George W. Bush, Intellectual Elitist

7 Comments to “George W. Bush, Intellectual Elitist”

1. shara says Says:
   Wednesday, September 12, 2007 at 12:20 pm

   Yeah, its great that the leader of our country enthusiastically ignores all other points of view than his own. . . NOT.

2. Keith Says:
   Wednesday, September 12, 2007 at 2:14 pm

   "George W. Bush, Intellectual Elitist"

   James, that is perhaps the funniest line you've ever written.

   Hey, I used to watch Davey and Goliath while getting ready for church on Sunday mornings....more than a few decades back. That was if my dad didn't have the old one eyed monster tuned into the Gospel Singing Jubilee with the Florida Boys, the Blackmans and the Happy Goodman Family.

   Ahhh, those were the days.

3. Yadgyu Says:
   Wednesday, September 12, 2007 at 3:30 pm

   "Yeah, its great that the leader of our country enthusiastically ignores all other points of view than his own. . . NOT."

   It really does make sense to tune out all of the "points-of-view" given by American citizens.

   The truth is that Americans do not even know what they want out of life. If a person asks for a gift and receives it without working for it, the gift does not really mean much. The person will then keep asking for gifts and receiving these gifts. All the while, this person never really gets to understand what it is he/she is looking for in the first place.

   The President has politicians and other people around him who give their opinions to him. He makes the best decision based on the info that he receives. More information and opinion will not lead to better results. How can Bush really make an informed decision when he has 300 million people screaming at him?

   Less is more.

4. shara says Says:
   Wednesday, September 12, 2007 at 4:21 pm

   I don't know what "gifts" you are talking about. If you are referring to the fact that we have a social safety net in this country, and you are talking about that in a negative way, then I would encourage you to look at the success of the countries who offer MORE of a social safety net, and how that has helped their societies to the point that we are nowhere near the top of many international lists of citizen well-being and satisfaction. We have an incomplete and flawed social safety net delivery system in this country, which needs to be expanded and improved upon. . .

   I can certainly see that popular opinion should not necessarily always dictate policy. Majority rule, from a historical perspective, has had some pretty disastrous effects on minority populations when there are not legal safeguards in place to properly protect these minorities from persecution. Also, we have a system that encourages political apathy, and people don't necessarily understand the complex interplay among political/global/economic/cultural issues. That is a huge problem itself. However, that doesn't mean that opinions and concerns of the citizenry can simply be dismissed offhand in some unilateral, paternalistic way - there must be a balance for a healthy democracy, and the President desperately needs a reality check.

   Yadgyu writes: "The President has politicians and other people around him who give their opinions to him. He makes the best decision based on the info that he receives. More information and opinion will not lead to better results. How can Bush really make an informed decision when he has 300 million people screaming at him?"

   For one thing, President Bush has surrounded himself with cronies who don't seem to disagree with him all that much, and several administration insiders have clearly stated that Bush doesn't listen even to his advisors when they don't agree with him - he does what he wants, when he wants. I cannot accept your argument that he makes "the best decision based on the info he receives", because I think that he has shown a serious lack of judgement by making such a wretched mess of things. He has refused throughout his presidency to listen to reason, or to respect the constitutional processes of government.

   I do think that "more information and opinion" will lead to better results. In a fascist state, the ruler has a much easier time making decisions because he doesn't have to listen to opposition. Bush himself said something to that effect at some point. . . Anyway, our elected representatives aren't supposed to have that luxury. We should expect (nay, demand!) more reasonable and responsible behavior from those who run our country. They should base their decisions on logic and fact, and should try to represent the needs and interests of the public.

   I, for one, do not trust our government to make decisions for this country. I am stuck with it, so the best thing we can do is try to pay attention, voice our concerns, and do everything we can to keep our government accountable for what it does. I see no reason why politicians (many of whom build careers off serving special interests) and their advisors should automatically get our trust, just because they managed to rise to a position of power - if we leave them be, and assume they are doing the best they can do, then we are shirking our civic responsibility. What you're saying sounds really dangerous to me.

5. Yadgyu Says:
   Wednesday, September 12, 2007 at 6:49 pm

   "...I would encourage you to look at the success of the countries who offer MORE of a social safety net, and how that has helped their societies..." - shara says

   A greater social safety net only works for those who are not ambitious or educated enough to better themselves. A bigger safety net sounds good in theory, but it takes real money to provide this. Most of those countries with greater social safety nets have depressed economies because people and companies are heavily taxed and are therefore not able to grow economically. More social protection would make the economy grow at a slower pace.

   It may sound good in theory to provide everyone with health care and retirement and a free college education. But if that means that I have to pay 40-65% in taxes, then I do not want it. This type of policy would actually result in higher unemployment. What would be the point of working hard and getting an education if I did not have the potential to make a great deal of money?

   ---

   "I, for one, do not trust our government to make decisions for this country." - shara says

   If you do not trust the governement, then why do you care if others are apathetic to politics?

   ---

   "We should expect (nay, demand!) more reasonable and responsible behavior from those who run our country. They should base their decisions on logic and fact, and should try to represent the needs and interests of the public." - shara says

   This is what the government does! But you have to realize that politicians are human also and have their own prejudices and preferences. The only real problem with the government is that it works too slowly for most people. Politicians work hard and try their best. But sometimes their best may not be good enough if they are on the losing side.

   People need to learn how to govern themselves before screaming and blaming politicians. Things are really not that complicated. But the illusion of power, prestige, and a little cash makes things run slower than they have to. This is true in all democracies.

6. Lijah Says:
   Thursday, September 13, 2007 at 8:21 am

   "It may sound good in theory to provide everyone with health care and retirement and a free college education. But if that means that I have to pay 40-65% in taxes, then I do not want it."

   Currently, I know of no country in Europe in which you'd pay more than 40-45 or so % in taxes to receive these benefits. It's a lot, yeah, but in exchange you'll live comfortably after your retirement and you'll not have to worry about (most) hospital bills, which can otherwise drain a rich person in a matter of weeks. Unless some bonehead right-wing moron politican scraps the social security network by your retirement age, of course, because then you'll have paid a lifetime for no benefit at all.

   "This type of policy would actually result in higher unemployment. What would be the point of working hard and getting an education if I did not have the potential to make a great deal of money?"

   ??? You would still have that potential. having safety nets doesn't lessen the capitalism of your society in any way, because safety nets obviously never are as high as even a basic salary. Also, contrary to popular TV-fed belief, things like dole money don't come in unlimited quantities and without strings attached.

   "A greater social safety net only works for those who are not ambitious or educated enough to better themselves".

   How very true, assuming daddy is rich enough to pay your way through college/university/whatever. But if daddy isn't, most Uni schedules in my country are so loaded you'll be glad you don't need to take three lousy jobs on to just be able to pay the rent, the food, and the study costs. Keep in mind that euro countries are too small to have a wealth of cheap and not-so cheap Unis to choose from, like Americans do.

   "Most of those countries with greater social safety nets have depressed economies because people and companies are heavily taxed and are therefore not able to grow economically"

   Really? How's that dollar doing these days, compared to the euro? Yeah, didn't think so. You're mistakenly insulting a boatload of countries you only know superficially, and that's disappointing coming from you specifically since I usually find you to be far more clever than that.

7. Yadgyu Says:
   Tuesday, September 18, 2007 at 4:45 pm

   "You're mistakenly insulting a boatload of countries you only know superficially, and that's disappointing coming from you specifically since I usually find you to be far more clever than that."

   What European countries have such great economies besides the U.K. and maybe Germany?

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.