Plain Talk: This column is full of malarkey

 

• Dave Zweifel | The Capital Times
• https://madison.com/ct/opinion/column/dave_zweifel/plain-talk-this-column-is-full-of-malarkey/article_3a3c9cbe-9944-52af-9cfd-566fc6dee73c.html
  

You might say that today's column is full of malarkey.

The word malarkey, you may have noticed, is one that Joe Biden used frequently during the presidential campaign, going all the way back to the Iowa caucuses last year — even having the words "No Malarkey" painted on the side of his bus as he criss-crossed the state in 2019.

He used it during the last heavily-watched presidential debate on Oct. 22 to describe Donald Trump's typically unfounded claims.

"There's a reason why (Trump) is bringing up all this malarkey. There's a reason for it," Biden proclaimed. "He doesn't want to talk about the substantive issues. It's not about his family and my family. It's about your family."

As an admittedly old guy, I knew the word well. It was used all the time in those good, old days, and more than once we'd accuse each other of being "full of malarkey." That was nicer than using another often-used word.

I'm not sure when malarkey went out of vogue, but obviously it did, because younger people watching the debate were puzzled.

Laurie Wermter, a reference librarian at UW-Madison, noticed a report that a lot of people were looking up the word's meaning in online dictionaries that night.

She went to the online edition of the Oxford English Dictionary herself to pinpoint its definition:

"Humbug, bunkum, nonsense; a palaver, racket. (Usually of an event, activity, idea, utterance, etc., seen as trivial, misleading or not worthy of consideration.)"

But, she was surprised to find something else and decided that we at The Capital Times might be interested.

"When I looked it up myself, I discovered that an early usage (1924) of it is credited to the "Capital Times" (Madison, Wisconsin)," she reported in a letter to our editor and publisher Paul Fanlund.

I tried to search our archives to find the story or editorial that used the word, but the search couldn't narrow it down. But, I can imagine William T. Evjue insisting the opponents of "Fighting Bob" La Follette were full of malarkey. It was the year, after all, when the Progressive icon was running for president of the United States.

Laurie Wermter added that she was impressed to find 126 words in the Oxford dictionary in which The Capital Times is cited to document a usage. She added them to the letter she sent.

Among them are "a-go-go" in 1964, "arms control" in 1921, "auto-defrost" in 1940, "barbershopper" in 1930, "brain sucker" in 2002, "color commentator" in 1939, "jack squat" in 1997, "love-bomb" in 1976, "super PAC" in 1993, and "videogram" in 1983.

Thanks to this UW librarian, that's no malarkey. And, hopefully, when these votes are finally all counted, we'll have someone in the White House who remembers what it means.

Some Thoughts on the Constitution, Culture War and Deceit

“I confess that I do not entirely approve this Constitution at present, but Sir, I am not sure I shall never approve it. . . . In these sentiments, Sir, I agree to this Constitution, with all its Faults, if they are such; because I think a General Government is necessary for us. . . . . I doubt too whether any other Convention we can obtain, may be able to make a better Constitution. . . . . It therefore astonishes me, Sir, to find this System approaching so near to Perfection as it does; and I think it will astonish our Enemies, who are waiting with confidence to hear how our Councils are Confounded, like those of the Builders of Babel, and that our States are on the Point of Separation, only to meet, hereafter, for the purposes of cutting one another’s throats. Thus I consent, Sir, to this Constitution because I expect no better, and I am not sure that it is not the best. . . . . On the whole, Sir, I cannot help expressing a Wish, that every Member of the Convention, who may still have Objections to it, would with me on this Occasion doubt a little of his own Infallibility, and to make manifest our Unanimity, put his Name to this instrument.” --Benjamin Franklin, 1787, stating his consent, if not approval of the new US Constitution, and suggesting a bit of humility in the face of human fallibility; note the comment about states slitting each other’s throats

Context

America is in the midst of an intense culture war between radical right authoritarianism operating mostly in the name of conservatism, patriotism and/or Christianity vs. democracy generally operating under various labels, e.g., democrats, liberalism, socialism, secularism, the mob, etc. The labels tend to vary depending who is describing which side. The war is multifaceted, but a bitter, vicious struggle for wealth and power is at the heart of it all, even though that is generally camouflaged as a struggle of good vs. bad, patriotism vs. anti-American subversion, or etc. In fact, the two sides are not nearly as far apart or hateful as the propaganda and irrational emotional manipulation has coaxed many people into falsely believing exists in reality. All of that is a big part of the deceit that permeates the war. 

Another major source of deceit is about the constitutional basis and authority for the competing visions of American society and law. Radical right authoritarians are now in a position to bulldoze their interpretation of the Constitution into law, often or usually over the objections of most Americans on some or most major issues.

The superb 2016 book (631 pages + almost 300 pages of ponderous, detailed notes and citations) by Harvard law school professor Michael J. Klarman, The Framer’s Coup: The Making of the United States Constitution, goes into great detail about the making of the Constitution and the circumstances surrounding it. Presumably to minimize allegations of bias, Klarman relies heavily on direct quotes from the Founders and other people alive at the time to make his points. Intended or not, his book describes in great detail how the vast radical right authoritarian culture war machine of 2020 stands on a non-existent basis in historical fact for their claims of constitutional correctness and “Founders intent” as the basis for their ferocious, self-righteous assault on American society and law. A few quotes from the book speak clearly to illustrate the deceit and a rational basis for Constitutional flexibility as society changes.

In the final analysis

These are the last two paragraphs of the book:

“In the final analysis, the Constitution -- like any governmental arrangement -- must be defended on the basis of its constituency with our basic (democratic) political commitments and the consequences that it produces. That it has been around for a very long time or that its authors were especially wise and virtuous should not be sufficient to immunize it against criticism.

Toward the end of his long life, Thomas Jefferson, who played no direct role in either the drafting or the ratification of the Constitution, sagely observed that because ‘laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind’ and because each generation has ‘a right to choose for itself the form of government it believes most promotive of its own happiness,’ constitutions ought not to receive ‘sanctimonious reverence’ and be deemed, ‘like the arc of the covenant, too sacred to be touched’. As Jefferson would have recognized, those who wish to sanctify the Constitution are often using it to defend some particular interest that, in their own day, cannot in fact be adequately justified on its own merits.”

Commentary: Jefferson was very astute. First, he focuses on the human mind and its progress. Second, he is explicit that laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of mind. Third, people who claim otherwise, specifically the radical right authoritarians that dominate the GOP today, argue for a Constitution frozen in time cannot justify what they want on the merits in an honest, transparent competition of ideas. Instead, they rely on legal gimmicks like “Originalism” (discussed here) to tell us what the Founders and/or the people intended and thus what the Constitution really means based on that ersatz authority. It is an illusion. This is a source of profound deceit and thus profound immorality[1] that the radical right is using against the American government, law, people and society to win the culture war.

We know we’re not perfect or all knowing

Klarman writes on the awareness the Founders had of their own fallibility: 

“Nathaniel Gorham of Massachusetts, for one, was incredulous at the idea ‘that this vast country including the western territory will 150 years hence remain one nation.’ 

The Framers did not think they were perfect. During the convention, George Mason observed that the Constitution the delegates were drafting ‘will certainly be defective, as the Confederation has been found on trial to be.’ During the ratifying contest, Elbridge Gerry noted that even ‘the greatest men may err.’ Federalist Noah webster considered it ‘consummate arrogance’ to presume that the Founders had ‘all possible wisdom,’ could ‘foresee all possible circumstances’ or could ‘judge for future generations better than they can judge for themselves.’ Because they understood their own imperfections and limitations, the Framers deliberately fashioned Article V to make amendments easier to obtain than they had been under the Articles of Confederation.” 

Commentary: Clearly, the Founders intended a document that changes as society changes. That is the opposite of the position the radical right authoritarians take in making their assault on American society and law.

The framer’s mistaken assumptions

Oops, we goofed. Mistakes were made:

“The framer’s mistaken assumptions meant that the system they designed sometimes worked very differently in practice than they had anticipated. For example, the Framers assumed that political actors in different branches of the national government would have self-interested incentives to challenge each other’s assertions of power. Yet the existence of political parties, which the Founders did not contemplate, drastically altered the operation of the system of checks and balances. Specifically, expected the president and congress to be adversaries to be competing for power, the rise of political parties meant that the two branches -- if controlled by the same party -- might be more likely to coordinate their efforts than compete with one another.

Similarly, the development of political parties radically altered the practical workings of the electoral college system. The Framers assumed that presidential candidates would rarely command majorities in the electoral college, and thus ‘nineteen times in twenty,’ the House of Representatives would have to pick the president (from among the top five vote getters in the electoral college).” (emphasis added)

Commentary: The Founders warned against political parties.[2] They simply did not foresee their rise and the consequences. Party loyalty overwhelmed the incentive to compete they built into the Constitution. 

Footnotes: 

1. Moral reasoning: Deceit that misleads people and leads them to act on the basis of false information and beliefs based thereon is immoral because it steals by fraud from people their right to decide matters for themselves on the basis of facts and true truths. Deceit thus subverts and co-opts the progress of affected human minds and societies. 

2. For example, Washington wrote this in his 1796 farewell address to the American people where, among other things, he advised American citizens to view themselves as a cohesive unit and avoid political parties:

I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the State, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally.

This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy.

The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty.

Ten Ideas to Improve Our System

 By Best in Moderation

There is a lot of talk right now about how to ensure the shift in political power happens correctly. I'll leave those discussions to another OP. 

Today I want to talk about fundamental improvements to our system to make abuses less rampant and accepted. Here are ten possible solutions to systemic problems; please feel free to add more or discuss them down below.

Ranked Choice Voting:

Local and state changes to our election process will make them more representative and open to more candidates from more parties. 

You rank your choices and if no candidate meets the 50% threshold, the lowest ranked is dropped and if that was your top selection your next selection is chosen. 

This way you can safely assume your second choice isn’t automatically a person you vehemently oppose.

Presidential Elections decided by popular vote:

The EC isn’t needed. We have the ability to speedily determine which candidate wins the most support from all Americans.

The EC further shifts power to less populated states, giving Wyoming 7 times the voting power of California (more voters needed per ECV in CA). 

Eliminating the EC will in no way take power from smaller states, as the President is the representative of the People of the USA, and should be chosen by them. 

Senatorial Rebalancing:

As of this day, 12% of the nation of the USA decides 50% of the US Senate. That is a massive imbalance of power.

This can be rectified while keeping the intention of the founders to not let less populated states get swept away by adding a single modifier on the state population.

All States retain 2 Senators, no matter how far below the national population average they are. 

Any state that has double the population average gains one senator for each doubling. 

This means California, Florida, Texas and New York would see an increase of Senators (4 for CA, 3 for Texas, 2 for Florida and 1 for New York)

Based on political trends this would make for an even distribution along partisan lines. It would also mean that 50% of the Senate would now be chosen by 24% of the US population. Still out of balance, but more in line with the vision of the Framers

FYI, when founded 50% of the Senate was chosen by 37% of the population.  

Supreme Court Term Limits

The SC has become too political. An appointment will be held up or pushed frantically due only to political considerations, and cannot be undone without severe disruption.

Putting a 16 year term limit on SC Justices gives them the freedom from political influence needed while also providing for a greater representation on the court as well as limited political posturing. 

Presidential Pardon Power Limitations

America was never intended to have a king. To give one person the ability to pardon any person, no matter the crime, is a kingly power. It should be restrained.

Leave most of it in place, but as with all Constitutional power have checks on it. A pardon must go through an advisory board. 

A pardon furthermore cannot go to relatives or direct associates of the President, not the President her or himself. This prevents obvious corruption.

Penalties for lying to the American people

If something can be proven to be objectively false, then repeating this false thing to the American public will be punishable by law for any elected official. 

One infraction will earn a documented warning including the statement, the correction, and the sources proving it incorrect.

Multiple infractions will result in fines and public censor. 

Repeated infraction on the same false statement will engage impeachment and removal procedures. 

Public Servants must be held to the utmost standard of truth or leave office.

Independent Accountability Office:

The DOJ falls under the Executive branch. The SC is selected by it. The GAO has no teeth. 

There needs to be an independent office whose sole function is to check the use of power by any elected official. 

This office will rotate leadership regularly, preventing any established “deep state” from forming. 

It will consist of investigatory officials as well as representatives from all political parties, to provide a check on one another. The latter will be elected by the people of the USA.

This Accountability Office will have the power to pursue legal investigations into and make charges against elected officials only. The charges made by them will need to be reviewed in a civilian court for any criminal proceedings; however any charge serious enough to warrant removal can trigger impeachment proceedings in the corresponding government office. 

Emoluments Guarantees:

Any President of the United States must set all financial interests into a blind trust controlled by an independent party.

Furthermore, all POTUS candidates must pass a national security clearance test. If they fail, they must work with DHS to meet the criteria before being allowed on any national ticket. No government funds or government institutions may help or include these candidates. It is theoretically possible to bypass this condition with a popular election candidate not belonging to any political party or structure. 

Foreign Influence Measures:

Any candidate caught soliciting help from or materials from foreign nations or accepting the help of a foreign nation in their bid for election will be immediately removed from consideration for public office. 

Congressional Pay tied to Key Performance Indicators (KPIs):

Congress will no longer be able to decide on their own pay raises. Instead, pay raises will correspond to specific performance indicators, including state of the economy, bills passed and public approval. 

Failure to meet these criteria will not result in immediate removal but no additional recompense will be given. Downturn of the US economy and jobs will result in lowering of Congressional pay. 

Who is the Least Biased News Source? Simplifying the News Bias Chart

 

“I challenge anybody to show me an example of bias in Fox News Channel.”

Challenge accepted.

Rupert Murdoch, the founder and current chairman of Fox Corp (owner of Fox News) first said the above quote in an article on the Salon website in 2001.

And even though it’s from almost 20 years ago, I can’t think of a more telling quote about the current environment of news in America.

Was there actually any iota of truth to that statement?

“Fake news!”

“Mainstream media!”

“Hoax!”

All of these phrases seem to be shouted from the rooftops everywhere we look these days.

On TV, on the internet, social media — even in private conversations with family and friends.

This has weighed on me (and probably you too) for a while now.

Not only have normally friendly conversations turned vitriolic, but it seems a candid discussion about actual facts is getting more and more impossible every day.

My curiosity finally got the best of me and I spent a huge amount of time over the last couple of weeks collecting and analyzing related data.

I explored the subject of what truly can be considered fake news today.

• Which sites are actually biased?
• Which news sources consistently provide more fiction than facts?
• How impactful are the relationships between reliability, bias, and traffic?

I explore these questions and many more in the following analysis.

Enjoy!

Table of contents

1. Methods and sources
2. Legend
3. Interesting data
4. Which websites can be considered ‘Fake News’?
5. Which news sources should we be reading?
6. Who are the 10 most biased news sources?
7. Who are the 10 most neutral news sources?
8. Who are the 10 most liberally biased news sources?
9. Who are the 10 most conservatively biased news sources?
10. What news websites get the most traffic in the USA?
11. Which sites can be considered contributors to echo-chambers?
12. How many news sources use paywalls?
13. Graphical data and correlations
14. Website visits vs News media bias
15. Reliability vs Unique American visitors in July
16. Bias vs Reliability
17. Monthly visits per person vs Reliability
18. Commentary
19. Full list of news websites analyzed

Be extremely skeptical when reading these news sources:

1. 🔴World Truth TV — 11.6%
2. 🟢National Enquirer — 15.1%
3. 🔴The Gateway Pundit — 19.4%
4. 🔴InfoWars — 20.3%
5. 🔴NewsPunch — 22.5%
6. 🔵Wonkette — 23.9%
7. 🔴WorldNetDaily — 26.5%
8. 🔴Twitchy — 26.7%
9. 🔵Palmer Report — 27.6%
10. 🔴PJ Media — 28.7%
11. 🔵Bipartisan Report — 30.1%
12. 🔵Occupy Democrats — 31.3%
13. 🔴Breitbart — 32.2%
14. 🔵Alternet — 33.4%
15. 🔴Conservative Review — 34.1%
16. 🔴The American Spectator — 34.4%
17. 🔴The Federalist — 34.7%
18. 🔵ShareBlue — 35.5%
19. 🔵Crooks and Liars — 36%
20. 🔴American Thinker — 36.1%
21. 🔵Daily Kos — 36.2%
22. 🔴Daily Caller — 37.4%

The following 15 news sources ranked the highest under this metric.

1. 🟢AP, 79.2%
2. 🟢Reuters, 78.9%
3. 🟢Weather.com, 75.9%
4. 🟢ABC News, 73.9%
5. 🟢The Advocate, 73.9%
6. 🟢Bloomberg, 72.9%
7. 🟢National Public Radio, 72.9%
8. 🟢Wall Street Journal, 72.1%
9. 🟢The Hill, 72.1%
10. 🟢Financial Times, 71.9%
11. 🟢LA Times, 70.8%
12. 🟢PBS, 70.6%
13. 🟢Al Jazeera, 70.5%
14. 🟢CBS, 70.3%
15. 🟢Fortune, 69.8%

Avoid these sources if you value neutrality:

1. 🔵Wonkette, -31.15
2. 🔴InfoWars, 31.05
3. 🔴American Thinker, 29.82
4. 🔵Palmer Report, -29.37
5. 🔴NewsPunch, 28.58
6. 🔴The Gateway Pundit, 28.55
7. 🔵Occupy Democrats, -25.59
8. 🔴Conservative Review, 25.3
9. 🔵ShareBlue, -24.95
10. 🔴Life News, 24.75

News media to consider the most neutral sources:

1. 🟢The Hill, 0.09
2. 🟢Forbes, 0.2
3. 🟢Christian Science Monitor, -0.21
4. 🟢Business Insider, -0.38
5. 🟢Fortune, 0.43
6. 🟢Marketwatch, -0.54
7. 🟢Financial Times, 0.62
8. 🟢Bloomberg, -0.85
9. 🟢Reuters, -0.95
10. 🟢AP, -1.06

Based on the data and in my opinion, the following websites are harming the news industry and our political discourse.

1. 🔵Palmer Report — 27.6% reliability score, 8.2 average monthly visits
2. 🔵Crooks and Liars — 36%, 6.2
3. 🔵Daily Kos — 36.2%, 5.3
4. 🔴Breitbart — 32.2%, 5.3
5. 🔴Twitchy — 26.7%, 5.1
6. 🔴Fox News — 41.8%, 4.9
7. 🔴The Gateway Pundit — 19.4%, 4.8
8. 🔴PJ Media — 28.7%, 4.4
9. 🔴InfoWars — 20.3%, 4.3
10. 🔵FreeSpeech TV — 38.7%, 4.0
11. 🔴RedState — 41.3%, 3.7
12. 🔵Wonkette — 23.9%, 3.6
13. 🔴American Thinker — 36.1%, 3.6
14. 🔵Alternet — 33.4%, 3.2
15. 🔴Daily Caller — 37.4, 3.1
16. 🔴Daily Wire — 38.1%, 3.0

Far more details for inquiring minds:

https://towardsdatascience.com/how-statistically-biased-is-our-news-f28f0fab3cb3

This does not bring us together.

It leads to us doubting our neighbors, our friends, our parents, and other important people in our lives.

Eternal distrust.

You can’t believe what you hear.

Every man for himself.

It seems that many people these days, mistakenly in my opinion, search for sources based on what they already want to hear.

They look for articles to confirm their suspicions. Their thoughts and feelings.

Right or left, it doesn’t matter. If you search on Google for something to back up your feeling on a subject (regardless of truth) — you will find it.

There’s an article for everything now.

Opinions being added to the news cycle has corrupted the impartiality of it.

This is not how we come together as a world, as a nation.

We must be better than this.

It’s my belief that many of these websites, their owners, and their anchors are one of the largest absolute causes of anger in the world today.

Be better, people.

J.J. Pryor  Sep 9·19