In praise of journalism

What a terrific use of the bully pulpit by New York Times business columnist David Leonhardt. Recipe: Take one commonly-discussed government statistic (unemployment rate). Add one part historical background and two new data sources, and analyze. Result: A newly illuminated phenomenon.

(In this case: One new frame for thinking about the recent upswing in “non-employed” people whose existence is invisible in the regular unemployment statistics.)

Over the last few decades, there has been an enormous increase in the number of people who fall into the no man’s land of the labor market[...]. These people are not employed, but they also don’t fit the government’s definition of the unemployed — those who “do not have a job, have actively looked for work in the prior four weeks, and are currently available for work.”

Consider this: the average unemployment rate in this decade, just above 5 percent, has been lower than in any decade since the 1960s. Yet the percentage of prime-age men (those 25 to 54 years old) who are not working has been higher than in any decade since World War II. In January, almost 13 percent of prime-age men did not hold a job, up from 11 percent in 1998, 11 percent in 1988, 9 percent in 1978 and just 6 percent in 1968.

There are only two possible explanations for this bizarre combination of a falling employment rate and a falling unemployment rate. The first is that there has been a big increase in the number of people not working purely by their own choice. You can think of them as the self-unemployed. They include retirees, as well as stay-at-home parents, people caring for aging parents and others doing unpaid work.

If growth in this group were the reason for the confusing statistics, we wouldn’t need to worry. It would be perfectly fair to say that unemployment was historically low. [...] Instead, these nonemployed workers tend to be those who have been left behind by the economic changes of the last generation. Their jobs have been replaced by technology or have gone overseas, and they can no longer find work that pays as well.

Read the whole thing.

What Henley said

Verbatim Bill Kristol:

The way you puncture euphoria is reality, or to be more blunt, fear. I recommend to Senator Clinton the politics of fear.

Jim Henley:

[T]he thing to note here is that Kristol identifies fear and violence (he goes on to tie the fear theme to attacking Iran) with “reality.” Fear is reality in his equation. The national greatness conservatives spent the 1990s arguing that national life without a higher purpose lacked meaning. They’ve spent the Naughts settling for a low one.

A brief splash of honesty

I feel like giving brief kudos to columnist David Carr, who in a sudden attack of disclosure came clean about how he found the sources for two “person on the street” quotations in one of his columns:

Mr. Finesurrey, a sophomore and an Obama supporter at the University of Wisconsin whom I found in the process of researching this column (translation: he’s a friend of my daughter).

And:

When Sara Verkuilen, 22, a senior at Edgewood College in Madison (translation: my daughter’s roommate) is looking for political news, she goes with CNN, but not because of the gadgetry.

I don’t read Mr. Carr regularly, so maybe he is always this scrupulous. Regardless, kudos to him for being transparent about one of the more misleading traditions in journalism: Using people from within one’s own social circle to comment on a trend or current event.

It would be nice to see his colleagues follow suit more often.

Two options

Option 1: The New York Times thinks its readers can’t do basic math.

Option 2: The New York Times relies on its readers to read between the lines to suss out government lies.

You be the judge:

But an intelligence official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because surveillance operations are classified, said: “It’s inevitable that these things will happen. It’s not weekly, but it’s common.”

A report in 2006 by the Justice Department inspector general found more than 100 violations of federal wiretap law in the two prior years by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, many of them considered technical and inadvertent.

Let’s see…100 violations in two years…52 weeks a year…sounds like “weekly” to me.

(Yes, yes, you could make a tiny argument that the reporter meant to imply that “these things” were Really Big Violations, not the garden variety of — wait a second, are we actually buying into the claim that some violations of the law are just technically wrong and not, you know, actually wrong? Phooey on that.)

Never prouder

This afternoon, President Bollinger gave a speech that can only be called rousing and inspirational. Watch it here: part 1, part 2 (it’s unfortunate that the video doesn’t capture the response of the several thousand students who were watching out on the lawn; needless to say the atmosphere was electric).

Interestingly enough, just two hours later, Prezbo — miraculously — showed up to teach POLS 3285 Freedom of Speech & Press to thunderous applause. It was a good day to be in his class.

Today was a glorious affirmation of of the values my university and nation espouse, and I’ve never been prouder to be a part of both.

A sampling of the pictures I took throughout the day after the jump

Read the rest of this entry »

Too good not to post

One of the better policy initiatives I’ve seen in recent months:

Steve Ahlenius, president of the McAllen Chamber of Commerce, sent out an e-mail to 140 media outlets nationwide Tuesday morning with the subject line: “McAllen, Texas calls for wall around Washington D.C.”

“We feel the need to protect ourselves from bad legislation, bad ideas and a waste of tax money,” Ahlenius wrote.

“A wall around their homes and businesses will give the legislators and Washington bureaucrats a better understanding of what kind of message this action will send.

“Let’s see if they decide to climb over it, tunnel under it, or walk over it.”

Link to complete article (Found via Cato @ Liberty).