The World According To Jimmy Carter

I know, but you won't get them, you won't get an admission that you won't get them, you won't get an admission that not reading the book weakens her argument, you won't get an admission that those who are affiliated with pro-Jewish organizations are biased, nothing. Just more frustration.

It is possible that their conclusion of what the omissions in his book mean come from bias, but too many others, i.e. Nancy Pelosi and some other key Democrats whom I don't think are Jewish, have come to the same conclusions as the reviewers. Does anybody want to label them as biased?

FD, I don't know whether the reviewers are biased as I can't look into their hearts any more than I can look into Jimmy Carters. My opinion is based on the review itself and I cannot fault the reviews which point out obvious errors and/or omissions in the book.

So if I posted a review from organizations related to the PLO, you wouldn't think those were biased.

I think if you wish to criticize the reviewers, pick one of those criticisms and dispute it if you can. I couldn't.

The definition that I used is the one that was drilled into my head in Journalism school and I presume might still be taught somewhere.

Foxfyre wrote:

It is possible that their conclusion of what the omissions in his book mean come from bias, but too many others, i.e. Nancy Pelosi and some other key Democrats whom I don't think are Jewish, have come to the same conclusions as the reviewers. Does anybody want to label them as biased?

Sure, why not? Did Nancy spout off before reading the book? If so, I think that shows bias.

Quote:

FD, I don't know whether the reviewers are biased as I can't look into their hearts any more than I can look into Jimmy Carters. My opinion is based on the review itself and I cannot fault the reviews which point out obvious errors and/or omissions in the book.

Show me, from the reviews, the "obvious errors". They all talk about omissions, mostly omissions that they would like to see so that the book wouldn't make Israel look bad. But I don't recall seeing "obvious errors" cited.

• He (Carter) claims that in 1967 Israel launched a preemptive attack against Jordan. The fact is that Jordan attacked Israel first, Israel tried desperately to persuade Jordan to remain out of the war, and Israel counterattacked after the Jordanian army surrounded Jerusalem, firing missiles into the center of the city. Only then did Israel capture the West Bank, which it was willing to return in exchange for peace and recognition from Jordan.

And I will ask you again:

FreeDuck wrote:

So if I posted a review from organizations related to the PLO, you wouldn't think those were biased.

Foxfyre wrote:

I think if you wish to criticize the reviewers, pick one of those criticisms and dispute it if you can. I couldn't.

How can I dispute what is clearly subjective opinion? And you say you can't dispute it, presumable because you haven't read the book, so how can you agree with it?

Quote:

The definition that I used is the one that was drilled into my head in Journalism school and I presume might still be taught somewhere.

That's nice, but I think the dictionary trumps what's in your head. That's the definition I'm using when I say those reviews are clearly biased

Are Jews automatically labeled biased because they're Jews? Is Nancy Pelosi automatically biased because she agrees with the reviewers?

Give me an example of some way somebody could criticize Jimmy Carter that you would not think biased. Make something up if you can't find anything.

Here's one Dershowitz cited:

Quote:

• He (Carter) claims that in 1967 Israel launched a preemptive attack against Jordan. The fact is that Jordan attacked Israel first, Israel tried desperately to persuade Jordan to remain out of the war, and Israel counterattacked after the Jordanian army surrounded Jerusalem, firing missiles into the center of the city. Only then did Israel capture the West Bank, which it was willing to return in exchange for peace and recognition from Jordan.

Of course if you had read the article without bias, you would have seen it.

FreeDuck wrote:

So if I posted a review from organizations related to the PLO, you wouldn't think those were biased.

It would depend entirely on what they said.

If they provide an accurate account of an event and draw a reasonable conclusion, it would be difficult to show how such conclusion arose out of bias.

If I wrote an article saying that Freeduck takes money out of the church offering every Sunday, which would be accurate, and failed to mention that it was for the purpose of writing up the deposit, would you not consider my account to be not just biased to create a negative impression of you, but also dishonest?

If I reported that Freeduck knocked down a little old lady on purpose and failed to mention that the little old lady was about to shoot somebody or you were pushing her out of the way of an oncoming bus, wouldn't you think my report dishonest and that I was intentionally trying to make you look bad?

This is the kind of thing the reviewers are accusing Carter of. And after all these months of seeing both sides of the issue, and from the excerpts I've read, I can't say they're wrong in their assessment.

Quote:

Quote:

The definition that I used is the one that was drilled into my head in Journalism school and I presume might still be taught somewhere.

That's nice, but I think the dictionary trumps what's in your head. That's the definition I'm using when I say those reviews are clearly biased

And I think your choice of definition to be entirely biased as the Merriam Webster dictionary definition I provided (and you conveniently? omitted) agreed with my definition.

Bias suggests misrepresentation or intentional slant to create an inaccurate impression, such misrepresentation which is based on ones prejudices or ideology.

Here's the abridged Merriam Webster definition which correlates with it:
BIAS: 3) TENDENCY b : an inclination of temperament or outlook ; especially : a personal and sometimes unreasoned judgment : PREJUDICE c : an instance of such prejudice d (1) : deviation of the expected value of a statistical estimate from the quantity it estimates (2) : systematic error introduced into sampling or testing by selecting or encouraging one outcome or answer over others

Israelis are human too. And they deserve to be fairly represented.

But since nobody who is pro-Israel or anybody who has not read the whole book is apparently entitled to an opinion about anything in it no matter how many excerpts are put out there, and no discussion of the context is going to happen, I will leave it with you guys.

Ya'll have a good night.

Freeduck, you continue to impress me as the kind of rational voice we need just at this time in history.

I hope I don't embarrass you by saying this.

Joe(Tis only true, nothing more)Nation