In an important post Brian Beutler, in effect, asks "who are you and what have you done with Glenn Kessler."
I generally respect Kessler, but I think he refuses to stick to fact checking when he covers the Medicare debate. I also think he should either drop the Pinocchios or apply them consistently*.
The topic is a DSCC advertisement on Republicans and Medicare which Kessler denounced very strongly and awarded the maximum four Pinocchios.
I think that Beutler buries his main point. In a discussion with Beutler, Kessler conceded that one of the claims of fact which he marked as outrageously false is, in fact, true.
As summarized by Beutler, the advert said that " Republicans want 'to take needed health care coverage away from our seniors.'" Beutler notes that the House Budget resolution repeals most of the health care reform bill (keeping most of the Medicare cuts in the bill) and therefore repeals the closing of the Medicare plan D doughnut hole. Thus the Republicans undeniably take health care coverage away from seniors. Clearly the question of whether it is needed is a matter of opinion and firm statements on such questions are perfectly standard in political debate.
According to Beutler who is summarizing a conversation with (I think) Kessler
"The Post mostly grants this, but says it's wrong for Democrats to place so much focus on it. "In any case, it is a stretch to focus on this provision (and a couple of other issues) and then make a sweeping claim that leaves the impression that all seniors would be affected immediately. "
In other words "The Post" concedes that the claim of fact which they denounced as false is true. They argue that the truth is false, because the statement is phrased in a way which could be misinterpreted. It is clear that the phrasing was chosen to convince current Medicare recipients that they would lose more than the Medicare plan D doughnut hole. But phrasing a claim to maximize the effect is not stating a falsehood.
The Post's position is that, while the claim is technically true, that's not what really matters. In other words their fact checking is based on the principal that the truth or falsehood of claims of fact isn't fundamental.
I don't know what is happening. I think that part of what is going on is that Kessler is confusing "inflamatory" and "false." He considers the claim that Republicans voted to take health care coverage away from current recipients bad for the discussion, so it is false even if it is true. I also suspect that he strongly believes that the Medicare budget's growth should be restrained and he is allowing his views on the proper decision to affect his opinions about the accuracy of claims made in the debate.
The good news is that only a few bloggers are paying attention. It is clear that at least two fact checkers (Kessler and someone at Politifact) consider the claim that Republicans are trying to repeal and replace Medicare to be the "death panels" of 2011. It is clear that Democratic operatives don't care what fact checkers write. In this case, I think the operatives are correct on the merits, but, beyond that, I am pleased that they aren't afraid of the Washington Post.
*A large fraction of my problems with Kessler have to do with the, very striking and effective, awarding of Pinocchios. He definitely does not award them consistently. He noted in a fact check of Romney's campaign launching speech that he had awarded 4 Pinocchios to one of Romney's claims, objected to many other claims, and awarded 2 Pinocchios in the end. This just isn't fact checking. Making some true claims and some false claims must be scored as making some false claims. Fact checkers must check which claims to check -- they just can't assess which fraction of total claims of fact made by a person is accurate. Removing two Pinocchios for other claims (many of which Kessler asserted were false) is clearly inconsistent with the whole idea of fact checking and the stated definition of the Pinocchio scale.
Wednesday, June 15, 2011
Sunday, June 12, 2011
New Frontiers In Granting Anonymity
In a New York Times article on how a slight relaxation of the US-Cuban trade embargo is helping Cubans, Victoria Burnett blazes and new trail and sets a new standard in granting anonymity
So "A State Department official" demanded anonymity in order to defend current policy by stating the totally obvious.
The embargo loving Cuban American lobby is strong. Of course, Cuban Americans are no longer united. I was sent to the article by anti embargo Cuban American Matthew Yglesias.
In a New York Times article on how a slight relaxation of the US-Cuban trade embargo is helping Cubans, Victoria Burnett blazes and new trail and sets a new standard in granting anonymity
A State Department official, who requested anonymity because the policy is politically delicate, said that “additional people-to-people contact and enhanced economic independence from the state” helped to “undermine repression.” In an e-mail responding to questions, the official said such benefits outweighed concerns about “the Cuban government profiting indirectly.”
So "A State Department official" demanded anonymity in order to defend current policy by stating the totally obvious.
The embargo loving Cuban American lobby is strong. Of course, Cuban Americans are no longer united. I was sent to the article by anti embargo Cuban American Matthew Yglesias.
Monday, June 06, 2011
Ballance at the Washington Post all time winner
This beats the original Ballance
When allegedly "Fact checking Mitt Romney’s announcement speech"
Glenn Kessler quotes Romney
then writes
This is just one of many assertions made by Romney and contested by Kessler.
Then we get to Kessler's bottom line
Two (2) Pinocchios !
So evidently all the other alleged falsehoods are nega-falsehoods or something.
Here I think a large part of the problem is the Pinocchio graphic. Kessler is clearly not willing to apply his stated scale (it may be that the four Pinocchios were incorrectly assigned not the two, but there is no way to eliminate a falsehood by saying other unrelated things many of which are plainly false too).
It is very clear that his fact checking is contaminated with the sort of policy which prevents many political journalists from dealing with questions of fact. I think he believes that he just can't award the Republican front runner four Pinocchios (or at least not at the very beginning of his official campaign). Therefore, his assessment of factual accuracy depend on who made the claim.
This is particularly distressing, since Kessler awarded HHS sect Sebelius three Pinocchios for a claim which he basically acknowledged was true, because he considered it "outrageous."
As Jack Webb would say "just the facts man."
(For the kids in their thirties and stuff, Jack Webb was an amazingly wooden actor who played a police officer in the ultra-boring TV series "Dragnet." He often said "just the facts ma'am." For some reason he never said "just the facts sir." Sexism on TV was extreme back in teh good old days (TV is still sexist but less blatantly so).
This beats the original Ballance
When allegedly "Fact checking Mitt Romney’s announcement speech"
Glenn Kessler quotes Romney
“President Obama sees a different America, and he's taken us in a different direction. A few months into office, he traveled around the globe to apologize for America.”
then writes
Romney wrote a whole book on this theme, titled “No Apology,” so maybe it’s hard to let go. But we previously gave four Pinocchios to the notion that Obama ever went on any kind of “apology tour.”
This is just one of many assertions made by Romney and contested by Kessler.
Then we get to Kessler's bottom line
Two (2) Pinocchios !
So evidently all the other alleged falsehoods are nega-falsehoods or something.
Here I think a large part of the problem is the Pinocchio graphic. Kessler is clearly not willing to apply his stated scale (it may be that the four Pinocchios were incorrectly assigned not the two, but there is no way to eliminate a falsehood by saying other unrelated things many of which are plainly false too).
It is very clear that his fact checking is contaminated with the sort of policy which prevents many political journalists from dealing with questions of fact. I think he believes that he just can't award the Republican front runner four Pinocchios (or at least not at the very beginning of his official campaign). Therefore, his assessment of factual accuracy depend on who made the claim.
This is particularly distressing, since Kessler awarded HHS sect Sebelius three Pinocchios for a claim which he basically acknowledged was true, because he considered it "outrageous."
As Jack Webb would say "just the facts man."
(For the kids in their thirties and stuff, Jack Webb was an amazingly wooden actor who played a police officer in the ultra-boring TV series "Dragnet." He often said "just the facts ma'am." For some reason he never said "just the facts sir." Sexism on TV was extreme back in teh good old days (TV is still sexist but less blatantly so).
Is there a present for fact checking in US journalism ?
Fact checking is a new and exiting alleged feature of US journalism. The AP is now sending out fact checking articles. The Washington Post has a regular fact checking column. The existence of fact checking separate from reporting on what public figures say is, in itself, a shocking confession that political journalists haven't been doing their job. The apparent view is that, in addition to all of the commentary on the horse race, on political strategy and on reporters' impressions of what sort of impressions ordinary people will have, there is room for a little bit of discussion of the facts.
The problem is that fact checking is a radical break with business as ususal. It was absent for a simple reason. To be frank, the problem is that Republicans lie a lot more than Democrats do. Objective reporting therefore is perceived as liberal bias. As Colbert said, the facts have a clear liberal bias (like all of the very best parody, his statement was barely a parody).
Like many people, I was upset when Politifact (pioneers in the daring new experiment in fact based journalism) gave a pants on fire rating to a DCCC ad mostly because of accurate claims of fact in the ad, partly because the alleged fact checker considered the implied policy recommendation bad policy (the alleged fact check included the observation that Republicans have argued that it is necessary to reform Medicare to keep it from going bankrupt -- this was not related to any factual claim in the ad which was allegedly being fact checked). Oh and because of a name -- the ad said Republicans had voted to end Medicare and they have named their proposed voucher program "Medicare." The fact checker actually wrote that claming they had voted to end Medicare "as we know it" would have been OK. Think of that. The qualifier "as we know it" just means "if we don't allow them to redefine terms at will." How can it be required for factual accuracy.
Then I was very upset when Glenn Kessler awarded Sect Sebelius three Pinocchios for a statement which he basically acknowledged was true, because it was also "outrageous."
Now Kessler awards just two Pinocchios to Romney even though he had awarded just one of Romney's claims of fact four Pinocchios in the past. Good of him to note that fact, but this means he has clearly stated that fact checking as we know it is not about the relationship between claims of fact and facts, because it is not acceptable to reach the conclusion that a relatively sober and respectable Republican lies like a dog.
Go with the facts or go with the approved narrative. Compromise is ridiculous.
Fact checking is a new and exiting alleged feature of US journalism. The AP is now sending out fact checking articles. The Washington Post has a regular fact checking column. The existence of fact checking separate from reporting on what public figures say is, in itself, a shocking confession that political journalists haven't been doing their job. The apparent view is that, in addition to all of the commentary on the horse race, on political strategy and on reporters' impressions of what sort of impressions ordinary people will have, there is room for a little bit of discussion of the facts.
The problem is that fact checking is a radical break with business as ususal. It was absent for a simple reason. To be frank, the problem is that Republicans lie a lot more than Democrats do. Objective reporting therefore is perceived as liberal bias. As Colbert said, the facts have a clear liberal bias (like all of the very best parody, his statement was barely a parody).
Like many people, I was upset when Politifact (pioneers in the daring new experiment in fact based journalism) gave a pants on fire rating to a DCCC ad mostly because of accurate claims of fact in the ad, partly because the alleged fact checker considered the implied policy recommendation bad policy (the alleged fact check included the observation that Republicans have argued that it is necessary to reform Medicare to keep it from going bankrupt -- this was not related to any factual claim in the ad which was allegedly being fact checked). Oh and because of a name -- the ad said Republicans had voted to end Medicare and they have named their proposed voucher program "Medicare." The fact checker actually wrote that claming they had voted to end Medicare "as we know it" would have been OK. Think of that. The qualifier "as we know it" just means "if we don't allow them to redefine terms at will." How can it be required for factual accuracy.
Then I was very upset when Glenn Kessler awarded Sect Sebelius three Pinocchios for a statement which he basically acknowledged was true, because it was also "outrageous."
Now Kessler awards just two Pinocchios to Romney even though he had awarded just one of Romney's claims of fact four Pinocchios in the past. Good of him to note that fact, but this means he has clearly stated that fact checking as we know it is not about the relationship between claims of fact and facts, because it is not acceptable to reach the conclusion that a relatively sober and respectable Republican lies like a dog.
Go with the facts or go with the approved narrative. Compromise is ridiculous.
Weiner's weiner query
OK I get it. I will not delete the silly post below. I was wondering why everyone is convinced that the alleged tweet with the link to the crotch shot allegedly on yfrog was, in fact, a tweet. The reason is that Patior76USA retweated it. Now I understand.
Confused query below.
There is an alleged tweet containing a link to a yfrog account and a digital photograph of a man's crotch in very tighty whiteys which was allegedly at that link. It is agreed that both the tweet and the photograph are not on their original alleged locations on the allgedly world wide alleged web.
I have read (somewhere on the web I forget where) that the alleged Yfrog screen capture was photoshopped -- that it has nothing to do with anything that was ever hosted on Yfrog.
On the other hand, everyone seems to agree that the alleged tweet was a tweet -- that it went out on twitter and that it was sent from Weiners twitter account.
How do we know that the alleged tweet was ever on twitter ?
I ask for information. I'm pretty sure I'm missing something and there is some convincing evidence. Please inform me in comments (or by e-mail).
As far as I know (obviously not very far) the only evidence is a *.jpg which is alleged to be a screen capture.
My preferred explanation of all of the data is that Patriot76usa photoshopped that alleged screen capture, that neither he nor Weiner tweeted the link. That the alleged tweet was never a tweet.
The implausible 1 to 5 seconds would be an explanation of why no one else saw the tweet there is no need to explain how Weiner (or his staff) managed to get the tweet off of twitter so fast if it was never on twitter.
The alleged Yfrog screen capture has been discussed. I have read (somewhere on the web) a confident claim that it was photoshopped made by someone who explained what sounds like evidence and claims expertise (you know somewhere on the web).
But the claim that the alleged tweet was indeed a tweet and isn’t a photoshopped image passed off as a twitter feed screen capture isn’t even being discussed.
One possible explanation is that Weiner said his facebook account was hacked. Weiner’s defenders seem determined to argue that he is not only non-lewd but also tech savvy (they even argue that he wrote “facebook,” because hacking the facebook account was a step towards hacking the twitter account for some reason).
What if the first he learned of the alleged tweet and alleged YFrog hosting of the photo cam from biggovernment.com ?
It seems to me that the idea that either Patriot75USA is telling the truth or something was hacked follows very logically from Weiner’s stated guess of what happened. But why assume that he must know what happened (so his hypothesis is true or he is lying) ? I mean he’s looks very geeky but he is a congressman not a technopunk.
OK I get it. I will not delete the silly post below. I was wondering why everyone is convinced that the alleged tweet with the link to the crotch shot allegedly on yfrog was, in fact, a tweet. The reason is that Patior76USA retweated it. Now I understand.
Confused query below.
There is an alleged tweet containing a link to a yfrog account and a digital photograph of a man's crotch in very tighty whiteys which was allegedly at that link. It is agreed that both the tweet and the photograph are not on their original alleged locations on the allgedly world wide alleged web.
I have read (somewhere on the web I forget where) that the alleged Yfrog screen capture was photoshopped -- that it has nothing to do with anything that was ever hosted on Yfrog.
On the other hand, everyone seems to agree that the alleged tweet was a tweet -- that it went out on twitter and that it was sent from Weiners twitter account.
How do we know that the alleged tweet was ever on twitter ?
I ask for information. I'm pretty sure I'm missing something and there is some convincing evidence. Please inform me in comments (or by e-mail).
As far as I know (obviously not very far) the only evidence is a *.jpg which is alleged to be a screen capture.
My preferred explanation of all of the data is that Patriot76usa photoshopped that alleged screen capture, that neither he nor Weiner tweeted the link. That the alleged tweet was never a tweet.
The implausible 1 to 5 seconds would be an explanation of why no one else saw the tweet there is no need to explain how Weiner (or his staff) managed to get the tweet off of twitter so fast if it was never on twitter.
The alleged Yfrog screen capture has been discussed. I have read (somewhere on the web) a confident claim that it was photoshopped made by someone who explained what sounds like evidence and claims expertise (you know somewhere on the web).
But the claim that the alleged tweet was indeed a tweet and isn’t a photoshopped image passed off as a twitter feed screen capture isn’t even being discussed.
One possible explanation is that Weiner said his facebook account was hacked. Weiner’s defenders seem determined to argue that he is not only non-lewd but also tech savvy (they even argue that he wrote “facebook,” because hacking the facebook account was a step towards hacking the twitter account for some reason).
What if the first he learned of the alleged tweet and alleged YFrog hosting of the photo cam from biggovernment.com ?
It seems to me that the idea that either Patriot75USA is telling the truth or something was hacked follows very logically from Weiner’s stated guess of what happened. But why assume that he must know what happened (so his hypothesis is true or he is lying) ? I mean he’s looks very geeky but he is a congressman not a technopunk.
Washington Post Headline Guy part MMMCCLCCVI
This is an interesting article which contains positive proof that neither The New York Post nor Politico is a serious journalistic enterprise (knock me over with a wrecking ball).
However, the headline makes a definite assertion on a controversial matter of fact. The claim is also almost certainly false. WWW.Washingtonpost.com is in a weak position to lecture others about journalistic standards.
The headline is
"Recipient of lewd tweet criticizes New York Post story via Twitter".
Along with the first two words in the article "Gennette Cordova" this asserts that Gennette Cordova received the lewd tweet in question. Gennette Cordova has very defninitely asserted that she never saw the photo in question. The person who claims to have detected the tweet says it was deleted after 1 to 5 seconds.
Even assuming that Cordova has negative credibility so her claims are likely to be lies, one must also assume that she checks her twitter feed constantly in order to assert that she received the tweet.
Update DailyKos too
Update DailyKos too
Georgia Logothetis wrote
Unless I am confused the "young girl" is Gennette Cordova who is 21 and, therefore, a young woman. Also she says she never saw the photo. I interpret this as equivalent to saying she never received the tweet.
My comment on the Washington Post article follows.
This is a very good article. However, it has a very bad headline. Farhi quotes Cordova extensively and reports no evidence that she has been other than perfectly honest. Notably the responses from the New York Post and Politico make it clear that neither is a legitimate journalistic operation.
However, the headline definitely asserts, as a 100% proven fact, that Cordova is a liar. She claims she never received the tweet. The person who claims to have discovered the tweet patriot76USA says it was deleted after 1 to 5 seconds on the twitter stream. The only evidence that Weiner ever sent any such tweet is a jpg file which is alleged to be a screen capture. The only evidence that the photograph was ever hosted in Weiners Yfrog account is another *.jpg file also alleged to be a screen capture.
The claim that Cordova received the tweet is contested. The assertion that she did, made without any qualification or a shred of evidence, is not serious journalism.
The Washington Post should run a correction.
This is an interesting article which contains positive proof that neither The New York Post nor Politico is a serious journalistic enterprise (knock me over with a wrecking ball).
However, the headline makes a definite assertion on a controversial matter of fact. The claim is also almost certainly false. WWW.Washingtonpost.com is in a weak position to lecture others about journalistic standards.
The headline is
"Recipient of lewd tweet criticizes New York Post story via Twitter".
Along with the first two words in the article "Gennette Cordova" this asserts that Gennette Cordova received the lewd tweet in question. Gennette Cordova has very defninitely asserted that she never saw the photo in question. The person who claims to have detected the tweet says it was deleted after 1 to 5 seconds.
Even assuming that Cordova has negative credibility so her claims are likely to be lies, one must also assume that she checks her twitter feed constantly in order to assert that she received the tweet.
Update DailyKos too
Update DailyKos too
Georgia Logothetis wrote
Representative Weiner is on the defensive for once following a porn star and a young girl who received the lewd tweet
Unless I am confused the "young girl" is Gennette Cordova who is 21 and, therefore, a young woman. Also she says she never saw the photo. I interpret this as equivalent to saying she never received the tweet.
My comment on the Washington Post article follows.
This is a very good article. However, it has a very bad headline. Farhi quotes Cordova extensively and reports no evidence that she has been other than perfectly honest. Notably the responses from the New York Post and Politico make it clear that neither is a legitimate journalistic operation.
However, the headline definitely asserts, as a 100% proven fact, that Cordova is a liar. She claims she never received the tweet. The person who claims to have discovered the tweet patriot76USA says it was deleted after 1 to 5 seconds on the twitter stream. The only evidence that Weiner ever sent any such tweet is a jpg file which is alleged to be a screen capture. The only evidence that the photograph was ever hosted in Weiners Yfrog account is another *.jpg file also alleged to be a screen capture.
The claim that Cordova received the tweet is contested. The assertion that she did, made without any qualification or a shred of evidence, is not serious journalism.
The Washington Post should run a correction.
Friday, June 03, 2011
Probably Not First
Probably not one of the first thousand, but I just noticed the Washington Post's article and abstract describing who will edit the New York Times
I've criticize the www.washingtonpost.com headline and abstract person, but, I think that his or her comment on the choice of an editor (yes and editor) is a word of part.
Wow.
ps I guess there will be more sympathetic coverage of Anthony Weiner's claim that his twitter feed was hacked in the Post.
Probably not one of the first thousand, but I just noticed the Washington Post's article and abstract describing who will edit the New York Times
I've criticize the www.washingtonpost.com headline and abstract person, but, I think that his or her comment on the choice of an editor (yes and editor) is a word of part.
Wow.
ps I guess there will be more sympathetic coverage of Anthony Weiner's claim that his twitter feed was hacked in the Post.
Tuesday, May 24, 2011
Will be Fooled Again, but not by Time Pawlenty
Looks like Pawlenty has as much faith in Krugman as I do and considered this post "Will be Fooled Again" a guarantee
I even think it is possible that villager pundits read that post and decided not to be fooled this time (just to spite Krugman).
In any case, Pawlenty is now neck and neck with Gingrich for the least successful campaign launch ever.
WonkBook (been there done that -- many times)
The Associate Press (in a news article) !
Certified villager Dana Millbank !!!
The correct Who reference is this one
Come to think of it, how can Krugman be such a Who fan and such a Paul Ryan non fan without ever linking to that "Behind Blue Eyes" (or did he and I missed it)
Looks like Pawlenty has as much faith in Krugman as I do and considered this post "Will be Fooled Again" a guarantee
So my guess is that any day now someone else will get the nod. Actually, Mitch Daniels would have gotten the Ryan treatment if he had run — and down the road pundits would have been shocked, shocked to find that Bush’s budget director, who did as much as anyone to explode America’s debt, is not actually sensible or moderate. Now unrequited centrist love will have to find a new object for its affections — but whoever it is, we can confidently predict that he will disappoint those expectations.
I even think it is possible that villager pundits read that post and decided not to be fooled this time (just to spite Krugman).
In any case, Pawlenty is now neck and neck with Gingrich for the least successful campaign launch ever.
WonkBook (been there done that -- many times)
The Associate Press (in a news article) !
Certified villager Dana Millbank !!!
The correct Who reference is this one
Come to think of it, how can Krugman be such a Who fan and such a Paul Ryan non fan without ever linking to that "Behind Blue Eyes" (or did he and I missed it)
Huffington Post, New York Times, St Paul Pioneer Press Tag Team on Pawlenty
Huffington Post -- Michelle Goldberg:
Tim Pawlenty and Michele Bachmann sought pardons for a major campaign donor now accused of fleecing faith-based charities in a Ponzi scheme. The 2012 presidential hopefuls should answer for helping make Frank Vennes Jr. respectable,
New York Times - MICHAEL D. SHEAR:
In The St. Paul Pioneer Press, the Pawlenty announcement article ran on the obituary page.
The truth is always the first casualty.
Somehow I think that maybe the Pawlenty administration didn't leak to the Pioneer Press
Update: AP piling on too ! Yes it turns out that truth was the first casualty. Pawlenty's tell the truth campaign starts out with lies (not the AP's word but, you know they are the AP). Totally unballanced.
By the way, two preemptively disgraced candidates from Minnesota ? What's in the water up there. This is the state that tried to give us Presidents Humphrey, McCarthy (Eugene not Joseph -- remember "Stay clean for Gene" ? The children's crusade ? you had to be there (Also "Not to be confused with US senator Joseph Raymond McCarthy" isn't the worlds worst epitaph, but it isn't the best either)) ,Mondale, and Stassen (now that hurts -- my spell checker doesn't recognize Stassen -- he ran for president roughly a thousand times).
Huffington Post -- Michelle Goldberg:
Tim Pawlenty and Michele Bachmann sought pardons for a major campaign donor now accused of fleecing faith-based charities in a Ponzi scheme. The 2012 presidential hopefuls should answer for helping make Frank Vennes Jr. respectable,
New York Times - MICHAEL D. SHEAR:
In The St. Paul Pioneer Press, the Pawlenty announcement article ran on the obituary page.
The truth is always the first casualty.
Somehow I think that maybe the Pawlenty administration didn't leak to the Pioneer Press
Update: AP piling on too ! Yes it turns out that truth was the first casualty. Pawlenty's tell the truth campaign starts out with lies (not the AP's word but, you know they are the AP). Totally unballanced.
By the way, two preemptively disgraced candidates from Minnesota ? What's in the water up there. This is the state that tried to give us Presidents Humphrey, McCarthy (Eugene not Joseph -- remember "Stay clean for Gene" ? The children's crusade ? you had to be there (Also "Not to be confused with US senator Joseph Raymond McCarthy" isn't the worlds worst epitaph, but it isn't the best either)) ,Mondale, and Stassen (now that hurts -- my spell checker doesn't recognize Stassen -- he ran for president roughly a thousand times).
Wednesday, May 18, 2011
Who are you and what have you done with Glenn Kessler.
[ed note I decided not to post this back in the day so it has been sitting as an unpublished draft for a while. Kessler's giving Romney two Pinocchios for, among other things, a claim which Kessler has awarded four Pinocchios in the past, provokes me into posting it]
Recently Glenn Kessler fact checked an obviously true statement by Katherine Sebelius, asked experts who confirmed that it is true, described it as outrageous and awarded her three pinocchios.
Three Pinocchios
OK lets see. Kessler denounces Sebelius for not taking into account a magic asterisk which isn't in the plan she discussed. Evidently she must assume that something will be done, which will cost nothing and provide health care. This is insane. Kessler demands that the debate on a proposal start when it is fleshed out. This is a terrible proposal. One point of debate is to guide the fleshing out of proposals.
He presents no evidence which contradicts Sebelius's claim. He argues by analogy "akin" and says her statement is bad for the debate. This is not fact checking.
Outrageously, he denounces Sebelius for a non quote in which he patches together snippets of two words each. This is unacceptable. The facts asserted by a fact checker must be above suspicion. I think Kessler should adopt a rule of no paraphrases. He should, I'd say he must, stick to quotes (possibly with ellipses indicated with three dots). It is unacceptable that a fact checker puts words in someone else's mouth.
Enough about Kessler what about me ? Why am I so late to this ? Well I knew the post would upset me and everyone was writing about it so I tried to resist. The double standard of treating Boehner's clearly false claims as arguable and treating Sebelius's clearly true claim as outrageous so its as if it were false, because facts don't matter to the Post's fact checker is just too much.
I see this as a tragic fall. For a while, I don't remember if it is weeks or months, Kessler allowed the facts to influence his fact checking. But facts have a clear liberal bias. They can't have that at the Post, so he has decided to comment on tone and call it fact and to note then dismiss false claims of fact.
I no longer hope that the Washington Post will become a newspaper again. It is a Ballancepaper where the facts are not allowed to interfere with reporting.
Here I think he has made
[ed note I decided not to post this back in the day so it has been sitting as an unpublished draft for a while. Kessler's giving Romney two Pinocchios for, among other things, a claim which Kessler has awarded four Pinocchios in the past, provokes me into posting it]
Recently Glenn Kessler fact checked an obviously true statement by Katherine Sebelius, asked experts who confirmed that it is true, described it as outrageous and awarded her three pinocchios.
There are a number of unanswered questions about the Ryan Medicare plan. It has not been fleshed out with legislative language, and that has allowed opponents to assume the worst about it. Certainly, serious questions have been raised about what the proposed changes would mean for people facing suddenly high health costs. But the budget debate in Washington is fierce enough that senior officials should avoid the temptation to make outrageous charges.
Sorian’s statement is clearly a pullback, and that earns the secretary some credit. But this is in some ways akin to the false claim that Obama wanted to create “death panels” in the health care law.
Sebelius could have chosen to highlight the trade-offs people might face, or questioned the vagueness of Ryan’s proposals to deal with people who can’t afford to pay their bills. Instead, she decided to present a highly inflammable comment as a statement of fact — that there was “no question” people would run out money “very quickly” and then they would “die sooner.” She should be ashamed.
Three Pinocchios
OK lets see. Kessler denounces Sebelius for not taking into account a magic asterisk which isn't in the plan she discussed. Evidently she must assume that something will be done, which will cost nothing and provide health care. This is insane. Kessler demands that the debate on a proposal start when it is fleshed out. This is a terrible proposal. One point of debate is to guide the fleshing out of proposals.
He presents no evidence which contradicts Sebelius's claim. He argues by analogy "akin" and says her statement is bad for the debate. This is not fact checking.
Outrageously, he denounces Sebelius for a non quote in which he patches together snippets of two words each. This is unacceptable. The facts asserted by a fact checker must be above suspicion. I think Kessler should adopt a rule of no paraphrases. He should, I'd say he must, stick to quotes (possibly with ellipses indicated with three dots). It is unacceptable that a fact checker puts words in someone else's mouth.
Enough about Kessler what about me ? Why am I so late to this ? Well I knew the post would upset me and everyone was writing about it so I tried to resist. The double standard of treating Boehner's clearly false claims as arguable and treating Sebelius's clearly true claim as outrageous so its as if it were false, because facts don't matter to the Post's fact checker is just too much.
I see this as a tragic fall. For a while, I don't remember if it is weeks or months, Kessler allowed the facts to influence his fact checking. But facts have a clear liberal bias. They can't have that at the Post, so he has decided to comment on tone and call it fact and to note then dismiss false claims of fact.
I no longer hope that the Washington Post will become a newspaper again. It is a Ballancepaper where the facts are not allowed to interfere with reporting.
Here I think he has made
Tuesday, May 17, 2011
Chutzpa Alert
On Meet the Press Newt Gingrich said
Gingrich has figured out a nice mathematical trick. Note that in two out of the last four years employment declined. This means that to outdo "the other 49 states combined" a state had to have a lower decline. This is easy. In 2008 and 2009 almost every state (if not every single state the only possible exception is California) had better employment growth than the other 49 states combined.
Gingrich is so dishonest that he doesn't even bother to learn the facts. But he isn't stupid. He understands the basic concepts such as positive and negative numbers *and* he understands that he can use them to trick most of the people most of the time.
He also knew not to add that Texas had fewer unemployed people than the other 49 states combined. This is just as true and just as informative as his claim. But it's too obvious that combining the other 49 states is a way to make Texas look good.
I admire his audacity.
On Meet the Press Newt Gingrich said
I follow the model that Rick Perry and others have used to create more jobs in Texas. You know, Texas two out of the last four years created more jobs than the other 49 states combined.
Gingrich has figured out a nice mathematical trick. Note that in two out of the last four years employment declined. This means that to outdo "the other 49 states combined" a state had to have a lower decline. This is easy. In 2008 and 2009 almost every state (if not every single state the only possible exception is California) had better employment growth than the other 49 states combined.
Gingrich is so dishonest that he doesn't even bother to learn the facts. But he isn't stupid. He understands the basic concepts such as positive and negative numbers *and* he understands that he can use them to trick most of the people most of the time.
He also knew not to add that Texas had fewer unemployed people than the other 49 states combined. This is just as true and just as informative as his claim. But it's too obvious that combining the other 49 states is a way to make Texas look good.
I admire his audacity.
Monday, May 16, 2011
I don't disagree with Paul Krugman on many issues but I tend to disagree on the question of Obama's spine.
I am an Obot and I know it. Also Krugman is demanding because he knows that some of his readers work in the White House. Still he slid over a well know fact in this column.
That wasn't the most recent hostage taking. There was another hostage situation in which Republicans threatened not to extend the continuing resolution. The next day reaction to the deal was that Obama didn't just fold, he folded over backwards. The reason is the headline cut in nominal spending (compared to the standard $0.00 in continuing resolutions) was even larger than the Republican leadership originally proposed.
Then someone read the fine print and discovered that the vast majority of the cuts were fake. That to get the headline number and the headlines, the Republicans accepted cuts to budget for the completed Census (the Obama administration brought in the numbers on time and under budget) and elimination of authorized spending which had already been indirectly blocked by another bill.
Even with the tax cave, Obama got something in exchange for giving Republicans tax cuts for the rich -- extra tax cuts for the non-rich. Since Krugman's concern about the fiscal 2011 deficit (and mine) is that it is too small, this was a good outcome, because it is stimulating the economy. Spending increases work better and tax cuts for the non rich work much better than tax cuts for the rich, but the final deal was better than the Republican proposal.
Skipping to the last paragraph, Krugman quotes only one side in a controversy "According to Harry Reid, the Senate majority leader, Mr. Obama has told Democrats not to draw any “line in the sand” in debt negotiations. " This is true. It is also true that according the Sherrod Brown, Obama declared in the same private meeting that he was holding firm.
One might wonder if reports on the meeting tell us more about Reid and Brown than about Obama. Treating Reid as Obama's press secretary is eccentric. It is standard practice to make it always all about the President. Brown's claim received little publicity (I read it somewhere on the web -- oh I see at a rival newspaper). But, technically, Obama is Obama and Reid is Reid.
By the way, I am also a Reidbot, but they are different people.
Update: Correction. Above I suggested that the apparent Obama cave on the continuing resolution was mostly smoke and mirrors, because "the vast majority of the cuts were fake." I was wrong wrong wrong. Turns out that about 108% of the cuts were fake, that is more than all of them. More than 100% is not "the vast majority." I apologize for my error. I do wonder why Krugman neglected to mention that Obama totally Pwned the Republicans.
I am an Obot and I know it. Also Krugman is demanding because he knows that some of his readers work in the White House. Still he slid over a well know fact in this column.
Six months ago President Obama faced a hostage situation. Republicans threatened to block an extension of middle-class tax cuts unless Mr. Obama gave in and extended tax cuts for the rich too. And the president essentially folded, giving the G.O.P. everything it wanted.
That wasn't the most recent hostage taking. There was another hostage situation in which Republicans threatened not to extend the continuing resolution. The next day reaction to the deal was that Obama didn't just fold, he folded over backwards. The reason is the headline cut in nominal spending (compared to the standard $0.00 in continuing resolutions) was even larger than the Republican leadership originally proposed.
Then someone read the fine print and discovered that the vast majority of the cuts were fake. That to get the headline number and the headlines, the Republicans accepted cuts to budget for the completed Census (the Obama administration brought in the numbers on time and under budget) and elimination of authorized spending which had already been indirectly blocked by another bill.
Even with the tax cave, Obama got something in exchange for giving Republicans tax cuts for the rich -- extra tax cuts for the non-rich. Since Krugman's concern about the fiscal 2011 deficit (and mine) is that it is too small, this was a good outcome, because it is stimulating the economy. Spending increases work better and tax cuts for the non rich work much better than tax cuts for the rich, but the final deal was better than the Republican proposal.
Skipping to the last paragraph, Krugman quotes only one side in a controversy "According to Harry Reid, the Senate majority leader, Mr. Obama has told Democrats not to draw any “line in the sand” in debt negotiations. " This is true. It is also true that according the Sherrod Brown, Obama declared in the same private meeting that he was holding firm.
One might wonder if reports on the meeting tell us more about Reid and Brown than about Obama. Treating Reid as Obama's press secretary is eccentric. It is standard practice to make it always all about the President. Brown's claim received little publicity (I read it somewhere on the web -- oh I see at a rival newspaper). But, technically, Obama is Obama and Reid is Reid.
By the way, I am also a Reidbot, but they are different people.
Update: Correction. Above I suggested that the apparent Obama cave on the continuing resolution was mostly smoke and mirrors, because "the vast majority of the cuts were fake." I was wrong wrong wrong. Turns out that about 108% of the cuts were fake, that is more than all of them. More than 100% is not "the vast majority." I apologize for my error. I do wonder why Krugman neglected to mention that Obama totally Pwned the Republicans.
Sunday, May 15, 2011
I don't usually read articles like this one by Jason Horowitz, in eht Washington Post
It is a discussion of Cherri and Mitch Daniels. I am interested in little asides which I consider to be direct assaults on all standards of decent journalism. To save space I will just discuss the first violation of the most fundamental rules of news reporting.
"The governor’s political enemies — those who are eager to box out a promising contender with a reputation for fiscal seriousness, establishment backing and intellectual heft"
The assertions about the alleged reputation for fiscal seriousness etc are absolutely not supported by any evidence presented in the article. I think this should not be allowed by Washington Post editors. It is bad enough to quote anonymous sources, but here there is no hint of a source.
Horowitz does not explain what convinces him that Daniels has that reputation. He may consider it obvious that a Bush administration OMB director must have a reputation for "fiscal seriousnes" (for the same reason that Dick Cheney is reputed to be a a pacifist).
My objection is not due to the fact that I consider it absolutely proven beyond all doubt that Daniels has no fiscal seriousness whatsoever. The same objection would be valid if Horowitz had written "a reputation for fiscal non-seriousness."
They are really two objections. First a claim of fact (that Daniels has such a reputation) is made with no supporting evidence whatsoever.
Second, even if the claim is true, it is a claim about opinions. I think Horowitz is definitely not allowed to write "I think that Daniels is fiscally serious." He sure can't write that without presenting some evidence of fiscal seriousness, but he also can't write that after presenting evidence, because he is supposed to be a reporter.
But reporting on someone's reputation is worse. If reporters reported their personal opinions, there would be a debate of sorts. If they report what is the conventional wisdom, there is no debate. This is worse. This would be terrible if the alleged reputation corresponded to what most people with some information on the subject say. It would be terrible even if those people were all sincere and and none are political operatives claiming to personally believe what they want the public to believe. It would still be opinion not evidence.
But, in fact, it is possible for such anti-jouranlism to be manipulated. It is possible for most reporters to think that the conventional view is wrong and yet for all of them to report the conventional view and not their personal opinion that it is wrong.
I guess the reader can tell how rarely I read such articles from the fact that I express total shock and dismay for the way things obviously are. But I was shocked. Honestly.
It is a discussion of Cherri and Mitch Daniels. I am interested in little asides which I consider to be direct assaults on all standards of decent journalism. To save space I will just discuss the first violation of the most fundamental rules of news reporting.
"The governor’s political enemies — those who are eager to box out a promising contender with a reputation for fiscal seriousness, establishment backing and intellectual heft"
The assertions about the alleged reputation for fiscal seriousness etc are absolutely not supported by any evidence presented in the article. I think this should not be allowed by Washington Post editors. It is bad enough to quote anonymous sources, but here there is no hint of a source.
Horowitz does not explain what convinces him that Daniels has that reputation. He may consider it obvious that a Bush administration OMB director must have a reputation for "fiscal seriousnes" (for the same reason that Dick Cheney is reputed to be a a pacifist).
My objection is not due to the fact that I consider it absolutely proven beyond all doubt that Daniels has no fiscal seriousness whatsoever. The same objection would be valid if Horowitz had written "a reputation for fiscal non-seriousness."
They are really two objections. First a claim of fact (that Daniels has such a reputation) is made with no supporting evidence whatsoever.
Second, even if the claim is true, it is a claim about opinions. I think Horowitz is definitely not allowed to write "I think that Daniels is fiscally serious." He sure can't write that without presenting some evidence of fiscal seriousness, but he also can't write that after presenting evidence, because he is supposed to be a reporter.
But reporting on someone's reputation is worse. If reporters reported their personal opinions, there would be a debate of sorts. If they report what is the conventional wisdom, there is no debate. This is worse. This would be terrible if the alleged reputation corresponded to what most people with some information on the subject say. It would be terrible even if those people were all sincere and and none are political operatives claiming to personally believe what they want the public to believe. It would still be opinion not evidence.
But, in fact, it is possible for such anti-jouranlism to be manipulated. It is possible for most reporters to think that the conventional view is wrong and yet for all of them to report the conventional view and not their personal opinion that it is wrong.
I guess the reader can tell how rarely I read such articles from the fact that I express total shock and dismay for the way things obviously are. But I was shocked. Honestly.
Saturday, May 14, 2011
I tried to comment here but blogger wouldn't let me
My comment.
You get a very respectful link from Krugman, and, thus my congratulations. However, I am even more of a non-monetarist than he is, and I totally disagree with your reading of recent data.
You wrote
Notice how vague the claims are. He didn't type any numbers -- say GDP growth rates or employment growth rates.
I think your perception of macroeconmic events is not related to reality. After the ARRA there was the most rapid accelration of GDP growth over 2 quarters since 1980 and also the most rapid acceleration of GDP growth over 3 quarters. Rapidly declining employment turned into rapidly increasing employment (even ignoring the census).
After the fact estimates of the effects of the ARRA by experts (one of whom chaired the CEA and is biased) are similar to forecasts. Also monetary policy was (by now conventional standards) as loose as it can be, since the now conventional measure is the federal funds rate not growth of monetary aggregates.
Sure the general public considers the ARRA a failure, but that is because they don't compare it to a VAR forecast. The view that it worked as well as expected but was half the right size is absolutely consistent with the data. The public doesn't have the same view of QE2, because they haven't noticed it (frankly it is very hard to notice it).
Your claim about what happened after QE2 is similarly absolutely incomprehensible to me. I note the general view that a shift in monetary policy affects national income and product accounts after "long and variable lags" -- Milton Friedman. The general view is about 6 months after the shift. So standard views on when monetary policy should have an effect place the effect either in 2011 Q1 (very disappointing) or 2011 Q2 (in course). Note that 7 year real interest rates are almost exactly the same as they were when Bernanke first mentioned QE2 and higher than they were after the final announcement of what and how much would be bought.
Also you skipped 2008-9. There was a megahuge expansion of monetary base utterly unprecedented in US monetary history. M1 and M2 massively increased. GDP fell sharply. If one more were necessary, this was the utter final refutation of the quantity theory of money (which I consider to have been utterly finally refuted in the early 80s).
I don't see how anyone can have lived through the past 2 years and think that monetary policy trumps fiscal policy. I would have thought that the utterly overwhelming evidence that points the other way would have convinced everyone (maybe even Friedman himself). I really don't understand how anyone can still be a monetarist.
I didn't mean to be rude, but well whatever, I'll just let it hang out. To me monetarists are like Ptolemaic astronomers (note I have a lot of respect for Ptolemy http://bit.ly/lKt8bK). It fit the data for a while, but now we know that other models fit better.
My comment.
You get a very respectful link from Krugman, and, thus my congratulations. However, I am even more of a non-monetarist than he is, and I totally disagree with your reading of recent data.
You wrote
a key lesson of recent years is that monetary policy overwhelms fiscal policy. Thus, from 2008-2009 when monetary policy was effectively tight the easing of fiscal policy didn't quite pack much of a punch. Similarly, in late 2010, early 2011 when there was not much fiscal stimulus, but some monetary policy easing under QE2 there was some improvement in the pace of recovery.
Notice how vague the claims are. He didn't type any numbers -- say GDP growth rates or employment growth rates.
I think your perception of macroeconmic events is not related to reality. After the ARRA there was the most rapid accelration of GDP growth over 2 quarters since 1980 and also the most rapid acceleration of GDP growth over 3 quarters. Rapidly declining employment turned into rapidly increasing employment (even ignoring the census).
After the fact estimates of the effects of the ARRA by experts (one of whom chaired the CEA and is biased) are similar to forecasts. Also monetary policy was (by now conventional standards) as loose as it can be, since the now conventional measure is the federal funds rate not growth of monetary aggregates.
Sure the general public considers the ARRA a failure, but that is because they don't compare it to a VAR forecast. The view that it worked as well as expected but was half the right size is absolutely consistent with the data. The public doesn't have the same view of QE2, because they haven't noticed it (frankly it is very hard to notice it).
Your claim about what happened after QE2 is similarly absolutely incomprehensible to me. I note the general view that a shift in monetary policy affects national income and product accounts after "long and variable lags" -- Milton Friedman. The general view is about 6 months after the shift. So standard views on when monetary policy should have an effect place the effect either in 2011 Q1 (very disappointing) or 2011 Q2 (in course). Note that 7 year real interest rates are almost exactly the same as they were when Bernanke first mentioned QE2 and higher than they were after the final announcement of what and how much would be bought.
Also you skipped 2008-9. There was a megahuge expansion of monetary base utterly unprecedented in US monetary history. M1 and M2 massively increased. GDP fell sharply. If one more were necessary, this was the utter final refutation of the quantity theory of money (which I consider to have been utterly finally refuted in the early 80s).
I don't see how anyone can have lived through the past 2 years and think that monetary policy trumps fiscal policy. I would have thought that the utterly overwhelming evidence that points the other way would have convinced everyone (maybe even Friedman himself). I really don't understand how anyone can still be a monetarist.
I didn't mean to be rude, but well whatever, I'll just let it hang out. To me monetarists are like Ptolemaic astronomers (note I have a lot of respect for Ptolemy http://bit.ly/lKt8bK). It fit the data for a while, but now we know that other models fit better.
Thursday, May 12, 2011
Freedom Is Slavery
Michael Gerson has a weird column explaining why he isn't a libertarian. He wrote
"The freedom to enslave oneself with drugs is the freedom of the fish to live on land or the freedom of birds to inhabit the ocean — which is to say, it is not freedom at all."
This is odd and not just because there are penguins (not to mention albatrosses who, like penguins touch land only to nest). It is odd because the bit about the birds and fish is not needed. "enslave oneself ... is not freedom" is a tautology. No need for inaccurate ethology. Also the analogy is terrible. I mean birds are free to dive into the see and stay down. They just choose not to. It isn't like using heroin at all.
But what about "the freedom to enslave oneself," literally. I am an economist so I am able to turn off common sense and explain how this outcome is not efficient because of the inalienability of human capital -- that is because we lack the freedom to enslave ourselves. One might argue that the 13th amendment is a restriction on individual liberty. If I want to sell myself into slavery (say starting in a month because I want to party for a month -- well given how much I'm worth maybe party for a weekend) I can't. Hence the title.
The problem is that people other than drug addicts wouldn't sell themselves into slavery (in developed countries including ones with gaping holes in the social safety net such as the USA and Italy). Also the word "slavery" is an analogy.
I prefer another analogy which, I think, is useful to justify both the 13th amendment and restrictions on the sale of addictive drugs (notice no hint that I defend prosecution of the users who are victims). Back in the good old days, people who distinguished liberty and license (as Gerson does) meant something different by liberty. We would call it independence. It was something like we Puritans (or Irish or Greeks or Genevans or whatever) must be free, which means we must have our colony where we can force everyone to do what we say. The unit which was to be free was not the individual but the nation or the faith or some such.
Also families. Freedom meant that the head of the family was free to do what he wanted with himself, his wife and his children. The unit was the family. That freedom seems to us to be arbitrary power over others. We still sure don't accept the idea that freedom means 2 year olds are presumed to be the best judges of their own interests.
Now we just assume that we are one person and Robert today is the same entity as Robert tomorrow. We have forgotten that you can't step in the same river twice. We are the same knife with 2 new handles and one new blade. The idea that I, Robert_now have absolute rights to do whatever I want to him Robert_in2012 is natural, but it is not necessarily valid.
This is the problem with allowing people to sell themselves into slavery or free trade in meth. This allows us to exercise arbitrary power over the future inhabitants of our skins.
Thus arbitrary authority can be justified in (at least) two ways. First "of oourse that's what freedom means -- it's obvious -- just as it was obvious that men were free to beat their wives -- uh come on it's totally different. They were wrong and we are right about whom should be under my arbitrary control, just look at my birth certificate (long form) the vital records show that I am the same person. I have the same name. You are probably about to claim that the Republicans plan to eliminate Medicare and replace it with something else with the same name -- what the hell does the sweet smell of a rose have to do with anything ?" in otherwords refutation by huffing and puffing.
Second that it is reasonable to assume that we are the best judges of our own interests using "our own" in the conventional sense so that means the best interests of our future selves too. Roughly the claim is that our present selves and our future selves have the same interests so we agree, that is we have time consistent preferences. This is an assertion in psychology. It is not just huffing and puffing. It is, however, just like saying the earth is flat as the hypothesis is easily tested and long since refuted.
In particular, no one who has ever been addicted to anything has any doubt at all that we and our future selves are, sometimes, bitter enemies trapped in the same skin(I think the literature on time inconsistent preferences was founded by people who were trying to quit smoking, who couldn't think of anything else and who found a way to be free while in chains even as Epictetus did).
Michael Gerson has a weird column explaining why he isn't a libertarian. He wrote
"The freedom to enslave oneself with drugs is the freedom of the fish to live on land or the freedom of birds to inhabit the ocean — which is to say, it is not freedom at all."
This is odd and not just because there are penguins (not to mention albatrosses who, like penguins touch land only to nest). It is odd because the bit about the birds and fish is not needed. "enslave oneself ... is not freedom" is a tautology. No need for inaccurate ethology. Also the analogy is terrible. I mean birds are free to dive into the see and stay down. They just choose not to. It isn't like using heroin at all.
But what about "the freedom to enslave oneself," literally. I am an economist so I am able to turn off common sense and explain how this outcome is not efficient because of the inalienability of human capital -- that is because we lack the freedom to enslave ourselves. One might argue that the 13th amendment is a restriction on individual liberty. If I want to sell myself into slavery (say starting in a month because I want to party for a month -- well given how much I'm worth maybe party for a weekend) I can't. Hence the title.
The problem is that people other than drug addicts wouldn't sell themselves into slavery (in developed countries including ones with gaping holes in the social safety net such as the USA and Italy). Also the word "slavery" is an analogy.
I prefer another analogy which, I think, is useful to justify both the 13th amendment and restrictions on the sale of addictive drugs (notice no hint that I defend prosecution of the users who are victims). Back in the good old days, people who distinguished liberty and license (as Gerson does) meant something different by liberty. We would call it independence. It was something like we Puritans (or Irish or Greeks or Genevans or whatever) must be free, which means we must have our colony where we can force everyone to do what we say. The unit which was to be free was not the individual but the nation or the faith or some such.
Also families. Freedom meant that the head of the family was free to do what he wanted with himself, his wife and his children. The unit was the family. That freedom seems to us to be arbitrary power over others. We still sure don't accept the idea that freedom means 2 year olds are presumed to be the best judges of their own interests.
Now we just assume that we are one person and Robert today is the same entity as Robert tomorrow. We have forgotten that you can't step in the same river twice. We are the same knife with 2 new handles and one new blade. The idea that I, Robert_now have absolute rights to do whatever I want to him Robert_in2012 is natural, but it is not necessarily valid.
This is the problem with allowing people to sell themselves into slavery or free trade in meth. This allows us to exercise arbitrary power over the future inhabitants of our skins.
Thus arbitrary authority can be justified in (at least) two ways. First "of oourse that's what freedom means -- it's obvious -- just as it was obvious that men were free to beat their wives -- uh come on it's totally different. They were wrong and we are right about whom should be under my arbitrary control, just look at my birth certificate (long form) the vital records show that I am the same person. I have the same name. You are probably about to claim that the Republicans plan to eliminate Medicare and replace it with something else with the same name -- what the hell does the sweet smell of a rose have to do with anything ?" in otherwords refutation by huffing and puffing.
Second that it is reasonable to assume that we are the best judges of our own interests using "our own" in the conventional sense so that means the best interests of our future selves too. Roughly the claim is that our present selves and our future selves have the same interests so we agree, that is we have time consistent preferences. This is an assertion in psychology. It is not just huffing and puffing. It is, however, just like saying the earth is flat as the hypothesis is easily tested and long since refuted.
In particular, no one who has ever been addicted to anything has any doubt at all that we and our future selves are, sometimes, bitter enemies trapped in the same skin(I think the literature on time inconsistent preferences was founded by people who were trying to quit smoking, who couldn't think of anything else and who found a way to be free while in chains even as Epictetus did).
Postjudice: N antonym of prejudice. Prejudice occurs when one is willing to decide a question before looking at the evidence. Postjudice occurs when one is not willing to decide a question after looking at the evidence no matter how strong the evidence is.
Washington postjudice ambiguously refers to postjudice in Washington and to the Washington Post. It will only be possible to disambiguate these two meanings when the Post allows the evidence to outweight Ballance.
Two examples. Glenn Kessler displays prejudice
Glenn Kessler displays postjudice.
Washington postjudice ambiguously refers to postjudice in Washington and to the Washington Post. It will only be possible to disambiguate these two meanings when the Post allows the evidence to outweight Ballance.
Two examples. Glenn Kessler displays prejudice
Glenn Kessler displays postjudice.
Google Challenge
one of the characteristic rhetorical moves of reality based conservatives. They are few, so the sample is small, but the trick seems to be a mixture of moving to abstraction and setting up straw men. So the line is Simpson is ignorant, but the liberal strawman who says demographics has nothing to do with social security is wrong too. Or Ryan's plan cause earlier deaths and would not balance the budget, but the liberal strawman who insists that Medicare not be reformed at all is wrong too.
I will not try to find three other examples of the trick 1) the fact that this conservative (person, proposal, claim, theory, hypothesis) is demonstrably absurd doesn't answer all remotely related questions and 2) there must be some liberal who thinks something stupid about a remotely related question so I will debate him (or her) without necessarily finding even a nut in a comment thread to quote.
Time Stamp 3:15 AM Rome time.
OK back time stamp 48 minutes that I will never be able to regain later. I feel like a fool. I shouldn't even have thought of possible abusers of the rhetorical trick other than David Brooks. Also googling I find lots of conservatives dump on him too. Comes with the territory I guess.
This was harder than I thought it would be. Part of the problem is that I am limited to reality based conservatives and there aren't many left. Also google can't handle something as abstract as "a conservative says something stupid, a reality based conservative tries to distract by talking about the broader question and criticizing a liberal straw man"
After some efforts I tried googling "straw man" "david brooks"
my brooks is often criticized for setting up straw men. This criticism is very valid in this case
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/25/opinion/25brooks.html
where the column opens with a full paragraph of setting up straw men (plus Rumsfeld).
OK I think I've found the Treasure trove. Crooks and Liars David Brooks hashmark.
First click is pure paydirt. Brooks responds to criticism of Breitbarts slander of Shirley Sherrod by refuting the liberal straw man who says all conservatives are racist. Note no quote of even a nut in a comment thread (such as myself). Note move to total abstraction leaving Breitbart and the case under discussion as fast as possible.
http://crooksandliars.com/taxonomy/term/554,138,538
OK here the conservative(s) are the majority on the Citizen's United decision. Brooks decides the issue is total fundraising and notes that Obama raised a lot of money. He's moved from citizens united to political fund raising in general and is arguing that Democrats raise money too. I count it
http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/heather/david-brooks-tries-gloss-over-effects-citi
This is it. The reason I searched only for Brooks and the example I had in my mind when claiming that Salam's post fits a broader pattern. Brooks on Ryan. The issue is whether there should be a discussion of Medicare and not whether Ryan's proposal is a good proposal. Evidently liberal straw man thinks there shouldn't be any discussion of any possible reform (that's why liberal straw man hated the ACA -- damn liberal straw man reminds me of Jane Hamsher).
http://crooksandliars.com/taxonomy/term/4325,538
OK here's another (I admit my second example is weak).
http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/heather/david-brooks-defends-liz-cheney-liberals-c
That shouldn't have taken so long. Basically I count all but one C&L post on Brooks which I read. The one which didn't fit the pattern is about how a Republican Senator kept his hand on Brooks's inner thigh for a whole dinner party -- no straw men there and admirable specificity (he didn't say if it was his left or right inner thigh and no I'm not saying that only a man feeling Brooks up can make him notice the specific and mere facticity).
one of the characteristic rhetorical moves of reality based conservatives. They are few, so the sample is small, but the trick seems to be a mixture of moving to abstraction and setting up straw men. So the line is Simpson is ignorant, but the liberal strawman who says demographics has nothing to do with social security is wrong too. Or Ryan's plan cause earlier deaths and would not balance the budget, but the liberal strawman who insists that Medicare not be reformed at all is wrong too.
I will not try to find three other examples of the trick 1) the fact that this conservative (person, proposal, claim, theory, hypothesis) is demonstrably absurd doesn't answer all remotely related questions and 2) there must be some liberal who thinks something stupid about a remotely related question so I will debate him (or her) without necessarily finding even a nut in a comment thread to quote.
Time Stamp 3:15 AM Rome time.
OK back time stamp 48 minutes that I will never be able to regain later. I feel like a fool. I shouldn't even have thought of possible abusers of the rhetorical trick other than David Brooks. Also googling I find lots of conservatives dump on him too. Comes with the territory I guess.
This was harder than I thought it would be. Part of the problem is that I am limited to reality based conservatives and there aren't many left. Also google can't handle something as abstract as "a conservative says something stupid, a reality based conservative tries to distract by talking about the broader question and criticizing a liberal straw man"
After some efforts I tried googling "straw man" "david brooks"
my brooks is often criticized for setting up straw men. This criticism is very valid in this case
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/25/opinion/25brooks.html
where the column opens with a full paragraph of setting up straw men (plus Rumsfeld).
OK I think I've found the Treasure trove. Crooks and Liars David Brooks hashmark.
First click is pure paydirt. Brooks responds to criticism of Breitbarts slander of Shirley Sherrod by refuting the liberal straw man who says all conservatives are racist. Note no quote of even a nut in a comment thread (such as myself). Note move to total abstraction leaving Breitbart and the case under discussion as fast as possible.
http://crooksandliars.com/taxonomy/term/554,138,538
OK here the conservative(s) are the majority on the Citizen's United decision. Brooks decides the issue is total fundraising and notes that Obama raised a lot of money. He's moved from citizens united to political fund raising in general and is arguing that Democrats raise money too. I count it
http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/heather/david-brooks-tries-gloss-over-effects-citi
This is it. The reason I searched only for Brooks and the example I had in my mind when claiming that Salam's post fits a broader pattern. Brooks on Ryan. The issue is whether there should be a discussion of Medicare and not whether Ryan's proposal is a good proposal. Evidently liberal straw man thinks there shouldn't be any discussion of any possible reform (that's why liberal straw man hated the ACA -- damn liberal straw man reminds me of Jane Hamsher).
http://crooksandliars.com/taxonomy/term/4325,538
OK here's another (I admit my second example is weak).
http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/heather/david-brooks-defends-liz-cheney-liberals-c
That shouldn't have taken so long. Basically I count all but one C&L post on Brooks which I read. The one which didn't fit the pattern is about how a Republican Senator kept his hand on Brooks's inner thigh for a whole dinner party -- no straw men there and admirable specificity (he didn't say if it was his left or right inner thigh and no I'm not saying that only a man feeling Brooks up can make him notice the specific and mere facticity).
Conservatives Should Hate Wall Street
Conservatives deeply resent the fact that they are more numerous than liberals in the general population but a small minority of several different elites. They mix denunciation of affirmative action with (successful) demands for affirmative action for conservatives. They suggest that this pattern is due to discrimination or possibly a conspiracy.
They refuse to consider the obvious explanation and the solution to their problem. The solution is to regulate finance so tightly that it isn't highly profitable. Their problem is that, when people decide what career to seek, the first decision is whether to go for the big bucks.
I'm so old that I remember when people tried very hard to get into Medical school to get the big bucks. This was terrible for patients, but seems appealingly naive. For decades it has been clear that one goes to Wall Street for the big bucks. I can remember an article in Business Week in the 80s which presented a few young MBAs as practically saints because they were going off work in management of manufacturing corporations instead of heading to Wall Street.
Everyone knows that this helps explain the shortage of conservatives in academics, and journalism. To aim for such a career is to accept a lower income than possible. That attracts people who consider going for the big bucks to be selling out.
At some level, if a lot of people go into business you just have to expect those who don't to be less pro-business than average. But it depends on the business. Wall Street gives huge rewards to people who can convince others that they are very smart -- it skims the cream. Many people who consider plain old business to be socially useful think that Wall Street is parasitic (I raise my hand).
Conservative's main problem is a shortage of smart conservatives working outside of Wall Street. Wall Street is their deadly enemy.
Now one hope for conservative intellectuals is that Finance is moving towards rewarding people who beat the market and not people who convince super rich people that they are smart -- hedge fund managers not managers of investment banks. This means that the reward comes from actual measured (mark to market with a short time horizon peso problematic) performance and not sucking up to rich people (including especially older investment bankers). Notably, Hedge fund managers donated to Democrats, at least until Democrats decided it was necessary to regulate them.
There is a similar dynamic among lawyers. The main way to go for the big bucks is be an associate for a high powered corporate law firm. Basically to work for clients with deep pockets. Top lawyers who don't want to do that tend to be left of center. Many of them end up in politics. Some become flamboyant trial lawyers who move to politics, at least until their mistresses get pregnant.
Of course there is a deeper problem. Conservative ideology is nonsense and it is hard for smart people to fail to notice.
I don't have a very high opinion of IQ tests, but I would be interested in IQ as a function of declared ideology. I assume this would reflect the effects of formal education on declared ideology and measured IQ. The causal path is conservatism leads to low spending on schools which leads to low measured IQ. I may be falling into the ecological fallacy better knows as the David Brooks fallacy, as I am thinking of average ideology and IQ by state (the differences in both are dramatic).
But I would be much more interested if the same comparison was made among elites. What do you think is the average IQ of Republican and Democratic Senators ? How about representatives.
You can probably do Presidents in your head. Hmm lets see Obama genius, Bush II idiot, Clinton genius, Bush I average, Reagan idiot, Carter somewhat above average, Ford idiot, Nixon smart, Johnson smart, Kennedy very smart. I'm sure this is not Wall Street and corporate law selection. I think it is the cult of Reagan which causes one of the Republican party's principles to be "ignorance is strength."
Conservatives deeply resent the fact that they are more numerous than liberals in the general population but a small minority of several different elites. They mix denunciation of affirmative action with (successful) demands for affirmative action for conservatives. They suggest that this pattern is due to discrimination or possibly a conspiracy.
They refuse to consider the obvious explanation and the solution to their problem. The solution is to regulate finance so tightly that it isn't highly profitable. Their problem is that, when people decide what career to seek, the first decision is whether to go for the big bucks.
I'm so old that I remember when people tried very hard to get into Medical school to get the big bucks. This was terrible for patients, but seems appealingly naive. For decades it has been clear that one goes to Wall Street for the big bucks. I can remember an article in Business Week in the 80s which presented a few young MBAs as practically saints because they were going off work in management of manufacturing corporations instead of heading to Wall Street.
Everyone knows that this helps explain the shortage of conservatives in academics, and journalism. To aim for such a career is to accept a lower income than possible. That attracts people who consider going for the big bucks to be selling out.
At some level, if a lot of people go into business you just have to expect those who don't to be less pro-business than average. But it depends on the business. Wall Street gives huge rewards to people who can convince others that they are very smart -- it skims the cream. Many people who consider plain old business to be socially useful think that Wall Street is parasitic (I raise my hand).
Conservative's main problem is a shortage of smart conservatives working outside of Wall Street. Wall Street is their deadly enemy.
Now one hope for conservative intellectuals is that Finance is moving towards rewarding people who beat the market and not people who convince super rich people that they are smart -- hedge fund managers not managers of investment banks. This means that the reward comes from actual measured (mark to market with a short time horizon peso problematic) performance and not sucking up to rich people (including especially older investment bankers). Notably, Hedge fund managers donated to Democrats, at least until Democrats decided it was necessary to regulate them.
There is a similar dynamic among lawyers. The main way to go for the big bucks is be an associate for a high powered corporate law firm. Basically to work for clients with deep pockets. Top lawyers who don't want to do that tend to be left of center. Many of them end up in politics. Some become flamboyant trial lawyers who move to politics, at least until their mistresses get pregnant.
Of course there is a deeper problem. Conservative ideology is nonsense and it is hard for smart people to fail to notice.
I don't have a very high opinion of IQ tests, but I would be interested in IQ as a function of declared ideology. I assume this would reflect the effects of formal education on declared ideology and measured IQ. The causal path is conservatism leads to low spending on schools which leads to low measured IQ. I may be falling into the ecological fallacy better knows as the David Brooks fallacy, as I am thinking of average ideology and IQ by state (the differences in both are dramatic).
But I would be much more interested if the same comparison was made among elites. What do you think is the average IQ of Republican and Democratic Senators ? How about representatives.
You can probably do Presidents in your head. Hmm lets see Obama genius, Bush II idiot, Clinton genius, Bush I average, Reagan idiot, Carter somewhat above average, Ford idiot, Nixon smart, Johnson smart, Kennedy very smart. I'm sure this is not Wall Street and corporate law selection. I think it is the cult of Reagan which causes one of the Republican party's principles to be "ignorance is strength."
Wednesday, May 11, 2011
I blame myself. The headline tempted me and I read a Washington Post Editorial
I accept that they are right of center, but couldn't they at least be interesting (OK I blame myself again expecting something interesting from a committee).
They note that US manufacturing can now compete with Chinese manufacturing. They mention exchange rates in passing, before getting to the expression of ideoloty
"the U.S. commitment to free trade and flexible capital and labor markets — while politically and economically difficult to sustain — pays off over the long term. "
"flexible" means "less regulated". "flexible" US capital markets were fun in the short run and almost destroyed the economy in the long run.
Then they suggest that labor market "rigidities" cause low productivity in Europe.
"Europe, too, as the Boston Consulting Group report notes, because of that continent’s failure to reform its labor markets and raise worker productivity. Germany’s Siemens recently announced a $170 million investment that will enable it to build gas turbines more cheaply in Charlotte than in Shanghai.
" Here there is no mention of the level of labor productivity which is very high in Europe.
Throughout the Post editorial board ignores prices when it discusses costs. It is cheaper to produce in Charlotte than in Germany partly because a Euro costs $1.43 not say 80 cents.
Notably rapid employment growth in the USA is proof that "flexibility" is good as is a jobless recovery. For roughly the same rate of GDP growth the USA is A OK whether it has more rapid labor productivity growth or less rapid labor productivity growth -- that is if it has increasing productivity or rapid employment growth. Mathematically the conclusion must follow from all data provided there isn't another Wirtschaftwun der (sp ? who cares -- it's bad enough that I'm praising their regulations and unions, like hell I will learn how to spell their words).
Exchange rates are boring. The fact that a weak currency increases competitiveness is counterintuitive, and regulation and trade unions are bad by defnition. The conventional wisdom of the ruling elite. At least tea partiers come up with new expressions of ideology. I feel that I have read the editorial dozens of times before.
I accept that they are right of center, but couldn't they at least be interesting (OK I blame myself again expecting something interesting from a committee).
They note that US manufacturing can now compete with Chinese manufacturing. They mention exchange rates in passing, before getting to the expression of ideoloty
"the U.S. commitment to free trade and flexible capital and labor markets — while politically and economically difficult to sustain — pays off over the long term. "
"flexible" means "less regulated". "flexible" US capital markets were fun in the short run and almost destroyed the economy in the long run.
Then they suggest that labor market "rigidities" cause low productivity in Europe.
"Europe, too, as the Boston Consulting Group report notes, because of that continent’s failure to reform its labor markets and raise worker productivity. Germany’s Siemens recently announced a $170 million investment that will enable it to build gas turbines more cheaply in Charlotte than in Shanghai.
" Here there is no mention of the level of labor productivity which is very high in Europe.
Throughout the Post editorial board ignores prices when it discusses costs. It is cheaper to produce in Charlotte than in Germany partly because a Euro costs $1.43 not say 80 cents.
Notably rapid employment growth in the USA is proof that "flexibility" is good as is a jobless recovery. For roughly the same rate of GDP growth the USA is A OK whether it has more rapid labor productivity growth or less rapid labor productivity growth -- that is if it has increasing productivity or rapid employment growth. Mathematically the conclusion must follow from all data provided there isn't another Wirtschaftwun der (sp ? who cares -- it's bad enough that I'm praising their regulations and unions, like hell I will learn how to spell their words).
Exchange rates are boring. The fact that a weak currency increases competitiveness is counterintuitive, and regulation and trade unions are bad by defnition. The conventional wisdom of the ruling elite. At least tea partiers come up with new expressions of ideology. I feel that I have read the editorial dozens of times before.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)