User:Vfp15/Tab2

Charles Darwin, Abraham Lincoln, Milgram, and Stanford
What could all the above people possibly have in common? Darwin and Lincoln sharing a birthday sparked The Great Wiki Edit War of Christmas 2004, in which I was (actually still am as of this writing) a participant; and to me this war showed what happens to people when given authority, somewhat like the infamous Milford and Standford prison experiments.

The war raged on over a triviality: should the fact that Lincoln and Darwin were born on the same day (12 February 1809) remain in the article? The fact was included in the article for four months when someone decided it was irrelevant and removed it. I argued it should stay because it was factual and interesting. The arguments from both sides (with my side in a clear minority) totalled 11,500 words. Both sides lost their tempers, and this is where Milford and Standford come in.

The Milford and Standford prison experiments hinted at conclusions about how easily people abandon civility and basic human goodness when given authority, which they are only too ready to abuse. I experienced something of the sort during the edit war. The Darwin article was appropriated by a few people who would not tolerate deviation from their view, who then tried to shout me down into submission to this view. They often used heavy sarcasm, insults, and ridicule, and shouting (all caps comments). I succumbed to a bit of light sarcasm, and one instance each of heavy sarcasm and name-calling. On the other hand I was called a mad-man, selfish, idiotic, irrelevant, a vandal, and I had my account suspended for 24 hours even though I was keeping to the three-revert rule. (A mediator agreed this was improper and unblocked me.)

Perhaps the most interesting characteristic of this edit war was that all the participants would probably consider themselves on the same side when it comes to arguing for Darwin and for Evolution. I might be wrong, but I believe we are all evolutionists, we all accept the scientific method, we are all fighting the false premises of creationists and intelligent design advocates. And still we got into an abusive and near violent edit war. I suppose this is a hazard in an unmoderated forum.

George W. Bush and Me :)
For the record, I am Canadian but I have opinions on American politics; I justify this first because it's fun, and second because what America does affects the whole world.


 * First, I supported Bush against Gore in 2000, but really thought is was a Tweedledum/Tweedledummer campaign. The election results were fascinating though.


 * Second, I always defended Bush when he was attacked on language issues. Personally I thought it refreshing to find a politician who couldn't master the sound bite.


 * Third I supported Bush going to Afghanistan, but more controversially, into Iraq. I still hold that this was the right thing to do.


 * Fourth I supported Bush abandoning the Kyoto protocol. It's a bad treaty that will do very little to help the environment at a very high cost to the economy.

However I do not support Bush in 2004. He has not lived up to his mandate and has been a disappointment. However, I still think it is a Tweedledum/Tweedledummer contest...


 * He flouts habeas corpus. He doesn't suspend it as did Lincoln in the civil war; instead his administration just behaves as if habeas corpus didn't matter.


 * He's bad at spin. I don't mean the vacuous sound bite, I mean he fails the leadership test of properly convincing us of the rightness of his actions. There are plenty of good reasons to stay in Iraq. Balance of power and US interests in the middle east being two of the better ones, WMDs and linking Saddam and Al-Qaeda were not.


 * He went into hiding for 11 hours after 9/11 and left vice-president Cheney in command, in fact if not officially.


 * He was elected by a minority of voters and so should have pursued more conciliatory domestic policies. Instead, he's pandered to the hawks in his party and polarized the debate with the Democrats. The 2004 election is one of the most vicious since the Dukakis/Bush-senior contest in 1988. Certainly those two big fat idiots, Rush Limbaugh and Michael Moore, stoked the fires, but Bush gave them fuel when he could have doused the flames.


 * He snubbed Prime Minister Jean Chretien and cancelled a visit to Canada. We're neighbours. We share a 8890 km undefended border, including the border separating Alaska from the Yukon. The Canadian government did not support the US in Iraq, but we did send troops to Afghanistan, some of whom were killed by US friendly fire. Sure, the Chretien cabinet called him names. Big deal. Pierre Trudeau and Ronald Reagan did not like each other, but Reagan came to Canada anyway. That's what Bush should have done. National interests demanded a meeting even if it was personally unpleasant.

Afterthoughts

 * I completely missed the boat here. Voters didn't care only about Iraq. The decisive issues in the 2004 presidential election were abortion, stem cell research, and gay marriage, with the religious right tipping the balance by massively supporting one of their own. And this in a country that separates church and state . We need The Church Lady back on Saturday Night Live. Vincent 16:31, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * In his first speech after the election, Dubya stated that he had earned political capital and that he intended to spend it. Could this possibly mean that since he delivered a victory to the Republicans, he has earned the right to lead his party where he wants it to go, and could this possibly mean the return of compassionate in his initial compassionate conservative image of 2000? Time will tell. Vincent 10:09, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Again missed the boat. No new compassion. Oh well. Vincent 08:34, 16 June 2006 (UTC)