posted on April 22, 2008 09:25:22 PM new
I agree with this columnist.
Meghan Daum:
Still with stupid?
Why wouldn't we want an intellectual to be our president?
April 19, 2008
Years ago, at a dinner party on Manhattan's Upper West Side, I found myself in a shouting match about whether it was fair to make fun of intellectuals. The person with whom I was arguing, herself the daughter of prominent scholars, said she was offended by the work of Woody Allen because of his mocking portrayal of educated, urban elites.
Such derisiveness, she claimed, would never be tolerated if it were aimed at racial minorities, or poor people, or even plain old intelligent people who didn't stammer and flail their hands around quite so much when they talked. As a proud intellectual (and this is where the shouting began, not to mention some hand flailing), she was offended on behalf of herself and the entire community.
At the time, I was 25 and strenuously devoted to the cause of making my life resemble that of a Woody Allen character. (This was before he moved them to the Upper East Side.) Still, I couldn't see my dinner companion's grievance as anything but unintentional self-parody. Intellectuals, I argued, were made for poking fun at. Even I, a clueless suburban refugee who dreamed of rent-controlled apartments filled with house plants and volumes of Goethe, could see that.
I never thought I'd say this, but I'm beginning to think she might have had a point. As dumb as things were back then, it's fair to suggest today's culture is even dumber. Granted, the police aren't raiding highbrow cultural events and arresting anyone who uses a three-syllable word, but something uncannily similar is playing out, minute by minute, on television and the Internet. With political discourse reduced to screaming contests and actual news eclipsed by exclusive and shocking footage of celebrities without makeup, we've become not only impatient with but downright opposed to the kinds of ideas that can't be reduced to a line on a screen crawl or a two-sentence blog entry.
What's more, a lot of people who harbor an intolerance for complexity see it not as a character flaw but a cognitive virtue. That's because they've fallen into the trap of believing that complicated ideas ("complicated" now constituting anything that requires reading, watching or listening to in its entirety) are the purview of the "elite."
The effectof that trap has been on a continuous loop in recent days, following Barack Obama's ill-chosen remarks about bitter rural Americans clinging to guns and religion. The takeaway, of course, is that this sentiment proves once and for all that Obama is an elitist fatally out of touch with the average American. But in deference to my onetime dinner companion, let me ask this: Is he vulnerable to the out-of-touch charge because he is an elitist, or because he is usually (even if not in this case) comfortable with and in command of nuanced ideas? Is he bashable because he's a snob or because he's an intellectual?
Given that "intellectual" is now far too open to interpretation to mean much (William F. Buckley was considered an intellectual, but these days so is anyone who wears those hipster-nerd glasses), I'm tempted to leave that question to the old master, Woody Allen (though, let's be honest, he traded intellectuals for boring rich people a while ago). But even if Obama is not an intellectual in the classic sense, there's no doubt that he's absorbed the trappings of erudite rhetoric. He offers up ideas that don't lend themselves to sound bites but require some sustained attention. And according to the media and the political spin machine, that's proof he's snobby and out of touch.
U.S. candidates for president can't seem to get elected unless they convince voters how ordinary they are (George W. Bush's oratory struggles actually endear him to some people). But as long as we're wringing our hands over how "just folks" these folks are, let's look at what really separates them from the rest of us: money.
The Obamas' tax returns, released this week, showed a 2006 income (they filed an extension for 2007) of more than $4.2 million, most of which came from book royalties. Bill and Hillary Clinton showed a combined income of more than $20 million last year. John McCain's 2007 tax return reflected an income of only around $400,000, but not to worry, his wife is worth about $100 million. As for Bush, the figure is about $20 million.
Yes, Obama's richer than most ordinary people, but in that pantheon, he's the guy most likely to know how much a can of tuna costs. As for his branding as an elite or an intellectual, why the jeers? Shouldn't they all fit that bill? "The Daily Show's" Jon Stewart summed it up best: "Not only do I want an elite president," he said this week, "I want someone who is embarrassingly superior to me."
As someone who still hasn't read Goethe amid all those celebrity makeover stories, I couldn't agree more.
--
_____________________
posted on April 23, 2008 05:47:11 AM new
Once the person gets into the Whitehouse,it would be like living in a fish bowl-he or she wont be driving his/her vehicle,cant go anywhere without security guards,never have to go shopping for grocery including tuna or pay for a burger .
After 4-8 years,that person would have to go on a learning curve to find out what inflation/deflation can do to an average American household.
But then if they keep writing books,give speeches and wield their connections to get a good job with some private equity firm,they can afford maids and chefs and gardeners and never have to worry how much is a can of tuna.
Back when the Nationalist party lost to the communists and retreated to Taiwan ,Generalissimo Chiang Kai Shek wanted to find out how average people live,so a date is set where his entourage would tour a certain district.
All the shops were told in advance by certain govt officials so they can display a special price for all the merchandise in the store and windows,grocery stores piled all the fresh fruits and vegetables out into the street and every one who is strolling ,window shopping or shopping in that area all look happy,relaxed,well dressed .
The good general saw the price posted on shoes,clothes,fruits and veggies and concluded prices are reasonable and within reach of common people ,case closed!
*
Lets all stop whining !
posted on April 23, 2008 09:46:41 AM new
You seem to forget the simple difference. Yes, everybody is a millionaire with nannies, maids, mansions,etc. But while Edwards and the rest get a $1000 haircut, the handlers do not have their picture taken with crack babies in tenements and talk about how they feel everyone's pain.
It's like hyping Kerry as a "war hero" to deflect later charges of "Jane Fonda" antics, only to find "war hero lite".
The huge flood of information these days has resulted in a dumber population, partly due to the fact that everyone can find SOMEONE who agrees with them and they all operate on the "it sounds good principle".
posted on April 23, 2008 01:45:42 PM newU.S. candidates for president can't seem to get elected unless they convince voters how ordinary they are (George W. Bush's oratory struggles actually endear him to some people).
Now we finally know who comprises "the 28% of the population" that keeps supporting Bush after all these years - must be the 28% that thinks his oratory struggles are endearing.
"She Who Must Not Be Named is gone. Banished far, far away with her minions to the outer realms where she can't hurt anyone ever again - the profe
posted on April 23, 2008 11:04:15 PM new
I wonder how much the "sound bites" mentality has to do with the loss of discussion of complex issues. It is easier to refer to Gore's "invention of the internet" than to discuss global warming. (BTW, have you seen the terrific public service ads featuring politically opposed folks agreeing it's time to save the earth? I've seen ones with Pat Robertson & Al Sharpton, Newt Gingrich & Nancy Pelosi)
posted on April 23, 2008 11:26:40 PM new
Pixi: I saw one of those ads. Very good. Suddenly, with the news of food prices rising around the world, and the subsequent protests, the seeking of ethanol causing corn and corn products, etc., to go through the roof, I wonder if this will help to wake people up to the state the planet is in.
When rice is suddenly hard to get, at steeper prices, the diet of millions in Asia is threatened.
_____________________
posted on April 24, 2008 05:48:44 AM new
In addition to rising fuel and fertilizer costs, the scarcity of rice is being caused by drought related to the warming planet. It's unfortunate that the starvation of almost 900 million poor people throughout the world who have less than a dollar a day for food will be so seriously affected by global warming and rising fuel and fertilizer cost.
How disgraceful that it takes a disaster of global proportions to deliver a message.
posted on April 24, 2008 09:59:29 AM new
What's even sadder is the fact that this is a surprise to anyone. The industrialization and centralization of the world's food supply is going to wind up being the biggest disaster we've ever faced, and most Americans are utterly and completely at the mercy of the grocery store for their food.
posted on April 24, 2008 01:25:01 PM new
"I wonder how much the "sound bites" mentality has to do with the loss of discussion of complex issues. It is easier to refer to Gore's "invention of the internet" than to discuss global warming. (BTW, have you seen the terrific public service ads featuring politically opposed folks agreeing it's time to save the earth? I've seen ones with Pat Robertson & Al Sharpton, Newt Gingrich & Nancy Pelosi)"
So you think you and some of the wackos here can have a "complex" discussion of global warming? I have never seen so much air blown by people concerned about global warming that had even the slightest clue about what they are talking about as people here. They pray to an idol named Gore who has a huge energy hog of a residence (GB in contrast has a very eco-friendly ranch) and spout "sound bites" ad nauseum.
Food is going up because fuel is going up. Fuel is going up due to increased demand and speculation caused by Middle East instability. This was a point I've brought up dozens of times in the mingo "US dead in Iraq" posts. You wait and see what will happen if the "bring the boys home" mentality succeeds (though doubtful any candidate will do it).
Food is going up because of what Consumer Reports calls "The Ethanol Myth" as farmers divert corn to make ethanol (a poor source to begin with), never mind the inherent stupidity of the mfg AND distribution of Ethanol. This is because the greenies have seen the sound bite about Brazil using ethanol sourced from piles of local content. Ditto the guy who runs his VW on McDonald's waste oil. The problem being not everybody owns a Mickey D's.
The "sound bite" also tells people to get warm and fuzzy over hybrid vehicles. It is starting to look like small numbers of people now know it costs MORE to operate a hybrid than a standard vehicle. But there are the wackos who will spend those bux "to save the enviornment". I read an engineering article last month that calculated that a hybrid vehicle, from concept to final scrapping, is actually MORE environmentally negative than standard vehicles.
The endless parroting of nonsense cannot change physics, it cannot change simple math and never could.
The biggest factors in global warming are known, but there is no easy "sound bite" fix for Helen and others to harp about.
#1 Cause: The production of livestock.
#2 Cause: The generation of electric power.
If I remember correctly, automobiles are something like 1/30 of the contribution, but yet are a source of a harpy cry. It is easier than getting nuclear power plants approved, adding refinery capacity and platforms, or spoiling some fat cat's view with a wind farm or co-generation plant.
You know another interesting contribution to global warming??? The Russians tried to create a model of the temperature rise. Try as they could, it was constantly coming up short. The rise was higher than the calculation, taking into account everything, power plants, live stock, etc, etc. You know what they traced the difference to?? The reduction in air pollution has decreased fine particulates in the atmosphere allowing more of the sun's rays through, which creates more water vapor from the oceans, which....
So discussion involves people who know something more than the "sound bite". People who go "GLOBAL WARMING-KATRINA" have to be told there is nothing anomalous about Katrina historically. Ditto "rice crops", ditto "ozone layers" or anything else. When someone screams at you "Global Warming, Greenland's glaciers are receding", ask them if, in their opinion, said glacier recession was better or worse than the one 2000 years ago, or 5000 years ago. They won't know.
[ edited by desquirrel on Apr 24, 2008 01:30 PM ]
posted on April 24, 2008 09:18:22 PM newIf I remember correctly, automobiles are something like 1/30 of the contribution, but yet are a source of a harpy cry
#1 Cause: The production of livestock. #2 Cause: The generation of electric power.
You don't remember correctly. The U.S. is one of, if not THE largest sources of carbon emissions on the planet, and cars and trucks account for 25% of the total emissions in this country.
it cannot change simple math and never could
But apparently squirrel can. 1/30th... get real. Yeah, cars account for 3% of total emissions. Uh huh.
The production of livestock is not insignificant, but it's hardly the #1 cause. Livestock emissions, largely due to the intesively managed feed lot style factory farms in American agriculture, account for 18% of emissions in this country, less than cars, and WAY less than power generation.
posted on April 25, 2008 01:06:27 AM new
Quoting percentages was never one of Squirrel's strong points Deforestation and the cutting of the rain forests is another huge contributing factor. It is complex because while we, folks in the Pacific Northwest have decimated our forests, now stand in judgment of South American countries attempting to do the same thing. Still, we have to learn from our mistakes.
[ edited by pixiamom on Apr 25, 2008 01:15 AM ]
posted on April 25, 2008 08:34:16 AM new
I don't give a tinkers damn what percentage X is in the US or Swaziland. I also don't care if you "believe" the degrees of contribution. Some people do not believe 2 + 2 = 4. The facts ARE as stated. The raising, distribution, etc of livestock is #1. Power plants are #2. Nothing comes close to these. The tonnage of car emissions contribution is very low in comparison. Instead of 'Al Gore: My Life and Times' try reading Scientific American or some of the American Chemical Society publications.
posted on April 25, 2008 09:49:20 AM new
The greatest contributing factor to global warming is water vapor.
The increasing amount of water vapor is caused by increasing amounts of CO2 (primary cause), methane (secondary cause) and nitrous oxide.
The leading cause of CO2 emissions is the burning of fossil fuels. The second leading cause is deforestation.
The majority of climate scientists agree that global warming is primarily caused by human activities and will continue if greenhouse gas emissions are not reduced. This has been endorsed by at least 30 scientific societies and academies of science, including all of the national academies of science of the major industrialized countries, including the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, the American Association for the Advancement of Science and the Joint Science Academies of the major industrialized and developing nations.
The fact that Squirrel can add up to 4 does not mean that Squirrel-science will replace the international scientific consensus.
[ edited by pixiamom on Apr 25, 2008 09:52 AM ]
[ edited by pixiamom on Apr 25, 2008 01:19 PM ]
posted on April 25, 2008 10:01:28 AM new
Squirrel: You said, ". . .try reading Scientific American or some of the American Chemical Society publications."
Okay, fella. My husband is a retired scientist who has subscribed to, read, and saved every issue of Scientific American for 50 years. His Ph.D. is in organic chemistry from Berkeley (U of C grad school), and he has been a member of ACS (American Chemical Society) since he was in college. (He won an award from ACS as a junior for a research paper he wrote.)
Is that enough bona fides for you?
Now, here's your challenge: Please cite issue and page number of any Scientific American issue saying what you are claiming. And please tell me what exactly the ACS has said to convince you the world's scientists are all wrong. If you'll do this for me, I'll ask my husband to find that information and you and I can have a Real Talk.
I believe you're wrong about global warming, but I'm willing to change my mind if you can get me that information. Thanks in advance. ~Adele
_____________________
posted on April 25, 2008 01:16:35 PM new
Deforestation-they are doing this in Canada to extract oil sand,another energy play!
Rice is an important staple among Asians,in many restaurants in Asia,if you want a bowl of rice to go with your meal,it is extra,so is green tea!
*
Lets all stop whining !
Are you serious?? You basically said "it isn't the gun that kills you, it's the bullets". So you think methane "just happens". Water vapor? Oh, that's from that rain stuff right??
Roadsmmith,
My degrees and fellowship were in Chemistry. I'm a member of ACS, though I don't work in the industry anymore.
And to the both of you. Where did you invent the theory that I do think there is global warming??. Global warming is a thing which can be measured. And no, the scientific community is NOT universal in saying global warming is due solely to the activities of man.
In the advancement of a theorem, you cite specific causes and effects which reinforce the theory.
When someone says "Katrina-global warming". And the data shows hurricanes run in 1500 year cycles and this is a "mild" period, that does not advance your global warming theory.
When someone says "hole in the ozone-global warming!" When core sample show there has always been a hole in the ozone, varying over thousands of years, that does not advance your theory.
If you promote a theory about man being the major factor in planetary weather, you have to demonstrate an anomaly directly related to the activities of man.
Using things which have occurred dozens of times through the milleniums is not "proof" of your theory.
And the "if you can show me proof..." bs is like "show me proof Clinton won PA's primary." NONE of this info is exactly secret.
posted on April 25, 2008 02:16:29 PM new
Squirrel, you are not getting your information from Scientific American or from any ACS publication. You're getting it from your main news source, talk radio. I know it, you know it, everybody here knows it.
posted on April 25, 2008 03:04:12 PM new
I have never listened to talk radio in my life.
Do not extend the depth of what you don't know to me. Your "it's not livestock, it's methane" comment will keep them rolling in the aisles here for quite some time.
posted on April 25, 2008 03:21:39 PM new
I didn't say it isn't livestock. Show me where I did (after you cite the Scientific American articles you referred to). In fact, livestock is a significant contributing factor to global warming. That is also the consensus of the scientific community. Significant, not #1, not #2. Do you misread in order to misquote or just misquote?
posted on April 26, 2008 02:42:07 AM newCareful and comprehensive scientific assessments have clearly demonstrated that the Earth’s climate system is changing rapidly in response to growing atmospheric burdens of greenhouse gases and absorbing aerosol particles (IPCC, 2007). There is very little room for doubt that observed climate trends are due to human activities. The threats are serious and action is urgently needed to mitigate the risks of climate change.
The reality of global warming, its current serious and potentially disastrous impacts on Earth system properties, and the key role emissions from human activities play in driving these phenomena have been recognized by earlier versions of this ACS policy statement (ACS, 2004), by other major scientific societies, including the American Geophysical Union (AGU, 2003), the American Meteorological Society (AMS, 2007) and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS, 2007), and by the U. S. National Academies and ten other leading national academies of science (NA, 2005). This statement reviews key global climate change impacts and recommends actions required to mitigate or adapt to currently anticipated consequences.
The above is a statement by the American Chemical Society The full text of the position paper is available in pdf format here:
posted on April 26, 2008 10:06:43 AM new
Some things are "significant" but other things are "more significant". In measurement something will have to wind up being "MOST significant".
posted on April 26, 2008 10:18:22 AM new
Among the most and one of the most is NOT the same as #1. As usual, Squirrel has garbled the facts. How Squirrel came to the conclusion that there is no global warming from this article still has me mystified.
[ edited by pixiamom on Apr 26, 2008 10:19 AM ]
posted on April 26, 2008 08:48:51 PM new
I don't have any issues with the UN article. The fact that you stumbled upon a good article, bothered to post and then babble away with your talk-radio pseudo-science is what I take issue with.
posted on April 26, 2008 10:18:10 PM newCanadian climatologist has amusing point on media hype on the contribution of man:
The amusing point is that Timothy Ball isn't as qualified as a climatologist as he's claimed to be as he fudged his credentials. Also, he has been paid by the oil and gas companies to speak that agenda on global warming. This was discussed here on a previous topic.
Deforestation-they are doing this in Canada to extract oil sand,another energy play!
More prime forestland was lost to the mountain pine beetle than the sparser trees up north where they extract oil. There has been reforestation for about 50 years in Canada, and in BC for every tree taken, a tree is planted. It's not pretty what is done to the land in northern Alberta where they extract oil and there is a law where reclamation of the land has to take place - it will take years to do though.
posted on April 27, 2008 12:15:53 AM new
Back to the original post: I'm glad that this happened on earth week. Folks googling global warming issues to support their stance can't be all bad.
posted on April 27, 2008 06:10:32 AM new
ACS Publications have been unavailable due to a period of system maintenance. But now the good statement that Profe linked is available.
posted on April 27, 2008 06:13:56 AM new
Nuclear energy is coming,whether we like it or not,unless we can all cut down on driving,heating and cooking-just have one TV set per household,unplug it before we go to bed,unplug all electric appliances when not in use,wear thermal underwear and install ceiling fan and WALK MORE and drive less.
*
Lets all stop whining !
1/30th... get real. Yeah, cars account for 3% of total emissions. Uh huh.