George Who? Father of What?

"Now, after eight years of being governed by a president who didn't seem to be very culturally literate himself ("Do you have black people, too?" he asked Brazilian president Fernando Cardoso back in 2002), and after becoming acquainted with a recent vice presidential candidate who thinks there's an "Office of Law" in the White House, and who thought her proximity to Russia gave her foreign policy credibility, we get a study of Oklahoma high school students revealing the astonishing fact that three out of four of 'em can't name the first president of these United States."

Yep, it's pretty clear that Bush created these dummies. And the dumb teabaggers to.

No mention of the idiots on the left?

An 18-year-old student of mine thinks the US bombed Pearl Harbor. Is that Bush's fault, or the fault of the (approximately 90% liberal) faculty members in social science departments?

It's neither, of course. We have an anti-intellectual subculture that is an equal-opportunity dumber-downer. Liberals and conservatives are equally impacted.

Always so one-sided, Jaime. Always about Bush. Sheeesh.

I sometimes wonder why the one-sidedness of Limbaugh, or Beck, or Fox News troubles you so little, Scholar, since you seem to value balance above all other issues. There are plenty of commentators around battering the public day in and day out with stories, real and imagined, about left wing perfidiousness. My column represents my side of the political spectrum.
And, since we are still enmired in the problems Bush created and left us with,we can't just turn the page on that guy. Wish we could.
But I didn't say that Bush was responsible for the ignorance so prevalent in our nation, just that he was yet another example of it. Distinctions, again, Scholar.
But though ignorance knows no party affiliation, you really need to look at the disparity between the left and right on this matter. The right wing seems very inclined to eschew science (global warning, evolution, etc.) and to enshrine ignorance (death panels, birthers, etc.) in ways and degrees hard to duplicate on the left. As a "Scholar," I might have thought you would have noitced. Besides, you right wing echoers of talk radio always want "facts" and "specifics," but when you get 'em, then you start bitching about one-sidedness. Bush revealed lots of cultural illiteracy, and it seemed appropriate that he led a nation increasingly ignorant of its past and traditions, and Palin is ignorant in even greater ways. Should such high profile examples be off limits in a piece about dumbing down? You think so, apparently; I don't.
Why are you so sensitive about criticism of the former president, Scholar? Could it be you feel a twinge of responsibility for having voted for him twice, and then said nothing as he dug the nation into such a deep hole? It's good to think you might have a little conscience about that.

Jaime,

I'm curious about what led us to the state of affairs described in your article. Do you have a theory?

I have observed young gamers spending a lot of time engaged in virtual reality combat. The players apparently develop dexterity and perhaps also practice certain mental functions. But such games are content free. George Washington will never be mentioned, nor the location of Poland.

Is it that simple, or are there many causes of this easy-to-document reality?

Knowing the true cause or causes perhaps could lead us to methods for overcoming the problem of widespread cultural illiteracy.

Murray

"Why are you so sensitive about criticism of the former president, Scholar?"

It's not about sensitivity. It's about you being boring and irrelevant. If you can't see that the economic black hole we're zipping toward is looming closer because of what the CURRENT administration has in mind, then you aren't looking. Of course, your readers know that because you can't stop chattering about Bush.

Curiously, you think Bush is relevant to the educational demise of the last, oh, say 30 years or so. He's mentioned in the same breath with the OK kids' ignorance.(See the passage I quoted if you doubt you've implicated Bush as a cause of ignorance.)

Bush isn't alone in stupid outbursts.

Biden likes to tell non-ambulatory war veterans to stand up and thinks "jobs" is a 3-letter word. Didn't he say Roosevelt was on TV in 1929, long before anyone had a TV? Biden isn't even sure about Obama's last name. "Barack America", as I recall. Obama thinks there are 57 states. That's what he said.

So if you're passing around credit for ignorance, you don't need to peer into the hazy past to find stupidisms. Why, even your own column is a tribute to illogic and overgeneralization. You present your side of the political spectrum. But good columnists don't ignore the obvious shortcomings of their own - they DEAL with these shortcomings intelligently.

Scholar wrote:

"Why are you so sensitive about criticism of the former president, Scholar?"
It's not about sensitivity. It's about you being boring and irrelevant. If you can't see that the economic black hole we're zipping toward is looming closer because of what the CURRENT administration has in mind, then you aren't looking. Of course, your readers know that because you can't stop chattering about Bush.
Curiously, you think Bush is relevant to the educational demise of the last, oh, say 30 years or so. He's mentioned in the same breath with the OK kids' ignorance.(See the passage I quoted if you doubt you've implicated Bush as a cause of ignorance.)
Bush isn't alone in stupid outbursts.
Biden likes to tell non-ambulatory war veterans to stand up and thinks "jobs" is a 3-letter word. Didn't he say Roosevelt was on TV in 1929, long before anyone had a TV? Biden isn't even sure about Obama's last name. "Barack America", as I recall. Obama thinks there are 57 states. That's what he said.
So if you're passing around credit for ignorance, you don't need to peer into the hazy past to find stupidisms. Why, even your own column is a tribute to illogic and overgeneralization. You present your side of the political spectrum. But good columnists don't ignore the obvious shortcomings of their own - they DEAL with these shortcomings intelligently.

Why in the world would you read such a boring column with such rigorous attention so faithfully, Scholar? And why are you not bothered by the obvious political bias of almost every other political columnist on the planet? You never seem troubled by people like George Will, or Cal Thomas, or Dick Little? And if you really think that Obama believes there are 57 states, then you'll believe anything. We all are capable of misspeaking, but there's a difference between a slip of the lip and the record of inanity left to us by Bush. And I just said I didn't think Bush was RESPONSIBLE for the decline of educational standards of the last several decades, but a representation of it. I know how you prefer to argue things that aren't being said, but c'mon, try to stick with what's on the table.

Scholar wrote:

Obama thinks there are 57 states. That's what he said.

Actually Mr. Lee I must correct you on this one. He thinks there are 59 states as I recall. He said he had visited 57 of the states with still 2 to visit.

brad jenks wrote:

<quoted text>
Actually Mr. Lee I must correct you on this one. He thinks there are 59 states as I recall. He said he had visited 57 of the states with still 2 to visit.

But Brad, Oneill already told you that Obama isn’t that ignorant, he just misspoke whereas Bush never misspoke, he was dumb. Bush was dumb enough that the Obama administration is in fact leaving a lot of the Bush administrations policies in place. Bush was so dumb that his fiscal policies after 9/11 brought the country out of a recession. It seems that Obama’s policies are lengthening the recession; most of Europe and China are making their way out of the recession quicker than we are.

Brad II wrote:

<quoted text>
But Brad, Oneill already told you that Obama isn’t that ignorant, he just misspoke whereas Bush never misspoke, he was dumb. Bush was dumb enough that the Obama administration is in fact leaving a lot of the Bush administrations policies in place. Bush was so dumb that his fiscal policies after 9/11 brought the country out of a recession. It seems that Obama’s policies are lengthening the recession; most of Europe and China are making their way out of the recession quicker than we are.

The difference is that Bush misspoke EVERY day, every time he went off script. That's a difference you guys can't seem to comprehend by returning to that one example of Obama misspeaking. And the fact that many of Bush's policies remain intact is because you can't turn the ship of state around on a dime. And Europe and China are digging their way out faster of their respective recessions faster than we are because they weren't governed by Bush over the last eight years, and are merely feeling the effects of the downturn in our economy which would have plunged the entire world into depression but for the measures Obama took to pull us back from the brink. Not that I think you guys can be convinced of any of this. After all, guys like you cheer when the U.S. doesn't get the Olympic games, and go apoplectic when an American president whose views you don't share gets worldwide recognition (America is, once again, the most admired nation on the planet after having slipped to 7th place during the Bush years) in the form of the Nobel Peace Prize. Talk about putting partisanship ahead of love of country. The vast majority of Americans rallied behind George W. Bush after 9/11, supported the invasion of Afghanistan, and even supported, lamentably, the insane invasion of Iraq, but if Obama comes out in favor of oxygen, the right wingers immediately have a conniption, and Beck and Limbaugh tell 'em all to hold their breaths. And universal health care is a bad thing; it's just Obamacare, and that makes it bad for everyone to have health coverage, like most of the rest of the civilized world. If you guys had consciences, you'd feel bad. Fortunately for you, you're spared. Not so fortunate for millions of your fellows, however.

I do have to point out this column did make a point that the education system has been and remains a terrible place for our children to get an education.

I love to read and as such learned a lot about history. Our kids aren’t being taught about the great things Americans and America has provided through the inventiveness of our free market system and through the arts. Few know that early on it was our inspired mathematicians who developed the order of algebra. How many know Ben Franklin invented the compass which helped those navigating the oceans and our pioneers coming West? How many know our arts brought about the invention of majestic arches and spires reaching skyward into architecture designs which show so prominent in some of the finest structures in Europe?

Shouldn’t our children learn about America’s achievements and accomplishments?

All of a sudden I feel so smart.

I noticed no one called me on my posting of history as related to algebra, the compass, architectural use of arches and spires. Everything I wrote was completely false and historically thousands of years off in their eras of inception. Why? Are people so uniformed, including those who argue on these threads, that they can’t see something so blatantly false?

It’s been nearly an hour now and so far only Paradise wrote,“All of a sudden I feel so smart.” And well you should since it would seem you were at least laughing at my ineptitude. But I have to tell you the purpose of my posting of those “historical factoids” was to prove a point. I fully expected to be deluged with “you idiot” and “where did you study history” remarks that I’m befuddled at the silence.

But I guess I should get to my point. On June 4, 2009 our new president went before the world for his speech in Egypt and made similar remarks equally idiotic. He said,“It was innovation in Muslim communities that developed the order of algebra; our magnetic compass and tools of navigation; our mastery of pens and printing; our understanding of how disease spreads and how it can be healed. Islamic culture has given us majestic arches and soaring spires..”

And you could of heard a mouse sneeze in the news rooms across America. If George Bush had made such idiotic, uneducated, ill informed remarks you’d of seen headlines in the New York Times still speaking of “How could HE be so wrong” and “definitely not the brightest bulb in the box” still today.

America’s young students some time in the future will probably write some “historical” paper using the “historical knowledge” given in that speech and probably given an A by their “teacher” for referencing such “brilliance”.

"Why in the world would you read such a boring column with such rigorous attention so faithfully, Scholar? And why are you not bothered by the obvious political bias of almost every other political columnist on the planet? You never seem troubled by people like George Will..."

It isn't the fact that you have a bias, per se, that bothers me. In part, it's that you're unusually predictable because you've written your way onto the extreme end of the leftist agenda. I read you not in anticipation of some jump onto the conservative bandwagon but with hopes that you'll make some incremental mousie steps toward objective, interesting, relevant commentary, the kind that good columnists on both sides of the political spectrum aspire to, that you'll maybe budge a tad here and there and acknowledge that there are people to the right of Obama and Pelosi and Rangel that make some sense.

As twisted and hyperbolic your thinking may be, your phrasing is nice. It's readable and novel. I honestly can barely read Dick Little. But I have indeed provided his work with rigorous attention on those days when I can manage to get through one of his pieces. I'm looking forward to the day when we have not one but two local columnists that are interesting and thoughtful, the day when either you are replaced, or your reasoning and use of facts begin to approach George Will's. But that you should compare your current writing to George Will's is much more than sassy.

Brad Jenks asked: "Shouldn’t our children learn about America’s achievements and accomplishments?"

My answer would be, not necessarily. I believe it would be much more worthwhile for someone to know how to use a compass than to know who invented it. It would be better for a person to be able to keep his checking account in order than to know who developed the order of algebra. So what if someone doesn't know who signed the Declaration of Independence. Better to know how to use a computer and just look it up. And maybe the same kid who doesn't know who was the 32nd president of the United States is the same kid who can program that fancy new electronic clock you bought so that it will tell you the time, date, year, temperature, times around the world and when you have a doctor's appointment. Or better still, he might be the very kid who invents a new kind of clock that is also a better mouse trap. And the green grass grows all around all around.

And question to Scholar: Why don't you write your own damned column?

brad jenks wrote:

<quoted text>
Actually Mr. Lee I must correct you on this one. He thinks there are 59 states as I recall. He said he had visited 57 of the states with still 2 to visit.

Brad: What's wrong with da Vinci's Last Supper painting?

the liberal dumbing down of the schools is nearly complete

jaime wrote:

<quoted text>
The difference is that Bush misspoke EVERY day, every time he went off script. That's a difference you guys can't seem to comprehend by returning to that one example of Obama misspeaking. And the fact that many of Bush's policies remain intact is because you can't turn the ship of state around on a dime..

One example of Obama misspeaking? He must be lying the rest of the time then.

The reason some of the Bush policies are still in place is because Obama realized that they were good policies.

jaime wrote:

<quoted text>
And Europe and China are digging their way out faster of their respective recessions faster than we are because.

The Europeans and Chinese are coming out of the recession quicker than us because they didn’t break the bank by spending insane amounts of money like Obama wants to do. The stimulus plan has not worked and will not work. Government spending to create jobs does not work.

“The idea that increased deficit spending can cure recessions has been tested, and it has failed. If growing the economy were as simple as expanding government spending and deficits, then Italy, France, and Germany would be the global economic kings. And there would be no reason to stop at $787 billion: Congress could guarantee unlimited prosperity by endlessly borrowing and spending trillions of dollars.

The simple reason government spending fails to end recessions is that Congress does not have a vault of money waiting to be distributed. Every dollar Congress “injects” into the economy must first be taxed or borrowed out of the economy. No new income, and therefore no new demand, is created. They are merely redistributed from one group of people to another. Congress cannot create new purchasing power out of thin air.”

http://nrd.nationalreview.com/article/...

jaime wrote:

<quoted text>
an American president whose views you don't share gets worldwide recognition (America is, once again, the most admired nation on the planet after having slipped to 7th place during the Bush years) in the form of the Nobel Peace Prize.

A handful of Norwegians giving the Noble to Obama is hardly world wide recognition.
What exactly did Obama do to win a “Peace Prize”? I know that he has made a lot of speeches but as far as I can tell that is about it?

“Reflecting the new harmony of U.S.-world relations since the administration hit the “reset” button, the Times of London declared the award “preposterous” and Svenska Freds (the Swedish Peace and Arbitration Society) called it “shameful.” There’s something almost quaintly vieux chapeau about the Nobel decision, as if the hopeychangey bumper stickers were shipped surface mail to Oslo and only arrived last week. Everywhere else, they’re peeling off: The venerable lefties at Britain’s New Statesman currently have a cover story on “Barack W. Bush.”

http://article.nationalreview.com/...

brad jenks wrote:

But I guess I should get to my point. On June 4, 2009 our new president went before the world for his speech in Egypt and made similar remarks equally idiotic. He said,“It was innovation in Muslim communities that developed the order of algebra; our magnetic compass and tools of navigation; our mastery of pens and printing; our understanding of how disease spreads and how it can be healed. Islamic culture has given us majestic arches and soaring spires..”

OK smartypants, please tell us where the errors are in your quote.

Tell me Mr. O' Neill, we're those students, whose "aggregate ignorance" you found so alarming, by any chance products of the government run public school system?

Hmmm.... could it be that maybe, just maybe, that big government monopolies generally do a lousy job of providing services, and that history has proven this time and time again?

And didn't that ignorant electorate just recently elect The Anointed One, Barack Hussien Obama? Who thinks that there are 57 states in the Union?

Thank you Mr. O'Neill, for continually revealing to us in your columns, the utter hypocrisy of the Religion of Liberalism. Please continue to feed us normal folks with this ammunition.

Peace, love, dove!

Steve Gustavus wrote:

Tell me Mr. O' Neill, we're those students, whose "aggregate ignorance" you found so alarming, by any chance products of the government run public school system?
Hmmm.... could it be that maybe, just maybe, that big government monopolies generally do a lousy job of providing services, and that history has proven this time and time again?

What "government monopoly?"

One is entirely at liberty to send one's children to any number of schools and to start ones own if one wishes. I once taught in a small town in North Florida where there was, in typical southern style, a public school, mostly black, and a private Christian school, all white. Odd that all the Christians were white. But you can praise them if only because it was important to those people to give their kids a "better education" and instead of whining about the "government monopoly" they went out and started their own school. If their education was any better aside from it being whiter, was not clear, but that is how was at that time.