Tchotchkes: How Dummies Usurp A Party

...Reciting their allegiance to the Grover Norquist Pledge.

Lil White Lies: Sorting out Solyndra--THE Novel

Coming across a PolitiFact ruling that arguably could be one category higher or lower, particularly those in the center spectrum of rulings, is not a particularly good way to prove PolitiFact is biased, or that a particular rating is incorrect.  Even my series Grading PolitiFact Liberal-Style suffers from that.  I'm trying my best to "tell 'em like I see 'em."

One method my conservative counterpart and his partner in crime try to prove a PolitiFact (PF) rating deserves more than just one move or two is what I would call “dramatic writing.” The words you use, the tone of your writing, can make things look much worse than they are. Those of us who “journalize”—particularly when we have a political axe to grind—can make it look like suspicious connections or behavior, even when they can be shown to be historically common and/or not unusual, are hugely criminal. In other words, there’s not just smoke, there’s a gigantic fire burning down the city, and everyone is just not as smart as Deff Jeff to see it.

Another review by Deff Jeff Dyberg called “Sorting out Solyndra” does just that. He calls it a “clusterfact”—borrowing from “cluster” as a group with the four-letter “F” word replaced with “fact”, which means “a chaotic mess with multiple problems.” You kind of wonder why he even goes to such lengths in writing such a “magnum opus” (3,600+ word count) if that’s indeed what it is. He appears to have been apprenticed by who else but my conservative counterpart to take the review apart sentence by sentence, with complaints not always justified.

Another opus could be written to show how he jumped the shark and “cluster-facted” himself, but I don’t have all day to comb through everything. So I’ll just make a few points about his most strident “facts” of himself.

Speaking of “Tu Quoque Memes”. A large part of Deff Jeff’s novella centers around the tu quoque complaint: that Obama referred to the Solyndra loan process as having started under President Bush, and the Democrats likewise following suit as defense. But there’s another “tu quoque” that he artfully ignores in keeping with his conclusion that the “Solyndra scandal is a rotting pile of stink in a bucket of corruption.” Because if Solyndra meets his definition of “scandal” there’s more scandals in the stink pile. Remember the Koch Brothers, those big Republican contributors?

Koch Supply and Trading, LP, one of the world's largest crude oil trading companies, will become the newest supplier of crude oil to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) under President Bush's plan, announced last November, to fill the nation's emergency oil stockpile to its full capacity by 2005.

Of course, by people like Bryan and Jeff, no correlation or causation there.

Or how ‘bout our former VP, Dick Cheney and his company Halliburton? No, no causation or correlation there, or even cause for accusations of “scandal” or “corruption”:

Bunnatine "Bunny" Greenhouse, the former chief oversight official of contracts at the Army Corps of Engineers, has reached a $970,000 settlement six years after she was demoted for publicly criticizing a multi-billion-dollar, no-bid contract to Halliburton—the company formerly headed by then-Vice President Dick Cheney. Greenhouse had accused the Pentagon of unfairly awarding the contract to Halliburton subsidiary Kellogg Brown & Root. Testifying before Congress in June 2005, she called the contract the worst case of government abuse she had ever witnessed in her 20-year career.

Wait, there’s one more! One that comes out and just says it!

An inspector general's report charges that top U.S. housing official Alphonso Jackson urged staff members to favor friends of President Bush when awarding Department of Housing and Urban Development contracts.

Favor friends of President Bush? Nah! No cronyism or scandal there! This was in 2006, at the peak of the housing bubble. I wonder if any friends of President Bush went belly up when the housing market crashed, and how this affected their HUD contracts. But that’s okay by Deff Jeff.

Live on Arrival. Deff Jeff also incorrectly states that the loan to Solyndra was “dead” and “had been rejected by the Bush administration.”

Fox News Misreports Pepper Spray Legality?

More on that Christmas gift that just keeps on giving...

Tchotchkes: Christmas Gift List Suggestion

Defense Technology 56895 MK-9 Stream, 1.3% Red Band/1.3% Blue Band Pepper Spray

Best of the customer reviews:

Whenever I need to breezily inflict discipline on unruly citizens, I know I can trust Defense Technology 56895 MK-9 Stream, 1.3% Red Band/1.3% Blue Band Pepper Spray to get the job done! The power of reason is no match for Defense Technology's superior repression power. When I reach for my can of Defense Technology 56895 MK-9 Stream, 1.3% Red Band/1.3% Blue Band Pepper Spray, I know that even the mighty First Amendment doesn't stand a chance against its many scovil units of civil rights suppression.

When I feel threatened by students, no matter how unarmed, peaceful and seated they may be, I know that Defense Technology 56895 MK-9 Stream, 1.3% Red Band/1.3% Blue Band Pepper Spray has got my back as I casually spray away at point blank range.

It really is the Cadillac of citizen repression technology.

Buy a whole case!

D-Bag of Liberty

I saw Megyn Kelly on Fox News say that this was a food product, so I went ahead and bought it to use as a condiment. I find that if you have a vermouth spritzer like Martha Stewart's, you can just spray it in the bottom of a glass before you mix your other ingredients for your Bloody Mary. It was a good deal hotter than Dave's Insanity Sauce, which is also a fine choice. I was still coughing up blood four hours after I finished my Bloody Mary. Also works great for getting peaceful students off your lawn!

Kara Synhorst

I brought this with me on my tour of the Arab Spring and let me tell you that it works just as well overseas. No converters needed! Whether it was "war widows" in Libya, wounded protestors in Syria, or uppity students in Tahir Square, they all succumbed to the natural goodness of red pepper oils aerosolized into a fine mist. We should put a big American flag on each and every canister so oppressed people around the world know the quality of our non-lethal products.

Word Hack

Ar[e] you an armed, law enforcement officer -- with a helmet, face shield and body armor?

Do you feel "threatened" when "surrounded" by a group of seated, peaceful protestors?

Do you think a badge and a gun gives you the right to lift up your leg and pee on the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States?

Why merely step over those peaceful, seated students when you can spray the crap out of them with a Defense Technology 58695 MK-9 Stream pepper spray blaster?

Yes, that's right. You'll be the envy of all of your jack-booted thug friends when you deal out some major pain and suffering to people who have the nerve to exercise their right to peaceful protest in Amurca. Be a YouTube hit! Become a meme! With a little luck, you could even become the world-wide poster boy for fascism.

Supplies are limited! Act fast!

D. Hobby

I live in one of the wealthier neighborhoods in my town. Each year hoards of kids would come to my mansion seeking handouts of Halloween candy. It was costing me a fortune! Thankfully this year a good lieutenant friend of mine recommended Defense Technology 56895 MK-9 Stream, 1.3% Red Band/1.3% Blue Band Pepper Spray. When those grubby little kids rang my doorbell and said "trick or treat" I yelled trick and gave em a good spray of Defense Technology 56895 MK-9 Stream, 1.3% Red Band/1.3% Blue Band Pepper Spray right in the eyes. Fortunately, Defense Technology 56895 MK-9 Stream, 1.3% Red Band/1.3% Blue Band Pepper Spray is just a food product, essentially! So everyone got a good laugh out of my little prank. Well, maybe they didn't laugh so much but I know I was laughing! And it saved me from having to share any of my hard earned inheritance with those young ruffians! Thanks Defense Technology 56895 MK-9 Stream, 1.3% Red Band/1.3% Blue Band Pepper Spray!

C. Perkins III

If you are ever facing non-violent docile young students sitting down on the ground, and you hate "liberals", you can adjust it to the highest settings, and walk back and forth like you are spraying pest killer on your roses. It makes you feel so good! Even if you are a 260 pound strong man facing 145 pound unarmed American citizens practicing their right to peacefully assmble, you can easily spray the crowd of hippies that need to take a bath and get a job. Highly recommended for hippie control!

Craig Richard Gillette

I casually used this product to try to disperse a small band of non-violent campers who had locked their arms together. Although initially it seemed to be effective, it took two applications! The worst part is that the next day they multiplied exponentially! Now what?

One positive outcome, I did receive a paid vacation for my efforts.

“100yrsold”

I was told that this product was essentially a food item used to spice food. This pepper spray, instead, ruined the first meal I used it on due to being approximately 1,000 times hotter than the jalapenos I normally use. For the first time ever I think Fox News may have lied to me.

“Hookertime”

Lil White Lies: Keep Talking

Recently my conservative counterpart argued a PolitiFact ruling using an equation, and such an equation approach might help with his latest argument against a PolitiFact Pants on Fire ruling for Mitt Romney:

X is televised making statement S.

X is actually quoting Y, but statement S as televised removes the attribution to Y (giving the impression that Statement S only applies to X).

PolitiFact rates statement S for not including the attribution to Y, and downgrades it because of this false impression.

The statement comes from a 60-second political ad recently aired by Mitt Romney:

The ad contrasts a 2008 campaign speech by Obama with text on the screen that criticizes Obama’s economic record, including, "Greatest Jobs Crisis Since Great Depression," "Record Home Foreclosures" and "Record National Debt."  The ad then has a clip of Obama saying,"If we keep talking about the economy, we’re going to lose."

This is the full context of Obama’s statement: (Romney ad portion highlighted)

Even as we face the most serious economic crisis of our time, even as you are worried about keeping your jobs or paying your bills or staying in your homes, my opponent's campaign announced earlier this month that they want to ‘turn the page’ on the discussion about our economy so they can spend the final weeks of this election attacking me instead," Obama said in the speech. "Sen. McCain's campaign actually said, and I quote, "If we keep talking about the economy, we're going to lose."

Romney’s campaign had this explanation for the “misquote”:

We used that quote intentionally to show that President Obama is doing exactly what he criticized McCain of doing four years ago. Obama doesn’t want to talk about the economy because of his failed record.

Another representative of the Romney campaign stated Obama was “desperate” to avoid talking about the economy.

Bryan White’s argument is that Romney, for the sake of “cost and efficiency” only needed to include one portion of a remark made by Obama during his 2008 campaign. He argues that even if you included the rest of his statement, the context, that it would still be true. That is, “It doesn't change with the context added.” He even goes as far as to end his critique with the statement that “the Romney campaign was justified in omitting” the context.

Therefore PolitiFact “botched” the statement by ignoring the context and because “PolitiFact is incorrect that omitting the context sends a profoundly different message.”

Looking at the context, what was Obama (Romney) saying? I see it as two things, and you can see it’s more discernible if you think of the opponent changing from McCain in 2008 to Obama in 2012 (the opponent of Romney): (1) His opponent (Obama) would rather attack him (Romney) then Obama (2) addressing the economy.

The question then becomes: Has Obama been attacking Romney, and is he avoiding addressing the economy?

Tchotchkes: John Boehner's Thanksgiving Dinner

Another [Wacko] PolitiFact Detractor on YouTube

Someone named “TheDrRJP” recently published this detailed youtube video about a “conspiracy” involving the fact-checkers (PolitiFact, FactCheck.org, Snopes, etc.) who are deceiving the public that Obama’s birth certificate is real. I’ve always maintained that there’s a very fine line between intelligence and insanity; and here’s but one more great example of what really smart crazy people are capable of.

“TheDrRJP” starts with a self-congratulatory spin describing his youtube creation, not quite "clear concise and clever," but more like "crazy, cracked and cuckoo" or what someone might call self-stultification with downright arrogant aplomb:

Clear, concise, and clever, "It's the conspiracy, Stupid!" takes you behind the scenes of the greatest birth certificate fraud in history and exposes the four groups who collaborated in hiding Obama's real birth certificate passing off a fake one instead to deceive and defraud the American public. The whole point of calling it a "wacky conspiracy theory" is to prevent people from finding out what's really going on. It is no different than the guilty saying they are innocent. For the first time anywhere, here are the facts and evidence gathered during my two year investigation that clearly explains the rationale for doing it, the propaganda they used to pull it off, and the campaign they have mounted to discredit conservatives.

He doesn’t really come out and say he’s a “can’t stop disbelieving” birther, I think because he knows it might turn some people off. You don’t know until you get about half way through that he believes that Obama is a “Kenyan born Muslim” etc., etc. He tries to use something he calls the “Liars Paradox” to prove that PolitiFact (mostly) is covering up Obama’s true identity, that is, they combine a provably false statement with a true statement that they want to be perceived as false by connecting it with the false statement by the conjunctive “and.” In one of the cases, however, he showed two separate rulings and claimed they were connected by an “and.” In another case it appears he took a PolitiFact side article and claimed it was an “unsourced” ruling.

He has other videos with “evidence” that Obama’s birth certificate (short or long-form) is a “fraud.” All I can say is, I bet he makes Orly Taitz proud.

Uncle Jay Occupies the News

Uncle Jay has 3 reasons why he's been on "hiatus."

Lil White Lies: Parlaying PolitiFact

Sometimes I get the impression that my conservative counterpart is downright desperate in his search for finding anything, ANYTHING that he can relegate to the “Politi-Flubs” category on his blog and can be magnified colossally out of proportion. I’ve even seen other Facebook commenters suggest, as I did some time ago, that Bryan was a disgruntled ex-employee of the Tampa Bay (formerly St. Petersburg) Times because of his relentless, unforgiving mission to discredit PolitiFact.

Here we have one more example of his making a mountain out of a molehill on a recent PolitiFact (PF) ruling on John Stemberger, beginning with this comment on Facebook, along with a blog post fleshing out this formula: 

Is PolitiFact for real?

X makes statement S.

Y quotes statement S, attributing it to X.

PolitiFact rates statement S, applies the rating to Y.

I looked it all over and composed this lengthy post in response at PolitiFact’s Facebook page:

While I can understand what Bryan White is trying to convey with his algebraic approach, I’m not totally persuaded by his conclusion that it’s a flub (as he stated in his blog). The link to the conservative Florida Family Policy Council Blog has an article which says right at the top it is “by John Stemberger.” He is a known Conservative. The fellow Stemberger quotes, Wayne Grudem, is an evangelical Christian , and if you read the reviews of the book which contains the quote Stemberger is using, it appears he is a Michele Bachman-type Conservative as well (“Grudem's theology can be located near the most conservative end of the theological spectrum”…” He consciously avoids interaction with non-conservative sources…” ). The question becomes who should PF Florida name as the person they are ruling on….should it be Stemberger, the blog itself or Grudem? Often PF asks for sources: does this mean when the person names their source (whether from a direct statement or in something they published), PF is obliged to rule on the source instead? Stemberger is listed in the PF ruling as being one of the 35 sources, having been interviewed November 10-17. I don’t know if that means there were multiple interviews with him during that time period, so is it possible they told him he was being ruled on, and/or he agreed to it?

PF Florida could have said conservative blogger “John Stemberger” (as it did) or a post in a conservative blog “Florida Family Policy Council” (as authored in the title by John Stemberger) or conservative Evangelical “writer Wayne Grudem” (as quoted in conservative blog Florida Family Policy Council by conservative blogger John Stemberger). Which one should it be, how important is the distinction?

And of course, we have the damned if PF does, damned if PF doesn’t scenario popping up as well. If PF Florida made the ruling on Wayne Grudem (as quoted from the Stemberger blog) that would be called a flub with the complaint that it should have been Stemberger, since PF tends to focus on the “web” and this was a book.

Is it PolitiFact’s call to make rulings on obscure religious books or just evaluate the person using it as a source in a blog that’s been (recently) making the rounds in Florida, the blog of an organization in opposition to a vice (gambling) used by the government to raise funds in lieu of taxes? (Well, it is sort of a tax when you think about it, but I won't get into that here.)

As far as Bryan’s argument with regard to demographics, and the use of the plural, I would use his own defense of “when Conservatives or Republicans say something which would be interpreted similarly” that it’s perfectly fair and reasonable to assume that “poorest segment” and “poorest segments” were synonymous terms in the context of the sentence. In other words, it should be obvious that Grudem had a “had a poverty-level demographic in mind.” That his claim it was less than a “charitable” interpretation by PolitiFact assumes an amount of detail which Grudem should have clarified. With 34 other sources than Stemberger, it appears they tried to verify it, but what they found contradicted his claims.

In addition, while he stressed the plural of the word segments, he ignored the comparative (as a superlative) of what the segment consisted of, poorest (not poor or poorer). This means those with the least wealth, or the most poor. If Grudem said “poorer segments” Bryan would have had more of a case, for this would assume a larger demographic. But “poorest” was more than adequate for PolitiFact’s focus.

Bryan is like the Newt Gingrich of PolitiFact Detractors. He likes to use elaborate arguments which seem intimidating by their intellectualism, but fall apart under closer scrutiny.

Grading PolitiFact *Liberal*-Style: Pelosi and the Polls

Nancy Pelosi ‘s Truth Index hasn’t been the best this year; in fact, this year she’s even exceeded Michele Bachmann in “UN-truthiness” while Michele has been bringing her score up through the presidential debates. While they are a contradiction in ideologies, their predilection for propaganda seems to go hand in hand.

This particular PolitiFact (PF) ruling on Pelosi sort of stands on that line between Half True and Mostly True. PolitiFact decided to act less “charitably” or to be on the safe side of those who may accuse it of liberal bias, went with Half True. But did she deserve it? She was discussing the public’s approval of congress with Jon Stewart on his Daily Show, when she said “The last time I was here in April of 2009 ... the Democrats were in control and the congressional (approval) rating was 40 percent. Do you remember that?"

Preceding that statement, she provided the contrast: today congressional approval is around a paltry 11% (she used 9%, but at that low a number, it doesn’t make much difference). The underlying argument for Pelosi is that congressional job approval was much higher at that time than it is today, which is undeniably true. Here is a graphic representation from writer Lou Jacobson’s source, Real Clear Politics:

Pelosi's right that the period she specifies (highlighted) has been the most favorable for congress in almost 3 years.

Around the time Pelosi made the claim, as highlighted, the “Congressional Job Approval” average had increased, indeed, almost doubled since January, 2009, and stabilized for several months at just below 40 percent….from March 16 to April 5 of 2009, a period of three weeks, it was within 10 percent, averaging 36 to 37 percent.

PolitiFact also adds this paragraph for the two months surrounding April:

If you look at the months of March, April and May 2009, you’ll find two polls with 41 percent support. Still, all the other polls during that period were lower, and the average for the 13 polls is 35 percent -- still short of the 40 percent mark that Pelosi cited.

Thirty-four percent (15% off) is the “cutoff” for Mostly True. With 13 polls averaging 35 percent, we’re there, well within the cutoff. In April there is one poll which is 5 percent off, but the average is 20% off. The RCP average poll shows that for a three week period going into April, she is within 10 percent of the 40 percent. In May and even in June, there were several periods where the polls were within 10% of her claim.

So we have a strong underlying argument and polling bringing her very close for a Mostly True ruling. Even the Pelosi graphic says “It was 40-ish”—and that’s not enough? Yes, she's short, but not by much.  Instead she gets an equivocal Half True, most likely to satisfy the grumbling conservatives.

Grading PolitiFact *Liberal*-Style: Rick Perry's Budget Bliss

PolitiFact (PF) Texas awarded an inconclusive “Half True” for a fairly straightforward statement by Rick Perry  about his financial prowess as Texas Governor: “..we cut a record $15 billion from our budget.”

But you can cut your budget all you want, heck, you can cut it to zero, the problem is, can you meet the budget? That’s the difference, as they say, between walkin’ the walk and talkin’ the talk. And Rick Perry, it appears, was just talkin’ the talk.

In January, Paul Krugman wrote in his New York Times column:

The only thing that let Gov. Rick Perry get away, temporarily, with claims of a surplus was the fact that Texas enacts budgets only once every two years, and the last budget was put in place before the depth of the economic downturn was clear. Now the next budget must be passed — and Texas may have a $25 billion hole to fill. Now what?

In September, local Texas publications appeared to confirm that Krugman’s prediction was coming true:

A budget shortfall as high as $27 billion is projected as lawmakers work through the 2011 legislative session, according to estimates from economists and the comptroller's office. There is unity on the amount of its budget shortfall, however. Republicans who argue spending does not need to be maintained or grow from 2010-11 levels argue the shortfall could be around $12 billion to $15 billion. Texas writes budgets biennially, or in two-year terms, so the shortfall affects the 2012-13 state budget.

So even if the Republicans view the shortfall conservatively, the cuts almost match the shortfall.

PF Texas points out that some of the original budget shortfalls were made up by stimulus money, and that the true “cuts” was around $3 Billion. But, as noted, the shortfall seems to be suspicously matching the cut—while the maximum projected is almost double that…which means there was never a cut to begin with.

Then there were budget tricks such as delaying payments so they “appear” not to be part of the current budget, such as “$2.3 billion in payments to school districts.” Which only means, the Texas Budget has to increase by that amount the next time around, unless the payments are delayed again. Eventually, it catches up with you.

So PF Texas judged Perry’s statement quite charitably. He was off by 80% or more with “smoke and mirrors” budget cuts. There’s a lot of documentation out there that PF missed that indicates Perry’s budget claims were incorrect, and getting more incorrect all the time. “False” or “Mostly False” would be a more legitimate ruling.

Postscript:  According to FactCheck.Org, Texas has a "balanced budget amendment,"  and begins with saying that it's true that Texas is "spending more money than [it] takes in."  So keep cutting, Rick.

Postscript to Postscript:  I do have to admit, however, I was wrong on one thing with regard to Republican presidential potential: old rootin' tootin' Rick may now be Texas Toast. 

Lil White Lies: Notorious T.E.D. (and Eleanor!)

Earlier this year (April), my conservative counterpart evaluated a PolitiFact (PF) Georgia Pants on Fire ruling on a since repeated statement by Herman Cain concerning Planned Parenthood: that “"When Margaret Sanger - check my history - started Planned Parenthood, the objective was to put these centers in primarily black communities so they could help kill black babies before they came into the world.”  What was Bryan White’s explanation for Cain not deserving his pants set on fire? While he agrees that there’s “no good evidence black babies were being killed” he claims that (1) PF did not adequately examine the context of the statement, as is part of its standards, and (2) PF mistakenly interpreted (and defended) the statement as Cain viewing Margaret Sanger as racist and that this personal belief of Sanger’s was “largely irrelevant to the implicit argument that Planned Parenthood has a history of targeting blacks.” Or so he says.

Below is a youtube video of Cain’s recorded statement back in March.



Here’s most of the “context” of Cain's original comments:

His comments about Planned Parenthood come amid a debate in Congress over federal funding for Planned Parenthood. Attached to the spending bill recently passed by the House is an amendment from Republican Rep. Mike Pence of Indiana that denies the group funds.

Speaking to reporters and bloggers at the Heritage Foundation, Cain echoed a position expressed by many other Republicans.

“I support de-funding Planned Parenthood,” Cain said. “Tactically how they [Congress] does it…I can’t tell you.”

Cain then explained the reason behind his stance.

“You probably don’t hear a lot of people talking about this,” Cain said. “When Margaret Sanger – check my history – started Planned Parenthood, the objective was to put these centers in primarily black communities so they could help kill black babies before they came into the world.”

“It's planned genocide,” Cain claimed.

“It’s carrying out its original mission,” he continued. “I’ve talked to young girls who go in there, and they [Planned Parenthood] don’t talk about how you plan parenthood. They don’t talk about adoption as an option. They don’t say, ‘Well, bring your parents in so we can sit down and talk with you, and counsel with you before you make this decision.’”

Six months fast forward, and with Cain now the leading presidential candidate according to polls, he was asked to re-confirm this statement by Bob Schieffer on “Face The Nation.” He not only re-confirmed, but embellished further:

If people go back and look at the history and look at Margaret Sanger's own words, that's exactly where that came from. Look up the history. So if you go back and look up the history -- secondly, look at where most of them were built; 75 percent of those facilities were built in the black community -- and Margaret Sanger’s own words, she didn’t use the word "genocide," but she did talk about preventing the increasing number of poor blacks in this country by preventing black babies from being born.

There’s plenty of context there with which to infer what Cain was talking about, which were his reasons why Planned Parenthood should be defunded by congress. Faulting PolitiFact with failing to find the original context was misleading, nor necessary . But Bryan’s point is a larger one in respect to what seems to be a common thread throughout this blog post: that PolitiFact has “whitewashed” Planned Parenthood’s “unseemly” origins and that Cain “claimed nothing about Sanger other than calling her the founder of Planned Parenthood.”

If Cain called her nothing other than the founder of Planned Parenthood, then why did his remarks elicit a formal response not just from Planned Parenthood, but from Alexander Sanger, the grandson of Margaret, saying this was a “slur”?

Politi-Score: Citizen Cain

Before we know the final outcome of the issues Herman Cain has been experiencing lately, and he is still a leading candidate, this may now be a good time to take a look at his Politi-Score.

Maybe there isn't very much to what
Herman Cain says he can deliver.

When candidate Bill Clinton experienced something somewhat similar back in 1992, he overcame it and went on to become president for two terms; unless things get far worse, Herman Cain can do the same. Although listening to some of the (Republican) pundits, it doesn’t look like he’ll be their nominee. While I hear people like Ann Coulter say that Democrats fear a Conservative Black more than anything, I haven’t seen any indication. If he was nominated, I think it would be great to see him run against Obama—it would really mark the progress of our country.

But to get back to Cain’s Politi-Score: It’s at the bottom of the barrel. It’s the lowest of all the current Republican candidates…even lower than perennial flame thrower Michele Bachmann. At the time I computed the Truth Index for the first 9 months of 2011, he was next to the bottom for all those with 10 PF rulings or more, only worsted by sometimes candidate Donald Trump, who got his pants set on fire with birther remarks until Obama released his long-form certificate earlier this year.

While some argue that FactCheck.Org has higher standards and perhaps less biased reporting than PolitiFact (PF), it recently published quite a derogatory article in which it basically fact-checked the course of Cain’s statements in regard to the sexual harassment accusations he has been facing. Those have not been included in my Politi-Score computations, of course. The article was entitled “Cain’s Pattern of Evasion and Misdirection -- The GOP candidate contradicts himself on abortion, 9-9-9 and now on allegations of sexual harassment.” Here are some choice excerpts:

Politico reported that two women accused him of inappropriate behavior while he served as head of the National Restaurant Association and that both women received financial payments from the trade group. Cain has denied the allegations. At first, Cain also denied that either woman received a settlement. But later the same day, he acknowledged that in at least one case “there was some sort of settlement or termination” worth “maybe three months’ salary.” The next day Cain said it was “in the vicinity of three to six months.” The New York Times reports it was a year’s salary….

In addition to this pattern of evasion and misdirection, Cain also has a proven ability to spread outrageously false information — such as accusing Planned Parenthood of “genocide” and concentrating abortion clinics in black neighborhoods…

Herman Cain… revels in being an unconventional candidate. His campaign is perhaps best exemplified by a viral Web ad of his cigarette-smoking chief of staff declaring that “America has never seen another candidate like Herman Cain,” and then taking a long drag on a cigarette and blowing smoke….

But as he rises in the polls, Cain has come under attack from rivals and has found himself being held to the same standards as conventional top-tier candidates. He’s finding out that even unconventional candidates cannot blow smoke and get away with it.

Spread outrageously false information….Blow smoke and get away with it? I think if I heard that coming from PF’s Lou Jacobson, my conservative counterpart would be having a cow with what he would call “editorializing versus fact-checking.”

Cain had 34 statements reviewed: 22 by PolitiFact, 6 by the Washington Post Fact Checker and 6 by FactCheck.Org. Here’s how he looked overall and with each checker using the PF Truth Index app format:

Grading PolitiFact *Liberal*-Style: Flat Tax Fever

Rick Perry's Tax Plan appears to have a different satirical pop culture twist than the “9-9-9” Cain Tax Plan: Herman Cain’s plan comes from the game SimCity 4, while Perry’s pandering “Taxpayer’s Choice” is not taken from anyone (except maybe Steve Forbes) and amounts to nothing more than maybe one of the Seven Dwarves: Dopey. Well, he was acting that way recently himself, so maybe there’s a connection.

According to Rachel Maddow, this plan “accomplishes the same goal of huge tax cuts for rich people and big tax hikes for everyone else." The “same” refers to Cain’s “9-9-9" Plan. PolitiFact’s verdict on the ruling:

Some other Americans--including 45 percent of residents earning $19,343 to $39,862--also would see tax cuts, a projection that does not support the claim that the plan means big tax increases for everyone but the wealthy. Perry’s plan allows every taxpayer to continue under the current system. No one would pay more unless he or she chooses the flat tax against their financial self-interest.

Maddow’s statement, leaving the incorrect impression that Perry’s tax plan hugely benefits the rich while everyone else pays more, rates Mostly False.

Here’s what FactCheck.org has to say about the Perry Tax Plan: (emphasis added)

But that’s not true for everyone, even though the Perry plan would result in a dramatic decrease in overall revenues, according to the Tax Policy Center analysis. The Tax Policy Center predicts that Rick Perry’s “flat tax” plan would amount to a tax cut of $570 billion in its first year after enactment, compared with current tax rates. More than half the benefits would flow to persons making more than $1 million a year.

However, many lower-income persons and families would see taxes go up. That’s because, although Perry has said he would continue the “current” income-tax system for those who prefer it, the TPC said Perry’s plan seems to allow all the Bush cuts to expire on schedule, including lower marginal rates at the bottom.

As a result, either the new Perry flat tax or the “current” tax system (once the Bush cuts expire) would mean higher taxes for many, compared with what they would pay at current rates. The TPC projected, for example, that taxes would go up for 63 percent of individuals and families earning between $40,000 and $50,000 a year, for an average increase of $248 in 2015. For those earning between $20,000 and $30,000, the tax hike would be even more painful, amounting to an average of $462 in higher federal income taxes.

Based on this information we can conclude that the Perry Tax Plan:

Sidebar: Gini is Out of The Bottle

My conservative counterpart was told he was welcome to “knock himself out” again when some of his comments didn’t come through to this blog (according to him) responding to my post critical of his post on a PolitiFact (PF) ruling on Alan Grayson, concerning the Gini co-efficient of wealth. He indeed self-immolated with a bunch of non-sensical points: his usual sentence-by-sentence parse in order to falsely complicate and conceal the over-riding issue of Alan Grayson’s remarks about wealth inequality as evaluated by the Truth-o-Meter.

Saying “You've been proved wrong on point after point and you simply dismiss it without addressing the arguments” is arrogantly absurd on its face…if it’s proof, it’s proof by verbosity. Just because HE says I’m proven wrong doesn't mean that I am, that's just what he thinks. Talk about  self-stultification (with admirable aplomb)! But OK, I’ll give him a break, he does offer one somewhat worthwhile point:

“As I pointed out, Grayson has no real argument unless wealth inequality has demonstrably ill effects.”

Either Bryan is out of touch with reality or just choosing to ignore the obvious for the sake of argument. I think I’d choose the latter because of his frequent intransigence when debating people (as I’ve provided many examples of in previous posts).

The recorded history of our planet is replete with the demonstrably ill effects of wealth inequality, as well as the apathy of the “1%”: from the story of Nero fiddling while Rome burned to that of Marie Antoinette’s telling those without bread to eat cake, which was said to have sparked a revolution. Only this time through the skillful use of propaganda, some of those in the 99% ( I am assuming) such as Bryan are defending those telling them to eat cake.

Bryan referred me to such propaganda with a PBS video of an interview with Richard Epstein, a “libertarian” law professor, who claims there’s a “good side” to wealth inequality. If you read Epstein’s bio, by the way, nowhere does it say he teaches or has a background in economics. His background is law. Now, at the undergraduate and graduate level, he might have taken some economics courses (and note, this was during the 1960’s before the advent of Reaganomics/supply side economic theories), but that limit to his qualifications makes me somewhat wary of his economic opinions. Other than that, Epstein is also an “Adjunct Scholar” at the conservative Cato Institute, and his writings have been warmly regarded at the libertarian Ludwig Von Mises Institute’s website.

But even with this background, I’m certainly not in a position to provide the correct explanation of the other side, why economic inequality “isn’t good for America.” So for this, there’s a video as well, an interview with economist Richard Wolff, Professor Emeritus of Economics at the University of Massachusetts. You can watch it below. His three pronged counter-argument to that of Epstein:

Lil White Lies: Battle of the Bulge

As noted in my profile and a my last Sidebar post, I’ve made some analogies to my employment with “one of the Big Three” domestic automakers. This one draws on my accounting experience some years ago working in “Budget and Forecast”, to wit: one time “emergency” temporary expenditures, budget-wise, are not relevant to the base budget when discussing either decreases or increases. Let me repeat that with appropriate words emboldened: one time “emergency” temporary expenditures, budget-wise, are not relevant to the base budget when discussing either decreases or increases.

So my conservative counterpart, as with his previous commentary to my criticism of his treatment of a remark by Alan Grayson, misses again the overall “big picture”—Jeb Hensarling’s gross exaggeration (which he admits) of the increase in the budgets of various government departments due to the temporary effects of the stimulus, should be considered false because they are not relevant: even Hensarling stated “this is not the forum in which to debate the stimulus.”

It’s like a family budget where in a single month the car breaks down, and the car insurance/property taxes are due, it’s mid winter and there’s been a freeze and your home heating bill is through the roof, but in the mood for future travel you decide to open a travel-point Visa credit card at the Bank of Hensarling, but it denies you in a rejection letter saying “Your expenses appear to greatly exceed your ability to pay, so we cannot grant you credit at this time.” Is that a fair assessment of your creditworthiness and what occurred budget-wise for you that month? Did your budget grow if you had set aside for insurance, taxes and emergencies?

Somebody lost his marbles on
criticizing this ruling.

In other words, as Elmendorf stated, what the family really had was “a bulge in discretionary funding and then to uh, um, an attenuated bulge in outlays.” That’s why writer Lou Jacobson said that what is known as outlays is “a distinction that becomes important to [the] analysis.” It’s not just important, it’s crucial.

Hensarling’s goal was to emphasize in an overtly grandiose way the size of the stimulus against the budgets/expenditures of the departments as shown. But it had nothing to do with the base budgets. And stating that the “American people deserve the facts” is disingenuous at best, because these are not facts, they are merely massaged calculations in a faulty comparison, for the purpose of misleading and dramatizing "government over-spending."

My conservative counterpart concludes by knocking the editor Martha Hamilton for not catching “the fact that Hensarling was quite clear that the effects of the stimulus are temporary.” Neither she nor Jacobson couldn’t have noticed that word in the heading, unlike Bryan?  Bryan’s lost his marbles just making that suggestion.

Lil White Lies: Bluffin' with Those Muffins

I haven’t even been looking at "Deff Jeff" Dyberg’s posts at Bewz Newz N Vewz for a while: for one thing, he doesn’t do much, for another, his words are rendered a bit too fetid and rank by his Ayn Rand libertarian bias. Lately, and I believe at the behest of mentor/co-dependent Bryan White, he has made some anemic attempts at PolitiFact (PF) ruling reviews to add to Bryan’s fruitless list of “anecdotal evidence of PolitiFact’s (liberal) bias.” I wanted to respond to one in particular just because the Lady GaGa/SNL Betty White sexual innuendo made for a great title; it was a critique of a PolitiFact ruling on Bill O’Reilly, who was highly critical of what he claimed was the government spending $16 a “muffin” for morning refreshments at “conferences for pinheads”. That was “his $16” he proclaimed loudly in his Talking Point segment on his Fox News show (or to Jon Stewart a week later, I’m not sure). I still didn’t feel looking at Jeff’s critique was worth it until Politifact reported that Stephen Colbert had satirized “MuffinGate” with Bill Adair featured in a video snippet explaining why the $16 wasn’t all for muffins—it was for other accompaniments such as coffee, tea, and also covered the cost of the conference room.

According to Dyberg, however, there was a single ulterior motive for PF selecting this particular Bill O’Reilly statement for fact-checking.

The answer is simple: Ratings.

PolitiFact isn't the benevolent truth seekers they portray themselves as. The facts are Bill O'Reilly made the statement on the Daily Show with Jon Stewart. If you've ever gone to PolitiFact's Facebook page you know that the number of commenters goes through the roof if they even mention Stewart's name. I also happen to know that my other blog experiences abnormally high traffic and search hits whenever Stewart and PolitiFact get in a tussle. The opportunity to make O'Reilly look bad while making an appearance on Stewart's show was a can't miss opportunity to gin up publicity from Stewart's followers.

First off, if you watch the video of it below, O’Reilly tells Stewart he “broke the story” on his Fox News show the week before. So this was the second time he said it.

Secondly, just before this quote Dyberg states that the source of O’Reilly’s story was ABC News, and that maybe ABC News (not O’Reilly) should have been subjected to the Truth-o-Meter since they made the false statement--or, the Department of Justice Inspector General who did the audit which reported this muffin expense "outrage.”

Truth Index Trends: 2011 Individual (10 or More Rulings)

The PolitiFact (PF) Truth Index for those with 10 or more rulings was dominated by the Republicans so far this year. This can be attributed to a few factors coming to fore in 2011: the presidential contenders and the presumed fact-checking of the debates, and the fact the PF states have primarily Republicans in power.

Only four Democrats appeared in the list: Obama, Sherrod Brown, Dennis Kucinich (both with more rulings from PF Ohio as well), and Debbie Wasserman-Schultz (in her position as Democrat National Committee chair and Florida representative).

The Democrats represented 20% of those listed and 23% of the rulings; those in the Republican presidential race represented the bulk with 42%, the other 35% were Republican “locals” although John Boehner of Ohio and Eric Cantor of Virginia, who made the list, can go either national or local.

Here’s how it looks using the PolitiFact Truth Index app for those with 10 or more rulings, listing highest Truth Index to lowest.

Click to enlarge:  Truth Index in parentheses following individual's name.

Looking at the Republican presidential contenders, here’s the list of highest Truth Index to lowest, and includes Jon Huntsman, who didn’t make the overall list for 2011 because he’s only had seven rulings.

What strikes me about this list is that the less "truthful" people seem to be doing the best poll-wise with the exception of Michele Bachmann. Jon Huntsman and Ron Paul, the only contenders with positive Truth Indexes, are barely there in the straw polls. On the other hand, Hillary Clinton also scores higher on the Truth Index than Barack Obama, so it isn’t like this is just a Republican thing.

Fox News Blames Occupiers For Police Violence?

Note: On his radio show, Sean Hannity also blames the Occupiers for the police violence and then contrasts the Occupiers to the tea party as "violent liberals" versus "peaceful Tea Partiers (conservatives)".   Obviously, this is how Fox News has decided to frame the Occupiers, along with the implication of anti-semitism.

Sidebar: PolitiFact Gets Out the Cookie Cutter

Back in the 1980’s, General Motors made a critical mistake with its cars as a means of cost saving. The most expensive part of the car when there’s a design change is the metal fabrication: the outer skin of the car. The cost of metal fab tool and die changes is unbelievably huge. This is the only part of the car GM “owns” and does not outsource because it is actually more expensive to do so. To save (a lot of) money, Roger Smith (a.k.a. the Roger of Michael Moore’s documentary “Roger and Me”) decided that the cars at each platform (small, mid-size, luxury, etc.) would have the same “skin” while only making  changes to the “badging” and other options that were unique to the brand. The term for it was “commonization”—by having as many parts of the car the same between the brands, GM would save money in terms of purchase (volume discount) as well as manufacture. The result was GM getting labeled by critics for having cookie cutter cars—panned in competitors TV commercials of parking valets who couldn’t find the drivers’ GM car because they all looked so much alike, as well as such memorable vehicles like the Cadillac Cimarron. With that and GM’s persistent lack of quality, the sales downfall began until they slowly eroded into bankruptcy.

The same ruling but with different names.

With that in mind, these six rulings from the end of August/early September, found when I was compiling the latest PolitiFact (PF) Truth Index statistics, were a bit troubling in the same sort of cookie cutter way. While there was some variation in the writing, “commonizations” could be found throughout the rulings. While re-checked rulings often exhibit these characteristics, this one was not a re-check but a six-in-one, one-time collective effort.

According to certain conservative websites and blogs, there are 70 “card-carrying socialists” in the U.S. House of Representatives, specifically, the 111th Congress. From there, PolitiFacts Florida, Georgia, New Jersey, Ohio, Oregon and Texas merely had to fill in the blanks as to the Democrats being accused of this in their respective states, and those were the statement(s) for fact-checking.  Then it was noted that the 111th Congress is not the current congress but the previous. So that left a few people voted out in the 2010 Republican rout who may have been counted in the total “70” number. Then there’s naming the name of the “culprit” who was spreading this: a blogger named Dan Cofall on a website called Sovereign Citizens United, who of course did not respond when asked by PF for any comments.

Next PF went to the socialist group itself—the DSA, Democratic Socialists of America—to confirm if those Democrats named were indeed listed as card-carrying members, to which its  national director Frank Llewellyn responded that any such list was “completely fraudulent.” As repeated verbatim in most of the rulings: