Friday, March 20, 2009

No Rest For The Weary

Great, I finally have the time & energy to abuse the Muse, & she decides she needs a few days off, depriving me of grist for the mill.

Still, this is worth mention.

Boom, baby, boom

Apparently births in 2007 exceeded the Baby Boom record.  This probably won't last--births tend to go down in economic hard times.
Interesting, but really, just a factoid.

Megastats: 

Weasel word/phrase count: 3

1. "Apparently," the NYT story on data reported by the National Center for Health Statistics is not to be trusted. (I grant the NYT said it was "preliminary data.")

2 & 3. "Probably" & "tend to." C'mon. 

8 comments:

ChicagoEd said...

Most people, myself included, only use the word "apparently" sarcastically. But, apparently, Ladybughead doesn't.

Anonymous said...

we all know she's a cunt.

M. Bouffant said...

Now, now. Don't make me delete your silly ass.

NutellaonToast said...

Anonymous has issues...

Susan of Texas said...

Suderman has a movie review at The Corner. I see he's found his level. He frets that Judd Aptow is getting too old to do coming-of-age stories. It does not seem to occur to him that usually money determines what is made, not artistic vision, and gross-out comedies etc. are made as long as they make money and no longer.

But then one doesn't get to press a wan hand to one's forehead and lament about the degeneration of the younger generation (or his case, older generation).

Dhalgren said...

She's incorrect on so many levels. The number of births has been on a steady increase since 2001. Apparently watching skyscrapers fall made a lot of yuppies in Park Slope have babies. Add immigration, and you have population growth that can beat any recession. And the number of unintended pregnancies has remained constant.

spencer said...

ChicagoEd, I use it sincerely when I actually don't know if my interpretation or understanding is the correct one, usually thanks to a lack of hard information. But that's what separates me from Megan - when it's merited, I make a point to be up-front about not necessarily having all the facts, and that what I'm telling you could easily turn out to be wrong.

Anonymous said...

What the hell is the point of this statistic? The population in 1957 was well somewhere between 150 (1950 census) and 179 (1960 census)million. It's over 300 million today, so people are having about half as many babies as they were at the height of the baby boom.

Next up, Megan compares 1 day point (not %) gains/losses in the Dow Jones in 1957 to those in 2008 and manages to come up with completely wrong conclusions about the economy.