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: Slam Bam Bachmann!

Or:  How to give Michele Bachmann a *True* in 240 words or less

The United States in 1913 was far different than the it is today. “Unions” were limited to craft guilds (and I believe that “collective bargaining” as we know it today was illegal). There was no Social Security, no Medicare, no Medicaid. The freeing of the slaves in the south gave way to rampant Jim Crowism along with racial subordination. Women could not vote. When you went to the hospital, it meant you were going to die. There was no infrastructure yet—such as the interstate highway system—as cars were just coming of age. And it would be another year before a major world war would start, necessitating a stronger defense, and the U.S.'s coming new world role as a formidable foreign power. Military investments by our government later enabled the space age and the advent of NASA.

So yes, Michele Bachmann saying that income taxes were 7% in 1913 and were 70% by 1980 (in this PolitiFact ruling) was True, but it was a far different country we lived in as far as what services our tax revenues  provided. And, taxes didn’t rise on a straight line, either, as writer Lou Jacboson briefly recognized in two short paragraphs, “…For every year between1944 to 1963, the top tax rate exceeded 90 percent.” That’s a period of 19 years, until it was lowered to the rate Bachmann specifies.

The other implication of her statement seems to be that taxes rose steadily until about the time Reagan became president, to give Ronald Reagan credit where credit wasn’t really due, as the one who started the movement to cut taxes (since shortly after his initial cuts, he went on to raise them several times). One Facebook commenter, Dean Hare, put it this way:

I would have ranked this as Mostly True due to the cherry-picked dates, because the rates during the Eisenhower administration were 91%, and all the current Republicans want to out-Reagan Ronald Reagan by making 'Historic" tax cuts. You were a little generous and need to re-visit this. I think you need to keep in mind with ALL your tax policy rulings the facts that the World War II debt was paid off with these high tax rates and an economy booming with publicly funded physical and intellectual infrastructure spending (ie: Government Stimulus on roads, the military and education). Too many of your rulings forget the tax policy and federal spending history from the 1945-1980 era -- and you also refuse to cite the eleven tax increases Reagan signed into law after it became obvious his initial cuts were too deep, requiring additional revenues.

Another Facebook commenter (or topic page) with the  name "Economics Online Tutor" published a comparison of U.S. economic performane and tax policies since 1913 on their Facebook wall, and it's worth a view in the context of Bachmann's other implication in this statement, that tax cuts stimulate the economy.

If a Democrat had said this I could just hear my conservative counterpart screaming that writer Lou Jacobson was ignoring the underlying argument (but neither blog post nor Facebook comment could be found on that from him, being as Bachmann is a Republican). Without underlying context Bachmann’s statement means very little, and there’s more than a few caveats here. This is not the usual Bachmann whopper, but PolitiFact certainly appears to be throwing her a bone in the way it was ruled on.

Lil White Lies: Mister Predictor

Yes, my conservative counterpart has made yet another startling prediction about PolitiFact: (emphasis added):

I was thinking on Friday (I know, I know! I'm trying to quit!). PolitiFact is taking a pounding to their reputation on their FaceBook page. And, no, I'm not patting myself on the back. There are a pretty fair number of "fans" who write strong criticisms of the PolitiFact entries.

If this trend continues, I foresee PolitiFact either curbing their hosting of criticism or terminating the FaceBook page altogether. It is, in the end, all about protecting and burnishing the brand. If the criticisms are not somehow marginalized, the brand suffers. I just can't see the St. Petersburg Times putting up with that over the course of time.

Only problem is, he said this on November 21, 2009, in his blog, about 18+ months ago. Since then, PolitiFact’s Facebook page has gone from about 7,000 fans to approaching 38,000, and PolitiFact has expanded with at least six (or more) other state partnerships. Oh, and I think they got that Pullitzer for 2009 as well. So, instead of patting yourself on the back, Bryan White, maybe you need to kick yourself in the arse for being so egotistical.

And just in case he goes back and deletes the post (I get the impression he checks his “Stat-Counter” frequently), I’ve snipped a screen-print of it.

Sidebar: Holy Troller, Batman!

Working for a highly political organization for many years, I watched the politics in action and learned the do's and don'ts...one if the many things I learned was that you don't "burn your bridges" by alienating everybody, because sooner or later, you're going to alienate someone who's going to hurt you back more than you think....in other words, actions have consequences.

For the first time, at the Facebook commentary suggestion of one Shiela Fahey Wallenius, I visited my conservative counterpart Bryan White's Facebook "Wall".  It looked like a laundry list of various PolitiFact commenters, Bryan's lengthy "j'accuse" of those committing some version of fallacy sin.

If she had been posting regularly at FB PolitiFact's page, she would know this is not true.

Wallenius, however, decided to take it one step further when Bryan decided to pick on her (see above snippet from Facebook).  She declared Bryan a "professional troll" since it appeared that his only purpose--his assignment--was being the in-house aggravator of PolitiFact's (Liberal or Democratic) Facebook page commenters, as noted by her suggestion above.  She stated she had not only blocked him but reported him. Another commenter, Barry Powers, joined in. Bryan's co-conspirator "Deff Jyberg" rushed to Bryan's defense, but the commenters ganged up on both of them, one of them linking Deff Jeff Dyberg to Bryan's PolitiFact Bias blog site.   It was an engaging reading.

Politi-Score: On the New PolitiFact App (Part 1)

Recently PolitiFact posted on Facebook about a new Android application available for only $1.99, which crunches its rulings and gives a “report card” by individual as well as what it calls a “Truth Index” which according to PolitiFact is “… like the Dow Jones Industrial Average of truth.”

As I don’t have a device which operates on Android and don’t intend to go out and purchase one to try to figure out the machinations of the PolitiFact app, I will try to figure it out solely from the graphics PolitiFact provided. The first one, the color-coded report cards by individual, was fairly easy. I reproduce it here using bar chart creation in Excel, compared to PolitiFact’s graphic.



Here's PolitiFact's Report Card in its new "App"



Here's how I did it along with the Politi-Score in parentheses next to the person's name.



Now YOU can win every debate with Fallacies

Fallacies are defects in an argument that cause it to be invalid, unsound, or weak. In a deductive argument, the existence of a fallacy means that the argument is not valid - even if the premises are true, the conclusion might still be false. A fallacy does not guarantee it is false; a fallacious argument fails to provide a good reason to believe the conclusion, even if that conclusion is correct.

So, no matter what your adversary says, you can render their argument as weak and ineffective, simply by learning to apply common logical fallacies to anything they say.  In the dialogue below, you can replace "1 plus 1 equals 2" with just about anything.  You just need to look for the fallacy you can attack, regardless of the soundness of the argument.  Here's a master fallacy debater who I'll call Blovius Wacko (BW) doing just that in this satirical Facebook page conversation.

Commenter: 1 plus 1 equals 2.

BW: That’s just an assertion. Do you have a citation?

Commenter: Oh geez, how ‘bout Media Matters for Pete’s sake!

BW: Media Matters is liberally biased, so what it claims means nothing.

Commenter: Look, 1 plus 1 equals 2 because 1 plus 1 equals 2.

BW: You’re begging the question, also known as a tautology.

Commenter: But 1 plus 1 equals 2, it can’t equal anything else.

BW: That’s bifurcation fallacy. You’re presenting a false choice.

Commenter: 1 plus 1 equals 2 by law of math, see Euclid, Aristotle, Fibonacci, the original great mathematicians.
BW: That’s not evidence, just the fallacy of appeal to tradition or authority. You should also look up the genetic fallacy, which applies as well.  So far your argument is very, very weak.

Commenter: If 1 plus 1 equals 2, then 2 plus 2 equals 4.

Red Herring



BW: Fallacy of post hoc ergo propter hoc…correlation is not causation, plus you’re moving the goalposts from 1 to 2 to 4.

Commenter: Everyone knows that 1 plus 1 equals 2.

BW: That’s the fallacy of argumentum ad populum, just because everyone believes it doesn’t mean it’s true. It’s just another red herring like the appeal to authority.

Commenter: Even your own Newt Gingrich said 1 plus 1 equaled 2.

BW: Just because Newt Gingrich said it doesn’t make it true. By the way, that’s called the tu quoque fallacy.

Commenter: Look, if you have a beer and I have a beer, that’s two beers.

BW: Commenter is drunk with poor logic. This isn’t about beer—now you throw the Straw Man fallacy into it because you're running out of explanations.

Commenter: You know, it’s just stupid not to believe that 1 plus 1 equals 2.

BW: So now you’ve had to resort to ad hominen. Once again I’ve proven the many fallacies of your faulty reasoning.

Commenter: So, what does 1 plus 1 equal, Blovius?

BW: Now you’re shifting the burden. You’re the one who made the assertion. I’m just here to point out your pathetic reasoning and fallacious arguments. Now just wake up and admit to your having failed miserably at your argument. 

Lil White Lies: Silence is NOT Golden

Recently Michele Bachmann made another statement which PolitiFact (PF) ruled as False: “The top 1 percent of income-earners pay about 40 percent of all taxes into the federal government." It generated a lot of commentary at the Facebook page, and a few posted why she was not asked—called or e-mailed-- to clarify her comments. I decided to interject some links to PolitiFact rulings on Bachmann along with this remark: (links embedded instead of displayed)

I think part of the reason Bachmann doesn’t get a break (as opposed to Pelosi) is she does not respond to PolitiFact when they ask her for more detail, or for her sources:

“Bachmann's press office did not return our call...”

“We contacted Bachmann’s office to ask where she got the number, but we didn’t get a response.”

“Analyzing this comment is somewhat tricky, because Bachmann’s time frame is open to interpretation (and her office didn’t return our inquiry seeking an explanation).”

Others took note of my comment for which I got a few “thumbs up” or “likes” as well as this comment from a Julie Baker Morse: (emphasis added)

… for those complaining that Bachmann is treated differently by Politifact: I believe that their rating depends in part upon the perceived intent of those making the statements. Perhaps if Bachmann had not racked up so many untruths, and did not ignore Politifact's requests for clarification, this may have been rated differently. Untruths and fact misrepresentations for most politicians [from all parties] don't happen because THEY are stupid; it's because they believe that Americans are stupid enough to both believe them and re-elect them, no matter what they say and whether or not their statements have been proved false. (4/18/11 ~12:30 p.m.)

Bryan White just had to make an indirect response to me through Morse: (emphasis added)

Politi-Score: 2,788 Reasons Part 3

Doing calculations on PolitiFact (PF) rulings seems to be gaining in popularity. I noted a comment on the Facebook PolitiFact page the other day with regard to Ron Paul being the highest rated person on the PolitiFact’s truth-o-meter; however, I did offer a response that it was not Ron Paul but losing candidate for governor of Florida, Alex Sink. In fact, between Ron Paul and Alex Sink was the liberal public advocacy group moveon.org.

Just so you don’t have to use the link, the Politi-Score is calculated by assigning points to each ruling as follows:

Ruling	Number of points
True	100
Mostly True	75
Half True	50
Barely True	25
False	0
Pants on Fire!	-25

So, for example, if a politician has one True and one False ruling, that would be 100 for True and zero for False, totaling 100 points. Divided by two rulings, the Politi-Score averages to 50.

Getting back to Ron Paul and Alex Sink, here is a listing of everyone who had ten or more PolitiFact rulings from PF’s inception through the end of 2010, listed by highest to lowest Polit-Score. And yes, Michele Bachmann bottomed out the truthometer as the only one with a negative score (some Half Trues and Barely Trues from factchecks her 2011 SOTU response did put her into positive territory).

Tchotchkes: The Power of Social Media

Thanks again to Bartcop.com

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.

Sidebar: Bludgeoned by Essay

On Saturday, October 16, PolitiFact posted a TV video being shown by PolitiFact Rhode Island on its Facebook page. The video shows Tim Murphy, the Editor, who said:

“Campaign promises, political attacks—how many times have you heard a politician make a statement and wonder, is that really true? The Providence Journal’s PolitiFact Rhode Island Team will help you find the truth in politics: researching, going to the original sources of claims, and when we are finished, you will know if the political statement is True, Half True, or Positively Ridiculous Pants on Fire. On the record fact-checking from the Providence Journal’s PolitiFact Rhode Island team, see us on line at projo-politifact.com.”

The commentary which followed was some of the best I’ve seen, and of course, there was Bryan White dominating the thread. I put in a few “likes” in (as in the title of this post, from a comment by Cheryl Layos), but this post by him really caught my attention:

Sidebar: Clone Wars

From the What a CROCK Files

Jeff Dyberg is a regular Facebook PolitiFact (PF) commenter and one of Bryan White’s attack rats (4-b), a more humorous, casual, self-revealing Ayn Rand Libertarian /Objectivist . He seems to appear at opportune times on behalf of Bryan, when he comes up against solid debate opposition in a thread, and often will link to Bryan’s blog in his comments, one time even posting that if you are new to the PF Facebook page, Bryan’s Sublime Bloviations is its “instruction manual.”

A few days ago he made some comments to the effect that PF’s rulings were “inconsistent” on ruling claims that had “No evidence.” However, taking a good look at these rulings, one can see that PF’s conclusions were all reasonable, had some basis in fact, and were not inconsistent.

He first took issue with a Half-True ruling on Obama’s statement that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce was receiving foreign contributions.