Bad Blogs' Blood

"The Propaganda Professor" pt. 2

2011-08-08T05:57:00.000-04:00

Another technique:
Throw crap, force you to dig out;
They hope you get tired
--CheeseFlap

A big part of the attraction of doing a more detailed take down of "The Propaganda Professor" comes from the absolutely staggering irony that gushes from his posts. I've heard it called "log-eye syndrome."

In the post welcoming "The Propaganda Professor" to the Bad Blogs' Blood Bad Blogs Blogroll, I reviewed a promise from the professor to demonstrate my supposed inclination to box in Jon Stewart with an unlikely interpretation of his claims about the supposedly misinformed Fox News audience. If I insisted on an unlikely interpretation of Stewart then a straw man fallacy would result. Let's let "Professor Thynzcken," as I've dubbed the professor for the purposes of these posts, explain how it works, from the commentary section of his post on Jon Stewart:

Note: This individual wants you to believe that Stewart’s claim should only be interpreted comprehensively rather than (as obviously intended) cumulatively. If you’re not sure what I mean by that, stay tuned.

And the August 7 update in that same thread:

Okay, the new post on Stewart/ PolitiFact/ Fox is up. And by they way, here’s my tally of Bryan’s rhetorical sins above:

False Conclusions: 9
Misreading: 7
Patronizing/ Presuming Control: 7
Tangents/ Straw Men/ Red Herrings: 9
False Claims: 8
“Witty” Juvenile Ripostes: 4
Projection/ Transference: 3

(There is some overlap.) There are probably more that I overlooked, and if you’re a serious student of forensic flimflammery, you might find it useful to do your own tally. Some of these tricks are tried and true propaganda tactics that we’ll be examining in more detail in the future.

My heart fairly fluttered in the anticipation that Thynzcken would attempt to provide specific evidence in support of each and every claim made above about my supposed rhetorical sins.

No such luck. The cupboard of evidence was again left bare. But it's worth looking at what Thynzcken put in the cupboard instead of evidence.

Shooting the Messenger: More on Stewart/ PolitiFact/ Fox

That's just the title. As a result, we'll be on the lookout for Thynzcken's evidence of attacks on Stewart rather than attacks on Stewart's message. Pop quiz to follow.

One of the occupational hazards of telling people what they don’t want to hear is that it invites attacks. Particularly if you’re telling them that certain beliefs they cherish, and perhaps have cherished for years, are erroneous. I’ve already fielded a few attacks on this rather young and mild-mannered blog. So as you can imagine, a public figure like Jon Stewart is going to receive his share of harsh backlash. And when he dared criticize fairandbalanced Fox “News”, it’s not surprising that there were people out there who wanted to question his credibility. It’s worth taking a look at some of the techniques they used, since this is by no means the only time you’ll ever see them.

Yeah, not much evidence in this section, but at least we're additionally cued to look for "attacks" and "harsh backlash" as well as supposed efforts to question his credibility. Let's move straight on to those techniques:

The Singular Standard
For one thing, some of his critics seem to have forgotten that Stewart is a humorist, and instead treated him like a journalist. Which is to say that rather than looking at his larger point that Fox “consistently” misleads viewers, they focused on whether his claim that this is reflected in “every poll” on “every issue” is literally accurate. Perhaps this is because they were under the mistaken impression he was speaking on a bona fide news program, rather than as a guest on Fox, where anything goes. In any case, fair enough, I guess. After all, Stewart, though he (to the best of my knowledge) has never painted himself as a journalist, is considerably more accurate than many who do. And if you think I’m nodding in particular toward the TV network he was commenting on, you must be psychic.

I'll give points for the alliteration in the section title.

Poor Jon Stewart is supposedly treated as a journalist instead of as a humorist and the manifestation of that harsh treatment is the fact that they check Stewart's statement as to its literal truth, particularly his words citing "every poll" in support.

I'd call Thynzcken's distinction here silly. Regardless of Stewart's job designation, the context suggests that he was making a serious statement of truth. In newspaper reporting we might expect a journalist to adopt the objective voice. But during an interview with Fox News' Chris Wallace we appropriately place the same standard for truth-telling on everyone regardless of profession. We just need to maintain our sensitivity to differing modes of expression (genre, if you will). A joke is a joke. A statement of fact is (we hope) a statement of fact, and we can certainly allow latitude for differing levels of precision (don't tell PolitiFact!). But even a journalist can tell a joke, so the standard of judgment is actually the same.

The section from Thynzcken ends up not really having much to it. But it's interesting that Thynzcken ended up making a comment somewhat parallel to something I wrote a few weeks ago:

Hey ... maybe Stewart spoke false because he was appearing on Fox News ... ?

As defenses of Stewart go, this is pretty weak. If it's fine for Stewart shed his dedication to the truth while on Fox "News" then by the same token the supposed non-journalists on Fox "News" should receive the same allowance. If Thynzcken makes the argument seriously then it probably suffers from a problem of internal consistency. We will charitably take the argument as snark.

Bait and Switch
Trouble is, PolitiFact’s criticism didn’t exactly address the same thing that Stewart’s remark did. Stewart said Fox’s viewers were the most MISINFORMED. Politifact

Stewart's defenders can put whatever spin on his words they like. No reasonable interpretation of Stewart will allow him to claim reasonable support from existing poll or survey data. The misinformed/uninformed distinction is weaker than Stewart's defenders would make it (look it up in a dictionary/thesaurus), but it's fine by me that they make the attempt. I'll accept it as reasonable, if tad strained.

Oh, and if you were looking for evidence from Thynzcken that I was guilty of any of this bait-and-switch behavior, look elsewhere. The most likely spot you'll find it is in Thynzcken's imagination.

Selective Reading
In addition to a misreading of the word “misinformed” there was a selective reading of the word “every”, which can be interpreted in at least a couple of different ways. I call them the comprehensive (Every state has its own flag.) and the cumulative (Every time I forget my umbrella, it rains.). In other words, “every” may mean either “all” or “each”. Did Stewart mean all polls on all possible issues? Not bloody likely, since he surely realizes that it would be virtually impossible to devise a poll covering every possible issue – and if you did it would be so damn lengthy no one would sit still to answer it. Most likely, he meant that each poll conducted reveals Fox viewers to be among the most misinformed on each topic covered. But some, apparently having intimate knowledge of the inner workings of his psyche, insist that not only did he mean the first sense, but he was deliberately misrepresenting the facts; in other words HE was the one lying! It’s somewhat like saying, “Every skunk I smell causes me to throw up”, and then me saying, “Liar! You haven’t even smelled every skunk.”

The above section was apparently designed to fulfill the promise of showing that I insisted on understanding Stewart's claim in Thynzcken's "comprehensive" sense. Certainly between his comment in the first Stewart post and this one Thynzcken unmistakeably implies that I insist on the "comprehensive" sense. Unfortunately for that argument, my approach has consisted of taking the arguments liberals use to defend Stewart and showing that they fail even granting different ways of interpreting Stewart's claim. True to form, Thynzcken provides no evidence that I insist on the comprehensive understanding of Stewart's claim. The reader is left to trust in Thynzcken's accusation sans the supporting evidence.

As for the idea that those who attack Stewart accuse him of lying, the good professor appears to have succeeded in expunging the following from memory:

Your question offers an irrelevant premise (a time-honored propaganda technique in its own right). It isn’t that Stewart is lying for claiming that Fox News has knowingly and/or deliberately repeated lies. He’s lying because he claims poll support that doesn’t exist. Or, more properly, he’s just wrong.

The comment remains visible under the first Stewart post, at least until somebody decides to delete it. That won't be me.

Sleight of Hand
As you well might expect, another ploy has been to question the credibility of the polls themselves. Well hey, that’s not such a bad idea. Sometimes polls are untrustworthy because of faulty methodology or deliberate bias or both. But this becomes considerably less likely when a number of polls stack up in the same direction. One critic of Stewart found one poll particularly questionable because it gauged Fox viewers’ misinformation on the presence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. But, notes this commentator, Iraq did possess such weapons once upon a time, and furthermore, they still had some just before the U.S. invasion. (How do we know this? Because he says so!)

My apologies. I forgot that this piece of common knowledge isn't as prominent for those who do not regularly consume Fox News. We know that Iraq possessed WMD at one time because UNSCOM and UNMOVIC documented their destruction (I did touch on that fact in my post). We know that not all of the WMD were destroyed because at least one deadly munition survived to be used in 2004:

The statement by the US military spokesman in Iraq that an improvised bomb made up of a shell containing nerve agent was discovered by an American convoy raises some disturbing questions.
BBC News

I don't always provide documentation for statements that amount to common knowledge. If the sarin bomb was not present in Iraq when the invasion occurred then we have to assume it was either smuggled into the country or manufactured within Iraq subsequent to the invasion. I can't imagine Thynzcken wants to go there. My thanks to the professor for helping to make my point.

We haven't quite exhausted the "Sleight of Hand" section ...

It turns out, however, that the poll he references actually asked whether WMD’s were FOUND in Iraq AFTER the U.S. invasion. The correct answer, I suppose, is that it depends on what the definition of “is” is. I suppose that if the Iraq Survey Group had found thousands of skeletons in body armor, Fox could have argued that they constituted a mighty army. What they found was nothing that qualified as an active WMD, nor as evidence that a WMD program was still in place. They only found impotent remnants of chemical weapons that had been stashed for a decade or so, and which the ISG and the CIA determined were of no military value. But Fox, of course, knows better, and so do its viewers. Just as they do on numerous other issues, including some covered in that very same poll.

Speaking of "Sleight of Hand," I did not reference any particular poll when I made the observation about the ambiguity of questions about WMD in Iraq. Rather, I was dealing with the way Chris Mooney phrased the issue during his defense of Stewart:

Mooney:
What Stewart obviously meant—and what I mean—is that when it comes to politicized, contested issues where the facts have been made murky due to political biases, it is Fox viewers who are the most likely to believe incorrect things—to fall prey to misinformation. A quintessential example of such an issue is global warming, or whether Saddam Hussein’s Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction or was collaborating with Al Qaeda. There are many, many others.
I suspect that the segue from "politicized, contested issues where the facts have been made murky" to "most likely to believe incorrect things" is not as clean as Mooney appears to suggest. The WMD issue serves as a case in point. It is absolutely undeniable that Saddam Hussein's Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction. Possessing them was one of the prerequisites for the ceasefire condition requiring their destruction.

What? Mooney is talking about immediately prior to the invasion? Even then, Iraq unquestionably possessed weapons of mass destruction, albeit old, small in number and of very questionable effectiveness.

It is exactly that type of ambiguity that renders the PIPA studies and their like relatively worthless as a measure of individual and group misinformation

Thynzcken succeeds in producing the false impression that while I was talking about the ambiguity of claims about WMD in Iraq that I was applying that principle specifically to the PIPA study that asked the question about the discovery of WMD during the period after the invasion. Instead, I was making a point about ambiguity in survey questions generally and applying it to both of the PIPA studies and similar ones cited by Mooney.

Quite the sleight of hand by Thynzcken, and we can also count the attempt to hand wave the ambiguity problem by assuring all of us that any WMD found subsequent to the invasion were useless. I'm pretty sure I had already conceded that point (third paragraph in the green box just above) but Thynzcken found it better for his argument to present it as his fresh observation.

Bottom line, Thynzcken failed to address my point about ambiguity, though arguably an attempt was made to bury it under a pile of thrown crap.

Next:

Red Herrings and Straw Men and Tangents, Oh My
Oh yes, and there was even the suggestion that Fox shouldn’t be given credit for the lies it relentlessly promotes if someone on its payroll didn’t actually originate them. C’mon, do I really need to comment on that??? True, Fox didn’t invent the Death Panel rumor. Nor, for that matter, did one of Fox’s specific components, one Sarah Palin. That honor apparently belongs to Betsy McGaughey, a former director for (Surprise!) medical supply corporations. But she only said it a few times, and how many people have even heard of Betsy McGaughey? Fox has repeated it dozens if not hundreds of times, and how many people are familiar with Fox?

Again, Thynzcken has succeeded admirably in veiling the truth. I'm fine with letting Fox News have the blame for any falsehood that it transmits. Thynzcken is producing his own red herring in order to try to protect Stewart from my charge that his "New England Patriots of lying" line was itself a lie. Stewart gave PolitiFact's annual "Lie of the Year" awards to Fox News and proclaimed Fox News a repeat champion. As I've said before, call it funny if you want. Just don't call it true. Fox News has never been awarded PolitiFact's "Lie of the Year" award.

I realize that's some harsh backlash to throw Stewart's way ...

Just one more bit from Thynzcken:

This is probably not an exhaustive list of the smear tactics used against Stewart, mind you. It’s just a suggestion of a few things to look for as you hear this thing they call a debate.

Time for the pop quiz: Was anyone able to detect evidence in Thynzcken's piece of anybody "shooting the messenger"?

There's no smear of Stewart anywhere in there. Thynzcken made it up. PolitiFact may be guilty of interpreting Stewart too narrowly. That charge doesn't fit my criticisms. But even if PolitiFact interpreted Stewart too narrowly it remains an attack--albeit a slightly misguided one--on Stewart's argument rather than a "smear tactic used against Stewart."

This exercise reveals Thynzcken as a spectacular hypocrite, creating varieties of false and misleading statements in a misguided attempt to tar others with the charge of producing false and misleading statements.

And CheeseFlap helps out in the irony department. We have this string of haiku poems trailing the "Shooting the Messenger" post:

Another technique:
Throw crap, force you to dig out;
They hope you get tired
--CheeseFlap

That’s a frequent nail
you’ve hit squarely on the head.
Remember Bryan?
--P.O.P (aka Thynzcken)

One question remains
What better propaganda
Than your voice alone?
--Bryan

"The Propaganda Professor" is propaganda. One of the favorite tools of the propagandist is the ability to silence dissenting voices. There's a good chance my poem will join other comments I've made in censorship oblivion. I likewise doubt that any of the many points where I've shown Thynzcken flat wrong will last for any substantial length of time in visible form at "The Propaganda Professor." The threat of censorship has been made and carried out, though it seems I can still get comments to appear for a limited time.

"The Propaganda Professor" would more aptly wear the name "Professor Propaganda."

Bad Blog: "The Propaganda Professor"

2011-08-07T20:46:00.004-04:00

Yes, folks, it's been awhile since I've needed to make use of Bad Blogs Blood for anything other than preserving discussions that otherwise get obliterated from the 'Net. But we may have a live one, here, as in a well-deserving inductee for the Bad Blogs Blood Bad Blogs Blogroll.

The potentially special occasion arises thanks to the blog "The Propaganda Professor."

The professor does not reveal their name, so for the sake of convenience I dub them "Professor Thynzcken" for the sake of posts to this blog.

I stumbled across Thynzcken's blog while doing my scans for PolitiFact material. It turned out that somebody is still writing in defense of Jon Stewart over the PolitiFact/misinformed Fox News viewers squabble.

Thynzcken's presentation:

Recently, Stewart was a guest on Fox “News” and pointed out that Fox’s viewers are the most misinformed segment of the American population. Host Chris Wallace naturally protested. And he received some backup from a rather unlikely source: the nonpartisan fact-checking organization PolitiFact. They said Stewart was wrong, because Fox viewers rate supremely ignorant only in some studies, while in others they’re just somewhere near the bottom – which even if perfectly accurate doesn’t negate the observation that they’re the most misinformed overall.

Thynzcken omitted at least one salient fact, that PolitiFact hit Stewart specifically for the nature of his supposed evidence. Stewart said "every poll" "consistently" showed Fox News viewers as the most misinformed (or every poll showed Fox Viewers as "consistently" misinformed--neither variant helps Stewart):

The way Stewart phrased the comment, it’s not enough to show a sliver of evidence that Fox News’ audience is ill-informed. The evidence needs to support the view that the data shows they are "consistently" misinformed -- a term he used not once but three times. It’s simply not true that "every poll" shows that result. So we rate his claim False.

And there's your first hint right there--the tip of the iceberg. How does a professor end up omitting such a key detail about the PolitiFact rating?

Thynzcken sets up a subtle straw man version of the PolitiFact argument. PolitiFact rates false the claim that every poll showed Fox Viewers as the most misinformed. Thynzcken defends Stewart by dropping the issue of the polls in the rating and emphasizing that Stewart might be right even if not all the polls show it. The problem, of course, is that not all the polls show it (and it's actually worse than that for Stewart).

Briefly summarizing the rest of the post, Thynzcken praises Stewart's fake apology and concludes that PolitiFact blew the call.

That's when I intervened and Thynzcken further demonstrated the skills that we so esteem for our BBBBB blogroll.

I commented:

You walk a fine line on this site wrt becoming the subject (“those who want to do your thinking for you”).

Stewart claimed support from every study on a consistent basis. Yet there probably is no study ever performed that was designed specifically to measure the political knowledge (or otherwise) of the consumers of various news sources. The ones that ostensibly support Stewart the most (PIPA) suffer from acute cases of selection bias.

Thynzcken's reply:

Stewart may not have been 100% accurate, but he was damn close. He was not talking about being uninformed (even the most diehard Fox fans might know that John Boehner is Speaker of the House) but about being misinformed (believing, for instance, that Barack Obama is Kenyan or that Sean Hannity knows more about global warming than thousands of scientists.) Fox consistently misinforms, and the polls show it.

I eagerly await specific illustrations of how I’m trying to do anyone’s thinking for them.

Before focusing back on Stewart, notice that a bit more of the iceberg has peeked out. I charged that Thynzcken walked a fine line respecting the promulgation of propaganda. Note that Thynzcken's challenge appears to assume that I said the line was crossed. One starts to wonder: What is it that makes this guy (gal? I won't assume) think they can judge propaganda? They're soaking in it, as Madge might say. Their trailing line helps account for the pseudonym I chose for the professor, of course.

The key issue in the Stewart-Fox-PolitiFact squabble is the poll data Stewart referenced. My rejoinder on that point:

There’s no poll or survey data that reasonably demonstrate it (I explained why in brief and you haven’t addressed the point). So Stewart can’t be close. He may well be right that Fox viewers are misinformed but no survey data provide a reasonable foundation for his claim. But he claimed it anyway.

Thynzcken's response:

There are in fact several such polls. See a few of them described at http://mediamatters.org/research/201106220022.

Unless I'm missing something, I've already done reviews of all the polls on the Media Matters page that supposedly support Stewart. Sure enough, each one features selection bias in its methodology. So that's essentially how I replied to Thynzcken:

See them debunked (for Stewart’s purposes) here:
http://subloviate.blogspot.com/search?q=mooney

Picture my disappointment in this reply from the propaganda doctor:

Quoting your own blog to “debunk” research? How convenient.

It might have been misleading if I quoted from my own blog to support a point I was making unless I clearly identified that I was sourcing myself. But I didn't quote myself at all. Thynzcken, that minister of anti-propaganda, is wrong again. And his response could pass as an attack on the source intended to undermine the veracity of the information, also known as the genetic fallacy.

One wonders what use a propaganda professor has for the genetic fallacy.

That branch of the conversation petered out after I pointed out the genetic fallacy, so let's pick up the same topic in another branch. Me:

It isn’t that Stewart is lying for claiming that Fox News has knowingly and/or deliberately repeated lies. He’s lying because he claims poll support that doesn’t exist. Or, more properly, he’s just wrong.

Note that by this point I've already made the substantive criticism that Stewart's poll support is tainted with selection bias. Watch for Thynzcken to address that point.

Thynzcken:

Stewart’s “poll support that doesn’t exist” does indeed exist.

Hmmm. Not in that reply.

You should refrain from claiming that if you can’t back it up. And you can’t back it up.

Thynzcken next gave six sentences that dropped the issue of the poll data. The sixth suggested on their part no inclination to address the problems I pointed out:

Sadly, that takes care of responding to the most intelligent and relevant statements you’ve made.

With that round of replies, Thynzcken resorted to a method that I see all too frequently with Internet discussion: the technique of holding the conversation hostage to some nebulous standard of conduct:

You will be allowed one more opportunity to contribute something of value to the discussions on this blog. Neither I nor my readers have time to deal with sophomoric solipsism.

Those who detect hints of the rhetorical technique of "hand waving" in Thynzcken's reply probably have a point. What about that selection bias problem?

I posted three replies after Thynzcken gave me my last chance (the first of them before reading the ultimatum).

The third of the three:

Tell you what. You want productive I’ll give you productive. Delete the previous two posts from me if you like. We’ll go productive step by productive step. I have provided a substantive criticism of the poll results people have used to try to justify Stewart’s claim. I’m charging the studies with a selection bias problem. Specifically, the studies select questions that are not broadly representative of the political knowledge about which Fox News viewers supposedly lag behind others.

So, I have two related questions for you setting the stage for further productive discussion.

1) Do you know what “selection bias” is?
2) Do you see how selection bias creates a problem for the studies people have used to try to support Jon Stewart?

I encourage you to add to your answers with further commentary. Then it’s my turn again if you’re willing to face the truth of the matter about which you’ve pontificated.

The predictable reply from Thynzcken:

Sorry. you blew it. Your “substantive criticism” amounts to nothing more than denial. Repeating the same irrelevant statements over and over will not make them any more relevant or more true. And enough is enough.

Amazing, huh?

Far from repeating the same points over and over, my questions contain the promise that I will explain the argument as I detect substantial objections (if any) from the ~~propagandist~~ professor. If anything, Thynzcken's reply contains the best evidence of psychological denial.

I got in one more brief reply (just a few brief words) before Thynzcken belatedly hid it in moderation, not that it was important. For present purposes we see the "Propaganda Professor" parroting left-wing blog opinion about Stewart's accuracy and parrying the opportunity to explicitly discuss the evidence. That's how to have a blog bad enough to catch our attention at Bad Blogs' Blood. And rest assured, dear reader, that Thynzcken offered plenty more evidence in that exchange to show an irresponsible level of critical thinking (unless it's lying, which is perhaps worse).

One more clear example:

Thynzcken:

It’s very interesting, by the way, that you seem to be trying to hold Stewart (who has not tried to pass himself off as a journalist) to higher journalistic standards than the folks at Fox (who have).

Yes, I laughed out loud.

That’s funny. I’m not holding Stewart to any journalistic standards at all. I’m just pointing out that he’s wrong about the surveys and that he’s engaged in propaganda. You don’t have to be (a) journalist to do those things, and neither are they the exclusive purview of journalists. It’s interesting that you find interesting something that isn’t happening.

With that comment Thynzcken added to the present examples of rhetorical dirty tricks. We've had the straw man. We've seen the conversation held hostage. We saw the conception of a genetic fallacy. And here Thynzcken produces an irrelevant personal attack out of pure imagination.

Does everyone feel safer from the insidious effects of propaganda now?

There's one step left prior to inducting "The Propaganda Professor" into the Bad Blogs' Blood Bad Blogs Blogroll: Thynzcken has promised a post relating to our exchange. It promises more of the same type of train wreck:

Note: This individual wants you to believe that Stewart’s claim should only be interpreted comprehensively rather than (as obviously intended) cumulatively. If you’re not sure what I mean by that, stay tuned.

If a blogger runs away from the real discussion by expanding on a false accusation, that's some Bad Blogging. I consistently decline to force interpretations on the words of others except where I offer an argument in favor. This case with Stewart aligns with my usual technique:

The adjective "misinformed" could apply in at least two distinct ways. First, it could mean that Fox Viewers hold particular incorrect views because they were given false information (apparently by Fox News). Alternatively, the term can serve as a synonym for "ignorant," as in simply believing untrue things.

Stewart's would-be defenders, in an exercise of futility, try to parse the term in his favor.

And:

If we take Stewart to mean that polls consistently show Fox News viewers the most ignorant (misinformed) then we're stuck with PolitiFact's analysis using the PEW polling data. That's exactly what the complaining liberals try to avoid with the alternate interpretation.

The alternate interpretation fails because it leaves Stewart without any supporting data.

***

Professor Thynzcken has at last completed the expected flub:

In addition to a misreading of the word “misinformed” there was a selective reading of the word “every”, which can be interpreted in at least a couple of different ways. I call them the comprehensive (Every state has its own flag.) and the cumulative (Every time I forget my umbrella, it rains.). In other words, “every” may mean either “all” or “each”. Did Stewart mean all polls on all possible issues? Not bloody likely, since he surely realizes that it would be virtually impossible to devise a poll covering every possible issue – and if you did it would be so damn lengthy no one would sit still to answer it. Most likely, he meant that each poll conducted reveals Fox viewers to be among the most misinformed on each topic covered. But some, apparently having intimate knowledge of the inner workings of his psyche, insist that not only did he mean the first sense, but he was deliberately misrepresenting the facts; in other words HE was the one lying! It’s somewhat like saying, “Every skunk I smell causes me to throw up”, and then me saying, “Liar! You haven’t even smelled every skunk.”

It's obvious from the material above that the great professor of propaganda has misrepresented me. My position is that no reasonable interpretation of Stewart can rehabilitate his claim.

Thynzcken has provided me with additional grist for the mill that is so conveniently flawed that it's hard to pass up.

(did an edit or two shortly after posting, my hand forced by Blogger's ability to omit random portions of a post edit)

Two views at PolitiFact's FaceBook page (Updated)

2011-02-05T00:18:00.004-05:00

Either the FaceBook interface is wonky or else PolitiFact has shenanigans going on other than inferior quality fact checking. Check this out.

Logged in:

Logged out:

Interesting, no?

~~I know for a fact that my latter two posts in the top image have embedded links~~. Well, the first one did, anyway (see update below). The top post in that image contains no link. There may be some default filter that removes some posts from the normal view, perhaps depending on whether they contain such links.

Makes for a great way to carry on a sham debate, doesn't it?

I'll be looking into this.

Update:

My first guess was wrong.

While logged out at FaceBook, I am able to find posts containing embedded links, including, at least on occasion, those authored by me.

So we're back to the wonk or shenanigan dilemma.

It's not a blog as such, but ...

2011-01-11T03:52:00.000-05:00

There's a YouTube video purporting to demonstrate that god does not exist. The argument in the video, created by Dr. Lynne Atwater (or Lynn Eatwater depending on how you wish to break down her name) is hilariously inept and many people have tried to explain that to Atwater in the commentary section.

Thing is, Atwater either doesn't get it or is in denial. Here's a post she made a few minutes ago:

Background: I have patiently presented the criticism of Atwater's argument over a period of weeks. We have an established pattern where I post criticism and then she asks where various part of the criticism are located or asks me to repeat myself. It gets funnier every time, but this last one where she suggests that my failure to repeat the straw man description for the umpteenth time supposedly demonstrates that it does not exist definitely takes the cake.

It takes mere moments to find multiple instances where I identified her straw man. These are not necessarily in the order posted but rather in the order they occur at YouTube from top to bottom:

You say there is a self-evident contradiction when the chair appears from nothingness. Where is this supposed contradiction? What contradictory state of affairs occurs?

You've got the only straw man argument in play, here. Christian theism does not teach a god that suddenly appears from absolutely nothing nor a cosmos that springs from absolutely nothing (the latter is created the former, who exists eternally). Your argument represents theism otherwise (straw man).

Are you intentionally playing a *stupid* word game? We agree only that something cannot spring from *absolute* nothingness. That is, we agree that your straw man is easily destroyed if we discount the position of science that the cosmos arose from literally nothing. That still leaves us to deal with the theistic position of an eternally existing creator who creates out of not quite absolute nothingness but without using transformation. That's left standing when strawman falls.

How many more times to you want me to point it out? A thousand? A million?

"I mean, how can you create anything if you can't be around to create it?" It's at about 4:09 mark in the video for which you've claimed responsibility.

It does not follow from my agreement that nothing can come from absolute nothingness that a creator cannot bring something into existence from nothing. Absolute nothingness means there's no god there in the first place--your straw man. Remember?

Liar or lunatic?

Spot check: Politi-Psychotics (Updated)

2010-12-28T05:24:00.000-05:00

Karen Street has continued to publish what I trust is predominantly a load of nonsense at her "Politi-Psychotics" blog. Since she's made a bit of noise at FaceBook on the topic of PolitiFact's Lie of the Year (2010), I'm giving her another chance to show that she can treat a topic without turning it into an offering to the gods of idiocy.

It's a good idea to read PolitiFact's story about its "Lie of the Year" for 2010 as well as my critique of it prior to considering Street's critique critique.

True to form, Street gets off on the wrong foot:

But what is precisely meant by “government take-over” according to PolitiFact? Bryan dismissed PolitiFact’s evidence with “PolitiFact has no fact-based case for the importance of its chosen ‘Lie of the Year’”, but never really provided his own, instead, offering his own opinion: “The claim that increased government control does not constitute a government takeover amounts to Reinhardt's opinion” or “Private insurance will come under greater government control through the new legislation, and it is fair to call newly instituted regulatory powers as a taking.”

It's irrelevant whether I provide any meaning to "government takeover." My purpose isn't to prove PolitiFact wrong about its findings but to show how PolitiFact errs in reaching its conclusions. PolitiFact needs the evidence, not me. Compounding the error, Street confuses the issue of the definition of "government takeover" with the issue of the importance of the alleged untruth. PolitiFact claims it chooses the "Lie of the Year" based on its relative importance ("We're examining claims we've rated False or Pants on Fire and will choose the one that played the biggest role in the national discourse in the past year"), and that's a separate issue from the nature of the supposed lie per se. This type of thing serves as an excellent example of why I do not regularly waste my time replying to Street's blog posts. Fish, barrel, shoot, repeat.

Midway through the morass, Street attempts to re-establish PolitiFact's false dilemma (either socialism/single payer or "takeover" isn't even partly true), quoting me at the start:

“Private insurance will come under greater government control through the new legislation, and it is fair to call newly instituted regulatory powers as a taking.” Increased government control as government takeover is opinion, and it’s fair to call new regulatory powers as taking? No, it’s not fair to call new regulatory powers as taking. Takeover is not even a good term for other countries’ healthcare systems regarding the government’s role (although I'd bet Bryan would have you believe all other countries that have universal healthcare have government “takeovers” of it).

The mind boggles at Street's brand of nonsense. When a government takes new powers to itself, those powers are taken. And they are taken away from whatever entity formerly exercised them. It's not a matter of opinion. It's the factual conventions of language.

Note how easily Street segues from ""taking" to "takeover." "Takeover" carries the stronger connotation of a seizure, and if I had made it my business to determine the truth of PolitiFact's charge rather than simply criticize PolitiFact's methods, I'd have called the term hyperbolic, though hyperbolic with a solid foundation in truth based on the way people use words like "take." It's not whether "takeover" is a "good term," as Street puts it. It is whether applying the term is fair according to the conventions of language. I'm reminded of my own lampoon of PolitiFact's methods, when I suggested that PolitiFact investigate the use of "nuclear option" since considerable doubt exists that changing the the application of the filibuster technique in the Senate is even a tiny bit radioactive. Language is more flexible than many people appear to realize.

Back to Street's illegal torture of innocent logic:

(T)o answer two of the questions he put forth: “Does the legislation provide for increased government authority as he appears to grant?” No, not necessarily, because the new legislation doesn’t change things much for those already covered (which is the majority). The purpose of the insurance mandate, the crux of the bill, was to find a way to provide coverage for those who could not get insurance by mandating everyone get it, which was the insurance companies’ proposal to begin with. “And isn't an increase in government authority a takeover of that realm of authority, given that the authority came into existence with the passage of the legislation?” No, because an increase in governmental authority is not the same as a takeover. Bryan created a false choice here.

1) "Not necessarily"????? Street's reply is a blatant non sequitur. It doesn't matter whether the legislation "doesn't change things much for those already covered." So long as it changes something and that something represents an increase in the government's regulatory role, the legislation does necessarily increase government authority. And though the degree of change isn't even important to the logic I presented, the degree of change is drastic with respect to the insurance industry. Eliminating insurance companies' ability to refuse coverage based on pre-existing conditions, for example, fundamentally alters the very nature of health insurance.

2) Karen's supposed answer to the second question begs the question.

All this error in the space of two paragraphs is kind of impressive, in a way.

From there, Street argues by analogy that increased regulation does not constitute a takeover. Setting standards for the auto industry, she says, does not represent a takeover. But why not? Prior to national standards, the auto makers set their own standards. The government took over that role. And if the government took over that role then what is supposed to prevent it from being a takeover? Without explicitly deferring to PolitiFact's argument, Street simply clones the PolitiFact mistake of insisting on a rigid definition of what constitutes a takeover. Presumably if the government does not meet some arbitrary standard of control that Street finds suitable, then the government has not performed any sort of takeover.

I skip Street's digression into blaming insurance companies for the health care bill and Republicans for the health care reform bill's particulars. Neither is relevant to my arguments about PolitiFact.

But I'm always interested when Street thinks she's caught me in a fallacy:

The other logic fallacy Bryan employs is to claim PolitiFact created a “straw man” of “government takeover” by equating it with socialized medicine, because “it makes little sense to charge that Republicans were working to mislead people into thinking that the reform bill instituted a single-payer system or socialized medicine.” Really?

It's laughable, really.

I did not say that PolitiFact created its straw man because "it makes little sense to charge that Republicans were working to mislead people into thinking that the reform bill instituted a single-payer system or socialized medicine." Street's sentence doesn't even make sense. I charged that PolitiFact had created a straw man because PolitiFact failed to produce a shred of evidence that people understood "government takeover" in the sense that PolitiFact insisted it had to be understood. And I had natural insight into PolitiFact's straw man fallacy through my own thought process when I heard the term "government takeover." I never thought it meant either socialized medicine or a single-payer plan. Street ends up with a straw man of her own as her reward for trying to catch me with one.

Street provides a "Fox & Friends" transcript in which the hosts compare the Democrats' health care reform to the British and Canadian systems. That's fair enough, but anecdotes can't float PolitiFact's claims, particularly when the transcript offers no evidence at all that "government takeover" was taken to mean a plan like the British or Canadian ones.

Fast forward a bit past more cereal filler ...

Well, it’s just another Lil White Lie “Even Though” scenario—what Bryan White expects you to believe “even though”: ANY Democrat version of healthcare reform is a government takeover of healthcare, even though the same type of reform was prior promoted by Republicans, even though it only affects a small percent of people without insurance, even though for most people their coverage won’t change, even though Republicans wanted more strenuous "government control" in healthcare via their own tort reform proposals.

I'd have been all for a Democrat health care reform plan that focused on tort reform and an erosion of the third-party payment dynamic that is so poisonous to cost containment. Contrary to Street's assertion, tort reform is not a goverment takeover. It is an adjustment of something the government has always held in its domain in our country: the court system. Setting award limits for damages does virtually nothing to affect the delivery of medical care except provide additional freedom for health care providers. It's the opposite of a takeover. It's a giving back.

And even though dozens of well-known conservative pundits/politicians call it socialized medicine, they couldn’t possibly be trying to mislead people. And if a poll shows the majority of people believe the government has taken over healthcare (btw, isn't that called argumentum ad populum?), how did they arrive at this conclusion....could it be, could it be that it's due to hearing those dozens of well-known conservative pundits/politicians who are calling it socialized medicine? And any increase in government regulation IS a government takeover, even though it’s been done for years without takeover, even though the regulation is often done for the collective good (as in the healthcare reform, covering people who might not be able to get insurance). Along with death panels, even though….need I go on?

1) With dozens of "well-known conservative pundits/politicians calling it "socialized medicine" you'd think Street would have thought to give an example or two. Oh, well. She probably just copied the PolitiFact method. Simply stating it makes it sufficiently true.

2) The appeal to popularity fallacy doesn't apply to things where majority opinion actually does determine the truth of something. For example, 90 percent of teen girls think Justin Beber is fabulous" actually does, if true, establish as true that Justin Beber is thought fabulous by a majority of that group. Additionally, my use of the polling data was not for the purpose of establishing that the health care reform act was factually a government takeover, but to help expose the fact that PolitiFact was ignoring the way people understood the term. As I have said before, people determine how words are understood by how people understand the words. Dictionaries follow where common usage leads. If people say "texting" as a verb then pretty soon it's a verb whether Merriam-Webster likes it or not.

Has anyone else noticed that Street hasn't struck upon a single valid criticism thus far?

3) It's not a takeover because it's not a takeover begs the question.

4) It's funny that Street should mention death panels ...

Don't go on, Karen Street. Go on sabbatical until you've honed your critical thinking skills to the point where you don't embarrass yourself persistently.

Afters:

Street ended with what she felt was an effective critique from FaceBook commenter Bill Benson. Her introduction is worth quoting for the sake of its subsequent comeuppance:

He obliterated Bryan's 3,000+ words with about 50, I'd say--and he probably never read Bryan's blog critique, it was just based on his Facebook comments.

Priceless. If Benson did read my blog post then he understood it no better than my FaceBook comments.

Reformatting my response:

@Bill Benson, who wrote:

Feel free to argue with the weakest arguments (technically, she suggested that it could NEVER happen, and in debate class, they taught us to pounce on NEVER because that's easy to argue against).

I'll credit you, Bill, with at least not sending Carina's remark entirely down the memory hole.

Let's take what you (apparently) think may be a stronger version of Carina's argument and see how it works out:

"Since when does regulation equate to takeover, exactly? Oh, right (hardly (-n))ever."

Once Carina admits that it's possible for regulation to constitute a takeover, her argument is so weak as to be better left unstated. There's nothing in it to suggest that the present instance doesn't present one of the exceptions for which she allows. And *any* reasonable possibility that the present case counts leaves us reasonably questioning PolitiFact's "False" and "Pants on Fire" ratings.

Your pivotal argument: lotsa' people say so. Even better, lotsa' people say so after they were ...relentlessly told so by a pervasive, well-funded campaign designed by Frank Luntz.

Bill, you're missing the central point of my argument. It isn't merely that many people disagree with PolitiFact on this one. The point is that it would be very difficult for PolitiFact to show that the high number of those who agree that the reform bill amounts to a "government takeover" correlates with PolitiFact's insistence that "government takeover" means either a single-payer plan or socialized medicine. It isn't that the GOP misled people into believing the latter (no evidence was produced for that) but rather that the term "government takeover" was used to effectively communicate regarding portions of the bill that people did not like.

Your arguments amount to: 1) it's a takeover because it seems like one to me, 2) it's a takeover because it seems like it to other people who have been subjected to a propaganda campaign to convince them that it is, and 3) well, even if it isn't, it could/will be someday.

I've never made the first argument. Rather, I argue against PolitiFact simply assuming based on its straw man understanding of "government takeover" that the term can only reasonably mean socialized medicine or a single-payer plan. Their reasoning made use of a false dilemma. The second argument is perfectly legitimate. If a majority of people think a term means something then a critic ought to have a spectacularly good argument that the term cannot mean what those people think it means (language works based on what people perceive things to mean). PolitiFact flunked on that.

I didn't use the third argument, either. So you're one out of three and you have no good attack on my use of the one argument you correctly identified.

Street said she wishes she could have expressed her criticism like Bill did his.

This is the right place for your blog, Karen Street.

Update 9/7/2011

It turns out Karen Street wrote up a response to my critique, claiming that she gave examples of the "dozens of of well-known conservative pundits/politicians" who call(ed) ObamaCare "socialized medicine":

Yes, I must admit Bryan was absolutely right and I just copied the PolitiFact method and simply stated it (not really, he ignored my examples, see below).

Obviously we can't allow Street to get away with providing examples today while claiming credit for those examples yesterday. Read charitably, we cannot take Street to refer to the Bachmann example as something I ignored in her post. Any such examples need to come from the original.

So ... are there any legitimate examples in Street's original?

Of course there are! All you have to do in order to see it is realize that the hosts on Fox News programs are well-known conservative pundits/politicians. The co-host of Fox & Friends, Steve Doocy, is a well-known conservative pundit/politician. So is Fox & Friends guest host Steve Johnson Jr.

Host Brett Baier of Fox's "Special Report" program is likewise a well-known conservative pundit/politician.

I'm not sure if the quote of Media Matters is supposed to indicate if Street believes that the AP's Charles Babington is likewise a well-known conservative pundit/politician.

But at least we can add one more Fox host to the list of well-known consevative pundits/politicans: Sean Hannity. He said President Obama is obsessively trying to push socialized medicine, and we know by extrapolation (and maybe a little magic dust thrown in) that he means that the ObamaCare bill itself is socialized medicine.

If you believe that Sean Hannity is a pundit/politician then maybe you can believe Karen Street's claim that I ignored her examples. But if, like me, you thought the list looked a whole lot more like a list of Fox News personalities then you'll agree that Street made her assertion without supporting evidence.

Interpretations that make a speaker or writer look silly do not ordinarily constitute charitable interpretations.

One last word regarding the meat of the argument: Note that Street responds to a point about the way the general population understands "government takeover of healthcare" by focusing on what some Fox News personalities said and wrote--and even in those cases there was no overt description of ObamaCare as being socialistic?

Such is the way people produce evidence when the conclusion precedes the collection of the evidence.

Let's Make a (formal debate) Deal (about free will and foreknowledge)

2010-09-26T23:31:00.002-04:00

I've recently been trying to coax "dbes02," a YouTube identity who finds omniscience and free will irreconcilable, into a formal debate.

It's not easy.

It's not enough to have the debate at a skeptical forum (my suggestion from the outset).

Dbes02 has all manner of reservations about the debate, such as asking what's the point if there is no arbiter. So I tell him he can choose the arbiter, even suggesting that his mother could fill the role if available. I was assuming she would be well disposed toward her son. He doesn't care to look like the one reluctant to debate, so he tries to make the arbitration thing look like a holdup from my end:

Just to (publicly) remind you: My formal debate challenge (from Sept. 23) remains open. The Freethought and Rationalism Discussion Board remains my recommendation as the forum. You can pick the arbiter if you insist on one--that's not a concern of mine.
("I challenge you to a formal debate in that forum where you support the proposition that foreknowledge and/or predictability is fatal to libertarian free will.")

To publicly remind you - if YOU find a FRDB person to adjudicate.

If he's eager to debate then why put it on me to find the adjudicator? I don't care who adjudicates it, so how hard can it be for me to find somebody to judge it and declare a winner? His comment referred to a series of private messages we exchanged about the debate idea. I challenged him to the debate and told him I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for his reply. He counter-challenged (I guess, in a way) saying he wouldn't hold his breath waiting for me accept an adjudicated debate challenge. Yes, his response was a bit incoherent (the debate challenge is mine to him; he had yet to make any debate challenge unless we count this one from his reply). And why phrase it as a counter-challenge in the first place? What's so hard about "I'll accept your challenge if the formal debate will be adjudicated" other than the commitment?

I'll offer two compatible guesses: First and already mentioned, he doesn't want to look craven. Second, he's a tad smitten with the idea of turning the arguments of others against them.

Turnabout can be a good technique when it is well executed.

The remainder of his above reply:

We've been 'debating' here - in a public forum. This type of debate (and even the formal ones with the likes of Craig, Hitchens, Dawkins, Lennox, etc.) is pointless - people disagree with each other. You say Swartz is right, I put a position down he's wrong. You disagree. Where's it get us?
If the world's best can't agree... what's the point. (But it's good to see you've dropped the schoolyard loutishness.)

Again, it seems tough for dbes02 to appear eager for debate when he thinks debate is pointless. It makes him look like he's readying his next excuse. So I made that clear to him:

This forum allows you too much leeway in playing games. You'll behave yourself better in a formal debate or suffer the consequences. Are you saying that you will accept the debate if *I* find somebody to arbitrate? After I gave *you* the opportunity to choose the arbiter? If that's all that's stopping you then go register now. Or is "This type of debate ... is pointless" waiting in the wings as your next excuse?

You should know a lot about game playing. Yes, this type of debate is pointless - everything is already in writing on the internet.

His reply allows me to segue smoothly into counting his reply as a reason to engage in the debate: He can stop my game playing in the formal venue, or at least expose it through his persuasive rhetoric to the detriment of my side of the argument.

He can't be thinking I'll be so reluctant to debate him that I will decline to find an arbiter. Can he?

The free wheelin', double dealin' argument against free will

2010-09-20T16:31:00.000-04:00

Bad Blogs' Blood has partly evolved into the dumping ground for non-serious argumentation in addition to its role in memorializing mere bad blogs. Some folks just don't get around to blogging but express their bad arguments in other ways. Like YouTube:

Since I occasionally delve into philosophical and theological issues at my main blog, I published a brief entry on the above YouTube video at Sublime Bloviations. But the person responsible for the video, dbes02, went to such hilarious lengths to defend his work that this, if anywhere, seemed like the place to memorialize the discussion.

I began:

With this format, why post something other than your best argument? The video sets up a false premise, that if multiple choices are not equally easy then they cannot be considered free. A simple thought experiment shows this is not the case. Suppose an identical set of circumstances where outcome A occurs 99 percent of the time and outcome ~A occurs 1 percent of the time. If ~A is more difficult it does not contradict free will in that case (or else it would never happen).

dbes02 answered:

Your thought experiment fails - it begs the question, because you assume an identical set of circumstances can lead to different outcomes. But even talking about being able to predict an outcome contradicts free will. So your challenge doesn't even get off the ground.

Note that dbes02 stipulated the existence of free will for the sake of argument ("If I had free will ..."). Therefore, his initial objection that it begs the question to "assume an identical set of circumstances can lead to different outcomes" is obviously false. But then he tries to layer the objection by supposing that merely "talking about being able to predict an outcome contradicts free will." But that objection suffers multiple flaws. First, supposing that the same trial will result in 99% one result and 1% another result may just as well stem from past observational data rather than prediction, unless dbes02 is promoting the ridiculous notion that any statement of propositional truth about the future--even in merely hypothetical worlds--constitutes a prediction. More on that later. Second, the objection rests on an entirely different and controversial proposition, that free will and foreknowledge are incompatible. It turns out that the YouTube argument rests on an unstated set of controversial premises.

The conversation continued:

lol
How do I supposedly beg the question?
Your argument appears to consistently boil down to your own fallacious begging of the question: You're assuming determinism every chance you get. Have a look at your argument from the YouTube video you posted. Do you see "determinism" either specific or implied in the argument? It's not there. But as soon as your argument is criticized it magically appears.

If all you can come up with are red herrings and flawed arguments, you have got nowhere. Even if identical circumstances led to the same outcome 99% of the time you have appealed to predictability and hence contradicted free will.

Please come up with something coherent - youtube is already treating you as spam!

Note that dbes02's response simply restates his (second) objection without addressing my reply, other than to imply with his opening if/then statement that I'm guilty of at least one red herring fallacy and/or at least one flawed argument. What makes the argument flawed and/or a red herring? Perhaps the fact that he insists that his objection is valid. He drops his first objection in this response, perhaps realizing his mistake and declining to admit it.

It's neither a red herring nor a flawed argument to point out the *fact* that you did not include any presumption of determinism in your video argument. Playing "dial-a-fallacy" after you're caught posting a ridiculous question-begging argument is the red herring. Back to the drawing board with your argument, Champ.

Yes, if I had free will every choice would be just as easy to make. But they aren’t. So are you going to actually show where the fallacy is instead of your chest beating? You're the one who raised determinism in your flawed thought experiment. Please present a coherent position. Your presence here is wearing thin.

Note again in dbes02's response that he does not address the point of attack. He restates the premise of the YouTube argument in language almost suggesting that he thinks I expressed agreement with it ("Yes, if I had free will every choice would be just as easy to make"). He follows that with a fallacy of the complex question, falsely assuming in his query that I did not specify the fallacy. He then suggests that I raised determinism in the thought experiment, apparently based on the belief that probabilistic outcomes represent a particular prediction about the future--itself a baseless notion.

After this point, the conversation no longer appears in the company of dbes02's video, for he apparently exercised his prerogative in deleting subsequent comments. However, he continued to reply to my posts, which left me a partial record of the exchanges via e-mail. Before that behind-the-scenes look at the ensuing argument, however, have a look at a portion of dbes02's YouTube profile (in italics to distinguish it from the flow of the argument):

And how do many theists on YouTube deal with atheists making comments on their videos, criticising their position? Many of them censor comments, not letting anything they don't like through. Ever see 'Pending Approval'? Only on a theist's channel (in my experience so far).

How dare those theists censor comments! Though to be fair, dbes02 did himself no favors by leaving intact my three comments above.

Now on to the unpublicized part of the show:

dbes02 has replied to your comment on Incoherence of Free Will:

@crowtreboot Your thought experiment was flawed, as shown before.
Clearly you haven't heard of a reductio ad absurdum argument.

Now run away little boy. You are out of your league here.
You can reply back by visiting the comments page.

Again, the same pattern: dbes02 repeats original assertion without addressing the reply. And perhaps he thinks I have never heard of reductio ad absurdum. It's at least true that I detect from him no riposte that qualifies as a reductio ad absurdum. Coming up with hidden premises like predictability entails determinism certainly doesn't count, even if we cut him a break on the erroneous assumption that probabilistic outcomes entail predictability.

Another round of the same:

dbes02 has replied to your comment on Incoherence of Free Will:

@crowtreboot Your 99% ploy shows predictability - which contradicts free will. Now run away little boy if you don't have anything new to say.
You can reply back by visiting the comments page.

So, dbes02's original argument depends (at least in part) on an unstated premise that we must take as true: Predictability entails determinism.

And note the (if/then) premise of the YouTube argument:

If I had free will it would be just as easy to choose to strangle my 8 year old daughter as to choose to hug her.

After we scrape below the surface, it turns out that the premise contains as an unstated premise the idea that predictability entails determinism. The only way free will could obtain under his premise is if outcomes were entirely random and not merely probabilistic. And dbest02's justification for his premise in answer to my objection was essentially to restate the premise as its own justification--in other words circulus in demonstrando--the circular argument.

The Street to perdition: An induction ceremony

2010-09-14T03:58:00.003-04:00

At Sublime Bloviations, my preferred spot for blogging, I maintain a special blogroll dedicated to what I see as the best of liberal opinion, or at least liberal opinion presented capably.

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.”

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."**

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.

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

Bryan complained "PolitiFact appended no note to this story after inserting the word "billion" after "$787": Click here for fact-check

The 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.

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.

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?

It's OK to avoid an issue if you don't intend to deal with it

(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.

Dabble drivel

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.

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.

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.

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:
“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?”

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.

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.

All our redux in a row

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. They 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...
• 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.

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.

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.

Politi-Psychotics: Making the road to truth an obstacle course

2010-09-05T16:28:00.004-04:00

Karen Street's infant blog has an "about" page, and it provides an excellent starting place for fundamental criticism of her work.

I had (...) decided it might be worth quantifying the rulings that PolitiFact gives. It was a way (in my view) to take them one step further: the best way to review a person’s rulings is individually because it’s important to see all the nuances, but calculating averages can give you a better view of that person among peers, and from one group to another (Democrats versus Republicans). So that is another part of my blog, called Politi-Score.

Projects like Politi-Score are useful for partisan game-playing and little else. Selection bias renders the calculated averages worthless for every scientific inquiry other than measuring PolitiFact's selection bias (more on that here).

More from Street:

I (...) realized that there were several patterns emerging. One of those is the “six guidelines” or reasons which are referred to in the “Grading PolitiFact” condensed “Critique the Critique” matrix. These are common, general reasons for issues I have noticed seem to manifest with each critique.

Apparently this means that Street thought of ways to systematically excuse PolitiFact. Let's see how they stack up:

Reason (1) “That’s not what we SAID we were looking for." What is PolitiFact’s (PF) method and goal in determining the truth of the fact? Do they state it in the article? If the person says we are not checking the underlying argument, just the statement, then Bryan’s claims are moot as to *ignoring the underlying argument.* PolitiFact may have implicitly stated it was not checking that in the article. And vice versa.

1) When the PolitiFact author says only the literal truth of the statement will be checked it does not render my criticism moot. Rather, it provides compelling evidence that I am correct that the underlying argument was ignored. When PolitiFact examines the underlying argument in some cases but not in others this tends to translate to unequal application of standards and results in selection bias. A fact check should always employ the same standards regardless. That is the surest way to help ensure objectivity. Layered instances of selection bias increase the likelihood that political bias will taint the results.

Reason (2) “We can’t go there.” Would checking *caveats* or *giving a more charitable interpretation* force PF to move into ideological territory, which again, is precisely what it doesn’t want to do?

2) Employing the same standards every time (see #1), including by always checking caveats and always employing the principle of charitable interpretation represent the best way of keeping PolitiFact from moving into ideological territory. When PolitiFact repeatedly fails to apply equal standards it brings into question whether entering ideological territory "is precisely what it doesn’t want to do."

Reason (3) “What is the focus of‘charitable’?” What is the agenda of Bryan’s frequent use of words charitable and uncharitable? Amusingly and ironically, according to the hesaurus, one of the words that can be used to replace *charitable* is *liberal.* Charitable also means “open handed” “sympathetic” and/or *helpful.* An antonym is “unforgiving.” Charitable can also be construed as, FAVORABLE. Bryan wants a more FAVORABLE interpretation….so, to what ends? Again, implying a more favorable interpretation should have been employed….favorable to who or what? Because making a more “charitable” interpretation might shift us into reason (2)—We can’t go there because it’s too ideological.

3) These "reasons" trend toward inquisition, don't they? The goal of charitable interpretation is obtaining the best understanding of an attempt to communicate. Where I advocate charitable interpretation for all (which I do), the agenda is the best understanding of whoever happens to be writing or speaking.

Reason (4) “Too much information.” Does PolitiFact limit the length (number of words) of its article/ evaluations? Because providing all the context and detail (“to support the underlying argument” as Bryan might say) Bryan demands might not be possible. This is the reason I include a word count for the article on the condensed critique table.

4) Obviously space is a consideration for journalists even on the Internet (and that goes triple or more for print). On the other hand, I do not ask for exhaustive ("all the context and detail") presentation of context. I simply point out such things as places where additional context significantly changes the picture. And there are ways of communicating an accurate picture, or at least a more accurate picture, without offending restrictions on space. If Karen ever asserts that my demands aren't possible it is reasonable to expect a demonstration. I doubt that a suitable case will ever occur.

Reason (5) “This is AS IS--NO returns.” If a pundit or politician makes a statement and then corrects it, should PolitiFact stand with its rating of the original statement even when the pundit or politician makes the correction? For example, when Rudolph Guiliani made the gaffe of saying that there were no attacks on America under G.W. Bush, Bryan wrote in his synopsis “…Sharockman's failure to note Giuliani's full explanation is nearly as perplexing as Giuliani's failure to make explicit note of the 9-11 attacks during his GMA comments. And contrary to Sharockman's opinion, Giuliani's explanation is quite defensible.” So, would going with Bryan’s opinion of Guiliani’s explanation make it any less biased?

5) Another question! The answer is "That depends." In a case like Giuliani's, charitable interpretation should have made it clear both that he know of and viewed as an exception to his remarks the 9-11 attacks. Aside from that, charitable interpretation obligates us to accept any reasonable interpretation, including the reasonable one offered by Giuliani. Sharockman's dismissal of Giuliani's explanation was not reasonable, and was just as amenable to evaluation as Giuliani's statements. As a result, the answer to Street's final question is yes, because my supposed "opinion" of the reasonableness of Giuliani's explanation was based on sound reason while Sharockman's was not. Street's question contained a false premise. Naughty, naughty. If it's all opinion then there's no such thing as "PolitiFact." Let them rename it "PolitOpinion."

Reason (6) “What the hell do you expect, anyway?” Too much “DIPing”—Demanding Impossible Perfection….What would a reasonable expectation be of conclusions reached by an organization such as PolitiFact when evaluating statements by political figures? Do claims of possible ideological bias or journalistic errors or omissions as noted by one who IS biased invalidate the stated goal of their work? We read the complaints coming from both sides of the aisle, that PF is too left wing or too right wing. This should in and of itself prove they are not biased, or at least *trying* not to be. Even Bryan admits their bias is unintentional (and his own, intentional); so what does he expect them to do? There’s always going to be a certain small amount of subjectivity present. Bryan is also critical of their journalistic technique, but that should be a separate issue. If journalistic technique was a complaint that is problematic for a website, then the majority of right wing and left-wing websites have serious issues as well. So we can’t trust him as the judge of this.

6) Please excuse Street's overlap with her reason #4. Everyone is biased, so the claim that anyone is unbiased is the most suspicious claim. And anyone of any level of bias can attempt to provide unbiased reporting. PolitiFact flouts the standards of objective reporting regularly (adverbs, snark); it is through the behavior that one judges the bias in reporting, not simply by noting the bias of the authors at the outset. "We read the complaints coming from both sides of the aisle, that PF is too left wing or too right wing. This should in and of itself prove they are not biased, or at least *trying* not to be." I encounter this fallacy with astonishing regularity. Indeed, it is exceptionally common coming from journalists. Most comments come from the extremes on any position (those nearer the center of the bell curve tend to care insufficiently to express themselves). Criticism from both sides does not indicate a lack of bias. It simply indicates that people may be found both left and right of the view expressed. I have criticism from the left and from the right. That does not remove my bias. It doesn't even reasonably suggest that I'm trying to be unbiased. It's long past time to put this mistake to rest forevermore.

Worth repeating:

If journalistic technique was a complaint that is problematic for a website, then the majority of right wing and left-wing websites have serious issues as well. So we can’t trust him as the judge of this.

If what a majority of right wing and left wing Web sites do invalidates my judgment then it also invalidates Street's judgment ... so we can't trust Street to judge that I can't be trusted as the judge. Street has achieved self-stultification with admirable aplomb.

Summary:

In sum we have six obstacles placed on the road to truth courtesy of Karen Street. In each case, she would discourage the application of the best standards of judgment by providing excuses for the uneven application of standards.

What good is a blog that fundamentally opposes its own supposed purpose? Certainly a blog like that is what Bad Blogs' Blood was created to recognize.

Afters:

I offer thanks to Street for her charitable evaluation of my humble talents (referring to portions of the "about" page I did not elect to quote). If Street is not capable of doing a considerably better job with her blog than I am seeing thus far, then it counts against my judgment of her capabilities. I look forward to better work in the near future, hopefully including an extensive revision of the "about" page at Politi-Psychotics.

Who's the liar?

2010-09-05T15:16:00.002-04:00

As mentioned in a recent post, Karen Street of PolitiFact/Facebook/commentary infamy has started a blog that occasionally attempts to tackle an occasional of my Sublime Bloviations. And that blog is not the place to publish this type of play time.

The subject: The second in Street's fledgling series "Lil' White Lies," which affords us yet another opportunity to ask: Where's the supposed lie?

Street had her answer to the first post in the series via a comment to her blog. She has eradicated blog commentary in her domain, so that's the end of that conversation.

The second in the series concerns a criticism I made of Robyn "Blumñata" Blumner, editorial columnist ~~extra~~ordinaire at the St. Petersburg Times. Blumner plays ventriloquist's dummy for Barry Ritholtz, who argues that the Community Reinvestment Act was not a significant factor in the subprime mortgage crisis. I posted my disagreement with Ritholtz's thesis and referred readers to the work of John Carney for further explanation/exploration.

Street took issue:

The basis of Bryan’s contention of Blumner “buying” Ritholtz’s faulty reasoning was a critique by John Carney of Business Insider. This is the John Carney who wrote this article at the website American Conservative where he stated “We’re the backbench of a minority.”

A) The basis of my contention was not Carney's work but the fact (plainly expressed by me) that many subprime mortgages are not at the same time CRA loans, so Ritholtz reasoning that CRA banks would more often fold as the crisis deepened is, in logical terms, a non sequitur based on a faulty premise.

B) Perhaps Street wants to imply that getting published in the American Conservative makes Carney right-wing enough to discredit his arguments. Perhaps that's why she neglected to mention that Carney's article in the American Conservative attacked the relative lack of content in the typical bestselling books by conservatives such as Mark Levin, Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity. If that was not Street's intention then it is difficult to discern a useful purpose in her second sentence above.

But did John Carney actually “specifically debunk Ritholtz’s objection”?

"(D)ebunk" is obviously my judgment, and I stand behind it based on what is written above and in my original post. Carney wrote in response to (Barry) Ritholtz on the same issue Blumner mentioned in her column:

As much as I respect Barry’s formidable analytical powers, I’m afraid he’s taken too narrow of the view of the matter. His question is far easier to answer than he suspects.

Street offers no reasonable evidence to refute Carney's argument (or mine, for that matter).

He supposedly “debunked” it with three points as to how the CRA created more lax lending standards which “spread” to other lenders…I will try to address each point. Here you can also read a little more about Carney's "bizarre crusade" against the CRA.

Before moving on to see how Street tries to deal with Carney's argument, it's worth noting her attempt (probably the second such) to discredit Carney with irrelevant attacks. She also posted the incorrect link to Carney's three points (rookie bloggers ...). The right one is here.

Three points:

1) Street claims (minus citation) artificial demand for subprime loans would have required more regulation by the Bush administration (non sequitur; ignores long-term development of the subprime market). She adds (again without citation) that the Office of Thrift and Supervision was a "'captured agency'" preventing (for example) that type of regulation (captured for how long?). Finally, she cites Bhutta and Canner claiming that CRA loans accounted for an insufficient percentage of loan sales in 2006 to have significantly influenced the crisis. But that simply misses the thrust of Carney's argument and again ignores the long term nature of the growing subprime market as well as Carney's bond sales argument. Street employs a kind of MXC/wall buggers argument: Have Japanese people covered in velcro rope-swing at a velcro-covered wall and hope one of them sticks.

2) Street handwaves Carney's point that the threat of regulation may have similar effects to regulation by repeating her unsupported claim that bankers were not concerned with regulation during the Bush administration. That notion overlooks the obvious fact that Bush only served four years at a time. Banking behavior that creates a ruckus always draws the attention of government, even if the legislation or regulation is as much as four years away. It also overlooks the fact that Congress wields more power than the presidency. Witness the fact that TARP, enacted under Bush, placed a heavy federal hand on banks.

3) Street needs to learn that it counts as plagiarism to quote material verbatim without in some clear manner acknowledging that it comes from somebody else. Street uses an unattributed quotation of Carney then follows with another non sequitur:

This means that the banks should have led the way and started the subprime offerings earlier than the mortgage companies. According to Mike Konszal, financial engineer, “I’ve never seen a data set that pass[ed] this hurdle.”

Konszal obviously needs to assume that Carney's "quickly" needs to be slow enough to permit his proposed measure to detect the difference. Konsal achieves that by adding straw-filled limbs to the body of Carney's argument, resulting in a Frankensteinian straw man.

Add it all up and tell me: Who's the liar and where's the lie?

Sept. 9, 2010: Removed a redundant "attempt" in the paragraph preceding "Three points."

Politi-Score

2010-09-01T15:20:00.002-04:00

Why waste perfectly good space at Sublime Bloviations dealing with the comments of crackpots?

Great question, if I do say so myself.

That problem accounted in part for the creation Bad Blogs' Blood.

As noted at Sublime Bloviations, one Karen Street created a political blog with a significant emphasis on PolitiFact and my criticisms thereof. Street disabled commentary on her blog (eliminating a handful of comments I had posted), or else I would not bother posting about this at all; I'd simply leave a comment at Street's Politi-Psychics (sp).

Today's bee-in-the-bonnet tale concern's Street's "Politi-Score" project. She uses an Excel spreadsheet to collect data on individuals whose statements are rated by PolitiFact.

Street read a post I created in response to a PolitiFact story by Bill Adair. Adair posted some data in his story similar to Street's, so I made the connection:

Folks like Karen Street are thinking "So, what's the problem? Glenn Beck tends to fudge the truth."

Bee, meet bonnet:

Bryan White objected yesterday in his blog that my calculations are not scientific….where did I ever say they were? The fact is even trying to do it scientifically would be wrought with the quandaries of the same selection bias of which he speaks. Not just selecting samples, but judging those samples.

I wrote nothing at all about Street's calculations. I identified the selection of stories as unscientific because of the obvious selection bias. Street is doing the math, not the selection. But it would be as true of Street as it is true of Adair that her writing suggests an unscientific conclusion. Minus the explanation that the results of something like "Politi-Score" do not serve as a useful measure of the truthfulness of the individuals, readers will tend to understand it that way. And, as a corollary, it isn't unreasonable to think that Street herself draws that type of conclusion until she gets around to a categorical denial. Street almost delivers that denial by acknowledging the reality of selection bias in the PolitiFact data she uses.

A lesson in charitable interpretation

On the issue of Glenn Beck's ratings, Street wrote:

So Glenn Beck doesn’t skew toward false, he’s actually right spot on Barely True.

Adair had written that Beck's ratings skew toward "False." Street tried to put a finer point on it by noting that Beck's ratings form something like a bell curve. Basic charity of interpretation, however, ought to suggest that Adair viewed the range of the "Truth-O-Meter" as a type of continuum, with the left end representing greater falsehood and the right end representing greater veracity. Thus, for Adair to say that Beck "skews toward the False end of the PolitiFact spectrum" simply means that Beck's average is left of the center. He's not trying to associate a rating with Beck's average.

Errors of this type, in sufficient numbers, could qualify a blog for induction to the Bad Blogs' Blood Bad Blogs Blogroll. But it's early. I don't take Karen Street as an idiot overall. On the contrary She just acts like a idiot on occasion. Unfortunately, those occasions have occurred frequently during the early stages of her blogging career.

Bad Blog: Comments From Left Field

2009-05-21T03:08:00.004-04:00

"Kathy" is one of the main contributors to a trending liberal blog called "Comments from Left Field." Every so often I drop by there to see how liberals think, and to contribute to discussion threads. Unfortunately, it is all too apparent that I will have to keep searching for quality content from the left.

Not that I reached that conclusion only recently. But a recent exchange with Kathy on waterboarding provided such an astounding example of bankrupt thinking that I can't keep CFLF on the Sith blogroll at Sublime Bloviations, and moreover it is time to induct CFLF into the bad blogs list at Bad Blogs' Blood.

I found Kathy's approach to waterboarding typical of the left--in my experience, anyway--and therefore both fascinating and disturbing. Kathy thinks that waterboarding is obviously torture--and her opinion parallels Justice Potter Stewart's famous opinion on obscenity from Jacobellis v. Ohio: "I know it when I see it."

Having read the Bybee and Yoo memos, I was aware that the legal opinion on which the Bush administration relied rested largely on the distinction between "pain" and "extreme pain," the latter representing the concept stated in the Convention Against Torture. Kathy used the Convention Against Torture as her source for the definition of torture, but denied that the CAT definition was ambiguous.

Given the relatively obvious demarcation problem with the CAT definition, I asked Kathy how we should distinguish between "pain" and "extreme pain." Though her posts in the discussion thread contained many errors, her response to that query serves as a clear representation of why a blogging Kathy will serve primarily to uneducate people, and why CFLF belongs on the bad blogs list. At least if she sticks to politics and world events instead of something about which she possesses genuine knowledge.

Enjoy:

Bryan:
Where do we draw the line between “severe” and non-severe? Do you know, since you do not find it the least bit ambiguous?

Kathy:
Common sense, not to mention intellectual honesty, would tell you that severity of suffering is defined by what the victim is feeling, not by what the torturer thinks he is feeling, or decides he will feel if a particular torture is done in a particular way.

As well, common sense would tell you that if the victim is screaming, or crying, or begging for the torture to stop, severe suffering is taking place.

And common sense should tell you that intentionally drowning someone to the point of blacking out and/or death — much less doing it 83 times, or 183 times — will cause severe suffering.

Finally, common sense will tell you that if the purpose of subjecting a person to waterboarding, or to sleep deprivation, or to excruciating stress positions, or to exploitation of phobias, is to force the victim to comply with your request for information or answers to specific questions, then the suffering really should probably be severe, since mild discomfort is probably not going to do the trick.

And yes, all of this IS obvious. Or should be, to a minimally intelligent and reasonable person.

So much so, in fact, that I feel I’ve entered some Alice in Wonderland world just by answering these questions.

Which is why I won’t, anymore.

I expect that most people who seriously follow the news would realize that legal standards based on subjective impressions pose a difficulty. I knew no other way to take a standard based on "what the victim is feeling, not what the torturer thinks he is feeling, or decides he will feel if a particular torture is done in a particular way."

Isn't that type of subjectivity the perfect vehicle for a prisoner lawsuit alleging that confinement apart from his terrorist allies produces intolerable psychological pain? How is one to properly serve Allah as a proper extremist if he is prevented from killing infidels? I chose to illustrate the absurdity of Kathy's position by showing her to be a torturer of the worst sort. In my reply, I complained that Kathy was torturing me.

But that wasn't the end of it, of course. Kathy provided the tools to make a strong case against her. After all, it is the victim's impression of suffering that serves to indicate the degree of torture, not the expectation of the torturer. Kathy's own rationale silenced her objections.

True to form, however, Kathy had somewhat contradicted herself. Though the suffering victim of torture is the arbiter of the degree of torture in her view, "common sense" was supposed to inform us that suffering accompanied by various behaviors of the sufferer would indicate to observers (perhaps even the torturer?--I didn't get around to asking that of Kathy) that the physical or mental pain was "severe pain" rather than mere potentially legal "pain."

It was clear what I had to do. I hit the "Caps Lock" key and begged Kathy to stop torturing me.

I figured I had an airtight case according to Kathy's logic. She didn't mount much of a defense.

Bryan: PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE STOP, KATHY!

Dang. You’re guilty.

And you, Bryan, are an idiot. Draw whatever conclusions you wish: I am through here.

So, Kathy's mental assessment of the legal definition of torture amounts to "It's obvious" or "I know it when I see it." And when called on her shallow-as-a-Slip 'n Slide definition of torture, she reverts to ad hominem and avoidance.

And without a deeper rationale than "It's obvious," there is no way to reason the issue. Sadly.

***

The above portion of the induction ceremony was crossposted to Sublime Bloviations.

Let it be acknowledged that "Kathy" is not the only blogger who posts at Comments From Left Field. But if Kathy's political blogging did not have the effect of lowering a reader's IQ, then other CFLF bloggers such as the ne'er-do-well Tas or the foul-keyboarded "mattbastard" could easily justify adding CFLF to the Bad Blogs' Blood bad blogs blogroll.

Let it be so.

Comedy Gold: Chris Crawford at the CFI discussion forum

2009-03-13T11:39:00.002-04:00

The Center for Inquiry discussion board is primarily populated by humanists and skeptics.

Chris Crawford decided months ago to put my posts on ignore. But he can view the response of others to my posts.

And that's where the hilarity emerges. CFI has a policy against engaging in gratuitous personal attacks.

Take it away, Chris!

I realize that I am usurping the responsibilities of our moderators, but I desire to register my objection to the personal nature of your post, Vyazma. While I refuse to interact with Bryan for reasons parallel to your own, I nevertheless feel that this kind of talk lowers the standards of discourse in our little community. I realize that it is frustrating to deal with intellectual dishonesty, but the only civilized option available to you is to ignore Bryan. When I first came here, I engaged Bryan honestly and fairly, and after much wasted effort I realized that honest discussion with Bryan is impossible. I therefore terminated all interaction with him. I recommend that same course of action to you.
(CFI discussion board)

While it's funny enough that Crawford engages in his own personal attack against me (the liar with whom honest discussion is not possible!), the reaction thus far at the forum compounds the comedy. Crawford apparently managed to successfully get his personal attack under the noses of the moderators, but they dutifully removed the post about which he complained.

"Pushing Rope" or "Pushing Dope"?

2009-01-16T01:54:00.003-05:00

Blogger Michael Hussey at "Pushing Rope" apparently felt himself vindicated now that the housing bubble has burst, since he was saying that it had burst back in 2006. While 2006 did eventually produce evidence that the housing bubble had popped, Hussey's analysis exhibited no basis in fact while the evidence at the time showed a mere decrease in the rise in home prices.

Hussey even performs plastic surgery on the past in the attempt to improve his looks:

Bryan continues to argue the 2006 housing market was fantastic.

"Do you read your links?"

Of course. What part did you quote that you think translates into the housing market having popped?
The part about decreased confidence about the future?
Does "downward momentum" mean slowing price gains or decreasing prices?

Do you just read into stuff what you want to see, or what?

In 2006, I saw Florida in economic trouble. Bryan, I could ask you if you saw what you wanted to see. But that would be a pointless rhetorical question.

When a person is so illogical that he takes from my comments that the Florida housing market in 2006 was "fantastic" there's little point in trying to use reason. A drop in the rise in prices does not indicate a "fantastic" market for either buyers or sellers. A drop in prices would at least indicate a potentially fantastic market for buyers, but that hadn't happened yet. In short, Hussey lies about what I wrote through the power of ignorance (assuming that it wasn't a lie of the willful type).

With analysis like that, the rope Hussey's pushing might as well be THC-rich hemp.

The curse of being "left" brained, Part 2

2008-06-25T01:47:00.004-04:00

Updating the hilarious antics of Kathy (of Comments from Left Field) as noted in my previous BBB post, we find Kathy first insisting that she answered my question, and then reversing herself by claiming that there was no reason to address the question.

Just in case the exchange is tough to read from the screen capture I'll transcribe it minus the wisdom of "Chief":

Bryan: Huh. Kathy didn't answer the question again. The start of a pattern?

Kathy: I answered the question, Bryan. You just don't like the answer.

Bryan: Uh, Kathy, you conspicuously avoided the subject of journalism and whether or not it was your intent to support Hinderaker’s argument. Instead you tried to take issue with whether or not pictures showing progress in Iraq, such as the ones I suggested, would show Iraq as something other than hell.

There’s nothing to like or dislike about your “answer” unless it’s the relative distance from the questions that were asked.

Kathy: Bryan, why would I address the question of whether or not it was my intent to support Hinderaker’s argument? That is *your* spin on what I wrote, *your* way of justifying your position. It’s not something I need to respond to, as if it were a serious point.

Bryan: So since it’s something you didn’t need to respond to were you just being funny when you said you answered the question?
Great stuff, Kathy. I look forward to more.

The curse of being "left" brained

2008-06-23T23:32:00.003-04:00

Bad Blogs' Blood hasn't been as active lately because I simply haven't had the time to seek out blogs with the idea of featuring them here. So this blog has evolved into a place where I can dissect commentary from various blogs that I visit, along with potentially inducting the worst blogs into the BBB blogroll of shame.

I very recently put "Comments from Left Field" on the Sith Blogroll over at the Sublime Bloviations blog, and it wasn't long before I recognized that the inimitable Tas blogs there on occasion. Not exactly an equivalent to the Good Housekeeping Seal, if you know what I mean.

So, though I continue to admire the fervor with which the left fielders do their work, some of the commentary is going to end up here.

Blogger "Kathy" responded to a Power Line post regarding the shrinking coverage of the Iraq War. Kathy took issue with John Hinderaker's post ...

What’s truly astounding is that John can put out, and believe, this “no more tears formula” packaging of the war despite the fact that powerful evidence to the contrary is staring him right in the face, at the top of the article, right below the headline. Indeed, John had to scroll down, below that graphic visual evidence, to even begin reading the text of the article. You can’t see the first line of text without scrolling down.

I don't know how Kathy got the impression of a "no more tears formula" for reporting on the war. Hinderaker's point was that the mainstream media prefer to either report with tears on full blast or not report at all. Perhaps Kathy is "left" brained and that explains the odd interpretation. She triumphantly points out to that willfully blind Hinderaker that the story has a picture of tragedy included--how dare he infer that the reporting of the war has gone happy?

I replied in the "comments":

Are you trying to prove Hinderaker’s point, Kathy? That the Times can’t be bothered to publish anything that doesn’t carry the stain of failure attached?

There are plenty of pictures of success. Markets in Basra, Baghdad and even Kirkuk operating like normal everyday markets. Former Sunni insurgents gainfully employed in keeping security in their provinces–fighting al Qaida. Iraq poised to secure oil deals that will help ensure a national income to enable investment in infrastructure–investment severely neglected for thirty years (since Hussein began pouring resources into the Iran-Iraq War–with only a tiny respite between that and the invasion of Kuwait). The Times has access to the traditional defense. Violence sells papers. Stories about happy Iraqi markets do not. The fact that heavy reporting on the success in Iraq would not help Obama is just gravy.

And Kathy worked up a reply (of sorts) of her own:

That market in Baghdad — would that be the same one that David Petraeus drove through in an open unarmed Hummer? Or is it the one that John McCain strolled through in a bullet-proof jacket surrounded by armed troops with helicopters hovering overhead, as he told us that any of us Americans could walk around there without fear?

Gainfully employed? By whom? I guess they must have worked those problems with the U.S. not paying them.

I’m sure you remember that Hussein had a lot of help from the U.S. with those resources he poured into the Iran-Iraq war. Oh, and about the infrastructure: It has been neglected, but not for 30 years. It was fine before 1991, when the U.S. destroyed it in the Gulf War, and over the next 12 years of almost continuous bombing raids. Funny, not much has been done with that infrastructure in the past five years, either. Saddam, as you’ll recall quit his job in 2003.

One final note: Happy Iraqi markets are nice, but they are no substitute for clean water, food, a home, and friends and relatives who aren’t dead. Pictures of happy Iraqi markets make Americans like you happy, but if you were an Iraqi living in Iraq day to day, and having gone through the last five years of war and occupation (not to mention the more than a decade of killer sanctions before that, and before THAT the Gulf War) you would know that Iraq is not a happy place overall. In fact, overall, Iraq is hell.

One should first note that Kathy doesn't answer either of my questions and completely drops the issue of the journalistic coverage of Iraq. That's amazing in and of itself, but there's more amazing stuff there which I will address paragraph by paragraph.

1) I mention markets in three major cities, and Kathy wonders if they are the same market that Petraeus visited (or McCain in armor). I guess Kathy's point is that danger continues in Iraq. Fair point, as far as it goes, but it can't blunt the fact that the markets are operating normally now whereas they formerly did not. Spell that p-r-o-g-r-e-s-s, Kathy.

2) The U.S. is paying the former Sunni insurgents. Kathy apparently seizes on reports like this one (from Feb 200i) in The Washington Post to give her continued hope in failure. Kathy is the sort of person who concludes that a big prison break in Kandahar is a pretty sure sign of a Taliban comeback, mind you.

3) Kathy thinks that Hussein got scads of help from the U.S. during the Iran-Iraq War. That's a common misconception. She also thinks that somehow while Iraq was fighting for its continued existence against Iran and having millions of its people killed that somehow there were plenty of resources with which to sustain Iraq's infrastructure. Oh the wonders of a "left" brain.

It is a curious paradox that chronically indebted and with much of its infrastructure in ruins, Iraq emerged from the war a far more substantial military power than when it invaded Iran in September 1980.
(Amazon.com)

Iraq, as I noted in my comments, had a short period (about three years) to repair infrastructure before the Kuwait invasion and the Gulf War. Kathy is misinformed on this point. She also complains that not much has been done to help the infrastructure since the more recent invasion. On the contrary, much has been done but much has been lost because of insurgent attacks that particularly target oil pipelines and the power grid. In the "left" brain those insurgent attacks are directly the fault of the United States, I suspect. Uh--"almost continuous bombing raids"? Whatever. Hussein steered excess cash into sustaining his personal lifestyle and his armies instead of using it to rebuild infrastructure. He was intent on holding onto his power even if his people had to suffer for it. Again, the "left" brain may well see that as the natural outworking of U.S. policy.

4) In her last paragraph, Kathy essentially repeats her point from her first paragraph that Iraq is still in bad shape. Iraq may be "hell," as Kathy puts it, but it's getting better all the time since the surge strategy was implemented. For Kathy, that probably means it's time to sound the horns of retreat--and probably any reason would be good enough for that for one with a "left" powered brain such as hers.

Another "Ramblings" update then on to other things

2007-11-16T11:33:00.000-05:00

The most recent post over at "Ramblings" helps confirm that Fran doesn't have more than a rudimentary clue about the oil economy. Big oil company profits when the price of oil spikes supposedly indicates that the war in Iraq was the idea of the oil companies. I wonder how the face of the nation would change if voters had to get a passing grade on an oil economy test? Could Dennis Kucinich get a single vote?

The bad content remains the secondary issue with this blog, however. The outstanding problem remains the nutty handling of commentary. I think I've figured out what it takes to have a comment stick, however, by using a carefully graduated string of responses. Red will indicate that the post was removed. Green will indicate apparent acceptance of the comment.

I remain curious about tension between letting the Iraqis settle things themselves and sending in foreign peacekeepers who are not us (U.S.). I'm also sincerely interested in any plausible evidence that apologizing is a useful foreign policy technique.
(screenshot of the post before it was removed)

Apparently too inflammatory, so I went for something shorter more along the lines of objective reporting the next time.

Democrats in Congress would have tabled Kucinich's bill if not for Republican support.
(screenshot of the post before it was removed)

Not the kind of truth Fran wants in front of the eyes of her readers, evidently.
I decided to drift to the other side of neutrality.

What a nice post.
(screenshot taken shortly after posting)

Bingo! It's been up ever since (and remains as of this writing).

I didn't sink to facetiousness, either. Fran's post was a respectful and relatively even-handed entry about a war memorial. Unfortunately the blog remains crap, on balance.

Maybe it'll improve with time (cue Wayne Campbell's infamous phrase).

"Ramblings" update

2007-11-13T08:33:00.000-05:00

Fran offered another example of her zeal to suppress. This one is especially funny.

Fran and company wonder how vets can warrant arrest for disrupting a veterans' ceremony. I supplied the answer with an explanation rooted in legal precedent.

But by the next day the information was gone. Can't have people knowing what the law says about it, can we?

The last post (as of this moment) by "Spadoman" allowed this to tumble from both sides of his mouth:

It is wrong to disallow a faction, especially Veterans on Veterans Day, because they carry a message different than the organizers intended. On the other hand, what did the organizers intend? I believe the Veterans for Peace also have the right to organize a parade. Getting permits would be the problem.

Maybe they're close to figuring it out on their own, now (assuming they're not pretending to have it figured out based on what I already told them!

Let's say they organize a World Peace parade and one of the factions in favor of World Peace wants peace via military jihad? And they stand in front of the podium while the event organizers are trying to do their thing?

Of course my favorite part is host Fran asking "No dissent allowed?" right before she quashes ... well, not dissent exactly. She just quashes the voice she doesn't want to hear, apparently irrespective of content.

Hold the fanfare, just a quick and utilitarian induction ceremony

2007-11-13T00:20:00.000-05:00

I've visited some appallingly bad blogs over the years. Perhaps only the sands of time protect some of them from BBB induction. But this morning's induction stands as perhaps the saddest thus far. While visiting the blog "Ramblings" as hosted by "Fran" I experienced craven commentary management that I haven't seen since the Amanda Marcotte moment.

Not that the regulation of commentary is the only weakness of this blog. The opinions, protected from intellectual insight just as effectively as they are protected from outside criticism, represent the type of thing that results in the worst liberal stereotypes.

But the screening of commentary does serve as the overriding reason for BBB induction.

A blogger who won't tolerate a one-sentence statement of fact (with accompanying URL) is pathetic in a sobering way. No fanfare. This one calls for a dirge.

BBB welcomes Ramblings to its blogroll of dishonor.

Read the history here and here if you're interested.

POAC XIX: Chemical weapon?

2007-07-12T23:03:00.000-04:00

This post fulfills the goal of documenting 16 flops in the "Counterspin" attempt of the Project for the Old American Century.

I got through 15 flubs going more-or-less in order (which became tricky after I took a hiatus from the project and the page was rearranged). I took my time choosing the final entry. Many of the remaining "Counterspin" attempts concerned alleged talking points that weren't worth defending, and the justifications looked like they'd be at least ball-park accurate. If the author (T. J. Templeton, as I understand it) sticks with the type of material represented by most of the recent additions, it will count as an improvement.

But on to business.

The alleged talking point:

The use of white phosphorous in Fallujah doesn't count as a chemical weapons attack

Well, it can definitely be used as a weapon, and it's definitely a chemical ... but so is lead, depending on the definition we use.

Pentagon Document Described White Phosphorus As ‘Chemical Weapon’

The unclassified Dept of Defense Source Document that identifies white phosphorus as a chemical weapon. See section II C and the definitions at TAB A

Two URLS, and they'll be treated in order.

To downplay the political impact of revelations that U.S. forces used deadly white phosphorus rounds against Iraqi insurgents in Falluja last year, Pentagon officials have insisted that phosphorus munitions are legal since they aren’t technically “chemical weapons.”

The media have helped them. For instance, the New York Times ran a piece today on the phosphorus controversy. On at least three occasions, the Times emphasizes that the phosphorus rounds are “incendiary muntions” that have been “incorrectly called chemical weapons."
(ThinkProgress)

This citation ultimately bases its case on an internal Pentagon paper. I'll get to that at the end.

In short, the Pentagon statement is exactly right, and the internal paper is irrelevant.

A Bit of History:

The attack in Fallujah, in this case, occurred in November of 2004. The stink at the time was an allegation from an Italian journalist that white phosphorus had been used to target civilians in Fallujah. How one can make that claim when insurgents wear civilian clothing and commonly use civilians as shields in order to wage media war ... is a good question.

One particularly important thing to remember is that military forces circled Fallujah before attacking, and allowed substantial time for civilians to leave the city.

The assault on Fallujah that was to occur in November 2004 was among the most widely telegraphed attacks in American military history. The US and Iraqi forces had no chance of executing any major surprise, though, as you will see, they did achieve some surprise. For its part, the enemy since April had the time to regroup, reorganize, dig in, resupply, reinforce and prepare. Debriefing reports from our troops and embedded reporters reflect that the enemy did all of that, and did it very well. As you will see, the Americans had time to prepare a very detailed plan of attack, and had the time to acquire intelligence that would hold US forces in good stead when the time came to attack.

Official estimates, confirmed by many Iraqis who remained in the city, were that about 75 percent of the population had left, heeding the American and Iraqi government warnings of impending doom (some say as many as 90 percent left; hard to tell). If you accept a population figure of 300,000, and the 75 percent evacuation figure, that would leave something on the order of 75,000 people left in the city.
(talkingproud.us)

In short, considerable pains were taken to avoid civilian casualties. Surprise was forsaken for the sake of civilians.

It should not surprise if the insurgents deliberately kept civilians near their positions in order to wage media war.

But then POAC isn't really concerned about that aspect of the attack. Templeton is apparently convinced that white phosphorus is a chemical weapon.

Here's what the BBC reported:

WHITE PHOSPHORUS

Spontaneously flammable chemical used for battlefield illumination
Contact with particles causes burning of skin and flesh
Use of incendiary weapons prohibited for attacking civilians (Protocol III of Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons)
Protocol III not signed by US
(BBC--see embedded sidebar)

And here's the text of of Protocol III:

Protocol on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Incendiary Weapons (Protocol III). Geneva, 10 October 1980.

Article 1
Definitions

For the purpose of this Protocol:
1. "Incendiary weapon" means any weapon or munition which is primarily designed to set fire to objects or to cause burn injury to persons through the action of flame, heat, or combination thereof, produced by a chemical reaction of a substance delivered on the target. (a) Incendiary weapons can take the form of, for example, flame throwers, fougasses, shells, rockets, grenades, mines, bombs and other containers of incendiary substances.
(b) Incendiary weapons do not include:
(i) Munitions which may have incidental incendiary effects, such as illuminants, tracers, smoke or signalling systems;
(ii) Munitions designed to combine penetration, blast or fragmentation effects with an additional incendiary effect, such as armour-piercing projectiles, fragmentation shells, explosive bombs and similar combined-effects munitions in which the incendiary effect is not specifically designed to cause burn injury to persons, but to be used against military objectives, such as armoured vehicles, aircraft and installations or facilities.
2. "Concentration of civilians" means any concentration of civilians, be it permanent or temporary, such as in inhabited parts of cities, or inhabited towns or villages, or as in camps or columns of refugees or evacuees, or groups of nomads.
3. "Military objective" means, so far as objects are concerned, any object which by its nature, location, purpose or use makes an effective contribution to military action and whose total or partial destruction, capture or neutralization, in the circumstances ruling at the time, offers a definite military advantage.
4. "Civilian objects" are all objects which are not military objectives as defined in paragraph 3.
5. "Feasible precautions" are those precautions which are practicable or practically possible taking into account all circumstances ruling at the time, including humanitarian and military considerations.

Article 2
Protection of civilians and civilian objects

1. It is prohibited in all circumstances to make the civilian population as such, individual civilians or civilian objects the object of attack by incendiary weapons.
2. It is prohibited in all circumstances to make any military objective located within a concentration of civilians the object of attack by air-delivered incendiary weapons.
3. It is further prohibited to make any military objective located within a concentration of civilians the object of attack by means of incendiary weapons other than air-delivered incendiary weapons, except when such military objective is clearly separated from the concentration of civilians and all feasible precautions are taken with a view to limiting the incendiary effects to the military objective and to avoiding, and in any event to minimizing, incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians and damage to civilian objects.
4. It is prohibited to make forests or other kinds of plant cover the object of attack by incendiary weapons except when such natural elements are used to cover, conceal or camouflage combatants or other military objectives, or are themselves military objectives.
(Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons)

First, note that the United States has never ratified Protocol III (objecting that it is overbroad to the point of potentially forcing the military in some instances to allow greater civilian casualities because of its prohibitions).

Second, note that the U.S. arguably stayed within the bounds of the treaty anyway. The white phosphorus used in Fallujah was used primarily for screening, and secondarily to flush insurgents out of hiding. Both are permissible uses under the CCCW.

And, obviously, white phosphorous is not a chemical weapon according to the laws of war, or else it would not be covered under the CCCW.

So, what about this Pentagon paper? Well, it was an "information report." In essence, some guy phoned his "brother" in Iraq and the guy told him that "phosphorus chemical weapons" had been used in Iraq following the Gulf War.

The term is apparently not a Pentagon designation, but the terminology chosen by the source of the information. The term did end up in the summary title of the report.

In any case, the Pentagon doesn't decide what is and what isn't a chemical weapon according to the laws of war.

***

Now for another Pentagon document, courtesy of the second URL. This one is apparently based at least in part on the document we just considered.

Templeton thinks that sections IIc and TAB A show that white phosphorus is a chemical weapon.

Soon after the cease-fire, US forces began to receive reports from Shiia refugees that described Iraqi government attacks on their cities. Some reports indicated that the government used mustard (a blister agent), as well as napalm and white phosphorus against the Shiias.^{^[9]}Other reports denied that government forces had used chemical warfare agents against their city, but claimed they had used weapons containing napalm and white phosphorus.^{^[10]}One refugee report provides a compilation of accounts from 150 Shiia refugees and alleges the use of all these substances, as well as hydrochloric and sulfuric acid.^{^[11]}Unfortunately, none of the refugees provided a technical or otherwise accurate identification of the weapons that were used by the Iraqi government, whether they contained a chemical warfare agent or not. In addition, many of the refugees had no training or technical understanding of weapons. As the compilation report indicates, these refugees generally categorized the weapons as "chemical."^{^[12]}This fact, coupled with the difficulty of accurately translating these reports, complicated our attempts to determine the accuracy of the allegations of chemical warfare agent use by the Iraqi government.
(IIc)

There's nothing there that enables a logical conclusion that white phosphorus is a chemical weapon. Read it 20 times and that won't change--unless you're hallucinating by that point.

Well, how about TAB A?

This tab provides a listing of acronyms and abbreviations found in this report. Additionally, the glossary section provides definitions for selected technical terms that are not found in common usage.

Acronyms and Abbreviations

CIA Central Intelligence Agency

CW chemical warfare

CWA chemical warfare agent

DIA Defense Intelligence Agency

MASH mobile army surgical hospital

NBC nuclear, biological, and chemical

SITREP situation report

US United States

USAMRICD US Army Medical Research Institute of Chemical Defense

USCENTCOM United States Central Command

Glossary

Blister agent
A blister agent is a chemical warfare agent that produces local irritation and damage to the skin and mucous membranes, pain and injury to the eyes, reddening and blistering of the skin, and when inhaled, damage to the respiratory tract. Blister agents include mustards, arsenicals like lewisite, and mustard and lewisite mixtures. Blister agents are also called vesicants or vesicant agents.^{^[48]}

Blood agent
A blood agent is a chemical warfare agent that is inhaled and absorbed into the blood, carrying the agent to all body tissues where it interferes with the tissue oxygenation process. The brain is especially affected. The effect on the brain leads to cessation of respiration followed by cardiovascular collapse.^{^[49]}

Chemical warfare agent
A chemical warfare agent is a chemical substance, excluding riot control agents, herbicides, smoke, and flame, used in military operations to kill, seriously injure, or incapacitate though its physiological effects. Included are blood, nerve, blister, choking, and incapacitating agents.^{^[50]}

Conventional weapon
A conventional weapon is a weapon that is neither nuclear, biological, nor chemical.^{^[51]}

Mustard
A mustard agent is a blister chemical warfare agent that produces local irritation and damage to the skin and mucous membranes, pain and injury to the eyes, reddening and blistering of the skin, and when inhaled, damage to the respiratory tract.^{^[52]}

Nerve agents
Nerve agents are the most toxic of the chemical warfare agents. Nerve agents are absorbed into the body through breathing, by injection, or absorption through the skin. They affect the nervous and the respiratory systems and various body functions.^{^[54]}

Riot control agent
A riot control agent is a chemical that produces transient effects that disappear within minutes after exposure and rarely require medical treatment. Riot control agents are effective in quelling civil disturbances and in preventing unnecessary loss of life.^{^[55]}

White Phosphorus
White phosphorus is a form of phosphorus which creates spectacular bursts when used in artillery shells and is very damaging to the skin since it burns on exposure to oxygen.^{^[56]}
(TAB A)

The first thing to notice is the definition of "Chemical Warfare Agent." The definition gives us no reason to include white phosphorus--but it could be argued that it provides no strong reason to exclude it, either. The definition does specify the inclusion "blood, nerve, blister, choking, and incapacitating agents" but one might argue that the list does not exclude additional categories.

On the other hand, "Blister Agent," "Blood Agent," "Mustard" and "Nerve Agent" are all specifically defined as chemical warfare agents. The "White Phosphorus" entry includes no such distinction.

There is no reasonable evidence in this document that white phosphorus is considered a chemical warfare agent by the Pentagon, even if we were to suppose that the Pentagon had some role in defining the term for purposes of the international laws of war.
***

Congratulations, Project for the Old American Century. You're on the Bad Blogs' Blood bad blogs blogroll.

POAC XVIII: Al Gore & the Internet

2007-06-29T23:15:00.000-04:00

Eighteenth in a continuing series on the "Counterspin" page at People for the Old American Century. One more clunker and POAC is inducted into the Bad Blog's Blood blogroll of bad blogs.

It's not this one, however. POAC wisely punted to Snopes.com which, along with Annenberg Political Fact Check (FactCheck.org), is where anyone with good sense would go to resolve questions about these issues rather than going to POAC Counterspin.

I think that Snopes.com misses the mark by a bit on this one, however, since referring to Gore's Internet claim was primarily a case of hyperbole used to highlight Gore's tendency toward self-aggrandizement. Snopes.com did make note of it, but probably underemphasized it in their answer: "... although Gore's phrasing was clumsy (and perhaps self-serving) ...").

Snopes.com accurately notes that the hyperbole is misleading; and I would add for those unaware of Gore's pattern of exaggerating aspects of his career. For that reason, use of the claim as hyperbole should be adequately clear in the context that it is used.

POAC XVII: Who stopped the recount?

2007-06-29T10:08:00.002-04:00

Seventeenth in a continuing series, peeling away the spin of the "Counterspin" page at the Project for the Old American Century.

The supposed talking point:

It was the Democrats who stopped the vote count in 2000

Really? Which vote count?
T. J. Templeton, who has admitted being the author of POAC's Counterspin entries, has this habit of using unattributed "talking points," so it is often hard to tell what the original claim is supposed to have meant.

Just from memory, I recall a number of separate vote counts in Florida in the wake of the 2000 election. I seem to recall that the Broward County vote count was stopped temporarily because of uncertainty about the legalities, and some of that probably stemmed from Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris' determination that certain counties were proceeding with inappropriate vote counts.

Harris made that determination on the advice of a law group dominated by Democrats, I will add.

How pervasive was this talking point? I searched for the exact phrase with Google and got one hit. That hit was--you guessed it!--POAC Counterspin.

So how does Templeton debunk this mysterious talking point? Perhaps we may obtain a clue as to what the talking point is simply by considering the response.

The man Bush tapped to fill Karl Rove’s spot as his policy advisor is none other than Joel Kaplan, who took part in the infamous “Brooks Brothers riot” of 2000. That’s when a bunch of Washington GOP operatives, posing as outraged Floridians, waved fists, chanted “Stop the fraud!” and pounded windows in an effort to intimidate officials engaged in the Florida recount effort.

John Bolton: "Im with the Bush-Cheney team, and I'm here to stop the count."

Bush gave plum jobs to supporters who worked recount

Three URLs this time. As usual, I'll treat the URLs in order of occurrence.

The new White House policy chief, who is filling Karl Rove’s shoes in that post, took part in the infamous “Brooks Brothers riot” of 2000, in which GOP operatives, dressed as protesters, tried to intimidate officials engaged in the Florida recount. (Via Truthout.)
(Truthdig)

If you're wondering how Joe Kaplan taking part in the "infamous 'Brooks Brothers Riot'" amounts to a falsification of a claim that the Democrats stopped the vote count in Florida, then I'm with you.

Well, let's follow the links and see if we accomplish anything other than chasing a wild goose.

What about that "infamous" riot, anyway?

That's when a bunch of Washington GOP operatives, posing as outraged Floridians, waved fists, chanted "Stop the fraud!" and pounded windows in an effort to intimidate officials engaged in the Florida recount effort.
(TPMMuckraker)

So far nothing about who stopped a vote count, though perhaps the intent is to show that Republicans were responsible for intimidating the people (Democrats?) who stopped the vote count temporarily.

How did they pose as outraged Floridians, I wonder? Was the chant more involved than Muckraker presented it, something more like "We're outraged Floridians and we want you to stop the fraud!"? Or did they just rent cars with Florida license plates (oh, the deviousness of that!)?

Well, maybe it was the pounding on the windows that stopped the vote count.

article.php is deprecated
(smirkingchimp.com)

That trail ends with a broken link.

I suppose I'm left to my own devices.

Aired November 22, 2000 - 1:27 p.m. ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
NATALIE ALLEN, CNN ANCHOR: Miami-Dade County's canvassing board has just voted 3-0 to stop all recounts after a contentious morning there. And we'll continue to talk with our correspondent about those developments. But that perhaps puts all the focus on Palm Beach County and Broward County and the question surrounding those absentee ballots.
(CNN)

And from a little later in the same transcript:

CHRIS BLACK, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Frank, the Gore campaign officials that I've been able to reach are just stunned by this setback, the decision from the Miami-Dade officials. They say they believe that the Miami-Dade County officials have been intimidated by the Republicans, that there was a near-riot this morning at the courthouse where they were trying to count those ballots. And they believe that there's no question there's a relationship between that near-riot this morning and this decision. They say this is part of a pattern of Republican obstructionist tactics, and this is one of their greatest concerns the Republicans will try to slow down if not stop this count before the deadline on Sunday -- Frank.
(ibid)

OK, so Gore team officials thought that the riot definitely influenced the Miami-Dade decision. What did the county canvassing board say?

JIM LEHRER: There were several major developments today in the Presidential recount in Florida. In Miami-Dade County, election officials halted their hand counting. They said they could not finish by Sunday. Vice President Gore's campaign appealed that decision. Last night, the Florida Supreme Court ruled hand counts must be included in the state's final tally, if completed by Sunday.
(PBS)

The Miami-Dade canvassing board halted its manual recount because it looked like it would be a waste of money, in other words. Was the GOP riot team just concerned about the manual recount?

This section of the same PBS transcript encapsulates that aspect of the story:

BETTY ANN BOWSER: But today in south Florida, partisan fighting escalated after the Miami-Dade canvassing board said it didn't have time to recount of all its 650,000 ballots. Instead, the Democratically controlled board decided to hand count just those ballots not counted by the machines, a move denounced by Republican leaders.

Florida election law in 2000 allowed no provision in the protest of election return procedure for a county canvassing board to only canvass undervotes.

(5) If the manual recount indicates an error in the vote tabulation which could affect the outcome of the election, the county canvassing board shall:
(a) Correct the error and recount the remaining precincts with the vote tabulation system;
(b) Request the Department of State to verify the tabulation software; or
(c) Manually recount all ballots.
(6) Any manual recount shall be open to the public.
(7) Procedures for a manual recount are as follows:
(a) The county canvassing board shall appoint as many counting teams of at least two electors as is necessary to manually recount the ballots. A counting team must have, when possible, members of at least two political parties. A candidate involved in the race shall not be a member of the counting team.
(b) If a counting team is unable to determine a voter's intent in casting a ballot, the ballot shall be presented to the county canvassing board for it to determine the voter's intent.

(Florida Statutes for year 2000, Title IX, 102.166)

The PBS reporting also provides a hint or two that the Miami-Dade recount was not open to the public (note the clamoring by the protesters that they be permitted to witness the recount).

***

We move to the second URL.

"Im with the Bush-Cheney team, and I'm here to stop the count."
Those were the words John Bolton yelled as he burst into a Tallahassee library on Saturday, Dec. 9, 2000, where local election workers were recounting ballots cast in Florida's disputed presidential race between George W. Bush and Al Gore.

(The Nation, via Common Dreams)

We appear to have left Miami-Dade County without ever establishing that the three Democrats who made up the canvassing board were not the ones who decided not to proceed with the manual recount. We're now in Leon County, dealing with a recount ordered by the Florida Supreme Court.Well, then again, there's this:

It was there that he personally shut down the review of ballots from Miami-Dade County, a populous and particularly contested county where independent reviews would later reveal that hundreds of ballots that could reasonably have been counted for Gore were instead discarded.
(ibid)

The writer appears to have lost his hold on objectivity, if not reality. It's absurd to suggest that Bolton "personally" shut down that count because the canvassing board appears primarily responsible, and even if the protest is blamed (a protest which appeared to have legitimate grounds--see above) for influencing the board's decision it's hard to see how it could in turn be associated directly with Bolton.

[Note: Contrary to my initial impression, the passage above still refers to the count of Miami-Dade ballots in Leon County. Thus, the writer is suggesting that Bolton was "personally responsible" for causing the vote count to stop even though it was ordered by the Supreme Court of the United States--a position no less absurd than the other]

Again, there's nothing here that appears to contradict the claim that the Miami-Dade canvassing board ended its own manual recount.

***

We move to the third URL.

article.php is deprecated
(smirkingchimp.com)

Oops.

Don't panic. I'll see what I can do.

It was [Bolton's] role, on a Saturday, Dec. 9, 2000, to burst into a library where workers were recounting Miami-Dade ballots to relay news of the U.S. Supreme Court's stay in the on-again, off-again presidential recount. ``I'm with the Bush-Cheney team, and I'm here to stop the count,'' he was quoted as saying in news reports at the time.
(Knight-Ridder Newspapers, via extralove.com)

The lead of the story makes it look like Bolton's just trying to intimidate the poor innocent poll workers. Seems like bringing news of a U.S. Supreme Court stay would give some legitimacy to his intent to stop the recount.

The Knight-Ridder story had a fascinating amount of spin to it. The writer repeatedly sheds the practices of objective writing: ("bursting into"--no attribution, "supposedly spontaneous"--no attribution, "helped persuade"--no attribution) in favor of editorializing.

Summary: Another POAC flop. Miami-Dade Democrats decided to halt their manual recount because they could not complete it by the deadline, and probably because they were embarrassed about trying to conduct an improper recount limited to undervotes while barring the count from public observation.

To help underscore that last point, here's a Youtube video of the protest.

The video is a piece of liberal propaganda, to be sure, but it's valuable because it has audio of the protest: "Let us in." Listen for it, starting around the 2:00 mark (it was counting down when I previewed it).

One might wonder why the news reports have the protesters chanting "Stop the fraud!" while the audio has them chanting "Let us in!"
I guess the reporter chooses which chant is most relevant to his version of the story.

The "I can't believe I missed this the first time" file (Sept. 15, 2010 Update)

The Truthout/Truthdig account of the Brooks Brothers riot says that the group was "dressed as protesters."

Like there's some required uniform or appearance code for protesting?

The name "Brooks Brothers riot" came from the description of one of the GOP participants in defense of the group's actions. The media portrayed them as a mob. The "Brooks Brothers" comment emphasized that it was a nicely dressed group (formal attire expected of all protesters!)--not the sort of attire one would ordinarily expect of a mob unless it was during Prohibition and they carried submachine guns.

"(D)ressed as protesters." I'm still laughing.

POAC XVI: Valerie Plame

2007-06-25T14:48:00.000-04:00

Sixteenth in a continuing series on the "Project for the Old American Century" Counterspin page.

The talking point this time:

Valerie Plame was not deep undercover

Though it's hard to understand why Patrick Fitzgerald would be permitted to pursue the investigation if Valerie Plame were not a covert agent, it took a surprisingly long time for any official statement on the matter. This "counterspin" entry apparently predates the official statement.

The POAC spin:
CIA SAYS WILSON WAS UNDERCOVER: “But within the C.I.A., the exposure of Ms. Plame is now considered an even greater instance of treachery. Ms. Plame, a specialist in nonconventional weapons who worked overseas, had ‘nonofficial cover,’ and was what in C.I.A. parlance is called a Noc, the most difficult kind of false identity for the agency to create.” [New York Times, 10/5/03]
MSNBC confirms that Plame was working on Iran nuke counter-proliferation when she was outed.

Two URLs, and we'll take them one at a time, as usual.

The first is from a New York Times story by Elizabeth Bumiller. If you haven't subscribed to the Times (or are not willing to do what it takes to access the story) then you're not going to find any backup for the POAC claim here. It may appear on the POAC site eventually, since they seem to have little regard for copyright other than establishing a rule that copyrighted material may not be posted in the message board area (a rule that is commonly broken as regulars there post entire articles from copyrighted sources).

I think this is the most relevant passage:

But within the C.I.A., the exposure of Ms. Plame is now considered an even greater instance of treachery. Ms. Plame, a specialist in nonconventional weapons who worked overseas, had ''nonofficial cover,'' and was what in C.I.A. parlance is called a Noc, the most difficult kind of false identity for the agency to create. While most undercover agency officers disguise their real profession by pretending to be American embassy diplomats or other United States government employees, Ms. Plame passed herself off as a private energy expert. Intelligence experts said that Nocs have especially dangerous jobs.
(New York Times, Oct 5, 2003)

The claim is that Plame was a "noc," but the claim is not sourced to a named individual.
Apparently Bumiller did talk to sources within the CIA, but for some reason they would not identify themselves. If you're sufficiently liberal, go ahead and imagine that they feared recriminations from the White House for flatly stating that Plame was undercover. Or maybe it was still a secret even after the Wilsons were talking about it.

Here's the type of sourcing we get from Bumiller on this one:

As required by law, the agency notified the Justice Department in late July that there had been a release of classified information; it is a felony for any official with access to such information to disclose the identity of a covert American officer. It is unclear when Mr. Tenet became aware of the referral, but when he did, he supported it, the C.I.A. official said, even though it was clearly going to cause problems for the White House. ''I don't think he lost any sleep over it,'' the official said.

Why didn't the CIA make any official announcement? If it's a secret, then shouldn't those who gave the information without identifying themselves also, by law, have their actions reported to the Justice Department?
Not to digress, but if it's required by law for the Justice Department to be notified when there is a release of classified information, then why did the Justice Department fail to follow up two well-known leaks of classified information to the New York Times (the asset-tracking story, and the NSA program story)?

The first citation is not a firm rebuttal of the notion that Plame did not maintain covert status. If the report to the Justice Department was made according to a legal requirement and the report itself was public knowledge, then nothing should stop the CIA from making a statement on the matter. Statements were made by sources speaking not-for-attribution. That is fishy, on its face.

***

Second URL.

The second link is broken as of this writing.

My research indicates that POAC probably referred to this taped report by David Shuster, which aired on "Hardball With Chris Mathews" on May 1, 2006.

In any case, as prosecutor Fitzgerald considers whether to charge Karl Rove with perjury, obstruction of justice or worse, MSNBC has learned new information about the damage caused by the White House leaks. Intelligence sources says Valerie Wilson was part of an operation three years ago tracking the proliferation of nuclear weapons material into Iran. And the sources allege that when Mrs. Wilson’s cover was blown, the administration’s ability to track Iran’s nuclear ambitions was damaged as well.
(MSNBC)

Again, note that even in 2006 when the case has progressed substantially there is no official word of Plame's covert status ("Intelligence sources").

Yes, unidentified sources provide some evidence that Plame was covert, but they hardly settle the matter unequivocally. The best evidence for Plame's covert status did not come out until around the Libby trial sentencing phase.

A newly disclosed court filing from special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald reveals that former CIA agent Valerie Plame Wilson was indeed a covert agent who had traveled overseas undercover when her identity was revealed by columnist Bob Novak.
(The Raw Story)

Raw Story thought the fact that this "newly disclosed filing" confirming Plame's covert status was newsworthy (it went in the lead). Now, why would they think that if it had been confirmed earlier? Answer: It hadn't been confirmed sufficiently for responsible reporters to make the claim.

As for writers and pundits who claimed that Plame wasn't undercover--there was some evidence to cast doubt on her status, but not enough to claim that she was not undercover.

Evidently she was covert in the eyes of the CIA, and they did a poor job of keeping her that way aside from the actions of Armitage, Libby, and Rove.

POAC again did an inept job of substantiating its claim, but that's understandable considering how little there was to go on until recently. The POAC zeal exceeded journalistic good sense, but at this point we at least have some official claim to Plame's covert status.

T. J. Templeton claims credit for the "Counterspin" entries, so I'll start giving credit where it's due.

POAC XV: Cheney and Halliburton (Oh, my!)

2007-06-20T23:56:00.001-04:00

Fifteenth in a continuing series putting a stop to the spin at the POAC (Project for the Old American Century) counterspin page.

Cheney has severed his ties to Halliburton

That refers to the reported arrangement whereby Cheney continues to receive benefits from his former employment at Halliburton, where Cheney gains nothing if Halliburton prospers and loses nothing if Halliburton falters. More on this later.

The POAC spin:

Cheney's Halliburton Ties Remain

The URL leads us to CBS News.

(CBS/AP) A report by the Congressional Research Service undermines Vice President Dick Cheney's denial of a continuing relationship with Halliburton Co., the energy company he once led, Sen. Frank Lautenberg said Thursday.

The report says a public official's unexercised stock options and deferred salary fall within the definition of "retained ties" to his former company.
(CBS)

Lautenberg is a noted objective observer ... no wait, he's a Democratic Senator from New Jersey. The Congressional Research Service is Laughtenberg's authority for asserting ties, but before we move on to that, what exactly is Laughtenberg trying to say? That Cheney is unduly influenced in the office of vice president by Halliburton?

It turns out there's no need for me to do the research on this one. The normally reliable Annenberg fact-checkers are all over this one with a rather long entry.

Perhaps the choicest bit:

Shortly after that, Democratic Sen. Frank Lautenberg released a legal analysis he'd requested from the Congressional Research Service. Without naming Cheney, the memo concluded a federal official in his position -- with deferred compensation covered by insurance, and stock options whose after-tax profits had been assigned to charity -- would still retain an "interest" that must be reported on an official's annual disclosure forms. And in fact, Cheney does report his options and deferred salary each year.

But the memo reached no firm conclusion as to whether such options or salary constitute an "interest" that would pose a legal conflict. It said "it is not clear" whether assigning option profits to charity would theoretically remove a potential conflict, adding, "no specific published rulings were found on the subject." And it said that insuring deferred compensation "might" remove it as a problem under conflict of interest laws.
Actually, the plain language of the Office of Government Ethics regulations on this matter seems clear enough. The regulations state: "The term financial interest means the potential for gain or loss to the employee . . . as a result of governmental action on the particular matter." So by removing the "potential for gain or loss" Cheney has solid grounds to argue that he has removed any "financial interest" that would pose a conflict under federal regulations.

Fine work at FactCheck.org. Worth reading in its entirety.

In summary, the so-called "ties" between Cheney and Halliburton do not appear to constitute any legal or ethical problem. The POAC spin intimates otherwise.

POAC XIV: Social Security insolvency

2007-06-18T23:01:00.000-04:00

This one, at first blush, looks like it will make up for the aberrant relative coherence of POAC XIII.

POAC, for those keeping track, is the Project for an Old American Century. The name is a play on words poking fun at the Project for a New American Century--a conservative group.

Somebody at POAC wastes his or her time writing nonsense political apologetics.

Here's the supposed talking point:
Social Security is going to collapse and republicans will save it by privatizing it.

Bush's Social Security reform plan wasn't a privatization plan. The Bush plan proposed placing a small portion of workers' payroll deductions in a "private" account belonging to the individual. The money would still go to the government, which would in turn invest the funds according to a number of options. The plan was not presented as an idea to save Social Security per se, but as a big step in the right direction. The idea was a forced investment/savings plan.
As for the collapse of Social Security, it's an inevitability given the structure of the system. The population is graying, and the workforce is not going to keep pace even with illegal immigration (Poor immigrants place a drain on the system they might otherwise benefit).

The collapse of the system is not imminent, but the rampant growth of other entitlement programs may speed Social Security's demise. Social Security will be forced to cut benefits, or the government will have to cut other services to provide for retirement benefits.

But let's not get too far diverted from POAC's attempt to show that Social Security isn't in trouble.

A memo written by an aide to Karl Rove, about how to sell Social Security privatization. The public, says Mr. Wehner, must be convinced that "the current system is heading for an iceberg."..."For the first time in six decades, the Social Security battle is one we can win."
President Eisenhower called Texas oil millionaires "stupid" for wanting to abolish social security

Two URLs. I'll take them in order, as is the custom at BBB.

1/11/05 - The Iceberg Cometh

By PAUL KRUGMAN
New York Times

[L]ast week someone leaked a memo written by Peter Wehner, an aide to Karl Rove, about how to sell Social Security privatization. The public, says Mr. Wehner, must be convinced that "the current system is heading for an iceberg."

It's the standard Bush administration tactic: invent a fake crisis to bully people into doing what you want. "For the first time in six decades," the memo says, "the Social Security battle is one we can win." One thing I haven't seen pointed out, however, is the extent to which the White House expects the public and the media to believe two contradictory things.
The administration expects us to believe that drastic change is needed, and needed right away, because of the looming cost of paying for the baby boomers' retirement.

The administration expects us not to notice, however, that the supposed solution would do nothing to reduce that cost. Even with the most favorable assumptions, the benefits of privatization wouldn't kick in until most of the baby boomers were long gone. For the next 45 years, privatization would cost much more money than it saved.

Ah, the inimitable Paul Krugman. Professor of Economics at Princeton and all-around shill for the Democrats.

Krugman worked from a document commonly known as the Wehner memo. The Wehner memo was written as "not for attribution" but the press doesn't pay attention to stuff like that if they get the memo from somebody other than the one who wrote it. Thus, there was plenty of attribution.
Krugman used a single quotation in the memo, referring to the administration representing Social Security as "heading for an iceberg." Krugman tells the reader that the administration's plan is to present an "imminent" problem with Social Security. In other words, the administration wants to fool people and thus trick them into supporting Social Security reform. But how does the memo actually read?

We will focus on Social Security immediately in this new year. Our strategy will probably include speeches early this month to establish an important premise: the current system is heading for an iceberg. The notion that younger workers will receive anything like the benefits they have been promised is fiction, unless significant reforms are undertaken. We need to establish in the public mind a key fiscal fact: right now we are on an unsustainable course. That reality needs to be seared into the public consciousness; it is the pre-condition to authentic reform.
(Wehner memo, at "The Dubya Report")

If you think that the memo makes sense, you're right. But maybe if we just use the "heading for an iceberg" part and imply that Wehner was intimating that Social Security was headed for an imminent collapse we can gin up some opposition to the plan ...
Back to Krugman.

Krugman asserts that the private accounts under Bush's plan would require the government to borrow money.

That's partly true. The money that workers put in their own accounts would not go directly to Social Security beneficiaries and into the Federal Government's slush fund--the government spends Social Security deductions just like any other tax, promising to pay it back later; that was why Al Gore when he ran for president in 2000 was promising to put Social Security in a "lock box" so that the federal government couldn't touch the funds.

Since the federal government wouldn't be able to borrow as much from Social Security, it would have to borrow from somewhere else.

Krugman's shorthand turns that into "borrowing for privatization."

But Krugman's obfuscation aside, the big problem with his column is that it doesn't present any sort of alternative for addressing Social Security's problems. And the Congressional Budget Office unquestionably recognized problems.

In the coming decades, society's changing demographics and the accompanying demands for goods and services are likely to create a significant economic challenge. However, there is not a lot of time to prepare.

They almost make it sound like we're headed for an iceberg.

Changes to the Social Security and Medicare programs would be best accomplished sooner rather than later because future beneficiaries would have longer to prepare, because those changes could be less drastic, and because they could enhance economic growth.
(CBO)

Donald Luskin, writing for National Review, pointed out that Krugman expected an iceberg of sorts in 2010:

This burst of economic optimism is all the more surprising considering that Krugman himself, in the past, has argued — in his typically shrill style — that the Social Security system is in crisis. For example, he wrote in the New York Times in 1996,

Where is the crisis? Just over the horizon, that’s where … In 2010 … the boomers will begin to retire. Every year thereafter, for the next quarter-century, several million 65-year-olds will leave the rolls of taxpayers and begin claiming their benefits. The budgetary effects of this demographic tidal wave are straightforward to compute, but so huge as almost to defy comprehension.
(National Review Online)

A successful reform of social security will enable the system to accomplish its fundamental goals while stimulating the economy enough to sustain the needed benefit levels. The Bush plan began to address the problem in a sensible manner. The Democrats shot it down for the sake of politics.

Not to oversimplify the problem. The Social Security problem doesn't really have an easy fix.

CBO: "Social Security Reform: The Use of Private Securities and the Need for Economic Growth"

So, summarizing the first URL provided by POAC, Krugman's case against the Bush plan was flawed and insincere with respect to its denial of a big problem with the program--at least if Krugman was serious about what he wrote back in 1996 (yes, Social Security was "fixed" under Clinton in 1999, but without addressing the system's fundamental flaws).

URL #2.

We're sent to Snopes.com (a good source, for once), with an affirmation that President Eisenhower said that a political move to eliminate Social Security would be stupid and result in bad times for a political party that favored the move.

This URL is irrelevant--a shockingly frequent occurrence at POAC. The Bush privatization plan did not remotely approach a call for the end of Social Security. It did try to encourage individuals to take an active part in retirement planning by making voluntary private accounts a part of the existing system. Not doing anything to fix Social Security before it can't keep it's commitments would be truly stupid.

Remember the congressional Democrats giving themselves rich applause for maintaining the status quo on Social Security during Bush's 2006 State of the Union address?

Final summary: An incoherent stinker by the POAC crew.

POAC XIII: Governor Blanco and Katrina

2007-06-14T19:52:00.000-04:00

Another odd supposed talking point:
LA Governor didn't take the steps necessary to request emergency and major disaster declarations:

So far as I have been aware, the criticisms of Gov. Blanco have focused on her failures to organize reponse at the state level (such as ordering evacuation of the city--something Bush had no power to do), along with her reluctance to allow National Guard assistance from other states under presidential authority (commander-in-chief, don't you know).

It's really a pity that POAC customarily avoids pointing to some source for the alleged talking points. Though maybe that would prove just as much an embarrassment as their attempts to debunk the talking points ...

Here's here's POAC's "counterspin" (aka "spin"):

Blanco pushed all the paper she was supposed to push, prior to the storm hitting, to rouse FEMA into action. (.PDF)
Governor Blanco asks President to Declare an Emergency for the State of Louisiana due to Hurricane Katrina

These sources are likely to confirm that Blanco asked for assistance MOL appropriately, but as noted Blanco's critics accused her of failing in state preparations--nothing to do with FEMA.
Plus I found this aspect of the .pdf interesting:

As reflected in the attachments you provided with your letter, Governor Kathleen Babineaux Blanco requested, by letter dated August 27, 2005, addressed to the President of the United States, through the Regional Director of FEMA Region VI, that the President declare an emergency for the state of Louisiana due to Hurricane Katrina for the time period from August 26, 2005, and continuing, pursuant to Section 501(a) of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C.{{5121-5206, and implemented by 44 C.F.R. {{ 206.35.
(the red bits indicate where my keyboard did not have a symbol used in the report)

The letter is dated after the beginning of the duration of the aid requested. Now, for all I know that's standard operating procedure in the land of government documents--but it struck me as funny.

Here's an MSNBC rundown on Blanco's mistakes.

WASHINGTON, Oct. 8 — It was Gov. Blanco's first big disaster — and less than 48 hours before Katrina hit, she reassured the state.
"I believe we are prepared," she said in Jefferson Parish on Aug. 27. "That's the one thing that I've always been able to brag about."
Though experts had warned it would take 48 hours to evacuate New Orleans, Blanco did not order a mandatory evacuation that Saturday.
(read it all)

I did find a Snopes.com entry on a circulating e-mail that blamed Blanco for not asking for assistance early enough. Mainly, however, one is struck by the vast difference between the effectiveness of the Snopes entry compared to what POAC produced.

I won't count this one as an abject POAC failure, however. Though their treatment was amateurish (and probably needless), it was accurate in essence.

POAC XII: No one expected the levees to fail

2007-06-14T00:11:00.000-04:00

Ho-hum. I already know how this one will shake out, even without POAC's dismal record.

No one expected the levees to fail.

Just remember that this claim was with respect to Katrina. Keep that in mind as we proceed.

2001 Houston Chronicle: FEMA ranked the potential damage to New Orleans as among the three likeliest, most castastrophic disasters facing this country.

One can have a big disaster without failed levees. Looks like we'll have to go in deeper to find the antidote to the so-called "talking point."

Turns out there only two mentions of the levee system in the whole story. Here's one:

New Orleans is essentially a bowl ringed by levees that protect the city from the Mississippi River to its south and Lake Pontchartrain to the north. The bottom of the bowl is 14 feet below sea level, and efforts to keep it dry are only digging a deeper hole.
During routine rainfalls the city's dozens of pumps push water uphill into the lake. This, in turn, draws water from the ground, further drying the ground and sinking it deeper, a problem known as subsidence.
This problem also faces Houston as water wells have sucked the ground dry. Houston's solution is a plan to convert to surface drinking water. For New Orleans, eliminating pumping during a rainfall is not an option, so the city continues to sink.
A big storm, scientists said, would likely block four of five evacuation routes long before it hit. Those left behind would have no power or transportation, and little food or medicine, and no prospects for a return to normal any time soon.
"The bowl would be full," Levitan said. "There's simply no place for the water to drain."
(Houston Chronicle, LSU site)

And here's the other:

University of New Orleans researchers studied the impact of Breaux Act projects on the vanishing wetlands and estimated that only 2 percent of the loss has been averted. Clearly, Bahr said, there is a need for something much bigger. There is some evidence this finally may be happening.
A consortium of local, state and federal agencies is studying a $2 billion to $3 billion plan to divert sediment from the Mississippi River back into the delta. Because the river is leveed all the way to the Gulf, where sediment is dumped into deep water, nothing is left to replenish the receding delta.
Other possible projects include restoration of barrier reefs and perhaps a large gate to prevent Lake Pontchartrain from overflowing and drowning the city.
All are multibillion-dollar projects.
(ibid)

Sorry, POAC. That's not how you establish that nobody thought that the levees would fail. Unless you're an idiot.

This entry by itself makes POAC worthy of induction to the BBB Blogroll. But I'll stick to the plan.

Addendum:
I originally expected the levee issue to center on the difference between the levees being breached and the levees being overtopped.
The "gotcha" quote from Bush concerns the break in the levee that flooded sections of the city after Katrina. The mainstream press promptly took that to mean that nobody expected the levees to be overtopped by the storm surge--the reporting on that point was pretty consistently inept in the mainstream press.

It occurred to me that the confusion on that point might make it appear that POAC did a better job making their point than I have judged.

The talking point concerns a break in the levees. The Houston Chronicle article concerns water overtopping the levees. The article assumes that the levees will not give way, or at least makes no mention of it.

POAC XI: Peak oil

2007-06-06T22:19:00.000-04:00

This is a rather pointless entry by the POAC folks, in my opinion.

I think I've heard Rush Limbaugh question peak oil, but I'm not sure on what planet it's supposed to be a GOP "talking point." My Internet survey found that many of the sites questioning peak oil were by anti-capitalists and/or conspiracy theorists who are convinced that oil companies are using "peak oil" as a strategy to maximize profits (among other anti-Peak Oil theories).

Here's the "talking point" as POAC presents it:

Peak oil is just a myth

And their refutation ('the facts"):

Saudis admit peak oil

Hey, if the Saudis admit it, then it must be true.

OPEC, the Organisation of the Petroleum Exporting Countries, will be unable to meet projected western oil demand in 10 to 15 years, Saudi officials have warned.

At today's prices, the world will need the cartel to boost its production from 30m to 50m barrels a day by 2020 to meet rapidly rising demand, according to the International Energy Agency, the Paris-based energy watchdog.
(finfacts.com)

Peak Oil, as I understand it, is the proposition that oil production will hit a peak, after which it will begin an inevitable decline. Regardless of whether or not Peak Oil is true, the cited article doesn't support it. The article clearly cites "rapidly rising demand," so the problem described in the story seems to be a failure to keep pace with demand, not a drop in production. Look in the rest of the story for the Saudi confirmation of "Peak Oil"--you won't find it.

An extra-embarrassing one for the good folks at POAC. It will be a pleasure adding them to the BBB Blogroll.

POAC X: Secure Electronic Voting

2007-06-02T00:54:00.001-04:00

The supposed "talking point":

Electronic voting machines are secure and there is no evidence to suspect rigged elections

There's no such thing as secure voting, but electronic voting is relatively secure in principle. I can't imagine what conservatives would laud electronic voting as a "talking point," but I'll be glad to take a look to see what I can find.

My brief survey indicated that conservatives mostly defended specific elections against allegations of fraud, and questioned studies that purported to demonstrate some type of conservative conspiracy. I'll pick up with this stuff after we see the damning counterspin to the so-called talking point.

Programmer Clint Curtis claims that four years ago Rep. Tom Feeney (R-Florida) asked his then-employer to write software to alter votes on electronic voting machines in Florida.
Evidence of rigged elections in the United States

Two URLs. First things first.

A government watchdog group is investigating allegations made by a Florida programmer that are whipping up a frenzy among bloggers and people who believe Republicans stole the recent election.

Programmer Clint Curtis claims that four years ago Rep. Tom Feeney (R-Florida) asked his then-employer to write software to alter votes on electronic voting machines in Florida.

He said his employer told him the code would be used "to control the vote" in West Palm Beach, Florida. But a fellow employee disputed the programmer's claims and said the meetings he described never took place.
(Wired)

The "Clint Curtis sez"approach.

Curtis gives the impression of an earnest enough guy. If he's a liar he's not of the Clinton style where the lies are couched in the cleverness of fine print. Here's a YouTube video of Curtis speaking before a House investigating committee.

The funniest thing about the video is how the Democratic reps keep trying to get Curtis to comment on the Ohio results in 2004. To Curtis' credit, he resists, but they eventually get him to make a comment outside his area of expertise when he suggests that a failure of the results to match exit polling shows that the (Ohio) election was probably rigged.

I have no idea to what degree Curtis' allegations are true (whether in his mind or in reality). What I do know is that nothing came of the investigation, and that the reporting about the story on the Internet may have come straight from Curtis' testimony rather than from corroborating sources. The reports read like amateur journalism where Curtis' statements are reported as though they are verified facts. BBB inductee Brad Friedman (THE BRAD BLOG), unshockingly, is involved.

I also know that Curtis opposed Feeney in the 2006 election cycle, running against Feeney in that congressional district. When Curtis lost (by a bunch), he contested the results because (he said) polling showed that he should have done better, and he took the bizarre route of canvassing neighborhoods and collecting affidavits. He took the results of his canvassing effort before Congress and asked them to accept his results as evidence that he should have won the election (one Florida news outlet called this "solid" evidence).

That's a little bit nuts, as was Curtis' election verification idea that had voters go to a Web site to register their votes.

Summary: Evidence of voter fraud? Well, yes--but not very good evidence of voter fraud, and the allegation has already been investigated (coming to nothing).
***

Next.

Sometimes elections in fascist nations are a complete sham. Other times elections are manipulated by smear campaigns against or even assassination of opposition candidates, use of legislation to control voting numbers or political district boundaries, and manipulation of the media. Fascist nations also typically use their judiciaries to manipulate or control elections.

That's how the link leads off. From there it goes to an extensive list of links to various allegations. I'll survey the first three (they wouldn't want to lead with bad examples).

First up is a Free Press story.

As a legal noose appears to be tightening around the Bush/Cheney/Rove inner circle, a shocking government report shows the floor under the legitimacy of their alleged election to the White House is crumbling.

The latest critical confirmation of key indicators that the election of 2004 was stolen comes in an extremely powerful, penetrating report from the Government Accountability Office that has gotten virtually no mainstream media coverage. Click here for GAO Report

The government's lead investigative agency is known for its general incorruptibility and its thorough, in-depth analyses. Its concurrence with assertions widely dismissed as "conspiracy theories" adds crucial new weight to the case that Team Bush has no legitimate business being in the White House.
(Free Press)

The first paragraph tells you that this publication places no value on journalistic objectivity. Which is not to say that what they report is automatically wrong. That we judge on a case by case basis. For all its bombast, the rest of the article is just a spin job on the GAO report. Check late in the story for the numbered points. Pay attention to the actual quotations from the report. Each simply underscores potential vulnerabilities of electronic voting. The report does not approach the suggestion that any of the potential vulnerabilities were actualities in Ohio. "Ohio" is only mentioned once in the report: An annex that simply states that observers from OSCE were present in Ohio for the 2004 election.

In short, the report does not concur with any particular allegations in Ohio. All it does is provide a basis for saying that such allegations are plausible in principle ("They flipped my vote"=>vote flipping is possible, but no judgment of the truth of the allegation stems from that possibility).

About the authors (found at the bottom of the Free Press story):

Bob Fitrakis & Harvey Wasserman are co-authors of HOW THE GOP STOLE AMERICA'S 2004 ELECTION & IS RIGGING 2008

You don't say?

We're skipping John Conyers interviewing Clint Curtis, because the link is broken and we've probably already seen it (see Youtube window above).

Second Up:

An international election observer mission - from the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, the European Parliament, the NATO Parliamentary Assembly and the Council of Europe - released a preliminary report on Monday declaring that the election did not meet democratic standards.
The observers' findings were seconded by Republican Senator Richard G. Lugar of Indiana, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
Citing the disturbing fact that official results diverged sharply from a range of surveys of voters at polling places, Lugar said, "A concerted and forceful program of election-day fraud and abuse was enacted with either the leadership or cooperation of governmental authorities."
(GregPalast.com)

Greg Palast is Brad Friedman with twice the notoriety. I supplied the link since the original was broken.

There's a huge problem with this citation. It's not talking about United States elections, but elections in Ukraine. The placement of the citation seems designed to foster the impression that the report concerns U.S. elections.

Palast did find his way to mentioning U.S. elections in the story, however:

Eastern bloc observers noted that balloting in Ohio, New Mexico and Florida did not meet Ukrainian standards, but applauded America’s attempt to restore democratic institutions after the overthrow of elected government in 2000.

Methinks I detect reporter bias in the paraphrase. Unless maybe we're still talking about an overthrow of elected government in 2000 in the Ukraine.

Nothing in this one that seriously relates to U.S. elections.

Third up:

Attorney Purge = Stacking The DOJ To Suppress Voting Rights

It's a blog (Crooks and Liars.com), "Guest blogged by Logan Murphy."
Must be a fairly recent addition, what with the April 1, 2007 date appended.

It's a gigantic leap to take the replacement of 8 federal attorneys as a move to suppress voting rights. The story accompanying the blog, published by the LA Times and authored by former DOJ official Joseph D. Rich, takes a much wider swipe at the Bush administration.

Here's Rich's take, in part:

I spent more than 35 years in the department enforcing federal civil rights laws — particularly voting rights. Before leaving in 2005, I worked for attorneys general with dramatically different political philosophies — from John Mitchell to Ed Meese to Janet Reno. Regardless of the administration, the political appointees had respect for the experience and judgment of longtime civil servants.

Under the Bush administration, however, all that changed. Over the last six years, this Justice Department has ignored the advice of its staff and skewed aspects of law enforcement in ways that clearly were intended to influence the outcome of elections.

It has notably shirked its legal responsibility to protect voting rights. From 2001 to 2006, no voting discrimination cases were brought on behalf of African American or Native American voters. U.S. attorneys were told instead to give priority to voter fraud cases, which, when coupled with the strong support for voter ID laws, indicated an intent to depress voter turnout in minority and poor communities.

At least two of the recently fired U.S. attorneys, John McKay in Seattle and David C. Iglesias in New Mexico, were targeted largely because they refused to prosecute voting fraud cases that implicated Democrats or voters likely to vote for Democrats.
(LA Times)

Why would federal prosecutors refuse to prosecute voting fraud cases that implicated Democrats or voters likely to vote for Democrats?
That sentence points up the problem with the sweep of Rich's complaint. There seems to be a left tilt in the Department of Justice among career staffers. Past administrations were okay because they did not try to bring the DOJ to heel--they allowed the innate partisanship to stand. Bush apparently departed from that by failing to do things the way his employees wanted them done.

Doesn't it somewhat turn the concept of justice on its head to suppose that emphasizing the prosecution of voter fraud cases amounts to a shirking "its legal responsibility to protect voting rights"? Apparently the right way to do that is to give voter fraud cases lower priority than voter discrimination cases.
It's almost like it never occurs to Rich that voter fraud devalues votes.

Summary: If we judge from these first three (or four) entries, this site isn't going to give us the type of evidence that POAC is claiming ("Evidence of rigged elections in the U.S.").
Some of it is evidence that electronic voting systems are vulnerable to fraud. But Democrat lawmakers seemed as enthusiastic as anybody else about introducing electronic voting. It's not like California is a traditional Republican stronghold, for example. And the push for a change in the voting system in Florida came from Democrats following the 2000 election. Electronic voting was never perfect since there is no perfect voting system.

POAC IX: Bush knew?

2007-05-31T21:27:00.000-04:00

I didn't follow the order of the POAC playlist with POAC VIII. Just an oversight on my part. They've added new entries since I started this project, and that particular one caught my attention. I'll go to 17 instead of 16 before placing POAC on the list to atone for my error.

Now to business.
The supposed talking point:

The Bush administration had no idea that a 9-11 type attack would occur.

The "counter" spin:

US aviation received 52 al-Qaeda warnings before 9/11
Censorship of Aviation Warnings Leading up to 9/11
A point-by-point analysis of Condoleeza Rice's statements versus the truth

Three URLs, so we'll take them in order.

America's aviation authority received numerous warnings about al-Qaeda attacks in the six months before 9/11, including five that mentioned hijackings and two that mentioned suicide operations, it has emerged.

A previously published report by the commission set up to investigate the September 11 attacks on the United States reveals that the US Federal Aviation Authority received 52 intelligence reports on al-Qaeda between April and September 2001.
(TimesOnline)

Read down a few paragraphs and you'll see that the news story is relying on the 911 Commission staff report for the info. Office staffers for the members of the commission put together the preliminary report, which received some robust criticism concerning its accuracy. I will refer to the 911 Commission Report proper to place the claims in context.

The 9-11 Commission Report is a 585 page document. Go here to view the .pdf version.

The section on pre-911 threats begins on page 254 (the number appearing on the page--your Adobe Acrobat reader may disagree).

As 2001 began, counterterrorism officials were receiving frequent but fragmentary reports about threats. Indeed, there appeared to be possible threats almost everywhere the United States had interests--including at home.
To understand how the escalation in threat reporting was handled in the summer of 2001, it is useful to understand how threat information in general is collected and conveyed. Information is collected through several methods, including signals intelligence and interviews of human sources, and gathered into intelligence reports. Depending on the source and nature of the reporting, these reports may be highly classified--and therefore tightly held--or less sensitive and widely disseminated to state and local law enforcement agencies. Threat reporting must be disseminated, either through individual reports or through threat advisories. Such advisories, intended to alert their recipients, may address a specific threat or be a general warning.
Because the amount of reporting is so voluminous, only a select fraction can be chosen for briefing the president and senior officials.

With me so far? The POAC "talking point" in question concerns "The Bush administration." The 9-11 Commission report states that senior officials would receive briefing on a select fraction. This section of the report went on to give a rundown on the nature of the reports for the year through September 10. Forty of the daily briefs contained threats associated with bin Laden, and the report also makes clear that the report would only go to high-level officials.

So, if the Bush Administration were aware, it would be at high levels. CIA staffers are part of the executive branch, but are not part of the Bush administration, just to be clear on that (at this point I don't know if it will be relevant). Lower officials such as the FBI director and the attorney general received a version with some of the highly sensitive information redacted (SEIB).

Through page 263, the report summarizes the timeline and nature of the reports received by the administration according to their investigation.
This is the summary paragraph:

Most of the intelligence community recognized in the summer of 2001 that the number and severity of threat reports were unprecedented. Many officials told us that they knew something terrible was planned, and they were desperate to stop it. Despite their large number, the threats received contained few specifics regarding time, place, method, or target. Most suggested that the threats were planned against targets overseas; others indicated threats against unspecified "U.S. Interests." We cannot say for certain whether these reports, as dramatic as they were, related to the 9/11 attacks.

So, what is the meaning of "9-11 type attack"? To me, it means using passenger planes to blow stuff up. Maybe it means something completely different to the folks at POAC. Let's keep looking and maybe they'll tip us off.
As for the initial "counterspin," even 80 reports of al Qaeda threats wouldn't necessarily tip off the intention to use planes to blow up buildings. In addition, the TimesOnline story tends to suggest that all 52 threats were related to aviation ("A previously published report by the commission set up to investigate the September 11 attacks on the United States reveals that the US Federal Aviation Authority received 52 intelligence reports on al-Qaeda between April and September 2001"), but that almost certainly counts the entire number of threats associated with bin Laden that were subsequently forwarded to agency chiefs via the standard SEIB. Even the news report specifically stated that five of the reports mentioned hijackings and two mentioned suicide attacks. What other types of reports would be of particular interest to aviation? Embassy bombings? Assassinations?

***
Next.

Washington, D.C., February 10, 2005 - February 10, 2005 - As a result of a Freedom of Information Act appeal filed by the National Security Archive, the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) corrected its October 2004 blunder of withholding the names and numbers of aviation warnings known as Information Circulars that were widely cited and quoted in the best-selling 9/11 Commission Report. In spite of this additional material, the released TSA documents continue to withhold details that were declassified in the recently released 9/11 Commission Staff Report on the pre-9/11 failings of the FAA that was the subject of a front page New York Times article by Eric Lichtblau today.

The release of documents on appeal has resulted in the disclosure of only one sentence of substance, a comment in the June 22, 2001 Information Circular, that states, "such an airline hijacking to free terrorists incarcerated in the United States, remains a concern." The sentence was released by TSA on appeal because it can be found in Chapter 8 of the 9/11 Commission Report on page 256.

Is this even worth mentioning? I suspect that the second paragraph wasn't in there when this POAC counterspin got to rotating. An airline hijacking designed to free terrorists incarcerated inside the U.S. isn't exactly a strong tip-off that population centers would be targeted using passenger planes.
No, that paragraph was in the original version posted in early 2005 (I checked). I honestly don't know what the point of this URL was. It doesn't help the case against the "talking point" at all. There's nothing to refute or explain.

***
Next.

The link is broken; it redirects to a main page with no article specific to Condoleeza Rice.

I found a page that may be the same or similar to the one POAC was using. It's hilarious.

CLAIM: "I don't think anybody could have predicted that they would try to use an airplane as a missile, a hijacked airplane as a missile." – National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, 5/16/02
FACT: On August 6, 2001, the President personally "received a one-and-a-half page briefing advising him that Osama bin Laden was capable of a major strike against the US, and that the plot could include the hijacking of an American airplane." In July 2001, the Administration was also told that terrorists had explored using airplanes as missiles. [Source: NBC, 9/10/02; LA Times, 9/27/01]

The LA Times link is broken; or at least you don't get to view the article automatically by clicking on the link. The date of the article is immediately suspicious. September 27 of 2001 is very soon after the attack.

Found the story.

The story lead paraphrases "officials" as talking about an attack using airliners.
Further in, we find the details. An Italian talks about an intelligence report regarding using an airliner in an attack. Egyptian leader Hosni Mubarak is quoted talking about a "an airplane stuffed with explosives" (assumed to be an airliner?). And the whole episode concerns an attack on a summit in Genoa (July, 2001). Read even further into the story and US intelligence claimed to have found the report unreliable.

What is this intended to prove? When Rice is talking about not thinking that anybody thought that attacks would use planes as bombs, she would have known that the Japanese used kamikazi attacks during WW2--so pretty obviously she's not talking about just any old attacks. She'd have been talking about the attacks associated with the 2001 warnings, and the 9-11 Commission evidence backs her up.

CLAIM: In May 2002, Rice held a press conference to defend the Administration from new revelations that the President had been explicitly warned about an al Qaeda threat to airlines in August 2001. She "suggested that Bush had requested the briefing because of his keen concern about elevated terrorist threat levels that summer." [Source: Washington Post, 3/25/04]
FACT: According to the CIA, the briefing "was not requested by President Bush." As commissioner Richard Ben-Veniste disclosed, "the CIA informed the panel that the author of the briefing does not recall such a request from Bush and that the idea to compile the briefing came from within the CIA." [Source: Washington Post, 3/25/04]

From the May 16, 2002 press conference:

Q Specifically, after this August 6th analytic report briefing that the president had, what did he do, what did other people in the administration do? What did he make of it? What action was taken? And why didn't he ever tell the American people about it?

MS. RICE: Well, the action was being taken because, if you notice, what is briefed to him in kind of a summary way -- and I should say, he had said to his briefer, "I'd like you from time to time to give me summaries of what you know about potential attacks." And this was an analytic piece that tried to bring together several threats.

In 1997, they talked about this. In 1998, they talked about that. It's been known that maybe they want to try and release the Blind Sheikh. I mean, that was the character of it. And so the actions were being taken in response to the generalized information that was being reported hereto. And the president was aware that there were ongoing efforts that were being taken.

And:

Q Condi, this analytic report that the president received sounds like it wasn't his ordinary morning brief. Was it something that he had requested because of the various elements that had come up? Was it something you had requested? And just to follow up on Terry's point here, was the hijacking mentioned here based on any new intelligence that had been developed between these meeting that you mentioned in July 5th-6th timeframe, or was it simply -- did it come out of the Philippines experience and --

MS. RICE: It was actually summarizing the kind of intelligence that they'd been acting on, if you can -- I mean, I think it's a little strong to actually call it intelligence -- the interpretation that was there that these were people who might try hijacking.

It was -- very often as a part of his normal brief, David, he will get things that have been prepared for him because he's asked for a specific kind of document. And as I said, he frequently says, "You know, I'd like to see everything you know about X, or I'd like you to summarize," because, as you can imagine, you get intelligence in little snippets; it's helpful from time to time to put it together.
(Center for Research on Globalization)

In the hands of reporter Mike Allen and researcher Margot Williams, the above becomes

After the highly classified document's existence was first revealed in news reports in May 2002, Rice held a news conference in which she suggested that Bush had requested the briefing because of his keen concern about elevated terrorist threat levels that summer.
(the Washington Post)

Are reporters supposed to make things up?
The story makes a big deal about how the CIA denied compiling the report at Bush's request, as if that encourages the conclusion that Rice's contention that Bush requested a summary of that type was therefore false.
"[K]een concern." Oh, my. What will those reporters think up next?

Chalk up another abject failure for POAC "Counterspin."

I should mention that I did find another Rice story at the other site. It's considerably shorter than the one I found, but perhaps not as embarrassingly inept.

POAC VIII: "Gore has never owned any Occidental stock"

2007-05-30T00:07:00.000-04:00

This debunking will represent the halfway point to official entry into BBB annals.

The supposed "Talking point":

Al Gore is part owner of/is invested in/benefits somehow from Occidental Petroleum

I haven't seen that one in awhile, myself. Not since the 2000 election. Let's see what Technorati shows on that one.
I found a Canadian lady who thought that Gore owned part of Occidental. I don't think she's a GOP operative, though.

The issue came up during the 2000 election, so I suppose we can just move on. Here's the POAC "counterspin":

Gore has never owned any Occidental Petroleum stock. His father worked for the company for several years and his parents used to own some stock. All of it was sold years ago.

Oh, really?
Follow the URL.

It leads to reader commentary at USA Today. Fairly authoritative, eh?

Thomas Crowley doesn't touch on the issue of Occidental ownership. Neither does Don McAdam.

The next letter does, and here's the relevant passage.

The assertion by author Peter Schweizer that the Gores were swimming in Occidental stock is also off base. At Mr. Gore's request, all of his father's stock in Occidental (Oxy) Petroleum was sold almost six years ago as the estate was closed.
(Kalee Kreider, communications director, Office of Al Gore and Tipper Gore)

First, Kreider is hardly an objective source.
Second, Kreider doesn't claim that Al Gore (the younger) never owned Occidental stock. We'll leave that matter open as an issue of truth, but POAC has failed to provide a reasonable evidence in support of the claim.

Gore reported in his public financial disclosure in May that his family's shares in Occidental were valued at between $500,000 and $1 million.

(...)

Actors Susan Sarandon, Martin Sheen, Cary Elwes, Alicia Silverstone and singer Bonnie Raitt, wrote to Gore urging him to take urgent action to save lives and the environment among the U'wa."You have enjoyed the sponsorship of Occidental Petroleum throughout your political career," they wrote in a letter that said Gore's connection with Occidental ran deeper than the stock he controls through his family estate. (Reuters, via NucNews)

Say what you will about Karl Rove, but when a guy can get Susan Sarandon, Martin Sheen and Bonnie Raitt spouting GOP talking points, he deserves a bit of credit.

Seriously, it seems uncontested by serious folk that the Gore family was substantially invested in Occidental Petroleum, to the tune of over $500,000 (also known as half a million). It was reported it as part of Gore's financial disclosure statement, after all. It seems that upon Al Gore, Sr's death that the stock was used to establish (at least in part) a trust fund that would benefit the widow (and most likely her heirs upon her death).

Hmmm. Al Sr. "worked for the company for several years."

The Vice. President’s father and former U.S. Senator, Al Gore Sr., was,. prior to his death in 1998, the vice president of Occidental.
(Range Magazine --pdf)

Why bother calling it "Counterspin"? Isn't "Spin" closer to the truth? Or maybe it's a pun illustrating the entire concept ...

Kalee Kreider would be foolish indeed to claim that Gore had sold off the Occidental stock in the trust fund if it were not the truth, but I can't find any announcement on the Web. Feel free to criticize my choice of keywords (though that wasn't the only combination I tried).

While I'd find it surprising if the Gore communications director lied about something like this, I'd be almost as surprised that Gore didn't play up the divestment since he had liberals protesting against him in 2000 over his interest in the company (yes, we know that Rove was pulling the strings behind the scenes, but still ...).

POAC VII, part b

2007-05-28T21:56:00.000-04:00

Okay, so maybe part b didn't exactly follow "soon."

I was busy.

In the previous post, I was dissecting the so-called "host of studies" referred to by POAC that supposedly refute a GOP talking point that tax cuts pay for themselves. I'll quote the citation again, picking up on the transition between the Harvard (N. G. Mankiw) study and the next member of the "host."

"The feedback is surprisingly large," concluded N. Gregory Mankiw, the study's co-author. He headed Bush's Council of Economic Advisers from 2003 to 2005.

Mankiw's study also concluded that the Treasury payback would be 17 percent of the tax-cut's cost if the reduction were on wages instead of capital.

That's in line with a December study by the CBO. It looked at a hypothetical 10 percent cut in income-tax rates. It concluded that up to 22 percent of the lost revenue could be regained over five years, and up to 32 percent over five more years.
("Tax cuts lose more money than they generate, studies conclude" by Kevin G. Hall)

Here's the study (be forewarned, it's in .pdf format).
The reporting on the CBO study was good (to my admitted surprise). The author didn't exactly play up the fact that cuts in capital gains taxes were more likely to return to the government in the form of revenue, though.
Perhaps he wouldn't want people remembering that when a later story proclaims that tax cuts primarily helped the wealthy.

These two apparently comprise the "host" of studies. Both suggest (they are only estimates, after all), that tax cuts do result in sufficient economic growth to at least partially pay for themselves--and that's buying into the biased way that the mainstream media talks about taxes.

The tax cuts were recommended initially as a response to a budget surplus, then secondarily as a Keynesian approach to an impending recession. Given that the budget deficit is shrinking under current policy, any increase in taxes--including the sunset of the Bush tax cuts--should be justified to the taxpayers in no uncertain terms.
But that won't happen. The Democrats will propose plenty of new programs that will justify any increase in taxes. Wait and see.

***
One additional note.
The CBO report has footnote that seems lost on Democrats and many Republicans as well. It talked about the pressure for wage increases when the labor pool shrinks and warned of inflationary pressure as a result.
Yet Democrats push for minimum wage increases fairly routinely--typically without making a peep about inflationary pressure.

It's all about politics. Raising the minimum wage when the market has already raised the entry-level wage doesn't do much harm (unless the market changes so that there is pressure for wages to fall--then it does plenty of harm) because it doesn't actually do much. But the politicians who voted for it can claim to be for the little guy.

POAC VII a.: Tax cuts and revenue

2006-12-30T15:37:00.000-05:00

I'm delighted to see the subject of tax cuts and revenue broached at the rather poor Project for the Old American Century "counter-spin" page.

The talking point
Tax cuts generate revenue and pay for themselves

The facts
A host of studies, some of them written by economists who served in the Bush administration, have concluded that tax reductions mean less money for the Treasury. They may help spur economic growth, but they still lose more revenue than they generate.
(POAC)

The link in this case refers to a different page at the POAC Web site, which contains another link to the original (or what was once the original: "The requested article was not found."). That link ended at the "McClatchy Washington Bureau," formerly run by Knight-Ridder.

The article, despite a glowing review of the Washington Bureau by the American Journalism Review, simply isn't very good, as I shall show.

Here's the headline:
Tax cuts lose more money than they generate, studies conclude
Even though this headline is ultimately misleading, it's actually better than what Republican ideas get in the mainstream press. The headline implicitly admits that tax cuts generate revenue. Where was this type of incisive reporting on the approach to the 2004 election?

Mr Bush's tax cuts have been staggering in their scope and audacity. A report this month showed that Bush's $270bn tax cut last year, which the Republicans said would boost growth and jobs, had overwhelmingly gone to the rich, as sceptics such as Harvard economist Paul Krugman have long argued.
(Salon, August 23, 2004)

Not a peep that some of that $270 billion is coming back in the form of revenue? Wonder why?

But let's move on to the content of the article instead of belaboring other past failures of the mainstream press.

At a ceremony on the White House lawn, Bush said his tax cuts had helped the economy grow, "which means more tax revenue for the federal Treasury."

That's just not true. A host of studies, some of them written by economists who served in the Bush administration, have concluded that tax reductions mean less money for the Treasury.
(POAC)

Kevin G. Hall wrote the story. Note the disconnect between what Bush said and the message that Hall carries from it. Bush makes two claims.

First, that the tax cuts helped the economy grow. That point isn't argued seriously, in my experience. The tax cuts did help the economy.

Second, Bush claims that a growing economy increases tax revenues. That is also true.

For Hall, this means that Bush is saying that cutting taxes results in increased net revenues, since that is the proposition, by implication and context, that he describes as "just not true."

But Hall's problems don't stop with his creative interpretation of the president's words. What is this "host of studies"?

The first "study" mentioned is a proposed model for evaluating the net effect of tax cuts.

The paper, written by N. Gregory Mankiw and Matthew Weinzeirl of Harvard, was titled "Dynamic Scoring: A Back-of-the-Envelope Guide." Now you know why Hall did not name the study.

Hall reports on the paper incompletely, with significant omissions.

The authors make plain that key factors were not taken into account in the study, such as the "short-run Keynesian effects," (page 20, second paragraph) which refers to the economic effects of government policies. In other words, the paper discounted the effects of (short-run Keynesian) economic growth in making its estimations, which is the point at issue in the words uttered by Bush.

Hall also uses a quotation regarding the 17 percent return on a labor tax cut, whereas the context (page 10) reveals that the return may fluctuate considerably owing to a variety of factors.

This seems to indicate that Hall gave the Mankiw-Weinzeirl paper a cursory examination.

More from the "host of studies" in part b, coming soon.

POAC VI

2006-12-26T23:45:00.000-05:00

Next in the queu from the "Counterspin" tomfoolery at People for an Old American Century (get it? Yuk-yuk-yuk) is this bit of silliness:

The talking point
The New York Times disclosed vital secrets in the War on Terror™ by publishing an article on the gov't secretly monitoring financial transactions without a warrant.
(POAC)

"[V]ital secrets," eh?
I tried googling that term in connection with the New York Times, since it was the main paper criticized with respect to the monetary transaction leak.
I was a bit surprised to find a likely hit on the second page of results--only it turned out to be a liberal blog.
Ordinarily I don't interrupt the sludgy flow of thought, but as a reader of conservative blogs (as well as the liberal bloghopping I enjoy), the claim just didn't look familiar. The blogs I frequent didn't use that kind of language. More on that later.

The facts
Not only has the administration been bragging about their funds transfer tracking system, they've been publicly giving our far more details than the NYT

Two things real quick.
1) This response fits the form of the "tu quoque" ("You, too!") fallacy. The fallacy consists of evading responsibility for an action because somebody else engaged in the same action. However ...
2) The link leads to an article that discussed a completely different program--a domestic program rather than an international program.

The main complaint against the New York Times (and the LA Times) has been that they are publishing classified information, however, not that the specific information relating to foreign financial transactions was "vital" in any strong sense. That information was "vital" in that the publication in a major daily may well lead to casualties as some terrorists might escape capture because of greater caution.

It's fair to criticize the government's disclosures on the same basis--but the government made the judgment that some information about government response to terrorism should be published--and they certainly put some thought into how much to divulge.
In this case, the government made a determination that certain information was to remain secret in order to catch more terrorists and the New York times arrogated to itself the responsibility for divulging the government's secret once it had been illegally leaked (against the express advice of the government.

That's a big difference, and it is completely ignored in the POAC version of "the facts."

This is an amazing streak. How long can POAC keep it up?

POAC V

2006-12-21T20:19:00.000-05:00

Yeesh. This is the worst one so far.

The talking point
Saddam Hussein had connections to Al-Qaeda

Senate report finds no Hussein-Al Qaeda ties. The Niger-Iraq connection also did not exist.
(POAC)

Usually the "facts" occur via a live link; this one was broken.
It formerly linked to a story in the Chicago Tribune, but maybe the Tribune regretted publishing the article, because it is gone.

Here is a .pdf file of a large portion of the report, concerning Hussein.

I've complained about this senate report before, noting that its conclusions fly in the face of the evidence. Headlines declared that there were no ties, but in the report itself (page 64) we find:

(U) In June 2002, the CIA characterized the relationship between Saddam and bin Laden:
In contrast to the traditional patron-client relationship Iraq enjoys with secular Palestinian groups, the ties between Saddam and bin Laden appear much like those between rival intelligence services, with each trying to exploit the other for its own benefit.

No ties, except that the nonexistent ties resemble a certain type of tie according to the CIA.

And there's an affirmation that Hussein's Iraq had discussion with al Qaeda:

(U) During his testimony to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence in September 2002, Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet stated that, "The intelligence indicates that the two sides at various points have discussed safe-haven, training and reciprocal non-aggression. There are several reported suggestions by al-Qa'ida to Iraq about joint terrorist ventures, but in no case can we establish that Iraq accepted or followed up on these suggestions.

In other words, there was a diplomatic relationship between Hussein and al Qaeda supported by evidence, but no evidence of a collaborative relationship between the two.

Liberals seem fond of noting the lack of evidence for a collaborative relationship to support (via the dual fallacies of equivocation and appeal to ignorance) the claim that there was no relationship between Hussein and al Qaeda at all.

As the evidence from the report shows (even if it doesn't dawn on our fine senators enough to make it into their conclusion), there was evidence for a diplomatic relationship, and we still don't know to what extent, if any, a collaborative relationship existed.

There is evidence of a collaborative relationship, by the way, but it's tenuous.

POAC blows it with the overbroad claim of no relationship between Hussein and al Qaida. There was a diplomatic relationship, but little evidence of collaboration. You can raise doubt about a claim by citing a lack of evidence, but you can't debunk it by that method.

There's plenty more in the senate report that should debunk the conclusions of the report. Read it sometime (I'll recommend page 68 in addition to what I've sampled here).

***

We also have the claim that there was no tie between Hussein and Niger. On the contrary, Joe Wilson's own report confirmed that Iraqi officials approached Niger to establish trade (uranium is just about the only thing that Niger has worth trading), and the Nigerian official to whom Wilson spoke reportedly took the overture as an offer to trade for uranium.

Wilson inexplicably left that out of his article about what he didn't find in Niger (inexplicable unless he had a political axe to grind by lying about what he found in Niger).

Christopher Hitchens handling of the English language makes for a delightful account of Wilson's adventure.

That's now five utter failures in a row for POAC.

POAC IV

2006-12-21T09:50:00.000-05:00

Here's another in a series of "My talking point is better than your talking point" entries at the Project for an Old American Century's "Counterspin" page.

The talking point
Iranian President Ahmadinejad has repeatedly threatened to destroy Israel

The facts
The most infamous quote, "Israel must be wiped off the map", is the most glaringly wrong. In his October 2005 speech, Mr. Ahmadinejad never used the word "map" or the term "wiped off". According to Farsi-language experts like Juan Cole and even right-wing services like MEMRI, what he actually said was "this regime that is occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time." His message was, in essence, "This too shall pass."
(POAC)

And the less infamous quotations are, I suppose, less glaringly wrong.
So let's examine the claim above.
The material comes from Virginia Tilley, a professor at the University of Wisconsin.

Later in her article, Tilley uses Al Jazeera to provide translations of Ahmadinejad. Here's how Al Jazeera translated the speech in question:

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has openly called for Israel to be wiped off the map.

"The establishment of the Zionist regime was a move by the world oppressor against the Islamic world," the president told a conference in Tehran on Wednesday, entitled The World without Zionism. "The skirmishes in the occupied land are part of a war of destiny. The outcome of hundreds of years of war will be defined in Palestinian land," he said. "As the Imam said, Israel must be wiped off the map," said Ahmadinejad, referring to Iran's revolutionary leader Ayat Allah Khomeini. His comments were the first time in years that such a high-ranking Iranian official has called for Israel's eradication, even though such slogans are still regularly used at government
rallies.
(Al Jazeera)

Tilley might as well be saying that Al Jazeera got an entirely wrong impression of Ahmadinejad's speech. She must think the Arab news service is secretly in league with the Zionists in trying to make Ahmadinejad look like a saber-rattler.

Tilley relies on the translation of Juan Cole (University of Michigan).

Cole's interpretation of Ahmadinejad's intent is interesting, to say the least.

"Ahmadinejad did not say he was going to wipe Israel off the map because no such idiom exists in Persian," remarked Juan Cole, a Middle East specialist at the University of Michigan and critic of American policy who has argued that the Iranian president was misquoted. "He did say he hoped its regime, i.e., a Jewish-Zionist state occupying Jerusalem, would collapse." Since Iran has not "attacked another country aggressively for over a century," he said in an e-mail exchange, "I smell the whiff of war propaganda."
(New York Times)

Cole is a critic of American policy? You don't say!

Cole is doing a Clintonesque parsing of Ahmadinejad, where "wiping off the map" does not exist in Persian as an idiom. But what of the meaning of the idiom?

Also, wipe off the face of the earth. Eliminate completely, as in Some day we hope to wipe malaria off the map. This idiom uses wipe in the sense of "obliterate," and map and face of the earth in the sense of "everywhere."
(Answers.com)

Ahmadinejad does seem to have had in mind exactly that sort of fate for Israel.

Remember? The Israel that no Muslim country should acknowledge?

"'I hope that the Palestinians will maintain their wariness and intelligence, much as they have pursued their battles in the past 10 years. This will be a short period, and if we pass through it successfully, the process of the elimination of the Zionist regime will be smooth and simple.
"'I warn all the leaders of the Islamic world to be wary of Fitna: If someone is under the pressure of hegemonic power [i.e. the West] and understands that something is wrong, or he is naïve, or he is an egotist and his hedonism leads him to recognize the Zionist regime – he should know that he will burn in the fire of the Islamic Ummah [nation]…
"'The people who sit in closed rooms cannot decide on this matter. The Islamic people cannot allow this historical enemy to exist in the heart of the Islamic world.
(MEMRI version of Ahmadinejad's speech)

Cole had pointed to MEMRI's rendering of the "wipe Israel off the map" passage as accurate.

The text of Ahmadinejad's speech utterly rebukes Cole's fancifully positive interpretation. Far from simply having the "hope" that Israel will pass away over time, Ahmadinejad very plainly calls for active steps to obliterate the regime from the Middle East (granted, he proposes that Israel could relocate to Europe or even America, but that's just delaying the inevitable since Ahmadinejad's brand of Islam fancies itself as a world-dominating ideology).

Has Cole attempted to explain how Al Jazeera got caught up in spreading war propaganda for the West?

Bottom line, Ahmadinejad is actively working to eliminate Israel, and he probably seriously contemplates using nuclear weapons against Israel toward that end.

A passage from the Ayatollah Khomeini, quoted in an 11th-grade Iranian schoolbook, is revealing. "I am decisively announcing to the whole world that if the world-devourers [i.e., the infidel powers] wish to stand against our religion, we will stand against their whole world and will not cease until the annihilation of all them. Either we all become free, or we will go to the greater freedom which is martyrdom. Either we shake one another's hands in joy at the victory of Islam in the world, or all of us will turn to eternal life and martyrdom. In both cases, victory and success are ours."

In this context, mutual assured destruction, the deterrent that worked so well during the Cold War, would have no meaning. At the end of time, there will be general destruction anyway. What will matter will be the final destination of the dead--hell for the infidels, and heaven for the believers. For people with this mindset, MAD is not a constraint; it is an inducement.
(Opinion Journal)

That's four stinkers in a row from the Project for an Old American Century.

POAC III

2006-12-20T22:23:00.000-05:00

The Project for an Old American Century's parade of ineptitude continues ...

The talking point
Lancet report on Iraqi civilian casualties isn't credible

The facts
Report of 650,000 dead Iraqis relied on large sample base, checked death certificates, includes more reliable methodology than previous reports.
(POAC)

This claim concerns the second survey published in the Lancet and designed by researchers at Johns Hopkins. An earlier Lancet survey on the same topic was criticized because of methodological problems and its unusually wide margin of error.
The new study utilized a broader sample, but many questions remained about collected information. Iraq Body Count issued a fairly prompt critique of the Johns Hopkins/Lancet study.
The "facts" offered by POAC come from a partisan source (Richard Horton, publisher of the Lancet--like he's going to say he published rubbish).

So, POAC offers us a single, partisan source as "the facts" and ignores the legitimate criticisms of the study.
Is that great or what?

Summary of Problems

1) The number of clusters (47) does seem small for such a diverse region as Iraq. One defender of the small number of clusters claimed that a small number of samples from a swimming pool would give about the same results as using four times the number of clusters. The whole point of using clusters, however, is to allow data collection where data collection is difficult, and larger numbers of clusters become desirable where the samples are likely to be diverse (as with Iraq, since some parts are much more violent than others).
2) Were the interviews reliably done? The astoundingly high response rate alone gives rise to suspicions that the data were fabricated to some extent (I don't see how the degree can be known).
3) The report claims that cluster sites were chosen "entirely at random" but surveyors were permitted to change the survey site where the randomly selected was deemed unsafe. How could they do that randomly?

This is just the tip of the iceberg regarding the data collection (I recommend the Iraq Body Count critique, and also this one). While the study may not be entirely worthless (given the broad definition of deaths associated with the war), there's no reason to place great faith in the results.

Three in a row, POAC. What kind of streak will you end up with?

POAC II

2006-12-14T14:00:00.000-05:00

Here's round two of the critique of the Project for an Old American Century, specifically the "counterspin" page.

The talking point
North Korea's development of nuclear weapons is Clinton's fault

The facts
Some basic facts regarding Clinton, Bush and North Korea
(POAC)

Apparently it's so complicated to explain we have to endure the begging of the question and follow the link.

The link takes us to another page, which repeats the same information, MOL.

Is North Korea's development of nuclear weapons is Clinton's fault?

Some basic facts regarding Clinton and North Korea

At a debate in 2004, President Bush explained that his policy against bilateral talks with North Korea would be effective in preventing them from becoming a nuclear power.

Is it turtles all the way down? Let's try to get to those "basic facts" again. Ah, this link leads us to noted historian Joshua Micah Marshall.
Using a partisan column as proof might convince somebody who already believes the POAC argument, I suppose, but any critical thinker will dig into Marshall's column to judge its reliability against more trustworthy sources.
Here's what Marshall claims:

The 1994 crisis came about because the North Koreans were producing weapons-grade plutonium. Under the Agreed Framework, they agreed to shutter the plutonium production facility and put the already produced plutonium under international oversight.

In return, the US promised aide, help building lightwater reactors (which don't help with bombs) and diplomatic normalization.

That agreement kept the plutonium operation on ice until the end of 2002.
(Talking Points Memo, italics added)

Did the agreement keep the plutonium operation "on ice" until the end of 2002?

"... some have argued that the Agreed Framework was a success despite the cheating. It averted an imminent war, and it shut down the North Korean plutonium program for nine years—thereby limiting Pyongyang's arsenal to one or two nuclear weapons as of 2002, rather than the nearly 100 it might otherwise have been able to develop by then.

In the summer of 2002 U.S. intelligence discovered that the North Koreans had secretly restarted their weapons development using highly enriched uranium. When Assistant Secretary of State James Kelly went to Pyongyang in October of 2002 to confront the North Koreans, he expected them to deny the existence of the uranium program. They didn't; in fact, evidently they soon restarted their plutonium program, by continuing to reprocess the 8,000 spent fuel rods from Yongbyon (which had been in storage since the signing of the Agreed Framework). In October of 2003 the North Koreans said they had finished the reprocessing—meaning, if true, that they had enough fissile material for up to six new nuclear weapons.
(The Atlantic Online, bold emphasis added)

Here's more in the vein from Yale Global Online:

Even more difficult would be finding out if North Korea has actually begun reprocessing plutonium. The process by which plutonium is extracted from spent fuel results in the release of a gaseous Krypton isotope, but that can only be detected by sensors in the immediate vicinity and not by spy planes at 80,000 feet. It is possible that technological advances made in the past decade have given the US better means to detect such activity. Gary Samore, who served in Clinton White House, notes that the US failed to detect North Korean production of plutonium in 1989-1990. Only the IAEA analysis of North Korean data later revealed that reprocessing campaigns conducted in those years gave North Korea enough fissile material to build one or two nuclear bombs.
(YGO)

So, even though we don't know that North Korea wasn't cheating all along, it is apparently assumed by some that North Korea was keeping their agreement despite the fact that they were working on nuclear weapons development secretly.

For still more (the best stuff, really) see this essay by Henry Sokolski of the Nautilus Institute.
Compare it with a prominent view from the other side (Selig Harrison).

As for the supposed claim by Bush that his plan would work, here's the quotation:

"We began a new dialogue with North Korea. One that includes, not only the United States, but now China, and China has a lot of influence over North Korea. Some ways more than we do. As well, we include South Korea, Japan and Russia. Now there are 5 voices speaking to Kim Jong Il, not just one. And so if Kim Jong Il decides again not to honor an agreement, he's not only doing injustice to America, he'll be doing injustice to China as well. And I think this will work. It's not going work if we open up a dialogue with Kim Jong Il."
(President Bush, quoted in The Raw Story)

So, Bush didn't flatly claim that his plan would work (a misrepresentation in the "truth" column, mind you). He stated that he believed that it would work based on the pressure from China--and China has, in fact, leaned on North Korea in the wake of its recent testing. China has no desire to see Japan develop nuclear weapons, for example, and Japan has made strong hints that they will consider a nuclear self-defense program in light of North Korea's behavior.

And how does any of this absolve Clinton of responsibility for the failed 1994 deal without the unfounded assumption that N. Korea was being honest until Bush took office?

Here's the last of POAC's evidence:

"On Sept. 19, 2005, North Korea signed a widely heralded denuclearization agreement with the United States, China, Russia, Japan and South Korea. Pyongyang pledged to "abandon all nuclear weapons and existing nuclear programs." In return, Washington agreed that the United States and North Korea would "respect each other's sovereignty, exist peacefully together and take steps to normalize their relations." Four days later, the U.S. Treasury Department imposed sweeping financial sanctions against North Korea designed to cut off the country's access to the international banking system, branding it a "criminal state" guilty of counterfeiting, money laundering and trafficking in weapons of mass destruction." "The Bush administration says that this sequence of events was a coincidence." Source: MSNBC

The source isn't just MSNBC, by the way. It's Newsweek. The author is coincidentally the same one that I provided as a counterpoint for the Sokolski essay.

Again, there's nothing in the evidence to remove responsibility from Clinton.

1) It's an assumption that N. Korea's plutonium enrichment was kept "on ice" through the Bush presidency, and it's effectively irrelevant since N. Korea were cheating with uranium enrichment, which achieves the same end (nuclear weapons).
2) Bush's idea of working with China to stop N. Korea's nuclear ambitions did not amount to a guarantee of success, and it absolves Clinton of nothing.
3) Pointing to Bush's recent dealings with N. Korea likewise fails to excuse Clinton's actions, and there's not even a good case there that Bush's actions were not perfectly appropriate.

It's all distraction to place blame on Bush, based on the assumption that N. Korea did not cheat from the start, and based on the assumption that U.S. intelligence was wrong in its estimate that N. Korea had developed nuclear weapons even before the 1994 agreement (and fault in the U.S. government predates Clinton's presidency, I might add).

POAC flubs their Clinton apology.
It wasn't all Clinton's fault, but he certainly bears a significant portion of the blame.

You'd be crazy to get your facts through the POAC filters.

So many bad blogs, so little time ...

2006-12-14T09:40:00.000-05:00

While I haven't updated this site much recently, there is work underway.
I've collected information from a number of blogs for the purpose of writing up a blog review for a number of blogs who are bad enough to qualify at BBB.

A Web site I ran across yesterday has drawn my attention, however, so some other projects will stay on the back burner while I focus on the "Project for an Old American Century."

POAC, as it is known, seems to be bad through-and-through based on my survey so far, but the part of the site that most caught my attention was its "Counterspin" page, where POAC claims to provide "[t]he facts behind right wing talking points."

Well, they don't do a very good job.

There are 31 entries, and I'll be going through each one of them with a separate BBB post.
This will be ugly. Once 16 of the claims have been debunked, I'll add POAC to the bloody bad blogs (Bad Blogs' Blood) blogroll.

Here we go with the first one.

The talking point
The mainstream media shows a biased view of the activity in Iraq by focusing on the negative.

The facts
Iraq: The Hidden Story shows the footage used by TV news broadcasts, and compares it with the devastatingly powerful uncensored footage of the aftermath of the carnage that is becoming a part of the fabric of life in Iraq.
(POAC)

So ... if we focus even more on the negative it will show that the MSM does not focus on the negative?

This response from POAC confounds common sense and logic.

It's like saying that sports news doesn't focus on home runs by showing every home run instead of just half of the home runs on a given day of baseball. The film does absolutely nothing to refute the talking point. All it does is create a diversion by getting the reader to think "Well, they could have used even more negative footage, so the amount they used doesn't really focus on the negative!"

Of course the MSM focus on the negative. That's what the consumer-driven society wants to see and hear, oddly enough, and that's what they get more often than not.

"If it bleeds, it leads."

Reasoning of the type displayed in this first entry should embarrass anyone who uses it in ostensibly serious public discourse.

Will it get worse before it gets better? Stay tuned ...

Bad Blog: The BRAD BLOG

2006-10-21T15:20:00.000-04:00

Even though the thread title was tempting from the start, I put in quite a bit of consideration before determining that "The BRAD BLOG" would wind up at Bad Blogs' Blood.

The BRAD BLOG is run by Brad Friedman, an "Investigative Blogger" (according to the bio at the Huffington Post).
The claim is half-true. Friedman tries to investigate things, right enough, but it's hard to find an area where he has investigated well. Admittedly, I have not read his blog exhaustively, but my survey paints a dreary picture of Friedman's abilities.

The first problem with Friedman's investigative ability manifested itself when I examined his commentary on the California secretary of state race, where the two major party candidates are incumbent Republican Bruce McPherson and challenging Democrat Debra Bowen.

Friedman had plenty of criticism for McPherson, but he did a curiously sloppy job of backing up his criticisms ... using what might be called "House of Cards" documentation.

Friedman's blog post punctuated McPherson's statements with Friedman's replies.

MCP: I implemented the most stringent security testing procedures ever.

Really, McP? Not as stringent as your predecessor Kevin Shelley who had the decency to decertify the same Diebold machines you are now allowing the state to use, when he discovered they had lied and installed uncertified systems. You, on the other hand, simply certified them even though they are known to be among the most unsecure voting systems made. Oh, and you also have a guy who actually works for Diebold drafting documents for your office on your stationery.

Okay, we'll need to go slowly here, step by step.
First, it turns out that the quotation is utterly inaccurate, or is at least presented in the wrong order (I'll confirm this later).
Second, note that Friedman skips out on documenting his claims against McPherson. He just makes various assertions that the reader is expected to take as true.

Friedman admits that the quotation of McPherson may be imprecise, but suggests that they are "damned near."
But here's what McPherson actually said in his opening statement:

"I implemented the toughest voting systems in the nation, of any voting system."

The first claim Friedman makes is that Kevin Shelley's security testing procedures were more stringent than those of McPherson, but having reviewed what McPherson actually said, it is apparent that Friedman is implying that Shelley's requirements for electronic voting machines were more stringent than those of McPherson.
Shelley certainly pushed for a paper trail, but McPherson certainly calls for the same thing. The specifics of Shelley's requirements are tough to find, since most of the links to the Secretary of State's website, which no longer exhibits the Shelley plan.

We have no evidence of stricter standards from Shelley, but we do have McPherson's mock election resulting in decertification of Diebold machines.
Shelley's parallel move came after the machines in question were installed for use without certification under Shelley's nose (though apparently due to deceptive practices at Diebold).
The instance concerning McPherson looks better in terms of implementing standards.

MCP: I created the strictest standards in the nation before I would certify any of [the voting systems]. I also added security measures before they were used in an election.

Really, McP? Then why did you completely ignore those security measures in the very first election after you implemented them?

Again, Brad flubs the quotation. Here is what McPherson said: "I created the strictest standards in the nation before I would certify any of them. I also added some security measures in addition to that."
It's fair for Brad to editorially substitute "[the voting systems]" for "them," of course, but the latter portion of the quotation might as well be made-up.

Brad hotlinks through "completely ignore" to reach this page, which appears to emphasize storage security problems uncovered by (ta-daaaa!) Brad himself, and based on a local official's statement admitting that storage in a car could not be considered "secure."
Now if only Brad had bothered to place that information squarely in the context of McPherson's security measures, we'd have a reasonable piece of evidence instead of a worthless wild goose chase into an apparent house of cards.

MCP: The system in the Princeton Report [which showed Diebold touch-screen systems can be hacked with a vote-flipping virus in 60 seconds] was the Diebold TS, not the Diebold TSx as we use here in California.

Really, McP? Did you know the Princeton scientists also said the same vulnerabilities likely exist on the TSx? Want to dare us to prove that to you? (HINT: We don't have to. Your own team of scientists at UC Berkley already told you…you do know that, of course, right?)

Again, Brad's supposed quotation of McPherson is wildly off the mark; it is fair as a paraphrase, however, since McPherson did make the above distinction (since Bowen failed to make the distinction).
The report by the UC Berkeley scientists did not reference the Princeton examination at all, from what I can tell.
In any case, it seems strange to me that an "investigative blogger" would challenge the other guy to prove him wrong instead of providing the results of his investigative blogging in order to definitively settle the issue.

MCP: I did convene a team of scientists to look at these systems, and they said 'they are safe and accurate.

'"Really, McP? Let's see what they really said. From their report [PDF]:

Harri Hursti's attack does work: Mr. Hursti's attack on the AV-OS is definitely real. He was indeed able to change the election results by doing nothing more than modifying the contents of a memory card. He needed no passwords, no cryptographic keys, and no access to any other part of the voting system, including the GEMS election management server.
…
However, there is another category of more serious vulnerabilities we discovered that go well beyond what Mr. Hursti demonstrated, and yet require no more access to the voting system than he had. These vulnerabilities are consequences of bugs–16 in all

…And then you went ahead and certified the Diebold systems anyway.

First, a small point: There doesn't seem to be any justification for supposing that McPherson was quoting the report. Brad's presentation suggests otherwise.

Taking McPherson's statement as a paraphrase, he seems to be right. The UC Berkeley team found the source code acceptably secure for use in elections if some simple security measures were implemented. From the report summary (page 1):

We found a number of security vulnerabilities, detailed below. Although the vulnerabilities are serious, they are all easily fixable. Moreover, until the bugs are fixed, the risks can be mitigated through appropriate use procedures.

And none of that warranted mention by our intrepid "investigative blogger"?
That's because he's better described as a partisan hack.

MCP: I've overseen two successful elections and no one has been disenfranchised in either of those elections.

Really, McP? What about those voters who were turned away in Kern County during the primary election in June because the Diebold voting machines didn't actually work at all?

1) McPherson can't know that "no one has been disenfranchised" in the elections he has run. Brad gets a point on that one, since the newspaper story he referenced provides reasonable prima facie evidence of probable voter disenfranchisement (albeit on an apparently minor scale).
2) Brad still flubs up, however. The voters who were turned away weren't disenfranchised by the failure of the Diebold machines so much as the failure to stock an adequate number of paper ballots as a failsafe. It's not certain that any of them were ultimately disenfranchised, however. The story simply said that it was virtually impossible for them to cast their ballots.

The "investigative blogger" ends up doing what he seems to do best: misrepresenting the facts.

***

I knew that Friedman's blog belonged here when I delved into his story titled

"EXCLUSIVE: FIRST BUSH-APPOINTED CHAIR OF U.S. ELECTION ASSISTANCE COMMISSION SAYS 'NO STANDARDS' FOR E-VOTING DEVICES, SYSTEM 'RIPE FOR STEALING ELECTIONS'!

On the "no standards" quotation, Friedman is accurate enough. That appears to be what Rev. DeForest Sories intended to say.

It's not clear that Sories reported accurately, however.

In early 1984, this three-year effort produced Voting System Standards: A Report on the Feasibility of Developing Voluntary Standards for Voting Equipment.

Based on the recommendations in that report, Congress appropriated funds permitting the Commission to begin developing voluntary national standards for computer-based voting systems. The FEC began the process in July 1984, and completed it with the Commission’s approval in January 1990 of the first national performance and test standards for punchcard, marksense, and direct recording electronic voting systems. More than 130 State and local election officials, independent technical experts, vendors, Congressional staff, and others participated in the effort to produce this document. The FEC spent $285,000 on four contracts over the course of this effort.
(About.com: History of Voting Machines)

On the other hand, Friedman employed trashy tabloid techniques with the other quotation. The quotation is accurate, but lifted out of context. Friedman manipulates Sories' comment in the title to make him appear to say that American elections are ripe for stealing, but the context shows that Sories referred to the same types of machines in other nations, presumably where election workers do less to preserve the accuracy of the process than we have in the U.S.
Friedman includes the full quotation in the article subsequent to the misleading headline, by the way. I take that as indicative of poor reasoning ability on Friedman's part rather than a desire to mislead others. If he were out to mislead, he'd have been much better off omitting the full quotation.
Here is the quotation with the expanded context:

And as long as an elected official is an elected official, then whatever machine was used, whatever device was used to elect him or her, seems to be adequate. But there’s an erosion of voting rights implicit in our inability to trust the technology that we use and if we were another country being analyzed by America, we would conclude that this country is ripe for stealing elections and for fraud.
(Sories, quoted at theBRADBLOG)

Realistically, any election system devised thus far is ripe for fraud. The latter portion of Sories' comment seems to lack any meaningful content minus the context that precedes it. Sories emphasizes the existing political culture, which is dominated by elected officials, provided we can trust the polls at all.

Those tabloid-style headers--in particular the inaccuracy--help cinch Brad's Blog its place here at Bad Blogs' Blood.

Update on "Left Out in America"

2006-10-16T00:32:00.000-04:00

The very first Bad Blogs' Blood bad blog has sunk even lower.
The administrator removed my set of replies (my replies were not complimentary, but not overtly insulting--and certainly not obscene) to the three error-filled messages I discussed below without lifting a finger (thus far, anyway) to correct the errors.

That stacks up as fairly strong evidence that "liberalprogressive" deliberately misleads, though it's a slim possibility that she is just that clueless.

Updated update:

I left two more messages ... let's see how long they last.

Bryan said...

Silence the evil voices of dissent!

I think that "liberal progressive" knows that she wouldn't go on record as favoring an age of sexual consent above 18.
She can't condemn Foley except according to the letter of the law.
Deep in her heart, she probably doesn't think he did wrong.

You'll probably delete this one, too, eh?

'Cause being a progressive is all about free speech, open-mindedness, and (above all) avoiding debate by whatever means necessary.
;)

And another (I also put in the remnant of my other message, which summed up liberalprogressives error on the Fourth Amendment while suggesting that she owed Gen. Hayden an apology):

Comment Deleted

This post has been removed by the blog administrator.

10:54 PM

Bryan said...

Kind of pathetic that you censor the truth about the Fourth Amendment and refrain from correcting the errors you posted.

12:31 AM

Preview: blogger "tas"

2006-10-15T23:58:00.000-04:00

An upcoming featured blogger wrote posting something downright hilarious, which I presume was in response to my recent interloping commentary at the "Loaded Mouth" blog (is that name a setup for a joke or what?).
The message is edited slightly to tone down the foul language a bit.

Memo to incoming trolls

In the past, I used to relish in tearing your stupid little arguments to shreds, but not only do I have the time to devote to doing such anymore, but I've also grown up. I know that may come as a dismaying thought to your immature asses, but it's true: I got a life and you didn't. Nyah nyah, you ****ing twits. I know it pains your attention whore asses to think that you won't be getting as much attention from me as I used to give you, but I limit my debates now to partners whom I see intelligence in and are willing to discuss all facets of an issue -- without resorting to the petty rhetorical devices of splitter hairs, dropping lame insults, and trying to "win" an argument instead of learning from a debate, the latter activity being the much more productive one.

I'm only blogging for another month (or less), so you won't have to worry about me for too much longer. But in the meantime, don't assume that you won't be censored if you swing by here. I have full rights to edit your comments, and I'll do whatever I find to be amusing, like changing your handle to something embarrassing or rearranging your words into fun statements like "I **** SHEEP!! THEY'S GOT TIGHT ARSEHOLES!" or "I LOVE RUSH LIMBAUGH'S SPERMY ****!" Or I'll just ban your IP address.

It all depends on my mood, you see. If I'm PO'ed and you're around, guess who I'm taking it out on?

To avoid this treatment -- and to get my attention for more than two minutes -- all you have to do is stop being a troll asshole and start being civil. It's pretty simple, no?
(LM)

A mark of the aforementioned maturity, no doubt.
I'll provide specific evidence later to cast serious doubt on tas' alleged ability to tear "your stupid little arguments to shreds."
The guy is seriously inept.

I think it's fair to count altering debate commentary--or even the threat of doing so--as one of the marks properly attributed to a bad blog.

I guarantee this as an accurate cut and paste, by the way, though I chose not to include the formatting that might have appeared between the title and the body of the text ("submitted by" along with the date ... that sort of thing).

Update: Within minutes of the replies I posted at "Loaded Mouth" just prior to posting at Bad Blogs' Blood, tas made good on his threat to alter the text of his blog commentary.
Another mark of maturity, no doubt. Heh.
Good thing I'd already recorded the conversations as they originally stood. That'll make doing the before and after comparisons both fun and easy.

2006-10-14T21:04:00.000-04:00

Haloscan commenting and trackback have been added to this blog.

Bad Blog: Left Out In America

2006-10-13T22:55:00.000-04:00

"Liberalprogressive" is one of those bloggers who apparently only posts when there is something extra dopey to say.

May 19, 2006:

"OK, I was listening to Al Franken on Air America Radio and he played a clip from Hayden's hearing testimony ..."

Okay, that inspires confidence ...

She continues:

"But apparently, Hayden doesn't think that the 4th amendment of the US Constitution says anything about probable cause. He recognized that searches of citizens' homes, papers and persons cannot be conducted without warrants, but didn't think that the probable cause was necessary."
(LOiA)

What can Hayden be thinking? It's almost as though he's more familiar with the topic than the blogger.

Orin Kerr:

In his essay, Adam argues that Hayden’s view is correct. Adam is quite right, as is General Hayden. The Fourth Amendment requires that warrants cannot issue without probable cause, but it does not impose some kind of universal probable cause requirement. As the Supreme Court has stressed repeatedly, the requirement of the Fourth Amendment is that searches and seizures must be reasonable.
(source)

Not every search, seizure, or arrest must be made pursuant to a lawfully executed warrant. The Supreme Court has ruled that warrantless police conduct may comply with the Fourth Amendment so long as it is reasonable under the circumstances. The exceptions made to the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement reflect the Court's reluctance to unduly impede the job of law enforcement officials.
(Encyclopedia of Everyday Law)

Our poor clueless liberal quotes the Fourth Amendment, then (somewhat later) proclaims:

The constitution clearly says that the government needs a warrant AND probable cause to surveille us.
(LOiA)

She also includes some ravings about how Hayden isn't worthy to serve in the administration because of his view of the Fourth Amendment. She probably sees nothing wrong when she casts her votes based on her own flawed understanding of the Fourth Amendment.
Sad, really.

Next entry, June 14, 2006 (imagine what she'd write if she posted daily or more):

A couple of weeks ago I very excitedly posted that Jason Leopold at Truthout.org reported that Karl Rove was indicted by Patrick Fitzgerald for perjury.
(LOiA)

Watch out for news stories using anonymous sources.
Leopold's scoop never materialized. Fitzerald wrapped up the investigation after indicting Libby on perjury and obstruction charges. Richard Armitage finally admitted that he told Fitzgerald early on that he leaked Plame's identity.
Liberalprogressive dedicates her post to proclaiming her faith that the reported indictment was based on good information, and wraps up predictably:

I, for one, hope that Fitzgerald actually uncovers the real story behind who outed Ms. Plame and why and indicts everyone involved.
(LOiA)

Sounds like she wants your head, Armitage.

And finally, this gem of a post entitled "Grand Old Pedophiles---To Catch a Congressional Predator"

The truth of this scandal begins simply with the acts of one man, the acts of Florida Republican Mark Foley. He had sexually explicit conversations via the internet, not with gay men, but with children, teenagers involved in the congressional page program.
(LOiA)

As of this writing, two former pages (both over 18) have had lewd IM conversation with Foley published. There isn't any evidence for liberalblogger's accusations against Foley other than misleading news reports. News sources have claimed that Foley had these conversations with males under the age of 18, but two of those claims have proved incorrect.
Other evidence may come to light, but I don't trust liberalprogressive's prescience.

Here's more brilliance:

The extreme religious right wing of the republican party is not afraid of gay-bashing. They are trying to pass a constitutional amendment banning gay people from marrying. In 2004, they saw to it that anti-gay legislation was on the ballots in many states to motivate their base to vote. That is gay-bashing.
(LOiA)

Why is it that people think that gay people are prohibited from marrying? Don't they read the news? Don't they watch TV? Can't they remember Governor McGreevy?

After the 2004 confession, McGreevey divorced his wife and now lives with his partner, Mark O'Donnell, who attends Saint Bartholomew's Episcopal Church with him in New York City.
(Santa Cruz Sentinel)

Liberalprogressive, your blog is bad. Welcome to Bad Blogs' Blood.

Greetings

2006-10-01T17:40:00.000-04:00

Welcome to Bad Blogs' Blood, where blogs are evaluated and ranked for quality of information content. Be patient, for this will be a work in progress for the foreseeable future.
Actually, this blog will focus on blogs that threaten to waste your time rather than on establishing ranks for the better blogs.

CIA	Central Intelligence Agency
CW	chemical warfare
CWA	chemical warfare agent
DIA	Defense Intelligence Agency
MASH	mobile army surgical hospital

NBC	nuclear, biological, and chemical
SITREP	situation report
US	United States

USAMRICD	US Army Medical Research Institute of Chemical Defense

USCENTCOM	United States Central Command

Blister agent	A blister agent is a chemical warfare agent that produces local irritation and damage to the skin and mucous membranes, pain and injury to the eyes, reddening and blistering of the skin, and when inhaled, damage to the respiratory tract. Blister agents include mustards, arsenicals like lewisite, and mustard and lewisite mixtures. Blister agents are also called vesicants or vesicant agents.^{^[48]}
Blood agent	A blood agent is a chemical warfare agent that is inhaled and absorbed into the blood, carrying the agent to all body tissues where it interferes with the tissue oxygenation process. The brain is especially affected. The effect on the brain leads to cessation of respiration followed by cardiovascular collapse.^{^[49]}
Chemical warfare agent	A chemical warfare agent is a chemical substance, excluding riot control agents, herbicides, smoke, and flame, used in military operations to kill, seriously injure, or incapacitate though its physiological effects. Included are blood, nerve, blister, choking, and incapacitating agents.^{^[50]}
Conventional weapon	A conventional weapon is a weapon that is neither nuclear, biological, nor chemical.^{^[51]}
Mustard	A mustard agent is a blister chemical warfare agent that produces local irritation and damage to the skin and mucous membranes, pain and injury to the eyes, reddening and blistering of the skin, and when inhaled, damage to the respiratory tract.^{^[52]}
Nerve agents	Nerve agents are the most toxic of the chemical warfare agents. Nerve agents are absorbed into the body through breathing, by injection, or absorption through the skin. They affect the nervous and the respiratory systems and various body functions.^{^[54]}
Riot control agent	A riot control agent is a chemical that produces transient effects that disappear within minutes after exposure and rarely require medical treatment. Riot control agents are effective in quelling civil disturbances and in preventing unnecessary loss of life.^{^[55]}
White Phosphorus	White phosphorus is a form of phosphorus which creates spectacular bursts when used in artillery shells and is very damaging to the skin since it burns on exposure to oxygen.^{^[56]}