One of the oldest political tricks in the book

Here is a very nice example of a Red Herring from The Simpsons:


As we can see, Mayor Quimby is trying to distract the public from taxation issues by blaming immigrants for all their problems. Although this episode, "Much Apu About Nothing" originally aired in 1996, current political events reveal the extent to which this is, despite being fallacious, still an enormously effective political strategy.

A Great Red Herring

Here is an excellent example of a Red Herring from the folks at Family Guy.

Senator Dianne Feinstein Weighs In

Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) weighed in the Surveillance State scandal on ABC's This Week. As should be no surprise for anyone who follows Senator Feinstein, the focus of her appearance was to defend the various programs that have been revealed by Glenn Greenwald and the Guardian. The core of her defense is that these programs are legal, and they have played an important role in keeping us safe from the terrorists. Also, 9-11. Let's take a closer look at her defense and unpack some of the fallacies she commits. After some preliminary remarks, she begins:

So here's what happens with that program. The program is essentially walled off within the NSA. There are limited numbers of people who have access to it. The only thing taken, as has been correctly expressed, is not content of a conversation, but the information that is generally on your telephone bill, which has been held not to be private personal property by the Supreme Court.

This first statement actually appears to be false. According to the Edward Snowden, the whistleblower who leaked this information in the first place, all this data was quite accesible to a large number of people.

As Snowden told The Guardian in a videotaped interview: "When you're in positions of privileged access, like a systems administrator, for these sort of intelligence community agencies, you're exposed to a lot more information on a broader scale than the average employee ... Anybody in the positions of access with the technical capabilities that I had could, you know, suck out secrets."

Let's remember, Edward Snowden is a 29 year old high school dropout, and he had access to all this classified information after just 3 months on the job with the defense contractor Booze Allen Hamilton. This is not intended as a criticism of Snowden, but merely to put the lie to Sen. Feinstein's comments about the limited access to this program. As Julian Sanchez put it:

Though, if you DO think Snowden is a traitorous criminal, shouldn't you be concerned about a system that gave him keys to the spy machine?
— Julian Sanchez (@normative) June 10, 2013

Feinstein then goes on to discuss a few cases in which the program has been used:

So, the program has been used. Two cases have been declassified. One of them is the case of David Headley, who went to Mumbai, to the Taj hotel, and scoped it out for the terrorist attack.

The case of David Headley is quite interesting and there are a few things worth noting. First, Headley was a DEA informant.  Second, the Mumbai terrorist attacks Feinstein mentions were successful  Thus, one example of the program in action was to track down a DEA informant who had slipped through the cracks to successfully commit a wide-scale terrorist attack in Mumbai. Needless to say, if the best example of this program in action is finding a former informants who went on to successfully commit acts of terror, I am unclear what benefit the program is supposed to serve. If it can't even be used to prevent an attack, I am not sure what the point of trading away my privacy was.

Feinstein's second example involves a terrorist plot to blow up the New York Subway. I won't go into to many details about this example, but there are definitely some suspicious aspects of this case.

Feinstein concludes her defense of this program with the ultimate Red Herring/Appeal to Emotion when she remarks:

Here is the point. And this is why this is so difficult. I flew over World Trade Center going to Senator Lautenberg's funeral, and in the distance was the Statue of Liberty. And I thought of those bodies jumping out of that building, hitting the canopy. Part of our obligation is keeping Americans safe. Human intelligence isn't going to do it, because you can't -- it's a different culture. It is a fanaticism that isn't going to come forward. And so, this kind of strict, strictly overseen -- it's overseen by the Justice Department, by inspectors general, by audits, by a 90-day review, by the court, is looked at as a method. I'm very happy if there's a better way, we will certainly look at it.

This last argument is really quite shameful as Sen. Feinstein invokes the specter of 9/11 to justify this program. This strategy is ancient, and was one of the favorite techniques of the Bush administration. Whenever anyone raises questions about a policy, one simply repeats 9/11 over and over again as a way to shut down conversation. This is exactly what Feinstein is doing. If the best argument she can muster to defend this program is to get everyone worked up and frightened, this suggests that the program is probably indefensible.

h/t to Digby

Electoral Denialism on the Left: The Case of Proposition 37

This will be a long one. Though I have written many posts in the past few days looking at Right-Wing denialism regarding the election, I want to pivot a bit and look at some denialism from the Left. In particular, I want to focus on a series of articles written by Jon Rappoport and posted at NaturalNews.com which claim that the election results for Proposition 37 (a proposition that would have mandated labeling of food with GMO ingredients) in California have been fixed. The articles in question can be found here and here, and I intend to unpack them in some detail because they are a treasure-trove of factual errors, fallacious reasoning and conspiracy mongering, and they reveal how a failure to think critically can lead someone to make some rather absurd and nonsensical claims.

Red Herrings in AP "Fact-Checking"

Fact-Checking is apparently a big thing these days (particularly in the wake of Paul Ryan's falsehood-filled speech at the Republican National Convention), with everyone trying to get in on the game. However, not all fact-checkers are created equal. In the AP "Fact-Checking" of Bill Clinton's speech at the Democratic National Convention by Matt Apuzzo, there is a great example of a Red Herring:

CLINTON: "Their campaign pollster said, 'We're not going to let our campaign be dictated by fact checkers.' Now that is true. I couldn't have said it better myself — I just hope you remember that every time you see the ad."
THE FACTS: Clinton, who famously finger-wagged a denial on national television about his sexual relationship with intern Monica Lewinsky and was subsequently impeached in the House on a perjury charge, has had his own uncomfortable moments over telling the truth. "I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky," Clinton told television viewers. Later, after he was forced to testify to a grand jury, Clinton said his statements were "legally accurate" but also allowed that he "misled people, including even my wife."

As you can see, this comment on the speech really doesn't address the claim that Bill Clinton made, but rather tries to change the subject by introducing an irrelevant consideration, namely Bill Clinton's conduct during the Monica Lewinsky scandal. While it is true that Clinton has been deceptive and slippery in the past, that is completely irrelevant to the question of whether or not the Romney campaign is being honest. The fact is, Romney's campaign manager did say the quote attributed to him, and for the AP to ignore that and instead start talking about the Lewinsky affair is a perfect example of a Red Herring.

h/t Alex Pareene

Don't look at this, look over there!

Despite a general condemnation from both sides of the aisle of Missouri Rep. Todd Akin for his asinine comments about rape and pregnancy, a few have stepped forward to defend Akin. Because Akin's comments were so objectively wrong, defenders must resort to fallacious arguments in order to provide cover for him. The favorite of these individuals is the Red Herring, which in this case amounts to an attempt to distract attention from what Akin said by introducing an unrelated element into the conversation. As a case in point, here is the comment from Glenn Reynolds of Instapundit:

BY THE TIME I NOTICED THIS STORY, IT WAS OVER, but Todd Akin’s “legitimate rape” remarks pale in comparison with Whoopi Goldberg’s.
UPDATE: Here’s the Whoopi Goldberg “Rape-Rape” Video.

So, According to Reynolds, we should give a sitting member of Congress and a member of the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology a pass for his comments because two years ago a talk show house said something equally dumb (Yes, Goldberg's comments were dumb, but certainly no dumber than what Rep. Akin said, check for yourself). This is a great example of a red herring as we can clearly see Reynolds attempting to side-track the discussion by introducing an unrelated element into the conversation.

Similiarly, CNN pundits Dana Loesch and Erik Erikson committed Red Herrings of their own in defense of Akin with Loesch tweeting:

Akin failed a soundbite. McCaskill helped tank the economy. If you think his bad is worse, join the left.
— Dana Loesch (@DLoesch) August 19, 2012

And Erickson tweeting:

Todd Akin said something dumb.Claire McCaskill voted for Obamacare.I'll take a dumb statement over a destructive vote.
— Erick Erickson (@EWErickson) August 20, 2012

In both cases, they are committing Red Herrings by trying to distract people from the comment Akin made by introducing a discussion of an unrelated issue. One might still decide to vote for Akin over McCaskill despite his idiotic comments, but neither of the points made are at all relevant to the question of of the truth or falsity of what Akin said.

h/t to Digby

Bullshit Anti-Abortion Rhetoric

It used to be the case that even opponents of abortion still allowed for exceptions when the pregnancy was the result of rape or incest or posed a threat to the life of the mother. No more. As the Republican party has grown more extreme, there are now efforts underway to outlaw all abortion no matter what. Unfortunately, this position strikes many as heartless and vindictive (should we really force a 12-year old girl forcibly raped by her father to carry that child to term?). As a response, some have taken to inventing rationales for their extreme anti-abortion positions. Enter Rep. Todd Akin, a Republican nominee for the Senate in Missouri:

So, according to Rep. Akin (and he is not alone), pregnancies resulting from rape are rare because the female body has some kind of natural mechanism that prevents her from becoming pregnant as a result of rape.

Now this seems like a moronic view, but as good critical thinkers we should ask if there is any evidence for this claim. Fortunately, Dr. Jen Gunter has done the work to track down what appears to be the likely source of Akin's claim. She suggests that Akin got his view from an anti-abortion group, Physicians for Life who have posted a position paper written by Dr. J.C. Willke titled, "Assault Rape Pregnancies are Rare." In this Dr. Willke suggests that there are between 4 and 10 rape pregnancies per state per year (Some lousy statistical work when we compare the population of a state like Rhode Island to that of California), which should amount to 200-500 rape pregnancies per year. This is a good example of a Red Herring as the number of pregnancies caused by rape seems fairly irrelevant to the question of whether or not we should allow women who have been raped to get abortions. Even if it were just one woman a year, that wouldn't change the question of whether or not such abortions were legitimate. Putting this aside, Dr. Willke go on to argue that:

Finally, factor in what is certainly one of the most important reasons why a rape victim rarely gets pregnant, and that's psychic trauma. Every woman is aware that stress and emotional factors can alter her menstrual cycle. To get and stay pregnant a woman's body must produce a very sophisticated mix of hormones. Hormone production is controlled by a part of the brain that is easily influenced by emotions. There's no greater emotional trauma that can be experienced by a woman than an assault rape. This can radically upset her possibility of ovulation, fertilization, and implantation.

This seems to be the source of Akin's assertions, but where does this information comes from? As Dr. Gunter notes:

The Physicians for Life site quotes 3 sources, only one is original research. The one article was authored by Goth and published in the New England Journal of Medicine, 1977 (yes, 1977) and in NO WAY SUPPORTS THE NOTION THAT RAPES ARE RARE OR THAT THE STRESS RESPONSE LOWERS THE PREGNANCY RATE. It is an article about sexual dysfunction among rapists. Put another way, the Physicians for Life have not provided a single published article to support their claims.

Akin also shows that Physicians for Life have drastically understated the number of pregnancies resulting from rape:

There are obvious difficulties in studying rape outcomes as “only 16 to 38% of rape victims report the rape to law enforcement, and only 17 to 43% present for medical evaluation after rape; one-third of victims of rape never report the assault to their primary care doctor.” (NEJM  2011). However, a scientific estimate (i.e. from research) is between 25,000 and 32,000 pregnancies from rape a year in the United States (American Journal Obstetrics and Gynecology 1996 and American Journal of Preventative Medicine 2000). [Here is a link to the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology article]

So, what he have here is is a good example of Bullshit. Physicians for Life have invented and Akin has repeated a claim with no basis in fact that supports their extremist position. They have adopted a position and are willing to make-up evidence to support that position regardless of the basis of that evidence in reality. These aren't lies, because Akin and Physicians for Life don't care whether or not these claims are true. All they care about is finding a justification for their ideologically motivated position. And this is the textbook definition of bullshit: making assertions with no regard for the truth or falsity of those assertions. (As a side note, it is extremely disturbing that Akin is a member of the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology)

h/t to Pharyngula

Red Herrings and Lipstick on Pigs

A Red Herring is a fallacy in which one tries to introduce an unrelated topic into a discussion in order to derail the conversation or distract from the original issue. A very nice example of this fallacy comes from this September 9 ad for John McCain's 2008 US Presidential campaign:


John McCain Lipstick on Pig Ad re: Gov... by RevSpitz

In order to recognize this as a red herring, we need to unpack some of the details and context of this ad. As Politifact notes, the initial clip comes from then Vice-Presidential nominee Sarah Palin's speech at the Republican National Convention. The second clip comes from an Obama campaign speech delivered a few weeks later. If one looks at the full context of the quotation from Obama, one finds that the McCain ad deliberately pulls the quote from its original context (an example of eduction). What Obama actually said was:

John McCain says he's about change, too. And so I guess his whole angle is, 'Watch out, George Bush! Except for economic policy, health care policy, tax policy, education policy, foreign policy, and Karl Rove-style politics, we're really going to shake things up in Washington.' That's not change. That's just calling something the same thing something different. But you know, you can put lipstick on a pig. It's still a pig. You can wrap an old fish in a piece of paper called change, it’s still going to stink after eight years. We’ve had enough of the same old thing.

Seeing the comment in context, it is clear that Obama is not talking about Sarah Palin, but is instead talking about McCain's presidential platform (I leave aside the question of whether the criticism is accurate as it is not relevant to my larger point).

Now the McCain campaign clearly understood that Obama was not making a sexist comment directed at Sarah Palin yet they nevertheless produced and aired a national ad claiming exactly that. Why? The reason is clear and relates directly to the subject matter of this post. They were trying to change the political conversation away from discussions of the relevant party platforms of the two candidates to a political conversation that put the Obama campaign on the defensive. Though the McCain campaign was ultimately unsuccessful, this particular ad did succeed in its goal of distracting the media and derailing the political conversation. All one needs to do is a quick Google search on "McCain Lipstick on Pig ad" and you will find many media sources from that period treating the ad as raising a legitimate question. And this, of course, is exactly what one tries to do when one deploys a Red Herring.