What do I say about Justice Souter (I'm sure you were on the edge of your seats)? I have little to say about Justice Souter, actually. But since Souter is now departing from the scene I bless you with a little pet theory of mine.
Every once in awhile, through pure accident of history, an individual rises to a position of fame and responsibility in American society for which he has no business rising and for which he or she simply lacked the experience and mental fortitude to cope. In my lifetime, I can think of three such people: Dan Quayle, Janet Reno, and David Souter. There may be others--feel free to nominate your own.
Quayle, Reno, and Souter were all pure accidents of history. Reno, as the third-choice Attorney General because of Bill Clinton's determination to choose a woman. Quayle, well for whatever reason, presumably because Bush wanted a "Jack Kemp-type" but not Jack Kemp, or whatever. And Souter, because as Jan Crawford Greenburg reports, there was no Plan B when Ken Starr got shot down internally.
Having said that, both Quayle and Souter seemed to do a competent job once they got into office. But then again, how would one tell if a VP were incompetent--except, of course, other than creating a public panic over riding the subway. Quayle's was sort of a benign incompetence.
In Souter's case, it is my opinion that Souter's unpreparedness for the job manifested it in his inability to carry the weight of the Supreme Court robe. He never really seemed to have any coherent idea of what the judge's proper role was. Bill Stuntz had a great essay on Powell and O'Connor that I think applies to Souter as well (the link to the original article is broken, but Orin excerpted the key paragraphs here). In that sense, he was similar to Sandra Day O'Connor, a potential "accident of history" contender as well because of Reagan's campaign promise. In my opinion, she too was one of the more mediocre Justice of recent times.
In the end, I don't think that anyone would champion Souter as a anything other than a mediocre Justice. It is hard to measure how "good" a Justice is--one could imagine many different criteria: smarts, influence, coalition-building skills, etc. No matter what criteria one uses, however, doesn't it seem to be the consensus that Souter is certainly near the bottom, if not at the bottom, of the current Court? Perhaps this is an unusually talented Court. But still, Souter is by any measure a weak link on the Court most would think.
Reno, by contrast, was a real menace and her elevation by accident of history was, I think, by most accounts a disaster. Her utter lack of qualifications and temperament for the job left her completely dependent on the Clintons' patronage so she feared above all being fired and returned to obscurity.
What does this say? Not much, I reckon, other than I hope that whoever Obama picks to fill Souter's seat, it will be someone chosen by design and not a panicked elevation by accident of history.
While I have your attention, I'd like to point you to Tom Smith's witty take, "I would like to like Justice Souter". I don't discern any disagreement from Tom about Souter's essential mediocrity.
Related Posts (on one page):
- A Different Take on Justice Souter:
- Justice Souter and Accidents of History:
Others include most congressmen and senators -- they are just too numerous to mention. Also, we must include Joe the Plumber.
But I like the theory, and I think it applies to Souter. I'm not sure he ever even wanted the job in the first place.
Michael "Brownie" Brown as well.
Why did she get famous? Because McCain chose her. Why did he choose her? Because of Obama. Why was Obama the D's nominee? Because Gore and Kerry lost close elections. Had either won, Obama would still be a senator.
Shouldn't John Kerry be there with Janet?
What does this mean?
Also Ilya Somin, but that's mostly because he's the outspoken red sox fan on this blog.
I do think there should be a distinction between being an unprepared but elected accident as opposed an appointed one.
That does remind me though that a good chunk of those hired into old media offices (the times/post/wsj/etc) also qualify here.
How 'bout Samuel Pierce? Remember him? Reagan's HUD Secretary for 8 years? The fellow Reagan didn't even recognize at a White House reception?
Jimmy Carter? Res Ipsa Loquitur...
And just to be bipartisan in picking on Attorneys General, since you brought up Janet Reno - Where would you put John Mitchell, Richard Kleindienst, Ed Meese and/or Alberto Gonzalez on the list?
And to really tick off some people here, don't forget that in an alternate electoral universe, Sarah Palin could have been a contender. But instead Joe Biden gets a turn at bat in this particular game...
I think being elected (which Obama was) instead of hand-picked (which Palin was, for the VP slot) is more of what Todd is going for here.
Besides, Obama can't possibly be judged yet as his term is only beginning.
It is hard to measure how "good" a Justice is--one could imagine many different criteria: smarts, influence, coalition-building skills, etc.
What about "deciding cases accurately on the law and the facts"?
That seems not to be a serious aspect of judging, according to Prof. Z's post.
As to his judicial acumen, I lack sufficient knowledge to form an opinion.
For denizens of Massachusetts it's doubly worth mentioning because one of those who currently appears to be jockeying for a gubernatorial run is Martha Coakely who still insists against all evidence to the contrary that she successfuly prosecuted a ring of ritual child abusers. -- The fiends were even sacrificing dinosaurs to Satan according to some testimony that was admitted at trial!
met with conservative fanfare;
after no years of imports,
except that vote to abort;
he disappeared back to his man lair.
OK, it's feint praise, but nobody lays the smackdown like lawyers!
I don't know. It appears to be content-free criticism as far as I can see. The sort of thing one would expect from the truly mediocre.
If a freshman turned in an essay with the following:
surely the TA would write something in the margin about needing to provide some supporting evidence.
Sorry , in my head I was thinking "if Palin was elected President then its because..."
Well, by that criterion, Thomas is certainly a cellar-dweller.
Not that's stopping anyone from trying.
As in "that was a really good head fake" ?
2) The argument here (if you can call it that) is really unconvincing.
Say what you will about the analysis, this is a fantastic turn of phrase!
No, as in feigned or assumed praise. You didn't seriously expect me to praise lawyers, did you?
But that was a pretty good smackdown.
Don't know if Souter was any good as a judge, but he didn't make himself a spectacle, not to the general public, anyway. That should count. And he gets extra points for leaving on his own, and not on a gurney like the rest of these old sarcophoguses do.
What does Souter's "inability to carry the weight of the Supreme Court robe" refer to? I am assuming it's not a fashion statement.
Near as I can tell, the complaint is that Souter spent his time doing his job.
I don't know any attorney who believes that either, say, Thomas or Kennedy, has anywhere close to the intellectual heft of Souter.
Context of course does matter. But if Prof Z wants to change anyone's opinion he has to do better than vacuous cheerleading.
I think she will go down as a much better Justice than, say, Chief Justice Roberts, who is a good writer but views the world in such relentless
ideological terms.
The problem I have with this statement comes down to mealy mouthed balancing tests. Certainty in law is much more important IMO than good law or bad law. Being in the middle might let you make the decisions but it also leads away from clarity.
This is what I especially hate about cases like those generated from McCain-Fiengold.
I dunno, Souter is a thin little stick of a man.
On the topic in general, I don't think we should count people who lost their elections - they weren't accidents of history, but inchoates, disasters that might have been but never were. This could even apply to vice-President Quayle, who thankfully, history never gave us a chance to see what he could do.
To keep things light, I'll throw out a name from sports: Kurt Rambis, who coached the Lakers with Shaq and Kobe Bryant before Phil Jackson arrived. Only named coach because he was around, everyone else had tried and failed, and people were able to talk themselves into him based on his playing days. Results were quite mediocre.
On the positive side: Joe Montana. He happened to be coming out when Bill Walsh was looking to institute his West Coast system and to be paired with some of the finest receivers the game has ever seen. Two years earlier or later and he might have been but a footnote in history.
Come to think of it this topic begins to seem a lot like Malcolm Gladwell's Outliers...
You're being a little bit harsh. I thought her 25 year lifespan for affirmative action was very clear. We're in about year 6 or so on that, and then it goes away ----POOF---- like the roadrunner I guess. Can't get much clearer than that, can you?
The weakness here is that you resort to reasoning by analogy when no such comparison is warranted. An unsupported assertion is unpersuasive irrespective of the forum.
Many elected officials easily meet this criteria as well.
On Thomas, I disagree with anyone who tries to put him in the same category as Souter. It just isn't plausible. It seems evident from the quality of their opinions. If that doesn't do it for you, read Jan Crawford Greenburg's book.
Maybe I missed something. How many of the last 10 Justices to leave did so through death or incapacitation? Only one, that I know of (Rehnquist) though Douglas should count too.
More penetrating analysis! The rigor devastates.
I don't think anyone panicked. It's just Biden.
I submit that because Biden made the remark, everybody knew it was OK to ride the subway.
The best thing I saw about that was the title of a blog post (where escapes me, though): "Nobody Tell Joe Biden How Twitter Works"
Thurgood was a shell physically when he left, or so I've read. And Rehnquist as you mention. Ginsburg has a form of cancer that's terminal and likely soon. White maybe you can give a pass to, but he could have moved on after 20 years or so, which would be good practice for any of these guys... 10 years service would be better. The nomination battles might have less intensity if these guys turned over more often, and everybody knew they'd be getting another kick at the can in short order.
Souter is leaving on his own terms, and in good health. I think he deserves mention for that, and I hope he writes and gives us his thinking on the matter, too.
LBJ at least deserves an honorable mention for not only failing to either win or punt in Vietnam, but picking the time of day for air raids in the oval office just takes the cake in 'Hot to not be an effective CinC'.
Re Gerry Ford: I never understood the jokes. What major mistakes did he make? It always seemed to me that he did a good job minding the store.
But neither is Souter. The reality is that Souter does a fine job questioning lawyers at oral argument and has authored some very important opinions. He doesn't try to be a public intellectual like Scalia or (to a lesser extent) Ginsburg does, but he obviously knows what he is doing.
The reality is that all 9 justices on the Supreme Court are sufficiently intelligent to do the job. And if this is all just a cover for ideology, I suppose you probably think that not even someone like Louis Brandeis was a good justice.
Might I nominate Gen. Ambrose E. Burnside. Of course, he actually had the good sense to know that he couldn't do the job, but Lincoln really had no other choice but to pick him because he, at that time, had no one else to select to lead the Army of the Potomac. After the disaster at Fredericksburg, Burnside happily went west. Although he did acquit himself well as General of the Army of the Ohio. But there was fundamentally less pressure there than in the east.
Pardon me, but I seem to have forgotten...
Nice Cardozo reference, BRM. If Souter is a mediocrity, he certainly is the plodding kind--hard working, conscientious, and attentive to his role as a judge.
What more should we want?
Which leads to another query: Is it better to be a competent if somewhat stolid Justice who produces almost every word in an opinion versus a marginally more competent Justice who cuts and pastes from clerk's work?
Would you happen to have link to a news story where there was public panic following Biden's remarks?
I'd agree with that except for the position of Vice President. The Veep is basically an appointed position who takes office when the top of the ticket wins - that's not really the same as "elected". The only real difference between VP and an appointed position like the Secretary of Agriculture is that the VP is named in advance and doesn't have to be confirmed by the Senate.
Agreed. Only I don't really consider the VP to be an elected position as such. We do not cast separate votes for Pres and VP and, unless the VP candidate is a total nut job, no one would not vote for a Presidential candidate based on the VP.
Which is ironic considering I didn't vote for McCain specifically because he picked Palin as his VP. Go figure.
Lets see, The head of the daily Kos (created by John Dean), Ariana Huffington (created by divorce, assisted by the DNC), Michael Moore (created by the UAW), Perez Hilton (god only knows).
And while I am no fan of Dan Quayle, what 'proof' is there of his so-called incompetence, other than Democrats and the media constantly calling him that. And if you mention the 'potatoe' thing, subtract 50 points from your score. Have none of you (us) ever done something like that? If any slip, no matter how minor, labels someone stupid, then we all are.
Both WAPO and SF Chronicle cited friends of Souter quoting him as saying (before the election) that if Obama won, he would retire. The quotes were buried in the middle of articles on Saturday.
Also, John Mitchell definitely does not belong on this list. He was a giant of public finance, at a time when that was a higher-paying area than it is now, and a leading power broker in New York politics. Think of Rodgin Cohen and Rahm Emanuel, combined.
Apparently Professor Zywicki is a self-hating crappy writer.
Wow, prosecutors of major, crime-ridden metropolitan areas lack the qualifications to be the nation's highest law enforcement officer, but Gonzo's bona fides aren't impeachable? How many cases did Gonzo prosecute? Gonzo's rise was built on a series of accidents man initiated by one man. Tellingly, no law firm wants anything to do with him.
If we are going to speculate on the undistinguished who failed to rise to the responsibility and expectations of a position, how about starting with those that clearly collapsed under the weight of the circumstances. Tom Daschle and Dennis Hastart comes to mind, but Miers and Gonzales are gimmes.
Can we go back to the Dartmouth saga?
She had a responsibility to make the ticket more respectable, and she failed. I say this as somebody who started off as a McCain voter.
Thank god for interactive spell-check else I'd type "potatoe" more often than not.
A good deal of everything is more accidental than we're comfortable admitting.
I always lulz when people debate the relative intelligence of jurists. While a minimum intelligence is certainly necessary to be an effective judge, after a certain point it becomes irrelevant. Other traits are far more important after that point.
Let's face it - very few in the legal world (even at the highest echelons - Yale Law or SCOTUS) can touch a Fields medalist or even the average math or physics PhD in terms of raw intellect. Posner, Scalie, et al couldn't hold a candle to many of the professional mathematicians or scientists I know in terms of "wowing" you with intellectual acuity.
Harlan II, too.
Really?
Cue Justice Souter:
"We can't have a single philosophy. The most dangerous thing in the world is to have a judicial philosophy. And the reason is there's no one philosophical system, at least in my experience, for the interpretation of statutes--and God knows, for the American Constitution--that is going to be able to work regardless of all circumstances."
Souter, a Bush 41 appointee whose middle-to-left leaning jurisprudence ultimately disappointed many conservatives, went on to chide those with absolutist views:
"Take the recently popular view (in my judgment a legitimate view subject to limitations) that the Constitution must be read with some reference to original meaning. As long as you don't engage in crude psychological fallacies about what you're getting at by original meaning, I think there is enormous value in that philosophy. But one has to be willing to admit there are circumstances, there are questions, for which there are simply no materials that would shed any light on original understanding. And if you committed your entire sense of legitimacy to the notion that the answer has got to come from this original understanding ... you will find some way to put (that philosophy) into practice, whether you have legitimate premises for it or not."
David Souter: insufficiently ideological to be a great justice!
I'd nominate Bush's entire administration and Obama as accidents of history. Bush himself wasn't that bad (he wasn't); what made him bad was his rigid ideology, bad fiscal policy, and his political hack appointments. As a whole, he just looked incompetent.
I'll also add Obama.
Janet Reno provides an instructive example. Clinton first proposed Zoe Baird, but the FBI "discovered" she had a "nanny tax" problem, something that the IRS had apparently overlooked, or preferred to file away for use at the right time. Then Clinton tried Kimba Wood, with the same result. Then he tried Janet Reno, and she "passed". But was that because she was clean? No. She had been the point person in the vote fraud that was perpetrated in the 1970 Florida congressional election (and presumably other elections), documented in Votescam, by James and Kenneth Collier, which, incidentally, also documents the key roles of Antonin Scalia and Ruth Bader Ginsburg at an earlier point in their careers.
So, the way things really work, barring some accident, no one gets to a position of power at any level of government in the United States unless the Establishment and their minions have something on them that can be used to control them. That isn't taught in college courses in government.
Souter was certainly smart, though he lacked the temperament and interpersonal skills. At least he wanted to get out of town.
The saddest part of the process is a talented justice such as Scalia would probably never get the job today. "We" (Congress and both parties) prefer mediocrity and soothing voice (If you listen to Justice Roberts talk outside of the courtroom he never says anything of interest or substance) over a talented Justice.
Yup, because truly smart people are never good at athletics. Never.
Except when fouling up the Presidential Oath of Office.
By which you mean what?
He didn't? How do you know this?
This has got to be the most content-free criticism of a Supreme Court Justice I've ever read. Even calling his haircut terrible would have more substance to it.
You need to stop watching "Numbers".
I'd suggest Jean Carnahan election to the senate as an accidental election. Mel Carnahan was elected to the Senate despite having died 3 weeks before election day (too late to remove his name from the ballot), leading to Jean Carnahan, his widow, being appointed senator in his place, as the governor had promised the voters he would do if Mel won the election. You could argue the voters were trying to choose Jean when they were actually voting for Mel, but to me this election is about as accidental as they get.
and in my opinion pizza and oral sex are over-rated.
Take that seriously.
In other words, David Souter is the Joe Montana of Supreme Court Justices? Works for me.
IMO about the only way to be elected to a position and be an accident of history is to be the beneficiary of wholly unexpected circumstances that hand you the election when you previously weren't a serious candidate. Tim Mahoney, running for Congress in FL in 2006, is a good example. So was Mike Flanagan, challenging Dan Rostenkowski in 1994.
Nick
It's pretty obvious you have an axe to grind against principled jurists who were appointed by Republicans but did not consistently vote along your preferred ideological lines. For shame. Souter's credentials beat yours by miles.
There was a public panic? I missed that.
Perhaps. But I'm still waiting for that "principled jurist" who does not vote along the "preferred ideological lines" of the Democrat who appoints him/her. Can you imagine in any universe a Democratic appointee to the SCOTUS who suddenly and unexpectedly votes to overturn Roe?
It's pretty much not an issue that a Democrat will be pro-choice, despite the so-called "big tent", but you never can tell about those evil Republicans, who although they may look a lot more alike than Democrats, sometimes have independent thoughts. (At which time the left will claim they have "grown" (groan).)
I was never nearly good enough to be a professional basketball player, but I did play high school ball and know something of the game. I don't think that my meager background in exactly the same circumstancs as Kobe Bryant would preclude me from making accurate criticisms of his game.
Heck, Keith Olbermann has zero direct knowledge of just about anything, but that hasn't stopped him from (often dishonestly) declaring a new rightwing bogeyman the "Worst Person in the World" every night, now has it? Nobody on his side of the aisle ever calls him on it either.
Don't kid yourself for an instant. Following the comments in this blog for just a short while can easily prove that the same people who sneered at Reagan 30 years ago sneer at him even more now. Left and right have totally different, and generally mutually exclusive, definitions of exactly what integrity and character are, let alone how much to value them.
But, since I have some common sense, in fact Justice O'Connor was the greatest justice on the court during her tenure. The only decision she made that I have any serious doubts about is Stenberg v. Carhart, and I can certainly understand her decision on that one given her position on the issue.
The Supreme Court needs more O'Connors and fewer Scalias.
Byron White
(appointed by Kennedy, dissented in Roe)
Also, when I read this post, I couldn't help but think of the scene from the movie Casin-o when Joe Pesci is narrating how the mob had to find a legitimate guy to stand in as the head of the casin-o they had bought and they got some guy ("who the f--- knows where they found this guy") with $100 to his name, or something along those lines.
It is by no means clear that JFK was himself pro-choice, regardless of the position his party has taken.
Byron White was a Rhodes Scholar as well.
2 of the last 14 Justices were appointed by Democrats. It jumps from Lyndon Johnson (Marshall and Fortas) to Bill Clinton (Ginsburg and Breyer). It's not exactly a huge data sample. Thee Democrat appointees decided Roe v. Wade, with Marshall and Douglas for and White against. Since then, only 2 Democrat appointees have even had the chance to decide the issue.
And honestly, could you imagine today a Republican appointee to SCOTUS that would vote to uphold Roe v. Wade? The times of Stevens, Souters, and Kennedys are over. The conservative legal movement knows what it's doing now.
I should have limited that to recent history. The Democratic party actually had "diversity" of thought and ideas back then. Nowadays "diversity" only means that any random group of people has to look like the bar scene in Star Wars, not that, heaven forbid, they should actually have different ideas.
There are lots of Republicans who are pro-choice, or at least not anti-abortion, pro-SSM, anti-Iraq war, pro-amnesty, etc. Where are such divisions from major tenets of leftist orthodoxy in the Democratic Party? But you tell us that the right, by trying to "purify" ourselves philosophically, we are limiting our appeal to the middle when in fact that is exactly what the Democrats have done over the last couple decades.
I suspect we'll find out in the next couple years about how much the moderates who decided the election think that furiously moving to the left is the "change" they voted for.
As noted, the sample size is pretty small.
Huh? How about all over the place? Ever hear of blue dog Democrats? Plenty of Democrats initially supported the Iraq war based on the Bush administration's assurances that there was an imminent threat (as did I). You might look to Democrats for Life America to find pro-life democrats, or perhaps to Democratic VP contender Tim Kaine. The Democrats still caucus with Joe Lieberman for goodness sake, who campaigned for McCain.
By this criteria, then former V.P. Quayle should not be on your list, but Pres. Obama should. Under your criteria, you looked at experience pre-national election or appointment to national office.
Quayle's pre-V.P. political career included defeating in 1976 the eight-term incumbent Democrat J. Edward Roush for election to the US House in the Indiana 4th District; reelection in 1978 by the greatest percentage margin ever achieved to that date in that district; election in 1980 at age 33 as Indiana's youngest US Senator by defeating defeating three-term incumbent Democrat Birch Bayh; reelection in 1986 with the largest margin ever achieved to that date by a candidate in a statewide Indiana race, although a number of other Republican US Senators elected in 1980 were defeated for reelection (so, he wasn't riding someone else's coattails).
However, in 1988, one of the questions posed by the press about Quayle was whether he had enough experience to be President. This question was raised repeatedly and in various ways throughout his time as V.P.
Contrast this with Pres. Obama -- an unremarkable (and virtually non-existant) record as a state Senator in Illinois, after being first elected by using legal challenges to disqualify all his opponents; being elected US Senator against Jack Ryan after scandals from Ryan's divorce were revealed when his divorce records were unsealed, forcing Ryan from the race, followed by a Republican candidate who wasn't even from Illinois; an unremarkable and short record as the junior US Senator from Illinois before election as President; his prior executive experience consisting of running the Chicago Annenberg Project, which spent $150 to $200 Million to achieve no meaningful results in terms of improving Chicago's public schools; association with a number of controversial persons including Rev. Wright and Prof. Ayers. However, in contrast to Quayle, of whom the press repeatedly questioned and criticized, the US press largely gave Obama a pass on his lack of experience and history, and his apparently inability to say a coherent sentence when he was not reading from a teleprompter.
Pres. Obama qualifies as an accident of history under your criteria. It is apparent that many members of the US news media undertook a deliberate and likely conscious effort to elect him President and avoided all questions as to his qualifications or stands on issues; his election occurred at a time when then-President Bush's poll numbers were so low as to only rival those of Congress; and during the campaign a huge financial crisis occurred and his opponent, Sen. McCain, managed to make himself look like a complete fool (by first "suspending" his campaign, promising to provide leadership, and then rolling over to support TARP -- thereby demonstrating neither leadership nor independence from Pres. Bush). An earlier "accident" of history was former Sen. Edwards being a major candidate in the Democrat Party caucuses in Iowa. Edwards' baby-daddy scandal wasn't picked up by the major US media until later -- only being the subject of investigation by the National Enquirer at that time. However, had Edwards not been a candidate, it is entirely possible that Sen. Clinton would have come in first in Iowa, and then-Sen. Obama would not have received the boost, national attention and funding that followed from his first place finish.
Accordingly, under your criteria, Pres. Obama should be listed as an accident of history, whereas former VP Quayle should not.
Whether Pres. Obama, as President, will prove to be a disaster, incompetent, competent or remarkable remains to be seen. However, your criteria for others allegedly was based on experience prior to election or appointment to a national office.
Souter is a pretty good justice. I would agree that he is somewhere in the middle of the justices.
Although i don't always agree with justice thomas, it's clear that one he is quite brillant, and two he writes his own opinions. his opinions are very ideosyncratic quite the opposite of justice, kennedy's and oconnors. Sure they are people who hate him, but there are those who love him. And when all is said and done,He will be remembered as one of the most revolutionary voices on the supreme court. of course whether there should be revolutionaries on the high court is another question.
Care to show us some proof of dishonesty? Not inaccuracy, but dishonesty?
I assume you've come to this conclusion by looking for liberal criticism of Olberman under the street light by your house. You can only get away with this sort of claim on a right wing site. It's like saying, "nobody on the right ever criticizes Bill O'Reilly." If you'd actually looked at some of the liberal sites where Olberman gets discussed you'd see he's about popular as Ann Coulter is here. Many love him, and many can't stand him. As a liberal in the latter category, I can tell you I have plenty of company in those arguments.
Pretty damning evidence from wfjag
I'm too young to remember much about Quale pre-1988, but it did strike me as odd that he made the top 3 in the OP, as I seemed to remember that he had a somewhat distinguished and notable legislative career before Bush I tapped him, even if he wasn't a preferred option for many. I guess the 'potatoe' gaffe, etc. has really hurt his legacy, even though, as pointed out in the OP, VPs really never do anything substantial anyway, nor are they really expected to.
And he's dead on about Obama. Has anyone ever coasted into the White House on such flimsy credentials and kid glove treatment from the media? If his Presidency is a failure (and I hope its not) the whole right place-right time-right smile manner in which he ascended to that high office will surely command a lot more scrutiny.
Byron White?
Fair question:
Letter republished in blog titled Brian Deer responds to Keith Olbermann, Feb. 11, 2009 on http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/
If you go to the blog and type "Olberman" in the search function, you'll find a lot more. Initially people thought that Olberman had been played a fool and attacked Deer because Olberman was merely showing his ass again by declaiming on a subject that he knew nothing about - something Olberman does with regularity. However, even after facts were shown to him, he continued.
I'm not sure if this is what you consider to be "dishonesty" -- some people limit that to knowingly telling falsehoods. My definition is a little broader, as I include repeating statements as fact when, but for willful ignorance, the speaker would know that the statements are not true, or certainly the facts are not as clear as the speaker claims.
From our translator-o-matic:
"I have a personal grudge against him that will sound petty if I say it out loud, so I'll just write something vague and hope no one notices I'm eliding past any criticism of substance."
Oops.
Dishonesty implies an intention to deceive. Your definition may qualify, but in this case "willful ignorance" assumes the conclusion.
I'm not sure I understand your point. In Olberman's attack on Brian Deer, the falsity of Olberman's statements was pointed out to him and evidence to which he had no rebuttal was also pointed out. Essentially what Olberman did was stick his fingers in his ears and say "NAH, NAH, NAH, I CAN'T HEAR YOU", and then repeat his attacks. That's what I meant by "willful ignorance."*
So, I don't think I assumed my conclusion. The evidence concerning Wakefield's misconduct is so strong that there's no room for disagreement about it having occurred. Olberman's assertions concerning Deer were also demonstrably false.
Accordingly, unlike most of his "Worst Person in the World", which are matters of opinion, the attack on Deer involved dishonesty. Olberman might not have realized the falsity of his assertions initially, but, only by willful ignorance did he fail to realize their falsity when he repeated them.
*Olberman is hardly the only pundit to do this, and it's not something seen only by progressives. Michael Savage is a master of the same technique. And, frankly, I don't pay attention to either one for this reason. Neither is worth the time to pay attention to, nor is either a credible source, nor is either worth the time or effort to argue about. Rather than getting mad about Olberman, ignore him. There's plenty of things to enjoy and you only have 24 hours in a day.
Are we to take it, then, by your own standard, that your consistent misspelling of his name is a case of you sticking your fingers in your ears and saying "NAH, NAH, NAH, I CAN'T HEAR YOU"? Is that what you mean by "willful ignorance"?
Or, as we say here in the Pacific Northwest, Don't pudge me, bro'.
"I'm not sure I understand your point."
Yeah, I think we get that.
"In Olberman's attack on Brian Deer, the falsity of Olberman's statements was pointed out to him and evidence to which he had no rebuttal was also pointed out."
Perhaps, but not in a relevant way.
* Such "evidence" was produced after the fact.
* It may have gotten to his staff, but there's nothing to indicate it got to Olbermann personally.
* The statements you cite are assertions themselves. At least as far as you've shown, this is a classic "He said, she said."
"Essentially what Olberman did was stick his fingers in his ears and say "NAH, NAH, NAH, I CAN'T HEAR YOU", and then repeat his attacks. That's what I meant by "willful ignorance."
This assumes both that Olbermann saw the statements you've presented, and that he's as persuaded by them to the same degree you are.
"So, I don't think I assumed my conclusion."
Again, that much is clear.
"The evidence concerning Wakefield's misconduct is so strong that there's no room for disagreement about it having occurred."
Which Olbermann didn't, at least not in the pieces you've pointed to.
"Olberman's assertions concerning Deer were also demonstrably false."
So says Deer. He would, wouldn't he?
"Olberman might not have realized the falsity of his assertions initially, but, only by willful ignorance did he fail to realize their falsity when he repeated them."
* "Repeated them"? When? You've only shown the "Worst Persons" clip, and nothing subsequent to that.
* And, again, it may just be that he and Mr. Deer have a sincere disagreement as to what constitutes a conflict of interest.
If Deer has persuaded you, mazeltov. But you'd have to show that Deer also persuaded Olbermann, and that Olbermann then went ahead anyway. At least in what I've seen, you haven't done that. You just lashed out with a rhetorical allegation of lying because someone disagrees with you.
There's a writer in the PNW who goes by "pudge" who frequently does the same thing. Hence, like Mr. Boycott, he's become a verb.
You might do better not looking to RFK, Jr. articles on Salon, or HuffPo blogs or Jenny McCarthy appearances on Oprah, or Olbermann, as sources of information -- as that appears to be the level of your argument in terms of factual understanding and support. I commend the IOM report as a place to begin -- assuming you're looking for facts and scientific analysis. You also might enjoy either the Omnibus Vaccine Trial transcripts, or any of the good summaries of the testimony. And, for something short, try Omer, et al., Vaccine Refusal, Mandatory Immunization, and the Risks of Vaccine-Preventable Diseases, Vol. 360, No. 19, New England Journal of Medicine 1981-1988 (May 7, 2009) (available online) and Why Does the Vaccine/Autism Controversy Live On? , by Chris Mooney, Discover (Magazine) (June 2009) (available online May 6, 2009).
I did not "lashed out with a rhetorical allegation of lying because someone disagrees with you". Rather, Leo, asked for an example of when Olbermann had lied -- which I provided, and a brief explanation of why I thought he'd engaged in willful ignorance while continuing to repeat his false allegations. And, while I suspect you won't believe it because you apparently don't believe facts that contradict your opinions -- I have considerable evidence on which I've reached my opinion that Wakefield's assertions were bogus -- and likely fraudulent -- and Olbermann's attacks on Deer can be considered to be an example of lying.
It isn't that Brian Deer convinced me. His articles are only a few of a large body of consistent evidence and research results. You might try reading some of it before you accuse others of lashing out without basis.
Anyway.
wfjag:
You're accusing Mr. Olbermann of "willful ignorance" and "lying." Those are very specific terms, and they both involve having knowledge of the intent of the person accused.
I submit you have no such knowledge of Mr. Olbermann's intent, nor what he does or does not know. Certainly nothing you've demonstrated. Lacking such knowledge, it is not possible for you to know if Mr. Olbermann's ignorance is "willful," nor is it possible for you to know if he's lying.
When it comes to your subject matter, I just don't care. I'm almost a perfect observer -- not just disinterested, but uninterested.
"Leo asked for an example of when Olbermann had lied -- which I provided, and a brief explanation of why I thought he'd engaged in willful ignorance while continuing to repeat his false allegations. And, while I suspect you won't believe it because you apparently don't believe facts that contradict your opinions -- I have considerable evidence on which I've reached my opinion that Wakefield's assertions were bogus -- and likely fraudulent -- and Olbermann's attacks on Deer can be considered to be an example of lying. "
It's funny -- in both senses -- that you would mention someone not believing facts that contradict one's opinions. Because, as far as I can tell, that's the crux of the matter -- you don't believe that English words are defined the way they are, and you wish to use them in your own idiosyncratic way, regardless of your failing to meet the necessary factual basis to use them accurately.
I encourage you to google the term, "projection."
If you have a comment about spelling, typos, or format errors, please e-mail the poster directly rather than posting a comment.
Comment Policy: We reserve the right to edit or delete comments, and in extreme cases to ban commenters, at our discretion. Comments must be relevant and civil (and, especially, free of name-calling). We think of comment threads like dinner parties at our homes. If you make the party unpleasant for us or for others, we'd rather you went elsewhere. We're happy to see a wide range of viewpoints, but we want all of them to be expressed as politely as possible.
We realize that such a comment policy can never be evenly enforced, because we can't possibly monitor every comment equally well. Hundreds of comments are posted every day here, and we don't read them all. Those we read, we read with different degrees of attention, and in different moods. We try to be fair, but we make no promises.
And remember, it's a big Internet. If you think we were mistaken in removing your post (or, in extreme cases, in removing you) -- or if you prefer a more free-for-all approach -- there are surely plenty of ways you can still get your views out.