This article from New Scientist expounds the wonders of having a President who is intellectual and "pro-science", in great contradistinction from George Bush! The problems with this whole argument, and there are many, is that the author seems to confuse being articulate with being intellectual. I will grant the author that Bush was not articulate - I could barely listen to the SOTU speeches when he gave them, let alone a press conference (and I really found his malapropisms funny). But just because Obama is articulate (at least when using a teleprompter, and the operator can keep up with him), doesn't mean he is intellectual or pro-science.
One clear example is this article from Charles Krauthammer contrasting the two men's defense of their positions on stem cell funding. Additionally, Bush was known to be a very avid reader (which would be a sign of his intellect); something we don't know about Obama. It seems that for all of Obama's fine sounding rhetoric on the campaign trail, he is discovering that actually having to decide policy issues and national security matters are not as clear-cut or simplistic as he presented them. This is proven by his continuation of many of Bush's policies in this arena. This is also a clear example of Obama's simple-minded approach to very serious issues, not his intellectual prowess - contrary to the article.
The author explains that Bush's "exaltation of Jesus as his 'favourite philosopher', further cemented the idea that here was not a mind to be respected." This is shocking to me, as a Christian, but also as an intellectual. The teachings of Jesus (some who do not acknowledge his divinity, at least respect his teachings/philosophy of life) are held in the highest esteem by just about all other world religionists and sociologists as well as historians who attribute the Judeo-Christian worldview for the advances of Western Civilization, contrary to the trailing developments of much older civilizations. It really is shocking that this fact would indicate something of a lacking intellect.
When the author claims that "Bush was widely reviled by intellectuals", I wonder one thing. Was it "intellectuals" or just the Elite. There is a difference. For whatever you may think about Carl Rove (as just one example) - he was nicknamed "the Brain" for a reason. Being smart and studied and informed is not the same thing as being snobbish or smug or feeling superior to the hoi poloi. It appears that the author has confused these terms, possibly being blinded by his smug-ness!
The author states:
The author also enlightened us by explaining:
As for the "bid to make science sound like a self-indulgent pursuit that spends money but doesn't produce anything useful", this guy really has an ax to grind, but he doesn't have enough learning himself to know how to parse a simple sentence. How he could take her words as an assault against science is beyond me. But he has a point to prove and we shouldn't let logic get in the way.
Well, there's more to the article, but my blood pressure is too high to continue. It is sad that fine distinctions and clear meanings of words and phrases are lost on someone so intelligent as this author presumes to be.
One clear example is this article from Charles Krauthammer contrasting the two men's defense of their positions on stem cell funding. Additionally, Bush was known to be a very avid reader (which would be a sign of his intellect); something we don't know about Obama. It seems that for all of Obama's fine sounding rhetoric on the campaign trail, he is discovering that actually having to decide policy issues and national security matters are not as clear-cut or simplistic as he presented them. This is proven by his continuation of many of Bush's policies in this arena. This is also a clear example of Obama's simple-minded approach to very serious issues, not his intellectual prowess - contrary to the article.
The author explains that Bush's "exaltation of Jesus as his 'favourite philosopher', further cemented the idea that here was not a mind to be respected." This is shocking to me, as a Christian, but also as an intellectual. The teachings of Jesus (some who do not acknowledge his divinity, at least respect his teachings/philosophy of life) are held in the highest esteem by just about all other world religionists and sociologists as well as historians who attribute the Judeo-Christian worldview for the advances of Western Civilization, contrary to the trailing developments of much older civilizations. It really is shocking that this fact would indicate something of a lacking intellect.
When the author claims that "Bush was widely reviled by intellectuals", I wonder one thing. Was it "intellectuals" or just the Elite. There is a difference. For whatever you may think about Carl Rove (as just one example) - he was nicknamed "the Brain" for a reason. Being smart and studied and informed is not the same thing as being snobbish or smug or feeling superior to the hoi poloi. It appears that the author has confused these terms, possibly being blinded by his smug-ness!
The author states:
"Obama's first task, then - and so far, he's been very good at it - is to make appreciation of intellect a shared American value again, rather than something that divides us. That means defining it as central to who Americans are as a people."So how exactly has Obama already "been very good" at this? He has not, as I have witnessed, appreciated the intellect of those who disagree with him ideologically. He has not been the "post-partisan" he promised and bosted about before he took his oath of office. And quite clearly, he has used this to divide us. He claims serious ideological differences are just "childish ways" and then throws up staw men to knock down with his superior brain power on live TV as a demonstration of how smart he really is. When all along people see what he is really doing and no one calls him out on it. Rather, they print articles like this one praising him for his intellect. If it wasn't all a part of the media whitewash, it would be funny.
The author also enlightened us by explaining:
"John McCain and Sarah Palin certainly did try out the rhetoric of anti-intellectualism on Obama. Palin mocked the fact that he'd made much of his personal wealth through the sale of books and sneered at research on fruit flies and grizzly bears in a bid to make science sound like a self-indulgent pursuit that spends money but doesn't produce anything useful. The attacks failed."Oddly, I thought when Palin was mocking him for "the sale of books" that it had nothing to do with books, per se, but rather books ABOUT HIMSELF. Remember the larger quote was that he had time to write two memoirs but no significant piece of legislation? But then again, I'm not all that learned. Heck, I'm not sure I even know what a book looks like considering I spend so much time on the "intra net". PLEASE!
As for the "bid to make science sound like a self-indulgent pursuit that spends money but doesn't produce anything useful", this guy really has an ax to grind, but he doesn't have enough learning himself to know how to parse a simple sentence. How he could take her words as an assault against science is beyond me. But he has a point to prove and we shouldn't let logic get in the way.
Well, there's more to the article, but my blood pressure is too high to continue. It is sad that fine distinctions and clear meanings of words and phrases are lost on someone so intelligent as this author presumes to be.