The greatest danger to the future of our democracy is that too many people are unable to differentiate between what is fact and what is fiction and too few care.

Although I certainly agree that academic achievement needs to be improved in our country, no job in our educational system  is more important than ensuring that our citizens can  evaluate critically the information they receive.

Perhaps you have followed the Kyl/Colbert saga which prompted this post. Senator Jon Kyl declared in a speech in the US Senate that 90% of Planned Parenthood’s budget goes to abortions. He was more than slightly off the mark:  the percentage is only 3%, and his office said that  his comment was “not intended to be a factual statement.”   The comedian Stephen Colbert responded with a twitter campaign that mocked Kyl’s behavior and drew attention to the lack of fact-based discussion which has become all too common.

Regardless of how we may feel about the abortion issue, it is scary to see that our elected officials (and too many others) simply don’t care about basing their arguments on facts.  We will never all agree on all topics, but let’s base our disagreements on FACT rather than on FICTION.  If we do not, we risk domination by demagoguery.

I’d really like to upload the unemployment stats I promised in excel, but the following message still appears on the Bureau of Labor Statistics site and prevents exporting….“The database from the Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey program is currently unavailable. The data will be available as soon as possible. (When this database is not available, it is usually because we are in the process of updating it.)”

In the meantime, here is a link to the page which includes both a graph and a chart that clearly show unemployment trends from January 2000 through December 2010. In addition, I have uploaded a screen shot of the chart which appears at the bottom of this post.

The very short version: In December 2010, unemployment was 9.4%; in December 2007, 5.0%. So…..the chart documents what you were already quite sure was the case….. We’re not “there” yet–We’re not even close.

Here is a screen shot of the chart Unemployment stats from dept of labor stats 011711

Well… after I wrote last night about my frustration with news media reporting only part of a story, my local paper, The Oregonian, ran a wonderful story today by Laura Gunderson describing the success of a local retailer, Kitchen Kaboodle.

According to the story, someone (unnamed in the story) in the company had the idea of being open only on days that are traditionally profitable. Changing the days open plus lowering prices, according to the story, has allowed Kitchen Kaboodle to return to profitability.

The story about Kitchen Kaboodle is one of those unusual circumstances in which the entire story can be told–well, in which the company actually wants to share both the revenue and profit side of the story. Their problems are widely known locally, so it’s helpful for them to share all.

Besides, everyone likes a good turnaround story.

In an article yesterday on The Huffington Post, Abby Wendle reported that retail sales increased for the 6th straight month.

This is good news, but how good is it? How do the sales of the most recent 6 months compare with the same months in 2006, 7, 8?

I don’t have the answer to that question, but tomorrow in my blog I will ask the same question about unemployment statistics. For that question I do have the answer.

One of my pet reporting peeves is a story that omits critical information (facts) that would allow the reader (me) to draw some conclusions about the significance of the story.

On several occasions, my local paper, The Oregonian, has reported the remarkable increase in revenues for some local company but has failed to include what is happening to the bottom line. In several instances, companies that have touted their revenue increases in the press have failed not long after.

The New York Times has posted an on-line, do-it-yourself national deficit-reduction calculator. All voters should be required to use it to develop debt reduction scenarios. It provides a list of major deficit reducing strategies, and readers can play with it to see what combination of alternatives delivers the desired result. It’s both enlightening and fun.

Click here to use it.

I am watching with interest the controversy swirling around the proposed appointments of Leon Panetta and Sanjay Gupta. Although I do not have enough information to know whether either man is actually right for his proposed job, one thing I know with certainty is that when a dramatic turnaround is needed, that turnaround is almost always best achieved by bringing in a new, effective leader from outside the organization.

In my experience, people within the organization who are capable, competent, and eager for constructive change will welcome and support the efforts of the new leader; those who are not, will not. A strong leader, with the support of the entity’s board of directors can deal with both effectively.

Of course, implementing change within the federal bureaucracy is incredibly challenging. (For a humorous but insightful take on this topic, read Locked in the Cabinet, by Robert Reich.)