People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it. Welcome to From On High.

Saturday, February 04, 2012

It All Becomes Clear

Now I understand why the publisher of the Roanoke Times sits (or sat) on the board of Planned Parenthood of the Blue Ridge.

As Nancy Brinker has found out - the hard way - it's best to be on the right side of those who can pinch your head off no matter how much good you do for the less fortunate.

Exit question regarding this shameful Susan G. Komen for the Cure scandal: If Brinker's organization actually provided assistance over the years to millions of women, and Planned Parenthood can denounce her at the drop of a hat, how pro-woman is Planned Parenthood exactly?

Debbie Meade will try and tell you the nation's leading abortion provider is exactly that.  Pro-woman.

Protecting her own ass is what she's doing.

Can you blame her?

Mixed-Up Kids

It degenerates into this:

Occupy activists to protest right-to-work at Super Bowl

Marching for that "99%"?  Hardly.  Fronting for the 11.9% is more like it.

Abandoning Ship

Obama enjoys excoriating the rich.  Telling them that they "aren't doing their fair share" and will, by God, be doing more.

The rich?  They shake their heads in dismay.  And in ever-increasing numbers, leave.

Number of U.S. Expatriates Continues to Soar

It starts at a trickle. And will grow.

As California and other blue states are finding out - the hard way - you can tax the crap out of those with money, but those with money also have the means - to pack their bags and move to the Caymens.  A crushing tax on someone who ain't there no more is going to get you squat in the end.

Just ask the controller for the state of California.

Who, by the way, is John Galt?

Cooking The Books

The ability of government (our government, all governments) to provide statistical analysis - and to provide confidence in the statistical analysis provided - has taken a beating in recent years, what with the whole "global warming/"climate change" debacle having been exposed for the world to see.

But it's not just government scientists who have given up their credibility.  Government statisticians are well on their way to being exposed as being the same kind of frauds as well.

Take a look at this chart showing what the author terms "Reported and Implied Unemployment Rate and Difference."  You'll want to click on it to enlarge it:

Tyler Durden, the author, provides the details over at Zero Hedge:
Implied Unemployment Rate Rises To 11.5%, Spread To Propaganda Number Surges To 30 Year High

Sick of the BLS [Bureau of Labor Statistics] propaganda? Then do the following calculation with us: using BLS data, the US civilian non-institutional population was 242,269 [sic] in January, an increase of 1.7 million month over month: apply the long-term average labor force participation rate of 65.8% to this number (because as chart 2 below shows, people are not retiring as the popular propaganda goes: in fact labor participation in those aged 55 and over has been soaring as more and more old people have to work overtime, forget retiring), and you get 159.4 million: that is what the real labor force should be. The BLS reported one? 154.4 million: a tiny 5 million difference. Then add these people who the BLS is purposefully ignoring yet who most certainly are in dire need of labor and/or a job to the 12.758 million reported unemployed by the BLS and you get 17.776 million in real unemployed workers. What does this mean? That using just the BLS denominator in calculating the unemployed rate of 154.4 million, the real unemployment rate actually rose in January to 11.5%. Compare that with the BLS reported decline from 8.5% to 8.3%. It also means that the spread between the reported and implied unemployment rate just soared to a fresh 30 year high of 3.2%. And that is how with a calculator and just one minute of math, one strips away countless hours of BLS propaganda. [link]
There are those out there - Obama sycophants all - who poo poo the notion that 1.2 million Americans were  summarily dropped from the rolls of "the employable" yesterday, wanting us to believe that it didn't happen, that it was simply a correction on the part of the BLS.

So, what, that's a good thing? That's supposed to boost confidence in the numbers the government provides? Oops, sorry, we over-counted the number of employable Americans by 1,200,000 and so the real unemployment rate went down - in one day? Media Matters for America - never known to be too attached to facts - dismisses the argument saying, "as economic experts have explained, that number reflected an increase in population from 2010 Census figures and is not the result of how many people 'dropped out' of the labor force last month."

A drop in the number of employable Americans is a reflection of an increase in population? What does that even mean?

No matter how you try to dress up that pig, the Labor Department does itself no favors by making such dramatic alterations to its statistics (let alone analysis). If the government's numbers can't be trusted, the government can't be trusted. Bottom line.

- - -

* As I've stated before, by following the path set forth by the BLS, all Americans could be unemployed and the unemployment rate would be zero.  Which makes the stat less than worthless.  Look at the number of employed and decide how America is doing economically.  For that info, see "Labor force participation rate at 30-year low." And be very concerned.

- - -

On that note, the same BLS reported that we grew 243,000 jobs last month.  If the numbers are to be trusted, that's a good thing.

- - -

Questions worth asking.  Questions needing answers.