The Rebirth of Intellectualism
If there’s one thing the election of Barack Obama has changed it’s our view of intelligence. Suddenly “smart” is cool again. To which I say, thank God. After eight years of a President who wore his academic mediocrity like a badge of honor we finally woke up and elected the smartest guy in the room instead of…
…the guy you’d rather have a beer with.
I shuddered as I typed those words. I also wonder how we dared criticize children who chose hipness over nerdy. Did we think they weren’t paying attention? Did we really believe we could mock intellect-chew-als and sneer at Harvard graduates and that a lot of kids wouldn’t absorb the message? Now, I’ll admit I’m over generalizing, but when an entire political party equates intelligence to elitism, embraces the fact that our President is academically unexceptional and offers up Sarah Palin with a straight face how far have we lowered the bar?
Fortunately, the American people have woken up. We are facing a crumbling economy, historic job losses and a healthcare system in tatters. We can no longer afford average. We need exceptional, and we don’t only need the exceptional in government. We need it in our classrooms, our homes… our country.
On November 4th smart beat stupid. Let the Intellectual Renaissance begin.
Now, go ahead and call me an elitist. I’ll just take it as a compliment!
Pandora – you dont understand the meaning of ‘a guy you’d like to have a beer with.’ you want to have a beer with him for the debate and conversation, whether it be about the Eagles, the eagles or eagles. You get to enjoy a libation and conversation. If you want to sit next to a moron and have a beer, go for it, but its not very enjoyable (unless she is hot and easy.)
Pandora,
While I hope to see this happen, I have seen little evidence of it so far. This isn’t the kind of thing that can happen in a week, it’s going to take years of intellectual leadership, and depends heavily on the openness of the public.
I love your ideal and certainly see it more in reach now that we’ve elected an intellectual, but I seriously doubt it’s happened as yet.
Not just intelligence, but also competence (so far). I’m hoping that the belligerent anti-intellectualism and celebration of failure disappears from the normal media too. Leave that crap to wingnut radio, and any journalist who takes his or her cues from wingnut radio (or Drudge) should be exiled.
“Let the Intellectual Renaissance begin. ”
Onward! A great start would be to rise above your childish obsession with trashing Bush, Palin, etc., and those who disagree with your liberal ideologies. It seems to be all you have left on your dubious agenda. The majority of the country has spoken, and I can accept that.
However, contrary to your delusion, the collective IQ of America didn’t miraculously raise on November 4th. The election merely demonstrated how gullible the majority can be by being led by the nose by a biased media (deny it, but it’s well documented by the same media-after the fact, of course), and a suspiciously well-funded campaign. Any attempt to drape this naiveté with intellectualism is bordering on arrogance. Again, the people have spoken. Let’s give it a good shot and see how it works out.
“Now, go ahead and call me an elitist…”
Don’t flatter yourself, vacuous stereotyping is more your style.
Never said the country became smarter overnight, merely stated that valuing intelligence scored a victory. It’s a step in the right direction.
I’m glad to have someone competent and intelligent in charge again. One thing we kept hearing over and over during the campaign season is that Obama is “cool.” I’m glad the definition of cool now includes someone who is brainy and deliberative. I think the biggest difference between Bush and Obama is decisions from the gut vs. decisions from the head.
One really nice thing about having a president who is so popular and that people can relate to is that we’ll finally have a role model besides famous athletes, musicians and actors. Maybe government service and not just getting rich and famous will suddenly be cool again. That’s probably just my wishful thinking, though, we’ll probably still get lots of coverage of what Paris is wearing.
One report by a newspaper ombudsman hardly constitutes “well documented” bias.
When, by the way, have you ever articulated a point in the manner you espouse above? I don’t recall anything but the same childish namecalling you claim to dislike.
“One really nice thing about having a president who is so popular and that people can relate to is that we’ll finally have a role model besides famous athletes, musicians and actors. Maybe government service and not just getting rich and famous will suddenly be cool again.+
I’m in total agreement that it would be ideal if public service would trump the idolization of rock /pop stars.
However, contrary to your delusion, the collective IQ of America didn’t miraculously raise on November 4th.
And the evidence that the collective IQ of America didn’t rise on 4 November is right here — in your reading comprehension failure here.
Too bad for you that Bush and Palin and the rest provided more fodder than we could cover of their failures and misdirections.
“One report by a newspaper ombudsman hardly constitutes “well documented” bias.”
It goes well beyond the report by Washington Post Ombudsman Deborah Howell. Just to cite a few:
-The Center for Media and Public Affairs, a nonprofit, nonpartisan research organization which is affiliated with George Mason University found “Obama’s news coverage was 62 percent positive on the broadcast networks.
By contrast, McCain’s coverage during the primaries was only 34percent positive.
-A study released by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press on October 22 and 23 found that 70 percent of Americans believed most journalists wanted to see Obama, not John McCain, win on November 4. (Only 9 percent believed otherwise.)
-Observations by Rosie DiManno of the Toronto Star:
“I was in the press tent in Chicago on election night, with some hundred other journalists whose news organizations had ponied up large for a tabled seat at Grant Park. These were all veteran reporters, including the “travelling media” posse – embeds – who had accompanied Barack Obama throughout the campaign. At 10 p.m. on Tuesday, Wolf Blitzer appeared on the giant television screen to announce Obama had won the presidency…
Huge cheers erupted, squeals of delight, and some reporters high-fived.
I was stunned. Not at the victory, of course, but that top-drawer journalists would so lose their arm’s-length professional detachment from events.”
The list grows daily.
Last example first: You’ll find plenty of stories of reporters who covered the McCain campaign rooting for the candidate they covered. It’s human nature, and does not automatically mean the coverage they produced was biased.
Positive vs. negative coverage, similarly, does not necessarily mean bias. If the McCain campaign screwed up more often — which it clearly did — it deserves more negative coverage.
Got anything else? Something that actually made a difference, I mean.
Besides, your entire premise is nonsense. The people who write here weren’t influenced by the media to support Obama — they came to that conclusion themselves. Your bias is typical of conservatives — anyone who disagrees with them must be stupid. I’m not commenting on or defending the more childish outbursts here. But I will point out that you’ve never brought much to the conversation that I can recall, other than these tired conservative memes.
“And the evidence that the collective IQ of America didn’t rise on 4 November is right here — in your reading comprehension failure here.”
Very *intellectual* comeback, Cassandra.
“Too bad for you that Bush and Palin and the rest provided more fodder than we could cover of their failures and misdirections.”
I guess you just unwittingly proved my point that it’s basically all you have.
“If the McCain campaign screwed up more often — which it clearly did…”
Agreed. For the most part, the strategy of the McCain campaign was an unprecedented disaster, but we’re also talking about the candidates themselves.
“You’ll find plenty of stories of reporters who covered the McCain campaign rooting for the candidate they covered. It’s human nature,…”
I don’t know. If I were a Rays fan, and saw the umpires high-fiving after a Phillies win, I may be a little suspect.
“Got anything else? Something that actually made a difference, I mean.”
I get the feeling that I could cite articles all day, and it still wouldn’t reduce your bias.
So — you’re thinking that criticizing a politician for their failures and misdirection is somehow not kosher?
Good to know that you will be out of the conversation for the next four years.
It is a good year to be a democrat
Jersey City Councilman Steven Lipski is No. 1 threat at Washington club
BY RICH SCHAPIRO
DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITER
Sunday, November 9th 2008, 12:06 AM
Jersey City Councilman Steven Lipski
A drunken Jersey City councilman was arrested for urinating on a crowd of concertgoers from the balcony of a Washington nightclub, police and club sources said Saturday.
Councilman Steven Lipski was caught relieving himself onto several revelers at the 9:30 Club during a concert by a Grateful Dead tribute band Friday night, club sources said.
“He was very drunk,” the source said, noting that it wasn’t the first time Lipski had caused a ruckus at the popular concert venue.
“We’ve dealt with this man before,” the source added. “He’s never peed on anybody, but he gets really belligerent and drunk.”
Lipski, 44, was hauled out of the club about 9:50 p.m. after staffers spotted him in the act on the concert hall’s second-floor balcony and called the cops.
The crass councilman, who is serving his second term in office since getting elected in 2001, was charged with simple assault, police said.
Attempts to reach Lipski were unsuccessful Saturday night. His aide, Irina Zaki, said the councilman was in Washington Friday night, but she had no knowledge of his arrest.
He apologized to “everyone who has been affected by this mess,” including his wife, the Jersey City mayor, the students at the charter school he founded – and even his “fellow Dead Heads.”
The lurid incident marks the second time in recent years that a Jersey City pol was caught with his pants down.
Photos showing Jerramiah Healy, still a councilman at the time, naked and passed out on his front stoop were widely circulated in 2004 days before he was elected mayor.
“So — you’re thinking that criticizing a politician for their failures and misdirection is somehow not kosher?”
Talk about lack of “reading comprehension”. Part of my point was that … how can we move forward and” Let the Intellectual Renaissance begin” if you can’t stop bashing the people who are no longer the real players. Rest assured, I’ll be front and center when the new facade begins to crumble.
What about the fact that a lot of the articles in question dealt with the “horse race” meme even though Obama held the lead for weeks?
McCain ran an openly negative campaign. He didn’t try to hide that fact. Combine hostile negative ads, nasty campaign rhetoric (terrorist, socialist, etc) and stupid political stunts and what would you have the press say? Frankly, I think the entire country, press included, held their breath when McCain suspended his campaign and flew back (not immediately, huge gaffe) to Washington. What would he do about the economic crisis? Not our fault the answer to that question turned out to be a joke.
I agree Pandora. If Obama’s press coverage was more positive it was because he was running a good campaign and McCain was running a bad, negative, losing campaign. Are there any totals of how many of the “negative” McCain stories came from his own campaign aides dumping on Sarah Palin?
It isn’t a matter of my bias, it’s a matter of whether your contention is true — that the reporting is biased in the first place, and that it has the effect you claim in the second place.
These aren’t facts or data points, they’re complaints. If biased reporting is so effective on the stupid and gullible, why do Fox News viewers not fall for it? They’re no smarter than others, but they’re immune, right? Does that make them automatically smart in your view?
If McCain/Palin supporters want someone to blame they can start by looking in the mirror. Portraying the country as naive and the press as biased ain’t gonna cure what ails ya.
Part of my point was that … how can we move forward and” Let the Intellectual Renaissance begin” if you can’t stop bashing the people who are no longer the real players.
Then your point (now that you’ve finally made it) is just plain stupid. Palin is still being touted as the Great Girl Hope for 2012 , and, for that matter, it is pretty early to talk about who may or may not be a player in future. So until someone knows who the real players are, we still get to criticize them.
“…it’s a matter of whether your contention is true — that the reporting is biased in the first place, and that it has the effect you claim in the second place.”
I don’t believe it’s giant leap of faith to say if the media portrayed an individual in a more positive light, a neutral block of the electorate would tend to favor that candidate. Bias is the basic premise of advertising. Human nature, right?
Fox News? I rarely listen to Fox. Ironically, I get much of my news links here, from other blogs, and for some neutrality, Canadian and British media sources. Then, of course, I try to sift through all the bullshit… especially here.
Move forward? Like the way the Far Right has moved beyond the Clinton hate, Gore smears, and Kerry mocking?
The hypocrisy in that statement is breathtaking. Next thing you know Republican politicians will start caring about fiscal responsibility. Oh wait…
“So until someone knows who the real players are, we still get to criticize them.”
Acknowledging the smear machine is still at full throttle, if you actually consider Palin a threat, have at her, and enjoy. Oddly enough, I no longer consider her a real player in 2012, or otherwise. Don’t believe everything you read on the internet.
“Like the way the Far Right has moved beyond the Clinton hate, Gore smears, and Kerry mocking?”
Exactly my point, genius. Those asshats are no longer players. Far right? I’m a bit closer to the center than you would imagine.
What you consider a threat isn’t exactly what is in consideration here — your contention was whether an individual was a player and there is no doubt that there are real factions of the repub party (including those not on the Internet!) who continue to portray her as one.
It isn’t a smear if it’s true — isn’t that the rationalization? And the fact that Palin isn’t ready for prime time is most certainly a fact.
Sorry Mis, but where was this olive branch for the last 8 years? You guys lose and suddenly it’s all peace, love and Bobby Sherman?
Now I’m all for reaching across the aisle, but you don’t get to rewrite the rules… or history.
On the topic of the country picking the intellectual, I am reminded of a comment on the naming of Paulson as Treasury secretary, after a long line of ideologues who proved awful in that post. The phrase was that in naming Paulson, W finally had to “scrape the top of the barrel”.
The country finally decided that it couldn’t afford having the ‘drinking buddy’ in charge any more–we have seen the impact of having Katrina quality handling applied to the banking system and economy.
On the topic of the voters choosing a celebrity over a public servant–I think that it is incredibly incomplete characterization; it ignores policy. A public.servant who offers poor leadership skills and policy proposals, while entering the worst economy in 70 years, a candidate who admits a sharp weakness in economics was aruably the unintelligent choice. This was the tipping point last week.
So it’s against the ‘spirit’ to keep on hammering Bush, McCain, Palin, and the rest of the know-nothings, Mis?
Talk about making the effect the cause!!!
What’s more wrong: Blasting the people who deride the Rubes, or pummel the ones who fill the Rubes with inaccuracies full of hate and superstition with the sole purpose of manipulation?
“Palin’s just like MEEEE!!! YEY!!!”
– Teh Stoopid
And I do believe Mis is more to the center, based on his comments….me thinks he just takes pleasure in the role of Devil’s advocate….a contrarian, if you will….shitzandgiggles.
“I don’t believe it’s giant leap of faith to say if the media portrayed an individual in a more positive light, a neutral block of the electorate would tend to favor that candidate.”
I’m not sure how big a leap of faith your contention is. But we’ll never be able to tell, because the media are far from the only ones portraying the candidates. What has more effect on your neutral voter, news coverage or the campaign ads that interrupt it?
“Bias is the basic premise of advertising.”
I think you’d have a hard time proving that one. Advertising is a lot more complicated than that.
Your whole argument is composed of the leaps of faith you allude to. One could research your contentions, though I don’t know why one would bother.
All that aside, you’re going to have to explain how Sarah Palin, busy spreading more of her self-serving lies wherever someone will turn a TV camera on her, counts as part of the “past.” She’s very much present on TV these days, and sounds as if she’s determined to be part of our future.
“Sorry Mis, but where was this olive branch for the last 8 years?”
Delusional. There will be no olive branch from me, and I sure as hell don’t expect one from anyone else. Don’t mistake my respect for the democratic process as any kind of concession, or respect, to whoever won. I fully intend to continue to call you out on your hypocrisy, and to be the biggest pain in the ass as possible.
You do what you have to do, Mis. Just please cut the “how can we move forward” crap when it’s obvious you have no intention of doing anything differently.
I fully intend to continue to call you out on your hypocrisy, and to be the biggest pain in the ass as possible.
You keep working at that. From where I sit, you’ll need four years or more of practice to get there.
Oh boy…pointing out the “hypocrisy”, Bill Kristol style…heh indeedy!
‘Far right? I’m a bit closer to the center than you would imagine.’
Silly Miscreant, here at DL center and far right are synonymous.
Pandora – Do you really think that someone who graduates from an Ivy League school is best equipped to lead the country by virtue of his/her expensive education? If so, the irony of your post is not lost on me. You know who had a really high IQ? Jimmy Carter. His IQ was 156. See, smart dudes don’t automatically make great leaders.
Perhaps you would be wise to withhold any gleeful proclamations about the benefits of putting an intellectual in charge until you know for sure he’s going to be a good leader. As far as I know, he has no real record of being a leader, so we really don’t know for sure how this ‘intellectual renaissance’ is going to work out.
Oh, and FTR, apart from the fact that ‘the entire party’ is an unfair sweeping generalization, the point was never that intelligence = elitist. I don’t know how many times you guys need this explained to you, but ‘elitist’ (in the political sense) doesn’t mean you’re intelligent or you’re wealthy. It means that you think your intelligence and/or your wealth make(s) you better than others. Please stop pretending not to understand that. I don’t think Obama is an elitist. I think many of his supporters are.
I don’t think Obama is an elitist. I think many of his supporters are.
Fuck yeah.
“It means that you think your intelligence and/or your wealth make(s) you better than others.”
So, basically, your sense of inferiority, or of being made to feel inferior, is the determining factor. You realize, I hope, that you’re describing, at best, your (and Sarah Palin’s) neurosis, nothing else.
I think Palin’s definition of elitist was someone who thought that they were better than the rest of us. Which I think perfectly describes Palin’s supporters’ views of morality.
I think Dom missed the point of my post. Deliberately.
For the last 8 years it’s the Right that’s been mocking intellect-chew-als and Harvard graduates. Bush won twice by doing this.
Looks like the *intellectuals* have been duped again:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/13/arts/television/13hoax.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
For all you* intellectuals* who were duped, the Palin/Africa story has been exposed as fraud. I tried to link to the NYT article, but was apparently denied.
You have now proved how poor your reading comprehension is: You have this exactly wrong.
The fraud occured when this guy stepped forward with the claim that he was the source of the leak. It wasn’t the story that was a fraud, it was the “mea culpa” from a fictional adviser that he was the source.
Nice work there, Mis. How do you want those eggs on your face — scrambled or poached?
I’m not an elitist intellectual, I only ridicule them.
Do only intellectual elitists insist that people get the facts right?