ObamaCare and The Rule of Waiver

I can't improve on Ed Morrissey's analysis from Hot Air regarding the Obama administration's issuing of ObamaCare compliance waivers:

The Rule of Law depends on an environment with clear regulation and unbiased enforcement.  From the start, ObamaCare lacked any clarity in regulation.  Congress filled the bill with the phrase “The Secretary shall determine” in place of establishing rules and regulations for the massive regulatory regime Congress created.  Now, the White House has added arbitrary enforcement to uncertain regulation and opaque processes.  This is not the Rule of Law, but the Whim of Autocracy.

Morrissey continues to emphasize--and I concur--that business thrives best in a predictable and favorable regulatory climate.

Contrary to the way it was advertised, ObamaCare has damaged the economy by increasing uncertainty.

And it's worth pointing out that the routine use of waivers provides one more avenue for exerting central control over the economy, albeit in a relatively small way in the context of the overall economy.

Grading PolitiFact (Rhode Island): John Loughlin, Social Security and Ponzi schemes

The issue:

John Loughlin is a Republican running for the House of Representatives in Rhode Island's District 1.

The fact checkers:

Cynthia Needham:  writer, researcher
Susan Areson:  editor

Analysis:

Full disclosure:  I've referred to Social Security as a Ponzi scheme in the past.

PolitiFact Rhode Island provides ample context in presenting Loughlin's statement:

In perhaps the most extensive example, Loughlin had this to say while speaking in February at a Rhode Island Voter Coalition forum:

"For those of you who haven't retired yet, Social Security is a Ponzi scheme. The people who are working are paying for the people who are retired. There is no Social Security trust fund per se. Your money doesn't go into a big bank and come out when you retire. You're hoping there will be enough young people working to be able to pay your Social Security when you retire. That, ladies and gentlemen, is a classic Ponzi scheme. It's a textbook definition."

Though the story provides plenty of context for Loughlin's remarks, Needham brackets the quotation with references to Bernie Madoff, the guy convicted of securities fraud in association with a Ponzi-structured system.  Madoff was also found guilty on a host of other charges.  Needham writes that Loughlin is comparing the federal government to Madoff (which Loughlin did during an interview with PolitiFact Rhode Island).

So what is a Ponzi scheme?  Needham provides an answer:

The current definition on the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission website identifies it this way: "A Ponzi scheme is an investment fraud that involves the payment of purported returns to existing investors from funds contributed by new investors."

Sound familiar? Loughlin thinks so. He insists that's the same process used to finance the federal Social Security program. And he believes that when benefits owed exceed the money coming in, the system will fall apart.

All three of Needham's statements concerning Loughlin appear dubious.  Since Loughlin's description of Social Security is different in substance from the SEC version it does not necessarily follow that Loughlin thinks the SEC version sounds familiar.  Likewise the presumption that it's "the same process used to finance the federal Social Security program" since Loughlin says nothing about purported "returns" on the investment.  And the third represents an ambiguity in terms of how we define "the system will fall apart."  Private investment firms can't compel participation by law, so the government will not chase away potential investors the way the failure of a traditional Ponzi scheme might.  Should we assume that Loughlin assumes otherwise without hearing him say it?  Is it fact checking if we make that assumption?

PolitiFact Rhode Island allows "there are similarities" between Social Security's structure and a Ponzi scheme.  Monies from new investors (younger workers) go to those previously invested in the program.  And whatever "trust fund" is said to exist amounts to an IOU from the government.

PolitiFact asserts one major difference:

But there is a second, critical component that defines a Ponzi scheme: fraud. To reach the level of this kind of scam, an investment setup must intentionally con investors, while making efforts to convince them that the finances are legitimate.

Is fraud an absolutely critical component of a Ponzi scheme?  The government, as noted above, can compel participation in the program.  There's no need to dupe people into participation because they're forced to participate.  On the other hand, the program would not continue without a substantial degree of support from voters.

How does the government obtain that support from voters?  See the "Afters" section.

Fraud is not an essential aspect to the Ponzi scheme.  It is an optional element used by entities unable to force participation in their financial/insurance products.  Regardless, the government has arguably misled its citizens about the financial soundness of their social insurance program.

In fact, Social Security was set up in the midst of the Depression to serve as an insurance plan of sorts for the elderly. Since then, participants and those who pay into the system have been well aware of how the program is run.

 It wasn't too long ago that a commenter on PolitiFact's FaceBook page stated that she was entitled to get back what she paid into Social Security.  Apparently she didn't get the memo as to how Social Security works.  I mention that because Needham is using a technique discouraged in journalism:  She's stating something as a fact and leaving herself as the authority behind the truth of the claim.  Reporting journalists customarily refer facts to trusted third-party sources.

Is Needham's claim solid?

From a 1997 report (page 6) from the Social Security Advisory Board:

One survey found that 79 percent know that current workers pay for the benefits of current beneficiaries (EBRI, 1994).  However, in the same survey, nearly two thirds thought that current workers pay for their own retirement.

Wouldn't it be nice if Needham had substantiated her claim by citing a dependable source?

Needham did rely on an expert source to substantiate the claim that the lack of fraud keeps Social Security from being fairly compared to a Ponzi scheme.  Rick McIntyre, an economics professor at the University of Rhode Island, provided assurances that Ponzi schemes require deceit.

I had difficulty reconciling McIntyre's remarks with an abundance of professional literature in his field that talks about "Ponzi game" and  the "no-Ponzi game condition" in reference to government fiscal policy without any apparent reference to the critical nature of the deceit question.

To Kindelberger and other writers on financial scams, the essential feature of Ponzi's activities was 'misrepresentation or the violation of an implicit or explicit trust' (1978: 79-80).  In economic theory, however, the label 'Ponzi' survives largely stripped of its connotation of fraud. 

(The New Palgrave Dictionary of Money & Finance)

PolitiFact used one other expert source, Mitchell Zuckoff.  Zuckoff is a journalist who wrote a book about Charles Ponzi's original rip off.  Zuckoff agreed that fraud is essential to Ponzi schemes.  I'm supposing that Zuckoff is unfamiliar with the relevant professional literature.  I'd hate to make that assumption of McIntyre, but it may be the case.

Apparently unaware that her analysis lacks a secure foundation, Needham concludes:

Without that key element of deceit, we find it hard to find Loughlin's analogy -- or that of anyone who uses it -- credible.

But there's one more thing. Loughlin doesn't just compare Social Security to the Ponzi scheme concept, he takes it a step further and draws a parallel with the specific case of Madoff, who is believed to have run the largest fraud of this kind in history.

Publicly measuring a 75-year-old U.S. government program against such a massive crime is not only overstating the issue, it's bordering on irresponsible.

False. 

Leaving aside the problem of the false essential feature for Ponzi schemes on which PolitiFact rests its case, it isn't difficult to suppose a legitimate use of the Madoff example.  Madoff is now a well known figure, and using his name immediately brings to mind a recent and concrete example of Ponzi financing in action.  Ordinarily that's just good and effective communication.  Is it possible to fault Loughlin for invoking the comparison with Madoff's specifically criminal actions?  Sure.  But it's difficult to argue that as Loughlin's main point.  And Needham doesn't argue the point, instead allowing it to enter the picture by implication.

PolitiFact Wisconsin graded a similar claim "Barely True" using the same fallacy of equivocation present in the PolitiFact Rhode Island effort.  The latter story provides no explanation why the ratings differed.

The grades:

Cynthia Needham:  F
Susan Areson:  F

I've applied the tag "Journalists reporting badly."

Needham should have used more than two expert sources to substantiate the notion that fraud is essential to Ponzi schemes.   And whatever his familiarity with the original Ponzi scheme of Charles Ponzi, the journalist Zuckoff probably should not have been chosen a key expert source.  Ignoring the professional literature, which has quite a bit to say about Ponzi financing, helped lead Needham down the wrong path.  Using herself as the expert source for the claim that people understand the nature of Social Security financing was unacceptable.

As for the editor, Areson, she should have told Needham everything I just did but prior to publication.


Afters:

Photo finish for the AL East?

The winner of the American League East division will not be decided until Sunday--last day of the season unless a rainout requires an extra day of regular season baseball.

The New York Yankees and Tampa Bay Rays have spent most of the season battling each other for first place as well as the best record in baseball. The Philadelphia Phillies put on a mad dash at the end to earn the best record, but home field advantage in the AL playoffs remains in play.

Though the Rays have played poorly overall in playing series against the AL's three last-place teams, the Yankees have failed to seize the opportunity--in large part because of six games against the Boston Red Sox.

About the Red Sox: I hate them almost as much as the Yankees. But credit where it's due. That team has played its way to a pretty good season despite a slew of injuries that caused many top Red Sox players to miss a ton of games. And the Red Sox have played the Yankees tough.

If the Rays beat the Royals in the last regular season game, they claim the AL East crown If the Rays lose and the Yankees win, then the Yanks get to burden their stadium with yet another division championship banner. If both teams win or both teams lose, the Rays get the title by virtue of the head-to-head tiebreaker.

What a season.


***

A little more about the playoffs: The Rays, Yankees and Twins have played mediocre ball in September and early October. The Texas Rangers are playing pretty well, but OF Josh Hamilton--their best hitter--is struggling with some broken ribs.

Still, this is a tough league to handicap. The Rays have received inconsistent pitching from the starting rotation--it's anybody's guess whom skipper Joe Maddon will use as starters after David Price (I'm guessing Matt Garza, Jeff Nieman then Wade Davis). The Rays need the starting staff to come through in order to advance, and it will be much easier if somebody in the batting order gets hot. Preferably two or more.

Unfortunately, there's not much reason to expect better offense from the Rays in the playoffs. Batting averages have been pretty much pedestrian all season for the Rays except for Carl Crawford and Evan Longoria. I have to give Texas the edge to advance to the AL Championship series if the Rangers face the Rays.

The Twins have an excellent team with a foundation of solid pitching and great defense. The Twins will miss Justin Morneau in the first round of the playoffs because of injury, and they have a miserable history against the Yankees. I'd favor the Yankees if that matchup occurs.

I hope I'm wrong on both counts, and perhaps those pairings won't occur depending on how the regular season pans out.

Grading PolitiFact (Florida): Alan Grayson and illegal divorce

Rep. Alan Grayson (D-Fla.) is doing a tremendous job of helping is opponent, Daniel Webster, rise in the polls.  And PolitiFact was there.


The issue:

The fact checkers:

Aaron Sharockman:  writer, researcher
John Bartosek:  editor

Analysis:

Watch it while you can. I'm not sure how long the Grayson campaign will stick with it.




PolitiFact:

In this item, we wanted to examine two other sweeping allegations in the ad -- that Webster wants to make divorce illegal and that he tried to deny battered women the right to divorce their abusers.

Though Bartosek wrote to me stating that PolitiFact tries to stick to a single issue, it seems fair to keep these two linked since they stem from the same proposed legislation, House Bill 1585, a state bill that would have made Florida the first state to provide for covenant marriage.


As for the underlying argument, which sometimes attracts PolitiFact's attention and sometimes does not, the Grayson ad makes that pretty clear:  "Daniel Webster wants to impose his radical fundamentalism on us."

PolitiFact found that Grayson's ad cited the wrong bill, and the story does an adequate job of explaining covenant marriage.

Then author Jacobson analyzed portions of the bill:

The covenant marriage agreement "may not be dissolved except by reason of adultery," according to the bill Webster filed.

And:

The bill includes no mention of physical abuse.

And:

It also discusses alimony, noting that "no alimony shall be granted to an adulterous wife," but makes no mention about the alimony rights of an adulterous man.

The bill makes no mention of alimony rights for any man, including an adulterous one.  It does, however, provide for alimony where the woman's "potential earning capacity would cause a reduction in her standard of living."  Jacobson's account feeds into Grayson's narrative to some extent by omitting the advantage a woman might enjoy under the bill while emphasizing the disadvantage with respect to effects of adultery.



After including some additional information about covenant marriage statistics in other states and related commentary from some expert sources, Jacobson provides a pair of summary paragraphs.

First:

When Webster was a member of the Florida House, he introduced a bill that would have created something called covenant marriage. This special form of marriage was entirely voluntary, but if couples agreed to it, they would not be able to divorce under state law except in the case of adultery. The bill did not list physical or sexual abuse as grounds for divorce.

Is that "wanting to make divorce illegal"?  Only if the covenant marriage bill eliminated the other statutory provision for marriage and we ignore entirely the allowance for divorce because of adultery.  Grayson's failure to qualify the statement as applying only to covenant marriage leads the viewer to understand that divorce would not be an option at all under Webster's proposal.

Second:

Webster's bill wouldn't make all divorce illegal. It wouldn't even make divorce for all people who chose covenant marriage entirely illegal. There's a small window out for adultery. But Grayson is right that there was no protection in Webster's marriage bill for abused wives. So, in theory, someone who chose covenant marriage and was being abused might not be granted a divorce. Because all of that context is critical to understanding Grayson's claim, we rate it Half True.

Sacrebleu.

If statistics on covenant marriage from other states serve as any sort of guide, Webster's bill would have removed most existing statutory justifications for divorce from a distinct minority of all marriages.

Grayson is not right that there is no protection in Webster's marriage bill for abused wives, not that Grayson made any such specific statement.  The protections occur at the front end via requirements for parental consent, premarital counseling with emphasis on the serious nature of the covenant marriage commitment and  written acknowledgment from the parties that they understand that seriousness.

Note that PolitiFact ends up giving Grayson a "Half True" because the context is "critical to understanding Grayson's claim."

Time for yet another review of PolitiFact's description of its grading system:

Half True – The statement is accurate but leaves out important details or takes things out of context.

"Webster wants to make divorce illegal":  Accurate but leaves out important details?

Webster "tried to deny battered women the right to divorce their abusers":  Accurate but leaves out important details?

Seriously?

Barely True – The statement contains some element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression.

Isn't that more like it?  Like the "different impression" that the proposed changes would be be voluntary and apply only to the covenant marriage arrangement?  Like the "different impression" that the bill did not mention battered women at all?

And how about that underlying argument?  Is a voluntary covenant marriage provision an effective way to force one's radical fundamentalist views on people?

The grades:

Aaron Sharockman:  F
John Bartosek:  F

Sharockman and Bartosek appeared to ignore their own findings while assigning the Truth-O-Meter rating.  Ignoring the underlying argument also served to boost Grayson's rating.  The underlying argument was ridiculous given the supposed evidence in support.  "Half True" was very generous.

Afters:

States (perhaps all of them) do have restrictions on divorce aside from those on covenant marriage, though with the caveat that "irreconcilable differences" may encompass virtually anything.  You can't divorce over smelly feet, for example, unless you classify it as an irreconcilable difference or the like.  And it may depend on the judge as to whether that would fly.  Point being, if allowing divorce only in cases of adultery counts as making divorce illegal then divorce is already technically illegal.  The difference is the number of exceptions, which is admittedly far more restrictive for a covenant marriage.

I should also mention that it is plausible that Webster might have welcomed changes to his proposed bill, including allowances for men to receive alimony and for battered women to have recourse to a divorce.

Rays poised to capture postseason playoff spot

What a season.  The Tampa Bay Rays and the New York Yankees have kept each other close in the hunt for the AL East pennant and the best record in baseball.  The season series between the two teams sometimes approached postseason intensity, and on Thursday the Rays' victory over the Yanks gave Tampa Bay the final advantage in the season series and the tie-breaker if the teams should end the regular season sporting the same record.

As of now, the Yankees lead the division by a half game over the Rays.  And the really odd thing about the Rays record comes for the fact that the team is largely underperforming.  Outfielder Carl Crawford is arguably the only offensive player having an above-average year.  The team batting average of .250 is no. 10 in the AL.  Not typically the stuff of an offensive powerhouse.

Though the Rays score runs at a respectable rate, the team owes most of its success to pitching and defense.

But the starting pitching has shown some inconsistencies also.  David Price, who posted his 18th win by beating the Yankees in Thursday's game, was the only starter on the staff to pitch fairly consistently all year.  Righty Jeff Nieman was the most consistent prior to the All-Star break.  Matt Garza and James Shields have allowed gopher balls at an alarming clip even while collecting 14 and 13 wins, respectively.  The bullpen has shown itself as one of the best in baseball led by closer Rafael Soriano's 1.82 ERA and 43 saves.

So what's my point in all this?  The playoffs figure to look differently than in 2008 when the Rays first appeared in the postseason.  The 2008 Rays shocked Boston with their bats.  B. J. Upton and Evan Longoria were on fire.  This year Upton has struggled at the plate and Longoria's numbers have perhaps suffered from teams pitching around him.

The key for the Rays will be picking the right starters.  Price is a lock, but after that it's a guessing game as to whom General Manager Joe Maddon will use.  Rookie Wade Davis was more consistent over the last month of the season than any member of the staff aside from Price.  I wouldn't be surprised if he started in the playoffs even if the Rays stick with a three man rotation.  Most who follow the Rays thought the team would end up relying on Nieman when the postseason rolled around, but Nieman's role probably depends on his performance during his next two starts.  Can the team consider keeping both Garza and Shields out of the starting rotation come playoff time?

It boils down to this:  The Rays have the pitching to win the World Series.  But will the team get the pitching it needs to win in the playoffs?  Minnesota and Texas represent formidable obstacles aside from the Yankees.  The stage is set for a terrific postseason.

***

In keeping with my analysis, I'd pick Carl Crawford as the Rays' MVP for 2010, just edging out Rafael Soriano and David Price.  It will be sad seeing Crawford move to another team next year, as he assuredly will do.  And if he doesn't get a Gold Glove award for his outfield play this year then there is no justice.

The Bad Argument in the Great Debate about Free Will (Updated)

YouTube is great. Some weeks ago I found an excellent video (produced by an atheist) that nicely brought low the argument that foreknowledge is incompatible with free will.

That video spawned the usual sprawling debate thread, though YouTube's character limits on commentary kept that debate at minimal depth. A recent set of comments from "dbes02" confidently makes claims like the following:

But that's the whole point - if someone's behaviour is PREDICTABLE then they don't have free will.

If dbes02 was just talking about predictability in principle--a concept entailed by determinism--then that would be fine.  But this character's arguments look like they'll boil down to a consistent assumption of determinism.

Hoping to obtain a view of his argument unconstrained by character limits, I went hunting for uploaded videos and found the following:




Somebody posts an entire YouTube video to refute free will and this is the entire argument? Unbelievable.

• If I had free will it would be just as easy to choose to strangle my 8 year old daughter as to choose to hug her.
• But it isn't, so I don't have free will.

I posted a response showing how an indeterministic model (thought experiment) provides a fatal counterexample to his argument. He soon replied, hilariously asserting that I was begging the question by assuming that indeterminate outcomes are possible. Apparently dbes02 does not realize that if his criticism of me was legitimate then it is just as fatal to his own argument:  "If I had free will ..."  If he can't have free will then the argument is superfluous.  If he can (at least for the sake of argument) then we can have indeterminate outcomes unless we beg the question.

Update:

I tried to lure "dbes02" into engaging in a formal debate where he would defend his assertion that "Epistemic determinism is incompatible with free will."

Having every confidence in my ability to quash whatever argument he might present, I suggested a formal debate, perhaps hosted by infidels.org.  Dbes02 responded with some hilarious evasions, and the debate challenge remains hanging.  I made the initial challenge via (YouTube) private messaging, but before this posting reiterated it in the public commentary.  And dbes02 has already sniffed around the bait (those interested can find the details here).

As it turns out, the Internet Infidels no longer host a discussion board.  But the discussion from there migrated to the Freethought & Rationalism Discussion Board.

Halvorson campaign warns against "Naz-Tea Party"

Big Government has the story, complete with trailing protesters to a nearby Halvorson campaign office. Protesters carried signs depicting a number of Republicans wearing Hitler 'staches.

The connection of a Halvorson campaign staffer (Julie Merz) to her former role as Nancy Pelosi's deputy director of member services adds a bit of spice to the story.

Pelosi conspicuously maintained that the Tea Party movement was "Astroturf."

Grading PolitiFact (Florida): Rick Scott and private sector Stimulus jobs

Rick Scott is the Republican candidate for Florida governor headed into the 2010 election.

The issue:

The fact checkers:

Becky Bowers:  writer, researcher
Shirl Kennedy:  researcher
John Bartosek:  editor


Analysis:

What did Rick Scott say, exactly?


Find the full transcript in the Afters section.

Higher taxes kill jobs.  Regulations kill jobs.  ObamaCare is an unbelievable job killer.  It's going to be devastating for our state.  Um, I mean, that, by itself, uh, is going to make it very difficult, uh, for people in the business (?) in our state.  One--and the taxes--increase in taxes for that, uh, is going to be devastating for our state.  On top of that, what my background is I put my money up, I took the risk, I stood up for what I believed in, starting businesses.  And that's a whole different background than other people.  But, and, she clearly believes in higher taxes, she clearly believes in ObamaCare, she care--clearly believes in stimulus, and we know that the Stimulus has not created one private sector job.

Though this looks like a straightforward claim that the Stimulus bill produced no private sector jobs, campaign spokesman Joe Kildea approached it as though Scott's remark referred to something like net job creation in the private sector, in Florida particularly:

"It's a ridiculous assertion that the stimulus has created jobs," Kildea said. "That's exactly the reason Floridians are so upset with the direction of the economy. No matter what sort of intellectual gymnastics used by Obama liberals, the fact is that when the stimulus was first signed, Florida's unemployment rate was 9.2% and today it is 11.6% and the state lost a net of almost 200,000 jobs."

Of course, if Florida lost 250,000 public sector jobs during that time frame (admittedly doubtful), then it would still follow that private sector jobs had been created to the tune of about 50,000.  So Kildea's approach ends up looking like spin.  PolitiFact's immediate response to Kildea was appropriately skeptical:

So, because more jobs were lost overall than gained, that's the same as saying not one job has been created?

If Scott is charitably taken to say that Florida has not gained any new net private sector jobs as a result of the Stimulus, then his mode of expression was needlessly misleading.

Much of the PolitiFact story by Becky Bowers investigates whether private sector jobs exist and/or are paid through Stimulus funds.  The story treats Scott's claim as literal and responds to attempts by Scott's campaign to explain the statement.  But something goes almost entirely missing from Bowers' story, only arising thanks to Bowers' inclusion of a quotation of Sean Snaith:

Sean Snaith, a University Of Central Florida economist who has been critical of the effect of the stimulus, agrees that saying "the stimulus has not created one private sector job" is inaccurate.

"I think that's an exaggeration of the reality, which is that it didn't do very much for private sector hiring," he said. "But surprise, surprise, in politics there's hyperbole sometimes."

It's more than hyperbole to Billy Weston. Here’s his reaction to Scott’s statement:

"I disagree. I have to. Even though, you know, I'm a devout Republican, that's absolutely wrong," he said. "I'm living proof that this helped out, tremendously. I couldn't agree with that statement whatsoever. I know, due to this program, I have a job at Sancilio & Co. That's the reality of it."

Snaith identified an argument underlying Scott's literal statement, and that suggested argument fits very well the context of Scott's remarks.  Though Bower retains partial credit for including the quotation of Snaith, the rest of the story pays no attention to the underlying argument.

Snaith also called Scott's controversial claim "hyperbole."  PolitiFact countered that with the somewhat out-of-context quotation of Billy Weston.  Bower's frames Weston's statement with "It's more than hyperbole to Billy Weston."  The most charitable way to understand "more than hyperbole" is "not hyperbole."  Weston did not take Scott's statement as hyperbole at all.  And Weston's view is fair because while Scott's statement may incidentally function as exaggeration for emphasis it is doubtful that many listeners would take it that way.

Scott most likely used a spurious fact to drive his underlying argument.  If he meant it literally then he was wrong.  If he meant it as hyperbole then the attempt was too awkward and misleading to qualify for most listeners.  Either way, the underlying argument is the same.  To express it using Snaith's words, the Stimulus bill "didn't do very much for private sector hiring."

Though Bowers mentions the underlying argument through the quotation of Snaith, the underlying argument is simply dropped when reading the "Truth-O-Meter":

"His position on stimulus hasn't changed," Colby said. "If the argument is that the stimulus is the only way to create jobs, it's false."

But that isn’t Scott’s statement. In the face of Billy Weston and now 1,300 jobs at a company Scott partly owns, his campaign still hasn’t moved from its stance that "the stimulus has not created one private sector job."  He may disagree that the stimulus is the most effective use of funds, or argue as Snaith does that "it didn't do very much." But those aren’t the words he chose.

With thousands of Floridians employed because of stimulus-funded programs — not to mention jobs for a company in which Scott owns stock — we rate his statement Pants on Fire.

With the underlying argument gone AWOL, PolitiFact ends up grading only the literal truth of Scott's claim.  Scott earns considerable criticism for what is at best described as a poor attempt at hyperbole, but it is not fair to exclude all consideration of the underlying argument while grading the truth of his statement.

The grades:

Becky Bowers:  F
Shirl Kennedy:  B
John Bartosek:  F

Clearly Scott had an argument underlying his use of the "not created one private sector job" claim.  Bowers and Bartosek's grades reflect their aiming of the focus of the story to the near total exclusion of Scott's underlying argument.  Kennedy apparently provided research appropriate for that focus and presumably was not involved in framing the story.

Afters:

My full transcript of the video.

SPT/MH:
I wanted to ask you about, um, your proposed--you and Alex Sink pretty much agree that you got to create jobs.  Um, or that one of the priorities is to, is to have Florida get more jobs.  What do you see the differences between how you approach that and she approaches that?

RS:
Oh, I think it's clear.  I mean, um, she supports President Obama's agenda, uh, she, she supports the Stimulus, she supports ObamaCare, she supports eliminating--or not extending the Bush tax cuts, so it's clear.  I mean, there's a big difference.

SPT/MH:
OK, that's an economic philosophy I guess.  How about when it comes to--can you, I guess, expand on that--

RS:
Hold on for a second (inaudible).

SPT/MH:
As it relates to creating jobs.  I mean, give me more specifics so I can explain that to people.

RS:
Oh, I think it's very simple.

SPT/MH
OK.

RS:
Higher taxes kill jobs.  Regulations kill jobs.  ObamaCare is an unbelievable job killer.  It's going to be devastating for our state.  Um, I mean, that, by itself, uh, is going to make it very difficult, uh, for people in the business (?) in our state.  One--and the taxes--increase in taxes for that, uh, is going to be devastating for our state.  On top of that, what my background is I put my money up, I took the risk, I stood up for what I believed in, starting businesses.  And that's a whole different background than other people.  But, and, she clearly believes in higher taxes, she clearly believes in ObamaCare, she care--clearly believes in stimulus, and we know that the Stimulus has not created one private sector job.

I've observed the convention of capitalizing "Stimulus" where it seems to refer to the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.

Answering the progressive narrative about conservatives

As a vigorous participant in public debate, I often encounter liberals and progressives who take it as an article of faith that conservative ideas are bankrupt and/or racist.

Today, Power Line pointed me toward the work of Gerard Alexander, who clearly expresses the case against the progressive narrative about the Republican Party.

Why are liberals so condescending?

Conservatism does not equal racism. So why do many liberals assume it does?

French MRAP: Nexter Aravis

OK, nothing in particular against the French--the vehicle looks nice enough in a Force Protection Ocelot kind of way--but about midway through the video when it says "Remarkable Mission Efficiency" and the next image shows five passenger seats with two facing the other three?  That's great if the mission is looking at one another, I guess.  But maybe that's come to be the standard for MRAPs.  Allowing the passengers to directly aim fire at attackers could automatically cut down on their protections, I suppose.

Go France.  Yay, science.