Asymmetrical Information

The errors you call "minor," I would call "basic."

As I commented at James's site, I'd be happy to be pointed in the direction of evidence that Rice is bright. From where I sit (on the "Left," certainly), I see that she's done a terrible job as NSA, she's a clumsy interviewee, and now this, which only confirms my prior bias.

(And I'm sure your aunt was smart.)

Ogged, you're saying that Condi made basic errors in her diss, which Jane's Aunt Cathy supervised.

You also say you're sure Aunt Cathy was smart.

Even thought she signed, as supervisor, a dissertation with "basic errors".

I'm amazed you can hold both opinions simultaneously without your head exploding.

It's hard to take anyone who thinks "Rice is a moron" seriously about, well, anything.

On the subject of basic errors and the resulting impact they have on one's crediblity, here's Laurie Mylroie on Richard Clarke on National http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/mylroie200404050847.asp Review Online:

"Clarke's book is riddled with errors. Libya bombed Pan Am 103 in 1988, during the Reagan administration, not in 1989 under Bush 41, as Clarke claims; El Sayyid Nosair murdered Meir Kahane in 1990, not 1992; the Khobar bombing was after April 1996 (in June), not before. The 1982 U.S. intervention in Lebanon was not prompted by events related to Iran: Israel had invaded Lebanon to expel the PLO, and the U.S. then intervened to oversee the PLO's evacuation to Tunisia and otherwise to help establish a new government in Beirut....To bolster his claim after 9/11 that he had vigorously pursued the possibility of Iraq's involvement in the first attack on the Trade Center, Clarke wrote a memo stating that '[W]hen the bombing happened,' he 'focused on Iraq as the possible culprit because of Iraqi involvement in the attempted assassination of President Bush in Kuwait in the same month.' But as Wolfowitz noted during the 9/11 Commission hearings, Iraq's attempted assassination of Bush was two months after the Trade Center bombing."

Sauce for the goose, etc.

Mr Joyner has since posted a portion of Ms Rice's bio, which includes her starting colllege at the age of 15...

I've got a pretty good idea of who the moron is...

There's also a hilarious posting on Mr Joyner's site from "Kate". Is that "our" Kate?

At a certain point, people are just going to choose to believe someone who criticizes her rather than her. It is legitimate to enquire, when the choice is defended as being "obvious" and other intelligent people have made different choices, whether there were other reasons for the choice.

The absence of known mitigations to the review, including Rice's record, the known difficulty of differentiating between propaganda and facts (the same accusation could be made against most researchers of Eastern Europe -- and, incidentally, most researchers of the Middle East).

Let's pause a moment and try for a balanced perspective, instead of leaping for "moron" (those who make it know it is untrue) and "infallible genius" (which no one has accused her of, but most of those who call her a moron are assuming she is thought of as).

The threat of a Moron Jacket may actually be a left-handed compliment (pun unintended, but convenient). It often materializes whenever someone on the right is considered politically formidable.

So, Ogg, what has Rice done as NSA that's so "terrible"? Specifically?

Other, that is, than not suggest the line of action you prefer?

Two z's in "Condoleezza", please. It's a small thing, but, as somebody whose surname is misspelled more often than not, I know that it can be bothersome.

>>Where did I go wrong? You may be asking. It's the family scandal, I'm afraid.

I'm confident that you'll stop drinking the kool-aid, come to your senses, and see the Rovian thugs for what they are: serial liars.

Condoleezza may be a Soviet military expert, but that didn't help one bit on 9/11.

Glad you asked, Sigivald. I've posted an UPDATE FOR THE DEFENDERS to the original post that I hope will answer your question.

If Rice were ever to pull a Richard Clarke and start criticizing Bush, Kevin Drum would start talking about how brilliant and competent she is. At the same time Kevin's counterparts on the right would start poking holes in her reputation. Those of us who are moderates should realize this and make the appropriate adjustments.

I used to like Drum, but similar to his hero Krugman he started wearing his political affiliation on his sleeve and now it colors everything he writes. Calpundit's become nothing more than the Democratic Party talking points. I think the last straw for me was his ridiculous "forensic journalism" on the Bush AWOL story. I have no brief for Bush but Kevin's "investigation" was partisan hack-work from start to finish.

Well, at least the Friday catblogging was good.

Agree on Drum. He was speaking about some issues I know about personally, in great detail, and he got it so very wrong -- and persisted in his stance well after evidence was presented to him -- that I too lost all respect for him.

Partisan hack.

I used to like Drum, but similar to his hero Krugman he started wearing his political affiliation on his sleeve and now it colors everything he writes. Calpundit's become nothing more than the Democratic Party talking points.

Was there ever a time when that wasn't the case at Calpundit?

I am interested in why so many resort to calling those who disagree with them dumb, stupid, or morons. This seems to be more than just a rhetorical attack -- it seems those who claim Bush is too dumb be president really believe the man very little going on in between his ears. Now they are taking the same line of attack on Dr. Rice. (!?) Again, it seems they really believe it's obvious she just isn't bright enough for her job.

Is the explanation simply that they are so sure of their own reasoning that they are also sure it is unreasonable to disagree with them? Disagreement, from their point of view, is proof of intentional dishonesty, an inability to grasp the facts (stupidity), or both.

Condie Rocks!

click here for a photoshop special

JayH

"There's also a hilarious posting on Mr Joyner's site from "Kate". Is that "our" Kate?"

No, I have never been to Mr. Joyner's site, nor do I think Dr. Rice is anything but a brilliant.

By the way, when did I become an object to be owned ;-P

...But that Kate was right!!!!!

Darn, I should have taken credit for it.

I am interested in why so many resort to calling those who disagree with them dumb, stupid, or morons.

Not quite right. I don't think Dick Cheney, or Don Rumsfeld, or Paul Wolfowitz, or Scooter Libby, or Karen Hughes, or Karl Rove, or any of several other officials with whom I disagree, are morons. They're smart.

I do however "really believe" that George Bush is stupid. And I've come to believe, based on her performance as NSA, and what I've read in the press, that Condoleezza Rice is incompetent. Do I think she's a "moron" in the same sense as George Bush, such that I wouldn't even hire her to manage a Burger King? No. But, relative to her job, which is one of the most important and demanding jobs in the world right now, yes, I think she's a moron.

So you wouldn't hire GWB to manage a Burger King, huh? You know, you shouldn't resort to such hyperbole (well, at least what most folks would consider hyperbole) as it does nothing for your argument. There are basic flaws with anyone arguing that a person who has risen to any position of responsibility or authority such as Bush or Rice is a "moron". You may not like them, you may in fact hate them for whatever reason. But no one, even spoiled oil brats, will rise to such an office as NSA without possessing abilities and intelligence that are well above average. Like one of the comments stated earlier, doing things you don't agree with does not make someone a moron.

I saw nothing in the quoted sections that would persuade me of Drum's or Ogged's opinions. Specific infractions were:

1. Not identifying an alleged communist agent as such, but there's no support that the omission was relevant or that changes in any way whatever point was supported by the cite. Nor does it tell us how important this was to the whole.

2. She refers to "Czeckoslovaks" rather than Czecks and Slovaks separately, but there's no indication that she meant anything beyond residents of the country as opposed to the ethnic groups.

3. There a qustion about the date of some particular military formation. Again, is this particularly relevant?

I read the review itself and found no context provided for any of the criticisms. I suspect that had the errors directly impacted the conclusions that fact would be noted and supported since it would be particulary devastating. Without these items the review comes of as the ramblings of a self-important history nitpicker.

This "review" only impresses those who already believe the accusation.

Kate-

We come from pretty much opposite ends of the political spectrum, but you are always classy and have a wicked sense of humor, so that's why I thought that it could be you. :-)

I learned a long time ago that women cannot be owned, much less trained. :-P

That's why I put "our" in quotes...

Thorley,

The early Calpundit was good stuff. Drum leaned Democrat but he didn't approach issues from a party-line perspective; he examined each issue on what he believed were the merits and frequently reached conclusions that were different than the Dems.

I think his approach shifted around a year ago when we didn't find any WMD in Iraq. Drum bit hard on the "Bush lied" meme (hell, he swallowed it whole) and his every effort since then seems to be aimed at getting Bush out of office. So now he all he does is parrot the Dem talking points. It's a shame, the blogosphere lost a real original thinker who tried to stay clear of partisanship.

Maybe he'll return to his old independent-thinking ways after the election is over but I don't have a lot of hope.

It would be interesting to watch Ogged try to debate Dr. Rice.

I would pay to see Ogged's comeuppance.

Morons don't become provost of Stanford University at the age of 39, you damn fool.

Be Seeing You,

Chris

Everyone forgets Bush has an MBA. From Harvard. Harvard deals with the children of the powerful and famous; the fact that his dad was an ambassador wouldn't have gotten him through the program, the most rigorous mba program in the world.

He ain't stupid. End of story.

I haven't (and won't) read the review -- this is specialty stuff for arguments between specialists. Are Ogged or Kevin Drum specialists in Central European history?

I'm a medievalist. I get via a listserve regularly-delivered book reviews written by medievalists for medievalists. These are not peer reviewed; book reviews almost never are -- they're peer-assigned but not reviewed by the same standards, as, say, books. Book reviews are, at best, reviewed by the editors of the journal (not peer-specialists).

Twice this calendar year the listserve has circulated responses as long as the original reviews which boil down to "he's reviewing the book HE'S writing on the subject, not the book I WROTE."

This is the most common response to negative book reviews in academe, and it's true far more often than not.

Most books that get through an academic press's editors are at least adequate (which doesn't mean they're interesting -- I'd rather die than read about Soviet military affairs). Most book reviews are spell-checked. Most. I've read a few that didn't convince me they had been through that filter.

So, a native of Czechoslovakia reviewing a book by an American on his own special field is certainly worth reading -- but not worth taking at his simple, unreviewed word. Unless, of course, he's reinforcing the reader's prejudices.

Now that Kevin blogs under the Washington Monthly umbrella, it is more unlikely that he will deviate much from the Democratic Party Line, which means he probably won't be as much fun to read. A shame, but that is often the nature of success; it tends to encourage a safe approach, and discourage risk-taking.

Regarding Drum:

Didn't Cindy Lauper sing a song about how money changes everything? In fact, I think the chorus is:

Money
Money changes everything.

As someone who has worked shoulder-to-shoulder with Harvard MBA's for 5 years, and who has an MBA himself from a top-three program, let me tell you people who claim that Bush is gifted because of his degree, that I respectfully disagree. There are as many idiots in most any MBA program as there are in the general population. As in any sample, there are the people who probably aren't there on merit, and there are people who are heads and shoulders above the rest of their class. Why not ask someone how many people ever enrolled in a Harvard MBA have *not* received their degree. I'd suggest that if it isn't zero (over the entire history of the MBA program), it's remarkably close.
I'm not suggesting into which group (if not the average middle) that POTUS fell, but just because he graduated Harvard with an MBA by no means implies anything at all about his intellect. Harvard would suffer greatly if after admitting the offspring of a very wealthy and politically connected family, they did not graduate that offspring. The university depends heavily on its alumni for support.

My two cents.

"She refers to "Czeckoslovaks" rather than Czecks and Slovaks separately, but there's no indication that she meant anything beyond residents of the country as opposed to the ethnic groups."

Considering that there was only one country -- Czechoslovakia -- at the time she wrote it, that seems a minor, minor sin. Not as bad as, say, referring to the Soviet Union in the present tense in 2004.

Oh, I get it.
The party that can't put a hole in a ballot by the proper name is now telling us that Condi Rice is stupid.

Rice's IQ is irrelevant. Rumsfeld is clearly an intelligent man, but that hasn't kept him from doing an awful job as Secretary of Defense. Rice has performed just as poorly in carrying out her duties. Both should have lost their jobs long ago, as should their spectacularly incompetent boss.

Ogged,

To be blunt... you seem like a moron. Certainly with regards to your perspective of Rice. However, I must admit I am not sure if you are a complete moron, but keep posting and I may be able to reach a conclusion. I will try to keep and open mind about it.

A guy in my office had Rice as a professor at Stanford in the '80s. My colleague leans liberal, definitely votes Democrat and has at least one foot in the "Bush is a chimp-faced moron camp". A few weeks back I asked him, half-jokingly, what he would think if Rice ran for president at some point. He turned really serious and said something like, "I would vote for her in a second. She was one of the smartest people I ever encountered at school. She had a way of explaining things so clearly and lucidly." That's a rough paraphrase, but I was really struck by how deeply Rice had impressed this fellow. It's just one anecdote, so take it for what it's worth.

Twain weighed in on this very topic.

Hmmmm. . .

Democrats on Ike in the fifties: "He's an idiot."

Democrats on Reagan from the mid-sixties on: "He's an idiot."

Democrats on GWB from early 2000 on: "He's an idiot."

Newly emergent talking point from Democrats annoyed at Condi for the ass-kicking she gave to the hacks on the 9/11 commission: "She's an idiot."

* Scott wanders off to find a bookie to place a bet on the 2008 Presidental Election outcome while the odds are still decent *

Ogged states, and with a high degree of certainty:

I do however "really believe" that George Bush is stupid.

Well, he was smart enough to convince 50,456,002 citizens to vote for him. Or, er, maybe it wasn't so much that he was smart but that 47.87% of voters were stupid. Gosh, which one is it? Decisions, decisions...

If Ogged can feel free to speculate about the intelligence, relative or absolute, of another human being, I suppose I can be indulged a little speculation about Ogged's intelligence.

If Ogged believes that his "Bush is stupid" argument will convince any fencesitters that Bush should be thrown from office, I think it would be fair to question his/her intelligence. However, I don't think Ogged is trying to convince anybody of anything. Ogged is merely engaging in narcissistic mental masturbation, where he/she cleverly formulates his/her statement so as to simultaneously shut down meaningful debate -- meaning he/she does not have to have meaningful interaction -- while getting the sweet, sweet thrill of reaction on which he/she depends to reach climax.

Therefore, the question here should not be about Ogged's intelligence but how to get him/her the help he/she so obviously needs to over that nasty narcissism problem.

/sarcasm

Well, yesterday she pretty clearly demonstrated she was smarter than Bob Kerrey.

I haven't looked at Kevin Drum's blog, did he notice a rather glaring error on the part of the reviewer:

"much of this book by Condoleezza Rice is based on secondary works. His thesis"

Which is repeated throughout the review. And what is this supposed to mean:

" history shows that Czechs resisted the invading Prussians in 1866, Russia, France and Italy."

I hate to say something reasonable and miss out on more free psychoanalysis, but a few more anecdotes like Scott's, about Rice's former student, and I'd happily revise my opinion from "moron" to "incompetent."

But don't pretend to believe what you don't: that a degree or government position is a sign of intelligence. I'm sure no one in this thread has ever thought that a government official was stupid. And none of the academics here ever thought a colleague or administrator was a complete moron, right? And certainly no one here has ever read a book, and wondered, "how did this ever get published?"

The Dems would sound a whole lot less, er, stupid, if their take on this was "Rice is a brilliant person who is careless about fact-checking." I don't know anywhere near enough about Czech history to tell whether that is true or not - but "Rice is a moron" is so obviously untrue as to make me wonder if the person uttering it is delusional rather than just a liar. Intelligent liars stick to things that people might believe...

Of course, being too lazy to check your facts and think things all the way through can be quite as disastrous as stupidity - but it's harder to put that accusation into a sound bite. The Dems could prove that Bush was a shiftless good-for-nothing for his first 40 years and imply that maybe he still was, but it might cancel out all their efforts to cultivate the shiftless good-for-nothing vote by wailing about medical insurance, welfare, and jobs.

But don't pretend to believe what you don't: that a degree or government position is a sign of intelligence. I'm sure no one in this thread has ever thought that a government official was stupid. And none of the academics here ever thought a colleague or administrator was a complete moron, right? And certainly no one here has ever read a book, and wondered, "how did this ever get published?"

Non-responsive. While I'm sure most anybody posting here could dredge up examples of bureaucratic or political stupidity, incompetence and downright mendacity, the specific issue some of us are addressing is about *your* characterization of the intelligence/competence of Bush and Rice. My response to your position was amused sarcasm, other responses were even less measured than mine while others more, but none were answered in your response.

"I'm sure no one in this thread has ever thought that a government official was stupid."

Well, when Richard Clarke admitted that he had believed that Condi Rice had never heard of Al-Queda, and that he had then informed her--his new boss--of that fact in Sesame Street detail, my first reaction was "This guy is an idiot." Of course, it's obvious that the idiocy in question was of the "this guy is an arrogant gasbag" variety rather than the "this guy should take the short bus to work and not be allowed to use pointy utensils" type. You've argued--and continue to argue--that Rice lacks the intellect for the NSA position, which does indeed make you look like an idiot. Whether this is idiocy born of the routine arrogant liberal disbelief that anyone of intelligence could be working for the Republicans, or from genuine subpar grey matter is something I lack sufficient information to determine.

Aunt Jane is smart and no one is saying otherwise.

The book was written in 1984? Was Big Brother watching?

Condi's book is nearly as old as John Kerry's post-Vietnam war rhetoric, surely she can't be held accountable for something she said so far in her past!

I hate to say something reasonable and miss out on more free psychoanalysis, but a few more anecdotes like Scott's, about Rice's former student, and I'd happily revise my opinion from "moron" to "incompetent."

Fortuitously, the actions of Bush, Rice, et al will ultimately be judged in the lens of hindsight, which will have the advantage of knowing the long-term outcomes in addition to the present destress, and not by the atrocities against logical reasoning that are perepetrated when the partisans get restless.

My conclusion is that Ogged is not a moron. He knows exactly what he is doing. He is just being mean spirited to try and promote a position that is lacking substance.

ok, from what i've seen on the right, we calumnise serious dems/leftists as having bad intentions (peace protesters) or having incorrectly judged the best way to achieve their aim (liberal economic policy to help the poor). The only people that I can remember being called stupid or idiots are typically hippies/ anti-globalisation protesters.

Also, most people in the administration are viewed as both incomprehenisbly stupid and evil geniuses. Most conservative commentary I've seen calls republican administrators incompetent when they roll over for the left and is simply opposed to dem administrators. We generally want incompetents in dem administrations, as they'll screw up less!!!

Also, incompetent doesn't mean not doing what you would prefer. Alienating the french and harrassing the germans is rumsfeld's strategy (and where most conservatives want to be). You might not like that, and want policy changed, but it's not incompetence, its being straight with people we dislike and have reason to believe are not our allies and are free riders.

The responsible mainstream right, afaik, acknowledges that leftists can be intelligent and have talent, they're just out to destroy western civilisation. The left has to throw all sorts of ad-hominems in to. So useless... but hopefully they keep misunderestimating to 15 senators!

When Rice was provost at Stanford, she met with the editorial board of the San Jose Mercury News for a long lunch. I was then a columnist and edit writer. We talked about arms control, the long-term effects of the collapse of the Soviet Union, the politics of national security, university governance, affirmative action, football and a variety of other topics. When she left, we all agreed that she was the smartest person we'd ever talked to. (The Merc's board is and was fairly liberal.) We were just blown away.

Smart people can make mistakes, of course. Remember McNamara's "whiz kids?"

Most of what I've heard and read regarding Ms. Rice indicates that she is quite a well-respected academic, especially in the Soviet area.

Researching distant topics can be quite difficult, especially when you have to rely on translations of obscure languages, and less-than ideal access to documents (not to mention the difficult task of trying to figure out which official documents are accurate, and which are bald-faced lies. This is especially true when dealing with the Soviets and their satellites.) Unfortunately, inaccuracies can slip in, even if the author is not a moron.

Considering that Kavolda can't get Ms. Rice's gender right, I'm not sure that he should be regarded as the ultimate authority on the matter anyway. Even if he didn't make this minor mistake, it's entirely possible that he's misread some of the evidence too. It happens, unfortunately.

The Journal of Historical Review should surely not be considered as an academic journal. Published by the Institute of Historical Review (http://www.ihr.org) its purpose is to promote a most dubious revisionist view of the holocaust.

It should not be confused with the very respectable Institute of Historical Reseach at the University of London. (http://www.history.ac.uk/)

Comments are Closed.