Proofiness: Using Numbers to Fool People and Shape Political Debate

This is a "truthy" article. It is an article of faith on the Left that Joe McCarthy lied. McCarthy never claimed to have a list of 205 Communists. He claimed to have--and had--a list of 205 persons who were security risks in the State Department, people who should not have received the security clearances they received.

The 57 were people with ties to the Communist Party--not necessarily members. And McCarthy said as much, on both occasions. But it is almost a religious cause to discredit, and to continue to discredit, McCarthy. McCarthy's great error was to go public in such a sensational way with information that was accurate but which was based on sources that the FBI was not prepared to compromise.

In 1995, the Venona files were declassified and released. They showed the information on which McCarthy had relied. The FBI had been intercepting the communications of the KGB for several years, and McCarthy knew the names of a number of persons who were either wittingly or unwittingly serving the Soviet Union.

From Alger Hiss to Annie Lee Moss, the list of persons who were exposed as Communists or working for the Communists was stunningly accurate.

Ms. Clift has unwittingly proven the underlying thesis of the article in a manner not intended.

Eleanor Clift has long been leaning over the edge of the Radical Left. She lost me as soon as she wrote:

He looks at the ongoing battle over the census and conservatives' suspicion of sampling and databases, which he argues are more accurate but tend to increase minority representation, hence the Right's reluctance.

The Right has no problem with ethnic minorities. That is the lie of the Leftist Progressives who DO have a problem with them - and keep them on welfare, suffering through little or no real education, and do their best to break up their homes by paying mothers not to have husbands.

Eleanore, go to the theological place of eternal punishment. You will find Infanticide Obama and Baby Killer Hillary there too.

You don't need a crystal ball to figure out which side of the aisle most of the commentors fall on. If you are arguing with someone and they start throwing stats at you, be immediately suspicious. It means they have no facts to hit you with. No one uses stats that undercut their position and 'numbers' can be pulled from almost anywhere to support or put down almost any position. Look at the illegal immigration issue. The public has been pumped so full of outdated and misleading info about the numbers of actual illegals here and the true impact of unchecked "immigration" that almost no one understands what is really happening. Choosing which stats to use and which ones to avoid is far more important than any factual information.

back in the mid-1950s, a guy named darrell huff wrote a book called "how to lie with statistics." and everyone has been doing it ever since - of course they were doing it before as well, just that no one noticed.

I have a small paperback called "How To Lie With Statistics", which I bought back in the 70s while in a college probability & statistics class. Media treatment of presidential candidate John Anderson is a good example. A major "timely" news magazine used face-on images of horses in the Kentucky Derby to indicate the relative popularity of Carter, Reagan, & Anderson. The distortion came in using a 2-dimensional image for each, when the measure of popularity was in one dimension only - height of the racing horse. So, Carter & Reagan appeared to have massive leads over Anderson, which, when one looked at the plain percentages, was not so. I canceled my subscription to that mag the next week.

This article is full of inaccuracies. We didn't invade Iraq on "truthiness;" all the internal reports Saddam was receiving were telling him he had a deadly WMD arsenal ready to go, because his subordinates feared punishment and lied about it. McCarthy did come up with names, although not always on demand, and persistent historical inquiry has revealed that many of them did in fact have links to Communism (although his misuse of this information for his own political gain is not forgivable).

This is in response to ettu comment :"However, if you divide the actual dollar amount by the number of government workers, you will find that the average pay and benefits per government worker far outpaces that of the private sector." This simply refects the fact that the private sector pay and benifits hasn't been keeping pace. Private sector pay and benifits has been flat and in some cases has declined when compaired to 30 years ago. government workers pay seems higher because it has kept pace with cost of living and inflation over that same time period.

ettu...As a former Civil Servant (health care) some things you should be aware of...I worked in a field where 7 out of 10 people didn't stay for the probation period of 1 year. My salary was $2,700 under the Federal poverty limit for a family of 4, and as a result most civil servants are required to work a second job to reach the "Average" salary you speak off. The pension I "Earned" as part of a package was to offset the paltry wages paid for a job very few wanted. Now the economy is where the GOP wants it to be with all the good paying jobs and benefits shipped overseas. The people of America are being forced to work for minimum wages and no benefits. In a good economy no one cared to work as a Civil Servant. Ironic, don't you think. The bad guys are those who served??? Similarly our Military has always been used then abused by the system they too serve. Please do your homework before drinking the kool aid.

Yes, numbers can decieve, especially when they are presented as a percentage. Take, for instance, the percentage always given for those living below the poverty level. The African American population always are shown as having the greatest "percentage" of poor, simply because their 9 million poor are a greater percentage of their total population. However, if you take a head count, you will find there are 23 million whites living below poverty level, compared to the 9 million of blacks. The same with the pay, pensions, and benefits of government workers. As a percentage of GDP, this number looks minimal. However, if you divide the actual dollar amount by the number of government workers, you will find that the average pay and benefits per government worker far outpaces that of the private sector. Does anyone feel like they are getting bang for their tax dollars? Not me.