Home / General / A Bow Tie Does Not Make Someone An Intellectual

A Bow Tie Does Not Make Someone An Intellectual

Comments
/
/
/
652 Views

The funny thing about Roger Kimball’s ongoing campaign of complaining about the decline of academia and western civilization is that they come from a man who knows essentially nothing about anything. And the next time he makes an argument about how academia has no standards that consists of citing the names of departments, remember the pending McCain landslide! Maybe his career is a kind of performance art dedicated to proving the proposition that America is “dumbing down.”

FacebookTwitterGoogle+Share
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Google+
  • Linkedin
  • Pinterest
  • DrDick

    I have come to the inescapable conclusion that bow ties in fact cut off the flow of blood and oxygen to the brain.

    • Joe

      Stevens getting around this problem just underlines his specialness.

    • Malaclypse

      I have come to the inescapable conclusion that bow ties in fact cut off the flow of blood and oxygen to the brain.

      No.

      • asdfsdf

        The extra heart overcomes the bow tie, in his case.

        • DrDick

          Dr. Who is also a fictional character in a sci-fi show, further proof of my contention that such a result is simply not possible in the real world we live in.

          • Woodrowfan

            you have just destroyed my reason to live.

          • Malaclypse

            Dr. Who is also a fictional character in a sci-fi show,

            Next you are going to tell me that Sarah Jane Smith is not alive and well, and frankly, I’d rather believe that bow ties and fezzes are cool, thank you very much.

            • DrDick

              Fezzes are definitely cool, but bow ties ….

              • Malaclypse

                Bad enough you diss the last surviving Time Lord, but now you force me to escalate examples.

              • SEK

                Fezzes are definitely cool, but bow ties …

                ARE COOL. QED.

  • Pastafarian

    “…remember the pending McCain landslide!”

    Predicting the future can be hard: PHOENIX IN 7.

    Go Wings.

    • Pastafarian

      Indeed, sometimes soothsaying is so hard that we end up poo-pooing the prescient.

      I particularly like some of your comments — wengler: “Don’t be surprised if people start liking Bush again…cause he’s awesome!”

      Yeah, as if Obama will be in any way like Bush. He’ll have those troops home in no time, Gitmo shuttered, no more military misadventures. Ah, for the heady days of our youth, before all the bitter disappointment of reality.

      • Brad P.

        I don’t like any of those comments, but elm’s would have been the one I picked:

        It wouldn’t surprise me if President Obama is more warlike than Candidate Obama (although I doubt it would be because of narcissism like Reynolds suggests.)

        It wouldn’t be incredibly surprising ing he is “far more warlike than President Bush.” I mean, who even meets that standard? Ghengis Khan? (OK, that’s hyperbole. But it’s a high standard to try to “far” exceed.)

        The difference between how we define and treat “warlike” presidents now and how we did so three years ago is astounding.

        • Pastafarian

          I’m pretty sure that Cindy Sheehan will erect a shanty on Obama’s lawn in Kenwood any day now.

          And the cries of “no blood for oil” over Libya have been deafening.

          • Brad P.

            I’m pretty sure that Cindy Sheehan will erect a shanty on Obama’s lawn in Kenwood any day now.

            And the cries of “no blood for oil” over Libya have been deafening.

            Apparently you live in a world of trivialities, Pasta. Monster making is not particularly out of place here, but why bring up Sheehan unless it has to do with old wounds. (Wounds that you seem to now act as if they weren’t wounds in the first place).

        • elm

          Hey, I resemble that remark!

          If I remember correctly (and I’m sure I don’t), I was leaning heavily on the word “far” in Reynold’s prediction. Depending on the meaning of “far,” I still think I’m on solid ground with my comment.

          I could also, of course, point out that I actually said it “wouldn’t be surprising” if he was far more warlike, but that was clearly a typo and I meant the opposite. (More or less embarrassing than the “ing” for “if” typo? I can’t decide.)

          • Brad P.

            I don’t think you were off-base with your comments (they would have sounded like mine, at the time). The part about how difficult it was to be far more warlike than Bush Jr. just disturbed me, as I see only slight marginal differences between their relative foreign policies, but very, very few consider Obama to be on the extreme end.

            • elm

              Well, here I stand by both the “far” part of Reynold’s prediction and my acknowledgement that Genghis Khan was hyperbole.

              On reflection, I actually stand by my statements in their entirety. Pres. Obama is more warlike than Candidate Obama but, I think, not as warlike as Bush was, though I could easily see a claim that they are equally warlike. Obama is not “far more warlike” than Bush, though, by any standard in my mind.

              Further, I stand by my claim that Obama’s war-like nature has nothing to do with narcissism.

              Finally, if you find hyperbole (especially self-acknowledged hyperbole) disturbing, you may want to leave the internet.

              • Brad P.

                On reflection, I actually stand by my statements in their entirety. Pres. Obama is more warlike than Candidate Obama but, I think, not as warlike as Bush was, though I could easily see a claim that they are equally warlike. Obama is not “far more warlike” than Bush, though, by any standard in my mind.

                I agree.

                Further, I stand by my claim that Obama’s war-like nature has nothing to do with narcissism.

                I agree with this also to an extent, although the way we personalize and brand administrations could trap Obama in a narcissistic viewpoint where he starts to treat events according to how they affect the administration, rather than the US.

                Finally, if you find hyperbole (especially self-acknowledged hyperbole) disturbing, you may want to leave the internet.

                I understand that it was hyperbole, but the hyperbole served a point, namely that GWB was an extremely warlike president. I wouldn’t expect to hear similar rhetoric directed at Obama.

      • Pastafarian

        And apparently this inability to see clearly into the future extends to other LG&M contributors:

        House+20

        And yes, by “+20”, he meant an advantage of 20 seats for the Democrats. Pretty close.

        • Malaclypse

          Here are my predictions:

          Obama 378
          McCain 160

          Actual Results: Obama 365, McCain 173

          Senate+8

          Actual results: Senate, +9

          House+20

          Republicans gained five Democratic seats total, while losing 26 Republican seats, giving the Democrats a net gain of 21.

          So yes, pretty close.

        • Malaclypse

          Gah, without links:

          Here are my predictions:

          Obama 378
          McCain 160

          Actual Results: Obama 365, McCain 173

          Senate+8

          Actual results: Senate, +9

          House+20

          Actual results: Republicans gained five Democratic seats total, while losing 26 Republican seats, giving the Democrats a net gain of 21.

          So yes, pretty close.

        • djw

          Yeah, I’m pretty sure we’ve made some poor electoral predictions on this site over the years (I may have predicted a Kerry victory in 04, for example, although I was hardly confident), but apparently Pasta couldn’t find them. (Unless he actually considers being off by one in a 435 seat legislator to be a poor predictive effort)

          • Hogan

            It’s more likely he’s confusing 2010 with 2008.

            • SeanH

              Which is rather more damning, because that means he thinks 2010 was a Presidential election…

              • Hogan

                That did occur to me.

              • Malaclypse

                A third possibility is that he simply does not know what year it is. Let’s face it, nobody will ever fall for those “Pastahead, Super Genius” business cards he had printed up.

                (Note to Donalde: nothing in above post should be construed as approving of blowing up right-wing trolls using any combination of trains and/or nitro glycerine. Violence is bad, m’kay?)

            • djw

              Of course.

              Here’s a prediction post from October: LGM says, House R+61, Senate R+7, actual results House R+63m Senate R+6.

              Two possibilities present themselves:

              1. We are geniuses.

              2. Predicting national electoral results with moderate precision is actually fairly easy if you understand some pretty basic things about modern polling, which (evidently) is one of the many things Roger Kimball doesn’t understand.

              • Scott Lemieux

                Right. Nobody’s saying that an expert should be able to “see the future.” But anyone with an even a minimal level of knowledge would know that there was no chance of McCain winning 40 states.

              • DrDick

                Is there anything which Roger Kimbal does understand?

      • Yeah, as if Obama will be in any way like Bush.

        Nice effort to move the goalposts. You do know that we can all read the post you linked to, right? The one which doesn’t make a prediction that “Obama will be in any way like Bush,” but that “Obama will be far more warlike than Bush.”

        Writing a list of actions demonstrating that Obama, while much less warlike than Bush, isn’t Gandhi is a pretty good indicator of just how desperate you are to pretend you weren’t wrong.

      • mark f

        Ah, the “Obama sucks because he’s just like Bush who was awesome” line. Don’t you owe Glenn Reynolds some royalties for that?

  • You have to admit, though, that as political snark, “O-Bobma-the-Builder” is sheer genius. Why, I heard it made Hilton Kramer chuckle! Twice.

  • I heard, lo these many years ago, from a friend who was then in law school, what they were taught about selecting jurors:

    Wearing a bow-tie? Automatic strike.

    • BigHank53

      At last I can retire my confederate battle flag baseball cap.

      • rea

        Wear the cap with the bowtie, and I guarantee that you won’t be selected for a jury any time soon.

    • hv

      I get out of all criminal juries these days.

      … when I explain that, unless the prosecutors themselves take the stand to swear under oath that no exculpatory evidence has been hidden, I will hold a reasonable doubt on that subject.

  • Anderson

    Time was, a bow tie made you a Commie.

  • 4jkb4ia

    If Roger Kimball didn’t exist, he would have to be invented for the benefit of his opponents.

  • 4jkb4ia

    Completely OT: earlier this evening, Mitchell Boggs blew the save on an error and a wild pitch. In other words he turned back into a pumpkin.

  • Pingback: The New Criterion - Lawyers, Guns & Money : Lawyers, Guns & Money()

It is main inner container footer text