Mourning in America

[impressive]

The man graduated Yale and got a masters at Harvard. I, for one, think that's pretty exceptional.

I would, too, had he not been of the "silver spoon" persuasion. If he'd come from humble beginnings, I'd bet everything I own that he'd barely have finished high school much less college.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Originally posted by impressive
I would, too, had he not been of the "silver spoon" persuasion. If he'd come from humble beginnings, I'd bet everything I own that he'd barely have finished high school much less college.

I guess I'd take that bet... though I haven't any real way to confirm nor deny the accusation that it was handed to him, except to say "we're assuming an awful lot to say it was".

 

[impressive]

... though I haven't any real way to confirm nor deny the accusation that it was handed to him, except to say "we're assuming an awful lot to say it was".

Or wasn't.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Originally posted by impressive
Or wasn't.

Well, on saying it wasn't... I should think saying that someone earned their degree through excellence, especially when its from a really, really prestigious university, especially when its a masters degree takes less jumping to conclusions.

 

[cantdog]

not so dumb

Molly Ivins watched him turn a surplus into a record deficit in Texas as Governor, and he was speaking the same way then. The verbal scrambler is most apparent extemporizing, and it formed enough of a pattern to be a running joke in the Texas press, but you make a mistake to think he's dumb because of it.

What would it be called, dyslexia of the spoken word? Dyslogia?

He did lull a few of his opponents into believing him below average, notably Ted Kennedy, who quickly discovered he'd been snookered in the first year of Dubya's incumbency. They'd struck a deal, Kennedy ceased to oppose something Bush wanted, and then discovered what Bush had all along realized, that he couldn't hold Bush to his side because he dared not acknowledge that he'd made a deal on it. It turned Kennedy into an implacable enemy in the Senate, where he got a little of his own back by filibuster against the weasel's programs. Ivins tells that story and many others in Bushwhacked.

You just think he's dumb. You're not alone, but you ought to know that other people have made that mistake before and regretted it. He doesn't read much, though, and never did. I don't believe he can be called brilliant. But a lot of captains of industry and moguls of finance tested under the dead even mark in IQ tests. They are quite capable people within their sphere nevertheless.

Tests like that are only intermittently indicative of anything, as in the spatial manipulations questions. Most of the test is a vocabulary exam, in the end. That's why people make the claims of cultural prejudice for them. It is a bookish vocabulary that it tests for. You can have a large street vocabulary and technical vocabulary (technical in a lot of fields, including religion) without being able to use any of it in the test.

 

[rgraham666]

A quick comment on commerce.

To paraphrase Robert A. Heinlein, business, in spite of it's civic benefits, is not a civic virtue.

The civic virtues, in my opinion, are about restraint and sacrifice. About not getting your own way all the time and giving up some of what you have for the greater good of the society you live in.

And as regards education, two quotes from Peter Drucker spring to mind.

BA stands for Bugger All, MBA stands for More Bugger All and PhD stands for Piled Higher and Deeper.

And

The only thing a degree certifies is that the person has sat for a long time.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Originally posted by rgraham666

And as regards education, two quotes from Peter Drucker spring to mind.

I'll have to respectfully and fully disagree.

 

[impressive]

Re: not so dumb

You just think he's dumb.

Sorry, cant. I still think he's dumb. I don't think his handlers are dumb, though. The "smartest" thing W does is obey his handlers.

 

[Pure]

Joe:

The man graduated Yale and got a masters at Harvard. I, for one, think that's pretty exceptional.

Hey, being prez is pretty exceptional too. The issue was intelligence and learning. There's no evidence of anything special there. Average to dull average.

His getting into Yale was semi 'exceptional'--alumni son. (I'd estimate 1/3 of Yale admissions might have gone to such sons, who typically have lower scores and grades than the competitors
(else why the policy?)

His average was a high C, so getting into Harvard MBA was also clearly 'exceptional'.

Though the man is canny at times; there is, however nothing *exceptionally good* about either his intelligence or learning.

As to practical 'real world' skills/intelligence: neither was there anything *exceptionally good* about his business dealings, i.e. his career before being governor. Though indeed it's exceptional to become gov.

I can believe in Bush's leadership against it [terror] moreso than Kerry.


That *belief* of course, is not exceptional, except among the better educated and among psychologists and philosophers (your fields). Let's just say 'leadership' is not a word that usually springs to these minds; you are indeed exceptional among peers.

As everyone has seen, however, your holding a belief for which there is no evidence, is not exceptional at all.

Anyway, yer jerkin our chain, right. Teaching us about 'assumptions' while amusing yourself with word games.
Thanks.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Hey, being prez is pretty exceptional too. The issue was intelligence and learning. There's no evidence of anything special there. Average to dull average.

His getting into Yale was semi 'exceptional'--alumni son. (I'd estimate 1/3 of Yale admissions might have gone to such sons, who typically have lower scores and grades than the competitors
(else why the policy?)

His average was a high C, so getting into Harvard MBA was also clearly 'exceptional'.

Though the man is canny at times; there is, however nothing *exceptionally good* about either his intelligence or learning.

As to practical 'real world' skills/intelligence: neither was there anything *exceptionally good* about his business dealings, i.e. his career before being governor. Though indeed it's exceptional to become gov.

I can believe in Bush's leadership against it [terror] moreso than Kerry.


That *belief* of course, is not exceptional, except among the better educated and among psychologists and philosophers (your fields). Let's just say 'leadership' is not a word that usually springs to these minds; you are indeed exceptional among peers.

As everyone has seen, however, your holding a belief for which there is no evidence, is not exceptional at all.

Anyway, yer jerkin our chain, right. Teaching us about 'assumptions' while amusing yourself with word games.
Thanks. [/B]

No, that's not what I'm doing.

I really don't believe that George Bush is an unintelligent man (and I'm not even the only one on this topic who thinks so, why don't you jump up his ass for a while). He's the first president we've ever had whose even had a masters, he conducts himself well, and I believe he is likely "better than average".

What is it about you and accusing people of "amusing yourself with word games" and stuff like that?

 

[bg23]

Just blurting in out of nowhere here, but it seems to me that we're all making somewhat gross assumptions about the intelligence of a man most of us have never met. Firstly, how are we defining the term intelligence? In terms of IQ, education, pragmatism, canniness, what? It's very hard to say whether somebody is "intelligent" or not, when the term is so very vague. Moreover, while we may all like to sit back and watch George Bush be president and perhaps make mistakes and declare him "unintelligent", can somebody's intelligence really be judged from what we perceive to be their actions? The way somebody behaves is not always reflective of their mind. Can intelligence be proven? I think not - at least, not in the case of a public figure such as Bush.

Having said that, my personal opinion, derived simply from my personal feelings and what I've seen of him, the way in which he conducts himself, and his actions in government so far, is that Bush does not seem at all that bright. At least, not so bright as to be deserving of these accolades. I have no objective evidence of this, of course.

I believe you said, Joe, that you thought Bush was likely to be "better than average". Do you mean in terms of people, in general, or in terms of presidents? Because being somebody who is "better than average" in terms of people is surely not so great an accomplishment as to deserve such praise in a president. As to the other, I must surely question how Bush could possibly be known as a "better than average" president.

 

[Pure]

Joe said,

I believe he is likely "better than average". [in intelligence]

I know you *believe* it, Joe, but where's your evidence?

Bad girl,

You make good points; there are many 'mental skills'. "Intelligence" has been said to have a few, or hundreds, of components or varieties.

With that awareness, I included 'business skills' (commercial, entrepreneurial, managerial) as among the areas where there's nothing to distinguish Bush, from, say, you or me.

On your conclusion, it's that of most thoughtful people off** the religious right: [doesn't seem] "at all that bright." Your posting is thoughtful and nuanced.

------
**clarification. 'off' means 'apart from' 'outside of', as in 'he hit the baseball off the field' 'his remarks were off the topic of the lecture.'

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Originally posted by bad_girl23
Just blurting in out of nowhere here, but it seems to me that we're all making somewhat gross assumptions about the intelligence of a man most of us have never met. Firstly, how are we defining the term intelligence? In terms of IQ, education, pragmatism, canniness, what? It's very hard to say whether somebody is "intelligent" or not, when the term is so very vague. Moreover, while we may all like to sit back and watch George Bush be president and perhaps make mistakes and declare him "unintelligent", can somebody's intelligence really be judged from what we perceive to be their actions? The way somebody behaves is not always reflective of their mind. Can intelligence be proven? I think not - at least, not in the case of a public figure such as Bush.

Having said that, my personal opinion, derived simply from my personal feelings and what I've seen of him, the way in which he conducts himself, and his actions in government so far, is that Bush does not seem at all that bright. At least, not so bright as to be deserving of these accolades. I have no objective evidence of this, of course.

I believe you said, Joe, that you thought Bush was likely to be "better than average". Do you mean in terms of people, in general, or in terms of presidents? Because being somebody who is "better than average" in terms of people is surely not so great an accomplishment as to deserve such praise in a president. As to the other, I must surely question how Bush could possibly be known as a "better than average" president.

I'll clarify.

As far as learnedness, worldliness, level of education, and possibly intelligence as a measurable quotient... I believe it more likely than not that George W. Bush is "above average" in comparison to the rest of the population.

I believe this based on his level of education, and from which institutions his degrees were from; the complexity of his occupation; the manner in which I've seen him interact with reporters and the like on TV; and anecdotes from those who do know him (whether they've liked him or not, even; there's a good book out that shows the darker side to the president, and in it he's considered a clever and intelligent man with a horrid agenda of deception and personal gain).

It is conclusive? Oh, by no means is it. I haven't been purporting that it is, either... just that I think it more likely he is above average than below.

 

[bg23]

On your conclusion, it's that of most thoughtful people off the religious right: [doesn't seem] "at all that bright." Your posting is thoughtful and nuanced.

Thank you for the compliment. I do not, however, quite understand what you mean by 'it's that of most thoughtful people off the religious right: [doesn't seem] "at all that bright." ' Could you clarify this for me, please?

 

[bg23]

As far as learnedness, worldliness, level of education, and possibly intelligence as a measurable quotient... I believe it more likely than not that George W. Bush is "above average" in comparison to the rest of the population.

I'm aware that this is not the point of the topic but - surely that is not such an exceptional achievement in a man who is to lead one of the largest countries in the world?

In any case, to make the point that George Bush is, in fact, intelligent, you would have to tell me what the average of the population is. If the average is not so high then to have surpassed it is, again, not such an achievement. Nor does it necessarily constitute "intelligence" by any means.

 

[Pure]

Hi Bad

Pure said, On your conclusion, it's that of most thoughtful people off the religious right: [doesn't seem] "at all that bright." Your posting is thoughtful and nuanced.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Bad: Thank you for the compliment. I do not, however, quite understand what you mean by 'it's that of most thoughtful people off the religious right: [doesn't seem] "at all that bright." ' Could you clarify this for me, please?

A little awkward in phrasing, my sentence. [So I, pure, will try again:] Your conclusion [doesn't seem] "at all that bright" is the same conclusion of most thoughtful people, including conservatives. It's the religious right that is most inclined to think of great God-given gifts of GWB.

Indeed, a southerner I know, summed up the appeal of Bush to the ordinary--not necessarily fundy-- southerner. "He's a fool, but he's one of us!"

Keep up the good postings!

 

[bg23]

A little awkward in phrasing, my sentence. Your conclusion [doesn't seem] "at all that bright" is the same conclusion of most thoughtful people, including conservatives. It's the religious right that is most inclined to think of great God-given gifts of GWB.

Indeed, a southerner I know, summed up the appeal of Bush to the ordinary--not necessarily fundy-- southerner. "He's a fool, but he's one of us!"

Keep up the good postings!

Hi Pure,

Thank you for clarifying. I admit I was confused by the somewhat seemingly conflicting things you were saying. I understand now, however.

As to the postings, its unlikely that you'll see too many more. I am notoriously fickle, and these serious moments never last so long.

 

[shereads]

Re: not so dumb

Molly Ivins watched him turn a surplus into a record deficit in Texas as Governor, and he was speaking the same way then. The verbal scrambler is most apparent extemporizing, and it formed enough of a pattern to be a running joke in the Texas press, but you make a mistake to think he's dumb because of it.

What would it be called, dyslexia of the spoken word? Dyslogia?

He did lull a few of his opponents into believing him below average, notably Ted Kennedy, who quickly discovered he'd been snookered in the first year of Dubya's incumbency. They'd struck a deal, Kennedy ceased to oppose something Bush wanted, and then discovered what Bush had all along realized, that he couldn't hold Bush to his side because he dared not acknowledge that he'd made a deal on it. It turned Kennedy into an implacable enemy in the Senate, where he got a little of his own back by filibuster against the weasel's programs. Ivins tells that story and many others in Bushwhacked.

You just think he's dumb. You're not alone, but you ought to know that other people have made that mistake before and regretted it. He doesn't read much, though, and never did. I don't believe he can be called brilliant. But a lot of captains of industry and moguls of finance tested under the dead even mark in IQ tests. They are quite capable people within their sphere nevertheless.

Tests like that are only intermittently indicative of anything, as in the spatial manipulations questions. Most of the test is a vocabulary exam, in the end. That's why people make the claims of cultural prejudice for them. It is a bookish vocabulary that it tests for. You can have a large street vocabulary and technical vocabulary (technical in a lot of fields, including religion) without being able to use any of it in the test.

"If ya'll had read my first book {"Shrub"} I wouldn't have had to write the second one."

~ Molly Ivans

Let's please keep Dubya's Yale career in perspective. He was admitted as a "legacy" because his father was a Yale graduate. There's no way of knowing how many free passes he's had in life, from grades to his admission into the Guard to the fact that his first business venture was funded by people who benefited from his father's influence in Washington. Even when GWB's first company was losing money hand-over-fist, there were Saudi businessmen and Bush I cronies who kept pouring millions into it...That he was able to graduate from Yale and Harvard is proof of nothing, in light of his father's influence.

As Molly Ivans points out, Bush benefited from the same practice he decries when it's called affirmative action. When he appied to Yale, it was their practice to give the same preferencial consideration to legacy applicants that today's Yale would give to a black or hispanic applicant.

The Bushes have bravely battled 'reverse discrimination' against white males in the university system. Discriminatory admissions practices are moral only in special cases, as when applied to students who are handicapped by family wealth and power.

"He was born with a silver foot in his mouth."

~ Ann Richards, former Texas governor

 

[LadyJeanne]

Well, on saying it wasn't... I should think saying that someone earned their degree through excellence, especially when its from a really, really prestigious university, especially when its a masters degree takes less jumping to conclusions.

I have degrees from a prestigious university, and many friends with the same. If they let you in, they do everything possible not to flunk you, particularly if you come from an influential family. A's and B's are tough to come by without working for them, but C's are very, very easy.

 

[Pure]

Hi LadyJ.

good points. you might add that in the 60s, a university similar to Yale had the policy: "Let in an alumni son, if he won't flunk." (He must be able to pass). Interestingly that represented a *tightening* of the rules. Being an alumni son used to be a virtual guarantee, unless he failed the 'clothe yourself' test.

simple facts always screw up Joe's self said 'reasoning.'

Trivial fact of the day. GWB majored in History!

----
Relevant fact regarding Sher's posting. "Let in the rich grads sons." (if they can do the work) is far more liberal than any affirmative action program of a any university I know. A Black person does not get into Harvard (or Univ of Mich, the SC test case) because he can pass.

 

[cantdog]

I'll have to believe you, Lady Jeanne, since my schools were none of them prestigious.

I always wondered about how a man who didn't ever read much could have put together a master's thesis. But he clearly doesn't; we have a couple of books from people who do know the man which say so.

He isn't a perceptive man, in some startling ways. His gratuitous insults to people from abroad, even people whom he needs, for instance, wouldn't have come from a perceptive or sensitive man. His references to the rest of the world are sometimes appallingly uninformed and bigoted, yet so casual that he clearly has no idea they might be seen to be insulting or patronizing. This alone was enough to raise eyebrows before 9-11, when the world was getting to know him.

Before a president goes abroad, ought not someone fill him in about the people he'll meet and the places he'll be going to? And yet, either there was no such briefing, which is ludicrous, or he just didn't read it. Or care enough to feel like he ought to have read it.

His ideology is extreme, even beyond the fundamentalist thing. As governor of Texas he tried to privatize the state welfare system and considered privatizing the University of Texas. He honestly believes government should be an adjunct of corporate America and that we'll all be better off if it is. His Texas environmental regulation consisted of calling for companies to begin "voluntary compliance" with them. He does not believe government should have a role in these things. Nor in the regulation of inside traders or conflicts of interest from the SEC, nor in any number of other regulatory functions.

Amicus's position on the matter springs to mind.

The word is, he did test poorly in IQ tests, but those are not very predictive of competence. What we have about his competence is a record, and it isn't very good at all in business.

How good he's done as president depends always on what happened, what you wanted to have happen, and whether or not you think he had any role in it.

I think the requirements for a good commander-in-chief are a little more closely defined in terms that most people can agree on, though.

I don't think he did any of the commander-in-chief thing. I think he left Rummy do most of it, and Dick Clark says the same. So he's at best neutral in that arena.

 

[Virtual_Burlesque]

If he weren't occupying the place of a Republican president of the United States, would any one of you be arguing so vehemently about the scholastic achievements of a loadie?

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Hi LadyJ.

good points. you might add that in the 60s, a university similar to Yale had the policy: "Let in an alumni son, if he won't flunk." (He must be able to pass). Interestingly that represented a *tightening* of the rules. Being an alumni son used to be a virtual guarantee, unless he failed the 'clothe yourself' test.

simple facts always screw up Joe's self said 'reasoning.'

Trivial fact of the day. GWB majored in History!

----
Relevant fact regarding Sher's posting. "Let in the rich grads sons." (if they can do the work) is far more liberal than any affirmative action program of a any university I know. A Black person does not get into Harvard (or Univ of Mich, the SC test case) because he can pass.

Please tell me you are joking about him majoring in history.

 

[shereads]

Please tell me you are joking about him majoring in history.

It was a highly focused discipline: History of White Guys and Their Women in Lubbock and the Greater Metropolitan Lubbock Area.

 

[Weird Harold]

Please tell me you are joking about him majoring in history.

History is a fairly easy discipline to get a degree in, but then I don't expec politicians to be rocket scientists.

However, the mention of history did remind me what this thread reminds me of: Reading the history of the Civil War and the comments made about Lincoln by his detractors.