Saturday, November 29, 2008

Black Friday 2008: Best Ever?

CNN




This goes back to my general wondering of how much of the "depression" is real? And how much does a stock market crash impact the average American and their willingness to spend?

I'm curious to see November's unemployment figures but October's number was 6.5%, which is high for recent history but still pretty low in the grand scheme of things.

Latest unemployment numbers


The pattern there is rather interesting as well.

Saturday, November 8, 2008

Voter turnout 2008. All hype?

I was seeing some people saying how voter turnout in 2008 blew the lid off of 2004's numbers and since Obama won by a landslide, this proves the country is really behind him.

Actually...

I already demonstrated that Obama only got 52.5% of the popular vote, so not exactly a landslide. So how was voter turnout?

I'm having trouble tracking down good numbers right now, as I guess it's too early, but here's what I could find so far:

Voter turnout same or slightly higher than 04

Registrations were way up (ACORN?) but actual turnout was not.

I actually think it's closer than that CNN blog says. They're using "124 million" as voters in 2004 (and another CNN story says it "shattered 2004's mark of 122 million" -- the 2004 number keeps dropping!) but the census table I'm looking at right now says 125.7 million voted in the 2004 presidential election. That's 58.3% of the voting age population for that time.

Let's see... voting age population for this election was 231.2 million, so if 127 million voted in 2008 (latest preliminary estimate I could find, Nov 6th) then we're at 55%?

Hmm, that can't be right. That shows us as actually having a lower percentage turnout this year than in 2004.



Well, we'll check again when there are some final numbers, I guess. I would love to see the Census Bureau report on it but it looks like those don't come out until the following spring.

Don't believe everything you hear about Obama. Look it up for yourself first.

Defining a "landslide"

I'm seeing a lot of verbiage about Obama's "landslide victory" and how this means "Americans were sick of Republican rule and demanded change". Articles like this don't help matters:
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gYbBmMmElgU_AjfYlbWgYFe66cqAD948IC2G0
"Obama becomes first black president in landslide".
http://news.aol.com/elections/article/presidential-race/233562
"Obama wins election in landslide"

Before we jump to any conclusions that this means America is sick of the Republican party and has wholeheartedly embraced Obama's calls for change, perhaps we should look a bit deeper.

These articles go on to talk about the "electoral college landslide", which is true.

What they fail to mention is that it was a very close race in terms of the popular vote.
Obama 65,125,043 (52.5%)
McCain 57,178,049 (46.2%)


Someone recently said to me that "Americans stood up and yelled they wanted this change. The election was as close to being called a landslide as it gets. This country is tired of Bush policies and those that support him."

Well, 46.2% of Americans stood up and yelled that they wanted McCain.

Don't misattribute something to "Americans" as if you spoke for all of us or even some overwhelming majority when in fact Obama's calls for "change" only appealed to about 52% of the voters.

Monday, September 1, 2008

Economic doom....DOOM! DOOOOOOOOM!!!

Recording more of my online retorts. Someone posted this as one of the problems delivered unto us by Republicans (and thus, why we should vote for Obama) --
Our craptastic job market?
What's wrong with our job market?

First thing I found on Google:
http://www.finfacts.ie/irishfinancenews/article_1014073.shtml
"Eurozone unemployment rate unchanged at 7.2% in May 2008; Irish rate rises to 6%; Spain to 9.9% - lowest in Denmark: 2.7% and the Netherlands: 2.9%"

Second thing I found on google:
http://www.nidataplus.com/lfeus1.htm

Take a look at that chart, then answer the following question:
Is our unemployment rate so bad, or is it just more liberal propaganda making you THINK it's bad? Our unemployment rate has ranged from 4.0% to 9.7% since 1980. We're at around 5.4% this year. Doom?


America isn't as bad off as some people would have you believe.


Next claim:
We are in a recession.
"The Economy is Fine (Really)" - The Wall Street Journal.
http://online.wsj.com/public/article_print/SB120147855494820719.html

This is a favorite article of mine because it was out in Jan 2008, when literally every news media was forecasting a recession. This article from the WSJ forecast the opposite and they were right. Seriously, google "recession 2008" and marvel at the gloom and doom news articles from January.



Here's a good one from Forbes, dated June 2008: "After the Slowdown"
http://www.forbes.com/columnists/forbes/2008/0602/035.html
Now, if your definition of a recession is the traditional standard—two consecutive quarters of negative growth— rest assured, this isn’t going to happen. There’s no possibility now that the U.S. will suffer two consecutive quarters of negative growth in 2008, as there’s too much liquidity sloshing around. Also expect America’s small businesses to go on a second-half buying spree to take advantage of accelerated tax depreciation.


What the liberals are calling a "recession" is actually "slowed economic growth". We still have positive growth, but it's just not as positive as it used to be. Kinda like if I have a stock I bought at $10 and within the month it goes up to $15 and then the next month it goes to $15.50 and I proclaim economic doom because it didn't keep going up as fast as it used to.


I think there's a lot of disingenuous intent behind the cries of economic doom. I think if the events of today were going on under Obama, it would be all smiles and roses as the good parts of the economy would be under a spotlight and the negatives would be ignored, instead of what's happening today, which is the opposite. A lot of people in the press want Bush out of office big time and they're doing everything they can to keep you misinformed towards that end.

This is slowly getting to be the #1 reason why I won't vote for Obama: there's too much fishy stuff going on with the intent of getting him into power.

Thursday, August 28, 2008

Income Inequality?

Here's another one I've heard: income equality in America is getting worse.

Actually....

From a 2007 Census report:
Income inequality decreased between 2006 and 2007, as measured by shares of aggregate household income by quintiles and the Gini index. The share of aggregate income received by households in the top fifth of the income distribution declined, while the shares for the third and fourth quintiles increased. Meanwhile, the Gini index declined from 0.470 to 0.463, moving closer to 0, which represents perfect income equality (1 represents perfect inequality).
This "Gini coefficient" is the standard measurement for income inequality (how rich the rich are versus how poor the poor are). Under Clinton, it went from .433 to .462, an increase of .029.

Under Bush, it has gone to .463 after decreasing between 2006 and 2007, for a total increase of .001.


In other words, income inequality got worse under Clinton. Under Bush, it has not changed.

Here's the whole Census report. The quote was from page 13:
http://www.census.gov/prod/2008pubs/p60-235.pdf


(edit)
Oh dear lord! I found the greatest quote ever. Think about what I just said above and then read this quote from Bill Clinton's DNC speech:
"Look at the example the Republicans have set: American workers have given us consistently rising productivity. They've worked harder and produced more. What did they get in return? Declining wages, less than one-quarter as many new jobs as in the previous eight years, smaller health care and pension benefits, rising poverty and the biggest increase in income inequality since the 1920s."
Oh the irony.

The big increase in income inequality was under YOUR watch, Billy boy! Under Bush it hardly budged!

Maybe he's using some other index. You know, the one the US Census bureau apparently doesn't use.

Tuesday, August 26, 2008

Incidentally

In regards to the first blog, I thought I'd try and address all of his claims about Why America Sucks. "But why go through this trouble?" I'm glad you asked! Because these are the types of claims I hear over and over again in forums all over the internet. People really think these things. There's a massive anti-America campaign raging across the internet that has already consumed my original political party, the one I picked when I was 18, and the donkey needs to get kickin'. Small numbers of abrasive loud mouths have spread disinformation and the Democratic Party has become the party for people who think America can do no right. Michelle Obama's first time being proud of America was when her husband was nominated? I've been proud for years!

Without further ado, let me debunk some more popular, untruthful claims about America:

Claim #1:
"We don't have the right to a trial anymore."
Status:
Debunked. See first blog. ("The Great Conspiracy")


Claim #2:
We've lost the right to protest.
Status:
Hyperbole. Not even going to bother to debunk this in detail. I can only assume he's referring to incidents like the guy who got tasered during the Kerry speech after he butted in line and went in a lengthy monologue rant well over his allotted time. He could have booked the hall and made his own speech on his own time. The right to protest does not include the right to infringe on everyone else's rights, and he was actually infringing on the free speech rights of Kerry and all the other people who wanted to ask a question.

If you would like to protest in some normal, non-asshole manner, you certainly can. Welcome to America.

Claim #3:
Civil disobedience can now be labeled as terrorism.
Status:
This is apparently a result of the "Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act". I looked up the bill and browsed it. It only applies if you are causing threats, damage, bodily harm or economic damage to animal-related ventures.

Economic damage is defined as:
    `(A) means the replacement costs of lost or damaged property or records, the costs of repeating an interrupted or invalidated experiment, the loss of profits, or increased costs, including losses and increased costs resulting from threats, acts or vandalism, property damage, trespass, harassment, or intimidation taken against a person or entity on account of that person's or entity's connection to, relationship with, or transactions with the animal enterprise; but
    `(B) does not include any lawful economic disruption (including a lawful boycott) that results from lawful public, governmental, or business reaction to the disclosure of information about an animal enterprise;
So if you go blow up a horse track, you can be called a terrorist.

This is not "civil disobedience" as I understand the term. The website I found to get me started on this research showed a bunch of people standing in protest with a big label of "TERRORISTS" over them.

That's misinformation. It's the propaganda machine steering you down a particular path again. Did you fall for it?

The only way those people could be "terrorists" is if the place they were standing in was causing direct harm.

In fact the bill explicitly says:
`(e) Rules of Construction- Nothing in this section shall be construed--
`(1) to prohibit any expressive conduct (including peaceful picketing or other peaceful demonstration) protected from legal prohibition by the First Amendment to the Constitution;
So you can picket all you like. Although I suppose if you were picketing ON THE HORSE TRACK DURING A RACE then it may apply as economic damage, not to mention trespassing.

Of course, nothing in this bill means you can be sent to Guantanamo. You're still just a regular criminal. It looks like the purpose of the bill was to describe extra punishment (mainly fines) for committing these particular types of pre-existing crimes. I challenge you to find something covered in the bill that was not already a crime.


Claim #4:
We don't even have the right to vote -- we haven't met UN fair election standards in years.
Status:
Unknown. I can't find out what "UN fair election standards" are. Obviously this is stemming from the 2000 election debacle in Florida, and the subsequent claims that electronic voting needs paper trails, but I can't find any actual UN "fair election standards" that suggest this sort of thing.

It looks like the claim mainly came from Jimmy Carter. I certainly agree that voting machines should have paper trails but the claim, as is, is a hyperbole at best, and complete fantasy at worst.


Four claims on why America sucks, and not a valid one among them.

This is the propaganda machine at work. Too many Americans are eating it up when there's no substance to it. If that doesn't worry you, it should.

Monday, August 25, 2008

Propaganda Wars Continue

I saw this gem on Yelp:

http://www.smh.com.au/...

More than 600,000 civilians dead in Iraq alone as a result of the war.

That's about the entire population of Fiji.

And that figure it from 2 years ago. According to Wikipedia, the latest tally is close to 1.2 million civilians.
Well thank goodness he checked his facts with Wikipedia first. Now let's check Wikipedia's facts. What are the casualties like in Iraq? How many people died during the overthrow and capture of Saddam and the subsequent battles against insurgents, foreign fighters and terrorists intent on turning Iraq into the new headquarters for strict Sharia law? Let's see what Wikipedia had:

Survey Iraqi deaths March 2003 to...
Iraqi Health Ministry survey 151,000 violent deaths out of 400,000 excess deaths due to the war. June 2006
Lancet survey 601,027 violent deaths out of 654,965 excess deaths. June 2006
Opinion Research Business survey 1,033,000 violent deaths as a result of the conflict. August 2007
Wow, 1 million deaths. That's roughly 1 out of every 30 people living in Iraq.

Why are the figures so different? How did they arrive at these figures? I'll go to the source websites for this, not trusting Wikipedia. (Note: I could not substantiate the "400,000 excess deaths" figure claimed to be in the first survey. I searched for "400,000", "excess" and I browsed the report as well as a New England Journal of Medicine report on the report and couldn't find that claim anywhere.)

Opinion Research Business (who??) --

•Results are based on face-to-face interviews amongst a nationally representative sample of 1,720 adults aged 18+ throughout Iraq (1,499 agreed to answer the question on household deaths)
I tried to find out more information, but the link on the ORB website for more information didn't work. I'd like to know more about this "nationally representative sample". But basically they polled 1499 people and extrapolated 1,000,000 deaths.

Lancet:
These three misattributed clusters were therefore
excluded, leaving a final sample of 1849 households in
47 randomly selected clusters.
So they polled 1849 households.


Iraqi Health Ministry survey:

TOTAL NUMBER OF COMPLETED
HOUSEHOLDS 9345
...
Why were female doctors and statisticians chosen as interviewers?

Female doctors were not the only interviewers. Other groups such as female dentists, pharmacists, nurses and technical college graduates were also involved as interviewers. As, in many surveys in Iraq, female interviewers are most suitable and best able to communicate effectively with women. Moreover, in Iraqi culture, women respondents have more trust in female interviewers, as sensitive issues were discussed in the women’s questionnaires. The census enumerator were selected for this work for their accuracy and reliability in recording the household information and in identifying the cluster samples and the household locations.

Top

How do you explain the high response rate for IFHS 2006/7 in spite of the very bad security situations in Iraq?

The household response rate of 98.2% and the women response rate of 98.3% match with the MICS-III 2006 response rate of 98.6%. Also, IFHS teams were required to try three times with each household if they were not successful in finishing the interview the first and the second time. This high response rate was accomplished with the help of community leaders who facilitated the process of interviewing the families.

Interesting.

So the polling agency with the most transparent views into their polling methods and which had the widest sampling by far, resulted in smaller numbers.

Yet somehow, it's the 1 million count from the unknown organization with the broken links that people quote from Wikipedia.


Note also that these numbers are not indicating "civilians killed in combat with NATO troops" but rather, all violent deaths, including terrorist carbomb attacks against civilians.



What about deaths under Saddam? Did we bring these people war and death when they would have been safer under Saddam? He seemed like an okay guy, right? Here's a snippet of information from a news article covering his trial:

Saddam and his cousin, Ali Hassan al-Majid, a Baath Party leader who allegedly organized Anfal, are charged with genocide widely considered the toughest charge to prove since it requires showing their intention was to exterminate part of an ethnic group.

Saddam and al-Majid also face charges of crimes against humanity and war crimes, as do their co-defendants, most of whom are former military figures.

The Anfal trial is likely to take months as well. The campaign was on a far greater scale than the Dujail crackdown, with death toll estimates ranging from 50,000 to 180,000. Prosecutors plan to call up to 75 witnesses and to present extensive documents from the former regime, as well as evidence from mass graves.
Exact figures on death tolls under Saddam will be hard to figure out.



We have to find all the mass graves first.