I love the positive energy of these religious bards. But they ignore so much. And that's how I think they can say things like how the children were safer back when everyone knew the 10 commandments. But how do they really know that? How do we know it's not more like when everyone knew the 10 commandments, they hadn't yet developed an awareness of the hidden monsters that have always presented a danger to children? After all, they didn't have round the clock news channels, amber alerts and sex-offender databases back then either. Nor did they have social workers that give children the courage to overcome the fear of God when they point to their father, or priest after being asked who abused them.

How many laps? ;)


Well, with social engineering you're dealing with psychology which I'm sure you know is mostly uncharted so it's not surprising. Also, I agree that some people who are claimed to be "intellectual" (it's usually by others, I don't recall any off-hand that actually refer to themselves as intellectuals) are indeed short on holistic awareness... Some of them. Not all of them.

I never made any claims about how smart I am, blade.


OK - so hang on... there's a little ambiguity between us here... I am defining the "intellect" specifically as a developed capacity to leverage self-awareness, intelligence and wisdom. If you want to define it as something a human can't survive without, you would have to call every human alive an intellectual. And that's fine if that's how you see it, but then I would have to go back and reword my post to make it relevant to your definition. 'See what I saying?


OK... That makes sense to me. I think he's talking about an even tighter definition of "intellectuals" though. I know the type... No place for touchy-feely and that's a very, very good point. And yes, it does account for some of them, but not all of them.

I still suspect (without any real basis) that he is trying to hyperbole that strict definition to get people to toss out the baby with the bathwater. ;)

:) - getting a little subjective are we?

I do get the point you're making but you probably know that can be applied to a LOT of different groups. You can't tell me there aren't people out there trying to debunk the "intellectuals" on the basis of their own intellect. Just look at Intelligent Design, this incredible vault into science by the science-prosecutors themselves.

Anyway, the point I want to make is what I like to call the lap effect. When I used to run track in school, I remember this guy coming up behind me and I was struggling to stay in front. He asked... "How many laps?" I said.. "2" he said.. "3".

The same thing could be happening with our intelligence at any level and no one, not even I, can really know for sure if some pontificating ass at the other end of the debate is actually one up.

From what I think I know, there's a valid argument for just about everyone of those issues you listed that equates to an advantage for the American people. So is there something the intellect is noticing that the skeptic of his intelligence is not?

The ability to memorize and recite "taught data" and quotes has absolutely nothing to do with being an intellectual. A complete moron can have an excellent memory and recite all kinds of things without understanding what any of it means.


And THAT is also the true measure of an intellectual.

I'll give you the example of a computer. The one thing that computers have always done better than any human is memory and recall. There is a saying in computer science... "garbage in, garbage out" which is an ode to the flawless ability of a computer to "memorize and recite taught data".

And yet, we never thought to call them intellectuals.

That's because they were never able to "comprehend and assess data to extrapolate more comprehensive knowledge" which happens to be the entire point of very recent efforts such as Machine Learning and Data Mining to get computers to that level, a work in progress, to create machines with intellect.

I agree and I certainly wasn't suggesting that wisdom is an automatic corollary to intellect. But I am suggesting that intellect is a more certain path to wisdom than just following leaders that you hope are honest.

No, we haven't and that is in large part due to the same motives that also encourage that negative view on education that you mentioned.

I'll probably get some flak for saying this but the United States has always been an enterprise first, a nation second. I suspect our colonial roots has a lot to do with this. The colonies were privately owned by corporations chartered by the king and they were populated by people who functioned as working components in the colonial enterprise. The revolution only succeeded in a change of management. The corporate function of the population remains true to this very day.

This is a fundamental contrast with countries like France where the people existed BEFORE there was an actual reason for them. I think this is why countries like France put people first and in America we put business first.

Understanding this makes it easy to see why education is such a low priority here. The business that brought my family to America was in the aerospace industry, which in the early 60's was drawing most of it's talent from Europe, my father included. Here's the logic that justifies this...

If a company is forced to pay taxes to fund domestic education programs, they might get a 20% return in the form of successful graduates worthy of hiring. But they could get a 100% return if they save their money for selecting workers that have already graduated with engineering degrees from programs funded by other countries.

I would be less inclined to believe this is I only had that single example to go by, but now that I am also an engineer, I am noticing that most of my co-workers were educated outside the U.S. and this has been the pattern for the last 20 years.

I also read recently that immigrants are the most educated demographic in the U.S. Of course many people in rural America will automatically think of migrant farm workers and think the statement is absurd, but the fact is most immigrants coming to this country are highly educated and they are going to the cities where the white-collar work is with legal visas.

So the pattern seems to remain the same. If we were a country that puts people first, there would be a higher priority on educating our children. But if we are a country that puts business first, that 100% return on investment for the business will take a higher priority than educating our children.

The same pattern applies to healthcare. Most Europeans get healthcare because they are people, but in America you have to be employed.

Enterprise first, nation second. Not a very "patriotic" slogan but it explains a lot.

If you could challenge my opinion with facts and logic you probably wouldn't get that impression.


How would you know?


That doesn't change what I said about it.


leaks are only a problem if your hiding something.


I didn't say he wasn't. You might want to pay closer attention to what I am saying. The president might be the highest authority on deciding how to classify material. But what I said is the American people are still constitutionally a higher authority than the president and as such we have every right to suspect the president is abusing his authority and every right to call him out on it.

Sorry to disappoint you but we ARE a constitutional republic, not a despotic monarchy. You could always move to Saudi Arabia where they have a despotic monarchy. You might feel more comfortable brown-nosing the king there.


The 10 counts I am referring to have indeed been proven. The refusal to accept that is political denial.


And yet you still can't even tell me what Biden is guilty of. LOL

Aw... do the people on this site make you mad? Do you wanna hug?

So what you're saying is that Trump wouldn't look any less retarded if he were you than he already does.

LOL - I know, right?

I can't imagine why I would intentionally allow my presence to be polluted by his, but I can tell you this...

I would not pose for a photo with him
I would not shake his hand
I might ask him questions if that is the reason for allowing him in my presence, but they would probably be questions that he would rather not answer.

He would not have any reason to feel threatened by my presence, at least not physically but he might feel threatened emotionally or intellectually. Certainly, if he were to take any notice of me at all, he would know that I am not a supporter.

This is a description of a stereotype. Do all intellectuals fall into this stereotype? No. In fact the strongest challenges to intellectuals are from other intellectuals. This is because intellectuals have the capacity to argue, but its frustrating for non-intellectuals who don't. For these people, it becomes a matter of who they trust which is something that is easily exploited, something that religious and political authorities have been doing throughout human history.

So a population of non-intellectuals who can't think for themselves and therefore depend on trusting the thoughts of others winds up being an opportunity for those others to misguide them. Paul Johnson is one of those opportunists and if he can discredit intellectuals in the minds of the unthinking, then he essentially perpetuating their intellectual disability leaving them powerless to do anything but trust and follow.

I advocate the opposite. I think everyone is capable of intelligence, they just need to stop listening to people who try to classify intellectuals as the enemy and start learning how to think like an intellectual.

Of course the challenge is daunting because learning how to think isn't as easy nor does it appeal to the emotions that drive us as much as jumping on a bandwagon does.

I think a lot of people who keep saying Trump is winning are really just trying to convince themselves.

You left the "h" out of whining.