At least we're not killing gays like Iran is.

Certain pundits and politicians are repeating a particularly weak argument, suggesting either that Indiana's so-called "religious freedom" bill is justified because at least it is not as bad as Iran's treatment of homosexuals (as Steven Crowder implies several times in this video and Sen. Cotton repeated yesterday), or that opponents of Indiana's bill are hypocrites for supporting the nuclear negotiations with Iran, while refusing to do business in Indiana until the "religious freedom" bill is repealed.

Both versions of this argument are fraught with logical fallacies. The first is the logical equivalent of defending voter-suppression measures that disproportionately affect African Americans because at least we are not lynching them as we used to, or defending the wage-gap because at least we are not burning witches as we once did. Less bad is simply not the equivalent of good.

The second argument rests on a simple equivocation. Some are suggesting that, if opponents of the Indiana law refuse to do business with Indiana, and if they wish be be consistent, they should likewise object to Obama doing business with Iran (also here, and Ben Shapiro makes the same false equivalence here without explicitly repeating the equivocation). The problem here is an equivocation. That is to say, "doing business" in the first instance is literal (buying, selling and producing items to be bought and sold). In the second instance, "doing business" is a metaphorical turn of phrase. It intends sitting down at the negotiating table.

One is free to criticize negotiations with Iran (though I see no alternatives but continuing with sanctions, which do not seem to be having the desired effect, or going to war). But equating doing business in Indiana and "doing business" with Iran is the height of silliness (though perhaps I should not speak too soon of the height of silliness in this argument).

To be sure, it is hypocritical of Apple to do business in Iran while refusing to do business in Indiana, but you will notice that there is no equivocation here.

Obama’s 23 Planned Executive Actions On Guns

After VPOTUS reported to POTUS on suggested gun solutions, the White House issued a list of 23 executive actions POTUS plans to pursue in the immediate future.  None of these 23 items lists guns which are to be banned, nor are high capacity magazines mentioned (though both are certain to be addressed in any future attempts at federal legislation).  Indeed, most of the items have to do with information sharing and background checks.  However, there are two extremely interesting items on the list that are worth knowing about.  No. 11 is "Nominate an ATF director."  You might ask, "What the hell?  Why haven't you nominated a director already?"  In case you've not been watching the news about nominations for Secretaries of Defense, Treasury and State, this process has become a tug-of-war.  The same has been true of the ATF.  However, it seems that the Republicans are not alone in their dogmatic opposition to any Obama choice for ATF--the gun lobby has been pushing them on this issue for some time.  The gun lobby is likewise behind item no. 14. "Issue a Presidential Memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control to research the causes and prevention of gun violence."  The CDC is very well placed and very well funded to conduct such invaluable research.  Nevertheless, the CDC's budget for such research was taken away some time ago after much pressure from the NRA lobbyists.

McCain's World.

John McCain seems to have lost touch with reality.  Last week he called for hearings on the Benghazi fiasco, which hearings he then missed because he has several more television appearances scheduled so that he could call for hearings on Benghazi.  His questions about Rice have been answered (including the question as to who changed the talking points).  His suggestion that Rice should have used some of the knowledge she gained from the intelligence community to bolster her report to the American people stretches the bounds of good logic--what she knew apart from what she said was classified; this has been the issue all along.  Now he is comparing Benghazi to the death of Bin Laden.  Indeed, he actually called for the release of a photo of POTUS in the situation room watching the Benghazi affair go down just as we saw a photo of POTUS watching the Bin Laden raid go down.  Of course, the former does not exist because the Benghazi attack was not orchestrated by the US.  Were it the case that that photo existed, then we'd have a real conspiracy on our hands.

[READ MORE]

Why is Glenn Beck no longer on Fox?

Here's just one reason.

Just because it's new, doesn't mean it's News!

In the past days many bloggers, pundits, journos and commentators have been discussing the Marco Rubio interview in GQ.  In my own blog I pointed to some of the more interesting comments on Rubio's evasion of the question in Paul Krugman's blog over at the New York Times.  More recently, several news organizations and blogs have struck back, defending Rubio and/or attacking media coverage of the story by pointing out that then Senator Obama made almost identical statements at a conference in 2008.

Slate.com's approach to the allegedly unbalanced way the media has treated the story was to note that "willful ignorance of science is a bipartisan value".  Michelle Malkin's approach is characteristic, relying heavily on tone and question-begging epithets:

In general, people love to point out hypocrisy; and one could claim that that is what is going on here.  Nevertheless, while pointing out hypocrisy may be somehow satisfying, it is logically irrelevant, and certainly has no bearing on what makes the news.  If I were to critique Rubio's position while maintaining the same position myself, I would be a hypocrite.  However, that would not invalidate my critique, nor would it make my position newsworthy, because I do not have the same standing as Senator Rubio.  Of course the president is newsworthy in this sense.  Nevertheless, "the president said it too" is not newsworthy either.  Why?  Because the issue is not who believes in creationism and who believes in evolution in Washington.  The issue is that certain politicians, and especially politicians on the right, use their religious belief to make policy.  In that sense, their beliefs are relevant and newsworthy.  And, in that same sense, what the president believes regarding creation is about as newsworthy as whether he prefers Tolstoy or Dostoevsky.

Sometimes, where there's smoke there is just smoke.

President Obama won 100% of the vote in 59 precincts in Philadelphia.  This sounds an awful lot like the kind of percentage one expects in a dictatorship.  After all, isn't it statistically impossible to win by such a margin?  In a country (with a diverse population), yes.  But not in a precinct with homogeneous demographics.

(Full article).
Certain watchers cried, "foul!" regarding what appeared to be %150 voter turnout in certain parts of south Florida.  As it turns out, sometimes, where there is smoke there is just smoke.  The county simply counted each page of the ballot rather than each ballot: turnout was half of what was reported (two pages per ballot).  There may have been some serious glitches in this election, but Philly and south Florida provide no evidence of systematic fraud (yet, in any case).