I do see the disconnect. In fact that is one of the things the writer himself emphasized in the article! Palin herself is not as troubling as the large anti-intellectual sentiments found in the country.
Of course... most of Obama's supporters are not elites and many of McCain's supporters are... so I think there is a disconnect between your view and reality as well... Apparently you don't get a monopoly on the thoughts of the non-elites nor do my ideas reflect those of the elites.

That would be because of the way the right has spun and the failure of the left to fight back... but it also largely represents a common misconception.
Harris is referring to "elites" as competent and intellectual people. If you think these people are a monolith, you're wrong. And the non-elites get to choose between them, don't they.
And Harris points out the irony... that in most cases, we love to have "elites" doing the jobs they are most "elite" for... just not in politics.

Sorry. I'm lost... Isn't "class welfare" usually when we claim poor people are screwed by the socio-economic system... and you guys fight against the whole paradigm by pointing out that the poor are just inept and being taught to whine...
Interestingly Harris is pointing out a POV similar to the one the right usually calls the antidote to "class warfare"... and he is inducing "class warfare".
Please make up your mind on that.
Personally I'm comfortable with class conflict in that it is a reality of life rather than a derogatory term to use when a paradigm is brought up you don't agree with.

No. You don't understand. I'm NOT voting FOR McCain/Palin.
Thought I made that clear...

__________________
That information is classified and to be given only on a need-to-know basis...
And I do not need to know.

Get your daily dose of truth*

* or something approximating it

More crapola.

Here's the BLUF~ bottom line up front

Obama Ranked Most Liberal Senator in 2007
http://www.npr.org/blogs/news/2008/0...al_sena_1.html

Voters want higher taxes, more governmental control over aspects of their lives,
soft on crime, national defense budget cuts,
rhetoric over substantive improvements to a Nation?

Vote Obama.

How big is it? It's the front page of the NYT. Not like they're hiding it.

Ask Ocean 314 - he's the one saying there's a news media conspiracy.

__________________
"I don't think we should be governing ourselves. What we need is a king, and every now and then if the king’s not doing a good job, we kill him." - George Carlin

Exactly. Certainly, there are many people in this country who can't tell you what the Bush Doctrine is from the lower income high school graduate gas station cashier who is too busy watching football on Sundays to attend church to the neurosurgeon who is too busy saving grandma's life to keep up with the political events of the day. But these are the very people who like many others from all walks of life do not appreciate the assumption that they are some how intellectually inferior to liberal media hacks who believe they don't know how to spend their own money and that they need an every growing and powerful nanny state federal bureaucracy to provide for them the things they wish to provide for themselves through their own hard work and diligence. They are smart enough to know the difference between a candidate who disrespects their beliefs in God and would like to remove any mention of him from everything from the county court house to the dollar bill and a candidate who finds strength in God and country and has proven himself through by sacraficing his own blood for a nation that was founded in those beliefs.

__________________
We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity. -- Ann Coulter

[JavaBlack;813601]I do see the disconnect. In fact that is one of the things the writer himself emphasized in the article! Palin herself is not as troubling as the large anti-intellectual sentiments found in the country.
Of course... most of Obama's supporters are not elites and many of McCain's supporters are... so I think there is a disconnect between your view and reality as well... Apparently you don't get a monopoly on the thoughts of the non-elites nor do my ideas reflect those of the elites.

I find your "anti-intellectual sentiments" comment to be offensive and demeaning, as if every person who doesn't vote for Obama is a bumbling idiot. Surely, you don't deny the "holier-than-thou", "smarter-than-you" "just leave it to us, don't strain yourself" atmosphere prevalent in the Obama campaign ... and, yes, it starts with Obama himself.

That would be because of the way the right has spun and the failure of the left to fight back... but it also largely represents a common misconception.
Harris is referring to "elites" as competent and intellectual people. If you think these people are a monolith, you're wrong. And the non-elites get to choose between them, don't they.
And Harris points out the irony... that in most cases, we love to have "elites" doing the jobs they are most "elite" for... just not in politics.

By your use of "competent and intellectual people" phrasing, you are drawing the very class distinction I was speaking of. Believe it or not, there are people out there in Middle America who are capable of making intelligent decisions ... and some of them are even pro-McCain.

Sorry. I'm lost... Isn't "class welfare" usually when we claim poor people are screwed by the socio-economic system... and you guys fight against the whole paradigm by pointing out that the poor are just inept and being taught to whine...
Interestingly Harris is pointing out a POV similar to the one the right usually calls the antidote to "class warfare"... and he is inducing "class warfare".
Please make up your mind on that.

I have no doubt that you're lost ... when forced to consider the alternative, you escape back into the comfort of cliches and doublespeak. I, of course, was speaking of the class line you drew between the "intellectuals" and the "anti-intellectuals" (which, by the way, you haven't even bothered to define -- I guess it must mean anybody not smart enough to pick Obama).

Personally I'm comfortable with class conflict in that it is a reality of life rather than a derogatory term to use when a paradigm is brought up you don't agree with.

Obviously so ... but denigrating a large part of the population because "you know better what's good for them" is hardly the recipe for political success.

The reference to your ignorance wasn't about your candidate selection; it was about your obvious disconnect from the average American.

__________________
Government does not solve problems; it subsidizes them.

---- Ronald Reagan

That is a self serving political greed motivated opinion.
What heinous crime has she committed that 80% of Alaskans are "forgiving" her for?

Absent that, the article is a steaming pile of dung!

__________________
Not many people know this, but I'm really famous!

I might myself find such an idea offensive. I'm offended that you decided to give me that stance.

By acting smart and intellectual?
That's my point. It's not that Obama is simply regarded as "snobbish" but that "snobbishness" is assumed by anyone who acts intelligent!

I never said that there were not pro-McCain people capable of intelligent judgements. You made that up out of nowhere.
I also never said "middle Americans" can't make "intelligent decisions".
That said, I don't expect a regular joe that doesn't read up on current events and makes judgements on complex world problems based on "faith" or "intuition" to be good at solving world problems or even preventing them from getting worse... If that same joe were rallying AGAINST the use of intellect and study as methods to understand, I'd be even more afraid.
However I do suspect this joe probably makes intelligent decisions in his own sphere.

Competence is relative to the field, don't ya think?


Sure... use a term that has no other use than a cliche of the right or a marching call of militant Marxism... and accuse me of "double-speak".
What is hard to get about "intellectual" and "anti-intellectual"? One values intellect, study, and academia over faith and intuition-based understanding... The other dismisses it in favor of "conventional wisdom".
"Class warfare" however is a term always used selectively... typically when the poor demand. Again you use it selectively, declaring "intellectualism" to be the aggressor... not noting that it is, in fact, "anti-intellectualism" that is the strongest and loudest of the two... so much that we have people of intellect pretending to be "common folk" to underplay their intellect!

Who cares? I'm not a politician.
And I'm not "denigrating" them all that much. I'm saying "Sorry, Bob, you shouldn't be president and nor should anyone else with your particular attitude toward intellect."
I don't think myself qualified for president... Why the (*)(*)(*)(*) should it be so insulting when I say most of the rest of America isn't either!

I do know the "average American"... and it does not change my opinion...
But who exactly is ignorrant? I know quite a few of these "average Americans", who while they may not agree with me on religion, agree with me that we should put someone intellectual in office."
Many people are humble enough to assume that they are not qualified for the job, and likewise nor are people with similar limits to understanding.
Intuition and faith have their place...
That place is not making decisions about the country's future concerning complex problems!

__________________
That information is classified and to be given only on a need-to-know basis...
And I do not need to know.

Get your daily dose of truth*

* or something approximating it

I cut your post down, because your position has been defined, and attacking it serves no purpose. But, let me assure you, if you wish, I can go back and do that.

The last time I checked, this country was supposed be all-inclusive. It was supposed to defined by its citizenry. It was supposed to be managed by the collective opinion of ALL its people. Now, you want to disenfranchise a large portion of them because they don't meet your mythical intellectual standards. These average joe idiots that you refer to have done a fair job creating and running this country. We lost our way when we lost those practical values, when we allowed people who think they know better make the decisions for them. Now, you want to establish some kind of litmus test that they must pass in order to be participating citizens.... some magical level of "intellectualism" that must be attained in order to be heard.

Today, we have government representatives who ignore our wishes, who smugly do what they think is right, rather than what we told them. The time has come for the common citizen to take back his government. Why do you think the Palin phenomena was so huge? She's perceived as one of the common folk. I want .... we want ... control back. We want to be in charge. We're tired of the intellectuals (*)(*)(*)(*)ing it up.

You might want to take an evening, buy some popcorn, and rent a movie called "Mr Smith Goes To Washington". It will be quite an education for you. Send me the bill .... I'll buy.

__________________
Government does not solve problems; it subsidizes them.

---- Ronald Reagan

Ok... With you so far.


No... And neither does Harris (at least he does not mention it in the article). In fact, in other threads I have stood up for the rights of normal people- even stupid people- to vote.
It is up to individuals to pick the qualifications for president.
I thought I was pretty (*)(*)(*)(*) clear that this was an opinion of mine on such qualifications.
And while I feel average joes should vote... and even have the right to figure out qualifications for themselves... I do not think an average joe is qualified for the job, particularly one that scoffs at science and intellectual pursuit in favor of faith and intuition.

Obviously you disagree.
That does not mean that I think you should not be able to vote.


Mostly they've done a good job of electing extraordinary people to do it and keeping these people marginally on track by fear of their political power.
We generally don't elect idiots to power... but it is a fantasy to many that doing so would be wonderful... and this sentiment is growing... and I think it's dangerous.

The "litmus test" is MY test for whether to support someone.
Please read my posts if you are going to react. I don't recall suggesting there should be a formal test. I am against such a thing even more than I am against Palin. I suspect the country could survive Palin (as long as she doesn't get convinced it's Rapture Time).

And that's why I think it's foolish. Assuming that a person who scoffs at intellect will meet your wishes... assuming that the wishes of the average joe mesh with the ideas the average joe has for doing it...
Typically we vote based on direction... to hire specialists who will design plans to get there. Obviously the plans never totally mesh with what everyone wants.

I do want to see that. Being that it's not a documentary, I'm skeptical of it's value in fact however.
I mean, Harvey was a great movie, and a heartwarming one... but not educational.

__________________
That information is classified and to be given only on a need-to-know basis...
And I do not need to know.

Get your daily dose of truth*

* or something approximating it

There's nothing worst than right-wing populism, it's this sickening hatred of the educated and intellectuals, and praising those with little education and economic opportunities. Praising backwardness is not good for a country, it breeds bad sentiment.

How about this conservatives, stop trying to divert attention from economic problems by bringing up crap like immigration, homosexuals, Muslims, or whatever.

__________________
'A conservative is a man with two perfectly good legs who, however, has never learned how to walk forward'. - Franklin D. Roosevelt

http://i38.tinypic.com/716ahj.gif