Anonymous reader rtd took issue with my characterization of the modification of the US Citizenship and Immigration Services in this post, characterizing it as “…disingenuous at best and to me seems to be grossly negligent…”. He takes up my invitation to write his comprehensive response, for which I thank him/her.
[Update 2:05PM Pacific: reader rtd prefers this introduction; I am happy to oblige]
Anonymous reader rtd took issue with my incomplete modification of the US Citizenship and Immigration Services mission statement in this post. This post no longer reflects its initial state and I have altered it numerous times. Reader rtd characterized my original blog post as “…disingenuous at best and to me seems to be grossly negligent…”. He takes up my invitation to write his comprehensive response, for which I thank him/her.
For complete information, the original text is in blue in the post in question.
You ask “Please explain why my characterization of the change is either disingenuous or negligent.” It was disingenuous because it wasn’t complete. It was negligent by neglecting other changes. This all despite being authored to be a representation reflecting the totality of changes within the USCIS mission statement. This is how people tend to read edited material – everything stays except the strikethrough.
You ask “Is it true or not that the mission statement is now as indicate” (I’m assuming you intended to say “indicated” – if not please let me know). This is not true as the mission statement now reads: “U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services administers the nation’s lawful immigration system, safeguarding its integrity and promise by efficiently and fairly adjudicating requests for immigration benefits while protecting Americans, securing the homeland, and honoring our values.” You’re correct that “previously it included the struck-out words” but in err in thinking it’s currently as your edits indicate.
You ask “Did I write that the White House had directed the change.” You did not write that nor did I claim that you wrote that.
You request that I “Please tell me what one single item is inaccurately relayed in my post.” What is inaccurate is your representation that the mission statement is now: “USCIS secures America’s promise by providing accurate and useful information to our customers, granting immigration and citizenship benefits, promoting an awareness and understanding of citizenship, and ensuring the integrity of our immigration system.” Whereas this is incomplete.
You claim “The only statement that is subject to interpretation is: “America under Mr. Trump is transmuted.” If you disagree, and you believe that this specific statement is disingenuous, please state as such.” This is false as it can be very easily interpreted from your initial post that the mission statement only changed as indicated in the strikethrough. This is an extremely common way to interpret edited writings as I noted is a common practice in comparing FOMC statements (e.g. https://www.cnbc.com/2018/01/31/the-feds-monthly-meeting-heres-what-changed-in-the-new-statement.html and many others). FWIW, I agree that “America under Mr. Trump is transmuted.”
You state “I would be happy to post your response as an independent guest post, as a critique of my post.” I would be honored to join Dr. Hamilton as a member of this blog.
You request that I “be concise and detailed in your response, so all can see what sort of person you are.” I hope I have fulfilled your request and shown “all” that I appreciate honesty and completeness even in political blogging from economists.
You say “Thank you in advance for your time and considered opinion.” I say “you’re quite welcome”.
This post written by rtd.
It should be noted that Menzie’s initial post has been altered and does not reflect the subject of my response.
rtd: I have re-added the original text, in addition to your pointing out of the error. I hope this makes the sequence of changes and what you were originally critiquing clear.
It still won’t be clear. My stance is that you should have the original text in its entirety as published. Any and all edits should follow the original unaltered post, and clearly noted. I only think it important b/c my critique is of your initial post – if it isn’t preserved, this post and critique in the prior post isn’t effective. You’ve edited it multiple times now.
If you hadn’t decided to make such a big deal of me calling out your errors (how many times is this now, btw???), I wouldn’t be so strict.
I would suggest that you make the corrections so that the original post is shown or else delete this post. You try to move the nets while serving far to often in on this blog.
rtd: Thanks for the indication of your preferences.
You’re welcome and I’m looking forward to thanking you for implementing my preferences.
Your original blog post should represent what I was commenting on. Please correct the prior post so that it reflects the original and unaltered writing in its entirety. Any changes to the original and unaltered blog post should be made after.
Menzie, in the comment section of the prior blog post, you write: “Post now online here. Tell me if any corrections need be made to the text.” in reference to this post. I take issue with your introduction which states:
“Anonymous reader rtd took issue with my characterization of the modification of the US Citizenship and Immigration Services in this post, characterizing it as “…disingenuous at best and to me seems to be grossly negligent…”. He takes up my invitation to write his comprehensive response, for which I thank him/her.”
I prefer the following:
“Anonymous reader rtd took issue with my incomplete modification of the US Citizenship and Immigration Services mission statement in this post. This post no longer reflects its initial state and I have altered it numerous times. Reader rtd characterized my original blog post as “…disingenuous at best and to me seems to be grossly negligent…”. He takes up my invitation to write his comprehensive response, for which I thank him/her.”
Thank you.
rtd: The introduction you suggest is now posted.
Thanks for the addition but you’re incorrect in saying “the original text is in blue in the post in question.” You still don’t have the entire and unaltered text of your original blogpost As stated numerous times, the original blog post should be posted in its entirety and all edits should be made afterwards. Again, if you hadn’t made such a big deal of this, I would’ve been okay with the first edit of the original blog but you had to make this into a theatrical performance.
rtd: Just checked the revision log. The text in black and the blockquote is as per original, so anybody reading can recreate the original post that you were commenting on. But I’m going to add in a new note that indicates in red the new text.
Seems a bit awkward and cumbersome but thanks for attempting to provide clarity.
I do wonder why you misrepresented the new mission statement when you wrote the initial blog post. What was the agenda of the post? It seems like your posts are rife with these types of errors. It is particularly confusing in this instance as the link you provided included the new mission statement in its entirety. Did you accidentally copy/paste the wrong thing? Did you hit publish before you completed your editing process of the mission statement? I’m trying to give you the benefit of the doubt, despite the volume of such oversights.
Is rtd some trial attorney or what? This reads like a deposition. Remind me next time he comments on anything to just skip his comments.
hahahaha I was just doing as I was instructed, read the penultimate paragraph.
You’ve had your 15 minutes of fame which you turned into 15 hours of wasted space. Move on.
Agreed completely & I’m just amused Menzie doesn’t see it that way ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
But realize that this is all Menzie’s doing.
Done and done. God what a tool.
rtd
Thank-you for pointing out that Menzie’s original quotation of the current uscis mission statement was completely made up, and false. I, like Slug in the original post, took Menzie at his written word that he was quoting the new mission statement. Without your intervention I would still be assuming the false mission statement was real and current.
Ed
Ed Hanson: Seriously, do you think the current mission statement is any better than the version I had with “a nation of immigrants” struck out?
You’ll notice that “providing accurate and useful information to our customers” is also gone.
So in fact, I view the current, actual, mission statement as even worse than I originally thought (something that happens to me often these days). But I suspect you view those changes as improvements, from what you’ve just written.
Menzie, this is one of the problems with your blogging that I continue to point out. You seem to be implying here that it’s okay to misrepresent something if it makes you feel better. You’re consistently and overtly biased and subjective in your blogging. My isssue isn’t about whether the prior or current mission statement is “better” but rather that you weren’t interested in allowing your readers to decide for themselves.
Moreover, nowhere in his comment on this blog posting does Ed Hanson reference if the current mission statement is an “improvement” or not. You’re allowing your emotions to prevent you from being rational and objective. You seem to constantly fall for the erroneous narrative that if someone calls you out, it means they hold differing opinions than you do when I’m reality you just made a mistake and Ed Hanson is glad someone pointed it out.
As I’ve said before, you prioritize the normative over the positive and it gives the economics profession a bad name. Just do better – follow your co-blogger’s lead.
Menzie
You have every right to your view about the current mission statement. But even more so, you have responsibility as one of two authors of Econbrowser to provide accurate information. To have provided in this case, a made up mission statement and to present it as real, accurate, and current is inexcusable.
If the made up statement was done maliciously, shame on you, and that becomes the topic.
If the made up statement was presented by mistake, such as perhps you relied on a separate source for its accuracy, then you should have immediately use your strike out feature on the complete post and not with update changes. Then followed up by your apology to all.
At that point it would make sense to begin a separate post with the accurately quoted previous mission statement and the current mission statement; as well as a statement of gratitude to rtd.
Ed