did he or didn't he?

[jdonn]

So which part do you disagree with, that he is very smart or that a very smart person is more likely to know who they should receive advice from than a less smart person (such as Winston or myself) who has never even met the potential advisors?

I don't necessarily think a smart person is better at knowing who they should be receiving advice from. Sometimes smart people are terrible at receiving advice because they think they always have the answer without someone else's help. Less smart people, who recognize the need for advice, could well be more experienced at receiving advice and better able to select the people from whom they should receive advice.

I think you are really reaching...

[Winstonm]

I think it's particularly audacious, and a little bit funny, when people presume to know better than the President which advisors he should be paying to, and to what extent

 

I think it's rather sad and not really funny that some cannot distinguish opinion from presumption.

[TimG]

So which part do you disagree with, that he is very smart or that a very smart person is more likely to know who they should receive advice from than a less smart person (such as Winston or myself) who has never even met the potential advisors?

I don't necessarily think a smart person is better at knowing who they should be receiving advice from. Sometimes smart people are terrible at receiving advice because they think they always have the answer without someone else's help. Less smart people, who recognize the need for advice, could well be more experienced at receiving advice and better able to select the people from whom they should receive advice.

I think you are really reaching...

Maybe you're just too smart... :-)

[Lobowolf]

I think it's particularly audacious, and a little bit funny, when people presume to know better than the President which advisors he should be paying to, and to what extent

 

I think it's rather sad and not really funny that some cannot distinguish opinion from presumption.

Well, let's see...one of the definitions for "presume" (in fact, the first one) includes "suppose" (to be complete, it's "to take for granted, assume, OR suppose")

 

Then under "suppose," we have: "to think or hold as an opinion."

 

So, I guess based on those definitions, I'm one of those who doesn't, in this case certainly, distinguish between the two. But I suppose it's not the case that I "cannot," so I hope that doesn't make you sad.

[Winstonm]

I think it's particularly audacious, and a little bit funny, when people presume to know better than the President which advisors he should be paying to, and to what extent

 

I think it's rather sad and not really funny that some cannot distinguish opinion from presumption.

Well, let's see...one of the definitions for "presume" (in fact, the first one) includes "suppose" (to be complete, it's "to take for granted, assume, OR suppose")

 

Then under "suppose," we have: "to think or hold as an opinion."

 

So, I guess based on those definitions, I'm one of those who doesn't, in this case certainly, distinguish between the two. But I suppose it's not the case that I "cannot," so I hope that doesn't make you sad.

I don't presume to have the faintist idea what point your are trying to make - in much the same way I don't presume to know what advisors have or have not told Obama.

 

pre·sume (pr-zm)

v. pre·sumed, pre·sum·ing, pre·sumes

v.tr.

1. To take for granted as being true in the absence of proof to the contrary.

2. To constitute reasonable evidence for assuming; appear to prove.

3. To venture without authority or permission.

 

 

I do, however, have opinions. And I do not automatically assume my leaders know best or are doing what is in my best interest.

[cherdanno]

I don't think it's a particularly fair criticism that Obama isn't using his abvisors optimally. If I were to take advice then I think I'd have the best idea about who I want it from, especially if I were as smart as he is.

I am calling "Obama is so smart he must know what he is doing"-bias. Which advisors to listen to are among the most consequential decisions a president makes, and thus should be should be subject to criticism when he gets them wrong.

I'll go on record as saying he is extremely smart, and that has nothing to do with agreeing or disagreeing with any particular policy. In fact it tends to be the second thing that even his detractors usually compliment him on after "he is charismatic / he speaks extremely well" before they launch into the negatives.

 

So which part do you disagree with, that he is very smart or that a very smart person is more likely to know who they should receive advice from than a less smart person (such as Winston or myself) who has never even met the potential advisors?

Let's pretend that Meckstroth is a better bridge player than Jdonn. Even if this were true, Jdonn would still be able to spot mistakes by Meckstroth while he is kibitzing him on Vuegraph (especially if Jdonn is doing the analysis back at home while writing an unusually long BBF post). Further, when Jdonn points out Meckstroth's mistake in a BBF post, it is not a very helpful counter argument to say "but Meckstroth is a better bridge player than Jdonn".

 

Obama is very smart, but he does make mistakes, and criticizing his mistakes is important.

[Lobowolf]

I don't think it's a particularly fair criticism that Obama isn't using his abvisors optimally. If I were to take advice then I think I'd have the best idea about who I want it from, especially if I were as smart as he is.

I am calling "Obama is so smart he must know what he is doing"-bias. Which advisors to listen to are among the most consequential decisions a president makes, and thus should be should be subject to criticism when he gets them wrong.

I'll go on record as saying he is extremely smart, and that has nothing to do with agreeing or disagreeing with any particular policy. In fact it tends to be the second thing that even his detractors usually compliment him on after "he is charismatic / he speaks extremely well" before they launch into the negatives.

 

So which part do you disagree with, that he is very smart or that a very smart person is more likely to know who they should receive advice from than a less smart person (such as Winston or myself) who has never even met the potential advisors?

Let's pretend that Meckstroth is a better bridge player than Jdonn. Even if this were true, Jdonn would still be able to spot mistakes by Meckstroth while he is kibitzing him on Vuegraph (especially if Jdonn is doing the analysis back at home while writing an unusually long BBF post). Further, when Jdonn points out Meckstroth's mistake in a BBF post, it is not a very helpful counter argument to say "but Meckstroth is a better bridge player than Jdonn".

 

Obama is very smart, but he does make mistakes, and criticizing his mistakes is important.

This analogy has merit, but it's also got flaws. When kibitzing, JDonn would have access to more information than Meckstroth. The President pretty much always has access to more information than his critics (and his supplicants). Additionally, bridge is a wonderfully complex game, but it's still a closed system. Computer programs can tell you how many tricks can be made by either side in any strain, and we can see, quite clearly, what would have happened had another course been chosen. Global politics is inherently rife with speculation, and when many courses are chosen, you can't "unchoose" them. We won't know exactly what would have happened had stimulus bill X failed. Whatever course(s) Obama chooses in the Middle East, we won't know exactly what would have happened had he chosen alternate possibilities, and we'll always had less information than he had when he makes his choices.

 

This is certainly not to say that he's not above reproach, or that no criticism can ever be justified, but it certainly has to be borne in mind. Criticism that policy does not match one's value judgments (e.g. war is always wrong; rewarding illegal immigration is wrong; position X regarding tax policy is more fair than position Y) is generally more reasonable than criticism about understanding, efficacy, etc. To return to the analogy, JDonn is a great bridge player, but if he's looking at 26 cards and Meckstroth is looking at 52, and he disagrees with something Meckstroth does, "Meckstroth sees something JDonn doesn't see" (sorry Josh), or even "Meckstroth has different values than JDonn" (e.g. all 23-point hands should be bid to game) is probably a safer bet than "Meckstroth just doesn't get it."

[Lobowolf]

I do not automatically assume my leaders know best or are doing what is in my best interest.

Nor do I. I do know, however, that they have access to more information than I do.

 

 

Given your distrust of both the media and politicians, I'm curious as to the source of apparently firm conviction that a notion like "The surge worked" is nonsense.

[jdonn]

Aside from the above criticisms of the analogy, which I think are very valid and also much better than I could have come up with on my own, I agree with your last statement but don't see what it has to do with "Obama is so smart he must know what he is doing"-bias. In fact I should object to that term to begin with since I certainly don't think a smart person must know what he is doing, in fact I have quite carefully said things like "I think" and "more likely" throughout.

 

I'll give one a try myself. This would be like if our fate depended on Meckstroth's results at bridge over the next four years and he bought three bridge books, including "Bridge Squeezes Complete". But suppose then he focused his studies on the other two books, whatever they may be. I may think that last book is very good, maybe even better than the others. But I would trust he has a much better idea of what he is doing and how he can best gather useful bridge-related information than I have about those issues.

[Lobowolf]

I probably could have captured 80% of my idea with 10% of the verbiage --

 

The best player isn't always right, but you can bet he's wrong a lot less often than most lesser players think he is.

[Winstonm]

I do not automatically assume my leaders know best or are doing what is in my best interest.

Nor do I. I do know, however, that they have access to more information than I do.

 

 

Given your distrust of both the media and politicians, I'm curious as to the source of apparently firm conviction that a notion like "The surge worked" is nonsense.

Depends on the definition of success - if the goal was the illusion of stability in Iraq then the surge worked. But a conglomerate of sources all point out (and not denied by Patraeus) that the payment and arming of the militants rather than the surge created an environment that appears (but isn't really) more stable. The information is not difficult to locate if you are willing to look.

 

There is not doubt that Obama has much more information about state secrets and wiretapping than I do, but that does not prevent me from saying he is 100% wrong in promoting the Bush/Cheney doctrine and actually trying to broaden executive powers in this regard.

 

There is no justification for this power grab - none, nada, never.

[Lobowolf]

But a conglomerate of sources all point out (and not denied by Patraeus) that the payment and arming of the militants rather than the surge created an environment that appears (but isn't really) more stable. The information is not difficult to locate if you are willing to look.

But how do you, personally, determine what sources are credible, given your well-emphasized distrust of both politicians and the media?

[brianshark]

Interesting predicament Obama has found himself in. I imagine he just bowed a little because it's the natural thing to do in that situation and he wasn't thinking too much about protocol, etc.

 

Unfortunately, despite nobody on this thread seeming to care about a bow, your country obviously does (enough to even have a protocol about this, and enough for the half that aren't in power to dream up another smear campaign). I imagine Obama and his advisors had to decide between what they have to put up with now and the stick they would have got if they admitted to knowingly disregarding long established American protocol.

 

The whole denial thing, while it seems childish to intelligent thinkers like us BBO forumers, is probably going to be worth a lot less hassle in the long run so I wouldn't criticise them too much for their response.

[Lobowolf]

Interesting predicament Obama has found himself in. I imagine he just bowed a little because it's the natural thing to do in that situation and he wasn't thinking too much about protocol, etc.

 

Unfortunately, despite nobody on this thread seeming to care about a bow, your country obviously does (enough to even have a protocol about this, and enough for the half that aren't in power to dream up another smear campaign). I imagine Obama and his advisors had to decide between what they have to put up with now and the stick they would have got if they admitted to knowingly disregarding long established American protocol.

 

The whole denial thing, while it seems childish to intelligent thinkers like us BBO forumers, is probably going to be worth a lot less hassle in the long run so I wouldn't criticise them too much for their response.

I wouldn't even say he "knowingly disregarded" anything. Much more likely that it was just an instinctive, polite reaction.

 

Disagree about the lesser hassle. Americans generally don't care all that much about screw-ups (especially minor ones), but care more about cover-ups (not that it's a "cover-up" per se, but I put it in the same sort of category).

[Winstonm]

But a conglomerate of sources all point out (and not denied by Patraeus) that the payment and arming of the militants rather than the surge created an environment that appears (but isn't really) more stable.  The information is not difficult to locate if you are willing to look.

But how do you, personally, determine what sources are credible, given your well-emphasized distrust of both politicians and the media?

I believe if you look closely you will find your paraphrase about my beliefs to be incorrect. I have never said I do not trust politicians; nor have I ever stated I mistrust the media.

 

What I have said is that politicians are unduly influenced by the money that helps them finance their elections and re-elections, and the mainstream media is overtly biased.

 

That leaves a wide world of views to evaluate when defining a belief.

[Lobowolf]

But a conglomerate of sources all point out (and not denied by Patraeus) that the payment and arming of the militants rather than the surge created an environment that appears (but isn't really) more stable.  The information is not difficult to locate if you are willing to look.

But how do you, personally, determine what sources are credible, given your well-emphasized distrust of both politicians and the media?

I believe if you look closely you will find your paraphrase about my beliefs to be incorrect. I have never said I do not trust politicians; nor have I ever stated I mistrust the media.

 

What I have said is that politicians are unduly influenced by the money that helps them finance their elections and re-elections, and the mainstream media is overtly biased.

 

That leaves a wide world of views to evaluate when defining a belief.

Apologies if I've mischaracterized your position.