!!

First this, then this, and then this. Now this. Does Carl Rove have no shame in ordering all these terrorists nabbed this close to the election!!!!!!! Remember, it's all about the timing.

Timing-gate Update!

Posted by: Rusty at 12:09 AM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 52 words, total size 1 kb.

1 Shameless. Absolutely shameless. He should tell them all to wait until after the election!

Posted by: Kathy K at August 04, 2004 02:01 AM (lOTMi)

2 Kathy--Exactly! Stupid Bush always catching terrozombies!

Posted by: RS at August 04, 2004 02:28 PM (JQjhA)

3 I guess you republicans are too stupid to respond to the issue, and instead feel the need to resort to ad hominym attacks. I guess facism isn't dead ...

Posted by: Fearfully-anonymous at August 24, 2004 06:17 PM (jPIxZ)

4 If disrupting the electoral process as Carl Rove does daily, he's a traitor to American Ideals.

Posted by: Helen O at September 09, 2004 04:45 PM (Se7gI)

5 Karl rove gets an expose' this week on http://www.wesupportthevets.com Not only the editor tells the stories about him with documents--the guy that usually writes the funny stuff Patrick Garcia takes a peace of him also. As far as I'm concerned "Turd blossom" is a fat zero like the fumpy kid that was always hanging around eating the chow and drinking the beer at frat parties but never was there to clean up or work the fund raisers.

Posted by: David Jennings at September 13, 2004 10:53 PM (F0Ylu)

6 Without Rove we never wouldn't be cursed with Bush for a 2nd term. Rove knows where all the seams are in the electotate. He then sharpenes his attack to a pointed, divisive slogan that plays on the predudices and fears of people too lazy, uninformed and impatient to analyze laundered newscasts for their bias. The Bush election is now over. New, derisive,inaccurate and simpleminded catch phrases" are appearing. Derisive labels like "naysayers" and "obsructionists" This is in anticipation of the "looming nominations of a host of "neocon" judges, including the supreme court. I remember FDR and the introduction of the social contracts he initiated. We didn't have the word "neocon" then but the body-politic had the same disease. Rove and Bush are as hellbent today on tearing up those social contracts (social security is only one) as the conservatives were in the thirties and forties. Thanks for a chance to blow off some steam. Martin Schaffner Taos, NM

Posted by: martin schaffner at February 16, 2005 05:36 PM (5XcN1)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

August 03, 2004

Electoral Vote Fraud

Matthew Yglesias and James Joyner both have pretty good posts today on Pres. Bush's hopes of winning the all-important Electoral College vote.

Matthew says:

If you look at the latest state by state numbers, Kerry's actually doing well enough that he could drop Florida and Pennsylvania (he's already losing in Ohio) and still win the election based on the other states where he's leading.

James, is a little more optimistic than that, but:

Still, I agree with Matt: the math favors Kerry

But, where exactly are they getting their state-by-state poll numbers and why should that matter? They both site electoral-vote.com as their source of information. But is that site a reliable source of information?

A scan of the site reveals that it is a highly partisan front in favor of the Kerry campaign. For instance, on one page President Bush's record is examined with links to a site accusing the Bush family of ties to the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany. It also links to an article on how Bush stole the election. Electoral-vote.com is more than a partisan front--it is run by nutjobs!

A better analysis of the state-by-state electoral numbers can be found at election-projection.com. This site is run by Scott Elliot who is up front about his partisan leanings. But what makes Scott's site so good is that his electoral college vote count predictions are made using a publicly available formula. To add credence to his site, his prediction now is that Kerry wins.

~~These differences are very important.~~ For instance, Scott's numbers show that Bush is ahead in several states that election-projecton show in Kerry's camp. These include TN, AZ, OH, WV, & NV. Update: Matthew Yglesias just e-mailed and, as a result I had to go back and change this--see why we use peer review in academia?). In fact, it seems that Scott has both OH and NV in Kerry's camp--the exact opposite of electoral-votee.com. It turns out, the differences aren't as important as I earlier suggested--both polls yield almost identical results! (hat tip to Matthew Yglesias for pointing that out)

The moral of this story is not to trust just any website. Yes, Kerry is slightly ahead in some state-by-state polling numbers but the race is still early. My own prediction is that Bush wins with either the exact same electoral margin as before, or slightly ahead, this time carrying MN and NM. Just a guess, but it is at least as well informed as those of election-projection.com---and probably a whole lot closer to the target.

UPDATED MORAL OF THE STORY: Blogs can be and often are wrong. This one included. Especially when writing in the heat of the moment. Ok, so both sites have similar outcomes, but I am still sticking with my original charge the electoral-vote.com is a DU fringe front and should not be the source of any credible information.

Why would I stick to this, even after my glaring mistakes were pointed out? Because, I just don't trust someone who is so far out in left field that he would actually site material linking Bush to the Nazis!!! That is beyond partisanship, that is wacko land. Our biases come out in many ways, especially when we select pieces of information used in analysis. I can't but help to think that someone who thinks Bush stole the election (literally) won't have some major data selection biases.

Posted by: Rusty at 10:19 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 568 words, total size 4 kb.

1 Rusty, the electoral-vote.com people may be nutjobs, I don't know, but it's not effecting their polling numbers, because they're not doing their own polls. They draw from a stable of mainstream polls, and use whichever one is most recent for each state. Now, I don't think this is the best methodology, because some polls are flukish, even if done properly (I don't really buy TN as a toss-up or that AZ is trending Kerry, and I don't think Kerry is in much trouble in Maine, for example. Those polls are probably outliers.) If I were doing it, I'd average a few of the most recent polls from several reputable polling outfits, perhaps weighting slightly toward the most recent one. So I don't think they made the soundest methodological choice, but I don't see how it has anything to do with their ideology/nuttiness. Their choices are upfront, I haven't gone back and checked the numbers they attribute to Zogby, ARG, CBS and others, but I figure if they were misquoting them, someone would have pointed it out. So how, precisely, does their method demonstrate bias?

Posted by: djw at August 04, 2004 03:49 AM (8RUbb)

2 Very thoughtful rejoinder. The problem with the methodology seems to be that the site administrator simply chooses which polls to include and which polls to ignore. It may be that there is some reason for including some polls and not others, but as someone who kind of has a little crush on methodology, this bothers me. The first rule of scientific methodology is to set your standards first, and then let the chips fall. That site does a good job of defining terms--such as what it means to be 'weak' or 'strong' in favor of a candidate--but does a poor job in letting us know which polls will be used. Now, I'm not saying that he is misreporting the numbers from the polls, only that there may be a possible selection bias error. The problem with selection bias is that the person doing the selecting usually doesn't realize his own bias! That is, we all tend to think of ourselves as 'in the mainstream', even when we're really way out in left or right-field. My problem with the site is that whoever runs it is so far out in left-field that he may be ignoring certain polls (not necessarily on purpose) at the expense of others.

Posted by: RS at August 04, 2004 02:21 PM (JQjhA)

3 You may have a point, I don't know. At first glance I thought he primarily drew from the same list of "proper" polling outfits most people seem to pay attention to, but looking again, I see a lot more polls I haven't heard of--many connected to univerities, which generally do it right, but not mainstream. Still, the bulk of swing state polls seem to come from generally recognized respectable outfits (SUSA, ARG, Rasmussen, Zogby, etc although Zogby tends Democratic a little I think). In the end, it doesn't matter much if the Rhode Island, Idaho and New York polls come from dubious sources. But I also kinda want to challenge you on an implication of your post--that the further you get from the political mainstream, the less fair and objective you are. This is a common assumption, and I'm simply not convinced it's warranted. I my time in academia, I saw some people with some pretty "out there" views (left and right) who were exceedingly concerned with careful and objective methodology in their research, and some centrists who were sloppy and myopic. I think centrism can be mistaken for objectivity, which is a big mistake. I also think those with non-mainstream views might be more inclined to be extra-careful because those who know there views will be expecting bias, so they must be more careful to be fair and avoid potential bias in order to be taken seriously. Centrists don't have this concern to the same degree. And left, right, and center, the academics I've known are united through their obsession with being taken seriously by their peers.

Posted by: djw at August 04, 2004 06:44 PM (8RUbb)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Classmates.com Infiltrated by Communists

Classmates.com has moved. All the big bloggers seem to have been members of the class of 1965. Go see if you're there too?

Update: Bill (not gay) at INDC has the signatures page from our yearbook. I think he caught more than the HIV from Anna-Marie--he also caught the funny.

Update II: Nerds!!!!!!

Posted by: Rusty at 07:24 PM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 61 words, total size 1 kb.

Kerry Saving Hamster Video

Available at Aarons Rantblog or find the link in this post.

Posted by: Rusty at 05:45 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 19 words, total size 1 kb.

Plastic Surgery for Bloggers

So this is what it feels like when the doves cry? Some important linkage for the day. Since my sitemeter is in spike mode, might as well practice Reaganomics and see if the trickle down theory works for my buds who deserve some traffic.

Bloggers who have had plastic surgery:
Professor Chaos (third nipple removed) on the Two Americas.
James Joyner (buttock implants) with some practical advice for Bush.
Senator Pundit (testicle reconstruction) about to pop the question.
Kevin (penis extension) on Michael Moore's chances of an oscar.
Chris Cross (laser hair removal at bikiniline) on NY Times terror reporting.
Ace (liposuction) on Alan Keyes vs. Obama bin Laden.
Cameron's (hair plugs) neighbor is no Joey Ramone.
Robert (false calfs) on classical music or some such crap.
Commissar (botox) on the inevetable consequences of liberalism.
BRD (multiple moles removed) on the Sistani fatwa.
Jeff Quinton (tummy tuck) gives Senior Spielberg the cyber finger.
Scott (collagen injections) has the goods on UN/Darfurgate.
Scott Talkington (otoplasty) has more on the Kerry bounce.
The Air Marshal (eyelid surgery) has a nuanced opinion of the war in Iraq.
David Anderson (skin bleaching) on negro conservatives.
Simon (facelift) says China is going to help him with the results of his enemablogs.
Captain Ed (browlift) has more on the Kerry secret plan to end the war.
Johnny Walker's (chin extension) good news @ Chappelle (except Rick James).

Bloggers who I've seen naked (and don't need plastic surgery!):
Jane is ready to invade Israel
Michelle Malkin defends internmentss.
HAC is going hightech with Blogger.
Allah got himself 72 virgins with his bod, so he won't need Kerry's new book.

Posted by: Rusty at 05:10 PM | Comments (24) | Add Comment
Post contains 280 words, total size 3 kb.

1 Thanks Rusty, you got me cracking up over here. Let me know if there is anything I can do for your folks while they are here in Costa Rica.

Posted by: David Anderson at August 03, 2004 05:21 PM (VCVxu)

2 Ummm...I was ok with you seeing Jane, Hac, and Malkin naked. But Allah??? I think that qualifies as too much information.......

Posted by: Senator PhilABuster at August 03, 2004 05:25 PM (UHfuz)

3 That third nipple was a fake; I used it to increase my fortune telling business. You know, like the chick in Mallrats, Ben Affleck.

Posted by: Professor Chaos at August 03, 2004 05:28 PM (8He5t)

4 David-thanks for offer. My nephew has lived in Costa Rica for the past 2 years so I'm sure my parents are in good hands.

Posted by: RS at August 03, 2004 05:35 PM (JQjhA)

5 Dr. C-how did you get that fake nipple pierced? Phil-Haven't you seen Dogma? Isn't that what Allah looks like?

Posted by: RS at August 03, 2004 05:37 PM (JQjhA)

6 Rusty, you have just shown us all the true meaning of Compassionate Conservativism. Bless you.

Posted by: Johnny Walker Red at August 03, 2004 05:41 PM (4AwR3)

7 shhhhhh!

Posted by: Jane at August 03, 2004 05:41 PM (AaBEz)

8 Yeah, just wait for both hits you'll get from this post!!!!!

Posted by: RS at August 03, 2004 05:42 PM (JQjhA)

9 Like I said - the true meaning of Compassionate Conservativism. Hah. (Hey, for some of us, 2 hits is a 200% improvement).

Posted by: Johnny Walker Red at August 03, 2004 06:06 PM (4AwR3)

10 Rusty: Thanks for the sunshine. Had a beer and shared a shrimp plate with BRD this weekend. I had this image of a hard-bitten old leatherneck, but the guy's a babe magnet. No wonder he posts anonymously, or he'd have to beat them off with a stick. I, on the other hand... ah well. I must be susceptible to fat sneaking in through my subconscious. Either that, or it's the Guinness I'm tipping as brain food.

Posted by: Scott at August 03, 2004 08:27 PM (turqZ)

11 Scott-You're welcome. After your description of BRD, I'm thinking of adding him to the Bloggers who I've seen naked section!

Posted by: RS at August 03, 2004 08:31 PM (JQjhA)

12 Hair plugs? HAIR PLUGS? Don't tell Sullivan, but I've got hair to spare. I can't get this mop cut fast enough. Nice to get linked, though. Thanks, Rusty! Cameron

Posted by: ccwbass at August 03, 2004 08:38 PM (qg4dU)

13 Your welcome, and I don't think Sullis into your type (if you know what I mean).

Posted by: RS at August 03, 2004 08:59 PM (JQjhA)

14 Whew! That's a relief, 'cause, you know, Ace was making jokes about Sullivan and bears a while ago, and I do have a certain ursine, stealer-of-pikinick-baskets quality to me.

Posted by: ccwbass at August 03, 2004 09:11 PM (qg4dU)

15 I just complain like a hard-bitten old leatherneck.

Posted by: Bravo Romeo Delta at August 03, 2004 11:58 PM (9X/fX)

16 Obviously the new baby isn't impinging on your blog reading time.

Posted by: Simon at August 04, 2004 01:18 AM (OyeEA)

17 Simon, It's the RSS reader I'm using. It has made me better, stronger, faster. That is why this is the 6 million dollar site!

Posted by: RS at August 04, 2004 02:32 PM (JQjhA)

18 Ms. Shackleford may be a big fan of the better and stronger bit, but I'm not so sure about faster.

Posted by: Bravo Romeo Delta at August 04, 2004 04:08 PM (9X/fX)

19 Only MOSTLY faster.

Posted by: RS at August 04, 2004 04:11 PM (JQjhA)

20 Have been offline for several days due to a massive power outage, that apparently had nothing to do with the weather. Anyway, what's an "RSS Reader?"

Posted by: Scott at August 05, 2004 02:33 AM (turqZ)

21 Thanks so much for this great site! Read more about me http://crapsadvice.com

Posted by: craps at August 18, 2005 09:37 AM (lr625)

22 Thanks so much for this great site! Read more about me http://slots-guide.com

Posted by: slots at August 18, 2005 09:37 AM (lr625)

23 Hallo friends! Really nice place here. I found a lot of interesting stuff all around. You're invited to http://bingoplaying.com

Posted by: bingo at August 18, 2005 09:37 AM (lr625)

24 I like getting emails from people I know, makes me feel better every morning. Please visit my homepage http://www.sportsbookworld.com

Posted by: sportsbooks at August 18, 2005 09:37 AM (lr625)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Bush's Pakistani Lackeys Pull Election Year Shenanigan....

...is what the headline will read over at Talking Points Memo. But Jeff Quinton has the goods on the real story:

Pakistan has arrested two more foreigners believed to be members of al Qaeda in the last 24 hours, local intelligence officials said Tuesday.

Didn't Pakistan get the memo? These arrests weren't supposed to come until October!

Posted by: Rusty at 03:47 PM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 70 words, total size 1 kb.

Bonfire of the Vanities

Go check out this weeks Bonfire being hosted by Cold Beer 4 the Soul. My entry, Blogophobes: The Blog Marriage Debate is linked in this weeks bonfire.

Shout out to Mister and Kevin for including my post.

Posted by: Rusty at 03:26 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 45 words, total size 1 kb.

Dude, Where's My Blog?

Our network has been mostly down since yesterday. I blame the terrorists. Just a quick post in case it goes down again. I may be blogging today--or maybe not.

If this is my only post for the day, why not click through my ever expanding blogroll?

Posted by: Rusty at 02:32 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 54 words, total size 1 kb.

August 02, 2004

Bush 'Jobless Recovery' vs. Clinton 'Miracle Economy'

Kerry's official campaign website says "America is still in the worst job recovery since the Great Depression...". Big claim, but is it true?

Last week I offered this post as evidence that the claim is a lie. Thanks to the many readers who gave such good input on how the post could have been improved.

As further evidence that the Kerry campaign is lying, and since the media continues to ignore the obvious, I offer the following graphs. All data was gathered from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

The first graph shows the total number of people officially listed as unemployed (x 1000). The second graph shows the unemployment rate. Both graphs show a 13 month period. For Clinton this was from Jan. 1992 to Jan. 1993. Even though the the economy was recovering before he took office, I chose that month because Clinton cannot be credited with any jobs prior to his coming to office. For Bush, the graphs show June 2003 (peak unemployment) to June 2004 (latest data available).

I'll let you be the judge on which recovery is better.

Posted by: Rusty at 06:25 PM | Comments (31) | Add Comment
Post contains 196 words, total size 2 kb.

1 Notice how they ebb and flow in the same places. Can you say "business cycle" boys and girls?

Posted by: Professor Chaos at August 02, 2004 09:47 PM (K6G50)

2 Why, Professor Chaos, you're not implying that periodic ups and downs are normally occurring phenomena, are you? What are you, some kind of capitalist? /sarcasm

Posted by: Brian B at August 02, 2004 11:35 PM (OnnW3)

3 It's all about the wording, Rusty. Of course Clinton had a "miracle" economy. He and Dukakis are proof that anytime a Democrat is presiding over an economic upswing it is a "miracle". Of course, in this case I agree with the choice of adjectives. Considering both raised taxes enormously, the fact they didn't kill off growth in its crib was, in fact, miraculous.

Posted by: Senator PhilABuster at August 03, 2004 04:03 AM (yucew)

4 Dr. C, Phil, Brian: Exactly!

Posted by: Rusty Shackleford at August 03, 2004 02:34 PM (JQjhA)

5 Look, over there, it's a bird! It's a plane! No, wait, it's a goalpost moving. Sure, under Bush we're finally seeing a bit of jobs upturn. But there're all burger-flipper jobs. All the recovered jobs are at lower wages than those Bush lost in 2000. /Kerry-Allied Van Lines goalpost advance moving team.

Posted by: Dean Douthat at August 04, 2004 12:02 AM (VJ4iH)

6 Dumb question here, but how could Bush lose jobs in 2000 when the Presidential Election didn't occur until November 2000? I know! It was due to incoming cosmic space rays.

Posted by: Maranna at August 04, 2004 12:35 AM (csNrA)

7 2000? The figures are for 2002-2003. Or was that sarcasm?

Posted by: Rusty Shackleford at August 04, 2004 12:39 AM (JQjhA)

8 Yo! Dean Douthat! You there? Earth to Dean... I repeat, how could Bush lose jobs in 2000 when the election wasn't held until November 2000?

Posted by: Maranna at August 04, 2004 12:55 AM (csNrA)

9 Maranna, I think Dean was being sarcastic...notice the reference to the Kerry-Allied Van Lines goalpost advance moving team. He was just channeling Kerry in a sarcastic way to show that the goalposts have once again be moved (or flip-flopped if you will).

Posted by: RudeJelly at August 04, 2004 02:08 AM (9Aq9t)

10 You guys don't know the truth of it. This American economy is horrible. How Horrible is it? Thanks for asking! This economy is so horrible that my brother lands 2 jobs in Michigan on the same day just a month ago! 'Ooooooohhhhh' This Economy is soooo Horrible that today I landed 2 jobs at the same time as well! 'Oooooooohhhh!' So folks.. I rest my case. Now pass this information on to who ever badmouthes the Bush economy that Jeff MacMillan and his brother have landed a whopping total of 4 jobs within 1 months time in Michigan!

Posted by: Jeff MacMillan at August 05, 2004 04:20 AM (bTRDj)

11 Proof again that there are liars, damned liars, and people who draw charts. So no one is confused, you are comparing selected periods (one begining in June and one in January)from completely different periods in their Presidencies, right? Let's analyze: For Clinton, you show that joblessness fell immediately from the start of his terms from a level inherited from GHW Bush (during whose term it rose from 5% to a peak of about 7.5%.) What your dishonest charts fail to show is that under Clinton, the unemployment rate CONTINUED to fall to about 4% at the end of his last term (accompanied, you fail to mention, by the creation of nearly 20 million domestic jobs.) For Bush, you show a slight decline in unemployment begining almost three years into his term, during which it had risen BACK to about 6.5% from the 4% Bush started with! Even slightly lower RATE you show is an artifact of the way the rate is determined (people receiving unemployment benefits, primarily.) After well over two years of higher unemployment many people have lost their benefits (not found jobs) and are hence no longer officially unemployed. This is strongly supported by the concurrent net loss of about 500,000 jobs in the last 3 1/2 years. You ought to apologize to your readers. "Jiggle it around until it sorta fits" is not a valid statistical method. Which reminds me: Prof. Chaos? Since the charts show periods that begin six months apart, the "ebb and flow in the same places" is much more likely to be coincidence that some fixed business cycle. Thanks , commentors, for the anecdotes about all the jobs you've found, but that's all they are.

Posted by: Jerry at August 15, 2004 03:39 AM (zqcMF)

12 Jerry, thank you for your comments. This post is only one of a number of posts in a series. http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/040299.php http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/039265.php http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/040299.php One link will show a chart that empirically disproves the notion that the economy did not begin to recover until after Clinton came to office. In fact, the recovery was in full swing months before. This post is methodologically sound in my estimation. It shows 13 months after the end of the recession for both Presidents. The main difference in all these time periods just happens to be this: time. The economy goes up, the economy goes down. The point of a presidential's term just happens to be incidental to surrounding factors. Also, you cannot compare a presidency to a presidency. Why? Because some Presidencies only last four years, or less. So, if you look at Reagan's first term he has a pretty poor record of job creation. However, his second term rocks. So, it seems a sounder methodology to look at terms. The point is not that George W. Bush is a wonderful President. Just that President's should neither take the blame nor get the credit for a nation of 275 million. PS- You are a tool.

Posted by: RS at August 15, 2004 06:46 PM (JQjhA)

13 On the other hand, during the Clinton Presidency, joblessness declined and the budget went from a deficit to a surplus constantly for all eight years. A tool? Becasue I point out that your charts are statistically meaningless and do NOT show what you claim they do? As for the leadership of the President in managing the economy, why don't you publish complete, non-zoomed charts showing unemployment, budget deficits, and other aspects of the economy for the last four presidents? You and I know you don't because they show strong trending one way or the other that coincides almost exactly with the terms of the respective presidents.

Posted by: Jerry at August 15, 2004 10:39 PM (zqcMF)

14 Steve..I mean "Jerry". The reason I chose these two time periods is becaue it seemed like the methodologically sound thing to do. IE, choose recovery periods. But if you will check out my other posts on the subject, I also run the numbers for complete Presidential term lengths. Even when you look at complete Presidential terms, W's recovery is not the worst ever. Period. This is fact. Now, you may choose to interpret those numbers differently than I do. For instance, you might say, "Yes, but the recovery comes late in Bush's administration and therefore shows the weakness of his policies." But it is empirically wrong to say that this recovery is somehow less robust than other recoveries.

Posted by: RS at August 15, 2004 10:47 PM (JQjhA)

15 Guess if you now limit your intention in presenting these data to say that the recoveries, OUT OF CONTEXT, are of about the same "robustness" (though I would say only they trend about the same DURING THE PERIODS YOU SELECTED) rather that what you claimed they showed in your post, I'd have to agree. Not that I really care, but these have been my first posts here. Period. By this or any other name. Still curious about the "You are a tool" dig though.

Posted by: Jerry at August 16, 2004 01:13 AM (zqcMF)

16 Steve/Jerry-I knew it was you, so I thought I'd try an ad homo-nim attack. But if you are going to try to argue, please stick with the post. This post was simply refuting a claim by the Kerry campaign: "This is the worst recovery since the Great Depression". This is an empirically falsifiable statement. Since the statemnet deals with a recovery period, and not even the total jobs created as some of my other posts falsify, I think my methodology is sound.

Posted by: RS at August 16, 2004 08:11 AM (JQjhA)

17 It's a bogus argument. The author is comparing apples to oranges. First, he is comparing a timeframe for Clinton in which Bush Sr's policies are still the over riding factor (Clinton had no effect on the economy in Jan 1992 when he didn't even get sworn in until Jan. 20, 1992). A more "fair" or accurate comparison would have been a chart showing June 1995 to June 1996. If you are going to try to put Bush in a good light because this is the only time during his term that he has had job growth and you are claiming that it is a result of his policies, then you should be comparing it to the same time period in Clinton's first term also when he had had three years of his policies enacted. Nice try at lying with graphs though. You have a bright future ahead of you pulling up misleading information for Rush or Hannity.

Posted by: Charles at November 11, 2004 01:59 PM (26rmT)

18 lortab lortab lortab lortab

Posted by: lortab at February 03, 2005 03:44 PM (pLXNz)

19 lortab lortab lortab lortab

Posted by: lortab at February 03, 2005 04:07 PM (TWnGS)

20 asd

Posted by: asdas at March 22, 2005 09:44 PM (G99Mv)

21 cheap alprazolam

Posted by: Jim, Bill at March 29, 2005 02:41 PM (QACsl)

22 What? You search? You would multiply yourself by ten, by a hundred? You seek followers? Seek zeros! ......

Posted by: walther upton at November 06, 2005 06:03 PM (bJnSR)

23 Making use of ebb and flow.- For the purpose of knowledge we must know how to make use of the inward current which draws us towards a thing, and also of the current which after a time draws us away from it. ......

Posted by: warden henderson at November 06, 2005 10:01 PM (13SMK)

24 Incense.-Buddha said: "Do not flatter your benefactor." This saying should be repeated in a Christian church-right away it clears the air of everything Christian. ......

Posted by: sylvan simeon at November 07, 2005 02:49 AM (uDQkJ)

25 In the end one loves one's desire and not what is desired. ......

Posted by: kerry kinnie at November 07, 2005 05:39 AM (gAokR)

26 Once the decision has been made, close your ear even to the best counter argument: sign of a strong character. Thus an occasional will to stupidity. ......

Posted by: paige xenos at November 07, 2005 10:46 AM (IRnWC)

27 Good content, eautiful design, thank! You site is the best.

Posted by: Repiyeh at July 02, 2006 01:10 AM (oHJxS)

28 I have found your page and liked it so much.

Posted by: Roqir at July 02, 2006 01:19 AM (R41Gy)

29 I have loved your site.

Posted by: Jarehip at July 04, 2006 05:10 AM (wGqT2)

30 wellbutrin . prednisone . digoxin . metrogel . promethazine . bactrim .

Posted by: talbot fee at July 16, 2006 03:52 AM (DFezS)

31 ultracet . alendronate . axid . prempro . biaxin . toprol .

Posted by: tom lyle at July 16, 2006 03:05 PM (JRZ/B)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Got Al Sadr?

Via Wizbang, the Telegraph is reporting that al Sadr's house was surrounded earlier today, that there was a gun-battle, and that US Troops have withdraws.

Keep fingers crossed!!!

Posted by: Rusty at 05:49 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 34 words, total size 1 kb.

107kb generated in CPU 0.0264, elapsed 0.04 seconds.
37 queries taking 0.0228 seconds, 179 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.

Search Thingy

Monthly Traffic

Pages: 71194
Files: 18
Bytes: 414.9M
CPU Time: 39:08
Queries: 6027591

Content

Posts: 5690
Comments: 76631

Feeds

August 04, 2004

August 03, 2004

August 02, 2004

Search Thingy

Recent Comments

Categories

Archives

Blogroll

Monthly Traffic

Content

Feeds