When will they learn? Power outages affect people, certainly, but the utilities can only count the number of customers -- that is, homes, businesses and government facilities -- that lose power, not the number of people. To conflate the number of customers with the number of people is misleading.
Consider: One household is one customer, but there are typically several people in each household. Similarly, one retail store equals one customer, but there could well be several hundred employees and customers affected.
So the number of customers losing power this week because of the winter storm is nearly one million, but the total number of people affected would be millions more.
Thursday, February 13, 2014
Overblown
TV news reports made much of critics' complaints about a White House claim that 3.3 million people have signed up for health care insurance under federal law, including 1 million newbies in January.
"Not true!" they charge. Many have not yet paid for their coverage, so they're not really signed up yet, foes protest.
Reality check: Of those 3.3 million, only about 10 percent have not yet paid. Not a bad number, especially when you consider that of that 10 percent, some may not yet have received a bill. Among others, the check is in the mail. And, yes, a few may default.
Bottom line: More than 90 percent of that 3.3 million have not only signed up, but they have paid the premium and are covered.
So why the fuss? It's just something to complain about, some pebble to grasp in their continuing efforts to throw stones.
Meanwhile, what alternatives have the opponents offered? So far, the Party of No has not some up with a health care plan for everyone. Unless, of course, their plan is not to have universal health care coverage. And that's peculiar, considering that the Democratic-sponsored Affordable Health Care Act, also known as Obamacare, is patterned on a Republican plan set up successfully in Massachusetts by then-Governor and recent presidential candidate Mitt Romney.
As for the big coverage in news media: Pumping up a story to excite viewers and readers may be good marketing, but it's not responsible journalism.
"Not true!" they charge. Many have not yet paid for their coverage, so they're not really signed up yet, foes protest.
Reality check: Of those 3.3 million, only about 10 percent have not yet paid. Not a bad number, especially when you consider that of that 10 percent, some may not yet have received a bill. Among others, the check is in the mail. And, yes, a few may default.
Bottom line: More than 90 percent of that 3.3 million have not only signed up, but they have paid the premium and are covered.
So why the fuss? It's just something to complain about, some pebble to grasp in their continuing efforts to throw stones.
Meanwhile, what alternatives have the opponents offered? So far, the Party of No has not some up with a health care plan for everyone. Unless, of course, their plan is not to have universal health care coverage. And that's peculiar, considering that the Democratic-sponsored Affordable Health Care Act, also known as Obamacare, is patterned on a Republican plan set up successfully in Massachusetts by then-Governor and recent presidential candidate Mitt Romney.
As for the big coverage in news media: Pumping up a story to excite viewers and readers may be good marketing, but it's not responsible journalism.
Wednesday, February 12, 2014
Whorfian Weather
A CNN weather reporter referred to a coming winter storm and its "liquid water." Supposedly, he did so to differentiate that from "frozen water," which would be snow, sleet, hail or ice. Water, by definition, is liquid.
The language has several terms for various forms of precipitation other than rain, including snow, sleet, or hail, all of which are specific types of "frozen water." The words are available. Don't insult the intelligence of the audience by inventing terms needlessly.
The English language has, of course, terms for intermediate forms of precipitation, such as freezing rain -- precipitation that falls as water and quickly turns to ice. Use them as appropriate. If not appropriate, don't.
Depending on the needs of a culture, its language may have only one or it may have many terms for some thing and its variations. Eskimos, for example, have many different words for various types of snow, whereas English has only one. It's not that English speakers can't refer to various types of snow -- ask any skier. But various qualifiers are used to do so. Examples include granular snow, powder snow, wet snow, and others.
Arabic has many words for different types of camel, but no single word for camels in general. English, on the other hand, has only one.
Horse fanciers, on the other hand, not only have a single word in English for horse in general, but also other words for a specific type of horse, even within a given breed. These terms include stallion, mare, colt, filly, yearling, and gelding.
The point is not that members of a language-culture group cannot conceive of differences and concepts within a given field, but that it's not important or useful to them in their culture.
Benjamin Lee Whorf, an American linguist, ran afoul of that when he found that certain tribes in the American Southwest had no terms for slicing up time. He concluded that they therefore had no concept of time. Yet when these same people switched to English, they can and did use such terms as minute, hour and day. for example.
Even so, they were not locked in to the movements of a clock, much as English speakers are. Hence, they were referred to as "operating on Indian time."
The language has several terms for various forms of precipitation other than rain, including snow, sleet, or hail, all of which are specific types of "frozen water." The words are available. Don't insult the intelligence of the audience by inventing terms needlessly.
The English language has, of course, terms for intermediate forms of precipitation, such as freezing rain -- precipitation that falls as water and quickly turns to ice. Use them as appropriate. If not appropriate, don't.
Depending on the needs of a culture, its language may have only one or it may have many terms for some thing and its variations. Eskimos, for example, have many different words for various types of snow, whereas English has only one. It's not that English speakers can't refer to various types of snow -- ask any skier. But various qualifiers are used to do so. Examples include granular snow, powder snow, wet snow, and others.
Arabic has many words for different types of camel, but no single word for camels in general. English, on the other hand, has only one.
Horse fanciers, on the other hand, not only have a single word in English for horse in general, but also other words for a specific type of horse, even within a given breed. These terms include stallion, mare, colt, filly, yearling, and gelding.
The point is not that members of a language-culture group cannot conceive of differences and concepts within a given field, but that it's not important or useful to them in their culture.
Benjamin Lee Whorf, an American linguist, ran afoul of that when he found that certain tribes in the American Southwest had no terms for slicing up time. He concluded that they therefore had no concept of time. Yet when these same people switched to English, they can and did use such terms as minute, hour and day. for example.
Even so, they were not locked in to the movements of a clock, much as English speakers are. Hence, they were referred to as "operating on Indian time."
Monday, February 10, 2014
The Incredible Shrinking Budget Deficit
There are none so blind as those who will not see.
Politics is not about getting anything done. It's about defeating the other guy.
Revenue is up and spending is down, leading to a $107 billion drop in the federal deficit, says the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.
But will that stop the right-wing ranters from warning that America is collapsing? Doubtful. Despite all data signals, the only thing collapsing is the GOP complaint of misgovernment by a Democratic administration.
The CBO reported that "the federal government ran a budget deficit of $184 billion for the first four months of fiscal year 2014 -- $107 less than the shortfall recorded in the same span last year." From October through January, the CBO said, "Revenues are higher and outlays are lower," and at this pace, the federal government will end fiscal 2014 with a deficit of $514 billion, or 3.0 percent of gross domestic product, down from $680 billion, or 4.1 percent of GDP in fiscal 2013.
Total receipts were up by 8 percent for the first four months of fiscal 2014 (October-January) and total outlays were down by 6 percent.
Meanwhile, the economy grew by 3.2 percent in the fourth quarter, according to a first estimated by the Bureau of Economic Analysis. A second, more complete analysis, is due Feb. 28, the BEA noted.
So the economy is continuing to recover, but this is no time to keep crying wolf and warning of disaster. The real danger is in a self-fulfilling prophecy, sent out for purely political reasons.
Politics is not about getting anything done. It's about defeating the other guy.
Revenue is up and spending is down, leading to a $107 billion drop in the federal deficit, says the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.
But will that stop the right-wing ranters from warning that America is collapsing? Doubtful. Despite all data signals, the only thing collapsing is the GOP complaint of misgovernment by a Democratic administration.
The CBO reported that "the federal government ran a budget deficit of $184 billion for the first four months of fiscal year 2014 -- $107 less than the shortfall recorded in the same span last year." From October through January, the CBO said, "Revenues are higher and outlays are lower," and at this pace, the federal government will end fiscal 2014 with a deficit of $514 billion, or 3.0 percent of gross domestic product, down from $680 billion, or 4.1 percent of GDP in fiscal 2013.
Total receipts were up by 8 percent for the first four months of fiscal 2014 (October-January) and total outlays were down by 6 percent.
Meanwhile, the economy grew by 3.2 percent in the fourth quarter, according to a first estimated by the Bureau of Economic Analysis. A second, more complete analysis, is due Feb. 28, the BEA noted.
So the economy is continuing to recover, but this is no time to keep crying wolf and warning of disaster. The real danger is in a self-fulfilling prophecy, sent out for purely political reasons.
Sunday, February 9, 2014
Rantings
House Speaker John Boehner complains that Congress won't pass any laws because his conservative colleagues can't trust President Barack Obama to enforce the legislation "as it is written."
Wasn't it Republican President Ronald Reagan, hero of the arch-conservatives, who issued "signing statements" as he approved legislation, specifying which sections of the law he would not bother to enforce?
The latest rant from the Party of No is that Obama has become "lawless" because he has bypassed Congress through "executive orders" more often than any other President.
Take a count: As of January 20, Obama has issued 168 executive orders. Reagan, in his two terms, not only openly ignored sections of legislation, but also issued 381 executive orders, more than twice as many as Obama. And Obama's predecessor, George W. Bush, scored 291 executive orders, bypassing Congress. Richard M. Nixon racked up 346 executive orders. Dwight D. Eisenhower, 484. Herbert Hoover, 522. And Calvin Coolidge, 1,203. These numbers were compiled by the American Presidency Project.
So what's this "more than anyone else" nonsense? Obama, a Democrat, has actually issued fewer executive orders than any president -- Republican or Democrat --since William McKinley. Exception: George H.W. Bush, but he served only one term, in which he issued 166 executive orders. And Gerald Ford, another one-term Republican, signed 169 executive orders.
Granted, the all-time leader in racking up executive orders was Franklin D. Roosevelt, during the Great Depression and World War II years. FDR, a Democrat, signed 3,522 executive orders, earning him the accusation that he was trying to set up an "imperial presidency." Since then, however, the number of presidential executive orders has steadily declined.
As to the need for executive orders, Obama said in his State of the Union message that if Congress won't act, he will. As for this Congress, heavily influenced by the Radical Righteous Tea Party crew, it has passed remarkably little legislation of any kind, reminiscent of Harry Truman's rant about a "do nothing" Congress.
By comparison, that session -- in 1947-48 -- was a dynamo, passing 1,729 bills. The current Congress, in its first year, has passed just 58, according to a report in the Los Angeles Times. At this rate, it will be the least productive Congress since then.
Yet Boehner defends the lack of congressional activity and points the blame to Obama. In effect, the GOP leader is saying there's no point in passing laws because conservatives don't trust the President, a Democrat, to enforce them
That didn't seem to bother Republicans when Reagan openly specified which parts of which laws he was going to ignore.
Wasn't it Republican President Ronald Reagan, hero of the arch-conservatives, who issued "signing statements" as he approved legislation, specifying which sections of the law he would not bother to enforce?
The latest rant from the Party of No is that Obama has become "lawless" because he has bypassed Congress through "executive orders" more often than any other President.
Take a count: As of January 20, Obama has issued 168 executive orders. Reagan, in his two terms, not only openly ignored sections of legislation, but also issued 381 executive orders, more than twice as many as Obama. And Obama's predecessor, George W. Bush, scored 291 executive orders, bypassing Congress. Richard M. Nixon racked up 346 executive orders. Dwight D. Eisenhower, 484. Herbert Hoover, 522. And Calvin Coolidge, 1,203. These numbers were compiled by the American Presidency Project.
So what's this "more than anyone else" nonsense? Obama, a Democrat, has actually issued fewer executive orders than any president -- Republican or Democrat --since William McKinley. Exception: George H.W. Bush, but he served only one term, in which he issued 166 executive orders. And Gerald Ford, another one-term Republican, signed 169 executive orders.
Granted, the all-time leader in racking up executive orders was Franklin D. Roosevelt, during the Great Depression and World War II years. FDR, a Democrat, signed 3,522 executive orders, earning him the accusation that he was trying to set up an "imperial presidency." Since then, however, the number of presidential executive orders has steadily declined.
As to the need for executive orders, Obama said in his State of the Union message that if Congress won't act, he will. As for this Congress, heavily influenced by the Radical Righteous Tea Party crew, it has passed remarkably little legislation of any kind, reminiscent of Harry Truman's rant about a "do nothing" Congress.
By comparison, that session -- in 1947-48 -- was a dynamo, passing 1,729 bills. The current Congress, in its first year, has passed just 58, according to a report in the Los Angeles Times. At this rate, it will be the least productive Congress since then.
Yet Boehner defends the lack of congressional activity and points the blame to Obama. In effect, the GOP leader is saying there's no point in passing laws because conservatives don't trust the President, a Democrat, to enforce them
That didn't seem to bother Republicans when Reagan openly specified which parts of which laws he was going to ignore.
Thursday, February 6, 2014
News vs Gossip
The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.
Journalism tells you what you need to know, not just what you want to know. The first is news; the second is gossip.
"Mark Zuckerburg dreams of a day when Facebook's computers would know you and your habits so well that it would deliver exactly the information you want to see -- what he calls 'the best personalized newspaper in the world.'" -- New York Times 4 Feb. 2014.
The techies seem to think that's a great idea, and that Facebook is well on its way to realizing that dream, when computers "know you and your habits so well."
But wait, there's more.
That dream, of corporate and/or government computers knowing you and your habits so well, could quickly become a nightmare -- a Big Brother run amok.
It is not a good thing that computers know individuals so thoroughly that they deliver only the information that person wants to see, hear or read. Nor is it a good thing that computers deliver only the information that government or corporations want people in general to see, hear or read. That's not rational information flow; that's propaganda and market manipulation.
The mission of journalists is to tell the people what they need to know, not just what they want to know. Nor should journalists be willing or even unwitting accomplices in government or corporate attempts to manipulate the information flow to their advantage. This is not to say that government and corporations don't try to manipulate the news media. They do, and far too often succeed.
Increasingly, there are reports of hackers and government "security" agencies (read: spies) hacking into computers with their super dooper scooper snoopers and snatching up all sorts of communications in their paranoid search for possible clues that may lead to potential suspects who might be planning a conspiracy to do harm to someone, sometime, somewhere, somehow.
Note all the qualifiers. The so-called security agencies really don't have a clue. Yet they feed on their own paranoid fear that somewhere, someone, somehow may possibly be doing something.
Journalism tells you what you need to know, not just what you want to know. The first is news; the second is gossip.
"Mark Zuckerburg dreams of a day when Facebook's computers would know you and your habits so well that it would deliver exactly the information you want to see -- what he calls 'the best personalized newspaper in the world.'" -- New York Times 4 Feb. 2014.
The techies seem to think that's a great idea, and that Facebook is well on its way to realizing that dream, when computers "know you and your habits so well."
But wait, there's more.
That dream, of corporate and/or government computers knowing you and your habits so well, could quickly become a nightmare -- a Big Brother run amok.
It is not a good thing that computers know individuals so thoroughly that they deliver only the information that person wants to see, hear or read. Nor is it a good thing that computers deliver only the information that government or corporations want people in general to see, hear or read. That's not rational information flow; that's propaganda and market manipulation.
The mission of journalists is to tell the people what they need to know, not just what they want to know. Nor should journalists be willing or even unwitting accomplices in government or corporate attempts to manipulate the information flow to their advantage. This is not to say that government and corporations don't try to manipulate the news media. They do, and far too often succeed.
Increasingly, there are reports of hackers and government "security" agencies (read: spies) hacking into computers with their super dooper scooper snoopers and snatching up all sorts of communications in their paranoid search for possible clues that may lead to potential suspects who might be planning a conspiracy to do harm to someone, sometime, somewhere, somehow.
Note all the qualifiers. The so-called security agencies really don't have a clue. Yet they feed on their own paranoid fear that somewhere, someone, somehow may possibly be doing something.
Noted in Passing
Donald Trump reportedly wants to be governor of New York. Or rather, say he's willing to be anointed. He's willing to be a candidate, but only if he doesn't have to compete in a primary election or attend a convention.
Can you say arrogant? I knew you could.
Speaking of which, take Justin Bieber -- please, as Henny Youngman would say. The Bieb is an out-of-control teenager (there's another kind?) who just happens to be worth $130 million and doesn't seem to understand why he can't do whatever he wants, whenever and however he wants, simply because he's rich.
Then there are the Christie Critters of New Jersey. Frank Hague, of Jersey City machine politics fame, would be proud. As would the mayors of Atlantic City and Newark.
So? It's New Jersey. You got a problem with that?
Can you say arrogant? I knew you could.
Speaking of which, take Justin Bieber -- please, as Henny Youngman would say. The Bieb is an out-of-control teenager (there's another kind?) who just happens to be worth $130 million and doesn't seem to understand why he can't do whatever he wants, whenever and however he wants, simply because he's rich.
Then there are the Christie Critters of New Jersey. Frank Hague, of Jersey City machine politics fame, would be proud. As would the mayors of Atlantic City and Newark.
So? It's New Jersey. You got a problem with that?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)