Perhaps the President will "evolve" on this issue, too.

I'm thinking he just wanted to meet cool people and have lunch with them. You know, people who would fawn all over him for being an exotic foreigner instead of a filthy American!

I wish we could put a stake through the heart of this awful song so that we might never have to hear its jejune sentiments again!

Not only do I fully support this sentiment, I give you many points for the use of the word "jejune."

The article keeps referring to Weston's "affluence." I'm not sure how much of a factor that is.

I live in a city about that same size, although rather than a suburb of a larger city, we're the largest thing in this quadrant of the state, so I'm not sure we can pull it off.

Though after hearing yesterday about a huge gazillion-dollar development project in our city's downtown, and wondering how much of the bill I'm going to be stuck with, my reaction today is "I'm certainly willing to try."

I have some lefty associates who live in Illinois, and they seem more angry with Scott Walker than anyone I know who lives in Wisconsin.

Continued from the link above:

Remember, we are counting two different things – two way-different things.  Before any seasonal adjustments, there were 144,500 more people who said they were working (labor force table) in March of 2012 than the number of jobs the establishments (CES table) reported.  That in itself seems unlikely.

But after seasonal adjustments, that gap shrinks to 126,100; two different adjustment factors are being used for seasonality.   How does that work?  Does spring come earlier for people working than to the establishments they work at? 

And here is a fine blogger explaining the discrepancy.

. . . no one outside of BLS really understands how data is adjusted for seasonality. 
When the economy is moving, little wobbles in seasonal adjustment method were insignificant, but now that we have been basically stagnant for three years, fluctuations in seasonal adjustments suddenly become very important . . .    

How relevant?  In March of 2012, the results of labor force survey were “seasonally adjusted” to add 15,100 people to Wisconsin’s labor force, reduce the number of unemployed by 22,100 and increased the number employed by 37,200. . . .

“Hello, this the BLS, are you employed?” 
“No, I’m not.” 
“I’m adjusting you to yes.” 
“But I’m not employed!” 
“You are now.” 
“Why?” 
“Because it’s March.” 
“Oh.” 

This year’s adjustment is big, but last year’s was even bigger - BLS March 2011 seasonal adjustment increased the number of employed by 51,600.  So Wisconsin “lost” 14,400 “jobs” year to year just in the difference of seasonal adjustments to the labor force survey. And if that is not confusing enough, different adjustment factors were used to adjust the CES totals than were used to adjust labor force data.  Advil, please.    

Aw, y'know, thanks for posting this. I was watching this vid a couple days ago, and thinking I should post it here to Ricochet. And I've just been too busy to do anything more than drive-by snark.

When the original numbers were released, the Barrett campaign seized on them as a reason Scott Walker had to go. (Not a word about collective bargaining. I thought that was why he had to go. Hmmm . . . why are Democrats avoiding the very issue they insist was the reason for the recall?)

The video above tells a more complete story.

The trick seems to be in "seasonal adjustments" from year to year. Though I'm not sure what you need to adjust from March 2011 to March 2012, since they're the same season, but that's how the BLS does it.

I'm more worried that Bo will be dinner.
.

.

.

.

Aw, yeah, that was a cheap shot. And I'm not above it after all.

I'm totally getting in on one of these. But I'm afraid I will be revealed to be a fraud.

His followers are nuts. That's the only explanation.

Things are only going to get nuttier as we approach November.

On the plus side, such nuttiness is going to be a turn-off for the average voter.

I posted about this on another website I frequent, and the immediate response was that probably some GOP operatives hacked into the White House website, and put all that stuff about Obama in there just to embarrass the president.

I kid you not.

Obama has become a religion.

Part of me thinks that even journalists are probably suffering from the Obama-economy.

And then the other part of me realizes that even a jobless journalist would still vote for Obama. And Dana Milbank? Dana Milbank is not a Romney voter.

Obama's got the Journo-vote wrapped up.

My original response was bemused mockery of the President's narcissism. But upon reflection, I'm disgusted by the gross misuse of the White House website for election-year politicking.

I hope that after Obama is gone, the incoming White House staff (or whoever manages the website) will remove this politicization of these presidential biographies.

So I can see the stars, of course. (And aurora borealis if there is any.)

Mockery moves at Internet-speed!

http://obamainhistory.com/