'Truth': A Movie Based on Six Pages of Lies

In Hollywood, "dramatic or artistic license" is something audiences have learned to live with whenever there's a movie based on a questionable "real life" story.  For example, take the movie 'Captain Phillips'.  In that film, Phillips is portrayed as a complete hero.  The problem here, is that Phillips ignored past hijack warnings for the waters that he deliberately sailed into;  thus jeopardizing the boat and his crew.  Is that really heroic?

Now, we have a movie from Robert Redford called 'Truth' which takes 'dramatic license' to new heights of lying.  The entire film sets out to rewrite history and discredit George W. Bush's time in the Air National Guard by painting him as a less-than-good soldier.  The only problem is that all of the assertions of Bush's poor behavior while in the National Guard were based on 6 documents that were dated between 1972 and 1973.  All 6 documents had been created using Microsoft Word and a specific font that didn't exist until two decades after 1973.  Thus a consensus of typewriting experts declared them  to be fraudulent; and instead of Bush being discredited, CBS anchor Dan Rather -- who is portrayed by Robert Redford in the movie -- was discredited for airing a false story; along with '60 Minutes' and producer Mary Mapes.  CBS was forced to publicly apologize and Rather was summarily fired and publicly disgraced.

But now we have the very liberal Redford producing and portraying Rather as some kind of American hero in another attempt to rewrite history, by once again, painting George Bush as a less than stellar serviceman.  Too bad a noted A-List actor such as Redford saw fit to tarnish his image by putting personal politics ahead of the truth in 'Truth'. The reality is that most of Hollywood is liberal, and so anti-Bush that they see no problem with the lies Redford is trying to sell.  Unfortunately, many uninformed will see the movie and assume it to really be "Truth".

References:

Should Hollywood get its 'true stories' straight?: http://www.usatoday.com/story/life/movies/2013/10/10/true-stories-hollywood/2955851/

CBS network refuses to advertise Cate Blanchett and Robert Redford's Truth: http://www.theguardian.com/film/2015/oct/19/cate-blanchett-robert-redford-truth-cbs-wont-advertise

How the Dan Rather Movie 'Truth' Lies About Good Journalism: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/10/14/how-the-dan-rather-movie-truth-lies-about-good-journalism.html

George W. Bush military service controversy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killian_documents_controversy

Why You Shouldn't Trust The November Jobs Creation Number

Following the release of the November employment report last Friday, the headlines loudly trumpeted the fact that 321,000 new jobs had been created.  Yet, despite this, and very oddly, the unemployment rate remained the same as October's report; even though September and October were, at the same time, revised upwards to include another 44,000 new jobs.  So, all in all, there was a net increase of 365,000 jobs but no drop in the unemployment rate.  By contrast, October saw more than a third less jobs being created and the unemployment rate fell one-tenth of a percent.

But, the fact that the unemployment rate didn't go down is quite bothersome and definitely needed a closer look.

Logically, if there was true job creation, the number of unemployed should have fallen by 321,000 and, the number of employed should have risen by an equal amount; resulting in a lowering of the unemployment rate by two-tenths of a percent to 5.6%  But, when you look at the actual data, none of those things happened.

Excerpted Chart: Full Chart Linked Below

In actuality, the number of unemployed went up by 115,000.  Not down and the number of employed only rose by 4,000.  Not by the expected 321,000.  So, it's no wonder that the unemployment rate held steady.  In reality, these two facts, when taken together, actually prove that no jobs were created in the month of November.  Instead, there was a net loss of 111,000 jobs in November.

To me, this only makes sense unless, of course, there is some adjusting going on as a result of previously fudging the numbers ahead of last month's election, in much the same way that numbers were fudged ahead of the 2012 election.  We'll have to wait and see if some large media outlet reports on the very same numbers I'm seeing.

References:

Washington Post: This is what a real recovery looks like: The economy added 321000 jobs:  http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/12/05/this-is-what-a-real-recovery-looks-like-the-economy-added-321000-jobs-in-november/

U.S. Adds 321,000 Jobs In November; Unemployment Rate Remains At 5.8%: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/12/05/november-jobs-report-unemployment-rate_n_6271366.html

Employment Situation Summary Table A. Household data, seasonally adjusted: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.a.htm

Economy Adds 214,000 Jobs in October, Unemployment Rate Falls to 5.8%: http://time.com/3572116/new-jobs-report/

Census 'faked' 2012 election jobs report | New York Post: http://nypost.com/2013/11/18/census-faked-2012-election-jobs-report/

'Fake' Unemployment Report Shocker - Forbes: http://www.forbes.com/sites/investor/2013/11/19/fake-unemployment-report-shocker/