|
posted to rec.boats
|
|
external usenet poster
|
|
First recorded activity by BoatBanter: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,249
|
|
Being Anti-Intellectual
Jim wrote:
BAR wrote:
In article 5a6b5e97-d639-4994-8e9e-1531913b25d2
@j5g2000yqm.googlegroups.com, says...
David Brooks had a column in which he basically accuses Americans who
disagree with Obama of being anti-intellectual. GUILTY AS CHARGED, I
plead. Yes, I am very much against "intellectuals" running things
because much of the time "intellectual" is a psuedonym for "educated
fool". The reality is that being academically educated has nothing to
do with being able to competently run anything, in fact, most of the
time it is an impediment. The best leaders I have known rarely had
much education. I may be well educated but I would never expect
anyone to expect me to lead, it simply is not within me to lead.
When you get to know somebody who is brilliant but a failure it is
exasperating because it is difficult to see how someone so smart could
so often fail, yet smart failures are very common. The best leaders
never flaunt their educations because they want their followers to
identify with them, thus Brook's "educated class" is by definition a
set of poor leaders.
So, YES, I am anti-intellectual because I see most "intellectualism"
as being the mark of a failure.
What value does David Brooks, the pet pseudo Republican/conserative
for the New York Times, provide to anyone?
I see someone here has taken on multiple personalities.
The article seems to have value to Froggy. He is using it as a tool to
irritate Harry, smart as a dolphin, Krause.
Please. You right-wing turdmeisters don't irritate me. Your utter
stupidity and lack of concern for your fellow man and your planet
provide me with endless seconds of laughter.
|