Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Software Spots Spin In Political Speeches

Posted by samzenpus on from the liars-and-filthy-liars dept.

T.S. Ackerman writes "According to an article in NewScientist Tech, there is now software that can identify the amount of spin in a politician or candidate's speech. From the article, 'Blink and you would have missed it. The expression of disgust on former US president Bill Clinton's face during his speech to the Democratic National Convention as he says "Obama" lasts for just a fraction of a second. But to Paul Ekman it was glaringly obvious. "Given that he probably feels jilted that his wife Hillary didn't get the nomination, I would have to say that the entire speech was actually given very gracefully," says Ekman, who has studied people's facial expressions and how they relate to what they are thinking for over 40 years.' The article goes on to analyze the amount of spin in each of the candidates running for president, and the results are that Obama spins the most."

70 of 438 comments (clear)

  1. Subject by Legion303 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Perhaps I missed it, so could someone kindly point out where the New "Scientist" article quantified "spin"? Thanks in advance.

    1. Re:Subject by Minwee · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's defined in the customary way -- As anything which runs contrary to the listener's political views, or is said by someone whom they personally dislike.

      The way the article describes it, this is just an algorithm which counts how closely the speaker's diction and delivery match those used by McCain and assigns a value for the McCaininess of the speech. Calling it "spin" is, well, an interesting spin.

    2. Re:Subject by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 2, Interesting

      "Spin" is just euphemism for 'lying' and/or 'exaggeration'. As someone who was once an avid poker player, I can tell you that everyone has little 'tells'. See the movie "Maverick" for information about tells. Even the best of the best bullshitters have tells. Another of Bill Clinton's tells is that he bites his lower lip when he's about to lie.

      --
      My blog
    3. Re:Subject by flitty · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Pardon me if i'm speculating here, but Isn't this similar to saying that "people whose handwriting includes closed 'e' Loops and small 'o's means they are shy. A facial expression does not always mean what you think it means.
      IF we were going only off facial expressions, John McCain's Smile in the middle of speeches means he's Spinning faster than a proton in the Hadron Collider.

      --
      Whether or not there is some sort of god, I'm not supposed to say/god is a word and the argument ends there-Smog
    4. Re:Subject by thedonger · · Score: 3, Informative

      Spin isn't lying so much as it is making something look good for you whether or not they really are. Good spin doesn't lie.

      Example: Katrina was a disaster. Someone wanting to blame FEMA spins the story so FEMA is the bad guy. Someone else can tell the same story (same facts) and make the mayor of N.O. the bad guy. No one is lying so much as they are carefully ignoring certain facts and emphasizing others.

      --
      Help fight poverty: Punch a poor person.
    5. Re:Subject by jpate · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The algorithm does seem to consist primarily of a bunch of intuitions that David Skillicorn (http://skillicorn.wordpress.com/) has had about what textual attributes correlate with spin. The fact that statistical counts over the speeches gave different results for different politicians/speech writers is not surprising: such counts are specific to individual authors and can be used, for example, to identify authorship in the Federalist Papers (http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.9.7388). I'm very skeptical that Skillicorn has shown that these politicians are more or less prone to spin; more likely he's verified that they (and their speech writers) are, in fact, distinct people.

    6. Re:Subject by cayenne8 · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Actually I think this has all been solved with the definitive answer many years ago...

      Know how to tell if a politician is lying?

      He has his mouth open....

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    7. Re:Subject by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Lying by omission is still lying.

      --
      My blog
    8. Re:Subject by geminidomino · · Score: 2, Funny

      Actually I think this has all been solved with the definitive answer many years ago...

      Know how to tell if a politician is lying?

      He has his mouth open....

      That's not true at all. There is nothing more true to the soul of a politician than an act that requires an open mouth.

      Of course, when the corporate overlord zips up and our beloved senator wipes his mouth, it's back to business as usual.

    9. Re:Subject by Leebert · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No one is lying so much as they are carefully ignoring certain facts and emphasizing others.

      A definition I was once given by my high school principal (and one that I myself now tell young people) is: "A lie is the intent to deceive."

      When you frame it that way...

    10. Re:Subject by tbannist · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Lying by omission implies that you are leaving out pertinent facts to mislead your audience. Not that you are leaving out unrelated facts.

      --
      Fanatically anti-fanatical
    11. Re:Subject by rtb61 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The catch with the analysis of spin is of course, cultural differences, in language usage and expressions. In addition a good speech writer and of course speech presenter are required to alter their language and presentation to suit different audiences. Language and expressions and well as the content of the message needs to be different for, blue collars workers than to a group of students and educators or a broad community group, whilst the intent might be be same, the content will vary for each group and the focus of the presentation will shift to those areas each group has greater interest in.

      Now as to the interpretation of the level of spin, the baseline will be shifted to align with the professor cultural baseline, his choice of language and expressions as well as his political alignment, not necessarily consciously but it is inevitable that it will occur subconsciously.

      The is only one way to detect and clear away spin, record the speech and fact check it for lies and when lies / spin is discovered publish it all over the internet. Attempting it any other way just doesn't make any real sense, especially without knowing any of the speech writers and their cultural biases.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    12. Re:Subject by Asic+Eng · · Score: 2, Informative
      They do wordcounts. Seriously:

      The algorithm counts usage of first person nouns - "I" tends to indicate less spin than "we", for example. It also searches out phrases that offer qualifications or clarifications of more general statements, since speeches that contain few such amendments tend to be high on spin. Finally, increased rates of action verbs such as "go" and "going", and negatively charged words, such as "hate" and "enemy", also indicate greater levels of spin. Skillicorn had his software tackle a database of 150 speeches from politicians involved in the 2008 US election race (see diagram).

      Anyone here who believes that there is more to spin than using certain words? I understand that analyzing semantics is more difficult than just using "cut", "grep" and "wc" on a candidates speech text, but that's just pathetic. Seems a typical case of measuring something that's easy to measure, than claiming that was what you were looking for from the start.

    13. Re:Subject by letxa2000 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's defined in the customary way -- As anything which runs contrary to the listener's political views, or is said by someone whom they personally dislike.

      That's possible. And if we're cynical, we might even say it's probable.

      But it's entirely possible that a very objective criteria was used based on known psychological information. Psychologists and others are very good at learning quite a few things about people by things that most of us don't know--at least not consciously... body language, speech inflections, eye contact, handwriting, etc.

      I'm not at all an expert in this field but unless you have evidence that the algorithm was truly biased and based on the way McCain talks, I think it would behoove you to consider the possibility that just maybe the algorithm picked up on something about Obama that you hadn't picked up on yourself. At least consider the possibility before smearing the article/algorithm/etc.

    14. Re:Subject by aldousd666 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Facial Micro expression analysis is a science that long predate this years political campaign, and indeed predate the Bush administration. If you don't believe me, ask your friendly neighborhood spy hunter about it. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microexpression) I work with the intelligence community, and believe you me, it's a BIG deal, and it's not poppycock.

      --
      Speak for yourself.
    15. Re:Subject by dubl-u · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The algorithm does seem to consist primarily of a bunch of intuitions that David Skillicorn has had about what textual attributes correlate with spin.

      And I'll note here that Skillicorn is a computer scientist, not a cognitive scientist. If we're just talking about his intuitions, then I'm not seeing why I should trust his over anybody else's.

      He seems to hang a lot on Obama's use of "we" instead of "I". It seems to me that heavy use of "we" is exactly how community organizers would talk. Not because they're spinning, but because they're trained to generate collective action.

      And heck, that's what I like about him. After 9/11, a great national tragedy, I wanted to serve, to help, but George Bush told me to go shopping. It was a bit of a letdown. This election, I'm really excited that both McCain and Obama truly believe in public service. But I think Obama's much better at getting people to actually do it.

    16. Re:Subject by dubl-u · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It depends on whether you define a lie as a) a deliberately false set of words or b) a communication intended to deceive or give a wrong impression.

      Both definitions are in the dictionary. Those who like to deceive favor the first definition, as they can deceive without getting called out for it. Those who have a commitment to clear understanding favor the second.

      Using that second definition, which is the one I favor, spinning is just a fancy form of lying, in that deception and manipulation are still the goals.

    17. Re:Subject by PopeRatzo · · Score: 2, Funny

      Know how to tell if a politician is lying?

      On Monday, I was watching CNN while eating my lunch, and there was video of John McCain talking about the economy.

      In the lower right hand corner, there was a little graphic showing real-time DOW and Nasdaq numbers. As McCain was saying that the "fundamentals are strong", the Dow was dropping by about 2 points per second. There was a big red arrow pointing down. It seemed to be providing a live evaluation of the senator's remarks.

      To be fair, though, Senator McCain probably wasn't actually lying. After all, if you had a wife with a few hundred million dollars, it might seem like the economic picture was pretty fucking rosy.

      Plus, since as Jonah Goldberg says, McCain is too disabled to use a computer or Blackberry, he might not have been able to see that the front pages of Barron's, The Wall Street Journal or Bloomberg were screaming "We're FUcked!!1!"

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    18. Re:Subject by NeoSkandranon · · Score: 2, Interesting

      He seems to hang a lot on Obama's use of "we" instead of "I". It seems to me that heavy use of "we" is exactly how community organizers would talk. Not because they're spinning, but because they're trained to generate collective action.

      It's interesting you think of it like that. I tend to associate heavy use of "we" with corporate speak, where rather than generate collective action, the speaker is attempting to impress collective responsibility for some action.

      --
      If you can't see the value in jet powered ants you should turn in your nerd card. - Dunbal (464142)
  2. Surely by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    there are more important things to talk about in this race - economy, Iraq, education, health, science policy, Saturday Night Live.

    Why focus on this pseudoscience?

  3. That's Easy--They're ALWAYS Spinning by curmudgeon99 · · Score: 5, Funny

    I could write the logic myself

    if( politician.isAlive() && mouth.isOpen() )
    {
    isSpinning = true;
    return isSpinning;
    }

  4. Spin = Good Rhetorical Argument by ShadowRangerRIT · · Score: 5, Insightful

    From reading the article, it appears that by spin, they mean "adhering to the rules your old English teacher laid down for rhetorical arguments." For example, don't qualify statements, since it waters down your argument needlessly. Don't use "I"; it makes it sound like you're the only one who holds your opinion, so use "we" when needed to help draw others in.

    What this doesn't seem to do is provide any insight into how much the person in question shades the truth. Telling a bald-faced lie plainly won't set it off; wrapping up the truth in an eloquent package will.

    --
    $_ = "wftedskaebjgdpjgidbsmnjgcdwatb"; tr/a-z/oh, turtleneck Phrase Jar!/; print
    1. Re:Spin = Good Rhetorical Argument by catfood · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'm repeating something that also happens to be in some of the comments on TFA, but: Since when does use of "we" instead of "I" indicate spin or deception? If that's your standard, the guy who thinks in terms of a movement, who sees the country as a grand collaboration, is always going to come out as dishonest. And the guy who talks about rugged individualism is going to look like a straight shooter, even if his statements on policy are self-contradicting nonsense.

      How is "Yes we can!" so much worse than "I won't raise your taxes"?

    2. Re:Spin = Good Rhetorical Argument by omar.sahal · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Having had Tony Blair as our prime minister for 10 years I feel that I am now an authority on spin. It is essentially another word for BULL SHIT. It involves an individual talking without semantically meaning anything*. Specially chosen words are used that have resonance with individuals, thus allowing the listener to feel they empathize with the speaker.
      • * Please note this gives advantage to the bullshitter in that he or she is not held by anything that they have said
    3. Re:Spin = Good Rhetorical Argument by b96miata · · Score: 5, Interesting

      because the "movement" won't be in office. The politician will.

      "Yes we can" is a crap soundbite that sways people who listen to crap soundbites, and it also has the advantage of allowing every (potential) voter to fill in their own definition of what "we" can do, while sticking the polit. with zero accountability.

      "I won't raise your taxes", or "I won't attempt to further restrict the right to bear arms" would be widely regarded as a campaign promise, and would be damaging if broken.

      If you say nothing of substance, it's harder to be accused of lying.

      This doesn't necessarily mean any use of "we" is bad, but your chosen examples are vastly different statements.

    4. Re:Spin = Good Rhetorical Argument by Pichu0102 · · Score: 2, Funny

      If that's your standard, the guy who thinks in terms of a movement, who sees the country as a grand collaboration, is always going to come out as dishonest. And the guy who talks about rugged individualism is going to look like a straight shooter, even if his statements on policy are self-contradicting nonsense.

      That's communist thinking there citizen.

    5. Re:Spin = Good Rhetorical Argument by dpilot · · Score: 2, Insightful

      > because the "movement" won't be in office. The politician will.

      Not quite. The politician brings the "movement" into office with him.

      Example:
      John Ashcroft, Donald Rumsfeld, Condoleeza Rice, Paul Wolfowitz, Alberto Gonzales, etc, etc. (I don't lump Dick Cheney in because he was on the ticket and was "elected", and I don't lump Colin Powell because I don't think he was really part of the "movement".)

      No President does the job alone - (since Carter tried and failed) this is a team effort. Perhaps one of the most important things we don't do is look hard enough at the campaign organizations of the candidates, because that reflects how he selects and builds teams. As another for-instance, maybe bad mic selection at the mixing board helped the "Dean Scream" kill Howard Dean's candidacy, but there were also fundamental cash usage problems in his campaign that finished the job, and would have finished it later had the scream not happened.

      --
      The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
  5. Obama spinning? by tjstork · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Even though I'm a Republican, I have to concede that Obama is one of the most gifted speakers to come along for quite some time. He's an absolutely magnetic speaker and a great advocate for that which he believes, and when I watch him, I almost have to smack myself to snap out of it. I can't stand the guy's politics, but I am proud that he's an American.

    --
    This is my sig.
    1. Re:Obama spinning? by Foolicious · · Score: 4, Funny

      and when I watch him, I almost have to smack myself to snap out of it

      I think this says more about you than Obama.

      --
      Please don't use "umm" or "err" or "erm".
    2. Re:Obama spinning? by db32 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It was like a million conservatives cried out and then were suddenly silenced.

      You do realize how many neocon types just had their heads implode due to your statement there right? I mean, I generally consider myself conservative (in the old sense, when it mean fiscal and political conservative and social liberal because a real conservative doesn't want the government mucking in the personal affairs of people.). I most certainly do not consider myself a Republican. The modern Republicans have fucked our nation up possibly beyond repair with their rhetoric and god aweful policy. They have the balls to claim Democrats will spend more when they currently hold the record for spending!

      --
      The only change I can believe in is what I find in my couch cushions.
    3. Re:Obama spinning? by torstenvl · · Score: 4, Interesting

      What policies do you disagree with?
      - NOT firing our best Arab linguists when we're at war in the Middle East?
      - Providing mandatory healthcare to children?
      - Making healthcare affordable but optional for adults?
      - Reforming the tax code so it doesn't take a graduate degree to know how much your bill should be?
      - Investing in science and research so China doesn't kick our asses so handily in the next decade as they have in the past decade?
      - Increasing funding for charter schools so that even poor people can have school choice?
      - Moving race-based affirmative action toward a more socioeconomic-based affirmative action, so that his daughters are judged more fairly compared to a rural white boy with an underfunded school?
      - Ending an immoral war by setting concrete timelines, but recognizing that they may have to be modified depending on the conditions on the ground?
      - Reducing the incidence and unfairness of the death penalty, while understanding that certain heinous crimes deserve the full outrage of the nation?
      - Better sex education, so that there are fewer unexpected pregnancies, and so that when there are unexpected pregnancies, the women know there are options BESIDES abortion?

      Exactly what policy do you object to?

      I can't think of a single reason to support McCain's platform unless a) you make over $250,000/year; AND b) you're of the mind that you should keep all of it, no matter the cost to your community and country.

    4. Re:Obama spinning? by sheph · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'm a conservative (I don't know if that's really the same thing as republican anymore). I'd say he's a good speaker as long as he's got a script to practice and go off of. I've seen a few instances where he's been caught off guard, and had to actually think. Whole lotta umming and uhhing going on there. Not to mention when he says things he'd like to take back (think pigs and lipstick). The best thing he's got going for him is that the media loves him and handles him with kidd gloves. If you take that away though I don't see a great deal of substance in him, and I really worry about the prospect of him changing the healthcare system. Universal healthcare while appealing on an emotional level is almost certainly going to result in all of us getting lower quality care and paying higher taxes to pay for it (IMHO anyway). I also worry about his simplistic view of raising taxes on the rich as though that would have no cascading effect on those of us who aren't. You think inflation is bad now. Better do your homework.

      --
      I don't believe in karma, I just call it like I see it.
    5. Re:Obama spinning? by thedonger · · Score: 2, Informative

      Have you heard him give a one-on-one interview? He uses more verbal pauses (uh, um, etc.) than anyone I have ever heard. Granted, he is excellent when working a crowd, and the tone of his voice is catchy.

      --
      Help fight poverty: Punch a poor person.
    6. Re:Obama spinning? by arotenbe · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I've seen a few instances where he's been caught off guard, and had to actually think. Whole lotta umming and uhhing going on there.

      Here's a question for you: which is better, a candidate who thinks about what he says before speaking, or one who can answer every question immediately?

      Think about that one for a moment.

      --
      Tomato wedge sperm darts that are Republican.
    7. Re:Obama spinning? by rho · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If he's actually thinking, then great. Unfortunately it's a lot more likely that he's trying to come up with a way to straddle the fence.

      Somebody who is well versed in all arguments against a position can produce a counter-argument instantly. That doesn't make him right or wrong, but it doesn't make him worse than the guy who has to invent a position in an instant.

      --
      Potato chips are a by-yourself food.
    8. Re:Obama spinning? by mosb1000 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Well, since I want to reduce the role of government (especially the federal government) I would say that I'm opposed to most of the points you've listed.

    9. Re:Obama spinning? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      All of them.

      Helathcare for children? fuck em.
      Fireing the arab translartors? HELLO THEY"RE ISLAMIC!!!!

      ending the way helps the terrorists.
      ending affirmative action helps the terrorists
      afforable healthcare helps the terrorists
      making the death penalty fair helps the terrorists
      better sex education helps the terrorists.

      shall i continue? I'm just a poor american, I make $350,000 a year and barely can afford my 6800 sq foot small home and by 3 new escalades. I had to buy a USED hummer H2.. the neighbors look down upon me for driving anything used... oh my god I'm so poor.

      help save america!

    10. Re:Obama spinning? by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Clinton balanced the budget but gutting the military

      "Gutting" the military? During the Clinton years we still spent far and away more on "defense" than any other nation; the "defense" budget remained bloated. During the Clinton years, American military spending made up a larger percentage of the world's total military spending than it did in the Regan years.

      Had we really trimmed it, we would probably have reduced the number of troops overseas. Including those in the Middle East. Like in Saudi Arabia. You know, the troops whose presence so provoked bin Laden.

      If we'd really "gutted" the military, i.e. reduced it to its rightful role of defending the nation, and exerted forgein influence by economic and diplomatic means rather than by military bullying, odds are very good that no one would have been motived to hijack planes and fly them into American buildings.

      This is not to say that terrorism against the U.S. was or is justified. But like any crime, it does have a motivation.

      (Let me point out that if we followed the Founder's plan, we wouldn't even have a standing army. And yet, someone, serving in an institution whose very existence was opposed by the Founding Fathers, has someone come to be seen as "patriotic". Remarkable.)

      Wonder who gets the blame for the intelligence failures of 2000 - 2004?

      Rightfully, the guys who were at the top, who chose to ignore the completely adequate data and clear warnings they were given by the intelligence community, bear the blame.

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
    11. Re:Obama spinning? by MobyDisk · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Most of the items in his list would not increase government. You sound like you just blindly used a a Republican talking point to discount someone.

      (I am a registered Republican, and it annoys me to hear people use this line meaninglessly)

      Specifically, one of the items in that list would reduce the government more than any of the others would add, if combined. Hint, it involves another country...

    12. Re:Obama spinning? by torstenvl · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Then you're just, quite simply, un-American. It is the purpose of the Federal government to "promote the general welfare." It is our duty as citizens to protect each other from outside threats, and our duty as humans not to let the poor among us die in the streets.

      The Republican party likes to talk about the Bible and responsibility. What happened to "love thy neighbor," and how is monetary greed anything but the shirking of responsibility?

      There's only one man in the Bible to complain about the expectation that he was his brother's keeper. He seems like a pretty good metaphor for the Republican Party.

    13. Re:Obama spinning? by Terwin · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Even if I personally don't make over 250K/year, my employer does, and that means that I will be paying these higher taxes too.
      Either I will need to do the work of people that they cannot afford to hire, or they will not be able to give me the wage that they otherwise could.

      Think about it, how many companies that provide reasonable jobs can exist with revenue of less than 250K?

      Also, can you name a single company (that is not in the process of going out of business) on any of the major stock exchanges that makes less than 250K? What happens to their stock prices when they suddenly need to pay more taxes? How about all those pensions and retirement accounts that are invested in the stock market?

      Do you really think that the CEOs will pull that money out of their pockets?
      It will come from all of us in the form of higher prices.

      If you allow the government to mandate health care for any group, then they get to define what that health care entails. This will quickly be taken over by special interests, assuming they don't let the drug companies write the laws to begin with. Do you really want someone who is in the pocket of the pharmaceutical companies to write the health care plan for your children? Sounds like a way to mandate all children to take a bunch of high-margin pills that either don't do any good, or may even turn out to be harmful in the long run... (How about ground-breaking new medical advances, do you want to watch your child die while waiting for the bureaucracy to decide that it is an OK procedure for them to pay for?)

      Considering that all of these programs will be either run or set up by politicians, I don't see anything in your list that I would want the government to do for me.

    14. Re:Obama spinning? by digitalcowboy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Self-identification is meaningless in this election. You've got swathes of people trolling the internet, pretending to be Republicans for Obama, Hillarycrats for Palin, aliens for Kucinich, etc. Everyone jumped into the same slimy, lying cesspool this time, so just ignore the (R) and (D) next to people's names and identify them by their policy stances.

      I would be happy to do that. Thanks for the tip.

      Ummm... Uhhh... errr... Can you point me to one example of where Obama has ever taken a stand on.... well... anything?

      (His own greatness doesn't count.)

      He's spent his life straddling fences and refusing to take a stand. Then he wrote TWO memoirs by the time he was 47... about stuff that happened to him and lied a lot in those.

      What has he ever done besides lie for a living? Seriously. NOBODY has ever addressed this question.

      Near as I can tell, the pinnacle achievement on his resume is editor of the Harvard Law Review, prized because it allows the office-holder to publish his views. Obama published nothing.

      He has done absolutely nothing in every single position he's ever held because he's been running for president his entire life and is too much of a coward to defend a position on anything except how great Barack Obama is.

      (Not a Republican, btw. Not voting for McCain either. Just sick of the Obamessiah and his ignorant sycophants.)

    15. Re:Obama spinning? by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It amuses me to no end to watch people like you go on about how christian fundamentalists are attacking (group they hate of the week) unprovoked, yet maintain that islamic fundamentalists were provoked. Not that I think or foreign policy in that part of the world has helped one bit, but seriously, that is some bullshit stink of an argument.

      Well, I didn't say a damn thing about Christian fundamentalist, did I? It amuses me to no end to watch people like you use phrase like "people like you" about people they don't know at all..

      If there was a foreign military force occupying the homeland of some group of Christian fundamentalists, I'd call that a provocation. However, such is not the case for Christian fundamentalists in the U.S.

      And again, I point out that a provocation is not necessarily a justification.

      There was a tremendous amount of debate over the risks of having a standing military weighed against the risk of not having one.

      And it ended up with a Constitution that doesn't provide for one (" To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years"), and that relies on a "well regulated militia" as the primary line of defense for the nation.

      Ultimately (and rightfully so) the decision was made that not having a standing army with proper training and organization was more of a threat to the Union than having a standing army.

      The decision was made that a standing army was useful to steal land from the Natives, and later to conduct invasions of other nations.

      "The tree of liberty must be watered by the blood of patriots."

      Curious how you abridged that: "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." -- Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Stephens Smith, November 13, 1787 [emphasis added -tms]

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
    16. Re:Obama spinning? by JesseMcDonald · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It is the purpose of the Federal government to "promote the general welfare."

      Yes, in specific ways, all of which are enumerated in the Constitution. Many of the items on the GGP's list are not Constitutional.

      The following are internal government affairs or enumerated powers, and perfectly Constitutional:

      • not firing linguists
      • ending an immoral war
      • reforming the tax code

      The following are not within the purview of the federal government:

      • healthcare
      • investing in science and research
      • funding for charter schools
      • affirmative action
      • education (including sex education)

      The last point, "reducing the incidence and unfairness of the death penalty," is too broadly worded to properly categorize. For the most part specific criminal penalties, including the death penalty, fall under state jurisdiction.

      It is our duty as citizens to protect each other from outside threats, and our duty as humans not to let the poor among us die in the streets.

      I have no problem with that, but what does it have to do with the federal government? It seems to me that, rather than defining and carrying out your own duty, you only wish to coerce others into performing what you unilaterally declare to be their duty toward you, or in support of your goals. Government is not a legitimate tool with which to enforce your personal views onto others--no matter how popular those views might be.

      There's only one man in the Bible to complain about the expectation that he was his brother's keeper.

      Yes, but Cain's sins were jealousy and murder, not indifference. There is nothing to suggest that Cain was ever expected to act as his brother's keeper; his non sequitur response was merely a futile attempt to avoid the question.

      --
      "The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
    17. Re:Obama spinning? by bpd1069 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Abortion : Exclusive: Obama's lost law review article ...The six-page summary, tucked into the third volume of the year's Harvard Law Review, considers the charged, if peripheral, question of whether fetuses should be able to file lawsuits against their mothers. Obama's answer, like most courts': No. He wrote approvingly of an Illinois Supreme Court ruling that the unborn cannot sue their mothers for negligence, and he suggested that allowing fetuses to sue would violate the mother's rights and could, perversely, cause her to take more risks with her pregnancy...

      --
      --
    18. Re:Obama spinning? by mcpkaaos · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Let's see, McCain voted against the Bush tax cuts

      You mean the tax cuts he now wants to make permanent?

      --
      It goes from God, to Jerry, to me.
    19. Re:Obama spinning? by StopKoolaidPoliticsT · · Score: 2, Informative
      And what does "promote the general welfare" mean? Well, if we look to the Federalist Papers, we'll see:

      Federalist 23 (Hamilton):

      Defective as the present Confederation has been proved to be, this principle appears to have been fully recognized by the framers of it; though they have not made proper or adequate provision for its exercise. Congress have an unlimited discretion to make requisitions of men and money; to govern the army and navy; to direct their operations. As their requisitions are made constitutionally binding upon the States, who are in fact under the most solemn obligations to furnish the supplies required of them, the intention evidently was that the United States should command whatever resources were by them judged requisite to the ``common defense and general welfare.'' It was presumed that a sense of their true interests, and a regard to the dictates of good faith, would be found sufficient pledges for the punctual performance of the duty of the members to the federal head.

      Federalist 41 (Madison):

      A system of government, meant for duration, ought to contemplate these revolutions, and be able to accommodate itself to them. Some, who have not denied the necessity of the power of taxation, have grounded a very fierce attack against the Constitution, on the language in which it is defined. It has been urged and echoed, that the power ``to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States,'' amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare. No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labor for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstruction. Had no other enumeration or definition of the powers of the Congress been found in the Constitution, than the general expressions just cited, the authors of the objection might have had some color for it; though it would have been difficult to find a reason for so awkward a form of describing an authority to legislate in all possible cases. A power to destroy the freedom of the press, the trial by jury, or even to regulate the course of descents, or the forms of conveyances, must be very singularly expressed by the terms ``to raise money for the general welfare. ''But what color can the objection have, when a specification of the objects alluded to by these general terms immediately follows, and is not even separated by a longer pause than a semicolon? If the different parts of the same instrument ought to be so expounded, as to give meaning to every part which will bear it, shall one part of the same sentence be excluded altogether from a share in the meaning; and shall the more doubtful and indefinite terms be retained in their full extent, and the clear and precise expressions be denied any signification whatsoever? For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power? Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars. But the idea of an enumeration of particulars which neither explain nor qualify the general meaning, and can have no other effect than to confound and mislead, is an absurdity, which, as we are reduced to the dilemma of charging either on the authors of the objection or on the authors of the Constitution, we must take the liberty of supposing, had not its origin with the latter. The objection here is the more extraordinary, as it appears that the language used by the convention is a copy from the articles of Confederation. The objects of the Union among the States, as described in article third, are ``their common defense, security of their liberties, and mutual and general welfare. '' The terms of article eighth are still more identical: ``All charges of war

      --
      Stop Koolaid Politics
  6. A bit strange. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Am I the only one that finds it a bit strange that the Presidential Candidates are on the opposing ends of that
    "spin" graph?

    It kinda gives a bit pseudoscience with political motivations feel to it.

  7. Re:So what's new by oodaloop · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I am shocked.

    Yes, *yawn* I am too. Who would have guessed the candidate with no experience and a carefully-prepared thoughtful thousand yard stare would use more spin than a self-described straight shooter?

    --
    Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
  8. I feel horrible by nawcom · · Score: 2, Funny
    After reading the description of TFA, this idea of Obama responding to the article claiming he has the spin, old-school Fresh Prince style with an aged DJ Jazzy Jeff scratching in the background.

    I'm all about change, yo, that's why I'm gonna win,

    It ain't nothin' to do with no political speee-in!

    *Scritch-scratch, scritch-scritch-scritch-scra-scatch scritchity-scratch, scritchity-scratch, scritchity-scratch, scritch-scritch, scritch-scra-atch*

    Yes, I'm most likely voting Democrat.

  9. Obama doesn;t realyl say much by 91degrees · · Score: 3, Funny

    I've always been impressed by Obama's ability to give a speech, and not actually say anything.

    It makes him very popular. It's all vaguely positive. There's very little for anyone to actually disagree with.

  10. O'Reilly 1.0 by Carl_Stawicki · · Score: 2, Funny

    ...software that can identify the amount of spin in a politician or candidate's speech.

    The software is called O'Reilly 1.0, but it's full of bugs and hasn't been updated in years.

    --
    This is my signature.
    soid st egr.hyTa rsiugm usnin
    Any questions?
  11. Psychology is not an exact science by Viol8 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Therefor saying that he expressed digust over Obama is pushing it a bit. Even if that was what his facial expression meant there could have been many other things on his (or anyone else in that situation) mind. Perhaps he just had wind, who knows. MOst of these "I know what someone is thinking from fleeting facial expression" types are just modern day snake oil sellers.

    1. Re:Psychology is not an exact science by Tom · · Score: 4, Interesting

      You should read up on Ekman. The guy is one of the top authorities on the subject. He has written a few books. Read one or two and check what his claims really are and how much substance and research he can put behind them.

      In short: He doesn't claim he can read thoughts, he claims that emotions show up on your face. He also claims to have identified a short list of universal (world-wide, culture-independent) expressions that belong to specific emotions. He's travelled pretty much everywhere on the globe, from western society to primitive jungle tribes and made many thousands of photographs showing those expressions. And yes, the books describe in detail how the emotions were roused so they could be reasonably sure they got the proper one.

      Like all mainstream media, the article simplifies things quite a lot. That doesn't mean the science behind it isn't correct.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
  12. Alan Keyes by CustomDesigned · · Score: 3, Insightful

    At the other end of the political spectrum, I think Alan Keyes is at least in the same league at Obama as a gifted speaker.

  13. Re:Malcom Gladwell poppycock by Reality+Master+201 · · Score: 2, Informative

    Gladwell is the Barack Obama of the writing world.

    That IS a bad analogy.

  14. Next breakthrough... by Shoten · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "Software spots water in ocean!"

    I mean, COME ON...couldn't they have tried for detecting something that at least just might be absent in the content they're testing? How about spin in the news, for example? Oh, wait...uh...

    --

    For your security, this post has been encrypted with ROT-13, twice.
  15. Please Sheeple by LS · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Does anyone actually believe this to be anything other than poor science or even worse election year propaganda masking as science?

    There may be some objective simple definition of "spin" that you could use to create a automated measuring system, but is this really spin?

    Human language is virtually infinitely complex, and there are layers of meaning both conscious and unconscious expressed by body language, tone, cadence, content, etc. Then there's the intention of the speaker, and the context of the speech. But no, we get a elementary school level simple bar chart that clearly shows that obama is a complete spinster, and McCain is a "straight talker". Excuse me, but what a load of horse shit! Disclaimer: I'm not voting for Obama or McCain.

    LS

    --
    There is a fine line between being a cultivated citizen and being someone else's crop. - A. J. Patrick Liszkie
  16. Badarticle by pcgabe · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I initially thought that the Obama-smear was just a poorly written summary (and was going to tag "badsummary") but the actual article itself is slanted. I propose we start tagging these kinds of things "badarticle", since they seem to be cropping up more and more on Slashdot.

    Anyway.

    There are so many things that bug me about this "article", let's just go through it together.

    The expression of disgust on former US president Bill Clinton's face during his speech to the Democratic National Convention as he says "Obama" lasts for just a fraction of a second.

    First off, associating disgust with Obama. Paul Ekman says he saw it on Clinton's face. Did any of the other millions of people watching see it?

    So how are we to know when they are lying?

    Got it, spin = lying. OK. That's the definition we'll be using as we read.

    Software programs that analyse a person's speech, voice or facial expressions are building upon the work of researchers like Ekman to help us discover when the truth is being stretched, and even by how much.

    Again, spin = lying. I'm with you so far.

    The algorithm counts usage of first person nouns - "I" tends to indicate less spin than "we", for example. It also searches out phrases that offer qualifications or clarifications of more general statements, since speeches that contain few such amendments tend to be high on spin. Finally, increased rates of action verbs such as "go" and "going", and negatively charged words, such as "hate" and "enemy", also indicate greater levels of spin.

    I... what? "I" vs "we"? What does that have to do with lying? I thought spin = lying, since that's stated twice at the beginning of the article. Suddenly spin = rhetoric.

    In general though, Obama's speeches contain considerably higher spin than either McCain or Clinton.

    First, spin = lying, and then spin = rhetoric, but we don't call it that, and then Obama's speeches have the most spin. Which by the new definition means that he is the most effective speaker, but by the original definition means that he is the biggest liar.

    McCain is the purported to have the least spin, implying that he is the most truthful (except by their definition of spin, it really means he is the least effective speaker). Hands up, who thinks McCain is the most truthful candidate?

    And hey, let's talk about Jeremiah Wright some more, because it's not like that story is history or anything. But hey, any chance there is to remind people that he's associated with Obama...

    "When you see these crises come along, the spin goes up," Skillicorn says. "Obama is very good at using stirring rhetoric to deal with the issues."

    Ah! Now they even call it rhetoric! Perhaps hoping that the intended audience doesn't know the meaning of the word? (Many people mistakenly think the word rhetoric has negative connotations.)

    Indeed, Bill Clinton's fleeting facial slip was the only clear example that Ekman could recount of a politician saying something that they did not mean during both the Republican and Democratic national conventions.

    Seriously, did anyone else besides Ekman see it? Did this facial slip actually exist? Where's the screencap?

    This entire article is ridiculous. Decrying "spin", they use it themselves as an anti-Obama device. Absurd.

    --
    Don't put advice in your sig.
  17. Skillicorn's blog by semiotec · · Score: 4, Informative

    http://skillicorn.wordpress.com/

    check out this entry:
    http://skillicorn.wordpress.com/2008/09/05/comparing-the-democratic-and-republican-convention-spin/

    As usual, high spin is indicated by the red end of the line. Here are the spin scores for all of the speeches analyzed (positive numbers are high spin):

    1. Bush 0.40
    2. Thompson 1.71
    3. Lieberman -0.73
    4. Romney 4.36
    5. Huckabee -1.8
    6. Giuliani 2.97
    7. Palin -0.62
    8. McCain -7.38
    9. M. Obama -1.24
    10. Hillary Clinton 2.43
    11. Bill Clinton 0.99
    12. Biden -1.35
    13. Obama 0.31

    seems like a bit of discrepancy with what's reported in the article.

  18. Re:So what's new by Digital+End · · Score: 3, Informative

    Yeah, because McCain's still doing that 'straight shooter' nonsense.

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20080913/pl_politico/13412

    Oh... wait... he found it wasn't working so now he's a cut-throat asshole just like the rest of them who will lie at the drop of a hat?

    Of course you'll read this and say "Well he's keeping things even" and frankly I don't give a damn anymore, I'm tired of it all and no one changes anyone elses opinion, vote for whoever you want... just don't get your facts backwards

    --
    Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart, he dreams himself your master.
  19. Re:perhaps by PainKilleR-CE · · Score: 2, Interesting

    It should also be noted that writers are generally trained not to use the word "I" and "you", the latter of which they seem to account as meaning there is less spin. The reality is that someone using the word "I" frequently in a speech in place of "we" is more likely to either be on the defensive or not very good at sticking to the speech (as they stated, substituting one pronoun for another is commonly subconscious, but they didn't mention that a well-trained speaker will suppress the urge).

    All this really seems to show is that Obama and Palin are better speakers than McCain and Clinton, and that McCain is by far the worst of them. On the other hand, at least McCain usually has the sense to pause when he's speaking to collect his thoughts (and actually manages to do so), as opposed to Bush, who just stumbles and ends up with gibberish. Or maybe McCain just has better people running the teleprompters or tries to keep his speech-writers closer to his internalized message so he can go off-script without going off-message.

    I thought the analysis from the speech and facial recognition people was a little more credible than the analysis based on the words being used. People subconsciously track this stuff much more closely than the actual words, and are very adept at it (those most adept at it end up being very good con-artists or can do quite a bit to help people).

    Unfortunately, when looking at speeches to determine whether people are saying things they actually believe, you depend highly on what they look like the rest of the time they're giving speeches. Bill Clinton has been giving speeches in the national public eye for over 16 years, so many people can pick up on simple things that aren't quite right when he's giving a speech. There are also a handful of things that people are trained not to do when giving a speech that work well when people actually follow them well, such as the use of words and not pointing your finger at the audience (see Clinton's denial of the affair with Lewinsky; politicians that have a hard time with this one often will point with their whole hand or two fingers, see many of George H. W. Bush's speeches).

    In some ways this makes people like George W. Bush and McCain harder to read, because they give speeches as if they have never really been trained or managed to learn to give speeches in the first place. One has to wonder if these are patterns that they have groomed in themselves.

    --
    -PainKilleR-[CE]
  20. Buy It by PMuse · · Score: 2, Funny

    To summarize TFA:
    I have a magical truth detector that can determine if a statement is true by the way a person looks when he says it. With my marvelous machine, you will no longer need to check facts. Instead, you can simply believe whomever my machine tells you to believe.
    QED.

    --
    "We reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals." --The American President (20.1.2009)
  21. I wonder if the software can.. by timias1 · · Score: 3, Insightful
    identify people who will either praise the results, or condemn them based on perceived political bias in the report, and their own personal political choices. Personally after reading the article, I didn't find favoritism towards McCain or Obama. Political spin levels don't directly suggest honesty, or dishonesty in my opinion. There is a great statement: "If you want to learn someones true character, don't listen to what they say, watch what they do"

    Voting record, more than written and declared policies should be the litmus test voters should use.

    1. Re:I wonder if the software can.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      That would be easier if Obama had a voting record. I mean, one besides voting "Present" hundreds of times.

  22. Godwin's Law by Kupfernigk · · Score: 2, Informative
    At last! Someone has invoked Godwin's Law: The first person to invoke the Nazis as a counter-example on the Internet has lost the argument.

    How about:

    • Winston Churchill
    • Julius Caesar
    • Mahatma Gandhi
    • Burke
    • Lincoln

    I'd add Martin Luther King, but I guess from your post that you probably think he was a one sided evil despot too. Believe me, if you think Barack Obama is one-sided, your knowledge of politics and history is zero. By European standards, he is a moderate right-winger.

    --
    From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
  23. Re:A scary day... by ShadowRangerRIT · · Score: 2

    Following the same logic, this will eventually lead to a party nominating a sociopath... which will most likely win.

    I imagine that will be a pretty scary day for US.

    You say that like it hasn't happened. I suspect sociopathic tendencies occur *far* more frequently in politicians than they do in the populace at large. Politicians always lie, the difference is generally in the degree of the lie. Anyone able to lie convincingly (that is, shamelessly) would always have an advantage in that sort of environment.

    --
    $_ = "wftedskaebjgdpjgidbsmnjgcdwatb"; tr/a-z/oh, turtleneck Phrase Jar!/; print
  24. Duh? by BCW2 · · Score: 2, Funny

    If a politicians lips are moving, he is telling a lie!
    Why is everyone acting so surprised?

    --
    Professional Politicians are not the solution, they ARE the problem.
  25. Bull excrement by analogkid76 · · Score: 2, Funny

    I don't believe this for a second. You know what, skip the "spin" detection. Let's look at outright lie detection. If factcheck.org can be trusted, which I believe it can, I believe McCain has been caught spreading more outright falsehoods than Obama in this election. And you know what? Facts and fact checking matters more to me than how "spinny" a politician sounds.

  26. Re:Maybe by Sj0 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Spinning tends to revolve around presenting the facts in a different light or using different words to elicit a different emotional reaction than the original. Spinning doesn't need to involve a lie at all. For example, one can say that the police action in Iraq is currently deterring islamic militants from attacking both soldiers and the civilian population. None of that is a lie, it's just a massive distortion of the truth(considering most of those islamic militants are iraqis trying to kill other muslims).

    --
    It's been a long time.