You said the T-word! Tee-hee-hee-hee!

On any normal day, Brendan Nyhan is worth reading. But this was silly. Yes, Pearlstein's word choice was sloppy, for reasons explained by Yglesias, but Nyhan is making a mountain out of a molehill. He is actually counter-productive, as he accuses a bunch of people of joining in the smear based on their endorsement of Pearlstein's article. But Pearlstein's article is indeed very good, with the exception of those two words. One shouldn't get so stuck on those two words to discard the rest of the article. And I wonder what Nyhan would have said if Pearlstein had characterized the Republicans correctly.

Preview of future Investors' Business Daily editorials

Stephen Hawking is a tough act to follow, but they may try some of the following:

Mikhail Gorbachev wouldn't have had a chance in the USSR; if he had tried his reforms there, he would have been sent to the Gulag.

If LBJ had ever been elected President in his own right, maybe he would have had some credibility for the policies he pushed.

The Beatles would never had become famous if they had tried to compose their own songs; they probably had no creative talent at all.

If New Yorkers ever experienced a terrorist attack, they wouldn't be such unpatriotic latte-sipping liberals.

If Mark Twain had ever traveled to the Mississippi river, he wouldn't have written such unrealistic nonsense about it and the people living around it.

If Martin Luther King, Jr. had grown up in the South, he'd never had gotten the education to become a minister.

If Charles Darwin had seen the Galapagos islands, he would have realized that only the Almighty God could have designed the beaks of all those finches.

(P.S. IBD has now "corrected" the editorial. That's futile; such idiocy is incorrigible and eternal.)

Why is the press like a sheep behind a wheel?

When a traffic lane is closed, there is always some asshole who doesn't merge in an orderly way, but keeps driving in the emptied lane until it really ends, and then butts in. When that happens, I am not mad at the asshole, but at the sheep that lets him in. Looks like Dean Baker shares my sentiment, with a slight modification: the assholes are politicians and the sheep are the journalists.

PolitiFact is full of shit (Krugman-bashing edition)

It looks like in this country you can't tell the truth without being called a liar by the so-called fact-checkers. Here PolitiFact blasts Paul Krugman. The quote they put in the title is

During the 2005 fight over Social Security, "there were noisy demonstrations — but they were outside the events,” and opponents were “not disruptive — crowds booed lines they didn’t like, but that was about it."

Paul Krugman on Wednesday, August 5th, 2009 in a blog posting.

This is already a bit of a straw man. It would appear, from that quote alone, that Krugman denied that Social Security reform protesters ever behaved in a disorderly manner. When they expand the quote in the main text of the article, it becomes considerably more nuanced:

In an Aug. 5 blog posting, liberal New York Times columnist Paul Krugman wrote:

“Indeed, activists made trouble in 2005 by asking congressmen tough questions about policy. Activists are making trouble now by shouting congressmen down so they can’t be heard. It’s exactly the same thing, right?”

He continued, “Seriously, I’ve been searching through news reports on the Social Security town halls, and I can’t find any examples of the kind of behavior we’re seeing now. Yes, there were noisy demonstrations — but they were outside the events. That was even true during the first month or two, when Republicans actually tried having open town halls. Congressmen were very upset by the reception they received, but not, at least according to any of the reports I can find, because opponents were disruptive — crowds booed lines they didn’t like, but that was about it.

“After that, the events were open only to demonstrated loyalists; you may recall the people arrested at a Bush Social Security event in Denver for the crime of … not being Bush supporters.

“So please, no false equivalences. The campaign against Social Security privatization was energetic and no doubt rude, but did not involve intimidation and disruption.”

(Emphasis mine.) So Krugman readily acknowledges that the 2005 campaign was "rude". His main point, though, is comparison between the 2005 and 2009 protests, and he claims they are not similar. He says he couldn't find, in 2005, "any examples of the kind of behavior we’re seeing now." And what kind of behavior is that? "Intimidation and disruption", Krugman says. For the examples of such behavior now, see here and here and here and here and here. (All of those are events that happened, and were reported, before Krugman wrote his blog post.)

Well, PolitiFact's verdict is that Krugman's statements are FALSE:

We conclude that while some of the recent conservative protests — such as ones at town halls in Tampa, Little Rock, Ark., Houston, Philadelphia, and Green Bay, Wis.— may have been angrier and more widespread than the ones in 2005, it would be incorrect to suggest, as Krugman does, that the noisy demonstrations against Bush's policies were only taking place outside the events or that disruptions were limited to the occasional boo.

Is this even arguably grounds for the "False" verdict? PolitiFact's "Truth-O-Meter" has a total of six readings: True, Mostly True, Half True, Barely True, False, and Pants On Fire. The last one is reserved for stuff like this, but even some quite nutty claims are merely deemed False. So "False" is supposed to mean really, you know, false.

For Krugman's post to be False by those same standards, it would seem necessary to find that the protesters' behavior in 2005 was indeed similar to what we see now - that the Social Security protesters also intimidated speakers and disrupted meetings. But look what PolitiFact says:

It is true that there’s nothing in the clips from 2005 about burning members of Congress in effigy or the use of devils’ horns. But Woodhouse’s group employed 28-foot gorillas, duck suits, plates of hot waffles and sheet cakes as props, according to an Aug. 13, 2005, report in the Albuquerque Tribune.

They "forgot" to mention Nazi symbols, but they appear to agree with Krugman about intimidation - unless duck suits are considered equivalent to imagery of lynching and Nazis.

And let's see what evidence PolitiFact cites in support of the verdict. Among their examples, I could find only one journalistic report that amounts to out-of-control unruly behavior and disruption of a meeting, and it is not clear that it was solely the protesters' responsibility:

— A session sponsored by Rep. Chris Chocola, R-Ind., in South Bend, at the downtown branch of the St. Joseph County Public Library “was a raucous affair, with many of the 100 or so people who attended shouting questions and insults, talking over each other and still bubbling with questions when it was all over.

“One gentleman was so angry when Chocola indicated the hour-long session was coming to an end and wouldn't be extended that he walked out.”

(South Bend Tribune , Feb. 27, 2005)

But even here, the disruption was far from complete. People were "bubbling with questions" and the gentleman was angry because he didn't get his turn to ask a question. That indicates that, while the meeting was raucous, there was active conversation to the end. It's quite a stretch to compare that report with current demonstrations.

Other examples border on ridiculous. Someone was being smartalecky to Rick Santorum:

“Santorum asked the audience what would happen in 2008. The response he wanted was that the oldest baby boomers would turn 62 and be eligible for early retirement.

“What he got instead, shouted out by an unfriendly voice, was: ‘George Bush will leave office!’

Well, that surely made Baby Jesus cry. In other examples, John Shadegg "encountered scattered heckling, boos and hisses" (emphasis mine; I assume the folks at PolitiFact know the meaning of "scattered"), some guy wrote a letter to Enterprise-Record of Chico, Calif., complaining that he witnessed "rude, disrespectful behavior" (Wait! Isn't that what Krugman acknowledged anyway?), and, in PolitiFact's words, "some stories noted the meetings were civil." Wow. After reading all that, I'll have nightmares of people in duck suits chasing me down and killing me with waffles.

But, of course, in case you aren't convinced that Krugman is a liar,

in all likelihood, there were many, many events that did not result in news coverage we could find. So we can't say whether there were protests or shouting matches.

And, since we can't say, Krugman should shut up, too. Even if what he says is true, how dare he hurt the feelings of those frail little Republican politicians?

Still, the protests inside and outside town halls, even if they were not universal, clearly rattled Republican leaders. On March 17, 2005, USA Today reported:

“Shaken by raucous protests at open ‘town hall’-style meetings last month, House Republican Conference Chairwoman Deborah Pryce of Ohio and other GOP leaders are urging lawmakers to hold lower-profile events this time.

Poor, unfortunate souls. And bad, bad Paul Krugman!

Next Governor of California?

Vladimir Putin!

O'Reilly turns the stupidity knob up to 11

This is making satire and parody impossible. Satire requires taking something stupid and exaggerating it, caricaturing it to make it patently absurd. But it just doesn't get more stupid than this. Like loudness in This Is Spinal Tap, the stupidity of some right-wing talking heads now goes to eleven.

'Scuse me while I kiss this guy

Hey, if there are no Blue States and Red States, then they are all a Purple Haze and I am allowed to misquote Jimi Hendrix lyrics. Anyway, how could you not love this guy:

The debates unnerved both candidates. When he was preparing for them during the Democratic primaries, Obama was recorded saying, "I don't consider this to be a good format for me, which makes me more cautious. I often find myself trapped by the questions and thinking to myself, 'You know, this is a stupid question, but let me … answer it.' So when Brian Williams is asking me about what's a personal thing that you've done [that's green], and I say, you know, 'Well, I planted a bunch of trees.' And he says, 'I'm talking about personal.' What I'm thinking in my head is, 'Well, the truth is, Brian, we can't solve global warming because I f---ing changed light bulbs in my house. It's because of something collective'."

Yes, Virginia, there are stupid questions! What makes that conversation dear to my heart is that I became 100% sold on Obama when I saw him challenge debate moderators with responses like "I reject the premise of this question..." (I had preferred him from the beginning, but that assured me he was the no-BS leader we needed.)

Turns out I was also right about Hillary back in June. Newsweek:

On the night she officially lost the Democratic nomination, Hillary Clinton enjoyed a long and friendly phone conversation with McCain. Clinton was actually on better terms with McCain than she was with Obama. Clinton and McCain had downed shots together on Senate junkets; they regarded each other as grizzled veterans of the political wars and shared a certain disdain for Obama as flashy and callow.

I would have voted for her had she been the nominee, but I am so glad she is not our new president-elect!

P.S. I don't know how I feel about these embargoed-until-after-election reports. It's nice to find out some inside information, but it is against the spirit of reporting. Shouldn't the people who recorded this stuff be called historians rather than journalists? (That's not irrelevant. I am pretty sure Newsweek's reporters earn more than most historians.)

Good satire and lame satire

I disagree with Crooks and Liars' assessment of the SNL spoof of Keith Olberman. If the "Special Comment" had been the entire skit, it would have been great. Affleck got the angry Olbermann's voice and mannerism perfectly, and the absurd topic of the comment works well because it caricatures the fact that KO's Special Comments all look and sound very similar regardless of what he is talking about. But the rest of the skit didn't work, for two reasons. First, Affleck is not at all convincing as Olbermann in a "normal" mood. Second, and more important, the writing is poor. Reader RayC explains it perfectly in the comments:

In order for a good satire to be the most effective to me you need to take a bit of truth and stretch it to the breaking point. That "truth" is false so the bit fails. I think they missed on this one. The "truth" they seem to be lampooning is that Keith is outraged over trivial matters and cuts guests off before they can disagree. I have never seen him do either one of these things.

Now lame jokes are nothing unusual, so in itself it is not a big deal. But the ending proves that the writers know how to write a funny skit, so why did they fail in the first half? The most likely reason - pointed out in lilybelle's comment - is also the most worrisome:

It felt scripted so that some NBC exec could say "See, we criticize liberals too." If such false equivalence is the only motivation for a skit, bad comedy ensues.

If your goal is to make a lot of friends, perhaps satire is the wrong line of work for you.

We're rednecks, we're rednecks, and we're keepin' the n*****s down

How did Buchanan, Will and Limbaugh not think of this:

Of course! Colin Powell is a secret Muslim. Those Jamaicans, they are all Muslims. Look at the name of the Olympic champion in 100 meters dash: Usain Bolt. That's like Hussein. I bet Colin Powell's middle name is Muhammad!

And those Jamaicans who are not Muslim are pot-smoking Ethiopians. Ergo, Colin Powell is a secret pot-smoking Muslim Ethiopian! Of course he is for Obama!

(Next: Is Christopher Buckley secretly the black child William F. Buckley fathered out of wedlock?)

Family Feud?

On CNN, after the presidential debate, 14 talking heads are arguing about which candidate did better at winning the votes of the undecided voters. As far as I know, not one of those people is a professional bookmaker and none of them runs a horse race betting establishment, so how can they add value predicting race outcomes?

It would be helpful if some qualified people discussed the issues raised in the debate in some depth, but most of those clowns obviously aren't qualified to say anything substantive, and the two or three who are would be beaten up by the rest if they tried.

Thus we are not allowed to get any more information than what the candidates advertise. Well, not quite... we get to hear thoughts from a group of people who have proven their stupidity by being undecided 20 days before the election and after almost 2 years of campaigning.

I just feel bad for the people who have to clean up the studio after all this bullshit was dropped in it.

Cokie, you ignorant slut!

Actually, she is an ignorant jerk:

During coverage of the October 2 vice-presidential debate on PBS' Charlie Rose, Rose asked, "Did either of them make any mistakes that you noticed?" National Public Radio senior news analyst Cokie Roberts responded that Sen. Joe Biden "talked about the Bosniaks." Roberts later said: "[I]f [Gov. Sarah Palin] had said 'Bosniak,' everybody would be making a big deal of it, you know." In fact, Biden correctly referred to certain residents of Bosnia and Herzegovina as Bosniaks.

Why does Cokie Roberts have a job as a journalist? She is clearly not qualified to be a "senior news analyst" if she comments on things she knows squat about without doing any research. Actually, why does Cokie Roberts have any job at all? She is clearly not qualified to be a maid or a cashier if she lacks decency and respect for fellow human beings.

Boycott GE!

Pressured by Joseph Goebbles Pravda Bill O'Reilley, MSNBC stopped airing this ad:



MSNBC is owned by GE, and I suspect that this newest chickenshit decision, just like the recent removal of Keith Olberman from the election news coverage, is dictated by the corporate Big Brother. Another step on the road to the fascist-communist Soviet States of America.

It is time to defend freedom of speech. Send the ad to everyone you know and think twice before buying GE products.

McPotemkin

Next time you read a newspaper and see a letter to the editor praising McCain or Palin, beware: it's probably fake.

More about fact checkers

I posted an updated critique of fact checking outlets on Daily Kos. I do think FactCheck & Co. are good guys overall, but I hold them accountable for their mistakes:

nothing is perfect and, unfortunately, the professional fact checkers are not immune to what I call the "balance anxiety" of the mainstream media. Their desire not just to be impartial, but also to protect their reputation for impartiality, becomes conflicted when the two sides they monitor are in fact grossly unbalanced in their respect for truth and facts

Actuary? What's that? A place for dead actors?

What does Joe Klein know about actuaries? Apparently no more than one could learn from watching About Schmidt. Otherwise he wouldn't make this ridiculous characterization:

It is appropriate, then, that the American Academy of Actuaries--a group devoted to the precise calculation of death rates--has exposed McCain's extravagant fraudulence of the past week for what it was.

Come on, Joe, you are a political journalist in Washington. Haven't you at least heard of what Social Security actuaries do? Such as producing the system's 75-year financial projections? Have you not heard of Social Security's actuarial balance, a term that means, essentially, financial balance? Wouldn't that give you a hint that actuaries don't just calculate death rates, but are in fact devoted to precise calculation of financial risk associated with uncertain events, of which death is but one example?

Don't mess with actuaries if you don't want to become a statistic.

As for McCain's shooting himself in the foot (What else is new?), the circumstances need to be clarified (although that will not make things any better for McCain). The Academy's journal, Contingencies, asked the candidates to describe their health care plans, and both candidates responded. Thus, the Academy didn't intentionally expose McCain's "fraudulent extravagance", as Klein's wordings might suggest, but merely provided a forum for the candidates to explain their plans directly, rather than through a journalistic filter. The candidates' words speak for themselves and the journal didn't engage in any sort of debunking. This is important because the Academy is the public voice of the actuarial profession, and the profession cares about its reputation and doesn't take impartiality lightly.

P.S. McCain's priceless quote, written when nobody expected the Spanish Inquisition financial crisis, is

Opening up the health insurance market to more vigorous nationwide competition, as we have done over the last decade in banking, would provide more choices of innovative products less burdened by the worst excesses of state-based regulation.

Ouch.

The rumor hoax

Beneath the blatant McCain lies that Obama and his campaign are smearing Sarah Palin, there is a much thicker and stickier level of deception, whose theme is that malicious false rumors about Palin circulate on the Internet. That bullshit pretense of debunking rumors is perhaps more dangerous than the obviously mendacious attack ads, because it appears calmer, less confrontational, and more credible. Rather than attacking a named opponent, it defends the candidate from an amorphous virtual mob of accusers. By a sleight of hand, it transplants a meme that fits in a different context - "innocent until proven guilty" - and conjures up an illusion that Palin is on trial (and a politically motivated one to boot) and that we, the voters, are expected to act like a jury and acquit if there is any reasonable doubt.

That's bullshit, but its stealth power is such that it has infiltrated even some brand-name bullshit detectors, such as FactCheck.org.

Here is an example of how ordinary people propagate this meme, from a recent comment left on this blog:

It is true that, while scrutinizing politicians, we should hold them suspect and investigate any evidence that might shed light on their career or character. But in the end, you must hold them innocent until proven guilty. There is no moral justification for assuming them guilty until proven innocent. Considering the enormous amount of false accusations against Palin (see a debunking of vicious internet rumors against her here at factcheck.org), the burden of proof is on those making the allegations. Until they prove their case or you yourself find corroborating evidence from another source, the voter--and any intelligent being--must dismiss the allegations as lies and slander.

Note the structure of the argument:
1. "Innocent until proven guilty"
2. "False accusations" and "vicious rumors"
3. Therefore, the juror voter must acquit ignore the allegations.

It is relatively easy to explain why steps 1 and 3 are bogus. The analogy between voters and jurors in a civil case would not be a bad one, but the argument relies on the specific features of a criminal trial, and that makes the analogy untenable. In a civil case the jury decides between two parties who are a priori on equal standing, and who would gain similarly from a win and suffer similarly from a loss. That is a lot like choosing between two political candidates. The jury simply decides whose case is stronger. But in a criminal trial, the parties are in a hugely asymmetric starting position, with one party (the state) having all the power and the other (the accused) facing all the risk. Those conditions, which in no way resemble elections, are the reason for presumption of innocence and a high threshold for proving guilt. Asking voters to behave like a criminal jury makes no sense whatsoever.

The structure of the argument is thus debunked and the voters should revert to their natural standard of the preponderance of evidence. Step 2 is still relevant, however, because the information in and about those rumors can tip the scale for some undecided voters. Thus, the rest of this article will examine the claims that the accusations are false and rumors vicious.

Let's be clear: the only candidate in this race about whom there is heavy traffic of vicious and false internet rumors is Barack Obama. I will not repeat any of those rumors here because they don't deserve the minimum level of respect that even the harshest criticism conveys. They have been thoroughly debunked and refuted, and should now be silenced. Nothing comparable to that sludge is being thrown at Sarah Palin. Naturally, some rumors about her are false and some are exaggerated, but that can be said of practically every public person. If rumors about Palin exhibit any unusual pattern, it is in how much truth they may yet turn out to contain.

As the commenter noted, FactCheck.org has compiled a list of "false Internet claims and rumors" about Palin. I have already written about problems with FactCheck.org's coverage of this campaign, and I regret to inform you that they have pooped their pants again. (Why is that happening? I don't think they are intentionally biased in McCain's favor. Rather, they are not immune to the "balance" anxiety of American journalism: when lies are grossly unbalanced, journalists feel compelled to restore the balance by applying uneven standards. But that topic deserves its own post, which I promise will be coming soon.) Let's examine the five items on the list and FactCheck's analysis.

#1: Special needs education

Palin did not cut funding for special needs education in Alaska by 62 percent. She didn’t cut it at all. In fact, she increased funding and signed a bill that will triple per-pupil funding over three years for special needs students with high-cost requirements.

As far as I can tell, the rumor is indeed false. But is it vicious? It is not defamatory: it ascribes to Palin a legitimate (although, I suppose, unpopular) policy position. And it is unlikely that it was launched maliciously, as FactCheck.org traced its origins to what easily could have been an honest mistake:

Those who claim that Palin cut special needs funding by 62 percent are looking in the wrong place and misinterpreting what they find there. They point to an apparent drop in the Department of Education and Early Development budget for special schools. But the special schools budget, despite the similar name, isn't the special needs budget.

By the way, it is possibly misleading to say that she increased funding. The legislature increased funding; she merely signed it. This is not nitpicking, nor is there a symmetry. As governor, she has "line-item" veto power, so she really can cut funding for specific projects, but she cannot singlehandedly increase it. Unless she took some initiative to enact the increase (which she may well have, but no evidence for it is supplied), FactCheck.org has exaggerated a bit in the exonerating statement.

Bullfighter's verdict on this rumor: false, but neither personal nor vicious. Merely erroneous and unremarkable.

#2: Banning books

She did not demand that books be banned from the Wasilla library. Some of the books on a widely circulated list were not even in print at the time. The librarian has said Palin asked a "What if?" question, but the librarian continued in her job through most of Palin's first term.

Here FactCheck errs big time, debunking a straw man and missing the point, with the result of misleading readers.

The relevant story here doesn't involve actual banning of books, but a loyalty test for the librarian. The allegation is that, when she took over as mayor, she asked the librarian how she would feel about a request to remove objectionable books from the shelves. The librarian answered that she would not remove any books, and that was apparently the wrong answer, because Palin subsequently fired her (although she relented when people protested). In the in-depth analysis, FactCheck confirms those facts and even Palin seems to have no objections:

Palin told the Daily News back then the letters were just a test of loyalty as she took on the mayor’s job

The real issue is that such a loyalty test - requiring the librarian to put loyalty to authority above her professional duty and possibly the law - is completely inappropriate, and there is no legitimate reason for the mayor to ask that question. Its chilling effect may be sufficient to raise First Amendment concerns, and it speaks a lot about Palin's attitude to public service.

FactCheck.org acted irresponsibly by focusing on derivative rumors - purported lists of banned books pulled out of some prankster's ass. I don't even believe those rumors are widespread; I haven't seen any such list although I dig through news and blogs excessively. But by prominently debunking some amateur's nonsense and burying the relevant facts where few people will read them, FactCheck contributed to the impression that the entire issue of Palin's censorship tendencies is a hoax.

Bullfighter's verdict: FactCheck committed the equivalent of breaking a Ming vase while trying to dust it. Despite some ridiculous pranks inspired by it, the relevant main story is true.

#3: AIP

She was never a member of the Alaskan Independence Party, a group that wants Alaskans to vote on whether they wish to secede from the United States. She’s been registered as a Republican since May 1982.

As I noted before, this gun is still smoking. Palin has been "cleared" on the narrow issue of her own membership (which was never a mere rumor - the allegation was made by AIP's top officials), but that is an irrelevant bit in a potentially extremely damning case. FactCheck's mistake is similar to that in #2, but far more dangerous, for two reasons. First, this is by leaps and bounds more serious issue than local library censorship; the worst case here may involve flirting with treason. Second, the "debunking" doesn't merely wander into the irrelevant, but consciously emphasizes the only detail of the story where evidence favors Palin and hides or ignores everything else. And, by the way, her husband's membership may be as relevant as her own.

Bullfighter's verdict: FactCheck fucked up.

#4: Endorsing Buchanan

Palin never endorsed or supported Pat Buchanan for president. She once wore a Buchanan button as a "courtesy" when he visited Wasilla, but shortly afterward she was appointed to co-chair of the campaign of Steve Forbes in the state.

So she never endorsed Buchanan, but she contributed to the appearance that she did. In her own words (quoted deep down in the FactCheck article):

As mayor of Wasilla, I am proud to welcome all presidential candidates to our city. This is true regardless of their party, or the latest odds of their winning. When presidential candidates visit our community, I am always happy to meet them. I'll even put on their button when handed one as a polite gesture of respect.

Really? Regardless of the party? She would welcome the candidate of the Communist Party? How about the Nazi Party? If we take her explanation seriously, it raises some interesting questions.

Now it is true that the meme of "Palin for Buchanan" is potentially very damaging - Buchanan is widely regarded as an anti-Semite - so one could suspect its malicious origins, were it not for the fact that it was Pat Buchanan himself who launched it nationally. While some Democrats have used it (e.g., Congressman Wexler), no one can say that a Democrat or a liberal started it.

#5: Creationism

Palin has not pushed for teaching creationism in Alaska's schools. She has said that students should be allowed to "debate both sides" of the evolution question, but she also said creationism "doesn't have to be part of the curriculum."

This doesn't even make sense; it is self-contradictory. If she said that students should be allowed to "debate both sides", then, by definition, she supported teaching creationism. So what is FactCheck's point? That "supported" doesn't necessarily mean "pushed for"? Did anybody use those words? Is that worth FactCheck's attention? Please.

Oh, and what does FactCheck say in the detailed analysis? Basically, that their own summary is full of shit:

On Aug. 29, the Boston Globe reported that Palin was open to teaching creationism in public schools. That's true. She supports teaching creationism alongside evolution, though she has not actively pursued such a policy as governor.

This is embarrassing. FactCheck says FactCheck is wrong.

Bullfigher's verdict: The "rumor" is true, and FactCheck shot itself in the foot.

Scoreboard: of the five "debunked" rumors,
one is completely true,
one is generally true (and well-documented), but one detail turned out to be false despite testimonies,
one is based on a true story, but FactCheck focused on a prank inspired by it,
one is false but based on an understandable mistake,
and one is false and potentially harmful, but came from a conservative source, and Palin herself contributed to its creation.

There has actually been another rumor out there, not mentioned by FactCheck, which might have a much stronger claim to the "vicious rumor" title than any of those five. That is the rumor that Palin's youngest child was actually her daughter's, and that she faked pregnancy to cover up her daughter's. The McCain-Palin campaign blamed this one on "liberal bloggers":

ST. PAUL, Sept 1 (Reuters) - The 17-year-old daughter of Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin is pregnant, Palin said on Monday in an announcement intended to knock down rumors by liberal bloggers that Palin faked her own pregnancy to cover up for her child.

Actually, that wasn't a quote, that's Reuters drinking the Republican Kool-Aid. The campaign was more insidious, and make sure Obama's name got mentioned although there was no logical place for it:

"The despicable rumors that have been spread by liberal blogs, some even with Barack Obama's name in them, is a real anchor around the Democratic ticket, pulling them down in the mud in a way that certainly juxtaposes themselves against their 'campaign of change,'" a senior aide said.

Yes, the rumor was all over the Internet during the Labor Day weekend, but its treatment on the liberal blogs I read ranged from suspicion to dismissal, and many ignored it completely. There were several diaries posted on Daily Kos that perpetuated the claim, but every one of them received negative comments, warning about the lack of evidence or implausibility of the story; there were also diaries debunking the rumor. In other words, this was never a story that got significant traction in the liberal blogosphere.

There were speculations on Daily Kos that the rumor was planted by the Republicans as a bait to accuse librals/Democrats/Obama of smearing Palin. In light of the announcement of Bristol's pregnancy, that seems very plausible. They needed to create a context in which the pregnancy (which couldn't be hidden until November) would be announced as something relatively favorable. That doesn't necessarily mean that the Republicans planted the rumor (I've also heard that it had been all over Alaska since Trig Palin's birth), but it was definitely convenient to them.

What is rarely mentioned is that Palin's own behavior helped build the rumor. She kept her pregnancy secret until the seventh month, flew from Texas to Alaska after her water broke, didn't tell the airplane crew that she was in labor, and returned to work unusually fast after giving birth. None of those claims are disputed, and the source for most is Palin herself. There is a related rumor about Bristol missing several months of school due to mono, but I haven't seen any supporting evidence for it, and without it the story didn't work. But what made the rumor even more implausible was that a 44-year old mother has some 30 times greater risk of having a Down syndrome baby than a 17-year old. There were too many holes in that rumor even before the announcement (which by itself didn't actually refute anything). But Palin's adventurous travel from Texas to Alaska with leaking amniotic fluid, unless it is just another of her serial lies, raises questions about her judgment and responsibility.

So, the final verdict: there was one short-lived rumor that could have qualified as "vicious", but it never really caught on, it might have been planted, and it was only possible because of Palin's inexplicably odd behavior.

I'd like to know which major-party candidate for President or Vice President was the subject of fewer false accusations and vicious rumors than Sarah Palin.

Not every McCain idea is bad

With the McCain campaign banging pots and the media amplifying the noise, we haven't been able to hear much about the issues in the last few days. Maybe that's why Joe Klein reached for the old news and commented on McCain's plan to change the tax status of employer-paid health insurance premiums. His analysis is balanced, but in the punchline he focuses on the tax-increase aspect of it:

It is amazing to me that Obama campaign has let things go this far without pointing out that McCain--who opposes the energy bill because it would increase taxes on oil companies--is actually proposing a tax increase on health care benefits for American workers. But that is precisely what the Senator from Arizona is doing.

Ezra Klein goes further:

This is a tremendous tax increase, to the tune of $3.6 trillion over 10 years.

Although he goes on to qualify that statement, it is not a fair critique by any stretch of imagination.

I don't like McCain's vision for health care and his non-reform "reform". I think he wants to take it in the wrong direction and will only make the problems worse. But this tax proposal is actually not bad at all. It would remove a major tax distortion and most people would be better-off (well, sort of - as taxpayers, they'd have to pay it back eventually).

Currently, employer-paid health insurance premiums are not counted as taxable income to employees, but are fully deductible as expense to the employer. In effect, the government subsidizes the premiums at the employees' marginal income tax rates. And because income tax rates increase with income, high earners get a bigger subsidy than low earners.

This is unfair to low earners - it reduces the progressivity of the tax code in a non-transparent way. But it also distorts the health insurance and labor markets, because people who pay for their own insurance get no subsidy. That makes the current system unfair to the self-employed and to workers whose employers don't offer a health benefit. It also discourages entrepreneurship by making self-employment more expensive.

McCain's plan would treat employer-paid health insurance premiums as cash income for tax purposes, but would offset the added tax cost with a refundable tax credit of $2,500 per year to individuals and $5,000 to families. "Refundable" means you get the full amount even if your total federal income tax for the year is less than that - the government writes a check to everybody who has health insurance. If you have family coverage and your employer pays $8,824 per year for it (the national average), counting it as income will increase your tax from $882 (if you are in the 10% bracket) to $3,088 (if you are in the top, 35%, bracket), but with the refund, your tax will decrease by $1,912 to $4,118. (If Social Security taxes also apply, the numbers are less favorable, especially for lower earners, but it is still a net gain for the employee in each case.) The only way you lose is if you have a high income and high premiums (which means you live in an expensive area and your employer offers good benefits).

That actually looks like a big tax break, and it is: the Tax Policy Center estimated it would increase the deficit (or cost taxpayers) 1.3 trillion dollars over the next 10 years. Free money isn't cheap.

It is fair to criticize McCain's plan for burning another hole in the budget. It is also fair to point out that it is a tax change, not health care reform. It generally won't help the uninsured. And, perhaps most importantly, some people will lose in indirect ways. Employers will have no incentive to offer health benefits and some will surely choose to compete for workers by increasing wages and dropping health insurance. That means some people will lose their employer-provided insurance and some of those will get lost in the vagaries of the individual insurance market. The plan doesn't seem to provide adequate ways to deal with such risks.

It is even fair to point out that it is another instance of "more of the same" because Bush has been proposing a similar plan for the last two years. (By the way, it hasn't passed; why would McCain expect his plan to pass now that the Democrats are almost sure to fortify their control of Congress?)

But it is not fair to call it a tax increase.

Andrew Sullivan's awakening

He now realizes that John McCain is morally unfit to lead:

On core moral issues, where this man knew what the right thing was, and had to pick between good and evil, he chose evil.

and:

McCain has demonstrated in the last two months that he does not have the character to be president of the United States. And that is why it is more important than ever to ensure that Barack Obama is the next president. The alternative is now unthinkable. And McCain - no one else - has proved it.

Well, Andrew, what can I say. Better late than never.

FactCheck.org needs fact checking

On August 19, FactCheck.org reported:

An Obama ad uses dated and out of context quotes to portray McCain as clueless on the economy.

Obama's offense? McCain's statements that the economy is strong and that we are not heading toward recession were several months old; the economic situation has changed since then, and so has McCain's assessment of it.

Except that McCain's assessment hasn't changed by an iota.

Here’s John McCain on August 20 talking to Laura Ingraham: “I still believe the fundamentals of our economy are strong.”

McCain proved FactCheck.org wrong the day after they criticized Obama. Three weeks later, FactCheck.org has not published a correction.

UPDATE: David Neiwert finds FactCheck sloppy on Palin's AIP connection.

General Idiotic

The Olympic-themed Ecomagination commercial is the newest contribution to the imbecilization of America. Its setting is clearly suggesting ancient Olympic Games, but shows an athlete wearing clothes, and women in the audience. Come on, GE, the Greek Olympians competed naked, and women weren't allowed anywhere near. Sport nudity was not confined to the Olympics, either: the words "gymnastics" and "gymnasium" come from the Greek word for "naked". This is the same type of idiocy as showing cavemen co-existing with dinosaurs.