Joe Scarborough: God-Damn Those Political Talk Show Hosts Who Run Other People Down Just To Increase Their Influence, Buff Their Brand, and Juice Their Ratings

Scarborough says a few things that I almost agree with.

I'm a bit astonished at his lack of self-awareness, though. This guy's brand consists almost entirely of being a "bully" (as he terms it) for the northeastern moderate wing of the Republican Party, constantly insulting rivals and millions of voting citizens.

I don't begrudge the moderate wing its own bully, but his diagnosis here is so filthy with opportunism and self-interest it's offensive.

He got booted off the air because people weren't listening to his radio show and he was losing in the ratings to competitors. And he seems to be doing nothing but trying to get payback for that (for his own failure to connect with an audience) and buffing his own brand.

I do not believe all this crap about the Republican Party needing to be more controlled by/influenced by/led by intellectuals to succeed.

Let's think about this.

Here's what I do believe: I believe Republicans should be more intellectual, generally. Actually, I think all people should be more intellectual, generally.

I think conservatives especially should be more intellectual, or more... admittedly intellectual. Let me explain: I think most readers of this site are actually intellectuals to one degree or another. Anyone who's quoting Hayek? Congratulations, you're an intellectual.

If you're strongly interested in ideas and you read a fair amount, and you enjoy abstract thinking and arguing about concepts and principles, you're an intellectual.

Now, conservatives hate this designation and they run from it. I am generalizing from my own experience, here: I never wanted to think of myself as an intellectual. I think I tried to hide my intellectualism in the guise of anti-intellectualism, but that is still basically an intellectual position.

Conservatives don't hate intellectualism, per se. They hate faux intellectualism, which is certainly the dominant form of "intellectualism" that exists in the current age. (Let me just throw in a broad guess and say that's probably the dominant form of intellectualism in any age.) And this faux intellectualism, this faux sophistication, generally takes the guise of a faux thoughtfulness -- see Bob Costas -- or pettifogging sophistry.

So people run from the label and don't self-identify that way. Those who do identify as intellectuals, and adopt the Cultural Signifiers of the Intellectual Tribe, tend not to be terribly thoughtful and not actually, oh, what's the word I'm looking for? Not that smart. So the self-identifying intellectuals -- most of them, the... bitter clingers, if you will, to a false, contrived shallow signification of intellectualism, have damaged the brand.

But let's face it, who are we kidding? Empire of Jeff, for example, uses the same sort of Lowbrow guise as I do but, you know, he's smart. He's read a book. His idea of fun is to go online and read arguments and respond to arguments. So, you know, dick jokes and all that but I'll call him out as an intellectual.

Most of the people on this site are. Including the folks who didn't go to college, who are largely autodidacts to one degree or another.

I could also put in a brief argument here (generalizing from personal experience) that men, especially conservative men, tend to view self-improvement type things as fundamentally womanly (real men are what they are and don't need improving!), which is a not-very-helpful attitude on a purely personal level, and which ultimately contributes to this idea that identifying as someone who likes learning things is a bit soft and "liberal," but that's just a suspicion. Again, generalizing from my own previous attitudes (which I'm trying to wring out of my system). And this attitude stems from those who urge self-improvement type things generally being, what's the word, idiots.

Anyway, I think most people here are intellectuals to a fair extent and probably would not admit that even if I juiced them up with sodium pentathol. And that's fine. I get, as I did that for all my life. Those who claim to be in the club of intellectuals tend to make the club look fairly lame.

But is Scarborough right that anti-intellectualism, especially that espoused by other "talk radio hosts" dragging the party down?

Is Rush Limbaugh an intellectual, by the broad definition I've just suggested? Is Mark Levin? Is Glenn Beck?

Yes, of course. By the broad definition I've suggested, they are primarily idea-oriented and argument-oriented and therefore intellectuals.

Now they're not full-on intellectuals, at least not in their day jobs. They're pop intellectuals -- people who popularize intellectual ideas. Which is, ultimately, how the great majority of the public gets their exposure to intellectual ideas. The public does not read Steven Hawking's actual papers. They would not understand them. (As I wouldn't.) To the extent the public knows about Steven Hawking's ideas they know them from his pop science book and the occasional news story about him written in a pop science fashion, which means no math, no definitions, no rigor, but a lot of hyped up metaphors.

"Think of chaos theory as a ball of yarn twisted into knots by a billion subatomic epileptic kittens," or whatever. Not really "science." It's a meaningless sentence. Tells you nothing. You're actually dumber for having read it.

Anyway, point is, the conservative movement has a fair number of pop intellectuals, and those are generally the sort of intellectuals that engage the general public. And ultimately, it's not that Rush Limbaugh is "anti-intellectual" and Joe Scarborough is "intellectual;" it's that they're both pop intellectuals, and they just happen to disagree. Joe Scarborough just happens to be more.... yes, liberal. By inclination and also by requirement for continued employment.

Now as a personal matter I've now quit the anti-intellectual habit and like anyone who's quit recently, I'm a bit of an annoying evangelist for it. Just like an ex-smoker is very annoying about quitting smoking.

And so, as a personal matter, I'm currently big on advising people to become smarter, as I'm trying to do that myself. I would advise dumb people to become smarter, and smart people to become smarter, and genius level people to become smarter.

But while I'd say this is good personal advice, as "quit smoking" and "try Adkins" are good bits of personal advice, do this advice really have anything to do with winning elections?

Adelei Stephenson was, I understand, a self-identifying tribal-signifying intellectual. He got demolished. I know little of Barry Goldwater, but I get the sense he was something of an intellectual (certainly he inspired later intellectuals in the conservative movement). He got demolished, too.

Romney, as I often said with some worry, was strongly self-identifying as a rationalist and as a thinker, and he doubled-down on intellectualism/rationalism with his VP pick of another strong rationalist/intellectual. They lost.

Note Obama -- obviously a self-styled intellectual -- picked for his VP a dummy.

Let's not mince words here. We're among friends. You're all pretty smart.

Most people are not that smart.

As a definitional matter, they cannot be that smart. We define "smart" as "more clever than the average person" so by definition most people will have only an average bit of cleverness, and a fair number of people will have less than that, and about an equal number will have more than that.

So, a majority of people are either of average intelligence or lower. They're not particularly intellectual. And the ones who are kind of dumb but fancy themselves intellectuals are almost all in the Democratic Party. And they're welcome to them.

So two closely related points about Scarborough's claim:

1, it's bullshit. He's no more an intellectual than Limbaugh is, but is trying to claim People Should Listen To Me Because I'm Smart and an Intellectual. Well, so is Limbaugh. The difference between them is not status (intellectual vs. non-intellectual) but simply preference in policy.

Claiming a policy should be selected due to the status of the person advancing it is a phony argument and an anti-intellectual move in and of itself. Ideas rise or fall by their own worthiness. The status of the person offering the idea is, logically speaking, irrelevant.

This is the nasty, self-serving thing Scaroborough does that I really find offensive, and, in fact, is the chief reason that self-identification as Intellectual has fallen out of favor among many conservatives -- because every time we see the Intellectual Card played, it's in service of knocking a conservative as "dumb."

Maybe it would be a good idea to reclaim intellectualism for the actual intellectuals. I guess maybe that's why I'm writing this.

2, as a personal matter, sure, more people should just admit they enjoy the life of the mind (and those who haven't given that a shot should try it and see if it doesn't suit them). But as far as winning politics, intellectualism has never, ever been a strong bet.

And this doesn't just apply to candidates; many people venerate Irving Kristol but few people actually read him. Far more people read or listen to the pop intellectuals, like Limbaugh, which is the way it always has been and always will be.

There's nothing wrong with pop intellectuals. They're quite necessary. Although I goofed on the way dumb reporters describe chaos theory, with epileptic subatomic kittens and yarn made of spacetime or whatever, let's face it, that's about my own level of understanding of chaos theory. Without the kittens, I've got nothing. Honestly, my knowledge of Chaos Theory comes almost exclusively from Jeff Goldblum in Juraissic Park.

But ultimately politics is about reaching the common man, and from what I've seen, while the common man certainly doesn't want a dummy in high office, the common man tends to get suspicious of anyone who is too obviously intelligent, or, perhaps, just finds that someone who tribally signifies as Intellectual is not part of his own tribe and ergo does not "share my values."

I think every political movement needs an intellectual wing. But what I think it needs even more of is a populist wing.

Scarborough is a dummy if he thinks that people of middling to low intelligence -- and a low interest in political ideas, especially -- are suddenly going to go kookoo for the Republican Party if we all just start acting very intellectual and make it clear that the intellectuals are in charge.

The Democrats won seats in the Senate in 2012. Is Harry Reid an intellectual? Does he present himself that way? Does he come off as if he has an IQ north of 94?

No, he doesn't.

I don't have a simple prognosis here because it's not a simple situation -- certainly not as simplistic as the supposed intellectual Scarborough suggests. Yes, a Movement Based on Ideas needs some ideas and it needs some intellectuals to work those ideas. And it also needs some popularizes of those ideas, who can move easily between higher- and lower-level pitches. And it needs, frankly, some pure populists. Joe Biden types.

There was a Republican judicial nominee whose intelligence was questioned (as they always are, unless they're obviously highly intelligent, in which case they are portrayed as Scheming Intellectual Devil-Men). Someone attempted to defend his nomination with the inelegant argument that less intelligent people need some representation too.

Well, they do. And sometimes less intelligent people grow suspicious of more intelligent people (and vice versa-- a favorite intellectual passtime is to fret that the supposedly-dumb average conservative citizen is going to mass-murder some folks because his favorite NASCAR driver lost a race to a girl).

Sorry, but all I see here is Scarborough playing the Intellectual Card in the exact manner that has poisoned conservatives against the notion of intellectualism -- once again arguing that intellectualism is inherently liberal.

It's not. In fact, I think I could make a pretty strong case that liberalism generally succeeds because it requires less thought, less abstract thought I mean, than conservatism. Conservatism tends to win only when liberal thought has produced such horrific results that it becomes, temporarily, an option requiring just as little thought as the liberal option.

Like when crime is increasing dramatically and liberals keep arguing that we need to be softer on criminals. In such situations, the conservative response doesn't really take a great deal of higher-level abstract thought -- the average guy who doesn't think much about politics can decide "That's total bullshit" without needing to read conservative theorists.

Well, I have rambled on. But this is a major pet peeve of mine: Those, like Costas and Scarborough, who pose as thoughtful while offering thoughtless bromides.

I keep saying this: If you want to be considered an intellectual, start doing some intellectualizing. Start thinking. Start questioning that gut-level, often self-interested reflexive notion that first pops into your head. The automatic burbling that just happens to be in your own political or personal interest. ("If only more people watched my show (and coincidentally gave me higher ratings and higher status) we wouldn't be in this mess in the first place...")

Instinct and gut are frequently right, but I wouldn't trust them. And anything that's self-serving and advances your own cache over your rivals? I definitely would scrutinize the heck out of that before offering it up as an Unshakable Piece of Conservative Thinking. There's a chance it's right, but more likely, it's just people doing what they do, offering up ill-considered self-serving pablum.

I don't mind Scarborough arguing for a more moderate, liberal Republican Party. I would agree with him very strongly that the party is reducing its appeal by too many purity tests. And the average political actor in the party is coming off -- as odd as this sounds -- as "too political." (I know, that makes no sense, but I think it's true.)

But let's have less of this self-conceit, eh? If you were as intellectual as you imagine, you wouldn't have sounded like such an idiot.

Let's kind of try addressing each other as equals in intellect and see how that discussion might go.


Posted by: Ace at 02:08 PM



Comments

1 It's filled with words.

Posted by: garrett at December 10, 2012 02:10 PM (l0vlb)

2 Imus had him pegged:

Banjo Boy from "Deliverance."

Except Banjoy Boy had talent and was a decent person.

Posted by: J.J. Sefton at December 10, 2012 02:11 PM (XkWWK)

3 Hello, pot? Meet kettle.

Posted by: © Sponge at December 10, 2012 02:12 PM (UK9cE)

4 My autodidacticism in the privacy of my minivan is entirely my own business.

Posted by: Cicero (@cicero) at December 10, 2012 02:13 PM (QKKT0)

5 Do we get College Credit for this thread?

Posted by: Nevergiveup at December 10, 2012 02:13 PM (79ueO)

6 Last year I couldn't even spell intellectual. Today I are one!

Posted by: Seamus Muldoon at December 10, 2012 02:13 PM (1OZSU)

7 SO, in short, that movie sucked.

Posted by: Golan Globus at December 10, 2012 02:13 PM (7vSU0)

8 >>>it's just people doing what they do, offering up ill-considered self-serving pablum.


Right there would be a perfect spot to plug the Amazon Store thingy...or that novel you've been working on.

Posted by: garrett at December 10, 2012 02:13 PM (l0vlb)

9 IS Joe Scarborough related to Nate Scarborough?

Posted by: Nevergiveup at December 10, 2012 02:15 PM (79ueO)

10 But, the average IQ of the Fox News watcher is only 70, isn't it? I mean, we should watch Joe Scarborough then. He's teh smartz.

Posted by: © Sponge at December 10, 2012 02:15 PM (UK9cE)

11 So Joe has a new movie out?

Posted by: cajun carrot at December 10, 2012 02:15 PM (UZQM8)

12 I like pie.

Posted by: Joe Biden at December 10, 2012 02:16 PM (QKKT0)

13 Joe is on MSNBC. I think that's punishment enough for any crime.

Posted by: dick cheese at December 10, 2012 02:16 PM (QupBk)

14 Joe who?

Posted by: Charles Gibson at December 10, 2012 02:16 PM (l0vlb)

15 ace is an antediluvian esotericist ...

who knew?

Posted by: BumperStickerist at December 10, 2012 02:16 PM (RuUvx)

16 I agree with what is written on the 87th paragraph....liberals are intellectually lazy. Everything is either racism or sexism or some kind of ism to them. They can't articulate any idea without a victim mentality being introduced.

Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at December 10, 2012 02:16 PM (HDgX3)

17 He got booted off the air because people weren't listening to his radio show and he was losing in the ratings to competitors.






So Joe went to MSNBC where ratings don't matter

Posted by: TheQuietMan at December 10, 2012 02:16 PM (1Jaio)

18 Ace, the answer is "E" - All of the Above

Posted by: Mjölnir, the banhammer from the gates of Hell at December 10, 2012 02:17 PM (Jls4P)

19 So, Empire of Jeff- How does it feel to be called out as a tofu-eating RINO who drinks tea out of tiny little porcelain cups and wears nothing but black turtleneck sweaters?

I'm not sure that's what Ace meant to say, but I read between the lines.

Posted by: Hollowpoint at December 10, 2012 02:17 PM (SY2Kh)

20 Ace, are you going to watch Piers Morgan tonight and give a full write up on it? I mean, he's got a full hour with Bob "guns are designed to kill blacks" Costas.

Must see TV, right there.

Posted by: © Sponge at December 10, 2012 02:17 PM (UK9cE)

21 It seems to me that the reason Mitt lost is because he (and we) weren't populist enough.
To conclude, the premise behind this Scarborough fellow's film seems highly dubious, if not yet another instance of "more cowbell."

Posted by: Jollyroger at December 10, 2012 02:17 PM (t06LC)

22 Scarborough doesn’t even particularly like northeastern Republicans. His weird double-down on claiming Romney was trying to steal Ryan’s cheers sounded more like something I’d expect from MSNBC…

Posted by: Stephen Price Blair at December 10, 2012 02:17 PM (QF8uk)

23 Actually all joking aside, until Joe Scarborough says he is walking off his program until MSNBC fires Al Sharpy Sharpton and the other overt racists on MSNBC, I don't give a rat's ass what he says.

Posted by: Nevergiveup at December 10, 2012 02:17 PM (79ueO)

24 Can we continue the star wars thread and the helen thomas thread

Posted by: Alex Stephens at December 10, 2012 02:18 PM (uFY4s)

25 now to read the article

Posted by: Alex Stephens at December 10, 2012 02:18 PM (uFY4s)

26 So you're saying more people should talk like fags? Whatever. I'm going to Starbucks for a handjob.

Posted by: Gristle Encased Head at December 10, 2012 02:18 PM (+lsX1)

27 I'm tired of hearing about the movement needing "new ideas". Our ideas are freedom. That's it. Freedom to keep your money. Freedom to say what you want. Freedom to drive whatever car you want. Freedom to NOT buy health insurance. That's THE idea of conservatism. What we need is a new marketing campaign, but our IDEAS are just fine.

Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at December 10, 2012 02:18 PM (HDgX3)

28 Biden: Barry put me on the ticket to appeal to them interrle...intemlec....intersexu.....smart people

Posted by: TheQuietMan at December 10, 2012 02:18 PM (1Jaio)

29 Barack Obama is a stuttering clusterf*ck of a malignant traitor.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) Channelling Breitbart at December 10, 2012 02:18 PM (5DR1j)

30 Also I hear this anti-intellectual stuff from libtards a lot. They think a) they are intellectual and b) because they are intellectual, they are smart, so whatever libtardedness they believe is by definition right and good, and c) you don't believe their libtard crap so you are not right, nor good, and also therefore must be anti-intellectual. (see if this sounds familiar - global warming denier).

Its a bit scary to say well if you can quote Hayek, congrats, you are intellectual. Well, maybe. Remember they swooned over Obama because he read Niebauer, and because he wrote this book that they didn't read but heard it was a literary masterpiece. Obama really isn't that smart, or thoughtful, and he's not an intellectual. Shit, you think Howard Dean, or Nancy Pelosi, or Harry Reid is an intellectual? Alan Grayson? Al Franken? No, libtards through and through.

But they will tell you that opposing those people is "anti-intellectual."

Fuck them, fuck that.

Posted by: Golan Globus at December 10, 2012 02:18 PM (7vSU0)

31 I was really hoping the jump would contain some trolling, just to exercise Ace's point.

Posted by: Austin in TX at December 10, 2012 02:18 PM (hEk5C)

32 @19
You got all that from Ace's article. I just thought Ace called him gay.

Posted by: Jollyroger at December 10, 2012 02:19 PM (t06LC)

33 So, you know, dick jokes and all that but I'll call him out as an intellectual.

Them's fightin' words, ace.

Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Hobbit at December 10, 2012 02:19 PM (4df7R)

34 2,332 words in this post


Posted by: Jones in CO at December 10, 2012 02:19 PM (8sCoq)

35 I love quoting Hayek, how did you know?

Posted by: Alex Stephens the dim witted intellectual at December 10, 2012 02:19 PM (uFY4s)

36 >>>It seems to me that the reason Mitt lost is because he (and we) weren't populist enough.

Yes I agree, and I'm kind of down on populism.

But maybe my bias runs the other way -- maybe while Scarborough thinks "Anything I fancy must produce better political outcomes," I tend to think the opposite-- "Anything I like is most likely the pathway to electoral defeat."

This is so glib to say and so hard to find, but a winning candidate is the Common Man Who Is In No Way Common.

Posted by: ace at December 10, 2012 02:19 PM (LCRYB)

37 Can we continue the star wars thread and the helen thomas thread


Posted by: Alex Stephens at December 10, 2012 02:18 PM (uFY4s)

----
X-wings -vs- her psoriasatic nipples.

Posted by: fixerupper at December 10, 2012 02:20 PM (nELVU)

38 I love reading your blog, how did you know

Posted by: Alex Stephens the dim witted intellectual moron at December 10, 2012 02:20 PM (uFY4s)

39 Don't immanentize the eschaton.
But first, you will blow me.

Posted by: wooga at December 10, 2012 02:20 PM (cOzk0)

40 Obama isn't smart by a long shot, he is diabolical. Big difference.

Posted by: Berserker at December 10, 2012 02:20 PM (FMbng)

41 This is so glib to say and so hard to find, but a winning candidate is the Common Man Who Is In No Way Common.

Out root problem is that the Party of the Free Lunch starts out at 40% before candidates are even named.

LiFB.

Posted by: dick cheese at December 10, 2012 02:21 PM (QupBk)

42 This post reminds me of an Epic work by my favorite Urdu poet.

Posted by: Barack Hussein Obama at December 10, 2012 02:22 PM (l0vlb)

43 I love Sodium Pentathol, how did you know

Posted by: Alex Stephens the dim witted intellectual moron chemist at December 10, 2012 02:22 PM (uFY4s)

44 Teenagers think they know everything and hate their parents when the parents have deal with harsh truths of life that effect the teenagers carefree life.

The left and pseudo right people like Scarabourough are definitely the typical teenager.

Posted by: polynikes at December 10, 2012 02:22 PM (m2CN7)

45
It's a teleological thing.

People imagine the future, in their heads. Because where else could they imagine it, on the piano?

But then, they discuss it with other Like Minded busybodies, and decide this is the WAY IT SHOULD BE (something Rush Limbaugh wrote a book about, but I'm not particularly slammng Limbaugh).

So then, beyond imagining, this is the way things are supposed to go. And then there are political platforms and parties and people say stuff like "Vote for meand they'll be an interstate in everybody's back yard". And then some fool decides he isn't going to play along.

Goldwater was criticized for that, in a book some fair - minded liberal wrote about him and it was about him breaking the consensus in modern politics. All by himself. Power.

The intellectual's single biggest problem (left and right) is not accepting that people have an inalienable right to be free (well, at least American people, which was supposed to be our organizing thought and ideal), and that means free to screw up their lives, as well as free to succeed. They just can't help but monkey with society so they can go "Ah Hah!" and prove that they were right and it all turned out just the way they said or imaginedit would.

It never does.

Posted by: Reader C.J. Burch is Eddie Willers, sure at December 10, 2012 02:22 PM (RFeQD)

46 @36

Believe you me, I hate some populism, but notice that Obama was all populism all the time. I think when we are championing the tax cuts for the rich, we kind of skip a few steps of the how and why it helps the middle class generally and the country specifically. We got kinda lazy and just pointed and said "Reagan. Because."
We need to connect the dots a bit more and show how are plans and ideas are really better for everyone.

Posted by: Jollyroger at December 10, 2012 02:23 PM (t06LC)

47 Those of you who think you're smart are quite irritating to those of us who actually are.

Posted by: Maxine Waters, Hank Johnson, Al Green and Joe Biden at December 10, 2012 02:23 PM (yiIja)

48 Thread too slow.

I also heard this anti-intellectual crap bandied about as a reason why people liked Sarah Palin.

And also why the people who talked about anti-intellectualism hated her. Not that she wasn't intellectual, but that she was actively anti-intellectual, and proud of it.

Posted by: Golan Globus at December 10, 2012 02:23 PM (7vSU0)

49 Hey, don't underestimate us.

Posted by: a billion subatomic epileptic kittens at December 10, 2012 02:23 PM (SCcgT)

50 I shall read the entire works of shakespeare for you Ace

Posted by: Alex at December 10, 2012 02:23 PM (uFY4s)

51 Ace.

You skipped over the best part. Scarbutter's desired response to the supposed dummy Beck and the dummy Limbaugh?

He wants to punch them in the face.

< cue clown music >

Posted by: weft cut-loop at December 10, 2012 02:24 PM (08zV/)

52 >>>This is so glib to say and so hard to find, but a winning candidate is the Common Man Who Is In No Way Common.

We need Eowyn?

Posted by: garrett at December 10, 2012 02:24 PM (l0vlb)

53 a billion subatomic epileptic kittens

That's BILLIONS and BILLIONS and BILLIONS of subatomic epileptic kittens to you, pal!

Posted by: Zombie Carl Sagan at December 10, 2012 02:24 PM (m/eXi)

54 Adelei Stephenson was, I understand, a self-identifying tribal-signifying intellectual. He got demolished. I know little of Barry Goldwater, but I get the sense he was something of an intellectual (certainly he inspired later intellectuals in the conservative movement).

Remember Adlai's comment to the man saying, "you'll get the vote of every thinking person in America?" The smug bastard quipped, "That's great, but I need a majority to win." I would suggest that the right's disdain for "eggheads" began with that, as well as with the slug Alger Hiss and his obvious disdain for the shlub Chambers. And as for Goldwater, I believe he at least wrote The Conscience of A Conservative instead of signing on to a hack's work, like JFK.

There was a Republican judicial nominee whose intelligence was questioned (as they always are, unless they're obviously highly intelligent, in which case they are portrayed as Scheming Intellectual Devil-Men). Someone attempted to defend his nomination with the inelegant argument that less intelligent people need some representation too.


That was Nebraska senator Roman Hruska asking the Senate to confirmG. Harrold Carswell to the Supes after Carswell had been called a "mediocre" jurist: "Even if he were mediocre, there are a lot of mediocre people, judges and lawyers. They are entitled to a little representation, aren't they, and a little chance?"

Posted by: Mary Poppins' Practically Perfect Piercing at December 10, 2012 02:24 PM (zF6Iw)

55 The intellectual's single biggest problem (left and right) is not accepting that people have an inalienable right to be free (well, at least American people, which was supposed to be our organizing thought and ideal), and that means free to screw up their lives, as well as free to succeed.

They also have a hard time accepting that Good Enough is good enough. That there is no "Correct" answer for most issues.

Posted by: dick cheese at December 10, 2012 02:24 PM (QupBk)

56 I don't trust any self-professed intellectual who writes for thousands of people for a livingyet can't be bothered to run the goddamned spellcheck on his blog posts.

Posted by: "Adelei" Stephenson... Really?? at December 10, 2012 02:24 PM (MPIX5)

57 This is so glib to say and so hard to find, but a winning candidate is the Common Man Who Is In No Way Common.
Posted by: ace at December 10, 2012 02:19 PM (LCRYB)

Fuck, I never saw it before...

We need William Shatner. The only problem I see is I think he's a Canadian.

Posted by: Jollyroger at December 10, 2012 02:25 PM (t06LC)

58 If I'm going to read something this long, it's going to be titled "War and Peace". Cuz I'm an intellectual.

Posted by: MostlyRight at December 10, 2012 02:25 PM (w9AQ4)

59 49: never have, never will

Posted by: Alex at December 10, 2012 02:25 PM (uFY4s)

60 We need Eowyn?

Posted by: garrett at December 10, 2012 02:24 PM (l0vlb)



Are those feminist Ewoks?

Posted by: TheQuietMan at December 10, 2012 02:26 PM (1Jaio)

61 Don't forget - Biz Markie 2016!

Posted by: Golan Globus at December 10, 2012 02:26 PM (7vSU0)

62 >>>
He wants to punch them in the face.

Oh right. Yes I meant to talk about that initially but the post grew too long.

Yes, while talking up the need for more intellectualism he pulls the populist Let Me Show What A Big Strong Man I Am thing.

And by the way, Limbaugh would not "back down" from an attack.

All of these guys -- and I don't mean this in a bad way, I just mean this as an observation -- have a very strong financial reason to not back down from a competitors' attacks. So even if Limbaugh were -- let's pretend, I just say this to illustrate how dumb Scarborough's cock-swinging is -- naturally a coward, he'd have several million reasons per year to get his back up and punch back.

Posted by: ace at December 10, 2012 02:26 PM (LCRYB)

63 So, Empire of Jeff- How does it feel to be called out as a tofu-eating RINO who drinks tea out of tiny little porcelain cups and wears nothing but black turtleneck sweaters?

Jeff already outed himself as a former theater major. That stuff all pales in comparison.

Posted by: Ian S. at December 10, 2012 02:27 PM (B/VB5)

64 Romney was seen as having no core and willing to say anything to achieve power, and once he tapped Ryan as his running mate, you heard nothing about the Ryan plan or any other for that matter. Unnamed loopholes would be closed. There was some lip service paid to entitlement reform. But Romney was the candidate of corporate welfare to most Americans. He was not a movement leader or ideologue.

Posted by: Tattoo De Plane at December 10, 2012 02:27 PM (i0vBR)

65 How many dead people have turned up in Rush's office?

Posted by: perdogg at December 10, 2012 02:27 PM (oSdsj)

66 Goll-ee gee ace, you use your mouth typing finger purtier than a twenty dollar whore.



Nicely wrote.

Posted by: Taggart de Monet at December 10, 2012 02:27 PM (BAS5M)

67 Fucked up formatting! Paras 1 and 3 are Ace, 2 and 4 me.

Posted by: Mary Poppins' Practically Perfect Piercing at December 10, 2012 02:27 PM (zF6Iw)

68
It's not. In fact, I think I could make a pretty strong case that liberalism generally succeeds because it requires less thought, less abstract thought I mean, than conservatism. Conservatism tends to win only when liberal thought has produced such horrific results that it becomes, temporarily, an option requiring just as little thought as the liberal option.

I couldn't have said it better myself.

Posted by: Willadamus at December 10, 2012 02:27 PM (xBYYR)

69 We shall solve murder by banning guns, knives, crossbows, longbows, explosives, and hands

Posted by: Alex, liberal dumbass at December 10, 2012 02:27 PM (uFY4s)

70 Ace, that was damn good.

Posted by: ontherocks at December 10, 2012 02:28 PM (aZ6ew)

71 The reason that conservatives often are "anti-intellectual" is that the libs have redefined "intellectual" to mean "co-opted into the slogans of the media/progressive state". It's not that anyone is against thinking, but that intellectualism has become credentialism and all the credential-issuing organizations have been Gramsci'd.

Posted by: cthulhu at December 10, 2012 02:28 PM (kaalw)

72
Jeff is a former theater major?

You mean he's........ghey?

Posted by: Reader C.J. Burch is Eddie Willers, sure at December 10, 2012 02:28 PM (RFeQD)

73 "Yes, while talking up the need for more intellectualism he pulls the populist Let Me Show What A Big Strong Man I Am thing."

He's cribbing from Matthews, while Maddow bites Stewart.

Posted by: Tattoo De Plane at December 10, 2012 02:28 PM (i0vBR)

74 Jeff already outed himself as a former theater major. That stuff all pales in comparison.

Posted by: Ian S. at December 10, 2012 02:27 PM (B/VB5)


A theater major? Does his husband know?

Posted by: Golan Globus at December 10, 2012 02:28 PM (7vSU0)

75 63
So, Empire of Jeff- How does it feel to be called out as a
tofu-eating RINO who drinks tea out of tiny little porcelain cups and
wears nothing but black turtleneck sweaters?



Jeff already outed himself as a former theater major. That stuff all pales in comparison.

Posted by: Ian S. at December 10, 2012 02:27 PM (B/VB5)
What is wrong with theater majorsWe will solve Poverty by banning money

Posted by: Alex, liberal dumbass at December 10, 2012 02:28 PM (uFY4s)

76 I loved that movie. Whichever one this post is about.

Posted by: Tonic Dog at December 10, 2012 02:29 PM (X/+QT)

77 What we need is a candidate who is extremely smart and formally educated, but also recognizes that smart people are highly prone to "group think" errors -- and thus is content to let the common retards have enough freedom to succeed and fail on their own.

Every self-professed intellectual I've met, on the left and right, (1) surrounds themselves with like minded individuals and (2) fails to recognize their susceptibility to "group think". That's other problem: a fundamental lack of intellectual humility.

Posted by: wooga at December 10, 2012 02:29 PM (cOzk0)

78 >>>I don't trust any self-professed intellectual who writes for thousands of people for a livingyet can't be bothered to run the goddamned spellcheck on his blog posts.

eh. The post took two hours to write. I was desperate to get it posted. There's a high priority on "churn" on blogs. When there's no posts for two hours on a blog it's a problem.

But you know everything.



Posted by: ace at December 10, 2012 02:29 PM (LCRYB)

79 Reinhold Niebuhr had some stuff to say about this subject, but I can't remember what.

Posted by: Barky O'Genius at December 10, 2012 02:29 PM (QKKT0)

80 The intellectual's single biggest problem (left and right) is not
accepting that people have an inalienable right to be free (well, at
least American people, which was supposed to be our organizing thought
and ideal), and that means free to screw up their lives, as well as free
to succeed.


The real problem is that getting life right isn't that complicated. Do a few simple things and you're generally alright, unless other people insist on messing up the country.

Given that that is the case, what need of faux-intellectuals to tell us all why they're better and we need to just shut up and listen? Insty calls this Oikaphobia, fear of the familiar. Because if everyone can do it, you're nothing special. And that's the real driver.

Posted by: pep at December 10, 2012 02:29 PM (USJNU)

81 72 Jeff is a former theater major?


Is he a mime?

Posted by: Tattoo De Plane at December 10, 2012 02:29 PM (i0vBR)

82 Joe Biden...he speaks to my soul.

I can haz free shit now?

Posted by: @PurpAv at December 10, 2012 02:29 PM (cHr8a)

83 Good lord! I clicked on the "read more" expecting a funny YouTube video, and I got wordage.

Now I gotta go Read The Whole Thing.

Posted by: filbert at December 10, 2012 02:29 PM (NaNKB)

84 I think anyone who is as successful as Rush or Beck is by definition smart. You don't get where they are by being a rube moron.

That being said, I think Beck plays dumb. I used to listen to him many years ago when he was funny. Then he went full doom and gloom, started crying and telling everyone to get together and help one another out. And he got religious too. See ya Glenn.


Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at December 10, 2012 02:29 PM (HDgX3)

85 We shall solve sexism by banning gender

Posted by: Alex, liberal dumbass at December 10, 2012 02:30 PM (uFY4s)

86 The thing about individualism over collectivism is, you don't have to be smart to adhere to it. It works perfectly as is, unlike the tangled web of collectivism that no one on the planet is smart enough to pull off.

Posted by: Whatev at December 10, 2012 02:30 PM (2t6Gz)

87 Scarborough is a token conservative in a land filled with SCM hacks who hang Christmas Mao ornaments on their tree and are counting the days until Dear Leader purges the nation of anyone with an "R" following their name.

I think his rant was more a way of placing distance between himself and Todd Akin than it was a legitimate attempt to influence anyone. He just needs to set himself apart in the eyes of his commie media colleagues.

Posted by: kallisto at December 10, 2012 02:30 PM (jm/9g)

88 As much as I loathe "Faux Intellectualism" (or self identified intellectualism, botique intellectualism, showtellectualism) I also feel a disdain for reflexive anti-intellectualism or stupid and damn proud of it.
I forgot of that from the Palin/McCain campaign, but it really is off putting. Maybe to thine own self be true should be the proper response.

Posted by: Jollyroger at December 10, 2012 02:30 PM (t06LC)

89 in lieu of flowers, just send me cheese. (1)

Thank you,

Algernon

_

1 - yes, I know that, in the book, Algernon is dead and therefore incapable of asking for anything. But 17/19ths of the people don't. So play along, willya?

Posted by: Algernon at December 10, 2012 02:30 PM (RuUvx)

90 Ace, I lost your train of thought around the 4th paragraph. Will you be doing this thread as a graphic novel anytime soon?

Posted by: Z as in Jersey at December 10, 2012 02:30 PM (Yv8J/)

91 I try to think about Joe Scarborough as little as possible. The man has about the intellectual heft of our very own Gurgie.

But, as for your premise that Conservatives run from the term "intellectual," I sort of disagree. Levin is pretty specifically an "intellectual," for instance. I think the main thing is that "intellectualism" as defined by the Media (and therefore, as understood by the majority of the populace) is that is necessarily and always "pie in the sky" thinking.

Harry Reid doesn't come off as intellectual, because he lets the Liberal "intellectuals" sound all high-minded and pie-in-the-sky. He lets them do that for a while, and then sweeps in with policy built on those ideas but, ostensibly, "based more in the political realities of our time," or whatever.

So, to some extent, we do need more, and more vocal "intellectuals" who are willing to embrace the pie-in-the-sky thinking. On the flip side, we need politicians, rather than just pundits, who are willing to take those ideas and run with them from a "non-intellectual" standpoint.

When Romney got the most traction with his tax plan was when he was talking about "keeping more of what you make." That's a populist expression of the intellectual idea that "low taxes grow the tax base."

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) Channelling Breitbart at December 10, 2012 02:30 PM (5DR1j)

92 I am familiar with the work of Pablo Neruda.

Posted by: Bart Simpson at December 10, 2012 02:30 PM (/kI1Q)

93
Conservative Ideals = Facts, or results of facts.

Prog/Com Ideals = Emotions and appeals to same.

Posted by: BackwardsBoy, who did not vote for this shit. at December 10, 2012 02:31 PM (yiIja)

94 78
>>>I don't trust any self-professed intellectual who writes for
thousands of people for a livingyet can't be bothered to run the
goddamned spellcheck on his blog posts.



eh. The post took two hours to write. I was desperate to get it
posted. There's a high priority on "churn" on blogs. When there's no
posts for two hours on a blog it's a problem.



But you know everything.









Posted by: ace at December 10, 2012 02:29 PM (LCRYB)
You mean that Helen Thomas and Star Wars Pops out, don't you

Posted by: Alex, liberal dumbass at December 10, 2012 02:31 PM (uFY4s)

95
Maybe it would be a good idea to reclaim intellectualism for the actual intellectuals. I guess maybe that's why I'm writing this.


It's not much different than the "anti-science" label, ace. When conservatives offer up legitimate scientific evidence that refutes the hysteria peddled by "climate change" gurus, we're called "anti-science." Does it matter that our scientific method is just as sound, if not moreso, as anything put out by the left? No. Our hypotheses, analyses and conclusions are simply not what the dominant leftist groupthink of academia and the scientific community WANT to be true. So instead of taking the research and building upon it, they simply dismiss it as anti-science apocrypha.

We are not anti-science. We are PRO-science. The side which chooses to throw all their eggs in the basket of consensus are the ones who are truly anti-science. But they have the microphone and thus they control the definitions.

Now translate that to the intellectual wing. As you yourself stated, many of those who self-identify themselves as, first and foremost, intellectuals are dumber than a bag of hammers. Obama has claimed that he's the smartest, bestest person in the world at absolutely everything. Is he? God no. He's stupid on a stick with a pair of jug ears. But when we on the right try to argue his points -- or any point made by anyone on the left, using whatever dubious "evidence" they have at hand -- we're demeaned as stupid, backward, "slope-forehead" neanderthals who couldn't possibly understand the depth and scope of the argument being made. Why? Because it is the self-professed INTELLECTUALS who don't understand depth and scope, and who refuse to see beyond surface potentialities to the consequences and benefits that lie beneath.

We are not anti-intellectual. We are PRO-intellectual. The side which chooses to throw all their eggs in the basket of feel-good sophistry are the ones who are truly anti-intellectual. But they have the microphone and thus they control the definitions.

It begins with taking back the language. We have to stop letting them define the terms of debate.

Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Hobbit at December 10, 2012 02:31 PM (4df7R)

96 Really great stuff here Ace. In my own experience, conservatives hate being called intellectual, and actively campaign against intellectualism even if they are really intelligent. I see it a lot in my extended family (Most are of genius level IQ) but they despise intellectuals who are seen as inherently liberal.

Posted by: Big T Party at December 10, 2012 02:31 PM (WiQr+)

97 Insty calls this Oikaphobia, fear of the familiar. Because if everyone can do it, you're nothing special. And that's the real driver.

Oikophobia, I think, but either way it's a great word because 1) the people you use it against have no idea what it means and 2) it's fun to say out loud.

Posted by: Ian S. at December 10, 2012 02:31 PM (B/VB5)

98 What are the odds Scarborough is just saying this shit so that Mika will blow him?

Posted by: Golan Globus at December 10, 2012 02:31 PM (7vSU0)

99
Since we are talking Adlai Stevenson, remember that he was the so-called intellectual paired up against the likable dunce that was... Dwight Eisenhower. The five star general who successfully commanded the armies of several nations to defeat the Nazi warmachine. While we will never be the party of the "smart set," we need to be the party of the competent smart. Also, I think we need to better avoid the true dunces. I think the Christine ODonnells and Todd Akins have hurt the brand.

Posted by: Lee (in KY) at December 10, 2012 02:31 PM (jgXna)

100 Too many words. Head hurts. Must drink Val-U-Rite.

Posted by: Iblis at December 10, 2012 02:32 PM (9221z)

101 Jeff is a former theater major?





Is he a mime?



He works the Will Call window.

Posted by: Cicero (@cicero) at December 10, 2012 02:32 PM (QKKT0)

102 >>>emember Adlai's comment to the man saying, "you'll get the vote of every thinking person in America?" The smug bastard quipped, "That's great, but I need a majority to win."

I'm not running for anything so I can tell ya he was right. Although it's terrible politics to say. I guess he decided his witticism was more important than winning an election. (The ego of the intellectual often prevents them from saying the thing which is Dumb but actually Smart, because they won't permit themselves to seem Dumb. Even when it's in their best interests to do so.)

Posted by: ace at December 10, 2012 02:32 PM (LCRYB)

103 I'm smart! Not like everybody says... like dumb... I'm smart and I want respect!

Posted by: Freddy Marmo at December 10, 2012 02:32 PM (QW+AD)

104 We will ban racism by banning white people

Posted by: Alex, liberal dumbass at December 10, 2012 02:32 PM (uFY4s)

105
I heard Romney speak in person at a rally, and I think he actually "dumbed down" his message to keep his speeches reasonably short (less than 40 minutes) so as not to bore people to tears.

Most of these political rallys have a bunch of local and state pols appearing first to get out in front of the audience.

I think Romney's message was clear. It's just a majority of people voting said "no". And that's where we are.

And the super smart Obama had no message, except class war, and running negative. Because he has no achievments to run on and and no real successes to point to except "GM is alive and Bin Ladin is dead", or whatever that imbecile Biden said..

Posted by: Reader C.J. Burch is Eddie Willers, sure at December 10, 2012 02:32 PM (RFeQD)

106 I like Rush and he's certainly smarter than the average voter, but if you think he can be characterized as an intellectual just listen to him try to discuss the unemployment numbers sometime. He is pathologically incapable of understanding the distinction between the number of jobs and the number of people in the workforce (among other problems).

Posted by: somebody else, not me at December 10, 2012 02:33 PM (nZvGM)

107 The left and pseudo right people like Scarabourough are definitely the typical teenager.

Posted by: polynikes


You just don't get it!

*Slams door. Flounces onto bed. Sobs into pillow*

Posted by: Joe Scarborough: The Teenage Girl Years at December 10, 2012 02:33 PM (BrQrN)

108 Personal Observation:

Conservatives can make their arguments without being tethered to the internets.

_

Posted by: BumperStickerist at December 10, 2012 02:33 PM (RuUvx)

109 The intellectual's single biggest problem (left and right) is not accepting that people have an inalienable right to be free (well, at least American people, which was supposed to be our organizing thought and ideal), and that means free to screw up their lives, as well as free to succeed.

Hubris. Intellectuals are used to being able to step in and are generally sucessful. The problem is they begin to believe that only if the world listened to them, all problems would disappear.
They forget thier Shelley: "I am Ozymandias, King of kings; look on my works ye mighty, and dispair..."

Posted by: Jollyroger at December 10, 2012 02:33 PM (t06LC)

110 We shall solve Poverty by banning babies

Posted by: Alex, liberal dumbass at December 10, 2012 02:33 PM (uFY4s)

111 #30 No shit!!! We have far more actual intellectuals on the Right than they do on the Left. Thomas Sowell, Walter Williams, James Buchanan, Jonah Goldberg, John Podhoretz, Bill Bennett, Lynne Cheney, Linda Chavez, Mark Levin, Peter Ferrara,just to name a few. These are people who not only have read Hayek and Friedman but have also read Marx and his descendants. We still have an intellectual publication called National Review that dives deeply into the worlds of ideas and literature.

My husband is a middle-aged liberal who has never read an intellectual book or even a magazine article by a liberal scholar and couldn't even name one if I asked him to. He read Rachel Carson in college and Al Gore a few years ago. That is where the sum total of his environmental policy knowledge and thought come from.

Posted by: rockmom at December 10, 2012 02:34 PM (NYnoe)

112 >>>I think anyone who is as successful as Rush or Beck is by definition smart.

yes but smart =/= intellectual. There was never a question they were smart. (I hope there's not much of a question that I'm smart.)

But I'm not just saying they're smart -- which is obvious -- but that they're intellectual, which isn't obvious.

Again, I'm just going from my own experience, but i've tended to view that as a dirty word.

Posted by: ace at December 10, 2012 02:35 PM (LCRYB)

113 I'm a big follower of Hayek. She's hot, but I remember Matthew Perry saying in an interview that she had bad breath. Even if that were true, it's kind of douchey of him to say it.

Posted by: Kensington at December 10, 2012 02:35 PM (H84UO)

114 We shall solve poverty by mandating abortions

Posted by: Alex, liberal dumbass at December 10, 2012 02:35 PM (uFY4s)

115 Oh, it would be so nice to read a conservative blogger who actually listens to and understandsRush Limbaugh and Mark Levin. I'm sure there must be some out there. Somewhere. (Any who do would never include Glenn Beck in the same sentence.)

Posted by: Jaynie59 at December 10, 2012 02:35 PM (4zKCA)

116 What irks me about the "Intellectuals" on the Left that I know is that they are not actually educated. You would think that someone claiming to be a Socialist would have at least looked at the seminal works there on. But no. The majority have not.

It's like thinking that you are a Conservative Intellectual without reading Smith or Burke or the Federalist Papers.

Posted by: dick cheese at December 10, 2012 02:35 PM (QupBk)

117 The right doesn't despise intellectuals; it despises fake ones.

People with liberal arts degrees think they are smart, but that is no indication. Their fields of study are subjective dumbassery for the most part.

The average history major is a neo-marxist idiot who knows less about history than the average tabletop wargamer.

Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at December 10, 2012 02:35 PM (Ezq3m)

118 Jeff is a former theater major?

This explains he affintity for the music of Robert Smith. That andthe dark eyeliner.

Posted by: garrett at December 10, 2012 02:35 PM (l0vlb)

119 "There is danger in the exuberant feeling of ever growing power which the advance of the physical sciences has engendered and which tempts man to try, "dizzy with success", to use a characteristic phrase of early communism, to subject not only our natural but also our human environment to the control of a human will. The recognition of the insuperable limits to his knowledge ought indeed to teach the student of society a lesson of humility which should guard him against becoming an accomplice in men's fatal striving to control society - a striving which makes him not only a tyrant over his fellows, but which may well make him the destroyer of a civilization which no brain has designed but which has grown from the free efforts of millions of individuals."

F. A. von Hayek

Posted by: weft cut-loop at December 10, 2012 02:35 PM (08zV/)

120 All those wonderful words, and the net result will be the reputational impact on Empire of Jeff from paragraph 126.

Posted by: MostlyRight at December 10, 2012 02:36 PM (w9AQ4)

121 Hey, I only got a chance to skim the post... so can someone help me out... which book was Ace reviewing???

Posted by: phreshone at December 10, 2012 02:36 PM (0SXI6)

122 Can we feed Joe Scarborough to the Blood Worms of Rigel?

Posted by: Anna Puma (+SmuD) at December 10, 2012 02:36 PM (Sz+px)

123 Joe Scarborough's criticism would've been a lot more convincing had it come from someone other than Joe Scarborough. Taken strictly on the merits, pretty much everything he says is CORRECT. But this is one of those situations where it's difficult to separate the argument from the person who's making it.

I don't think anyone thinks Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck are dumb. I don't, at least. I think Rush is a cynic. I also think he operates in terms of "what is best for Rush Limbaugh" even (maybe even especially) if that clashes with "what is best for conservatism/Republicans/the nation." THAT is what I have difficulty forgiving.

Weirdly enough, I don't get that same feeling from Glenn Beck. Beck is a bit of a weirdo, but I think he comes by his obsessions honestly. He's a more genuine person, even with his manifest flaws, than someone like Rush. Rush really does just strike me as an actor.

Posted by: Jeff B. at December 10, 2012 02:36 PM (TuW+p)

124 While we will never be the party of the "smart set,"
we need to be the party of the competent smart. Also, I think we need
to better avoid the true dunces. I think the Christine ODonnells and
Todd Akins have hurt the brand.

Posted by: Lee (in KY) at December 10, 2012 02:31 PM (jgXna)

_______________
And Palin. Unlike Akin and COD, Palin actually is a self-professed anti-intellectual.

Even though Obama won 80% of the high school vote, Democrats are still somehow the party of the smart peeps.

Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at December 10, 2012 02:36 PM (HDgX3)

125 113: Hayek is a guy

Posted by: Alex, liberal dumbass at December 10, 2012 02:36 PM (uFY4s)

126 >>>I like Rush and he's certainly smarter than the average voter, but if you think he can be characterized as an intellectual just listen to him try to discuss the unemployment numbers sometime. He is pathologically incapable of understanding the distinction between the number of jobs and the number of people in the workforce (among other problems).

wellllllll.... I don't listen to him but the vibe I get (and I've heard this from others) is that he's... lazy.

So, smart and intellectual, but lazy.

I guess I can *relate,* man.

Posted by: ace at December 10, 2012 02:36 PM (LCRYB)

127 high school drop-out vote that is.

Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at December 10, 2012 02:36 PM (HDgX3)

128 I kinda disagree on this point. Democrats didnt win on intellectual arguments. They won on racial demonization, lies, and smearing Romney. I think we should imitate the winners, and go full on racial demonization. Start saying to groups of Hispanics that the democrats want them in chains to pay black people's welfare. Start getting out in front and making overt racial appeals, label any criticism of Marko Rubio as denigrating Hispanics. Tell groups of Hispanics that democrats just want to legalize illegal immigrants so they can be a tax base for inner city welfare, and how we want them to keep the money they earn.

Maxine waters is still in the senate, and was just awarded a comitee chair. Why?

Posted by: Mr Pink at December 10, 2012 02:36 PM (bn79r)

129 EOJ isn't smart. I'm smart.

I'm smart! Not like everybody says... like dumb... I'm smart and I want respect!


Posted by: eleven at December 10, 2012 02:36 PM (KXm42)

130 What we are looking for is a smart guy who is humble and genuinely likes people. In addition, he must speak the language of the regular American.

In my lifetime, only a few guys fit this bill. I am not saying anything about their talents as president, although all had some degree of success once they were elected.

Harry Truman
Ronald Reagan
George W. Bush

Truman, although not college educated, read history, theology, and philosophy. However, the public knew him as that guy who threatened to punch his daughter's critic in the nose, and who had served as an artillery captain in WWI and still kept in touch with his men.

Reagan was far more educated that the left wanted anyone to believe, and his writings published after his death revealed a first-rate thinker who wrestled with the problems of government and political philosophy. Most Americans saw him as that movie star who was on Death Valley Days and who always had a funny story.

Bush also was smarter than anyone thought, and was a voracious reader of history. Of course, people who liked him (and there are still quite a few who do, me being one) saw him as the guy who stood on the rubble and threatened the terrorists. That is what they liked in him, and why he got re-elected. They also saw him clearing brush and talking to factory guys. When he spoke at Yale, he said that it showed that the C students could make it, too.

WHo do we have who has this touch, now? I cannot think of a single one? Maybe Allen West.

Posted by: Miss Marple at December 10, 2012 02:37 PM (GoIUi)

131 I'm totally with you, Ace, but what was that middle part again?

Posted by: Kensington at December 10, 2012 02:37 PM (H84UO)

132 Great post Ace. I feel too many Conservatives do not think for themselves. They just take whatever Mark Levin or Rush Limbaugh says at face value. It's time for less group think on the Right.

Posted by: The Vulture at December 10, 2012 02:37 PM (xocZy)

133 BTW, I don't know what the fuck you all are talking about, the best part of this post was CLEARLY paragraph #177. Brilliance in every word.

Posted by: Jeff B. at December 10, 2012 02:37 PM (TuW+p)

134 Oh yeah? Well, I screwed your sister with my autodick thing.

So there.

Posted by: jwest at December 10, 2012 02:37 PM (ZDsRL)

135 Yeah, I know Mr. Empire of Jeff - he's one of the folks (along with Dana Loesch and her house husband Chris) that supported the candidacy of Todd Akin even after the rape comments controversy. Way to go Jeffy.

All Hail Senator McCaskill. /s

Posted by: Not and Artist at December 10, 2012 02:38 PM (uRumV)

136 Posted by: ace at December 10, 2012 02:36 PM (LCRYB)

______________

90% of Americans have no idea what unemployment really means. As someone with a bunch of degrees in the area and work experience on evil Wall St, this drives me crazy. A close second is how people mix up deficit and debt.

Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at December 10, 2012 02:38 PM (HDgX3)

137 "Most people are not that smart."

That gets us those sweet, sweet SSI Disability payments. And I can always read for my kids, anyway. Why would they ever need something like that here in the mountains?

Posted by: dfbaskwill at December 10, 2012 02:38 PM (71LDo)

138 What do you folks think Obama's IQ is? I've got him pegged in the low 120's.

Posted by: Big T Party at December 10, 2012 02:38 PM (WiQr+)

139 "[Rush] is pathologically incapable of understanding the distinction between
the number of jobs and the number of people in the workforce (among
other problems)."

===============

Wait; that's patently untrue. He makes this distinction all the time. He discusses it every time the unemployment rate goes down.

Posted by: Kensington at December 10, 2012 02:39 PM (H84UO)

140 >>>Great post Ace. I feel too many Conservatives do not think for themselves. They just take whatever Mark Levin or Rush Limbaugh says at face value. It's time for less group think on the Right.

well I agree but that is completely not what I wrote.

But, still, I can't disagree.

Posted by: ace at December 10, 2012 02:39 PM (LCRYB)

141 We still have an intellectual publication called National Review that dives deeply into the worlds of ideas and literature.

I have to complain that NR is a shadow of it's former self. I have issues going back 35 years, up until I finally canceled my subscription for lack of interest. I like Goldberg and all, but the magazine is not better under his guidance. Unless it's changed in the last couple of years, the intellectual firepower over there is not overwhelming.

Posted by: dick cheese at December 10, 2012 02:39 PM (QupBk)

142 Can't read all this now.

'batin'.

Posted by: Intellekchual at December 10, 2012 02:39 PM (gCa4h)

143 Dems more intellectual? Dems have more professors and lawyers in their ranks but 90% of their base with the exception of the Jewish voter, is as intellectual on average as yourblack woman SIEU union worker or your white blue collarmale working on the line at a Detroit auto factory. Meaning they can quote Tyler Perry or the latestbeer commercial.

Posted by: polynikes at December 10, 2012 02:39 PM (m2CN7)

144 i love eoj, is this post about him? he's so dreamy.....

Posted by: phoenixgirl at work at December 10, 2012 02:40 PM (D0/4r)

145 Hayek seems hot and talented, but is really just one boob job removed from cleaning rooms at the Holiday Inn.

Posted by: MR stealing jokes at December 10, 2012 02:40 PM (w9AQ4)

146 Looks can be decieving

Posted by: Alex, liberal dumbass at December 10, 2012 02:40 PM (uFY4s)

147 >>>emember Adlai's comment to the man saying, "you'll get the vote of every thinking person in America?" The smug bastard quipped, "That's great, but I need a majority to win." I'm not running for anything so I can tell ya he was right. Although it's terrible politics to say. I guess he decided his witticism was more important than winning an election. (The ego of the intellectual often prevents them from saying the thing which is Dumb but actually Smart, because they won't permit themselves to seem Dumb. Even when it's in their best interests to do so.)
Posted by: ace at December 10, 2012 02:32 PM (LCRYB)


OK, Ace, I'll admit that's a valid point. I'm in a rush to get to a meeting, so Iwas only using a quick example (like Hiss) to point out that the right's suspicion of "intellectualism" is nursed by self-defeating quips like those. Even though, in in 1952 and '56, the American people actually did pick the smarter candidate by picking Ike (BTW, if you haven't read Eisenhower: The White House Years, you're missing a great book).

Posted by: Mary Poppins' Practically Perfect Piercing at December 10, 2012 02:40 PM (zF6Iw)

148 You just don't get it!

*Slams door. Flounces onto bed. Sobs into pillow*

Posted by: Joe Scarborough: The Teenage Girl Years


Don't forget to brood like you've never brooded before!

Posted by: Waterhouse at December 10, 2012 02:40 PM (1sinL)

149
MWR @ 95
Jerry Pournelle (who is a pretty smart guy) recalled on his blog "Chaos Manner" a debate he had with a pro-global warming guy.

Jerry presented his opinions and his skepticism, without calling global warming bunkum and tripe. He was very professional (in his words- he was there). He summoned some classic arguments and historical outlooks from the 19th century (Arrhenius was quoted).

This PhD physicist did not even engage Jerry's remarks, just the canned "intellectual" response about how big a deal Global Warming is, and only stupid people and dumb religious rednecks would disagree.

So there you go. A Ph.D. in physics and frankly dumb as a rock about the scientific method or a classical argument based on skepticism. It was a religious based faith argument trying to parade as science, and there is no better way to describe that kind of stupidity.

I get that a lot.

Posted by: Reader C.J. Burch is Eddie Willers, sure at December 10, 2012 02:40 PM (RFeQD)

150 What do you folks think Obama's IQ is? I've got him pegged in the low 120's.

He was not even a National Merit Semi-Finalist.

Posted by: dick cheese at December 10, 2012 02:40 PM (QupBk)

151 Dana Loesch has a husband?
That alters my plan.

Posted by: garrett at December 10, 2012 02:40 PM (l0vlb)

152 It seems to me that the reason Mitt lost is because he (and we) weren't populist enough.

I kept waiting for a populist appeal from him, but it never seemed to happen. Bill Whittle did a piece after the election that put the words into Romneys mouth so perfectly I wanted to scream, "There it is, that's what he should have said'. Alas.

Let me get a link...
http://blip.tv/davidhorowitztv/bill-whittle-6444929

Posted by: Schrödinger's cat at December 10, 2012 02:40 PM (feFL6)

153 How many dead people have turned up in Rush's office?

Posted by: perdogg at December 10, 2012 02:27 PM (oSdsj)


Incredible how nobody questions Joe "Gary Condit with a body" Scarredburro on that when he's not leering at dimwitted Meeka's cans.

Posted by: Captain Hate (more dagny and less curious) at December 10, 2012 02:41 PM (1BuxJ)

154 What do you folks think Obama's IQ is? I've got him pegged in the low 120's.

I'll go with 115.

Posted by: @PurpAv at December 10, 2012 02:41 PM (cHr8a)

155 136
Posted by: ace at December 10, 2012 02:36 PM (LCRYB)

______________

90%
of Americans have no idea what unemployment really means. As someone
with a bunch of degrees in the area and work experience on evil Wall St,
this drives me crazy. A close second is how people mix up deficit and
debt.


Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at December 10, 2012 02:38 PM (HDgX3)
That second one is far worse than the first

Posted by: Alex at December 10, 2012 02:41 PM (uFY4s)

156 Last week I asked what evidence we have that Palin is, as is often said, “anti-intellectual.” Most of the feedback I got came from liberals who maintained that Palin is dumb–which, even if true, isn’t the same thing. One or two readers made the valid point that some of the arguments people have made in favor of Palin belittle the importance of intelligence and learning. But again, that does not establish that Palin is hostile to the life of the mind.

A friend pointed me to Noam Scheiber’s article on Palin. The Palin of Scheiber’s portrayal certainly fits the label: She seethes with class and intellectual resentments. (The article does not attempt to disentangle the two.) But all of the evidence the article presents for this view comes from political enemies of Palin. They don’t really even provide first-hand accounts of her flaws in action so much as they offer characterizations of what was going on inside her head. Scheiber concludes, “Could Sarah Palin despise Anne Kilkenny because Kilkenny once suggested she refrain from chewing gum? I’d like to believe it’s not true. But I’m honestly not so sure.” Okay. But Kilkenny got wide attention for circulating an email trashing Palin after her selection as McCain’s running mate. How much do we want to bank on her impressions?



http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/172411/palins-alleged-anti-intellectualism/ramesh-ponnuru#

Posted by: Golan Globus at December 10, 2012 02:41 PM (7vSU0)

157 Another problem is the perception that since pretty much every college professor in the land is a liberal, it must mean that liberals are the party of smart/intelectual people. Which of course assumes a PhD = smart. It doesn't. PhD = you're kind of a moron to spend 12 years in college only to graduate and make $45K as an assistance professor. If you're lucky to get a job teaching at all.

Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at December 10, 2012 02:41 PM (HDgX3)

158 Most people are not that smart. As a definitional matter, they cannot be that smart. We define "smart" as "more clever than the average person" so by definition most people will have only an average bit of cleverness, and a fair number of people will have less than that, and about an equal number will have more than that. So, a majority of people are either of average intelligence or lower.

Great piece, Ace. I've often thought that the magic trick of Democrats is that they arrogate to themselves the mantle of intellectuals to appeal to elites, while at the same time they realize and act upon the fact that half of their voters (probably more than half) have IQs below 100. As you say, this is a "definitional matter." Republicans would do well to nominate candidates who, while possessing intellectual credibility, can talk in simple terms to simple people, because, like Willie Sutton and banks and money, that's where the votes are. Reagan obviously did this. Romney obviously didn't.

Posted by: The Regular Guy at December 10, 2012 02:41 PM (qHCyt)

159 I try to think about Joe Scarborough as little as possible. The man has about the intellectual heft of our very own Gurgie.

It's telling that Scarborough was a legitimately conservative Congressman, but suddenly went moderate after taking the easy money "House Republican who bashes conservatives on MSNBC" gig.

After all, the mark of a true intellectual is someone who will shift their personal ideology for the right price.

Posted by: Hollowpoint at December 10, 2012 02:41 PM (SY2Kh)

160 "113: Hayek is a guy"
===============

Woah! Has he always been a guy? No wonder he had bad breath!

Why did his parents name him Salma?

Posted by: Kensington at December 10, 2012 02:41 PM (H84UO)

161 154: 127, since mines around 160

Posted by: Alex at December 10, 2012 02:41 PM (uFY4s)

162 #141 I thought the editor of National Review was arch-dweeb Rich Lowrey, not Jobah Goldberg, who is a very good writer.

Posted by: Miss Marple at December 10, 2012 02:41 PM (GoIUi)

163 160
"113: Hayek is a guy"
===============

Woah! Has he always been a guy? No wonder he had bad breath!

Why did his parents name him Salma?


Posted by: Kensington at December 10, 2012 02:41 PM (H84UO)This sarcasm is pettyLook at my tits instead

Posted by: Helen Thomas at December 10, 2012 02:43 PM (uFY4s)

164 Wait; that's patently untrue. He makes this distinction all the time. He discusses it every time the unemployment rate goes down.
Posted by: Kensington at December 10, 2012 02:39 PM (H84UO)

And he always gets in wrong. He understands that people are leaving the workforce that has artificiallykept the UE rate down. But he always screws up his discussion and equates jobs with workers in a way that any liberal trained in economics would destroy him over.

Posted by: somebody else, not me at December 10, 2012 02:43 PM (nZvGM)

165
Is he a mime?


He won't talk about it.

Posted by: Bertram Cabot Jr. at December 10, 2012 02:43 PM (8VAP0)

166 Instinct and gut are frequently right, but I wouldn't trust them.

Instinct is simply a little bit of advice passed to your species from 1000s of years of previous life on earth. Encoded in DNA wedged in with the directions on how to build the human eye retina and your spleen. While it does have value, it also thinks having sex with any woman between the ages of 16 - 50 is our top priority and our diets should be 100% made up of stuff breaded, then deep fried in animal fat, then covered in gravy.

Gut, or intuition, is simply your silent cognitive center (the one that doesn't have any language skills) telling you it sees a pattern it recognizes. It is able to process far more sensory cues than your conscious mind, but, has only a very small amount of analytical ability. So you get vague feelings from it. Note some of these patterns that the intuitive brain uses are pre-programed (as above instinct) some of them are learned patterns. But all it does is pattern match.

So yeah, both can be very very wrong.

Posted by: MikeTheMoose is Shrugging at December 10, 2012 02:43 PM (0q2P7)

167 154 What do you folks think Obama's IQ is? I've got him pegged in the low 120's.I'll go with 115.
Posted by: @PurpAv at December 10, 2012 02:41 PM (cHr8a)

I was going to say around 115. Wish I had those transcripts

Posted by: Jollyroger at December 10, 2012 02:43 PM (t06LC)

168
Mr Pink, Maxine Waters is in the House of Representatives and was made the most senior Democrat (ranking minority member - ooops that's RACIST) on a committee.

QED, Ace.

Posted by: Reader C.J. Burch is Eddie Willers, sure at December 10, 2012 02:43 PM (RFeQD)

169 >>>What do you folks think Obama's IQ is? I've got him pegged in the low 120's.

Oh, I've pegged him as far back as '85.

Posted by: Michelle Obama's Landing Strip at December 10, 2012 02:43 PM (+flnv)

170
What do you folks think Obama's IQ is? I've got him pegged in the low 120's.

Posted by: Big T Party at December 10, 2012 02:38 PM (WiQr+)


Off the prompter - 90

Posted by: TheQuietMan at December 10, 2012 02:43 PM (1Jaio)

171 Conservatives can make their arguments without being tethered to the internets.
Posted by: BumperStickerist


The thing is, Lefties don't make arguments. They make moral pronouncements.

Posted by: weft cut-loop at December 10, 2012 02:43 PM (08zV/)

172 I feel too many Conservatives do not think for
themselves. They just take whatever Mark Levin or Rush Limbaugh says at
face value. It's time for less group think on the Right.


Posted by: The Vulture at December 10, 2012 02:37 PM (xocZy)

_________________________________________-
Agreed. I cringe when I hear people give verbatim Rush/Levin talking points on a subject.

Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at December 10, 2012 02:44 PM (HDgX3)

173 >>>Posted by: Golan Globus at December 10, 2012 02:41 PM (7vSU0)

Seriously, isn't it time we just instituted a ban on all Sarah Palin references in the comments of AoSHQ?

Get this into your head: SHE DOES NOT MATTER ANYMORE.

Posted by: Jeff B. at December 10, 2012 02:44 PM (TuW+p)

174 "I thought the editor of National Review was arch-dweeb Rich Lowrey, not Jobah Goldberg, who is a very good writer."
===============

I think Jonah is considered "Editor-at-Large" of National Review Online.

Posted by: Kensington at December 10, 2012 02:44 PM (H84UO)

175 157: If your so smart, why aren't you rich

Posted by: Helen Thomas at December 10, 2012 02:44 PM (uFY4s)

176 I thought the editor of National Review was arch-dweeb Rich Lowrey, not Jobah Goldberg, who is a very good writer.

Jonah's influence is all over it. He was brought in to make the magazine more trendy and less stogie, I think the G-File was the hook, which was exactly what I didn't want in the magazine.

Posted by: dick cheese at December 10, 2012 02:44 PM (QupBk)

177 My husband is a middle-aged liberal who has never
read an intellectual book or even a magazine article by a liberal
scholar and couldn't even name one if I asked him to. He read Rachel
Carson in college and Al Gore a few years ago. That is where the sum
total of his environmental policy knowledge and thought come from.



Posted by: rockmom at December 10, 2012 02:34 PM (NYnoe)


Thank the Lord that my wife is not a liberal. I would've hung myself by now. I have lost any semblance of tolerance for the left and it's "actions have no consequences, so pay for my shit, asshole" attitude.

Posted by: © Sponge at December 10, 2012 02:44 PM (UK9cE)

178 OOPS SOCK OFF

Posted by: Alex at December 10, 2012 02:44 PM (uFY4s)

179 There is not a problem that this country has that can't be solved with enough giant paper mâché heads. If they're big enough.

Posted by: WalrusRex at December 10, 2012 02:45 PM (cBayj)

180 I kinda disagree on this point. Democrats didnt win on intellectual
arguments. They won on racial demonization, lies, and smearing Romney.


So, populism.

What did they smear Romney as? Forget the "gonna put y'all in CHAINS!" statements. No one who was on-the-fence was swayed by that.

Romney was an out-of-touch rich guy. Sure, he was "smart" but he couldn't understand regular folks.

Romney's positions were correct (mostly), but they weren't communicated in ways that mattered to people. I think he only tried the "take home more of what you make" line once or twice. But he spoke all the time of "closing loop holes" and all sorts of other MATH!

But most people were promised there would be no math, so they couldn't and/or didn't check when Liberals said "His math doesn't add up!" They just assumed that it was true.

Reagan ran on "Tax Cuts for the Rich" and won with that message because he could explain to people, in simple terms, why that rich bugger getting a tax cut was good for them. And it wasn't some pie-in-the-sky, "Oh, they hire people" stuff. That may be true, but it doesn't sell.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) Channelling Breitbart at December 10, 2012 02:45 PM (5DR1j)

181 It seems to me that intellectuals search for the meaning of life's intricacies.

There is far less meaning in the Left's statist brand of group think where everyone is deemed the same, and engineered outcomes are equalized (except for the more equal).

There is much more reward and significance to the Conservative's individual thought process and responsibility for his(her) own choices.

It would seem that true intellectual thought should mostly veer right, whereas the faux doctrines of the Left are used mostly to convince and steer useful idiots.

As for being known as an intellectual, I prefer the description that I once heard while walking away from a dimwitted coworker that I had just left in flames being warned by another guy "don't argue with him, he's a smart prick".

Actually either end works for me.

Posted by: ontherocks at December 10, 2012 02:45 PM (aZ6ew)

182 Actually, the quintessential argument between intellectuals is of the form:

I1: I have this brilliant idea, you must agree!
I2: Oh, God, no! You're an idiot and waste of protoplasm!
I1: Dolt! PROVE that I'm not brilliant!
I2: OK, dickweed, you're wrong for this and this and that reason!
I1: Feeb! That, this, and the other thing are the CRUX of my argument!
I2: Great heavenly Zeus! How can you possibly ignore this and that?
. . .
Lather, rinse, repeat, ad nauseum (or until the alcohol is gone).

The problem that the "right" has in the intellectual argument with the "left" is that the "right" never effectively calls out the truly ridiculous assertions of the "left" with the degree of sneering condescension that those assertions truly deserve.

That's exactly why people like Chris Christie have the popularity they do on the right--they give ideas of the left the legitimacy they deserve. Most on the right seem to want to cede the legitimacy of the left's ideas, and then try to argue on utilitarian grounds.

You don't win an argument by agreeing with the premises of your intellectual opponent. Far too often that's exactly the rhetorical "tactic" that the right goes for.

The reason for this is because the left has taken control of pretty much every outlet of intellectual production that exposes intellectual thought to a mass audience, with the possible exceptions of talk radio and Fox News. (Blogs don't count . . . Joe Sixpack don't read no stupid blogs.)

The Long March to re-take the outlets of intellectual production is what it will take to restore the Constitution. That's going to take money, it's going to take really, really smart and eloquent people who are willing to stick their necks WAY, WAY out, and it's going to take those of us who aren't quite that smart or daring to give those brave souls intellectual covering fire--in the barber shop, the checkout line, BS'ing in the bar, etc., etc.

Everyone has a role to play. Find yours and do it the best you can.

Don't accept the premises offered by the left and their arguments.

p.s. I used "quintessential" and "condescension" and prolly spelled them korrectly. So yeah, I'm an intellectual, but I'm not necessarily happy about it.

Posted by: filbert at December 10, 2012 02:45 PM (NaNKB)

183 Good another chance to repeat a Churchill quote.

"The best argument against Democracy is a five minute conversation with an average voter"

Posted by: polynikes at December 10, 2012 02:46 PM (m2CN7)

184 166
Instinct and gut are frequently right, but I wouldn't trust them.

Instinct
is simply a little bit of advice passed to your species from 1000s of
years of previous life on earth. Encoded in DNA wedged in with the
directions on how to build the human eye retina and your spleen. While
it does have value, it also thinks having sex with any woman between the
ages of 16 - 50 is our top priority and our diets should be 100% made
up of stuff breaded, then deep fried in animal fat, then covered in
gravy.

Gut, or intuition, is simply your silent cognitive center
(the one that doesn't have any language skills) telling you it sees a
pattern it recognizes. It is able to process far more sensory cues than
your conscious mind, but, has only a very small amount of analytical
ability. So you get vague feelings from it. Note some of these patterns
that the intuitive brain uses are pre-programed (as above instinct) some
of them are learned patterns. But all it does is pattern match.

So yeah, both can be very very wrong.


Posted by: MikeTheMoose is Shrugging at December 10, 2012 02:43 PM (0q2P7)
Nice post

Posted by: Alex at December 10, 2012 02:46 PM (uFY4s)

185 Folks shouldn't confuse 'intelligent'and 'intellectual'. Intelligence involves interacting with the real world, while "intellectualism" in its worst incarnations is often insulated (if not completely detached) from reality.

And for Pete's sake don'tequate either termwith 'infallible'.

Posted by: Seamus Muldoon at December 10, 2012 02:46 PM (1OZSU)

186 Actually, come to think of it, I think I can take credit for most of the anti-intellectualism found in the comments of AoSHQ.

In the sense that: people are anti-intellectual because if I'M an intellectual, then most sane people look at me and say, "well shit, whatever he is, I sure a fuck don't want to be that."

Sorry guys, it was my fault all along.

Posted by: Jeff B. at December 10, 2012 02:46 PM (TuW+p)

187
183
Good another chance to repeat a Churchill quote.



"The best argument against Democracy is a five minute conversation with an average voter"

Posted by: polynikes at December 10, 2012 02:46 PM (m2CN7)
Then what about his quote "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others that have been tried

Posted by: Alex at December 10, 2012 02:47 PM (uFY4s)

188 But, you know, before anyone takes too big a crap on Rush Limbaugh and/or Mark Levin, I would like to praise both of them. Limbaugh was the first, and only, confidently assertive conservative voice I ever heard day after day.

I grew up in Chicago and was involved in communities that were overwhelmingly leftist. My first voters were reflexively, thoughtlessly Democrat. It wasn't until I heard Limbaugh that I started questioning all the presumptions that saturated the ground around me for the first 24 years of my life.

Posted by: Kensington at December 10, 2012 02:48 PM (H84UO)

189 For me, Obama is tough to gauge, because he is great at sounding smart, but also obviously an idiot. You must posses some smarts to do that, but how much I'm not sure.

Posted by: Big T Party at December 10, 2012 02:48 PM (WiQr+)

190 I think I have posted a little bit to much today.
Secondly Ace, Can I have your email address

Posted by: Alex at December 10, 2012 02:48 PM (uFY4s)

191 Agreed. I cringe when I hear people give verbatim Rush/Levin talking points on a subject.
Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at December 10, 2012 02:44 PM (HDgX3)

Thats why I can't watch Hannity

Posted by: Jollyroger at December 10, 2012 02:48 PM (t06LC)

192 I am waiting for Fluffy to weigh in on this and distill it down to one sentence. He does that well, which to me indicates a pretty high IQ. And yet, he is funny also, even though he has a lot of body hair.

Posted by: Reader C.J. Burch is Eddie Willers, sure at December 10, 2012 02:49 PM (RFeQD)

193
nit pick: Intellectuals may be smart or dumb, as long as they are rational thinkers. Non-intellectuals can be smart or dumb as long as they are emotional thinkers.

Posted by: Sophistahick at December 10, 2012 02:49 PM (UhXzR)

194 "I think Romney's message was clear. It's just a majority of people voting said "no". And that's where we are."

The majority of voters couldn't tell you what Romney's message was. They voted for Obama, because he could "relate to me personally." As in not being the son of the Governor of MI and CEO of GM and living on stock options at Harvard until you made a fortune on the hated Wall Street.

Posted by: Tattoo De Plane at December 10, 2012 02:49 PM (i0vBR)

195 Wow Jeff B.

That was .....interesting.

Posted by: eleven at December 10, 2012 02:49 PM (KXm42)

196 This PhD physicist did not even engage Jerry's remarks, just the canned "intellectual" response

Get most leftists or eco-freaks off script and they're lost or start robotic recitation of memorized talking points as a defensive measure. Damned few can support some position using their own words and thought...

...because they don't have an intellectual understanding of their position to begin with. Their adoption of said position is more a matter of tribal affiliation than arriving at a place by independent derivation and analysis.

Posted by: @PurpAv at December 10, 2012 02:49 PM (cHr8a)

197
I read this entire post. I deserve at least three Chips Ahoys.


Posted by: Soothsayer at December 10, 2012 02:49 PM (ptD6d)

198 Thank the Lord that my wife is not a liberal. I would've hung myself by now. I have lost any semblance of tolerance for the left and it's "actions have no consequences, so pay for my shit, asshole" attitude.

---

An inability for me to deal with liberal bullshit on a regular basis is why it took me so long to get married.

Posted by: Brandon In Baton Rouge at December 10, 2012 02:49 PM (e0xKF)

199 hmm, we need a new open thread

Posted by: Alex at December 10, 2012 02:49 PM (uFY4s)

200 Some one once called me an autodidact. I kicked his ass.

Posted by: The Poster Formerly Known as Mr. Barky at December 10, 2012 02:49 PM (qwK3S)

201 only thing about the references to Hayek et. al is that some people use them is signifiers that don't really mean anything. not that you said that doesn't happen, just something i've noticed.

see: Eisenhower/Buckley/Reagan being used by liberals as if they all represent the same "moderate Republicanism" of the past. or Jennifer Rubin referring to Kirk and Burke as a contrast to conservatives who don't take into account "changing public habits and opinions," as if that's their essence. these people generally dunno WTF they're talking about

Posted by: JDP at December 10, 2012 02:49 PM (60GaT)

202
And Limbaugh somedays just reads his material from the Drudge Report.

Really. Heavy broadcast preparation.

Posted by: Reader C.J. Burch is Eddie Willers, sure at December 10, 2012 02:49 PM (RFeQD)

203 The Long March to re-take the outlets of intellectual production is what it will take to restore the Constitution. That's going to take money, it's going to take really, really smart and eloquent people who are willing to stick their necks WAY, WAY out, and it's going to take those of us who aren't quite that smart or daring to give those brave souls intellectual covering fire--in the barber shop, the checkout line, BS'ing in the bar, etc., etc.Everyone has a role to play. Find yours and do it the best you can.
Posted by: filbert at December 10, 2012 02:45 PM (NaNKB)


*****

THIS !!!

Posted by: Seamus Muldoon at December 10, 2012 02:50 PM (1OZSU)

204 "Buffing your Brand" sounds much better than "Choking the chicken".

Posted by: Roy at December 10, 2012 02:50 PM (VndSC)

205 >>>as a personal matter, sure, more people should just admit they enjoy the life of the mind

My name is MikeTheMoose and I'm an intellectual...[sobs]...It started out just quoting Madison or Jefferson once in a while, then Locke, OH GOD WHY DID I START ON LOCKE!? [sobs] Before I knew it I had Two Treatises of Government read, and the Federalist Papers. That's when things really started to spiral out of control. I got into the Greek Classics, learned about Sophism, Pythagoras....Before I knew it I was freebasing Aristotle's Ethics and Politics....I just couldn't STOP! [sobs]

Posted by: MikeTheMoose is Shrugging at December 10, 2012 02:50 PM (0q2P7)

206 Adlai, not Adelei.

Posted by: Knemon at December 10, 2012 02:50 PM (FYaI5)

207 Joe is just playing up his tough guy image to impress the eye candy on his right.

Posted by: Fritz at December 10, 2012 02:50 PM (ZA675)

208 Hannity is unintelligent, he just has a good face (don't deny the truth

Posted by: Alex at December 10, 2012 02:51 PM (uFY4s)

209 I read this entire post. I deserve at least three Chips Ahoys.




Posted by: Soothsayer at December 10, 2012 02:49 PM (ptD6d)


Which would you rather have, a crunchy cookie or a chewy banana?

Posted by: © Sponge at December 10, 2012 02:51 PM (UK9cE)

210 Think about that. America is serving a medium-term prison sentence.

---

His message was boxed dogs and dancing horses

Posted by: WalrusRex at December 10, 2012 02:51 PM (cBayj)

211 203
The Long March to re-take the outlets of intellectual production is
what it will take to restore the Constitution. That's going to take
money, it's going to take really, really smart and eloquent people who
are willing to stick their necks WAY, WAY out, and it's going to take
those of us who aren't quite that smart or daring to give those brave
souls intellectual covering fire--in the barber shop, the checkout line,
BS'ing in the bar, etc., etc.Everyone has a role to play. Find yours
and do it the best you can.

Posted by: filbert at December 10, 2012 02:45 PM (NaNKB)



*****



THIS !!!

Posted by: Seamus Muldoon at December 10, 2012 02:50 PM (1OZSU)
THIS OF THIS !!!

Posted by: Alex at December 10, 2012 02:52 PM (uFY4s)

212 Intellectuals are often not wise in real world applications. They over think and freeze up. I've witnessed this most in real estate investment and baseball.

Posted by: MostlyRight at December 10, 2012 02:52 PM (w9AQ4)

213 209
I read this entire post. I deserve at least three Chips Ahoys.






Posted by: Soothsayer at December 10, 2012 02:49 PM (ptD6d)



Which would you rather have, a crunchy cookie or a chewy banana?


Posted by: © Sponge at December 10, 2012 02:51 PM (UK9cE)
Radioactive banana time

Posted by: Alex at December 10, 2012 02:52 PM (uFY4s)

214 Hannity is a perfect example of a dumb intellectual.

Posted by: Sophistahick at December 10, 2012 02:53 PM (UhXzR)

215 Don't worry, Ace. Anyone who knows as much about 'Friends' as you do isn't at risk of being too intellectual.

Posted by: garrett at December 10, 2012 02:53 PM (+flnv)

216 One of the issues of intellectual pursuits on our side is, you have to do it on your own time. Libbies fund armies of college professionals to think and write about liberal ideas. Try and get a posting in a philosophy department as a conservative. See how that goes.

Posted by: MikeTheMoose is Shrugging at December 10, 2012 02:53 PM (0q2P7)

217 207
Joe is just playing up his tough guy image to impress the eye candy on his right.


Posted by: Fritz at December 10, 2012 02:50 PM (ZA675)
MSMBC has eyecandy? You talking about Maddow

Posted by: Alex at December 10, 2012 02:53 PM (uFY4s)

218 For me, Obama is tough to gauge, because he is great
at sounding smart, but also obviously an idiot. You must posses some
smarts to do that, but how much I'm not sure.

Posted by: Big T Party at December 10, 2012 02:48 PM (WiQr+)


Yes, just like when I'm told that serial killers tend to have really really high IQs. Who fucking cares? They're serial killers!!

Posted by: Captain Hate (more dagny and less curious) at December 10, 2012 02:53 PM (1BuxJ)

219 I like William F. BuckleyAND dick jokes.

I'm a bargain-counter intellectual.

Posted by: Dave in Texas at December 10, 2012 02:54 PM (Jm7mj)

220 Apologies for not reading everyone's thoughtful responses before spouting off.

I think one reason "intellectualism" has such a bad rap on the right isn't that we're against thinking, but rather that "intellectualism" has come to be seen as solely the realm of the theoretical. Socialism, theoretically, is a great deal.

But conservatives tend to be more pragmatic, where pragmatic doesn't mean "RINO" or "cave to the Dems" but rather, "we developed a theory (say, the Laffer curve), tested it, and implemented it, and it works. Since it works, the pragmatic thing to do is to follow that now proven theory.

There was a fair amount of intellectualism involved in the development of the Laffer curve. Indeed, the idea of lowering rates and yet increasing revenues is counter-intuitive. But having been shown to work, it is no longer in the realm of intellectualism.

What conservatives see today is "intellectuals" like Elizabeth Warren or others who have spent their entire careers either in academia, or other non-productive parts of society, telling us how smart they are (when instead they're merely credentialed) and proposing policies that we conservatives have seen historically to be failures.

Posted by: xbradtc at December 10, 2012 02:54 PM (O0L6N)

221 214
Hannity is a perfect example of a dumb intellectual.

Posted by: Sophistahick at December 10, 2012 02:53 PM (UhXzR)
Al Gore is a better ExampleHarry Truman is the best example of a closet intellectual

Posted by: Alex at December 10, 2012 02:54 PM (uFY4s)

222 "Those who do identify as intellectuals, and adopt the Cultural Signifiers of the Intellectual Tribe, tend not to be terribly thoughtful and not actually, oh, what's the word I'm looking for? Not that smart. "

Your average Mediate commenter, then?

The late Christopher Hitchens one said "Bush jokes are what stupid people tell to make themselves feel smart." Only now, you an substitute "conservative." Not terribly bright over there, but gosh golly gee whiz do they feel so much smarter than those dumb racist Republicans! Now, if only they could figure out how that pesky arithmetic works...

Posted by: The Ghost of Flannery O'Connor at December 10, 2012 02:54 PM (WE5bx)

223 I read this entire post. I deserve at least three Chips Ahoys.

I have decreed them unhealthy and thus forbidden. You may however have one half of a sugar-free oatmeal raisin cookie.

Posted by: Michelle Obama at December 10, 2012 02:54 PM (SY2Kh)

224 "MSMBC has eyecandy? You talking about Maddow"
===============

Mika's pretty effing hot. Her problem is that she's a leftwing imbecile, not that she isn't sexy.

Posted by: Kensington at December 10, 2012 02:54 PM (H84UO)

225
OK... here my take.

I am not a stupid man. I more than qualify for a membership in Mensa.... and possess an IQ well on the back slope of the bell curve.

Big Fucking Deal.

I have nothing against intellectualism..... reason, thinking, artistic expression, problem solving.

But I frickin hate "intellectuals"...... not because they are "so smart".... but because, as a demographic, there are so smug with their self perceived sense of superiority and all the self aggrandizement and entitlement they feel they deserve. They have created a little social and political ruling class for themselves for their own enrichment.

IMHO.... most people "not in the club" have a similar sense of repulsion for "them". Its the reason I gave up the white collar years ago and now make a living fixing other peoples stuff wearing blue jeans and work boots.






Posted by: fixerupper at December 10, 2012 02:55 PM (nELVU)

226 220
Apologies for not reading everyone's thoughtful responses before spouting off.

I
think one reason "intellectualism" has such a bad rap on the right
isn't that we're against thinking, but rather that "intellectualism" has
come to be seen as solely the realm of the theoretical. Socialism,
theoretically, is a great deal.

But conservatives tend to be
more pragmatic, where pragmatic doesn't mean "RINO" or "cave to the
Dems" but rather, "we developed a theory (say, the Laffer curve), tested
it, and implemented it, and it works. Since it works, the pragmatic
thing to do is to follow that now proven theory.

There was a
fair amount of intellectualism involved in the development of the Laffer
curve. Indeed, the idea of lowering rates and yet increasing revenues
is counter-intuitive. But having been shown to work, it is no longer in
the realm of intellectualism.

What conservatives see today is
"intellectuals" like Elizabeth Warren or others who have spent their
entire careers either in academia, or other non-productive parts of
society, telling us how smart they are (when instead they're merely
credentialed) and proposing policies that we conservatives have seen
historically to be failures.


Posted by: xbradtc at December 10, 2012 02:54 PM (O0L6N)
Shitting on people can in theory be a good idea

Posted by: Alex at December 10, 2012 02:55 PM (uFY4s)

227 If I'm going to be Impotent, I'm going to dress Impotent!

Posted by: The Guy with the Tuxedo in the Wrong Joke at December 10, 2012 02:55 PM (71LDo)

228 Hannity is a perfect example of a dumb intellectual.

No, Hannity is a perfect example of a psuedo-intellectual. He has a set of quotes and talking points memorized, and uses them over and over regardless of the situation.

Then no matter how the conversation went, he declares himself the winner.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) Channelling Breitbart at December 10, 2012 02:55 PM (5DR1j)

229 But let's face it, who are we kidding? Empireof Jeff, for example, uses the same sort of Lowbrow guise as I do but, you know, he's smart. He's read a book.


Do pitcher books count? The ones with lots of boobehs and hoo-ha's?

Posted by: rickb223 Let. It. Burn. at December 10, 2012 02:55 PM (GFM2b)

230 224
"MSMBC has eyecandy? You talking about Maddow"
===============

Mika's pretty effing hot. Her problem is that she's a leftwing imbecile, not that she isn't sexy.


Posted by: Kensington at December 10, 2012 02:54 PM (H84UO)
Lacking a Brain makes you less hot in my opinion

Posted by: Alex at December 10, 2012 02:55 PM (uFY4s)

231 I think the time for quoting Hayek may be past, we were quoting Col. Cooper here the other day. Might need more of that.

Posted by: Jean at December 10, 2012 02:56 PM (uekSI)

232
sensory - broad bell curve - intellectual
dumb - broad bell curve - smart

The two curves do not align.

Posted by: Sophistahick at December 10, 2012 02:56 PM (UhXzR)

233 229
But let's face it, who are we kidding? Empireof Jeff, for example, uses
the same sort of Lowbrow guise as I do but, you know, he's smart. He's
read a book.





Do pitcher books count? The ones with lots of boobehs and hoo-ha's?

Posted by: rickb223 Let. It. Burn. at December 10, 2012 02:55 PM (GFM2b)
Don't you mean Ding-Dongs

Posted by: Alex at December 10, 2012 02:56 PM (uFY4s)

234 Thanks, Ace. I feel much better now. I couldn't quite finish the post because I have a short attention span, but I feel much better now.

Posted by: Cricket at December 10, 2012 02:56 PM (DrC22)

235
Adlai, not Adelei.

She sings real purdy.

Posted by: BackwardsBoy, who did not vote for this shit. at December 10, 2012 02:57 PM (yiIja)

236 Generally, I think intellectuals are persons who aren't smart enough [or humble enough] to know what they don't know.

Posted by: The Poster Formerly Known as Mr. Barky at December 10, 2012 02:57 PM (qwK3S)

237 I miss Zingers

Posted by: Alex at December 10, 2012 02:57 PM (uFY4s)

238 Ace,

Here's something I think you missed. (And sorry this is going to be rough, I'm at work.)

True intellectualism (IMO at least) has to seek out and engage the opponent's argument. Or at least describe what the opponent's argument doesn't deserve to be engaged.
Faux intellectualism (i.e. Scarborough, Costas, etc.) merely asserts that they are correct and tries to appeal to your emotions bypassing your logic to convince you as such (AKA emotivism).
Here of course is the problem. Liberals have painted the Faux type as the "real" kind for decades now, such that those of us who attempt to at least be somewhat intellectual in our pursuits spend our time getting our asses kicked.
(Or to Summarize Alasdair MacIntyre: We're all emotivists now.)
So Scarborough's point is, at best, a bit of a contradiction. In some respects conservatism is a very intellectual brand, making pretty intellectual arguments. But, we then have to distill those arguments down to the current "soundbite" culture. And thus, we fail. In part because we aren't willing to act like the Faux intellectuals that are gaining so much credence in today's society.
Scarborough would insist (it seems to me) that we all need to act more like his particular brand of intellectualism (which I would contend is not actually intellectualism at all!)*

*OK I lost my train of thought (got interrupted) and can't remember how I was supposed to finish this....crap....

Posted by: tsrblke (work) at December 10, 2012 02:57 PM (b3IgE)

239 225
Bingo.

Posted by: Big T Party at December 10, 2012 02:57 PM (WiQr+)

240 232: teehee you said two curves

Posted by: Alex at December 10, 2012 02:57 PM (uFY4s)

241 Mika's pretty effing hot. Her problem is that she's a leftwing imbecile, not that she isn't sexy.




Posted by: Kensington at December 10, 2012 02:54 PM (H84UO)

__________________________

Surely you jest. She isn't hot at all. Left wing nut or not.

Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at December 10, 2012 02:58 PM (HDgX3)

242 psuedo-intellectuals are dumb. They are one of the many species within the phylum.

Posted by: Sophistahick at December 10, 2012 02:58 PM (UhXzR)

243 Lacking a Brain makes you less hot in my opinion
Posted by: Alex at December 10, 2012 02:55 PM (uFY4s)

Nahhhh. Because, tits.

Strip Clubs aren't staffed with Ivy Leaguers.

Posted by: Jollyroger at December 10, 2012 02:58 PM (t06LC)

244 So Mika + red leather ball gag is intellectual?

Posted by: Jean at December 10, 2012 02:58 PM (uekSI)

245 "Adlai, not Adelei.

She sings real purdy."

===============

Get Adlai to sing some of her pretty songs while Hayek struts around in some of her skimpy outfits? Bunk!

Posted by: Kensington at December 10, 2012 02:58 PM (H84UO)

246 Hannity is unintelligent

He knows how to work HIS audience. In that medium you gotta dumb shit way down.

Posted by: @PurpAv at December 10, 2012 02:58 PM (cHr8a)

247 Anyone know Ace's email address

Posted by: Alex at December 10, 2012 02:58 PM (uFY4s)

248 Shit, ace is back on the Ritalin.


Actually, I think all people should be more intellectual, generally.


I guess this doesn't forebode well for the "morons" here at HQ.

Posted by: Billy Bob, pseudo intellectual at December 10, 2012 02:58 PM (wR+pz)

249 My name popped up on google alert with a link to here.

Are you saying republicans want dirty air and water?

Posted by: Hannity at December 10, 2012 02:58 PM (2t6Gz)

250 I think most of the conservative bashers don't just have policy differences with people like Beck and Limbaugh; I think there is a style and pedigree issue as well.

Posted by: L, elle at December 10, 2012 02:58 PM (0PiQ4)

251 For me, Obama is tough to gauge, because he is great at sounding smart, but also obviously an idiot. You must posses some smarts to do that, but how much I'm not sure. Posted by: Big T Party at December 10, 2012 02:48 PM (WiQr+)
If you listen , he doesn't even sound smart. That he has the press covering up his intellectual stumbles is his only saving grace.

An intellectual would not mispronounce Orion or corpsman. An intellectual would not say Austrians speak Austrian or that Americans liberated Auschwitz. An intellectual would know that his home state of Illinois borders Kentucky. An intellectual would know how to spell Syracuse, if not for the school but for Greek history. Obama is a fake.

Posted by: polynikes at December 10, 2012 02:58 PM (m2CN7)

252 I like William F. BuckleyAND dick jokes.
I'm a bargain-counter intellectual.

Posted by: Dave in Texas

Similar to liking both Picard and Kirk.

There's a time to read Shakespeare, and there's a time to nail the green chick and kill every Klingon in sight.

Posted by: Lurking Canuck at December 10, 2012 02:59 PM (BrQrN)

253
Tell me if you do this, too.

You judge a person's intellect by the kind of car they drive. Or, rather, you see a Honda, for example, and you automatically assign a certain degree of intellect to whoever is behind the wheel.

Yes, you do. And so do I. The make of the car isn't important. But I happen to know, from personal experience, that Hondas are good cars. They are reliable and they are cheap to run. Therefore, buying a Honda is a 'smart' decision, and by extension makes the buyer smart.

(Now I could have said BMW or Mercedes which are obvious picks for intellect because we associate affluence with success and success with intellect.)

If you see a Romney sticker on a car, you automatically think that person is smart patriot, yes? The same holds true when moonbats see Obama stickers.

We judge the intellect of others based on how much they are in-line with our own thoughts and beliefs. For idiots, Joe Biden is an intellectual. For racist Marxists, Obama is an intellectual.

To be an "intellectual," one must be like whoever the target audience is, I believe.

Posted by: Soothsayer at December 10, 2012 02:59 PM (ptD6d)

254 Posted by: fixerupper at December 10, 2012 02:55 PM (nELVU)



Bang spot on. I know a former co-worker who joined Mensa and she and her dickhole husband are the biggest walking parodies you can find. Plus she has a sibling that got snared by the Scientologists; so there's a genetic link for high IQ witlessness.

Posted by: Captain Hate (more dagny and less curious) at December 10, 2012 03:00 PM (1BuxJ)

255 An intellectual would not mispronounce Orion or
corpsman. An intellectual would not say Austrians speak Austrian or that
Americans liberated Auschwitz. An intellectual would know that his home
state of Illinois borders Kentucky. An intellectual would know how to
spell Syracuse, if not for the school but for Greek history. Obama is a
fake.

Posted by: polynikes at December 10, 2012 02:58 PM



Barry is Joe Biden with a better interior monitor. A slightly better interior monitor.

Posted by: huerfano at December 10, 2012 03:00 PM (bAGA/)

256 243
Lacking a Brain makes you less hot in my opinion

Posted by: Alex at December 10, 2012 02:55 PM (uFY4s)



Nahhhh. Because, tits.



Strip Clubs aren't staffed with Ivy Leaguers.

Posted by: Jollyroger at December 10, 2012 02:58 PM (t06LC)
That would make the current Strip clubs look cleanA dumb broad is just that, a dumb broad.In my experience the prettiest women have also been highly intelligent and thus for me, lacking intelligence makes you uglier

Posted by: Alex at December 10, 2012 03:00 PM (uFY4s)

257 255
An intellectual would not mispronounce Orion or

corpsman. An intellectual would not say Austrians speak Austrian or that

Americans liberated Auschwitz. An intellectual would know that his home

state of Illinois borders Kentucky. An intellectual would know how to

spell Syracuse, if not for the school but for Greek history. Obama is a

fake.



Posted by: polynikes at December 10, 2012 02:58 PM


Barry is Joe Biden with a better interior monitor. A slightly better interior monitor.


Posted by: huerfano at December 10, 2012 03:00 PM (bAGA/)
Theres a school called syracuse. I thought it was the name of a city in Sicily and a city in new york

Posted by: Alex at December 10, 2012 03:01 PM (uFY4s)

258 "Surely you jest. She isn't hot at all. Left wing nut or not."
===============

Well, there's no accounting for taste, but I really don't think my perception is a stretch on conventional beauty. I think she's profoundly sexy, leftwing nuttery notwithstanding, and I'd bet most of the morons here, if presented with someone who looks just like her but who happens to be a conservative, would think so, too.

Posted by: Kensington at December 10, 2012 03:01 PM (H84UO)

259 "I think every political movement needs an intellectual wing. But what I think it needs even more of is a populist wing."

Yes, people like Rubio, or big startup kings, are kind of intimidating to average people like me. I'm a worker, not a leader, mostly. Let's get some teachers, LVNs, body shop owners, etc., to make the pitch for liberty over handouts.

And we also need an artistic wing, especially a political theater wing. A bunch of college kids with signs protesting the 1% in front of movie studios and NGOs like Ford, MacArthur, Pew would raise awareness, as the lefties say, much more than Insty preaching his awesome "tax the Dem rich too" to people who already trust him.

Posted by: PJ at December 10, 2012 03:01 PM (ZWaLo)

260 Yo, Ding-Dong, man. Ding-Dong. Ding-Dong, yo.

Posted by: HeatherRadish™, drooling imbecile at December 10, 2012 03:01 PM (/kI1Q)

261 They voted for Obama, because he could "relate to me personally."

Yes, I too, spent my childhood in Indonesia with servants in my house ; was then abandoned by my marxist mom; raised by my grammy who was the VP of a bank; cuddled up to a marxist mentor ; went to an elite hs; then coasted to the presidency thanks to affirmative action!

The other side has the msm controlling the narrative. That is how tfg is in and Romney is out.

Posted by: RondinellaMamma at December 10, 2012 03:02 PM (53riN)

262
Are you saying republicans want dirty air and water?

Posted by: Hannity at December 10, 2012 02:58 PM (2t6Gz)

No we want dirty laundry!



http://tinyurl.com/cy8pzfb

Posted by: Billy Bob, pseudo intellectual at December 10, 2012 03:02 PM (wR+pz)

263

1) A lot of what you talk about here is a reference to confidence. Lacking in.

2) I hate to say this, but I notice many women dummy themselves down to play the game, but underneath, they are hiding high intelligence. I always hated that. This also relates to confidence.

3) The entire democrat party plays the dummy down politics. Look at TFG. Fist bumps. Street slang. He saturates himself in pop culture. Even Hillary did it. Biden? ...put y'all back in chains. They live and breath playing stupid, and not showing intellect.

I will admit, the way I spoke to my superiors, versus the approximate 100 or so folks reporting to me was quite the contrast. You just adjust your message depending on the audience.

4) Rush calls himself brilliant. He's not ashamed.

5) Start questioning that gut-level, often self-interested reflexive notion that first pops into your head.

This is easier for some than others. It takes training. And, further, (which I know is not what you're saying) if everyone had the same level of communication skills, it would be quite an uninteresting world. That is why some are better suited for some professions over others.

6) Finally, (and this could be a separate topic on its own), consider who are the self-proclaimed intellectuals. Or, even those who are not self-proclaimed.

And, I'm going by what you seem to be projecting as the definition of intellectual:

Did they have (large) families they were providing for? Time constraints.

Were they left to dive into their professions with little to no distraction (i.e. had a wife at home who dealt with the trivialities and drudgery of running a household and family)?

Who has the time to imbibe book after book? Or, spend hours upon hours doing research, or creating? Single? Hermits? Anti-socials? Georgia O'Keefe who fled to the desert? Einstein? Hawking? Michelangelo? Descartes?


Where's my intellectual salon? Here? ;-)

Windows of opportunity.

Confidence.

I was blessed with many things in life. And, I'm not ashamed to admit it. I could care less about the labels.

Posted by: beach intellect at December 10, 2012 03:02 PM (LpQbZ)

264 Other then funemployment, ivy league strippers are another benefit of the Obama economy.

Posted by: Jean at December 10, 2012 03:03 PM (uekSI)

265 "I think every political movement needs an intellectual wing. But what I think it needs even more of is a populist wing."

Well a car that sells needs a good engineer AND hot babes to drape across the hood.

Posted by: MikeTheMoose is Shrugging at December 10, 2012 03:03 PM (0q2P7)

266 For me, Obama is tough to gauge, because he is great at sounding smart, but also obviously an idiot.

Well, I'd challenge that; he's got basic competence at reading prepared texts, but it's been shown repeatedly that any time he has to speak off the cuff he sounds like a less-self-aware version of Biden.

Posted by: Ian S. at December 10, 2012 03:04 PM (B/VB5)

267 251
That's what I'm saying. He's obviously not that intelligent, but he's managed to realize that he can use the media to make himself the smartest President Ever. That has to count for something.

Posted by: Big T Party at December 10, 2012 03:05 PM (WiQr+)

268 Or, rather, you see a Honda, for example, and you automatically assign a certain degree of intellect to whoever is behind the wheel.



My maid drives a Honda, I gave it to her, but I wouldn't call her a rocket scientist.

I never think of anyone driving a Honda as anything but frugal, which is a nice word for cheap.


Posted by: Billy Bob, pseudo intellectual at December 10, 2012 03:05 PM (wR+pz)

269 Obama's college transcripts are so well secured, probably to protect his mythical status as an "intellectual". They probably show he was only an average student. Making them public would ruin the myth.

Posted by: Pyrocles at December 10, 2012 03:06 PM (cv5Iw)

270 I'd agree about too many purity tests but point out that purity tests abound in all directions. If social conservatives want to expel libertarian-ish conservatives, and the conservative wants to expel the RINO, and the moderate conservative wants to distance the party from the embarrassing hard-liner and the fiscal conservatives wish the social conservatives would vanish...

Yes, a few fewer "purity tests" would be a nice thing.

Posted by: Synova at December 10, 2012 03:06 PM (7/PU+)

271 " Generally, I think intellectuals are persons who aren't smart enough [or humble enough] to know what they don't know.
Posted by: The Poster Formerly Known as Mr. Barky at December 10, 2012 02:57 PM (qwK3S)"

Speaking of which, I love this article: http://jangosteve.com/post/380926251/no-one-knows-what-theyre-doing

The honest intellectual understands that the slice of the pie chart covering what we know is abysmally small. What makes us true intellectuals -- and hence intellectually curious -- is the fact that we realize the goals is to shift as much out of the What We Don't Know We Don't Know section and into the What We Know We Don't Know. But when you're under the false impression -- as most self-identified intellectuals are (who are in truth pseudo-intellectuals) -- the former is going to be large, indeed. That leads them to do some truly stupid things, such as voting for a man who thinks all we need to do to balance the budget is tax just a little bit more from the wealthy and get a new credit card rather than stop blowing someone else's cash on lottery tickets.

Posted by: The Ghost of Flannery O'Connor at December 10, 2012 03:06 PM (WE5bx)

272 Admit it, this is payback on me for busting out the Rorschach quote earlier...

Posted by: Brother Cavil at December 10, 2012 03:06 PM (GBXon)

273 Knowledge is good! I said this to my "date" last night:

Pedicabo ego vos et irrumabo!

She gave me change for the $100 and I went to town!

Posted by: MoeRon at December 10, 2012 03:06 PM (yWDpP)

274 I don't believe you have to be overtly smart to be intellectual; you DO need to be thoughtful. Inteligence, as I conceive of it, is more than just being smart. It is the ability to absorb information and then apply that to the world at large. To be an astronomer, for example, you have to be intelligent, because it requires a great deal of knowledge, recall and application. You can be smart enough to know why we have leap year, but that doesn't mean you could sketch out the mathematical formulas to describe those reasons without doing a lot of study first.

To be intellectual, in my opinion, is part of becoming intelligent. Whereas intelligence is the practical application and expression of accumulated knowledge, intellectualism is that act of accumulation. Its about taking that knowledge and synthesizing it into a self-sustaining, fertile ground for further growth. Intelligence comes with understanding; understanding comes with thought. The intellectual is always thinking, sketching out thoughts and patterns against an infinite backdrop. A pure intellectual is often a nuisance, because they can never apply those thoughts and ideas to practical application. To do that, they need to also have the intelligence to turn their ideas into reality. That's not to say they aren't smart; they are. They just don't do well in the workaday world.

Anti-intellectualism, IMO, is typified by a closed mind that doesn't countenance any new or contradictory thought. Such things are viewed with fear and open hostility, because the closed-mind doesn't know how to integrate those thoughts and their corresponding emotional attachments into the pre-existing knowledge base already inside their heads. Only "friendlies" are allowed past the closed mind's gatekeepers; thoughts and ideas that are harmonious with the ideas already at home behind the mind's locked doors. It's intellectual bigotry. Whereas a pure intellectual will take in every new fact and theory and spend hours building cloud castles in the air, the pure anti-intellectual is the one that always goes back to the hard, cold, simple statements. "Pay your fair share!" "We are the 99%!" "Hell no, we won't go!" "Equal pay for equal work!" "Our bodies, our choice!"

I tend to hope I veer more toward the intellectual than the anti-intellectual.

Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Hobbit at December 10, 2012 03:06 PM (4df7R)

275 Are you saying republicans want dirty air and water?

Posted by: Hannity at December 10, 2012 02:58 PM (2t6Gz)

No we want dirty laundry!



http://tinyurl.com/cy8pzfb
Posted by: Billy Bob, pseudo intellectual at December 10, 2012 03:02 PM (wR+pz)
----
That sounds like something the anointed one would say. I'm going to call the great one and see what he has to say. Where's my football!

Posted by: Hannity at December 10, 2012 03:07 PM (2t6Gz)

276 Honestly, the word has already been successfully lassoed by the Proggs.
In post-modernist Amerikka, intellectuals are simply required to think compassionate thoughts, much as a seven year-old kid might look in a pet shop window and think all those puppies should be set free to run about the store
Any further thought about dog shit, dog piss, dogs fucking, dog puke is not compassionate, thus not intellectual. Considering an idea to its logical and predictable conclusion is discouraged in post-modernist Progg thought.
But it is depressingly realistic. Try it at home!
Food stamps good , the result? Hipsters and Illegals on food stamps.
SS disability good, the result? Young fatties in hover rounds.
Medicare good, the result? Billions in avoidable fraud bad.
No security in Benghazi good, the result?
Train Afghan Police good?
Send corn to Sub Saharan Africa?
Arm Bin Laden?
Bail out AIG?
Solyndra?

Go ahead and try to reclaim the rhetorical high ground, I see it as a waste of time.
I am a depressive realist, the 2013 version of an old-fashioned intellectual. It's the result that counts


Posted by: dr kill at December 10, 2012 03:07 PM (ufLRj)

277 "Well a car that sells needs a good engineer AND hot babes to drape across the hood."

Heh.

Posted by: Synova at December 10, 2012 03:07 PM (7/PU+)

278 Look, I haven't been reading all the posts. When did ace give everyone Ritalin?


Can I still get some?

Posted by: Billy Bob, pseudo intellectual at December 10, 2012 03:07 PM (wR+pz)

279 "But when you're under the false impression that you already know everything -- as most self-identified intellectuals are (who are in truth pseudo-intellectuals) -- the former is going to be large, indeed."

My kingdom for a preview button.

Posted by: The Ghost of Flannery O'Connor at December 10, 2012 03:07 PM (WE5bx)

280 Yes, the Discussion should include the large cohort of Fake Intellectuals, most of whom done be on the Left. Generally--as a rule, as the Old Folks used to say--the further left ya go the more the intellectuals are fake; muy fake, tres, tres, fake; ganz, totaler fake


Obama is Honorary Leader of the Fake Intellectuals. But as the Viking said in 'The 13th Warrior'............"Don't worry, little brother--there are MORE !!!!

Posted by: Wally in Walla Walla at December 10, 2012 03:08 PM (Dll6b)

281 >>>I never think of anyone driving a Honda as anything but frugal, which is a nice word for cheap.

I kind of think of them as either risk averse or that they lack creativity. Honda offers a number of decent vehicles, none of them stand out in any way.

Posted by: MikeTheMoose is Shrugging at December 10, 2012 03:08 PM (0q2P7)

282 I don't believe you have to be overtly smart to be intellectual; you DO need to be thoughtful.

No, you just have to be able to fake it convincingly.

Posted by: Brother Cavil at December 10, 2012 03:08 PM (GBXon)

283 269 Obama's college transcripts are so well secured, probably to protect his mythical status as an "intellectual". They probably show he was only an average student. Making them public would ruin the myth.
---
And the many communism classes.

Posted by: Whatev at December 10, 2012 03:09 PM (2t6Gz)

284 Actually liberals have always thought of themselves as being more "intellectual" than conservatives, although the word is fairly new. It goes all the way back to Plato, who was the first flaming--er--intellectual.

Posted by: Cricket at December 10, 2012 03:09 PM (DrC22)

285
Well, I'd challenge that; he's got basic competence at reading prepared texts, but it's been shown repeatedly that any time he has to speak off the cuff he sounds like a less-self-aware version of Biden.

And y'all who think his IQ is above 100 are being generous. Very generous indeed.

TFG only has a smart veneer. Underneath, he's a self-loathing, egotistical, angry, little man who hates others and wants to control and destroy them.

Posted by: BackwardsBoy, who did not vote for this shit. at December 10, 2012 03:09 PM (yiIja)

286 THE SCIENCE IS SETTLED!!!

Posted by: Intellekchual at December 10, 2012 03:09 PM (gCa4h)

287 "Start questioning that gut-level, often self-interested reflexive notion that first pops into your head."

Like I've said, I learned to do that in grad school after being immersed in critical theory, which tells you that knowledge is constructed. Not entirely true, but I soon realized that not just right wing reality is constructed but left wing (IOW the entire media/academic complex) was created too. Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.

Posted by: PJ at December 10, 2012 03:10 PM (ZWaLo)

288 NFL grade adderall I think

Posted by: Jean at December 10, 2012 03:10 PM (uekSI)

289 also, if ya say that yer an intellectual..........you ain't


Posted by: Wally in Walla Walla at December 10, 2012 03:10 PM (Dll6b)

290 They probably show he was only an average student. Making them public would ruin the myth.

DO you honestly believe that The Won ever got any grade less than an A+? Do give him less would have meant the professor was a racist!

Posted by: Intellekchual at December 10, 2012 03:11 PM (gCa4h)

291
If Ace is suggesting that all conservatives possess at minimum a certain amount of fundamental knowledge for a broad rage of subjects, I completely agree.

It is a capital idea! In fact, I think we should conduct a pilot program.

Let's a compile a list of The 10 Most Important Books You Must Read.

Yes, just ten; I'm aware that's not much, but the point here is to build a foundation of fundamental knowledge, not bookworms.

I can think of two 'must read' books:

1. Thomas Sowell's book on Economics.

2. Charles Mackay's book on human folly, Popular Delusions and Madness of Crowds.

Posted by: Soothsayer at December 10, 2012 03:11 PM (ptD6d)

292 You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

intellectual != smart
intellectual != intelligent
intellectual != well-read
intellectual != grounded and active in the world of ideas
intellectual = self-congratulatory cunt unjustifiably impressed with his own cleverness, as exemplified by his/her ability to repeat the shibboleths of the intellectual class.

Intellectual is a class, not a description. Honest to God, who on earth want to associate themselves with a class of people that includes Noam Chomsky and Rich Lowry?
You forget two of the most famous people who would qualify as Intellectuals, if it meant what you think. Reagan and G W Bush were both men of high intelligence, widely read, who lived vital and wide ranging intellectual lives. The fact that they are not considered intellectuals puts the lie to the definition you are using.

Posted by: Intellectuals up against the wall! at December 10, 2012 03:11 PM (g1kPC)

293 >>>Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.

Hmmm.
[Looks at progressive rulebook]

Rule 1.
WIN

Rule 2.
See Rule 1

Posted by: MikeTheMoose is Shrugging at December 10, 2012 03:11 PM (0q2P7)

294 As a conservative intellectual, I prefer the trip hop / dub version of America Fuck Yeah.

Posted by: El Gordo at December 10, 2012 03:12 PM (UaL7z)

295 I kind of think of them as either risk averse or
that they lack creativity. Honda offers a number of decent vehicles,
none of them stand out in any way.


Posted by: MikeTheMoose is Shrugging at December 10, 2012 03:08 PM (0q2P7)

True dat, and you can not kill them. They run forever. Honda makes good shit, boring, but good.

Well actually a NSX was a pretty hot car. Unfortunately anyone over 5'10" couldn't get in one.

Posted by: Billy Bob, pseudo intellectual at December 10, 2012 03:12 PM (wR+pz)

296 As someone who fancies herself a bit of an intellectual, I can tell you that there is a very definite belief by those who consider themselves to be intellectuals that no one who is an intellectual can possibly be conservative. There really are two completely separate little Venn circles in their heads for intellectual and conservative and ne'er the twain shall meet.


Conservatives, on the other hand, don't necessarily mind some book learning. However, conservatives, as a group, are more interested in the practical implications of theory. I like crafting lovely little bubbles of perfectly thought out and internally consistent theories of governance. Those tend to explode upon the first possible contact with reality. I am aware of this and am aware of the limitations of theory. It's my experience that many on the Left attempt to force reality to fit the theory rather than to evaluate how reality impacts the theory and then adapt the theory as needed.


This is not to say that theory doesn't matter. One of those souls in those jars over there shrivels up and dies every time I've read ace pooh poohing theory. Theory matters. It does. You have to know why you believe something and you have to suss out the unconscious underpinnings as to why you believe those things in order to build a more robust practical application of that theory. Both sides are equally important.


Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD. Now with bacon cheddar fries. at December 10, 2012 03:12 PM (VtjlW)

297 Over / under of Barack's IQ = 107
Michelle's = 97

Posted by: MoeRon at December 10, 2012 03:12 PM (yWDpP)

298 The mantle of intellectualism cannot be claimed while the left controls academia,media and entertainment, and they largely do.
.
So you can have the trappings but not the title. You can claim the title, but until you get past the gatekeepers, it's just wheel-spnning.
.
This is in the terms of the initial Scarbrain point of appearing more intellectual for public cpnsumption.

Posted by: Merovign, Dark Lord of the Sith's mobile at December 10, 2012 03:13 PM (SUuEM)

299 ten most important books??


Little Red Riding Hood ( taught me the value of correct appraisal of people )


Three Little Pigs ( the value of solid construction )


Seven Days in May ( how to overthrow an incompetent, commie-lib President )

Posted by: Wally in Walla Walla at December 10, 2012 03:13 PM (Dll6b)

300 Honda NSX



http://tinyurl.com/3cz5rmk

Posted by: Billy Bob, pseudo intellectual at December 10, 2012 03:13 PM (wR+pz)

301 Scarborough is just like O'Reilly. Talk Radio was A-Ok when they were on it, but the moment each left it became a horrid cesspool of unredeemable hate to them both.

Posted by: Ktgreat at December 10, 2012 03:13 PM (XKj1y)

302 So here's the thing. Conservatives of the Aristotelian stripe don't generally run around referring to themselves as "intellectuals." This is not because they are less intelligent than liberals. Aristotle was no less intelligent than Plato. It's because they're not as vain.

Posted by: Cricket at December 10, 2012 03:14 PM (DrC22)

303 No, you just have to be able to fake it convincingly.
Posted by: Brother Cavil at December 10, 2012 03:08 PM (GBXon)

That works for fake intellectualism. For REAL intellectualism, you have to be thoughtful. And I don't mean like, "Aww, that poor homeless man," kind of thoughtful. I mean, "Why ARE crows black? What does it accomplish for them? For that matter, why are cardinals bright red? Isn't that dangerous in the wild?"

Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Hobbit at December 10, 2012 03:14 PM (4df7R)

304 intellectual = self-congratulatory cunt


HEY!

Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD. Now with bacon cheddar fries. at December 10, 2012 03:14 PM (VtjlW)

305
You know, if one just read everything written by Thomas Sowell, one would be well on the way to becoming a intellectual with a deep understanding of the human condition.

*I have not read everything by Thomas Sowell

Posted by: Soothsayer at December 10, 2012 03:14 PM (ptD6d)

306 A bolt doesn't drop into a hole as planned.

Intellectual - we'll have to get a machine shop to make a new specially designed/manufactured bolt that's 20thou smaller diameter. This is going to be an expensive proposition...

Engineer - Naa, let me run back to the office and get a drill, I'll just make the hole a little bigger...

Mechanic - {feels edge of hole and notices a little burr hanging up the bolt} Don't bother. {smacks bolt with a hammer} We're good to go.

Posted by: @PurpAv at December 10, 2012 03:15 PM (cHr8a)

307 You had me at "subatomic epileptic kittens".

Posted by: Chairman LMAO at December 10, 2012 03:15 PM (9eDbm)

308 297
Now Mrs. Obama, I can confidently say is a complete idiot.

Posted by: Big T Party at December 10, 2012 03:15 PM (WiQr+)

309 1. Thomas Sowell's book on Economics.2. Charles Mackay's book on human folly, Popular Delusions and Madness of Crowds.

3. A People's History... Howard Zinn

Posted by: Matt Damon at December 10, 2012 03:15 PM (+flnv)

310 305

You know, if one just read everything written by Milton Friedman and Thomas Sowell, one
would be well on the way to becoming a intellectual with a deep
understanding of the human condition.


FIFY.

Posted by: Billy Bob, pseudo intellectual at December 10, 2012 03:16 PM (wR+pz)

311 A smart person, even a smart person with the highest levels of education, will engage you on ideas.

Now, maybe, this is my experience because there is something about me that lets them know that I can engage them on the ideas, even if I know nothing about the topic. But this is my experience. Smart people are interested in the ideas and generally respond (at least to me) as if it is worth their time to explain the ideas they care about. This goes for PhD economists at Stanford or PhD Math professors at Harvard (to name specific "internet" encounters of my own).

But there is another category of person who presents themselves as very smart, and who generally always mentions their credentials and often wants to know your credentials, that seem more impressed with their own self than with ideas. They don't engage on the level of ideas and get short if they are challenged.

A third category that is also impressed with credentials are those who don't engage ideas because they can't. They're borrowing a list of conclusions from those they consider authorities and acting as if that makes them smart, too. (These are the sorts that will explain to you that Freeman Dyson is not qualified to opine on climate models.)

Posted by: Synova at December 10, 2012 03:16 PM (7/PU+)

312 Plato was the Mother of all Totalitarian faux-intellectual commie-lib assholes


transexual, he was. A mean old man, and White, too. Bad sauce

Posted by: Wally in Walla Walla at December 10, 2012 03:16 PM (Dll6b)

313 "Our bodies, our choice!"

The bigger the lie, the more easily they believe, eh?

Posted by: HeatherRadish™, drooling imbecile at December 10, 2012 03:16 PM (/kI1Q)

314 3. Horton Hears a Who!

Posted by: Meghan McCain at December 10, 2012 03:16 PM (+flnv)

315 Eh, I'll make a blanket statement that most conservatives are smarter and more intellectual than liberals.

You have to be because conservatives have thought beyond the first step of "(insert favorite social problem) is awful!!! Someone must do something!!!"

The reason obviously unintelligent guys like Obama get lauded as geniuses is the success of the "cultural marxism" pushed by the Frankford School throughout US society.

Just supporting marxist positions proves how smart, good, wonderful, non-racist-sexist-homophobe you are, when, of course, it does no such thing.

You, too, can be an official genius if you just learn a few key phrases to prove that you agree with your betters.

They'll even tell you just how smart you are.

This works particularly well with the stupid and lazy. Like rewarding your dog with a cookie or a pat on the head to get the behavior you want.

Pretty soon, you don't even have to think to be considered a brilliant intellectual!

Posted by: naturalfake at December 10, 2012 03:17 PM (54vf8)

316 Empire of Jeff, for example, uses the same sort of Lowbrow guise as I do but, you know, he's smart. He's read a book.

Tropic of Cancer.

Posted by: George Orwell what knows battery technology will set the world on fire at December 10, 2012 03:17 PM (Lxw+T)

317 3. Kama Sutra

Posted by: Sting at December 10, 2012 03:17 PM (+flnv)

318
I never read M. Friedman.

Does he tell you anything that Sowell doens't teach? I was under the impression that Sowell covered it all.

And I hate reading.

Posted by: Soothsayer at December 10, 2012 03:18 PM (ptD6d)

319 You know, I rather enjoyed Glenn Beck when he was just on the radio... kind of hated his crap on TV. I missed the silly old comedy skit stuff from the radio, could do without the crying crap routine.

Posted by: Rory at December 10, 2012 03:18 PM (IL9gH)

320 Obama isn't smart by a long shot, he is diabolical. Big difference.

It's more commonly known as conniving or street smarts. Republicans are too nice and don't want to be called as such. Naive is another word for Republicans.

Posted by: Decaf at December 10, 2012 03:18 PM (f88gl)

321 @314

Books? Uncle Remus's tales.



http://tinyurl.com/ysjw35

Posted by: Billy Bob, pseudo intellectual at December 10, 2012 03:18 PM (wR+pz)

322 Do nuevo post anti-intellectuals get paid by the word????

Posted by: Sphynx at December 10, 2012 03:18 PM (j2McS)

323 No, Ace, the GOP is diminishing its appeal by refusing to serve the interests of the people who support it, whether willingly or out of circumstance.

Oh, and Steven Hawking still won't admit he forgot to carry that 2, the bastard...

Posted by: richard mcenroe at December 10, 2012 03:18 PM (qvify)

324 The bigger the lie, the more easily they believe, eh?
Posted by: HeatherRadish™, drooling imbecile at December 10, 2012 03:16 PM (/kI1Q)


You betcha. And if it's got a catchy rhythm, and maybe a rhyme, they take it hook, line and sinker.

Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Hobbit at December 10, 2012 03:19 PM (4df7R)

325
If I could, I would poke you stooges in the eye and slap the top of your heads.

Numbskulls!

Posted by: Moe Soothsayer at December 10, 2012 03:19 PM (ptD6d)

326

Plato was the Mother of all Totalitarian faux-intellectual commie-lib assholes


Really, I have to protest. Just because that is what the fool understands from reading Plato's Socrates, that doesn't mean that Plato and Socrates supported the total state.

They posited a "perfect" Republic along the lines of Sparta.

To other Athenians.

The fundamental absurdity of their "perfect" state was enough to show that #1 sophists were dangerous and needed to be resisted; and (2) perfecting a state was impossible.


Posted by: imp at December 10, 2012 03:19 PM (UaxA0)

327 Can we be intellectuals and still think about doing Mika in the ass as part of some hot red on blue hate sex?

Posted by: jwest at December 10, 2012 03:19 PM (ZDsRL)

328 As a conservative intellectual, I prefer the trip hop / dub version of America Fuck Yeah.

I can almost hear that in my head. And it's pretty good!

Posted by: Ian S. at December 10, 2012 03:19 PM (B/VB5)

329 Leftists couldn't possibly be real intellectuals because they rely on too many failed ideas and mendacious arguments as coverups.

None of their dogma could stand real scrutiny which is why their long march needed to include the MFM and academia.

They are The People of The Lie.
(A book by Scott Peck)

Posted by: ontherocks at December 10, 2012 03:19 PM (aZ6ew)

330 For REAL intellectualism, you have to be thoughtful.

No, that's just to have a functioning intellect. 'Intellectualism' has nothing to do with intellect, and everything to do with public demonstrations of being able to give proper responses and conclusions.

They want the term, they can have it. We know the facts and should treat them accordingly.

Posted by: Brother Cavil at December 10, 2012 03:20 PM (GBXon)

331 You know, if one just read everything written by Milton Friedman and Thomas Sowell, one

would be well on the way to becoming a intellectual with a deep

understanding of the human condition.


FIFY.


Posted by: Billy Bob, pseudo intellectual at December 10, 2012 03:16 PM (wR+pz)

-----
oooooo...... econ was my field of study. I do love me some Milton Friedman.
John Maynard Keynes...(another self proclaimed intellectual)... can, (to use a high evolved turn of a phrase).... suck my balls.

Posted by: fixerupper at December 10, 2012 03:20 PM (nELVU)

332 324
The bigger the lie, the more easily they believe, eh?

Posted by: HeatherRadish™, drooling imbecile at December 10, 2012 03:16 PM (/kI1Q)


You talking about me?

Posted by: Julia at December 10, 2012 03:20 PM (wR+pz)

333 I would theorize people such as Scarborough and Obama for that matter are mostly products of marketing.

That is, they have read the crib notes on several intellectual level ideas or arguments and corrupt them for parochial, political or philosophical reasons. Their basis for promoting those ideas has little or no connection to there initial purpose. It is only a tool deployed in the quest for self-promotion which helps achieve that philosophical goal.

Obama's aspiration are obviously larger and perhaps megalomaniac. Scarborough's are not as large because he is a lesser of Obama in the sense he has not produced an ability to corrupt arguments, build believability and perhaps a cult following who either agree philosophically and therefore understand the tactics, or are simply a sycophants easily persuaded by ethereal reasons.

Posted by: marcus at December 10, 2012 03:21 PM (GGCsk)

334 Posted by: Wally in Walla Walla at December 10, 2012 03:13 PM (Dll6b)

I think those are just "stories" and should be expanded to include the Ant and the Grasshopper.

My contributions to the 10 Most Important Books-
Starship Troopers
Animal Farm

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) Channelling Breitbart at December 10, 2012 03:21 PM (5DR1j)

335 >>>A third category that is also impressed with credentials are those who don't engage ideas because they can't. They're borrowing a list of conclusions from those they consider authorities and acting as if that makes them smart, too. (These are the sorts that will explain to you that Freeman Dyson is not qualified to opine on climate models.)

This is the worst sort.

I really hate when someone like Chris Matthews, innumerate and scientifically illiterate, claims some kind of intellectual cache because he "agrees" with climate change theory.

I want to point out to him he's not qualified to agree. He hasn't the basic level of knowledge to agree, disagree, or offer any sort of criticism or support either way.

It's meaningless. It's a vanity for him to even imagine this utterance contains meaning.

Posted by: ace at December 10, 2012 03:21 PM (LCRYB)

336 I'm sorry, Ace, but true intellectuals wear tweed jackets with suede patches on the elbows, or at the very least a sweater. And they smoke a pipe. That's how you can tell.
One thing I have learned in my life, and it bears repeating. Smart ain't everything. And I am personally grateful for that.

Posted by: A Moron at December 10, 2012 03:21 PM (1Rgee)

337 You talking about me?

Posted by: Julia


It's lucky that poor girl has fingers to type, because she had no face. So, how does she read a blog, anyway?

Posted by: George Orwell what knows battery technology will set the world on fire at December 10, 2012 03:21 PM (Lxw+T)

338 The bigger the lie, the more easily they believe, eh?

Proof by repeated assertion is a time tested argument.

Posted by: @PurpAv at December 10, 2012 03:22 PM (cHr8a)

339
I'd also add The Godfather to the list.

Posted by: Soothsayer at December 10, 2012 03:22 PM (ptD6d)

340 304 intellectual = self-congratulatory cunt


HEY!
Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD. Now with bacon cheddar fries. at December 10, 2012 03:14 PM (VtjlW)


Which one are you objecting to?

Posted by: Golan Globus at December 10, 2012 03:22 PM (7vSU0)

341 3 InfanterieGreift An - Erwin Rommel

Posted by: Zombie Patton at December 10, 2012 03:22 PM (+flnv)

342 I don't believe you have to be overtly smart to be intellectual; you DO
need to be thoughtful. Inteligence, as I conceive of it, is more than
just being smart. It is the ability to absorb information and then apply
that to the world at large.


Yup.

The favorite tool of the faux-intellectual is to memorize a few quotes from those perceived as famous intellectuals.

It's a lazy appeal to authority which requires almost zero thought. But hey- if I recite what Hayek / Jung / Mises / Chomsky / whoever once said, me saying what a smart person said makes me smart too, right? That it's a quote I pulled off of Wikipedia because I've never read their work is irrelevant.

Make me a slogan-free, rational argument explaining why and how we should do X to get to Y, and then maybe I'll consider you an intellectual. Needless to say, leftist arguments do not hold up well without bumper sticker chants, name calling, or being constrained by reality.

Posted by: Hollowpoint at December 10, 2012 03:22 PM (SY2Kh)

343 @331

Me to, a little Milton and some Hayek, throw in some Adam Smith and you got a couple on weeks reading.

Posted by: Billy Bob, pseudo intellectual at December 10, 2012 03:22 PM (wR+pz)

344 Well actually a NSX was a pretty hot car. Unfortunately anyone over 5'10" couldn't get in one.


Posted by: Billy Bob, pseudo intellectual at December 10, 2012 03:12 PM (wR+pz)

___________________
Same with the 2000. Nice car. Over 6' tall? You can't fit in it.

Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at December 10, 2012 03:22 PM (HDgX3)

345
and the Holy Bible

and at least one book by CS Lewis

Posted by: Soothsayer at December 10, 2012 03:22 PM (ptD6d)

346
At the beginning [my career] was hard. People were like, 'Who is this Mexican jumping bean?'
---------------------------------------
Hayak, 1998

Posted by: Truck Monkey at December 10, 2012 03:22 PM (jucos)

347 "try Adkins"

That's an interesting step on your way to becoming smarter.

It's "Atkins," with a "t."

Posted by: Spelling pedant at December 10, 2012 03:23 PM (GsoHv)

348 My son is interested in economics (and has decided on a business degree, but it's early days yet.)

Economic departments tend to be more conservative than other areas of college but I don't know about our local schools. If I got him one book that he'd be likely to read that would seem not to be conservative political flogging and so worthy of being ignored... what should it be?

Posted by: Synova at December 10, 2012 03:23 PM (7/PU+)

349 I think we make a mistake taking Scarborough seriously. He's trying to impress Mika so she'll blow him.

Posted by: Golan Globus at December 10, 2012 03:23 PM (7vSU0)

350 Also: "Your Teacher Said What?" Which is a more "populist" approach to the ground covered by Thomas Sowell's Basic Economics.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) Channelling Breitbart at December 10, 2012 03:23 PM (5DR1j)

351 That's what I'm saying. He's obviously not that
intelligent, but he's managed to realize that he can use the media to
make himself the smartest President Ever. That has to count for
something.

Posted by: Big T Party at December 10, 2012 03:05 PM (WiQr+)




I don't think he had to use the MFM. The gladly lied for him without him even asking

Posted by: TheQuietMan at December 10, 2012 03:23 PM (1Jaio)

352 >>>ten most important books?

1. Holy Bible
2. Illiad
3. Politics
4. Ethics
5. Two Treatises of Government.
6. The Wealth of Nations
7. The Federalist Papers
8. The Art of War
9. Principia
10. 1984

Posted by: MikeTheMoose is Shrugging at December 10, 2012 03:23 PM (0q2P7)

353 The fundamental absurdity of their "perfect" state was enough to show that #1 sophists were dangerous and needed to be resisted; and (2) perfecting a state was impossible.
Posted by: imp at December 10, 2012 03:19 PM (UaxA0)
And lets not forget, Plato was jailed and sold into slavery by the young prince he was to tutor.

Posted by: Jollyroger at December 10, 2012 03:24 PM (t06LC)

354 The left regularly mistakes theirnarcissism for intellectualism.

Posted by: polynikes at December 10, 2012 03:24 PM (m2CN7)

355 Crap, Ace wants us to stop being morons. I've come too far now to go back.

Posted by: JDTAY at December 10, 2012 03:24 PM (a0nis)

356
Animal Farm, perhaps.

But Starship Troopers??

What the hell you gonna learn from that?

Posted by: Soothsayer at December 10, 2012 03:24 PM (ptD6d)

357 I read a lot of Milton Bradley.

Posted by: Joe Biden at December 10, 2012 03:25 PM (Lxw+T)

358


I would like to see more conservative apologetics coming out
of academia. I know it's a common trope to claim that conservatives aren't
scholars, but we really exist. Of course, we can't come out of the closet until
we get tenure, but...


Posted by: LB at December 10, 2012 03:25 PM (CSLof)

359 I don't think he had to use the MFM. The gladly lied for him without him even asking

Which makes it entertaining that the NYT over the weekend ramped up the "Hillary is inevitable in 2016, so the Republicans shouldn't even bother" campaign.

Posted by: Ian S. at December 10, 2012 03:25 PM (B/VB5)

360 No, that's just to have a functioning intellect. 'Intellectualism' has nothing to do with intellect, and everything to do with public demonstrations of being able to give proper responses and conclusions.

Which is what I refer to as intelligence - the ability to apply and express accumulated knowledge to the outside world, rather than solely within your own head. It requires a great deal of intellectualism, because you have to understand what you're talking about, but in my opinion they are not the same thing.

But we're agreed on the salient points -- namely, whatever qualifies an intellectual as intellectual, most leftist "intellectuals" do not have it.

Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Hobbit at December 10, 2012 03:25 PM (4df7R)

361 312 Plato was the Mother of all Totalitarian faux-intellectual commie-lib assholes

Plato was one of the first guys to point out that pederasty was wrong.

Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at December 10, 2012 03:26 PM (5PkZK)

362 "...true intellectuals wear tweed jackets with suede patches on the elbows, or at the very least a sweater. And they smoke a pipe."

I've got a tweed jacket with patches on the elbows - and I've been thinking about getting a pipe.

This intellectual shit is going to be a piece of cake.

Posted by: jwest at December 10, 2012 03:26 PM (ZDsRL)

363 Billy Bob - since I'm a car nerd, here's my take on the NSX.
.
It just didn't stand out in its market, like the rest of the Hondas. It wasn't the fastest, the best handling, the most exclisive, the prettiest, the cheapest, or the anything.
.
They hoped to sell an exotic car based on their racing heritage, which only F1 nerds who don't buy exotic cars knew about. It was a very well-engineered market failure.
.
Super exotics sell because they're monsters or exclusive. Exotics sell because they're sexy. Sportscars sell because they're accessible and fun. The NSX just didn't fit anywhere.

Posted by: Merovign, Dark Lord of the Sith's mobile at December 10, 2012 03:26 PM (SUuEM)

364 If I got him one book that he'd be likely to read that would seem not
to be conservative political flogging and so worthy of being ignored...
what should it be?


I think there are several economics departments that use both Road to Serfdom and Basic Economics as actual textbooks. If the college he's in doesn't, he can probably get away with them.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) Channelling Breitbart at December 10, 2012 03:26 PM (5DR1j)

365 @352

I agree with @356, animal house should be in there somewhere. Aesop's fables?

Posted by: Billy Bob, pseudo intellectual at December 10, 2012 03:26 PM (wR+pz)

366
"A bolt doesn't drop into a hole as planned."

All three are intellectuals. They all aplied reason to the problem and all solved it. The mechanic, however, and he may have the lowest intelligence, has the greatest real life experience thus solves the problem with Occums razor(hammer).

Posted by: Sophistahick at December 10, 2012 03:26 PM (UhXzR)

367 Ace: "And this faux intellectualism, this faux sophistication, generally takes
the guise of a faux thoughtfulness -- see Bob Costas -- or pettifogging
sophistry."


If one exudes "faux intellectualism" by interjecting, reflexively, "faux," one is not an intellectual. See MFM news/opinion presenters. If one says "pettifogging
sophistry," one is an intellectual. Or owns a thesaurus.

I'm of the knuckle-dragger sort and damn proud of it. I also own a thesaurus but never use it. It's beneath too much porn, comic books art and reich-wing propaganda literature to bother.

But well stated. Ace. And, as Wendy Testaburger would say, "F*ck Bob Costas. F*ck him right in the ear. And Joe Scarborough, too."

Posted by: AnonymousDrivel at December 10, 2012 03:27 PM (eHIJJ)

368 >>>
That's an interesting step on your way to becoming smarter.

>>>It's "Atkins," with a "t."

I meant the actor Claude Adkins. Or Chet Adkins. Whichever.

Posted by: ace at December 10, 2012 03:27 PM (LCRYB)

369 Scarborough-is surrounded by Northeast liberals--their big secret is while pretending to be intellectuals--Liberals, and Democrats appeal to the masses on purely emotional levels.

It's their Secret to Success.

Fear- Republicans taking away grandma's Social Security, etc.

Resentment.

Hate.

Scapegoating.

Boom--they win--all while pretending to be the intellectuals. They are the 'cultural elite" because they've dominated Hollywood, and the media in the Information Age. Via those two roads they have degraded all other sources of authority either through belittlement or the ''In Crowd", " Kool Kidz" methodology.

Posted by: tasker at December 10, 2012 03:27 PM (r2PLg)

370 Economic departments tend to be more conservative than other areas of college but I don't know about our local schools. If I got him one book that he'd be likely to read that would seem not to be conservative political flogging and so worthy of being ignored... what should it be?
Posted by: Synova at December 10, 2012 03:23 PM (7/PU+)

Correct. From where I went and from my economics classes, I honestly thought Keynesianism was dead. Under Keynes theory, stagflation should be impossible, yet we have the 70s. The Laffer curve was also pushed pretty hard. I had no idea people still thought that might work (until it didn't, and maybe still do) with the stimulus.

Posted by: Jollyroger at December 10, 2012 03:27 PM (t06LC)

371 Just Bing'd Mika....she's just not hot...sorry.

Posted by: © Sponge at December 10, 2012 03:27 PM (UK9cE)

372 This intellectual shit is going to be a piece of cake.

Posted by: jwest at December 10, 2012 03:26 PM (ZDsRL)

He left out the part about having to suck the department head's dick.

Posted by: Barney at December 10, 2012 03:27 PM (wR+pz)

373 I'm a big fan.

Posted by: ace at December 10, 2012 03:27 PM (LCRYB)

374 348
My son is interested in economics (and has decided on a business degree, but it's early days yet.)



Economic departments tend to be more conservative than other areas
of college but I don't know about our local schools. If I got him one
book that he'd be likely to read that would seem not to be conservative
political flogging and so worthy of being ignored... what should it be?

Posted by: Synova at December 10, 2012 03:23 PM (7/PU+)

___________________________________________________
Don't confuse an economics degree with a business degree. While they have some overlap, they are by no means the same thing. Economics is theory and lots of math. Business is accounting and easy shit like that.(guess which major I have? )

Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at December 10, 2012 03:27 PM (HDgX3)

375 I drink to much to be an intellectual.

Posted by: Adam at December 10, 2012 03:27 PM (/YJYi)

376 So, yeah, I get what you are saying. Sort of a whole anime meets Fellini thing, yeah?

/lifemanship

Posted by: Golan Globus at December 10, 2012 03:28 PM (7vSU0)

377 If my library were nothing but the collected issues of Dr. Strange I would still be more intellectual than Joe Scarborough.

Posted by: George Orwell what knows being American means free rubbers and gun control at December 10, 2012 03:28 PM (Lxw+T)

378 I like William F. BuckleyAND dick jokes.

Buckley told great dick jokes once you got a scotch or two in him.

Posted by: dick cheese at December 10, 2012 03:28 PM (QupBk)

379 What the hell you gonna learn from that?

Have you actually read the book?

"People are not potatoes."
"The vote is pure, naked force."

I have a friend who says he won't talk to you about comparative religion until you've read The Moon is a Harsh Mistress (I think that's the one) and he won't talk politics with you until you've read Starship Troopers.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) Channelling Breitbart at December 10, 2012 03:28 PM (5DR1j)

380 I drink to much to be an intellectual.

I there see you did what.

Posted by: George Orwell what knows being American means free rubbers and gun control at December 10, 2012 03:29 PM (Lxw+T)

381 I wouldn't consider myself an intellectual simply because most that do are dicks and I just don't want to be associated with a bunch a dicks.

Posted by: © Sponge at December 10, 2012 03:29 PM (UK9cE)

382 Economic departments tend to be more conservative
than other areas of college but I don't know about our local schools. . . .

Posted by: Synova at December 10, 2012 03:23 PM (7/PU+)

----
Do your research on schools and their particular political bents of the department. The field of economics has been as influenced by the left as has Journalism or Poly - Sci.
Remember.... they actually gave Paul Krugman (PAUL EFFIN KRUGMAN!!!!!) a frickin Nobel in economics.....

Posted by: fixerupper at December 10, 2012 03:29 PM (nELVU)

383 BTW, my favorite econ profs were left wingers. But they were lefties who gave both sides of the story and afterwards said I prefer this side. I had some great debates with them in class.

Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at December 10, 2012 03:29 PM (HDgX3)

384 Ace: "And this faux intellectualism, this faux sophistication, generally takes the guise of a faux thoughtfulness -- see Bob Costas -- or pettifogging sophistry."

Thanks for reminding me of "pettifogging". I'm stealing that word and using it to secure my place in the intellectual hall of fame.

Posted by: jwest at December 10, 2012 03:30 PM (ZDsRL)

385 Do I have to attend college to become an intellectual? I'm kinda actively boycotting that right now. An Associate's of Applied Science is as far as I'm willing to go, I won't put up with Gen Ed crap.

Posted by: JDTAY at December 10, 2012 03:30 PM (a0nis)

386 I want to point out to him he's not qualified to agree. He hasn't the
basic level of knowledge to agree, disagree, or offer any sort of
criticism or support either way.


This why global warming fanbois are actually engaging in faith based belief systems.

I had the skilz to actually examine the code for a number of climate models for which the code was available. My professional conclusion as a skilled programmer familiar with computational numerical methods was that the models were coded such that their results would be crap and untrustworthy no matter what the integrity of their "paper" designs were.

Without a faithful and accurate embodiment of theory into code, the theory can be neither proven nor dis-proven by the results of sketchily implemented models.

Posted by: @PurpAv at December 10, 2012 03:30 PM (cHr8a)

387
I saw the movie.

And the boobies.

Posted by: Soothsayer at December 10, 2012 03:30 PM (ptD6d)

388
Economic departments tend to be more conservative than other areas

of college but I don't know about our local schools. If I got him one

book that he'd be likely to read that would seem not to be conservative

political flogging and so worthy of being ignored... what should it be?



Posted by: Synova at December 10, 2012 03:23 PM (7/PU+)



Thomas Sowell writes economics books. I'd start there.

Posted by: Tami at December 10, 2012 03:30 PM (X6akg)

389 I am convinced that if you read the WSJ everyday you would know more about economics that 98% of the country.

It is not as good as it was before News Corp bought it, but it is still good.

Posted by: Billy Bob, pseudo intellectual at December 10, 2012 03:30 PM (wR+pz)

390 Since when is Selma Hayak considered intellectual? I've been poring over her quotes and can find nothing of great import.

Posted by: Truck Monkey at December 10, 2012 03:30 PM (jucos)

391 “A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.” Robert A. Heinlen

Posted by: rickb223 Let. It. Burn. at December 10, 2012 03:30 PM (GFM2b)

392 Posted by: Synova at December 10, 2012 03:23 PM (7/PU+)

Anything written by Thomas Sowell will be intellectually rigorous.

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at December 10, 2012 03:31 PM (GsoHv)

393 The ironic thing about all of this is that we conservatives are knuckle -dragging idiots and yet is the progressives who make up their own facts and ignore anything that doesn't fit in the progressive world view. For example, is there any progressive solution to the exploding debt? All I can think of is more taxes and then more taxes again.

Posted by: WalrusRex at December 10, 2012 03:31 PM (XUKZU)

394 Now, CNN's Erin Burnett is quite the hottie.....

Posted by: © Sponge at December 10, 2012 03:31 PM (UK9cE)

395 312 Plato was the Mother of all Totalitarian faux-intellectual commie-lib assholesTo be fair, you have to put him within context. The liberalism seen in the enlightenment hadn't been developed yet. For his time, Plato was quite liberal (in the good classical sense) and without the foundation provided by he and Aristotle, the enlightenment never would have happened.
He advocated Sparta like states which were more based on democracy than the pure totalitarian states that were teh norm.

Posted by: Jollyroger at December 10, 2012 03:31 PM (t06LC)

396 And the boobies.

Yeah... the movie doesn't even have all of the same characters as the book. In the book, Dizzy is a guy, and he dies in the first chapter.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) Channelling Breitbart at December 10, 2012 03:31 PM (5DR1j)

397 381
I wouldn't consider myself an intellectual simply because most that do
are dicks and I just don't want to be associated with a bunch a dicks.


Oh, contraire!!

Posted by: Bawney Fwank at December 10, 2012 03:31 PM (j2McS)

398 Do I have to attend college to become an intellectual? I'm kinda actively boycotting that right now. An Associate's of Applied Science is as far as I'm willing to go, I won't put up with Gen Ed crap.
Posted by: JDTAY at December 10, 2012 03:30 PM (a0nis)


No college degree necessary. Intellectualize away!

Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Hobbit at December 10, 2012 03:32 PM (4df7R)

399 Anything written by Thomas Sowell will be intellectually rigorous.

And yet perfectly clear. The mark of a true intellectual.

Posted by: dick cheese at December 10, 2012 03:32 PM (QupBk)

400 @390

It was recently discovered that her rack is 90% gray matter. Scientists are estimating her IQ at 230.

Posted by: JDTAY at December 10, 2012 03:32 PM (a0nis)

401
good call on the Federalist Papers, btw

Posted by: Soothsayer at December 10, 2012 03:32 PM (ptD6d)

402 I drink therefore I am.

Posted by: dick cheese at December 10, 2012 03:32 PM (QupBk)

403 390 Since when is Selma Hayak considered intellectual? I've been poring over her quotes and can find nothing of great import.
Posted by: Truck Monkey at December 10, 2012 03:30 PM (jucos)

Tits.

Posted by: Jollyroger at December 10, 2012 03:32 PM (t06LC)

404 Posted by: Truck Monkey at December 10, 2012 03:30 PM (jucos)

Try this one.

http://tinyurl.com/bqkwf6f

NSFW (sort of)

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at December 10, 2012 03:33 PM (GsoHv)

405 379
Starship Troopers is something I really need to read. Problem is, everywhere I have looked its been really expensive.

Posted by: Big T Party at December 10, 2012 03:33 PM (WiQr+)

406 No college degree necessary. Intellectualize away!

I do.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) Channelling Breitbart at December 10, 2012 03:33 PM (5DR1j)

407 Posted by: MikeTheMoose is Shrugging at December 10, 2012 03:23 PM (0q2P7)

I like your list except for the Illiad. Its the oldest of Western literature and definitely reads that way to me. I like my Greek tales though and would substitute a modern day novel , Tides of War.In my opinion, which counts for nothing, it is one of the most underrated books today for it combination of history and how it captures that history is doomed to be repeated.

Posted by: polynikes at December 10, 2012 03:33 PM (m2CN7)

408 BTW -- I only read the movie reviews.

Posted by: eleven at December 10, 2012 03:34 PM (KXm42)

409 My professional conclusion as a skilled programmer familiar with computational numerical methods was that the models were coded such that their results would be crap and untrustworthy no matter what the integrity of their "paper" designs were.

It'd be funny to pull out some of the boners from the various models and submit to The Daily WTF, only to spring later on that the techno-socialists who frequent the site were actually making fun of the basis of one of their most cherished beliefs.

Posted by: Ian S. at December 10, 2012 03:34 PM (B/VB5)

410
Have to concur with Toby: Sowell's writing is crisp and clean.


Posted by: Soothsayer at December 10, 2012 03:34 PM (ptD6d)

411 Ace's spelling and typos are part of his Lowbrow disguise. Peeple realy think this is worth postting a out?

Posted by: L, elle at December 10, 2012 03:34 PM (0PiQ4)

412 Which one are you objecting to?
Posted by: Golan Globus at December 10, 2012 03:22 PM (7vSU0)



Pointing it out.

Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD. Now with bacon cheddar fries. at December 10, 2012 03:35 PM (VtjlW)

413 Starship Troopers is something I really need to read. Problem is, everywhere I have looked its been really expensive.

Do you have a Half Price Books near you? They frequently have copies.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) Channelling Breitbart at December 10, 2012 03:35 PM (5DR1j)

414 They hate faux intellectualism

I gave up my subscription to TIME after articles with these headlines appeared in one issue:

"Boris' Bofo Trip" (example of lazy political intellectualism)

"The $5.3 Billion Gizmo" (example of anti-science intellectualism)

Posted by: Hannibal Lecter, M.D. at December 10, 2012 03:35 PM (e8kgV)

415 Don't confuse an economics degree with a business degree. While they have some overlap, they are by no means the same thing. Economics is theory and lots of math. Business is accounting and easy shit like that.(guess which major I have? )
Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at December 10, 2012 03:27 PM (HDgX3)

True, but as a business major, I had to have about six classes in micro and macro economics. There is a lot of overlap.

Posted by: Jollyroger at December 10, 2012 03:35 PM (t06LC)

416 I think what you are looking for is-

a Republican Candidate with--

Emotional IQ.

Charisma.

I don't think Adlai, Goldwater or Romney really had that.

Posted by: tasker at December 10, 2012 03:35 PM (r2PLg)

417 390
Since when is Selma Hayak considered intellectual? I've been poring over her quotes and can find nothing of great import.

Posted by: Truck Monkey at December 10, 2012 03:30 PM (jucos)

Never, but her relative, the one that speaks Austrian is.
http://tinyurl.com/d9nw7

Posted by: Billy Bob, pseudo intellectual at December 10, 2012 03:35 PM (wR+pz)

418 Starship Troopers is something I really need to read. Problem is, everywhere I have looked its been really expensive.

If you have any used bookstores in your area, check them out. Something like Starship Troopers would likely be in stock.

And there's always the local library if you've got one nearby.

Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Hobbit at December 10, 2012 03:35 PM (4df7R)

419 "You know, if one just read everything written by Milton Friedman and Thomas Sowell, one
would be well on the way to becoming a intellectual with a deep
understanding of the human condition."

I want to move to the alternate timeline where Sowell was the first black POTUS and Friedman was his economics "czar" (if you can describe "leaving things the hell alone" as a czar-like activity).

Posted by: Pope Pol Pot at December 10, 2012 03:36 PM (OqWMe)

420 So I don't look like a nerd when reading, I usually hide my copy of Sowell's "Basic Economics" in a copy of Penthouse.

Posted by: George Orwell what knows being American means free rubbers and gun control at December 10, 2012 03:36 PM (Lxw+T)

421 Maybe it would be a good idea to reclaim intellectualism for the actual intellectuals. I guess maybe that's why I'm writing this.

That's why I defend George Will when he's mocked by conservatives because he said he doesn't like blue jeans, or something. The dude makes the intellectual argument for conservatism, consistently.

Posted by: CJ at December 10, 2012 03:37 PM (9KqcB)

422 Now, CNN's Erin Burnett is quite the hottie.....

Posted by: © Sponge at December 10, 2012 03:31 PM (UK9cE)

Well, sure, if all you're considering is sex. Mika offers that extra something you get from knowing what an insufferable liberal she is. It's more a social statement than anything else.

Posted by: jwest at December 10, 2012 03:37 PM (ZDsRL)

423 One reason why the Dems have been more successful is that while they cloak themselves in the intellectual/scientific basis for their policies, they are very careful to describe them only with platitudes, generalities, and references to other authorities.

Republicans tend (and yes, this is a huge generalization) to try to explain in more detail, which bogs down the discussion and turns off the voters.

Reagan was brilliant at taking fairly complex issues and distilling them -- sort of like an uncommon common man would!

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at December 10, 2012 03:37 PM (GsoHv)

424 #390 - You're doing it wrong. Her quotes aren't what you should be staring at.

Posted by: sans_sheriff at December 10, 2012 03:37 PM (OQHM+)

425 Speaking of intellectuals, anyone remember the Sen from CA that wrote this! How he got elected in CA is another question.




http://tinyurl.com/6p88pp


Posted by: Billy Bob, pseudo intellectual at December 10, 2012 03:38 PM (wR+pz)

426 Posted by: jwest at December 10, 2012 03:37 PM (ZDsRL)

A bottle of good whiskey and a ball gag is all I would need to have a nice 30 minutes with Mika.

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at December 10, 2012 03:38 PM (GsoHv)

427 Liberals almost by definition are opposed to clarity of thought. It's all smoke and hand waving.

Posted by: dick cheese at December 10, 2012 03:38 PM (QupBk)

428 Sen from CA.


http://tinyurl.com/b9ojv



Posted by: Billy Bob, pseudo intellectual at December 10, 2012 03:39 PM (wR+pz)

429 >>>He advocated Sparta like states which were more based on democracy than the pure totalitarian states that were teh norm

Plato's process was valuable, his theories and conclusions on the other hand were terrible. The coordinated government run human breeding program was a nice touch to cement the idea of total supremacy of the state over the individual.

Posted by: MikeTheMoose is Shrugging at December 10, 2012 03:40 PM (0q2P7)

430 I still fucking laugh at this leftist that tried to sound intellectual.....when he told me he read "Aunt Frank"


Posted by: Berserker at December 10, 2012 03:40 PM (FMbng)

431 Brains of Friedrich, looks of Salma: works for me.

ATW, Salma majored in International Relations, and is a staunch advocate of breastfeeding. I'm on board with both of those activities, too, as long as she's involved.

Posted by: Pope Pol Pot at December 10, 2012 03:40 PM (OqWMe)

432
After 29 paragraphs we get...

"Continue Reading"

Well played, sir. Well Played.

Posted by: Comrade Arthur at December 10, 2012 03:41 PM (IH2b5)

433 "when he told me he read "Aunt Frank"

Suggest that he read "Lame is Rob" next.

Posted by: Pope Pol Pot at December 10, 2012 03:41 PM (OqWMe)

434 After reading The Civil Society, I wouldn't consider Mark Levin to be a pop intellectual. That guy is the real deal.

Posted by: Warden at December 10, 2012 03:41 PM (HzhBE)

435 Conservative intellectuals have to keep their mouths shut when the very vocal and fairly large contingent of Creationists start spewing their idiotic crap about the world being 6,000 yrs old and that dinosaurs and Moses occupied the same time.

Ace - Until we can cut these people loose as nutjobs, we are fucking doomed. No intellectualism will ever take hold in the Republican Party while we have to pander to these fools.. and that goes for the Akin's and Mourdock's.

Posted by: Chi-Town Jerry at December 10, 2012 03:42 PM (UTq/I)

436 Shit, it's called Liberty and Tyranny. Anyway, Levin is one smart SOB.

Posted by: Warden at December 10, 2012 03:42 PM (HzhBE)

437 Posted by: Big T Party at December 10, 2012 03:33 PM (WiQr+)

http://tinyurl.com/cule9at

Is 99˘ too expensive?

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at December 10, 2012 03:42 PM (GsoHv)

438 "when he told me he read "Aunt Frank"



Suggest that he read "Lame is Rob" next.

---

One of my favorites is Uncle Tom's Carbine.

Posted by: WalrusRex at December 10, 2012 03:42 PM (XUKZU)

439 Sure, I'll go with "Conservatives need to be more intellectual."

That is, I'll go with it if we can agree that liberals need to be smarter and less trusting of what their betters tell them.

My new bumper sticker is "Dont drink the kool-aid" (with apologies to the residents of Jonestown and the Kraft Foods Group).

Posted by: MTF at December 10, 2012 03:43 PM (+GpbP)

440 Mika is letting herself go; she must be up 7 to 10 pounds over the past year. Her tits are flabby, just like my gut. I'd want her on her knees, in front of a mirror, reading Obama's speech where he called his grandma just another white person while I mount her from behind.

Not that I've thought about this much...or visualized it...

I feel a need for my mood stabilizing medicine.

Posted by: MoeRon at December 10, 2012 03:43 PM (yWDpP)

441 I still fucking laugh at this leftist that tried to sound intellectual.....when he told me he read "Aunt Frank"

He would love the thriller-mystery "The Autobiography of Helen Killer."

Posted by: George Orwell what knows being American means free rubbers and gun control at December 10, 2012 03:43 PM (Lxw+T)

442 It'd be funny to pull out some of the boners from the various models and submit to The Daily WTF

Comments akin to:

"I know this code wrong/simplistic, but I don't know how to fix it"

are pretty entertaining. Or:

"Joe was supposed to give me the real correction matrix, but never did, so I'll just make some shit up for now, and we'll fix it in a later release"

In terms of code quality, 90% of what I examined was 2nd year programming project quality. Little/no data sanity checking, no overflow/underflow/denormal/Nan/Infinity checking. It all relied on compiler defaults, which are NOT what you want for that kind of work. No alternating round up/down correction for series eval or between multiple generations of the model.

It was amateur stuff that, assuming their large design was OK, needed a serious scrubbing by a computational math guy. Error propagation is a big deal in cyclical things like models.

Posted by: @PurpAv at December 10, 2012 03:43 PM (cHr8a)

443 "Conservative intellectuals have to keep their mouths shut when the very
vocal and fairly large contingent of Creationists start spewing their
idiotic crap about the world being 6,000 yrs old and that dinosaurs and
Moses occupied the same time."

===============

Yeah! That's what's been holding us back! Social cons!

(Well, at least it took 435 posts before we go to this asinine point again).

Posted by: Kensington at December 10, 2012 03:44 PM (H84UO)

444 Conservative intellectuals have to keep their mouths shut when the very
vocal and fairly large contingent of Creationists start spewing their
idiotic crap about the world being 6,000 yrs old and that dinosaurs and
Moses occupied the same time.

---

less than 1% = "fairly large contingent"


NOT very intellectual.


Dude..... its been way more than four hours. Get that thing checked.

Posted by: fixerupper at December 10, 2012 03:44 PM (nELVU)

445 Looks like ace's Ritalin is wearing off, either that or he's writing another novelette even as we type.

Posted by: Billy Bob, pseudo intellectual at December 10, 2012 03:44 PM (wR+pz)

446 "very vocal and fairly large contingent of Creationists start spewing their idiotic crap about the world being 6,000 yrs old and that dinosaurs and Moses occupied the same time."

They need to STFU, for sure. They need to be cut loose like Buckley cut loose the Birchers way back when.

Posted by: Pope Pol Pot at December 10, 2012 03:44 PM (OqWMe)

447 431
A candidate we could all get behind!

Posted by: Big T Party at December 10, 2012 03:44 PM (WiQr+)

448 436 Shit, it's called Liberty and Tyranny. Anyway, Levin is one smart SOB.
Posted by: Warden at December 10, 2012 03:42 PM (HzhBE)


__________________

I question his auditory IQ because he packages his message in a voice that sounds like--

Kermit getting stuffed with a red hot poker.

Posted by: tasker at December 10, 2012 03:44 PM (r2PLg)

449 >>>Its the oldest of Western literature and definitely reads that way to
me. I like my Greek tales though and would substitute a modern day novel
, Tides of War.

Not to discount the value of new texts on the same subject. The Illiad was written when ideas about society were young, that is why it becomes valuable. Homer couldn't cloud his story with all the modern trappings of philosophy and history because they didn't exist yet.

Posted by: MikeTheMoose is Shrugging at December 10, 2012 03:44 PM (0q2P7)

450 Two points:

1. The tendency to oppose intellectualism and create an anti-intellectual strain of thought (or of political action) is rooted in the suspicion that the intellectual is too quick to think in abstractions when there are perfectly good physical objects at the ready. In other words, the fear that the intellectual will make an idea out of a tractor is at the forefront of the anti-intellectual strain of America. The tractor fails to start. The intellectual says "It might be the starter. I've heard that these models have trouble with the starters." The practical man takes action and, while he might not fix the problem instantly, is more likely to do so merely for having taken action. We all understand this at a very basic level. We all know what the bullshitter looks like (at least those of us who make it to adulthood and become practical men who have to learn how to act rather than merely how to think).

This is not something limited to the GOP. It's all over industrial and practical America. It's often called common sense, while the intellectual is derided as being book-smart but not street-smart.

Does it mean that the geek is never right about the starter? Of course not. That suggestion -- that idea -- might just win the day and be perfectly right. The rube who start tinkering without thinking can be just as stupid and valueless as the geek who thinks without acting. The situation dictates what is necessary, and a smart man knows when to think and knows when to act.

2. This fundamental mistrust of "the idea men" can be said to be at the heart of America's heartland, and a decent history of America -- in all four of its centuries -- could be written that centered on the tension between intellectuals and practical men. What matters at any given point in history is to understand how far the rubber band has stretched and how it is playing out in the specific issues that dominate the day. There are times in America's history when the public falls in love with the latest intellectual, while there are times in its history when the public becomes so deeply disgusted by them that it seeks to go over sharply to the other side. The rubber band snaps back, re-tenses, snaps back, etc.

But - and this is my closing and most important point - we cannot make the simplistic error of thinking of ideas as abstractions to be understood rationally and through thought. Ideas are also emotional and packaged with little yellow ribbons of fear, hope, and change. The idea of "fairness," when coupled with gay marriage, is not just a rational and structured thought that can be easily written down and put into bullet points. To think this way is to be another Adlai.

No. The idea that wins the day, rather, is angry, righteous, forceful, and it drives people -- those fucking Republicans...how dare they think that they can keep gays from getting married? That the idea is ambiguous and imprecise is no mark against the idea. It is, rather, a key reason that it is so successful.

Against the powerful and indefinable nebulousness of Barack Obama the GOP put up a polite hero and a walking pie chart.

Posted by: Fabio9000 at December 10, 2012 03:44 PM (tWsQp)

451 Ace, this is an excellent article. Your premises are exactly right and you've laid them out about as well as they can be laid out. I have thoroughly enjoyed the content today.

You didn't address this, though: will being more intellectual win us any elections?

My answer: No. We already have better ideas and more charismatic salesmen for those ideas. It gets us to 206 EVs and no more.

The way forward in winning elections is to demonize, demonize, demonize the left.

Furthermore, we need to level the playing field when it comes to election stealing. If we can get as good or better than the Democrats at it, then we can count on their support for serious reform and fair elections.

And before anybody starts bleeding from the crotch over the idea of stealing an election, I remind you that they are already being stolen and nobody will ever do anything about it until the current beneficiaries no longer benefit from doing it.

So. That's my contribution to the intellectualism debate. To be intellectual; I'm an intellectual and I enjoy it. But do it for its own sake as a virtue; do not expect it to be a panacaea for the culture or the country.

Posted by: Truman North at December 10, 2012 03:44 PM (I2LwF)

452 My new bumper sticker is "Dont drink the kool-aid" (with apologies to the residents of Jonestown and the Kraft Foods Group).

It was Flavor-Aid.

Conservative intellectuals have to keep their mouths shut when the very
vocal and fairly large contingent of Creationists start spewing their
idiotic crap about the world being 6,000 yrs old and that dinosaurs and
Moses occupied the same time.


I'll take "Gratuitous Straw Men" for $2000 Alex.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) Channelling Breitbart at December 10, 2012 03:44 PM (5DR1j)

453 "Yeah! That's what's been holding us back! Social cons!"

"Social con" is not synonymous with being a friggin' idiot.

Posted by: Pope Pol Pot at December 10, 2012 03:45 PM (OqWMe)

454
Plato's process was valuable, his theories and
conclusions on the other hand were terrible. The coordinated government
run human breeding program was a nice touch to cement the idea of total
supremacy of the state over the individual.


Posted by: MikeTheMoose is Shrugging at December 10, 2012 03:40 PM (0q2P7)

One can't merely separate Plato from the context in the time he lived. I don't think it was as entirely irrational in the context of greek society.But Greek society is dead, long live Greek Society! (Plus consider that he gave birth, figuratively, to Aristotle, whose work is much more palatable in modern times.

Posted by: tsrblke (work) at December 10, 2012 03:45 PM (b3IgE)

455 437
Thanks!

Posted by: Big T Party at December 10, 2012 03:45 PM (WiQr+)

456 ("If only more people watched my show (and coincidentally gave me higher ratings and higher status) we wouldn't be in this mess in the first place...")

That's Joe Scarborough, encapsulated within two sets of parentheses.

Posted by: Decaf at December 10, 2012 03:46 PM (f88gl)

457 One of my favorites is Uncle Tom's Carbine.


Posted by: WalrusRex at December 10, 2012 03:42 PM (XUKZU)


LOL!

Posted by: Billy Bob, pseudo intellectual at December 10, 2012 03:46 PM (wR+pz)

458 #435 What is that other than a purity test?

Or is it just that all purity tests are not created equal?

Democrats have just as many irrational nut-jobs and it doesn't seem to hurt them at all.

Posted by: Synova at December 10, 2012 03:46 PM (7/PU+)

459 A post this long and nothing about superhero movies?

This place is going all George Will on us.

Posted by: George Orwell what knows being American means free rubbers and gun control at December 10, 2012 03:46 PM (Lxw+T)

460 I live in the south and in a solid red state. Don't think I've ever met anyone who believes that Moses and the dinosaurs lived in harmony together. Where are these people?

Posted by: Adam at December 10, 2012 03:46 PM (/YJYi)

461 Intellectuals stop reading Plato's Republic the minute they read the word "Philosopher-King."

Posted by: The Poster Formerly Known as Mr. Barky at December 10, 2012 03:46 PM (qwK3S)

462 thank you allen

it was flavor aid

one of my pet peeves.......

Posted by: phoenixgirl at December 10, 2012 03:47 PM (GVxQo)

463 A bottle of good whiskey and a ball gag is all I would need to have a nice 30 minutes with Mika.

A full bottle? When you'd only have 28 minutes remaining to drink?

Posted by: Hollowpoint at December 10, 2012 03:47 PM (SY2Kh)

464 "I'll take "Gratuitous Straw Men" for $2000 Alex."
===============

Yup. Like the worst of the BDS sufferers, it's like some people just sit around waiting for the next chance to insert their moronic anti-social con rants anywhere they can.

Posted by: Kensington at December 10, 2012 03:48 PM (H84UO)

465 One of my favorites is Uncle Tom's Carbine.

Ever read "The Adventures of Huckleberry's Finn?" A lot of it takes place in Lapland.

Posted by: George Orwell what knows being American means free rubbers and gun control at December 10, 2012 03:48 PM (Lxw+T)

466 Don't think I've ever met anyone who believes that Moses and the dinosaurs lived in harmony together. Where are these people?

Eh. He's rolling.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) Channelling Breitbart at December 10, 2012 03:48 PM (5DR1j)

467 "Don't think I've ever met anyone who believes that Moses and the dinosaurs lived in harmony together. Where are these people?"

http://www.creationism.org/

Posted by: Pope Pol Pot at December 10, 2012 03:48 PM (OqWMe)

468 Where are these people?

Don't worry, we can find plenty of them.

Posted by: the msm at December 10, 2012 03:48 PM (ptD6d)

469 Where are these people?

Matt Damon's head.

Posted by: HeatherRadish™, drooling imbecile at December 10, 2012 03:48 PM (/kI1Q)

470 Posted by: Hollowpoint at December 10, 2012 03:47 PM (SY2Kh)

Nah.

I'd drink for the first 28 minutes while making sure that the ball gag was secure.

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at December 10, 2012 03:48 PM (GsoHv)

471 Intellectuals stop reading Plato's Republic the minute they read the word "Philosopher-King."

That's because masturbation is so distracting.

Posted by: George Orwell what knows being American means free rubbers and gun control at December 10, 2012 03:48 PM (Lxw+T)

472 Dungarees!

Posted by: George Will at December 10, 2012 03:49 PM (+flnv)

473 Next thing you know, ace will start a Bill Buckley thread with the pipe and accent.

You do know Buckley took Ritalin all his life, right? True.

Posted by: Billy Bob, pseudo intellectual at December 10, 2012 03:49 PM (wR+pz)

474 #458 - It is an intellectual purity test, most definitely. I have no problems with purity tests. We have tons of them already - conservative ratings, etc. etc.

In this case if you believe strongly in something that science refutes, and then further insist the GOP pander to your nonsensical beliefs, I say let them go.. cut 'em loose.

Posted by: Chi-Town Jerry at December 10, 2012 03:49 PM (UTq/I)

475 Yeah! That's what's been holding us back! Social cons!

(Well, at least it took 435 posts before we go to this asinine point again).


Posted by: Kensington at December 10, 2012 03:44 PM (H84UO)

__________________________
Totally. If only Todd Akin spoke more often Romney would have won 45 states.

Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at December 10, 2012 03:49 PM (HDgX3)

476 Krauthammer is the better intellectual when compared to George Will.

George Will cant' hide his contempt--Krauthammer packages it better which is why he will never be the Republican foil on a major network.

Posted by: tasker at December 10, 2012 03:50 PM (r2PLg)

477 460
I live in the south and in a solid red state. Don't think I've ever met
anyone who believes that Moses and the dinosaurs lived in harmony
together. Where are these people?


Posted by: Adam at December 10, 2012 03:46 PM (/YJYi)

There over here at the AME Zion Church for all peoples.

Posted by: The Black Preacher at December 10, 2012 03:50 PM (wR+pz)

478 "Uncle Tom's Carbine."


"Olive or Twist?"

Posted by: Pope Pol Pot at December 10, 2012 03:50 PM (OqWMe)

479 i see several references to thomas sowell but no one has mentioned his book, Intellectuals and Society. i haven't read the book, but i watched him discussing the book on youtube and it sounds like he makes many of the points ace is making. basically, the faux intellectuals ace describes love to develop intellectual ideas, but never want those ideas to be examined and scrutinized, just accepted. ideas like, having a minimum wage helps the poor.

Posted by: razor419 at December 10, 2012 03:51 PM (vNm4N)

480 "In this case if you believe strongly in something that science refutes,
and then further insist the GOP pander to your nonsensical beliefs, I
say let them go.. cut 'em loose."

===============

Best of luck with that. Just make sure that you grab two for everyone you cut loose!

Posted by: Kensington at December 10, 2012 03:51 PM (H84UO)

481 Footage of a baby walrus. Before the flame war breaks out.
http://is.gd/uVaAz4

Posted by: HeatherRadish™, drooling imbecile at December 10, 2012 03:51 PM (/kI1Q)

482 One reason why the Dems have been more successful is that while they cloak themselves in the intellectual/scientific basis for their policies, they are very careful to describe them only with platitudes, generalities, and references to other authorities.

I think this is a symptom of the left's anti-intellectual bent. Once upon a time the Democrat party really DID have a platform on which to stand. To make that platform understandable to the masses, they successfully refined those messages into simple talking points; the paint to pretty up the platform, if you will. But -- this is important -- the wood-and-nails of the metaphorical platform were always there, just beneath the surface.

Over time, as leftist policies began to eat away at the foundations of American life, it didn't spare the Democrat platform. In fact, that's where the rot began.Instead of fixing and rebuilding the increasingly pitted and spongy framework of their platform, the Dems chose instead to continue to paint over the problems. The New Deal extended the Great Depression? Slap a little more red, white and blue on there: "A chicken in every pot!" The Great Society plunged more people into poverty and destroyed the black family? Let's add some gold stars and a silver eagle. "Movin' on up to the East Side!" Obamacare is going to destroy healthcare in America as we know it? Fireworks! Big, splashy fireworks. "Republicans want you to shut up and die quickly!"

Over time, the intellectual underpinnings of what the Democratic party stood for were lost, replaced with empty sloganeering and vapid speechifying: all paint, no structure. Try to get a regressive to explain why we should raise the minimum wage and you'll get all kinds of emotional drivel about a "living wage." Ask them to explain how they'll account for the job losses and economic slowdown that accompany a minimum wage hike and they'll stand there gibbering with fury because they don't know. They have nowhere in their heads to address a very reasonable question. And don't even TRY to explain how minimum wage isn't meant to be a living wage; it's meant to be a starting point. By that point you've lost them to spittle-flecked proselytizing for Marxism writ large (though they only dimly realize that's what they're doing).

The Republicans have tried to hold on to their own platform, but the same rot that overtook the Dems is beginning to overtake the 'pubbies, too. The only thing that's kept it at bay this long is the distance between the two.

Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Hobbit at December 10, 2012 03:51 PM (4df7R)

483 @454
I think that is my point. Plato was on the avant garde of western civilization. It is an error to read his work with an eye on the proper role of the state because in large part it hadn't been developed yet. Plato lived near the birth of the state, and to such a person, almost any avenue looked better than anarchy.

Posted by: Jollyroger at December 10, 2012 03:51 PM (t06LC)

484 Don't worry, we can find plenty of them.


Posted by: the msm at December 10, 2012 03:48 PM (ptD6d)


Yeah, that's the biggest problem.


Posted by: Adam at December 10, 2012 03:51 PM (/YJYi)

485 faux intellectuals = filthy Yalies

Posted by: Fritz at December 10, 2012 03:51 PM (/ZZCn)

486 "War And Peas"

Posted by: EC at December 10, 2012 03:51 PM (doBIb)

487 My daughter was watching a show about Dinosaurs yesterday. She asked me Daddy, did dinosaurs eat people? I chuckled and said, no dinosaurs lived a long time ago before people lived. She said, ahhh OK. She's 4. She understands how the world works better than adult so-cons.

Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at December 10, 2012 03:52 PM (HDgX3)

488 Does Moses riding a dinosaur effect government policy?

Posted by: dick cheese at December 10, 2012 03:52 PM (QupBk)

489 Posted by: Chi-Town Jerry at December 10, 2012 03:42 PM (UTq/I)

Move out of Chicago.

You are so fucking insular and brainwashed it's unbelievable.

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at December 10, 2012 03:52 PM (GsoHv)

490 "Totally. If only Todd Akin spoke more often Romney would have won 45 states."
===============

Right! Because no one represents creationists or social conservatives better than Todd Akin! They're all just like him!

Posted by: Kensington at December 10, 2012 03:52 PM (H84UO)

491 It was amateur stuff that, assuming their large design was OK, needed a serious scrubbing by a computational math guy.

I can't assume the design is Ok when the largest variable of them all, the sun, is ignored. Sorta like writing a payroll system without "Hourly_Rate_Of_Pay".

Posted by: Schrödinger's cat at December 10, 2012 03:52 PM (feFL6)

492 The true intellectual can invent and/or explain the difficult such that an idiot finds it simple.

Now that is the mark of genius. However the presentation, if one can do that - winnow the complex into comprehensible form for the ignorant - then you have truly mastered something. Is that pop-intellectualism? I can't say that it is. You need some sort of context to frame such an assessment, IOW some body of work that proves you're able and can simplify an outcome. Opinion, for example, w/o context (or more pointedly, w/o biographical data of the speaker) is mere rhetoric valueless in and of itself.

Posted by: AnonymousDrivel at December 10, 2012 03:52 PM (eHIJJ)

493 Footage of a baby walrus. Before the flame war breaks out.
http://is.gd/uVaAz4


Dammit, I stopped to watch that and now I have to re-light my flamethrower.

Posted by: Blanco Basura at December 10, 2012 03:52 PM (xKC/c)

494 I hate the racism of faux intellectualism.

Bill Maher pretending the Cornel West is even moderately intellegent is offensive.

Posted by: jwest at December 10, 2012 03:52 PM (ZDsRL)

495 Until we can cut these people loose as nutjobs, we are fucking doomed. No intellectualism will ever take hold in the Republican Party while we have to pander to these fools.. and that goes for the Akin's and Mourdock's.
Posted by: Chi-Town Jerry at December 10, 2012 03:42 PM (UTq/I)

Do the Dems have to cut loose any of their "nutjobs"? Nah. Don't make the rules harder for the good side than the bad side. Just maybe be more careful in vetting candidates.

Posted by: CJ at December 10, 2012 03:52 PM (9KqcB)

496 "Olive or Twist?"





Posted by: Pope Pol Pot at December 10, 2012 03:50 PM (OqWMe)

Stop it your killing me. Shaken, not stirred.

Posted by: Billy Bob, pseudo intellectual at December 10, 2012 03:53 PM (wR+pz)

497 Dude..... its been way more than four hours. Get that thing checked.


Posted by: fixerupper
.........
You apparently haven't been paying attention. The religious right is very vocal. And, even if a small contingent of the GOP, they get all the press. Conservatives are held to this standard and these people are put up as representing conservatives all the time. If you haven't seen it, you ain't been paying attention.

Posted by: Chi-Town Jerry at December 10, 2012 03:53 PM (UTq/I)

498 I thought The Road to Surfdom was a Gidget movie.

Posted by: Cicero (@cicero) at December 10, 2012 03:53 PM (QKKT0)

499 @454

I think that is my point. Plato was on the avant garde of western
civilization. It is an error to read his work with an eye on the proper
role of the state because in large part it hadn't been developed yet.
Plato lived near the birth of the state, and to such a person, almost
any avenue looked better than anarchy.

Posted by: Jollyroger at December 10, 2012 03:51 PM (t06LC)

Indeed. Although somewhat ironically his views on pure democracy (i.e. that it becomes mob rule) are starting to look pretty psychic.....

Posted by: tsrblke (work) at December 10, 2012 03:53 PM (b3IgE)

500 I'm an anti-anti-so-con-douche.

Posted by: dick cheese at December 10, 2012 03:54 PM (QupBk)

501 "Footage of a baby walrus. Before the flame war breaks out.
http://is.gd/uVaAz4"

===============

What a charmer!

The baby walrus is cute, too!

Posted by: Kensington at December 10, 2012 03:54 PM (H84UO)

502 and for those who haven't been paying attention:

Yesterday, Kentucky Governor Steve Beshear announced
that his state’s Creationism Museum will soon be joined by a creationism
theme park named “Ark Encounter,” making Kentucky the unofficial
creationism capital of our 6,000-year-old world. Some of the
“edutainment” promised by the park include a Walled City, a Tower of
Babel, and a “500-foot-long wooden replica of Noah’s Ark” that, as was
revealed in the press conference, will feature dinosaurs.


http://tinyurl.com/23uy384

Posted by: Chi-Town Jerry at December 10, 2012 03:55 PM (UTq/I)

503 Fear and envy are the bases for anti intellectualism. People fear things they do not understand. They are envious of those who are more intellectually gifted.

The essence of all of our problems can be boiled down to the depravities of human nature. The seven deadly sins, in one way or another, motivate all of us.



Posted by: MoeRon at December 10, 2012 03:55 PM (yWDpP)

504 As much as I would like to ditch so-cons, they make up at least 80% of our vote. Compare the number of people who attend church with the number of people who have read Sowell.

Posted by: JDTAY at December 10, 2012 03:55 PM (a0nis)

505 Posted by: Billy Bob, pseudo intellectual at December 10, 2012 03:49 PM (wR+pz)

Only to calm down after running away from dinosaurs. You know they used to be a menace in Connecticut.


Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at December 10, 2012 03:56 PM (GsoHv)

506 YAY look! It's the shit-stirring brigade!
.
Hi, guys!

Posted by: Merovign, Dark Lord of the Sith's mobile at December 10, 2012 03:56 PM (SUuEM)

507
Here's some intellectual thought:

Stop all this useless blogging / commenting and get out there and do something.

Posted by: I am Mad as Hell at December 10, 2012 03:57 PM (UhXzR)

508 "As much as I would like to ditch so-cons, they make up at least 80% of
our vote. "

===============

Hey, we're not thrilled with you, either!

Posted by: Kensington at December 10, 2012 03:57 PM (H84UO)

509 Just a friendly reminder about Scarborough - http://www.americanpolitics.com/20010808Klausutis.html


I always thought something was, odd, about Scarborough. I remember the panel on Brit Hume's show talking about him when he resigned and it was very strange, guy's got skeletons in his closet that someone will find sooner or later.

Posted by: booger at December 10, 2012 03:57 PM (HI6wa)

510 Posted by: Chi-Town Jerry at December 10, 2012 03:42 PM (UTq/I)

Name one leader or pundit or any one here that adheres to the 6000 year old earth.

Posted by: polynikes at December 10, 2012 03:57 PM (m2CN7)

511 Yesterday, Kentucky Governor Steve Beshear announced
that his state’s Creationism Museum will soon be joined by a creationism
theme park named “Ark Encounter,” making Kentucky the unofficial
creationism capital of our 6,000-year-old world. Some of the
“edutainment” promised by the park include a Walled City, a Tower of
Babel, and a “500-foot-long wooden replica of Noah’s Ark” that, as was
revealed in the press conference, will feature dinosaurs.



Oh jeebus...

Posted by: EC at December 10, 2012 03:57 PM (doBIb)

512 Footage of a baby walrus.


Baby lambs!


http://bit.ly/VMT8Gw

Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD. Now with bacon cheddar fries. at December 10, 2012 03:57 PM (VtjlW)

513 angry sock off

Posted by: sophistahick at December 10, 2012 03:57 PM (UhXzR)

514 Do the Dems have to cut loose any of their "nutjobs"? Nah. Don't make
the rules harder for the good side than the bad side. Just maybe be more
careful in vetting candidates.


Or, you know, at least avoid dragging our differences to light at every opportunity.

For the record- I'll accept lectures about our idiots when the MFM starts giving lectures to the Democrats about toning down the racial rhetoric. Until then, STFU.

Y'all (the Chi-Town Jerry's and Mr. Moo-Moos of the world) are the ones who seem to have a problem. Rather than laugh and say, "Yeah, that's pretty stupid, huh?" You have to get all incensed and angry that someone would believe something you don't. Rather like Democrats.

All the Religious Right wants is to be able to each their own theories. I thought that was part of Science- examining competing theories and determining which is best. Even if you don't want that, maybe you need to look at your tactics and see if maybe you could persuade them to put it on the back burner, rather than yelling and screaming that everything is their fault.

By the way, how did that Bible-Tumper Scott Brown do?

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) Channelling Breitbart at December 10, 2012 03:58 PM (5DR1j)

515 Visualize Whirled Peas

Posted by: Julia at December 10, 2012 03:58 PM (wR+pz)

516 Since liberals want to prove dinosaurs have been dead for millions of years, why do they get so upset when we pump them out of the ground?

Posted by: George Orwell what knows where thou concealest thy ţr0n at December 10, 2012 03:58 PM (Lxw+T)

517 Posted by: JDTAY at December 10, 2012 03:55 PM (a0nis)

Oh yes, because a belief in God is incompatible with the intellect necessary to appreciate Thomas Sowell's writing.

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at December 10, 2012 03:58 PM (GsoHv)

518 I hate the racism of faux intellectualism. Bill Maher pretending the Cornel West is even moderately intellegent is offensive.

This.

And to take it further, why is it that most voters know examples of nutty white conservative thought, but ZERO about the black liberal thought that makes up the largest single portion of the Demcrat base?

You could spend a year on "The US invented AIDS to kill the world's black people." "Bush blew up the leveses to flood New Orleans." "The NRA is the new KKK." And, more broadly, the fact that 35% (a plurality) of Democrats believe Bush knew about the 9/11 attacks in advance (as of 2006 Gallup.)

Think we couldn't have fun highlighting this anti-intellectualism?

Posted by: CJ at December 10, 2012 03:58 PM (9KqcB)

519 Here's some intellectual thought:

Stop all this useless blogging / commenting and get out there and do something.

Posted by: I am Mad as Hell


I laughed out loud. Bravo.

Posted by: dick cheese at December 10, 2012 03:58 PM (QupBk)

520 Given that we have to communicate our ideas to public school graduates, I think we should start every rebuttal of every leftist idea with the word Bullshit. It'd certainly help get the point across quickly, and people can tune out as their attention spans waver, but they'll still remember the Bullshit!

Posted by: Cato at December 10, 2012 03:59 PM (dTXZf)

521 I withdraw my request.

Scoots away.


Still contend its an exception more than a rule for socons.

Posted by: polynikes at December 10, 2012 03:59 PM (m2CN7)

522 You do understand that most conservatives are, gasp, socially conservative, right?

Posted by: Big T Party at December 10, 2012 03:59 PM (WiQr+)

523 502 Posted by: Chi-Town Jerry at December 10, 2012 03:55 PM (UTq/I)

The governor of Kentucky is a democrat.

Actually, liberals believe in stranger shit than the most ardent socons, but no one goes to the trouble of making fun of Sedona crystals and herb enemas.

Posted by: jwest at December 10, 2012 04:00 PM (ZDsRL)

524 She said, ahhh OK. She's 4. She understands how the world works better than adult so-cons.

That was the worst version of the Che-Che story ever.

Posted by: Ian S. at December 10, 2012 04:00 PM (B/VB5)

525 I hear Plinkett is going to review this thread.

Posted by: George Orwell what knows where thou concealest thy ţr0n at December 10, 2012 04:00 PM (Lxw+T)

526
Well, thanks to the epileptic kittens I am now stupider for having read Ace of Spades...
Well...
Thanks?

Eyekeed.

Posted by: Spike at December 10, 2012 04:00 PM (EVEIU)

527 Limbaugh and Levin are to of the most intellectually rigorous radio hosts ever. Scarborough is a Light Flyweight compared to them.

Posted by: holygoat at December 10, 2012 04:00 PM (XnwWl)

528 The country can survive another four years of Obama, but cannot survivemuch furtherwith stupid people, unimformed people, people not caring about their children's future/freedom.I want my free-bees now and Fuck my Kids attitude cannot be sustained..... That is the scary part. The rich and those who already have wealth will not pay higher taxes because we can find ways to protect what we earn. The Low IQ numbnuts will pay the price because they can never reach the level that we have and also doomed their children to that curse. "Be careful of strangers bearing gifts my little bottem feeder Libs and welfare queens".

Posted by: Wall_E at December 10, 2012 04:01 PM (48wze)

529 Heh heh, "two of the most..."

Posted by: holygoat at December 10, 2012 04:01 PM (XnwWl)

530 Given that we have to communicate our ideas to public school graduates, I think we should start every rebuttal of every leftist idea with the word Bullshit. It'd certainly help get the point across quickly, and people can tune out as their attention spans waver, but they'll still remember the Bullshit!
Posted by: Cato at December 10, 2012 03:59 PM (dTXZf)



I believe the AoSHQ Style Guide would clarify that every leftist argument should be rebutted with, "Everything that guy just said is bullshit," attributed to one Vinny Gambini.

Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Hobbit at December 10, 2012 04:01 PM (4df7R)

531 "The real problem is that getting life right isn't
that complicated. Do a few simple things and you're generally alright,
unless other people insist on messing up the country.

Given that
that is the case, what need of faux-intellectuals to tell us all why
they're better and we need to just shut up and listen? Insty calls this
Oikaphobia, fear of the familiar. Because if everyone can do it, you're
nothing special. And that's the real driver.


Posted by: pep at December 10, 2012 02:29 PM (USJNU)"
Yeah, I think that most liberal "intellectual" positions are really just a rejection of what came before them. Even Marx's allegedly great accomplishment was to "turn Hegel on his head". Hard to say if that will circle around so that the "intellectual" position of 100 years from now will be the opposite of what it is today, but I wouldn't put it past them.
Ace, I think that most of the "anti-intellectualism" in the GOP is really just the practical recognition that those who claim the mantle of "intellectual" will also want to micromanage you in ways that you will, inevitably, disagree with. If you unpack the implicit metaphysics of "Don't tread on me!", it's as intellectual as anything the Left has on offer, at least, but it is portrayed as some kind of anti-intellectualism nonetheless.
"Great piece, Ace. I've often thought that the magic trick of Democrats
is that they arrogate to themselves the mantle of intellectuals to
appeal to elites, while at the same time they realize and act upon the
fact that half of their voters (probably more than half) have IQs below
100."
My opinion and I'd love to see data to confirm or deny it, is that liberalism most appeals to the mediocre among the elite institutions and the truly stupid. The "elite of the elite" go into private industry because that's where their eliteness will be most quickly recognized. The middle and bottom of the "elite institutions" go into the political/non-profit industrial complex and use those positions to agitate the truly stupid against the private sector elite, using such myths as "the labor theory of value" to convince the stupid that the private sector elite got that way by "stealing" from them. The mediocre from lesser institutions become their foot soldiers and the truly stupid are the vast majority of their voters. The vast bulk of college-age kids who were slamming Palin for graduating from a state school in 5+ years are in the exact same situation themselves. They ain't all Harvard, Yale and Princeton grads.

Posted by: BS Inc. at December 10, 2012 04:01 PM (FFwP9)

532 Ace, remember earlier in this thread when you said something about not posting anything for 2 hours?

Well.......tick. tock.....

Posted by: © Sponge at December 10, 2012 04:01 PM (UK9cE)

533


OT:

Michigan: Unionized Teachers Shut School Down To Protest Right-To-Work Law…

TAYLOR, Mich. – The Taylor School District will be closed down Tuesday because of the high number of staff that have either called in sick or are taking personal days to attend rallies in Lansing.


unbelievable

over at weaselzippers

Posted by: beach intellect at December 10, 2012 04:01 PM (LpQbZ)

534 @523

Ah, I was wondering why the article didn't mention a party. Nice to see our media being thorough.

Posted by: JDTAY at December 10, 2012 04:02 PM (a0nis)

535 Compare the number of people who attend church with the number of people who have read Sowell.

Posted by: JDTAY at December 10, 2012 03:55 PM (a0nis)

-----
What if one does both???

Posted by: fixerupper at December 10, 2012 04:02 PM (nELVU)

536 Did you see where the DJ's in Australia that called the hospital got fired?


Posted by: Billy Bob, pseudo intellectual at December 10, 2012 04:02 PM (wR+pz)

537 Yesterday, Kentucky Governor Steve Beshear announced

that his state’s Creationism Museum will soon be joined by a creationism

theme park named “Ark Encounter,” making Kentucky the unofficial

creationism capital of our 6,000-year-old world. Some of the

“edutainment” promised by the park include a Walled City, a Tower of

Babel, and a “500-foot-long wooden replica of Noah’s Ark” that, as was

revealed in the press conference, will feature dinosaurs.


Posted by: Chi-Town Jerry at December 10, 2012 03:55 PM (UTq/I)

________________________
My head hurts from banging it against my desk for so long.

Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at December 10, 2012 04:02 PM (HDgX3)

538 Does Moses riding a dinosaur effect government policy?

It should serve as a warning. Dinosaurs went extinct after the burning bush released carbon into the atmosphere.

Coincidence? Some say otherwise.

Posted by: Hollowpoint at December 10, 2012 04:02 PM (SY2Kh)

539 Salma Hayek Suggests that Hollywood is Out-of-Touch and Racist
http://is.gd/srY1Sj

Posted by: HeatherRadish™, drooling imbecile at December 10, 2012 04:03 PM (/kI1Q)

540 My head hurts from banging it against my desk for so long.

Name that party!

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) Channelling Breitbart at December 10, 2012 04:03 PM (5DR1j)

541 What if one does both???


Posted by: fixerupper at December 10, 2012 04:02 PM (nELVU)


Racist, obviously.

Posted by: Adam at December 10, 2012 04:03 PM (/YJYi)

542 >>>Ace - Until we can cut these people loose as nutjobs, we are fucking doomed. No intellectualism...

Some of the worlds most noted and successful philosophers were religiously devout such as Saint Augustine.

This is the classic attack. Group A includes subgroup A' . Group A' can be demonstrated to have characteristic X which unarguably is harmful in some way. We now have to expunge all of group A. Of course logic doesn't support that argument but if it can be presented right it can be convincing, however it is always a scham and decisively an anti-intellectual argument.

I am deeply faithful, and an engineer, and a studier of philosophy. I believe the world was "created" millions of years ago and that dinosaurs existed at one time, and that the unborn are people too and have rights.

You cannot logically lump the one belief (The rejection of scientific evidence of a aged Earth) with another (The rejection of the idea that humans aren't so until their mother decides at some arbitrary time to keep them) .

Posted by: MikeTheMoose is Shrugging at December 10, 2012 04:03 PM (0q2P7)

543 I thought The Road to Surfdom was a Gidget movie.
Posted by: Cicero (@cicero) at December 10, 2012 03:53 PM (QKKT0)


Ha! You, Sir, are no intellectual! THAT was a Funicello/Avalon film!

Posted by: RondinellaMamma at December 10, 2012 04:03 PM (53riN)

544
Kick Gov Beshear out of the GOP, now!!!


oh wait...

Posted by: soothsayer at December 10, 2012 04:03 PM (ptD6d)

545 Wet baby lambs...

http://tinyurl.com/aq2gt9y

Posted by: EC at December 10, 2012 04:04 PM (doBIb)

546 Michigan: Unionized Teachers Shut School Down To Protest Right-To-Work Law… TAYLOR, Mich. – The Taylor School District will be closed down Tuesday because of the high number of staff that have either called in sick or are taking personal days to attend rallies in Lansing.

Look on the bright side. As long as the kids don't have to go to school, they don't have to listen to their idiot teachers preach communism from their bully pulpit.

Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Hobbit at December 10, 2012 04:04 PM (4df7R)

547 The governor of Kentucky is a democrat. Actually, liberals believe in stranger shit than the most ardent socons, but no one goes to the trouble of making fun of Sedona crystals and herb enemas.
Posted by: jwest at December 10, 2012 04:00 PM (ZDsRL)

What the hell ? Chi Town is trying to support his throw the socons out by presenting an example of a Democrat? Go figure.

Posted by: polynikes at December 10, 2012 04:04 PM (m2CN7)

548 Make 7

Up Yours.

Posted by: © Sponge at December 10, 2012 04:04 PM (UK9cE)

549 unbelievable



over at weaselzippers

Posted by: beach intellect at December 10, 2012 04:01 PM (LpQbZ)

What is unbelievable is the Michigan is actually going to fuck the unions up the ass and there is nothing the bastards can do about it.
This passes it will be the death of the UAW and the rest of the leaches. Michigan goes, anything is possible.
NY state? PA? I smell the fear.

Posted by: Billy Bob, pseudo intellectual at December 10, 2012 04:04 PM (wR+pz)

550 "Posted by: MikeTheMoose is Shrugging at December 10, 2012 04:03 PM (0q2P7)"
===============

Bravo, sir.

Posted by: Kensington at December 10, 2012 04:05 PM (H84UO)

551

It should serve as a warning. Dinosaurs went extinct after the burning bush released carbon into the atmosphere.



Those damn Jews again.

Posted by: George Orwell what knows where thou concealest thy ţr0n at December 10, 2012 04:05 PM (Lxw+T)

552 why is it that most voters know examples of nutty white conservative
thought, but ZERO about the black liberal thought that makes up the
largest single portion of the Demcrat base?

---

Linked on The Blaze today, Louis Farrakhan says that "the enemy;" i.e., the honkeys, is working scientifically to kill people with bottled water. He knows because it is so cheap.

Posted by: WalrusRex at December 10, 2012 04:05 PM (XUKZU)

553 My head hurts from banging it against my desk for so long.
Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at December 10, 2012 04:02 PM (HDgX3)


Note that they don't mention the Gov's party affiliation? Why do you think that is?

Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Hobbit at December 10, 2012 04:05 PM (4df7R)

554 Don't think I've ever met anyone who believes that Moses and the dinosaurs lived in harmony together. Where are these people?

"proof by repeated assertion" works on the general public. That's covered in the intro Goebbels textbook Propaganda For Dummies.

Topics, such as the very best propaganda being 95% absolute truth is covered in the more advanced graduate level texts.

Posted by: @PurpAv at December 10, 2012 04:06 PM (cHr8a)

555 474 -

Think of it this way... If God wanted to create the world 6-7K years ago as a fully functioning and developed part of the universe... He could. And we wouldn't know the difference because all of the geological History would be there and intact.

Do I think He did so? No, I don't.

Consider this as well... radio isotopic dating is shockingly new. It's also not a generally accessible concept. Many people alive today received their formal educations before we had such a thing. We had nothing but fossils and Darwin and speculation. More information than that almost exactly measures my lifetime, and I'm not that old.

Most importantly... at about the same time as humans got access to radio isotopic dating to accurately inform the merely relative dating of fossil indexing and could look down from space and discover plate tectonics... Asimov and Sagan (notably) undertook a popularization of science that insisted that it disproved God. You could believe one or the other, but not both. Like Islam and democracy, faith and science were pronounced incompatible. Utterly.

Science is, of course, NOT evangelical atheism, but those two (and others) presented it as exactly that. I do not agree with New Earth creationism, but I agree with the rationality of those who hold that view. I particularly agree with the rationality of those who are Old Earth creationists who will not shed others because of their error and who recognize the evangelical nature of the "science as atheism" cult.

So.

Ask yourself... are you an intellectual or just enthused about being smart because you believe the right things?

Posted by: Synova at December 10, 2012 04:06 PM (7/PU+)

556 Did you see where the DJ's in Australia that called the hospital got fired?

Which is stupid, but, hey....first they came for the DJ's and I said nothing.

Not a huge fan of DJ's is what I'm trying to say.

Posted by: eleven at December 10, 2012 04:06 PM (KXm42)

557 Dancing baby lambs . . .

http://bit.ly/TZM5oD


Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD. Now with bacon cheddar fries. at December 10, 2012 04:07 PM (VtjlW)

558 Those damn Jews again.

Posted by: George Orwell what knows where thou concealest thy ţr0n at December 10, 2012 04:05 PM (Lxw+T)

Hey, be nice now, it's Chunknua or something.

Posted by: Billy Bob, pseudo intellectual at December 10, 2012 04:07 PM (wR+pz)

559 I'm an intellectual and I enjoy it. But do it for its own sake as a virtue;

Truman, my thoughts exactly.

Posted by: Decaf at December 10, 2012 04:07 PM (f88gl)

560 That's what I'm saying. He's obviously not that intelligent, but he's managed to realize that he can use the media to make himself the smartest President Ever. That has to count for something.
Posted by: Big T Party at December 10, 2012 03:05 PM (WiQr+)



It's called Marketing and Public Relations.

It's that simple.

It really is.

Posted by: beach intellect at December 10, 2012 04:07 PM (LpQbZ)

561 Union members trying to prove the usefulness of unions by not doing their jobs.

Keep it up. You make your own bed.

Posted by: JDTAY at December 10, 2012 04:08 PM (a0nis)

562
stop global whining

Posted by: Dr. Varno at December 10, 2012 04:08 PM (Os2To)

563 Little Bo Peep lost her sheep...

And then she blew me AYYyyyyyyyy..

Posted by: eleven's bad Dice take at December 10, 2012 04:08 PM (KXm42)

564 For the record- I'll accept lectures about our idiots when the MFM starts giving lectures to the Democrats about toning down the racial rhetoric. Until then, STFU.

Why the hell would you expect the MFM to do something OUR OWN SIDE doesn't do? How about WE highlight this shit -- The US invented AIDS to kill the world's black people." "Bush blew up the leveees to flood New Orleans." "The NRA is the new KKK." And, more broadly, the fact that 35% (a plurality) of Democrats believe Bush knew about the 9/11 attacks in advance (as of 2006 Gallup.) -- and force the MFM and Dems to defend it?

For the record, I didn't call the Religious Right "idiots" or "nutjobs" I was quoting another poster. My point was, no need for a purge (or getting pissy and accusing others of acting "rather like Democrats"). If we did a better job mocking the Left's out-of-the-mainstream views, we wouldn't have to spend so much capital defending it among our ranks.

Posted by: CJ at December 10, 2012 04:09 PM (9KqcB)

565 Union members trying to prove the usefulness of unions by not doing their jobs.
Keep it up. You make your own bed.

Posted by: JDTAY at December 10, 2012 04:08 PM (a0nis)


Proving that they are NOT intellectuals by any stretch of the imagination. They don't even qualify for intellectual lightweight status.

Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Hobbit at December 10, 2012 04:09 PM (4df7R)

566 Hey, be nice now, it's Chunknua or something.


Posted by: Billy Bob, pseudo intellectual at December 10, 2012 04:07 PM (wR+pz)

-----
Yeah.... I saw that on the History Channel.
Those Hebes can REALLY toss a pumpkin.....

Posted by: fixerupper at December 10, 2012 04:09 PM (nELVU)

567 If we're going to win the war of ideas, we have to be as effective as the left in denouncing and demonizing. We don't tend to be as "kill the messenger" as they are, but we still need to destroy the message, not just offer an alternative. We need to stop mincing words, the Left has been taken over by communists and their useful idiots. Everything they call progress has been implemented somewhere, and hastened the demise of some other country. There is nothing from them that isn't from the Communist Manifesto, meaning that they haven't had a single new policy idea in over a century. We have to start calling them out on this.

Posted by: Cato at December 10, 2012 04:09 PM (dTXZf)

568 Union members trying to prove the usefulness of unions by not doing their jobs.

It worked in Wisconsin, so why not try it in Michigan?

Sun Tzu says "don't correct the enemy while he's fucking up."

Posted by: HeatherRadish™, drooling imbecile at December 10, 2012 04:10 PM (/kI1Q)

569 Posted by: Chi-Town Jerry at December 10, 2012 03:55 PM (UTq/I)

Yes, your strategy is so clear to me now: when confronted by the threat of an insidious stealth socialist takeover of the United States by a cadre of authoritarian socialist radicals intent upon destroying the country, the correct response is to alienate the daylights out of freedom-loving patriots with whom you disagree on comparatively inconsequential matters regarding the age of the earth. It all makes so much sense now.

Posted by: troyriser at December 10, 2012 04:10 PM (vtiE6)

570 "My head hurts from banging it against my desk for so long."
===============

Well this explains everything.

Posted by: Kensington at December 10, 2012 04:10 PM (H84UO)

571 Linked on The Blaze today, Louis Farrakhan says that "the enemy;" i.e., the honkeys, is working scientifically to kill people with bottled water. He knows because it is so cheap.
Posted by: WalrusRex at December 10, 2012 04:05 PM (XUKZU)

Bottled water is cheap? Fuck you in the ass, Farrakhan.
1 Bottle Dasani water = 16.9fl oz, 128 fl oz in a gallon = 7.574 bottles/gallon @ $1/bottle = 7.57 per gallon for bottled water (and I think $1 is a bit low)

Posted by: Jollyroger at December 10, 2012 04:10 PM (t06LC)

572 Sun Tzu says "don't correct the enemy while he's fucking up."


Posted by: HeatherRadish™, drooling imbecile at December 10, 2012 04:10 PM (/kI1Q)

-----
I say.... "Woman flying upside down in airplane have crack up"

Posted by: Confucious at December 10, 2012 04:11 PM (nELVU)

573
Hey, be nice now, it's Chunknua or something.


Those are great with almonds.

Posted by: George Orwell what knows where thou concealest thy ţr0n at December 10, 2012 04:11 PM (Lxw+T)

574 Why, just today my 7 year old daughter was watching Rachel Maddow and said "Dad, tea-bagging cons are dumb.". I replied "They sure are!" and we laughed and ate Chee-tos.

Posted by: I love anecdotes at December 10, 2012 04:11 PM (B/VB5)

575 “I get a lot of help from my husband. You have to have a partner. When I get freaked out, he’s like, ‘Don’t worry, it will work itself out. How can I help you?’ He calms me down. I am more hysterical than he is.”

....Salma Hayek



I'm king of the thread!

Posted by: Daybrother at December 10, 2012 04:13 PM (+paCV)

576 I still think even with Obama and the Dems trying to screw-up everything it still comes down to your own intestinal fortitude to guide your future. The Losers that depend on the government will have to live their prescribed life style while the rest of us reach our dreams. Having faith in God and your abilities will always triumph over the Libs and Obama. I do and I don't feel sorry for thosenabobs that throw away the greatest opportunity provided by God to become dependent on government that provides scraps. These people will always complain and will perish being unhappy and blaming someone else for their pathetic life. I wish them luck and faith is still the strongest power known to mankind.

Posted by: Wall_E at December 10, 2012 04:13 PM (48wze)

577 Linked on The Blaze today, Louis Farrakhan says that "the enemy;" i.e., the honkeys, is working scientifically to kill people with bottled water. He knows because it is so cheap.

And he was given a lifetime achievement award by the church that shaped the views of the 2008 and 2012 Democratic candidate for president.

Two degrees of separation. Boom, roasted.

Posted by: CJ at December 10, 2012 04:13 PM (9KqcB)

578 Keep in mind that about 30% of the public believes in UFO's, so rounding up some who think Jesus battled dinosaurs probably isn't all that hard.

Posted by: @PurpAv at December 10, 2012 04:13 PM (cHr8a)

579 Bottled water is cheap? Fuck you in the ass, Farrakhan. 1 Bottle Dasani water = 16.9fl oz, 128 fl oz in a gallon = 7.574 bottles/gallon @ $1/bottle = 7.57 per gallon for bottled water (and I think $1 is a bit low)
Posted by: Jollyroger at December 10, 2012 04:10 PM (t06LC)


Yeah, tha tpuzzled me, too. I can only assume he means gallon bottles of water, such as you might buy at the grocery store. You can get the generic store brand for $0.69/gallon at my local supermarket. But if you buy the 16-20Fl oz.bottles of Aquafina or Dasani, you're looking at at LEAST $1.50 per bottle. If that's cheap, I've got a bridge to sell you, Louie.

Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Hobbit at December 10, 2012 04:13 PM (4df7R)

580 Noble Nerds

Team Obama has found a way to reframe its brutish election victory.

The race between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney, Politico declared in June, was “a grinding, joyless slog, falling short in every respect of the larger-than-life personalities and debates of the 2008 campaign,” and neither candidate did much in the ensuing months to elevate the contest. Yet now, a month after the election, Obama’s campaign team has managed to cast a 2008-like hue on their 2012 victory.

The secret of their successful spin: Instead of talking about how their guy won a second term by methodically defining—and demonizing—his buffoon of an opponent, they’re gushing about the ingenuity of their apps and algorithms.


nymag.com




Posted by: tasker at December 10, 2012 04:13 PM (r2PLg)

581 I note Chi Town Jerry hasn't comeback to acknowledge his post was about a Democrat Governor. Class act.

Posted by: polynikes at December 10, 2012 04:13 PM (m2CN7)

582 Obama just dug out the "right to work for less money" line.

Why yes, it is. It's the right to have a job for less money than the union was about to strike for (and thus have no job.)
See: Hostess.

Posted by: tsrblke (work) at December 10, 2012 04:13 PM (b3IgE)

583 New racist dog whistle: "We."

http://preview.tinyurl.com/9wt3jxy

And they're the intellectuals.

Posted by: WalrusRex at December 10, 2012 04:13 PM (XUKZU)

584 Clean baby lambs...

http://tinyurl.com/afmpsm3

Posted by: EC at December 10, 2012 04:14 PM (doBIb)

585 When a party nominates 2 candidates for senate who think a pregnancy via rape is god's will, it's hard to convince people that's a party of intellectual and/or smart people.

Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at December 10, 2012 04:14 PM (HDgX3)

586 we could try winning by critiquing liberalism as a whole and making it a dirty word again, as opposed to treating Obama as a unique socialist threat

Posted by: JDP at December 10, 2012 04:14 PM (60GaT)

587 >>>He knows because it is so cheap.

This boggles the mind. The competing lower quality product "tap water" sells for less than 1˘ a gallon.

Go to a vending machine the 16oz bottle of Coke is $1.25, the Dasini water is $1.50. He calls it cheap? In comparison to what?


Posted by: MikeTheMoose is Shrugging at December 10, 2012 04:15 PM (0q2P7)

588 Joe the Plumber exhibited greater intellectual understanding of Obama in a brief encounter than Joe Scarborough has shown in 4 years. I have, and have never had, a problem with intellectuals or intellectualism. I do have a problem with, to coin a word, credentialism, the idea that having lofty credentials makes one intellectually superior. Now I'm sure that those that came up with brilliant ideas like Cash for Clunkers, or that if we're nice to Islamists, they'll be nice to us right back...possess Ivy League degrees, PHDs from $50,000/year universities, years of government service....which in and of itself completely destroys the idea that credentials = intellectual superiority. Scarborough believes he is intellectually superior simply because he is credentialed (law degree, former congressman). He is, of course, wrong, and just listening to him spout off makes it clear.

Posted by: goldglove51 at December 10, 2012 04:15 PM (Mv/TW)

589 Doesn't The Bible say that Samson killed 1000 Philistines with the jawbone of a tyrannosaur?

Posted by: WalrusRex at December 10, 2012 04:15 PM (XUKZU)

590 This passes it will be the death of the UAW and the rest of the leaches. Michigan goes, anything is possible. NY state? PA? I smell the fear.

That would be cool, but I hoped for that after Scott Walker fought the public sector unions in Wis. PA, with a gov and legislature controlled by the GOP, ran andhid.

Posted by: CJ at December 10, 2012 04:16 PM (9KqcB)

591 When a party nominates a guy for president who's okay with putting a live baby in a linen closet to die....

Posted by: Adam at December 10, 2012 04:16 PM (/YJYi)

592 Odelay Stephenson?

Posted by: Waterhouse at December 10, 2012 04:16 PM (1sinL)

593 Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Hobbit at December 10, 2012 04:13 PM (4df7R)

In fairness I can get a 24 pack of target bottled 16.9oz bottles for like $5 (or less IIRC.)
For the convenience during the summer that's fairly cheep.
Of course I can get tap water for like $1/hundred freaken gallons. So yeah, overall. Not cheap.

Posted by: tsrblke (work) at December 10, 2012 04:16 PM (b3IgE)

594 When a party nominates 2 candidates for senate who think a pregnancy via rape is god's will, it's hard to convince people that's a party of intellectual and/or smart people.
Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at December 10, 2012 04:14 PM (HDgX3)


When a party re-elects an emotional basketcase to the House who hasn't been active in his Congressional seat in months due to some indistinct pscyhological/emotional/physical condition, it should be a given that the followers of that party are not smart. Yet they get no blowback.

Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Hobbit at December 10, 2012 04:17 PM (4df7R)

595
When a party nominates 2 candidates for senate who think a pregnancy via
rape is god's will, it's hard to convince people that's a party of
intellectual and/or smart people.


Yep, better go with the "smart" guy who thinks there's 57 states and a tornado killed 10,000 people.

Posted by: @PurpAv at December 10, 2012 04:17 PM (cHr8a)

596 So YouTube just removed a video of the Syrian Rebels letting a boy behead one of their enemies. Now G-D forbid youtube showed what obama's friends are really like. Hey I post a video of them damn Jews building Bedrooms in Jerusalem

Posted by: Nevergiveup at December 10, 2012 04:18 PM (jE38p)

597 When a party nominates 2 candidates for senate who
think a pregnancy via rape is god's will, it's hard to convince people
that's a party of intellectual and/or smart people.


Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at December 10, 2012 04:14 PM (HDgX3)


I've been saying for years that religion has no place in politics. It turns way too many people off. It's fine to have faith and pray for guidance ON YOUR OWN TIME, but stop bringing that shit to the media.

I'm to the point now that I really don't give a rats ass what you believe as long as it INCLUDES doing what's best for THIS COUNTRY and it's citizen's future.

Not including muzzies, though. They need to disappear.

Posted by: © Sponge at December 10, 2012 04:18 PM (UK9cE)

598 I have, and have never had, a problem with intellectuals or intellectualism. I do have a problem with, to coin a word, credentialism, the idea that having lofty credentials makes one intellectually superior



THIS!


I work with a lot of PhD's. Most of them are smart people, as in smart about book stuff and real world things. Then you meet the newly minted PhD's that think they're the second coming of Albert Einstein. I love to adjust them back down to earth whenever I get the chance.

Posted by: EC at December 10, 2012 04:18 PM (doBIb)

599 Scarborough is simply still ticked off about that staffer who was found dead in his office in the days of yore. Chip on shoulder. Was it ever explained? I don't really care, but have found this a mystery when I bother to think about it.

He irritates me, therefore I do not watch, plus! MSNBC, right? I'd rather poke my eyes out that watch that bunch of ninnyhammers.

Joe reminds me of the boy in elementary school who either barfed in the cafeteria on a regular basis or picked his nose, forevermore considered as having cooties even through high school. A little nerdy guy with glasses held together with adhesive tape. Currently he would be screaming "I am being bullied by ChristyBlinky, Prinicpal!" Waaa! (This after I messed with him on the school bus, as that is how I rolled, and the commute was an hour each way).

To sum: his opinions of himself, of politics, and the GOP mean nothing to me as I am pretty sure he picks his nose and swipes them under the desk, in an ever growing petrified monolith that that Mica person is unaware of (she does wonder why her hose snags when she sits on his side of the desk).

Posted by: ChristyBlinky, raving lunatic about Benghazi at December 10, 2012 04:19 PM (baL2B)

600 When a party nominates 2 candidates for senate who think a pregnancy via rape is god's will, it's hard to convince people that's a party of intellectual and/or smart people.

Whereas stating that Guam is going to tip over is just good solid scientific thinking.

Posted by: Hank Johnson at December 10, 2012 04:19 PM (B/VB5)

601 585 - I don't think that anyone claims that there aren't idiots... if nothing else they should know better than to say so.

But somehow Democrats can have candidates just as dumb and... they get the intellectual/smart people label?

It's Bullshit.

(To take Cato's very wise advice.)

Posted by: Synova at December 10, 2012 04:19 PM (7/PU+)

602 i don't have a problem with people, errr, having a problem with Akin etc. however again people're not buying the Republican economic message (especially with the cruder references to "47%" / others acting as though the country consists of government leeches) and a lot of that's being obscured

Posted by: JDP at December 10, 2012 04:19 PM (60GaT)

603 "When a party nominates 2 candidates for senate who think a pregnancy via
rape is god's will, it's hard to convince people that's a party of
intellectual and/or smart people."

===============

Great! Well let's just spool that one out to it's logical conclusion, shall we? Religious people think pretty much everything happens according to God's will.

Therefore, we'd better get rid of the religious Republicans.


So the problem isn't a couple of imbecile candidates, it's religious faith!

Brilliant!

Posted by: Kensington at December 10, 2012 04:20 PM (H84UO)

604 Hooray, I got home from work in time to post on this.

The line between an intellectual and a bullshitter is made up by the facts.

Posted by: Oldsailors Poet, Wonders what Dagny thinks at December 10, 2012 04:21 PM (3Y7RV)

605 Whereas stating that Guam is going to tip over is just good solid scientific thinking.
Posted by: Hank Johnson at December 10, 2012 04:19 PM (B/VB5)


Well in your congressional district it is, just like the "good" people in Jessie Jackson Jrs district like to re-elect nut cases from the booby hatch

Posted by: Nevergiveup at December 10, 2012 04:21 PM (jE38p)

606 "When a party nominates 2 candidates for senate who think a pregnancy via

rape is god's will, it's hard to convince people that's a party of

intellectual and/or smart people."





Can I see the flag we left on Mars!?

Posted by: Sheila Jackson Lee at December 10, 2012 04:21 PM (/YJYi)

607 So stuff happens on Earth which goes against God's will? I did not know that.

He must be a wimp.

Posted by: hannitys_hybrid at December 10, 2012 04:21 PM (zpqa2)

608 The line between an intellectual and a bullshitter is made up by the facts.
Posted by: Oldsailors Poet, Wonders what Dagny thinks at December 10, 2012 04:21 PM (3Y7RV)

And by what they usually drink

Posted by: Nevergiveup at December 10, 2012 04:22 PM (jE38p)

609 Posted by: JDP at December 10, 2012 04:19 PM (60GaT)

I still blamre the GOP for not having a STFU class for candidates.

Posted by: Oldsailors Poet, Wonders what Dagny thinks at December 10, 2012 04:22 PM (3Y7RV)

610 Posted by: Kensington at December 10, 2012 04:20 PM (H84UO)

the better conclusion is we need to better vet our candidates to be sure they aren't going to say something incredibly stupid.
There are how many religious people in congress? So clearly that's not the problem.

Posted by: tsrblke (work) at December 10, 2012 04:22 PM (b3IgE)

611 maybe we shouldn't have given up the term intellectual to the overcredentialled cretins but that's how it is. It's just a term of art, most of us are smarter and understand abstract ideas better. But that's the price we pay for letting the left march through the institutions.

Is it our fault that previous generations of americans and conservatives didn't have the cultural confidence to defend the ideals and ideas upon which this nation was founded?

Posted by: joeindc44 wonders if anyone has any advice for the GOP at December 10, 2012 04:22 PM (QxSug)

612 What are the odds Scarborough is just saying this shit so that Mika will blow him?
Posted by: Golan Globus



When Scarborough first started he send Mika an email with "Direct from the White House" as the subject line. It said, "We want you to Blow Scarborough".

She did.

Posted by: Daybrother at December 10, 2012 04:22 PM (+paCV)

613 I love to adjust them back down to earth whenever I get the chance.

I presume this is after you sit back and allow them to fuck up. People don't usually take sound advice. They do remember the hard object lessons that involved pain.

Posted by: @PurpAv at December 10, 2012 04:22 PM (cHr8a)

614 When a party nominates a guy for president who's okay with putting a live baby in a linen closet to die....

Whoa. WHOA. Let's not get all exxxxxtreme with the anti-woman rhetoric here.

(Am I doing that right?)

Posted by: HeatherRadish™, drooling imbecile at December 10, 2012 04:23 PM (/kI1Q)

615 And by what they usually drink
Posted by: Nevergiveup at December 10, 2012 04:22 PM (jE38p)

OK, that's a fact Mr. Intellectual.

Posted by: Oldsailors Poet, Wonders what Dagny thinks at December 10, 2012 04:23 PM (3Y7RV)

616 603 "When a party nominates 2 candidates for senate who think a pregnancy via rape is god's will, it's hard to convince people that's a party of intellectual and/or smart people."===============Great! Well let's just spool that one out to it's logical conclusion, shall we? Religious people think pretty much everything happens according to God's will.Therefore, we'd better get rid of the religious Republicans.So the problem isn't a couple of imbecile candidates, it's religious faith!Brilliant!
Posted by: Kensington at December 10, 2012 04:20 PM (H84UO)

To be fair, I went to a Baptist elementary shcool, was brought up Lutheran, regullarly attend a Methodist church, and married a non-denominational.
I don't ever recall discussing the mechanics of legit rape prevention, and I always was taught that dinosaurs were pre human. No idea where that other stuff came from.

Posted by: Jollyroger at December 10, 2012 04:23 PM (t06LC)

617 Speaking of low-intellectual-wattage Dems, I saw Maxine Waters is being promoted to head of the Financial Services Committee. That won't end well.

Posted by: Ian S. at December 10, 2012 04:24 PM (B/VB5)

618 better vet our candidates to be sure they aren't going to say something incredibly stupid.

Given that they ARE politicians, this may be problematic...I'm just saying.

Posted by: @PurpAv at December 10, 2012 04:24 PM (cHr8a)

619 Religious people think pretty much everything happens according to God's will.

Or Allah's will.

Our Muslim Congressthings are Democrats.

Posted by: HeatherRadish™, drooling imbecile at December 10, 2012 04:25 PM (/kI1Q)

620 Oh Yeah, Damn fine post ACE!

Posted by: Oldsailors Poet, Wonders what Dagny thinks at December 10, 2012 04:25 PM (3Y7RV)

621 Cato: "...We don't tend to be as 'kill the messenger' as they are, but we still
need to destroy the message, not just offer an alternative."


The GOP just isn't up for that. Still.

Consider the latest language hijacking: government "revenue". See, the Marxists/Statists have hidden the word taxes and substituted "revenue." The GOP and chattering class bumbles along, blindly, while absorbing the latest propaganda.

It's both demoralizing and infuriating. "We" are presently and, it would seem, congenitally incapable of understanding the message much less destroying it. Our skills at vocabulary are getting even worse, the Statists better.

Posted by: AnonymousDrivel at December 10, 2012 04:25 PM (eHIJJ)

622
2 1/2 hour thread is too long between posts. Ergo, Ace should only post his writings in two line clips. This last post would be worth 3 or 4 days of postings and we'd always have a fresh thread.

I'm always thinking.

Duh.

Posted by: sophistahick at December 10, 2012 04:25 PM (UhXzR)

623 Nice that California fixed all of it's problem and are now able to give the homeless their own cellphones.

Posted by: RWC at December 10, 2012 04:25 PM (fWAjv)

624 The real problem, here, is that there are people trying to conflate two very different things and say they're the same.

First was Akin's use of a thoroughly debunked (and, frankly, ridiculous) scientific hypothesis. The magic hoo-ha, if you will. That was bad for a variety of reasons, not least of which is that it showed he believed in magic hoo-has.

The other Mourdock's statement that a child- even a child of rape- is a blessing. That was only bad because the MFM chose to make it so, and Republicans were already gun-shy after Akin's idiotic comment.

The two are not the same, nor should they be considered so. Anyone who is doing so has an axe to grind, they're not being honest about their opposition to the Religious Right.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) Channelling Breitbart at December 10, 2012 04:26 PM (5DR1j)

625 I saw Maxine Waters is being promoted to head of the Financial Services Committee.

"Senior Democrat", which means pretty much nothing. The committee chair will be a Republican.

Posted by: @PurpAv at December 10, 2012 04:27 PM (cHr8a)

626 "No idea where that other stuff came from."
===============

My point is that this "other stuff" does NOT come inherently from being religious or a social conservative.

The problem with Todd Akin wasn't that he was a social con; the problem with Todd Akin was that he was an imbecile.

Posted by: Kensington at December 10, 2012 04:27 PM (H84UO)

627 I would just like to reiterate that these rumors that I'm spoiled are vicious, vicious lies.


Just because Mommy called me just now to let me know that she made chili, which I love, and asked me to come to dinner and then I asked if she had club crackers because the best way to eat Mommy's chili is using club crackers like a spoon, she said of course all offended I would think otherwise.


Not. Spoiled. At. All.


Actually, Mommy admitted this is point blank an attempt to bribe me with food because my dad needs help with a PowerPoint slide. God help me.

Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD. Now with bacon cheddar fries. at December 10, 2012 04:27 PM (VtjlW)

628 Fundamentally, to be in the mainstream of our society you have to have a phone. And really, for the homeless population, you need a cell phone because they don’t have a home to hard-wire one into. We really need this plan.
----

LiFB

Posted by: RWC at December 10, 2012 04:27 PM (fWAjv)

629 Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) Channelling Breitbart at December 10, 2012 04:26 PM (5DR1j)

AG, you could not be more wrong. If you could see me right now you would know how visably upset I am. It's not Hoo-Has, it's Hoo-Hoos, get it right mister.

I agree with the rest.

Posted by: Oldsailors Poet, Wonders what Dagny thinks at December 10, 2012 04:28 PM (3Y7RV)

630 Not only are most people not that smart, most people don't know shit either.

Posted by: runninrebel at December 10, 2012 04:28 PM (Hslsk)

631 When a party nominates a guy for president who's okay with putting a live baby in a linen closet to die....

Whoa. WHOA. Let's not get all exxxxxtreme with the anti-woman rhetoric here.

(Am I doing that right?)


Posted by: HeatherRadish™, drooling imbecile at December 10, 2012 04:23 PM (/kI1Q)

-----
no no No No NO NO NO......
"woman" is now spelled with a "Y"
The word "misogynist" got left out of your rebuke.
It's "war on womyn"!!!!" .... write it down so you'll remember it.
.... poser. pffffffft.

Posted by: fixerupper at December 10, 2012 04:29 PM (nELVU)

632 The two are not the same, nor should they be considered so. Anyone who
is doing so has an axe to grind, they're not being honest about their
opposition to the Religious Right.


Yup. Thank you.

Posted by: HeatherRadish™, drooling imbecile at December 10, 2012 04:29 PM (/kI1Q)

633
Actually, Mommy admitted this is point blank an attempt to bribe me
with food because my dad needs help with a PowerPoint slide. God help
me.


You're either really cheap, or that's some awesome chili.

Of course, I have two small children, so the way my parents bribe me when they need similar help is to offer to baby sit while my wife and I go to the movies.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) Channelling Breitbart at December 10, 2012 04:30 PM (5DR1j)

634 "Religious people think pretty much everything happens according to God's will."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will_in_theology


Uhhh... no.

Not unless you have a very narrow definition of "religious".

Posted by: Pope Pol Pot at December 10, 2012 04:30 PM (OqWMe)

635 An American appetite for tax hikes gives President Barack Obama leverage in fiscal cliff negotiations.
A new POLITICO/George Washington University Battleground Poll finds that 60 percent of respondents support raising taxes on households that earn more than $250,000 a year and 64 percent want to raise taxes on large corporations.

Even 39 percent of Republicans support raising taxes on households making more than $250,000. Independents favor such a move by 21 percentage points, 59 to 38 percent.

Only 38 percent buy the GOP argument that raising taxes on households earning over $250,000 per year will have a negative impact on the economy. Fifty-eight percent do not.

“Democrats really have a winning issue here, and we should drive it hard,” said Celinda Lake, the Democratic pollster who helped conduct the bipartisan poll. “We’re in an era now where there’s a lot of cynicism about trickle-down economics.”
Congress and the White House are currently battling over whether to allow the George W. Bush tax cuts — on middle-income and wealthy Americans — to expire at the end of this year, at the same time that massive spending cuts might occur. The so-called “fiscal cliff” could spark a recession just when the economy is beginning to recover.
During the 2012 elections, Obama campaigned on making the wealthy pay their fair share and has since claimed a mandate for raising taxes on the rich.
According to the poll — taken from from Dec. 2 to Dec. 6 — 69 percent of respondents oppose raising taxes on small businesses that earn more than $250,000 — a group that the GOP is trying to protect with its push to extend the Bush tax cuts.


______________

That's over at the place that shall not be linked.

Guess what they forgot to write up in their little article about their Battleground/George Washington University poll?

75% of respondents favor cutting government spending across the board.

Posted by: tasker at December 10, 2012 04:30 PM (r2PLg)

636 Fundamentally, to be in the mainstream of our society you have to have a
phone. And really, for the homeless population, you need a cell phone
because they don’t have a home to hard-wire one into. We really need
this plan.

---

Well, he's got you thee. If the 2012 election proved nothing else, it proved that the free shit army is mainstream America.

Posted by: WalrusRex at December 10, 2012 04:30 PM (XUKZU)

637 Ergo, Ace should only post his writings in two line clips.

He's hell on twitter.

Posted by: dick cheese at December 10, 2012 04:30 PM (QupBk)

638 But now this post leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

I guess ObamaPhoneLady just wasn't impressed with Romney's resume. The left can hide behind the changing demographics that they've led the charge to change in every western country (except the former soviet client states that advocated this sort of demographic doom, oddly enough) on the globe while pretending that their creeping tribalism is based on some sort of high minded goal.

We lost because why again?

demographics?
Mitt was not mr. populism?
mitt was not an intellectual?

I don't get it.

maybe ace or some MSNBC republicans are thinking that the liberal representation of GOP as a bunch of jaysus freaks is accurate instead of most of us being able to give a fairly coherent discussion on keynes v hayek or climate change or whatever.

All the left did was add a new layer to their standard "you can't discuss" that game plan, the "you can't discuss that because we're too smart, we're intellectuals, to buy that" argument.

Posted by: joeindc44 wonders if anyone has any advice for the GOP at December 10, 2012 04:30 PM (QxSug)

639

o YouTube just removed a video of the Syrian Rebels letting a boy behead one of their enemies. Now G-D forbid youtube showed what obama's friends are really like. Hey I post a video of them damn Jews building Bedrooms in Jerusalem
Posted by: Nevergiveup at December 10, 2012 04:18 PM (jE38p)




I saw that wz had it linked before it was removed, but couldn't look, anyway.

Posted by: beach intellect at December 10, 2012 04:31 PM (LpQbZ)

640 Actually, Mommy admitted this is point blank an attempt to bribe me
with food because my dad needs help with a PowerPoint slide. God help
me.

Git yo but over there and pound out that PP young lady. You are blessed.

Posted by: Oldsailors Poet, Wonders what Dagny thinks at December 10, 2012 04:31 PM (3Y7RV)

641 Actually, Mommy admitted this is point blank an attempt to bribe me with food because my dad needs help with a PowerPoint slide. God help me.

Hmmm. Home cooked chili...PowerPoint assistance...to be honest, you're looking to come out way ahead on this deal...

Posted by: Brother Cavil at December 10, 2012 04:31 PM (GBXon)

642 To all the religious right people and the LBTG contingent: I om only concerned about one person's orgasm, and it ain't yours.

Posted by: sophistahick at December 10, 2012 04:32 PM (UhXzR)

643 "and I was always taught that dinosaurs were pre-human."

So they just skipped the book of Job then?

Posted by: In Cognito at December 10, 2012 04:32 PM (9aeie)

644 and maybe mitt was scared to go intellectual.

note that michigan is now a right to work state? But Mitt didn't pounce on the michigan bailout arguments during debate?

he didn't want to argue the line that every conservative should know because he didn't want to offend some soccer mom in michigan or ohio that's been living in a cave for 40 years.

Posted by: joeindc44 wonders if anyone has any advice for the GOP at December 10, 2012 04:32 PM (QxSug)

645 Here's an interesting finding that they put on page 2:


Since the era of Ronald Reagan, women have traditionally been more open to cutting defense spending than men. This has changed in recent years, and now women take a harder line than men on the military budget. While 41 percent of men favor making significant defense cuts and 56 percent oppose them, only 34 percent of women favor cuts and 62 percent oppose them. That’s a 15-point spread.
Women believe the world is more dangerous, Democratic pollster Lake explained, and they see cutting the military budget as harmful to the troops.



Posted by: tasker at December 10, 2012 04:32 PM (r2PLg)

646 "Jews building Bedrooms in Jerusalem"

Posted by: Nevergiveup at December 10, 2012 04:18 PM (jE38p)

Yup. Third-floor walkup in Jerusalem = genocide.

Makes perfect sense.

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at December 10, 2012 04:32 PM (GsoHv)

647 AG, you could not be more wrong. If you could see me right now you would
know how visably upset I am. It's not Hoo-Has, it's Hoo-Hoos, get it
right mister.


My apologies. I'm not up on the most current trends in female genitalia euphemisms.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) Channelling Breitbart at December 10, 2012 04:33 PM (5DR1j)

648 Stephen Hawking could become a US citizen, come out as a strong Conservative and the Left would simply ignore it. Media blackout.

I denounce myself.

Posted by: Daybrother at December 10, 2012 04:34 PM (+paCV)

649 I don't ever recall discussing the mechanics of legit rape prevention,
and I always was taught that dinosaurs were pre human. No idea where
that other stuff came from.


I was taught in Sunday School that the Earth was no more than 20,000 years old (probably less) and dinosaurs co-existed with Man. I no longer hold those views.

I grew up in a small town and attended a conservative Lutheran synod. I can't remember if it was Missouri or Wisconsin synod, they're about the same.

The Young Earth creationists aren't a small fringe. I disagree with them, but it's irrelevant in day to day life.

Posted by: Hollowpoint at December 10, 2012 04:34 PM (SY2Kh)

650 EC: "...Then you meet the newly minted PhD's that think
they're the second coming of Albert Einstein."


Then they still haven't learned a thing despite years of study. At the end of each and every degree, one should conclude foremost, "You know, the more I learn, the dumber I feel." Yeah, you "mastered" one! specialty. You know how many specialties in the world there are, both defined and not? Degrees should be a humbling experience despite the recognized accomplishment.

Posted by: AnonymousDrivel at December 10, 2012 04:35 PM (eHIJJ)

651 @624:"First was Akin's use of a thoroughly debunked (and, frankly, ridiculous)
scientific hypothesis. The magic hoo-ha, if you will. That was bad for a
variety of reasons, not least of which is that it showed he believed in
magic hoo-has."
---

And if we want to be completely fair to Akin (i.e., hold him to the same standards as we do for most other people for understanding and expressing concepts beyond our expertise) there is a plausible argument that his mistaken belief comes from a misunderstanding of the very real phenomenon of stress-induced miscarriage.

He of course mangled it beyond recognition and doubled down on the stupid...but how often do Democrats do that with any number of issues? In fact, how many people who threw shit-fits about Akin actually understood the biology to say what he was probably thinking and why he was nevertheless wrong, and how many were reacting because "durr...conservative christian must be dumb".

[For the record, I don't think we should be "completely fair" to public officials. They command more authority and are more responsible for their off-hand, ignorant statements than the average person. So while I think Akin may have been misunderstood for his own misunderstanding, I'm still glad he had the book thrown at him.]

Posted by: JeremiadBullfrog at December 10, 2012 04:35 PM (FiwwD)

652 The 3 most successful (so far) politicians of the last 30 years are:
1) Ronald Reagan: an actual intellectual who hid it behind a genial veneer who could show the steel in his backbone when he needed to (the SNL skit on this was brilliant!)
2) Bill Clinton: Actually a pretty smart guy, although morally bankrupt, who hid his smarts behind an "Aw shucks, I'm just a boy from Arkansas, y'all."
3) Barak Obama: A guy who's coasted though life being told he's brilliant but who "hides" it by using a brand of populism that even Huey Long would have been ashamed to utilize.

The thing that all 3 (and to a lesser extent G.W.) have in common is the ability to use the cadence of populism to reach the low info voter and hammer their opponents. The Democratic coalition of grievance voters and elites is vulnerable to a populist message that turns the grievance voters against the elites. That means relentlessly hammeringWall Street (vs Main Street),Ivy League Grads, Hollywood and large corporations. Gin up a good dose of envy against these types and make sure that the media can no longer pretend that they are controlled by Republicans and that Republicans only serve their interests. And if that means throwing someIvy League alum beltway conservatives under the bus,tough. Politics ain't beanbag! As forWall Street, Hollywood etc. fuck 'em for corportist, taxloop-hole coniving, crony capilitalist ass-lickers that they are.

But it would take a messanger who didn't go to a an Ivy League college. Jindal went to Brown but most people probably don't know it's Ivy League, so he could probably pull it off and the Bayou accent he's been cultivating lately will help. Rubio gets populism in his bones and has never set foot in an Ivy League school.

But for Christ's sake no more Harvard or Yale graduates like Romney or the Bushes!!! Haven't they fucked things up enough!

Posted by: Jaylord at December 10, 2012 04:35 PM (RuF8n)

653 there are different kinds of populism, not all forms of populism are bad.

for instance, the drug issue; it's becoming more and more popular to be for legalization or at least de-federalization of drug law. this fits perfectly with the intellectual idea that political centralization is bad and federalization is good, i can not for the life of me understand the conservative argument in favor of federal drug law.

we could and should use this brand of populism to our political benefit, we should steal this issue right out from under the progressives, leave them gob-smacked, and increase our voter pool in the process, the old folks left in our camp aren't going anywhere and we stand to pick up a significant block of young voters.

and those that say "but it's bad for you, the sky will fall!"

where you gonna go? are you going to vote democrat?

Posted by: Shoey at December 10, 2012 04:35 PM (m6OUa)

654 Hmmm. Home cooked chili...PowerPoint assistance...to be honest, you're looking to come out way ahead on this deal...
Posted by: Brother Cavil at December 10, 2012 04:31 PM (GBXon)



I so am, particularly as I will whine my way into getting leftovers.


Don't think I am unaware that I am blessed. Every single day I thank God for my parents. I am a very lucky girl indeed.

Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD. Now with bacon cheddar fries. at December 10, 2012 04:36 PM (VtjlW)

655 So they just skipped the book of Job then?

The book of Job is a) listed in the books of "Poetry" for a reason and b) not a scientific text. I presume you're referring to the descriptions of the Behemoth and Leviathan.

Last I checked, no one* believed that dinosaurs breathed fire.

Just sayin'.

*Yes, some true nuts believe that. As pointed out, the only public official who has been pointed to is a Democrat. Draw your own conclusions.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) Channelling Breitbart at December 10, 2012 04:36 PM (5DR1j)

656 "...he believed in magic hoo-has."

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) Channelling Breitbart at December 10, 2012 04:26 PM (5DR1j)

I think that hoo-has are magic. Am I a lunatic?

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at December 10, 2012 04:37 PM (GsoHv)

657 **No idea where that other stuff came from.**

TLR (too lazy, didn't read) but I think you mean some of the stuff that was attributed to Palin and other "dumb" conservatives.

Some hate fileld lefty website made a joke about dinosaurs or whatnot and every so smart liberal thought they were real things she beliveed.

Posted by: joeindc44 wonders if anyone has any advice for the GOP at December 10, 2012 04:37 PM (QxSug)

658 You know, education -- if you make the most of it -- you study hard, you
do your homework and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well.
If you don't, you get stuck in Iraq.

If you Peopel lisened to Senater Cary, therd be no wars.

Posted by: Babs Strisand at December 10, 2012 04:39 PM (vhwRj)

659 I think that hoo-has are magic. Am I a lunatic?

1) I think you believe hoo-has (or hoo-hoos, as the case may be) are magic for a different reason.

2) Yes. Note these are not necessarily related questions.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) Channelling Breitbart at December 10, 2012 04:39 PM (5DR1j)

660 I think that hoo-has are magic. Am I a lunatic?
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at December 10, 2012 04:37 PM (GsoHv)

abra-cadabra, they make your fucking money diappear.

Posted by: Oldsailors Poet, Wonders what Dagny thinks at December 10, 2012 04:40 PM (3Y7RV)

661 my dad needs help with a PowerPoint slide. God help me.
Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD. Now with bacon cheddar fries. at December 10, 2012 04:27 PM (VtjlW)


Help as in:

A) Do it yourself

B) Do it yourself while ripping your hair out during an interrogation of irrelevant questions about powerpoint?

I'm all about the path of least resistance myself.

Posted by: cajun carrot at December 10, 2012 04:40 PM (UZQM8)

662 Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) Channelling Breitbart at December 10, 2012 04:39 PM (5DR1j)

That was reasonably witty for a Texan.

You should write a blot or something.

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at December 10, 2012 04:40 PM (GsoHv)

663 Posted by: cajun carrot at December 10, 2012 04:40 PM (UZQM

I am my father's tech guy (and, increasingly, my wife aunt's tech guy).

I believe he is getting back at me for all of those long drives when I was a horrid little brat and my mother had to restrain him from beating me to death with my sisters"

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at December 10, 2012 04:43 PM (GsoHv)

664 I believe he is getting back at me for all of those long drives when I was a horrid little brat and my mother had to restrain him from beating me to death with my sisters"
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at December 10, 2012 04:43 PM (GsoHv)

LOL, prolly.

Posted by: Oldsailors Poet, Wonders what Dagny thinks at December 10, 2012 04:45 PM (3Y7RV)

665 649

I had one Sunday School teacher, a man who taught middle-school age, who believed that dinosaur bones were put on the earth by the devil to trap us. However, my Lutheran church (more "fundamentalist" than Missouri, but possibly less than Wells) did not have any official stance on creationism and did not teach it. The closest it got to the question was "god directed evolution."

Since then, though, things have changed. My parents were upset that our church, last fall, spent $2k to invite in some fellow to give his young earth creationist seminar.

I solved my adolescent crisis of faith by realizing that God is gracious and good and doesn't demand an IQ test before granting salvation. But yet, clearly, something is changing.

And it may be the same things as the political orientation that Ace addressed in this post and people are discussing. I believe that it is. People forced to make a choice between science and God choose science or God. It comes up in casual exchanges if someone in a "science" role mentions faith... there is an assumption of incompatibility.

It's a false dichotomy. But just like the political ones, it's a powerful dichotomy.

Posted by: Synova at December 10, 2012 04:50 PM (7/PU+)

666 "listed as a book of poetry"

You just go ahead and throw out whatever books you care to as not being the the word of God. That was God speaking to Job giving those descriptions.
There are people "throw out" or reduce to "figures of speech" much of God's Word so as to seem wise in the eyes of the world.

Posted by: In Cognito at December 10, 2012 04:52 PM (dxLXf)

667 Here, have some learnin' they won't tell ya 'bout in school.
Of course, if you read the man's bio you'll say he's an uneducated nut too.

creation science dot com

Posted by: In Cognito at December 10, 2012 05:00 PM (ZA2xI)

668 i think you let scarbourough get your panty's in a bunch ace. he is nothing more than a phony self serving asshole...he knows who butters his bread...that is exactly why he says and does what he says and does...period...you need the right guy/gal to deliver the message...it's as simple and yes, trite as that...sometimes we tend to think things to death...."over intellecualize", in this case....romney was not the right guy...hell, he hired the mcain boys to run things the last several months of his campaign...and never forget the power of the media...they alone are worth a couple of touchdowns in the first quarter for the other side(not apologizing for the cheap sports metaphor)...you may not like hearing it but the media lemmings quite simply(yes i said simply) have a lot to do with the outcome...no matter who we run...that is another reason it is so important to have the "right" person, a person who can overcome that obstacle...i almost went to sleep listening to romney's speech at the convention for god's sake...let's not make this damn thing more complicated than it really is and start buying in to all this bullshit criticism about "elitist intellectualism" or any intellectualism for that matter. you are thenallowing the other side to define the argument again, and falling into the same old trap...it's a catch 22...remember who and what you are dealinig with here....2010 happend for a reason...our side had a reason to vote and we did...it was historic...2012 also, for whatever reason, our guy did not light a fire under a lot of voters asses...i think those voters are stupid as hell, maybe not very intellectual, but it's still a fact he just couldn't get them to come out and vote...well, that takes me back to my original premise...it takes the right kind of person to lead the charge...take it to the bank...it's as boring and as simple as that...

Posted by: steve at December 10, 2012 05:06 PM (u25eL)

669 Thing is, I've been poisoned on the term by Paul Johnson's definition:

Intellectuals are people who care more about ideas than people.


I think that's a useful definition, and I believe most people who call themselves intellectuals fit that mold. I will have nothing to do with it.

It drives totalitarian impulses, more often than not. The ideas are beautiful, and people must be shoved into the proper shape to keep those beautiful ideas.

Posted by: meep at December 10, 2012 05:25 PM (bX6Pv)

670 I'm smart...and I want respect!

Posted by: Fredo at December 10, 2012 05:32 PM (Km/Pn)

671 " My work is intended as a poem
Translated into music by a painter." Joan Miro

Posted by: Rstone at December 10, 2012 05:46 PM (H6Vdo)

672 "I do not believe all this crap about the Republican Party needing to be
more controlled by/influenced by/led by intellectuals to succeed."

If that's what that douchebag Scarborough said, then he can get fucked, like the rest of his "moderate" Republican butt-buddies.

Posted by: Blacque Jacques Shellacque at December 10, 2012 06:07 PM (vd7A8)

673 "I also feel a disdain for reflexive anti-intellectualism or stupid and damn proud of it. I forgot of that from the Palin/McCain campaign, but it really is off putting.
Posted by: Jollyroger at December 10, 2012 02:30 PM (t06LC)"

Er...Palin never once said or suggested a) that she is uneducated (she's not) or b) that she's proud of being stupid. Leftist meme alert.

Posted by: alwaysfiredup at December 10, 2012 07:03 PM (eT3ai)

674 Four of my friends were talking about the election November 1st. They literally had NO IDEA about the Benghazi attack. Like they didn't even know it had occurred. Guess who all four of them were voting for. These aren't people who are swayed by intellectual arguments. They vote for who they LIKE better. When polling shows that the SAME people think positively of Bill Clinton as do Ronald Reagan, it's not something that is well thought out. It's a popularity contest. They give it as much thought as voting for Prom Queen.

Posted by: Passably Affable at December 10, 2012 07:09 PM (/YzPM)

675 "What do you folks think Obama's IQ is? I've got him pegged in the low 120's."

As someone with an IQ of 148, I tend to be a good judge of the IQs of others.

I think you are in the right range. Obama is dumber on an IQ basis than GWBush.

"588
Joe the Plumber exhibited greater intellectual understanding of Obama in
a brief encounter than Joe Scarborough has shown in 4 years. I have,
and have never had, a problem with intellectuals or intellectualism. I
do have a problem with, to coin a word, credentialism, the idea that
having lofty credentials makes one intellectually superior. "

THIS IS THE ISSUE. The left uses faux-intellectual argument-from-authority fallacies to 'win' arguments ("All scientists say the earth is warming! Get it line and bow to our wisdom, you ignorant plebes!").
The self-interested Government workers, also known as your local community college professors, vote Democrat, and the libs bleat about how the 'educated' vote Democrat so it must be smart.
No, if you're so smart, why are you voting for the party of trillion dollar deficits. Cant you do math?

Credentialism and argument-by-authority is used to suppress free thought and rational discussion, not build on it.


Posted by: Harry P Ness Reid at December 10, 2012 10:05 PM (oLIxy)

676 Good post.

I was also anti-intellectual for a long time, mainly because I'd met so many people (both liberal conservative) who used being an "intellectual" as an excuse to be prissy and condescending.

I got over my aversion when I realized others saw me as an intellectual NOT because I was prissy and condescending (so far, no one's accused me of that) but because I was frequently quoting books I had read while in the middle of a discussion about something else entirely.

In other words, if you approach knowledge and learning as a way to prove you are better or smarter than other people, regular people will avoid you. If you approach knowledge and learning as something that you do to better yourself and being able to speak authoritatively on a subject is a happy side-effect, but only a side-effect, you won't become an asshole.

And as an aside, the Autumn 2012 edition of City Journal had an article ("The Paperback Quest For Joy") on how voraciously Americans have been reading self-help books since colonial days. Avoidance of efforts at self-improvement because it's viewed as "womanly" or weak would seem to be a recent development.

Faux intellectuals (both left and right) tend to confuse recitation of facts or catchy one-liners with actual critical thought. They get too enamored with their own cleverness.

More damaging than that are the intellectuals who start falling into errors in logic in their quest to always be the most correct and most clever. This is not a new problem, Cicero and others wrote about it in classical times. (And no, I haven't read Cicero yet, although I intend to.) If you don't want to look up Cicero, Thomas Sowell had some good examples of bad logic masquerading as intellectual arguments in his book "The Vision of the Anointed".

Posted by: camille at December 11, 2012 02:42 AM (E29pD)

677 If you have to say your are an "intellectual" it negates the point. You are or you are not, but who prey tell will be the "decider" of that? I do believe one walks their talk and if they do so stupid-idly we then can extrapolate they are indeed stupid, take Bob Costas, he is a sports talker period, nothing more and yet he feels he is "intelligent" enough to speak on the issue of guns, a man who has probably never owned one and pays people to protect his safety from the hoards who do, he owns ignorance.

Posted by: JadedByPolitics at December 11, 2012 07:00 AM (w1aBX)

678 Someone contact Guinness. We have a new world record for most words used to say absolutely nothing. Is this why critical thinking has gone the way of the do-do in the GOP? Because any conservative with an actual DESIRE to engage in critical thought is in factmaking a genuine effortto do so, but hasconfusedsuch thoughtwith the kind of mental masturbation found here? A ponderance of this question would be a far more productive mental exercise than the self-serving, substantively empty drivel foundabove. At least if the GOP has any intention of retaining whatever credibility, if any, it has left... Appears to be a pretty big if.

Posted by: Brian at December 12, 2012 04:08 PM (vvsG/)

679 Ace,
I admire your writing and your thinking. But you could use a good editor. Not everything about the old media model is broken. I admire your flair -- for about 1,500 words. Perhaps I am not an intellectual! Cheers.
Bob

Posted by: Bob Rayner at December 12, 2012 04:20 PM (kthGB)

680
Is Rush Limbaugh an intellectual, by the broad definition I've just suggested? Is Mark Levin? Is Glenn Beck?


Yes, of course. By the broad definition I've suggested, they are
primarily idea-oriented and argument-oriented and therefore
intellectuals.

FAIL

Posted by: Steve J. at December 12, 2012 06:44 PM (xKDMF)

681
On at least one level, I view intellectualism as similar to nobility. Both characteristics are properly attributable to a person only by others. Anybody who claims either characteristic for themselves is self-beclowning.
Of course, nobility is far preferable to intellectualism. You earn nobility through your actions. Intellectualism is not earned and there is nothing particularly noteworthy or praiseworthy about it. Am I against it? Absolutely not. Some call me intellectual. Do I worship it? Feh. Give me a fairly dull person who works hard and is humble and honest over a smart, lazy, dishonest wanker any day of the week.
I find my preferred kind of person often among the apolitical and conservatives. Less often among liberals, though they are in there. My observation is that typically those are the ones who are intellectually honest enough to eventually realize they're really conservatives and they need to unlearn most of the crap their college professors stuffed down their throats.

Posted by: Agoraphobic Plumber at December 12, 2012 07:52 PM (csbsV)

682 Admittedly, I did not finish your article. The self-congratulatory tone awash in your come-to-Jesus-guilt about being a real smart guy and the ball-licking you did for your readership was just too much.

Anyone who quotes Hayek is an intellectual? Come on! It's not enough to just regift packaged ideas, man. And idea-packagers like Beck and Limbaugh couldn't be further from intellectualism. Intellectualism requires presenting both sides of the case, grasping every side of the argument, understanding "qui bono?". Intellectualism doesn't rest on self-interest.

This is one of the most confused pieces of writing I've ever seen land on the front page of RealClearPolitics -- and that says a lot.

Posted by: Jesus H. at December 12, 2012 09:00 PM (d7Gw5)

683 Anti-intellectualism is fine, but knowledge is still good. The Republicans would be better off concentrating on being informed, which is another way of saying educated to, the bare facts of history, law, and to a lesser extent economics, which are routinely obscured by our complicit media-Democrat complex. And some real knowledge of the human sciences & technology can't hurt--the Democrat interest in "science" proper is very shallow and seems not to go further than "DARWIN/JON STEWART IZ AWESEUMMM"

And, I'm not sure whether you were being facetious, but Goldwater was not perceived as an intellectual, by any stretch.

Posted by: DaveT at December 13, 2012 06:14 AM (RWu5t)

684 Wow, with assholes like these who needs page-views?

Posted by: ssmr at January 02, 2013 12:32 PM (iapLY)






Processing 0.14, elapsed 0.1471 seconds.
15 queries taking 0.0301 seconds, 693 records returned.
Page size 406 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.7 alpha.

MuNuvians
MeeNuvians
Polls! Polls! Polls!
Frequently Asked Questions
The (Almost) Complete Paul Anka Integrity Kick
Top Top Tens
Greatest Hitjobs

The Ace of Spades HQ Sex-for-Money Skankathon
A D&D Guide to the Democratic Candidates
Margaret Cho: Just Not Funny
More Margaret Cho Abuse
Margaret Cho: Still Not Funny
Iraqi Prisoner Claims He Was Raped... By Woman
Wonkette Announces "Morning Zoo" Format
John Kerry's "Plan" Causes Surrender of Moqtada al-Sadr's Militia
World Muslim Leaders Apologize for Nick Berg's Beheading
Michael Moore Goes on Lunchtime Manhattan Death-Spree
Milestone: Oliver Willis Posts 400th "Fake News Article" Referencing Britney Spears
Liberal Economists Rue a "New Decade of Greed"
Artificial Insouciance: Maureen Dowd's Word Processor Revolts Against Her Numbing Imbecility
Intelligence Officials Eye Blogs for Tips
They Done Found Us Out, Cletus: Intrepid Internet Detective Figures Out Our Master Plan
Shock: Josh Marshall Almost Mentions Sarin Discovery in Iraq
Leather-Clad Biker Freaks Terrorize Australian Town
When Clinton Was President, Torture Was Cool
What Wonkette Means When She Explains What Tina Brown Means
Wonkette's Stand-Up Act
Wankette HQ Gay-Rumors Du Jour
Here's What's Bugging Me: Goose and Slider
My Own Micah Wright Style Confession of Dishonesty
Outraged "Conservatives" React to the FMA
An On-Line Impression of Dennis Miller Having Sex with a Kodiak Bear
The Story the Rightwing Media Refuses to Report!
Our Lunch with David "Glengarry Glen Ross" Mamet
The House of Love: Paul Krugman
A Michael Moore Mystery (TM)
The Dowd-O-Matic!
Liberal Consistency and Other Myths
Kepler's Laws of Liberal Media Bias
John Kerry-- The Splunge! Candidate
"Divisive" Politics & "Attacks on Patriotism" (very long)
The Donkey ("The Raven" parody)
News/Chat