I first started paying attention to elections, debates and policies about 10 years ago. I know, I probably should have been more aware earlier in life but, hey, I'm just being honest. At that time, I was amazed at the machinations of campaigns, wowed by the orations and offended by the attack ads. I suppose not much has changed, except that I'm more amazed at the audacity and wowed by the outright extremism that I see - not only in the candidates but also in their supporters.
A week or so ago, there was an article in the Wall Street Journal about the dip in the national unemployment indicator. This indicator is often referenced as a bellweather, if you will, on our economy. The article - written by Jack Welch - questioned both the timing and the validity of the number - but not just this month's number ....he questions the process and oversight of the number overall. I felt they were valid questions that required some discussion, so I posted the article on LinkedIn and Facebook. Heck, if nothing else, it at least gets us THINKING about the numbers that supposedly reflect our country's economic status.
The posting on Facebook was relatively uneventful, with a couple of comments but no real discussion. The posting on LinkedIn, however, garnered some discussion until one gentleman decided to politicize the comment thread, attacking me, the author of the article, accusing the group (VA Society of CPA's - can we get any more innocuous?) of becoming right-wing etc. I tried to diffuse the gentleman, despite his attacks, by bringing him back to the real questions to be answered but was told, in no uncertain terms, that I can not post any article during an election period without it having a political motive. Seriously. About 5 other people posted thoughtful replies until he started attacking them, as well. Finally, I got a message from the group moderator that the entire comment string/posting was being removed.
The group moderators were very cool - they called to let me know that it wasn't anything I did or the article that I posted - it was the political vitriol and personal attacks that caused the removal. They encouraged me to re-post the article to start a new thread (I thanked them but said I'd save us all the trouble). They also noted that they contacted the poster that caused the issues to let him know that his contributions were unwelcome - they didn't exactly say it that way but that's how it came across. I appreciated their time and the effort they made to ensure that I knew the reasons behind the decision and that it was through no fault of my own.
The thing that really gets me, though, is that this guy essentially "won" - the article link was removed and the discussion was poisoned by his attacks and rants prior to removal. Is everyone really that extreme, that sensitive that we can't have a reasonable discussion - or even debate - about REAL issues without bringing politics into it to the degree of poisoning the discussion and, more importantly, missing the entire point?
The unemployment % is misleading, if not flat-out wrong - it doesn't include those that have given up on looking for work, those that are under-employed, or those that respond to the week-long phone census that they're babysitting a few hours a week for enough cash to give their kid lunch money. There is human error in the system and built in assumptions regarding missing data or misinterpreted data. This is not new, not under the Obama administration, not under the W administration, nor any prior administration. Yes, the fact that the unemployment number went significantly down the month before the presidential election is suspect - but the bigger questions I asked were about the ongoing accuracy (or lackthereof) of this very important number. Who is overseeing the process? What exactly IS the process and is there a margin of error built in? Who is ensuring accuracy of the data? Why isn't this transparent to the public?
Is it true that I will have to wait until after Nov 6th to have a rational, adult-like discussion without political epithets? Or will it be possible even then?
I guess it really is all about politics. What a sad statement on society in these extreme times.
3 comments:
Dita- ....But the whole Jack Welch column was in fact politically motivated. He questioned the numbers becuase they were a month away from the election... No one ever bothers to question the numbers...until ..well... a month before the election.. purely politically motivated.
Also, as an observation, I dont think the data is misleading,when it is couched with all the factors that you pointed out. Data is data...imperfect data is better than no data at all. Every time I hear NPR (the ultimate of left wing stations) talk about the rate, they actually do state that it does not account for people who have stopped looking, or never filed etc.
If you are intersted in the process, see http://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htmThis is government data assembled by career people who really are not all that politically motivated...
That rebuttal by the cantankerous Jack Welch was provocative... so I understand why people would flame throw... I chose not to comment on it, cuz I just didnt want to get into it when I saw it on your facebook...But since you brought it up here, I am adding a couple observations. --Jill
Thanks, Jilly!
Always nice to hear from you :) The article was written by someone with their own motivations - can't get around it - but does that invalidate the questions it brought up? This indicator has spanned many administrations, not just the present one. THOSE were the issues I wanted to discuss, and others commenting on the thread picked up on that and added interesting points. The one guy never answered the actual questions asked, just flamed everyone.
I just wanted to understand the process and transparency issues. I'm a numbers girl and I disagree that some data is always better than none - some data can really skew things when relied upon.
Always welcome a differing opinion and intelligent debate - thank you!!
The same accusations of politicization were thrown at my boss at the State Department on the handling of Benghazi. Difficult to deal with, because this guy has served under five administrations, of both parties, and he's clearly above all that, as they say.
On the other hand, a month before a presidential election, every news item remotely related to government will be politicized. Everything is about the game, whether the murder of an Ambassador or the unemployment statistics--or a blog entry about unemployment statistics!
It sucks, but it is better than Russia, where politicization isn't something we do--it's something that's done to us (see Riot, Pussy).
-Calvini
Post a Comment