Mock the Dummies: How Dummies Protect Marriage

Alan Grayson should take note of this on behalf of "Taliban Dan" Webster.

Tchotchkes: Sour on that Lemon Pledge

Most of the Republicans have rationalized that everything has to be the Democrats' fault anyway.

Lil White Lies: NOT (This Time!)

Interesting Fact: Texas and Utah had laws until 1971 that basically said it was permissible for a man to shoot his wife's lover if he caught them in an adulterous act. It was called passion shooting. The reverse of this was called homicide. -- TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. art. 1220 (Vernon's 1966), repealed by implication by TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. §§9.31-.33 (Vernon's 1974), which set out defenses against charges of homicide.

Covenant marriage is the topic of this ruling on a comment by Florida Democrat Congressman Alan Grayson with regard to his Republican opponent “Taliban Dan” Webster.

Covenant marriage is a more restrictive marriage contract designed to prevent divorce. Grayson makes the claim in an advertisement that this would “make divorce illegal” as well as “den(y) battered women the right to divorce.” It clearly doesn’t make divorce illegal, and this was 20 years ago, for Pete’s sake! The stats show that in the other three states where it is an option, very few couples choose it. And it was an option; it was a choice. While I imagine there are a few crazy men (or women) out there that might “choose for abuse”, I’m sure that there would have been some modifications if it had been passed into law. On the “pro” side it has one very good idea which should be universal: pre-marital counseling, albeit without the religious bent.

Sidebar: Get a Clue, Drew (Updated)

Some of my friends tell me to lay off Bryan White on this blog because it appears I may be “obsessed” with him. Well, I don’t see it that way, this blog was started to counter his. It was not an indictment of him, and I try not to be unduly judgmental. I don’t think of him as a “bad” person, I just don’t agree with him. I also appreciate PolitiFact and feel Bryan is trying to undermine them (and am looking forward to his supposed “objective” evidence of their left-wing bias). As I’ve progressed in this, however, I’ve also come to the conclusion I should try to diminish the emphasis on his blog in favor of other issues that interest me.

Yesterday something came to my attention  that will compel me to decrease that emphasis even more. It was on CNN’s AC360 and what really struck me was how blogs can be used against others in despicable ways. It was happening “close to home” in Michigan as well—I am a University of Michigan alumnus and my primary residence is in Michigan.

Sidebar: More on Ground Zero Mosque

The fall premier of CBS “60 Minutes” had a segment called “The People Behind The Mosque” on the so-called Ground Zero Mosque. While I suspect they most likely did not delve into the back ground of Sharif El-Gamal, the developer who *owns* the building, to get his cooperation for the interview, they did provide some noteworthy info:

I had heard there was a “strip bar” even closer to Ground Zero than the Mosque is located. Early in the segment, you could see it with a “peep show” featured. With all due respect, I’d rather have a mosque than a strip bar near Ground Zero. In fact, if it was me I’d be protesting the strip bar. I also heard there is a liquor store even closer to Ground Zero than the Mosque.

Sidebar: One American Voice speaks the Truth

Recently on the Facebook PolitiFact page, a commenter by the name of Paul Hugenberg posted a link to his own Blogspot blog which has the same formatting as mine....Paul is a newbie like me, he will learn as he goes along, I am sure (first piece of advice: learn how to use the "Insert Jump Break").  But he had something to say about the "promises" of the Republicans/Tea Partiers who will most likely score a big victory this November.  This paragraph pretty much says it all:

"Second, it is impossible to fill its promises of bringing our debt under control. The debt is about $14T today. Let us say the GOP is going to be more fiscally conservative and run “smaller deficits” than we see today. Although that is a promise made by the Democrats, we will assume that the Republicans will really do it because they stump it so often. Boehner wishes to return to Bush-era budgets. That era ran $900B deficits. I hate to be an antagonist, but a $900 deficit still adds to the debt. But I’ll run with it. Under GOP control, 2011 will see a budget with a $900B deficit, and the debt rises to almost $15T. In this case, less is more. Less of a deficit still leaves more of a debt. In order to reduce the national debt, mathematically you need to spend .01 less than you bring in. The government pulls in receipts of approximately $2.4T. We spend about $3.7T. That means we need to eliminate 1.3T from the budget to even begin considering a reduction. Here’s the hard part: 2/3 of our spending is entitlement spending (also called mandatory) – the money that is nondiscretionary and based on our stated rights and constitutional duties. One third is discretionary. 1/3 of $3.7T is $1.25T. Therefore, in order for one red penny to be paid against our debt, the entire amount of discretionary spending must be eliminated. That, my dear friends, is NOT going to happen."

Sidebar: Double Dabbling! (Updated)

No worry, Bryan White says it isn't dabbling.

"To say someone "dabbled" in birther conspiracies conveys that the conspiracies were actively believed." So says Bryan White at his secret bad blog in regard to my assessment of his criticism of PolitiFact's ruling on Liberal Bloggers' claims about Georgia Republican Nathan Deal "dabbling in birtherism."

Now we have another dabbler--Christine O'Donnell, the Republican nominee for U.S. Senate in Delaware, but instead of birtherism, it's witchcraft.

Tchotchkes: Becky Bowers' Cousin Betty?

After doing that PolitiFact critique as researched and written by Becky Bowers, it reminded me of Betty Bowers, America's Best Christian and founder of Bringing Integrity To Christian Homemakers and Baptists Are Saving Homosexuals.  Here's one of her better videos on defining traditional marriage.

Mock the Dummies: How Dummies Redefine Feminism

I think I'm going to make a series outside of Tchotchkes on these charming youtube videos.

Lil White Lies: Is that all there is?

Well you asked for it!

Two of the critiques listed below will (eventually!) have addendums: The “birther” piece on Nathan Deal, which will include some comments from Slate Magazine in support of the birther dabbler theory. The other is the ruling on Sarah Palin and Bryan’s correction of me on the NATO budget. I already knew that the budget for which the NATO website spoke was not for the operational troops. This was why I moved on to the Northern European Command. However, this did not in any way affect the overall disagreement with Bryan that Sarah Palin was “falsely” implying that the defense budget wasn’t that big. Using a huge number like the U.S. GDP to calculate defense as a percentage is a disingenuous way to hide it, further exaggerated in the way she expressed it, something which I showed had been in the Republican bag of tricks for a while.

Lil White Lies: "B" Stimulating (Updated)

Bryan White gave Shirl Kennedy a “B” grade this time as researcher. However, Becky Bowers, listed as writer and researcher, was graded “F”. So that begs the question (in Bryan’s logical world), if Kennedy got a “B” how did the research count for Bowers, since we have no way of knowing how much research she did compared to Shirl. What if Bowers actually did more of the research, and Kennedy only assisted in a minor perfunctory way? That means that Bryan’s “B” grade for Kennedy made no sense, because he would have had to lift up Bowers' grade of “F” to include her above-average “B” research.

Bryan said “Kennedy apparently provided research appropriate for that focus and presumably was not involved in framing the story.” So she got a “B” for having more than 23 sources to determine only if “no private sector jobs were created with the stimulus.” Well how about Bowers? That list of sources did not list with each one the name of the person who actually did the review of those sources, or calling or interviewing. He only dismissed Kennedy because she wasn’t involved in framing the story. That doesn’t mean that Bowers should get some credit.

It can also mean Bryan’s “special top super duper secret formula grade compilation system” may be zero or below 50 points for F. It’s not what at one time was 93-100=A, 85-92=B, 77-84=C, 70-76=D, and anything below 70 Failing or F. Or some instructors who just did 10 point increments. Bryan’s must be well below 70, or even down to zero for F-. So for Bowers, her grade from Bryan as writer was SO low that even averaging in the B for her research responsibility, still gave her an F. Or maybe Bryan’s grading system is…..not really what he says it is, it just reflects his seeming animosity toward PolitiFact and his own inherent right-leaning belief that PF is left-leaning. 

Sidebar: Snark-o-meter and Michele Bachmann (Updated 2X)

Recently I noticed a new Factcheck  on Michele Bachmann. Bachmann is at the rock bottom of the GPA’s, averaging only 56 points, the lowest of everyone, including pundits, of those who’ve had over five rulings.

Factcheck's article didn’t sound too “non-snarkey” either, although it was mild compared to PolitiFact's earlier rulings.

**At Friday’s conservative Values Voter Summit, Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann spoke out against "falsehoods and rumors" about the tea party movement. We applaud any call to combat misinformation — but Bachmann would do well to guard against falsehoods and rumors herself. In the same speech, she complained about "Speaker Pelosi, who has been busy sticking the taxpayer for a $100,000 bar tab for alcohol on the military jets that she is flying." That’s a totally off-base assertion that we addressed back in March.”**

Looking at a Factcheck to PolitiFact comparison I had done earlier, it seems that it has given Bachmann nothing but False rulings as well (since the beginning of the year), of three that have been done on her. In other words, maybe it’s just not PolitiFact being “snarky”.  Maybe Bachmann’s just really a liar.

Post-script (9-22-10):  PolitiFact just published something on Bachmann confirming my findings.

Post-script to Post-script (12-6-09):  The new "wide measure" Politi-score measure (the About This Blog page shows how it is calculated) makes Michele Bachmann one of the very few individuals with more than five PF rulings with a NEGATIVE Politi-Score.  That's what happens when you've been ruled only two ways, 6 (six) Pants on Fire (which by wide measure is -25) and 7 (seven) False, which adds zero (0) points to the score.  This gives Michele a wide measure Politi-score of  -11.5.

Sidebar: There's No Place Like Home

"And that Ray Bolger image to emphasize the concept of a straw man? I'm afraid that's been done before, only better..." said Bryan White (what is this “one up” problem he has?) at his Politi-Psychotic Blast-fest. In the mean time, a good friend sent me one more appropriate and to my liking, so I replaced the one Bryan saw on my post.

As for the Straw Man, I think the Lion should get a part too, because it represents a "concept" as well, at least in my (and others') view of the Democratic Party. It's interesting that the Wizard of Oz supposedly was considered by some to be a parody of the politics occurring at the time it was written.

Sidebar: The Word Warden is here!

Bryan White has given me the honor of being at the top of his "The Bad Blogs' Blood Bloody Bad Blogs Blogroll.” I read his long diatribe this morning with interest. He went over each of my synopses of his PolitiFact critiques, with these choice comments:

“…few of the many outstanding examples of bankrupt thinking.”

“Was that incredibly inept analysis by Street? Sure….”

“…Clearly, that's ridiculous…”

“…That's ridiculous…”

“It's nearly always fun when folks with a minimal familiarity with the descriptions and details of fallacies start playing fallacy roulette:…”

“Karen Street… missed the point.”

“Though the logic is eminently simple, the simplicity eludes Street.”

Lil White Lies: Mission Improbable

How much blame does Bill Clinton deserve for 9/11? “A lot. Jimmy Carter got the whole thing started, Bill Clinton let it build, build, build, build, build. He wouldn’t deal with it, because he had no credibility on deploying the military. He was a pot-smoking draft dodger, and so when he was presented with credible evidence that this or that country was behind a terrorist attack, he’d just have to look the other way: ‘No, don’t let me hear that. Call in Monica!’… Jimmy Carter gave Islamic craziness its first real foothold. There was no state-sponsored—they were just living in the dirt hating us until they had Iran. How did that happen? Because Americans forgot what it’s like to put a Democrat in charge of national security. Then we have eight years of Bill Clinton ignoring, ignoring, ignoring, ignoring—they’re ginning themselves up, Osama is saying, ‘You have six dead in Somalia and you pull out? We have boys lining up.’ Now this isn’t the Cold War, these aren’t sane but evil white men—these are crazy Islamists. This country—people are under the impression that it could never change, that this can be taken for granted, it can’t be taken away, and this is a terrifying time. I mean, it’s terrifying to think what could happen with a one-term Democrat, any of those Democrats.” --- Ann Coulter

The subject of this current Bryan White foray into flunking the fact-checkers at PolitiFact is the inimitable Ann Coulter, about whom I will treat like Bill Maher or Joy Behar…they seem to like her. I shock my more liberal friends (my conservative friends even more!) when I don’t turn the channel if she’s on Fox or anywhere else…there’s just something about her that I don’t think she’s as serious as she portrays herself to be.

Tchotchkes: The True Holy Book of Terry Jones

This fellow belongs with the two (Sharif El-Gamal and Jay Sekelow) who were the subject of my recent post on Ground Zero:

And there's a FOURTH publicity-hound who should be included here.  She said “Book burning is antithetical to American ideals. People have a constitutional right to burn a Koran if they want to, but doing so is insensitive and an unnecessary provocation -- much like building a mosque at Ground Zero."   So, I'm a little confused here, Sarah:  you're against religious freedom in New York, but you're for religious freedom in Florida?

Lil White Lies: Bill is a 4-Letter Word

This past June, PolitiFact (PF) published a Pants on Fire ruling on a statement by Jim DeMint : "Ninety-four percent of the bills that pass the Senate have no debate, no vote, no amendments, no reading of the bill, no online disclosure." They concluded DeMint “stacked the deck” with the total number of bills he used (from which he got the 94%) from the CRS (Congressional Research Service).

This PF ruling was quite confusing, as there were two versions (here's the first) PF published because of all the complaints it received. I kept reading both of them and got very, well, confused, too, as it seemed to me their initial analysis was turned on its head. And it took me a while to get this written up to where it made sense to me.

Part of my condensed “critique the critique” is to re-state what Bryan White would want PF’s ruling to be based on his interpretation.

This would be MY initial PF interpretation: "Ninety-four percent of the bills that pass the Senate have no debate, no vote, no amendments, no reading of the bill, no online disclosure." It was found that of these 911 bills to which he refers, 535 were non-binding, concurrent resolutions. 122 of the remaining were non-debate, non-voting resolutions. That’s 657 bills out of 911, or 72.1%, that had no debate, no vote, no amendments, no reading of the bill, no online disclosure. That’s fairly close to 94%.

Sidebar: The Snark-o-meter

Snarky: A combination of the words Nasty and Sarcastic, meaning “being unpleasant and scornful”

On August 13, Bryan White posted that anecdotal proof of Politifact’s left-leaning bias is its treatment of Michele Bachmann (in a Facebook PolitiFact thread with commenter Derek Grass):

“….One obvious example comes from the snarkiness PolitiFact (PF) employs in its ratings of Michele Bachmann. I'm aware of no corresponding recipient of such treatment from the political left, and it's not for lack of candidates…. Any level of snark doesn't belong, and it's easily detectable no matter what party is the subject. You don't find snark in an Annenberg fact check.”

Just out of curiousity, I went back and looked at her PF rulings for 2010. Nothing looked particularly “snarky”: nasty, sarcastic or unpleasant. It was fairly straightforward. So I went back and looked at everything right from the beginning of PF’s “birth”—and there it was. If there’s a Snarkometer, its pointer blew off the meter when I read this paragraph at the end of one ruling ("snark" words are in italics):

Tchotchkes: Cartoon for the Day

Lil White Lies: The Smell of Surprise

Many posters on PolitiFact’s Facebook page have confronted Bryan White on his debate tactics. One of my favorites was commenter Kevin Park.

Kevin Park to Bryan White: (early July, 2010) “I gave you a short answer, because question was ridiculous. You are making bunch of statements to look smart without knowing what they mean…..I have to block Bryan White if he constantly talk[s] nonsense to me.”

Unfortunately, blocking Bryan (or anyone) is futile. The public Facebook shows all comments, so a few days later, when the posts for that particular thread had "closed" because commenters had gone on to new ones, Bryan ostensibly read  Kevin's comments "unblocked" at the public Facebook and then posted his comment as “last word” (although he and myself were probably the only ones who read Bryan’s final post to Kevin—Kevin, I’m sure, moved on, didn't know and didn't care).

Well, I wouldn’t call his talk nonsense, but this particular blog by Bryan, on a PolitiFact ruling of a recent comment on MSNBC by Alan Grayson, was definitely “a bunch of statements to look smart.”

Lil White Lies: No Way CRA Redux

Bryan White published a hurried response to my “Lil White Lies: No Way CRA” by, first off, plaintively demanding why I am calling him a liar. That’s been dealt with in another post. This post is only to respond to his CRA “argumentum ad nauseum”.

Along with that, he spent nearly half the piece going on about why John Carney could not be so conservative because he “attacked the content” of books by Mark Levin and Sean Hannity. Well, Carney may attack their books, but there’s one point they are all mostly in agreement on, which is the subject of this blog post: The CRA and its “significant” role in the subprime crisis. Levin and Hannity’s names both link to articles attesting to that.  I will admit I don't have anything on Glenn Beck in this regard, because he's gone more in the conspiratorial direction of the CRA's connections to ACORN.

Sidebar: That piss on my leg...is NOT the rain

When I found Bryan White’s *secret* blog, I was quite surprised at its, well, let me use his words:

“…the ghastly formatting of her blog posts…the formatting was so atrocious that reading the blog was a chore…”

There was more than just the headline page, he had done three posts of criticism directed at my blog. Well, that’s of course his right in this internet blogging world. I managed to read through this one without going blind, responding to my Lil White Lies: No Way CRA.

Of course, it was more about why I label my posts criticizing his posts as “Lil White Lies.” Little white lies are often “polite” ways of twisting words.  If Bryan had a name during the Roman age, it would be Argumentum Maximus Ad Nauseum. He’s called me a crackpot and an occasional idiot in his secret blog; maybe I should add “Ad Hominem” onto his above Roman name.

Tchotchkes: A Little Religious Humor

Politi-Score: Crackpots, *Cheese* and WhINE (Updated)

Tip o’ the hat to you-know-who for sparking this idea. He called my *useless* Politi-Score a “GPA”—grade point average. In an email he asked if I knew the GPA of the grades he had been giving in the Grading PolitiFact section of his blog (I'd say I do for 2010, or at least for the summer!)  He said I was good at “generalizing.” Well, GPA, GPA….how about Generalized PolitiFact Average? Yes! So with my handy dandy photo editor, I made up another cheesy PolitiFact meter to reflect the new GPA. Of course it will always be stuck on “yellow” —“caution, neutral” since it is a very general indicator. The yellow “light” reminds me of one of those big round cheeses, too. Perfect. Isn’t it apropos that dairy land Wisconsin just came on board with PolitiFact.

From one crackpot to another! And how ‘bout a nice White whine in lieu of Chianti?

Postscript:  Corrections have been made to first paragraph and the cartoon because someone wanted more wHine.

Tchotchkes: Sarah Palin Note to Self

Tchotchkes: More *Headlines* with Tiger Woods

To be filed with other headlines like "PolitiFact Ferrets out the Truth...and Fibs."

Politi-Score: On grading PolitiFact

A Facebook email was received from Bryan White in which he told me that I should "get a clue" about Politi-Score; I was wasting my time because it was "useless."   Yeah, OK.  So here's graphical proof that those grades he grants in his PolitiFact critiques at Sublime Bloviations aren't exactly useful either:

Sidebar: Self-stultification with admirable aplomb?

Found this interesting website  except it's very difficult to read with white font on black background.

Note:   Yep, that Stats tab on Blogspot is nice.

Politi-Score: Bottom line of Fudging the Truth

The methodology for doing the above stats: Went through PolitiFact (PF) ruling page by Person/Group and included those with 5 or more PF Truthometer rulings . True ratings= 100 points, Mostly True= 90, Half True= 80, Barely True= 70, False= 60, and Pants on Fire= 50. The number of points was then multipled by the number of rulings made for the category, the points added up, and then divided by the total number of rulings.

"People" or individuals (not groups/committees/associations or emails) were only included here , and nothing from PF's "Flip-o-meter."  They are all current or former office-holders/strategists/consultants.  The pundits (those who have radio/television shows and are considered more or less "entertainers") were separately scored.

Sidebar: Following the Money at Ground Zero

PolitiFact (PF) recently did a fact-check on whether the “Ground Zero Mosque” is at Ground Zero. It gave a ruling of “Barely True.” Researching this, I found a number of very fishy things, or I might say, given how I rate Sublime Bloviations’ “Grading PolitiFact”, with Pepé LePews, this one gets the max of five, because they really stink.

First there’s the slippery slope….of just how close is close. The day following the publishing of this fact-check, my little friend Bryan White posted in Facebook “Now you [PF] can move on to the question of whether Central Park apartments are actually *inside* Central Park.” I don’t think there are any apartments technically inside Central Park. They border it, and apartment/ condo buildings like the name “Central Park West”, for example, because the view and location is what gets them better rents/prices. It’s sort of a New York City real estate branding.

To read some of the conservative accounts, you’d think the Mosque was on top of One World Trade Center; most say, on hallowed ground. Libertarians are necessarily reluctant to support it because of the paramount importance of private property rights. In my Facebook posts, I posted a possible solution: for someone like Donald Trump, the Big Apple commercial real estate authority, to find a buyer for the Mosque property whereby the owners might make a profit, and then find them a suitable replacement somewhere else on Manhattan. The response was basically, the Imam’s heart is set on this spot…..but why?

Lil White Lies: Boxer Jam

This is what Bill O’Reilly had to say about what Barbara Boxer said to Condoleezza Rice back in 2007 (read full Politifact piece here):

“Summing up this ridiculous display, if Senator Barbara Boxer represents a sane view of the War on Terror — including the Iraq War — we're all in very big trouble.

We need professionals in Congress, not foolish ideologues.

And that's The Memo.”

Bill O’Reilly, Talking Points, January 12, 2007

So Barbara Boxer said in a recent interview: “…I was criticizing the fact that she [Condi] didn't know how many people died in Iraq. Absolutely I was. And I said it's even more on our shoulders because we don't--we're not making a personal sacrifice. I'm not. And she wasn't. That we really follow this war. And we bring troops home. And I--I as you know did not vote for that war and therefore was very strong on the point that we owed it to our men and women in uniform to bring them home as soon as possible.”

Tchotchkes: Tea Party Barbie

Something's not quite right..oh I know, the sign needs to have a spelling error.

Sidebar: More toxic than Chinese Drywall

So, the Chinese were sending us toxic building materials….and held the toxic debt they were bought with.

While looking into the role of the CRA in the subprime crisis, I also did some research on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the two GSE’s that many Republicans like to say were complicit in the debacle due to their buying the mortgages to free up capital for the banks and mortgage companies to make more subprime loans.

Some of the information was quite contradictory. First there was this from Businessweek published in September, 2008:

“Start with the most basic fact of all: virtually none of the $1.5 trillion of cratering subprime mortgages were backed by Fannie or Freddie. That’s right — most subprime mortgages did not meet Fannie or Freddie’s strict lending standards. All those no money down, no interest for a year, low teaser rate loans? All the loans made without checking a borrower’s income or employment history? All made in the private sector, without any support from Fannie and Freddie.”

Sidebar: Mission Accomplished!

Mock the Dummies: Where Dummies Go For Business News

Lil White Lies: No Way CRA

My "blog nemesis" Bryan White seems to revel in criticism of his local newspaper columnist, Robyn Blumner, whose credentials include having been a director for the ACLU.…Well there ya go!

At his blog there’s a *Topic of Note* section devoted to “Bashing Blumner” which includes his numerous write ups. One recently piqued my interest.

As stated by Bryan in his write up, the essence of this particular column by Blumner was that she… “perhaps once again inspired by a book from a liberal author, attempts to explain why Republicans are wrong to pin the financial crisis on the Community Reinvestment Act [CRA].” The liberal author Blumner drew from was financial expert and author of book Bailout Nation Barry Ritholtz, which  explains why the CRA was not to blame. 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.”

Politi-Score: Update on Majors

Here is the update on the “major political figures”: Obama, Biden, Pelosi, Boehner, Reid and McConnell.

John Boehner still has the best “PF report card” average of the congressional majors and Harry Reid is still at the bottom, the rankings are the same since the first time I performed these calculations in late June. Obviously, the more rulings a person has, the less the average is affected by additional ones; Obama has dropped by a few points, as well as John Boehner, as they have been the only ones to receive additional rulings.