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.

I might also add this chart to the Sherrod Brown piece on proof that tax cuts do not create jobs, but I thought it was better to show it here:

I’m going to say this over and over and over again about my *blog* in relation to Bryan’s:
1. These blogs are FREE; anyone can do one.

2. Almost no one looks at them except for the blogger; I mean, I have friends, family and a few people I know on Facebook who look at mine (and Bryan), but beyond that, very few.

3. For the most part, blogs hold NO importance, they’re just free web-based personal journals.

4. While there are *awards* for blogs, they don’t appear to be too mainstream (one’s first place prize is $20).

5. I know it takes a lot of work and patience to get your blog to come up on a search engine; I have seen Bryan’s blog come up, but he has been at “Sublime Blowhard” for years. That’s about the only success I can see for his.

6. Neither of us (as far as I know, in his case) are being paid to post.

If I was somebody on the staff of HuffPost and Bryan was somebody on the staff at Townhall, then this would matter. Those people are professionals. But I’m not. I don’t know if Bryan is, he will never say. The bizarre significance he places on these blogs, however, is way over-played.

It can also be seen with I have called his “monolithic certitude” in the way he comments, for example, when I first saw him relentlessly debate commenter Jim Bleikamp back in December, 2009: Bryan (to Bleikamp): “You're well on your way to permanently discrediting yourself unless you radically reform your behavior…” Discrediting himself with who? Bryan? And what is the consequence of “permanently discrediting” oneself? A warrant for arrest by the Facebook Judge if Bleikamp fails to show up in court? One of Bleikamp’s responses probably represented what a lot of other posters (and me) were thinking: “…there is no regulation that I'm aware of that states that I need to answer every foolish question that you dream up.”

So I hope someone can clue me in on the local headquarters of the “blog and comment” authority cops. Because then I can perhaps contact them for a list of “blog and comment” statutes and regulations, since I don’t want to get arrested for doing something illegal, especially by that stern and unforgiving “blog and comment” authority police officer Bryan White.

My Critique	Bryan’s Criticism	My response
Joe Biden: The Partition	Biden's statement represented “a false dichotomy”	He first said equivocate…changed his mind now? Does that still make Biden’s statement a lie?
Killer B’s	“Forgetting to include an entire nine letter word is an omission…”	An entire nine-letter word? The definition of the word “anal” in the dictionary should have a pic of Bryan under it.
Sarah Palin: Defense Spending	“Street mistakes NATO's budget for the cost of NATO”	Apparently Bryan read no further than that. Palin probably has no idea, either.
Sherrod Brown: Clintons 22 million Jobs	“The above finds Street in the midst of explaining how PF’s selection bias somehow keeps PF from having to express a partisan opinion…that’s ridiculous”	From Heritage.org? Bryan avoided the issue again of Bush’s financed tax cuts not creating jobs, which I addressed at length. Selection bias was not my call, it was Bryan’s, the burden of proof is on him. Nice try, though.
Nathan Deal: Birthers	‘To say that someone "dabbled" in birther conspiracies conveys that the conspiracies were actively believed.’	Conveys? That sounds like infers or implies. Bryan claims there’s a difference. This is totally subjective opinion.
Dan Fanelli: Slippery Slope	Slippery slope is OK to use when sequence of events is likely	My read of slippery slope is it is OK when there is clear evidence of each step of the slope as well, which there is not. “Likely” is arguable.
Barber Boxer: BoxerJam (or Boxer Rebellion)	We agree…so why did Street keep title of Lil White Lies?	Yes, we agree….I never said we always wouldn’t...but I’m keeping the title, sorry.
Jim DeMint: 94% of *Bills* pass unanimously	… her argument makes no sense.”	Originally Bryan’s argument was that they were all technically bills, and then it changed (once he found out 535 were not bills by definition) to DeMint’s intentions on the meaning of the word bill. On the other hand, his argument makes no sense either.
Alan Grayson: 50th in Life Expectancy	“…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…”	This one speaks for itself…purely subjective opinion from Bryan (and me, because this one is arguable).
No Way CRA Redux	‘Perhaps by describing the fallacies as merely "purported" Street is absolved from having to address the issues.’	Bryan’s only evidence was Carney’s, and it was completely debunked. Bryan never addressed the issue, the burden of proof is HIS. Perhaps he'd like to take Ritholtz up on his $100K bet and put his money where his mouth is.
Summary	...	Bryan’s on my Bad Blog Roll too!