Lies, and the Lying Liars ...

"Reality has a well-known liberal bias" - Stephen Colbert

So I was thinking about that recent study that found that watching Fox News makes you stupid, as the headlines put it. And it got me thinking about how it's a really insulting thing to say that those who watch Fox News are actually idiots. I mean, the study is actually about misinformation and the 2010 election (that's actually its title) and not just about Fox News viewers. Sure, 63% of everyday Fox News viewers thought that it was unclear where the president was born, but that might be because 64% of Republicans share the same view. Fox News may lie directly to their customers, but they may also just be broadcasting and repeating Republican lies.

So this got me thinking about Republican lies. I'm pretty sure there are a lot of them. Like, a whole lot. It seems like Republicans lie more often than do Democrats. But I recognize that I am a liberal and I am a Democrat, and so when I hear about statements made by conservative Republicans, I notice the lies more prominently than your average American. So I decided to go to politifact.com (the non-partisan fact-checking project of the St. Petersburg Times that won a Pulitzer Prize in 2009) and count up all the lies to see who lies more: Republicans or Democrats.

The editors of Politifact.com spend a lot of time sorting out controversial statements by how much truth they contain, always recognizing that, in politics, truth is never black-and-white. So they place statements into the following truth categories: "true", "mostly true", "half true", "barely true", "false", and "pants on fire."

Politifact.com has been around since the early stages of the 2008 presidential campaign, so that meant there were a lot of statements to count. I counted each statement made by a human or organization, and I did not count any chain emails or statements made by "bloggers". Journalists and pundits counted towards partisan totals only if it was clear which party they sympathized with (i.e. Rachel Maddow = Democrat, Glenn Beck = Republican). Joe Liebermann counted as a Democrat, even when he was bashing Obama; and Arlen Spector counted as a Democrat only if he made the statement after he switched parties. Bernie Sanders and Ralph Nader were put in the blue category: Bob Barr and the Cato Institute in the red.

There is surprising parity in the number of statements analyzed by Politifact.com. Politifact.com has chosen an almost equal number of Democratic and Republican statements over the years.

But of those statements, Republicans have told more lies than Democrats. And more Democratic statements have been rated "true" and "mostly true" than Republican statements.

A statement made by a Democrat is most likely going to be in the "true" category (25%). A statement made by a Republican is most likely going to be in the "false" category (23%).

A true or mostly true statement is more likely to come from a Democrat than a Republican by a margin of 54% to 44%.

And throughout Barack Obama's presidency and all the policy debates about health care, the stimulus and everything else, the margin has been fairly consistent: 54% for Democrats to 46% for Republicans.

However, a "false" or "pants-on-fire" statement is much more likely to come from a Republican source than a Democratic source.

And the margin has only increased during Obama's tenure as president. Nearly 7 out of 10 lies categorized by Politifact.com have been Republican lies. Think back to the policy debates during this time. The health care debate (death panels), the stimulus package (no jobs created), all the tax policy stuff (tax hikes); of all the lies that were produced during this time, almost 70% of them came from Republicans.

When one isolates the worst, most egregious lies, the "pants-on-fire" lies, one finds that the liars are overwhelmingly Republican.

And 87% of the worst, foulest, stankiest lies of the past two years originate from members of the Republican Party.

My Letter to the Senators: An Exercise in Futility

Below is my letter to Oklahoma's U.S. Senators Tom Coburn and Jim Inhofe. In it, I try to lay out a conservative argument in favor of the DREAM Act. I probably should have made the word "taxpayers" bold and capitalized.

_____________________________


Dear Senator (Coburn / Inhofe),

I am writing you today to please consider voting in favor of the DREAM Act. You may have heard many arguments both for and against the proposed bill, as have I, but one argument that has not been given a lot of play is this one:

We taxpayers have been subsidizing the education of immigrants without status for years in the public education system. The whole point of public financing of education is that we all share a common belief that an educated population is an economically productive population; it is worth taxpayer funding for the betterment of the common good. And we hear stories all the time about the many immigrants without status in our society who are honor students destined for success in college and beyond.

But our current immigration policy mandates that we deport these students right at the time in their lives when our nation would start to be able to reap the benefits of the education we taxpayers have financed for so long.

How can it make sense to give away to some other country the future economic power generated by these individuals? Why would we want to prevent graduates of our colleges and universities from using their knowledge to form a better society right here in the United States?

Please don’t let trillions of dollars of taxable income go to waste. Please don’t exacerbate “brain drain” by forcing new graduates and young professionals to leave the country.

Please vote in favor of the DREAM Act.

Don't Believe the Pledge: Social Issues Still Dominate the Republican Agenda

One of the sites that I visit several times a day is the Slatest, Slate.com's picks for the dozen most important or newsworthy items at any given time. Today, this morning, I went there and discovered that item number one was this story about how all Senate Republicans have now signed a pledge stating that they will block all Democratic legislation unrelated to tax cuts or government spending in the current "lame duck" session of congress, according to the AP.

To an idiot, this pledge would seem to fit right in line with the Republican Party's current focus on economic issues rather than social issues. Ever since the economy tanked and the Tea Party gained national prominence, Republicans have made it seem like they are more eager to talk about taxing and spending rather than divisive social issues. But the real idea behind the Republicans' pledge isn't a call for congress to focus more on the economy: it's a call to stop progress that Democrats are trying to make towards ending discriminatory government policies.

There is not and has never been much of a threat that congress will refuse to act on the sunsetting of the Bush tax cuts. News agencies and the public have been talking about this for months, even since before the election, and every move in the negotiations between Democrats and Republicans has been high-profile. And also, congress is not full of idiots: our elected senators and representatives do have the mental ability to discuss more than one issue per session of congress. So the whole point of the pledge is that Republicans have vowed to block the Democrats' two important social policy bills: the DREAM Act and repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell. The whole point of this pledge therefore is not to advance discussion on the economy, but rather to advance a social agenda that discriminates against gay people in the military and perpetuates the injustice of deporting non-citizen U.S. college grads and military servicepeople.

The hypocrisy doesn't stop there.

I noticed some of the other items on the Slatest were also about Republicans. The number 4 item was a story about an art exhibit at the Smithsonian that was pulled because Republican lawmakers were offended at its content. The number 10 item was a story about how the chief of staff of incoming House Speaker John Boehner had a meeting with a rabid right-wing anti-abortion activist named Randall Terry, who has called for the murder of abortion doctors. And the number 6 item was a story about Julian Assange, who Republican Representative Peter King has labeled as a terrorist.

Censorship of art, abortion activism, calling people terrorists: all of these things are social issues, and all of these things are foremost on the minds of prominent Republicans.

You would think the newly fiscally-focused GOP would be able to put aside their social views and seriously discuss a measure that would generate $3.6 trillion dollars over the next 40 years of new taxable income for America. One would think Republicans would be open to hearing about ways the military could retain thousands of honorable soldiers while simultaneously increasing the number of college campuses in which ROTC groups will be allowed to operate, not to mention the cost and efficiency savings that would come from not having to investigate the personal lives of soldiers. And one would think that any politician would think twice about blocking measures that have the support of 58% (DADT repeal) and 70% (DREAM Act) of Americans.

By signing the pledge of non-cooperation, Senate Republicans have made a choice. They have chosen to allow social issues to continue to dominate their party, even if those social policies would create significant economic good. They've placed social issues above economic issues, even as they claim that they are doing the exact opposite.

Friday Post: "Compassion" and "Sensitivity" are Partisan Issues in the Oklahoma House

The swearing-in ceremony for the recently-elected state representatives was held at the Oklahoma capitol this week, and a reverend from Shawnee, Dr. James Hewitt, was asked to perform the invocation. This invocation is getting some coverage in conservative blogs this week because of some statements that Rev. Hewitt made, such as the following:

- "Give wisdom, sensitivity to curcumstances, and compassion to our legislators for these who labor and live among us without appropriate authorization"

- "May Oklahoma become a model for our nation of just, fair, and functional policies for immigration."

The minister also asked that God enlighten the legislators so they don't victimize the tribal peoples of Oklahoma.

These statements apparently made some legislators, including Representative Randy Terrill, a little bit peeved. But these legislators didn't want to present their grievances to the new speaker-designate Kris Steele (R-Shawnee) because, as it turns out, Kris Steele is an associate minister at Rev. Hewitt's church, and they feared retaliation by Speaker Steele in making his House committee assignments. So they got together and bitched to a conservative talk radio reporter instead, I guess.

Some of Randy Terrill's friends' complaints are that the invocation is supposed to be neutral, and that they're not supposed to refer to any issue before the legislature. Which means, apparently, that "victimizing" the tribal peoples of Oklahoma and creating disfunctional policies for immigration are two agenda items on the legislative agenda next year. Not surprising.

_________


Ladies and gentlemen, the most ridiculous letter to the editor in opposition to Muneer Awad's well-publicized lawsuit against State Question 755, entitled "Banning Sharia Law Similar to Banning Polygamy":

Muneer Awad referred to Sharia as a set of rules that “guide” the daily life of Muslims. He further said that no government should “intrude on any religious
community's right to practice its faith.” Would this exclude a ban on polygamy? Should Kalona, Iowa, allow Amish law? Should the Wiccan community be as respected as the Muslim community?

The Constitution wasn't written to protect minority (or community) rights. It was written to protect individual rights. I can no longer exercise the way of life in which I grew up. I can't smoke where I please. A child can't ride on his mother's lap in the front seat, as I did. I have to turn packages in stores around to read the English labels. Rarely can I eat in restaurants for the spices in the food, adapted to accommodate alien palates. People neither dress nor act in the decent manner expected when I was young.

I had to adapt to the society around me. So should Awad.

The Constitution certainly does get in the way of individual rights, doesn't it? Like the right to endanger one's own child, the right to not be confronted with Spanish, the right to inflict carcinogenic pollutants on your fellow diners, and, most importantly, the right to eat bland food, dammit!

________

Lastly, an amazing map of Oklahoma City's racial segregation.

Friday Post: Simpson-Bowles Report

The Simpson-Bowles report: I don't know what to make of it. Would it be better used for toilet paper or for firewood kindling?

Alan Simpson and Erskine Bowles are co-heads of a bipartisan commission set up by President Barack Obama to find some unpopular ideas to reduce the federal deficit, and the draft report they released is actually intended for debate with the other members of the commission; in other words, the report isn't yet a policy idea. The reason for convening this fiscal commission, if I recall, was so that the commission would develop a plan to deal with an unpopular problem, and so that legislators could then merely "sign on" to the plan, rather than having to "debate the merits" of action or, even worse, be forced to "grow a pair" and make a plan themselves. In order for the Simpson-Bowles plan to have worked, it would have had to make cuts in spending AND raise tax rates in roughly equal proportions in order to be bipartisan. But bipartisan it most certainly is not.

The draft report makes a lot of cuts in spending, and even tinkers with social security. But it fails to make tax increases. In fact, as Paul Krugman points out, the goals of tax reform according to the report are primarily to lower tax rates across the board. Deficit reduction, what I thought was the whole purpose of this commission, is relegated to an afterthought. While it lowers the tax rate for the poor from 10% to 8%, it lowers the tax rate for the rich from 35% to 23%. That's two percent for the poor and 12% for the rich.

The commission, ostensibly all about deficit reduction, also fails to talk seriously about the rise in the cost of health care, which is the reason that Medicare and Medicaid expenditures will rise sharply in the future. Kevin Drum of Mother Jones makes the point that any deficit reducing commission without a proposal to deal with Medicare and Medicaid cannot be taken seriously, becuase it isn't federal employee salaries or admission prices to the National Zoo that's causing our future debt problem.

I would like the full commission to keep one key tax increase in the proposal: the gas tax. It is a tax that is badly in need of not only an increase, but also to be indexed to the actual price of gas so that it can do what it was intended to do: pay for highways without an expenditure from the general treasury. It's an idea whose time, I hope, has finally come, for more than just personal reasons.

Script Font and Republican Women

The three campaign signs/emblems above all share a few things in common. All three were election signs I saw over and over in the runup to the election. All three candidates (Mary Fallin for governor, Janet Barresi for state schools superintendent, and Sharon Parker for state senate district 16) are women. All three are Oklahomans. All three are Republicans. And all three use a script font for their first names.

I have a tendency to pay attention to yard signs. I like noticing the color combinations of signs, and I commend those who use colors other than red, white and blue. I like examining the candidates' choices of fonts. We had two district judges in Norman this year who used an all-caps Gotham font with a blue background, consciously evoking the campaign signage of Barack Obama. So I took notice when I saw yard signs for the above campaigns that featured script font, which is an unusual font for campaign signage.

Yard signs generally try to convey a simple message with words: candidate name, office the candidate is running for, and occasionally party affiliation. Everything else on the sign is meant to convey a characteristic that the candidate is going for: bold, strong, effective leader, patriot, statesman. This is why few campaign signs stray from red, white and blue colors, and even fewer stray from strong easily-readible fonts. But the Fallin, Barresi and Parker campaigns strayed from the norm and used script font. Script font gives the impression of femininity and elegance, which can be a nice change of pace in a genre that tends to reward masculinity and bluntness.

Mary Fallin and Janet Barresi were matched up against Democratic women: Jari Askins and Susan Paddack. Neither of their Democratic opponents used script font on their yard signs, although from the picture to the right, it does appear that Susan Paddack had some kind of script font thing for her first name on larger signs, although it's so tiny I don't know why she bothered.

Republican Sharon Parker's opponent was male (he didn't use script font), but running for the state house seat in Norman was female Democrat Emily Virgin. Virgin also refrained from script font. Did they not feel the need to convey to voters their femininity?

This got me thinking: are Republican women more likely to use script font than Democratic women? The answer: yes!

Republican Sharron Angle, candidate for U.S. Senate in Nevada, used an array of fonts on her signs, but her first name is in a script font on top of her angled "ANGLE".

Republican Jan Brewer, governor of Arizona, scripts the "Jan".

Republican Carly Fiorina, candidate for senator in California, did not use a script font, but she does use a skinny-letter lowercase sans serif that conveys the image of "fashion magazine".

Republican Kristi Noem, congresswoman-elect from South Dakota, uses a very modern fashionable font for her name, but girlies up the "for Congress" part of her sign. I found quite a few campaign signs that had a script font for the "for" part of their sign, which was used by both Democrats and Republicans, but no one else had the balls to use script font for "Congress".

Washington Republicans - congresswoman Cathy McMorris Rodgers's signs feature the name "Cathy" scrawled across the top half of the sign. This photograph found on McMorris Rodgers's website features two other Republicans with script font, senate candidate Dino Rossi and some county commissioner named Mark Richards. This picture must have been taken in the 2008 campaign, because Dino Rossi is listed as running for governor and not senator. He has since changed and modernized his typography.

I can't find any other examples of script type face in political signage from this most recent election, but I think it's strange that it's Republican women who are almost exclusively the candidates to use it. By no means are script-font-users the majority among women candidates or even Republican women candidates, but I would like to know why there are more Republicans who use it than Democrats.

Friday Post: the Red Shift of 2010

In 2006, Republicans were melons being evaluated for ripeness. In 2010, Democrats were given a floor treatment to seal out moisture. But instead of accepting the defeat and moving on, some Democrats are finding small victories on which to console themselves. Ooh, many (not all) of the Tenthers (Republicans who think that most things the federal government does is unconstitutional) lost! Hey, Jim Inhofe said Republicans were going to control the U.S. Senate. Joke's on you! The Tea Party actually cost Republicans control of the Senate! And look, now we don't have to worry about pacifying those pesky blue dogs anymore!

No, all of that stuff isn't important. The 2010 midterms showed that the country was unhappy with Democrats generally. The top two issues were the economy and the new federal health care law. We lost because the economy sucks and people are scared of Obamacare.

Here's the actual good news for Democrats: the economy will get better, and most of the health care provisions will be tough to repeal. The economy is already getting better, as evidenced by this morning's jobs report. The results until now had been less noticeable because it is harder to perceive benefit from a saved job as it does from a created job, even though they both take the same amount of capitalistic energy.

And as we've all heard, the individual provisions of the health care law poll much better than the comprehensive, easy-to-slander whole. Lawmakers will tinker with it, because that's what lawmakers do. But now that it is law, it will be very difficult to find enough votes to take away key provisions like policy rescision, college students on parents plans, and the closing of the prescription plan doughnut hole. And if future speaker John Boehner is serious about closing the deficit, he won't be able to rescind or delay the mishmash of taxes and spending cuts that make Obamacare a net surplus for the country. Two years of legislative dominance for Democrats clearly wasn't enough, but it's not like those two years didn't bear any Progressive fruit.

And now that the Republicans have gained a chamber of Congress, they will have more stake in governing. They won't be able to simply snipe from well-secured positions in the bunkers of Fox News anymore.

Perhaps the best news of all: Republicans don't actually control much. President Obama still wields executive control and with it a veto pen. Harry Reid will amazingly still be majority leader of the Senate and will use his power to schedule bills for a floor vote like Project Runway contestants use the Piperlime.com wall: thoughtfully. Most likely any successful legislation that comes out of the House of Representatives will have to be either a) moderate, or b) mostly irrelevant. Which means sweeping legislative change is probably out for the next two years. And if it leads to questions like "what the fuck has Obama done so far?", well, there's a website that can answer that.