a person (like me, for instance) suggests that a certain government datum (like the September unemployment rate of 7.8%) doesn't make sense. For the record, he was criticised for saying that the data "doesn't make sense". Those of us who monitor these sorts of data releases often are in a state of confusion about some particular numbers and lay off relying on them until revisions are made as the statistician gets more data in. That is par for the course when using sample survey data especially data that requires estimates of underlying populations in regional spaces in between the censuses. But that is not what Welch did. He accused the President of manipulating the staff at the BLS in such a way that they would deliberately publish a false, lower unemployment rate in order to improve his election prospects next month. That is what the fuss was about. In the WSJ article he tries some statistical analysis to support his claim -- which is now -- that the numbers are puzzling. The conspiracy angle is muted in this article although you can sense it is still his intention to promote that part of the narrative. Beseeching his political independence and that of his wife who is apparently named Suzy (too much information Jack), Welch noted that the BLS data is the result of a sample survey. Let's get real. The unemployment data reported each month are gathered over a one-week period by census workers, by phone in 70% of the