33 thoughts on “A Conundrum”

  3. If we use the lens created in Albion’s Seed, I believe Barack Obama would fall among the Quakers, with Hillary Clinton being a Puritan and the two George Bushes (41 & 43) being Cavaliers – despite W’s efforts to assume a fake Texas persona.

    Thus, the America that Obama loves is a different America than George W. Bush loves even though our nation actually encompasses all of these perspectives.

  4. Oops, and this is why some Americans cannot recognize how and why Obama loves America.

    No conundrum here, just an internal dispute over what America is supposed to stand for, or mean.

  6. Because it’s easier to be proud of a country that isn’t lead by an incurious national chauvinist?

  7. Because it’s easier to be proud of a country that isn’t lead by an incurious national chauvinist?

    Hmmmmm….

    Nope. That couldn’t be it.

    Speaking of “incurious,” I wonder if Obama has ever read any Hayek?

  8. Jim, you left out “chimp-like” and “cowboy”.

    Those are people who are proud that their country finally elected a sanctimonious narcissist like themselves, a man who shows that it is possible to make it all the way to the top despite having done nothing socially useful or constructive His entire life. He (pbuh) is living their dream, and validates their useless existence.

  9. Ah the “national chauvinist” as opposed to the non-national-type that calls female reporters “sweetie”.

    You see it’s not that Obama isn’t proud of America (his wife on the other hand…) he just wants to be trans formative and make it something better.

    A place where there is plenty (as defined by government mandate) for all. Sure the rich and politically connected will gain even more power via the rationing of energy and healthcare. And sure they’ll be “exempted” from such responsibilities like they currently are on taxes.

    But isn’t it worth it?

    We have a cabinet that only pays their taxes when found out.

    Al Gore gets rich and can use all the power he wants and as for Healthcare…

    http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/HealthCare/story?id=7919991&page=1

    Devinsky asked the president pointedly if he would be willing to promise that he wouldn’t seek such extraordinary help for his wife or daughters if they became sick and the public plan he’s proposing limited the tests or treatment they can get.

    The president refused to make such a pledge, though he allowed that if “it’s my family member, if it’s my wife, if it’s my children, if it’s my grandmother, I always want them to get the very best care.[“]

  10. Q: I wonder if Obama has read Hayek?

    A: Google is your friend!

    Time Magazine August 2008

    http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1834309,00.html

    Q: Do you agree that you were more exposed to left ideas than the average guy who ends up running for President? Hard to picture most of them reading Frantz Fanon or saying, “Stokely Carmichael is in town, I’m going to go hear him.”

    A: I’m not sure that what I was exposed to was all that different from what Bill Clinton was exposed to. He’s squarely a baby boomer. I’m sure that what I was exposed to was different from what John McCain was exposed to, because there’s a much bigger gap of years there. But you know, the truth is that my education was a pretty standard liberal-arts education. So I was exposed to thinkers on the left. At the same time, I was reading Milton Friedman and Friedrich Hayek, and I was growing up when Ronald Reagan was ascendant. So the political culture of my formative years was much more conservative.

    It partly explains why, if you look at not just my politics, but also I think who I am as a person — in some ways, I’m pretty culturally conservative. I was always suspicious of dogma and the excesses of the left and the right. One of my greatest criticisms of the Republican Party over the last 20 years is that it’s not particularly conservative. I can read conservatives from an earlier era — a George Will or a Peggy Noonan — and recognize wisdom, because it has much more to do with respect for tradition and the past, and I think skepticism about being able to just take apart a society and put it back together. Because I do think that communities and nations and families aren’t subject to that kind of mechanical approach to change. But when I look at Tom DeLay or some of the commentators on Fox these days, there’s nothing particularly conservative about them.

  11. Speaking of “incurious,” I wonder if Obama has ever read any Hayek?

    Nah, there wouldn’t be anyone at the U. of Chicago who’d care about Hayek….

  13. Nah, there wouldn’t be anyone at the U. of Chicago who’d care about Hayek…

    That doesn’t answer my question. He refused to discuss gun control with John Lott…

  14. I was reading Milton Friedman and Friedrich Hayek, and I was growing up when Ronald Reagan was ascendant.

    Assuming he’s telling the truth, apparently he didn’t read for comprehension. I suspect that he’s just tossing out names that he might have inevitably heard at the U of Chicago.

    We still haven’t seen his transcripts. I wonder why?

  15. His transcripts? What is that all about?

    Obama earned a law degree magnum cum laude from Harvard University, was chosen as editor of the Harvard Law review and even the more conservative professors at the U of C School of Law respected Obama’s studiousness and willingness to examine all sides of a question.

    He taught law at the University of Chicago for 12 years — it is a competitive school and slackers on the faculty are not tolerated.

  16. Bill, if his degrees, honors, and schools are impressive then that increases the oddity of not releasing his transcripts.

    If he didn’t get a degree or went to a “bad” school then sure, hiding the transcripts makes sense. Why make it worse?

    But the very fact that Obama has degrees from institutions that are impressive makes the lack of release… strange.

    Unless you think Obama’s being humble about his accomplishments.

  17. Obama earned a law degree magnum cum laude from Harvard University, was chosen as editor of the Harvard Law review and even the more conservative professors at the U of C School of Law respected Obama’s studiousness and willingness to examine all sides of a question.

    Where are the transcripts?

    Where are his articles for the Harvard Law Review that he edited? What, the editor never wrote for his own publication?

    Where is anything that he ever wrote, other than his “books,” which may have been written by someone else?

  18. Where are the transcripts?

    Wherever Obama wants them. He’s under no obligation to satisfy your curiosity, and clearly is interested in keeping the focus on other things.

    Where are his articles for the Harvard Law Review that he edited? What, the editor never wrote for his own publication?

    Law review editors rarely write bylined articles, they write notes that are not signed. People have identified at least one of Obama’s, I believe. But again, there are plenty of things Obama would rather talk about than his law school papers.

    Where is anything that he ever wrote, other than his “books,” which may have been written by someone else?

    I love the scare quotes around “books” — do you suspect that they may not actually be books?

    Anything he ever wrote “may have been written by someone else,” including the poems he had published in the Occidental College literary journal when he was 19, and the speech he gave at the 2004 Democratic National Convention. Likewise anything that anyone else ever wrote. To be more suspicious of Obama than others suggests that you’ve already assumed the conclusion.

  19. Ah…. and here’s Jim with the strawmen.

    Remember, if Bush didn’t want to release something in his past Jim would be right at the front saying that. “He’s under no obligation to satisfy your curiosity, and clearly is interested in keeping the focus on other things.”

    Remember, nothing Obama does is wrong. Last week saying protesters shouldn’t be killed: meddling.

    This week, standing with the protesters is the only right thing to do a position Obama says he’s always had.

    Why in the world shouldn’t we trust this guy’s word?

  20. Wherever Obama wants them. He’s under no obligation to satisfy your curiosity, and clearly is interested in keeping the focus on other things.

    Obviously. He managed to sneak into office without revealing that information, so why would he do so now?

    As Jack says, why should we believe anything that this apparently pathological liar says? Particularly when defended by another one?

  21. Bill, if his degrees, honors, and schools are impressive then that increases the oddity of not releasing his transcripts.

    Are we in upside-down world, where the more impressive your credentials are, the more evidence you have to provide to prove that you actually are smart?

    I graduated magna cum laude from Harvard [undergraduate, not the law school. I didn’t get into Harvard Law, despite perfect LSAT scores. Which was a good thing, in that I was spared life as a lawyer, and a bad thing, in that I would have been in Obama’s class, and that’d have been neat.] If I was running for office I wouldn’t be interested in releasing my transcripts, and having people ask me if my views on Japan were influenced by the Japanese history course I took when I was 19, or whether it’d be safe to have a Congressman who flunked Russian History (I got the exam time wrong and slept through it, honest).

    But the very fact that Obama has degrees from institutions that are impressive makes the lack of release… strange.

    Really? Has every national politician released his or her college transcripts? I don’t recall hearing about Bill or Hillary Clinton’s. Wellesley kept Hillary’s senior thesis under wraps while Bill was in office, not because there were any bombshells there, but because she didn’t want to talk about it.

    Some people have a strange reluctance to believe that Obama is actually as smart as his resume suggests. No number of testimonials by colleagues or students will satisfy them. Any piece of impressive writing is of suspect authorship. I doubt the transcripts would satisfy them either. Maybe it’s a “he sounds too good to be true” thing. Maybe it’s a youth thing. Maybe, for some people, it’s a race thing. But it is very strange.

  22. As Jack says, why should we believe anything that this apparently pathological liar says?

    What does this have to do with anything Obama has said? It’s Harvard that says he was magna cum laude, it’s his U. Chicago colleagues and students who say he’s brilliant, it’s his publisher and editor who say he wrote his books. You don’t have to take his word for any of it.

    Particularly when defended by another one?

    Excuse me? If you’re talking about me, back it up or retract it.

  23. Has every national politician released his or her college transcripts? I don’t recall hearing about Bill or Hillary Clinton’s. Wellesley kept Hillary’s senior thesis under wraps while Bill was in office, not because there were any bombshells there, but because she didn’t want to talk about it.

    Mostly, yeah. Unless they were Dems.

    Wellesley kept Hillary’s senior thesis under wraps while Bill was in office, not because there were any bombshells there, but because she didn’t want to talk about it.

    Actually, once we got to read it, we found out why she didn’t want to talk about it. Like Obama she was an Alinsky acolyte.

    Some people have a strange reluctance to believe that Obama is actually as smart as his resume suggests.

    Because the evidence for it on the ground is less than compelling.

    No number of testimonials by colleagues or students will satisfy them. Any piece of impressive writing is of suspect authorship. I doubt the transcripts would satisfy them either.

    No, actual certified transcripts would satisfy. Just like the birth certificate.

    If you’re talking about me, back it up or retract it.

    Aawwww…, did I huwt the pooh widdle twohs feewings?

    If you don’t like it, no one makes you troll this web site. I could act like your compatriots at Kos and Dem Underground, and just delete your posts. If you don’t like the heat, in the words of Harry Truman (Democrat), stay out of the kitchen.

  24. Ah, the “incurious” term rears its pointy little head. There are apparently two ways to consider someone “incurious.” There is what Nabokov called his character Humbert Humbert’s “incuriosity” about Lolita — which meant that he didn’t really care about Lolita herself, only about his ideas and feelings about her; he didn’t see her as a real person, just as some sort of outgrowth of his own needs and traumas.

    Then there is “incurious” as applied by pissant lefties against George W. Bush. In their case “incurious” means “doesn’t care about the cool books and movies and celebrities and political figures and world issues we cool people care about, but instead cares about stuff we have declared uncool. And as being cool in our eyes is the only important thing in the universe, he has committed blasphemy against our shiny tin gods!”

    Now it is interesting how one could apply Nabokov’s usage of the term to the lefties, who don’t see Bush as a person but as some sort of figment of their fears and terrors.

  25. Jim: “What does this have to do with anything Obama has said? It’s Harvard that says he was magna cum laude, it’s his U. Chicago colleagues and students who say he’s brilliant, it’s his publisher and editor who say he wrote his books. You don’t have to take his word for any of it.”

    Hi strawman!

    Gotta love Jim’s style.

    Proposed: Obama lied about X; Jim’s response: Obama didn’t like about Z!

    Jim: Some people have a strange reluctance to believe that Obama is actually as smart as his resume suggests. No number of testimonials by colleagues or students will satisfy them. Any piece of impressive writing is of suspect authorship. I doubt the transcripts would satisfy them either. Maybe it’s a “he sounds too good to be true” thing. Maybe it’s a youth thing. Maybe, for some people, it’s a race thing. But it is very strange.

    Yes why won’t people trust the man with the shady past and the history of lying.

    And people being suspicious of something “too good to be true”, That’s crazy talk!

    Hmmm….

    Some people have a strange reluctance to believe that Bush is actually as smart as his resume suggests. No number of testimonials by colleagues or officers will satisfy them. Any piece of impressive piloting is of [suspect][sic] validity. I doubt the records would satisfy them either.

    Nah….

  26. …it is interesting how one could apply Nabokov’s usage of the term to the lefties, who don’t see Bush as a person but as some sort of figment of their fears and terrors.

    “Fears and terrors” seems a pretty accurate description of Obama defenders at this point.

  27. Mostly, yeah. Unless they were Dems.

    Has Mitt Romney released his transcripts? Mike Huckabee? Sarah Palin? I’d love to read them, send along the pointers.

    No, actual certified transcripts would satisfy.

    Why? Why would grades from courses he took 20+ years ago tell you more about his intellectual fitness for office than the public record and testimony of colleagues from all the years since? This focus on decades-old college grades or SAT scores as the be-all and end-all of intelligence assessment is bizarre.

    I could act like your compatriots at Kos and Dem Underground, and just delete your posts.

    Yes, you could (fwiw, I don’t read Kos or DU, and as far as I know have no “compatriots” in those places). And you can call me a “pathological liar” whenever you feel like you’re losing an argument, it’s a free country. The charge says nothing about me, and volumes about you.

  28. Then there is “incurious” as applied by pissant lefties against George W. Bush. In their case “incurious” means “doesn’t care about the cool books and movies and celebrities and political figures and world issues we cool people care about

    Because only “cool people” think the president should care anything about “world issues.”

    Bush ran for president — the most powerful office on the planet — having barely ever left the North America, despite ample resources and opportunities. He was sure that the U.S. was the best country on earth, and that he had the answers to many if not most of the world’s problems, but he’d never bothered to even look for himself. That certain pride in the absence of actual experience is the sort of pride I’m happy to be done with.

  29. Some people have a strange reluctance to believe that Bush is actually as smart as his resume suggests

    Bush never presented himself as being all that smart. He got into Yale just before merit became a much bigger factor in Ivy League admissions (he was the only Bush of his generation to get in), and distinguished himself as a fraternity president and cheerleader rather than in the classroom.

    People’s reluctance to believe that Bush is much smarter than he claims is not strange at all.

  30. People’s reluctance to believe that Bush is much smarter than he claims is not strange at all.

    No one claimed that Bush made any claims about how smart he is. Learn to read.

  31. OK Rand, the original claim was:

    Some people have a strange reluctance to believe that Bush is actually as smart as his resume suggests.

    His resume does not suggest that he is particularly smart, at least not in the way measured by grades and tests, and that’s totally consistent with his public image as an “average guy” who makes decisions, for right or wrong, from the gut rather than based on book learning or introspection. I don’t see any “strange reluctance” out there.

  32. When you are only proud of your country when your political party controls your country, you aren’t proud of your country–you’re proud of your party.

Comments are closed.