I posted this detailed description of
the many errors in the above HowTheWorldWorks video on YouTube as comments to
that video and as a private message to Lee Doren on September 19, 2009:
First, you STILL have not replied to the series of 8 comments I left
on your last so-called "fisking" video in which I actually fisked
your video, pointing out the many errors in your analysis. In this video, you
spend several minutes merely replaying parts of that first video based on your
claim at 1:32 that you "already addressed" my criticisms of your
video in the video to which my comments were a response. If you do one of your
timelines, however, you may notice that your video actually PRECEDED the comments
I posted criticizing your video and, if you actually READ the comments I
posted, you'll see they contain a detailed list of your many errors using exact
quotes and time indexes that you STILL have never addressed. See http://tinyurl.com/HTWWMisleads
Regarding the NEW errors in this video, first, at 6:24, you put up a
strawman argument I didn't make instead of addressing the factual and logical
errors I pointed out in your use of a Madison paraphrase, ie
1) You falsely claimed to be QUOTING Madison and
2) You used a paraphrase of Madison QUESTIONING where a
power is enumerated in the Constitution w/o mentioning Boudinot's ANSWER or
that Congress approved spending based on Boudinot's answer
Next, at 7:36 you add to your smear
against the ACLU by claiming it was "essentially founded as a communist
organization" but provide no evidence except for a quote (cut, with no
link in the sidebar) that is actually taken from something Roger Baldwin posted
about his PERSONAL beliefs in a college. In addition, you ignore that the ACLU
later reacted to the pact between Hitler and Stalin in 1939 by barring
communists, fascists, and other totalitarians from the group and that, after
seeing Soviet communism, Baldwin wrote a book titled "A New Slavery: The
Communist Betrayal of Human Rights" and that no less an anti-communist
than Douglas MacArthur asked Baldwin to advise him on civil liberties issues in
post-war Japan. Roger Baldwin has also been dead for 28 years and left the ACLU
long before that, so it's a strange argument for you to make right after
falsely accusing me of a "bait and switch" at 7:17.
Then, at 8:04 you go on to claim "Despite the fact [the ACLU]
represents the occasional big name quote-unquote right wing personalities, it
rarely does and rarely takes actions on their behalf, ever," but, not only
does your use of the word "ever" contradict your use of the word
"rarely," but you provide no evidence to back up either claim (no
links in the sidebar, again).
Then, at 8:44 you actually call me "intellectually dishonest" for pointing out
that your previous smear of the ACLU was based on supposed lack of opposition
to a DHS report when simple research proved you wrong. Instead of thanking me
for pointing out your error and correcting it, you claim the ACLU needs to do
more, but never say what else that would be and, by the way, I notice that the
CEI has made NO statement on the DHS report at all with the only reference to
DHS on the CEI website I can find being a link to the a story about an ACLU
lawsuit against the laptop search policy at Obama's DHS. At 9:00 you then make another
of your "where was the aclu" non-arguments, this time ignoring the
ACLU of Ohio's support for the privacy rights of "Joe the Plumber"
Starting at 10:18 you repeat all your
smears of John Holdren, but you STILL fail to provide a quote of him saying he
SUPPORTS compulsory abortions. Instead, at 10:28, you claim I
"dishonestly cut the end of the quote" without explaining how it was
dishonest to quote the part where he said abortions COULD BE CONSTITUTIONAL
rather than saying he SUPPORTS them when he never said he supports them
ANYWHERE in the rest of the quote either. You also did not address your failure
to remove the word "czar" from the video title even after admitting
that repeated mistake.
At 11:01 you claim I said I
treat you "nicely" when, in fact, I said I treat you
"civilly," meaning I don't engage in the baseless personal attacks
and namecalling that you have and continue to engage in without apology in this
video.
At 11:33 you claim
you"provide links to everything you say" but, again, there are NO
links backing up anything you say in this video and, of course, as I've shown,
your links don't fix the many factual and logical errors I pointed out in your
videos.
In contrast, to support your claim at 11:08 that "almost every
single video" I make is "totally dishonest and false" you cite 3
of my recent videos yet, despite all your complaints about "quote
cutting" you fail to quote ANYTHING I actually said in those videos just
MAKING UP more strawman arguments , one of which you even fail to refute.
The strawman you fail to refute comes at 11:52 when you say I
claimed that "illegal aliens are not covered in the health care
bill." Of course, nowhere in my video do I make that claim (can you
provide a QUOTE?), but then you fail to even refute this strawman when you
wrongly assert at 11:56 that there's "no
enforcement mechanism." In fact, there are a variety of verifications and
enforcements already extant in federal regulations and laws not the least of
which is the one making it a federal felony punishable by prison to falsely
apply for such benefits. See 18 U.S.C. ยง 1015(e)
Regarding my video about Michelle Malkin's appearance on Glenn Beck,
you make 3 statements starting at 11:58, none of which
contradict anything I said in my video (and you fail to quote ANYTHING from my
video to even show what you think you are contradicting).
Similarly, at 12:08, regarding my video on the Fox News smear of Van
Jones, you claim I "mislead my audience about what Van Jones signed"
then you show the same statement I showed and read in my video, INCLUDING the
word "deliberately" (and AGAIN you fail to quote ANYTHING from my
video to even show what you think you are contradicting).
So, AGAIN, the errors are in your analysis not my videos. But, given
you STILL haven't replied to the 8 comments I left on your last so-called
"fisking" video in which I actually fisked your video, pointing out
the many errors in your analysis there as well, I'm not sure why I should
expect a different response here. At least I can say I made every effort,
leaving it up to you whether you are willing and able to see the truth.
I hope that helps and thx 4 the video response :-)