Chemistry 101

[filkertom]

Jayzus H. Christ on a bicycle.

Even if you completely buy into everything the Bush Administration has ever said about terrorism, this is just insanely stupid and incompetent. And, if you don't... it's right in line with every other damn thing.

Comments

[twfarlan.livejournal.com]

They don't have to make sense. They don't even have to care about making sense.
1) The people who vote for this administration and believe in it are basically stupid. If you want to be nice about it, they are anti-intellectual.
2) People who shout and scream that the Bush administration is acting in the manner typified by this picture are labelled intellectuals and thus are not listened to by the segment of the electorate that put this administration in office.
3) The people who actually bankroll this administration need for the majority to be stupid enough to keep spending all their money and working for too little money to keep the bankrollers swimming in profits.
4) The administration needs to keep the bankrollers happy so that they, the corrupt government "servants," can continue rolling in slush money and exercising/abusing their voter-granted power.

The only solution to this is to make being an intellectual "sexy" again, and make being educated the It thing to be. Educated people think, argue, and don't tend to vote for idiocy like this twice unless they have tied their own interests to an engine like this. (IE Karl Rove, a cunning and intelligent man who knows he's in the eye of a BS hurricane and loves it)

[admnaismith.livejournal.com]

One of the top pathetic moments I experienced during campaign 2004 was when Theresa Kerry came to my University town and made a canned speech to the effect that, really, science was a good thing.

apparently, she'd been going to a good many places where people need convincing on that point.

[twfarlan.livejournal.com]

This does not surprise me. The questions that come to mind from this include:

1) Did she simply not have another speech to use?
2) Did her handlers feel that this would be a speech that would play well with a University town crowd? or
3) Did her handlers feel that this University town was yet another place that needed to hear that we shouldn't be afraid of science?

they're not stupid.

[jrtom.livejournal.com]

The people who vote for this administration and believe in it are basically stupid. If you want to be nice about it, they are anti-intellectual.

I think that it's dangerous to make this assumption. I don't know how much you've made a point of going out and talking to people that voted for the current administration (and still support it) but at least some of them are not stupid; they simply have _different priorities_, and perhaps most tellingly they _believe different people than you do_.

I will grant you that I believe that some of these priorities are toxic. Some of the folks on the opposite side of the aisle honestly believe that our society will fall apart if gay marriage is legalized. I think they're wrong, but they are sincere, and I claim that they are not stupid in part because they have a different definition of what our society should be like than I do.

On a more sinister note, some people are in favor of the direction we're heading because (they believe that) it benefits them. They're not stupid either: opportunistic, maybe, evil, maybe, but not stupid. (cf. Karl Rove in your own post)

Another thing that it comes down to is that I _trust_ a different set of people to give me reliable information and interpretations than most of the hard-core Bush supporters do. I basically discount everything that Ann Coulter says as crap; they do the same with Michael Moore. I think I'm right and they're wrong, but they think so, too. :)

As a final note, assuming that people that disagree with you are stupid is generally not a good tactical move. If nothing else, unless you're an excellent actor, it will put you at a significant disadvantage when dealing with them, because they'll be able to infer your contempt and will treat you accordingly. Try understanding them first; you're more likely to get somewhere useful.

The only solution to this is to make being an intellectual "sexy" again

Is there a point in history at which you believe that being "intellectual" was ever sexy on a society-wide level? In any society? How much are our heroes admired for their intelligence, and how much for their courage and/or stubbornness?

Re: they're not stupid.

[twfarlan.livejournal.com]

I do not say that these people are stupid as an assumption. I've grown up amongst them, I've heard their rationales, and for a time of my life even thought like them. I thought that Ronald Reagan, for instance, was spot on when he said that the best way to encourage the economy was to give tax cuts to those who were already the most successful. I listened to "trickle down" economics and believed it. I believed that buying American made products was the only thing that made sense.

What has changed is my perspective, perhaps, but it's an important change. My perspective now is, "What makes rational sense?" No one, and I mean NO ONE, has ever presented me with a rational explanation for why gay marriage is supposedly wrong or what harm it will cause this country. I have heard some flimsy rhetoric about protecting the institution as it exists (then outlaw divorce), that marriage is about stability of families (then make gay families more stable by letting them legally marry) or about how marriage is supposed to be about encouraging procreation (then let gay parents marry, share the rights and responsibilities, and adopt if they don't have surrogates or sperm donors available). This is the main point behind labeling something or someone stupid: they are not just ignorant, they are intentionally anti-reason. Rational, reasonable discourse and disagreement, I can accept. Blind obedience or a political position based on nothing more than some article of faith taken without evidence? No.

Regarding Ann Coulter and Michael Moore, the answer on that? Don't believe either of them. They're both fearmongerers with their own agendas that have nothing to do with the good of the citizenry as a whole. They do what they do to be famous. Quiet debate doesn't get good ratings. As for a question of trust? Trust no pundit; each one is a marionette, and someone lurks in the shadows pulling the strings. Follow the money and you'll discern the agenda. Objective truth, if such a thing exists in any human endeavor, is out there to be seen.

I mentioned Rove and his type as supporting this position because it benefits them personally, and mentioned that they aren't stupid at all. They're outside of the subject set under evaluation. When you have a patient with a tapeworm in his gut, you don't concern yourself with the health or POV of the tapeworm.

The argument can be made that we only remember those intellectuals who were simply stubborn enough to not give up. I was thinking of the Renaissance and the Enlightenment as two periods where intelligence was socially "sexy," but it's arguable.