First of all, I want to thank everyone who answered last week’s question about the reliability of Wikipedia. The discussion there was one of the most vibrant of the blog so far. Between that and the subsequent post about Fox News, it made me realize that there is a larger question we need to address here: What does it mean for a source to be reliable?

The answer may be changing with the culture, and some quick background reading may help support that potentially controversial claim. Cynthia points us to the article in the The Chronicle for Higher Education The Intellectual in the Infosphere, which hits a lot of key issues in a short space and is definitely worth checking out. I also have an earlier post about the changing nature of information in the digital age. And then there’s the Karl Fisch video.

So with all that in mind, it’s as important as it’s ever been to ask what it actually means for a source to be reliable. Does it simply mean that we can count on it for accurate facts? Or do we require more from our sources than just fact checking?

Is it important for a source to give us balance between different points of view? Or can a source be reliable and just give us one point of view? And if the source only provides one point of view, how important is it for the source to share our values? Could different sources be reliable for different people, or is reliable meant to be an objective term?

Is a source that provides a more depth of coverage always more reliable than a superficial one? Does quality of writing affect reliability? Does a proven track record count for anything? Or do these factors co-exist with reliability without affecting it? Is a primary source always more reliable than a secondary source? Or can secondary sources bring qualities to the table that can increase reliability?

And does reliability cover just facts? Or can sources also provide opinions? Are you more likely to be persuaded to share an opinion that’s expressed by a source you already trust? Is that a part of reliability? Is it even possible for a source to be value neutral? Or does a source always have an inherent value system by the choices it makes in what information to present? If a source presents information in a way that doesn’t fit your worldview, which sources can affect your willingness to reevaluate that worldview, and which sources would simply make you doubt the source?

Does the element of time affect reliability? The book you purchase in the book store may have been written months ago, while a website might be updated while you’re reading it. Does this affect reliability, and if so, in which direction?

Once you’ve answered these questions for yourself, I’d like you to consider the relative reliability of the following twenty sources when it comes to information, perspectives, and opinions about, say, the Bush administration:

A. Joe Biden on This Week with George Stephanopoulos
B. Wolf Blitzer on CNN
C. Dick Cheney on Meet the Press
D. Noam Chomsky in a new book published by AK Press
E. Katie Couric on The CBS Evening News
F. The New Encyclopedia Britannica, 2007 edition (Hardcover)
G. Thomas Friedman in a New York Times Op-Ed
H. Seymour Hersh in the current issue of The New Yorker
I. Brit Hume on Fox News
J. Russ Kick in a new book published by the Disinformation Company
K. Rush Limbaugh on his radio show
L. Michael Moore in a new documentary
M. Sean Penn while accepting an acting award
N. Tony Snow from the White House briefing room
O. Jon Stewart on Comedy Central’s The Daily Show
P. The White House website
Q. Christie Todd Whitman on Real Time with Bill Maher
R. Wikipedia in an entry with no controversy alerts
S. Bob Woodward in a new book published by Simon & Schuster
T. Markos Zuniga on his blog The Daily Kos

I lettered them instead of numbering them because you may wish, as part of your answer to the question below, to rank some or all of these twenty sources in order from most reliable to least reliable. If two of these sources gave conflicting information, which would you be more open to, and why? What if their information didn’t conflict, but they selcted facts that promoted different biases? What if their facts were the same, but they presented conflicting opinions?

What does it mean to you for a source to be reliable?

We live in strange times. The Dixie Chicks won five Grammys last night. Remember when they were untouchables because they dared to express doubt about the war, and the president who was bringing us to it? But now that the war is going badly, the Dixie Chicks are okay again.

Were last night’s awards all about the music? Or were the awards as much for their anti-war stance? Natalie Maines herself said “I think people are using their freedom of speech with all these awards. We get the message.”

If it was for their anti-war stance, does this mark a turning point in the nation’s conception of anti-war protesters? Or are the people who initially shunned them a different demographic than those who award the Grammys?

If this is a shift, in line with the Democratic takeover of Congress in November, what could this mean for the candidates for Democratic nominee for president in 2008? Republican? For the general election?

And where did the shift begin? I think the war going badly is certainly the main factor, but in my opinion the catalyst was Hurricane Katrina. That was botched so badly, and with such dire consequences, that even the expert spinmasters were powerless. Seasoned journalists who pride themselves on dispassionate analysis were screaming into the cameras. And that was when the people realized that the emperor had no clothes.

So where does that leave us now? With the Question of the Week:

What changes do you see in the collective national mood over the past two years and how might it affect the political landscape over the next two years.

I had so much fun at last week’s picnic, I thought I’d have another. But this time I’m using a different rule when deciding whom to invite. You may find this one a bit more challenging than last week’s rule, but all of the invited guests do have something in common:

• I’m inviting MARY SHELLEY, but not PERCY BYSSHE SHELLEY.
• I’m inviting GEORGE BERNARD SHAW, but not OSCAR WILDE.
• I’m inviting QUEEN ELIZABETH II, but not QUEEN ELIZABETH I.
• I’m inviting MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR., but not MALCOLM X.
• I’m inviting TOM CRUISE, but not DUSTIN HOFFMAN.
• I’m inviting MADONNA, but not JEWEL.
• I’m inviting COURTENEY COX ARQUETTE, but not JENNIFER ANISTON.
• I’m inviting BARACK OBAMA, but not HILLARY CLINTON.
• I’m inviting GEORGE W. BUSH & DICK CHENEY as well as BILL CLINTON & AL GORE, but not RONALD REAGAN & GEORGE H.W. BUSH.

I thought it might be fun to do some Shakespeare readings at the picnic, but only plays named for people who fit the same rule:

• We will be reading JULIUS CAESAR, but not MACBETH.
• We will be reading ANTONY & CLEOPATRA, but not KING JOHN.
• We will be reading KING HENRY VIII, but neither KING HENRY IV play.
• We will be reading KING RICHARD III, but not KING RICHARD II.

Have you figured out the rule? If so, please don’t post it. Just post one or two additions to the list to show us you got it, and to give an extra hint to later solvers.

UPDATE: The solution is now posted in the comments.

Hey, it’s one of those wacky Internet polls! I’ve never taken one of these before. This should be fun. Okay, first question…

Do you favor personal savings accounts as a voluntary part of Social Security Reform?

Oh, wow. I was expecting an easier first question. But, okay. Well, I guess I already have all of the voluntary personal savings accounts I need. That’s what makes them voluntary. Maybe a more productive discussion would be whether or not Social Security needs reform before we start talking about what should be a voluntary part of it. I’ve been involuntarily paying into it my entire working life, so I think I’d like to voluntarily receive the benefits when I retire. So I worry, when the Grover Norquists of the world start talking about personal savings accounts, that I won’t get my benefits.

There is a small group of people who have a whole lot of influence whose solution to everything is lower taxes on the rich, privatize everything, and let the free market sort it out. Sometimes that works better than other times. Markets are really good at picking winners and losers, but when it comes to our senior citizens, I’d prefer to stick with our current system, since it benefits everyone. It’s also why I support public education over a voucher system. I think I’d like to move on to the next question now, if that’s okay.

Do you favor an increase in retirement age as part of Medicare reform?

There’s that “reform” word again. With one word you’ve implied into existence a problem that may or may not have a basis in reality. Could the problem be that the idea of a government actually taking care of its citizens is somehow repulsive to you, Mr. Internet Poll Writer? What is that dark place inside you that makes you turn a blind eye to the suffering of your neighbors? And how can we help you?

It’s true that people are living longer and at some point we may wish to raise the retirement age. I wouldn’t even consider it, though, until every American has health care. If we’re going to ask our citizens to stay in the workforce longer, we have to help them stay healthy longer, and that means affordable well-care visits for everyone. Who’s with me?

Should Medicare have an element of means testing?

I don’t know; what kind of Internet poll is this? I’ve known enough people who are relatively comfortable financially, who have been knocked completely out of the box by an unexpected illness, so I’m going to give a preliminary answer of no. I’d be interested in hearing the counter arguments, though.

Do you favor opening up Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil and gas exploration?

If by “exploration” you mean “drilling,” then no, I do not favor it. If you just want to explore the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, feel free! I’ve heard it’s magnificent. Perhaps I will explore it myself if I should happen to visit Alaska for next year’s Bard-a-thon. (I have no idea how close ANWR is to Fairbanks, but Alaska being huge, that may have read as very funny to my new friends and readers up north.) But I’m starting to sense where you’re coming from, oh sneaky, sneaky Internet poll, and I’m pretty sure you mean “drilling.”

How do you propose expanding Health Savings Accounts?

I’m sorry, what? I’m new to this whole Internet poll thing. I have no proposal for expanding Health Savings Accounts, nor do I necessarily think they should be expanded. As I said above, I’m in favor of a universal health care system, perhaps a single-payer system. But making all health care costs tax deductible might be a nice interim compromise. What do you say?

Do you favor giving citizenship to those who are in this country illegally?

Oh, that’s a good question. In principle, I do, but I would want to hear non-partisan expert opinions about the practical ramifications of doing such a thing. Regardless, I do believe that whatever decision we make should apply to immigrants of all nations, not just North American ones. This is not an easy question, and it doesn’t have easy answers, but I’m proud to live in a country that is a melting pot of cultures, and I think it would be the American thing to do to find a way to work this out.

Should the United States send troops to stop the genocide in Darfur?

Well, I worry that our military is already overextended in Iraq. But yes, if it’s possible for us to do so, we should do what it takes to stop the genocide in Darfur. If that means sending troops, then so be it, but there are other resources and methods available to the world’s lone remaining superpower. What has the President done? What is he willing to do? Where is his plan?

Will you make the Presidents tax cuts permanent?

Will I make them permanent? This is a very strange Internet poll indeed. I do not expect to have the power to do that, but if I did, I would not. They favor the wealthy to such an extreme that it makes me wonder if the President is really in touch with the working man. There has been some improvement in the economy, but I don’t think there’s any evidence that the improvement is a direct result of the tax cuts, and I don’t believe it is. But even if you believe that, there’s no reason to believe that making them permanent would continue to have the same effect.

Would you favor elimination of the death tax?

I would not favor the elimination of the estate tax, no.

Would you support a flat tax?

No. Is anyone seriously proposing this?

Do you support President Bush’s plan for Iraq?

The troop surge? I support his plan in that I hope it’s successful. I don’t know if it’s the right thing to do, but I do like it better than “stay the course.” I was against this war from the beginning, but since we’ve invaded, I’ve been rooting for victory. I think this war has been conducted with a great deal of incompetence, but I like a lot of the changes in direction that the Bush administration has put into place since the midterm elections, maybe as a result of them, maybe not.

I do think we’d be much, much better off today if we had never gone into Iraq. That’s a position that’s starting to gain some support. I basically said what I needed to say in an earlier post and I still think the idea of strategic redeployment has promise.

Will you seek to meet with the leaders of Syria or North Korea or Iran?

While I am quite the autograph hound, I don’t think I will seek to add those names to my collection, no. I have to say, I’ve never seen an Internet poll quite like this.

Should the United States end the embargo of Cuba?

Yes, absolutely. I never understood the embargo, and – as always – it’s the people who suffer, not the leaders. With Fidel Castro stepping down, we should take advantage of the opportunity to end the pointless embargo.

Well, as Internet polls go, that one certainly was … oh, wait a minute. That wasn’t an Internet poll at all! That was a list of questions that Senator Bill Frist posed to Senator Hillary Clinton and any other Democrat running for President. He’s trying to trap her into publicly taking unpopular positions! And in doing so, he’s trapped me into doing just that!

Oh, well played, Senator Frist. Well played, indeed.

Feel free to use the comments thread to answer any of Senator Frist’s gotcha questions, or to respond to any of my (or someone else’s) answers. Unless, of course, you’re running for president, or ever plan to. In that case, you may quickly navigate away from this page, and don’t forget to clear your cache!

Another new weekly feature, which means that you can now waste valuable work time at Shakespeare Teacher five days a week!

This week, I’m having a picnic. I’m putting together my guest list based on one simple rule.

• I’m inviting DANTE, but not PETRARCH.
• I’m inviting GALILEO, but not COPERNICUS.
• I’m inviting REMBRANDT, but not PICASSO.
• I’m inviting NAPOLEON, but not ROBESPIERRE.
• I’m inviting PENN, but not TELLER.
• I’m inviting KERMIT THE FROG, but not MISS PIGGY.
• I’m inviting QUEEN ELIZABETH II, but not PRESIDENT BUSH.
• I’m inviting LAVERNE & SHIRLEY, but not CAGNEY & LACEY.

Have you figured out the rule? If so, please don’t post it. Just post one or two additions to the list to show us you got it, and to give an extra hint to later solvers.

UPDATE: The solution is now posted in the comments.

The President has challenged critics of his Iraq War policy to come up with their own ideas:

Speaking in his weekly radio address on Saturday, Mr Bush said members of Congress had the right to express their views but he challenged his critics to propose their own ideas for halting the violence in Iraq.

“Those who refuse to give this plan a chance to work have an obligation to offer an alternative that has a better chance of success. To oppose everything while proposing nothing is irresponsible,” said Mr Bush.

It’s a fair point, but one can’t help but be reminded of Homer Simpson’s exasperated line to Marge, “First, you didn’t want me to get the pony. Now, you want me to take it back. Make up your mind!”

President Bush’s request for alternative points of view is heartwarming. But since he doesn’t even listen to his own hand-picked experts on such matters, why take his latest offer to listen to those he has belittled and marginalized for the past six years as anything other than petulant and defensive?

I’m tempted to echo the sentiments in this Tom Tomorrow cartoon from November. If only we could travel back to February 2003 and heed the words of, among many others, Gov. Howard Dean:

I believe it is my patriotic duty to urge a different path to protecting America’s security: To focus on al Qaeda, which is an imminent threat, and to use our resources to improve and strengthen the security and safety of our home front and our people while working with the other nations of the world to contain Saddam Hussein.

Had I been a member of the Senate, I would have voted against the resolution that authorized the President to use unilateral force against Iraq – unlike others in that body now seeking the presidency.

I do not believe the President should have been given a green light to drive our nation into conflict without the case having first been made to Congress and the American people for why this war is necessary, and without a requirement that we at least try first to work through the United Nations.

But in the words of Lady Macbeth, “What’s done cannot be undone.” All we can do now is find the best way forward, and hold the people who blundered accountable.

By the way, in case anybody actually wanted to know, progressives do have a plan for Iraq. It’s called strategic redeployment:

To strike the right balance, expectations must change to fit today’s grim realities. The Bush administration must recognize that Iraq is not yet a real democracy nor will it be anytime soon, and it is not going to trigger a wave of democracy in the Middle East. Americans need and deserve a clear exit strategy for Iraq that spells out how much longer American troops will be involved in large numbers and what it will cost. Iraq’s leaders need to understand that the United States is not going to serve as a crutch indefinitely and that no one is going to solve their problems for them.

The end goals of this strategic shift are clear: to protect the American people at home and abroad; to get Iraq to the most stable position as quickly as possible; to make sure Iraq’s tensions do not spill over into a regional conflict; and to turn the tide against extremist Islamists. To accomplish this, the United States must implement a policy of strategic redeployment that has five parts:

You can read a PDF of the entire plan here.

Despite my many years of training as a Shakespeare teacher, I find myself surprisingly unprepared to evaluate this plan on a practical level, though there’s much in here that I like. But I just wanted to make the point that the progressive movement does actually have a plan. So when President Bush, or his supporters, ask — petulantly, defensively, as they will — “So, what’s your plan?,” it’s worth noting that those who were most against the war to begin with really do have a serious answer. I doubt that anyone in this administration is serious about listening to it.

Glenn Greenwald, an amazing blogger everyone should read, has a post today about Iran, and whether or not the President has the right to invade without authorization from Congress. In the post, he describes an epilogue he had written in his book:

The Epilogue emphasizes that the radical theories of presidential power adopted by the administration (and applied to general lawbreaking, warrantless eavesdropping, torture, indefinite detentions of U.S. citizens) applied clearly and fully to Iran, i.e., that those theories — which were and still are the formally adopted positions of the Executive Branch — absolutely mean that the President has the power to commence a war with Iran, and that not only would he not need Congressional approval to do so, but Congress would lack the power to stop him even if it tried

And therein lies the point. I honestly don’t think we’re about to go to war with Iran. The military is stretched out too thin as it is. And so I wouldn’t read too much into Tony Snow and Condoleeza Rice refusing to answer whether the president needs the authority of Congress to invade Iran. It doesn’t in any way mean we’re about to do it. I wouldn’t expect either of them to say that their boss needs the authority of Congress to do anything. He doesn’t like it when people say that.

For the record, I think Iran is a looming danger, just like Iraq wasn’t, and a confrontation seems inevitable, whether military or otherwise. But what strikes me the most about the video linked above is that Tony Snow and Chris Matthews agreed that Iran’s population was largely young and pro-American. It almost makes one feel there might be some cause for long-term optimism after all. Unfortunately, I don’t think we’re going to be able to wait that long.

I saw this story on the front page of the local newspapers on my way to work yesterday morning, but haven’t really had time to comment until now.

WASHINGTON – President Bush has quietly claimed sweeping new powers to open Americans’ mail without a judge’s warrant, the Daily News has learned.

The President asserted his new authority when he signed a postal reform bill into law on Dec. 20. Bush then issued a “signing statement” that declared his right to open people’s mail under emergency conditions.

That claim is contrary to existing law and contradicted the bill he had just signed, say experts who have reviewed it.

I don’t want to go on a rant about “worst civil liberties abuse yet” because the phrase is overworn these days, and it will be hard to top the Military Commissions Act of 2006. But I do want to address the broader issue of this and other signing statements that President Bush keeps making to re-define the bills that come across his desk.

A signing statement is a written statement made by the president when signing a bill into law. It is entered into the “Legislative History” section of the United States Congressional Code and Administrative News (USCCAN) and can be used by the courts in interpreting the law.

Just to repeat, the signing statement “contradicted the bill he had just signed” and can be used by the courts in interpreting the law.

This truly isn’t an issue of conservatives vs. liberals, but rather the scope of the powers of any president regardless of political affiliation, though there have been a number of serious concerns raised about this particular president abusing powers he may not actually have:

Presidential signing statements that assert President Bush’s authority to disregard or decline to enforce laws adopted by Congress undermine the rule of law and our constitutional system of separation of powers, according to a report released today by a blue-ribbon American Bar Association task force.

To address these concerns, the task force urges Congress to adopt legislation enabling its members to seek court review of signing statements that assert the President’s right to ignore or not enforce laws passed by Congress, and urges the President to veto bills he feels are not constitutional.

If the president vetoes a bill, Congress has the opportunity to override that veto. These are the checks and balances that have been so carefully built into our system. If the framers of the Constitution wanted the president to be able to modify bills, they would have given the office the power of the line-item veto. But the Supreme Court has ruled the presidential line-item veto unconstitutional, as the Constitution clearly grants all legislative powers to Congress. But President Bush has made it clear that he still wants the line-item veto. Failing that, he will continue to use the backdoor of the signing statement, unless Congress takes the recommendation of the American Bar Association and stops him.

I’m no constitutional scholar, but I’m pretty sure the framers didn’t intend for the executive to be able to make a statement defining what a law was going to mean. If President Bush really has this power, I disagree that he’s been abusing it. If anything, he has shown remarkable restraint. Imagine the many, many things that President Bush can do if he does actually have the power to make a law just by making a statement. But it seems pretty clear that he has no such power. He should not be permitted to behave as though he does.