Knockout criminal gets his due.

Let's do this again, blowhard nobody:

Hey little lightweight and loudmouth, cite the post I'm "too stupid to remember and too arrogant to understand."

As you were Bloggs, you can go back to your window licking, nose and ass picking..!

Sorry if we disturbed you.

Jamie

Projecting again, senile and burned out old invalid?

Aug 2013, NOT seasonally adjusted: Lansing, MI: 11% East Lansing, MI: 9.3%

Please note that in 1934, at the height of the Great Depression, the highest official unemployment rate was about 21%. A 30% official unemployment would be a local or national disaster.

Now, if you mean the "real" unemployment rate, that's about 5% higher than the official BLS numbers, because the rules have changed over time for dealing with under-employment (involuntary part time jobs), those that have given up looking for a job, those that simply don't want to work, partially retired, students, and returning military.

Another estimate is based on the number of individual federal tax returns filed in 2012 versus the population:

144 million tax returns. For age 18 and above, the population is about 0.75 * 311 million = 233 million. That's 62% participation, or a possible 38% unemployment. The real numbers are probably somehere in between the BLS numbers and my tax return based guess.

--
Jeff Liebermann     jeffl@cruzio.com 
150 Felker St #D    http://www.LearnByDestroying.com 
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com 
Skype: JeffLiebermann     AE6KS    831-336-2558

Tell us again, liar, about Lansing's 30% unemployment. What a frapppin' loser!

.

We know the actual unemployment is significantly higher than government est imates, and it does not mean jobless, it also encompasses employment that p ays less than the poverty level income. My original statement was " Michiga n hell-hole with 30% unemployment/poverty rate." All the dead factory citie s in the state are a disaster: Flint, Pontiac, Detroit, Lansing, and all th ose crummy little satellite suburban cities around them. Michigan's heyday has come and gone and they're not getting it back. The only metro area in M ichigan that is still viable is Ann Arbor (U of M) and this correlates with Michigan "ranks third or fourth in overall Research & development (R&D) e xpenditures in the U.S." I'm not even going to get into the long term envir onmental pollution and cancer epidemics ( Detroit area and all the Great La kes are drowning in dioxin and PCB pollution that is un-fixable.), or the b loated and super mismanaged spendthrift and wasteful state and local govern ments, and inordinately high tax rates. The people are voting with their fe et obviously, because they're leaving at the first opportunity.

Hey little lightweight and loudmouth, cite the post I'm "too stupid to remember and too arrogant to understand."

inordinately

That's nice, but your 30% unemployment figure is still wildly inaccurate. Restating it wrapped in exaggerated and marginally relevant accusations does not make it correct.

For example, the cancer incidence and mortality rates for Michigan can be found at: Looking at 1985 to 2010: the age adjusted incidence of new cases for MI seems to be about 5% higher than the national average, which is hardly a cancer epidemic, and possibly within the national incidence bell curve.

Dioxin cleanup in the city of Midland is blundering along slowly, but appears to be possible. For example, from Feb 2012: Digging, I couldn't find any evidence of wide spread contamination over the state or adjacent lakes. Most of it seems concentrated around the Dow plant in Midland and a 3 mile stretch of the Tittabawassee River.

As for the exodus from Michigan, it has more to do with the weather than the local economics and taxes:

175,000 left, while 134,000 moved in for a net loss of 41,000 in 2012. That's hardly a mass migration. Notice that most of leaving are moving to Florida, which should be a clue about the weather. On my paved dirt road, there are 20 houses. In the 1980's, about half the houses on the road were rented by immigrants from Michigan, locally called the "Michigander". After getting an education and experience in high tech, some of the younger couples moved back to Michigan because the cost of housing in Michigan is much less than in California. You can easily find statistics like "900,000 left the area between 2007-2009" which usually fail to mention that a slightly lesser number moved to Michigan during the same period. Try not to make the same mistake.

I don't have the time or interest to debunk your other claims and exaggerations. I prefer to concentrate on your inaccurate 30% unemployment statistic. Unless you can find some substantiations for that figure, I think you will find it best to simply retract the claim and substitute it with a defensible figure.

--
Jeff Liebermann     jeffl@cruzio.com 
150 Felker St #D    http://www.LearnByDestroying.com 
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com 
Skype: JeffLiebermann     AE6KS    831-336-2558

If government stats on unemployment have been fudged, guess which politician in charge bears responsibility? So rage on lefties, that there are actually many more people unemployed that the official figures claim, because the blame for such lies about the numbers go right back to your hero. When you rage that the actual unemplyment numbers are much higher than the government reports show, who are you blaming?? In point of fact, if the official numbers say 10% and the actual is 30%, then the deception is so severe that the politician responsible for that should be fired. Which politician would you lefties blame if actual unemployment somewhere was 30% but the official government numbers say 10%? How could you possibly blame conservatives if the government is telling lies about the percentage of unemplyment in Lansing? Personally, I think that one of you lefties was just talking out of your backside and for hyperbole sake tripled the numbers. I think "bloggs" just exaggerated. But if you lefties want to blame the politician in charge for telling lies, that's OK with me. Haven't ANY of you lefties seen fit to reign in one of your own for dramatic exaggeration of the numbers?

On Tue, 7 Jan 2014 09:23:37 -0800 (PST), Greegor Gave us:

Rain falling water

Rein strap

Reign king's rule

You were off by one.

Sorry to reign on your parade. :-)

You constantly demonstrate that even a "lightweight" like me has you wrapped around his finger. What a dumbass loser, Bloggs!

inordinately

What? Your messiah lies? Wow! So you're saying that he lies by

400%? You really are a dumbshit loser.

That's wrong, they're a full 16% higher than the national average.

Do you even know exactly what epidemic means?

That's just more show of ignorance and has to do with pollution extremes th at people can't escape, it has nothing to do with contamination levels pres ent that people can avoid.

The people who move in don't last long and they're moving there because the y don't know how bad it is. The housing prices are a bargain because they c an't sell. The statewide real estate market has been in deep recession sinc e 2000, that they admit to. Your personal anecdotes don't mean much and jus t exactly what does living on a dirt road have to do with anything.

Okay, you really blew it when you "certify" your conclusions on the basis o f a failure to intelligently search the data sources.

It would be helpful if you used the correct link. Try: For an age adjusted list by stat of all invasive cancers: The US national rate is 430.5 cases per 100,000. Michigan is at 469.0 cases per 100,000 or 9% higher. By comparison, the worst state seems to be Kentucky at 501.6 cases per 100,000 or

16.5% higher. 17 states are below the national average and 33 are above. 10 states have a higher incidence than Michigan. I generated this map from the data:

Sorry, bad choice of terms. There's no known transmission vector for cancer and toxic exposure doesn't qualify. I stand corrected.

Yes, I'm ignorant of what happens in Michigan. All I know about the Dioxin cleanup efforts in Midland MI is what I have read. Offhand, it seems to be more of a legal battle than an ecological cleanup exercise. Dow also seems to be delaying any action on their part until the courts have clearly assigned the blame to Dow. I also note that it is not a state wide problem and seems to be concentrated around Midland. If you have information to the contrary, I would be interested.

Numbers please? If you're going to continue making generalizations that can be demonstrated by commonly available online demographic statistics, it would be helpful if you would substantiate those generalizations. What you say may be true, but I prefer to see the numbers and decide for myself if it's really a problem.

True. It thought it might improve an otherwise dull and boring discussion. I'll try to be more academically perfect in the future so that you won't be distracted by my anecdotes and colorful descriptions.

Excuse me, but it was you that failed to provide any sources or calculations for your 30% unemployment figure. Despite interesting diversion into adjacent topics (cancer, real estate, emigration), my only reason for writing this rant is to request that you either substantiate and retract your 30% figure. The validity and accuracy of these diversions also has no impact on the central question of the

30% unemployment figure.

Also, I'm not qualified to certify anything. Neither are you. What I do when I provide links to online data is allow readers to look at the reference material that I used to draw my conclusions and generate my numbers. I'm not a believer in proof by authority or assertion and find it useful to check sources. Granted, many sources are potentially inaccurate or intentionally tweaked, such as the Burro of Labor Statistics unemployment figures, but they're the best we have to work with. The numbers are probably good enough to use as a basis of comparison if they are tweaked equally by state.

I cited my source for the 9.3 and 11% unemployment in East Lansing and Lansing, Michigan. If you find that this somehow constitutes a "failure to intelligently search the data sources", I would be interested in seeing your data sources that show numbers closer to your alleged 30% unemployment rate. Otherwise, I would like to see a retraction.

--
Jeff Liebermann     jeffl@cruzio.com 
150 Felker St #D    http://www.LearnByDestroying.com 
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com 
Skype: JeffLiebermann     AE6KS    831-336-2558

I'm about fed up with your simple-mindedness. Here's an excerpt from a stat e government website:

"Did you know that Michigan has over 11,000 lakes, streams, and rivers, as well as the longest freshwater coastline in the United States? Because of t his, Michiganders are lucky that we're never far from a great fishing hole.

Unfortunately, though, some of those fishing holes have been polluted with chemicals - including PCBs, dioxins, and mercury*. Over the years, these to xic chemicals on the bottoms of lakes and rivers can build up in fish. You can learn how this happens by clicking the link on the right called "How do chemicals end up in fish?"

Although fish are a healthful food choice, it's important that you know wha t could possibly be in your fish. When you eat fish that have chemicals in them, the chemicals can build up in your body, too.

You can keep this from happening by choosing to eat fish that are lower in chemicals. The Eat Safe Fish in Michigan brochure, the Eat Safe Fish Guide, and the Statewide Safe Fish Guidelines can help you choose safer fish to e at."

Then check this out:

Now if you can't figure this out on your own, see your health care provider .

Once again, you mean known by you: This one has been famous for about 40 years now, a viral cancer causing vector:

Good. I have your attention.

That's from this web site: Please include your sources when quoting.

Yep, if you have 11,000 lakes and puddles, you're going to collect runoff. We have the same problem locally, where the water becomes problematic after the first rain, due to the animal dropping, garden chemicals, construction runoff, and other junk that washes into the rivers. It tends to be rather concentrated just after the initial rain, but dilutes out later.

Nice. Apparently bottom feeders are not good eating in Michigan.

Most such advisories are inspired by litigation, not public safety. Most states have their own versions. This is California's: If you get sick eating the fish, you are entitled to sue the state for damages on the assumption that the state failed to warn you that the fish might be hazardous. This is generally considered to be a proper state function and even the state agrees. So, like most warning labels, they prefer to err on the side of caution, and issue advisories at the slightest hint of contamination. A superficial look suggests that eating Michigan fish is a death sentence, but I suspect that excavating the actual contamination test results might provide a different impression. If I have time, I'll try to dig them out and see if they make any sense.

My witch doctor is doing an ordeal ceremony, my yoga instructor is on a retreat, my herbologist is in China, and my body mechanic is recovering from some ailment. However, my chiropractor and massage therapist is still in town, so I'll ask if she knows anything about Michigan fish during tomorrows session.

Ok, back to reality. You've done an impressive job of avoiding the question by providing interesting but non-relevant distractions. The quality of Michigan fish has little to do with unemployment and cancer rates. The basic issue is over your claim that East Lansing and Lansing, MI have a 30% unemployment rate. You also later claim that the Michigan cancer rate is 16% above the national average, for which you provide a URL that is no better than citing the Google home page. I gave you ample opportunity and a few hints on how you might produce a 30% figure from available demographic statistics, but you failed to take advantage of these. Instead, you consistently choose to change topic, or as in this message, concentrate on an unrelated point.

If you are unable to substantiate your numbers, I can only suspect that they are manufactured for the purpose of this discussion and cannot be trusted. Please provide your sources or retract your claims, without further diversions.

--
Jeff Liebermann     jeffl@cruzio.com 
150 Felker St #D    http://www.LearnByDestroying.com 
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com 
Skype: JeffLiebermann     AE6KS    831-336-2558

On Wed, 08 Jan 2014 19:35:40 -0800, Jeff Liebermann wrote: (...)

EPA fish consumption advisories:

EPA interactive map:

Checking the Tittabawassee River, which is downstream from Midland, MI, I find an advisory for Sanford Lake: Looks like restricted consumption of bottom feeding catfish, and no limit on rock bass and black crappie. Oddly, Dioxin contamination isn't mentioned.

Kinda looks like the EPA thinks that some fish in the Dioxin polluted river is safe to eat. Also, since the EPA seems to use the state data as their source, I would expect the advisories to be identical if the thresholds were identical. More digging...

--
Jeff Liebermann     jeffl@cruzio.com 
150 Felker St #D    http://www.LearnByDestroying.com 
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com 
Skype: JeffLiebermann     AE6KS    831-336-2558

ith

.."

der.

The Detroit water authority has thousands of miles of pipeline supplying mi llions of people in the Detroit metro area with water drawn from the Detroi t River of all places. The rivers in the state are a major source of drinki ng water there.

The PCB and dioxin /state-wide/ contamination has a great deal to do with t he cancer rate there: "Experimental animal studies indicate carcinogenicity in a range of species with multiple sites of tumours. Epidemiological studies in occupational settings also indicate human carcinogenicity at multiple sites. The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified TCDD in Group 1 (carcinogenic to human s) and some other dioxins in Group 3 (not classifiable as to their carcinogeni city to humans).12,13 PCBs as a group are classified in Group 2A (probably carcinog enic to humans).14 In addition, IARC recently classified 2,3,4,7,8-pentachlorodiben zofuran and 3,3?,4,4?,5-pentachlorobiphenyl in Group 1.13"

The central part of the state has a serious problem with high levels of ars enic in the ground water causing a disconcerting /epidemic/ of bladder canc er in the region.