I've pretty much had it with the grotesque turn the various "fact checking" organizations have taken. "Politifact" is little more than a bunch of shills, devoid of even the vestiges of integrity, that sling about "pants on fire" ratings to any GOP or conservative politician. The Washington Post is no exception. Back during the War on Women thing, Glenn Kessler, their alleged Fact Checker, penned this gem:
The Pinocchio Test
We cannot fault the RNC’s math, as the numbers add up. But at this point this figure doesn’t mean very much. It may simply a function of a coincidence of timing — a brief blip that could have little to do with “Obama’s job market.”
If trends hold up over the next few months, then the RNC might have a better case. But at this point we will give this statistic our rarely used label:
TRUE BUT FALSE
"True but false" rates right up there with "fake but accurate" in the annals of moral and intellectual bankruptcy.
That is followed today by this bit, also in the Washington Post, by some yahoo named "Josh Hicks." We're presuming that is a pseudonym because it is doubtful that anyone would want the monstrosity that follows associated with their real name.
After awarding all sorts of "Pinocchios" to Mike Huckabee and an abortion survivor on the subject of Barack Obama's votes and statements in favor of leaving babies who survive abortion to die. All their statements are true, by the way, but "Josh Hicks" just doesn't like them. We find this monument to duplicity:
The evidence suggests we could have awarded Four Pinocchios to the former Illinois senator for his comments to the Christian Broadcasting Network, but that interview is several years old now, and it’s not the focus of this particular column. The president’s campaign did not respond to requests for comment on the matter of whether Obama’s 2008 comments on the Christian Broadcasting Network contradicted his 2003 vote against Illinois’s Born-Alive Infants Protection bill.
So there is a statute of limitations on lying?
So this is the deal. I've awarded "Josh Hicks" my own award the Heady, for someone with his head up his fourth point of contact. In fact, I've awarded "Josh Hicks" the rare, and highly coveted, Quad-Heady.
I'm considering going even further.
In the past we've had a policy of banning people who argue in bad faith. As Politifact, and the whole menagerie of "fact checking" organizations have demonstrated themselves to be slavishly attached to the Administration's nether regions I will consider quoting any of them, in a non-ironic way, as being evidence of arguing in bad faith and worthy of a ban.
What do you think?