Saved Jobs >>

I remember nodding off in calculus back in high school, and for those of you who draw from recent memory, it is the ultimate critical showcase of educational concepts, unrivaled in juvenile whining over the applicability of the stale rubric. I recall a particular class in which we were studying that there can be no such thing as a negative integer square rooted. The problem presented itself like a Rubik's cube I could not resolve in my mind, even after I left school for the summer.

For the life of me I could never see a use in what the teacher called “imaginary numbers” (which in hindsight I doubt that is how the Space Program of any nation refers to them) until I thought about the Obama Administration’s econometrics, and the difficulty of proving a negative, but running on the assumptions you can.

The most glaring example is Obama’s claim to have saved jobs with the Stimulus, rather than pointing to programs that actually create them and the ensuing numbers to prove it. William McGurn of the Wall Street Journal pointed out:

"Of course, the inability to measure Mr. Obama's jobs formula is part of its attraction. Never mind that no one -- not the Labor Department, not the Treasury, not the Bureau of Labor Statistics -- actually measures "jobs saved." As the New York Times delicately reports, Mr. Obama's jobs claims are "based on macroeconomic estimates, not an actual counting of jobs." Nice work if you can get away with it."

Then there is the doomsday cult of Global Warming, where Al Gore essentially promising to save fractions of a degree in the earth’s temperature (which is once again impossible to prove) relying solely on imaginary guess numbers of improvement. Corollary to this, there is the creation of “green jobs,” whatever those are supposed to be. Strangely, men who drive gas-guzzling trucks to send paper to be recycled at river-dumping pulp mills… those guys are considered green laborers. So by that benchmark, working in a cow-fart and aerosol factory could conceivably be green as long as pollutants travel in a circle.

Democrats seek to commandeer our outcry against abortion by promising us a reduction if we warm up to thicker social safety nets, luring us by stating that we give them all of their way on the choice issue and economics front, and in turn we might get some unspecified reduction in lives saved. Liberal social engineers expounded on this theory in the past, suggesting that weeding out undesirables reduces crime and poverty, contradicting their desire to “reduce” abortions. “Warm to all of our plans, and you may get one of yours partially fulfilled.”  Taking principle out of the argument, the trade would be lopsided. To me that sounds like a loser’s terms declared from the Appomattox courthouse. Eastern Europe has staggering abortion statistics and Western Europe has no children. And what is ubiquitous to the two regions is a government built on the model of the welfare state and social safety net. Hence, the leftist promise of reduced abortions is as unsubstantiated as “saved jobs.”

Liberals claim that we have created terrorism by our strong military presence and our establishment of Guantanamo Bay detention centers. All fighting ever does is recruit more enemies, yet it sort of makes you wonder why the Soviets, the Nazis, and others aren’t multiplying like guppies. Oh yeah, because we kicked their butts in both hot and cold wars! The Left promises a reduction in terrorism as a direct consequence of scaling back anti-terrorism measures, yet also seem to forget that Sept 11th, 2001 occurred before the idea of US hegemony became so fearful and Gitmo opened for business. Alright Michael Moore: how much less terrorism would we have without Guantanamo and the Iraq invasion?

Another example of Liberals trying to prove negatives is their supposition that banning handguns will reduce crime altogether, which actually has germinated more crime in London and Washington, DC. Their response to these cases is that crime would be even higher still, if guns were not banned in those areas. Now to me, if that were true, they would probably require martial law in DC. If you could base life off of these “would-be” numbers, then let me hazard how many more lives are saved with firearms annually; it’s larger than gun deaths.

Stop. Now this is the point in the conversation where they introduce Bush, and refuse to acknowledge that the Bush Administration kept us safe for the last 8 years. Oh, wait…I but we DO have metrics: the thwarting of the Fort Dix Plot, the thwarting of 10 transatlantic jetliner bomb plots, the prevention of the Brooklyn Bridge plot, and many others you can view yourself courtesy of the Heritage Foundation:

http://www.heritage.org/research/HomelandDefense/bg2085.cfm

Regardless, as moonbats like Keith Olbermann do, they will react to this news with laughing dismissal, minimizing threats that made their political adversaries appear to be doing a good job in the realm of security. And they must minimize those numbers… even more so than they do current unemployment ticks.

http://www.olbermannwatch.com/archives/2007/05/keith_olbermann_38.php

Saved jobs, carbon reductions, prevented gun violence, avoided terrorism recruitments, and reduced abortions are all nebulous quantities that require faith and whose fluctuations may occur free of the Democratic Party’s proposed solutions. Either way, proving something saved is a little hard out of 300 million people, especially after promising that the Stimulus would cap unemployment at 8% and now it is approaching 10%.

In related news, Alaska Governor Sarah Palin has hammered out a decade-long plan to build a continental pipeline with major petroleum producers. Large energy companies will flow clean natural gas into the US, something which President Clinton should have done in the mid-nineties. This long-term project will bolster the construction and energy industries, and serve to produce jobs here domestically…instead of “saving” them (yuk yuk yuk). I am sure those numbers will be more clearly proven with Exxon’s hiring sheets, standing apart from the statistics that may have happened, as genuine factoids that actually did. >>