Saturday, March 2, 2013

Sometimes a picture helps




:-/

32 comments:

  1. It is, of course, the usual conservative dishonesty. The diameter of the two pies differ by around 66% (on my screen, I measure the two pies as being 18 and 30 mm respectively). In volume, assuming the two pies have the same thickness, that equates to a difference of around 170%, not 40%.

    And that's even before pointing out that the budget blowout occurred because of the global financial crisis in 2008, which occurred while the Republicans had control of both the legislative and executive branches of government. And they didn't lose control of the legislative branch till November 2008.

    ReplyDelete
  2. "And that's even before pointing out that the budget blowout occurred because of the global financial crisis in 2008, which occurred while the Republicans had control of both the legislative and executive branches of government."

    Nope. The 110th Congress was dominated by Democrats in both Houses. The Speaker was Democrat Nancy Pelosi and the Senate Majority Leader was Democrat Harry Reid.

    "And they didn't lose control of the legislative branch till November 2008."

    I think you mean executive.

    I know you're Australian and I give you credit for trying to keep up with American politics. You know a lot more about the subject than I know about Australian politics but sometimes you say things that remind me that you're an outsider who doesn't understand a lot of things.

    Joey

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's like he's never heard of Barney Frank and Chris Dodd.

      Little John

      Delete
    2. Joey,

      You might be right, I don't know. I was just being lazy and assuming that the caption at least was correct even if the size of the pies were completely out of true proportion when it stated that; '2007 federal budget (the last time the GOP controlled both houses)'.


      So there would have been a congressional election in November, 2008, which the GOP won retaining control, and I'm assuming that they lost control of the senate and the White House.

      You are of course correct that I did mean to write that the GOP lost control of the executive branch in 2008. Mea culpa.
      But anyway, my main comment was about the dishonest graphics.

      Delete
    3. The Democrats had a banner year in 2006, in which they captured both houses of Congress. They didn't take their seats until January of 2007. So technically, the Congress was Republican until January of 2007.

      Joey

      Delete
  3. @bachfiend,

    If all you can understand from this is that the pies are not the same size, even going to the trouble of measuring their diameter(!), no wonder you believe in Darwinism and AGW!
    Typical atheist's shallow and superficial thinking...

    ReplyDelete
  4. Not only are the pies drawn to exaggerate the difference (aka lie), they fail to take into account that in 2007 both the Iraq and Afghanistan wars where not included in the budget.

    -KW

    ReplyDelete
  5. This really is shameful, and the right does it all the time. Dumb-ass conservatives will look at this chart and get a mental image of literally “the size of the problem”, never questioning the accuracy of the representation. Fox news does this sort of thing almost every day. It’s lying propaganda and conservatives just lap it up.

    -KW

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Adm. G Boggs, Glenbeckistan NavyMarch 2, 2013 at 10:28 AM

      Child, it is not a "chart". It is a cartoon.

      Your confusion explains a lot, though.

      Delete
    2. Adm. Boggs,

      It's a cartoon, all right. But people on the right often take such cartoons as a faithful depiction of reality. Rush Limbaugh is only an entertainer, but lots of people take what he says as an accurate picture of the world. Ramirez's exaggeration is merely another example of the same.

      Hoo

      Delete
    3. Adm. G Boggs, Glenbeckistan NavyMarch 2, 2013 at 10:55 AM

      Assuming a third-grade level of literacy, I think the numbers printed in red make the point pretty well with not a whiff of dissembling.

      Of course, some folks just look at the pictures. Don't worry though, it won't change the minds of those folks. They're too busy reading Mother Jones or watching Cartoon Channel "news and comment".

      Delete
    4. Admiral, I doubt that the cartoon was intended for people reading Mother Jones. Ramirez's cartoons appear at Townhall, a publication aimed squarely at dittoheads.

      Hoo

      Delete
    5. In fact, I forgot how mind-bogglingly stupid Townhall is. Ramirez is one of the more reasonable people there, relatively speaking. Here is an excerpt from a randomly opened post by one John Hawkins, a self-described "professional blogger who runs Right Wing News:"

      Is Barack Obama the Vladimir Lenin of American Presidents? No, Lenin was competent in an evil sort of way. Obama is more like Leonid Brezhnev: an ultra left-wing, belligerent doofus who isn't laughed at by the general population primarily because the mainstream media liberals say nice things about him out of fear that they'll end up in a gulag if they're too harsh. Of course, we don't have gulags, but reporters who criticize Obama would be snubbed by their peers at cocktail parties in Manhattan and Old Town, which seems almost as bad to liberals.

      Is there anyone here who can read this and not wince?

      Delete
    6. Adm. G Boggs, Glenbeckistan NavyMarch 2, 2013 at 11:08 AM

      Two-time Pulitzer Prize-winning Michael Ramirez's cartoons appear in Investor's Business Daily, a libertarian-leaning financial newspaper, and are reproduced all over the Internet.

      And I wasn't a reader of Townhall, but now I'll need to check it out. A string negative correlation is just as informative as a strong positive correlation. I found that the American Thinker website that you dissed actually has some pretty good stuff. Spotty, but not bad at all. One of the engineers that posts there has done an excellent job of dissecting the Deepwater Horizon spill. I'm still moved by the photo-op of Obama gazing at a tarball.

      Delete
    7. By all means, admiral! If you find American Stinker to your liking, you will fit right in at Townhall! Have fun!

      Hoo

      Delete
    8. Wow, “a whiff of dissembling” far more honesty than I would ever have expected from a self appointed admiral for Glen Beck. Now we have to take this tiny crack of light and open it up so that the good admiral can see the light of day.

      -KW

      Delete
    9. Adm. G Boggs, Glenbeckistan NavyMarch 2, 2013 at 11:22 AM

      This is so moving... It almost brings tear to my eyes. One can just see the full, focused power of the Obama intellect.

      Those stinky-winky (nyah, nyah, nyah!!) fools at American Stinky-winky-dinkypoo will never be that smart.

      Delete
    10. Adm. G Boggs, Glenbeckistan NavyMarch 2, 2013 at 11:28 AM

      KW, this, apparently, is not your day. Have someone read that comment to you. Because I think you're peering in the wrong crack.

      Delete
  6. Then when they get caught in a lie, they simply deny that it is a lie, Behold……

    -KW

    ReplyDelete
  7. A picture helps especially when it exaggerates the point. If we take the area of a pie as a measure of the budget then the cartoon suggests that the budget increased by a factor 2.57. That's a gross exaggeration (the actual increase factor was 1.35). It boggles the mind that people uncritically accept such lies.

    Hoo

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Adm. G Boggs, Glenbeckistan NavyMarch 2, 2013 at 10:37 AM

      I agree with you 100%. Take a look at this one

      Morons.

      Delete
    2. I dont care much for Pat Oliphant. He is too shrill for my taste.

      Hoo

      Delete
    3. Not even close, your cartoon expresses an opinion you may disagree with, but it simply does so by directly comparing Rice to a lap-dog. The pie charts do a comparison as well, but in this case the lie is built right into the chart. Whether Rice is a “lap-dog” is a matter of opinion; the differences in the budgets between 2007 and 2013 is not. One is an opinion about the dynamics of a relationship, the other is a lie meant to deceive and be celebrated by stupid people.

      -KW

      Delete
    4. Adm. G Boggs, Glenbeckistan NavyMarch 2, 2013 at 10:58 AM

      Depicts Rice as a "lap-dog"? Son, you can't even read the pictures.

      Typical Progressive.

      Delete
  8. Adm. G Boggs, Glenbeckistan NavyMarch 2, 2013 at 10:44 AM

    The really disappointing thing about that vicious, lying chartoon (I'm trying to accommodate everyone with that word) is that it includes actual numbers. How dishonest. Shameful, actually.

    But none of this matters because the world ended anyway with the sequestration. When I woke up this morning, I was already starving and cold, the nation's air traffic has been paralyzed, children are dying all across the nation, schools have nailed plywood over the windows, and national parks have been set ablaze.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Lol, admiral. We know the numbers. Ramirez's cartoon is not exactly an eye opener.

      Hoo

      Delete
    2. The really disappointing thing about that vicious, lying chartoon (I'm trying to accommodate everyone with that word) is that it includes actual numbers.

      Actually, no. It doesn't include actual numbers. It includes made-up numbers, because the 2007 budget doesn't include the Defense Supplemental spending bills that were carried "off the books" in an effort to make the deficit look smaller than it actually was.

      Delete
  9. Here is a properly rescaled pie chart, with the 2013 budget shrunk to the right size and the 2007 deficit expanded to the right scale:

    http://goo.gl/5xTAU

    Hoo

    ReplyDelete
  10. Where is everybody? Dr. Egnor in particular has been uncharacteristically quiet.

    Hoo

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Working late and traveling. Sometimes I just like to watch.

      Cartoons distort things a bit to make a point. That's basically what cartoons are. Bill Clinton's nose isn't as big as cartoonists depict. Obama's ears don't stick out as much in real life as they do in cartoons.

      The budget numbers speak for themselves. Ramirez' cartoon is a humorous way of saying that.

      Delete
    2. I was kidding, of course. Busy is good.

      That said, the title of your post was something along the line "a picture helps." Well, this picture helps by grossly distorting things. I thought it remarkable, so I noted it. Hardly disputable, in this particular case.

      Hoo

      Delete
    3. Michael,

      Caricatures are more recognizable than true pictures of public figures, for some strange reason. A photo of Obama could represent any one of a large number of individuals anywhere in the world. There's no such thing as 'race'. The external appearance of individuals is determined by only a few dozen genes. Most of the genetic difference between individuals occurs with so-called racial groups, not between so-called racial groups.

      Exaggerating some physical characteristic of a public figure acts as a shorthand symbol.

      Distorting budget figures by making the diameter of a pie almost 70% larger instead of 40% larger is inexcusable, particularly when a person is going to glance at the graphic and get the impression that the volume of the pie, and hence relative size of the budgets, differ by almost three-fold.

      Delete