Who Are You Calling Intellectually Incurious?
Perhaps a review of the top ten essential qualifications of the intellectually curious is in order:
(1) Attendance and graduation from an Ivy League university (best if transcripts are mysteriously missing, sealed, or have been shot into space, and/or no one is able or willing to remember anything about your accomplishments).
(2) Teaching at an Ivy League university, particularly if your classes mostly end in “studies.”
(3) Having once taught at an Ivy League university or any university commonly known as a bastion of the left, particularly if there is little evidence you ever taught a class.
(4) Membership in the Democratic, Socialist, or Communist Parties (but I repeat myself), and slavish devotion to the associated philosophy and doctrine.
(5) Being a Democrat elected official (extra IQ points awarded to U.S. representatives and senators willing to bash America and George W. Bush).
(6) Being a member of the legacy media (extra IQ points above and beyond any politician are self-awarded).
(7) Being a pundit/commentator on any cable TV network other than Fox, particularly if you are required to have regular examinations for rabies.
(8) Being Barack Obama (IQ, self-regard off the charts; how does one rate a light worker?).
(9) No actual evidence of accomplishment. Ever.
(10) Being one of any combination of the above plus having married — at least once (twice is better) — a ridiculous wealthy leftist woman.
Let’s review the essential qualifications of the intellectually incurious:
(1) A conservative who has beaten his betters in any electoral contest (but particularly national), regardless of any other factor of background, education, accomplishment, etc.
(2) Sarah Palin.
But what are we to understand when the intellectually curious by self-acclamation prove themselves to be anything but? Just a few cases in point:
(1) David Brooks, what passes for a conservative at the New York Times, drooling over the crease in Barack Obama’s pants and concluding from that crease that Obama would be a “very good president.” One shudders to imagine what Mr. Brooks might have concluded should he have glimpsed Mr. Obama’s underwear.
(2) David Brooks expressing his everlasting man love for Mr. Obama, who was apparently able to construct several consecutive sentences with “Edmund Burke” in them.
(3) David Gregory of NBC news, upon observing Mr. Obama swat a fly, falling into a fit of man-loving rapture at the significance of the accomplishment such that he had to observe that swatting a fly wasn’t “easy,” and was a feat that would take him many hours; accompanied by Meredith Vieira and John Harwood of the Today Show who were similarly smitten; accompanied by ABC’s Good Morning America’s Chris Cuomo, who observed that such martial arts skill is “very rare”; accompanied by Chris Wragge of CBS who announced that he had just confirmed that “the president is a ninja.”
(4) Senator John Kerry, making one of the most tone-deaf, politically dense proclamations of all time: “I voted for the 86 billion before I voted against it.”
(5) Wall Street Journal reporter Sudeep Reddy criticizing Sarah Palin’s assertion that grocery prices have risen in the last year and the Obama administration’s QE2 policy “would push them even higher.” Palin (to the intellectually curious, the most intellectually incurious human being who has ever lived) pointed out that a November 4 article in the Wall Street Journal made precisely that point. Ooops.
(6) Chris Matthews of MSNBC’s Hardball dealing with Obama Onset Tingling Leg Syndrome (OOTLS).
(7) Any and every politician suffering from Bush Derangement Syndrome (BDS).
So it would seem that the intellectually curious are afflicted with serious cases of Pants Worship (PW), Foot In Mouth Disease (FIMD), Faux-Masculinity Worship (FMW), BDS, OOTLS, Wall Street Journal I-Can’t-Read-My-Own-Newspaper-Syndrome (ICRMONS), and Lack of Actual Accomplishment Syndrome (LAAS).
The intellectually incurious, on the other hand, seem to get elected and seem to actually accomplish things. The most recent election results — and common sense — reveal that:
(1) Americans like that;
(2) Anyone calling someone else intellectually incurious, is, and;
(3) It would be a good idea to be curious about Lisa Murkowski’s political identity.
I have noticed for decades that liberals are self-proclaimed (pseudo) intellectuals (as well as self-proclaimed nicer, more compassionate people). THEY are in fact the intellectually incurious, easily manipulated by constant brainwashing from their slanted news sources. They don’t recognize bias or manipulation. They cling desperately to their self-image of intellectual and moral superiority. It takes lower intellect to jump on a band wagon. It takes greater intellect to analyze each issue for yourself and go with what makes sense and against what sounds nice.
Great article. Is it just me, or does the Left hate cowboys?
Ronald Reagan and George W Bush loved horses and working on the ranch.
Sarah Palin loves hunting and fishing and being outdoors, very “cowboy” kind of stuff.
Maybe the left doesn’t like dirt.
Anyway, the left will always feel intellectually superior to anyone on the right, regardless of his or her credentials. Why? Because you don’t agree with them. Therefore you are stupid.
Anybody with a warm, folksy demeanor who isn’t afraid of hard work is looked down upon by the effete bluebloods who pretend to be the protectors of the underprivileged.
Nice article, thank you.
I tried for years to comprehend the self-proclaimed Intellectually Curious party – what made them tick. I failed. I came to the conclusion that some people’s thinking and conduct just is beyond comprehension; no further autopsy required.
http://electionink.com/entry.php/116-What-To-Do-If-A-Tea-Party-Family-Moves-Next-Door-To-You
As I pointed out in my book “Soccer, the Left, and the Farce of Multiculturalism” (pp. 223-4), older liberals and leftists in this country have zero curiosity about foreign sports, and while younger liberals and leftists have curiosity about soccer, this is only because they grew up with the sport. They still have zero curiosity about other foreign sports (for example, cricket).
No. Getting “better” grades in school has very little correlation with intellectual curiosity — anything from course load, types of courses, and what other activities are going on would affect that (most if not many of the brightest high school and college students are also musicians and such.) And being able to drum up cute anecdotes doesn’t quite cut it either. Genuine intellectual curiosity means trying to understand things outside of your comfort zone, which often means honestly re-examining things you already thought you had figured out. That last bit is beyond most people (aside from when when something catastrophic turns their lives upside down.) Anyway, being “a conservative” by definition means being disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc., or to restore traditional ones, and to limit change.
Which basically means thinking *inside* the box, and that’s not at all being intellectually curious..
Couldn’t agree more, BC, about those conservatives who are so mired in tradition that they have rendered themselves intellectually incurious.
But tell me, as a fellow intellectually curious person, have you ever tried cannibalism and do you think it has a place in America. Contact me and we’ll get together for dinner sometime.
Couldn’t agree more, BC, about those conservatives who are so mired in tradition that they have rendered themselves intellectually incurious.
But tell me, as a fellow intellectually curious person, have you ever tried cannibalism and do you think it has a place in America. Contact me and we’ll get together for dinner sometime.
Well, miker5 and your echo, Anonymous: the response of the intellectually non-curious to be being challenged as being intellectually non-curious is often to bring up an illogical, irrelevant extreme example like, say, being curious about cannibalism. Which of course actually only serves as a demonstration of being intellectually non-curious.
How kind of you to define conservatism for us! The only problem with your “definition” is that it covers so many bases that it hardly defines anything at all.
Those who want to conserve the massive, centralized federal government, and who bitterly cling to its structurally inherent mechanism of growth — i.e., leftists — are “conservatives.” Those who want to return to the founding principles of federalism and liberty, who want to reduce the scope and power of government are also “conservatives.”
Nice!
BitChie Hath Spoken.
Contradictions? Let’s “drum up cute anecdotes”.
“No. Getting “better” grades in school has very little correlation with intellectual curiosity — anything from course load, types of courses, and what other activities are going on would affect that (most if not many of the brightest high school and college students are also musicians and such.)”
Followed by -
“And being able to drum up cute anecdotes doesn’t quite cut it either.”
And then –
“Genuine intellectual curiosity means trying to understand things outside of your comfort zone, which often means honestly re-examining things you already thought you had figured out.”
BC
“I personally can’t have a serious political conversation with a conservative…”
November 8, 2010 – 1:18 pm
“That last bit is beyond most people.”
Yes sir, you do land in that realm of the pie chart. Sharp!
And finally a Modern Liberal admits Systemic Education Failure –
“No. Getting “better” grades in school has very little correlation with intellectual curiosity…”
There’s a Crack in the Universe. Don’t fall in it. Goldstein is there.
As a conservative, my intellectual curiosity is not restricted nor is it subordinated to maintaining the status quo or a slavish devotion to an archaic mindset. Like most of my fellow conservatives, we welcome an intellectual challenge and we do read, study, and comprehend the changes supported and initiatives attempted by liberals to made unwelcome changes that are unncecssary.
We do not object to changes to the health care system in America, we object to the systematic take-over by the government of another aspect of our daily lives. In fact, changes have been long needed but the changes were to specific aspects, i.e., preexisting conditions as one example.
When it comes to taxes, I do not believe any conservative thinker will concede the point that we do in fact need more sources of revenue to pay the bills our government continues to pile up. The point is how to develop the sources and at the same time, require outdated, overstaffed, and abused programs to be either cut or eliminated altogether. We expect some balance or give and take. We expect, perhaps unreasonably, for our elected representatives to act in the best interest of the country as a whole, not continuously giving our hard earned revenues away to a demographic who will be a devoted voting bloc, bought and paid for by our tax dollars.
We expect each wage earner to pay his or her fair share of taxes but at the same time, consider the fact that those who do earn over $250,000 a year through entrepreneurship and business ownership are the ones who face the tough decisions, face weekly payrolls, and continue to be the lifeblood of this nation deserve to be treated with some respect for their efforts. Is asking for a tax break too much to expect, especially when some who earn much less end up paying no taxes plus the additional benefit of a tax refund from a depleted treasury?
No, we are not the prototypical intellectual curious as portrayed by liberals, we are the true intellectual curious who have been the reason this country has maintained its leadership role, that is until Obama was elected. Now, the failure of the faux intellectual curious has been revealed for all to see.
good points
i do find it quite intellectually curious that lefties consider 250k in the realm of the millionaires and billionaires
Our social structure has been defined by our news media as being made up of two orientations, when it is in fact made up of thousands.
Among those (falsely) called “conservatives”, you will find a large group who are willing to try something new, after looking it over and seeing if it resembles something that was tried before and failed. People who are conservative experimentors.
Among those (falsely) called “Liberals”, we find a large number of “useful idiots” who can be suckered by any rabble rouser, comunity organizer, or dictator with a good line.
The second group often calls the first group “intellectually incurious”, among other things, and without examining what the first group is doing or listening to anything they say.
BC, I think you really do not have any idea what it means to be a Conservative.
Inside the box thinking? Yes. You have to understand the system as it is, and why it is that way, before you venture to change it in your ignorance. Don’t try to fix something that isn’t broken. Only when it is clear that something is broken, and in exactly what way, and how it came to be broken, only then can you fix it properly.
The folks on the Left think Outside-the-box thinking is inherently good. The same goes for “new ideas”. Do you really think folks haven’t thought of your ideas before? Do you really think you are smarter than all the folks who came before you? NeoLiberals are intrinsically hubristic. It’s like they are 20-yr-olds who have never grown up.
Conservatives are necessarily humble. We just do not believe we are smarter than all of history. Knowing why things are the way they are is wisdom. It takes much time to learn wisdom. One must first grow up.
You are right. You cannot have a conversation with us. You have to be an adult to talk with other adults. We are worlds apart. Like many 20-somethings, you think you know more than us adults. Hopefully, you’ll grow out of that stage.
I’ve always translated “conservatives” as intelligent people who believe in conserving money instead of thieves and fools who believe in liberally wasting it. Fundamental change in a democratic country means changing it from a democracy to–what is it you people want anyway? An oligarchy? Our Prez and Congress are acting more and more like the Politburo.
“Genuine intellectual curiosity means trying to understand things outside of your comfort zone, which often means honestly re-examining things you already thought you had figured out.”
For an example, see Obama, B. H.
My first reaction to Senator Murkowski’s reference to Sarah Palin’s intellectual curiosity was to question the Senator’s intellectual resources the day before Joe Miller won his primary election victory.
We now recognize that Senator Murkowski’s resources are firmly lodged in the Democrat Party electorate of Alaska.
One thing about the left, when they scream long and loud against anything that’s been said or done, you know it was right. The racist or bigot name calling to follow only confirms the fact.
Sometimes I wonder literally, literally, if Obama (totally hypothetically) would have been a better President if elected at age 25, before he entered the post-graduate academic world. Literally.
As William Buckley (PBUH) noted in his famous “phone book” comment, there is something about academia, in the social sciences realm at least, that, again literally, seems to make people stupider the longer they are in it. It is one of life’s great mysteries, but I guess the reasons have to do with wisdom being an awareness of how much we do NOT know, an awareness that academia refuses to entertain all too often.
How many times have we laughed in film and TV about the dumb rural yokels who meet the slick, well-dressed, koll-edge edgoo-cated city slicker who knows everything about everything, and winds up stripped to his underwear, outsmarted by those same dumb yokels. (Interestingly, culture seems to have portrayed that much more in the past than present.)
It is why acedemic intellectuals remain mystified why so many Americans do not take them seriously, while so many of those dumb Americans know exactly why they don’t take such intellectuals seriously. And when regular Americans are accused of holding intellectuals in contempt, as is frequently the case, well, gee….. in that little contempt-fest, just who started feeling the contempt first, and not being shy about it? Hmmm?
Of course, academic intellectuals are simply too smart to see such things. But they probably would have seem them clearly, before they climbed the ivory tower, and started getting stupider.
Well, colleges are repositories of knowledge, right? That knowledge has to come from somewhere, so it is removed from the brains of the academics.
Now, now, now, don’t get all huffy. You can’t expect to be liked by everybody all the time. Intellectually curious, patriotically inclined – what does it matter? Someone who claims either will be challenged by others who, in agreement or not, will claim the opposite. To debate the point only lessens the future of our great nation.
To paraphrase Ronaldus Magnus, ” It’s not that the left is just plain stupid, it’s just that pretty much everything they know to be true just isn’t “. Some examples are: Keynesian economic theory, the benevolence of liberals, the safety of trusting progressives, cradle to the grave socialism, more gun control equals less violet crime, violent criminals are just misunderstood, and my favorite, “if we just talk some more and try to understand why they hate us, they won’t hate us as much. .. “.
How’s that hopey changey thingy working out for y’all??
I hope the Republicans don’t embrace Murkowski. incidently I didn’t know acorn had that big a presents in Alaska
Murkowski’s assertion that she deems Palin failing in ‘intellectual curiosity’ is twofold in purpose; It asserts that Murkowski HAS ‘intellectual curiosity’, and is authoritative enough on the phenomenon to pass judgement upon others.
She fails in both categories.
Writing a book about oneself cannot be accomplished without intense introspection; Something Murkowski knows nothing about, as evidenced by her callous and irresponsible statements.
Sounds more like Obama than anyone else.
Right. Marxism, Liberal Fascism, Socialism are all outside the box, intellectually curious thinking! Sticking with ideas that work are intellectually incurious. Good grief…
Seems the intellectually incurious in Alaska wrote in for the RINO. And, by definition, they will never be aware of what they have done.
^^ here here
intellectual curiosity = self-indulgence
The Eisenhower-Stevenson elections of 1952 and 1956 remain the paradigm of progressive inflation of their intellect. On the one hand you had the man who managed a complex international coalition, executed what remains the most complex military operation in history and led the free world to victory over the Nazis and on the other a medicore intellect and Chicago machine lackey who spoke well and accomplished little. Progressives oohed and ahed at how brilliant their man was and how dumb the General was. It never occured to them how a dumb, intellectually incurious guy, like Eisenhower could have successfully proscecuted the war in Europe. Since the end of the war liberals have played the we are so smart/you are so dumb card without any sense of irony. Now we have oh so smart sohphisticated Obama revealed as the oh so dumb rube.
Michael Barone also points out that Adlai Stevenson was a poorly read individual! He apparently was intellectually incurious to the nth degree. The same is almost true of Lisa Murkowski. Sarah Palin probably reads more accidentally than her attacker reads intentionally.
Here’s the key: Ike wasn’t a narcissist. He was a great administrator who was interested in getting the best out of his subordinates, not in setting himself up to be worshipped and admired.
Only a narcissist would worry about whether other people think that he or she is sufficiently “intellectually curious.” A narcissist often pretends to be interested in various things outside of himself/herself in order to enhance his or her public image, but it’s all a sham.
My parents voted for the guy who had actually accomplished something. There are plenty of slick talkers around.
Every generation learns this the hard way.
“Marxism, Liberal Fascism, Socialism” is not for the intellectually curious… All the systems have been tried near as much as republics and democracies and generally ended in discontentment of the masses. Oh well:D
BTW I am going to have to add that Sarah Palin is not a superbly intelligent woman but may still be a decent leader. The extraordinarily intelligent tend to shy away from the moronic art of politics and stick to science and mathematics. Even Ivy league universities are overflowing with the intellectually challenged.
It all makes sense if we just agree “intellectually curious” equates to “peculiar thinking.”
http://libertyatstake.blogspot.com
“Because the Only Good Progressive is a Failed Progressive”
The next punk leftist who accuses me of being ‘not intellectually curious’ is gonna get the beatdown of their life with a copy of anything within reach from C.S.Lewis, Thomas Sowell, Kirk, and the f’in first printing of the dictionary with “refudiate” prominently included.
And to you Sarah (the reading sponge),
I’ll see you at the Cincy booksigning. I have a nice movie for Piper (“Watership Down”), and a copy of “The Screwtape Letters”. I’m sure you’ve read it being a Lewis fan, but pass it on or add to the bookshelf you grounded humble little phoenix you.
Imagine being a devil and getting assigned to Palin. That would be a major bummer for a devil. Talk about intimidation. I’d rather get assigned to someone from the Kennedy family (party time).
I may misremember, but I believe that GWB started reading more when Rove challenged him to do so, fearing that GWB was vulnerable to the “intellectually incurious” charge. In his bio, GWB claims that he has always liked history, but that is not convincing yet, (as of p 37.)
The mockery of commentators who love Obama is probably appropriate, but the love of many here for Palin is in the same category. It is more visceral than rational, but then, many of us may do that with beautiful women.
I’m not really curious, more perplexed: what is “intellectual” curiosity? How does that differ from curiosity itself? I look on this as a redundancy, that it seems to gild the lily [Shakespeare, King John, 1595] for the sake of inflation and self-gratification.
Curiosity itself? Is it necessarily a good thing?
Saint Augustine has much to say on the topic of curiosity, I believe in The Confessions, and not much of it is positive.
This is a short version of that, and worth the while:
http://www.williameamon.com/?p=185
As far as curiosity in Islam, the Gates of Ijtihad are closed, thanks to the overthrow of the Mutazilites, c. tenth century. Interpretation leads to atheism, and according to orthodox Sunni Islam, all that needed to be known about the basics of Islam were known, anything else regarding the fundamentals leading to atheism.
If this is seriously contentious, I will go into my notes on the topic and bring out the details. But, those who are curious already know, or will look for themselves rather than depend on my efforts.
So, curiosity, intellectual or not, is maybe a good thing, maybe not, depending. Who is curious enough to look at Roger Shattuck, Forbidden Knowledge: From Prometheus to Pornography to give some further weight to the discussion? Or is this “intellectual curiosity” just another excuse to dump on Palin and “cowboys” without having to think about the possible?
about time someone brought st. augie into the conversation
curiosity is in that vein where idleness and narcissism run
“intellectual” curiosity is spin for idle, narcissistic, self-indulgence
Dwight, you have bought into some myth. It is true that Rove and G.W. had a reading contest; there is no truth that Rove initiated it to get G. W. to read. If you know something I don’t, please cite it. I think one of the more telling vignettes of G.W. Bush is that he personally researched other Presidential memoirs and chose the one he thought best fit the intent. He chose U.S. Grant’s style. How many of the “intellectually curious” do you suppose have read U.S. Grant?
“Intellectual curiosity” and “gravitas” strike me as two of the lamest phrases/words in the Progressive vocabulary. As noted above, each exists only in the eye of the beholder. Or should I say the prejudices of the “bestower”?
Someone should challenge the punditry to explain how Sarah Palin went from housewife, to PTA Officer, to City Council, to head of a significant commission exercising complex technical responsibilities, to … All with no intellectual curiosity? Do they suppose that the gravitas to succeed in these many efforts was simply bestowed? I think not.
I have no desire to bash Bush, but Grant’s book is well-known as a classic. I can’t recall my source of the motivation for that Rove-Bush reading contest, but that’s how I remember it. As I read Bush’s book, I will look for intellectual curiousity. Without being critical about it, I would say that he has struck me as a guy who would make a decision and then not agonize about it (sort of Grant-like.) What’s done is done, although he acknowledges that the fact that no WMD’s were found in Iraq, made him sick to his stomach.
I have read the Grant book and (to ramble a bit) can still recall that his early independence seemed to come with the fact that his father would let him take the horse and wagon long distances by himself as a very young person. He should not have ordered those later charges at Cold Harbor, but he knew that.
By coincidence, I just finished reading Grant’s memoirs! Your memory is correct. He used to wander alone on horseback many miles away and for days on end…
As for style, I found the writing outstanding. Spare but descriptive to the point that you could actually imagine him moving his armies like chess pieces on a grand chess board.
He did not dwell much on the politics. But his expanation of why slavery had to go was brilliant in its simplicity. I highly recommend it.
DD
Right on the money!!! That is the dirty little secret. Why do we continue to accept these ridiculous premises and values set by the left?? For example, how “intellectually curious” is it to spend millions of dollars in court fighting attempts to establish a place of birth with a legitimate birth certificate when all you would have to do is order one up and give it to the media??? Now there is some gravitas AND intellectual curiosity on display, no doubt!!! Or how about those who vetted this bumpkin when filing to RUN for president? Where was THEIR intellectual curiosity?? This is an idiotic premise, to be sure.
Dear OldflyerG8r:
I thought that you and the other PJM readers would like to know that Grant was significantly assisted in writing his memoir by Mark Twain. It was Twain’s assistance on that work that in large part restored Grant’s reputation and his family fortunes.
Yes, he was assisted by Twain, (although we really do not know how much) and he wrote it as he was dying. There is a picture of a frail-looking Grant on the verandah of a summer home, writing as he dies, to try to restore his family’s fortunes, which he did. Good General, bad President, at least to the extent that he had no idea how to keep a handle on the corruption that was all around him, or so Henry Adams and many others thought.
Well, 70% of troops want to repeal DADT. What does the curiously intellectual Sarah Palin think about that?
YS, do you have some kind of non sequitur quota to meet? You fulfill it on your first comment on any given thread.
I bet the intellectually incurious Palin could not find 57 states to campaign in, and would never learn to speak Austrian.
Wow, stunning insight. Thanks but no thanks for that bridge to Fox News.
It’s obvious by your weak-arsed retort that you missed ic’s point screaming over your head at the speed of sound, huh?
You’re witty by half, boy.
Who you callin’ boy, vet of the almost military?
You–you simpering waste of flesh that would never make it in any branch of the military. That’s who.
Boy.
Wrong again, near vet. Not only did I make it, I made it out, with a little purple cameo to show for itl You?
shooting yourself in the foot when you were supposed to have the safety on and getting a purle heart is how the military gets rid of internal problems
add to the fact that you emphasize your own “award” adds to your reek through the monitor
“I made it out, with a little purple cameo to show for itl You?”
If you were in fact awarded the Purple Heart–probably not a good thing to go bragging about it. It makes you seem like a pretnetious little douchebag–I’ve known a few Purple Heart awardees, and none of the brag about it.
Is that you, John Kerry?
Boy
No brag just fact. Fact and education doled out to the champions of false pretense like almost vets adn chickenhawks/shits like daxypoo. That’s the difference between “knowing a few” who have a Purple Heart and having one yourself. But you will never understand that. You know why? Yes, you do.
Candy-ass half-a-man punk.
“That’s the difference between “knowing a few” who have a Purple Heart and having one yourself. But you will never understand that.”
Said the candy ass punk who’s ‘not bragging’ about it.
I’m calling you a liar. They make laws to deal with jackasses like you. It’s called The Stolen Valor Act.
Look it up, liar.
That’s one law I don’t have to worry about. Call me a liar if you like. It’s a coward’s ploy. But i’d rather hear an honest mistake than the empty “Thank you for your service” that most chickenhawks put out there. (daypoo much?)
““Thank you for your service” that most chickenhawks put out there.”
Said the lying coward who parses the military service of others.
“Vet of the Almost military”
“I got a Purple Heart, therefore I’m more of a Vet than you are…”
You, boy, are a lying coward.
Amazing how many things you can find to whimper about. Accept or indulge whatever it is that allows you to move on. It’s the right thing to do. Don’t wring your hands about what I’ve achieved in life. Really. It’s as much luck as it is my raging intellect, incredible bravery, and commitment to the right the wrongs of the right. Focus, instead, on your own accomplishments. and if none come to mind, make some up. Better than making things up about complete strangers.
You’re welcome. And no charge.
“Don’t wring your hands about what I’ve achieved in life.”
No need to–you’ll be there to blow your own horn and let us all know just how amazing a liar your are.
Nope, no hand wringing on my part…I don’t feel the need to brag about my many accomplishments, as my psyche is healthy enough it doesn’t need to be reinforced in front of strangers on the internet. Yours on the other hand…..
This was a great topic for those of us restricted to being in the “box”. But I think it is the perfect example of how the left has continued to establish the vocabulary and premise(s) of our public discussions. (Why do they always end up setting the agenda??) I’m not so sure what “intellectual curiosity” has to do with running our country, state or local government!! It’s a subtle twisting of the words, but very clever nonetheless. The reason we were attracted to the Gipper, and are now attracted to Sarah is due to a number of reasons. But paramount in my mind is that she has character, and when she has to make a decision, I am fairly confident that she will do what is right for “we the people”, and not “me the narcissist”. When you lead a republic such as ours, that is a personality trait that has broad appeal. Others on the public stage have “character”, I’m sure, but Sarah has drawn the short straw as McCain’s ex-running mate, and has the bull’s eye placed on her back.
She is the one the left fears. She is the one who is the most unifying and dynamic for the “dull conservatives”. If the left were really worried about/interested in being “intellectually curious” they would be spending all the days looking out of their collective navels at themselves, no doubt. But that is NOT their REAL concern. It is only another iteration of Rule #5 from “Rules for Radicals”;another boring and dull charge from the left, to be sure.
It takes a pretty dull and exceedingly narrow mind to equate & praise your intellect based only on your faith on what government can supposedly do. There’s a little more to knowledge and learning than that. The irony is that questioning those false or exaggerated promises is more an act of curiosity than not questioning them. After all, doesn’t questioning presuppose curiosity & examination?
People wrap themselves up in a child’s faith in government and literally think they are wise, pathetic, & that’s as far as they go.
Progressive’s want Health Care but want someone else to pay for it. They want energy but want the power source built someplace else. They want money but want someone else to work for it. They want security but want someone else to die for it. See why it is so easy to be a Progressive?
A Conservative and a Intellectual Democrat were walking down the street when they came to a homeless person. The Conservative gave the homeless person his business card and told him to come to his business for a job. He then took twenty dollars out of his pocket and gave it to the homeless person.
The Intellectual Democrat was very impressed, and when they came to another homeless person, he decided to help. He walked over to the homeless person and gave him directions to the welfare office. He then reached into the Conservative’s pocket and got out twenty dollars. He kept $15 for administrative fees and gave the homeless person five.
Now you understand the difference between Conservatives & Intellectual Democrats.
For some reason, reading this reminded me that Liberals are not only intellectually curious, but very, very tolerant also. Well, unless you disagree with them, in which case you are being intollerant and they’re perfectly justified in wanting you fired from you job, thrown in jail, thrown through a plate glass window, infected with AIDS… pretty much anything is okay at that point.
Come to think of it, the author’s wrong about the essential qualifications of the intellectually incurious. It’s not the two points he mentioned, it’s disagreement. That’s all. Anyone who disagrees with Liberal Dogma is intellectually incurious, even – especially – if the disagreement comes from a serious, protracted inquiry into the intellectual underpinnings of the Liberal world view.
But what do I know, I didn’t go to Yale.
The least intellectually curious people on the face of the earth are Leftists. Believe me, I grew up with them. They are totally satisfied within their closed circle of sympathetic thought and reaffirmations. They are able to rationalize this hermetic existence by their profound sense of superiority, i.e., the belief that their orthodoxy is holy and unassailable, the highest form of thinking, which all others (conservatives) are too base, undeveloped and ineducable (“intellectually incurious”) to ever understand or appreciate.
It is necessary to their ego and very moral existence to believe this.
the left has too much invested in their dogma to be either intellectual or curious.
that is why it is next to impossible for them to be critical thinkers. it is not part of their make up to question their own beliefs. (yes I am aware of the contradiction “their own beliefs” since these were planted in their thoughts and not gained by insight or experience)
liberals, they want us to compromise–example gun control. prior to 1968, we “GUN NUTS” pretty much had a good life. no silly paperwork, except for class III weapons, which should have never happened,life was good. before the 1968 law was passed and the feel good people wanted to pass laws to reduce crime, they wanted us to compromise on our rights. their idea of compromise was to take as much from us as they could in the name of making us safer. all that did was create another class of criminals out of otherwise law abiding citizens. what did we get in return was a greater chance of becoming felons.a book that should be required reading for all law abiding citizens is “UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES” by John Ross. this will show you how the frog was placed in a pot of cold water. it is time to wake up America and take back just what was stolen from us for the “GREATER GOOD”. it is not too late —-YET—-
Perfect article and perfect comments. I must agree by virtue of being an old man that never moved out of the box I am a conservative and have little time to spare with intellectually far advanced human beings who happen to be very liberal without knowing the meaning of liberal. Well thanks I live somewhere where is nearly time for lunch and in contrast with some of you suffering the cold induced by snow storms I am enjoying the sun on a very beautiful Sunday. By the way I love Palin she is great! Few women have the guts that she has, who is Lisa Murkowski by the way (hate to repeat expressions)?????????????