tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post6450798405496276386..comments2023-10-16T07:13:12.123-05:00Comments on A plain blog about politics: Catch of the DayJonathan Bernsteinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15931039630306253241noreply@blogger.comBlogger12125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-55430973884976739352012-01-26T11:34:54.599-06:002012-01-26T11:34:54.599-06:00Perhaps we should create a system for rating Polit...Perhaps we should create a system for rating Politifact's "assessments". I suggest jaw drops, as in: <br /><br />Politifact's wildly erroneous claim that this statement from the President's speech tonight was “half-true" earns FIVE JAW DROPS.Morzernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-28485881086512753052012-01-26T08:41:13.123-06:002012-01-26T08:41:13.123-06:00The job losses under Obama were almost all in the ...The job losses under Obama were almost all in the first months of 2009, a continuation of the crisis of 2008. Since the stimulus, employment has gone up. The number of jobs since then is comparable to the whole seven good years under Bush.Scott Monjenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-87021743835769027812012-01-26T08:31:19.515-06:002012-01-26T08:31:19.515-06:00We can play this game fairly a couple of ways, or ...We can play this game fairly a couple of ways, or unfairly a couple of ways:<br /><br />Fairly #1: The "just the facts, start to end" way. Start Bush's jobs number in January 2001 and end it 8 years later. By that measure there was a net loss of jobs, as you say in paragraph #3. Do the same for Obama, starting in January 2009, and there's a (larger) net loss of jobs (so far).<br /><br />Fairly #2: Leave out the worst jobs year of the president's administration. This way Bush gets credit for creating 3 million jobs, as you noted. Leave out 2009 (Obama's worst jobs year) and Obama gets credit for creating a couple million jobs as well.<br /><br />Unfairly #1: Leave out the worst year for Bush, but not for Obama. (See: your paragraph #4) This way Bush gets credit for creating 3 million jobs while Obama gets blamed for losing over 1 million.<br /><br />Unfairly #2: Leave out 2009 for Obama, but leave 2008 in for Bush. This way Bush gets blamed for a net job loss over two terms in office, while Obama gets credit for creating 2 million jobs in less than one term. <br /><br />P.S. I hope you don't let your students get away with drawing conclusions from evidence the way you do in paragraph #5.massappealhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17883213166005005577noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-56624522401840344932012-01-26T07:15:59.347-06:002012-01-26T07:15:59.347-06:00For fun, I took at look at Obama's claim that ...For fun, I took at look at Obama's claim that he created jobs too. Check out the following site- it's got a table that shows the number of people employed in our nation, in the thousands.<br />http://www.adpemploymentreport.com/data/History_December_2011.xlsx<br /><br />It's data provided by the Department of Labor. There is no spin on the data.<br /><br />When Bush took office, there were 111358K employed in nonfarm private jobs; when he left office there were 111043- that's a loss overall of over 300000 jobs, which he deserves blame for- but keep in mind that this is the bulk of the jobs collapse in 2008 too (months before that the number was at 114752K, meaning that during the first 7 years of Bush, he created 3 million jobs).<br /><br />When Obama took office, there were 111043K people employed in nofarm private jobs; today there are 109646K. This means that during President Obama's administration, 1,397,000 jobs have been lost.<br /><br />I don't know how anyone can 'spin' those numbers.<br /><br />This seems like a good thing to post on- check out my blog in a couple days while I do a little more number crunching on this claim.A Conservative Teacherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14310613238755513162noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-59786901321962797282012-01-25T22:10:53.009-06:002012-01-25T22:10:53.009-06:00Well that's certainly Mostly False.
Toyota go...Well that's certainly Mostly False.<br /><br />Toyota got hit by an earthquake and tsunami. Also, GM was #1 regardless of how exactly they got there. Certainly if a mega-earthquake hit and Michigan fell into Lake Huron, GM wouldn't be entitled to maintain whatever ranking they had.davenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-16065379308750350772012-01-25T20:08:01.595-06:002012-01-25T20:08:01.595-06:00I'm not going to click through to Politifact, ...I'm not going to click through to Politifact, so I don't know what Obama technically said, but it is definitely absurd to call GM the world's number one automaker (whatever that even means!). They shipped the highest volume this year because Toyota got blasted by a hurricane. If the standard is volume in a typical year, Toyota is number one and GM is number two. In fact this year's stats suggested that Volkswagen is on track to pass GM very soon.<br /><br />If instead your standard is total profits or customer satisfaction I'm pretty sure GM does even worse.<br /><br />Of course, Obama's bailout and Obama's appointed managers deserve a lot of credit for the fact that GM's still around at all.Chaznoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-26943761870536397392012-01-25T16:34:02.218-06:002012-01-25T16:34:02.218-06:00It's pretty obvious that this a business decis...It's pretty obvious that this a business decision by Politifact. They decided they'll get more hits during the election season if they're cited by outlets with lots of eyeballs like Drudge and Fox.<br /><br />From now on every time you talk about Politifact, you need need to add the prefix "controversial, right-wing blog". As in "Controversial, right-wing blog Politifact rated 'General Motors is back on top as the world’s No. 1 automaker' as 'Half-True.'"Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-3517026484046471852012-01-25T14:25:28.536-06:002012-01-25T14:25:28.536-06:00Sorry Andrew, Politfact rated this "Half True...Sorry Andrew, Politfact rated this "Half True" because JB was not personally batting behind Renteria in the line-up, and so was not actually helping the Giants SS get any extra fastballs.<br /><br />You heard it here first.. Aaron Rowand '16!JSnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-84337345900225719132012-01-25T13:55:01.242-06:002012-01-25T13:55:01.242-06:00It gets worse. We now know that Obama shot Panetta...It gets worse. We now know that Obama shot Panetta a glance and said "good job" on his way to the podium to deliver the SOTU, a clear reference to the Navy SEAL rescue of the Americans held hostage in Somalia. What a freakin' glory hog. We know precisely the message he was conveying to the American people - that he had boarded a plane to Somalia, rescued the hostages single-handed, snapped some iPhone photos for Sasha and Malia to take to class the next morning ("Here's Daddy killing some guys"), and got on the plane and flew back to Washington. He shaved while standing on his head in Air Force One, because that's how he stays in shape. Pants on fire!Geoff Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17117921607237662932noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-86265306365157038762012-01-25T13:35:48.635-06:002012-01-25T13:35:48.635-06:00Thanks for the gentle gotcha; corrected.
You know...Thanks for the gentle gotcha; corrected.<br /><br />You know, this is like the third time I've got the year wrong on the 2010, that is the 2010, World Series title. I'm not sure whether I have some weird block on it for some reason, or it's an old guy thing (it's not as if I'm going to get 1951, or 1954, or 1962, or even 1989 wrong...although I'm trying hard to blot out that WS against the Angels). My memory is, though, that it's always taken me a few years to adjust my memorized list of WS teams to include the more recent ones. <br /><br />Oh, and thanks again, and sorry for the boring personal reply.Jonathan Bernsteinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15931039630306253241noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-7997912362566955552012-01-25T13:28:26.003-06:002012-01-25T13:28:26.003-06:00When Arthur Brisbane of The New York Times got gri...When Arthur Brisbane of The New York Times got grief for that "Should we check facts?" post, his explanation was that he wanted to distinguish between checking stated facts and mind-reading. Now it seems as if mind-reading, as Brisbane defined it, is precisely what PolitiFact is engaging in.Steve M.https://www.blogger.com/profile/11963290427258439242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-12760606987737994302012-01-25T13:23:50.202-06:002012-01-25T13:23:50.202-06:00the 2009 version of Edgar Renteria wasn't all ...<i>the 2009 version of Edgar Renteria wasn't all that likely to hit two home runs in five games.</i><br /><br />Politifact is going to give this statement a 100%-super-duper-true rating because, even though you got the year wrong, it's clear you had the right intentions!Andrewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15913245096162048743noreply@blogger.com