’)Sorry guys, but press briefing “highlights” don’t fly. While appealing from an aesthetic POV, the White House web site has been a clunker in the one department it can’t be: information. That means full transcripts of press briefings (and video), full text of presidential speeches, proclamations, etc. Its one of the few things the Bushies got right, and considering the resources afforded to the White House it isn’t acceptable for this kind of slacking.
Today marks one week of the Obama presidency, time to get on the stick.
Some of it isn’t their fault.
http://www.wired.com/politics/onlinerights/magazine/17-02/ff_obama?currentPage=1
Instapundit had a pretty good speculation on this one:
The obvious explanation: Bush wanted transcripts online because he expected the press to filter what he said. Obama doesn’t want transcripts online . . . because he expects the press to filter what he says.
Can’t attest to the accuracy, but it follows Occam’s Razor…
J.
it follows Occam’s Razor…
What, that if Instapundit says it, it’s crap?
Heh. Indeed.
Can’t attest to the accuracy, but Insty–and Mr. Tea–will type it up anyway!
I wish I had come up with this dead-on perfect line, but I didn’t:
“George W. Bush posted full press transcripts on the White House website because he expected the media to filter his comments.
“Barack Obama does not post full press trascripts on the White House website because he expects the media to filter his comments.”
Jay Tea, I doubt you even know what Occam’s Razor is. You idiot.
Both would be best. Highlights for the drive-by readers, full text for the in-depth people. Use SI.com as a model – brief highlights at the top, full text below.
mambo, I use it all the time — mainly to debunk conspiracy theories like the 9/11 trooothers and the “Obama’s a crypto-Muslim” nuts and the “Trig Palin is Sarah Palin’s grandson” assholes.
Indeed, between Occam’s Razor (or, if you’re a classicist, Ockham’s Razor), Napoleon’s “Never ascribe to malice that which can adequately be explained by incompetence,” and Heinlein’s TANSTAAFL, a lot of bullshit can be waded through with great ease.
I collect aphorisms, Mambo. It’s a hobby. Occam’s Razor is one of the better ones — especially if you remember that it does not definitively declare the simplest solution is the correct one, but merely the most likely.
J.
mambochicken thinks nobody around here saw Contact.
And nice to see Duros recognize that regulations often bring about unintended consequences in suprising and frustrating ways. Here’s hoping he applies that new knowledge to other issues.
nice to see Duros recognize that regulations often bring about unintended consequences
Well, either that, or he’s saying that some regulations written in the 70s don’t work well the the Interweb.
But if you’re into mind-reading, don’t let me discourage you.
Indeed, between Occam’s Razor (or, if you’re a classicist, Ockham’s Razor), Napoleon’s “Never ascribe to malice that which can adequately be explained by incompetence,” and Heinlein’s TANSTAAFL, a lot of bullshit can be waded through with great ease.
Which brings up an interesting conundrum: Does Sturgeon’s Law apply to aphorisms?
And now, Jay Tea, all you have to do is explain how the Instapundit hypothesis re: transcripts actually is the simplest explanation.
SaveFarris: mambochicken thinks nobody around here saw Contact.
Save Farris thinks the only place to get info is in movies.
Well, either that, or he’s saying that some regulations written in the 70s don’t work well the the Interweb.
Ya. That.
Does Sturgeon’s Law apply to aphorisms?
It certainly applies to Glenn Reynolds.
And now, Jay Tea, all you have to do is explain how the Instapundit hypothesis re: transcripts actually is the simplest explanation.
Oh come on, Mambo.
It should be obvious that entrenched liberal bias in the media, if not out right collusion between the liberal media and the Obama administration, is the explanation that relies on the least amount of assumptions for its proof.
Plus, Jay Tea “uses it all the time.” What better evidence is there than frequent use to prove that Jay Tea understands what it means?
>>Does Sturgeon’s Law apply to aphorisms?
>It certainly applies to Glenn Reynolds.
I think you give Reynolds more credit than he deserves.
I prefer Laurence Simon’s take on Sturgeon’s Law, myself.
“Sturgeon’s Law says that 90% of everything is crap, but why settle for just 90%?”
And I’ll admit that the explanation Reynolds offers is probably not the simplest, but it is the most elegant…
J.
And I’ll admit that the explanation Reynolds offers is probably not the simplest, but it is the most elegant…
Okay, Jay Tea. If you admit that isn’t the simplest, it doesn’t exactly “follow Occam’s Razor…” as you wrote above.
Can you maintain any kind of consistency?
And dear god, elegant? That explains a lot.
I would like to point out Sturgeon’s Law is not, “90% of everything is crap.”
Sturgeon’s Law is, “Nothing is always absolutely so.”
Sturgeon’s Revelation is, “90% of everything is crap.”
Of course, this is just further ammunition for others to show I’m anal, but I wear that label with pride.
Then Sturgeon’s Revelation applies to Glenn Reynolds, that’s what I meant.