The Stupid Discourse Goes Stupider


Ultimately, the latest right wing blog attempt at fact checking rests upon the notion that there is no possible way that genealogy records could be wrong. 

I’ll let those who have ever done such research stop laughing.  The proof that Obama must be wrong was that the genealogy records were for Charles W.  Payne, not Charles T. Payne. 


Although we were not able to reach Payne directly, Payne’s son, Richard Payne, said his father "definitely served in the 89th Infantry Division" and confirmed that Obama’s account was substantially accurate, except for identifying the wrong concentration camp. Richard Payne declined to say anything further.

Mark Kitchell, who maintains a Web site dedicated to the 89th Infantry Division, said he was able to locate a list of servicemen that includes a Pfc. C. T. Payne who served in the K Company of the 355th Infantry Regiment of the 89th Infantry Division. The list included only the initials for first names.

The 355th Infantry Regimen was the one that liberated Ohrdruf, Kitchell said. Kitchell, the son of 89th veteran Raymond E. Kitchell, obtained the list from the official Division History book, written shortly after the war.

Finally, the National Personnel Records Center, an operation of the federal government’s National Archives and Records Administration, put this question to rest.

Researchers confirmed to PolitiFact that Army personnel records for Payne would have been destroyed in a 1973 fire that consumed many such archives, but they dug up a "Morning Report" dated April 11, 1945, showing Pfc. Charles T. Payne was assigned to the 355th Regiment Infantry, Company K. The Records Center provided a copy of the report. A faxed copy provided to PolitiFact was legible enough for us to make out Payne’s information, but the faxed photocopy of the record is too grainy to be of use if posted here.

There’s no question Obama misspoke when he said his uncle helped to liberate the concentration camp in Auschwitz.

But even with this error in locations, Obama’s statement was substantially correct in that he had an uncle — albeit a great uncle — who served with troops who helped to liberate the Ohrdruf concentration/work camp and saw, firsthand, the horrors of the Holocaust. We rate the statement Mostly True.

Charles Payne is 83, lives in Chicago and apparently never talks about the liberation of the camp.  It’s too bad it had to be brought up again because of a bunch of slobbering children who think they’ve found a conspiracy afoot because a wrong initial in records. 

Daily Dolt: Illinois Review

I’m starting to like Steve Sauerberg even if I’ll never endorse him. The Illinois Review continues its attacks on his campaign staffer because the staffer is gay.

Mr. Barron’s history as the former National Political Director of Log Cabin Republicans concerned us a few weeks ago, and we wrote about it on Illinois Review. Dr. Sauerberg was aware of the controversy, and chose to back Mr. Barron despite his political baggage problematic to conservatives.

Mr. Barron was obviously emboldened by his boss’ loyalty and evidently now has time to spend promoting himself online as a Republican gay political consultant. Must be nice work, if you can get it.

Sauerberg is ignoring calls to fire Barron because Barron is gay. Good for him.

‘See, It Asks a Question’: A Mind So Open His Brains Dripped Out

South Carolina Preacher:

The sign in front of a small church in a small town is causing a big controversy in Jonesville, S.C.

Pastor Roger Byrd said that he just wanted to get people thinking. So last Thursday, he put a new message on the sign at the Jonesville Church of God.It reads: “Obama, Osama, hmm, are they brothers?”
Byrd said that the message wasn’t meant to be racial or political.

“It’s simply to cause people to realize and to see what possibly could happen if we were to get someone in there that does not believe in Jesus Christ,” he said.

When asked if he believes that Barack Obama is Muslim, Byrd said, “I don’t know. See it asks a question: Are they brothers? In other words, is he Muslim ? I don’t know. He says he’s not. I hope he’s not. But I don’t know. And it’s just something to try to stir people’s minds. It was never intended to hurt feelings or to offend anybody.”

Obama has said repeatedly during his campaign that he is a Christian and attends Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago.Despite some criticism, Byrd says that the message will stay on the sign. He took the issue before his congregation Sunday night, and they decided unanimously to keep it.

Byrd also said he doesn’t want it to look like controversy forced him to take the sign down.

Daily Dolt: Illinois Review and Porno Pete

Both are very upset about Steve Sauerberg hiring Teh GAY!

One suspects there is another thing at play though when this is said:

The LCR ad was designed to embarrass Bush by purposely pitting the President’s position in support of the marriage amendment directly against his VP Dick Cheney’s 2000 debate comments . . .

Now, Petey is pretty much against all things teh Gay, but there is one major thing worse than being gay, it’s embarrassing the child king.

More GOP Daddy Talk

Tom Roeser:

Not a peep from the two-headed tame pussies of the contemporary print press, lowering their eyes for fear of “racism.”

What is it about Republicans having to prove they are manly?

He goes on a rant about Farrakhan, Jesse Jackson, and Jeremiah Wright because they don’t ascribe to orthodox Christianity and that any real press would wonder about James Meeks and how much he makes and get the IRS investigating.

Of course, the IRS is investigating the national United Church of Christ for an Obama appearance.

The strange thing is that Roeser only mentions black people in the rant…but of course, he’s not being racist. I’m sure he’s just as concerned about Hagee’s constant politicking for Israeli policy in sermons and he isn’t offensive at all in calling the Catholic Church the whore of Babylon….Since Roeser is so concerncerned about these black preachers, I’m sure he’ll take on the white preacher who has a lot more power than all of them put together…..

Timmeh’s Next Assignment: Talk To the Straight Talker About White Religious Fanatics

I seem to remember suggesting that the press cared an awful lot about black anti-semitic leaders, but tended to ignore white anti-semites and other bigots who are fundamentalists:

The thing is, everyone is missing the point about how fucking stupid this line of questioning was. When was the last time Timmeh took on some right wing fundamentalists for being anti-semitic? So why isn’t George Bush asked about every anti-semitic rant by LaHaye or Wildmon since by the transitive property Timmeh is invoking, Bush has close spiritual adivisors who work closely with them?

The Council on National Policy alone contains a whole host of anti-semitic right wing Christians who hobnob with the Tony Perkins and the Richard Lands and the Dobsons of the world, but that transitive connection would never be brought up would it? This isn’t just a connection of someone who goes on a trip with or says something nice, it’s a working group of conservative fundamentalists who welcome anti-semitism into their efforts to bring about a Christian government. Of course, the Bush administration has routinely played footsy with Wildmon, not just had a friend of his be nice to him on occasion.

This would never be an issue for a white candidate and shame on Timmeh for trying to do it to Obama. If Timmeh wants to be concerned about anti-semitism he should start asking the Mike Huckabee’s of the world about their supporters who they actually work with to get elected.

Who could possibly be another example that is relevant to John McCain? I just don’t know….

John Hagee!

Hagee isn’t anti-semitic though. He’s anti-Catholic.  He likes Jews. They are necessary for the apocalypse.

[kml_flashembed movie="" width="425" height="350" wmode="transparent" /]

His views on the Catholicism are, ahem, interesting…..He most often uses the dogwhistle Church of Rome to refer to the Catholic Church, a phrase that n many fundamentalist circles essentially argues that the Catholic Church is evil and will produce a Pope who will be the anti-christ.  Check out Rapture Ready for the phrase

What does Straight Talkin’ John McCain think about the guy:

Mr. McCain deflected a question about whether he agreed with Mr. Hagee’s end-times theology in which he connects Iran’s nuclear threat with the Apocalypse, the final battle of good and evil on earth.

“All I can tell you is I’m very proud to have pastor Hagee’s support,” Mr. McCain said.

Perhaps, Timmeh, the Catholic boy from Buffalo can ask McCain what he’s proud of?

The larger issue is that if a black religious conservative bigot like Farrakhan opens his mouth, every black person running for office has to play the game of denouncing him no matter how tenuous the relationship.

But when it comes to white religious conservative bigots like Hagee, LaHaye, and others from groups like the Council for National Policy who are anti-Catholic or anti-semitic and actually interact with political leaders, the press is silent.  Bush himself addressed them in 2000 and Cheney made a special trip last year.

Today’s Tosser: Bill Pascoe, What’s Most Amusing About Bill Pascoe’s Fine Whine

Are his comments about how to run a campaign in 2004:

First, understand why your opponent has problems with significant elements of his base, and drive wedges where you can, to the maximum extent possible; second, recognize that it is not your campaign’s job to tell the objective truth, it’s your campaign’s job to tell the version of the truth that puts your opponent in the worst light possible (it’s his campaign’s job, after all, to do the same to you); third, don’t get suckered into the trap of only talking about issues the media says are important – instead, choose the issue matrix over which you want to wage war, and stick to it no matter what; and fourth, if need be, if you can’t make a legitimate argument against your opponent on a key issue, use your opponent’s party’s position on the issue as the battleground, and wrap it around his neck. Make him pay for the sins of his party. Guilt by association still works, so don’t be shy in exploiting it.

Live by the sword, die by the sword.

Oh wait, the claims about Oberweis are all true…

Daily Dolt: Phyllis Schafly

Lying twice wasn’t enough over at Illinois Review, they pulled in Phyllis Schlafly to lie a third time about the ERA and Social Security.

The passage Eaton and Schlafly are lying about is on page 206 in Sex Bias in the U.S. Code

Here is what they claim supports them on page 206:

“Congress and the President should direct their attention to the concept that pervades the Code: that the adult world is (and should be) divided into two classes – independent men, whose primary responsibility is to win bread for a family, and dependent women, whose primary responsibility is to care for children and household. This concept must be eliminated from the code if it is to reflect the equality principle.”

This, of course, is out of context given directly following this passage is:

Underlying the recommendations made in this report is the fundamental point that allocation of responsibilities within the family is a matter properly determined solely by the individuals involved.  Government should not steer individual decisions concerning household or breadwinning roles by casting the law’s weight on the side of (or against) a particular method of ordering private relationships.  Rather, a policy of strict neutrality should be pursued.  That policy should accomodate both traditional and innovative patterns.  At the same time, it should assure removal of artificial constraints so that women and men willing to explore their full potential as human beings may create new traditions by their actions.

I also cited page 45 and since Eaton and Schlafly continue their lie, let’s cut and paste pages 45 and 46 of the report.

1. Revise social security law to provide father’s benefits in all cases where mother’s benefits are provided under present law;

2. Eliminate the dependency requirement for husband’s or widower’s benefits;

3. Provide derivative social security benefits to divorced husbands;

4. Make the age 62 computation point applicable for men born prior to 1913;

5. Eliminate the 20-of-4O quarter work test required now to qualify for disability

6. Establish an occupational definition of disability for workers 55 years and older;

7. Make eligibility for benefits available all disabled widows and disabled surviving divorced wives regardless of age, and make the benefits not subject to actuarial

8. Provide benefits to disabled spouses of beneficiaries;

9. Define dependents to include relatives live in the home;

10. Reduce the duration of marriage requirement from 20 to 5 or 10 years for a divorced spouse to qualify for benefits on the basis of the wage-earner spouse’s earnings record, and remove the requirement of consecutive years of marriage. In the alternative, divorced wife’s right to receive benefits should be based on the economic relationship between the parties and not the length marriage;

11. Allow additional dropout years to relate benefits more to current earnings;

 12. Compute primary benefits and spoused benefits to increase the primary benefits for workers by approximately one-eighth, and reduce the spouse’s proportion from one-half to one-third, maintaining thereby the current total benefit of 15 percent for a couple while at the same time improving the protection for single workers, working couples, and surviving spouses; and

13. Amend the Social Security Act to eliminate separate references to men and women.

Phyllis Schlafley is lying and doing it badly.  When the report (it wasn’t a book by Ruth Bader Ginsburg, it was a report to The United States Commission on Civil Rights) was issued men did not receive the same survivor benefits women did.  That was changed not long after the report actually and as such, the lie at the center of this scare tactic was made moot nearly 30 years ago.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg wasn’t arguing that survivor and spouse benefits should be eliminated to make individuals more equal, she was arguing that men should receive the same benefits in the same situation.  The reason for this is that families should decide upon the proper roles within the family, not the government. The point was to increase liberty while still providing the same level of benefits–which is what the system has done over this time.

That Eaton and Schlafly would so boldly lie isn’t terribly surprising.  Schlafly is still touting unisex bathrooms. The issue is why does anyone give them any attention or space to print this crap other than on wingnut blogs.  Eaton took her lie to the Southtown Star and got it pubished presumably because it was an opinion piece. It was an opinion piece, it just had several facts supporting the claims wrong.  And not just wrong, but the opposite of her claims.

Daily Dolt: Bill Hobbs

For those who were around when this blog started, the blogosphere was a very different place where liberal and conservative blogs tended to talk amongst each other and link accordingly.  That changed as the wingnutosphere went batshit insane.

One of those early bloggers who I remember having relatively interesting exchanges with is Bill Hobbs. Now the press guy for the Tennessee Republican Party who just attacked Barack HUSSEIN Obama.

He tries to defend himself on two points:

One of Obama’s foreign policy advisers, Robert Malley, is anti-Israel and pro-Hamas. Hamas is an Iranian-funded Islamist terror organization dedicated to the eradication of Israel. Malley thinks we should do support Hamas. Malley is advising Obama on Middle East policy.

Did the media cover that? Ask about that? No. They fixated on Obama’s middle name. Apparently, a story post at sparked the calls. The story is headlinedMcCain apology raises questions about state GOP, but didn’t bother to actually pose those questions to the Tennessee Republican Party. No, they went and interviewed Democrats.

What makes one pro-Hamas?  Thinking that there might have to be some sort of diplomacy with them.  Yeah.  Friggen genius.

Then he tries to defend the use of the Obama’s middle name by saying:

 Silly, of course. Run a Lexis-Nexis search for the number of times the media has used Hillary Rodham Clinton’s middle name, often to underscore her feminist leanings and independence from her husband. Do a search for how many times during the 1988 and 1992 campaigns the media called the first George Bush “George Herbert Walker Bush,” to underscore the media’s protrayal of Bush as a preppie elitist. Ditto the media’s reference to Dan Quayle as “J. Danforth Quayle.”

Actually dumbass, her middle name is Diane.  Rodham is her maiden name.

Not satisfied with being sort of a dumbass, he approvingly links to Josh Marshall’s satirical piece on Obama and Libya as if Josh were serious.

Sydney Sounds Kind of Like a Fairy Doesn’t It

Dan Zanoza helps underscore the race baiting going on with Obama over at Illinois Review:

I don’t think there’s any problem with using Obama’s middle name.  It’s part of his heritage.  It’s part of who he is.  And, if that heritage, combined with some of the recent comments made by Obama and his wife, Michelle, shed light on this man’s true world view, the American people have a right to know it or hear it.

Daily Dolt: Fran Eaton, Lying Liar

Eaton tries to lie herself out yesterday’s lie. She claims the below proves that Ginsburg thought the ERA would eliminate survivor benefits for women who choose to stay home.

“Congress and the President should direct their attention to the concept that pervades the Code: that the adult world is (and should be) divided into two classes – independent men, whose primary responsibility is to win bread for a family, and dependent women, whose primary responsibility is to care for children and household. This concept must be eliminated from the code if it is to reflect the equality principle.”

Of course, this is directly contradicted by the text of page 45 in which the recommendations for Social Security changes include making the language gender neutral so that men and women have equal access to survivor benefits regardless who who works and who might stay at home.

But what is even more telling is how she uses the quote above that doesn’t even make the argument she claims it makes.  It talks about making the code gender neutral, not eliminating benefits for women who didn’t work outside the home.

What Fran cannot do is cite the next paragraph that demonstrates just how much of a liar Fran is:

Underlying the recommendations made in this report is the fundamental point that allocation of responsibilities within the family is a matter properly determined solely by the individuals involved.  Government should not steer individual decisions concerning household or breadwinning roles by casting the law’s weight on the side of (or against) a particular method of ordering private relationships.  Rather, a policy of strict neutrality should be pursued.  That policy should accomodate both traditional and innovative patterns.  At the same time, it should assure removal of artificial constraints so that women and men willing to explore their full potential as human beings may create new traditions by their actions.

Combine this with the recommendations on page 45 and what is clear is that Ginsburg argued for expanding benefits to widowers as well as widows, not to eliminate benefits to widows.

Why Eaton feels the need to lie about the report is beyond me, but she clearly did.  And the Southtown Star helped her in that endeavor.

Ouch, The Stupid! It Burns! Daily Dolt: Fran Eaton

Fran Eaton pulls out the Phyllis Schlafley lie book on the ERA

Pro-traditional family activists are very concerned that with the ERA, states will be forced to issue marriage licenses to any two persons who request them because the ERA eliminates discrimination based on sex.

The horrors.  But more to the point, passing the ERA would require than any differentiation based on sex by the government at any level be a suspect classification that would require a strict scrutiny test.  The ERA wouldn’t eliminate any differentiation based on gender, it would simply put the burden on the state to demonstrate there was a compelling state interest in treating the sexes differently.  Abortion rights and same sex marriage rights in states that have adopted them have primarily relied upon privacy rights. Those that do rely upon state level ERA provisions largely have more sweeping interpretations of text.  To put it simply, the ban on same sex marriage hits both genders the same way so no differentiation occurs.  The exceptions to such an interpretation are far smaller than the interpretation of the few states that have even considered the argument. Abortion wise, there are only two states where such an argument has been successful.  Federal law bases abortion on privacy grounds, not gender differentiation.

But Madigan may not be aware that stay-at-home moms and widows will be affected by the passage of the ERA. Women who have chosen a career of taking care of their families instead of a career outside the home no longer will be able to tap into their husband’s Social Security reserves upon his retirement or death.

Because sex no longer will be a factor, provisions within Social Security set aside for women who haven’t paid into the system will be discontinued. This is the opinion of none else than U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

This is where one asks if the Southtown Star has editors. For those interested in the report, I have uploaded it here.

The problem here is, this report was written 30 years ago and much has changed. The  gender bias in the Social Security code is largely eliminated with survivors or either gender eligible for Social Security benefits under the same conditions.
But where Fran is lying outright is in stating the opinion of Ruth Bader Ginsburg.  First, though kind of a secondary point, the report doesn’t address what the passage of the ERA would do, it simply lays out where the authors find evidence of differential treatment by sex in the US Code.

More importantly, Eaton specifically lies about Ginsburg’s position in the report because Ginsburg and her co-author argue to make it easier for women or men who stay at home to collect Social Security benefits, not that eliminating the bias would lead to a loss of benefits.  Don’t believe me?  Read page 45 of the report.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg actually argued for improved support for individuals who stayed at home and worked instead of entering the formalized workforce.

In other words, the Southtown Star has let one of their columnists brazenly lie about a matter of public policy in their pages.  It’s not an opinion Eaton is offering, she states the argument based on what she claims to be a fact about the report which is demonstrably false.  There is simply no excuse for this sort of shoddy work by a newspaper.  One expects it out of Eaton who seldom concerns herself with accuracy, but putting it in the Southtown start is inexcusable.

But not only will the ERA’s passage stir the hackles of little old ladies and helpless widows, 18-year-old college women may be up in arms

No longer will military registration be required of just males, it also will be required of females – again, no discrimination based on sex. While more and more young women are choosing the military as a career option, if the draft were to be enacted in a stepped-up defense in the war on terror, our 18-year-old women would be forced into service along with our 18-year-old men.

This is, of course, completely baffling.  If the country were to require the draft to be reinstated, there is no argument made by her against drafting women other than women might not want to go.  Most guys don’t either.  Hence, why one has a draft.  Given physical standards would largely separate women and men, women could take over a large share of the support functions along with the men who don’t meet physical standards for combat.