Gotta Love those Numbers

We know that most statistics are bogus in one way or another.  Oh, the margin of error might be 2.73844692% or some other just about as valid number, however the truth is not in the numbers but rather in the questions asked or the data chosen for the report.  I’d like to take two examples that I feel are very suspect, both from last Friday’s (Feb 18, 20110 USA Today.

The first one entitled “Late Mortgage Payments Declined” began:

The Mortgage Bankers Association said 8.2% of homeowners missed at least one mortgage payment in the October-December quarter.  The figure, adjusted for seasonal factors [emphasis mine] improved from 9.1% in the previous quarter.

My question is, how does one reasonably seasonally adjust late mortgage payments?  We see it every month with the phony labor statistics where unemployment is “seasonally adjusted”.  Is it that if you don’t have a job in the wrong season that you’re not really unemployed?

Either you made your mortgage payment or you didn’t.  Is it OK not to pay your mortgage during the late months due to holidays?  Is is OK not to pay your mortgage during summer when you might be on vacation rather than paying your mortgage?  What is it?  If you know, please post a reply here.

The other problem was with an article entitled “Most consumers OK with new bulbs,” which tries to prove that the Republicans are wrong to try and repeal the phase out of 100-watt incandescent light bulbs.

According to the study, most Americans are “satisfied” or “very satisfied” with the new compact florescent (CF) or light-emitting diode (LED) bulbs so what’s the beef?  The article implied that the Congress was wasting its time on this subject and therefore by extension were in favor of frying the planet and hasten Global Warming.  They couldn’t say that with winter being as cold as it is, so they have to imply it.

The problem I have here is that the questions merely asked about the performance of the new bulbs.  One should be satisfied if one turns on the light switch and the light comes on.  However, the people were not asked how they felt about being forced to spend upwards of 10 times the cost of the old bulbs for a new one.

The people were not asked how they felt about needing at least 5 years on some of their bulbs to break even due to the increased cost versus energy savings.

The people were not asked how they felt when a 7-year CF didn’t last even 2 years before it needed to be replaced,thus never realizing the energy cost savings.

The people were not asked how they plan to dispose of these poisonous mercury-containing bulbs that cannot be thrown out in the normal trash or even discarded in recycle bins.

The first article mucks with the numbers by scrubbing the data.  The second article asks a question that is meaningless to the true issue at hand and thus drawing a false conclusion.

The sad thing is that we have to read the newspaper as critically as they should have been when they wrote their articles.

What can you expect, however, from the liberal media?

Free Speech Kill Switch

Late last year Congress introduced a bill to allow the President to turn off the Internet when there is a “significant cyber threat”.  The bill died in committee when Congress adjourned.  Lately, the bill has had a resurgence of support.

Interestingly enough, the legislation was resurrected the same day that Egypt killed the Internet in its country to quell protests against Mubarak’s government.  Also interestingly enough, the bill was reintroduced by a Republican, Susan Collins of Maine.  Republicans are the supposed Bastions of Liberty in the face of the raging incrementalism of Socialism that is overtaking our country.

Perhaps what Ross Perot (and others) have said about the mainstream Republicans and the Democrats not having “a dime’s worth of difference” between them is not so far off.  Senator Collins, of course, does not have the Tea Party to answer to as she was last elected in 2008 and won’t be up for re-election until 2014, two years after the Mayan Calendar recycles, so maybe the world will end by then.

According to Senator Collins, it allows “the government to work with the private sector” when the country is faced by cyber terrorism.  Now, let me ask, when has Big Brother ever “worked” with anyone?  In the face of a cyber terror attack will they call committee meetings or create some joint fact finding commission to determine the threat level?  Heavens, no!  It took the Gulf Oil Spill Commission six months to determine that BP (and others) screwed up.  On the contrary, some Internet Czar will have the power to mandate a “temporary” shut down of segments of the Internet on his or her command.

Why is this bad?  Would not our banking and power grid be at risk if there was a true cyber attack?  Probably yes.  However, giving the Government the power to kill electronic communication is not the answer.

If certain sectors need protecting, then they should put in their own protection.  If it’s in the interest of the banking community to have better electronic protection, they should spend some of the bailout money on protecting their systems and networks rather than giving millions of dollars of that money in bonuses to overpaid executives.

Put the banking community on its own subnet that can be segregated from the rest of the Internet.  You know the military is on its own subnet.  There’s no way we could execute any war if Obama or any other President hit the kill switch on the Internet.  Do the same with the power grid and any other segment that needs to be protected.

This is, however, what the bill’s proponents suggest will be the case.  But which human can determine if any part of the Internet is under attack and what to do about it quickly enough?  When computers can send thousands of messages each second, would a person notice before it’s too late?  Would a human know which sectors to shut down or would it be just “safer” to shut down everything while a committee figured out what the problem was?  Put the software to detect attacks where the systems are that might be attacked.

The danger, as I see it, is yet one more step at eroding our Constitutional rights.  Giving anyone the ability to shut down parts of the Internet is, in my opinion an unconstitutional attack on the First Amendment that prohibits the government from “abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

Shut down the Internet and you cannot send an e-mail to your Congressperson or Senator.  Shut down the Internet and you cannot electronically assemble with your friends or colleagues.   Shut down the Internet and bloggers (I admit this entry is somewhat self-serving) cannot criticize the ability of the Government to shut down the Internet.

Giving anyone in Government the ability to shut down any kind of communications is just “one small step for eroding freedoms, one giant leap for totalitarianism.”

Oh, it will be for our own good.  Simply ignore the fact that there is a technological solution to this technological problem.  Like all good Socialists, the bill’s supporters believe that only the Government can solve this or any other problem.

This is yet one more proof that we’ll never conquer artificial intelligence until we first overcome natural stupidity.

Add Insult to Tax Injury

When Obama took office, one of the first things he did was to announce a pay freeze for all White House employees making more than $100,000 per year.  However we found out last fall that even with that pay freeze 74% of the over 300 White House staff got on-average a 9% pay raise and the number of federal employees making more than $150,000/year has doubled under this administration.  I’m not saying they aren’t worth it (OK, maybe I would say it if I knew just what these people did other than kiss butt and shine shoes) but how much disdain for the suffering of millions of American citizens does this show?

You do know, don’t you, that your unemployment payments are taxable as wages, so your unemployment benefits help pay these possibly overpaid folks.  Even with falling new unemployment claims, more than 9% of us (seasonably adjusted, of course) are out of work.  Another 20% are underemployed with cut hours or only holding temporary or part-time jobs, and untold numbers have simply given up looking.  Yet Obama has increased the number of federal workers making over $150,000 twenty-fold and gives his staff a 9% pay raise.  Even if you are employed, did you get a 9% pay raise last year?  Are you even making 9% more than you were two years ago?

In so many ways, Obama’s domestic policies are like vampires sucking the life out of the economy step by step.  These policies punish producers, make the business climate too uncertain so that potential employers are not sure what his policies will to to them.  They could hire people but then if ObamaCare slaps punitive expenses on their businesses, they’ll have to lay people off just to keep even.  And, by the way, when an employer lays people off, his unemployment insurance premiums rise, which punishes him even more for having tried to give some folks jobs.

I encourage the Republican-controlled House to implement sound policies that are economic-growth friendly.

I hope the Debt Commission and Congress are watching. Roll back federal pay to the 2008 level and eliminate automatic pay raises through the Cost of Living Adjustments.  Those of us who don’t suckle at the teat of the federal government don’t get those kind of automatic pay raises.  If federal employees don’t like it, they can do what the rest of us do.  They can quit and try to get a real job in the private sector.

Nevertheless, let’s go back to the topic of this entry.  If there wasn’t a pay freeze, how much would these people have gotten?  Where can I apply for one of these jobs?  Sounds like “all animals are created equal.  It’s just that some are more equal than others,” to borrow from George Orwell.