Tweet Of The Day

In response to Poltico's Mike Allen tweeting that Warren Buffet buying his hometown newspaper is a "great day for publishing", the AJC's Kyle Wingfield tweets:

I'm sure it would also be a "great day for publishing" if a Koch bought a paper.

In the rapidly closing circular world of "Republican thought", Warren Buffet = George Soros.

All because he uttered the heresy that we may be on the left side of the Laffer Curve.

Get Me A One Handed Economist

I love Politifact. It's not because they make a valiant attempt to fact check the pretzel logic of politics. It's because they tend to piss everyone off. My motto is if everyone is mad, you must be doing something right.

Republicans are so convinced they are just another arm of the liberal media octopus, websites have already sprung up documenting their alleged complicity in the massive media conspiracy.

Fortunately for the purveyors of "everyone is out to git the Republicans", amnesia is a convenience.

Today, the AJC's Kyle Wingfield praises Politifact for rightfully calling "Pants on Fire" on Nancy Pelosi and her debt chart that is once again, circling the meme-circuit.

Politifact is absolutely correct. Pelosi's chart is a horror of incorrect data based on starting the Obama Presidency in 2010 instead of 2009. To my mind, this says more about Pelosi's utter incompetence than honesty.

Oh, if only Politifact had stopped there Kyle. Because, as is their way,  they proceed to throw a little fire your way as well.


Turn on WSB radio any time after 8:30am and there's a fair chance you'll hear some version of "Obama tripled the deficit How can he blame Bush!".

Well, according to Politifact, although Pelosi's numbers would make a third grader blush, the Republicans catchy numbers don't fare well either..

Most of your conservative brethren tend to ignore that it was Bush's final budget that pushed the deficit over $1 trillion. Not Obama's first.

Or as Politifact demonstrates once it ran the numbers:

Using the corrected figures does mean that, superficially at least, Democrats have a point. The debt did still increase more, on a percentage basis, under Bush than it did under Obama.

But don't fear, Kyle, they do go on to explain how when compared to percentages of GDP and time spent in office, the Democrats arguments gets weak again.

Or as Politifact so eloquently states:

Of course, all this goes to show that statistics can be used -- and misused -- to bolster almost any argument

But that last part is almost certainly due to their liberal bias.

My Afternoon Kyle

Blow, Gabriel, Blow. Kyle Wingfield defends his brothers and sisters in the profession against the myth that they are intentionally influencing campaign outcomes.

The media aren’t trying to puff up Cain now any more than we were trying to hold him down before. The public responded to Herman Cain, and the media are responding to the public. If he falters, the cycle will work the same way. And likewise if he continues to gain momentum.

And it is exactly the formula of public responds then media responds that is frequently distorted and reversed by some of Kyle's friends in order to continue the "liberal media" myth.

Kyle's honest defense is something we never saw from the previous proprietor.

My Morning Kyle

It has been a while since I've picked on the AJC's (usually) reasonable conservative voice, but some things cannot pass.

It is not much of a leap from the rhetoric of our president to the violence and looting that has beset Great Britain.

No, Kyle. Connecting a President, in a time of severe financial crisis where we may ask our grandparents to continue working until they are 70, asking the wealthiest in this country to return to the tax rate they "suffered" under for the entire decade of the 90s to people literally burning their cities to the ground is a huge leap.

Hyperbole is an effective tool in the hands of the political provocateur, but there is a difference between stretching a rhetorical point and living in another universe while proclaiming your feet are firmly planted on planet Earth.

We need more reality in our conversations. Kyle, you ain't helping.

Winging On Kyle

More evidence of the "Party of No"

"...the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, working with the Secretary of the Treasury and other agency heads, to evaluate practices of contracting officers and debarring officials in response to contractors’ certifications of serious tax delinquencies and to provide me, within 90 days, recommendations on process improvements to ensure these contractors are not awarded new contracts, including a plan to make contractor certifications available in a Government-wide database, as is already being done with other information on contractors"

The problem is that the Cabinet members got the benefit of the doubt (well, these four did — Tom Daschle and Nancy Killefer weren’t so lucky; two out of six ain’t bad?) whereas ordinary citizens and companies don’t always benefit from such IRS understanding.

President Obama institutes a policy of more accountability from the people who spend our tax dollars and the response from the conservative voice of the Atlanta Journal Constitution is it is an illegitimate action!

Do we need more evidence that the only stance of the core of the Republican Party is "HELL NO"?

Winging On Kyle

Kyle Wingfield had such a promising start.

Oh well.

One aspect of the climate-change debate which we ignore too often is the potential benefits — and whether they might outweigh the potential consequences.

The benefit here is the potential economic development of Greenland. What Kyle ignores in his "weighing" is Greenland has a population of 57,600, whereas Bangladesh, already the victim of massive flooding during the monsoon season, has a population of 162 milllion.

How long before Kyle turns into a silver haired know nothing who petulantly spouts half truths every friday?

Winging On Kyle

Global warming. Again. Kyle is in a froth over the stolen CRU emails currently causing the "we don't need no stinking global warming" crowd to spasm in orgasmic glee.

Instead of going point by point over Kyle's rehashing of tired arguments (we're cooling, Al Gore exaggerates, blah blah blah), I would point out that his frame of reference for a good summary is Powerline. Enough said.

But I will take a moment to point out a comment which shows why I think global warming "skeptics" should pause about whose company they keep.

It’s good to see someone at the AJC paying attention to this. AGW, as John Coleman, founder of The Weather Channel put it, is the “greatest scam in history.” (Personally I believe that title belongs to Darwinian Evolution, but that’s just me.)

If it walks like a creationist and talks like a creationist...it's hard to avoid the reality that the tactics of people like Lord Christopher Monckton (also lauded by Kyle) mirrors those used for the past 40 years by creationists.

And I have to take a friend to task.

As someone who remembers “dangerous global cooling” that was forced on my elementary school class in the late 70’s – and for the same reason that global warming was pushed in the 90’s – and global “change” is pushed today – I very much doubt the arguments from the left on this topic.

My dear friend, Icarus. It's been covered thousands of times including several on this blog but the only way to defeat this zombiefied myth is to keep beating it back into its grave.

There was no global cooling threat. The entire myth is based on an article in a mainstream magazine. The magazine based their screed on a single paper that was explaining the cooling period in the 40s. When they saw the popular version of their research, the paper's authors were horrified and quick to point out that in no way were the predicting an imminent ice age.

Global warming on the other hand is backed by reams of peer reviewed work and the consensus of 10,000+ climatologist.

Big difference. So until the next time this little nasty pops up its head...

Winging On Kyle

Finally, Wingfield gives me something to work with!

Of course, it would be a denial of global warming.

The latest sign that the “consensus” about global warming is falling apart: The BBC is finally reporting that global temperatures have leveled off since 1998, and that there maybe, possibly, perhaps, conceivably, theoretically, hypothetically, probably-not-but-you-never-know, could be explanations for changes in temperature that don’t involve mankind and carbon dioxide.

Welcome to the right's favorite stalking horse. The tactic goes a little like this - you can't trust the press/science because they have an agenda, therefore you must trust us, because unlike them, we only care about the truth.

It works so well with the press because arguably the press does have an agenda (that agenda, however, does not match the conservative mythos, but let's set that aside for the moment). But when it's applied to science, it becomes a little nutty. These "conservatives" would have you believe that the overwhelming majority of scientists are jury rigging (thereby essentially destroying) their life's work in order to implement some sinister world-wide socio-economic plan.

The consensus is nowhere near falling apart. Yes, there has been some data recently which indicates we could be in for a decade or two long cooling period. Just as we were from the late 40s to the early 70s. Does that mean we were wrong about anthropogenic global warming? Absolutely not.

Let me provide you with a part of the article, Kyle would like you to ignore.

In addition, say Met Office scientists, temperatures have never increased in a straight line, and there will always be periods of slower warming, or even temporary cooling...What is crucial, they say, is the long-term trend in global temperatures. And that, according to the Met office data, is clearly up.

Global warming (and indeed science itself) is not based on individual pieces of evidence. It is always based on the story all the evidence tells. Scientists look at everything and they usually look at it over a long time. Pundits, on the other hand cherry pick what is convenient, spin up a tale of fancy, then move on to the next target.

If we're picking between pundits and scientists on truth-telling, I believe I'll stick with the boys and girls in the pocket protected white lab coats.

Wingfield Continues To Befuddle

I'll say it.

I disagree with nothing in Kyle Wingfield's latest piece. I think I've been clear over the years that I'm against minimum wage hikes. And to be honest, the ongoing "health care reform" debate makes me nervous as hell. I wish I could adopt Rusty's attitude of adopting the Chamber of Commerce mantra to "just fix it" but I confess I can't. I can't make myself trust government to fix something so complex and massive.

Tell me why I'm wrong, Democrats.

P.S.

This is a great lede for a commentary piece.

When Washington mulls economic policies like raising the minimum wage or requiring small businesses to provide employee health insurance, the debate tends to have a theoretical, academic, even surreal feel to it.

He's really starting to annoy me.

Wingfield At It Again

The best suggestion for naming my new series is "My Morning Wingnut". But I can't do it. I can't possibly justify it. Kyle Wingfield is making my life hard and I don't know what to do about it.

Like this.

That’s why the opportunity for us to take the future of our civil-rights framework into our own hands is so valuable. While the Supreme Court might be able to temper public angst by issuing warnings before it acts, as it did last month, the better solution is for citizens and our elected representatives to take the initiative.

Criticize this? Hell! I could have written it!

Maybe wing nuttiness is acquired with age. Maybe I can find some way to slip Kyle a loony pill. Until that time, I doubt you'll see much ranting against the AJC's latest "wingnut".

One other thing. It's time to let a cat out of the bag. Although I'm pro-choice, he sums up my feelings on Roe v. Wade pretty well. Let the slings and arrows fly.

My Wingfield Something Something

Have you heard? There's a new kid in town. His name is Kyle Wingfield. He's Wooten's replacement and he's put me into a terrible dilemma. He's reasonable and doesn't provide me much ammunition. Also, I can't think of a clever name for a series about him.

Until today.

I have one firm rule in life. If you tell me you believe the Earth is 6,000 years old, I will stop listening to you as I will assume anything which comes next will be just as insane.

I have a more flexible rule regarding logical fallacies - if you use them frequently, I'll probably stop listening to you. I need flexibility on this one because if it were applied rigidly, I'd have to stop paying attention to politics.

Kyle Wingfield tackles Cap and Trade today and shockingly, I agree with most of his points.

Cap and Trade is a Rube Goldberg affair which likely won't accomplish its goal - can't disagree there.

It will likely be used for nefarious gain by greedy politicians - if it can be leveraged, a politician will grab the nearest lever.

A straight carbon tax would be fairer - A conservative calling for a tax? Both shocking and correct.

Unfortunately, to get to these meaty and worthy topics, you have to traverse the following:

One does not have to doubt, as I do, claims that the complex science of the Earth’s climate is “settled” to see that this bill is a sham.

Well, hello Mr. Strawman wrapped in a cloak of incredulity.

Climate science is certainly not settled and no one claims it is. What has been described in layman's terms as "settled" is the overwhelming evidence that man is impacting the climate in an adverse manner.

And that leads us to the argument of incredulity. It's a personal favorite since it is so frequently used by creationists. The simple version is someone states something is so complex it can never be understood therefore any conclusions must be wrong.

Life is so diverse, therefore we can never understand it, so evolution cannot possibly explain it. The weather, atmosphere or whatever trope of the month is used to describe climatology is so complicated, climate scientists could never explain its actions.

Any scientist, if he or she didn't immediately apply my 6,000 year old rule, would reply, of course it is complex but that does not mean we cannot understand it nor should we stop trying.

Kyle, your writing reminds me of the old Jim I so frequently miss. It is well reasoned, worthy of conversation and certainly on the track of "common sense conservatism".

It would be a shame if so early in your run you decide fast fallacy is necessary to amplify steady reason.

Now about that name...maybe something with Winging in the title?