No one could have predicted that PolitiFact would eventually decide that the only way to be fair and balanced is to carry water for Republicans. Both sides do it, shape of earth views differ. Wash, rinse, repeat.
PolitiWhores
by DougJ| 93 Comments
This post is in: Both Sides Do It!, Our Failed Media Experiment
The Political Nihilist Formerly Known as Kryptik
This is obviously Maddow’s fault, she hurt Politifact’s fee-fees enough that they figure all Dems must be lying assholes or something.
Tonal Crow
This is good news for John McCain, no Douthat about it.
Villago Delenda Est
Lying Rethuglican scum. That’s Politifact.
Villago Delenda Est
Lying Rethuglican scum. That’s Politifact.
Parallel 5ths (Jewish Steel)
They started to go all Broderish sometime last year. WTF? It was a fun read for a couple of months there. Idiots
Belafon (formerly anonevent)
And raising taxes is not class warfare because we refuse to label it as such.
ruemara
Look, media makes you a whore. It’s simply thus. I’m not sure why this is a surprise.
MikeJ
If the republicans cut all the funds to medicare and renamed the program “medicare and a nice bowl of soup” would it be unfair to say the republicans voted to end medicare, or would we have to say that they added a bowl of soup?
ThatLeftTurnInABQ
Walt Whitman didn’t get his Medicare and look what happened to him; he ended up DEAD!
kerFuFFler
Disgusting! Chait takes them to the woodshed at The New Republic over this.
http://www.tnr.com/blog/jonathan-chait/87146/politifact-goes-the-deep-end
Mark S.
So if I were a governor and I closed all the public schools and gave out (inadequate) vouchers for children to attend private schools, Politifact would defend me if my opponents accused me of ending public education in my state.
Most of these fact-checking operations are terrible. They can be incredibly anal at times (some incredibly trivial point will make a statement “half-true”) and some of their writers have absolutely no idea what they are talking about.
jrg
Politifact has a point. If I were to name one of my testes “Medicare”, it would be factually incorrect to say that congressional Republicans voted to “end Medicare”.
Similarly, if the GOP were to replace Medicare with a bag of pork rinds, but continued to call it “Medicare”, Dems would be flat-out, pants-on-fire lying if they said the GOP voted to end it.
piratedan
@ruemara: yeah, but who’s getting “fucked”, I’d say that they’re more like pimps, keeping the frozen words of Broder alive via the usual false equivalencies methodology. You say a lie, it’s “partly true”, I tell a lie and i’m a “pants on fire liar”
kerFuFFler
@MikeJ:
Perfect! I just wonder how often they’d say “no soup for you!”
Sasha
PoliFact is a project of the St. Petersburg Times, which is published by the Times Publishing Company, which is owned by The Poynter Institute for Media Studies, a nonprofit journalism school. They’re not profit/shareholder-driven and, in theory, not beholden to any ideology.
Hopefully, they will realize their error and they will correct.
gypsy howell
I just had a screaming argument (well, it felt that way in my head) with one of Jim Gerlach’s (R-PA) minions in DC, who emphatically told me Gerlach’s vote for the Ryan Plan was NOT a vote to abolish medicare. No sirree. No it wasn’t. Nope Nope Nope. And they aren’t vouchers either. No they are NOT! They are not called vouchers. It is not a voucher plan. No it isn’t. Because it just isn’t. They don’t call it that. So it isn’t.
Parallel 5ths (Jewish Steel)
Maybe the biggest sin here is operations like Politifact perpetuate the myth that there can be facts independent of interpretation. Journalism generally cleaves to this view.
jl
I do not care for these ‘fact checkers’ who slap stupid scores on the results. These sites sometimes give useful info, but they have the air of those ‘reasonable moderates’ who define reasonable as agreeing with everything they say.
This part of Politifact is just wrong, or garbled:
“Another problem with the ad is that it claims that participants would have to find $12,500 to pay for Medicare.”
Politifact does not contradict this claim at all, but mumbles about the increase in costs would be about six thousand. Well, Ok, Politifact wants to concentrate on the increase, but where did the add call the twelve thousand an increase?
The bit about premiums will increase every year, without mentioning that the increase will not match historical increases in medical care. And that is how costs will be brought down, but millions of elderly not being able to afford procedures under the standard plan.
My score on this Politifact conclusion: not worth squat.
By Politico’s standards I could slowly poison the entire Balloon Juice front pagers, and not be guilty of murder because I had not ended anyone’s life, only life as we know it.
ThatLeftTurnInABQ
@Mark S.:
They’ve taken on a Sisyphean task. Honestly, I don’t know if anybody really has the smarts and the patience and the guts and the sheer staying power to set themselves up as an arbiter of objective fact these days, and keep at it for any length of time. There harder you work at trying to do the job right the higher value a target you become and the more you are going to attract howler monkeys determined to game the system by pressuring you to be “fair and balanced”. It is like trying to run a bank vault in a world where everything is built out of paperclips and tissue paper.
Objective reality is dead by homicide.
Woodrow L. Goode, IV
@Sasha: That’s not correct. Politifact, which is operated by the St. Petersburg Times, has begun syndicating its content to local newspapers.
To name one customer, America’s Worst Newspaper subscribes.
When truth becopmes a revenue stream– and people can decide not to pay for it if readers don’t like what is being said– it gets tailored to the needs of the market.
Factcheck.org, which isn’t for-profit, is a much better place to get your truth.
Lolis
I could see them claiming it was some form of rhetorical flourish if they wanted to be technical but claiming a Pants of Fire lie is ridiculous. This plan does end Medicare as we know it. Most people with a brain recognize it destroys the safety net. Dems are right on this.
Thad
I just sent the following feedback to [email protected]:
I have long appreciated your work and thought well of your impartiality and objective nature, but I am VERY disappointed in some of your recent work. Specifically, you really blew it when rating the Democratic ad that states: “Seniors will have to find $12,500 for health care because Republicans voted to end Medicare.” Pants on fire? Really? Replacing Medicare with a voucher system of the same name is ENDING Medicare. If I replace the US Postal Service with a system to distribute FedEx and UPS coupons but get rid of all the actual post offices and mail carriers, I’ve actually ended the USPS no matter if I keep the name.
Medicare is a public, single payer health insurance program. If you instead take those taxes and shovel them into vouchers for private insurance, you’ve ended Medicare. Period. Perhaps if you had labeled
this one ‘half true’ because the language was imprecise, I might have bought it… but ‘pants on fire’?
You’ve lost all credibility.
ppcli
@Parallel 5ths (Jewish Steel):
Huh? Somebody says that revenue increased whenever Reagan cut taxes, and I say that’s not true. Are you saying this is just a conflict of interpretations, that there’s no genuine fact of the matter, that neither of us is more right, objectively, than the other?
Midnight Marauder
@Sasha:
I find it to be more telling that the error even occurred in the first place. How obtuse do you have to be to even make an argument like Politifact put forth? I mean, this is the kind of inanity we are talking about here:
Parallel 5ths (Jewish Steel)
@ppcli: Not at all. But you rightly see the lack of clarity in my comment. Strike
factsand replace it with “reporting.” Better?Shoemaker-Levy 9
I’ve said something like this before, but the few times I’ve read Politifact items I found them to be poorly thought out, reeking of “journalese” rather than expertise, and with a grading system that is utterly incoherent. This also applies to items where I ostensibly agreed with the conclusion, by the way. Politifact rates a “Fail” in my book and we’d be better off with the “he-said-she-said” horseshit from mainstream outlets than an unreliable fact-checker.
OzoneR
Boy, can’t wait to hear how this is Obama’s fault. If only he had done a speech slamming the Republicans’ budget and plans to privatize Medicare, but since he didn’t…
Oh well
Tonal Crow
@Parallel 5ths (Jewish Steel):
It’s becoming increasingly difficult to discriminate snark from earnestly-held belief here. But if that wasn’t snark, putting your finger in a candle flame for a few seconds should disabuse you of some incorrect notions.
Just Some Fuckhead
Isn’t Politifact just making the point that Republicans have no plans to end Medicare for current recipients slash Republican voters?
Parallel 5ths (Jewish Steel)
@Tonal Crow: See #25
Edit: Also see Hume, inductive reasoning.
ppcli
@Parallel 5ths (Jewish Steel): I don’t mind that. Sorry if I seemed cranky – there’s a lot of (what strikes me as) sophomoric and poorly thought out relativism around the university that drives me up a wall, and this pressed my buttons. [Also, this kind of “There’s no objective reality or truth, as Kuhn has shown” view has been picked up by the more broadly read of the anti-science rightwingers to regrettable effect – if everything is social construction then what privileged place do evolution, accepted climate science, etc. have?]
SteveinSC
An AP story from HuffPo a day or so ago. What part of Kloppenburg’s challenging of the election result is an indication of “flagging?” The AP, America’s Fifth Column news source.
Parallel 5ths (Jewish Steel)
@ppcli: I feel ya. As a child of the late 20thC, relativism is part of my mental toolbox. For better or worse, it’s in there.
OzoneR
in all seriousness, what moron didn’t think the Democrats were going to flayed like a prized tuna for doing something Republicans get away with all the time and are occasionally called heroes and winners for doing?
Upper West
On the other hand, the Jon Kyl “90% of Planned Parenthood’s work is abortions” lie only merited the level below “pants on fire.”
What does a lie have to do to get a pants on fire around here?
Midnight Marauder
I just read this over at TPM:
and it reminded me that Politifact was “bamboozled” in much the same manner not all that long ago.
They ended up rating the claim from Democrats as “half-true.”
Yep, we’ve played this game before.
Just Some Fuckhead
@OzoneR:
Nick woulda totally called it.
Midnight Marauder
@Upper West:
Utterly astounding. These people are straight up clowns.
Parallel 5ths (Jewish Steel)
@ppcli: But I score points for not invoking quantum, Heisenberg etc. Right?
OzoneR
@Just Some Fuckhead:
you really need to get over this obsession with this Nick guy, it’s just weird.
bemused
@gypsy howell:
Ha, ha. Gee, where have I heard the word voucher before, from Paul Ryan himself perhaps? The staff person sounds like a little kid who swears he didn’t eat any of the brownies with chocolate smeared all over his face.
Truly ridiculous people.
ThatLeftTurnInABQ
@Parallel 5ths (Jewish Steel):
“The Dancing Wu Li Masters made me do it” is a catchall Get-Out-Of-Jail-Free card that comes in handy from time to time.
Uloborus
@jrg:
That’s really the kind of crap they’ve been doing. I noticed (and realized Politifact was no longer trustworthy) when they agreed that ‘job-killing’ is a factual description of the ACA because 39,000 jobs are calculated to be rendered obsolete and removed in the beaurocratic reorganization it will involve. No mention of affects on jobs at large in the economy, which is the actual implication of ‘job-killing’. No mention even of whether the reorganization would create new jobs.
ppcli
@Parallel 5ths (Jewish Steel):
Absolutely. Nor Gödel’s theorem. Points for that too. [Though the remark about Hume on induction had me gritting my teeth. Still, even for this blog a scholarly argument about Hume’s treatment of induction in the Treatise and Inquiry would be something of an off-topic digression. So let’s just agree to call that one a “grandmaster draw”.]
Mark S.
@Midnight Marauder:
Ya think? What fucking jackasses.
flounder
I remember reading this Politifact article about Michael Moore’s statement that the richest 400 Americans have more wealth than the lowest 50% of the population, and thinking that even though P-fact rated his statement as “true”, they took a really snide and dick-ish tone in doing so. I basically came to the conclusion that they aren’t interested in fact-checking, they are interested in hippie-punching.
http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2011/mar/10/michael-moore/michael-moore-says-400-americans-have-more-wealth-/
jl
Does anyone know what is up with Politifact?
I mean, in terms of how do the really decide what the ratings will be?
Is there a balance test for their conclusions, so they can retain their cred as ‘Serious’?
Are the radical moderates (aka eccentrically opinionated clowns a la Perot)?
Wikipedia says Politifact is run by the St. Petersburg Times (and effing newspaper, not that there is anything wrong with that).
I think the Times is run by a local nonprofit. (Basically it run by academic journalist wonks? Is that right?).
So, as far as I can tell, Politifact is one newspaper’s opinion, and probably a lot of conventional journalist editorial balance BS goes into deciding what the conclusions are. Wikipedia has a list of disputes that show both Dems and GOPers complaining it is biased, but I don’t have time to read it now.
Parallel 5ths (Jewish Steel)
@ThatLeftTurnInABQ: Quantum mysticism? Nice. If I’d thought of that circa 1979, I’d be typing this from my private jet.
I am a total punter in the world of philosophy. An enthusiastic, but self educated amateur. Happy to be corrected.
Just Some Fuckhead
@OzoneR:
What’s even weirder is the way you forget to capitalize the first words in your sentences like Nick used to do and how you always say exactly what Nick would say if he hadn’t run off in disgrace after getting busted for being a bad faith actor the same day you showed up. Now that’s pretty fucking weird, doncha think? There’s weird and then there’s weird.
jl
@flounder: They are interested in self promoting.
Redshift
This was the part that pissed me off the most:
Really? What part of the Ryan proposal guarantees that seniors will continue to be offered coverage as the value of their voucher falls continues to fall behind what others are paying? Especially considering that “mandates” of any kind are toxic to conservatives?
But wait, perhaps that doesn’t qualify as “pants-on-fire” because they carefully used the word “offered”! That doesn’t mean it’s affordable, or that the voucher is equal to the cost, or that it provides anything like the same level as coverage as Medicare does, but as long as there exists something called a health insurance policy that if “offered” to seniors, I guess the statement is true. Winning!
Just Some Fuckhead
@Midnight Marauder:
Those used to be called “deliberate lies intended to demonize an enemy.”
Tonal Crow
@Parallel 5ths (Jewish Steel):
So your argument isn’t that an objective reality doesn’t exist, but merely (!) that we lack the philosophical tools to determine its nature?
jl
@Redshift: there are some regulations in the Ryan that will probably make sure every senior who applies will get an offer for a minimum plan, at same rate for same age group. I think that is all, but not sure.
Edit: I checked back at your comment, and read something different than what I remember. You editing your comments extensively (like I do sometimes)? Anyway, I basically agree with what you wrote.
Rihilism
@Just Some Fuckhead: Had the Democratic ad implied that the Republicans were planning to change Medicare for current recipients, Politifact would have had a point. Since the ad didn’t,…, not so much…
Redshift
Gahhh, and this!
Pants-on-fire, no question! Nobody is saying they passed a law to outlaw Medicare, but saying that holding a vote on a budget plan isn’t “voting” is just asinine.
OzoneR
@Just Some Fuckhead:
I don’t say anything 15 other people on this blog don’t already say regularly. Why you’re targeting me, I have no idea, but I got to say, very creepy, so stop.
Just Some Fuckhead
@OzoneR:
lolz
Turns out all those other 15 people were Nick too.
Yer killin me here Nick!
Parallel 5ths (Jewish Steel)
@Tonal Crow: Your argument is that fire can be determined to be hot independent of observation? By whom?
OzoneR
@Just Some Fuckhead:
Wait, MikeJ is Nick? The Political Nihilist Formerly Known as Kryptik is Nick?
Tonal Crow
@Parallel 5ths (Jewish Steel): My argument is that fire *is* hot irrespective of whether anyone observes it. I think Hume’s problem with induction is a useless distraction from the vital task of using the tools we have to determine reality as best we can determine it. Sure, the entire universe could be a computer game being played by a cosmic teenager on her cosmic cellphone, and (for example) the Planck Length could be an artifact of that game’s limited resolution. So?
Just Some Fuckhead
@OzoneR:
Are we talking about the same delightfully witty MikeJ?
I only know one commenter who is that dispirited about current events.
Serious question, Nick? Are you retarded or do you think we are?
OzoneR
@Just Some Fuckhead:
well you certainly are…please stop responding to me. I asked nicely once and you didn’t stop
just stop
catclub
@Rihilism: You realize of course that current recipients will also be affected. Just not as quickly.
Imagine the day when all but one person has been switched to vouchers. What do you think the purchasing clout of medicare will be on that day – and will any doctors take their ridiculously low reimbursements? Now work backwards to
two surviving oldtimers.
One may note that this problem can be avoided by dying. (Quickly)
Parallel 5ths (Jewish Steel)
@Tonal Crow: Fire does not exist if it is not observed. E.g., make a positive statement about something that has never been observed.
Woodrow L. Goode, IV
@jl: Politifact syndicates their content– meaning that newspapers pay money to run it.
Which means that newspapets can cancel the contract if readers object to the findings. Which means Politifact would lose income and have to lay staffers off.
Being run a by a non-profit doesn’t mean they don’t have to earn money– or take in more than they spend. It just means (to oversimplify a lot) that the IRS doesn’t require them to figure out how much money is left over and pay taxes on it. They’re not removed from economic realities– they need to make a buck by serving customers as badly as everyone else.
The Annenberg Center for Public Policy (which runs factcheck,org), on the other hand, is independent. They get their operating budget from an endowment. They fund some projects through grants from other foundations, but the nest egg is secure.
They have to stay within a budget– but nobody can shut them down by refusing to buy/read what they produce.
Redshift
@jl: Actually, as far as I can tell, even in the detailed section, all it says is:
Nothing about charging the same premium to all Medicare beneficiaries, nothing about about a minimum plan. So at best, it will only guarantee that there will either be plans that are available to all seniors, or there will be none at all, unless one believes that the free market fairies will automatically provide good things whether they’re profitable or not.
Parallel 5ths (Jewish Steel)
@Tonal Crow: You’re right about induction. Granted. Alas, I must go to work.
eric
@Parallel 5ths (Jewish Steel): “hot” may be relative; but the average kinetic energy of the molecules at the non-quantum level is certainly observer-independent….the best evidence of that is that the Universe had non-zero average temperature stars prior to the existence of earth … or else none of us could be here. So there are facts that were facts before the existence of any observers.
eric
@Parallel 5ths (Jewish Steel): for years, the neutrino
Tonal Crow
@Parallel 5ths (Jewish Steel):
If the unobserved does not exist, then we do not exist, because we could not have evolved, because we weren’t observing the universe until we evolved a cortex of complexity sufficient to the task, and therefore the universe did not exist prior to that point, which point therefore could never have been reached.
George Berkeley
@eric: Because God was observing the universe.
eric
@Tonal Crow: Berkeley I refute you thus.
gypsy howell
@catclub:
Not to mention the millions of married couples, one of whom would be eligible for good old medicare because they’re over 55 now, and one of whom will be dealing with vouchers because they are under 55 now.
Mr Howell, for example, will have the pleasure of watching me struggle through the hellish private health insurance complex with my ever-declining coverage and ever-increasing premiums, while he’s taken care of through medicare. Yeah, he’s not going to have ANY problem with that.
Joel
What’s funny is that the right blogosphere has been railing against Politifact for years, which means they’ll comfort themselves with a glass of High Broderism.
jl
@Woodrow L. Goode, IV:
Thanks. That means reader complaints about Politifact to local papers and their internet sites might make some difference.
It would be interesting to compare Politifact and factcheck, and other ‘fact checkers’ conclusions.
Rihilism
@catclub:
I don’t disagree with you at all. I was simply referring to the Dem ad and Politifact’s factlessnessness…
Uriel
@Just Some Fuckhead:
Hey! I just realized- you forgot to capitalize the first word of your post.
Just like Nick used to.
PolitiFartGA
They have always been bad. There’s no “eventually”.
Parallel 5ths (Jewish Steel)
@eric:
@Tonal Crow:
Our presence is an observable fact as are the mechanisms of evolution. No problem there either. Are you saying that an event is separable from its effects, consequences? I think they are one and the same.
Something was there, that was observable. It was the neutrino, which is difficult to detect. Observable is not the same as detectable.
All observable facts.
Facts reside in minds and minds must interpret.
(I feel like I’m digging myself into a hole here, but I cannot put my finger on the nature of this hole.)
Tonal Crow
@Parallel 5ths (Jewish Steel):
Right. Which means that your postulate about the nonexistence of the unobserved is incorrect.
I’m pretty sure I just pointed out a big hole, though I suspect it’s not the only one on that road.
Parallel 5ths (Jewish Steel)
@Tonal Crow:
We evolved? How do you know? Evidence.
I don’t need to be present to know a thing happened. Evidence is sufficient. Observable evidence. Right?
I am not making a solipsistic claim that the universe winks out of existence when I go to sleep at night. I am saying that an unknown thing does not exist. By definition. It is unobserved. Seems tautologically tight to me.
Just to be clear, when I say observe I don’t mean the banal act of simply seeing something. Merriam Webster:
johnny walker
This is “Pants on Fire” while Kyl’s 90% non-stat was merely false, huh? Sure thing.
Generally a good site, but company policy seems to be that once a ‘ruling’ is made it must be defended at all costs, no matter how ridiculous the logical leaps get, or what contrary facts are presented. I had an exchange with them via email once where they explained that a poll showing majority support for a public option wasn’t relevant, because
This happened almost a year ago and I’ve been trying in vain to parse it out since. Nearest I can get is that they think there are sometimes situations in which a person is presented with a choice between… one thing. (?) “The choice of having a public option or not” … wouldn’t that be any case in which a public option a) did not already exist and b) had not been legally barred from existing?
I take it to mean Politifact thinks that saying, “I support a public option” is actually a very oblique way of saying “I prefer the status quo,” because we always have the choice of having a public option or not. We can enact or repeal one at any time. Whatever, it makes my brain hurt.
They also explicitly stated that they ignored that particular poll because it funded by MoveOn. Take that for what it’s worth.
johnny walker
Also, I’m going to take over the St. Petersburg Times and start paying all the writers with pieces of old cardboard boxes that have “PAYCHECK” written on them in Sharpie. It’s clearly labelled as a paycheck guys, don’t go all wobbly on me now…
Tonal Crow
@Parallel 5ths (Jewish Steel):
Which is wrong for the reasons I’ve already written. It’s also wrong because it violates causality generally, not just with respect to our own evolution. Imagine event Z, which is caused solely by event Y with a time lag of 1000 years. Imagine also that we do not observe event Z until the year 2200. Then we have the unholy spectacle of that observation somehow “creating” not just event Z in the year 2200, but also event Y in the year 1200.
P.S. My not-quite-twin Nagual Crow would love this stuff. But you could never be quite sure whether he was serious about whatever position he seemed to be arguing.
johnny walker
@Sasha: They don’t correct; not ever. It’s just not how they roll. The extent of their response to this is to subtly mock the people who’re expressing concerns, by putting up a “humorous” post full of all the hilarious analogies that funny people have sent them on the subject.
Were we right on this? Were we wrong? I dunno, but this guy compared the Ryan plan to replacing his dog with a different dog of the same name! Ha ha, our readers are silly!
…and that will be that. As far as they’re concerned, they’ve ‘addressed’ the issue by acknowledging that they’re getting bombarded with email. People are upset, opinions differ, both sides do it, moving on.
Parallel 5ths (Jewish Steel)
@Tonal Crow:
Ah, I see what you’re saying. I have no desire to violate causality.
Let’s travel back to Sept 11 (sic!) 1940. Can you definitively say that there are cave paintings in Lascaux? You cannot. You can hypothesize they exist certainly, but that puts them in a different category. The next day 4 French teenagers and their dog discover 17,000 year old paintings. I don’t contend that their discovery caused their creation. They were discovered with along with their history, so to say.
Now we can say they did indeed exist on Sept 11 (never forget!) but only because of our subsequent observation and privileged position in time. Prior to Sept 12, we could make no such claim.
There. Hows that? (It’s alright. You can tell me I’m circling the drain)
Oh! You don’t sound like a crow. You’re this kind of crow: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tonal_(mythology)
snowpea
the st. petersberg times got a new editor late winter of last year after which there was a noticable shift to the right.
and now rick scott is governor.
Tim I
Politifact has always played these games. What do you expect? They are the bastard stepchild of a Florida newspaer, after all.
PolitiFartGA
And for the record, at least the national organization laughs the tax-cuts-equals-revenue-increases nonsense out of the room and calls Joe Walsh a liar:
http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/apr/19/joe-walsh/rep-joe-walsh-said-every-time-weve-cut-taxes-reven/
The Georgia team totally fell for Saxby’s assertion of the exact same claim because he cited two examples, one of which was false and one (arguably!) true:
http://www.politifact.com/georgia/statements/2011/apr/15/saxby-chambliss/chambliss-makes-case-tax-cuts-citing-reagan-and-bu/
So you get a half true rating, I guess, if one of your examples is true, even if you’re making a blanket statement about how tax cuts affect revenue.
Sasha
That (sadly) would explain a lot …
Tonal Crow
@Parallel 5ths (Jewish Steel): That’s a very different argument from your initial one that “an unknown thing does not exist”, and seems to boil down to the question of what evidence is sufficient to support an assertion of existence.
Parallel 5ths (Jewish Steel)
@Tonal Crow:
Science philospher Amanda Gefter says,
Well, I guess if you’ve got Einstein on your side…