[matmat]

was his tongue out in the clip? I couldn't tell...

[jdonn]

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. And how are any of us to know that Volcker is sitting there twiddling his thumbs anyway? Maybe I'm naive, but I bet he is working on something that has some importance.

On the other hand it's a far more relevant criticism than the ones about the bow and the explanation of the bow, which I still find pathetic.

[Winstonm]

jdonn, on Apr 11 2009, 06:25 PM, said:

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. And how are any of us to know that Volcker is sitting there twiddling his thumbs anyway? Maybe I'm naive, but I bet he is working on something that has some importance.

On the other hand it's a far more relevant criticism than the ones about the bow and the explanation of the bow, which I still find pathetic.

True enough. I have no quotes from Volcker but have read on Barry Ritholtz's site that Volcker has stated he has not been asked to join in any meetings about the economy or economic policies.

Edit: Found this from April 11 Wall Street Journal

Quote

The one-time central banker has been put in charge of a presidential advisory board that hasn’t yet had a formal meeting. It has been nearly a month since he has seen Mr. Obama. Mr. Volcker hasn’t been a main player in key decisions handling the global financial crisis.

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner unveiled the administration’s plans for handling troubled financial institutions and the housing crisis without seeking input from Mr. Volcker, associates say. “Paul was surprised” at the failure to consult him, particularly on issues of financial rescue after his dominant role in resolving financial crises in the 1980s, says one person who has spoken to Mr. Volcker recently.

I have been disappointed myself in Obama's choices and decisions, but at the same time understand how early it is in his presidency; however, it is difficult to overcome the bitterness I feel for chosing to keep Gates, for buying into "the surge worked" malarchy, and for not asking for the resignations of Odierno and Patraeus.

When the neoconservatives are praising your choices and decisions there is no doubt you have screwed up mightily.

[y66]

Quote

I may not have made myself clear.

I misread your post. Obama bias. Sorry.

[cherdanno]

jdonn, on Apr 11 2009, 06:25 PM, said:

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.

[jdonn]

cherdanno, on Apr 11 2009, 07:35 PM, said:

jdonn, on Apr 11 2009, 06:25 PM, said:

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?

[kfay]

I honestly don't care if he bowed or not (I think he did). If that is the custom there (I'm not sure) then why not do it?

To compare the bow to the head nod he gave the Queen is strange because I'm pretty sure such a low bow isn't the custom in England.

[Winstonm]

Quote

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 question his intellect - but intellect does not always compensate for lack of experience or simple naivete'. And even the highly intelligent can be wrong. As Cherdano said, who you listen to is the critical issue.

The thing to remember is that first and foremost, Obama is a politician. To a politician, influence is a commodity.

[TimG]

jdonn, on Apr 11 2009, 09:20 PM, said:

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.

[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. He's a former Senator, a Harvard Law School graduate (to say the least), and as the president, he's been given briefings and access to information that nobody on this board has any idea about. It's like listening to int-adv players explaining why the bids and plays of Bermuda Bowl champions are wrong, except at least when that happens, the kibitzer has seen all 52 cards.

[jdonn]

TimG, on Apr 12 2009, 07:29 AM, said:

jdonn, on Apr 11 2009, 09:20 PM, said:

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]

Quote

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]

jdonn, on Apr 12 2009, 01:12 PM, said:

TimG, on Apr 12 2009, 07:29 AM, said:

jdonn, on Apr 11 2009, 09:20 PM, said:

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]

Winstonm, on Apr 12 2009, 05:24 PM, said:

Quote

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]

Lobowolf, on Apr 12 2009, 08:42 PM, said:

Winstonm, on Apr 12 2009, 05:24 PM, said:

Quote

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.

Quote

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]

jdonn, on Apr 11 2009, 09:20 PM, said:

cherdanno, on Apr 11 2009, 07:35 PM, said:

jdonn, on Apr 11 2009, 06:25 PM, said:

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]

cherdanno, on Apr 13 2009, 09:11 PM, said:

jdonn, on Apr 11 2009, 09:20 PM, said:

cherdanno, on Apr 11 2009, 07:35 PM, said:

jdonn, on Apr 11 2009, 06:25 PM, said:

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]

Winstonm, on Apr 13 2009, 06:12 PM, said:

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.