The Imperial Walker is hoping to lure innocent protesters to their doom when he makes a public appearance at a memorial service at the Capitol for fallen police officers.  MacGruber Noise Service, Faux Noise and the rest of the RWNJ media would like nothing more than to capture on video a bunch of protesters [...]]]>

The Imperial Walker is hoping to lure innocent protesters to their doom when he makes a public appearance at a memorial service at the Capitol for fallen police officers.  MacGruber Noise Service, Faux Noise and the rest of the RWNJ media would like nothing more than to capture on video a bunch of protesters yelling at a memorial to slain police officers.  Walker standing there, looking bewildered as he says “Shame!” into the microphone, perhaps a tear running down his cheek.

Grant Wisconsin’s finest the dignity they’ve earned no matter how difficult it may be to let Walker speak unmolested by the chanting horde.

Do not fall for this trap!

Dozens of squad cars will be in parade on Capitol Square at noon Friday, honoring officers who have died in the line of duty, at the 22nd annual ceremony at the Wisconsin Law Enforcement Memorial at the corner of Pinckney and Mifflin Streets on Capitol Square.

Two officers’ names have been added to the memorial this year, Beloit Merchant Police Officer Frederick Samp, and Fond du Lac Police Officer Craig Birkholz.

[...]

Speakers at the memorial include Gov. Scott Walker and Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen.

Officers honoring the fallen will also be posted at the memorial starting at about 5 a.m. Friday.

Do not… I repeat… Do Not Protest this event!

As tempting as it might be to give it to The Imperial Walker right to his face, we must all resist the temptation to protest at this event.

(h/t Blue Cheddar)

Once upon a time, two highly respected denizens of two of Washington’s toniest think-tanks got together and wrote a book.  It was a wonderful book, full of truth and insight and actually made the claim that, no, in fact, both sides don’t do it.  Only one side does it. [...]]]>

It is, you know... Even worse...

Once upon a time, two highly respected denizens of two of Washington’s toniest think-tanks got together and wrote a book.  It was a wonderful book, full of truth and insight and actually made the claim that, no, in fact, both sides don’t do it.  Only one side does it.  The Republican side.  And what they do is throw sand and wrenches into the gears of Government for nothing more than self-aggrandizement.  Yet, despite all the popular press and Internet buzz this book generated, none of the Sunday talk shows have had them on to discuss their thesis.  How curious for the Librul Medya Impyre.

Ornstein … confirmed that the book’s publicity people had tried to get the authors booked on the Sunday shows, with no success.

“Not a single one of the Sunday shows has indicated an interest, and I do find it curious,” Ornstein told me, adding that the Op ed had well over 200,000 Facebook recommends and has been viral for weeks. “This is a level of attention for a book that we haven’t received before. You would think it would attract some attention from the Sunday shows.’

Ornstein also noted another interesting point. Their thesis takes on the media for falling into a false equivalence mindset and maintaining the pretense that both sides are equally to blame. Yet despite the frequent self-obsession of the media, even that angle has failed to generate any interest. What’s more, some reporters have privately indicated their frustration with their editorial overlords’ apparent deafness to this idea.

Oh if only there were a real Conservative Media Empire out there!

We now return you to your regularly scheduled Librul Medya Buble already in progress!

Data has always been putty to be molded by propagandists into informational power.  Through the inclusion of irrelevant data or the exclusion of relevant data, these students of Stalin use the data to fabricate a “reality.”  They rely on the [...]]]>

Scott Walker's Updated Job Numbers are like a Shiny New Kopek!
And about as valuable!

Data has always been putty to be molded by propagandists into informational power.  Through the inclusion of irrelevant data or the exclusion of relevant data, these students of Stalin use the data to fabricate a “reality.”  They rely on the obfuscatory possibilities afforded by rows and rows of numbers, complex charts, vast tables and busy figures to create an impenetrable mangrove of data.  They count on citizens not caring quite enough (or not being sophisticated enough) to dig into the details.  It’s easier for many to accept the conclusion if they’re not able to penetrate the analysis.  This is exactly what keeps the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal going.

For the record, I do not object to a data exploration exercise which seeks to illuminate the jobs situation in Wisconsin and the nation.  But I do object to the use of data and analysis as agitprop.

We should all heed the sage advice of President Ronald Reagan.  Доверяй, но проверяй; “doveryai, no proveryai,” Trust, but verify.

Colin Powell at the UN on February 5th, 2003

One of the challenges in any political system is to detach the data and analysis from the political process as much as possible.  Dispassionate technocrats are what you need to crunch numbers and give you the information you may need to steer the ship of state whether it’s a town, a state or the nation.  My father was one of these technocrats.  He was the deputy director of the United States Census.  He was a consumate statistician who reveled in gigantic datasets.

He told me that once the technocrats become political, it’s game over.  The data no longer serve a purpose to help guide policy, but become a tool to enforce ideology.  Welcome to Wisconsin.

Remember Colin Powell sitting at the UN with a vial of “yellowcake” uranium?  That’s a classic example of the politicization of data.  The Bush administration was so thoroughly convinced that Saddam Hussain was working on building a nuclear bomb that they created phony data in the form of a vial of “yellowcake” to prove it.

We know now that the whole episode was a hoax, a conjuring trick to goad America into a war-of-choice.  And we know what that cost us.  What it cost our soliders and what it cost the Iraqi people.

Now, in the politically charged atmosphere of Scott Walker’s Wisconsin we are being asked, nay implored to believe that the numbers produced by the very technocratic and non-political Bureau of Labor Statistics are somehow deficient when they demonstrate that Wisconsin trails the nation in job creation (50th out of 50).  We are being asked by Walker’s Department of Revenue (not the technocratic Wisconsin Department of Workforce Development who report data to the BLS) to believe that another dataset is somehow more representative of the “true” jobs situation in Wisconsin.  Color me skeptical.  But let’s have a look.

First, I’m not going to talk about the numbers.  The numbers here are not relevant.  What is relevant are the datasets, how they’re used and what’s an appropriate analytical approach.  There are others better positioned than I to dig into the fact / fiction question of the numeric details.  I chose to question the entire Walker enterprise here.

First, let’s talk about the data.  The two datasets at issue here are the Establishment Survey and the Household Survey.  The Establishment Survey is the survey used by the BLS to calculate employment levels in the economy and it’s the one that Walker’s DoR is claiming is somehow deficient.  The Household Survey, a survey conducted by the Census Bureau for the BLS, is used to determine unemployment levels and types of unemployment (the “U” unemployment series).

What are the principal differences in the datasets and why does the BLS prefer one over the other when reporting on state job creation?  First, you have to understand that the BLS relies on the Establishment Survey to determine levels of employment at the state and local level.  This survey polls employers about their hiring, firing, etc.  The Household Survey is just that, a survey of  individuals at the household level.

So why use the Establishment Survey and not the Household Survey for calculating levels of employment within a state?  Simple.  The Establishment Survey relies on businesses located within specific states to determine employment levels.  Household Survey data does not.  It relies on households and the employment of those 15 years of age or older.  It makes no assumptions as to where those people are employed.

So, for instance, if there is a factory in Waukegan, IL and half the workforce lives in Racine, they would be counted as employed Wisconsinites in the Household Survey but not as employees in a Wisconsin business as part of the Establishment Survey.  Should Governor Walker (or any Governor for that matter) be allowed to take credit for Illinois adding jobs but hiring Wisconsinites?

It is due to these boundary effects that the Establishment Survey and not the Household Survey is used to calculated state job numbers.  The ability of a state government to positively (or in the case of Governor Walker, negatively) effect the creation (or destruction) of jobs at the state and local level is only measurable with the Establishment Survey data.

According to Laura Dresser, a labor economist at The Center On Wisconsin Strategy at The University Of Wisconsin, Walker’s new numbers are little more than an incredibly transparent effort to create a false reality just in time to mislead Wisconsin voters who will cast their ballot in a few short weeks. Pointing out just one of the flaws in the ‘new and improved’ Walker method of measuring job growth, Dresser says, “It seems that they’re attributing employment growth in other states to Wisconsin.”

The second reason why we don’t use Household Data is that no other state uses household data to calculate state job numbers.  One of the important features of this massive data collection exercise is the ability to create apples-to-apples comparisons between states.  I can look at comparable data between Wisconsin and Illinois and see how much better Illinois is doing at the creation of private sector jobs.

This facilitates the exchange of policy ideas between states with similar populations and employment opportunities.  Policy makers can see the impact of their policies on jobs.  Of course if you’re Governor Walker, you don’t want to see those comparisons.  They make him look like a complete failure compared to the rest of the nation.

So if the question you want answered is: “How many people regardless of state-of-origin are employed by Wisconsin businesses?” or “How many jobs were created by Wisconsin businesses?” you want to use the Establishment Survey data.  The Household data is inappropriate.

But if the question you want answered is: “How many Wisconsin residents are employed regardless of where, geographically, they are employed?” then the Household Survey is the data you want.  The Establishment Data is inappropriate.

See how that works?  The data you use depends on the question you ask.  Not all data can answer all questions.

As a nation, we can have a dialog about the quality of the Establishment Data versus the Household Data across the states.  We can create a framework that allows employment analysis based on the Household Data across all the states so that comparable numbers can be created.

Walker’s efforts to inflate his jobs numbers are just so much agitprop.  Enjoy the show!

No doubt former president George W. Bush’s endorsement will help Mitt Romney sew up the [...]]]> Heh…

“I’m for Mitt Romney,” [George W.] Bush told ABC News this morning as the doors of an elevator closed on him, after he gave a speech on human rights a block from his old home — the White House.

No doubt former president George W. Bush’s endorsement will help Mitt Romney sew up the vote of the key “budget deficit increasing, federal budget ballooning, size of the federal government increasing, trillions of dollars of spending on wars” demographic.

In related news, Mitt Romney is “getting the band back together,” with the “band” being a good number of individuals who advised former President Bush as he presided over massive increases in federal spending, a ballooning federal budget deficit (after inheriting a budget surplus, no less), a massive increase in the size of the federal government, and a massive forfeiture of civil liberties (PATRIOT Act), not to mention the invasions of Iraq (without cause) and Afghanistan, two wars which cost American taxpayers trillions of dollars.

So there you have it folks…if you loved the damage George W. Bush did to our nation and our economy during his eight years in office, then you should love Mitt Romney, because he’s starting to turn into nothing more than a cheap copy of George W. Bush.

Image courtesy Stevens for Senate Facebook page

Curiously though, there’s no mention of Stevens’ party affiliation on her campaign website [...]]]>

Image courtesy Stevens for Senate Facebook page

Curiously though, there’s no mention of Stevens’ party affiliation on her campaign website or on her campaign Facebook page. According to her profile on the “RNC Women” website Stevens certainly appears to be a conservative, but according to a 2009 candidate profile from Progressive Majority, Stevens worked with Progressive Majority to “develop a clear message, to assist with debate prep, and to develop her voter contact plan.”

When I contacted Stevens regarding her true political affiliation, she indicated she is in fact running as a Republican against Sen. Wirch, but she was quick to add she was, “running on the issues and not on a Party.”

Reached for comment about her affiliation with Progressive Majority, Stevens said someone from that group contacted her and said they would like to endorse her by putting her name on their literature. Stevens did not note if, as a conservative, she thought it was odd that a group that works to elect progressive candidates wanted to endorse her, nor did she comment on if she thought it was odd for her to accept that group’s endorsement, given her decidedly non-progressive political leanings.

Perhaps I’m a cynic, but Pam Stevens’ decision not to note her party affiliation on her campaign’s Facebook page and website seem more than simply accidental; they seem like a deliberate decision to muddy the waters among voters who may only have heard of Stevens from her time on the School Board of the Kenosha Unified School District, an elected position that was non-partisan.

This will not end well…  Are you listening, DNC?  Are you even listening???

(h/t Wisconsin against Rebecca Kleefisch)

During his first legislative session, Scott Walker proved to be the most anti-conservation Governor in Wisconsin’s history. From [...]]]> The Wisconsin League of Conservation Voters gives Scott Walker a big fat F for his first legislative session and encourages ‘Sconies who want to preserve Wisconsin’s vast & wonderful natural heritage to show Scott Walker the door.

During his first legislative session, Scott Walker proved to be the most anti-conservation Governor in Wisconsin’s history. From air to water and land to wildlife, Governor Walker left no stone unturned, desecrating the things that make Wisconsin a great place to live, play, and work. Wisconsin League of Conservation Voters urges voters to replace Walker in his upcoming recall. The Walker Conservation Failure Files detail his many conservation failures.

It’s hard to argue that Walker has opened the state to business but closed it to conservation.  From the corrupt quasi-bribery scandal of the Herr International case to the failure to monitor the destruction caused by sand mining to the unmonitored pollution of factory farms, Scott Walker’s DNR has been a classic example of the “blind leading the blinded;” or, in the words of Upton Sinclair, “It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it.”