Way Ahead of Them

Even when it wasn't trendy, I was asserting that George W. Bush was quite clearly stupid. People would gainsay; claiming that - according to unsourced anecdotal evidence - Bush was quite intelligent in a one-on-one conversation. Proofs were also brought as to his education (Yale undergrad, Harvard MBA) and his success in life (president, hello?).

I would counter-argue that (1) education does not correlate to intelligence - especially for wealthy brahmins before 1970 (when most Universities were compelled to matriculate women and minorities). The fact that W's younger siblings were not accepted in Yale (Jeb = UT, Neil = Tulane, Marvin = UVA, Dorothy, BC) is good proof of the pre/post 1970 theory.

(2) Bush, sorry to say, has not been successful on his own. Note, most of the millionaires I know, self-made and otherwise, are not particularly smart. The ones who are intelligent are the exception, to be honest. Bush's successes came from his being well-born. See proof #1 about his education. Anything he did on his own (his businesses are exhibit A-Z) failed. When he became a vapid stooge for the GOP elite - as governor of Texas and Looter-in-Chief of the federal government - then he 'succeeded.' It's in fact much more probable to use Bush as proof that intelligence is *not* predictive of success more than the other way around.

(3) Unsourced anecdotal evidence are not very compelling when punched in the face by facts.

The facts are that intelligence is demonstrated by doing and saying smart things. And for the most part, smart people don't need third-party confirmation for their intelligence. If a person is smart, other people aren't compelled to say "oh, but he's really smart, believe me." Nobody has to confirm Clinton's intelligence, or Cheney's, or Rove's. Their intelligence is assumed because they sound smart. George W Bush, Dan Quayle, Jack Kemp, and Gerald Ford all sound really stupid; hence why their friends have to confirm and reconfirm the doubts of their intelligence.

Answer this about Bush: what smart things has he done? Has he written (on his own) intelligent books/articles/essays? When he speaks, does he say smart things or does he sound barely sentient? Note, I'm not even arguing about whether Bush is smart "enough" to be entrusted with great power (an idea - that the president should be talented and competent - that used to be held as an article of belief by most Americans), I'm saying that Bush's speech and behavior is indicative of someone barely smart enough to whiz with his pants down.

The real question about Bush isn't "how smart is he" but the larger question of "how dumb can you be before they start calling you that in public."

Which brings us to John McCain.

I've said on previous occasions that McCain strikes me as a dumb person. There are certain hallmarks of intelligence in his record (e.g. his willingness, before 2008, to speak unfiltered to reporters), so he's in a category above the profoundly stupid George W. But in our present day, whether it's because of age-induced brain-damage, or just inborn handicap, McCain doesn't seem to be that smart.

His inconsistencies in belief and action - what he's done his whole life - are proof for his stupidity. He did one thing right, that I know about: his refusal to be let out of the Hanoi Hilton early because of his family connections. But his undistinguished military career before his imprisonment, his erratic public behavior in Congress, and his despicable acts of private behavior (e.g. adultery), make me think that he just ain't bright.

So, anyway, other people are starting to notice. John Cole, of Balloon-Juice, for example: "Is McCain Just Dumb?" (based on this latest show of idiocy).

Personal Update: Dr. Styx

No, not me yet, but Mrs. Sytx became Dr. Styx on Monday in a moving ceremony involving every person to ever be affiliated with Yale. Seriously, the graduation ceremonies were long, irritating, and demeaning to individual achievement. But at least I got to hear every single damn Dean ask the president to accept the nameless graduates. It was a ceremony designed by deans to highlight deans, and dat's dat.

But now Mrs. Styx, PH.D. leads the Styx family with advanced degrees (which includes college). My wife has 6 (BA, 4 Masters, 1 Ph.D.). Second place is my father (5 = BA, BS, MA, DVM, PhD), then my brother (5 = AB, MA, MD, PhD), who will tie my father on Wednesday when he graduates Harvard with (another) Masters.

Depending on the vagaries of the Brandeis program, I could pull ahead of the pack but that will be in about 5 years, so who knows what will happen before that.

Anyway, yay for my wife.

Elitism, Democrats, Republicans

As I claimed back in 2007 both Democrats and Republicans have narrative advantages, Democrats when it comes to women and race, GOP about the military and security. Another theme/narrative that has burst through in the past few years is the concept that Democrats are the rich/elites and the GOP are the blue-collar Joes. Naturally, this is incorrect to the point of being insulting and even evil (given that the GOP under Bush has acted as a kleptocracy hell bent on stealing from the middle class to support the super-rich. Don't believe me? Then stop watching Fox News and have a view outside the rectum).

Because I don't watch TV News - as the phrase is almost always an oxymoron - I don't see much of this narrative being drawn in real time. But it is. Here are two stories, the first from 2001 and is referenced by the second which is what sparked this post.

Slate magazine: O'Reilly Among the Snobs: It takes one to know one. By Michael Kinsley, March 2, 2001. Sample:

"Yet O'Reilly, like many other people, clings to the fantasy that he is a stiff among the swells. "

How Blue Is Your Collar? by Paul Waldman:

And the easiest way to show you're still cool with the folks back in the neighborhood is to blather on about how Democrats (and it's always only Democrats) aren't. Had you been watching cable television in the days following the release of Bill's and Hillary's tax returns, you would have seen copious braying about whether the fact that the Clintons have made over $100 million since leaving the White House means that Hillary will have trouble "connecting" with regular folks with modest incomes. But no one brought up the fact that, according to the Associated Press, Cindy McCain is worth the same amount, $100 million. Among the McCains' many homes are a $4.6 million condo in Phoenix (that must be some condo), another condo in Virginia, and their $1.8 million estate on 15 acres in lovely Sedona.

But the default assumption for the press is that Republicans, no matter where they summer or who their fathers were or where they went to school, just relate to honest, hardworking folks. For Democrats, on the other hand, the assumption is just the opposite. Would any Democrat whose father was a president and whose grandfather was a senator, and who attended Andover, Yale, and Harvard, have been able to get away with George W. Bush?s down-home reg'lar fella routine without the likes of Matthews and Russert ridiculing them mercilessly for being not just an elitist but a phony to boot? Not in a million years.

This is a battle over the 'Reagan Democrats' but it's also one of the fiercest ironies of the current political landscape - that blue-blooded jillionaires successfully make the claim that they represent the 'little guy' whilst simultaneously screwing said little guy out of money, benefits, and protections. I don't have any predictions as to when this bubble will burst, but if/when it does, I hope it will have the same devastation as the other bubbles of our recent history.

Pic from here of the most true blue collar worker ever. And jokes on us, he's an undocumented immigrant from Belgium. Backpost finished 2009-12-07.

Daily Targum?!?

OK, in a standard online ping-pong surf, I was looking at Spencer Ackerman's catty blog (and his attacks on familiar names from the New Republic) and I wanted to see why he was fired from the TNR (his own claim is because his life appears to be a chapter in a punk soap-opera). Anyhoo, the Wiki page on Ackerman says that he went to Rutgers and was the editor of their newspaper, the Daily Targum.

Now 'targum' sounds like a familiar word. But maybe it's the name of the founder or something. Nope; according to the wiki:

1866: Then Rutgers President William H. Campbell lectures to Rutgers men on the original text of the Old Testament, including Aramaic language paraphrases of the Hebrew Scriptures, called Targums. The word "Targum" means interpretation in Aramaic and is used as a slang word when referring to crib sheets, among various Aramaic terms that become part of the campus vernacular. This is the inspiration for the name of the forthcoming periodical.

Now, I thought it was weird that Yale has Hebrew on it's logo, but it's not named for an actual Hebrew word ("the Fighting Thummims" or something). The Rutgers paper is the case I know of where a non-Jewish entity is named for an overtly religious-Hebrew term that has not been before or since co-opted as a Christian term.

E.g. Shibboleth, Halleluyah, Amen are all Hebrew words taken into English through Christianity. But 'targum.' Maybe other people know about this already, but I found it weird.

More About Bollinger

As much as I'm loath to connect to anything by Jamie "True Grit" Kirchick, it's OK here because he's largely quoting someone else:

Lee Bollinger clearly considers himself to be a hero. It was so evident in his preening, faux-heroic speech on Monday, in which the Columbia University president valiantly told a Holocaust-denying, homosexual-murdering, genocide-inciting dictator "You exhibit all the signs of a petty and cruel dictator." What courage.

Several days ago, I received the following message from Helen Suzman, the legendary South African parliamentarian who spent 36 years in office opposing apartheid, often as the only voice of reason in that body.

Sir,

As a once-proud recipient of an Honorary Doctorate of Law from Columbia University, I am disgusted that its President Lee Bollinger should have provided a platform for Iranian President Ahmadinejad, who has more than once pronounced that Israel should be "wiped off the face of the earth". Does President Bollinger not know the difference between hate speech, which incites violence, and freedom of speech?

Helen Suzman

Lee Bollinger self-importantly thinks that he store down evil in the face on Monday. Helen Suzman actually made a career confronting it. A favorite anecdote concerns the hundreds of parliamentary questions she would submit every session, designed to expose the apartheid regime's abuse of human rights. A government minister shouted at her: "You put these questions just to embarrass South Africa overseas." To which she replied: "It is not my questions that embarrass South Africa. It is your answers."

Lee Bollinger has embarrassed his university, certainly in the eyes of liberals abroad like Mrs. Suzman,"once-proud" to have received an Honorary Doctorate of Law from the institution. Most recipients of honorary degrees from Ivy League universities would be hesitant to renounce such an accolade. But Mrs. Suzman is the recipient of 27 such honorary degrees from institutions like Harvard, Yale, Oxford, Cambridge, and many others. She can well afford it.

Even though Kirchick is a jackass, he's on target here.

Aggravation Level Reaching Monthly Limit

Every person has a level of frustration and aggravation that has mechanical checks and filters placed on it to prevent brain hemorrhages, coronaries, and murders. People who have low threshold levels are often considered insane or Vice President. Moving houses can fill daily, weekly, and monthly levels quite quickly.

We have been here for two full weeks and I am proud, and scared, to say that my monthly level has been filled. The house has loads of difficulties that need time, money, and concentration. The baby, while still the cutest and most lovable human around, needs constant attention. I have been having a two week battle with Sears that has been destroying my arteries with stress.

The irony is that I lived in New York City for 8 years. Yet in two weeks in a sleepy Connecticut town I have had more stupid aggravation than I remember having in those previous 8 years.

One thing that stam New Haveners seem to love is not knowing where anything is and giving bad directions. When telling you how to get from point A to B, they will leave out a street or a compass point. I assume it's because people don't move in and out of New Haven that often. Sure, the Yale students do, but they have their own system.

An example: when moving houses and buying appliances, you find yourself with many empty cardboard boxes. In New Haven, to dispose cardboard boxes you need to cut them into 2'x4' strips, bind them together with twine, then stack the boxes no higher than 4". This would have been nice to know BEFORE we put 40 boxes (collapsed) out on the curb in the rain. The alternative is to shlep them to the dump.

Oh I could go on, but the vibrations from my idling blood pressure is starting to moiré my computer screen.

Update: My wife - who shlepped the boxes to the curb in the first place - just trooped out to the dump. I wish I could go but *somebody* had to watch the baby. Besides the dump stink, she tells me there were VULTURES roaming the sky. Cooool. Yay wife.

Wesley Clark

[I published this on Feb 16, 2005 but it was present in entirety at the below post date! I'm not changing anything - see if it makes sense]

Is Gen. Clark a viable candidate for President? According to the New York Times analysis, there are 10 democratic challengers to the Presidential incumbent:

1. Wesley Clark, Retired 4-Star General, Arkansas
2. Howard Dean, Former Governor, Vermont
3. John Edwards, Senator, North Carolina
4. Richard Gephardt, Representative, Missouri
5. Bob Graham, Senator, Florida
6. John Kerry, Senator, Massachusetts
7. Dennis Kucinich, Representative, Ohio
8. Joe Lieberman, Senator, Connecticut
9. Carol Moseley Braun, Former Senator, Illinois
10. Al Sharpton, ?, New York

I have heard about all 10 except for Kucinich (the bio says he is the former mayor of Cleveland, but why would anybody claim that? Obviously he doesn't actually exist).

Clark has never held elected office (neither has Sharpton, whom I mention only to say that according to the website he doesn't actually have a job right now; also, for you trivia buffs, the site states: "he began preaching at the age of four and was an ordained minister at the age of nine." )

Clark, despite not being a politician, has spent oodles of years in government work and has a tested record of leadership, administration, and shooting people.

This does feel like we're in the 1840s or so. Back then, and now, the leadership of the nation has old ideas of the new Age; and the best electoral hope comes from untested war 'heroes.' Tippecanoe and Clark Too!

I like leaders with capability and vision. People like Reagan and Clinton stood for distinct visions; Bush I & II stood and stand for bubkis; just whitebread, inbred, Old Money backward ignorance. It's sad. The slogan of Bush should be "Meet the Face of Backward!"

Clark is kinda the "Anti-Bush":
Clark: Rhodes scholar & general
Bush: AWOL dim-bulb.

Clark finished first in his class in West Point. Bush's family got him into Yale (remember, none of his siblings could get in after him, why? because the Ivies stated to open the doors to un-bush-types, like Women, minorities, Jews). Clark rose the top of a grueling, demanding profession. Bush's family got him every single job he's ever held (and lost).

Clark's views on Israel and the peace process need work. So far, he sounds like a mushy Clintonoid. Considering that he is the Klinton Kandidate, this makes sense. I'm glad to see that the Clintons have held off on foisting Hillary in '04. We shouldn't be surprised when she does become a candidate in the next few years - if Bush wins again then she's a lock for '08 (if the country still has elections by then).

My favorite candidate has been and still is Lieberman. He's about as electable as Adlai Stevenson, which worries me, but it's rare for me to actually like a candidate.