October 09, 2006
Whoops...
I always feel a bit redundant, posting something that Glenn Reynolds has posted. But this is too peasant to pass up. From WSJ:
The Labor Department released its September jobs report on Friday, and some wags are calling it the "whoops" report. The "whoops" is a reference to the upward revision of 810,000 previously undetected jobs that Labor now says were created in the U.S. economy in the 12 months through March 2006.
So instead of 5.8 million new jobs over the past three years, the U.S. economy has created 6.6 million. That's a lot more than a rounding error, more than the number of workers in the entire state of New Hampshire. What's going on here?
Our hypothesis has been that, due to the changing nature of the U.S. economy, the Labor Department's business establishment survey has been undercounting job creation from small businesses and self-employed entrepreneurs. That job growth has been better captured in Labor's companion household survey, which reported 271,000 new jobs in September after 250,000 new jobs in August, and a very healthy total of 2.54 million new jobs in the past year...
...Most of the media has ignored all this and instead focused on the disappointing 51,000 "new jobs" number from the establishment survey for September. But even in that survey, the jobs number for August was revised upward by 62,000 and the U.S. jobs machine continues to roll out an average of about 150,000 additional hires each month. Even the loss of residential construction jobs in September, due to the housing market slowdown, was nearly matched by payroll gains in commercial construction.
This boom in employment started in August of 2003, roughly coincident with the economy's growth acceleration in the wake of the Bush Administration's 2003 tax cuts on dividends, capital gains and in the top marginal income rate on the highest earners. Yet on the same day that the Labor Department discovered 810,000 new jobs, Nancy Pelosi promised that if she becomes Madam Speaker next year, within 100 hours of taking the gavel the House will vote to repeal those tax cuts and raise the minimum wage....
If you love the poor, vote Democrat. They promise to preserve the poor, as a national resource.
John Weidner writes: "The profession of academic history has become a leftist racket rewarding anyone who can make the United States look bad, and discredit our ideals of freedom and democracy. And I hate the thought of contributing to that vile enterprise in even small ways."
You have insulted my profession and then used my research throughout your summary of the history of the Signal Corps women in WWI. You do NOT identify your source, except to refer to my work through an anonymous link.
You also knowingly violate the objective account of this history by falsely maintaining that the Army's denial of their status AFTER the war was due to the emergency when they were SWORN IN. This implies that these women fought for sixty years to be recognized for something they were NOT -- the first women veterans of the U.S. Army -- and as the daughter of one of them -- and the researcher of this history before they were recognized in 1978 and ever since, I find this insulting to their integrity.
Do you understand "integrity" when you have violated my copyright and used as the first photo on youy page my copyright photo? http://www.randomjottings.net/archives/cat_us_in_wwi.html
I want my material removed from this site -- NOW. You are breaking the law and I will enforce my copyright. This is your second warning. Oct. 9, 2006
Michelle Christides
Posted by: Michelle Christides at October 9, 2006 08:53 AMAs your email address is not on this new site location and I cannot write return receipt requested, I am posting this today, Oct. 9, 2006, my second warning to John Weidner:
John Weidner writes: "The profession of academic history has become a leftist racket rewarding anyone who can make the United States look bad, and discredit our ideals of freedom and democracy. And I hate the thought of contributing to that vile enterprise in even small ways."
You have insulted my profession and then used my research throughout your summary of the history of the Signal Corps women in WWI. You do NOT identify your source, except to refer to my work through an anonymous link.
You also knowingly violate the objective account of this history by falsely maintaining that the Army's denial of their status AFTER the war was due to the emergency when they were SWORN IN. This implies that these women fought for sixty years to be recognized for something they were NOT -- the first women veterans of the U.S. Army -- and as the daughter of one of them -- and the researcher of this history before they were recognized in 1978 and ever since, I find this insulting to their integrity.
Do you understand "integrity" when you have violated my copyright and used as the first photo on youy page my copyright photo? http://www.randomjottings.net/archives/cat_us_in_wwi.html
I want my material removed from this site -- NOW. You are breaking the law and I will enforce my copyright. This is your second warning. Oct. 9, 2006
Michelle Christides
Posted by: Michelle Christides at October 9, 2006 09:00 AMI'm trying to follow this...so you're insulted - cool, gotcha on that. Then you complain that he doesn't cite you, except for his...er...well, his citation of you. OK...and then are you saying he plagiarized your text? Because if you're objecting to him having read your work and summarized it in an post that linked to your website, then I suspect you don't really understand how intellectual property stuff works...
And then he's using a copyrighted picture of yours. Do you actually hold the copyright to a photo that was taken about 90 years ago? Very well could be, but pardon me if I'm a touch skeptical...
Well, this ain't my place to stick my nose in, so John please feel free to delete this comment...just seems to me that the idea of a scholar demanding folks not reference their work is a bit...well, a bit suspicious.
You also knowingly violate the objective account of this history by falsely maintaining that the Army's denial of their status AFTER the war was due to the emergency when they were SWORN IN. This implies that these women fought for sixty years to be recognized for something they were NOT -- the first women veterans of the U.S. Army -- and as the daughter of one of them -- and the researcher of this history before they were recognized in 1978 and ever since, I find this insulting to their integrity.
Er...are you reading the same post I'm reading? Because John never says what you say he says...
John wrote, Unfortunately, when the women returned home, and applied for their Victory Medals, they were told they had never been in the Army at all, since Army regulations only referred to men being sworn in! Ironically, Navy regs referred to "persons," so Navy "Yoemanettes," who served in the US, were veterans, while the Signal Corps women who served in France were not.
Some of the gals pursued this matter for many years, led by Merle Egan Anderson of Seattle, and finally in 1977, each of the 70 surviving operators was visited by a general of the US Army and presented with their honorable discharges!
From his post, it's obvious he greatly admires the bravery and sacrifice of these women, and believes they were deserving of the honors denied (and later received). I think someone all puffed up with indignation at supposedly being misquoted ought to pay a little closer attention to her own quotational skilz...
Posted by: Ethan Hahn at October 9, 2006 09:54 AMMichelle Christides Wrote: As your email address is not on this new site location and I cannot write return receipt requested, I am posting this today, Oct. 9, 2006, my second warning to John Weidner
Ms. Christides,
His email adress is on this website. Please endeavour to look for it.
Thank you.
Posted by: RobW at October 9, 2006 10:25 AMThe post would not delete when I used the Delete Command. But I've remove the images from my server...
My e-mail address is on the sidebar on the left, just above the Search Box.
Posted by: John Weidner at October 9, 2006 10:35 AMNOW that post is deleted, thanks to some help from Kathy K.
My coment about academic historians remains patently true. As any academic historian will discover if they try to publish the conclusion that an American war was a noble enterprise that advanced the cause of freedom. Or that the Founding Fathers, and other such dead white men, were far-seeing respect-worthy idealists who laid the foundations for the freedom we enjoy now, including that of women and minorities...
I recently read a comment by an academic historian, who said that to get ahead in his area, the time of the American Revolution, you HAD to focus on slavery!
Well, we've seen real life proof of the open-mindedness of academic historians...wow. I'm absolutely astonished here...
And given her inability to read the words you actually wrote, I certainly would regard her research as utterly unreliable anyway...
She sounded like a hysterical freak, not a scholar. Yay feminism.
Posted by: Andrea Harris at October 9, 2006 06:23 PM
