Deer oh Deer - an Update, and a Fact Check Correction

In the recent post "Oh, Deer Me" I passed on something that I should have fact checked more closely.
While it is true that Gov. Walker next door in Wisconsin has hired himself a controversial 'Deer Czar',  he hasn't in fact so far as we know officially made any recommendations to privatize deer hunting on state land instead of a deer hunting license.  His 'Deer Czar' seems a complete waste of taxpayer's money and there is not so far as I can find anything wrong with the way that the DNR next door manages their deer or their state lands for hunting.  Here's an old quote from the Deer Czar, courtesy of Politifact.com:
"Game management," says James Kroll, driving to his high-fenced, two-hundred-acre spread near Nacogdoches, "is the last bastion of communism.""People who call for more public lands are ‘cocktail conservationists,’" he says, who are really pining for socialism. He calls national parks "wildlife ghettos" and flatly accuses the government of "gross mismanagement."
We know the right throws around words like fascist, socialist, marxist and communist without apparently having the slightest clue to what they really mean.  Rarely if at all do you find them used accurately.  So this seems like more right wing crap and cronyism spending $125,000 on an unnecessary 'Deer Czar' where there are more urgent needs for that taxpayer money -- and by urgent, I don't mean giving it to more out of state corporations to create jobs.  Walker has one of the  WORST job creation records of any sitting governor, and has lost ground since the previous governor left office, AND has underperformed the national average.
But, from a politifact.com entry on the subject, the Deer Czar hasn't actually recommended privatization:

This was made clear in a May 26, 2012 piece by Milwaukee Journal Sentinel outdoor editor Paul Smith: "While he is a controversial figure among wildlife professionals for his extensive work in high fence deer management and captive deer breeding, at no point has Kroll advocated for privatizing deer hunting in Wisconsin."

According to politifact.com from the same article:

...the man at  the center of the issues is James Kroll, the Texas consultant hired for $125,000 by Walker to recommend improvements to the state’s deer management system. Kroll is known as "Dr. Deer" from his articles in hunting magazines and his appearances on hunting shows on TV.

His recommendations are expected in late June 2012.

I have a problem with that recommendations expected in late June part.  It is conveniently AFTER the election.  We have no way of knowing if it is true or false that the recommendations that Dr. Deer has in mind will add significantly to the cost in fees for deer hunting or not.  Based on past performance, there is no basis for trust, least of all for Walker, under criminal investigation, or a number of his cronies that he hired.
But, we post corrections and updates.  Barrett is disliked by the NRA because he objects to using assault or semi-assault type rifles equipped with grenade launchers to hunt deer.  As illustrated by the photos of silly curios of the kind found at gas stations selling cheese and stupid ceramic figurines to take tourist money - that's only fair hunting if you also arm the deer so they can effectively shoot back. Walker doesn't care what you use, or how dangerous you are to yourself, other hunters, or innocent residents of the state of Wisconsin, and he doesn't care about sportsmanship.

Told You So, from Politifact.com

For those who say now that they warned the gun nuts in Florida then, Politifact.com checked the tapes of the legislative hearings.  The people in the legislature who warned about the problems, the avoidable killings, they were right.


Sorting out the truth in state politics

Democrats warned about 'stand your ground' in 2005

By Katie Sanders, Times/Herald Tallahassee Bureau
Katie SandersTampa Bay Times In Print: Friday, March 23, 2012

---

<><><> <> <> <>

The possibility that Florida's "stand your ground" law could protect a neighborhood watchman who shot and killed an unarmed teen last month has lawmakers who opposed the measure saying told you so.
"When we passed the law, we said it portends horrific events when people's lives were put into these situations, and my worst fears came to fruition," Sen. Arthenia Joyner, D-Tampa, said this week. "A young life was snuffed out."
Joyner was in the state House when "stand your ground" passed in 2005 and fears the law — which allows people to use deadly force in cases of self-defense when they believe their life is at risk — could save 28-year-old shooter George Zimmerman from prosecution.
Zimmerman killed 17-year-old Trayvon Martin in the Orlando suburb of Sanford on Feb. 26, police say.
As the investigation unfolds, it's worthwhile to look back to the origins of the "stand your ground" law and the concerns legislators like Joyner had at the time.
The measure passed the Senate 39-0 seven years ago Friday and the House 94-20. It was signed into law by Gov. Jeb Bush. Joyner and 19 other House Democrats voted against the bill.
To check her claim, we went to the video archives to see what was said during House debate on April 5, 2005.
"For a House that talks about the culture of life, it's ironic that we would be devaluing life in this bill, which is exactly what we're doing," said Rep. Dan Gelber, a former federal prosecutor from Miami Beach who later was elected to the Senate.
Gelber said Floridians already had the right to defend themselves in their homes and offered an amendment that would restore a person's duty to retreat from a confrontation in public places. Rep. Eleanor Sobel, a South Florida Democrat who now serves in the Senate, said Gelber's amendment would reduce "chaos on the street."
Republicans defeated Gelber's amendment on a voice vote. The bill's sponsor, Rep. Dennis Baxley, R-Ocala, called an obligation to retreat "a good way to get shot in the back."
Members debated another unsuccessful amendment from Rep. Jack Seiler, a Democrat who is now mayor of Fort Lauderdale. Seiler's proposal would have allowed for rebuttal to a person's claim of self-defense.
"We are going to give blanket immunity to criminals when they commit crime," Seiler said.
Other voices from the hour-long debate:
• "What would happen if I presumed that there was a threat when actually there was not a threat? I would hate to think that I would react and take someone's life, or do bodily harm to someone, who actually only looked a little different than I looked," said Rep. Priscilla Taylor, D-West Palm Beach.
• "When you give a person the right to use deadly force anywhere they're lawfully supposed to be, then we open Pandora's Box, and inside the box will be death for some persons," Joyner said.
• "In a few years, you will be back trying to fix this bill," said Rep. Ken Gottlieb, D-Hollywood.
The House debate stands in contrast to the Senate.
Sen. Steve Geller, D-Hallandale Beach, tried changing the bill before the vote so that it would not apply to public places. The Senate voted down his amendment in minutes. The vote to pass the bill was then unanimous, with Democrats, including Sen. Rod Smith, currently chair of the Florida Democratic Party, voting yes.
"We'd be seen as Democrats soft on crime," Geller explained, according to an account from the Associated Press.
Overall, the warnings comprised a slim opposition to a very popular law. But they were there. We rate Joyner's claim True.

The statement
"When we passed the law, we said it portends horrific events when people's lives were put into these situations."
Sen. Arthenia Joyner, D-Tampa, March 20, in an interview
The ruling
Joyner, who was in the House in 2005 when the "stand your ground" law passed, accurately summarizes the debate back then. We rate her statement True.

Dizzying Fact Checking on Job Growth CLAIMS Spins by the GOP Candidates That Aren't Quite True...the REST of the Story

Every single one of the right's erstwhile candidate wannabees supports some form of supply side economic solutions to what is a demand side crisis.  We have too little demand, and these idiots like to persuade their ignorant constituencies that we need to give even more money to those mythical, fantasy 'job creators'.  The people falsely described as job creatrs are not now, and never have been creating jobs.  Not only is there absolutely no evidence that giving the rich even more money will create anything except a greater gap in wealth, where is the magic tipping point?  These individuals already have record amounts of money and are doing absolutely NOTHING towards job creation.  What WILL create jobs is spending, demand, consumption.  When there is someone to sell a good or service to, we will have increased production of that good or service, and not before.  The right wants to give money to the wrong side of the equation, and to the wrong people --- none of whom are YOU or ME.  They are all equally and similarly wrong, and bad, and dangerous to this country's economy. 

There IS no amount of money that can be accumulated by that upper greedy 2% which is sufficient; they are never satisfied, and they are always, always trying to find ways, fair and foul, to squeeze out even more - and that comes from the pockets of the rest of us.  The wealthy and the right wing are in danger of killing the goose that lays their golden egg, and their false representations about job creation are just part of that goose killing and cooking.
I wouldn't be surprised if we have not yet seen the candidate who will run in 2012 enter the race, which makes for some interesting speculation.  I think most of this lot will go the way of previous 'leader' of the pack Donald Trump.

This kind of cherry picking also means they are deliberate and intentional LIARS.

From the weekly update by factcheck.org., which I find provides the most in depth analysis when fact checking.

Spinning Job Growth: By the Numbers


September 8, 2011

Romney, Perry and Huntsman each cherry-picked facts about job growth in their states when they were governor. Here we offer a broader look at the numbers, which sometimes tell a different story than the candidates.

During the GOP presidential candidates' debate on Sept. 7:

■Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney boasted that Massachusetts was losing jobs when he took office and gaining jobs when he left. That's true, but the entire country was experiencing job growth during that period, and Massachusetts' rate of job growth was one of the weakest in the country.

■Romney also boasted that three out of his four years in office, Massachusetts had an unemployment rate below the national average, and ended up with a 4.7 percent unemployment rate. In fact, the unemployment rate was slightly better than the national average when Romney took office, and was identical to the national average when he left.

■Texas Gov. Rick Perry, meanwhile, claimed that Texas created 1 million jobs over the last decade while the U.S. lost 2.5 million. That's true for Texas, but job losses in the U.S. as a whole have been less dramatic. Furthermore, job growth in Texas hasn't kept pace with the rise in the state's population — so the number of jobless Texans also has risen, along with the state’s unemployment rate.

■Jon Huntsman claimed that when he was governor, Utah was No. 1 in the rate of job creation, better than Texas. That's true, according to data based on household surveys by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, but that's not the best measure. According to the most commonly used yardstick for job growth, payroll data, Utah was actually No. 4, behind Texas.

Jobs, Jobs, Jobs
Never mind that most economists say governors get too much blame when a state's job numbers go down and too much credit when they grow. In a campaign that has focused primarily on creating jobs, the three Republican candidates with experience as a governor have repeatedly cited employment numbers from their home states to present themselves as job creators and to take shots at their opponents.

Predictably, the jobs claims from the three current or former governors came early and often in the Republican presidential debate at the Reagan Library in California.

Jobs statistics are notoriously easy to massage, and comparisons between different sets of years can be misleading — some governors served during times of great national prosperity; others served during or immediately after times of national recession.
We went to data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics to present an unvarnished look at the job growth and unemployment numbers during the terms of the three Republican governors. In all cases, we used seasonally adjusted numbers.

The Romney Spin

As he has throughout the campaign, Romney touted job creation during his term as governor of Massachusetts, from January 2003 to January 2007, as proof that he is best qualified to lead the country.

Romney, Sept. 7: I'm happy to take a look at the Massachusetts record, because when I came in as governor, we were in a real free fall. We were losing jobs every month. We had a budget that was way out of balance.

So I came into office, we went to work as a team, and we were able to turn around the job losses. And at the end of four years, we had our unemployment rate down to 4.7 percent.

Romney is correct that Massachusetts was losing jobs month after month for nearly a year before he took office. Those losses stabilized in his first year, and the state then began to see job growth. According to BLS statistics, over the entirety of Romney's term in office, the ranks of Massachusetts' employed went from 3,224,600 to 3,270,400. That’s a 1.4 percent increase. However, that was far slower growth than the national average, 5.3 percent. In fact, as Perry and Huntsman correctly pointed out at the debate, Massachusetts ranked 47th in job growth over the length of Romney's term. The only states that did worse: Louisiana, Michigan and Ohio.

As for Romney's boast that unemployment in Massachusetts dropped under his watch, that's true. The unemployment rate went from 5.6 percent in January 2003 to 4.6 in January 2007. But that's not such a dramatic swing when viewed against the national backdrop. Massachusetts' unemployment rate was slightly better than the national unemployment rate of 5.8 percent when Romney took office and was roughly the same as the national rate when he left office.

Perry's Record

Ever since he jumped into the presidential race, Perry has touted his job creation record in Texas as a model for a national turnaround.

Perry, Sept. 7: What Americans are looking for is someone who can get this country working again. And we put the model in place in the state of Texas. When you look at what we have done over the last decade, we created 1 million jobs in the state of Texas. At the same time, America lost 2.5 million.
It's certainly true that Texas has done better than the country as a whole in terms of job growth. When Perry stepped into office in December 2000, employment in Texas was at 9,537,900 and rose to 10,619,800 as of July 2011. That's just over a million jobs, as Perry said. And it's an 11.3 percent increase. Over that period, only four states grew jobs at a faster rate: North Dakota, Wisconsin, Alaska and Utah.
Perry's comparison about U.S. job losses at the same time, however, requires some selective picking of years. If you look at the jobs in the U.S. at the start of Perry's term as governor (December 2000) and compare it with January 2011, Perry is close to being right — over that span the country lost nearly 2.2 million jobs. But that ignores the job growth over this year. If you look at the U.S. employment numbers from December 2000 to August 2011, the loss is closer to 1.4 million jobs. That's still a big difference, just not quite as dramatic.

There are also some caveats to Perry's job creation record in Texas, which we explored recently when Perry claimed that since June 2009, Texas is responsible for more than 40 percent of all of the new jobs created in the U.S. We concluded that while the statistic is accurate, there's more to the story. The increase in jobs hasn't kept pace with the rise in the state's population — so the number of jobless Texans also has risen, along with the state’s unemployment rate. Under Perry, the unemployment rate went from 4.2 percent in December 2000 (a little worse than the national unemployment rate of 3.9 percent) to 8.4 percent in July 2011 (better than the national rate of 9.1 percent).

Also, as critics have repeatedly noted, Texas is tied with Mississippi for the highest percentage of hourly workers paid at or below the minimum wage. And, as we discussed in our article, Texas also has some unique factors that helped it fare better than most states during the recession. Its economy has benefited from high fuel prices, and Texas didn't experience the big housing bust.

Huntsman No. 1?
Huntsman, meanwhile, claimed during the debate that he did better than both Romney and Perry when he was governor of Utah from January 2005 to August 2009.

Huntsman, Sept. 7: I hate to rain on the parade of the Lone Star governor, but as governor of Utah, we were the No. 1 job creator in this country during my years of service. That was 5.9 percent when you were creating jobs at 4.9 percent.

And to my good friend Mitt, 47 just ain't going to cut it, my friend, not when you can be first. We've got to remember, that to beat President Obama, we have to have somebody who's been in the private sector, understands the fragility of the free market system, has been a successful governor as it relates to job creation, and knows something about this world.

Huntsman made similar claims in a web ad titled "#1 vs. #47," which was released this week. The ad cites an article by the National Review Online to back up his claim for Utah being No. 1 in job growth during his tenure as governor.

That article used BLS data from surveys of 60,000 American households. And according to that data, jobs in Utah grew by 5.9 percent, tops in the country.

Most economists, however, cite BLS statistics derived from payroll data to assess job growth. According to the Bureau of Labor's payroll data, the number of employed people in Utah went from 1,124,900 to 1,178,800 during Huntsman's term. That’s a 4.8 percent increase. That's much better than the national average, which saw jobs decline by 1.8 percent over that same period. But it's not best in the nation. Using that data, Utah ranked fourth, behind Wyoming, North Dakota and — notably — Texas.

And, we should note, Huntsman cites a report that used the payroll data numbers to arrive at Massachusetts' No. 47 ranking under Romney.

Under Huntsman's watch, the unemployment rate in Utah went from 4.5 percent in January 2005 (better than the national rate of 5.3 percent) to 7.4 percent in August 2009 (substantially better than the national rate, which was 9.7 percent).

There are lots of caveats to these statistics. All three candidates served different terms. Some served during times of recession or recovery, factors that largely drive both national and state job growth statistics. And it's unclear how much influence any of these governors had on the numbers one way or the other. Still, with every candidate in the race seeking to assume the mantle as the most capable job creator, we're sure you'll see a lot more slicing of the employment numbers as the campaign moves forward.
– Robert Farley

Rumsfeld & the Right Are Wrong: Factcheck.org Fact Checks Revisionist History by Former Sec.Defense Rumsfeld,

Rummy continues his efforts to diminish the effectiveness and improvements of the Obama administration, while apparently trying to re-write the history of the Bush administration to improve a deplorable presidential legacy, of which he was a part.  Seems kind of self-serving to me, and typical of the Right's refusal to give Obama credit in world affairs where credit is due.  This provides an interesting context to evaluating Obama's handling of the upheavals in the middle east, and conservatives efforts to try to sabotage a second Obmama term.

Rumsfeld on the World’s View of America

February 21, 2011
Donald Rumsfeld wrongly denied that the U.S. is viewed more favorably under President Barack Obama than it was under President George W. Bush. In fact, residents of several nations including Britain, Germany, France and China view the U.S. more favorably, according to a survey released last year by the Pew Research Center’s Global Attitudes Project.

Rumsfeld, who served as Defense Secretary under Bush, told CNN’s Candy Crowley that he didn’t think there was any evidence to support claims that residents of other nations have a more favorable opinion of America than they used to:

Crowley, Feb. 20: The president’s supporters say that in two years he has been able to return this country to a status of being liked across the world in a way that America was not liked during the Bush administration, that he has once again made America a beacon. Do you agree with that? Do you think that the U.S. is now looked at much differently than it was, and much more positively than it was during your tenure?

Rumsfeld: No, and I don’t think there’s data that supports that. I think he has made a practice of trying to apologize for America. I personally am proud of America.

Crowley: Well, he seems to be quite popular overseas in a way that President Bush was not. The streets aren’t full of people burning him in effigy. There does seem to be a new — a chance to look at America in a different way than it did during the Bush administration. You don’t think that’s true.

Rumsfeld: I don’t think that’s true, and I don’t think that there’s data that would support that.

But there is support for such claims. Pew reported in June 2010 that President Obama was pretty popular around the world. "In turn, opinions of the U.S., which improved markedly in 2009 in response to Obama’s new presidency, also have remained far more positive than they were for much of George W. Bush’s tenure," the report said.

In fact, in 16 out of 19 nations (not including the United States), those surveyed had a more favorable view of America in 2010 than they did in the last year of Bush’s presidency. Here is the Pew Research Center’s chart:

Governor Walker Caught by Politifact.com Telling Pants-On-Fire Lie About Union Busting

When the truth doesn't work, dishonest people try getting their way by telling lies.  Governor Walker was busted by the Wisconsin politifact.com truth-o-meter telling an alleged pants-on-fire whopper last Friday (bold / enlarged print for emphasis by me - DG):


politifact.com photo of
Governor Walker

 The Truth-O-Meter Says:

politifact.com's
truth-o-meter
pants-on-fire logo

Says under his budget-repair bill, "collective bargaining is fully intact."
Scott Walker on Friday, February 18th, 2011 in a radio interview

Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker says his budget-repair bill would leave collective bargaining “fully intact”
Share this story:

If Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker isn’t trying to strip most collective bargaining rights from public employees, then why do workers keep pouring into Madison by the thousands to demonstrate against him?

Many state, local government and public school employees -- including those represented by the largest state workers union -- have said they would be willing to pay more for pensions and health insurance, as called for in a budget-repair bill introduced by Walker.

But the workers continue to protest provisions in the bill that would restrict most public employee unions to bargaining only over wages, and then only within caps.

It’s the central issue in the protests, which have drawn national attention.

And yet on the morning of Feb. 18, 2011 -- a day after Democratic state senators fled to Illinois to prevent a vote on the bill -- Walker made a startling declaration in a Milwaukee radio interview.

At the turn of the 19th century, the Republican governor told conservative talk show host Charles Sykes, Wisconsin adopted the "strongest civil service protections" in the world.

Walker then added:

"Those fully remain intact. Civil service does not get altered by the modest changes we’re talking about here. Collective bargaining is fully intact. You’ve got merit hiring, you’ve got just cause for termination and for discipline. All those things remain."

In the middle of that statement is the eyebrow-raising remark.

Collective bargaining would remain "fully intact"?

Fact checking and Myth Busting the Holiday of President's Day and Presidential Myths

First of all - the actual name for the holiday we're celebrating today is NOT President's Day; it is, and has been Washington's Birthday (born February 22nd, 1732 in colonial Virginia) since 1885 when little known President Chester Arthur signed the date as a holiday into law.  For a fascinating history of the holiday, I refer you to this intriguing bit of research by Snopes.com.  The Snopes piece also corrects the myth that we celebrate Presidents Day, celebrating all Presidents, because of executive order 11582 by Richard Nixon that was part of creating three day holidays for federal employees, but that executive order actually still affects the celebration of Washington's Birthday, the notion that it was a name change or a change of who we celebrate actually comes from a newspaper spoof of the time, and is not fact.

While many states have separately celebrated Lincoln's birthday, it has NEVER been a federal holiday!

Top Ten Myths about George Washington - for more details, please see this excellent link:

1. George Washington cut down a cherry tree with his hatchet as a boy, and then told the truth about his action.   False.  It is an historic myth. and the link has the details of how it became a widely circulated story.

Update 2 on the Wisconsin Legislature Crisis - another Politifact.com factcheck!

Here is an elaboration on the misstatements by both sides, courtesy of my beloved source, politifact.com, covering 233 items comprised of 41 stories, 178 statements, and 14 promise updates.

(Sheesh, they've been busy!)

I would suggest readers who would like to follow the factchecking might want to start with this one about the Governor's relationship to the budget deficit.

As is usually the case, there are truthful and utterly false statements on both sides, and plenty more that fall somewhere in between true and false.  The devil is in the details; and boy oh boy! are there details AND devils aplenty to go around on this!!!!

Enjoy!

More Guns Do Not Equal Fewer Murders - the Statistical Reality

First, before moving on to the topic at hand, let me welcome our newest blog roll addition, Mikeb302000, where guns and gun laws are a regular topic; the link was made active just today. Please give them a visit.  Now, back to our topic at hand.

I believe as a blogger that one of our purposes in writing is to ask the question, 'Is that true?', and then to try to correlate more than one source to answer the question.  One of the things we are here to do is to challenge assumptions. In the 1/14/'11 Friday Factcheck.org weekly update was this little gem fact checking a claim made by Senator Mike Lee of Utah:

Lee: And to the contrary, I think there is abundant research suggesting that in cities where more people own guns, the crime rate, especially the murder rate actually goes down

Factcheck.org, a project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania countered this false claim by Senator Lee:

That’s not true. A causal relationship between prevalence of gun ownership and crime hasn’t been established by researchers.  

I was intrigued by this study, the article by Richard Florida with the assistance from Charlotta Mellander.  The Geography of Gun Deaths, which included great visuals in the form of maps showing various correlations.  To begin we have their map showing the number of deaths by firearm injury per 100,000 population in 2007.  I would like tomake the distinction that this is not a perfect correlation to Senator Lee's statement, as he refers specifically to cities, while these stats pertain to entire states (and D.C.) and there figures are not limited to murder, but rather reflect all gun deaths: murder and other homicides, suicides, self-defense or police shootings of criminals or by criminals, and accidental gun deaths of all kinds.

Fact Checking Fun Sports Trivia; or "And Now for Something Completely Different"

"The first testicular guard, the "Cup," was used in Hockey in 1874 and the first helmet was used in 1974. That means it only took 100 years for men to realize that their brain is also important."

The above quote is from an amusing 'adult truths' email that was sent to me by one of the Affinity Scam investors (male), in a flurry of exchanging end of the year emails.  It intrigued me sufficiently to fact check it; and I had so  much fun  fact  checking it that it seemed to merit a post  of its own.  (This is for you JH, something different as requested - we aim to please).
 
As always, the devil is in the details.  The most significant devils in this round of fact checking surprised me.  It relates to the reason for wearing a helmet, and the reasons for wearing a cup (no, it is less obvious  than you might suppose) and it took me on a virtual cyber tour of the history of hockey equipment, and the history of the game of hockey.  Here is just one of the sources I came across while researching the topic of cups and hockey helmets; you should scroll down to the comments exchange for some of the more pertinent details:

"The dates are very believable especially when you research “first helmet in Hockey”…”first game in hockey” and so on…. and these dates fall close to the first OFFICIALLY RECORDED dates. For example. Hockey is known to have begun in the year 1800 with the first officially organized indoor game played March 3, 1875 at the Victoria Skating Rink in Montreal. Prior to playing hockey indoors, it was played outdoors first. Hence the date difference (before it was officially recorded which happened after it was played indoors) Due to flying pucks, and sticks that did not have a length mandate, men were very much aware of what a puck in the genitals or a stick between the legs could do to a player, creating an advantage for the opposing team. They were more in tune with gaining an advantage then safety. Another vulnerable spot was the back of the heal of the foot, which was later solved by requiring a hardened protective/metal piece placed in the skate boot and now is apart of the boot itself. A helmet did not become a serious consideration until after Jan 15 1968 when the NHL had its first fatality due to a head injury. In 1970 it was still voted down to have a mandatory helmet rule even after the fatality. In 1975 there was an average of only 5 players who wore them in the NHL,. And finally, John Zeigler, President of the hockey league, I believe it was, mandated in August 1979, that anyone signing a contract after a particular date, it would be mandatory that all players in the NHL wear helmets on their heads. Prior to that date few protected their heads…it was not considered to be manly and was blamed for vision impairment.These dates do not mean #1, no games were played before 1875 nor does it mean that it wasn’t until 1979 that players did not try the helmet out (especially leather or early plastic ones that basically protected an existing injury ,but did not necessarily prevent any.) Anyone in Hockey can attest to seeing what ancient protective gear looked like for the genitals and that there were not protective helmets for the head before a particular point in time. One did come before the other. when you consider when the recorded history occurred..... It is, in fact, a “glimpse” of real history. And I repeat a “glimpse”. I did share it with the public because it had some merit, and I found it somewhat humorous when you consider which one became standard equipment before the other."

I hope I have not offended the delicate sensibilities of our Penigma readers (regular or occasional), and I hope that this provides a little levity to the discussion of politics.  Lastly, I hope this adds a certain humor to my usual fact checking obsession.  Enjoy! and in the words of the fictional Canadian character Red Green, "keep your stick on the ice".  Or, if you prefer, the words of my mom "don't lose your mittens, it's cold out there!".

Going Viral, Just Like the Common Cold........and Harder to Cure

When I did some volunteer work making phone calls for a couple of candidates for the 2010 elections, my favorite question of the people I called was what was their most important issue in their choice of candidate for whom they would vote.

In looking at the list of false emails, the viral cyber disinformation campaign, I encountered a frightening number of people who believed these claims, although I could not always trace them to email.  I have one friend, Lynda, who makes a habit of routinely forwarding me her 'junk' viral emails on political and sometimes historical topics, just because she gets a kick out of my somewhat sarcastic debunking of them back to her.Well, the humor factor is part of it; the other part she gets out of doing so I hope carries over here  to Penigma readers -- having specific sources provided; Lynda says when she comes back to her other friends, family and work colleagues, she "looks smarter to them" for knowing the debunked accurate information,  (with sources, in case someone challenges her on this stuff).

Insight into Language and Thought; Charles Alan Wilson's Sentencing for Threatening Senator Patty Murray, and the Role of Glenn Beck

Updated 11/15/'10

I read something earlier today which impressed me with the quality of insight and observation.

It was this.

It resonated for me particularly, because I had been thinking about how to write about the sentencing of Charles Alan Wilson.  Wilson was sentenced on October 22nd to one year and a day in prison, and three years probation during which he is not allowed to own firearms, amon other provisions and restrictions.

I wrote about Wilson in the Other Charlie Wilson War posts here and  here

Wilson had made daily threats against the life of Senatory Patty Murray of Washington, over his misinformed ideas about the 2010 health care reform legislation.  Those messages included more expletives and slurs than even the threats of violence.  It offers a perfect example of how slurs are intended to intimidate as well as demean.

Friends and family described the chain of events that led to the threats resulting in Wilson going to jail, as a sequence where Wilson had lost his job and become ill.  While homebound, he became convinced that the misinformation regularly disseminated by Glenn Beck on Fox Nuissance represented a legitimate concern. 

Apprently Mr. Wilson was not aware of how to fact check statements made on Fox.

Family and friends directly attribute Wilson's actions to the program content presented by Beck.

'A cousin suspected that Charlie, who became housebound due to his poor health, spent too much time watching TV. Another friend agreed. "His brother got him a computer and he was able to stay connected with family. And he watched television and found Glenn Beck." The friend said he, too, found Beck, a Washington native son, about the same time.



"I understand how [Charlie's] fears were grown and fostered by Mr. Beck's persuasive personality.

Factoids and Fact-turds

Back in the day, my high school debate coach was unhappy with our practice efforts and our debate research.  We were sitting around after school, and he decided we needed to be given a speech.

In that off-the-cuff speech, accentuated with banging on the desk-top podium with his fist, he pointed out that we would never willingly put a turd in our mouths and swallow it, or shove one up our nose and inhale it.  So, why the hell would we insert one into our eyes or ears accessing our brains, in the form of poorly researched information?  He wasn't going to accept shit research from us, and we shouldn't accept it from anyone else.

PACman Karl Roves Everywhere But Near the Truth in Political Ads, per factcheck.org

Max Baucus, the Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, requested this week that the IRS do a full investigation into Karl Rove's "Crossroads" PAC for improperly using their tax-exempt status to manipulate elections, along with other corporate 'front' not for profits.

So, it  is no surprise that in my daily email there was another update from one of my favorite genuinely non-partisan organizations, factcheck.org. 

______________________________

Crossroads Jam-Up
Conservative 'super PAC' makes false and misleading claims in a blizzard of ads.

October 1, 2010
Summary

The latest ads from the American Crossroads “super PAC” attack Democrats running for Senate seats in Colorado, Illinois, Ohio, Nevada, Missouri and New Hampshire.

The ads contain a number of misleading and false claims.

Left or Right, Wrong is Wrong

UPDATE:  I wrote the following post before the news broke of an alleged attempt by James O'Keefe to engage in an attempted event involving a CNN reporter, a boat, and a lot of sex paraphenalia. O'Keefe denies having a role in this.  If O'Keefe is telling the truth - for a change - then this is a very wrong attempt by someone to treat O'Keefe in the same way he has treated his victims.  For more details, read about it here.  I find O'Keefe's claims that this really was an escapade generated by CNN, or the notion that the attractive CNN reporter had attempted to seduce weasel-faced, proven liar O'Keefe highly implausible.

I had intended the next factcheck.org item that I would review here on Penigma would be about the Republican 'Pledge' to/ with / against America (hint - it doesn't holdup well to fact checking), but instead, I think this merits comment first.

Fact Checking I and II, GIGO (Garbage In, Garbage Out)