Well, kind of.

Be patient. Member Joe Lisboa has vowed to give Truthseeker77 "heat" in regard to his post about Keith Olbermann's response to Bill O'reilly's comment. Lisboa keeps it interesting by not revealing right away his line of attack.

For this reason, comments have been enabled in the "Keith Olbermann and the straw man fallacy" threat until the heat is delivered.

A few members angry about the fact that in some diaries I disable comments are asking that no one read my posts.

I can't say you won't try. You guys genuinely want not to be tempted to read my stories, but this will be an impossible task, as you will itch to know what logically sane argument lies behind my titles. "Curiosity killed the cat," says the proverb.

We can't even say with certainty that member "hrebendorf" is being honest when he claims not to have read my famous post, which has become the focus of the TPM readers section today; I don't think his claim is consistent with his obsession.

The judgment of the average TPM'er is often clouded by their extreme pro-liberal/Obama bias, and this makes my balanced, out-of-the-TPM-mainstream posts irresistible. like a cold Pepsi in the middle of the desert.

Me criticizing Keith Olbermann and his straw man is what ticked them off today. The fact that I was right in that particular thread made them rabidly mad.

I wish there were a button that when pressed would allow you to see how many views or "hits" each individual blog post has. Without it, you will never know if you are succeeding in your pledge to ostracize me. Until then, good luck in your enterprise; you will BADLY need it.

1-) A post yesterday praising the option to disable comments became so popular here that it made it close to the top of the recommended posts list. Now all of a sudden when the most hated TPM member (me) exercises that popular right, TPM'ers flip out, seemingly because I offended a liberal icon (Keith Olbermann).

2-) In a response to my "Keith Olbermann..." post by a member who confessed not to have read it at all, only one replier addressed the fact that Keith Olbermann purported to debunk a comment by Bill O'reilly by providing "first time voter" statistics, despite the fact that O'reilly did not refer to "first time voters" or turnout by any group. This replying member made the puzzling claim that "Maybe Bill-o didn't mean to imply that, but I took it that way at first. BFD". As you can see, the level of confidence this member places on his own interpretation of O'reilly's words is very low. "Maybe he implied it, or maybe he didn't.

Even if we accept that O'reilly implied that voter turnout by African Americans was high enough to decide the elections, Olbermann provided very different statistics as his proof: Statistics for first time voters. And that's a "straw man".


You are all welcome prove that O'reilly did this in the form of comments here in this new diary. Warning: If you instead choose to name-call or change the subject, you will have proved me right.

Thanks.

Many of you are probably acquainted with the logical fallacy known as "straw man," which is a flawed argument that occurs in the following form:

1. Person A has position X.

2. Person B ignores X and instead presents position Y.

Keith Olbermann's behavior during last Wednesday's "Countdown" is a case in point.

Olbermann took issue with the fact that Bill O'reilly mentioned Proposition 8 in California as an example of how Democrats, in his view, have a double standard with respect to non-blacks who oppose gay marriage and blacks who hold the same stance:

O'reilly: "The African American community came out for Obama. While they were in that booth, they said, you know what, gay marriage, I don't think so. So why aren't they protesting in front of the African-American church?"

To which Olbermann replied that pro-Obama turnout among first-time voters was not the reason why Proposition 8 in California passed.

OLBERMANN: Our runner up tonight, BillO the Clown, again reading the conservative talking points, trying to pin the victory of Proposition 8 in California on black voters. "The African American community came out for Obama. While they were in that booth, they said, you know what, gay marriage, I don't think so. So why aren't they protesting in front of the African-American church?" Maybe because they're not racists and you are.

Our friend, Nate Silver, who relies on statistics rather than on things he heard in the hallway, has dispensed with this version of reality, simplified for the BillO's of the world. Nate writes, "the notion that Prop 8 passed because of the Obama turnout surge is silly. Exit polls suggest that first-time voters, the vast majority of whom were driven to turn out by Obama, voted against Prop 8 by a 62 to 38 margin. If California`s electorate had been the same as it was in 2004, Prop 8 would have passed by a wider margin." Nate Silver, Bill--FiveThirtyEight.com. Learn something--well, try.

Here, K.O. sets up a straw man called "first time voters", which would represent position Y in the above-mentioned example. O'reilly at no point tried to "pin the victory" of Proposition 8 on African Americans. Nor did he blame "first-time voters" either. In fact, O'reily did not even mention first time voters.

O'reilly simply noted the high support of the proposition among African Americans in California and he wondered why the left  condemns those groups that oppose gay marriage while making an exception with African Americans.

His point can be deconstructed like this:

The left condemns those who oppose gay marriage.
African Americans in California opposed gay marriage and the left did not condemn them.
Therefore there is a double standard.

One way to attack O'reilly's point would have been finding instances in which the left had criticized African Americans' behavior during the voting. I saw an article by The New Republic's senior editor, for example, slamming African Americans for their support to the proposition, although for the most part I've heard nothing from main liberal blogs.

But Olbermann, who earns $4 million a year to keep his readers well-informed, instead chose to commit the fallacy of the straw man.

Recommended reading: "Keith Olbermann makes an ass of himself"

I call bullshit. We already know there were two brains examined during the days following Kennedy's autopsy: The real one on November 25th, and the fake one between November 29th and December 2, 1963. The existence of a cover-up to blame Oswald for the death of Kennedy is indisputable.

This new analysis pretends to recreate John F. Kennedy wounds to determine through blood splatter analysis where he was shot from, but the Parkland doctors and military Bethesda doctors have wildly disagreed as to the nature of the throat wound, for example, and many witnesses have said to have seen a wide wound to the rear of Kennedy's back, as opposed to the front, which is the official story.

I can't even find a damn "contact us" link or any contact form in their website.
 

Great.

Salon reports today that those who engaged in torture will be investigated by a non-partisan commission formed shortly after Obama takes office.

The catch: "Between the time necessary for the investigative process and the daunting array of policy problems Obama will face upon taking office, any decision on prosecutions probably would not come until a second Obama presidential term, should there be one."

More:

On Wednesday, a person participating in the talks confirmed that some people involved in the planning felt strongly that the commission would amount to "bullshit" and that Bush officials should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

Bullshit it is.

At least one member has urged readers to stop placing too much credibility on rumors and "speculation" about Obama's transition team and the steps he might take once he becomes President:

"Kerry for Secretary of State/Kerry says he's talked to nobody.  Gitmo will close immediately/Obama may condone some torture.  He's hiring too many Clinton people/He needs to keep more Bush people. He wants Lieberman to stay/he secretly wants hin out."

I agree with the member but warn him and you all that rumors will not go away.

Consider this post by TPM founder Josh Marshall, for example, pimping a rumor spread by Fox News' Carl Cameron, to the effect that Sarah Palin could not tell whether Africa was a country or a continent. After admitting in a disclaimer that Cameron is a "sometimes fabulist", Marshall went on to ask, "how can you not watch?" referring to the rumor.

So it's not about whether a claim can be confirmed; or about the credibility of the sources. If it's juicy, blog it!

Cameron's source was later unmasked as a lying fraud. His name? Martin Eisenstadt. The problem? "Martin Eisenstadt doesn't exist," reports today the New York Times. So here we have Marshall quoting a fraud who is quoting a fraud who is not only a fraud by an anonymous fraud to boot.

But Marshall wasn't done, and less than a week later "reported" that "A high-level senate Democratic source tells me former President Clinton is making calls on Sen. Lieberman's behalf."

We are not told who this senator is or how he can be certain that Clinton made any of the alleged phone calls. Was this senator the recipient of the call? Was he on three-way when it took place?

It doesn't help his case that the chief of the New York Times' "Opinionator" blog who reported this rumor does not believe it makes sense:

Lieberman was the foremost Democratic critic of his conduct during the Lewinsky affair. Moreover, there is practically nothing for Clinton to gain by pushing this issue in the Senate.

It's also worth noting that the Clinton camp strongly denied the allegation (See NYT link above).

Regardless of who is telling the truth with respect to this phone call, this is a rumor, and it's undeniable that rumors are unfortunately an integral part of TPM, from the leadership all the way to the readers' comments section.

To many, the country made us all proud by electing Barack Obama and rejecting the policies of Bush and his party; but beware of overestimating the intelligence of Americans:

A new poll reveals that 52% of adults still believe "Saddam Hussein had strong links with Al Qaeda," despite the fact that this lie has been debunked.

But that's not all. What the Harris poll calls a "significant minority" (37%), unchanged since October 2004 and October 2005 levels, still falls for the other big lie: that "Saddam Hussein had WMD at the time of the US invasion in 2003."

Maybe one day I'll be proud of America. Not yet.

Cell phone users tend to be younger, and therefore more likely to vote Democrat. But so what?