PolitiFact Has Sucked for a Good Long Time

I gave up on PolitiFact a couple of years ago—long before the recent ridiculousness about the claim that House Republicans voted to end Medicare was named their Lie of the Year. The truth is that if you go to PolitiFact (I don’t recommend it, so I won’t provide a link), you will see that in general, the Republicans do worse than the Democrats. But even still, this greatly understates how much more lying goes on amongst conservatives than liberals. The biggest problem has to do with what PolitiFact chooses to fact check. For example, George Will’s constant stream of lies and misinformation about climate change never seem to interest PolitiFact.

Today, PolitiFact checked a number of things in the President’s State of the Union speech. In particular, they found his claim that businesses had created three million jobs in the last 22 months “half true.” Why? What was wrong with that claim? Nothing. So why did they say it was half true? Because PolitiFact had divined that Obama implied that government policy had something to do with it. Hence: half true. Apparently, the people at PolitiFact have never seen Dragnet; Just the facts, Ma’am.

This morning, Paul Krugman wrote about when facts aren’t facts about the half true designation. He was one of many. So PolitiFact, showed, in addition to being useless, they have no backbone; they changed the “half true” into “mostly true.” This did not help matters, because what the President said was in fact true. Krugman wrote again on finding the truth. He wrote

[F]act-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. Leave that for the talking heads!

Rachel Maddow provides an excellent summary. And she ends it properly: “You’re fired!” Better late than never, everyone. Welcome to my world!

How Good is Scott Turow?

Scott TurowScott Turow is about the only modern “Best Selling” novelist who I will read. I give him credit for teaching me how to write a mystery/suspense novel, and to some extent how to write a novel at all. So while in the Hong Kong Airport, I found myself without anything to read. So I picked up a copy of Turow’s newest novel, Innocent, the sequel to his first novel, Presumed Innocent. I’ll write about the novel later, because I have much to say. For now, I want to focus on one sentence that Turow wrote in the following short paragraph:

“Compared to my father? Yes. I know a lot more than him.”

This is the character Nat, son of the main character Rusty. He is talking about his father’s computer skills. He was asked, “Are you computer literate?” And this is the question he appears to be answering, but isn’t.

There are two ways the last sentence can be written:

  1. I know a lot more than him.
  2. I know a lot more than he.

The first sentence means, “I know a lot more about computers than I know about my father.” The second sentence means, “I know a lot more about computers than my father knows about computers.”

Clearly, when speaking, only a pedant like me would say, “I know a lot more than he.” So maybe Turow wrote the sentence that way because that’s the way people talk.

But I’m not sure. All of Turow’s books are fundamentally about how unknowable everyone is. And this theme is very much on display in Innocent. Nat does not really know his father. So the question is whether Turow is such a good writer that he knew he was doing that when he wrote that line.

“I know a lot more about computers than I know about my father.”

Hard Work, Low Pay

I present the following video (a catch from Ezra Klein’s Wonkbook) as an illustration of what it is like to be a freelance writer: lots of work for little pay. This young man made a $100 bet with his father than he could do a backflip every day in 2011. Watch it. It is really interesting. Shockingly, it only has a couple hundred views.

This is a lot of work for very little money. But a man’s gotta do what a man’s gotta do.

If I Have to Explain, It Isn’t Funny

It’s a moot point, as Perry has fallen from the STUPID[1] bus, but this needs to be addressed because it bothers me. No one understands the subtle humor of this carefully constructed visual jest, so I will deconstruct it for my obtuse friends.

Duh

Normally one says “I can see my house from here” when flying over Kansas, standing at the top of the Empire State building, or some other high vantage point — not because you can actually see the house, but because it’s impossible and silly.

If you will notice, Perry is casually looking to his left which implies that he is looking at a nearby object. A nearby object would be easily identified. So…if Perry is looking at a house down the street and is pretty sure it’s his house, that would make him pretty dumb.

I think my mistake here was using Perry instead of Romney. Oops.


[1] Society That Undermines Philanthropy, Intelligence, and Dedication

The Problem With Iran that I Don’t Understand

IranI would be worried what people would have to say about this article, but no one reads my political writing. So I will go ahead and pretend to be brave.

I don’t understand all the uproar about Iran’s supposed nuclear weapons program. First, of course, there is the issue that the evidence is pretty poor that they even have one. Second, and more important, is the issue that the uproar just seems racist. Why are European countries allowed nukes, but not Iran? Why are Asian countries allowed nukes, but not Iran? Why is Israel allowed nukes, but not Iran?

I know the standard answer: the Iranians are crazy and they’ll actually use it. But this exact argument was used against the Soviets. Remember what a big deal détente was? The idea that the Nixon administration would treat the communist countries as if they were rational like we were? Shocking! And that’s how I feel about Iran. Would they actually use a nuclear weapon? I just don’t see it. Would they give it to a terrorist group? Give me a break! A millionaire won’t even give a bum a dollar; you think Iran would go to all that trouble just to create a bomb to give it away to some terrorist group that just as well might use it against Iran itself? Preposterous.

The bad side of allowing Iran to have a nuclear weapon is that it would likely set off an arms race in the Middle East. But could it really be worse than anything that brought the US to have almost 10,000 warheads and Russia, a similar amount?

We need to stop pretending that countries we don’t like are irrational. They never were and they aren’t now. So can we all just lower the rhetoric before we start another war? Is it so much to ask that we all stay calm and peaceful?