Comments on: Dressing Down Jimmah

By: Clint

Clint — Thu, 09 Feb 2006 20:09:49 +0000

Peter-

I don’t entirely disagree that it is possible to find a consensus among experts on subjective judgement calls — but Wikipedia isn’t the right source to go to for such information.

By: peter

peter — Thu, 09 Feb 2006 19:07:23 +0000

I agree to the extent that a judgment call is not quantifiable or provable. You could make the judgment call that Western music reached its apogee with the song “God Didn’t Make Little Green Apples,” and I can’t disprove it. However, if you polled people knowledgeable about the subject, it is unlikely that you will find Roger Williams ahead of Mozart or Beethoven (or even Tammy Wynette). I think reasonable people would therefore agree that an informed judgment would exclude Little Green Apples from the Top 100. Similarly, if historians and scholars are asked who the best and worst Presidents are – and the same names repeatedly appear at the top and bottom of the surveys – then I think there is the basis for an informed opinion.

By: Clint

Clint — Thu, 09 Feb 2006 17:49:58 +0000

Peter-

Wikipedia is usually a quick way to find objective facts — but it’s a very, very bad place to look for support for subjective opinions.

If you want to find out who Harding’s Secretary of the Army was — you’ll find it on Wikipedia, and the answer will probably be right. If you want to find out whether there’s a consensus among historians as to who are the “best” and “worst” Presidents, you will often find a very slanted opinion — by the very nature of how Wiki works. It’s a useful tool — when used properly.

Beyond that, the very notion of citing experts to prove a subjective opinion is a bit silly. Whether President Harding did a better or worse job than either President Roosevelt is a judgement call — one we could debate at length (Each Roosevelt led us into a “War of Choice” after all…) not a fact.

By: dmac

dmac — Thu, 09 Feb 2006 03:29:45 +0000

True enough.

By: peter

peter — Thu, 09 Feb 2006 02:12:04 +0000

I heard about that, but I thought that wikipedia found some way to block it — I guess with anything that’s free, you get what you pay for –

By: dmac

dmac — Thu, 09 Feb 2006 01:57:36 +0000

Well, it was recently discovered that a congressman’s staff had been editing it (without disclosure) concerning their patron, and many other episodes like that seem to occur there fairly frequently.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5182883

It doesn’t have a rep rignt now for being too objective – there are many other valid sources you can easily find using Google and the rest.

By: peter

peter — Thu, 09 Feb 2006 00:15:33 +0000

1) Ferd (Fred?): Well, I don’t find Carter boorish because (as noted elsewhere) I’m a little mystified how acknowledging a wiretap which ended when George Bush was graduating from Yale is a slam at Bush. At most it is an oblique criticism. Then again, I’m pretty boorish myself, so I should probably recuse myself from passing judgment.
2) The point I was trying to make about Murdoch-owned media is that they both strive to create a sense of outrage over inconsequential events. There is, in fact, no war on Christmas. There was, in fact, no reference to conspiracy theories in Carter’s eulogy. It is true that I conflated the Post and Fox News and posited guilt by association. However, I discussed the substance of the Post editorial earlier and I did not want to be repetitive.
3) The idea of a liberal media is a widely disseminated myth, but it is a bunch of crap. If anything, the media are so bullied that they are flaccid. One example: the media’s failure to ask tough questions about the putative weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
4) JP: you raise a very interesting point. I think that Bush had widespread support when he launched the war, as most Americans will support the President in declaring war. The best evidence is the nearly unanimous vote in Congress. However, there are a few problems with this. First, the casus belli was based on false information and discredited assumptions. Hence the support was based on the misinformation which the administration promulgated. Secondly, when it became evident that the war was based on false premises and the occupation was disastrous, Bush stayed the course despite the disapproval of a majority of Americans. You could charitably consider this to be leadership, but you could also describe it as stubbornness or the inability to admit mistakes. (Also: Jimmy Carter got an agreement between Arafat and Begin. In your opinion, was that leadership?)
5) To quote Herman Talmadge: “don’t tax you, don’t tax me, tax that fellow behind the tree.” If you ask people if they want their taxes cut, they will say yes. If you ask them if they want Social Security or defense appropriations cut, they will say no. A President (and Congress) has to make a decision between contradictory public sentiment. Leadership implies making the wisest decision, not necessarily the most popular one. Of course, you could do what Reagan and the Bushes did, and simply borrow the money (and, in Bush I’s case, wait for a Democratic administration to bail us out and return the budget to surplus).
6) Jamie: as you know, facing an audience means being in the same physical location. Also, I’m not a statistician either, and I don’t know the methodology of the survey. However, it is broadly in line with lots of other recent surveys, so I think it’s reasonable to say that the results are accurate within a tolerance.
7) Evidence and findings which show that Bush told the truth? I don’t want to get into an argument as to whether Bush deliberately lied – I can’t look into his heart – but the administration said many things which were untrue. So it’s no wonder that a majority of Americans think Bush lied (or however the question was phrased).
What’s wrong with wikipedia? I have no axe to grind for or against them – however it seems to be a useful and comprehensive source – is there a better one?

By: dmac

dmac — Wed, 08 Feb 2006 22:22:11 +0000

Peter – I see you’re still using the oft – maligned Wikipedia. Can’t you get some other cites for your many strident observations here?

By: peter

peter — Wed, 08 Feb 2006 21:57:59 +0000

I appreciate the recent posts. Regrettably, I have an imminent meeting with software engineers, compared to which getting involved in this discussion will be a breath of fresh air. Hence I will respond, but not immediately.

By: Jacques Distler

Jacques Distler — Wed, 08 Feb 2006 21:22:15 +0000

Carter was wrong to bring up politics and criticize the standing president at a such a setting- period.

Coretta would never have stood for that!

What an insult to her memory! Aside from being a staunch Bush supporter, she was completely apolitical.