The "I Can't Wait" department (Updated)

clipped from www.pulitzer.org Please visit the St. Petersburg Times' PolitiFact page for Prizewinning stories. Winning stories will be posted here when available.

PolitiFact received a Pulitzer Prize in 2009 for the category of national reporting.

If evidence apart from Katie Couric's Pulitzer were needed that the prize has acquired MOL the meaning of a Grammy Award (the judges like you!), perhaps this award to PolitiFact cements the case. Right now it's a bit hard to tell, because it isn't clear what content the awarding jury used as its criteria for judgment. I have located abundant examples of shockingly poor journalism from PolitiFact, but that is not to say that a good number of its entries were not good examples of journalism.

The link provided at Pulitzer.org back to the Times' Web site does not appear to have any specifically indentified "Prizewinning stories."

I look forward to seeing the winning stories posted at Pulitzer.org.



Update:

Oct 14, 2009: Lo and behold, the prize-winning stories are now identified!

NYT able to reveal that science confirms that human life does not begin at conception

A hat tip to the CFI forum for bringing a New York Times story about New York's new Roman Catholic archbishop to my attention.

I was dumbfounded by the following statement from the story:

He did not refer to it, but there is conflict between Catholic dogma and scientific conventions on several fronts, including the medical definition of brain death, the legal definition of the beginning of human life and the ethics of embryonic stem cell research.

Apparently the graph was supposed to invoke our trust in science in opposition to Roman Catholic doctrines.

Though that may work with some, the statement actually just makes the writer and editor look stupid.

Science agrees with Roman Catholic doctrine regarding the beginning of human life, and both probably conflict with the legal definition. The legal definition, when it comes down to it, will be an ethical construct, and science does not inform us regarding ethics or morality except with respect to descriptive norms. That is, it can tell us what people regard as moral but not whether or not their beliefs about morality are correct.

The same goes for the ethics of embryonic stem cell research. The ethics of stem cell research do not stem from science.

Now, the brain-death issue I wasn't sure about at first. I hadn't read about the Vatican's stance on that one. But upon looking into it, it seems that the Roman Catholic concern conflicts not at all with science but simply takes note of potential ethical dilemmas such as the harvesting of organs from living bodies that have experienced brain death.

Perhaps there is some critical distinction between science per se and "scientific convention" where the latter simply represents the behavior of scientists.

Performing dangerous experiments on living human beings, for example, is not forbidden by science. Science could learn quite a bit from human experimentation, as a matter of fact. And it has been done in the past, thus representiing "scientific convention" at certain times and locations, at least.

But why belabor the point? The Times was simply stupid to allow such ignorance to go to print.

The SPT bemoans "affront to voters"

A bylineless editorial from The St. Petersburg Times this week criticized GOP lawmakers in Florida for making certain types of personal identification unsuitable for confirming one's identity at the polls and for moving to make public referendum more difficult.

Those moves were supposedly an "affront to voters."

The editorial is an affront to readers of the newspaper, unless they happen to possess the type of ideological bias that might qualify them for a place on the editorial board.

It is not an affront to voters to require identification. Yes, it arguably shrinks the number of votes for Democrats. It affects primarily those who take their voting rights so lightly that they don't bother to obtain legally required identification. It also affects those who might not be eligible to vote. Responsible voters from either party should not expend too much worry over an affront to those who either place little value on their voting rights or lack voting rights altogether.

The Times' statement on the power of referendum was so priceless that I half expect it to turn up in a credit card advertisement:

The bill would make it harder for a citizens' referendum to reach the ballot and easier for elected officials to keep one off.

Why is it bad to make it harder for a citizens' referendum to reach the ballot? Our anonymous editor doesn't say. And who should decide whether a citizens' referendum ought to reach the ballot? If the decision is based on the law, then elected officials effectively decide which referenda make the ballot and which do not. The end effect is a step backward from direct democracy, a system the framers of our federal Constitution found abhorrent for its vulnerability to mob influence, and an affirmation of representative government. The latter, coincidentally, was the form of government the framers explicitly advocated.

The Republican form of government? An affront to voters in the eyes of the Times.

Anybody with me in getting a referendum on the ballot to liquidate the Times? Perhaps it would make an effective point with the editors of that port-listing publication.

Grading PolitiFact: Bilirakis & the DHS "Rightwing Extremism" report

Fact-checking the Fact checkers

The issue:

Rep. Gus Bilirakis issued a press release offering comment on the recent "Rightwing Extremism" report from the Department of Homeland Security:

“I am disturbed and personally offended by the Department of Homeland Security’s view that returning military veterans and gun owners are likely to commit terrorist acts.

“Federal homeland security officials should focus on specific, verifiable, and actionable intelligence to stop potential terrorist threats to our country. Instead the Department is engaging in political and ideological profiling of people who fought to keep our country safe from terrorism, uphold our nation’s immigration laws, and protect our Constitutional right to keep and bear arms. It troubles me that the Department has specifically avoided talking about foreign terrorism but seems more than willing to insult our nation’s heroes returning from battle.

“As Ranking Member of the Homeland Security Committee’s Subcommittee on Management, Investigations, and Oversight, I will work to ensure that the Department aggressively pursues all appropriate efforts to stop terrorism here at home, regardless of what political or ideological beliefs individuals may hold.”
(bilirakis.office.gov, bold emphasis added)

Did Bilirakis accurately represent the views of the Department of Homeland Security? Or at least the contents of the report?

The fact checkers:

• Angie Drobnic Holan (writer, researcher)
  
• Bill Adair (editor)
  

Analysis:

Drobnic starts her evaluation of Bilirakis' claim with opinion-laden background:

Conservative groups have been sounding an alarm about a leaked report from the Department of Homeland Security they say portrays veterans and gun owners as likely terrorists.

I keep track of conservative buzz, and the buzz surrounding the DHS report was much broader than any emphasis on veterans and gun owners. The report also suggests that various conservative ideological positions are worthy of being monitored by the authorities. The gun ownership and veteran issues were simply two good examples of the ham-handedness of the report. The "alarm" was primarily criticism of what seems at first blush to be a political document coming from the DHS.

So what about those veterans and gun-owners?

The report was not supposed to be publicly available ("No portion . . . should be released to the media, the general public or over non-secure Internet servers"). But somehow, it got released and is now widely available on the Web. (Read it for yourself here.)

This information seems irrelevant. NSA surveillance methods were leaked even though the information was classified. It wasn't relevant to criticisms of those methods whether or not people were supposed to know about it. The DHS report was not classified. Right at the top of the document it says "Unclassified//For Official Use Only"). Perhaps the reader is supposed to be suspicious of the whole episode since the information was leaked. Drobnic would know for sure.

Drobnic then spends six paragraphs highlighting the portions of the report she found relevant to the conservative complaint cited earlier.

After that, she takes three paragraphs to deal with a side issue, which I will take up after assigning grades.

Eight more paragraphs primarily offered readers the view of Janet Napolitano, Obama's DHS secretary.

After all the to-do, Drobnic dumps on us the following conclusion:

This brings us back to Bilirakis' claim that DHS thinks that "returning military veterans and gun owners are likely to commit terrorist acts." This is a distortion of what the report actually said. The report said that rightwing extremists would try to recruit veterans, and that they would try to use gun control legislation as a "radicalization" tool. That's very different. We rate his statement Barely True.

Drobnic may have somehow overlooked the summary section of the report; certainly there is no mention in her work of the portion of the report ("key findings:") most consonant with Bilirakis' description:

(U//FOUO) The possible passage of new restrictions on firearms and the return of military veterans facing significant challenges reintegrating into their communities could lead to the potential emergence of terrorist groups or lone wolf extremists capable of carrying out violent attacks.
(Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment)

If the above is not a statement ascribing an increased probability of terrorist organization by gun owners and military veterans (those facing "significant challenges," anyway), then the statement is effectively meaningless. We might as well say that the onset of the autumn season could lead devotees of the art of pumpkin-carving to form terrorist groups or turn into lone wolf extremists capable of carrying out violent acts. As if pumpkin carving isn't violent enough already.

Now that the reader is familiar with the key part of the report omitted by Drobnic, let us go through the steps she should have taken in evaluating Bilirakis' statement.

First, we evaluate the statement itself in terms of authorial intent, and then in terms of plausible reader interpretation. Bilirakis' words lend themselves primarily to two differing interpretations.

1) The DHS report suggests that veterans/gun owners generally are probabilistically likely (greater than 50 percent) to perform terrorist acts.
2) The DHS report suggests that veterans/gun owners generally are more likely than those in the general population to perform terrorist acts.

The first understanding is absurd on its face. Nobody would expect that roughly half or more of U.S. military veterans would engage in terrorist activity. Neither is it reasonable to see that as Bilirakis' intent.

The latter interpretation (2) is likely, and as noted above it is the apparent meaning of the "key findings" portion of the report. Drobnic does perform a valuable service in directing attention to the portion of the report that ought to have supported the key finding, but in this case it happens that the key finding remains unsupported. The supposition that gun owners and veterans facing challenges would serve as potential recruits to the point of justifying the key finding is just that: a supposition.

Contrary to Drobnic's conclusion, Bilirakis does have specific justification from the document for his statement. He can't be fairly ruled worse than "Mostly True," for it is not his fault that the DHS report mismatches its key findings with its supporting evidence.

Another disgraceful performance by PolitiFact.

The Grades:

Angie Drobnic Holan: F
Bill Adair: F


Afterword:

Drobnic made additional mistakes outside the stated focus of the PolitiFact entry.

The first error was relatively subtle:

The report was not supposed to be publicly available ("No portion . . . should be released to the media, the general public or over non-secure Internet servers").

There were two types of information in the report. One type was "For Office Use Only," where those portions were tagged with "FOUO." The second category of information was "Law Enforcement Sensitive" information, duly tagged with "LES."

Drobnic was correct in stating that the report was not supposed to be pubicly available, but offered a quotation taken inappropriately out of context in support of the claim. The statement she quoted did not apply to the portion of the report most relevant to the Bilirakis press release. That was tagged with "FOUO," not "LES."

The second error concerned the supposedly mitigating existence of a DHS report on left wing extremism:

Countering claims that the DHS is targeting conservatives is the fact that the department issued a similar report on leftwing groups a few months previously.

"Leftwing Extremists Likely to Increase Use of Cyber Attacks over the Coming Decade," issued Jan. 26, 2009 (six days after Obama took office), said leftwing extremists include "radical elements of the anarchist, animal rights, or environmental movements" who are "willing to violate the law to achieve their objectives."

First, even if the DHS was specifically targeting leftwing extremists, it would not effectively counter the claim that the report in question targets conservatives. It is not as though targeting one is antithetical to targeting the other.

Second, the reports differ markedly in tenor. The report on leftwing extremism bases its claims on evidence rather than supposition, and deals particularly with one aspect of leftwing extremism as per the title: "Leftwing Extremists Likely to Increase Use of Cyber Attacks over the Coming Decade." The descriptions impugn those associated with those groups rather than casting suspicion on a mass group of people supposedly ripe for recruitment by extremists.

The report on leftwing extremists carries the same warnings against public release as the one about rightwing extremism. It is a wonder that Drobnic neglected to mention it in the former case. In short, the report on leftwing extremism does little if anything to mitigate the content of the report that Bilirakis condemned.

April 20, 2009: "Gus" Bilirakis, not Michael Bilirakis. The latter no longer serves in Congress.
April 21, 2009: Corrected for AP style on a few points

Link to Justice Department memos on interrogation techniques

The link goes to The New York Times and a hat tip goes to Power Line.

Though it is a bad idea to reveal interrogation techniques, the documents may prove useful in exposing the hysteria of some of the criticisms of Bush administration policy. An example follows.

The linked document offers a description of waterboarding. To no surprise on my part, the description in the memo differs from the ones Judge Evan Wallach used in his oft-cited legal criticism ("Drop by Drop: Forgetting The History of Water Torture in U.S. Courts") of the technique:

One investigator describes water-boarding as a technique "in which a prisoner is stripped, shackled and submerged in water until he begins to lose consciousness." Another current source says that in water-boarding "a prisoner is strapped down, forcibly pushed under water and made to believe he might drown." The similarity is startling, given the opprobrium occasioned by its application to American military personnel. Furthermore, it is striking because, as discussed at length below, it bears a stark resemblance to conduct by American troops in the Philippine insurgency following the Spanish-American War, just over a hundred years ago.

The similarity, it turns out, is startling because it doesn't exist as described.

Incidentally, the two citations Wallach used for his descriptions of waterboarding both came from stories in The New York Times.

Will we see a correction?

Pentagon amends M-ATV solicitation--answer to Navistar objection?

InsideDefense reports (subscription only!) that the M-ATV solicitation has been amended to more specifically define "hull breach."

This, of course, will fuel speculation that the amendment follows from Navistar's recent protest of the M-ATV competition.

Consider this post part of the vanguard of that speculation. I don't know if the InsideDefense report makes the connection, by the way.

Are Obama and Gore killing the auto industry?

American auto makers have plenty of problems. Bad labor agreements, dodgy consumer credit and economic uncertainty have no doubt contributed in their own ways to weak auto sales.

I suggest one more factor: Hope 'n Change in the era of global warming.

"But wait a second," you're thinking. "Hope and Change are going to make the auto companies successful."

Yeah, right. Hear me out.

We're going to build our economy on a new foundation. We'll turn to alternative energy sources.

Anybody see that in the current crop of automobiles?

Well, there's the hybrid ... but it's now pretty much common knowledge that hybrid technology isn't really the answer as things now stand. Hybrids are a bit like projection televisions. They offer a certain advantage (marginally better gas mileage for hybrids, larger screen size for projection televisions), but they both represent transitional technologies. A few years after big screen projection televisions hit the market nobody wanted them any longer because they're bulkier and offer an inferior picture compared to plasma and LCD machines.

And hybrids cost. People do not want to pay out the nose to drive the equivalent of next year's projection television. They don't.

Compounding the problem for auto makers, people don't want to buy non-hybrids either. Neither type of vehicle appears to fit the vision of the near-to-distant future. Popular culture has set our expectations to the point where we regard the traditional automobile as dinosaur-in-waiting.

If my analysis is on track, auto sales are now driven by those blindly seeing green (those who haven't caught on that hybrids aren't the answer and won't save them money) and those who just happen to need a new car and who won't buy used. I can imagine that some retirees won't care whether their next car fits the vision of the future since the future for them is now, in effect.

A climate that allows for traditional (that is, relatively inexpensive) internal combustion engine cars to fit the vision of the future will enable auto makers to sell cars.

It's almost that simple.

Navistar withdraws M-ATV protest

So reports The Wall Street Journal via Dow Jones newswires.

The story says that Navistar stock jumped when the news hit. That pretty much completes a demonstration of the way Wall Street reacts to rumors and incomplete information.

Supposedly the objection addressed a technicality, and Navistar worked it out with the Pentagon without making any details public.

If Navistar's stock rose above its pre-protest baseline, I can think of one reason why, all else being equal.

Supposing capable management, Navistar took a risk in protesting the selection process. They would presumably know that stock would take a hit. That risk makes sense if the resolved technicality offers a measurable advantage to the Navistar bid.

Then again, as somebody once said, where stupidity is the simplest explanation for risky behavior, stick with it.

Grading PolitiFact: Limbaugh and the Hyperbole Police

clipped from www.politifact.com

The Truth-O-Meter Says:

"You can't read a speech by George Washington . . . without hearing him reference God, the Almighty."

Rush Limbaugh on Wednesday, April 8th, 2009 in a radio broadcast

When I first offered my general critique of PolitiFact, the fact-checking operation run by The St. Petersburg Times with Congressional Quarterly, I lambasted them along non-partisan lines for rating Barack Obama (not president at the time) "False" regarding a fairly obvious case of hyperbole.

PolitiFact has resumed its role as the Hyperbole Police by attacking a recent statement by Rush Limbaugh as "False."

Here's what Limbaugh said:

Now, you've got people who want to conform and not cause any ripples, "Oh, yeah, yeah, we're not a Christian nation, Judeo-Christian ethic, we are a lot of different religions here. We're bound by our common values." You can't read a speech by George Washington, you can't read his inaugural address, you cannot read them without hearing him reference God, the Almighty, and how this nation owes its existence to God and our thanks to God for the vision in founding this nation with people treated as he made them, the yearning spirit to be free and so forth. There has been a constant attack since to disabuse people of the notion that this nation has a religious founding and from that religion springs morality and our basic understanding of where freedom comes from. It's got religious roots and people are threatened by religious roots because they're threatened by religious people.

Now let's look at the Hyperbole Police Report:

To see whether you indeed "can't read a speech by George Washington" without seeing a reference to God, we checked Washington's most noteworthy speeches, starting with his two inaugural addresses, since Limbaugh mentioned those specifically.

This is simply unworthy of being called fact-checking.

First, Limbaugh's statement was obvious hyperbole. Second, he did not limit his statement to references to God. Third, Washington's second inaugural address was only "noteworthy" for its extreme brevity (check the afterword at the end of this post). Fourth, Limbaugh did not mention a plurality of inaugural addresses. In the latter case, charitable reading suggests that the more relevant inaugural address be taken as the speaker's subject.

So clearly Limbaugh was wrong that you can't read a Washington speech without seeing a reference to God.

Right, just like Barack Obama was "wrong" that law enforcement against employers who hire illegals was less likely than a lightning strike. Sheesh.

This piece by Alexander Lane (edited by Bill Adair) continues the PolitiFact tradition of flip-flopping the emphasis on a statement's wooden-literal meaning as opposed to its intended meaning in context. Fact-checking worthy of the name takes the author's intent to heart as well as the message the audience is likely to receive.

Lane did not stop with grading hyperbole false, however. He blathered on to the point of finding another straw man to topple:

It's also worth noting, given Limbaugh's larger point that Washington's religious views support the idea that the U.S. is a Christian nation, that Washington was hardly a devout Christian.

Don't let the above fool you. Lane isn't interested in Limbaugh's underlying argument, which dealt with the relationship between religion and indvidual rights. Whether Washington was devout or not doesn't touch Limbaugh's real point. Lane takes PolitiFact readers for a ride, trying to sell the notion that Washington was a Deist. As one of his key evidences, Lane quotes retired professor John Ferling on the founding fathers:

"They thought in terms of there being a Supreme Creator who created life and the universe but then didn't intrude in things from that point on."

Ferling's words hint at a blind spot in his knowledge of religion, or at least logic. The statements of the supposedly deistic founding fathers, including those of Washington, often appeal to the Creator for continued protection. Does that make any sense to ask of a hands-off deity? Ferling appears to be one of those who project a modern flavor of deism back on the founding fathers. Yes, they emphasized morality, and they often sustained doubts about the divinity of Christ. But the point, from Limbaugh's point of view, was on the agreed basis for the individual rights: the hand of the Creator.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
(Declaration of Independence)

Instead of seeing Limbaugh's point about the role of government in protecting individual rights on the basis of religious presuppositions, Lane takes the moon-gravity leap to the idea that Limbaugh was claiming that Washington was quite the Christian. No kidding.

So Washington wasn't nearly the devout Christian that Limbaugh suggested he was and he did not refer to God in all his speeches as the talk show host claimed. We find Limbaugh's claim is False.

What a blinkin' waste of time. Limbaugh did not at all sugggest that Washington was a devout Christian.

Lane's grade: F
Adair's grade: F


Afterword:

Better late than never with the afterword.

Was Washington's second inaugural speech "noteworthy"? Was it significant that he neglected to mention God or related issues in that speech? As noted in the preceding reply to PolitiFact, the speech was notable primarily for shortness. And that is easy to prove by simply including the entire speech in the afterword:

FELLOW-CITIZENS: I am again called upon by the voice of my country to execute the functions of its Chief Magistrate. When the occasion proper for it shall arrive, I shall endeavor to express the high sense I entertain of this distinguished honor, and of the confidence which has been reposed in me by the people of united America.

Previous to the execution of any official act of the President the Constitution requires an oath of office. This oath I am now about to take, and in your presence: That if it shall be found during my administration of the Government I have in any instance violated willingly or knowingly the injunctions thereof, I may (beside incurring constitutional punishment) be subject to the upbraidings of all who are now witnesses of the present solemn ceremony.

(History.org)

Beyond simply proving that the speech was spectacularly short, I wanted to emphasize the apparent reason why Washington kept it brief. In his own words, from the above:

When the occasion proper for it shall arrive, I shall endeavor to express the high sense I entertain of this distinguished honor, and of the confidence which has been reposed in me by the people of united America.

Washington had apparently decided that his inauguration was not the right time for a self-indulgent speech. I would hazard a guess that Washington's words here prefigure his farewell address, as it is well known that he served with reluctance while also realizing that he was the right man for the job.

It is worth noting that the farewell address contains much of the material that Rush Limbaugh suggested was commonplace in Washington's speeches.

April 21, 2009: Updated with complete title and afterword
April 22, 2009: Supplied a previously omitted "the"

Navistar protests M-ATV competition

Navistar International has apparently staged a protest of the M-ATV (all-terrain MRAP) competition. The grounds of the context remain unclear since Navistar successfully made it to the second round of that competition.

Navistar filed a protest of the contest with the U.S. Government Accountability Office on March 30, Michael Golden, the GAO's managing associate general counsel for procurement law, said in an interview today. The contest was under way at the time, and a GAO decision on the matter is due by July 8, he said.

Roy Wiley, spokesman for Navistar, confirmed the protest and declined to specify its legal basis because "the matter is under review."

(The Daily Herald)

Navistar's stock dropped on the announcement, according to the story. That makes sense, for one is not likely to protest a competition that one is winning handily.