I
read an interesting article lately by Leonard Pitts, a nationally
published commentator from Florida, who wrote an article entitled
“The
unemployment rate and GOP’s ‘War on Reality’.
In that article, Mr. Pitts makes what sounds like a very logical
argument that because the GOP is questioning the “facts” of the
Obama administration and the liberal press's claims that the
unemployment rate dropped to 7.8%, they are waging a “war on
reality” so that they can discredit the Obama administration and
win votes. Mr. Pitts thinks this is wrong, claiming that in order
for rational decisions to be made, there has to be a commonly agreed
upon body of facts. That is a very valid point, but where Mr. Pitts
fails in his analysis is that “facts” are indisputable
information. I am male...indisputable; Mount Everest is the highest
mountain on earth...indisputable. Government statistics, are,
unfortunate, not facts; they are statistics, and every first year
business major that has taken Statistics 101 knows the adage “GIGO”,
or “Garbage in, Garbage Out”. Simply put, if I make a
statistical claim, the validity and the accuracy of that claim is
based upon what data I use to develop that claim. If I use valid
sampling rates from a valid body of evidence for my numbers, and I
properly evaluate those samples, and I properly state the margin or
probability of error in those calculations, then I can draw a fairly
believable conclusion from that data.
There
are two critical components that must be done accurately in order to
come up with believable statistics:
- The body of evidence from which the sample of data is collected.
- The size of the sample
A
third factor is important, but it is related to the first two, and
that is the time factor of when the sample of data was collected to
when the outcome is reported.
For
example, if I am sampling the percentage of shirts that are produced
with flaws in them, then I should take an equal number of samples
each day of production over a specified period of time. I should
take a sample large enough to be representative of a typical
production run, I should take the sample from the same style and size
of shirt, and I should take a sample that would be representative of
all of the individuals that are involved in the production of that
shirt.
If
my sample is too small, then I stand a chance of not having a large
enough number of flawed shirts in order to accurately project the
probability of getting a flawed shirt.
If I take my sample only on a
Monday, then I am probably going to get a higher number of flawed
shirts that if I took samples from Monday, Wednesday, and Friday
because more people are going to be “recovering” from the weekend
and are therefore more likely to make a mistake that could cause a
flawed shirt to be produced.
If I take my sample from the slowest
period during my production year, then I am more likely to get a
sample with the smallest number of flawed shirts because my workers
are not being pushed as hard to meet production demands, and can pay
more attention to detail as they manufacture.
For
example, If I am calculating “unemployment”, I can determine one
set of numbers using the total number of persons filing for new
unemployment compensation nationwide as a “set” of data point. But, to insure a representative and accurate sample, I also must include some other factors, such as a estimate of the
total number of vacant job positions available which are filled, the
total numbers of deaths in the categories of individuals looking for
work, of individuals who died that were included in the numbers of
individuals working, and I SHOULD include the numbers of individuals
who gave up looking for work because they could not find a job,because they could not find a job that paid enough for them to feel
justified in going to work, or just decided that they could get by
working odd jobs that do not go into the statistical calculations.
Out
of all those “statistics”, there is only one that is available
readily to have fairly reliable data, and that is the number of new
applications for unemployment. That is data readily available from
government computers. The rest of the “variables” in the
equation are “estimates” based on a statistical “model”.
Variables are bodies of data that, if not properly calculated, can
significantly sway the overall outcome of the end result being
sought.
For
example, in this example regarding unemployment, if I want to slant
the result to reduce the unemployment statistic, I could do several
things:
- I could choose to include an estimate of the number of new jobs which was created that are still unfilled to a LOWER number. By doing so, the percentage of people that are employed as compared to the number of jobs available would be a higher percentage, thus making the number of people unemployed less.
- I could take a sample of those who are finding jobs as compared to those who are not finding jobs from a cross-section of the population where the likelihood of individuals finding jobs is statistically higher.
- I could “estimate” the number of deaths in the sampling body of individuals seeking jobs to be higher than it should be, thus lowering the numbers of individuals looking for work
Mr.
Pitts argues that for a valid decision to be made, we must have a set
of “facts” that both sides can agree on as valid from which we
can begin our debate. I wholeheartedly agree. For that to happen,
however, there must be universal agreement that the statistical
analysis from which the “facts” being used to come up with the
“facts” is a valid analysis, and in today's political arena, we
both know that the probability of that happening is, as the old
cowboy used to say “slim and none!”. BOTH sides can, with a
great deal of validity, find data that was used to create the facts
in question which cold sway the statistical conclusion in a direction
that is favorable or unfavorable to their liking.
That
is why, in MY opinion, it is a mistake for the citizenry of a nation
to rely too heavily upon some statistical analysis to decide who
should be a President or not. When the nation does that, then it
becomes not a decision that is based upon what direction is better
for the nation in the long run, but what side's representatives are
the more cunning and convincing debaters, and when that happens, that
comes down to which candidate lies the best.
The
decision on who should be running our nation is a decision that
SHOULD be based on which candidate is trying to make America the
nation that our forefathers wanted it to be, and that is a nation
where the individual states had the responsibility and the
Constitutional authority to make most of the decisions regarding how
to govern its citizens.
The
majority of the founders of this nation were vehemently against a
big, overly-controlling central government. They established a very
strict process by which an individual could become a citizen of this
great nation. Which party wishes more to protect America against an
uncontrolled influx of illegal aliens?
The
founders of this great nation wanted this nation's government to be
constrained by the people, not visa-versa. Which party is in favor
of less regulation and more freedom for its citizens?
This
nation knew that the ultimate protection of the citizens against a
tyrannical central (Federal) government was the citizen's rights to
bear arms. Which party is trying the hardest to protect that right,
and which party is trying to turn those rights over to a
world-governing body like the United Nations?
This
nation's most fundamental founding principle was freedom of religion.
Which party is trying to destroy that freedom by regulating churches
fundamental beliefs in the sanctity of life by mandating that those
(or any church) that believes abortion is murder still be required to
provide insurance coverage to people that will allow for abortion and
birth control to be covered FREE for those desiring it?
America
should be looking for one type of person to lead this nation, whether
it be as President, or as an elected Representative or Senator, or as
a judge. America's citizens should be looking for an individual who
could care less about whether or not they are re-elected to an office
or not. We should elect or an individual that goes to Washington
with a solemn sense of obligation to do what his constituency want
him to do, as long as that is consistent with the Constitution. If
his constituency want him to do something that is NOT consistent with
the Constitution, then he should either convince them that it is not
consistent with the Constitution, or he should simply tell them that
he will not vote for that, and then let them decide whether or not to
send him to Congress or the White House or not.
That
was the way this nation was founded, and was the principles of the
first elected individuals. Career politicians are dangerous
creatures; they become arrogant, become jaded by the adulation and
praise of those seeking favors from them, and they become corrupted
by the power brokering that is part of the Washington scene today.
Our existing politicians are “party” animals; they cannot think,
they simply will do exactly what their party leaders tell them to do,
or they will be punished by getting insignificant or menial committee
appointments or no committee appointments at all. That is where our
citizens have allowed our government to evolve to. Our own apathy in
government's goings on while we pursued our own selfish interests
have given our representatives a free hand to vote themselves
benefits and perks from the public treasury and to make themselves
virtually invulnerable to prosecution or persecution. We should be
ashamed.
Mr.
Pitts is a self-professed liberal. Mr. Pitts is NOT a “reporter”,
he is a columnist. As a columnist, he is entitled to present his
opinions. However, as a responsible columnist, he should at least be
willing to explain when he makes assertions like he did in his recent
article mentioned above, that the “facts” as he is describing
them, are certainly not “facts”, but statistical assertions that
can be shot full of holes, or be verified as virtual “facts”,
depending upon who is analyzing the way the “facts” are derived.
Both
political parties are quick to “slant” their studies to hopefully
present themselves as the side to which the statistics point as being
correct. Unfortunately, unlike the old days, there are a lot of very
intelligent people out there just waiting to show them for what they
are. Both are liars, cheats, and not to be trusted any further than
they can be thrown. Both candidates in this race have their
strengths and weaknesses. But Mitt Romney, in my humble opinion,
overall is the most truthful. And, unlike Barack Obama, he will tell
people to their face what he is going to do whether or not it is
something that he knows they will like or disagree with him on.
Plus, he AND Paul Ryan have stood up for the principles of the
founding fathers, where Barack Obama seems determined to destroy
those principles and install a socialist-style, big, burdensome,
intrusive, type of government which will, in the long run, take
complete control of our healthcare and treat senior citizens like the
movie “Soylent Green”, only not to be used to be made into
Soylent Green food to feed the masses that are now on government
assistance.
Remember
the words of Thomas Jefferson:
“The
strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear
arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in
government.
“
““Laws
that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither
inclined nor determined to commit crimes...
Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the
assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides,
for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an
armed man.” (Quoting Cesare Beccaria)
“To
take from one because it is thought that his own industry and that of
his father’s has acquired too much, in order to spare to others,
who, or whose fathers, have not exercised equal industry and skill,
is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association—the
guarantee to every one of a free exercise of his industry and the
fruits acquired by it.”
“I
think myself that we have more machinery of government than is
necessary, too many parasites living on the labor of the industrious.
“
My
favorite: “God
forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion. The
people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is
wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the
facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such
misconceptions, it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public
liberty.... And what country can preserve its liberties, if its
rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve
the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set
them right as to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a
few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be
refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
It is its natural manure.”
To
quote a more recent of my favorite quotations “They
can take my gun when they pry it from my cold, dead hand!”
LONG
LIVE THE REPUBLIC, LONG LIVE AMERICA. GOD BLESS AMERICA!
No comments:
Post a Comment