Took Ariel into the city to meet Ken Jennings, Jeopardy’s all-time champ, who was doing a book signing at the B&N in Union Square. Nattily attired, he kept the audience entertained with a discussion and selected readings of his latest book, “Brainiac” (which, tragically, has nothing to do with supervillains) while discussing his slow progression from closeted trivia master to the poster boy for knowing tons of information others would deem useless (although how anyone can deem something useless when you can use it to rake in $2 milliion-plus is beyond me.)
Sometimes I wonder about the wave of genuine hostility to knowledge that many in this country possess. Whether it’s the disdainful description of experts on topics as “geeks” or “nerds,” or the fact that a minuscule percentage of the consumer base is responsible for the vast majority of books bought, or…let’s face it…that so many people would embrace someone as intellectually stunted as George W. Bush, twice, for the presidency…there just seems to be this antipathy toward intellect that I find disturbing.
I’d like to claim that Jennings’ book is next on my list to read–we got two signed copies, one for Ariel, the other for Kath and myself–but it was abruptly displaced when I noticed to my shock that there was a John Mortimer “Rumpole” novel out that somehow slipped under my radar when it came out in 2004. It’s entitled “The Penge Bungalow Murders,” which Rumpole fans will instantly know as the case the British barrister (so memorably played by the late, great Leo McKern) regularly cited as his career highlight. It’s like stumbling over a Conan Doyle manuscript entitled, “The Adventure of the Giant Rat of Sumatra.” But “Brainiac”–which is not merely autobiographical, but instead an overview of the grand obsession of trivia–is right after that.
Strangest question Jennings got: An arena battle between a T-Rex and one thousand turkeys. Who would win? Jennings opined that it would likely be the T-Rex, but I’m not sure about that. Assuming that the T-Rex would probably be eating the turkeys as he went, I’d think all that tryptophan might start to make him drowsy, and the turkeys could eventually wear him down. In terms of pointless discussions, it’s probably right up there with cavemen versus astronauts.
PAD
• 
>http://www.grudge-match.com/History/index.html
I think my favorite match-up was “Red-Shirted Ensigns vs. Stormtroopers.”
Thanks for the tip. Lots of fun items there, though I think many participants wildly underestimated Federation technology. Red shirts carry weapons a little larger than old-style cigarette lighters (type I phasers with type II being even more powerful) which pack enough punch to vaporize a man-sized object, have a wide-field setting which allow it to hit several targets at once (RETURN OF THE ARCHONS) or be set to overload which gives it the explosive force of a heavy artillery round. Imperial blasters are powerful, but it’s no contest. Ditto Enterprise vs Death Star, but I won’t take up space here explaining why.
Posted by Bill Mulligan at September 16, 2006 12:31 AM
I keep expecting to see trekkies at cons conversing in Tamarian. Perhaps even adding to the rich metaphorical history. “Herman at Creationcon”; “Jeffrey, his virginity unendangered.”; “Eugene, alone in his basement.”
HA! Priceless, Bill. Priceless. 🙂
Posted by: Dan Nakagawa at September 15, 2006 08:14 PM
And while we are on the subject of intelligence:
“Alan’s statement is correct: Education (not necessarily “college” or “degrees”) ARE necessary, even if they’re not perceived to be.”
Oh, bravo, Dan. You caught Luigi in a rare gaffe. You must feel like quite the man now.
YOU have a lot of nerve questioning Luigi’s intelligence. Luigi is one of the most intelligent posters here, bar none. He certainly exhibits far more intelligence than you.
It’s easy to make a mistake in a blog posting, by the way. Luigi may have begun by writing “Education and such-and-such…”, decided to edit himself, and merely forgot to change the “are” to “is.” Luigi is probably too busy to edit his posts as carefully as he might edit, say, a business correspondence.
Dan, you’re being a complete and utter PRÍÇK. THIS is why so many people are being “mean” to you. In one of your posts, you told me I had brought your wrath upon myself, as though that wrath meant a dámņ thing to me. It doesn’t. But the fact that you cried like a baby to Peter about how most of us DON’T LIKE YOU A ÐÃMN BIT demonstrates that YOU care about THAT.
Well, Dan, YOU brought THAT upon YOURself.
By the way, folks, when I say that Luigi is one of the most intelligent posters here… well, that’s a bit like choosing between chocolate ice cream and Rocky Road. They’re both so good.
This is a really, really, really good crowd. Trolls like Dan are the exception rather than the rule. Thanks for letting me play in the same sandbox!
PAD’s statement up above like Bush makes Quayle(I always thought that in itself was funny, a guy named Bush with a VP named Quayle) look like Aristotle made one really mean-spirited thought go through my head.
Bush makes Quayle’s potatoe look like Aristotle.
Rex, man, MAN, you’re another one guilty of posting things that I was going to. Great minds think alike, I guess.
PAD’s statement up above like Bush makes Quayle(I always thought that in itself was funny, a guy named Bush with a VP named Quayle) look like Aristotle made one really mean-spirited thought go through my head.
Bush makes Quayle’s potatoe look like Aristotle.
Rex, man, MAN, you’re another one guilty of posting things that I was going to. Great minds think alike, I guess.
B, (if you’re still here)
“I find NASCAR boring, wrestling outdated, and country music vapid and possibly evil but none of these things are signs of stupidity. They’re signs of that mythical liberal elitism making itself true.”
Really? I’m in the center when it comes to politics but lean left a lot of times. Two officers I work with are bed wetting libs on everything except gun control. You know how we kill long, dull, nothing happening shifts? Wrestling trivia. And one of those two guys is a major NASCAR fan.
I know lots of self described libs. Lots of those same people love country music, NASCAR, wrestling and many other things that people on the right keep claiming the “liberal elites” hate. That statement ranked right up there with people claiming that all conservatives hate the arts, culture or PBS. Too broad a brush stroke.
Jerry C, you may have said this before and I just forgot it. Hëll, it may be here in this thread and I forgot it! My head is like a steel sieve these days.
Are you a cop?
If so, God Bless You.
Not to far from where I live, a state trooper was murdered. They caught the bášŧárd that killed him, but that won’t bring back the trooper.
So, if you are a cop, thanks for your service, and for God’s sake, man, stay safe.
Sean Scullion: “Rex, man, MAN, you’re another one guilty of posting things that I was going to. Great minds think alike, I guess.”
We’re using Cerebro on you. 🙂
“Y’know, Dan, I remember how you said that you showed up here apparently to provide laughs. Just for the record, the only thing you’ve ever said that I considered remotely funny was the whining e-mail you sent me claiming I’d been censoring you, and how everyone was being mean to you, and how you were packing up and leaving because you could take a hint…when all that was happening was that your posts were being caught in the spam filter.
I laughed at that.”
Hmmm, publically called on the carpet for a personal email…
Well, I guess youy told me off, didn’t you, big man?
I applaud you on your defeat of such a callous, base villain. Maybe you’ll get a story out of it.
“Oh, bravo, Dan. You caught Luigi in a rare gaffe. You must feel like quite the man now.
YOU have a lot of nerve questioning Luigi’s intelligence. Luigi is one of the most intelligent posters here, bar none. He certainly exhibits far more intelligence than you.
It’s easy to make a mistake in a blog posting, by the way. Luigi may have begun by writing “Education and such-and-such…”, decided to edit himself, and merely forgot to change the “are” to “is.” Luigi is probably too busy to edit his posts as carefully as he might edit, say, a business correspondence.
Dan, you’re being a complete and utter PRÍÇK. THIS is why so many people are being “mean” to you. In one of your posts, you told me I had brought your wrath upon myself, as though that wrath meant a dámņ thing to me. It doesn’t. But the fact that you cried like a baby to Peter about how most of us DON’T LIKE YOU A ÐÃMN BIT demonstrates that YOU care about THAT.
Well, Dan, YOU brought THAT upon YOURself.”
—————————————-
Pardon a mere mortal for even daring to question the Gods of Olympus.
I’ll just make my way back down the mountain now….
“I applaud you on your defeat of such a callous, base villain. Maybe you’ll get a story out of it.”
Awww, but Dan…you’re such a funny guy! At least that’s what you’ve been claiming. Certainly you can appreciate the humor, right? Right?
The fact is that at least half a dozen posters have had their messages rejected or been unable to post at various times because (unbeknownst to them) of spam filters, and every single one has written to me and said, basically, “Hey, what’s up with this? What did I say that was inflammatory?” Only you, the King of Comedy, flashed his stigmata, complained how ill treated you were, accused me of censorship and then went fetal…and never even bothered to apologize for your accusations when they were proven wrong.
I’m saying that claiming hey, you’re just goofing around, while at the same time calling people names and then claiming you’re being ill-used when your attitudes cause you to be dismissed out of hand, is not a good mix. What you think of as humor or even expressing a differing opinion comes across as mere petulance. So if people treat you with the same weight they’d give a ten year old banging on kitchen pots to get attention, you’ll understand why. Or, more likely, you won’t. You’ll just feel you’re misunderstood and mean old Peter David and his drones beat down someone who disagreed with them. If it’s of any consolation, I’m sure you’re not alone. Trolls tend to come and go here; the people of real consequence, even those I disagree with, tend to hang around and contribute.
Where you fall in that category is up to you. But you may want to consider dropping the martyr bit. It doesn’t really play well.
PAD
Dan Nakagawa: You know, I really hate it when people get into discussions of intellect and using it as a measure of human worth. To me, intelligence is like snowflakes–no two are exactly the same, and to imply that one is of more worth than the others just doesn’t make sense. If you don’t like someone or something, what’s wrong with simply saying ‘I don’t like _____.” Why do people feel that they have to justify it by belittling it?
Luigi Novi: Because this discussion is about how society denigrates intelligence and education as an important quality, not about how we “don’t like” people or use intelligence to measure “worth”. If anything, this discussion has been how others measure the human worth of others—negatively—who are intelligent.
Dan Nakagawa: Luigi, I’m sorry, but that’s just misleading—you sound as though you know for a fact that Bush “he got into the schools he attended because of family connections”–you can’t prove that and you know it.
Luigi Novi: Um, wrong.
It is well-documented that Bush got into Yale on a “legacy admission”, because he was the son and grandson of an alumnus. (Source: http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/01/20/timep.affirm.action.tm/)
Finding a source via Google took me just a few minutes.
Apparently, making an unwarranted assumption without doing some double-checking on it yourself took you none.
But hey, thanks for helping to illustrate the point of this thread so vividly. 🙂
Dan Nakagawa: what good are intellectual pursuits like reading if you’re not going to use the information that you’ve read about?
Luigi Novi: I don’t know. Do you know of anyone for whom this description fits?
Even if you could, I would say that education is its own virtue.
Dan Nakagawa: And what does speaking ability have to do with anything?
Luigi Novi: If you want to sequester yourself in a cabin in the woods away from anyone else? Nothing.
But if you want to communicate with the other people on this planet? Lots.
Dan Nakagawa: Are you then implying that Stephen Hawking is an idiot?
Luigi Novi: No, that’s your statement, not mine.
Criticism of the denigration of the importance of learning how to communicate properly is not called into question by using the example of someone who barely can speak unaided. Your example, therefore, it not applicable to this thesis.
Dan Nakagawa: And before you go on to call me a troll, yes, yes, I DO know ‘what you mean.’
Luigi Novi: Then why ask me such a stupid rhetorical question?
Dan Nakagawa: I simply don’t like it…
Luigi Novi: Life’s tough. Wear a cup.
Dan Nakagawa: And while we are on the subject of intelligence:
“Alan’s statement is correct: Education (not necessarily “college” or “degrees”) ARE necessary, even if they’re not perceived to be.”
Education, as it is a topic, takes the singular, not the plural.
Luigi Novi: Thanks for the correction. And as soon as you can illustrate how intelligence and making occasional mistakes are somehow mutually exclusive—if that was indeed your intent—again, let me know.
Everyone here makes mistakes of syntax, grammar or spelling from time to time, even Peter. Would you like us to start keeping tabs on your writings?
Eric: Um, that’d be PAD’s…
Luigi Novi: Sorry, I forgot about that comment in Peter’s blog entry, and merely used my browser’s Find feature to look for the words “Gore” and “Kerry.” Thanks for pointing that out to me.
Bill Myers: YOU have a lot of nerve questioning Luigi’s intelligence. Luigi is one of the most intelligent posters here, bar none. He certainly exhibits far more intelligence than you.
Luigi Novi: Stop it. You’re making me blush. 🙂
Posted by: Dan Nakagawa at September 16, 2006 09:09 AM
Pardon a mere mortal for even daring to question the Gods of Olympus.
I’ll just make my way back down the mountain now….
Dan, I’m going to echo what Peter has already said.
Now that you’ve failed to cow us with your “scary intellect” (thanks, Mulligan, for that phrase — I like it), you’re going to play for sympathy, I take it.
GROW the FÙÇK UP, Dan.
We are human beings with FEELINGS. You came in here and insulted us. You did your best to alienate most of the people here, and now you’re SURPRISED when your efforts to alienate people have actually, y’know, ALIENATED PEOPLE?
As Bill Mulligan told you, just saying something isn’t enough to make it so. We have not mistreated you, and no matter how many times you say it, it won’t become true. YOU have in fact mistreated US.
Look, Dan, I used to be as socially retarded as you are now. I used to act familiar with people when I hadn’t earned the right. Difference between you and I is that I learned my lesson.
The people here have given you second chances. Hëll, even after you insulted me worse than you insulted anyone else here, even after you LIED about me, I tried to reach out to you again. Others have done the same. And you keep making the same stupid fûçkìņg mistakes.
You don’t want to change. I get that. The problem is, the world is not obligated to accommodate you. If you want to keep doing the same stupid things over and over again, fine. But quit whining about the inevitable consequences.
Even after all of this, Danny, I think I speak for more people than just myself when I say we would still be willing to give you another chance. Just STOP ACTING LIKE A PRÍÇK. It won’t cost you a gøddámņ thing, and you’ll gain more than you realize.
But if you’re so scared of changing, so stubbornly unable to admit that you just may be wrong sometimes just as every human being is sometimes wrong, well, fine. Take a walk if you wish.
But you brought this on yourself. And the ONLY person who has been acting with arrogance is YOU.
Posted by: Dan Nakagawa at September 16, 2006 09:09 AM
Pardon a mere mortal for even daring to question the Gods of Olympus.
I’ll just make my way back down the mountain now….
Dan, I’m going to echo what Peter has already said.
Now that you’ve failed to cow us with your “scary intellect” (thanks, Mulligan, for that phrase — I like it), you’re going to play for sympathy, I take it.
Grow up, Dan.
We are human beings with feelings. You came in here and insulted us. You did your best to alienate most of the people here, and now you’re surprised when your efforts to alienate people have actually, y’know, alienated people?
As Bill Mulligan told you, just saying something isn’t enough to make it so. We have not mistreated you, and no matter how many times you say it, it won’t become true. You have in fact mistreated us.
Look, Dan, I used to be as socially awkward as you are now. I used to act familiar with people when I hadn’t earned the right. Difference between you and I is that I learned my lesson.
The people here have given you second chances. Hëll, even after you insulted me worse than you insulted anyone else here, even after you lied about me, I tried to reach out to you again. Others have done the same. And you keep making the same stupid mistakes.
You don’t want to change. I get that. The problem is, the world is not obligated to accommodate you. If you want to keep doing the same stupid things over and over again, fine. But quit whining about the inevitable consequences.
Even after all of this, Danny, I think I speak for more people than just myself when I say we would still be willing to give you another chance. Just stop acting like a prìçk. It won’t cost you a gøddámņ thing, and you’ll gain more than you realize.
But if you’re so scared of changing, so stubbornly unable to admit that you just may be wrong sometimes just as every human being is sometimes wrong, well, fine. Take a walk if you wish.
But you brought this on yourself. And the only person who has been acting with arrogance is you.
I know lots of self described libs. Lots of those same people love country music, NASCAR, wrestling and many other things that people on the right keep claiming the “liberal elites” hate. That statement ranked right up there with people claiming that all conservatives hate the arts, culture or PBS. Too broad a brush stroke.
Two friends of mine, who are WAYYYY to the left of me, hëll, probably to the left of PAD, are HUGE racing fans. Looks like cars going in a circle to me but when they describe it I wish I had the same love for it. That’s the way things are. I knew someone who made most Mensa members look like Nancy Pelosi and she collected porcelin frogs. And you never wanted to get her started on porcelin frogs.
As for wrestling…to paraphrase William Gaines, it would be just as difficult to explain the appeal of pro-wrestling to those who hate it as it would be to explain the sublimity of love to a frigid old maid.
“I am twice the man you are, and have half the brain!” – Sid Vicious
Bill Mulligan,
You know you’re going to have people clawing their brains out because they can’t remember where that quote is in any of The Sex Pistols’ work.
🙂
Bill Myers,
Thanks for the kind words and concern.
Dan,
Chill out, take stock, stop digging the hole deeper and start over. Your family seems to have had a hëll of a time and you seem to have learned a few things from that and developed a POV that some others may not have because of it. It might be nice to have that POV in some debates. Why junk all that because you can’t just pull back a bit and rethink your approach a bit?
As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly.
A particularly pointed joke for Atlantans – like many bits on “WKRP”, it actually happened here at (i think) WSB, where the “WKRP” creator was Program Director. (The teevee version is somewhat exaggerated, of course.)
According to Gordon Jump (who was a one-day guest lecturer at a course I once took on voiceovers), the turkey incident happened after that particular Program Director wound up in Dallas. Apparently, he’d lost his job in Atlanta after an incident involving dancing ducklings for Easter (it was a window display downtown – it seems the ducklings didn’t actually want to dance, so in order to encourage them, he installed a hotplate in the floor of their cage…).
Mr. Jump did say that the character of Arthur Carlson was pretty closely modeled on that Program Director, whom he did not name for legal reasons.
I knew someone who made most Mensa members look like Nancy Pelosi and she collected porcelin frogs. And you never wanted to get her started on porcelin frogs.
Sounds like she might have been (like me) an Aspie – a person with Asperger’s Syndrome (not “suffering from” – as I’ve observed before, it’s mostly the people around me who suffer from my Asperger’s, especially if they ask me a detailed question about the works of Robert Heinlein…). Porcelain frogs were her an area of perseveration for her. (Was she also socially awkward, with little understanding of the niceties of face-to-face conversation, and a tendency to look away from your face during conversation? Did she have no noticeable sense of style in her dress? Did her conversation seem a bit stilted, using a rather advanced vocabulary no matter the topic?)
Dan Nakasaki said: “You know, I really hate it when people get into discussions of intellect and using it as a measure of human worth.”
Nobody here said anything about ‘intellect and using it as a measure of human worth’. We all just happen to think that Bush us pretty useless, and that he is pretty stupid, too. In a properly aligned universe, he would be washing cars for a living or working at Wal-mart as a greeter.
And: “To me, intelligence is like snowflakes–no two are exactly the same, and to imply that one is of more worth than the others just doesn’t make sense.”
‘intelligence is like snowflakes–no two are exactly the same’ sounds like Liberal claptrap to me.
Mike Weber posted—
“Suppose you were an idiot.
“Now suppose you were a Congressman.
“But I repeat myself.”
-Mark Twain
——-
Thanks, Mike, I needed a laugh.
B said:
“I realize that this was said a million comments ago but implying that NASCAR, Pro-wrestling, and country music are signs of stupidity IS a sign of stupidity or, more likely, mean-spiritedness and ignorance.”
B, Peter David said, “…there just seems to be this antipathy toward intellect that I find disturbing.” I was responding to the idea that many people are anti-intellectual. Perhaps I could have stated my point better. I stick to my guns in stating that the huge popularity of NASCAR, professional wrestling, and country music are all examples of the general populace embracing anti-intellectual pursuits.
And speaking of NASCAR, I correlate the immense interest in NASCAR with the ever increasing number of reported cases of Road Rage. The average viewer of NASCAR is just following the examples of their heroes-on-wheels in taking out their aggressions on other drivers.
Dan Nakagawa—
Which “Dan Nakagawa” are you? The musician? The second rate actor? The Aikido student (who is 46 years old and lived in Japan)?
Mike Weber posted:
“Over the life of the agreement, the monthly pension benefit will increase $47.45 to $51.65 per year of credited service”
“Okay. accept the lower (current) as typical of the industry (and it is). Assume thirty years of service.
30 x $47.45 x 12 = $17000 plus.”
“A lot of autoworkers (like most unionised industrial workers) tend to spend their entire career at one company, which means more like forty or even fifty years (start at 18, work till 67). So he starts at age 20, works till he’s 65, and gets the higher rate:
45 x $51.65 x 12 = $27891
Hardly $15000″
Okay. $17,000 was close to what I said ($15,000), but you can’t assume that people work for 45 years at a major auto company any more. Too many are losing their jobs and too many plants are closing.
What was true about the auto industry 10 years ago is no longer true today. It’s call a paradigm shift, and it is going to be truly ugly for auto workers.
Also, the vast majority of autoworkers are only too pleased to stop working when they have their 30 years in.
Many auto workers at Ford just got notified that their plants are going to close. Buyouts will be offered, but some of the buyouts include the provision that ALL benefits will be terminated. This includes retirement benefits and insurance benefits.
The main point was that the Middle Class is shrinking and will continue to shrink for those without a degree or profession.
“I stick to my guns in stating that the huge popularity of NASCAR, professional wrestling, and country music are all examples of the general populace embracing anti-intellectual pursuits.”
Then they get the high honor of being held in the same distinguished company as boxing, football, rock and roll, comic books, horror movies and William Shakespeare amongst other things as social critics’ examples of the signs of the dumbing down of the masses through the ages.
What a crock. The only thing that their popularity shows is that there are a number of people who have a tickle in their fancy that’s different then yours.
“I correlate the immense interest in NASCAR with the ever increasing number of reported cases of Road Rage.”
And, in the interest of advancing intellectualism, you’ve used what scientific methods to come to this conclusion? Was it the stunningly professional technique of looking at two separate things you dislike and lumping them together to insult people with tastes other then your own? Was it the Seduction of the Innocent technique by chance? Knew somebody who committed road rage who liked NASCAR so, presto quicko, NASCAR creates road rage? Was it some other gumball machine technique? Do tell.
Please…
“I stick to my guns in stating that the huge popularity of NASCAR, professional wrestling, and country music are all examples of the general populace embracing anti-intellectual pursuits.”
As opposed to 9/10’s of TV shows, most comic books, some of the best movies ever, most music, fitness clubs, any sports, camping, many hobbies, etc etc…
I have no doubt that you must spend all your free time writing operas, and solving advanced math equations but cutthe rest of us some slack.
And I’m not so sure that “anti-intellectual” is the proper term. “Non-intellectual” perhaps. Just because a thing isn’t something else doesn’t mean that it must automatically be in opposition to it.
If you’re using Cerebro on me, you must have the gain turned WAY up.
I don’t think NASCAR, country music, Eminem, or whatever shows a lack of intelligence, or non-intellectualism or whatever OTHER euphemism for stupidity that can be invented. Different people get excited by different things. And something to remember about all these “reality” shows or “news” shows(sorry, right now I’m watching Debra LaFave’s interview with Matt Lauer on one of my 30 screens(I’m at work)) TV doesn’t show the Common Man. If ti did, who would watch? TV shows the Unusual, the Out of place, there’s a definate freak show element about most of it. TV either shows the Best or the Worst of people. More often the Worst. Do I think most people aren’t smart? No. Do I think most people could stand to get out of their self-created boxes and experience a little more life? Yes. Life is there for the living. But most people don’t have access to some of these things, so TV tries to give them a view of a different situation. Trouble is, a LOT of people look at CNN, Fox News, Dateline, Entertainment Tonight and Jerry Springer and think “Hey! THat’s how the whole world is!” Why is NASCAR popular? Ðámņëd if I know, but it’s different from the routine life of most people,except for the ones that drive on the Jersey Turnpike. People are curious, they want to see new things, pop culture provides that. Hey, that’s why Mr. Jennings could get a book deal, he did something unusual. We all love the Freaks. We just may not want to be them. Maybe that’s why there’s a bias, or a perceived bias, or whatever you want to call it, against the really smart people.
I really didn’t mean for this to sound that preachy. Sorry, everybody.
thinking it over, there’s something about PAD’s line “that so many people would embrace someone as intellectually stunted as George W. Bush, twice, for the presidency…there just seems to be this antipathy toward intellect that I find disturbing.” that strikes me as too simplistic. Ignore the question of whether or not Bush is “intellecually stunted” or whether or not Kerry was smarter. Voting for the less intelligent candidate or voting against an intelligent one does not equal antipathy toward intellect.
Because if it does, then those who voted against Robert Bork for the Supreme court would be guilty of obvious “antipathy toward intellect.”
I’m sure it would make Judge Bork feel good to believe that those who opposed him did so out of jealousy of his intellect…but he’s probably smart enough to know it isn’t true.
“Because if it does, then those who voted against Robert Bork for the Supreme court would be guilty of obvious “antipathy toward intellect.””
Not really. Not when you look at some of the statements people gave at the time of the voting.
A lot of people who were against Bork said that they were because they felt he was vile, wrong for the job, bad for the nation, etc. Many in the pro Bork camp said he was the best choice for the job.
A lot of people who were against Bush said that they were because they felt that he was vile, wrong for the job, a dunce, bad for the nation, etc. Many in the pro Bush camp said that they were voting for him because he was a regular guy, someone you could have a drink with, not a nerd or policy wonk like his predecessor. Very few Bush backers raved about what a towering intellect or great mind Bush was. That actually seemed to be a strong part of his appeal with some groups.
Different things entirely.
Bill Mulligan — I have to agree with Jerry C. Everyone I know who supported George W. Bush told me some variation of the following: “Yeah, well, at least with Bush you know what you’re getting.”
People were actually enchanted with Bush’s simple-mindedness. It was comfortable. Seeing the world through his eyes eliminated the daunting complexities of reality and reduced life to some simple “yes or no” choices.
Unfortunately, we’ve seen the consequences of following a man who has the certainty that can only come from stupidity. Bush cannot correct course. He cannot adjust his worldview to accommodate new information. He cannot acknowledge when he is wrong.
John Kerry was a horrible candidate and some percentage of the people who voted for Bush were no doubt reacting to that. But part of Kerry’s lack of appeal was that he saw the world with all of its subtle complexities and nuances. Unfortunately, as a result the man couldn’t articulate a clear vision.
The best leaders are people who have both the intellect of a John Kerry and the decisiveness of a George W. Bush. I hope we find one in 2008 because we really need one!
Bill (Mulligan),
Although I understand your reaction based on Peter’s use of the phrase “intellectually stunted”, I don’t think it’s a question of Bush’s intelligence per se — while I’m hard pressed at the moment to think of a previous president who rivals this one for intense public stupidity, that’s not the be-all and end-all of qualifications.
The problem with Bush is that he actively *embraces* stupidity and single-mindedness. The very idea that an ability to consider different points of view is a negative in this administration speaks volumes about how little they give a flying çlûšŧërfûçk for any process that requires actual reason.
Nobody can know everything, and nobody should try (at least not to the point of obsession). Good presidents surround themselves with people who can challenge them and make sure that their decisions have weighed all options and ramifications. Bush has surrounded himself with people who think exactly as he does and will not create any internal debate more than “the latest policy decision: heroic, statesmanlike, or godly?”
And for the American people to embrace THAT, in my opinion, truly IS anti-intellectual.
A quote from the Stan Lee Spidey era that I’ve used before has Robbie musing about Jonah. “God save us from a man who knows all he needs to know … about anything.” It’s loomed large in my mind for much of the last five and a half years.
TWL
Bush thinks like a computer.
Bill Myers pointed this out, with Bush it’s either yes or no. On or off. Binary thinking. You’re with him, or you’re not. A computer can only process the information that it has, yes or no, on or off. There is no third option. I never noticed that before. A lot of his camp are like that, too. Yes or no, on or off, good or bad. Bush is a color blind computer. Black or white, no grey between.
Dan Nakagawa: You know, I really hate it when people get into discussions of intellect and using it as a measure of human worth. To me, intelligence is like snowflakes–no two are exactly the same, and to imply that one is of more worth than the others just doesn’t make sense. If you don’t like someone or something, what’s wrong with simply saying ‘I don’t like _____.” Why do people feel that they have to justify it by belittling it?
Luigi Novi: Because this discussion is about how society denigrates intelligence and education as an important quality, not about how we “don’t like” people or use intelligence to measure “worth”. If anything, this discussion has been how others measure the human worth of others—negatively—who are intelligent.
Dan Nakagawa: Luigi, I’m sorry, but that’s just misleading—you sound as though you know for a fact that Bush “he got into the schools he attended because of family connections”–you can’t prove that and you know it.
Luigi Novi: Um, wrong.
It is well-documented that Bush got into Yale on a “legacy admission”, because he was the son and grandson of an alumnus. (Source: http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/01/20/timep.affirm.action.tm/)
Finding a source via Google took me just a few minutes.
Apparently, making an unwarranted assumption without doing some double-checking on it yourself took you none.
But hey, thanks for helping to illustrate the point of this thread so vividly. 🙂
Dan Nakagawa: what good are intellectual pursuits like reading if you’re not going to use the information that you’ve read about?
Luigi Novi: I don’t know. Do you know of anyone for whom this description fits?
Even if you could, I would say that education is its own virtue.
Dan Nakagawa: And what does speaking ability have to do with anything?
Luigi Novi: If you want to sequester yourself in a cabin in the woods away from anyone else? Nothing.
But if you want to communicate with the other people on this planet? Lots.
Dan Nakagawa: Are you then implying that Stephen Hawking is an idiot?
Luigi Novi: No, that’s your statement, not mine.
Criticism of the denigration of the importance of learning how to communicate properly is not called into question by using the example of someone who barely can speak unaided. Your example, therefore, it not applicable to this thesis.
Dan Nakagawa: And before you go on to call me a troll, yes, yes, I DO know ‘what you mean.’
Luigi Novi: Then why ask me such a stupid rhetorical question?
Dan Nakagawa: I simply don’t like it…
Luigi Novi: Life’s tough. Wear a cup.
Dan Nakagawa: And while we are on the subject of intelligence:
“Alan’s statement is correct: Education (not necessarily “college” or “degrees”) ARE necessary, even if they’re not perceived to be.”
Education, as it is a topic, takes the singular, not the plural.
Luigi Novi: Thanks for the correction. And as soon as you can illustrate how intelligence and making occasional mistakes are somehow mutually exclusive—if that was indeed your intent—again, let me know.
Everyone here makes mistakes of syntax, grammar or spelling from time to time, even Peter. Would you like us to start keeping tabs on your writings?
Eric: Um, that’d be PAD’s…
Luigi Novi: Sorry, I forgot about that comment in Peter’s blog entry, and merely used my browser’s Find feature to look for the words “Gore” and “Kerry.” Thanks for pointing that out to me.
Bill Myers: YOU have a lot of nerve questioning Luigi’s intelligence. Luigi is one of the most intelligent posters here, bar none. He certainly exhibits far more intelligence than you.
Luigi Novi: Stop it. You’re making me blush. 🙂
I get what you all are saying but I’m not sure that a lot of this isn’t based more on anecdote than reality.
I believe that many of the people you know who say they voted for Bush say they did so because he seemed like a regular guy. Please believe me when I tell you that NONE of the folks I’ve talked to ever brought up anything like that. It may be that Republicans in your area are more shallow than they are in North Carolina.
When voters in 2004 were asked what the most important issues were, they said stuff like National Security, the economy, etc. Now, maybe they weren’t offered the option of saying “the guy they thought was more down to earth and not some hoity toity book learning egg head”, I don’t know. I’m only saying that the one poll that supposedly showed that people were more likely to want to share a beer with Bush than with Kerry tells us nothing about their attitudes toward intelligence. Maybe it tells us that Kerry came off as an ášš. Maybe they misunderstood the question and thought they were being offered some Busch Beer. It’s all a slender thread on which to hang major conclusions.
But part of Kerry’s lack of appeal was that he saw the world with all of its subtle complexities and nuances. Unfortunately, as a result the man couldn’t articulate a clear vision.,/i>
That may be true, Bill. It may also be true that his inability to articulate a clear vision was due not to an overabundance of intellect but a deficiency in same. Regardless, it’s a fatal flaw in a candidate. Who nominated this guy?
Jerry–I didn’t see too many people on either side bragging about what great think tank material either candidate was. Most of the commentary I saw from Kerry supporters consisted of agonized queries as to why he was running such a poor campaign. I can say without any fear of being wrong that if Tim Lynch had been in charge of the Kerry campaign and had the candidate actually followed his advice (which may be even less likely than the first condition), he would be President Kerry today.
(I know, Tim, that’s dámņìņg with faint praise indeed, but it’s praise nonetheless.)
Maybe I’m naive and I know what I’m going to say goes against the general attitude that Things Are Getting Ever Worse but I think people are MORE informed today than they have been! How’s them apples?
In the last few days I’ve had very good conversations about chemistry with the woman who cut my hair; South American politics and geology with the parents of two of my students, a GREAT conversation on nanotechnology with a kid who normally has trouble keeping his shoes tied, an argument on Roman battle techniques with a co-worker, etc. Maybe people watch too much TV but there’s some great šhìŧ on TV if you watch the right channels. Wikipedia, google, 24 news channels, it’s easier than ever to get information. And people are. Talk to them.
Yeah, kids listen to crappy music. As they ever have. But they are also listening to stuff that the radio stations would never ever play. They aren’t doomed to follow the crowd in music tastes. Kids are making movies and editing them on computers. They’re making music and selling the CDs. I have a student taking my class for the third time–NOT in the running for Valedictorian–but he can design a webpage with flash animation that will blow you away.
People can disagree with you on all kinds of things, especially politics, religion, ethics, things like that. But it’s a real mistake to underestimate their intelligence or assume that anything they do is motivated by some antipathy toward thinking. It IS possible for someone to have the same facts you do and reach an entirely different conclusion, especially in something as subjective as politics.
Second, if your wife’s doctor is a guy, pull him aside before the delivery and make sure that under NO circumstances should he deliver the baby, look at you, and tell you that you do good work. If Stace hadn’t been pretty much numb from the neck down with various organs out of their normal places, both me and that doctor would either be dead or falsettoes.
Good advice. Here’s another one. If the doctor offers you the opportunity to cut the umbilical cord, refuse it. Hey, I’M not the one getting paid for this. I can see two possible scenarios here, neither good.
SCENARIO #1- The baby deflates like a balloon and zips around the room. I die of a heart attack.
SCENARIO #2- It’s 10 years later. My daughter Melissa enters the room.
Melissa- “Hey Mom, where did I get this disfiguring scar?”
My Ex-Wife- “Ask you father, the surgeon.“
Good advice. Here’s another one. If the doctor offers you the opportunity to cut the umbilical cord, refuse it.
In all seriousness, though, I did it, and it’s a fairly nice way to have some actual active role to play in the whole process. One potentially useful observation, though. That thing is tougher than it looks. Gotta not be squeamish and give those scissors a good squeeze if you want to make it all the way through in one cut. 😉
-Rex Hondo-
Scenario #1 makes me think of the Night Court episode with an, ahem, adult inflatable, a helium tank, over-inflation and Harry Anderson’s high pitched response:
“Well, she certainly is an active girl….”
I remember way too much crap.
Of course, you realize now someone is going to convince your wife to let them bring in a balloon just to see the look on your face, don’t you?
Posted by: Bill Mulligan at September 16, 2006 10:57 PM
I get what you all are saying but I’m not sure that a lot of this isn’t based more on anecdote than reality.
Bill, I am the biggest proponent of using statistical evidence rather than anecdotal. But anecdotal evidence is not inherently false, it’s just not enough to prove something true.
That said, upon reflection I realized that I overgeneralized. I believe a certain percentage of voters liked Bush’s “moral clarity,” based on conversations I had with people who voted for him in 2004.
Posted by: Bill Mulligan at September 16, 2006 10:57 PM
I believe that many of the people you know who say they voted for Bush say they did so because he seemed like a regular guy. Please believe me when I tell you that NONE of the folks I’ve talked to ever brought up anything like that. It may be that Republicans in your area are more shallow than they are in North Carolina.
Can’t speak for the other posters, but when I heard people talk about Bush’s “moral clarity” and “decisiveness,” I didn’t equate that with “regular guy.” I thought they were responding to the very simple worldview Bush espouses.
I know many conservatives who feel that acknowledging shades of gray in the realm of morality is tantamount to lacking moral backbone. Thus, they found Bush’s apparent decisiveness refreshing. I disagree with that viewpoint, but I don’t consider it “shallow.”
I think many people who responded to Bush’s “moral clarity,” however, have now realized that Bush is more stubborn than anything. And I know many people who voted for Bush merely because they thought he was the lesser of two evils.
Again, I’ll admit my earlier statements were too broad, perhaps verging on stereotyping. Although you, as a conservative, Bill, are not supposed to be complaining about stereotyping.
(A joke, Mulligan! It was just a joke!)
Posted by: Bill Mulligan at September 16, 2006 10:57 PM
When voters in 2004 were asked what the most important issues were, they said stuff like National Security, the economy, etc. Now, maybe they weren’t offered the option of saying “the guy they thought was more down to earth and not some hoity toity book learning egg head”, I don’t know. I’m only saying that the one poll that supposedly showed that people were more likely to want to share a beer with Bush than with Kerry tells us nothing about their attitudes toward intelligence. Maybe it tells us that Kerry came off as an ášš. Maybe they misunderstood the question and thought they were being offered some Busch Beer. It’s all a slender thread on which to hang major conclusions.
I’m not too confident in any of the polls surrounding the 2004 elections, particularly the exit polls. As I recall, there were a number of voters who responded that “values” weighed heavily in their decision, and the media pounced all over that like flies on šhìŧ. But it turned out that the question was worded rather vaguely and the answers were of little value (please pardon the unintentional pun).
Posted by: Bill Mulligan at September 16, 2006 10:57 PM
That may be true, Bill. It may also be true that his inability to articulate a clear vision was due not to an overabundance of intellect but a deficiency in same. Regardless, it’s a fatal flaw in a candidate. Who nominated this guy?
What’s that question supposed to mean? I helped nominate him with my vote, and I don’t apologize for it. The field of would-be nominees sucked pretty badly. Howard Dean’s thinking is as simplistic as George W. Bush’s, they’re just on opposite sides of the ideological fence. And John Edwards’ lack of experience weighed heavily in my decision not to vote for him.
I mean, if we’re gonna play this game, we can ask, “Who nominated Bush in 2000?” The Republicans turned their nose up at John McCain, a far superior candidate to Bush for crying out loud.
The point I’m trying to make, my friend, is that both parties have really çráppëd the bed in recent years when it comes to fielding candidates. I don’t think Democrats, Republicans, conservatives, liberals, or crackpots like me have any cause to brag these days.
Posted by: Bill Mulligan at September 16, 2006 10:57 PM
Maybe I’m naive and I know what I’m going to say goes against the general attitude that Things Are Getting Ever Worse but I think people are MORE informed today than they have been! How’s them apples?
In the last few days I’ve had very good conversations about chemistry with the woman who cut my hair; South American politics and geology with the parents of two of my students, a GREAT conversation on nanotechnology with a kid who normally has trouble keeping his shoes tied, an argument on Roman battle techniques with a co-worker, etc. Maybe people watch too much TV but there’s some great šhìŧ on TV if you watch the right channels. Wikipedia, google, 24 news channels, it’s easier than ever to get information. And people are. Talk to them.
Bill, you’ve chided us for relying overly much on anecdotal evidence, but isn’t your evidence now equally anecdotal? You’re one of the most intelligent people I know. It’s entirely possible that without knowing it you’re gravitating towards the most intelligent people you know (even if that’s a relative concept at times) and vice versa, and that’s coloring your perceptions.
I still get e-mails from people at work who have fallen for some hoax because, y’know, they saw it on the Internet. In fact, I’d say our society has access to more information than ever but is less well-informed as a result. Only a select few people could afford to buy their own broadcast T.V. or radio station, but even I have my own Web site, and I can barely afford a plastic spoon (not spoons, mind you, but a single spoon). The filters that used to screen out the nonsense are no longer there, but because a computer screen looks like a T.V. screen, there are people out there willing to take whatever they find on that screen to be Gospel.
Worse, I think we are overloaded with acontextual information. We know a lot of things but don’t always know what they mean.
Posted by: Bill Mulligan at September 16, 2006 10:57 PM
People can disagree with you on all kinds of things, especially politics, religion, ethics, things like that. But it’s a real mistake to underestimate their intelligence or assume that anything they do is motivated by some antipathy toward thinking. It IS possible for someone to have the same facts you do and reach an entirely different conclusion, especially in something as subjective as politics.
Bill, I will admit that my prior post was an overgeneralization. There were many reasons why people voted for Bush. Some people thought he was the bee’s knees, others merely thought he was the lesser of two evils, and there are a host of other reasons as well. So I apologize if I overstated my case and came off as insulting. At the same time, you should know by now that I do NOT assume people are stupid for disagreeing with me. I’ve been persuaded to change my mind on occasion by people here in this blog, yourself included.
Nevertheless, I stand by my assertion that there was a certain percentage of voters that responded to Bush’s simplistic view of the world, and mistook his stubborness for moral clarity.
The Republicans turned their nose up at John McCain, a far superior candidate to Bush for crying out loud.
Touche’ Of course, we might get a chance to rectify that mistake.
Bill, you’ve chided us for relying overly much on anecdotal evidence, but isn’t your evidence now equally anecdotal
Sure, that’s quite true. But I think my evidence supports the idea the great increase in information outthere is having an effect.
Let’s face it SOMEBODY must be watching the history channel. Ditto Discovery Channel, national Geographic channel, Playboy channel, all the good documentary channels out there. More people have been exposed to the classic movies than could have been before. If you wanted to see a Polish movie in 1979 you had better live in NYC or Poland. Now I can get it on netflix or Blockbuster.
There’s no way people can be less informed now with all the 24 hour news channels and international newspapers on the web than they were back when their main source of info was whatever 25 minutes of news the Networks chose to show, is there?
Not to mention the fact that when people talk about how bad education is compared to the good old days they tend to forget that it was perfectly legal back then to not educate huge swaths of the population.
We may be surrounded by news, it may be harder for people to come to a consensus but I really believe we are better informed than before. I don’t know if that can be proven though.
Oh hey, Austin City Limits is showing The Pixies in concert! Booyah! THIS IS THE FREAKING GOLDEN AGE MY FRIENDS! Gotta go!!
Speaking of the news channels, I just watched parts of a show on CNN with a bunch of panelists(Miles O’Brien, Stephen A. Smith, Jay Thomas, and a psychologist and a talk radio host from Georgia, and they all said the media was over-saturated with news. I don’t necessarily think so, but one thing that all the news channels or news shows lack is a What The Hëll This Means To You segment. You get all this information thrown at you, but not why it happened(usually) or what effect it might have on, well, anything. To watch any news show, you could think that any of these events take place in a vacuum. Life doesn’t happen in a vaccuum. Everything that happens either causes something to happen or affects something.
More delivery room advice. Don’t ask your wife if you can cut the umbilical cord with your sword. Mine, at least, didn’t find that funny. She was also worried that I was serious.
It’s just an amazing and apalling thing to me that a guy so manifestly evil should have made it this far.
Ted Kennedy and George Bush do have one thing in common: They’re both proof that family connections can get you very far in life.
I’ve often wondered what he would have to do for the people of MA to vote him out, but I’ve long since concluded that he’ll only leave the government the same way his brothers did: by dying.
That being said, the way many conservatives go on about him, you’d think he’s the most powerful member of the Senate and has a lock on the ’08 nomination. The fact is, he’s become a joke. He’s almost a living parody of the fat, corrupt politician. What was the last time you heard of him actually creating a new legislative initiative?
Den, I agree that to you and me he’s a joke but he is still quite powerful. And there are those who, to my amazement, don’t seem to get what he is. A few years back a writer for the Boston Globe had this jaw dropper: “If she had lived, Mary Jo Kopechne would be 62 years old. Through his tireless work as a legislator, Edward Kennedy would have brought comfort to her in her old age.”
Words fail me…
In fairness to the writer of that piece, he says it was meant as a criticism of teddy. Too subtle for me but if read from that point of view it’s a pretty good line.
I believe that many of the people you know who say they voted for Bush say they did so because he seemed like a regular guy. Please believe me when I tell you that NONE of the folks I’ve talked to ever brought up anything like that. It may be that Republicans in your area are more shallow than they are in North Carolina.
i’ve never heard anyone say they voted for Bush because he was a regular guy or because he’s the guy they’d like to have a beer with.
i have, however, heard lots of pundits say that that’s why people voted for Bush. i suspect that a lot of people on this thread have mistaken the spin for the truth.
PAD –
and every single one has written to me
Actually, for the record, I had a post get caught in the spam filter once, and I didn’t tell you about it; it just wasn’t worth it at that point. 🙂
Sean Scullion –
Bush thinks like a computer.
This is certainly an interesting way of looking at it.
I mean, just the other day, on another forum, I read a post from a guy who has a son nearly my age saying he would “never vote for a Democrap”.
Now, keeping in mind the fact that there are very few, if any, libs on this forum that would say they’d never vote for a Republican, I commented on how the neocons have effectively blinded him, because in some ways Bush is more Democrat than Clinton was.
Yet, his response? That he’s known “things” since before I was born.
Wow. I mean, how do you respond to such a pointless comment like that? I ended up just giving up on him; he’s a lost cause anyways if he’s that dámņ unwavering on how he votes, and he’s obviously not interested in having an intelligent debate.
Bill Mulligan –
But it’s a real mistake to underestimate their intelligence or assume that anything they do is motivated by some antipathy toward thinking.
I think the fact remains that we’ve gotten to see Bush in action for almost 6 years now, and there certainly seems to be a lot of antipathy toward thinking from this administration.
In basic terms, Bush’s position is very much “I’m right, you’re not” on any issue.
Bill Mulligan –
Touche’ Of course, we might get a chance to rectify that mistake.
Doubtful. I think the people behind the curtain will start pulling the same strings they did before the 2000 election, casting McCain as not being a true Republican for siding with Dems on issues (when the current President is anything but a true Republican). Those sorts of things.
Don’t ask your wife if you can cut the umbilical cord with your sword.
Ðámņ, why didn’t I think of that? Of course, it’s probably for the best, considering the look Mrs. Hondo gave me when I asked her en route to the hospital if she could hold off for a few hours so we could have a St. Patrick’s Day baby. I believe there was a comment made about the dwindling prospects of ever making a sibling for the little Hondolet.
Of course, we laugh now since it actually happened. Mostly because we know birthday parties are always going to be a hoot! 😉
-Rex Hondo-
Posted by: Craig J. Ries at September 17, 2006 02:01 AM
Doubtful. I think the people behind the curtain will start pulling the same strings they did before the 2000 election, casting McCain as not being a true Republican for siding with Dems on issues (when the current President is anything but a true Republican). Those sorts of things.
No, not so doubtful. McCain isn’t facing an opponent like George W. Bush this time around. George W. had the advantage of a huge personal warchest and having George H.W. as his father and Jeb as his brother. The Bush family is a political dynasty. They’re not as visible as the Kennedys, but they’re powerful. But there won’t be a Bush running in ’08.
Also, in 2004 McCain didn’t make an attempt to reach out to the Republican party’s ultra-conservative base. He’s doing that this time around. That may give him the fighting chance he didn’t have in ’04. Granted, the problem with pandering to the party’s base — whether you’re a Democrat or a Republican — is that it can be hard to scramble back to the center in order to win the general election. But if the Democrats nominate Hillary Clinton in ’08, I don’t think McCain will have much to worry about.
“i have, however, heard lots of pundits say that that’s why people voted for Bush. i suspect that a lot of people on this thread have mistaken the spin for the truth.”
You’re half right. I got stuck on dayshift (0800 to 1600 or 1700) for most of the run up to the ’04 elections and for the aftermath. That means, depending on who I was working with, I got stuck with a lot of talk radio. Many, many, many long eight or nine hour days of gun nibbling joy involving Beck, Rush, O’Reilly, Liddy, locals and others.
Did I hear pundits saying the things I’ve referenced above? Yep. But heard caller after caller after caller make the same statements as well. I would go into the Capitol of Virginia and the state complex around it and hear that from local pols and their aids. I would pick up any number of papers and read those words in letters to the editor pages. People were saying it as well as pundits.
That’s why some of those statements stuck in my brain. It shocked me to some degree to hear people, voters, saying, whether they meant to or not, that they wanted the seemingly less bright guy to win because they were tired of someone smarter then average holding the office.
“Now, maybe they weren’t offered the option of saying “the guy they thought was more down to earth and not some hoity toity book learning egg head”, I don’t know.”
I saw a lot of those polls and saw the options given for checking off. The best people were given if they didn’t want to pick one of the pre-chosen hot button topics was “other”.
“I didn’t see too many people on either side bragging about what great think tank material either candidate was. Most of the commentary I saw from Kerry supporters consisted of agonized queries as to why he was running such a poor campaign.”
Actaully, most of what I heard was agonized queries as to why he was running such a poor campaign because they felt that he was brighter then Bush. Most gripes went along the lines of complaining about the fact that he would give long, nuanced answers rather then K.I.S.S. sound bytes.
That failing got him tagged a lot by conservative critics because giving long, detailed and multi layered answers failed to offer a good sound byte for the press and they had enough room in them for the critics and Rove to pick one thing from them, pull it out of context and give Bush and Cheney their next “flip-flopper” sound byte. This was then made worse by Kerry giving another long, detailed and multi layered reason with no good sound bytes as to why what he said wasn’t a flip-flop that would then be cherry picked by Rove again and used as a “flip-flopping on the flip-flop” sound byte.
Kerry had brains. He was just almost as bad as Bush, but in a different way, in his speach giving skills. That’s the gripe I heard most about his campaign.
“Maybe I’m naive and I know what I’m going to say goes against the general attitude that Things Are Getting Ever Worse but I think people are MORE informed today than they have been! How’s them apples?”
Red or green? Thems apples is just fine. I said waaayyyy above that I thought the attitudes on display in the election run up said more about a good chunk of the voters then it did the U.S. as a whole. I think that there are a lot of information sources out there and that many of them are being used quite a bit.
But that still doesn’t change a few things about the public opinions coming from some circles, mostly conservative, these days and just after the 2000 election. Bush is a refreshing change of pace because he’s just a average Joe kinda guy rather then a Brainiac. Scientists, doctors and other people with PHDs in front of their name don’t really know what they’re talking about because you can smash their arguments with good old “common sense” and such.
Now, I will say that I’m pretty sure that not all of those people are actually trying to be stupid. It may not even be the intelligence VS intellect argument I was making many posts ago. I wonder how many people were actually saying that they just wanted simple?
“Bush thinks like a computer.
Bill Myers pointed this out, with Bush it’s either yes or no. On or off. Binary thinking. You’re with him, or you’re not. A computer can only process the information that it has, yes or no, on or off. There is no third option. I never noticed that before. A lot of his camp are like that, too. Yes or no, on or off, good or bad. Bush is a color blind computer. Black or white, no grey between.”
Or, said in a simpler way, Bush thinks and speaks in the simplest terms.
What’s the one thing most people say they want? A simple life. We like simple. People crave simple. I know I do. I like simple at home. Something broke but it’s a quick fix. Fantastic. I pìššëd of the wife but I have enough money for really good German chocolate and a Jet Li film. Thank you, God. I love simple at work. He did it, he ain’t gonna fight and I can go home on time. But I don’t crave simple in my politics.
Bush’s campaign was run on simple. Gore’s and Kerry’s wasn’t. The ideas that get Bush the most support are simple ideas. They’re bad, we’re good and we’re gonna get ’em type of stuff.
The red meat ideas that fly around the conservative base and/or some Bush backers and the most popular ideas thrown out by talking heads in the media seem to be simple as well. Saddam is bad. Take out Saddam and all the problems go away. Islam is bad. Islam hates us. Kill Islam and the problem goes away. Iran is bad. Iran wants nukes. Nuke Iran and the problems go away.
Well, while that’s nice, most of us know that simple doesn’t always work in the real world and trying to force simple to work in the real world can make a mess of things. We like simple but we use or intelligence and our intellect to see that from time to time we may need to put up with the less then simple in our solutions in life.
But not everybody does. “It’s just common sense” may often be just saying, “I think it’s this simple. Yes or no, black or white.”
Are people saying they want to be dumb or be lead by dumber? I’ll give a lot of people the credit to say that may not be what they’re really saying. They may just want simple, easy to understand stuff out of life and their leaders. But if we fail to use our intelligence and our intellect to overcome our desire for the simple when we most need to, is it really all that different as desiring dumb or being dumb?
“No, not so doubtful. McCain isn’t facing an opponent like George W. Bush this time around. George W. had the advantage of a huge personal warchest and having George H.W. as his father and Jeb as his brother. The Bush family is a political dynasty. They’re not as visible as the Kennedys, but they’re powerful. But there won’t be a Bush running in ’08.”
Maybe. Maybe not. There will be no Bush in ’08 but there will still be Bush’s effect on things. I also think the outcome of this Novemeber and how it’s seen by the powers behind the curtain could bring about the same attacks on McCain as last time.
McCain would be a change from Bush and would change at least some of the things that many Bush critics hate but Bush backers like. If the D’s don’t take at least one branch of Congress then the powers that be may decide that the present course is the right one for winning in ’08 despite polls and reports saying that it ain’t so.
If they think that they may well see McCain as a vote for change that would look, to the base, as saying that they and Bush got it wrong the last eight years. I doubt that they would admit that so McCain could be sunk again in favor of a more Bush backer-like option.
Now, if the D’s make some high stakes gains this November it may be different and I would tend to agree with you more on his chances. McCain would get to come in as the GOP endorsed course correction man. He would likely be seen as the best bet against the Democrats holding all three keys to power post ’08.
Guys, please stop. You’re scaring me.
My wife and I are working at having our first kid (no comments please) and your stories of how much of the male brain seems to vacate the skull when exposed to a woman in labor is really freaking me out. TV shows don’t even make guys look this silly (maybe the Night Court where the group of woman all went in to labor at once). I haven’t got that much real grey matter to begin with. If all of it that leaves doesn’t come back I could very well end up spending the rest of my life as a vegetable.
Jerry, the male brain is a problem solving organ. When things go worng we try to fix it, often with comical and/or tragic results, but fix it nonethe less. Unfortunately, a woman in labor defeats our best efforts and there’s the added factor that the problem in question is one of our own making. Thus the well known phenomona of otherwise intelligent men running around like unfrozen cavemen thrust into downtown Manhattan.
As for McCain, at this point the only people who could beat him in the primary are Gulliani or Romney. But McCain is the frontrunner and, unlike Democrats, Republicans tend to go with the front runner (Democrats tend to eliminate the front runner. Carter, Clinton, Kerry, none of them were much in the polls at the start of things.)
His health would be my main worry. An ill timed heart attack or something right before the election and we get 4 years of Hillary (and 4 years of right wing paranoia that she had something to do with it).