Monday, September 05, 2011

Liberals Are Smart

From an article about Rick Perry. I'm not as concerned with the Rick Perry parts as I am with this section about lefties:
Liberals often say Republicans are stupid, but they really believe it with regard to Gov. Perry. For liberals, credentials and holding fashionable opinions are more important markers of intelligence than knowledge or accomplishment.

"Liberals revere high SAT scores"....
While there's nothing wrong with high SAT scores, they're not the end-all, be-all of intelligence, either.


Dean Baird said...

Jack Kelly is free to spin as he likes. He's eager to celebrate a guy who denies evolution and climate change. Dare we ask Gov. Perry about heliocentrism and the round Earth? Because when we ask him about Texas' special rights to secession or what is taught as science in Texas, the governor seems entirely unfamiliar with the state he was elected to govern.

The Right enjoys the narrative of elitist oppression; forever the beleaguered victim of the MSM. Taking that thesis away from FoxNews would be like taking Chinese-made products off the shelves of Walmart.

The reality is that the GOP has made an enemy of intelligence. It denies science and celebrates "anti-intellectualism." It wants voters to elect a president on the basis of who they'd want to have a beer with.

Liberals revere high SAT scores? Conservatives revere ignorance! Do I lie? Go ahead and refudiate Michelle Bachmann's penchant for reinventing history. Or Sarah Palin's hobby of inventing words. Recall she didn't apologize for "refudiate," she placed herself in the company of William Shakespeare for the "accomplishment." That's a celebration of stupidity.

I hope I'm not wrong in presuming you have greater respect for education than Rick Perry ever did. I'm pretty sure you don't encourage your students to strive to be C-students.

And yes, if respecting "credentials" is a crime, liberals are guilty as charged. Of course, we don't even list credential-respect as a crime. That's how elitist we are!

Darren said...

"Taking that thesis away from FoxNews would be like taking Chinese-made products off the shelves of Walmart."

It would kinda be like taking away the "Tea Party wants to lynch black people" canard away from the liberals--but wait, your two example are real and this one is totally made up. Never mind.

The right isn't anti-intellectual, we just don't think ourselves superior to the rest of you because of our intelligence. Nor do we make a fetish of it in order to feel good about ourselves.

If you'd like to bring up stupid things liberals have said, I guess we can do that. But all that would prove is that you can show stupid quotes from a lot of people when they're quoted enough.

And I *like* "refudiate". I make up my own words, too, sometimes. Is it any worse a slip of the tongue than those 57 states?

KauaiMark said...

"...respecting "credentials"

Do you know how often I get requests to advertise on my blog from thesis and term paper ghost writers? They "guarantee" quality and non-detection by plagiarism checkers?

What is that Masters/PHD credential worth if someone else is paid to do the work?

For me demonstrated competence is more of a deciding factor, not the collections of degrees behind the name.


Ellen K said...

I don't know if Perry will be the candidate or not. I do know that it appears liberals are more than ready to attack him a year before the primaries which signals to me that they are worried. That Perry wasn't an academic doesn't bother me. I've known brilliant academics that I would not allow to watch my dog. What impresses me about Perry is that he has a sense to be in the right place at the right time with the right information. Call that opportunism if you will, but for all the whited sepulchers represented in Obama's WH staff, have any of them come up with anything that has worked even a little bit? There was a great deal of misplaced chortling on the Left when Perry headed back to Texas to tend to the massive wildfire outbreak instead of staying in SC to debate. They tried to say he was chicken. Wow, that's a misplaced idea. Perry may be foolhardy, but he's not chicken. Perry comes from a hardscrabble background and went to a tough school known for hardheaded pragmatism over ethereal theory. Instead of staying for political points, Perry came home to take care of business. Can we say the same thing of Obama who dithered for two weeks before taking any action on the Gulf Oil Spill? Or who has held back his own academic transcripts? If the folks who blindly support Obama want us to believe they have a case, they can't just lob verbal bombs and not expect some back in return. The failure of this president to do anything points to his own history as an academic who was taught to deal in theoretical solutions that were never put in place. Give me a guy who knows what needs to be done and does it every time. Nobody was ever going to call Reagan an intellectual-he was a problemsolver. Perry for all his warts is as well. I don't know if he will win or not, but I do know that we need change at the top.

Darren said...

Which side supports "science"? Both. Neither. Depends on which points you want to cherry-pick:
Which ideology is it that throws a hissy fit over genetically modified organisms and childhood vaccinations? Or files lawsuits to stop de-listings of recovered species (like the gray wolf) even after the government’s science advisory bodies say “the science” says they should be de-listed? Who’s not respecting science now?

But rather than stopping with the simple observation that ideology or politics drives acceptance or rejection of certain domains of science, it is worth pressing on to ask why liberals dislike some kind of science, and conservatives other kinds.

Dean Baird said...

I'm curious as to whether you find this piece about GOP skepticism of science
A. biased because it's produced by NPR (i.e., the facts don't matter; NPR said it so it's wrong).
B. biased because it's being reported (i.e., the facts don't matter; they're wrong to report them).
C. factually correct and so what?
D. None of the above: ___________

Darren said...

When you can show me where, in the GOP platform, the Republicans are "skeptical of science", perhaps I'll listen--while I eat my genetically-modified foods and dream of the day when my house is again lit by cheap, safe, plentiful nuclear power.

Dean Baird said...

If I follow your logic, Republican candidates are not to be judged by what they say but rather by the party platform. Seems like that would make it tough to pick a candidate, since they all fall under a singular banner.

Obama, though, is to be judged not by party platform or even what he says or does. Obama is to be held to account for what others say in support of him. I'll admit it: right-wing logic eludes my grasp.

I have little--if any--problem with genetic modification. Evolution-based biology has many practical applications. Stem-cell research? I'm all for it!

The French have led the way in successful nuclear power generation; we might look to adopt their techniques. But I did vote to close down Rancho Seco; Nuclear power plants require top-flight construction and management. Expensive safety protocols and strict regulatory oversight are required since accidents are potentially catastrophic. The French seem to get this; Americans, not so much. The Germans are wrong for outright abandonment; they'll have to live with the consequences. Then again, they won't have to contend with a Fukushima situation.

W.R. Chandler said...

What I find hilarious is that the statists on the Left are already poring over Perry's transcripts and credentials, while we still don't know what kind of grades Obama got at Occidental, Columbia, and Harvard. He won't release them. And the protests from the Left equals precisely... nada.

Such hypocrites.

Darren said...

Dean, it was *you* who talked about "GOP skepticism of science", not about individual candidates' views. I can understand your confusion about so-called right-wing logic; cognitive dissonance usually generates just that.