Tag: fair and balanced

Posted on

McCain and Obama FactCheck

(You can read the originals at FactCheck.org)

McCain has spent the week focusing on energy policy, making some surprising, and inaccurate, statements.

Among them:

  • He said that ending a moratorium on offshore oil drilling “would be very helpful in the short term in resolving our energy crisis.” But according to a government report, offshore oil wouldn’t have much of an impact on supply or prices until 2030.

  • McCain tried to paint Obama as an opponent of nuclear power, yet Obama has said he is open to nuclear energy being part of the solution and has supported bills that contained nuclear subsidies.

  • He has soft-pedaled the “cap” portion of his cap-and-trade proposal for greenhouse gases, even denying that it would be a mandate. The cap is a mandatory limit, however, and McCain even says so on his Web site.

  • McCain’s new ad, running this week, rightly says that he bucked his party in supporting action on climate change years ago. But its images of windmills and solar panels are misleading in that he supports subsidies for nuclear power, which isn’t pictured, and opposes them for wind and solar energy.
  • McCain continues to say that a suspension of the federal gas tax will lower prices for consumers, though hundreds of economists say he is wrong.

Meanwhile…

Obama says his health care plan will garner large savings – $120 billion a year, or $2,500 per family – with more than half coming from the use of electronic health records. And he says he’ll make that happen in his first term. 

We find his statements to be overly optimistic, misleading and, to some extent, contradicted by one of his own advisers. And it masks the true cost of his plan to cover millions of Americans who now have no health insurance.

  • Obama cites a RAND study that found widespread use of electronic health records could save up to $77 billion a year in overall health care spending. But the study says that level of savings won’t be reached until 2019, when it projects 90 percent of hospitals and doctors would be using electronic records systems.

  • Much could be done to speed up the adoption of electronic record-keeping. But experts, including the lead researcher on the RAND study, are extremely doubtful the U.S. could see widespread adoption in the first term of an Obama presidency, or even a second term. Even a campaign adviser acknowledges Obama’s plan likely won’t reach the full savings potential until five years into implementation, by which time Obama could be out of office.

  • Obama says he’ll “lower premiums by up to $2,500 for a typical family per year” by investing in electronic health records as well as other efforts. But his adviser tells us that $2,500 figure includes savings to government and employers that could, theoretically, lead to lower taxes or higher wages for families – so we shouldn’t necessarily expect insurance premiums that are “lower” by that amount.

  • The RAND study on which the campaign partly bases its estimates is one of the only reports available on possible cost savings. It may well be correct – no one knows for sure. But it looks at potential savings in an ideal situation and recently has faced criticism.

Many, if not most, health care experts and professionals agree that the use of electronic health records or health IT would have various benefits, in terms of quality of care as well as spending. But doctors and hospitals in the U.S. have been slow to adopt it for several reasons. Whether Obama can effectively bring about widespread adoption and large savings is an open question and not as concrete as his pronouncements imply.

Posted on

Factcheck.org: Obama’s Inflated Health “Savings”

(entire article)

Obama says his health care plan will garner large savings – $120 billion a year, or $2,500 per family – with more than half coming from the use of electronic health records. And he says he’ll make that happen in his first term. We find his statements to be overly optimistic, misleading and, to some extent, contradicted by one of his own advisers. And it masks the true cost of his plan to cover millions of Americans who now have no health insurance.

  • Obama cites a RAND study that found widespread use of electronic health records could save up to $77 billion a year in overall health care spending. But the study says that level of savings won’t be reached until 2019, when it projects 90 percent of hospitals and doctors would be using electronic records systems.

  • Much could be done to speed up the adoption of electronic record-keeping. But experts, including the lead researcher on the RAND study, are extremely doubtful the U.S. could see widespread adoption in the first term of an Obama presidency, or even a second term. Even a campaign adviser acknowledges Obama’s plan likely won’t reach the full savings potential until five years into implementation, by which time Obama could be out of office.

  • Obama says he’ll “lower premiums by up to $2,500 for a typical family per year” by investing in electronic health records as well as other efforts. But his adviser tells us that $2,500 figure includes savings to government and employers that could, theoretically, lead to lower taxes or higher wages for families – so we shouldn’t necessarily expect insurance premiums that are “lower” by that amount.

  • The RAND study on which the campaign partly bases its estimates is one of the only reports available on possible cost savings. It may well be correct – no one knows for sure. But it looks at potential savings in an ideal situation and recently has faced criticism.

Many, if not most, health care experts and professionals agree that the use of electronic health records or health IT would have various benefits, in terms of quality of care as well as spending. But doctors and hospitals in the U.S. have been slow to adopt it for several reasons. Whether Obama can effectively bring about widespread adoption and large savings is an open question and not as concrete as his pronouncements imply.

Posted on

More Reasons Not to Vote for McCain


I don’t care if you’re a Christian, a Jew, a Hindu, a Muslim, a Scientologist, a Mormon, a Discordian, a worshiper of Thor,  Zeus, or Joe Pesci. Stop trying to revise history to favor your own religion.

The Founding Fathers specifically kept any mention of god, Jesus, the bible and any other religious icons out of the Constitution for a reason: the country they just came from had a national religion: the Church of England. Most of the Founding Fathers were religious dissenters: they didn’t want to belong to the Church of England–an institution with a reputation for murdering and torturing dissenters.

Therefore, no national religion.

Now, you could try to make the argument: “But the FF were Christians!” Fact is, most of them were deists (a codename for “atheist” when being an atheist could get you killed).

And please, tell me exactly where “freedom of speech” is a “Christian virtue?” How about freedom of religion? How about the right to bear arms, the right of free assembly, freedom of press, the right to a speedy trial (the right to any trial at all?)? Please open the Bible and show me where these things are listed–explicitly–from JHVH as rights and liberties?

Go on, keep looking.

Look some more.

I’ll wait.

In the meantime, the rest of us will show you English Common Law (which derives from old Viking property laws and legal procedure), the Magna Carta, Greek Democracy, and Hammurabi’s Code.

(A quick side note: anyone who doesn’t understand the importance of Viking law doesn’t understand the history of Western legal thinking. The Vikings were the first ones to come up with legal procedure. Evidence, testimony, prosecution, defense, jury of peers, all of that. Sure, it was primitive compared to what we have today, but the ECL owes a lot to it.)

Show me where the Bible gives us guidelines on how evidence should be presented. Show me the legal procedure for selecting a jury in Leviticus. Open up Deuteronomy and demonstrate the concept of “innocent until proven guilty.”

No, these concepts were not created by, nor are they exclusive to, Christians. In fact, if you want to look at “Christian legal procedure,” I suggest taking a look at the Salem witch trials, the Inquisition, and the deaths caused by the Protestant/Catholic clashes all through history.

Have Christians adopted principles such as these? Yes, of course they have. But these principles did not originate exclusively in Christian minds. In fact, most of them were first espoused by pagan voices. Greek Democracy. Viking Law. Babylon’s legal codes.

Let’s stop trying to re-write history to favor our own religion, okay? Let’s also stop doing it to win votes from those who would rather believe their own religion’s propaganda than open a history book.

Posted on

You Don’t Mess with the Moyers

I’ve often used the phrase “The Last American Journalist” when talking about Bill Moyers. Thankfully, my attribution is more hyperbolic than correct, but here’s an example of why “journalists” like the small fellow below really shouldn’t mess with the bull. You get the horns.

Bill O’Reilly (not a journalist) sent one of his producers to “ambush interview” Bill. Get some popcorn, sit back, and enjoy the show.

Posted on

Morality and Ethics

One of the biggest criticisms I hear about books such as The God Delusion and God is not Great is this:

“Where does an atheist get his morals?”

Ah, see. We’re begging an important question here.

Sonny, I don’t have morals. I have ethics. Ethics trump morals. Let me explain.

When we talk about crimes in American culture, we talk about the big three: violence, theft and privacy. Everything else pretty much falls under those three. Now, we ask a question: why are these three things so important? Because we live in a culture that has come to reasonable conclusions that these three things are important. In other cultures, such as Saudi Arabia or Iran or North Korea, these three things aren’t so important. But in our culture, if we read books by Plato, Aristotle, Sarte, DeCarte, Locke, Paine, etc., we can all agree that murder, theft and invasion of privacy are Not Good Things.

(I leave it up to the reader to come up with arguments as to why murder, theft and invasion of privacy are Good Things and should be celebrated by our culture.)

Now, like I said, we came to reasonable conclusions based on logic and solid argumentation. Almost 2,000 years worth of arguments. We began with primitive ideas, then progressed forward. The evolution of ethics: strong memes thrive, weak memes perish.

But again, if I must continue to emphasize this, we come to reasonable conclusions based on good argument, reason, logic, etc.

Again. Reasonable arguments. Arguments that have survived criticism and debate.

So, in American culture (and others as well, but I’m an American, so I can only speak for myself), when you commit violence against another citizen, the crime is a violation of that citizen’s rights. When you steal from another citizen, the crime is a violation of that citizen’s rights. When you invade his privacy… a violation of that citizen’s rights.

Murder isn’t an issue of morality–is it wrong? is it right?–it’s an issue of ethics. Everyone in our society has a right to be alive.
Theft isn’t an issue of morality–is it wrong? is it right?–it’s an issue of ethics. Everyone in our society has a right to keep what they earn.
Privacy isn’t an issue of morality–is it wrong? is it right?–it’s an issue of ethics. Everyone in our society has a right to be left alone.

Not an issue of morality, but an issue of ethics.

When we bring morality into the question, we start deluding the water. Why? Because what I consider to be moral and what you consider to be moral are two entirely different things.

For example, if two consenting adults decide to trade sex acts for money, you may find that offensive, you may find it disgusting, and you may even find it repulsive… but who’s rights are violated? The right to be alive? The right to keep what you earn? The right to be left alone?

What actual crime has been committed? Or is it just that someone has inserted their morality into our ethics?

If a same-sex couple wants to enter into the same kind of legal contract that a different-sex couple can legally enter into, who’s rights are being violated? The right to be alive? The right to keep what you earn? The right to be left alone?

What actual crime has been committed? Or is it just that someone has inserted their morality into our ethics?

If a citizen wants to drink liquor–a clearly damaging substance–or smoke cigarettes–a clearly damaging substance–or watch Sex and the City–a clearly damaging substance, do we leave them alone? Yes. But if they want to smoke pot, snort coke, or drop LSD, suddenly, we have a crime. But who’s rights are being violated? The right to be alive? The right to keep what you earn? The right to be left alone?

What actual crime has been committed? Or is it just that someone has inserted their morality into our ethics?

Morality has nothing to do with our legal system. At least, it shouldn’t. But some people want us to believe that morality has everything to do with our legal system.

“Forget the Ten Amendments! Make the Ten Commandments the Law of the Land!”

Morality. Ethics.

“If I want to murder my daughter because she’s shamed me, it’s my right!”

Morality. Ethics.

Don’t get confused. Morality and Ethics.

Don’t get confused. One of these is mutually agreed upon and based on reasonable arguments. The other is an appeal to the authority an invisible power that no-one can prove.

Morality. Ethics.

Here endeth the lesson.

Posted on

Global Warming: The Big Con

I always tell people, “I put half my points in magician and the other in con man.” Inspired by Houdini, Penn & Teller and James Randi, I’ve always had a soft spot in my heart for the skill and the presentation, but I hoped to use any of the skills I learned for good and not for evil.

Here’s an opportunity. A con. A big fat con. A con that involves Al Gore and his film An Inconvenient Truth. Yeah, I’m gonna talk about GLOBAL WARMING.

You see, I’ve seen Mr. Gore’s film. And I decided to check some sources. Especially those who give the film a failing grade. And I have some news for all of you.

My friends, this is a lesson in checking your sources.

You may have heard about the 31,000+ scientists who have signed a petition saying the Global Warming Crisis is a lie.

You can see the petition and it’s details here. 

Go check it out. Then, come back.

The Oregon Institute of Science got the ball rolling and over the last few years, has organized those 31,000 scientists to reveal the Big Lie of Global Climate Change.

The petition was sent out with a peer reviewed paper dismantling Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth film. Except there’s one problem. 

The paper wasn’t peer reviewed. 

In fact, it’s never seen any scientific journal. It was self-published by the founder of the OIS–an “institute” that happens to be this guy’s house.

And the “scientists?” One of them includes the Public Relations Officer for an extermination company. And there’s no way to verify any of these people’s credentials. The OIS says, on their website, that they can back up all the signitures, but when pressed, refused to do so.

You can find more details here.

Anyone who tells you Gore’s movie is poorly researched or makes unscientific claims needs to see the movie. It’s really that simple. If you haven’t seen the movie–and checked the facts yourself–you really don’t have any business talking about it. There’s more misinformation about the film than information in the film itself. Lots of lies, deceits, cheats and misdirections.

The skills used for evil.

When they have to lie to beat you, you know you’re doing something right.

Posted on

Einstein and God and Quote Mining

Quote mining Christians like to pull this trick a lot. They take quotes out of context, misuing Einstein’s sense of humor and poetic use of the word “god.” They say, “Einstein was religious!” when all evidence–when looked at in the correct context–proves he was not.

Those who like to pull the “Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind” quote out of their asses don’t know when he said, why he said it, where he said it, or who he was saying it to. They know the quote, they don’t know the source. If they actually read Einstein’s letters (available at Amazon.com), they’d understand his sense of humor, his love of irony and sarcasm, and the poetic use of “god” when speaking of the universe.

(When Christians try to claim Einstein as one of their own, they often forget he was Jewish–a fact that puts him squarely in Hell, standing right next to Hitler, Jim Jones and Stalin. They forget that.)

And so, to provide even more evidence against this ridiculous idea, here’s a new letter–that you can read for yourself–that makes it very clear what Einstein thought of religion.

No quote mining. No out-of-context bullshit. Just plain speaking from the horse’s mouth.

Posted on

Hey, Savage!

Your man Romney, he done good.

Recalling criticisms that he left nonbelievers out of his December speech on faith in America, Romney said: “Upon reflection, I came to understand that while I could defend their absence from my address, I had missed an opportunity . . . an opportunity to clearly assert that non-believers have just as great a stake as believers in defending religious liberty.”