Fact Check Friday

Homework Time!

Time to do some homework. We'll start with a T/F Quiz. It's five questions, so keep track of your answers and tell us how you did in the blog comments.

Quiz

1. Saddam Hussein had connections to the terrorist attacks of 9-11 and worked with Bin Laden 
   
   • True
   • False 
   • Neither
2. George W. Bush did poorly in school and was not very intelligent
   
   • True
   • False 
   • Unsure
3. Barrack Obama is not a Christian because he is a socialist
   
   • True
   • False
4. The United States Constitution should be interpreted the way the founding fathers intended it
   
   • True
   • False
5. Gun control doesn't curb gun violence
   
   • True
   • False

Now, before you accuse me of cherry picking my information, please read at least one of the following links for each question. You are also entitled to use Bing, Google, etc. to find your own source.

1. Read:

• Is there a link between Al Qaeda and Iraq?
• WikiLeaks: The Iraq-Al Qaeda Connection Confirmed, Again
• The Cheneys’ claim of a ‘deep, longstanding, far-reaching relationship’ between al-Qaeda and Saddam

 2. Read:

• Bush at Yale
• Bush/Gore grades and SAT scores (Kerry's included as well)
• Celebrity ACT scores (some SAT scores of been given an equivalent ACT scores)

 3. Read:

• 'President's Devotional' shares scripture that inspired Obama
• Obama v. King David: Honoring Fallen Warriors
• Focus on the Family Gives President High Marks
• O'Reilly: "It Seems Obama Is More Skeptical of Christians than Muslims"

4. Read the constitution:

• Digital History

5.  Read:

• Six facts about gun control 
• Gun Control: Just the Facts

Now, having read one or my links, please revise your answers. A well-informed citizen and journalist should go where the facts lead and be open to changing her opinion.

Here are my answers, and I definitely changed my mind on a couple:

1. Partly true. Saddam had connections, but most likely was not involved in coordinating any terrorist attacks on the U.S. Saddam had all the reasons in the world to keep a semi-diplomatic relationship with the U.S. and its allies. George H.W. Bush left him in power for a reason: his harsh totalitarianism kept his the various tribal factions from killing each other in the streets. When he was overthrown, various factions, terror groups, and ethnic groups filled the vacuum of power for a variety of reasons, but the door was open with Saddam was overthrown and the Iraqi army was disbanded. Paul's answer:  Who cares? We went to war w/Saddam on the basis of actionable intelligence, however flawed it may or may not have been, available at the time. Democrats, including "she who shall not be named," fully supported this decision at the time.
2. False. George Bush was smart--really smart. In my opinion, his shortcomings were lack of reflectiveness and letting Cheney call too many shots. Torture, ill-conceived foreign interventions, reduction of civil rights, and the militarization of police forces can be traced back to the Bush administration. Same goes for the housing market crash. Capitalism can work, but not if CEOs, fund managers, and "job creators" control most of the "wealth," and human capital (labor) is so week that parents working two jobs cannot afford decent housing and food for their families. Paul's question:  Why haven't we ever seen our current POTUS' college transcripts? Hmmm.
3. In the orthodox tradition (and Protestant, and Catholic), unequivocally false. Judgments on behavior, doctrine, etc. are permitted by scripture, but "judging" people's faith is specifically prohibited. The common "proof texts" can be found here, here, and here.  Paul's comment:  AGREE! We are expressly warned not to judge what is in the heart of another. A person's conduct is legitimately open to question, however.
4. In the Lutheran, Catholic, and Orthodox tradition, as well as the Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, and Anishinabe traditions, unequivocally false. Writing technology, the constant changing of language, etc., makes any document difficult to "interpret." Writer intent is only one factor of rhetorical or hermeneutical analysis. Slavery, states rights, the right to bare arms, etc., are difficult to interpret. Should states be allowed to establish militias? What are the limits are free speech (money = speech, protecting journalistic sources, etc.)?  Paul's comment:  Be cautious when depending on Herman Neutical, an obscure German Lutheran theologian (name often misspelled in the historical record.)
5. Mostly false. Should Americans be allowed to legally purchase automatic weapons? What about surface to air missiles? Here's an argument I hear all the time: criminals will just obtain weapons anyway. I'll grant that point, however, then you must apply it across the board. Regardless of laws, criminals will acquire stolen property, pirated videos, marijuana, prescription painkillers, etc. Wait! You say: gun ownership is in the constitution. So is free speech, and fair use clause. These should apply to many "stolen" videos. Read about the right to screen movies without permission of the copyright owners here.   

How'd you do on this quiz? Leave your comments below, OR on Facebook. If you disagree with any of my answers, tell me where you get your news and cite your sources. I'm open to changing my mind, but not without some evidence backing your opinion.


Read this report from Business Insider about news sources. I do not watch MSNBC, CNN, or Fox News on a regular basis. The twenty four hour news cycle has destroyed accuracy and civility in public discourse. Talking points with misinformation, misquotes, deceptions, etc. are far too common. Three minute sound bites and debates about issues of no particular importance abound.  Paul's comment:  This purportedly conservative source, purports to portray those who rely solely or at least primarily on Fox News for their knowledge of purported current events as somewhat (& I emphasize the word "somewhat", as in "statistically as significant as the difference between a planet & dwarf planet") less knowledgable as those who get their information from other sources of a purported more progressive spin. I feel obliged to include this commentary because I love the word "purported" & its derivatives.


You are allowed to be biased. You are allowed to vote. You are allowed to spend your "disposable" income as you see fit. Until you show your values through your actions, I'd worry less about trying to control other's actions through religion and politics.


Last things:


Read, "Who are the working poor?" Consider how often you work, and if your job is more valuable to society than those who make the sandwiches you eat, make the beds you sleep in, and process the meat you eat.


Watch (language warning):

 Watch:

Leave your comments below, and subscribe by e-mail.