Tchotchkes: Roasted Lame Duck a l'Obama

Tchotchkes: What's under the Xmas Tree This Year?

Sidebar: Facebook PolitiFact Page Commenter of the Year (or maybe All Time?)

It’s probably very clear to most of my readers that the reason I started this blog was to counter Bryan White’s blog Sublime Bloviations. It even bothers me a bit because I don’t want anyone to think I’m obsessed with the fellow, I mean, I don’t even know him…he kind of hides under a rock. But he’s just a great antagonist that provides a lot of material for me to work with.

A lot of other Facebook commenters at the PolitiFact page argue a lot with Bryan and often say (much better) what I am thinking when I read them, or in some of the things I have said in this blog. So, here here are seven examples of people who have gone to the ropes in Facebook PolitiFact Page commentary with Bryan in the past year—are they all saying something similar? “Making [a] bunch of statements to look smart… he [Bryan] constantly talk[s] nonsense to me” (Kevin Park to Bryan); “Rational debate is impossible with the methods you use” (Kirk Klingbiel to Bryan); “Stop playing games parsing a handful of sentences” (Todd Ferguson to Bryan); “You wander off point and I can't figure if you do it purposely” (Bob Brown to Bryan); “Saying things over & over, asking for examples when the examples were already very clear to anyone else reading this, & long winded empty worded responses” (Dan Favero to Bryan); “If you could learn to get over this habit you have of mentally deleting what is inconvenient to your warped perspective” (Jim Bleikamp to Bryan) and finally “Great job of mischaracterization …. you make up what the other side is saying and then you refute it.......” (Garret Fitzgerald to Bryan).

Most of these statements were chosen on the basis of their not being “name-calling”—they are statements expressing what they think of what Bryan’s doing in his verbal exchanges within the comment threads. Nonsense, “irrational” debate, parsing sentences, wondering off point, long-winded empty worded responses, mentally deleting what is inconvenient, mischaracterization. When you read more of the comments below, you will see more overlap between posters making similar contentions about Bryan’s debate methods.

Lil White Lies: The return of Vince and Jules

Well, why did it NOT surprise me to find that Bryan White’s most ardent admirer gave his predictable slobbering approval to Bryan’s review of PolitiFact’s supposed “horrible work”(its recent "Lie of the Year" on the so-called "government take over of healthcare" in the 2010 healthcare reform)--

AFTER HOURS: As usual, Bryan White at Sublime Bloviations does a superb job addressing even more problems with the Politifact piece.

Best line:

"If dissatisfaction with the health care plan was such a big factor in the November elections then perhaps PolitiFact could have found a "Lie of the Year" that Democrats would be able to run on the passage of health care reform and/or keep control of the House of Representatives."

Oh that self-congratulatory let’s-pat-ourselves-on-the-back-over-and-over smugness raises its ugly head again! So….can either Jeff or Bryan find such a lie? Got any examples? I mean, it should be easy….shouldn’t it? Bryan does something here he accuses PolitiFact of, claiming it’s “an inaccurate claim…which suggests evidence will follow” and then not having any such evidence except to quote a survey from Bloomberg where the margin of error is enough to take the legs out of it.

Lil White Lies: Refudiating the Strategery of Takeoverism (Updated)

“The healthcare reform bill now includes a tanning booth tax of 10 percent. You know what this means? This whole thing could be funded by the cast of ‘Jersey Shore.’” – Jay Leno

“In Washington, it looks like the Senate is almost done with the healthcare bill. Otherwise known as the Joe Lieberman Insurance Company Preservation Act.” – Jay Leno

PolitiFact’s “Lie of the Year”—that the healthcare reform passed in March constituted a “government take over” of healthcare—received an ambitious, derogatory (as usual) 3,000+ word review from my conservative counterpart, Bryan White, proclaiming it “a case study in disinformation” highlighted by “opinion-drenched news analysis.”

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.” 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).

Grading PolitiFact *Liberal*-Style: Tax Break Mistakes

When my conservative counterpart *grades* PolitiFact, he occasionally employs his own version of the “slippery slope” analogy, attempting to make it appear a logical explanation for why PolitiFact’s rulings are in error. According to him, if the slippery slope is reasonable in each step of the slope, that makes it a legitimate argument. As I later noted, there should additionally be proof conclusive that these steps are indeed occurring (which in the case of “death panels” was not evident, and so failed the full test of legitimacy).

For this particular ruling on a statement by Ohio Senator Sherrod Brown, the same slippery slope rationalization can be applied, and the “reasonableness” badge even more easily awarded. Using Bryan Whites’ own words:

One of the commonsense rules of charitable interpretation involves accepting a reasonable explanation from the person making the statement, at least to the point of granting the explanation the benefit of the doubt in a close contest of most plausible explanations.

Translated: Baffling with bullsh*t is perfectly reasonable! Whatever “plausible explanation” that’s buyable is acceptable. That’s how argument is done in Facebook commentary, so why not the same here.

Tchotchkes: Mid-terms under the Mistletoe

Sidebar: H.R. 8791--U.S. Preparing for Martial Law?

Tchotchkes: Obama must not know Texas Holdem

Grading PolitiFact *Liberal*-Style: Denying the Profiling

This most recent ruling by PolitiFact Florida concerns a remark by Tea Party (supported) incoming congress person Allen West, who as a candidate claimed he had a higher security clearance than the president, and from what I’ve heard is really into interrogation techniques as well. The statement being fact-checked was made by West on NBC's Meet the Press November 21: “after September 11, we had the opportunity with Israel coming and talking to us about improving our security screening procedures, and we turned them down.”

So PolitiFact proved we spoke with the Israelis about their security system, but could not pin down that we “turned them down” and ruled the statement Half True.

“Turning them down” implies that the Israeli’s made some sort of recommendation or request that required a yes or no—in order to “turn it down”. The fact is, however, that the U.S. was well aware of how Israel handled its airport security and weren’t required to turn them down—they could not use the major part of their system to begin with, because one factor made it too “objectionable” to Americans:

Tchotchkes: A Cartoon targeting PolitiFact's "Obameter"?

Sidebar: Blog Poll Results Oct.-Nov., 2010

The question for this most recent poll was: If a person said about you “I don't take (you) as an idiot overall. On the contrary (you) just act like an idiot on occasion.” Would you consider this a form of “ad hominem” attack or personal disparagement?

The choices were four (4): (1) Yes, both, (2) No, neither, or (3) one (an ad hominem attack but not personal disparagement) or the other (4) (personal disparagement but not ad hominem attack). The vote was unanimous: everyone voted for Number One, which was an evident choice. Admission: at least seven of the 15 votes polled were from friends and relatives who I asked to take the poll (and one from me), and I recommended they choose Number 1 (both). So, almost half the poll was rigged, ha ha! But they did not have to pick that choice and they all agreed with me as to the correct response.

Background of this question: Someone in their other (secret?) blog actually said this about me. On another occasion they argued that I didn’t know that ad hominem was not personal disparagement. This is to show that MOST people understand ad hominem as being personal disparagement directed toward whoever they are countering.  It can't be parsed.

One of my respondents said the poll seemed kind of stupid, and I have to say, yes, it was a no-brainer. It was just to show that going to these lengths just to argue, or try to show someone is wrong (according to them), is in itself kind of stupid…and what it says about the person doing it.

Grading PolitiFact *Liberal*-Style: Steele-ing a Half True from PolitiFact

According to the website Fivethirtyeight,  Sharron Angle and Ken Buck were on course to win as senators in their respective states. Mike Castle was supposedly a solid shoe-in for the Delaware general election over the Democrat, had not Christine O’Donnell upset him in the primaries. But because of tea party extremism (which should probably more appropriately be called Republican extremism), the Republican Party only won the House of Representatives and lost the Senate in the 2010 midterm elections; in otherwords, they should have won both houses -- if Michael Steele had managed the tea party side of the Republican Party correctly, particularly in Nevada, Colorado and Delaware.

That is why this PolitiFact (PF) ruling on a statement by Michael Steele on having "won more elections than any chairman since 1938" merits attention.

In addition, there is Steele’s kowtowing to Rush Limbaugh and what Rush had to say about him, shortly after Steele became chairman of the RNC. (emphasis added):

On March 1, 2009 in response to a question on CBS's Face the Nation as to who spoke for the Republican Party, President Obama's chief of staff Rahm Emanuel said it was Rush Limbaugh because "whenever a Republican criticizes [Limbaugh], they have to run back and apologize to him, and say they were misunderstood. He is the voice and the intellectual force and energy behind the Republican Party. And he has been upfront about what he views, and hasn't stepped back from that, which is he hopes for [President Obama's] failure. He said it. And I compliment him for his honesty, but that's their philosophy that is enunciated by Rush Limbaugh."[46][47][48]

In remarks aired by the CNN program D.L. Hughley Breaks the News on March 1, 2009, Steele said he, rather than Limbaugh, is "the de facto leader of the Republican Party. Rush Limbaugh is an entertainer. Rush Limbaugh's whole thing is entertainment. Yes, it is incendiary. Yes, it is ugly." On March 2, 2009 Limbaugh said on his radio show that Steele is not fit to lead the Republican Party, asking of him "Why do you claim to lead the Republican Party when you seem obsessed with seeing to it President Obama succeeds?"[49] After the show Steele called Limbaugh to apologize, saying "I have enormous respect for Rush Limbaugh. I was maybe a little bit inarticulate. There was no attempt on my part to diminish his voice or his leadership. I went back at that tape and I realized words that I said weren't what I was thinking. It was one of those things where I thinking I was saying one thing, and it came out differently. What I was trying to say was a lot of people want to make Rush the scapegoat, the bogeyman, and he's not."[50] Steele later issued another statement to say that Limbaugh "is a national conservative leader, and in no way do I want to diminish his voice. I truly apologize."[51]

Tchotchkes: That Sticky Wiki (Updated 2X)

Note: I don’t know if I agree with this cartoon, because I believe that exposure of confidential information can put individuals in danger. This Assange guy is from Rupert Murdock country, and my solution would be to start a “Aussi-Ass-Leak” website disclosing everything personal about Assange. Like his birthday (7-3-71), Aussie version of his social security number, his credit card numbers along with their expiration dates and three digit codes on the back, medical records, and best of all, photo-shopped pics of his teeny tiny private parts. And when he complains say “Hey, now you know how it feels. How do YOU like it??????” Hack that, Julian.

Tuesday, December 14:  Here is another take on it.

Tchotchkes: Spreading Christmas Holiday Hate

Somebody named Mark in Hayden, Idaho, made up this snowman with a noose...he's also displayed Aryan Nation and SS flags, and passed out bullets at Halloween.

I think it's safe to say he didn't vote for Obama; in fact I'd bet he might even be in the Tea Party!

Tchotchkes: Atlas Ducked

For all you Ayn Rand Libertarians, Rand Paul fans and Jeff Dyberg types out there.

Lil White Lies: Explain (before you Express) Yourself

When I first began my Politi-Psychotic posts, I realized that there were some journalistic rules that should be followed, to provide an appropriate framework and order for readers to understand what I was talking about. For example, putting a cropped screenprint of the actual graphic of the PolitiFact ruling at the top of the post. Even my tables breaking down Bryan White’s Grading PolitiFact critiques are part of this; providing a link to the PolitiFact article, identifying who wrote it, etc.

Sometimes the way I might do a post is to find some links, write some comments, and then try to connect the dots to tie it all together. Sometimes I give up because it doesn’t tie together very well, and looks too disjointed. Sometimes, I do my best with it and publish it anyway, especially if I know I’ve adequately addressed the crux of whatever I am writing about.

This recent post by Bryan on a ruling by PolitiFact Virginia exemplifies that point. But it’s not Bryan I’m talking about. The writer/researcher, Warren Fiske, needed to provide more explanation. Some of the writing seemed disjointed. Unfortunately, it provided a veritable feast of errors and slips and omissions for which Bryan White made a proverbial glutton of himself. In doing so however, Bryan missed the heart of the ruling itself, and appeared to shoot himself in the foot with his reliance on boilerplate Republican talking points.

So let’s take a hard look at Bryan’s laundry list of the God "awful journalism" (quoting him) of this particular ruling by PolitiFact: