Monday, June 18, 2012

Rants Without Pants "Vaginas, Shitty Job Numbers and Shitty Pet Owners"

This week I discuss the GOP's forced transvaginal probing legislation, Representative Brown getting kicked out of the floor for saying the word "Vagina", Wisconsin having the worst job loss in the nation once again and our friend Billy who was a dog we were going to adopt, but his shitty owner claimed him after 8 days missing.  

Wisconsin GOP War on Women -


  1. Okay, let's get the ball rolling on this video! This is Adam's older, conservative brother, Jeremy, with my two cents. It's probably not surprising that I have a different viewpoint. I'm glad that we can have civil disagreements without things getting all the control, though.

    #1. I think what Representative Brown said was completely unprofessional. I understand they were talking about abortion, but she could have gotten her point across in a more respectful way. The entire press corps was acting as though she was banned for saying the word "vagina". No, it's because she went too far. And the point is not that conservatives are interested in her vagina, we're interested in protecting babies. Murdering for convenience is wrong. Period. That goes for all religions.

    #2. After doing some research into various employment and job numbers, it seems that the BLS and QCEW statistics are connected to each other. Here's what's on the Bureau of Labor Statistics website: “Data from the QCEW program serve as an important input to many BLS programs. The QCEW data are used as the benchmark source for employment by the Current Employment Statistics program and the Occupational Employment Statistics program. The UI administrative records collected under the QCEW program serve as a sampling frame for BLS establishment surveys”.

    It seems to me if you have one survey with 3.5% of results and another that has 97%, the more accurate one is the one with the higher percentile rate. In this article: , it says the QCEW is based on job counts, not a survey. It goes on: "That makes it (QCEW) a more reliable source of employment data, state officials and many economists say".

    #3. Last, but certainly not least, we can 100% agree that crappy pet owners are out there, unfortunately… I'm really sorry about Billy and was looking forward to his advice column. He looked like a very loving dog and I know that you treated him like family. Thinking about anyone who abuses animals makes me really angry. You guys did the right thing – the situation just sucks. I don't know if you contacted the humane society about any possible animal cruelty, but here's the website if you want it:

    Take care, bro and talk with you soon! Vacation can't come soon enough…

    Peace out,


  2. Jeremy,

    1. It doesn't matter if you found what Rep. Brown said was offensive or not. That is her time to speak on the floor. When Representatives talk on the floor they are allowed to get passionate and even insult. I can post hundreds of links showing this from both sides. That's kind of how "being on the floor" works. I personally don't find anything she said to be disrespectful at all, but that's the difference between you and me...but the point is, the precendent isn't there for her to get barred from having a voice.

    2. Jeremy, The BLS takes those QCEW numbers and filters it and reviews it to make sure they are accurate. They could very well not be. Also, the BLS is simply the standard that everyone goes by. It seems to me, the Governor you supported didn't like what the BLS numbers were saying, so he used these other set of numbers that NO ONE USES...EVER!

    3. Yes, we are looking at getting another dog ASAP!

    Thanks Bro!

  3. I know you say that the BLS data is what “everyone” goes by, but in doing further research, I couldn’t find anything to support your statement. If anything, I found more evidence similar to what the Journal Sentinel article in my previous e-mail said ( “The QCEW data are used as the benchmark source for employment by the Current Employment Statistics program and the Occupational Employment Statistics program. The UI administrative records collected under the QCEW program serve as a sampling frame for BLS establishment surveys”).

    Here are 2 more examples that I found that discuss the QCEW:


    “…we won’t find out the real employment figures until this September. Why? The Bureau of Labor Statistics’ monthly payroll numbers are based on a survey of only about a third of workers, which is why there’s a significant sampling error each month, explains Joel Prakken, senior managing director of Macroeconomic Advisers. More comprehensive data come from the Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW), provided by state employment programs and covering about 98 percent of workers. The problem is, it takes six months for the data to be collected and released, and the BLS only revises the jobs data one time, at the end of the year.”


    Even the Bureau Of Labor Statistics (BLS) says “As the most complete universe of monthly employment and quarterly wages information by industry and geographical regions, QCEW data are used in evaluating labor trends and major industry developments, conducting time-series analyses and industry comparisons, and conducting special studies such as analysis of wages by size of firm.”

    Take care!


  4. Regarding the other two issues:

    #1. You’re right, both Republicans and Democrats can say just about anything they want to when they have the floor. I know that includes insults, accusations, and being patronizing; I just don’t like it from either party.

    #2. I’m glad you’re looking into getting a dog. You could call her “Trouble, the 2nd”!

    Talk you soon,


  5. The BLS numbers ARE what everyone goes by. I followed these numbers for years way before we started having these conversations. I would check them out monthly. It's absolutely true. That is what EVERYBODY goes by in the whole nation. It's weird that you aren't finding anything on that, but it is absolutely true.

  6. I agree, that is weird! Again, if you can find anything to the contrary, please let me know. Otherwise, from my research and based on the articles, studies, and the Bureau Of Labor Statistics website, I'm going with the QCEW…

  7. I'm busy at work and actually writing my next Rant, but I'll try to find something to shoot your way as long as it's quick. Also, you can go by any numbers you choose, it's really up to you. But I can tell you, that is NOT what every other State goes by and what the Federal government goes by. I absolutely know that to be a fact.

  8. From Wikipedia: Notice how it says PRINCIPAL meaning 1. First, highest, or foremost in importance, rank, worth or degree.

    The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) is a unit of the United States Department of Labor. It is the principal fact-finding agency for the U.S. government in the broad field of labor economics and statistics.

  9. From Wikipedia:

    The Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (fka ES-202) is the name of the QCEW program. QCEW is a program of the Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor. ES-202 is the old name and stood for Employment Security Report 202.

  10. I'm not sure of your point. Why do you think it's a big deal when the monthly BLS numbers come out? It's always in the papers on where we stand. If you read the jsonline, they report it every month and discuss them.

  11. The point is when Walker used the QCEW numbers instead of the BLS Current Employment Survey numbers to show job growth, not job loss, it seemed that liberals were upset (

    Maybe you and I are saying the same thing? From the research and all of the websites I mentioned in my comments above, the QCEW is a better, more accurate, more comprehensive tool for jobs data and not the Current Employment Survey. Both reports are under the BLS umbrella, but one report is a monthly survey based on a sample of 3.5% of the state's employers and the other is a quarterly Census from 97% of the state's employers. The Bureau of Labor Statistics uses the quarterly census data to make revisions to the monthly survey data in order to retroactively clean up the inaccuracies that stem from extrapolation. It's a census as opposed to just a sample and from everything I've read, economists say it's much more reliable.

    It's just unfair to say that the QCEW numbers that Walker released were inaccurate and that the survey data showing job loss were correct.


  12. Jeremy,

    The numbers Walker released weren't at all officially confirmed by the BLS. That's the point. He rushed out these numbers and no one knows if they are accurate or not. He did it to confuse people before the election...I happen to find that sleazy. It's up to the BLS to actually examine and filter these numbers to make sure they are accurate. He didn't wait for that at all.

  13. Then that should be a rule enforced by the BLS. However, according to the article, “The early release amounts to a rare action that breaches tradition, but doesn't violate any agreements between the bureau and the state, officials at the U.S. agency said Tuesday."

    And if these new, more accurate numbers showed a drastically different picture, voters had a right to know that before they cast their ballots.


  14. Yes, the State can release the numbers, but the BLS still didn't officially confirm it. They could have been any numbers and the BLS would have said, "yeah, sure go ahead, we still need to confirm those numbers". That's what I'm saying. The voters deserved to have the correct information that's from a legitimate source and not just from the Walker camp. Those are the numbers he released.

  15. Also, the numbers he released are still not very good at all.

  16. It's confirmed that Walker was telling the truth:

    I'm not debating if the actual numbers are great in the grand scheme of things – the point was he was allowed to release the QCEW numbers which showed something drastically different than the employment survey and voters needed to know the correct numbers prior to the recall election.

    I feel like we've kind of exhausted this topic, so I don't plan on replying unless you have new news regarding the situation. I'm not upset, I just don't have anything else to add to the above several comments. Besides, I've been having dreams of spreadsheets, graphs, and data sets…

    Talk with you later – have a good evening!


  17. I agree, we're getting a bit exhausted. My point is, at the time, they weren't the QCEW final numbers because they weren't filtered form the BLS and the BLS would not confirm the numbers before the election, so we had NO idea if they were real numbers or not.

    It's looking like BLS confirmed mostly, at least according to your 620 link, the point is that the numbers still suck.

    Anyway, that's all I got as well.

    See ya later,