Posted on 11/10/2008 7:47:23 PM PST by jazusamo
Among the many wonders to be expected from an Obama administration, if Nicholas D. Kristof of the New York Times is to be believed, is ending "the anti-intellectualism that has long been a strain in American life."
He cited Adlai Stevenson, the suave and debonair governor of Illinois, who twice ran for president against Eisenhower in the 1950s, as an example of an intellectual in politics.
Intellectuals, according to Mr. Kristof, are people who are "interested in ideas and comfortable with complexity," people who "read the classics."
It is hard to know whether to laugh or cry.
Adlai Stevenson was certainly regarded as an intellectual by intellectuals in the 1950s. But, half a century later, facts paint a very different picture.
Historian Michael Beschloss, among others, has noted that Stevenson "could go quite happily for months or years without picking up a book." But Stevenson had the airs of an intellectual — the form, rather than the substance.
What is more telling, form was enough to impress the intellectuals, not only then but even now, years after the facts have been revealed, though apparently not to Mr. Kristof.
That is one of many reasons why intellectuals are not taken as seriously by others as they take themselves.
(Excerpt) Read more at jewishworldreview.com ...
Memo to Nick Kristof:
I’ll bet you a lunch at the Four Seasons that President Bush has read a greater number of “serious, intellectual” books during the past eight years than have Senator and Mrs. 0bama combined.
Dead on the mark, Phil.
Amen to both, Diana, I couldn’t agree more.
I’ve no doubt you’re correct.
The left operates under the erroneous assumption that “bright makes right”.
Does it necessarily follow that ends justify means?
A young woman approached President “silent” Cal Coolidge and said “I took a bet that I could make you say more than two words.” His reply? “You lose.”
Orwell or Huxley who said “one would have to be an intellectual to believe such a thing - no ordinary man could be so foolish”?.....
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Twenty years or so ago I had a fellow of about 26 years on my payroll. He was a sort of jack of all trades and master of none and not too brilliant but he knew how to get himself back out of the woods after he screwed up and he finally settled down and became an American Family Man. One day at work he made a remark I have remembered since, he was talking about some business manager and he said that he was convinced that some of these people go to college to study how to be stupid because you just can’t be that stupid without training. Sometimes I think he was onto something that escaped most people’s notice.
Well, aren't you, Francoise?
Intellectual is too often used to describe one who is merely educated. Anyone can can buy a formal "education" but true intelligence can't be bought.
s is the sort of thing that engineers crucify fellow engineers for. You’d never hear an engineer or scientist (especially a physics guy) pop out with this sort of mistake, because if they did in front of other engineers/scientists, they’d be crucified immediately.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
On the contrary, it is quite common now to read things such as,”500 times smaller” or “500 percent less” on FR and some who post this nonsense identify themselves as engineers or math majors. I personally have been verbally abused on this forum at times because I protested against such nonsense. I have often been met with the standard attitude of,”You know what I mean”. I fail to see why I should know what someone means when they cannot be bothered to say what they mean.
Intelligence is the ability to see what is, intellectual is the ability to imagine what could be.
That's what chaps my hide. Even sacks of dirt like John Murtha were able to get away with calling our own Marines cold-blooded murderers and his own constituents racists and rednecks.
And the bastard didn't just barely win his race, he kicked his opponents ass.
The only solace I can take is believing that God is in control. It's not my job to understand what His thinking is, it's my job to believe regardless of what my eyes see, ears hear, and brain thinks.
Point ‘em out to me, and I’ll bring my whipping post.
Those are other locutions that make less than no sense. And no, “you know what I mean” is not acceptable.
Eh?
Carl Sagan!
How have intellectuals managed to be so wrong, so often? By thinking that because they are knowledgeable— or even expert— within some narrow band out of the vast spectrum of human concerns, that makes them wise guides to the masses and to the rulers of the nation.Compare with my discussion of the "objectivity" of journalism:thinking yourself to be objective is arguably the best possible definition of the word "subjectivity."If you know you are smart, it is easy to blunder through overconfidence when out of your area of expertise. Especially when you are simply nodding in agreement with someone who has nominal credentials in the area in question.Of course, journalists don't have an area of expertise, other than self promotion.
As always, thanks for the ping, jaz.
You know I love Sowell.
Everything he writes is brilliant.
An intellectual is one who can hide rhetorical turds by wrapping them in sweet-smelling words.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.