Anti-intellectualism

Nick Kristof has a really good column up in the Times today.

The extent to which anti-intellectualism has infiltrated our society is really alarming. Despite a disastrous war in Iraq, a tanking economy, and a power-hungry administration threatening to unravel some of the most basic tenants of our democracy, our evening news continues to be dominated by Britney Spears, Lindsey Lohan, and the pretty missing white girl from rural Kansas. But, perhaps more importantly, on the few occasions the media turns its attention towards politics, or the war, or some other serious matter, they rarely engage in substantive dialog. Rather, they talk about how certain events will affect public opinion without engaging in any discussion of the events themselves.

On talk radio, anti-intellectualism is taken to new heights. I can't listen to talk radio for more than about 5 minutes without becoming nauseous. But, on occasion, my morbid curiosity wins out and I'll tune in for a few minutes. You'll notice that all talk radio hosts speak with a similar cadence. It's loud, and each point they make comes with an understood clause that "if you don't agree with me, you're a pussy." I listened to a long rant several months ago about why Mexican immigrants were threatening to destroy our country. The "illegals," as they were repeatedly called, are draining our resources and they <gasp> don't speak English! So, we must kick them all out, regardless of what the repercussions may be. Repercussions are for pussies.

A similar speaking cadence and style has spilled over into sports talk radio. Try making this argument to someone who listens to The Ticket regularly: The Texas Rangers have a solid bullpen. Never mind that the Rangers had the 5th best bullpen ERA in baseball last year (3.69), and had a 33-22 won/loss record, despite logging the most innings of any bullpen in MLB due to an historically awful starting rotation. In fact, a reasonable argument can be made that the Rangers had the best bullpen in baseball last year. But, clearly, I'm a pussy for making such a ridiculous assertion.

Last week, I listened to several great American speeches, after hearing Obama's speech on race. If you have ~45 minutes to spare, listen to FDR's Arsenal of Democracy speech. I think it ought to be required listening for every voter. It really drives home the point that the threat we face from Islamic terrorism is a minor annoyance compared to the Nazis. They had taken over most of continental Europe, and people legitimately worried that Hitler would be able to take over the entire world. And, yet, in the face of that, when FDR addressed the nation, he didn't try to obfuscate or dumb down his points. He made some rather complex arguments, expecting his listeners to keep up with him. If George W. Bush went in front of the TV tonight, and delivered a speech with coherent, complex arguments, that didn't try to obfuscate the facts, I might go into shock.

As Kristof points out, the really scary thing about all of this is that the rest of the world is not inflicted by this anti-intellectual disease. If you tune to CNN International, they broadcast actual news. How in the world can we expect to compete with the rest of the world if our citizens are not only poorly educated, but willfully so? I sure hope the spectacular failure of the Bush administration will mark the beginning of the end of this dark era for our country. It will be difficult to unwind all of the damage it has inflicted.

wow

This is a new low for Hillary...

Some of the very nastiest rumors about the Clintons in the 90s were started by (or at least heavily stoked by) Richard Mellon Scaife. Now, she's using Scaife to attack Obama.

Hillary, for the love of God, please just drop out. Go back to New York and be a really good member of the Senate. As I read earlier today, you're employing the "Tonya Harding Strategy." Just stop it. Go back to New York while you still have a shred of dignity left.

Obama's Speech and Various Other Ramblings

Unless you're living in a cave (or are a habitué of the Fox News Channel), you have probably at least heard people talking about the speech Barack Obama gave on race relations the other day. It was a very fine speech, and reaffirmed my belief that we very well may be witnessing the rise of a truly great American president.

It has been compared to JFK's speech on Catholicism, and even has been mentioned as one of the very best speeches on any topic delivered in the past 50 years. Given the dearth of rhetorical prowess from our recent leaders, I decided to peruse the Internets for other great American speeches so I could better view Obama's in perspective.

I found a page, entitled "Top 100 American speeches of the 20th Century." I listened to bits and pieces of several of them, including JFK's and FDR's first inaugural addresses, both of Barbara Jordan's speeches and the RFK speech after the MLK assassination. A couple observations:

1. Barbara Jordan was one hell of a good speaker.
2. It's impressive how often JFK made his way onto this list, given his relatively short tenure in the spotlight.
3. It's really too bad that we don't have any recordings (or at least this site doesn't) of Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson.

I also listened to FDR's famous "Four Freedoms" speech which delivered for the 1941 State of the Union address. In the speech, Roosevelt discusses the very real possibility that the Germans would eventually try to invade the U.S.:

The first phase of the invasion of this hemisphere would not be the landing of regular troops. The necessary strategic points would be occupied by secret agents and by their dupes -- and great numbers of them are already here and in Latin America. As long as the aggressor nations maintain the offensive they, not we, will choose the time and the place and the method of their attack.

And that is why the future of all the American Republics is today in serious danger. That is why this annual message to the Congress is unique in our history. That is why every member of the executive branch of the government and every member of the Congress face great responsibility, great accountability. The need of the moment is that our actions and our policy should be devoted primarily -- almost exclusively -- to meeting this foreign peril. For all our domestic problems are now a part of the great emergency.

In every State of the Union speech I've ever seen, the President will proclaim, "I am pleased to announce that the State of the Union is strong!" . Any other admission would be dangerous politically, and politicians just don't subject themselves to unnecessary risk. But, in 1941, Roosevelt delivered this line:

Therefore, as your President, performing my constitutional duty to "give to the Congress information of the state of the union," I find it unhappily necessary to report that the future and the safety of our country and of our democracy are overwhelmingly involved in events far beyond our borders.

And, shorty later, this:

In times like these it is immature -- and, incidentally, untrue -- for anybody to brag that an unprepared America, single-handed and with one hand tied behind its back, can hold off the whole world.

Can you imagine George W. Bush admitting that we weren't all powerful? Or, for that matter, delivering the most famous part of that speech:

In the future days, which we seek to make secure, we look forward to a world founded upon four essential human freedoms.

The first is freedom of speech and expression -- everywhere in the world.

The second is freedom of every person to worship God in his own way -- everywhere in the world.

The third is freedom from want, which, translated into world terms, means economic understandings which will secure to every nation a healthy peacetime life for its inhabitants -- everywhere in the world.

The fourth is freedom from fear, which, translated into world terms, means a world-wide reduction of armaments to such a point and in such a thorough fashion that no nation will be in a position to commit an act of physical aggression against any neighbor -- anywhere in the world.

That is no vision of a distant millennium. It is a definite basis for a kind of world attainable in our own time and generation. That kind of world is the very antithesis of the so-called “new order” of tyranny which the dictators seek to create with the crash of a bomb.

To that new order we oppose the greater conception -- the moral order. A good society is able to face schemes of world domination and foreign revolutions alike without fear.

Since the beginning of our American history we have been engaged in change, in a perpetual, peaceful revolution, a revolution which goes on steadily, quietly, adjusting itself to changing conditions without the concentration camp or the quicklime in the ditch. The world order which we seek is the cooperation of free countries, working together in a friendly, civilized society.

This nation has placed its destiny in the hands and heads and hearts of its millions of free men and women, and its faith in freedom under the guidance of God. Freedom means the supremacy of human rights everywhere. Our support goes to those who struggle to gain those rights and keep them. Our strength is our unity of purpose.

To that high concept there can be no end save victory.

While George W. Bush seeks to create fear in the American people in order to strum up political support, FDR looked the Nazis -- a threat of a far greater magnitude than al Qaeda -- in the eye and promised to deliver a new vision for the world, free from fear, and that it would happen "in our own time and generation."

I hope Barack Obama can return us to the true ideals upon which this nation was founded and show the world that we reject the un-American policies of George W. Bush.

CNN: The Most Trusted Name in News

On CNN's main page this afternoon, an article by Glenn Beck declares that Florida and Michigan should be out of luck because they broke the rules.

Glenn Beck, who is of the "if you disagree with me, you're a pussy" ilk, says that Florida and Michigan need to step up to the plate and take some personal responsibility. Never mind that Florida and Michigan aren't "persons."

But, ranting about a stupid article by Glenn Beck isn't worth my time, nor is it worth your or anyone's time to read a blog post ranting about Glenn Beck. What is really got me is the "comments" section at the bottom of the article. Go ahead; open the article up in a new tab. (For you Internet Explorer 6 users, click here, here, or here, for information on tabs) Scan through those comments... Every single one of them is positive. All of them. Now, I submitted a comment to this article six hours ago and was told that it would go through a CNN moderator before being posted online. Normally, that means that they would be checking it for vulgarity etc...

I present to you here the text of my comment, and will let you, the readers of my blog, (all both of you) judge whether it should be worthy of CNN:

OK. This is ridiculous. "They" didn't follow the rules, so "they" should be punished? Problem is, we're talking about two different "theys" here. The Democratic party leaders didn't follow the rules, so millions and millions of voters should be punished!?

Democracy is not a game, Glenn. Your article reads like Florida and Michigan committed hooking penalties and now have to sit in the penalty box.

The party leaders in Florida and Michigan wagered that this would be a close race, and that their states' votes wouldn't be decisive to the outcome. Obviously, that was an idiotic move. But it was also not their move to make. There shouldn't be any way for a few idiots to disqualify an entire state from an election.

Obviously, my comment was far inferior to the likes of:

HOW can ANYbody (of sound mind) refute this line of thinking?! Well said. Period!

or

YOU'RE ON FIRE MY MAN
KEEP IT UP

or

As a Democrat from Los Angeles, I can always count on Glenn Beck for his insightful and (mostly) bipartisan commentary. In this case, I couldnt agree more with him

That last one has to be a CNN plant. That's like saying that you're a conservative Republican, and your favorite author is Gore Vidal.

Oy. I suppose I should count my blessings though. At least it wasn't about Britney Spears and Paris Hilton.