"I knew the information was wrong, but I posted it anyway because I had an important point to make."

I told you it gets worse.

To review yesterday's entry:

Go to this post by Kevin Fischer (the post is now altered; he pasted in the correct numbers after being busted). See that? Numbers and stuff showing how GW's done such a great job for the middle class tax-wise as compared to Clinton.

Click the thumbnail below to see the pre-busted entry in all its glory.

Now go to what Kevin Fischer calls "my source." He didn't actually travel there, by the way, or he would have seen this clear disclaimer on that very site:

Recently an incorrect comparison of income taxes under Presidents Clinton and Bush has been making the rounds of the internet, showing up in forwarded e-mails and on numerous blogs and message boards. (See examples here, here, here, and here.)

Yes - they are referring to the VERY SAME incorrect comparison that Kevin Fischer blithely pasted into his blog (taken - uncredited - from here, here, here, or here?).

The disclaimer states in NO UNCERTAIN TERMS that the information in those other blogs, which is ostensibly from the Tax Foundation, is INCORRECT. The disclaimer was posted way back on February 19th.

End of review. On to the update.

A couple of commenters on Fischer's blog pointed out his lack of fact-checking, prompting a jaw-dropping evasion from Fischer.

Remember, Fischer did one of two things. Pick one:

• He found the numbers on the page he claims as "my source," where he saw the huge, unmistakable disclaimer/warning saying "THESE NUMBERS ARE WRONG!"  - - and posted them anyway.

or

• He took the material from another fact-challenged blog - "Hey, these numbers look good!" - and failed to check the source or credit the blog he took it from.

I pick the second option. Blog CSI reveals that he accidentally picked up a bit of the other blog's html code when he copied the material, which screwed up the "Single making 50K" line (see below). Oops!.

However, Fischer clearly didn't want to admit that he'd simply cut-and-paste information from another blog without checking the source or giving attribution to the blog. (This from the author of the line "Conservatives take responsibility for their actions.")

What follows is the beginning of Fischer's reply to the commenters who called him on his error. Ladies and gentlemen, here is everything you need to know about purveyors of conservative dogma (as opposed to truly thoughtful conservatives who engage issues with facts) in one astounding paragraph  (please adopt serious, broadcaster-like tones when reading):

I was well aware of the disclaimer by the Tax Foundation when I posted this entry. Obviously, I had no problem with this post (after all, I plastered it on my blog) because I had an important point to make.

Surely, this will inflate his stock with like-minded WISN squawk radio. "Why let facts stand in the way of my important point?"

Observation: If Fischer applies the same honesty-free logic when at work as an aide for Republican state senator Mary Lazich, ("Kevin, please find for me the amount of taxes various income groups paid in 1999 under Clinton..."),  that may explain her voting record.

Lesson: Bring a grain of salt when reading Kevin Fischer's "facts."

And liberal bloggers aren't off the hook - - there are a few out there who are certainly not immune from instances of fact-bending to suit their "important point." This particular instance, however, needed to be called out  as many of Fischer's dogma-skewed, insight-averse "facts" are capable of causing real harm close to home.

I respect Kevin Fischer's right to his opinion (and his newfound blogging/commenting civility has not gone unnoticed), but we all have a duty to the facts first, and our "important point" second.

If and when I get it wrong, I expect the same scrutiny.

Comments

[Josh Strupp]

Man oh man. Haven't we all been through this "copy-paste" issue before over on Franklinnow?

Unbelievable.

[Kevin Fischer]

John,

Kevin Fischer here.

You really need to change the name of your blog to something far more appropriate, like:

“Sprawled Out/Bash Kevin Fischer each and every single time he blogs”

I guess I should be flattered that you blog about me so often. Maybe for the sake of your blood pressure you should re-think that strategy.

My guess is I could blog about what a beautiful day it was today in Franklin and you’d still jump out of your skin.

I swear, to read how apoplectic you are about my Tax Foundation blog, you’d think I stabbed the Pope.

I made a mistake and admitted it, but you made all sorts of assumptions and Oliver Stone-like theories, I thought Watergate II had exploded.

Your constant attacks (some very petty and jealous) are quite amusing. You really do need to calm down and worry about more important things than how many times I’m mentioned in Best of the Blogs.

But if you’re going to persist in slamming me, and I’m sure you will, at least it would be nice if you don’t take my intent or quotes out of context.

You mention only a few lines of my comment to readers in the Tax Foundation entry and then go to town. In fairness, you should have presented more of the comment so the proper context could be seen for all to read.

Since you didn’t have the courtesy or fairness to do that, let me provide the entire comment I made to two readers who correctly pointed out my mistake:

“Your point is well taken.

I was well aware of the disclaimer by the Tax Foundation when I posted this entry. Obviously, I had no problem with this post (after all, I plastered it on my blog) because I had an important point to make.

Unfortunately, I posted the wrong set of numbers and not the corrected numbers submitted by the Tax Foundation, an error I readily admit.

However, that does not take away from the crux of the matter, the main issue at hand, and that is that even the corrected numbers clearly demonstrate that taxpayers were much better off under President George W. Bush than President Clinton.

As the Tax Foundation admits after pointing out their mistake:

“Federal income taxes have indeed fallen under George Bush for groups at all points on the income spectrum.”

I have updated my post with the correct figures.

Now, if anyone wants to comment about the main point of this blog, that the numbers clearly show that taxpayers were better off under President Bush than President Clinton, I’m all ears.”

End of my comment on my blog.

Finally, I don’t often comment outside FranklinNOW, so consider yourself fortunate.

I close with this: You say you’ve noticed I’ve become more civil on my blog. I’ve read some of the childish, personal, negative things you’ve said about me on your fellow lefty blogs. It’s too bad you don’t practice what you preach.

[John Michlig]

"This Just In" is subject to unannounced spot checks. Keeps you honest, so to speak.

We all benefit from scrutiny.

Also: My frank assessments of your content and demeanor do not equal "childish, personal, or negative." They may not always flatter you, but they are never nasty, ala "cheesecake breath."

But, again, that stuff seems to be behind you and rather than harp on the past I'll again reiterate that your new civil tone is refreshing and could mean productive debate down the road.

[Kevin Fischer]

If Sendik's puts in outdoor seating this spring, how about some coffee, a cheese danish, and some Elvis chat?

[John Michlig]

Even if they DON'T put in outdoor seating; you're on.

(For some reason there was a "no outdoor selling" proviso put in the Sendik's agreement. No matter how many times I listen to the tapes of the meetings, I can't find where or by whom it was introduced.)

Have you heard of a particularly fascinating recording called "Desert Storm"? If not, I'll set you up.

But don't let that stop you from taking me to task now and again if I get sloppy with my particular viewpoints. Keep me honest, and I'll do the same from this side.

[Raymond]

John - your blog is really becoming juvenile. I didn't bother reading more than the first couple lines of Kevin's lengthy response, but he is right. Your blog seems to have turned into a bash Kevin Fisher blog. I have been a loyal reader because of your interesting views on development & our changing communities. It seems like you have strayed away from this, and focused more on putting Kevin to task lately. I stopped reading many of the FranklinNOW blogs (including Kevin's) because of all of the personal attacks that were happening there. If you want to avoid alienating your loyal readers, keep your posts on topic.

[John Michlig]

Many of our infrastructure and community amenity ills result from the public's misperception - fed by bad math and partisan think tanks like The Tax Foundation - of the tax burden, compounded by the current administration's anti-progressive tax stance. I have no qualms about pointing out - forcefully and with facts intact - what amounts to pro-Bush propaganda and ultimately feeds the toxic, self serving atmosphere we live in today.

With that said, I've abandoned the Franklinnow blogs for reasons similar to yours, and I agree that it would/will be better to challenge posts like Mr. Fischer's in a more collegial manner in the future.

I.E., Same debate, same points, but but less coffee ingested before I post.

Gotta keep 'em honest.

[LazichConstituent 2]

"Now, if anyone wants to comment about the main point of this blog, that the numbers clearly show that taxpayers were better off under President Bush than President Clinton, I’m all ears.”

Well Kevin how much better off are the taxpayers who will eventually have to pay off the federal deficit that has ballooned under Bush?

Any thoughts/comments on that?

[Greg Kowalski]

Gee, I can't help but notice how Kevin is so extremely defensive when criticism marches his way.

Odd.

Not too long ago it was none other than Kevin and his buds who marched on my blog, and did numerous entries and comments about my responses to criticism from them. They claimed I had "thin skin" because I made sure my point was made.

With that noted, can Kevin still claim that he has a thick skin?

[Bryan Maersch]

No one accuses you of being thin skinned anymore Greg, they just say you have women doing your fighting for you.

Right Cindy and Linda!

[John]

To bring us back on topic:

Is it OK to use information you know is incorrect to "make your point"?

Is it "taking responsibility" when you admit doing so - - only after being CAUGHT doing it?

Is it helpful to the community to knowingly feed them bad information and attempt to influence their voting decisions based on that bad information?

[Lazich Constituent 2]

"Now, if anyone wants to comment about the main point of this blog, that the numbers clearly show that taxpayers were better off under President Bush than President Clinton, I’m all ears.”

All ears, and no snappy comeback?

Maybe you are just laying low after once again revealing the extremely narrow pair of shoulders your rhetoric emanates from on this week's InterCHANGE?

[Kevin Fischer]

John, after I explained myself, you are still feeding false information.

I didn't use information I knew was incorrect.

I inadvertently copied the wrong tax numbers.

If anyone has questions for me, you are welcome to ask me on my blog.

I didn't realize I had done that until the error was pointed out, an error I have admitted to.

It was a mistake. I copied and pasted the wrong numbers.

The corrected numbers show taxpayers are better off now than they were under Bill Clinton, a fact no one wants to address here because they keep diverting attention elsewhere.

John, stop writing that I intentionally gave out false information. That is untrue.

[John Michlig]

Someday you'll get me on something similar, I'm sure. We make each other sharper knowing the other is looking over our respective shoulder.

Kevin, I respectfully submit that when you say:

"I was well aware of the disclaimer by the Tax Foundation when I posted this entry. Obviously, I had no problem with this post (after all, I plastered it on my blog) because I had an important point to make.

Unfortunately, I posted the wrong set of numbers and not the corrected numbers submitted by the Tax Foundation, an error I readily admit."

... you are saying that you KNEW the numbers were wrong but posted them anyway ("I was well aware of the disclaimer"). That seems iffy, and I jumped on it for that reason.

On the other hand, you imply that the numbers you posted ("Unfortunately, I posted the wrong set of numbers") existed SOMEWHERE on the Tax Foundation site that you called "my source." THEY DO NOT APPEAR THERE, so you had to have gotten them from some other blog (along with some html code) that cited the Tax Foundation as THEIR source, a source you didn't check or you would have seen the disclaimer.

I don't mean to appear strident on this point, but I think what you don't want to admit is that you saw the numbers and citation on another blog, were pleased with what they implied, and brought it to your blog without going to the Tax Foundation website ("my source") to see the clear disclaimer that would have warned you off the incorrect figures. That would make it NON-INTENTIONAL, right?

No great sin in that if you own up to it, but your primary explanation is nonsensical, sorry to say.

[LazichConstituent 2]

"The corrected numbers show taxpayers are better off now than they were under Bill Clinton, a fact no one wants to address here because they keep diverting attention elsewhere."

Does that mean you do not recognize deficit spending to be a deferred form of taxation Kevin?

How else will the deficit be paid off if not through tax revenues?

Are you having an " I can't hear you" moment?