One of the problems with the hateful, vicious, hyper-partisan politics that now grips the nation is that its most severe sufferers, inevitably the so-called “bases” of the two political parties and their most vocal advocates, end up making themselves look like fools because of it. Their fervor drives out rationality, and by refusing to assign decent and reasonable levels of respect to their political opponents, they devalue their own credibility, sometimes to the vanishing point. They may not really be fools (though some of them are), but in a real sense, they have been driven insane…by hate, by lack of proportion, and a respect deficit that banishes both fairness and responsible conduct.
Crazy Accusation A: Republicans/Conservatives…
The new unemployment statistics that finally pushed the nation’s number below the magic (don’t ask me why) 8% mark were deliberately falsified to bolster Obama’s support in the wake of his universally panned debate performance!
This conspiracy theory has is foundations laid Wednesday night, when one after another Fox News commentator intoned warnings that “Chicago”—you know, the evil and ruthless pols behind the Obama-Biden campaign—would “try something,’ and quick. Voilà! Here comes a surprisingly encouraging jobs report, right on schedule! The initial conspiracy claim came from former G.E. CEO Jack Welch, and was quickly picked up by others, including conservative radio host Sean Hannity, and of course, Rush Limbaugh.
Crazy Accusation B: Democrats/Progressives….
Mitt Romney’s impressive debate performance against Obama was aided by a rules-breaking “cheat sheet!”
Video of the debates showed Romney carefully placing something flat and white on the podium before the debate, and netroots nuts like Wonkette and especially the Daily Kos breathlessly promoted the slip as the equivalent of the Zapruder film. (The object was a handkerchief.)
Your Ethics Quiz this weekend:
Which crazy accusation is more irresponsible and unfair, A or B?
My take: It’s a split decision. The accusation that the non-partisan Department of Labor Statistics, and thus, by extension, the whole government, is engaged in an active conspiracy to deceive the American people in order to keep the Obama administration in power suggests criminal power-mongering and corruption of Watergate proportions. That degree of suspicion and disrespect for the President and Democrats is uncalled for, and such accusations, without any evidence at all, other than animus against the President, make an already poisonous political environment worse. It also increases distrust among the many disengaged and uninformed members or the public, who, we have seen, will believe almost anything.
But at least faking statistics is, as dishonest tactics go, a theoretically possible dishonest tactic that would have the desired effect. I can’t say that for the “cheat sheet” theory, and thus the purveyors of that one win the utter stupidity race by a lap or more. Seldom have I heard an accusation that more decisively proves the ignorance and naiveté, never mind inbred nastiness, of the accusers.
A “cheat sheet” is of no use whatsoever in a televised debate; indeed, it would be a certain handicap. Nobody who has ever been in anything resembling a debate would suggest otherwise. I have; I am regularly. You need to be able to respond on your feet, instantly and confidently, and be ready to talk articulately about issues that you may not have expected to have anyone raise. Cheat sheets don’t even help in radio interviews, and nobody can see you looking at them, unlike the conditions on national live TV.
A cheat cheat small enough to put on a podium would be pointless; a cheat sheet with enough information to be helpful would be voluminous and impossible to access. Moreover, it was Obama, not Romney, who was constantly looking down during the debate, and it was this that undermined the President’s performance. Cheat sheets force you to look down, which is one reason they are a detriment. (Obama was making notes while Romney spoke, and checking those notes when it was his turn. Bad idea. Any competent coach would have told him not to do it.)
Anyone who thinks Mitt Romney couldn’t turn in a debate performance like he did on Wednesday night without a cheat sheet hasn’t been paying attention, and worse, is completely ignorant of his background and skills, as well as the skills of experienced speakers generally. The remarkable thing about the debate was not that Mitt Romney could articulate his points smoothly and persuasively without a cheat sheet, but that President Obama, at least on that night, could not. Democrats routinely underestimate the abilities and intelligence of Republican presidential candidates, and the cheat sheet claim just proves that some of them are doing it again. The cheat sheet slur is especially ironic, as it is the accusation of not-very-bright people who can’t comprehend what bright people are capable of, and thus conclude that they must be “cheating.”
Both accusations, however, from partisans of both sides, are irresponsible and unfair, and stem from a refusal to accord their political adversaries the basic respect they deserve.
UPDATE: I just saw this spoof, from blogger Moe Lane, and if Romney was to have a “cheat sheet,” this is indeed the only kind of cheat sheet that would be of any use at all. I’m pretty sure Romney is capable of committing the content to memory, however. In fact, I suspect he did. (And if you can’t laugh at this, you have a real problem.)
________________________________
Sources:
Graphics:
Ethics Alarms 
Ohio Department of Jobs and Family Services is supposedly non-partisan as well but that didn’t stop an individual within it from releasing Joe The Plumbers tax info to discredit him when he made remarks not supportive of Obama.
Obama has a history of opponents losing thanks to sealed/closed records coming to light, how does this happen without the assistance of non-partisan public employees breaking the rules in not laws?
If it is disrespectful to suggest this could happen then how do facts ever come out? What if this standard had been applied to Watergate, would anything have ever come of a routine break in? If they had just claimed the numbers were cooked without any support of why then that would be disrespectful, i.e. Harry Ried`s claims on Romney`s taxes. Intelligent people who know what they are talking about have said the numbers were suspicious because of X, Y, Z. .03 reduction from 114,000 jobs does not match history unless a TON of people stopped looking for work, their claims are legit, the numbers don’t make sense.
Huh? And there have been child molesters, so it is fair to accuse Harry Reid of being one, I suppose? First evidence, then accusation. The Johnson Administration manipulated Vietnam casualties, but you prove it first, and this isn’t the Johnson administration.
Ohio Department of Jobs and Family Services is a state agency, and releasing accurate but private records is something completely different from releasing fabricated statistics. So how does that justify a baseless accusation against the current administration? Ridiculous.
baseless? You don’t find the drastic change suspicious at all? None of the arguments backing it up make you wonder?
Even those that support him were surprised and said it helped him politically;
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-10-05/u-dot-s-dot-jobless-rate-unexpectedly-falls-to-7-dot-8-percent-114-000-jobs-added
“The unemployment rate in the U.S. unexpectedly fell to 7.8 percent in September, giving President Barack Obama’s re-election campaign a boost a month before the election.”
http://www.bostonherald.com/business/general/view.bg?articleid=1061165490
“The decline in the unemployment rate comes at a critical moment for Obama, who is coming off a weak debate performance this week against GOP challenger Mitt Romney.”
As to arguments on why they should be questioned;
http://www.suitablyflip.com/suitably_flip/2012/10/jobs.html
meaningful adjustment in past numbers, weighted to government jobs.
“Yeah, this doesn’t smell right. The household survey (the part used to calculate the unemployment rate, not official payroll growth, which comes from the establishment survey) shows a whopping 873,000 jobs added in September (seasonally adjusted).
How whopping? It’s the best month of the millennium to date.”
Yes the best month of the millennium needs to happen some time, could easily be coincidence, but darn was that good timing.
Government agencies faking stats is not some rare occurrence. Either willful fraud or ineptitude. DHS and border crime stats as well as deportation rates have been questioned. Climate studies are full of bogus and manipulated data. Public pension funds use unrealistic return estimates.
Or specific examples like this;
Finally, there is the statistical sleight-of-hand of the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). BLS performs a “net birth/death adjustment” on its unemployment data. The birth/death model uses business deaths to “impute” employment from business births. Thus, as more businesses fail, more new jobs are imputed to have materialized through business births. The birth/death model is based on statistics covering 1998-2002. This was a period during which explosive telecom and dot.com startups outumbered business failures. That period bears no resemblance to today’s flat economic landscape. While the “surplus” jobs created by start-up firms has been revised lower this year, BLS continues to report from the indefensible assumption that jobs created by start-up companies tend to offset jobs lost by companies going out of business. John Williams of Shadow Government Statistics estimates that at least 50,000 birth/death jobs were conjured up in this way in the most recent BLS report.
The fact that something is unusual, well-timed or impressive in no way means that it’s fake. The economy has to start rebounding eventually, and things have been stalled for a long time. The difference between 7.8 and 8.1 is only superficially impressive. No matter what the media says, its nothing to be proud of, and .3 fluctuations are not unheard off. Ok–it’s good news, and Obama needed some. So what?
Bengahzi was a terrorist attack why not just say so from the start? Fast & Furious was a botched who knows what, why not be honest with the public and let congress do their job. There are countless examples of this administration, and probably everyone before them lying about little things for little political advantage. Watergate was a minor breakin until they covered it up.
Obama campaign was reeling, they needed something to change the narrative. The unemployment % is not the scientific work of thousands of BLS employees. It is a home survey/pool; this election has shown clearly how easy it is to manipulate pools and how little they mean.
In fact the bigger issue is this meaningless number is even reported. It is inaccurate, doesn’t really tell us anything, and takes space that could be used to report real meaningful data like the number of labor market participants, or lack there of. SS, Medicare, and other programs, to stay solvent, need workers contributing, we don’t have nearly enough.
It still doesn’t fly. 1) The source of these stats is purely bureaucratic. 2) Covering up embarrassing botches is stupid and unethical, but at least it buys time. This? A pointless risk. Any genuine conspiracy has to be worth the risk of discovery. A lousy .3 % drop is not worth the Administration being caught in a an outrageous, indefensible lie. There’s too long to go before the election. The stats just weren’t that good—who is dumb enough to believe that the difference between 8.1 and 7.8 unemployment will change anyone’s mind about Obama, Romney or the debate? I’m sure youy wren’t—you’re just saying that you don’t trust these people. Neither do I.
http://dailycaller.com/2012/10/18/calif-official-whose-agency-under-reported-unemployment-stats-was-obama-campaign-donor/
Now that we know CA under-reported and once the correct numbers were turned in the decrease was gone, and the person in charge of the agency that underreported is an Obama supporter, now can we say it is fishy?
Not in the least.
The change wasn’t drastic. It’s in line with previous changes for fall seasonal hiring.
I wouldn’t put it past the Obama admin to mess with the numbers – let us remember that they’re issued by an Executive-level department, the senior members of which are highly concerned about job security – specifically, their own.
With that said, what the hell – let’s stipulate that the numbers are as accurate as possible (several expert commentators I heard last night noted that the Household survey, upon which the claim of 7.8% is based, is highly volatile and subject to significant swings. We’ve also seen a series of reports get adjusted back to higher unemployment rates in the past few years).
What matters more here is that the Admin understands that the bulk of the media is in its corner, and that the news would be trumpeted without a whole lot of examination. They were correct on this. Meantime, the U-6 number – those unemployed or underemployed – hasn’t budged in a long time, including this report.
Lots of part time jobs in the new numbers, it appears…
Because the news media would back the story, it must be a lie.
You sir, lose your logic card.
You also lose your fair analysis card, as we’ve seen adjustments both up and down. Your implication is that the reports have been continuously understating unemployment. That’s false.
You’re right, to without proof, accuse an agency of outright fabrication or deliberate manipulation of data is unethical. To express skepticism of serendipitous data though, is prudent. To assume since proof of manipulation has not surfaced we must ethically consider the data valid is to ignore a history of mid-month “adjustments” which “unexpectedly” turn out to be higher numbers than originally announced. In this case, in my view, intentional naivety would be unethical.
In fairness, the history of little noted mid-month “adjustments” which restate the numbers less favorably, has only been going on now for 40 consecutive months or so. But hey, what about that sneaky Romney? Pretending his notes were a handkerchief! Even using them to wipe his nose!
Yes, his deceptive nose swipes were particularly disturbing to the snivelers.
*sigh*. The adjustments have gone both up and down. You’re lying.
Sure. Express skepticism. Then, maybe if you’re a journalist or someone fair, look into it.
This data isn’t out of line with seasonal hiring changes.
For “A” to be true you have to assume an entire government agency that has been reporting unemployment since 1963 and manipulated the data in this one instance to push unemployment below the magical 8% threshold.
For “B” to be true you have to assume one man brought a few crib notes to the debate. Worthless to some, probably? Worthless to Romney, who knows? In my public speaking experience, simple bullet point notes have been invaluable at times to make sure I cover all the points I want to cover.
What does the evidence indicate? The methods of the Bureau of Labor Statistics uses is available on its website for everyone to see. Just because U-3 is more reported than U-6 doesn’t mean they are doing something nefarious. The BLS ALWAYS makes mid-month adjustments, and has since at least the mid-80’s.
The Romney campaign stated it was a handkerchief. Video shows an object that is more 3-dimensional and flops like cloth and not paper which is approximately 2-dimensional. Furthermore, Romney wouldn’t be wiping his face with a normal piece of paper. As pointed out above, both accusations are reckless and unethical and are (to my satisfaction) false.
However, that’s not the question Jack asked. “Which crazy accusation is more irresponsible and unfair?” One impugns the credibility of a single individual. One impugns the credibility of hundreds if not thousands of professionals, most of whom are non-partisans who’ve devoted their careers to the delivering the most accurate picture of our economy’s employment picture, whatever that picture may look like.
Accusation “A” is unquestionably more irresponsible. It’s not close, not even in the same galaxy.
Eric nailed it.
Except for suggesting that the Romney insult was anything but that, I agree. Any professional in his field does not need “bullet points,” and bullet points are only useful in non-interactive settings…plus you have to look at them not wipe your brow with them. There is literally no point in teh recoded debate where Romney appeared to be reading anything on the podium. Maybe it was a telepathic hanky—that’s about as plausible, which is to say that the Daily Kos will be claiming that next.
Jack, your credibility is taking a hit here…
1) My statement above regarding the possibility of needing notes was simply to state SOME people would benefit from bullet points and SOME would not. Gov. Romney is in one of those two camps. Regardless of your feelings on the matter or your personal experience, there is a small but not insignificant chance he could have benefited from notes. Also, by saying that professionals don’t need notes are you really willing to paint with such a broad brush claiming that those who might benefit from notes are unprofessional?
2) Especially in a dynamic debate environment, bullet point reminders or a SIMPLE checklist could be the most helpful. Coming from a high school where many of my friends competed in debate on the national level, checklists like this were part of their preparation. With 45 minutes of time and 6 different questions expected (which were all known ahead of time as per the debate rules) could help a candidate to steer the responses in the direction that was most favorable to them.
3) You’re going to tell me that at no time did Gov. Romney ever look down at the podium? Never? Not once? Not long enough to read a couple of words on a checklist? And, a “telepathic hanky” being as plausible? May I remind you that there have been many times in history where messages where written on CLOTH which could have been used to wipe ones brow. Just look up the history of silk maps in WWII for pilots and prisoners of war escaping Nazi Germany.
Neither conspiracy theory should be given more than a minute of thought. ‘A’ is interesting but impossible on it’s face due to the number of people who would have to be complicit and compliant in this fraud. Even if the numbers were manipulated, to assume there would be no one who would act as a whistleblower to protect the integrity of their work is not credible.
‘B’ is infinitely more plausible because only one man was needed for the conspiracy but is easily debunked by by simply asking the question, “Gov. Romney, video of last nights debate shows you removing something from your pocket and placing it on the podium. Can you tell us what it was?” It’s not disrespectful to Gov. Romney to ask what it was or think he might have even used notes. What would have been incredibly disrespectful is to not believe his campaign’s answer to the question.
Utter garbage. I’ll stand by my statement: a piece of paper with notes on it is useless to an effective debater, which was implicit in my comment, and one isn’t going to turn a lousy, memory-challenged debater into Romney on debate night. Your proposes question is an insult and absurd: “Prove to us you weren’t cheating, AND so stupid that you thought prepared notes would help you in a give and take debate. We agree that the statistical conspiracy is the more irresponsible. but it is certainly possible, IF the Obama Administration were dishonest and unscrupulous to the core. Meanwhile, nobody could watch Romney in any of the debates and not know that he is firmly in the second camp, and I am telling you, as a speaking coach and a professional speaker, that bullet points won’t help anyone who is capable of debating competently.
Joe Biden would benefit from bullet points, perhaps.
I guess you and I live in different worlds.
In my world empirical evidence and logic direct decisions. With this in mind I’ll concede to your expertise in the area of debate though my limited experience differs. However, there is no ETHICAL reason to pussy-foot around the issue when a simple, direct question (an experiment) will do.
Placing myself in the role of a reporter what’s more ethical? Do I defer to Gov. Romney’s grander to and state it was a handkerchief because of course it could never be anything else? Do I let the rumor fester because I don’t want to insult Gov. Romney with an absurd question? Do I simply ask, without accusation, about what the item was because, “videos are ?
Regarding my “insult” and “absurd” question, would that not fall under “Non-Ethical Considerations” which I did not consider in my arguments. Did I make an error?
Yes, because as with the accusation that Obama is cooking stats, to think Romney would need such a silly prop and would stoop to sneaking it in front of TV cameras requires pre-existing contempt and irrational disrespect as a condition predicate. As with Truther and Birther conspiracies, both just show irrational distrust.
If someone says….
• Romney did better in the debates and therefore must have cheated = preexisting contempt and irrational disrespect.
• There are videos showing Romney pulling something from his pocket and spreading it out on the podium = factual observations from video camera footage of the debate.
• Asking Romney what it was that he has placed on the podium = a rational question based on observations.
• Accepting Romney’s explanation as the on it’s face without any equivocation = rational and appropriate.
You fail to understand that it is not in asking the question that the disrespect lies. It’s receiving a definitive answer and not accepting that answer that shows the pre-existing contempt and disrespect.
While we’re not likely to agree on the above comments, I think we can both agree on the following. First, the progenitors of both conspiracy theories need to remember that, “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” (Carl Sagan) Second, Occam’s Razor in conjunction with the first statement form powerful guiding principles when weighing the validity of ideas.
Agreed.
By the way, the one prominent speaking coach I know well instructs students who sweat under TV lights and under stress to take ahanky and spread it out on the podium, so you don’t have to fumble in your pocket for it. My point is that to an experienced speaker, what Romney did was not in the least suspicious, and thus didn’t justify a question. Actors are always asked, “How do you memorize all those lines? It’s amazing. Do you write them on your hands?” I can tell you that the two responses to this in the minds of the actors are 1) “Do these people think we’re idiots?” and 2) “Or aewe they idiots, and just think we’re like them?”
Professional actors don’t need cheat sheets either.
I agree. But the cheat sheet theory just isn’t even barely credible. It’s just an insult to Romney, and any other professional in his field with an IQ higher than Joe Biden’s
Basically, I agree with your main argument that there is no ‘conspiracy’ to cook the books (the Romney thing seems too ludicrous to even comment on). However, it is annoying on several points.
1) Earlier this year, in a crass political sense, it seemed as though Obama — who was elected in part because the economy was headed for the toilet in 2008 — would then get re-elected in part because the economy was finally seen to be recovering (through no fault of his own). That would be a good thing for the country that the economy was recovering, but aggravating that Obama would benefit politically from both ends of the Great Recession. The jury is still out on this one.
2) A number of times we have been told that the unemployment rate would have gone up (instead of remaining steady or ticking down), but it was lower because a lot of people gave up and left the work force, and that the participation rate was historically low. This argument makes sense mathematically, and I have had few quibbles with it.
This month we were told (at least in the initial reports on the report) that the unemployment rate went down because a lot of people re-joined the work force. My initial reaction was Huh? How can the flip side of a trend have the same effect on the unemployment rate? And the participation rate remained the same? It doesn’t make sense — until you understand that the 114k job gains and the 7.8% unemployment rate, which are always linked together in news stories, are the result of two different surveys with different methodologies. Note: I’m speaking in general terms here as I’ve not tried to make a detailed study of these things.
As I said, I don’t think they’re cooking the books — that’s a little too complicated, cumbersome, and perilous route. Nonetheless, it is annoying, aggravating, and doubtless any number of other adjectives — on an emotional basis.
There’s still plenty of ammunition available to the Romney campaign on the economy, and I think he’s focusing on it. If the country thinks 114k jobs added and the low, low rate of 7.8% unemployment (ok, a little sarcasm here) is reason enough to re-elect Obama — well, sometimes we do get the government we deserve. *sigh*
======================
p.s. I have just been reading about the Roosevelt and the Panamanian revolution of 1904. Talk about sacrificing long term benefits and policy for a short term gain. . . . .