And if you had told me a few months ago that Karen Street, who regularly comments at PolitiFact's FaceBook page had a political blog, I'd have given consideration to the idea that it belonged on that list--what I call the Sith blogroll.
But Karen Street's blog has found its way to a different list instead: The Bad Blogs' Blood Bloody Bad Blogs Blogroll.
It's not enough to make the Bloody Bad Blogs Blogroll by simply making a fanblog of Sublime Bloviations, even if it's lame in various respects.
The BBB Blogroll is intended for those blogs that manifest bad reporting and bad thinking as a prominent feature, and Karen Street's "Politi-Psychotics" establishes impressive standards in both respects.
The induction ceremony will consist of an evaluation of Street's defense of Joe Biden and PolitiFact with respect to the former's partition plan for Iraq. After that I'll provide just a few of the many outstanding examples of bankrupt thinking that earn Politi-Psychotics its rightful place at Bad Blogs' Blood.
"It's only partly partition," said the partisan
I recounted at Sublime Bloviations how PolitiFact leapt to defend Vice President Joe Biden's claim that his plan for Iraq was not a partition plan. Jake Tapper, on ABC's "This Week" had asked a question referencing Biden's plan for a partition of Iraq. Tapper prefaced his question with this statement: "You once advocated for a three way partition of Iraq because you were not confident that Iraq's government was capable of having a strong central government." Though Tapper's question made use of the word "partition" according to accepted standards, PolitiFact rated Biden "True" on his denial that he had called for a partition of Iraq. My analysis called Biden on his equivocation and PolitiFact for its failure to sniff out the same.
Street to the rescue:
Basically Bryan ignored the context of Biden’s statement: “I never called for a partition. I called for a central government with considerable autonomy in the regions.” PolitiFact held that up as “the distinction” for ruling Biden’s statement True.Biden's statement represented a false dichotomy, as my account demonstrated. I provided a number of examples in the professional literature describing Biden's plan ("central government with considerable autonomy in the regions") as a partition plan. I could have provided many more examples, and I emphasized that by saying the following:
Perhaps nobody at all mistook Biden's proposal as a suggestion that Iraq divide into three separate nations, at least until Robert Farley started checking the facts.Street is the one ignoring the context of Biden's statement, as she apparently assumes that Tapper's statement referred to partition in the same stunted sense as Biden's reply. Unfortunately, that interpretation conflicts with the FactCheck.org story Street referenced during the course of her post. Astonishingly, she tries to use the FactCheck.org material in an attempt to show that PolitiFact was correct:
Also, Factcheck.org appears to be in agreement, reporting on July 19: “Biden is right that he didn’t call for a complete partition of Iraq, instead recommending that the country maintain a central government with three largely self-governing regions.”Biden ducked the meaning of Tapper's question, equivocating on the sense of "partition" used by Tapper and substituting his own. That's (partly) why it's a fallacy of equivocation by Biden and not a straw man fallacy by me.
To continue from Factcheck: **But Tapper is also right. He never said that Biden called for the abolition of a centralized government in Iraq; he said Biden believed a "strong" central government was untenable. And it’s certainly the case that Biden presented his proposal as an alternative to Bush’s "futile effort to establish a strong central government in Baghdad."**
And that Ray Bolger image to emphasize the concept of a straw man? I'm afraid that's been done before, only better (it was a properly identified straw man fallacy in the latter case).
There's no rescuing Biden from his fallacy of equivocation. It wasn't a problem of sticking with one definition, as Street at one point suggested. It was a problem of varying from Tapper's meaning in the midst of the conversation along with Biden's steadfast denial that "partition" can refer to an arrangement like the one Biden described.
Was that incredibly inept analysis by Street? Sure, but it's par for the course at Politi-Psychotics.
The killer b's
My complaint was PolitiFact's failure to meet publishing transparency standards such as those advocated at Slate. My observation was that PolitiFact appended no note to its story after omitting "billions." Omitting "billions" does not result from "forgot the B." Forgetting the B results in "illions," and typing "illions" instead of "billions" would have constituted a typographical error ("typo") as the term is normally understood. Forgetting to include an entire nine letter word is an omission, and it deserves better transparency than does the correction of a traditional typo.Bryan complained "PolitiFact appended no note to this story after inserting the word "billion" after "$787": Click here for fact-checkThe fact was, in the above link, PolitiFact had a fact-check relating to the $787 Billion stimulus package in 2009. In one sentence, they only put $787, and forgot the B for “billions” after it.
The quantification gambit
Another one of Bryan’s reasons PF’s comparisons were not *coherent* enough was that most of the “peer” industrialized countries fall under the “NATO umbrella” and are “substantially subsidized” by the U.S. But just how is that quantified—just how much does the US subsidize through NATO?“How much does NATO cost and who pays for it? NATO is an intergovernmental organization to which member nations allocate the resources needed to enable it to function on a day-to-day basis. There are three budgets: one civil and two military. Each NATO member country pays an amount into the budgets based on an agreed cost-sharing formula. Taken together, these budgets represent less than half of one percent of the total defence budget expenditures of NATO countries.”In other words, according to NATO, the members share the cost. It also says “All member countries that participate in the military aspect of the Alliance contribute forces and equipment.”
Street mistakes NATO's budget for the cost of NATO. NATO has its own organization and infrastructure. Those things require funding and of course it is expected that member nations assist in paying the cost. Beyond its organization and infrastructure, however, NATO is a mutual defense pact. That means that even if Luxembourg only contributes a tiny contingent to NATO operations in, for example, Afghanistan, Luxembourg could potentially count on the U.S., France and Great Britain coming to its aid if she was attacked. Priceless. Quantification is a red herring. The benefits of collective defense are obvious even if they can't be rigorously reduced to dollar amounts.
NATO is an intergovernmental organisation to which member countries allocate the resources needed to enable it to function on a day-to-day basis and to provide the facilities required for consultation, decision making and the subsequent implementation of agreed policies and activities. It is supported by a military structure which provides for the common defence of the member countries, cooperation with NATO’s Partner countries and implementation of Alliance policies in peacekeeping and other fields. Since NATO has only a limited number of permanent headquarters and small standing forces, the greater part of each member country’s contribution to NATO, in terms of resources, comes indirectly through its expenditure on its own national armed forces and on its efforts to make them interoperable with those of other members so that they can participate in multinational operations.
(NATO Handbook [.pdf])
Duh, right?
(O)ne of Sublime Bloviation’s conclusions to its review of a PolitiFact fact-check on President Clinton's statement above (as stated by Sherrod Brown) is “…it should be obvious that Brown's intended point--that tax cuts do not create jobs--cannot find reasonable support in the Clinton/Bush comparison.”
To expect PolitiFact (PF) to provide “reasonable support” for tax cuts not creating jobs was beyond the scope of their stated purpose: To verify Brown’s quantitative claim of 22 million jobs created during the Clinton years.
The above finds Street in the midst of explaining how PolitiFact's selection bias somehow keeps PolitiFact from having to express a partisan opinion. Or something like that. Clearly, that's ridiculous. I advocate maintaining the same standard for fact checking regardless of the party involved. Either always grade the underlying argument or never grade the underlying argument, but do the same for whatever party is involved. Failing that results in selection bias by PolitiFact. Apparently that hasn't yet occurred to Street, who thinks I'm the one engaging in selection bias.
PolitiFact supposedly confirmed that a Republican candidate had "dabbled" in birther conspiracies.
The thrust of Bryan’s criticism is this overlap between curiousity and inquiries concerning the certificate of birth (and Obama’s not releasing it) and the birther conspiracy. It is the only part of the conspiracy theory that survives. But Bryan claims that there is no overlap, and that skepticism about the certificate of birth as shown by Deal on behalf of some of his constituents is not the same as dabbling in birtherism.Street did a remarkably good job of failing to capture the essence of my argument. To say that someone "dabbled" in birther conspiracies conveys that the conspiracies were actively believed. PolitiFact and Street indulge in guilt by association: If one has doubts about the degree to which President Obama's citizenship is publicly demonstrated, then one is of a kind with those who accept conspiracy theories in explanation. That's ridiculous. I can have plenty of misgivings about, for example, the amount of authority vested in the Federal Reserve without subscribing to or even "dabbling" in conspiracy theories associated with the Federal Reserve.
So readers have to judge for themselves if inquiries about Obama’s certificate of birth (and citizenship) has any connection to birther conspiracies. If you believe it’s all one in the same, then Deal is dabbling in birtherism. If you believe it isn’t, that they are not connected, then Deal is dabbling in curiousity, expressing doubts and making inquiries only about Obama’s “long-form” certificate of birth.
And even if my misgivings are ill-founded, as I think is the case with skepticism about President Obama's citizenship, it still does not follow that I "dabble" in conspiracy theories about the Federal reserve. Though the logic is eminently simple, the simplicity eludes Street.
The flippery dope fallacy
It's nearly always fun when folks with a minimal familiarity with the descriptions and details of fallacies start playing fallacy roulette:
So here’s Bryan’s slippery slope argument about the IPAB and the PolitiFact (PF) piece:My argument might have the makings of a fallacy of the false dilemma, pending the demonstration of a third option that escapes the dilemma, though the latter arm of the dilemma ought to content progressives if they can think of ways to save money without it amounting to rationing. But it's no slippery slope fallacy. The slippery slope fallacy involves predicting a(n unlikely) calamitous outcome based on the repercussions of a relatively non-calamitous event, and the slippery slope argument is not a fallacy if the sequence of events is likely. What Street calls the "slippery slope argument" predicts two possible outcomes for the health care reform law without naming one more likely than the other.
“Suppose the IPAB decides that it will not grant the OK for treatment on persons with low life expectancy. Would that be a form of rationing? Suppose that Congress does not act on the proposal. The policy would become a potentially illegal law. What happens then?On the other hand, suppose that Congress conscientiously keeps the IPAB from implementing any law that creates any form of rationing. What laws could the IPAB concoct that would fill that bill?”
Street needs to spin the fallacy roulette wheel again. Better luck next time.
The Boxer rebellion
Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), while answering questions for the San Francisco Chronicle, gave a colorful account of a past conversation with Condoleezza Rice before a Senate committee. Boxer asked Rice if she knew how many soldiers would die as a result of a proposed policy decision. Boxer told the Chronicle that she asked Rice how many people had died and that Rice did not know the answer.
I had to use my imagination a bit to figure out what Street felt was wrong with my analysis. Street considered giving Boxer the benefit of the doubt as though her remarks represented a mere misstatement. I considered that also, but discarded the idea after noting that Boxer did it twice, offering the same explanation a second time when given the opportunity to clarify her intent.
Street and I agreed, in the end, that Boxer's report was inaccurate. We also agreed that the evidence that Boxer intended to mislead was equivocal. And Street suggested that I placed too much emphasis on the issue of Boxer's explanation for bringing up Rice's lack of children.
Isn't the latter criticism a bit subjective?
PolitiFact readily gave Boxer a pass on the minor issue, accepting as solid Boxer's explanation that she was trying to bring the two of them together. I can easily explain my heightened focus on the secondary issue. First, PolitiFact brought it up. Second, PolitiFact accepted a dubious explanation from Boxer. Third, considering Boxer's remarks along with the context strongly suggests that her remarks to the Chronicle on that issue were deliberately misleading. It just isn't plausible that Boxer was trying to find some sort of peaceful common ground with Rice. The rhetorical ploy was intended to emphasize a contrast between Boxer and Rice on the issue of policy.
Whether Street and I agree on the analysis or not, her heading of "Lil White Lies" remains.
I went over in a separate Bad Blogs' Blood post how Street flubs the argument over the CRA's influence on the subprime loan market. The key point was that data from specific years during the 2000s does nothing to undermine the argument that government policies (for example) in the 1990s had a huge impact on the growth of the subprime loan market. Apparently the main point continues to elude Street:
Bryan finally makes his move with a laundry list of my purported logical fallacies...Perhaps by describing the fallacies as merely "purported" Street is absolved from having to address the issues. Again, offering information about the state of the subprime loan market during the 2000s does nothing to undercut an argument about the long-term government role in building the subprime loan market. The fallacy in that is obvious and is not properly explained away as "no reasonable evidence." And Street has never addressed that point.
• Non sequitor (twice!)
• Argumentum “MXC”
• Frankensteinian Straw Man…combined with allegations of plagiarism, and of course, even with all my numerous citations, the usual spurious accusation of “Street offers no reasonable evidence to refute Carney's argument (or mine[Bryan’s], for that matter)” for which of course, he offers no reasonable evidence to refute Ritholtz’s (or MY) argument either.
Rank ineptitude
PolitiFact rated Rep. Alan Grayson (D-Fla.) as "Mostly True" for claiming that the U.S. ranks No. 50 in life expectancy. PolitiFact successfully ignored statements by Grayson in the immediate context that the U.S. ranked below Albania (false) and that the U.S. ranked last in math scores (false). A lost cause? Street did not see it that way:
So often as is the instance with Bryan's analysis, it boils down to a word or a phrase in which his interpretation breaks the case as why PolitiFact's analysis is incorrect, biased or otherwise corrupted. In this case it's the "element of surprise" on Grayson's part in quoting the statistics which led to PolitiFact's targeting them for a ruling. The "element of surprise" however, is a judgment call on the reader's part; if you didn't read Grayson's statement on U.S. life expectancy being 50th in the world without thinking that this was not as high as you had thought, then you can agree with Bryan. Otherwise, it's just another word play.I'd expect a description like the above where a fallacy of ambiguity was involved and the reviewer failed to see the relevance of fallacies of ambiguity. But this wasn't "word play" at all. Rather, this was a case where the reporter inferred that Grayson was arguing that we should be surprised that the U.S. ranks as low as No. 50. But does that make sense for a person like Grayson, who sees free market medical care in terms of "Don't get sick" and "Die quickly"? A guy who sees the system as in dire need of reform? That's not a reasonable inference. Charitable interpretation should not extend to the point of acrobatics, of going well beyond the text to explain the meaning of the text. Grayson was saying that the U.S. ought to rank higher in terms of aspiration. That's it, and the interpretation only fits my agenda in terms of making fun of PolitiFact's Lukas Pleva as he went from objective reporter to Mr. Read-between-the-lines.
Bryan invented out of thin air Pleva did not provide “a shred of evidence” Grayson implied that the data was surprising….why does it have to be surprising? He prefaced his factoid with “This (the US) could be…the very top of the entire world.”Pleva and Street would benefit from learning (and acting on) the difference between implication and inference. One may tenuously infer from Grayson's words that surprise at a No. 50 ranking is warranted, ignoring the evidence of Grayson's disparagement of U.S. health care. But Grayson's words do not imply that surprise is warranted. An objective reporter has no business reporting his inference as a fact.
Bryan then includes an “After” disputing another Grayson factoid, on math scores.It should be noted that PF made a ruling of TRUE on similar items two years ago.
Uh, what? PolitiFact did a fact check on math scores? The URL leads to a fact check on life expectancy rankings. Taken charitably, Street juxtaposed these items carelessly.
Karen Street DeMinted
Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) spoke to the Senate and criticized the lack of transparency associated with the common practice of passing bills via the unanimous consent procedure. DeMint claimed that 94 percent of all bills were passed using unanimous consent. PolitiFact chose to fact check that statement as well as the associated claims that such bills had "no debate, no vote, no amendments, no reading of the bill, no online disclosure, and very often no score from the Congressional Budget office."
PolitiFact did two stories on the same set of issues, badly flubbing the math on the first attempt. Karen Street united the whole of it (two PolitiFact stories and my separate critiques of each) and missed the point.
Here's one example:
Bryan stated that when DeMint made these remarks “DeMint's primary audience that day consisted of his colleagues in the Senate. Senators will very likely understand the operation of unanimous consent. For that reason, DeMint should receive the benefit of the doubt in assessing whether he intended his remarks as absolute.” I say he should NOT receive the benefit of the doubt because the senators most likely knew the difference between bills and concurrent/simple resolutions as defined above. After all, it’s like—part of their job description!In context, I was not talking about the different types of bills but about those like DeMint's claiming the bills receive no debate. Even forgiving Street's error in taking my statement out of context, however, her argument makes no sense. Legislators' familiarity with the terminology surrounding their jobs does not restrict them from using normal language. Chemists, for example, are not required to ask for "dihydrogen oxide" when asking for water. They're still allowed to call it "water" and have it understood by other chemists.
Street's worst offense on this one consisted of misconstruing my reasoning. I ceased offering ratings following PolitiFact's descriptions for a reason: Their system inevitably injects opinion. Street routinely guesses at how she thinks I would change PolitiFact's ratings based on my critiques. Her guesses on this one were particularly funny.
Street shares her conjecture as to whether my reasoning would change the PolitiFact ruling:
Completely flips it, Pants on Fire to at least Mostly True.Street would be correct if PolitiFact narrowly ruled on the literal truth of DeMint's 94 percent claim, because DeMint is entitled to use "bill" as he did without PolitiFact equivocating on his meaning. His audience was his subject, so they would have an excellent grasp of what he was talking about. The scope of the piece was wider than the literal truth of that claim, however, and I have plainly acknowledged that DeMint could have chosen a better illustration of his underlying argument. It can't be reasonably assumed that I would ignore the disjunction between the purported fact and the underlying argument even if I find that each has merit by itself.
***
I chose to showcase significant flaws from each of Street's "Lil White Lies" series (save for those I've already critiqued in some manner or other) to help emphasize the pervasiveness of her mistakes. These brief critiques come nowhere close to documenting her path of error.
With the induction ceremony complete I will return my focus to the work of mainstream figures. Welcome to the Bad Blogs' Blood Bloody Bad Blogs Blogroll, Politi-Psychotics!
Sept. 14, 2010: Added a missing "defend" in the first paragraph of the Biden partition section.
No comments:
Post a Comment