Quote of the Day

"Bush was president during the financial meltdown, the Obama team has turned that around pretty well." 

~Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol

...:blink, blink:...

President Obama's Weekly Address - August 25, 2012

A day late, but never a dollar short.


Preserving and Strengthening Medicare

Politifact Can't Be Trusted

This is so disappointing. I was a regular reader of Politifact and linked to them on many occasions as a reference in previous posts. But no longer. Something happened between their inception and the present day that has caused them to skew their fact checking - you can call it opinion management - to avoid the dreaded "liberal bias" label.

Here is a fact, perfectly stated by President Obama in his State of the Union Address last night:

In the last 22 months, businesses have created more than three million jobs. Last year, they created the most jobs since 2005.

Those are the numbers. Plain and simple. But for some unfathomable reason, Politifact originally labeled this statement as "Half-True" then upgraded it to "Mostly-True." And for what reason? After all, it's a simple statement. It's either true or it's false. How can it possibly be half-true? I'll let Paul Krugman explain:

...Unfortunately, Politifact has lost sight of what it was supposed to be doing. Instead of simply saying whether a claim is true, it’s trying to act as some kind of referee of what it imagines to be fair play: even if a politician says something completely true, it gets ruled only partly true if Politifact feels that the fact is being used to gain an unfair political advantage.

...fact-checking should be about checking facts — not about trying to impose some sort of Marquess of Queensbury rules on how you’re allowed to use facts. Aside from undermining the mission, this makes the whole thing subjective — notice that Politifact wasn’t even analyzing what Obama said, they were analyzing their impression about what he might have been trying to imply.

... in practice this turns into a partisan affair. The simple fact is that in today’s US political scene, Republicans make a lot more factual howlers than Democrats. Sorry, but that’s just the way it is. Yet Politifact wants to be seen as nonpartisan. If it just stuck to the facts, it could say look, we’re just reporting the facts. But having defined its role as something that goes beyond checking facts to saying whether the facts are being used in some “proper” way, it then finds itself under pressure to be “even-handed”, which ends up meaning making excuses for Republican falsehoods and finding ways to criticize Democratic true statements.

Combine this ridiculousness with their 2011 Lie of the Year, and Politifact is Politi-shit. They are supposed to be objective arbiters of statements and they are either true or false. But they've decided to be subjective and my only conclusion is because they're afraid of being labeled a left leaning organization because Republicans are less truthful.

Just in the latest debate Newt Gingrich was asked the following:

Moderator: You've talked about the millions of jobs created by the Reagan tax cuts. If tax cuts create jobs, why didn't the Bush tax cuts work?

Here is the beginning of Newt's answer. Hold on to your seats:

Well, the Bush tax cuts, I think in a period of great difficulty, with the attack of 9/11, actually stopped us from going into a much deeper slump. I think we would have been in much, much worse shape, and I think most economists agree, that in 2002 and '03 and '04 we'd have been in much worse shape without the Bush tax cuts.

What. The. Fuck.

Newt Gingrich actually said the Bush tax cuts, that added a $1.8 trillion to our national debt, stopped us from going into a deeper slump?! I'd like to have a list of "most economists" to which Newt referred. What planet does this motherfucker live on? I'll tell you where - he lives on the planet where people get million dollar credit accounts from jewelry stores and make millions by being the consummate Washington insider.

And how did Politifact rate that whopper of a statement? It wasn't worth mentioning. But a completely truthful statement was rated at best "mostly true" for fear of appearing left leaning.

I rate Politifact's objectivity, Pants on Fire.

An Open Letter to Arthur Brisbane

Here is my response to Arthur Brisbane, New York Times' Public Editor after his piece, "Should The Times Be a Truth Vigilante?" If you haven't read it yet, although I don't know how you may have missed it with all the hullabaloo about it, please follow the link.

Dear Mr. Brisbane:

"[Our readers] worry less about reporters imposing their judgment on what is false and what is true."

This line most struck me in your piece as an interesting take on what you feel is "judgment" as opposed to journalism. I was always under the impression that a reporter's job was not only to report on the facts of what they witnessed or heard, but also to distinguish between what is truth and what isn't.

The Mitt Romney example you put forth regarding his repeated accusation of President Obama "apologizing for America" is a perfect example. But let's take it one step further and ask the following: What if Mitt Romney had said that President Obama goes around the world insisting that the sky is green? Is the reporter bound to play stenographer and simply repeat the quote, or is he obligated to research the truthfulness of that quote in an effort to paint a more accurate picture? Facts are facts, opinions are opinions and lies are lies. The phrase "imposing their judgement" implies the reporter is giving their opinion and facts are secondary and inconvenient.

Maybe there is a difference between journalism and investigative journalism, but there shouldn't be. I would imagine a reporter wants to be as accurate as possible, and if that means researching to prove the subject of their story truthful or not, then in my opinion, that's what the job must entail. Otherwise, anyone can be a reporter simply by recording and transcribing an event.

Thanks,
Broadway Carl

And to me, that's the long and short of it. An entire online industry was born to fact check what journalists don't. Poltifact, Media Matters, FactCheck and others are watch dogs to what politicians, pundits and talking heads pass as news, but even some of them are now afraid to be labeled as biased toward the liberal end of the scale and try to play it down the middle. This was clearly evidenced by Politifact's 2011 Lie of the Year, calling the Democrats' accusation that the Paul Ryan economic plan would end Medicare as we know it, a falsehood.

Anyone looking at Ryan's plan would come to that conclusion - simply keeping the "Medicare" name while making the program an inadequate voucher system does not mean Medicare equals Medicare. I could shit in a box and gift wrap it, complete with a "Medicare" label on it. Does that make it Medicare? But I digress.

I agree with Tweeter @Shoq that the conversation is an important one, but I also understand the blowback when such a question need be asked, and that a reporter fact checking someone he/she is covering would be categorized as "truth vigilantism." There are still a majority of the population who rely on the fourth estate for their daily news. They assume what they read in major newspapers is fact. Opinion should be left in the editorial pages, but front page news must deal with the facts and be accurate. And I believe that it is the responsibility of the reporter to research the subject and double check the accuracy of the subject's statements.

Just So We're Clear On The Gas Price Thing...

... and frankly because I'm getting sick and tired of Mississippi Governor Boss Hogg and his inane meme that President Obama is somehow manipulating high gas prices because of administration policies (it comes out whenever Barbour decides to open his cakehole), "Drill here, drill now" has nothing to do with gas current prices. That goes for House Speaker John Boehner and Sarah Palin too. Boehner's just using it as a political tool, while Palin should just shut her yapper for once and trying learning something. Drilling here, drilling now might yield oil production increases... in a decade or two, which has nothing to do with today's prices. And the experts, conservative or not, agree:

Near-term fluctuations in gasoline prices are determined by two primary factors: crude oil prices and seasonality. Since the deepwater drilling delay applies only to exploration and production, it would take years, maybe a decade to get any amount of crude oil out of the ground and into our gas tanks. In the meantime, global crude oil supply is exactly the same as it would have been if the government were giving away permits like candy.

~ Chris Lafakis, economist at Moody's Analytics and expert in energy markets

It's not credible to blame the Obama Administration's drilling policies for today's high prices because of the relative scales involved. As I indicated the last time, world oil prices are determined in a market of around 85 million barrels per day of production and consumption, while the consequences of domestic drilling, particularly in the Gulf, likely would be more in the range of several hundred thousand to one million barrels per day, and most of that production would not occur for a number of years.

~Michael Canes, research fellow at the Logistics Management Institute and former chief economist of the American Petroleum Institute

Higher oil prices today are a global phenomenon, and the additional supply from increased drilling by the U.S. would not alter the global balance of supply and demand greatly. Gasoline prices at the pump would be higher either way.

~Lou Crandall, chief economist of Wrightson ICAP LLC, an independent research firm that analyzes high-frequency economic data

Even if you gave permission to drill, it might take generally about seven years for oil to get to market. So that has absolutely no effect on the price of oil today. None whatsoever. The amount of extra oil that the U.S. would produce, as far as affecting the world price of oil, is almost insignificant.
People who say producing more oil will bring price down for Americans are missing the fact that it's a world market. For instance, oil produced in North Slope may very well go to Japan. There's not a separate market -- It's a world market.

~Tom O'Donnell, professor of Graduate International Affairs at The New School and expert on the globalized energy sector

Drilling here, drilling now will only serve to add more oil production to the global market at minimum in the year 2018. It may be harvested on our land, but that doesn't mean it's ours. It's put into a reserve where we are free to purchase it at global prices. And for this privilege, we continue to give exorbitant subsidies and tax breaks to Big Oil.

If Haley Barbour is serious about running for president, then he needs to stop sounding like a fool when it comes to energy policy and lying about the true causes of rising gas and oil prices.

And while we're at it, maybe the media should actually do the research, tell the truth and challenge anyone who tries to blurt out nonsense for purely political purposes instead of having two nitwit talking heads arguing both sides of an issue and giving both sides equal gravitas. Usually, someone is right and someone is wrong. Usually, someone is being honest, and someone isn't. So do your homework and call them out on it. Isn't that what you're supposed to do with liars when you have truth on your side?

Correcting The Record

A couple of days ago, I received two more Obama e-mail smears in my inbox sent to me by a good friend who knew I'd get riled up about them. For the record, he doesn't believe them either but gets a kick out of me going off on a rant.

Now that I've had time to calm down and process the information, I decided to rebut the e-mail with one of my own, defending Obama's true positions and debunking the smears with the truth, complete with links for all the naysayers to look it up on their own, all the while trying to be polite and not calling them out for the idiots they are. I sent it to everyone on the forwarded list, and then some (including Obama supporters and non-idiots) in an attempt to start an e-mail blast of my own.

Here is the email:
*****************************
From: Broadway Carl
To: Undisclosed list
Subject: Re: THE TRUTH - Obama "saluting the US flag" and "standing with the Muslims"

Hi,

Most of you don't know me, but I received this email with all of your emails attached to it so I thought it would be nice to respond to all of you.

I know we're in the habit of receiving emails like this "Obama not saluting the flag" email and assuming that every time we get an email, it MUST be true. Just like the "forward this email and Bill Gates will give you $100,000". Or "If you don't forward this email, bad luck will befall you and your dog will crap on your carpet".

We all know those emails are false, and all you have to do is look it up on this amazing internet we have and be able to find out in about 5 seconds if they are true or not. Unfortunately, if you have a preconceived notion of someone or something in particular and want to believe it, then you will. We all have an inclination to believe or not believe something based on how we feel about something rather than based on fact.

So I decided to look up the “Obama doesn't salute the US flag" to see if it had ANY merit whatsoever. Just as I suspected, it does not.

According to Snopes.com:

Back in October, 2007, one of the hottest e-mail forwards was a picture capturing Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama standing in front of a US flag (at an Iowa political event) with his hands clasped in front of him during the playing of the US National Anthem (while other persons on the platform with him stood with their hands placed over their hearts.) This photographic brouhaha soon mutated into a FALSE claim that Obama “refused to put his hand over his heart during the Pledge of Allegiance” and the into the EVEN MORE FALSE claim that “he refused to recite the Pledge” at all – rumors which the Obama campaign soon provided evidence to negate.

While this controversy was all the rage on the Internet, political columnist John Semmens included a bit at the end of one of his satirical “Semi-News” columns (found on the website THE ARIZONA CONSERVATIVE) offering a mock explanation from the Senator about his non-hand-over-heart stance, poking fun at Obama by having him voice the opinion that “the American flag is a symbol of oppression” and that the US national anthem is too “bellicose” and should be replaced by something gentler like “I'd Like To Teach The World To Sing.”

This bit of satire evidently came off as too believable to some readers, as it has since been excerpted from Semmen’s column and forwarded via e-mail (WITHOUT ATTRIBUTION) as a genuine statement from Obama. However topical it might be, it’s just a bit of political commentaty-cum-humor, though, not the Senator’s own words.

So it took me longer to type the last three paragraphs out than it did to look this rumor up and find out it was false. And I’m letting you know the truth, COMPLETE WITH LINKS to verify that I’m not just making it up. You’re just one click away from seeing it for yourself and not just taking my word for it.

Here is another email I received. It’s a touching email about “John McCain’s Sons” and their military pedigree. At first glace, and about a 5 second check to verify it, the story seems to check out. Great! Good for John McCain and his sons. I’m sure he’s very proud of them. But then this touching email gets trashed by someone writing the following:

Has anybody heard if Barack Hussein Obama has served in The American Armed Services?

This is for all you Barack voters.
From Barack's book, Audacity of Hope:
"I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction."

HE DID NOT SAY STAND WITH AMERICANS!!!!!

Laura

I don’t know who “Laura” is, whether she was the originator of the email or just someone passing it on, but here is THE TRUTH on this one. And all you had to do was actually look it up in the book which Laura claims the quote came from.

In this section of the book, Senator Obama was speaking about immigrants and citizenship. He often makes speeches to new citizens taking the oath after going through what they had to in order to become legal US citizens. And he speaks of the importance of not allowing inflamed public opinion to result in innocent members of immigrant groups being stripped of their rights, denied their due as American citizens, or placed in confinement, as was done with Japanese-Americans during World War II. Here is the actual passage from the book. Notice it contains no specific mention of “Muslims”:

"Whenever I appear before immigrant audiences, I can count on some good-natured ribbing from my staff after my speech; according to them, my remarks always follow a three-part structure: "I am your friend," "[Fill in the home country] has been a cradle of civilization," and "You embody the American dream." They're right, my message is simple, for what I've come to understand is that my mere presence before these newly minted Americans serves notice that they matter, that they are voters critical to my success and full-fledged citizens deserving of respect.

"Of course, not all my conversations in immigrant communities follow this easy pattern. In the wake of 9/11, my meetings with Arab and Pakistani Americans, for example, have a more urgent quality, for the stories of detentions and FBI questioning and hard stares from neighbors have shaken their sense of security and belonging. They have been reminded that the history of immigration in this country has a dark underbelly; they need specific assurances that their citizenship really means something, that America has learned the right lessons from the Japanese internments during World War II, and that I will stand with them should the political winds shift in an ugly direction." [Page 260-261]

Senator Obama was speaking of legal US citizens, immigrants who came to the US looking for a better life, legally emigrating here and that he would support them just like any other US citizen, as is their right. Anyone see the word “Muslim” in that quote? Me neither.

As far as Obama not serving in the Armed Services, well that’s another matter entirely. Obama is 46 years old. I think that means he missed the draft during Vietnam, and isn’t our Army an “all-volunteer” army as our current administration continually reminds us? If serving in the armed forces was a pre-requisite for an elected official, then George Bush, Dick Cheney, Fred Thompson, Trent Lott, Mitch McConnell, John Boehner, Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, Dennis Hastert, Newt Gingrich, John Ashcroft, Karl Rove, Phil Gramm, Tom Delay, and a host of others, would never have been elected to office.

Yes, I am an Obama supporter, but that isn’t the reason I’m defending him here. The reason is that this upcoming presidential election is probably one of the most important of our lifetime, and no matter who you support, you should base your actions on facts, not rumors or email smears. Some of you are going to believe what you want to believe and I know that this won’t change your mind. But others might realize that you can’t believe everything you read in an email, or what you see on the evening news, and you might want to take just a couple of minutes to look things up for yourself.

If you’ve sent emails like “Obama is a Muslim” or “Obama won’t salute the flag” to some that aren’t on the list above or emails similar, I hope you’ll forward this one just like you forwarded the last one. To make a monumental decision like who you want to run our country and how you want the world to view us should be based on the issues and policies and not if someone wears a flag pin or not, or if someone’s wife plagiarizes cookie recipes.

And to whoever originated this email, thanks for inspiring me to find out the truth for myself, base my decisions on facts and to have the inclination to email everyone back to correct the record.

Thanks for reading – and please, forward this to anyone you know to correct the record. You wouldn’t want them to think you were a liar, would you?

By the way, I’m still waiting for my $100,000 check signed by Bill Gates.

************************End E-mail******************************

I would ask you that if you are reading this and haven't received my e-mail personally (which is traveling worldwide at this very second!) that you please copy and paste and send to your friends, family, co-workers, colleagues, pen pals, softball buddies, bowling team, garden club, movie club, book club or next door neighbor.

I'm sure they'd like to find out the truth for a change.