Despite being the longest serving governor of one of our most populous states, a state currently generating more jobs than the rest of the country combined (or close), Rick Perry is supposed to be a dummy. At least, that’s what some of the lefty blogs and pundits would have us believe — you know, brainy types like Ed Schultz.
I am a graduate of two so-called elite Ivy League universities and I never noticed this problem when I met Perry. But never mind. Maybe an intellectually-challenged reputation is good to have from a stealth point of view. Remember Tom Sawyer and that fence?
Unfortunately, however, the jig is up. As of the last few days “Rick Perry and His Eggheads: Inside the Brainiest Political Operation in America” has been making the rapid rounds on Kindle (#2 in “politics and current events”). This download is actually a longish chapter excerpted from a work-in-progress by Sasha Issenberg — “The Victory Lab” — about new, scientifically-based campaign techniques said to be transforming the American electoral process.
The chief architect of Perry’s strategies — and central figure in the chapter — is Dave Carney, a hulking three hundred pound, six foot four political pro from New Hampshire who once worked for George H. W. Bush. Said to be camera shy, if Perry wins, or even if he is nominated, Carney is likely to become as much of a household political name as Karl Rove or David Axelrod.
Indeed, if I were Axelrod, I would have been up last night poring over “Rick Perry and His Eggheads.” It’s filled with radical ideas about campaigning. Carney abjures such staples as lawn signs, targeted mailings, robocalls (Thank God!) and even, to a large extent, TV ads. He advocates instead personal appearances and flesh-pressing by the candidate, taking it to the people, as it were, something for which Perry clearly has a gift. This, in turn, generates a constant flow of media coverage on old and, perhaps more importantly, new media (Twitter, Facebook, even ye olde PJM).
Indeed, the MSM is almost purposefully disdained (up to a point, anyway). In his recent campaign for governor, Perry refused even to meet with the editorial boards of leading Texas newspapers, preferring to spend time with actual voters.
So recruiters focus on Teasips and Aggies, huh? Wonder what this is gonna do for the corporate culture of America? And how that will shift the political culture as well. The times are a-getting interesting.
Roger was correct to point out the dubious merits of the Ivy League as preparation for a presidency. He also my alma mater Cornell. I, like Perry, was an Aggie, and an object of derision for many in the unsubsidized College of Arts and Sciences. Cornell, being a land grant college probably gets jobs for its students because of its numerous state-supported practical schools, such as Agriculture, Industrial and Labor Relations, Hotel administration, etc. I wrote about my training as a science teacher here, in a blog about Arne Duncan. See http://clarespark.com/2009/10/05/arne-duncans-statism-part-two/. Cornell is considered to be the “white trash of the Ivy League” (to quote my friend professor Margaret Washington, from whom I learned about Slavery and Reconstruction when she was at UCLA). What I didn’t know when I wrote that blog was that teachers unions would be the object of contention as education reform proceeded.
Note comment #30! I left out a word in my comment: Roger mentioned Cornell…. Also see http://clarespark.com/2010/06/15/the-classics-as-antidote-to-science-education/. The Ivy League as well as other hip enclaves emphasize a “liberal education” that looks to Plato and the other classicists as the key to social cohesion. In other words, if you want to protect your family’s wealth, sign on to the social democratic elitist agenda, and look down your nose at scientists, technicians, and engineers. I note that Ayn Rand did not, and for that crime against the state, she will never be forgiven, notwithstanding her book sales.
“also my alma mater Cornell.”
–
Wasn’t Keith Olbermann also a graduate of Cornell? At least the agricultural college part?
Proof positive that Cornell isn’t all that it is cracked up to be!
We are Reconquering the Southwest…and you gringos can’t stop us. Our population is rapidly growing, and the gringo population is aging and declining. We are over 50 million and united. You are down to 63.7% and extremely divided…and will be a minority by 2041. We are already a majority of the population under 18 in California, Texas, New Mexico and Arizona… and are rapidly taking over Nevada, Colorado, and Florida.
We are young and vigorous. You gringos are old and tired. We are the future. Your time has passed. We have defeated you without firing a shot. It is too late for you gringos to stop us from taking over the country. Gringos are down to only 53.5% of the population under 18…and a minority of births since 2010. You crackers will soon be a minority, and lose control of your own destiny. We will control who gets elected President. We will DOMINATE California, Texas, New Mexico and Arizona…and will be the swing voters in the swing states — Nevada, Colorado, and Florida. Whoever doesn’t do La Raza’s bidding will be thrown out of office.
We have Reconquered the Southwest from you gringos without firing a shot. Don’t you see that we have defeated you? You have no leaders, no hope, no future. You gringos will soon pay the price for your sins against us. The 21st century will undo and reverse the 19th century. La Reconquista is almost complete. It is only a matter of time. We are nearly there. In a few years it will all be over for you gringos.
Do you understand that we are CONQUERING this country right now right in front of your cracker eyes, in broad daylight, without a shot being fired? Do you understand that we are CONQUERING America right now…and that your leaders are like the American Indian chiefs who sold their tribes out for bottles of Kickapoo Joy Juice and some repeating rifles…
We have already RECONQUERED the entire Southwest — California, Texas, New Mexico, and Arizona. We will soon have control of Nevada, Colorado, Florida, and Utah. After that, we will proceed to invade, conquer, and colonize the entire country. We are repopulating the country. We will eventually drive all you gringos out of the country, to Canada, back to Europe, whatever, just get the hell out of this country because we’re taking over, and we don’t want you racist gringos here. We will drive you crackers out of here as sure as I’m standing here.
We have CONQUERED you without firing a shot. La Raza is 50 million strong…and by 2050 we will be 135 million concentrated in the Southwest that borders Mexico. La Reconquista is almost comnplete. We are taking back the Southwest, the land that you gringos stole from us in the 19th century. Demographics Is Destiny. We are repopulating the country. It is all over for you gringos. By 2041 you gringos will be a minority. A minority that is aging, shrinking and dying. By 2050 we will be 135 million strong, about 30% of the population, an overwhelming majority in the Southwest — and an even greater percentage of children. We will soon be an outright majority.
The Gringo’s world is ending… Not with a bang but a whimper.
The Gringo is going gentle into that good night… Don’t rage against the dying of the Gringo’s light.
For The Race everything. Outside The Race nothing.
Demographics doesnt count for sh1t if you recall how a few Spaniards conquered the Aztecs. And if the rest of your fellows are as intelligent as you are the only thing you will be winning is an obscure numbers race.
Just shut up.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ygfGGTTo2c0#t=02m03s
I googled on the phrase “We are Reconquering the Southwest” and found that “La Raza” has posted this provocative, hate-filled, racist screed, almost word for word, at least 26 times, in attempts to derail comment threads.
+1
la raza = la spamma’
Well, we won’t be short of maids and gardeners. Nice post, La Raza.
Sometimes intolerance is required.
Lame attempts by trolls to spread hatred should be certainly zotted for instance.
andate a la verga carajito, tu no has conquistado nada, y ni tienes idea de que es conquistar.
Dios bendiga América!
“For The Race everything. Outside The Race nothing.”
Now where have I heard that before? Oh, yes, from the KKK. The Germans and the Japanese were hooked on that race thing too for a while.
It’s an adaptation of a well-known quote from Mussolini (substitute the word “State” for “race”). That tells you all you need to know about La Raza, if this poster is even legit, which is unlikely.
La Raza has Socialist roots.
http://www.aztlan.net/
You might like to explore this site, that is if you can stomach it. It helps to know you enemy in his own words. The Mexicans may believe La Raza is on their side but it is on the side of tyranny.
When President Perry or Palin end welfare as we know it, that will be the end of La Raza de Indios Imbeciles y sus suenos tontos.
I like how you call gringos racist, and then proceed to say a bunch of very racist stuff. Someone needs to look in the mirror. Heck, even your name, “The race”, shows how racist you are. Scum, really.
The US was previously conquered by the British, the Scotch-Irish, the Italians, the Germans, the Africans… And we’re still here. I think we can handle the Mexicans, too.
I think we have conquered the mexicans several times already, getting kinda old and not hard to do.
Go away, La Raza.
Uh, fellows?
I think the post by La Raza is ironic in intent.
That is to say, I think it’s some person critical of La Raza putting words in La Raza’s mouth.
A subtle job, to be sure; La Raza really is as wacky as the post indicates. But what makes this particular note suspicious is that it’s both (a.) off-topic, apropos of nothing; and (b.) giving away the whole evil secret plan in Bond-villain style. It’s practically screaming, “I’m evil, and I’m going to kill all the good guys, mwa-ha-ha-ha.”
And in general, people who’re actually evil don’t even admit it to themselves, let alone advertise it to their intended victims. Even Hitler thought he was doing some good for good ol’ Germany, and that the Jews had it coming. Stalin may have wanted no more than personal power, but his public speechifying was all about the advance of Socialism.
And yet here comes this presumed Hispanic fellow, calling people of European descent “crackers.” (What, he’s a Mexican racist who was raised by black people in the ghetto in the 70′s? Paging Steve Martin in the Jerk; we found your long-lost brother; maybe he has better rhythm….)
I agree, RC.
True, there are nutcakes who believe the La Raza filth; but this guy is a put-on; which is real close to puto.
Before long hispanics will be in the majority because they have so many children. But hispanics usually do not assimilate. They tend to retain the historic chaotic, disorganized, corrupt culture found in all hispanic countries; Mexico, eg, at present. They will take over the USA; then destroy it by imposing hispanic culture on it. Then some group with three digit IQs will forcibly subdue them and try to do it better in the ensuing politico-economic cycle. Try not to get caught in the crossfire.
Google “La Raza”, “Crystal City” and “1971 election” to see that running a government based on racial identity politics can happen in Texas as much as anyplace in California or on the East Coast, and just as in those places, the result is a total fustercluck of government performance, lack of services and higher taxes.
What happened 40 years ago in Crystal City would be no different today, which in large part is why few in Texas have wanted to repeat the Crystal City “experiment” attempted by La Raza.
The illegal population is one of the USA’s biggest problems. The American Citizens want to close the borders yet none of the politicians have the balls to do what is right. Illegals come here and are a terrible drain on our economy.
Get a clue LaRaza, illegals are illegal!
I think La Raza may be surprised that very few Hispanics share his racist, discredited view of the world.
Very few Americans share Obama’s racist, socialist views either, yet 52% of the voters were dumb enough to vote for him.
Whether or not this is a person representing or pretending to represent La Raza, a racist identity group with deep and disturbing ties to the Justice Department (http://www.justice.gov/eoir/probono/freelglchtCA.htm) and elsewhere, the important point is that Rick Perry panders to them, too.
And that needs to be discussed honestly.
I call BS on this.
Can you present a shred of backup? I’m pretty sure you can’t. This is just an unsubstantiated smear, or a comment by an uninformed crank.
The governor of Texas panders to Latinos? Who woulda thought? Does the mayor of New York pander to Jews and Italians? Or the mayor of Miami, who does he have to satisfy. Does Michelle Bachmann dis the German-Americans, tell them they should go back home, you know, this is an English country? It’s politics, they are constituants, it’s reality. Rick Perry is a very successful politician. He is a patriot, and unlike some others he is in touch with is roots and his people. If you want squeaky clean then vote for Mr. pocket protector, Mr. stuffed suit – you know who I mean. I intend to vote for a man who knows what its like to walk in my shoes, and who is big enough, and savvy enough to take my government back from the monkeys and jackals and dope heads and snakes, pigs rats, dingbats and donkeys than are running us into the dark ages.
What is this crap about the race, Mr LaRaza? Don’t you know that you are Caucasian, just like the “Gringo Crackers” that you pretend are your enemies? You are absolutely right about the demographics, but what you haven’t figured out is that there will be no free country left to conquer when 2041 gets here. And, judging from what I can see of your successful dominance of Mexico, you and your conquistadors won’t be building any place anyone would call a country anyway.
Congratulations:
Now that you have conquered, you will have to govern. Seeing your historical governess; you will be a failure. You will probably be overrun by 30-40 people on horses with guns. But if you think you can govern better, what the hell, you are certainly welcome to try. So belly up buttwipe and give me my free food, free housing and free healthcare. Good luck assbreath!
Hey, La Raza, ya got any memory of San Jacinto?? There a few “old/tired” gringos, along with some Tejanos who really got ‘ol Santa Anna, didn’t they?? It’s illegals like you and your ilk who cross our borders and think you can control everything. Not agonna happen. Go back to your own country and help with the problems there. Because you desert your own country is one of the reasons Mexico is in such sad shape!
And what country are you going to overrun when the Southwestern US becomes another Mexico? Those who fart in church, sit in their own pew!
You’re right – the type of racist you crap spew is a sign of the change occuring. But what will you gain? B.O. and La Raza (“The Racists”) are softening up the country for eventual fall. The prize? A country just like Mexico…full of ignorance, over population, crime, corruption and a two class system (the rich,2%; and the poor,98%). Welcome to Latino paradise!
Roger, your article on Rick Perry as a Nascar driver was the first I had learned about him. That you, with your Ivy League degrees and keen nose for for phonies and fatheads, obviously held him in high regard was enough to convince me that this was the winner, the Champion in the classic sense, that the conservative forces needed, the one that other leaders will enthusiastically rally behind. Ive read or heard nothing that has changed my mind. You chided me, some weeks ago for contending that what the GOP and the T Party need was an outstanding figure in this time of dire peril, an inspired and inspiring force like a Robert the Bruce or Joan of Arc. Perry is no Joan of Arc, but he has the record of performance, the strength of character and the Leadership Presence to defeat the Socialists efforts. This victory will be achieved through gut-feelings not rational nuancing of “issues.”
And Axelrod has known, from the day that he took over the Obama campaign, that he was hyping a loser. Their pitchman has always been the biggest problem for the scam.
Strength of character in Perry’s case was undoubtedly honed in Texas A&M’s Corps of Cadets. When I endured that indoctrination, it taught me much more than my studies in Animal Husbandry (now “Science”–which by the way was Perry’s major also). It is what make Aggie graduates bond and swell with pride. It helped me throughout a leadership career in the government. It shares some similarities with the military academies. It is a major reason I would trust Perry over any of the other candidates and certainly over the current White House fish out of water. (“Fish” means freshman in Aggieland.)
Troll Alert! Do NOT reply to #2 above. His only purpose is to keep us from
disucussing subjects rationally. So do not feed the troll!
Was there a #2. I never noticed!
Having lived among the “Raza” in NM for most of my life until recently I can attest that as a group they are the most racist in the US today. Ever heard of ‘Sangre Puro’? The Pure Blood? Sound kind of like Voldemort and those? Mudbloods?
The hilarious part is that most of the most virulent are mestizo = 1/2 Mexican Indian + 1/2 Spaniard or thereabouts.
It is just another form of Fascism dressed up as something else.
I find it interesting that some of the vilest and outright idiotic people seem to feel that attending one so the Ivy Schools automatically confers some form of divine intelligence upon themselves and any fellow graduate. By inference anyone that did not attend these hot beds of socialism are thereby dummies.
Those in the media find this a convenient method of supporting their candidate invariable drawn for the ranks of the anointed. These are the same individuals that embrace Al Sharpton, a race pimp and extortionist, to their own ranks. Sharpton is really no different than any of them, he is just more blatantly outspokenly, closed minded with tunnel vision focused on everything having racial overtones.
All these are not arguments but excuses…thrown out to disguise their inability to mount a logical and useful contribution to any discussion of policy.
Sharpton is just another flashy pimped up race hustler. It’s good that he has his own show. This gives America another look at race hustlers and their cadre. He along with Maxine Waters, Eliga Cummings (D-Md), Jessie (Jr & Sr),et al continually give blacks another injury and set themselves back another 10 yeas or so.
There is probably no one better to challenge AxeMan’s glass-jawed client than Perry. If they want to talk about grades, let’s talk about Obama’s too.
Women like Governor Perry. Sure he’s a good looking guy with a bit of a swagger (Air Force + Texas). He appears to have a good rapport with Palin, Bachmann, and Haley, and can’t imagine him ever telling them they are “likable enough”. We notice things like that. He’s about strength. Independence. Sound fiscal policies. Patriotism. Jobs.
And what does the metrosexual offer? Free health care, food stamps, dependence, handouts. Voting present. Gloom, doom and fear. Well-ironed pants.
Maybe it’s just me but I’m tired of the guy who always leaves his wallet in the car and spends all my money. His group helped him get a job that someone else was more qualified for.
As the presidential race continues, I’m going to be interested to see how well, if at all, Perry closes the gender gap. If the 2008 election did not make women re-evaluate their support of the D-party, nothing ever will.
Right on, Leigh B. It really is the Martha’s Vineyard-vacationing never-served-in-the-military metrosexual who couldn’t organize a one-car funeral procession, much less a “community” much less an entire country vs. a brilliantly successful chief executive of a state larger than many countries and almost all states with military service, a very likable manner with all kinds of people (which certainly can’t be said of the metrosexual who gets all flustered and condescending when he’s not with the likes of such phonies — in the Holden Caulfield sense — as Cass Sunnstein and Samantha Power and—last but not least, real easy on the eyes. He’s easy on the eyes because he projects a genuinely comfortable-in-his-own skin authentic human being. The One was a product packaged and sold in 2007-8 by his handlers. He was the answer to every liberal’s prayer: a non-Sharptonesque black man with credentials — not substance or experience or love of country — just those worthless credentials which, as we have all seen, are 100% worthless. He’s the little man behind the screen: not, as our liberal and Independent fellow citizens were led to believe, the Wizard of Oz. Time to come back to Planet Earth, and to turn to the man in Austin, Texas.
Roger, your almost casual comment that Perry’s campaign strategist eschews lawn signs troubles me.
The ubiquitous blizzard of extremely well-done graphics was a big part of the building the Obama juggernaut last time around. I don’t care what Dave Carney’s focus groups tell him; constant visual reinforcement is a big part of building a successful campaign. Perry may be a veritable genius at pressing the flesh, but this is a big country with 330 million people, and he’s got to sleep some time. Graphics work for a candidate around the clock, even while he’s sleeping.
Another Texan, Lyndon Baines Johnson, was also, by all accounts, a veritable genius at pressing the flesh. But his campaign, like Obama’s was a graphic blitz. I was a kid back then, and was collecting campaign memorabilia from both the Johnson and Goldwater campaigns, both of which had local offices near my house. The Johnson campaign had new and different “stuff”—buttons, posters, pins—practically every day. The Goldwater campaign did not. Was that the thing that made the difference? Surely not. Was it one of them? Surely.
McCain—aside from being a lumpish campaigner who sleepwalked through his own main chance—had few graphics, and those few were lousy. They were lost in the Obama poster and sticker blizzard. And while many of us may be sick and tired of the Obama logo, it has established itself as a successful “brand”—and is already starting to appear advertising the New Improved Obama of 2012.
Here’s hoping that whatever his other insights, Dave Carney wakes up to the power of graphics and campaign paraphernalia before it is too late.
I’m with Buzzsawmonkey on the importance of every posible visual aid in this election. It’s an appealing thought that all Americans will read the candidate’s position papers, read everything they can, watch every debate and educate themselves thoroughly on every aspect of the campaign of 2012. Not gonna happen. This is about advertising. Obama was sold as a product. The graphics were, I regret to remember, brilliant. Andy Warhol-esque, suggesting a level of fame and celebrity that was, of course, non-existent in reality, but which imprinted themselves on voters’ minds for their power and visual strength. They were as gripping as Warhol’s Campbell’s Soup graphic.
Team Perry has to counter the posters, the billboards and yes, even the lawn signs with ones even more gripping.
It is a tragic commentary on the mind of the American voter that he and she can be persuaded by such a pathetic combination of Madison Avenue and Mao. Voting with one’s eyes is like thinking with one’s….But if the majority of voters do it, we cannot ignore the fact, no matter how we may deplore it,.
But, to quote The Godfather, this is the business we’ve chosen, as has Governor Perry. We must fight visual fire with even gtreater visual power.
Power to the Perry posters. May his graphics team be as strong as he is. They’ll have to be.
“They were as gripping as Warhol’s Campbell’s Soup graphic”
Nothing ever “gripped” me about that superfluous crap masquerading as art, but sadly, you are correct…Too many fools in this country are susceptible to slick “advertizing”, and we will need them to tilt the balance.
In the mean time:
“Oh where, Oh Where has Republica gone,
Oh were oh where can it be.”
See?
I’m a “vocal-warhol”
Wheres my milllions?
By the way…one of those relics of the LBJ/Goldwater campaign that I still retain is a small yellow button which said, in black block letters, “Bury Barry.”
I don’t know how many people would recognize “Barry” as Barack Obama’s former nickname—and I’d bet that I’d be excoriated for some sort of “racist dogwhistle” if I dusted it off and re-purposed it for the coming campaign. But it is interesting to reflect on what was, less than one year after a shocking Presidential assassination, a perfectly acceptable campaign button 48 years ago, as we contemplate the hypocritical calls for “civility” from the Democrats.
The main issue with Perry is that, he was a democrat before Karl Rove convinced him to become Republican. I have a time picturing Rick Perry as a democrat. Does that mean he used to be a liberal? And what made him become conservative besides Rove’s influence?
Ronald Reagan and Milton Friedman were once Democrats.
Anyway, while Democrat correlates highly with mindless liberal, the sets are not inclusive and were even less so in the ’80s. Think Bob Casey Sr. and Zell Miller.
Ask yourself this: are all Republicans conservatives? Who would you rather have as president, Zell Miller or Jon Huntsman?
A mistake many decent Democrat voters makes is that they assume party affiliation confers some sort of virtue. I strongly suggest that those who believe that our rights are endowed by our Creator and that our Constitution should be taken literally, don’t fall into that trap.
That is not an issue at all. Because of reconstruction, TX used to a be a one party Democrat state. We’ve only had three Republican governors since Reconstruction. For the last decade however, Democrats have not been able to win any statewide office here.
Perry was a typical conservative Democrat who switched parties as the Dems became too liberal.
Was it Winston Churchill who said something like a man who is not a liberal at age 20 does not have a heart and a man who is not a conservative at age 40 does not have a brain?
“Show me a young Conservative and I’ll show you someone with no heart. Show me an old Liberal and I’ll show you someone with no brains. – Winston Churchill”
Your average Texas Democrat is way more conservative than any Republican RINO.
In fact, that’s how politics used to be nationally: Southern Democrats like John Stennis and Zell Miller were way more conservative than northern Republicans like Jacob Javits or Snowe or Collins.
I went to a high school like this. Perry approves of them. That’s a problem.
———————————————————–
The scariest 127 seconds on youtube (Yes this is a REAL classroom)
URL: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jNGGNomLx_c
It’s a tempest in a teapot. If the Hard-core NeoDarwinists didn’t have to insist that Evolution = Atheism, that Faith and Science are not only separate but hostile to each other, Science is objective and true (As if the scientist were somehow separate from the thing he studies) and Faith is subjective (at best) and probably imaginary, and all the other Enlightenment Rationalism false dichotomies they insist on, there would be no problem. I have friends who are Christians and Scientists, and except for the above there would be no difficulty from any quarter about them continuing to go into the lab and do good science with reproducible results in the morning, and saying their prayers at night.
But if you’re really that worried about it, consider this of advice from John Derbyshire:
http://www.johnderbyshire.com/Opinions/USPolitics/doonesbury.html
Most evolutionary biologists don’t go around attacking religion.
When men like Dawkins and Myers attack religion, remember that they’re doing it in the name of atheism, not science. Myers has made it clear (go read his blog) that his goal is not to promote science, but to use science and anything else he can get his hands on, to overturn religion. That’s not a scientific goal.
Agreed, on all points. Most don’t. Those few who do represent what I call the Basilisk Tendency in science, that can only only “see by killing.” They have, in the words of Karl Stern, elevated a method of analysis into a mentality. If a mortician went around measuring everyone he met to see what size coffin they will need when they die, we would think that morbid. A scientist who thought only of the biochemistry and biomechanics involved while making love to his wife would be equally so.
The danger does inhere in science because of the pretense of utter objectivity, and its bifurcating and reductionistic nature. What it can’t get it’s hands on and cut open, it ends up denying all together, depending on the temper of the scientist. But that’s the point. It is his temper, not his science that is doing the denying. There is little difference between someone who says “whatever we can’t explain, God did it” and the Evoutionist who says “whatever we can’t explain, Evolution did it” if he doesn’t settle for cursing you as a science denying poopyhead for having the temerity to doubt Darwin and point out things Evolutionists haven’t been able to explain.
And I don’t really see how a demonstration of material causes proves much about formal or final causes. To paraphrase Mathematician John Lennox, knowing how a watch works doesn’t disprove the watch maker. Quite the opposite, if anything. Those contrived experiences called “experiments” are as much a demonstration of intelligent design as they are of material causes. Experiments don’t “jes’ happen.” Someone has to design them.
In fairness, my above post should have mentioned that I think the Young Earth Creationists (there are other kinds) and the Neo-Darwinists (here, too, there is diversity of opinion- Gradualists, Saltationists, etc.) really kind of deserve each other. Indeed, the latter was a reaction to the former, and it first came about in an age when the State, for some good and much more ill, wrested control of science (not to mention other things) from everyone else because it saw it as the basis for elevating the state to “arbiter of all things” via “the assured results of science / modern scholarship, blah, blah, blah …” In the hands of prideful people, science (or should I say Scientism) and the state are very much alike: anything they can’t assimilate or control, must be destroyed (Faith, family, communities, etc. Even, in the end, science itself – Global Warming, anyone?) Many people who can quote that part of Eisenhower’s speech about the Military / Industrial Complex seem to forget he also warned what could happen when the quest for research dollars supplanted an honest search for knowledge and created a superficially authoritative technocratic elite. Just so.
The New Atheists are an incredibly vapid bunch who don’t even really seem to understand the arguments all that well and in the Young Earth Creationists, they have, clearly, met their equals. They badly need for Nietzsche to come school them on how to really do atheism. I doubt the New Atheists will succeed in their campaign. It is as much the desperate rear guard action of arrogant modernism against post modernism as it is against the rising demographic tide of religious believers – a la Phillip Longman.
And I do worry somewhat about things like that idiotic Creationist Museum. It is “not even wrong,” and pretty lousy theology to boot. I’m a Protestant Evangelical myself, so all I can do is sigh as I don’t wish to further foul my own nest, and instead try to help my fellow believers realize that you cannot make up in passion what you lack in wisdom. This is neither “wise as serpents” nor “gentle as doves.”
But if I had to pick the greater “threat to science,” it would belong with those who claim to love science (until it tells them what they don’t wish to hear – BTW, what is “Bell Curve” Murray doing these days?), don’t know much about science, and use my tax dollars to buy up the researchers who will tell the world they have scientifically proven that we need surrender every aspect of our lives to an Omnicompetent Global Technocracy. The Creationist Museum has one, and only one, redeeming aspect. I don’t know for certain, but I seriously doubt any tax money went to build it.
Reproduce in the lab please, the creation of the universe. Deny spontaneous generation with one breath; then affirm it with respect to life and intelligence in the next. Evolution is not science; it is quackery of the worst sort, eagerly promoted by those who desperately wish there was not a God Who rewards the good and punishes the evil.
I’m an evolutionist myself, but if I have to choose between somebody who does not share my views on evolution and a sitting president who is clearly a basic economic illiterate as well as an abject failure at his job it’s a no-brainer.
The scariest 127 seconds on youtube (Yes this is a REAL classroom)
Anyone who thinks that the “scariest” part of high school would be a class were evo-skepticism is expressed did not go to a high school where the thugs ruled the boys rooms.
There is some serious irony here. See if you can figure it out.
You are frightened by having two sides of an issue discussed?
In a ……..classroom?!?!?!
OH, MY GOD!!!! The horror! The horror!
I went to Catholic grade school. Both evolution and creationism were taught and freely discussed. It’s called intellectual discourse and broadening of horizons.
Frankly, Darwinian Fascists scare me. But,….that’s just me.
Humanism,the worship of man as a god.The modern day pagans are threatened that they might just have to answer to someone higher then themselves.
They have been successful in dumbing down students to believe they came from apes and are befuddled that they are acting like apes and worse.
Everything they touch becomes corrupted.Just look at Washington and the country after so much of their ‘wise’ directives have been put in place.
Professing to be wise, they became fools
Now I’m beginning to understand.
Why is it that so many people think evolution and creation are mutually exclusive?
Can’t imagine that God could have allowed for life to evolve?
Even the Bible gets it right – there are two ‘creations’ in Genesis – 1:26 and 2:7 – the first is the spiritual creation of ‘man’ – ‘in our image’ and the second is the bodily creation where life is breathed into ‘man’.
…and I forgot to insert ‘male and female’ after ‘Man’ ‘in Our image’. Important distinction.
Hmm.
The unfortunate thing about the evolution debate is how unnecessary it all is. There need be no debate, were it not for unnecessary assertions on both sides.
What I mean by unnecessary assertions is: Additional ideas which are popularly bundled with a core idea, as if they were logically required by it, but which aren’t.
Example: I once debated a guy who, upon hearing that I leaned libertarian and supported free-market capitalism, assumed that I was a Randian Objectivist who opposed even voluntary almsgiving. It is, of course, possible for a person who supports free-market capitalism to fit that description. But opposition to almsgiving is an unnecessary add-on assertion which isn’t logically required in order to advocate free markets.
Now with the evolution debate, here are some of the unnecessary assertions:
1. “I BELIEVE that species evolved; THEREFORE, I must believe there is no God.” This is a non-sequitur; atheism does not (necessarily) follow from belief in the evolution of species.
Many of the devout Christians I know, including some folk who left high-paying jobs to become missionaries, believe in theistic evolution.
More importantly, all persons (atheist or theist) must acknowledge some causality for anything which is contingent; but as an infinite temporal regress is self-contradictory, there must be a First Cause which is outside time. The only difference between the atheists and the theists is that the former assert that this First Cause is non-personal (presumably because they’ve never spoken with the First Cause on a personal level) and the theists assert that this First Cause is personal (presumably because they have).
But the question as to whether the first (and non-temporal) cause of all temporal and contingent things is personal or not cannot be answered in any way on the basis of the biological or fossil record for evolution. They’re unrelated propositions. Thus the attachment of atheism to evolution is unnecessary.
2. “I BELIEVE that the book of Genesis is divinely-inspired, useful for reproof, correction, and training in righteousness, and (because of the intrinsic inerrancy of prophetic inspiration) contains no errors provided one correctly understands the intended message of the original prophetic author; THEREFORE, I must believe that the earth and indeed the universe were created in six twenty-four-hour days about six thousand years ago.”
This is another non-sequitur; for the young earth hypothesis to be required, one must first conclude that the age and time-line of the creation of the universe are among the truths that Moses intended to convey through the Genesis creation stories.
But they simply aren’t; the very style of the text makes such a view laughable. These stories are written in a word-painting style rather like the lyrics to a 70′s-era Yes song. It is ridiculous to try to read them as if they were an article in the newspaper.
One might just as well read the lyrics of “Roundabout” and conclude that, one day early in his musical career, Jon Anderson witnessed an odd meteorological event consisting of what looked like mountains falling from the sky into and around a nearby lake, narrowly missing an eagle, in the process causing significant atmospheric disturbance (lightning, high winds, sandstorms).
In short, this literalistic reading of the text which does great violence to the original intent of the author. It is like reading the phrase “it was raining cats and dogs” and concluding that animals were falling from the sky; it is like reading Julius Caesar or Titus Andronicus and concluding that Romans habitually spoke English in iambic pentameter. It is making a fetish of the words instead of asking what the author intended to convey.
The first few chapters of Genesis are a poetic and allegorical treatment of several subjects: (1.) That there is one God, who created all things in the universe out of nothing; (2.) That “monism” is false; the universe is not all one thing, but a bunch of different things which God has intentionally divided into distinctive categories; (3.) Many of the things worshipped as gods by pagan polytheists (sun, moon, crops, beasts) are merely objects He has created; (4.) Of God’s creations, persons are the highest thing in the created order because, like God, they are personal, capable of free will and thus of love and creativity; (5.) Physical, material things are good, and human bodily existence is very good, and human sexual reproduction is a kind of high and holy union mirroring the fruitful and creative love-union of God with His creations; (6.) Because of their mystical love-union with God, the first humans were somehow capable of bodily surviving any injury and of living indefinitely and perhaps had other miraculous-seeming capabilities; (7.) Through abuse of their free will and in response to a temptation abetted by a non-human intelligent spiritual enemy manifesting himself in some fearful physical form, human beings lost this mystical love-union and with it their miraculous imperviousness to bodily harm and to death; (8.) God responded by declaring His intent, at some point in the future, to re-incorporate the human race back into union with Himself, involving the defeat of the tempter by someone born (in a mysteriously gender-bending phrase) of the “seed” of “the woman.”
All that is in the text, if you read it like a word-painting. If you read it like a geological survey, you get chicken lips and snake feet.
This is not a new or “liberal” view of Scripture. This is an ancient and conservative one. In Christian writings, St. Augustine of Hippo was interpreting the early chapters of Genesis this way as early as 400 AD; and in rabbinical traditions it goes back to the Babylonian exile and perhaps earlier.
And St. Augstine also said something else about Genesis:
“It not infrequently happens that something about the earth, about the sky, about other elements of this world, about the motion and rotation or even the magnitude and distances of the stars, about definite eclipses of the sun and moon, about the passage of years and seasons, about the nature of animals, of fruits, of stones, and of other such things, may be known with the greatest certainty by reasoning or by experience, even by one who is not a Christian. It is too disgraceful and ruinous, though, and greatly to be avoided, that he [the non-Christian] should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters, and as if in accord with Christian writings, that he might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how totally in error they are… In view of this and in keeping it in mind constantly while dealing with the book of Genesis, I have, insofar as I was able, explained in detail and set forth for consideration the meanings of obscure passages, taking care not to affirm rashly some one meaning to the prejudice of another and perhaps better explanation.”
The question, really, is not whether modern Christians are being faithful to the text when they posit a young-earth view. The question is whether, after so many centuries, it is still permissible to view the text that way without being called ignorant of Scripture…especially when doing so brings disgrace to Christianity in the eyes of those who know better “by reasoning or experience,” as St. Augustine warned.
Sadly many Christians are unaware of all this. The 16th century split or “Reformation” is partly to blame: Modern Protestant Christians have rarely read St. Augustine or any other Christian writer between AD 100 and the 1500′s, because (naturally enough) they all tend to sound very Catholic, and thus are regarded to be dubious sources for Protestants. It is not that Protestant scholars are unaware of Christian history…but Protestant laypersons often are, and one consequence of this divorce from history is an unawareness of what traditional Scripture scholarship has said for the last 2,000 years on the subject of the creation stories.
One more thing: It wouldn’t surprise me to find out that the “fire from heaven” which consumed Elijah’s altar on Mt. Carmel was a meteorite. Does that make it any less a miracle? (How clever of God, that He should “explode the Big Bang” in such a way as to ensure that a particular lump of rock should strike that mountain at that particular moment. Is the creation of the universe not a miracle?)
Likewise with the formation of man’s physical form “from the dust of the ground.” How clever that God should create a universe in such a way as to permit the evolution intelligent life forms. (But perhaps it’s not so surprising after all; a person who stands outside of time, seeing all times as Now, cannot be said to do anything “in advance.” He doesn’t plan ahead. He’s inventing the universe right now, and we just haven’t yet seen the parts of His creation that occur later.)
So I take the Theistic Evolution view. I find it entirely in accord with Genesis 1 and 2, provided these are interpreted in a manner respectful to the intent of the author and his expectations of his audience. It also accords very firmly with the rest of the Bible, and also with what the physical sciences can show us, and with the character of God as He has revealed it to us.
Basic error: the style of Genesis is not poetic but historical. The reality of the events described in it are foundational to the whole Christian faith.
Oliver:
I think you’re making a basic error, Oliver.
You’re saying that the style of writing is “historical not poetical.” This suggests you think that history is never written in poetical fashion. But some of the very examples I gave demonstrate that it is; e.g. Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar and Titus Andronicus.
And the further back in history you go, the more commonly this is the case. Simple prose history of the modern style is rare prior to 1000 B.C. but history written as stylized epics with a rhyme scheme or similar pattern is the norm. The reason is pretty straightforward: The earlier something is, the more likely that it predates common literacy or writing altogether. In that case, we are dealing with oral transmission…and speeches are forgettable, but songs tend to stick in one’s brain. Most of our ancestors tended to chant or sing their ancestral stories, to ensure accurate transmission. The Jews were no exception.
Oliver, I assume you hold the traditional view that Moses was the (human) author of Genesis?
I myself hold that view, and am untroubled by the evidence of later redactors splicing and rearranging things, possibly as late as the Exilic period. Translation, re-copying, and the introduction of interpolations, glosses, and margin-notes are sufficient to explain that, I think, and I think it unlikely that Moshe, raised with a royal education in Pharaoh’s court, would fail to write down all the vital details of the Law as he received it.
But I also hold that Moses’ enscripturation of the two creation stories is his re-transmission of an earlier existing oral tradition. If that tradition dates back to the first humans (who are not given proper names in the stories; remember that (in Hebrew) saying “Adam” is like saying “Mr. Man” or “Mr. Redclay” and saying “Eve” (Chavah) is like saying “Mrs. Lifegiver” or even “Mrs. Mom.”) then what we have is a narraration transmitted by oral chant through (at minimum) a few thousand years prior to being enscribed, involving some events in the lives of Mr. Man and Mrs. Mom, in which all the dialogue is spoken in Hebrew poetry form (which is why it’s formatted as poetry in most Bibles).
It was surely intended to convey to the original readers a kind of prehistory for their earliest familial history. But what part of this is at all likely to be anything but poetic in style?
And notice, please, the structure or “framework” in which Creation is organized: You have two parallel triads of three days involving the three “kingdoms” of creation (Light and Dark, Sky and Water, Land and Vegetation) followed by the three populations for each kingdom (the sun and moon and stars as lights in the sky “peopling” the day and night; the fish and birds “peopling” the sky and sea, and the land animals “peopling” the fields and forests). This is a very high form of the elegant Hebrew poetical style called “parallelism” in which they liked to rhyme similar concepts instead of similar word-sounds.
The reality is that here we have the author trying to convey a real message about things which really happened, but most or all of which he wasn’t there to see. (Even if this was handed down orally from Mr. Man himself, Adam wasn’t present until late in the creation progress, so he could hardly have been taking notes while God was saying “Let there be light.”)
But he was conveying it in poetical and allegorical fashion because that’s how such things were conveyed back then. It was the best and only way he could have conveyed it.
This is, I remind you, not a liberal watering-down. This is respect for and intimate knowledge of the text. You can find this in the most respected and saintly scripture scholars of Christianity and Judaism from Athanasius to Rabbon Gamaliel, for the last few thousand years, long before the current quarrel about evolution was of any concern.
RC- That was some beautiful writing. PJM-Hire this person-now. Tho I didn’t expect to find this in the comments section of a post on Rick Perry’s campaign style & team, I’m glad I did.
RC,
Quite a lot to digest, and I confess to some skimming as I’m supposed to be WORKING right now….
Great, sincere effort, thank you for sharing your detailed thoughts on questions and ideas I’ve wondered about myself, pretty much forever.
“These stories are written in a word-painting style rather like the lyrics to a 70′s-era Yes song. It is ridiculous to try to read them as if they were an article in the newspaper….It is making a fetish of the words instead of asking what the author intended to convey”
Brillaint…I may steal bits of that someday, with NO credit to you whatsoever, Ha Ha!
ALSO TO OLIVER:
I’m no super theologen, having read Genesis only in English from “store bought” Bibles,
but I have to say I do find it to be rather poetic and inspirational…
Sort in the way “we hold these truths to be self evident…” makes sense to me, I believe it to be unquestionably true and right, but without congering up the literal image of paper (or non physical ideas?), aloft in the co-joined hands of The Founders (We hold?) with magically (self evident?) text appearing from thin air.
Cant something be a Foundational and Historical Truth, and still be spoken of in a poetic and slightly symbolic way?
I’m not arguing you point, just asking your thoughts.
Thanks
R.C. +1 on the great piece of writing. Too bad so many of us are lacking in the study of the faith, especially the great thinkers of the past.
Oliver – now that’s the difference between the Evangelical Christian and the Catholic Christian. Catholics are taught that Genesis is great theology but is not to be considered a history text. Catholics have 2000 years of deep thinkers on the subject giving us their opinions. I’m not sure where the Genesis is History idea stems from.
I’d be the last to tell you we Catholics are right and you’re wrong. Who knows! I was raised Southern Baptist and converted to Catholicism 15 years ago. I have found the new (post Vatican II) church to be a lot more free of guilt and shame than the church I grew up in. Even as a child I didn’t like the hard core notion of burning in hell for eternity if I let stray thoughts creep into my mind. Remember Jimmah Cahtuh and ‘sinned in my heart?’ Yeah, that left me cold even as a child and I quit the Baptist church as soon as I was able. When I started going to the Catholic Church with my wife I felt strange at first with all the ritual but after a few weeks it felt like coming home. I found a place to worship without all the fear of Holy retribution for my innermost thoughts. And Catholics have no problem with taking a drink or dancing which is kinda cool
Oh well …
Dave S:
I just wanted to caution you to be careful what you say about Catholic teaching. You say the Catholic Church teaches that the creation story is “not a history text”; that’s right, but you ought to qualify it to avoid the misunderstanding (which many folk will jump to, on reading that statement) that the Catholic Church doesn’t regard the creation stories to be historical in any way, but to be mere myth. That isn’t what the Church teaches.
I myself (also raised Southern Baptist…man, those Baptists are great at inculcating respect for, and familiarity with, the Scriptures!) have only been in full communion with Peter’s successor for a year and a half, but it just so happens that these are topics I’ve examined recently, and during my four years’ investigation of the Church.
The usual view of faithful Catholic scripture scholars (there’s no point including the non-faithful ones) is that Genesis from Abraham onward, and perhaps even from Noah onward, represents a style of writing closer to (though not identical to) the literal prose-history kind of writing familiar to moderns.
But prior to that, there is a heavier use of symbol and allegory, perhaps, though there is also underlying meaning which is intended to be historical. Indeed, the first creation story seems to have come from one source, the later creation story from another, the story of the lineages of Seth and Noah and Shem possibly from another, and the story from Abraham onward perhaps (?) from another. So the first thing to watch out about is to not generalize about the whole book of Genesis. The book is masterfully woven together as a whole, with redactions and assembly into a single volume taking place any time between the time of the Judges and the Babylonian Exile, but different sections can have profoundly different character, and none more unique than the creation stories.
Consequently here’s Dei Verbum (i.e., On the Word of God) from Vatican II:
“To search out the intention of the sacred writers, attention should be given, among other things, to ‘literary forms.’ For truth is set forth and expressed differently in texts which are variously historical, prophetic, poetic, or of other forms of discourse. The interpreter must investigate what meaning the sacred writer intended to express and actually expressed in particular circumstances by using contemporary literary forms in accordance with the situation of his own time and culture. For the correct understanding of what the sacred author wanted to assert, due attention must be paid to the customary and characteristic styles of feeling, speaking and narrating which prevailed at the time of the sacred writer, and to the patterns men normally employed at that period in their everyday dealings with one another.”
So with this understanding that different parts of Genesis were from different original sources, compiled either by Moses with translation and re-assembly somewhat later or by a later set of rabbinical compilers, we can better understand the Church’s Magisterial statements in 1950, in Pope Pius XII’s encyclical Humani Generis, stating that:
“the first eleven chapters of Genesis, although properly speaking not conforming to the historical method used by the best Greek and Latin writers or by competent authors of our time, do nevertheless pertain to history in a true sense, which however must be further studied and determined by exegetes; the same chapters…in simple and metaphorical language, adapted to the mentality of a people but little cultured, both state the principal truths which are fundamental for our salvation, and also give a popular description of the origin of the human race and the chosen people. If, however, the ancient sacred writers have taken anything from popular narrations (and this may be conceded), it must never be forgotten that they did so with the help of divine inspiration, through which they were rendered immune from any error in selecting and evaluating those documents.
Therefore, whatever of the popular narrations have been inserted into the Sacred Scriptures must in no way be considered on a par with myths or other such things, which are more the product of an extravagant imagination than of that striving for truth and simplicity which in the Sacred Books, also of the Old Testament, is so apparent that our ancient sacred writers must be admitted to be clearly superior to the ancient profane writers.”
What is being said here? It is saying that on the one hand these early chapters may very well be a revision and compiling of existing oral traditions in Moses’ day or later, that they are written in a style very different from how we moderns write history, and so on.
But it is also saying that it is intended to convey important information which must be believed by the faithful (such as that God created the whole universe from nothing, that all humans are descended from the first humans who sinned, and that prior to their sin they were in some kind of mystical holy union with God which made them immortal and unharmable which they lost through sin) and “pertains to history in a true sense” and thus cannot be written off as pure mythology, but as poetical language intended to convey real events affecting real people (but without the kind of information which would allow us to know dates and durations).
Anyhow I bring all this up to point out that the Catholic Church’s official teaching is very balanced on this point. Parts of the Bible are obviously written the way we moderns write our histories: chronological, quantitative, and pedantic even to the point of dusty dullness. (The enumeration of the tribes in Numbers and the court histories of the Kings of Judah and Israel come to mind.) And of course the four Gospels and Acts, while having their own distinctive styles of storytelling, are, at root, eyewitness accounts.
But the creation stories, while written in a radically more poetical style — more like an impressionist painting than a photograph — are nevertheless conveying truths about the history of the human race as well. Being 21st century westerners instead of ancient Hebrews, we find it difficult to distinguish between what is stylized “trimmings” and what is the historical “meat.” But we can generalize and say that the Hebrews didn’t give a frog’s fat fanny about exact chronologies and durations (and it wouldn’t have entered their minds that anyone else ever would!) but they did care about the character of God and of man. That aspect, count on it, is intended to be taken as hardcore historical fact. God really did create it all. God really did make us somehow in His image. We really did have it perfect, prior to messing everything up. We really did mess everything up.
Fair ’nuff?
RC: Very well stated, very well indeed. My Jesuit teachers would have summed it up thus; Text + Context = Meaning.
Thanks
RC,
I’ve always believed the significance of what was created by the Hand of God,
to be beyond the capacity of any human vocabulary.
“Hand” is a perfect example.
That’s our word. We use our hands for making everything.
We cant think of another comprehendible symbol.
God has “hands”? Finger prints, nails need trimming every so often?
I don’t know. And I find perfect peace knowing I don’t CARE, that I don’t know.
Another example is having a child, and unquestionably feeling,
but being forever impotent to give full justice with words,
the enormous transformational effect in witnessing, and experiencing, pure love.
Thanks for fleshing out these concepts with clear and reasoned research.
Wonderful stuff.
Nuff said, here, in a Rick Perry thread?
Probably.
But do you have a blog or site we can visit?
R.C.
I found your substantial post very interesting. I would refer anyone interested in poetic explanations for God’s Creation (done by His Son, according to what I was taught) reflected in the original writing of J.R.R. Tolkien and finished by his son, Christopher Tolkien, called the Silmarillion. Talk about a wonderful, poetic description of Creation that shows the use of light, music and other wonderful aspects of our own physical existence – this has it all. I think it supports the notion that a “history” of the Creation has to include the poetic nature of God – and by extension – man as well. I read and was enthralled by it long before I became a Christian and I was so glad to learn that J.R.R. Tolkien was also a believer (as was my favorite author of all time, C.S. Lewis – who was a friend and compatriot to Tolkien) and that his master works were allegorical of Christian theology. Just a thought. Now, about Rick Perry being “dumb” . . .
JL, I remember another former Democrat who ran for President, named Ronald Reagan.
Very smart Presidents:
Woodrow Wilson
Herbert Hoover
Richard Nixon
Jimmie Carter
Very dumb presidents:
Calvin Coolidge
Harry Truman
Ronald Reagan
Now, from which group would we rather have a president? The question answers itself.
Herbert Hoover.
Hoover thwarted a depression which loomed from the WWI “retooling recession” that Wilson made deeper, and he brought on the decade of the Roaring Twenties, analogous only to Reagan’s 25 year growth legacy.
Then came Roosevelt, who brought on a decade of the Great Depression, a WWII vastly more destructive than it need have been and a worldwide flowering of Communism that took 45 years of the Truman Doctrine (and 120 or so millions of lives) to tamp down. Roosevelt’s policies were the same as Obamas’.
Roosevelt and his brain trust came from northeastern Ivy League who-knows-who schools of “The Families”.
Texas A&M has for generations produced classically liberal educated sovereign engineers, as has NC State, G-Tech, Citidel, etc. …..
California radical factories and the northeastern “Ivies” gave us generations of undereducated foppish impostors. Sorry you were there, Roger.
Herbert Hoover? It was actually Warren Harding who did that. Major crash in 1921 (anyone know about that?). Harding did nothing, which was the right thing to do. Then came Coolidge and the roaring twenties. Hoover’s actions, by contrast, took actions that made the Depression what it was and Roosevelt’s actions were no better (although the economy improved somewhat but not enough to get the employment rate below 15%, and that was Roosevelt’s doing).
Oops. My bad. Of course you’re right. Shouldn’t talk before my coffee.
Hoover gave us the Roaring Twenties? Really? I offer you the words of Calvin Coolidge, the guy who actually gave us the Roaring Twenties. (Speaking of Hoover) “That man has given me plenty of economic advice, all of it bad.”
Harding, Coolidge, and Treasury Sec Andrew Mellon gave us the Roaring Twenties, not Commerce Sec Hoover. Hoover gave us the Crash of ’29 and the Great Depression which followed, all as a result of his policies.
You can still get a great education at UC Berkeley or UCLA depending on the major and the tuition is a steal. Not everything in CA is a bust. Basic tuition at UCLA is $12,686. If you into engineering, medicine, law you can’t do better than the UC system. Go into the social sciences well then, you get a great leftist indoctrination.
Whoops – left someone off from the group of very smart presidents: Barak Obama.
Jack,
There has been no indication that the O is smart.Actually,indices point the other way. His being smart is touted because he went to a couple of Ivy League schools. We have no idea how he did once in school. Typically, a very smart, black guy with a Harvard Law degree in the upper echelons of his class would have very lucrative offers from the white shoe NY and DC law firms. We don’t see this with Obama. We see an adjunct professor in Chicago and community organizer.Not exactly the province of smartness.
There has got to be a reason why the transcripts are sealed and no one else’s are. Is he smart as we are supposed to think? Methinks not.
Sherlock, I couldn’t agree more.
If the one, being the narcissist he is had any marks worth bragging about
we’d have seen them by now and would be hearing about them 24-7. I’m inclined to believe he’s an affirmative action product with no passing grades whatsoever. He probably prays every night that the truth never comes out till he’s long gone
and that can’t happen fast enough.
They let the affirmative action poster boy in so his grades would look OK whether he did anything or not. Anymore, the only way you can fail in most colleges is to simply not show up. Showing up and paying gets you a C, doing something, anything, gets you a B, and doing anything more or less right gets you an A.
I think the reason he’s hiding his school records is to conceal the circumstances of his admission and who paid for his education. Wouldn’t surprise me at all if he was admitted as a foreign student and his education was paid for from foreign sources. I maintain that he is a Red Diaper Baby and there are some family and other ties that he and his handlers really, really don’t want the proletariat to know about.
The old line from Forrest Gump applies to Obama: “Stupid is as stupid does.”
He has been president for over 2 1/2 years. Show me the smart things he has done. It’ll be a very short list.
The old saying is that “everyone is ignorant, only on different subjects.” Wisdom is realizing how little we really know. Obama is convinced that he’s the smartest man in any room, so he doesn’t listen to anyone. That’s willful ignorance and shows he’s a profoundly unwise man.
Going back to Eisenhower at least, the press has characterized all Republican presidential candidates as dummies and all Democrat presidential candidates as smart. It’s a rather silly kind of ‘reporting’ that ignores qualities of leadership and the skills necessary to manage a huge bureaucracy.
Liberals Projecting Stupidity: it takes one to know one.
No, Jack ~ your list was right the FIRST time and those 4 on it are vetted.
They’ve only TOLD us Barack is a “very smart President”.
We’ve yet to see “proof”.
Personally, I think he’s…how do I put this delicately? Ah! Something children won’t find distressing. How about he’s a “bear of very little brain”?
tree hugging sister – Point well taken.
For New Class liberals, “stupid” is code-speak for “not our kind, dear”. Not part of the credentialed gentry that miscalls itself an educated elite.
No, Jack ~ your list was right the FIRST time and those 4 on it are vetted.
They’ve only TOLD us Barack is a “very smart President”.
We’ve yet to see “proof”.
Personally, I think he’s…how do I put this delicately? Ah! Something children won’t find distressing. How about: I believe he’s, in point of fact, a “bear of very little brain.”
I’ll be very blunt.
He’s not very smart at all. He cannot speak extemporaneously. His depth of intellectual understanding is that of a parrot that sits on a professor’s window sill.
Alright, I guess I won’t be crude, after all.
Roger and All, haven’t we learned anything, yet, about the left’s memes? In lefticon idiot means enemy! Stupid, or their more fashionable-stoopid, means rethuglican. When they glorify the intelligence of their people they praise their intellect as noted in Gore, Kerry, Obama and Clinton. As for charm well….they had Clinton. Carter, Kerry, Gore, Obama, Dukaukis and Carter scheee.
Yes, I do believe that going around the MSM is the best practice for Repubs. Witness the Palin bus chase escapade. Truely, if we ignore them they will follow. Of course, they will paint Perry with their own brush. With Perry tossing verbal bombs, Romney playing Vanilla, Bachman riling the base and perhaps with Palin in, a full round robin media scramble. Which will the MSM revile the most? Who cares. The candidate names will be out there on a daily revile list, the talking liberal heads will be exploding come January. I can see it now, Ed Schultz, botton scroll, “Which idiot will the Teabaggers bless?”
This is the silly season, watch for hurricane and earthquake similies for the near future.
To get a degree in Texas any college or university that gets state money has to require certain core courses, amongst those are two semesters of civics, one on state and local government and one on the federal government. Also required are two semesters of history, one on Texas and one on US History. Most of them require at least one semester of college algebra and three semesters of English. A student will get exposure to “dead white men.”
A rather large number of current Texas Republicans are former Democrats. There has been a constant trickle of aisle crossing. As the National Democrat party leadership became more radical the more disgusted the local Democrats became with it. As one old “New Deal” professor told me back in 1981. “It used to be the Republicans were isolationist, anti-defense spending, and wanted no involvement with the rest of the world. Now the national Democrats are anti-defense spending,pro-isolationist, and what is worse are visibly upset with the idea of presenting a candidate as a hero and a patriot. This has been killing us in presidential general elections.” and etc., but the gist is the Texas legislatures that are still Democrat are more atypical that the Texas Republicans anymore.
We are RECONQUERING Texas and the Southwest. We will deal with you cracker dinosaurs when the time is right. Your situation is hopeless. You gringos had better escape while you still can…
For The Race everything. Outside The Race nothing.
La Raza – You’re way off topic here. Why don’t you cease and desist.
The troll has returned.
La Raza: Let me ask you something. If America had never taken over the Southwest from Mexico do you think people in the region would be economically better off today? Would the ancestors of those 20,000 families that lived in the region in 1848 be better off today if they were still under Mexican rule? Just askin’, mi amigo.
la raza, and I assume the drug dealers will rule, just as in your own fouled up Mexico. A dream to be hoped for eh ? Time to buy your fix.
What a joke. you’re seriously arguing that Mexicans are fleeing their own country and entering the US to pursue prosperity for themselves and their families in Texas in order to . . . make Texas into Mexico?
Hah, hah, I think not.
The fact that Perry throws fear into the rabid end of the Democrat party gives me hope. Can you imagine Perry on a stage in a debate with The One – who we assume will not be accompanied by his teleprompter. Think about it. I expect the Dems to unleash an all-out, vicious assault on the Governor in direct correlation to his rise in popularity with the American voters. This is going to get ugly.
Texas Democrats are more conservative than most states’ Republicans. Ya’ll have to throw parties and publish manifestoes to explain to yourselves what is considered absolutely basic common sense in Texas.
Things like, low to no taxes. There is not a state income tax, and there never will be. Gun control means practicing shooting straight. There’s a women’s luncheon that happens once a month at the shooting range, for instance.Baptist, Methodist, Lutheran, and Church of Christ churches all over the place. These churches are all self- governing units, with yearly budget meetings and open books. They teach civic independence, as well as spiritual independence. The Lutherans are in synod form, but they work hard, and practice legislative dealing with each other.
There are ranches, small farms, and sharecroppers, all within living memory. People learn early that money and oil do make life easier and better. There isn’t the guilt of inheriting- it’s all been built in this last hundred or hundred fifty years.
And, yeah, the civics and government classes- some of the hardest classes I’ve ever taken. No curve, you need to know every main point and subsidiary point, in essay form- timed- and that was at the community college level. At the university level- they expect you to read original documents, and some profs expect original research- b/c the documents are right there, at the university, just in the library, open to everyone. Some are in Spanish, some are in Mayan, and they expect you to translate them, and use them. It’s already international, at 19 years old.
ROTC is on most campuses. A&M has the corps of cadets. The military isn’t an exotic other. Arabs come here to learn oil drilling and processing, too. So they aren’t other and exotic, either. Kids from the Rio Grande Valley come here. Kids from the West Texas oil patch rub shoulders with the others. The ag panhandle- not so many kids, but still. Texas is as big as France,with an economy more diversified and bigger than France. Anyone who can master this state……..is more than qualified to run America, and at minimum, beat the pants off a guy who can’t even run a single city’s school enrichment program.
Oh, I forgot, Indian tribes with tribal lands, and military bases, including a huge one in the capitol city. and a mall catering to the wealthy of south america, in san antonio.
WOW, what a gas. Makes me wanna move there……….
And Texas is systemically heading the ways of the Old California and will eventually become the California of today. And guess what! So long as the United States Constitution stands you cannot close your borders from other states immigration into Texas by the masses chasing the almighty advertised dollar. Take a historical look at how poverty follows successful states who tout economies. Heck, take a look at the major cities in Texas to see how povery has increased since say, the 1950′s and 1960′s. Poverty is poverty no matter where and why it comes!
“Why do you rob banks?”
“Because that’s where the money is.”
Making all that money brings poverty, because the poor gravitate towards the money? So, they should either stop making money, or stop advertising that they are making money so the poor do not find out? Of course, if you stop advertising it, it becomes hard to recruit and make the money. Yes, just stop making money. That’s a swell idea. Works for the Blue States.
I have a better idea. How about no government programs for the poor? Stop subsidizing poverty and making more of it. The poor do not gravitate towards money. They gravitate towards FREE money. That’s why they are poor.
Here we go again! Those who are in poverty are the dregs of the earth
– until — poverty befalls upon yourself, then of course its quite a different story. Show me a society since the time of recorded history that didn’t have a poverty class. Your solution is to ignore them or otherwise dispose of them. That is wrong on so many human and religious levels!
I have stated before, that there is a complete U.S. government and census ‘demographic’ breakdown of all who receive public assistance. Have you ever taken a look at it? Maybe it would give you a better idea of who you denigrate as welfare and poverty dregs.
Also, while you were on break from here, I posted a complete breakdown of Americas economic wealth holders….as lat reported a few years ago. The trend never changes in todays times. I give you the following link because it has the best data charts and graphs but is the same data as all other sources.
http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html
When you get to that “bottom 80%” stop there and ponder a bit! Assume in the perfect world mode for a moment. Lets bloat labor in the private sector to 100% of the 18 to 100+ age group…all employed! Two things would happen! The top 20% would have less wealth. The bottom 80% would have less income. Can you figure out how that would be? If not, let me explain. The top 20% have to maintain a profit. What that margin is, is alway arbitrary to a great degree but also includes viability security in the future and satisfying stockholhers in the case of publicly hel corporations. That means with a bloated workfoce they “cannot” pay the high salaries the working class is accustomed to. Everybody makes far less income! The typical range for non exempt labor (most labor) is 15-20% of gross profit. With our senario of a bloated labor force that would force most all employers to pay minimum wage. Imagine the national chaos that would create on our economy and the lifestyle of most Americans!
However, that would not signifcantly change the wealth distribution ratio of the top 1-20% wealth holders. It would only move the middle class down to the low and poverty class ….and you still have those that cannot legitmately work. So, you have one of two choices! Less people in the labor pool to prop up a middle class — or — more people in the labor pool and less or no middle class! It makes no difference if we’re an isolated economy or part of a global economy. The ‘bottom 80%’ of wealth holders are the majority consumers. If you want to play with numbers, use a private sector wealth/assets number of $188 Trillion dollars….though at the present that would adjust down a bit. There is NO such thing as a 100% employment possibility in any nations economy! It cannot be supported! And even more so in a competitive global economy! The only thing keeping our private sector economies afloat for several decades has been government subsidies and manufactured ‘bubble’ economies that are never sustainable.
Starting to see the catch-22 our nations private sector has gotten itself into? Consolidation, centralization, greed and corruption! Now, emerging economies are cleaning our clocks and the entire nation is pouring trillions of dollars out of the domestic economy (investing) into those emerging economies. Economies that are willing to sacrifice large segements of their populations in poverty. Is that what you’re suggesting the U.S. do?
Your math only works in a world where “wealth” is a finite pot of gold, with a finite number of coins to be distributed among X number of people.
You do not consider 3 very important things.
A) The simple possibility of “weath creation” among the “bottom 80%” through their own undustry, efforts and creativities.
B) the econimic effects of consumption by the “top 20%” driving the Auto industry, home and resort construction, recreational and vacation industries. Think of boat builders, plumbers, mechanics, garage door technicians, carpet installers, landscapers and pest exterimators all needed to service their lofty lifestyles. Lots of good respectable employment for the masses to be found there.
Some of these people might actually excercise option “A”, and build their OWN sucessful business, while employing others further down the line.
AKA “no poor person ever hired me to do a job”
C) the corrosive negative effects of governmental subsidation of failure, with the simlutaneous punishment of success;
Such as Bailouts of all sorts, Welfare, Section 8, “needle exchange” programs, publically funded Abortions, coupled with “soak the rich” rhetoric and proposed tax increases on all workers to fund a bloated and ineffective “government workers union” class of Americans at all levelsunder, the guise of compassion.
Its the Government that needs a drastic cut in pay and benifits, not the CEO’s.
As long as California is run by idiots that hand out money and benefits to anyone professing a need the entitlement crowd isn’t going to budge. I’ve visited San Franciso in the past few years. There are pan-handlers on every corner and in-between them – and on every freeway off-ramp next to the stop lights with sign in hand proclaiming all sorts of problems. Not one of them would take me up on a job offer.
My younger brother lives in Texas – according to him pan-handlers are far and few in and around DFW. And you don’t see anyone with signs on the off-ramps begging for handouts.
No – as long as the fools in California keep handing out the dole money the entitlement crowd ain’t budging.
Second only to keeping the race card in play when needed (ie, late in campaigns), supposed intellectual superiority of progressives must be reinforced with their base.
Otherwise, how to justify their elite wisdom and their demand for people’s deference to their oh so smart policies ?
Kinky Friedman, i.e. the one-time bitter gubernatorial opponent of Perry, and the hippest oldster since Mark Twain, endorses Perry:
“I have been quoted as saying that when I die, I am to be cremated, and the ashes are to be thrown in Rick Perry’s hair. Yet, simply put, Rick Perry and I are incapable of resisting each other’s charm. He is not only a good sport, he is a good, kindhearted man, and he once sat in on drums with ZZ Top. A guy like that can’t be all bad.” http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/08/24/kinky-friedman-rick-perry-s-got-my-vote.html
I wonder why I Obama is supposedly so smart did he have all his school records sealed after he became President?
It is obvious why Obama has not released his academic records. He is too modest. His records would show that he is so much smarter than all of us that if we really knew how smart he was we would just break down and cry. He would have to be President for the rest of his life because no one, Republican or Democrat, would feel qualified to succeed him. Clearly, Obama is keeping his academic records a secret because of his deep, abiding love of democracy and his profound respect for the U.S. Constitution.
What? You don’t believe me? My explanation may seem crazy, but it makes more sense than any explanation I have ever heard from an Obama supporter.
As Winston Churchill said of Clement Atlee, “He has much to be modest about.”
It is simple his records are not really that good he got a Deegree a GPA of D which is less than average but through affirmative action he was passed along and VOILA we now have a student that was not really worthy of graduating as a GRADUATE of an Ivy League school, it degrades all such universities just as he has the presidency and it’s importance.
This is what you get with affirmative action and liberal ideas, shit that don’t work at all!
Roger, I’ve voted for Perry many times over the years, but I’ve kind of taken him for granted because he’s been around so long.
One of the things that newly impressed me about him was your visit with him and his interactions with you, Breitbart and the rest. I thought: excellent–my governor gets it and is keeping up with the times, staying in tune with the voters. So far he’s managed to stay several moves ahead of his opponents. I hope he can make that work on the national stage. One thing in his favor is that the national Dems always misunderestimate the GOP candidate, especially if s/he is from some podunk place like AK or TX.
I’m still waiting to see actual evidence of Obama’s alleged “brilliance.”
In my own career, I’ve worked with a number of brilliant people. And what characterized them was the ability to generate ideas and solutions and solve problems that I could never have done myself.
With them you have the reaction “Wow, I never would have thought of that myself in a million years.”
I have never had that reaction with Obama. Everything he has said, proposed, or done, could just as easily have been said, proposed, or done by any other left-wing Democrat. Not once has he come up with anything really daring or innovative, something you wouldn’t expect out of the mouth of any Democrat politician.
Something daring for its time, like this:
“What I am describing now is a plan and a hope for the long term — the march of freedom and democracy which will leave Marxism-Leninism on the ash-heap of history as it has left other tyrannies which stifle the freedom and muzzle the self-expression of the people.”
President Ronald Reagan, 1982
My choice of a GOP winning team – Rick Perry and Allen West
Having a black guy as VP is not going to work.
The function of blackness (in a candidate) in a national election is #1 to get the black vote and #2 to validate the choice for guilty whites.
If West, or Cain, or any other black man or woman is the Republican VP nominee, the word from the cultural commissars will be, “See, they make de brutha sit in back de bus – we always knowed the Rethuglicans raciss”.
This is unfair, and really, really stupid besides – but it will work heap big juju on those guilty whites, and the black vote is already spoken for. In addition, it will gain nothing that a white conservative couldn’t get as well or better.
So? Who cares what “they” will say? If Repubs do NOT have a Black or a Woman, they will be accused the same way. They have been in the past. Look at the ’08 debates. The question was the all-white ensemble. Same thing. So, let’s not tiptoe around what “they” will say, because they will say it anyway. This tiptoeing is how we got here in the first place.
The suggestion of Allen West was not because he is Black. Who cares about that? It is because he is inspirational like Rubio. Rubio is Hispanic, but who care about that, either? It’s not the color of their skin which inspires. It’s the content of their character.
EXACTLY!!!
We have to get past the idea that what ‘they’ (Dems & MSM) think matters for conservatives. What they think got us McCain.
The guy who played Batman?
Crack me up!! Right Arm!
It is shockingly bigoted and stupid in itself that leftist fools think it a sign of intelligence to believe in unlimited government power. It goes against the very grain of an open mind and the critical role of the active citizen. But when you’re a leftist you need all the self deceit you can handle. Everyone who disagrees with these loons is “stupid”, every last one. Pretty stupid of them.
The thin veneer that hides the progressive agenda is kept nailed in place by the leaders of the movement via bullying tactics. It can be seen through by using God-given talents – the thought processes of reason/logic – AKA common sense.
The left doesn’t want their minions to use common sense – they’d be left standing alone at the altar should that happen – and that frightens them. They use ridicule to — well —- ridicule their dissenters – and to keep the troops in line. I submit that the followers of the progressives in our society for the most part inhabit the left side of the bell curve of intelligence. Not wanting to be ridiculed like conservatives they blindly toe the line. This is Obama’s ‘base’ – they are the ~35% that show in the opinion polls as giving him a pass – he’ll never lose them – lets hope the other 15% or so that voted for him figures it out by next year. I thank God daily that his base is as small as it is and hope that reason and common sense will win the day come election day 2012. It could be a landslide we’ve not seen since 1980.
Roger, Ronald Reagan was a C student at Eureka. As president, in 1982, he gave a commencement speech there and said:
“And even now I wonder what I might have accomplished if I’d studied harder.”
http://www.reagan.utexas.edu/archives/speeches/1982/50982a.htm
Cornell?? Why Cornell of all the Ivy’s you may ask (or you may not). Here is my theory: Cornell University College of Veterinary Medicine. Graduates can get real jobs after graduation.
Like that great genius, Keith Olbermann? /sarc
My recollection is that Olberman was a graduate of the School of Agriculture NOT the School of Veterinary Medicine. The two could not possibly be more different. Only one requires exceptional intelligence. You guess which.
GOD HELP US if we put race/ethnicity above what is best for the USA. Our nation
is great because it’s a mix of ethnicities. Being “American” honors all ethnicities
and does not choose one over another. Honor our Constitution! Honor the Law.
Honor one another. Most of all….honor God….and do what is right. Righteousness
exalts a nation!
The part about not interviewing with the Make Believe Media makes sense. Nothing Perry can do will change their coverage of him in the slightest. Sarah learned this painfully. Sounds like Perry gets it going in.
Since it takes a lot of time to cater to the MBM, doing almost anything else, including doing nothing, has to be a more effective use of a candidate’s time.
It also makes sense that the more people see a candidate actually interacting with real people has to help him.
But it is probably even more true that the campaigning style that works best depends on the era and the candidate. For Little Lenin, a cold calculating ideological robot, keeping him away from the public was genius. Two more encounters with Joe Plumber and he would have lost. It was a much better strategy to have him completely scripted in front of Greek columns to pretend that he was a person of substance, reinforced 24x7x365 by the MBM. It worked perfectly.
This time, the marxists appear to be going more with staged events where the robot pretends he is a real person with normal human emotions. The problem with that strategy is that people know him now. They are going to have to come up with something a lot scarier than the 2008 ploy of creating a world-wide depression. A war seems nearly inevitable.
The Gramsci adherents who’ve taken over education in this Country have done a pretty thorough job of making leftist and intelligent into synonyms, at least in the minds of the college “educated.”
I spent most of my working life dealing with Meany School or Ivy League trained public employee union representatives. Most of them were outright communists and some even knew they were. If you’re looking for the SDS of the ’60s look no further than the apparatchnik level of public employee unions.
I knew what Comrade Obama was the first time I laid eyes on him; I said to myself, “so you’re the one they think they can dress up and fool people.” He’s pretty much a by the book Alinsky disciple. If you know what you’re looking at they’re pretty easy to deal with if you have any power to hurt them politically or economically. If you don’t have power over them, they are astoundingly vicious and cynical. Had the Democrats been truly united between ’08 and ’10, that “fundamental transformation” would have been done no matter what the public outcry. In this they paid the price for having so many “fake Republicans” who were recruited and elected from what should have been Republican districts. Some of those people didn’t understand that they were simply expendable assets whose re-election wasn’t required and they tried to actually represent their constituents rather than further the revolution. Cost them dearly!
What so hampers us on the right is that our elected and appointed officials tend to come from the “hail fellow well met” set that came to prominence in the Chamber, Rotary, trade association, etc. and went into local and state office as “nice guys.” Once they get into positions where they have to deal with hardcore leftists, especially Alinsky disciples, they first deny what their eyes and ears tell them and then don’t know how to deal with them. Though it is changing, most Republican officeholders are so averst to controversy and confrontation that they are incapable of dealing with someone like BHO and further can’t stand to be around people who are confrontational enough to effectively deal with people like him. That’s why you get the unseemly spectacle we saw with the debt ceiling matter where BHO in true Alinsky style never made a real proposal, merely threats, and the threats caused the Republicans to cower in fear and begin negotiating with themselves.
“they first deny what their eyes and ears tell them and then don’t know how to deal with them.”
This is the problem with much of the country, not just the Country Club Republicans.
The US developed as a civil society, and it gives the marxists an incredible advantage. They care nothing about laws or traditions. Might makes right for them, whether they are slaughtering people in the Gulags or ramming their “agenda” in over the screaming objections of the people.
Assuming the country survives and people live to tell about the last 4 years, the 2008 election and the aftermath will be studied in textbooks for centuries…at least, it should be.
Trouble is, all those skinny little metrosexuals and their shrewish women are wannabe Strelnikovs at heart. In their fondest dreams they’re riding in their armored train with their brigades of Cossacks alongside laying waste to the unenlightened peasants out in flyover country. If you don’t have a way to exercise serious power over them, they are very, very dangerous. If you show you can actually hurt them, they run away and cower. It is a lesson we need our “leadership” to take to heart.
The most ‘notables’ of history never attended any “Ivy League” colleges. Cetainly, Jesus didn’t attend any Ivy League colleges! No country has more “Ivy League” educated than does the United States and look at it after only a few short 235 years of formal existence. In fact, since post WWII and especially, the 60′s forward, no other country has the population ratio of college educated than does the United States…and again, take a look at out nation today!
Unless one is educated in the hard sciences and math, they are nothing more than liberal philosophers and theorists…self ordained ‘experts” of whatever dicipline niche they cling to….again, take a look at what is a most ‘educated’ nation in real time.
Political and religious philosophers and theorists have become self serving masters of human manipulation. Advertising is one of the most major cases in point. Advertising is not simply what you see in the various mediums promoting a consumer product. Advertising is much more! Its the core basis of ‘selling/manipulating’ religion and politics for the benefit of a few. In both cases the benefit goes to the self annointed elitists and their particular casue(s). Without the benefit of the percieved lowly uneducated, the elitists would be self annointed Generals without an army. So, they must ‘advertise’ for their armies to go into battle…one elitist group against another to reign supreme for their self serving agenda’s.
So, who are the lowly lesser’s they direct their advertising to and manipulate in to serving as their armies in battle? Is their advertising honest…or….deceitful and self serving?
First and foremost in the cases of politics and religion, their advertising has to be ‘devisive’ or one general would acquire all or an overwhelming majority for his army. So, how does one devise and implement self serving tactics of devisiveness? Evil versus good? Subjectivity as facts? Self annointed intellectual superiority verus the declared dummies?
I’m guessing independent thinking and reasoning is long out of vogue today with everybody to busy texting, talking on the cell phone, computer gaming, watching TV, etc., so they must rely on others, perceived intellectual elites, to do their thinking and reasoning for them. SAD!!!!
Welcome back, TT. I did not recognize the other person who had taken to writing under your handle. Good to see you back to yourself.
(Btw, it is dIvisive, not dEvisive. From ‘divide’.)
Well thank you Marc…though I’ve not been gone and the mission remains the same.
I always sell myself “As-Is” to include some rather raw writing skills and even sometimes a little raw oration. A bit of my reputation in several circles of past and present. Just picture a Gordon Ramsey with a great deal more humor.
“Diplomacy is the art of saying “nice doggie” until you can find a rock.”
“If you ever injected truth into politics you would have no politics.”
“The more you read about politics, the more you got to admit that each party is worse than the other.”
“There is nothing so stupid as an educated man, if you get off the thing that he was educated in.”
“An economist’s guess is liable to be as good as anybody else’s.”
“Government spending? I don’t know what it’s all about. I don’t know any more about this thing than an economist does, and, God knows, he doesn’t know much.”
“Ten men in our country could buy the whole world and ten million can’t buy enough to eat.”
“Too many people spend money they haven’t earned to buy things they don’t want to impress people they don’t like.”
– Will Rogers –
For anybody who seeks a real education…read Will Rogers!
I am ceaselessly amazed and amused at how liberals, who deem themselves such deep and nuanced thinkers, always fall for rubber-stamp conclusions. Went to this college, must be brilliant, must be correct and we should worship him!
Mind you, we don’t do much better when we comment that a person (such as Obama) can’t be smart because he wreaks such stupidity. Intelligence is really a sort of mechanical facility of thinking, a swiftness in making connections. BUT if that intelligence is suborned by other forces — pride, for example (which in Obama’s case is full-blown Narcissistic Personality Disorder IMO) — it become a factory of idiocies, as the gears are tuned to manufacturing rationalizations and sophistries to shore up the emotionally-cemented falsehoods. There are certain levels of stupidity that only the intelligent have the talents to reach.
Little known fact about both UT and Texas A&M.
Both are generally reserved for the Top Ten Percent of Texas high school students first and a much smaller pool of smart out of state students. Does that mean every student brilliant? No, of course not. But it does mean you get a very high quality academic student body.
All I can say about A&M from personal experience is this, boastful of course. My daughter attended A&M without me knowing much about it. She attended A&M as an out of state student because she liked it – not because it was the best scholarship offer.
Before leaving A&M and attending medical school at UT, she had managed to score in the top 1-2% of the medical admissions test (MCAT), beating the vast majority of Ivy League wannabee doctors educated at those most prestigious of universities.
Coming from white trash, obviously A&M must be teaching something right academically…
Graduating from A&M is no black mark on Rick Perry.
I definitely think some of these schools are over-rated. I personally believe that it only makes a difference if someone goes to a top rated school. If they don’t go to a top rated school, I don’t think it really makes that much difference.
Dry land cotton farming in west Texas is the biggest crap shoot known to civilized man. One must be a tough Hombre to have the guts to even try. I seriously doubt any Ivy Leaguer would last one season. Perry is tested in the honorable way hard work and a gamblers instinct.
Liberals have a very serious need to believe that they are always the smartest person (or persons) in the room. This is part of their conceit that choosing to be, or calling oneself, liberal is such a no-brainer that only morons would choose to be, or call themselves, conservative. For libs the choice is as black and white as it gets with no shades or tints of gray in between. They would be genuinely puzzled by intelligent people differing with them on issues of national importance if they were not already instantly predisposed to think of such people as evil, perverse, misguided, or (their favorite) just plain dumb as doornail.
This is one more example of the “liberal template” at work. Or, in other words “Whom the liberal gods would destroy, they first call stupid.” It goes back at least as far as Reagan, who, according to the template, spoke well, but wasn’t nearly so smart as he appeared. Bush Sr.was only slightly maligned, but his son got the full dump, with every gaffe, real or (with increasing frequency) imagined propagated at maximum volume to maximum range.
I expected this, though maybe not quite so soon. As a general rule, the liberal playbook is somewhat thin.
Gov. Perry earned my respect in his race last year. First came the republican ‘debate’, hosted by a hostile television newscaster whose slant was obviously against the governor. Then, the free ads for the democrat Bill White masquerading as news by the television stations. Every newspaper wrote for White and against the governor. The governor bypassed the media interviews (why give the opposition a chance to put you down?) and used the internet extensively, and the Republican Party in my area printed and distributed bumper stickers. If you are an unknown, yard sales have always been a way to repeat your name/message, but everyone knew who Perry was, and what he had done as governor. His television commercials were spot-on, simple ‘Create jobs and keep cost of living and doing business low’.
Whether or not he wins the nomination, the governor has focused world-wide attention on the Al Gore/Enron scam called ‘global warming’. He has also stood up unapologetically for traditional family values. While he has been governor, all state agencies have created impressive websites, a transparency that was unbelievable a few years ago. One example is a map showing every oil/gas well ever drilled, and with a click of the mouse, you can see the records of each. This saved millions of dollars over the old manual searches done by legions of state workers at the RR Commission, the central depository for such records. Every school district has its total records posted on the Texas Education Agency website, making it easy for anyone to compare their local school to others. It has led to increased honesty on the part of school boards seeking more tax revenues.
One caution about the elitist ivy leaguers thing. The problem is not elitists. For example, graduates of Harvard medical school are ivy league elitists, but they are pretty useful elitists. They produce real results, and deserve their elite status. Same for engineers or sw engineers from MIT, and other elite schools. There are also conservative elitists, like George Will, or Charles Krautheimer, and O’Reilly (he claims he is not an elitist, but he did graduate from Harvard) who are quite sensible and correct most of the time.
The problem is not elitists, but left wing elitists, typically with soft majors, like socialogy, education, gender studies, journalism, political science, etc. They have elitist credentials, without the actual intelligence, basic sense, or achievement to justify those credentials, and whenever they are put in charge of anything, they muck it up. So our target should not be elitists, but left wing progressive elitists.
Bill Clinton, as you say, is an interesting case. He is an elitist, and a leftist (although generally considered a centrist by dem standards), but he is one of the few that actually had some real brains, and also knew how common people thought. Mind you he had plenty of faults, but was much better than most other leftists, since he had the ability to learn from failure (like his 1st 2 yrs) and change course when needed, and his administration at least knew how to run basic gov functions competently. The contrast with Obama is revealing. Obama had equal credentials, and in his 2008 campaign gave the impression of real intelligence. But when it came time to produce actual results, as contrasted with his numerous glowing PROMISSES to produce results, he was a complete failure. From what I see now, Obamas vaunted intelligence is a lie, typical of the leftist with gobs of credentials, and a great sounding line, that produces nothing but disaster when actually put in charge of anything.
The problem is not Obama’s intelligence. He is intelligent enough to convince millions of people that he is intelligent as he talks their language, and promotes what they want promoted. The problem is his ideology. He does not realize or apparently will never figure out what Churchill figured out about Chamberlain. Good intentions founded on a fantasy view of reality will always lead to disaster. Not understanding reality is not intelligent, and courting the same disaster over and over again by repeating the same easily avoided mistake is the sign of insanity not intelligence, but Obama and those like him are so convinced of the truth of their false ideology that they will never see the truth right in front of them. Well I just convinced myself. Adherence to that failed ideology is proof that Obama is not intelligent, though he is capable of putting on a good act.
You’re confusing ‘elitist’ and ‘elite.’ Genuine elites are extremely good at something, like Special Operations troops. Elitists just believe that an elite should rule or dominate society. An MIT-educated engineer is an elite engineer (probably), but is not necessarily an elitist. It’s quite possible to both be in an elite group and yet have egalitarian beliefs.
I’m the enemy. I graduated from an Ivy League school. I was always proud of that. On this site it seems to be a mark of shame. I do get it, though. Joe The Plumber is what we need. I’m sorry to see that Mr. Simon needs to denounce his solid liberal arts education at Dartmouth to curry favor in his new calling. Too bad.
Yes, you are the enemy. College, Ivy or State school, has become a mutual masturbation society where those who can get enough money to stay out of the work force for a few years tell each other how wonderful they are. You’re useless and if it weren’t for your classmates having to justify themselves by hiring people equally useless, you’d all starve.
Moderato,
Yes, sir, men like Joe the Plumber are indeed what we need more of in this country.
With 350 million souls, many many millions are simply average people, who none the less, need to be gainfully employed to feed their families.
Employment, and shall we say “station”, is (normally) a wide strata made up of of subtle differences in skill-set, education, experience, work ethic and ambition, with a bit of luck and opportunity thrown in. Moving upward through this strata in the the approximate mid range, is the lot of most Americans lives.
Men like Joe The Plumber provide necessary commodity services to persons crossing a huge swath of that strata, (from individuals and homeowners all the way to corporations) while simultaneously EMPLOYING people at that MEDIAN level. Joe provides opportunity and value to both ends, while employing the all important center, widening the Tax Base, and stabilizing communities with his local incentive to succeed.
Not everyone will be a lawyer, lobbyist, software engineer, or creator of the next revolutionary commodity concept (facebook etc.) Its simply not possible, or even desirable, as there are no markets for such lopsidedness in our employment demographics.
However our overall standard of living may increase, that Great Wide Median of America will always be there, in the greatest of actual numbers. And those who’s locally owned businesses provide reliable, stable jobs to THEM, will always be our greatest asset as a nation.
So then, congratulations on your Ivy League Degree.
Your parents, I’m sure, are rightfully are proud of your accomplishments.
I imagine it was quite an effort for them, and of course for you too, as well.
Bravo to you, sir.
Hopefully, with that fine degree, the ripple effects of your (presumably) upper echelon career track will employ many, many, many median level folks… Like Joe The Plumber does, but on a larger scale even.
That will mean much more to the progress of our Nation, than another Trial Lawyer, College Professor, Politician, or Think Tank Analyst.
Well said, Root. People have different skills and different interests and they all deserve respect for doing their jobs well.
My parents never went beyond the eighth grade; my father was a welder. I am grateful that I was able to get an education through scholarships and hard work. Only in America. I became a public high school teacher. Hardly an elitist calling.
Yep, egotistic know-it-alls. Incompetant sychophants. Don’t need you screwing up the country any more. Don’t want you as a neighbor. Go away. Go to Russia where you can live in happiness with your brainwashed brethren.
No he’s not a dope. I don’t like him. He swaggers, poses and preens like a peacock but more than that we’ve already seen his ilk in the White House. Someone who knows better than everyone else.
Things are just bigger and better in Texas. Yes we’ve all heard it before and we’ll hear it some more. I don’t believe it but then again I’m usually the person saying “There’s only one Messiah and he’s not it.”
Maybe, just maybe we should look at a candidates experience. Has he/ she run a company, made payroll, assembled a team to save a company, been elected to office, run a city, county, state. Are they honest with their fellow men, do they have integrity, can they make the hard choices because they know what’s right instead of what’s expedient. Do the want to be president of the whole US not just president of the Christians, or Envo-Nazi’s or Blacks or Whites or aliens or Texans et al.
I don’t know. I always thought the President would be the guy/ girl who exemplified the best of us. Not the lesser of 20 evils.
–wonder which president to date has exemplified the best in us? Can we get whoever it was to run again?
Here’s an ny times article by Sasha Issenberg:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/31/magazine/31politics-t.html?pagewanted=1
It mentions the Obama campaign but not McCain. I wonder if these modern campaign tactics might have influenced the reslut of the 2008 election.
Some interesting discussions here on creation scriptures and TT’s analysis of our employment demographics. Both helped me see that what folks here need to do is take their essentially fundamentalist Protestant view: “I read the word of God/Constitution on my own and have truth revealed to me; (it is obvious to anyone who can understand English)” and meld it with the diverse STUDIES, HISTORIEDS, abd COMMENTARIES of or on the early church, the scriptures, American History, the economy etc (a true liberal education.) Too many of the studies popular here are simply predigested and cherry-picked sources, known NOT in their original form, and the commentaries upon them, where some of the subtleties and even contradictions would have to be acknowledged, but rather laundry lists compiled by righty think tanks whether to support the Second Amendment, debunk evolution, lower taxes, disassemble the guvment etc.
You’d think it was a known FACT, depending on who you listened to about whose economic policies caused, ameliorated, prolonged, whatever, the Great Depression. You’d think that the Founding Fathers really did not believe in big government (whereas, obviously, they were trying to put one together, and damned proud of it.) Yes, it is glaringly obvious that liberal elitists do not have all the answers, but just as obvious that folks who get their edjamacation from Mark Steyn and Ann Coulter, don’t either.
Roger, We have to get R. C. together with David Levavi and Reformed Trombonist and maybe we can all discuss Richard Rubinstein’s: When Jesus Became God: The Struggle to Define Christianity during the Last Days of Rome [Paperback]. Myth Buster does not want his own myths busted. Proreason does not want to reason, and Mr Lucky is not so lucky…but apparently the Republic is in peril and we must all do our duty.
We must also determine who is/was more “exceptional” the Jews, the Greeks, the Romans, the early Christians, the Puritans, the country of the Founders, Andrew Jackson, Abraham Lincoln, Woodrow Wilson, FDR, or Ronald Raegan’s.
Once we have done that, maybe we can put our “Obama is the anti-Christ” scenarios in the proper context.
http://www.amazon.com/review/R9GPJXGC81RI2/ref=cm_cr_pr_viewpnt#R9GPJXGC81RI2
I really doubt he is stupid or the rich, elite of the world would not invite him to their meetings. He is listed on wikapedia as a Bildeberger Group for several years – why question, if he is so “conservative” why did he go? I know little about them but the people that go along with group are most of Obama’s cabinet, many leftists like Soros and really few Americans. I really think this guy is playing you Perry supporters. What would a group that want in a “down home guy” in sync with the Tea Party?
1) We’re in one heck of a mess.
2) The Ivys have been “over-represented” in government for the past …. what, 100 years?
3) Therefore ????
Yeah, ever since John Adams went to Harvard, it’s been pretty much downhill from then on.
DO you know the difference between “knowledge” and “wisdom” Dwight?
Root 83…. Thanks for your reply!
["Your math only works in a world where “wealth” is a finite pot of gold, with a finite number of coins to be distributed among X number of people."]
The ‘people’ don’t print or mint currency therefore, there is only so much USD currency in the system. To stay up with currency in circulation including paper currency and coin held both by the public and in the vaults of depository institutions….
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/WCURCIR/
["A) The simple possibility of “wealth creation” among the “bottom 80%” through their own industry, efforts and creativities."]
One would think that to be true until, you analyze the gross income and ‘disposable income’ of the bottom 80%. Putting aside the current economic situation, lets assume the norm of the bottom 80% control 20% of the nations wealth. Now, we’re forced into doing the math around your first comment, to establish just how much that 20% of wealth equates to. Now we have to figure out how to break down the economic demographics of that bottom 80% who hold 20% of the wealth. I prefer using the ERSI data which uses the census and updates it annually. Now, you have to do more homework when you receive this data. You have to add inflation and debt trends to the data. This information is also easily accessible. You are correct in that any viable business proposition will attract investment funding but that is a rare…very rare instance except, in the case of the SBA who will lend funding to a rock with a plan to get rich on a hotdog cart in Whiteflat, TX.
http://www.esri.com/data/esri_data/demographic.html
["B) the econimic effects of consumption by the “top 20%” ..."]
Be real short and sweet on this point! The top 20% have long been investing in foreign emerging economies and foreign luxury real estate. One (the bottom 80%) might ‘perceive’ their (top 20%) domestic consumption to be some huge number…but it is not!
["C) the corrosive negative effects of governmental subsidation of failure, with the simlutaneous..."]
It is the private sectors top 20% and their loibbyists who by in large, reside in the halls and offices of the congress and in the White House lobbying for more and more federal government subsidies and favorable legisltion…to include the horrible word “regulations” we hear bantered about. In fact, it is they, who ‘literally’ write much of the congressional legislation. It is they who tout high taxes is killing them when in fact they pay less in taxes than does the bottom 80% of folks. To see which (individuals vs. corporation) who pay the most taxes as a percentage of GDP refer to the fist column of:
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?DocID=205&Topic2id=20&Topic3id=21
I don’t disagree that government is a big problem in a few areas, having long been influenced by the corruption of the private sectors special interest groups. However, it is now in a catch-22 in which it would have have ‘drastic’ consequences in todays time if, anything even remotely signficant were to be changed or reversed. It is ever so much more complex then the populist simplisitic and superficial rhetoric of TeaParty-GOP folks! Neither Europe or the U.S. geniuses have a clue for solving their problems and so it continues at great cost and risk as emerging and energy economies sit back comfortably and patiently awaiting some outcome….an outcome that may very well risk the USD as the worlds currency. Then what?
T.T. Thomas —-
DId you drift off course? I mean, I read your earlier posts, and I read a meme of COmmon Sense.
Now, not so much.
Care to ‘splain yourself?
I believe your thinking needs to be avoided, and people who desire a return to First Principles, should take lead.
Do you disagree?
Kilt….Thanks for your comment! What specifically are you referring to? I was responding to specific comments made by Root83 and provided supporting data.
My general points in addressing are:
1) That in modern westernized societies there are three (3) classes of citizens, one of which is always the working poor and poverty class. Also, between the middle class and these lower clasess there are those who are unemployed and those who are retired and disabled. This is a class that the TeaParty folks want to ignore, infact, sacrifice.
2) That 80% of the population controls only about 20% of the nations wealth. The nations wealth is not some multiplying number. That 20% of wealth is fairly rigid depending on how much added liquidity is added by the fed’s to the nations currency in circulation.
3) In order for the 80% of folks to increase their wealth and move up the ladder they have only two options. (a)Figure out how to take more from the limited holdings of their fellow 80% or (b) figure out how to take more from the top 20%’s holdings of 80%.
Everybody in the 80% group with their measly 20% of the nations wealth always think they have the grand plan to rise up the economic ladder but 7 out of 10 business plans fail within seven years or less. Of that 3% that succeed beyond seven years, few every achieve that degree of economic increase they were chasing.
We will always have a signifcant population that falls within the poor and poverty class and the again, the TeaParty and its following chooses to ignore this class or are openly and blantantly willing to sacrifice this class thinking it will somehow go away from society.
Let me paste a few examples from different TeaParty sites platforms online.
•Eliminate all welfare programs that do not call for work in return. Why should the tax dollars of hard working Americans be used to support lazy people.
•Eliminate social security, medicare and medicaid. These are all just ponzi schemes designed to take money from hard working Americans and transfer it to others. It’s not the fault of hard working Americans that some people have to struggle. Everyone in this country has had the same opportunities, and if they did not take advantage of those opportunities, or were lazy, why should the rest of America have to support them.
“There will be no more free rides in this country. Either work hard or leave. Believe in CHRIST or leave.”
“What we need to take away from that statement is that sacrifice has to be made, and it should be the weak that make that sacrifice so that the healthy and wealthy can prosper.”
“Social Security and Medicare must go. Continuing to drain resources from productive members of society, simply to benefit the weak is not only a sin, but also immoral.”
“I’m truly sorry if a few old, disabled and sick people have to suffer, but it sure isn’t my responsibility to help them. There is no other way.”
“Survival of the fittest!”
This is what the TeaParty represents and I’m bound to fight against such arrogant attempts by them to have any influences in Americas government process.
I actually had the, erm, pleasure of meeting Gov. Perry. He would not even shake my hand, although he had enough time to shake hands with important looking people in suits and ties. He’s an elitist, and I will not vote for him.
Now there’s a stupid reason to select a President. This type of uninformed, emotional attitude is how we elected Obozo to the White House.
With the exception of Richard Nixon, who they viewed as the political counterpart of Ming the Mercyless, the Democrats have always painted Repubublican Presidents as dopes. This includes President’s Eisenhauer and Geroge H. W. Bush who were obviously very able and very intelligent, even if they sometimes garbled English grammer. It is somehow necessary to the inflated self esteem of Liberal Democrats. Eisenhauer commanded a vast fractious coalition that won WW II and Bush, pere, ended the Cold War with remarkable skill and finesse and without a war. Reagan was the most successful President since Franklin D. Roosevelt, whom he loved, supported and took as his model. FDR was no great brain, but he was a master politician and an orator of legendary skill. Scholars have found that the last minute pencil edits FDR and Reagan made to their most memorable speeches almost always turned them from first rate to great if not brilliant. They had both the political skill to understand the reality of America and the orator’s instinct for the right word and the right phraise to communicate their message to America.
Correct me if I am wrong. But I can’t recall the left ever claiming a conservative candidate for president was wrong but smart. They are all dumb so why waste your time joining them on the battlefield of ideas. Just call them stupid and get back to your navel.
I do not think that Perry is a dummy. I do think he lays the country boy act on a little thick, but he is a smart politician. Obama and his ilk would be mistaken to underestimate him. However, I do think that Perry might trip himself up just by being careless.
Perry — A Macho Guy from a Macho state. What a refershing change from the cityfied, girly-man-man-child from the city dominated by union thugs who Chicagoans can’t seem to get rid of. It’s time we show them how, by backing a real man who, I’ll bet, knows how to throw a baseball, shoot a six-shooter, and govern well.