Thursday, October 28, 2010


I hesitated for quite a while before creating this post, mainly coz I'm just sick to death of political sniping.  But it's election season, so what does one rightfully expect?  There WILL be lotsa "yer stoopid!" and "Yeah? Well, yer eeeevil!" and all that other horseshit we're so fond of throwing around this time o' year.  And we're not casting aspersions towards any of our favorite blogging friends.  Well, mebbe we are.  You KNOW who you might be when trying on that shoe.  And you're NOT of the female persuasion.

But we digress.  What the sergeant REALLY wants to do is link another piece o' brilliance from James Taranto in today's WSJ.  An excerpt:
When Sarah Palin called Obama a "professor," some professors accused her of racism. What she really meant, they claimed, was "uppity." Kloppenberg's similar characterization, however, draws a quite different response:
Those who heard Mr. Kloppenberg present his argument at a conference on intellectual history at the City University of New York's Graduate Center responded with prolonged applause. "The way he traced Obama's intellectual influences was fascinating for us, given that Obama's academic background seems so similar to ours," said Andrew Hartman, a historian at Illinois State University who helped organize the conference.
One assumes that Andrew Hartman is a serious scholar, although one doesn't know for sure because one has never heard of him. Barack Obama, by contrast, is a scholarly dilettante, a professional politician who has moonlighted as a university instructor.
Yet Hartman's remark about Obama's "academic background" is revealing. Professors imagine Obama is one of them because he shares their attitudes: their politically correct opinions, their condescending view of ordinary Americans, their belief in their own authority as an intellectual elite. He is the ideal product of the homogeneous world of contemporary academia. In his importance, they see a reflection of their self-importance.
Mr. Taranto's brief bit is less a criticism of our president (although he does get his licks in, as always) and more a well-deserved thumping for academic twits who have a tendency to confuse their asses with their elbows.  I'm always up for that kinda stuff.


  1. What I find so very hard to believe is that the academics haven't made anything of the glaring absence of his publications. "Publish or perish" is a very real BFOQ in academe.

    And the glaring absence of publication at Harvard (save one anonymous comment) is outrageous -- and I don't care if he was the "president" of Harvard Law Review (an elected position, BTW, not an earned one)-- when you're on Law Review, you frickin' write! Even if it's just a note on a recently enacted statute. My husband was Editor in Chief of UALR Law School and I was the Senior Casenotes Editor -- we both published, in addition to doing the business and editorial stuff.

    He's a gold-plated, self-absorbed, condescending phony with frightening goals for this country. No getting around it.

    Or do you want to know what I really think? =)

  2. What I find so very hard to believe is that the academics haven't made anything of the glaring absence of his publications.

    Easily explained, in my uneducated mind's eye. Academics of a certain political persuasion are VERY adept at ignoring that which doesn't fit the approved narrative. Unless it's expounding ad nauseam as to why it DOESN'T fit. There's no dearth of that shit.

    As to what ya really think... c'mon down! Mi casa es su casa...

  3. M & B

    The Academia Nuts didn't make anything of his non-existent qualifications because they were so busy pattin themselves on the back about their own enlightenment.

    The argument can be made, as I did here,

    that BO was the pluperfect Manchurian Candidate - damaged, self-convinced, and cynically calculated to exploit the weakest links of American elitism.

    "Who cares whether he's got any academic qualification? Look how enlightened we are to back a (putative) black man (and one who professes everything we'd like to admit, but don't have the balls to.)"

    Inevitable, given the last 40 years of insanity. America is not only waking up to what's happening, but to what's been happening since the '70s. And for that, we have BO and far lefties to be grateful to.


  4. And for that, we have BO and far lefties to be grateful to.

    I suppose that's the silver lining in a very dark cloud bank, Rob. I STILL have problems believing the American electorate was dumb enough to elect this poseur. I blame all those freakin' 18-20 somethings. Coz Barack was cool, yanno?

  5. People who demand humility out of others, don't seem to have any idea what it's for, let alone any record of showing it themselves.

    Obama is a fair sample taken out of His constituency. If this were not the case, they'd be lining up to apologize. But since they are like He, and He is like they, nothing of the sort will happen. The ideas meet up with reality, and since they are academics the ideas must ALWAYS win. That's the definition.

  6. Well, ya lost me there, Morgan. I'm not sure what it is you're trying to say.

  7. You know I'm something of a political animal, Buck, and I can usually stand being in the middle of the fray longer than most in my neck of the woods, but this year is just amazingly mind numbing. We have a four-way battle for governor here in MA (by now, two have a realistic chance, but four worthies are on the ballot) and the ads are endless. Back-to-back-to-back-to-back for all of them during every commercial break. It's reached the point where even I tune them out, and I usually enjoy that sort of thing.

  8. I'm usually like yourself in this regard, Jim. I can tune the teevee ads out this season, but it's some of the BLOGGERS that are driving me nuts. "ALL politics, ALL the time." Gad.


Just be polite... that's all I ask.