Fact-Checkers

So there's been this rise lately in the prominence of Fact-Checking in the news.  A lot of politicians, particularly Republicans, have started to take offense, and many have begun speaking with disdain about fact-checkers as, essentially, leftist Spin Doctors.  Are they right?

Well, for one thing, the fact-checkers have truth ratings that rate the speaker's honesty level from honest, to a flat-out liar (pants on fire, and all that).  No one likes having their integrity attacked, so, right away, I can see how this is going to make people angry.  There is an interesting moment (1:30) in this audio clip from NPR's On the Media when the host, Brooke Gladstone, puts her finger on the truthiness of political rhetoric when she paraphrases the remarks of a Fox News reporter with the statement, "no fact is non-partisan".  Brooke herself seems to think this notion is absurd, and that all statements must be either true or false.  But the trouble is, that when you take a very complex issue that has been developing for decades, and someone sees it in a certain way, and they make statements based on their own opinions and perspectives... well, they really do believe what they said, and in their eyes they're right--which is to say, from their perspective, they are telling the truth.  And when you call them a flat-out liar, you're going to illicit an unpleasant response.  Witness former White House Chief of Staff and Former RNC chairman John Sununu being interviewed by Brooke Gladstone a few minutes later on the same show.  Now, I can't say I support Sununu's response (to borrow a favorite expression from my Dad, Sununu really showed his ass) .  He did nothing to actually explain his position other than to say "you had to be there."  He's right, Brooke wasn't there.  And I wasn't either, so I looked it up.  Chris Farrell, on NPR's Marketplace, actually does a great job of explaining this simply and succinctly in just a few quick paragraphs.  (worth noting, the intro to Farrell's fourth paragraph is just more unnecessary inflammatory attacks). 

So the Republican position is that the law includes a Work Requirement, and it specifically forbids any Waivers to this requirement.  What the Obama administration has proposed is outside of the finite list of things that would satisfy this Work Requirement, and is therefore, by definition, Against the Law. 

The President's position seems to be that, in the Spirit of getting people back to work, we should be adding to that list of things that satisfy the Work Requirement.  It is claimed that Governors (including Romney) have requested this flexibility.  (I especially like how Farrell seems to take a page from the conservative playbook with the statement that it allows "States to act as laboratories of innovation." 

Semantically, it sounds like the Executive Branch may be taking some liberties or pushing the bounds of its authority granted by Congress.  If Sununu could put his temper on the back burner, he could probably explain the ins and outs of this in a much more thorough way, and actually help people like me get a better understanding of the Welfare Reform Act, and the relationship between the Legislative and Executive Branches.  I'd also like to point out that I really don't know how far the Administration is pushing the definition of what would satisfy the Work Requirement, or how many and which Governors have been appealing for this expansion.

A fact-checker could tell you more about what the President has proposed, and how it might violate the exact wording of the Welfare Reform Act.  That person could dig up reports on exactly which Governors, if any, requested expansion of the Work Requirement, and when.  These are Facts, and Facts are what Fact-Checkers should be pre-occupying themselves with--not Opinions.  It is an Opinion, not a Fact, that the President is (or isn't) gutting the Welfare Reform Act and removing the Work Requirement.  You might say that it is a well-informed or un-informed Opinion, but it is opinion, nonetheless.  

The Death of Osama Bid Ladin

My memory is pretty bad, so there are very few major world events that I can really remember with any clarity. But I will always remember sitting in a debriefing shack in Ft. Dix, NJ being told that the rumors we'd heard about planes crashing into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon were true. And now, nearly ten years later, the man who was responsible for planning, funding, and managing the operation is brought to justice by combat operatives of the Joint Special Operations Command. Is this as significant as 9/11? If 9/11 represents the beginning of the war on terror, does this represent the end--or at least, the beginning of the end? Is this a turning point for us, and our relationship with the rest of the world? There's an argument for that. A large portion of the Muslim/Arab world have overthrown their dictators and are moving toward free popular democracies. The rebels in Libya are holding PRO America rallies. That's a real change. I really don't know the situation in Iraq, Afghanistan, or Iran. My guess is that Iran is starting to sweat. I don't know. I'm not sure I've got anything good to say here.

I don't think it's right to celebrate the death of another human being, but I think that God has to forgive me for this one.

This man laughed with pleasant surprise when he heard how many innocent people his plan had killed on 9/11.

9/11 is only link in his chain of atrocities against humanity. He made his living through fear and intimidation against powerless civilians.

I can't think straight.

I've sworn to uphold and defend the US Constitution several times. I own a copy, and yes, I've read it. However, as a historian, I think it is very important to understand the lives of its authors and the context in which it was written. The country has changed, and the constitution has changed with it. If the founding fathers had intended for the constitution to be interpreted with zero subjectivity they wouldn't have allowed for a Supreme Court.
I don't (generally) believe in absolute right and absolute wrong answers. I don't like labels like Democrat, Conservative, "Pro Life" or "Anti Gun." They are far too simple, and tend to pigeon-hole anyone who isn't "on-board" 100%, as being on the other side--for example, I hate abortion, but because I don't think the government has the right to tell you you can't have one, I'm a baby killer. But I really don't think people should be having them, and after a 10-min convo, I'm also likely to be labeled a fascist by the pro-choice camp. I think most people fear intellectual ambiguity... I thrive on it.
Ask me my opinion on an issue, and expect a lengthy conversation. But please, ask, b/c I'd like to hear your point of view as well. Maybe you'll change my mind (does this make me a wishy-washy flip-flopper? Maybe.) (posted on my fb profile about a year ago)

Beginnings

My intention for this blog is to be a place for me to work out my political opinions.

I think that opinions shouldn't be able to be expressed in one or two sentences. That's my opinion on that. (get it?)

I'm not always right, but I'm not always wrong either. The truth is that my opinion is mine, and I'm entitled to it. If you don't agree with me, that's good. Tell me what you think. I want to know. You might change my mind--you might not.

I think that people who refuse to enter into rational political discourse are afraid of being proven wrong, and it is a sign of strength to overcome that fear. I ask people to put away anger and tell me what they believe. I will be doing the same.

Of course, this assumes anyone actually reads this. Whether anyone reads or not, I'll be writing. And this blog IS being written with the full intention that people read it. Read it, and post on it. We can't come together as a nation if we don't know what each other is (are?) thinking.