Search Box

Monday, January 27, 2014

"The execrable state of the union"

George Will tells us what to expect tomorrow evening.

Read his article and save yourself the trouble of watching the speech.

(You can either spend an hour listening to a narcissistic prevaricator with an IQ of around 130, or four minutes reading an honest analysis of what he will say by a man with an IQ closer to 170. The choice is yours.)

16 comments:

lowly said...

Phew, I started to write a comment here, but it turned rather negative. So let me just ask where the 130 comes from? And where are we putting the the First Lady IQ wise?

John Craig said...

Lowly --
That's just an estimate on my part, hence the "around." Ditto for Will. But when you listen to both of them speak extemporaneously, it's obvious there's a huge gap.

My guess as to Michelle, somewhere in the 110 range. But that's also just a guess.

Where would you put them?

Anonymous said...

He may be "130 for a black guy", but he's nowhere near a real 130. You're talking about a guy who gets tongue-tied without a teleprompter, and who dealt with the BP Gulf spill by saying, incredulously, "I don't understand why they can't just fill the damn hole??"

John Craig said...

Anon --
He could be less, but he's certainly no less than 120. I know he gets tongue-tied without the Teleprompter and I'm familiar with most of his more well known mistakes (including "57 states") but we all make mistakes when we're tired, including high-IQ people, and his mistakes are well-publcized. I know a lot of his life has been about affirmative action, and I suspect his editorship of the Harvard Law Review, about which so much was made, also had to do with the fact that they'd never had a black editor and were in desperate need of one. But he's had to be fairly clever just to be as successful a con man as he is.

I think I was being more generous with Michelle's 110. Her life has definitely been AA-fueled. I heard a snippet of an interview with her the other day in which she said that all her life people had told her she wasn't good enough, that her test scores weren't good enough for her to apply to the colleges she did, etc. I"m quite sure her test scores WEREN'T good enough -- for a white or an Asian. (Love to know what they were, LSAT's included.) The gist of that interview was that she had proved all her doubters wrong; at a certain level she has: she is now the First Lady. But it all just goes to show the huge role that circumstance plays in our lives. After graduating from law school, she worked only briefly as an actual lawyer (at liberal law firm Sidley Austin, I think) before settling in to become a "community outreach" person at a Chicago hospital. She then received a tripling of her salary as soon as her husband became Senator. So, did she achieve what she did on he down merits, or because of her race and her husband?

One somewhat funny story about Michelle: as a senior at Princeton, she thought you spelled "Thank you" as "Thank-you," with a hyphen. As I said, 110 may be being generous.

Glen Filthie said...

I think you are way too high too, John. Politicians in that IQ range tend to be very well spoken and quick on their feet. We can disagree on that - but I would go further: a man that smart wouldn't have done the things or made the mistakes that Obama has. I would peg him at around 100, if that.

I have tried to read two of his books and thrown them down in disgust. The man is a reverse racist and a token all the way. I believe he won the presidency based on the colour of his skin and not the content of his character - and hopefully he has set affirmative action/victim politics back a bit.

John Craig said...

Glen --
I'm with you on the reverse racism and the affirmative action and tokenism, but there's now way he's as low as 100. Yes, he's made dumb mistakes, but that doesn't define someone's IQ. I now lots of smart people who've made lots of dumb mistakes.

As far as his worldview, I think that's a function of the family he grew up in and his homosexuality and the subtle forms of racism he undoubtedly experienced growing up and his desire to fit in with black people.

Anonymous said...

Hi John--I read the link, but I couldn't resist the temptation of watching a ranting nut. After trying to delude myself into liking him and being conned into his emotional patriotism, I realized he's just your garden variety narcissist-saying whatever he could to save face and please everyone. Most egregiously (for me) was his views on "education", his advocacy of pre-K nonsense plus the whole college scam. And since when should an obese woman be giving nutrition advice to the masses? Well, maybe I just don't get it. Thanks for letting me rant:) Brian

John Craig said...

Brian --
No, thank you for ranting. You're absolutely right, he's nothing but a con man, and the people who believe him are those who WANT to believe in him because they're on the same side politically.

I thought George Will analyzed the real motive for the pre-K thrust perfectly: it's all about getting more teacher's union employees who will pay more dues which will go to Democratic politicians. The benefit of pre-K education is evanescent at best, it's all about satisfying the unions. Typical.

Glen Filthie said...

What makes you say he has above average intelligence, John? I agree that the concept of IQ is flawed at best and useless at worst - but we can't have it both ways. As Forrest Gump says - stupid is as stupid does.

The average American IQ is 105, or so I'm told. Obama strikes me as being a few bricks short of the average American.

Glen Filthie said...

And...continuing along...I don't think your boy is at 170 either - no offence meant!

Cripes, perhaps you should look this over:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ_classification

Haven't had a chance to chew through it yet but it seems the tall foreheads can't agree on what that scale means either. You may very well be right depending on whose measurements you use...

John Craig said...

Glen --
I think you're letting your emotions about the guy (which I share) get in the way of your judgment of his IQ. Even with affirmative action putting the wind at your back, it's hard to near impossible to get into Columbia and Harvard Law with an IQ of 100; his board scores had to have been above average.

Away from the Teleprompter, he's inarticulate by the standards of top politicians -- he's nowhere close to a Gingrich, for instance -- but he's not inarticulate compared to the average guy. And he's been very skillful at manipulating a lot of the people he's met. As far as the lack of common sense indicated by his far left beliefs, he is in fact doing what is beneficial for black people, at least in the short run. (In the long run, socialism dooms us all.)

John Craig said...

Glen (in response to your second comment) --
You're right, different IQ tests result in different scores, and I was being somewhat sloppy by just throwing a number out like that. But I've known lots of people at the very righthand end of the bell curve and Will puts most of them to shame, at least verbally.

So I'm going to keep Will at 170 but specify, on the Stanford-Binet or Levine and marks tests. I'm semi-joking. But the point of the post is that he's way way smarter than our current President, and I don't think we're in disagreement about that.

Anonymous said...

I've always liked George Will, my parents having watched him on t.v. when I was a kid. My oldest son watched the state of the union address the other night (he's a high school junior who loves politics), glancing at the t.v. myself, but not watching it. Instead, I went to bed. I watched our President walk to the podium, greeting people (many people who are just like himself) along the way. I'm not interested in listening to anything he has to say. The narcissists tell us what we want to hear (having been told this straight from a sociopath's mouth, my ex) and I'm not interested in hearing anything that's false. Each time he ran for President, I didn't vote for him, believing that he was unqualified for the job.

John Craig said...

Anon --
You showed good judgment on all those matters: your opinion of Will, whether to watch the speech last night, our President's character, and your voting choices.

Anonymous said...

I never watch the state of the union, as I do not enjoy listening to politicians spew their lies, thus I also never watch any of the debates.

Read today that viewership was at a 14 year low, but still 33 million people did watch it yesterday. I usually read about it from some of the writers I like, such as George Will.

John Craig said...

Anon --
The debates at least have a little bit of tension, and sometimes even end up with a winner and loser.

With the State of the Union, the only winner are the networks, and the losers are the audience. Especially with this President.