PDA

View Full Version : Obama's education of little use


Warrior-Mentor
01-13-2010, 09:23
Obama's education of little use to his presidency
By: Noemie Emery
Examiner Columnist
January 13, 2010

David Brooks notes that in the last year, something dire has happened: The public has turned decisively against the "educated classes" and all of their works. At the same time, it has also moved against Barack Obama, who began his term with approval ratings that bumped up against 70, and have now sunk to the high to mid-40s, with "strongly disapprove" ratings that rival those of George W. Bush at his worst.

It [the American Public] has also moved strongly against his -- and the educated classes' -- ideas. It is more pro-life, more anti-climate change, more free market, less statist, more inclined to favor "harsh" measures against terrorism suspects, more in favor of "waterboarding" the terrorist caught in the brief-bombing effort, more opposed to the closing of Guantanamo Bay.

While the liberal Left controls the White House along with both houses of Congress, the country it governs has moved to the Right. These phenomena are all interrelated: The country is moving Right in reaction to Obama's theories of governance, and Obama and the educated class are one and the same.

He epitomizes that class and was sold by that class to the country, which purchased the product and has come to regret it. It now wants its money returned.

In a sense, Obama has never been more than his education (Columbia, Harvard), which for some people was more than enough. When Brooks met Obama in 2005, the new senator had no experience and no accomplishments, but he was perfectly briefed in the requisite talking points.

"As they chewed over the finer points of Edmund Burke, it didn't take long for the two men to click," Gabriel Sherman wrote in the New Republic. On the basis of this, Brooks decided Obama was "dazzling," would one day become "a very good president" and should run for that office as quickly as possible. He compared him to Burke in his subtle complexity.

"Run, Barack, Run," he wrote a year later, on the grounds that crisis required his talents. "I divide people into people who talk like us and who don't talk like us," he admitted to Sherman. He then paid Obama the ultimate compliment, by saying he could write for the New Republic himself.

He was hardly alone. People in newsrooms all over the country decided that someone who talked the way they did was the cure for what ailed the country, and are stunned to find out it is not.

His cosmopolitan cool hasn't defanged the terrorists, who still want to kill us, disarmed North Korea or derailed Iran's bomb. His knowledge of Burke hasn't united the country, which is now more divided and angry than ever.

Obama, Brooks concedes, has "recoiled" the country, but seems at a loss to say why.

Could it be that The One has misjudged both the times and the country?

That he made a strategic mistake in pushing for health care (and a tactical one in trusting the Congress)?; that he created a nightmare for most in his party, who face epic losses this year? Heaven forfend.

To acknowledge this is to indict their own judgment, to face the fact they themselves may be less than insightful, that "talking like us" means next to nothing, and that writing for magazines doesn't equip one for greatness, or leadership. In fact, it only equips one to write for more magazines.

And what does this say?

That our "educated class" is educated beyond its intelligence, and mistakes mastery of its patois and attitude for wisdom and competence.

It is full of itself, and values too highly its skill sets, which are entertaining, but not on the optimum level of consequence. On this optimum level are resolution, moral clarity, and an ability to understand and connect with a great many people, things for which the chattering class is not known. This class fooled itself, and much of the country, for which the country will not soon forgive it.

Obama is president, but he isn't a good one, and he has long ceased to dazzle. He and the educated classes rose (briefly) together, and his failures and fall are their own.

Examiner Columnist Noemie Emery is contributing editor to The Weekly Standard and author of "Great Expectations: The Troubled Lives of Political Families."

SOURCE:
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columns/Obama_s-education-of-little-use-to-his-presidency-8756295-81272472.html

Richard
01-13-2010, 13:59
A great many people mistake opinions for thoughts.
- H.V. Prochnow

Richard

Pete
01-13-2010, 14:39
Did that piece of litterbox filler just call anybody who disagrees with El Presidente' Obama stupid? Or maybe smarter than most give us credit for? Or maybe they are not as smart as they think they are.

Let me think on that.

Paslode
01-13-2010, 15:01
A great many people mistake opinions for thoughts.
- H.V. Prochnow

Richard

Maybe not well thought out is what your getting at.... because it does take thought to come up with an opinion. Some may not have the ability to explain or debate their basis of their opinion but somewhere there is a thought behind it.

Just my opinion ;)

Richard
01-13-2010, 15:21
People seem not to see that their opinion of the world is also a confession of character.
- Ralph Waldo Emerson

However - YMMV.

Richard

nmap
01-13-2010, 15:45
The public has turned decisively against the "educated classes" and all of their works.

It [the American Public] has also moved strongly against his -- and the educated classes' -- ideas. It is more pro-life, more anti-climate change, more free market, less statist, more inclined to favor "harsh" measures against terrorism suspects, more in favor of "waterboarding" the terrorist caught in the brief-bombing effort, more opposed to the closing of Guantanamo Bay.


I wonder - what, precisely, makes one a member of the educated classes? Does one only accomplish this at Harvard or Columbia?

Warrior-Mentor
01-13-2010, 17:31
I wonder - what, precisely, makes one a member of the educated classes? Does one only accomplish this at Harvard or Columbia?

A strong preference for arugula over okra is a good start. :D

HowardCohodas
01-13-2010, 17:34
David Brooks - One of the effete elite in retreat. :lifter

Sigaba
01-13-2010, 17:37
Ms. Emery's editorial shows that she has mastered the green-eyed tirade (if little else).

Ryanr
01-13-2010, 17:46
While the liberal Left controls the White House along with both houses of Congress, the country it governs has moved to the Right.

Does anyone know if the country trended a particular direction during the Bush administration?

Paslode
01-13-2010, 18:49
Does one only accomplish this at Harvard or Columbia?

That was my take on it. Reminds me of distaste of some for the Ivy League Kennedy Administration. You could view the piece as a divide and conquer message, but instead of evil banks and the evil rich we're now talking about the evil and unappreciative highly educated.


People seem not to see that their opinion of the world is also a confession of character.
- Ralph Waldo Emerson

However - YMMV.

Richard

Maybe, maybe not. That might depend on the individual.

Bank on your 'A great many people mistake opinions for thoughts.
- H.V. Prochnow'

One could have a thought without reaching an opinion.

GratefulCitizen
01-13-2010, 19:40
A similar article from last summer:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/07/the_audacity_of_conceit.html

From the article:

It is a common mistake of intellectuals to confuse IQ with common sense and verbal fluency with leadership qualities. They are simply unable to comprehend that academic success does not necessarily translate into a firm grasp on reality; the knack for endlessly bloviating on an abstruse subject does not automatically imply administrative ability; an academic degree is not a substitute for practical experience; and a professors' lounge is not a corporate boardroom.

Paslode
01-13-2010, 20:16
A similar article from last summer:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/07/the_audacity_of_conceit.html

From the article:

I work for a College Professor who went to Columbia, he cherishes Darwin, Che, Mao, Alinsky, doesn't understand Patriotism, is anti-free market, capitalism is dead, socialism rules, is anti-religion and is not open to opposing discussion or views.....but he endlessly chats about them and there benefits to society.

I have to be careful what I discuss with him because were on complete opposite ends of the political spectrum, which I learned on the topic of evolution when I mentioned it would broaden the education if they taught all views on the subject......he got a little rage in the eyes, mentioned there was no God so why promote the idea.

He is right, your wrong, no contrary questions or comments please.

GratefulCitizen
01-13-2010, 20:33
I work for a College Professor who went to Columbia, he cherishes Darwin, Che, Mao, Alinsky, doesn't understand Patriotism, is anti-free market, capitalism is dead, socialism rules, is anti-religion and is not open to opposing discussion or views.

I have to be careful what I discuss with him because were on complete opposite ends of the political spectrum, which I learned on the topic of evolution when I mentioned it would broaden the education if they taught all views on the subject......he got a little rage in the eyes, mentioned there was no God so why promote the idea.

It is amazing how much blindness can be caused by arrogance.

If you see it in a library or book store, check out page 94 of Faster Than the Speed of Light by Joćo Magueijo.
It has a blatant case of circular reasoning in support of/driven by evolution beliefs.

"Expelled" with Ben Stein is a pretty funny take on the arrogant elite.

Richard
01-13-2010, 21:00
Short side track re:...evolution beliefs...

The evolutionary process is an established fact of nature - how it all began, however, is a series of unproven hypotheses and a subject for intense debate. As GK Chesterton opined, "It is absurd for the Evolutionist to complain that it is unthinkable for an admittedly unthinkable God to make everything out of nothing - and then pretend that it is more thinkable that nothing should turn itself into everything."

However...YMMV...and so it goes...;)

Richard's $.02 :munchin

Paslode
01-13-2010, 21:44
Short side track re:

The evolutionary process is an established fact of nature - how it all began, however, is a series of unproven hypotheses and a subject for intense debate. As GK Chesterton opined, "It is absurd for the Evolutionist to complain that it is unthinkable for an admittedly unthinkable God to make everything out of nothing - and then pretend that it is more thinkable that nothing should turn itself into everything."

However...YMMV...and so it goes...;)

Richard's $.02 :munchin

Your just full of thought provoking quotes today!

wet dog
01-13-2010, 22:16
He's no idiot, he is an ideologue, one of those European-style social democrats. He would be much better suited to be President of France.

Three years and seven days,...six days.

GratefulCitizen
01-13-2010, 22:47
Short side track re:
The evolutionary process is an established fact of nature


Natural selection, as the name implies, selects from available genetic information and is an established fact of nature.

Macroevolution necessarily requires the creation of genetic information, and the creation of DNA.

Concluding that macroevolution follows from natural selection is a secundum quid et simpliciter fallacy.
Evolutionists know this, and try to get around it by saying macroevolution is just microevolution over large periods of time.

This is circular reasoning because it assumes new genetic information is created during microevolution.
Creation of new genetic information has not been observed in nature and is inconsistent with information entropy.

The initial creation of DNA by random process is addressed by the fallacy of affirming the consequent.
"If DNA was created by random process and led to life then life would be here.
Life is here, therefore DNA was created by random process."


The probabilities for genetic information to be created or for DNA to be created through random processes are effectively 0.
(...but most people don't bother with the vague subjective areas of mathematics and logic)

Richard
01-13-2010, 23:27
Macroevolution necessarily requires the creation of genetic information, and the creation of DNA.

Actually - I think the process simply requires the alteration of existent genetic information and the alteration of existent DNA by whatever means - however it may have initially come to exist.

But a man's got to believe in something - I believe I'll have another glass of Puerto Viejo 2005 Cabernet Sauvignon from Chile's Curico Valley. ;)

Richard's $.02 :munchin

ZonieDiver
01-14-2010, 07:33
Actually - I think the process simply requires the alteration of existent genetic information and the alteration of existent DNA by whatever means - however it may have initially come to exist.

But a man's got to believe in something - I believe I'll have another glass of Puerto Viejo 2005 Cabernet Sauvignon from Chile's Curico Valley. ;)

Richard's $.02 :munchin

Damn, I like your choices in wine! I'm thinking of moving to Chile, but expect the diving can be cold. (I'm getting allergic to "cold"!) :D

Ret10Echo
01-14-2010, 07:47
Education for the sake of education does not contribute to one's functional capability or ability to reason outside of the educational setting.

In the lab and lecture hall it all comes out (generally) as prepared. As other's have expressed there are those academicians who will dismiss (or fail) you for contrary opinion.

Enter reality: This time the person who disagrees with you does not sit down quietly, or storm out of the room. He kills you....or he destroys everything around you. "Reason" and the art of debate are wasted in that setting.

Education and pedigree are potential energy. Execution and decision making ability are kinetic. One does not necessarily lead to the other.

YOMV

HowardCohodas
01-14-2010, 07:55
Education for the sake of education does not contribute to one's functional capability or ability to reason outside of the educational setting.

Someone once told me that an education was solely an indication of an opportunity to learn.

nmap
01-14-2010, 09:32
A strong preference for arugula over okra is a good start. :D

I'll take fried okra any day...even if the arugula is offered with a dressing that incorporates balsamic vinegar of modena... :D

Education for the sake of education does not contribute to one's functional capability or ability to reason outside of the educational setting.


You make some good points...and yet....from time to time I have gotten some little pearl in educational settings that seem to help on the outside. Not always, of course. Not even the majority of the time. But there are those moments when it seems to, at least for me. MOO, YMMV.

One example is how to approach a problem. Refining the question, restating it carefully so one has a question that can be answered seems to be one of those. I certainly do not claim mastery of that skill.

Ret10Echo
01-14-2010, 10:59
Someone once told me that an education was solely an indication of an opportunity to learn.

Yes "Opportunity" and unfortunately due to genetics and social aspects some get more "Opportunity" than others.

from time to time I have gotten some little pearl in educational settings that seem to help on the outside.

But some are unable or unwilling to make the leap to practical application...you sir appear to be one who can :D

Warrior-Mentor
01-14-2010, 11:12
But some are unable or unwilling to make the leap to practical application...you sir appear to be in one who can :D

This is a hallmark of Special Forces.

If SF had to pick a State and adopt it's motto, there's no doubt it would be Missouri, "Show me."

In other words, "Prove it."

GratefulCitizen
01-14-2010, 12:23
Actually - I think the process simply requires the alteration of existent genetic information and the alteration of existent DNA by whatever means - however it may have initially come to exist.


This detail matters.
Random alteration of genetic information has never been shown to produce anything useful.
Quite to the contrary, it causes harm.

Evolution requires random alteration as the driving force.
It doesn't work. That darn entropy keeps popping up.

And the shell game goes on...

Richard
01-14-2010, 17:46
Random alteration of genetic information has never been shown to produce anything useful.

I would think that this detail matters - random as determined within the recognizably confined limits of our current levels of understanding may not be random at all. I have come to believe that everything happens for a reason...and if you can't find a reason for something happening, there's a reason for that, too.

And so it goes...;)

Richard's $.02 :munchin

GratefulCitizen
01-14-2010, 18:06
I would think that this detail matters - random as determined within the recognizably confined limits of our current levels of understanding may not be random at all. I have come to believe that everything happens for a reason...and if you can't find a reason for something happening, there's a reason for that, too.

And so it goes...;)

Richard's $.02 :munchin

Agreed.

Richard
01-16-2010, 10:21
Education is a progressive discovery of our own ignorance.
- Will Durant

Box
01-16-2010, 14:05
education and wisdom are an ocean apart

men need wise leaders not educated ones


...Genghis Khan seemed to have quite a following; and somehow he had no Ivy league sheepskin to point at.


Not saying we need to conquer Asia, just suggesting that not all colledge boys are as smart as they are educated.