The motivation for this site stems from the observation that many complex issues of the day are not informed by critical analysis, facts or relevant research. Instead we observe endless ideological differences directing the dialog, hindering thoughtful discussion and, more importantly, obstructing the adoption and implementation of informed policies which have a greater propensity to improve quality of life.  While I doubt this blog will resolve said issue, I hope in some small way it contributes to more thoughtful and productive dialog leading to better decision-making based on evidence.

I am a retired educator, spending 40 rewarding years as an educator in secondary and post-secondary education. A complete and too long CV is found here.

11 Responses to About

  1. Thomas Fox says:

    Bravo! Intelligent discourse & analyses are rare. Tom Fox

  2. Cheryl Jahnel says:

    Excellent dialogue on your blog! The presentation of information coupled with statistical data is most appreciated.
    Thank you,

  3. Jim Schneider says:

    Have you seen/read/heard anything from David Icke? I really don’t want to be a cranky old conspiracy guy… but this makes as much sense to me as anything else regarding our national politics…



  4. Sam Jordan says:

    Thank you for all the analysis I can use to dumbfound the “supply-side” proponents in my family. They have yet to post a graph that proves otherwise, but say they could if they wanted to do it. Their next go-to counterargument is the experience of their years of life. I tell them a sample size of one person is not very good data.

  5. David Cay Johnston says:

    Your CV link is broken.
    And why not show an email for followers to reach you? Few bloggers do and I do not understand that. Even when I wrote about criminals and crazies, and had small children at home, my phone number and address were in the directory so sources could reach me.

  6. Mark Johnson says:

    Hi, Mike. I have read recently about two studies that may merit attention. Perhaps you have already investigated. I did not check all your previous posts.

    The first is the College Board’s annual Trends in Student Aid. One of the authors, Sandy Baum, reportedly suggested that we should direct students to institutions with higher graduation rates. I have always thought that the institutions with the highest graduation rates were those with the best students. If I am wrong, Mr. Baum could have an important idea. Any thoughts about this?

    The second is a recent study released by the Center for College Affordibility and Productivity, indicating that nearly half of recent American college graduates are in jobs for which they are over-qualified. It would be very interesting to dissect this data, for example, what is the impact of the student’s college major? It would also be interesting to investigate the employment status of college graduates five years after graduation.

    Best wishes.

    Mark Johnson

  7. Patti says:

    Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.
    John Adams

    My, my, how inconvenient for you. Perhaps an apology and a re-examination of your premises are in order?

    Census ‘faked’ 2012 jobs report http://nyp.st/1f9ZGIt

    Debunking the Conspiracy Theory of Rigged Unemployment Rates

    Jack Welch and Fox News Fail Basic Math

    • Michael Morrison says:

      Thanks Patti for bringing this to my attention. If true this is a sad case of an employee(s) gone rogue. Nonetheless, there’s no evidence in the article to support a claim that the published unemployment rate during the month in question substantially changed by the alleged actions.

      Indeed, there’s evidence to suggest the published data showing the steep decline in unemployment actually did occur. There’s a second survey, the payroll survey, which supports the huge dip in unemployment. The Census and Payroll surveys come up with different numbers but they track each other very closely as you can see in this graph and this graph (Source: The Atlantic.

      So, there’s no evidence to support a systemic, fraudulent effort that would cause a huge drop in unemployment during the month in question. In fact, the evidence tends to support the published data.

      Jack’s math is still very questionable. Perhaps he was Romney’s math advisor?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *