Brains Are Back!

« Return to Article

Discuss

Member Comments

  • Posted By: jlgab @ 11/10/2008 2:35:16 AM

    For Bush to start a war off lies and not be held accountable, furthermore then getting RE-elected after all his lies, corruption, and ever embarrassingly stupid speeches, is truly beyond comprehension and a warped sense of Patriotism. A true insult to the service of veterans especially the vets who never returned home.

  • Posted By: jlgab @ 11/10/2008 2:32:41 AM

    Bush worst and dumbest EVER! He was never president over ALL the people of this fine country. If you want to be president of a country, you HAVE to be leader of ALL the people, not just the rich ones, not just the ones that look like you, and not just the ones of your political party. Personal goals were more important to Bush rather than being honest and good and moral. At any cost and using any corrupt means would that thick-skulled idiot use to reach HIS and Cheney's goals.

  • Posted By: jlgab @ 11/10/2008 2:32:07 AM

    It is disturbing that McCain got as many votes as he did. McCain can't say he is going to be CHANGE after he voted for and supported Bush's stupid and corrupt decisions. For McCain to suggest for himself and copy Obama's theme of change was utterly stupid. Though a gracious concession speech by McCain, alas, it was not his time, his time was in 2000. McCain sold his soul when he aligned himself with the very people who caused him to lose the GOP nominee in 2000 by using dirty underhanded tactics.

  • Posted By: ariziowa @ 11/10/2008 1:53:40 AM

    Seriously - I realize newsweak will never admit it- nor Obama - this is the "dumbing down" for the U.S.A. Yes, please pour millions more into the pulic schools. Oh yes, then all the black kids will actually learn how to speak & spell, and be decent! Chicago is certainly not a place which Obama should be proud of as a "community organizer"! Hannah Montana - You had best learn the truth, and same with newsweak.

  • Posted By: Hannah Palindrome @ 11/10/2008 12:28:47 AM

    "Sense and pragmatism and the idea of considering-all-the-options are back. Studying one's enemies and thinking through strategic problems are back. Cultural understanding is back. Yahooism and jingoism and junk science about global warming and shabby legal reasoning about torture are out. The national culture of flag-pin shallowness that guided our foreign policy is gone with the wind. And for this reason as much as any, perhaps I can renew my pride in being an American."

    I agree!!! I'm excited!!!

  • Posted By: oranges @ 11/09/2008 1:59:37 PM

    hello.... Obama wasn't running again Bush. This change was going to come regardless of who won the election-- your obserations about McCain are shallow. And, you write, " I am just as happy as everyone else", you would do well to remember that at least 55 million people are NOT happy about this outcome. We'll accept it, and can find good things about it, but I wouldn't characterize the mood as happy.

    • Posted By: ThoughtThinker @ 11/10/2008 12:10:59 AM

      I saw a poll this morning that 67 percent of Americans feel optimistic about the results of the presidential election.

      I think you give John McCain too much credit. The way he handled himself during the campaign sure didn't make him look like a mental giant.

    • Posted By: 40YearR @ 11/09/2008 5:20:22 PM



      "oranges", I could not see the differences from Bush. McCain hiring the Bush machine, and buying into the smear campaign previously applied to McCain, made me decide it necessary to ensure that these types not be further entrenched.

      Reading Obama's books, listening to his speeches (and now since the election all appearances being that he actually will be a pragmatic centrist) led me to believe that Obama was the superior candidate.

      So, I am happy and many moderate republicans are happy too. If he proves to be other than he (and not the smear, fear propaganda) represents, I will work to get rid of him. A least the Bush ideologues will have been deprived of the power they have squandered and abused for 4 years.

      A 40 year republican from Orange County

  • Posted By: 771979 @ 11/09/2008 5:09:34 PM

    One of President George W Bush's Yale pals has said that many of them were dumbfounded when he became president because most of them considered him to be a benign dunce. He was never interested in ideas, books or causes did not travel [or] watch news and probably was the only person who grew up never expecting to be the president of the United States. President G W Bush once said, "There is book wisdom and there is practical wisdom," and the latter is of interest to a manly man such as him.

    One of the effects of Bush's presidency has been an explosion of unprecedented feelings of empowerment amongst the dim hacks in the world and unearned intellectual superiority demonstrated by him. Wisdom is as alien to President Bush as are slippers to a snake. He had no sense of direction of leadership or of history and of democracy, which he thought, he could impose on the people of Iraq. He could never utter or construct a correct sentence of English when speaking extempore or giving interviews. Barack Obama is gifted with exorbitant intellect and the world will respect his youthful wisdom

    • Posted By: ThoughtThinker @ 11/09/2008 11:59:27 PM

      A point that all of the pundits ailed to make ... clear speech is an indication of clear thinking, unclear speech is an indication of unclear thinking.

  • Posted By: ThoughtThinker @ 11/09/2008 11:47:30 PM

    Thank goodness the voters had the sense to ask not "who would you like to have a beer with" but "who appears to have the intelligence, the knowledde, and temperament to lead the country". If we had asked the right question 8 years ago (or even 4 years ago) we would not be in the mess we're in now.

    I read a paper recently talking about cognitive skills and what the author called "meta congnitive skills". The point was that if someone is not very good at a skill, they are also not very good at determining whether or not they are good at that skill, and they aren't very good at determining whether someone else is good at that skill. Or to put in layman's terms ... stupid people don't know they are stupid, and stupid people can't tell whether or not other people are stupid.

    In 2000 and 2004 this chain reaction of stupid choosing stupid occurred. Stupid voters chose a stupid president who in turn made stupid decisions and also chose other stupid people who made stupid decisions. Fortunately in 2008 smart voters chose a smart president who is already choosing other smart people. I'm optimistic that this chain reaction of smart will yield results that will benefit us all.

  • Posted By: stana99 @ 11/09/2008 12:03:10 PM

    anyone else think it is pathetic that the word Curiosity is spelled incorrectly in the homepage headline for this story?? come on, Newsweek, have some professionalism!

    • Posted By: Pia1981 @ 11/09/2008 12:11:37 PM

      Incuriosity is spelled correctly.

      • Posted By: stana99 @ 11/09/2008 3:34:58 PM

        On the homepage, under the picture of the brain it says: "In: Curiousity..."

        • Posted By: 40YearR @ 11/09/2008 5:11:57 PM



          It's a good thing that there aren't any typos in your post, "stana99" So are we to reject your point of view out of hand?

          • Posted By: stana99 @ 11/09/2008 6:45:02 PM

            Geez, settle down, I wasn't criticizing the author of the piece! I wasn't talking about the word 'incuriosity' on the top of this page, I was talking about on the homepage, the headline of the story that you click-through to get to this page. They have spelled it 'curiousity'...wasn't trying to start a fight or anything. I'm a teacher so I can't help noticing..it is one thing for someone to have typos in their comment (no big deal), but I guess I expect a higher standard of quality from the headline of a featured story on the homepage of a major organization like Newsweek...

            • Posted By: 40YearR @ 11/09/2008 7:12:07 PM



              Ok. Wasn't riled, just noting the dichotomy....Not sure that a banner on the website necessarily reflects directly to the article, though.

              • Posted By: stana99 @ 11/09/2008 8:09:45 PM

                Agreed. I'm quite certain the author of the piece knows how to spell (and use spellcheck), and someone else entirely creates the catchy headlines (and silly brains shaped like America pics) for the homepage. I teach juniors and seniors in college and struggle with trying to get them to use capital letters, proofread their work, etc. (the texting generation), so I guess I'm hypersensitive to sloppiness when it appears in national media....and it has been there all afternoon too! Of course in my kindergartener's classroom they would call it 'inventive spelling' so maybe I should lighten up :) I'm enjoying your other comments btw.

                • Posted By: 40YearR @ 11/09/2008 8:34:47 PM



                  "stana99": Cool. I get it. Please contribute. It is tedious to have to scroll through all the ranting. These sites can be a forum for exchange of thoughtful ideas. I do believe more would participate if there were less of the former and more of the latter. :-)

                  • Posted By: stana99 @ 11/09/2008 8:49:48 PM

                    So true! Although I must say I can handle the ranting much better since my candidate won on Tuesday ;)

        • Posted By: Pia1981 @ 11/09/2008 5:19:57 PM

          Look up incuriosity in the dictionary.. it's spelled correctly.

  • Posted By: Greg the Third @ 11/09/2008 8:30:08 PM

    Nice article and well said. The opposite of intellect is stupidity and the Bush administation sure seemed to epitomize that. I still do not understand how after 4 disasterous years of Bush half the nation voted to put him back in power. But there is a silver lining in that instead of his policies being simply discredited, they have been throughly and utterly discredited. Hopefully the lasting sting of this economic crisis will serve as a long term reminder of where voting for the drunk guy at the bar who you would rather have a beer with gets you.

  • Posted By: 40YearR @ 11/09/2008 7:02:32 PM



    "John Makkormak": It is sophistry to suggest that one cannot be an intellectual and a pragmatist. A true intellectual is best able to understand both detail and context, and thereby to be pragmatic.

  • Posted By: MEnnis @ 11/08/2008 7:52:09 AM

    You must have grown up with flowers in your hair. I can only guess that you write these articles just to irritate the people.Your thoughts are pure liberalism. I also wonder where do you live? Now that we have our first Black/White president that the media says is intelligent, I expect smart, intelligent policies. So I will watch in awe as our constitutional liberties are destroyed with the help of ultra liberals like Pelosi. You mention FDR who has been regarded as our greatest dictator that started us on the road to our great national deficit.
    Barrack Hussein Obama has already been quoted as saying that it going to be a tough road, same words that president Bush used after 9/11.
    I say good luck to our new president and the old bleeding heart liberal idea's. It is going to take a very intelligent president in 2012 to get us out of the mess the liberals will get us into.

    • Posted By: chris s. @ 11/09/2008 3:48:52 PM

      The whole "Hussein" thing isn't working anymore. Time to retire it. Says way more about you than it does about him.

    • Posted By: the-commish @ 11/08/2008 6:24:47 PM

      ""So I will watch in awe as our Constitutional liberties are destroyed..."

      Too Late! George W. Bush already accomplished that. Try again!

      • Posted By: scottkinfw @ 11/08/2008 10:25:26 PM

        You use "liberal" like it is a bad word. It is not like "liberals" started an immoral, or illegal war based on lies against a country that didn't bomb us, or trash the constitution, or have so many of its cronies jailed, indited or arrested. Yep, the conservatives are good, and the liberals are bad.

    • Posted By: olderwiser @ 11/08/2008 9:55:23 AM

      MEnnis, do I gather that you are saying that we are now losing a very intelligent president and getting one who isn't? If so, then I congratulate you on your conservatism, a philosophy that we have all enjoyed for the past eight years. We will do our best to endure, but it makes life so much better for you to console us, for which we thank you profusely. Maybe we can all retire to the Caymans and tough things out until the "real" Americans return to the white house. That is what you had in mind, isn't it? A really "White" house?

      • Posted By: ginmontana @ 11/08/2008 11:44:03 AM

        "So I will watch in awe as our constitutional liberties are destroyed with the help of ultra liberals like Pelosi."

        We can all thank Bush for setting the precedents that will make this possible.

    • Posted By: elpaulito @ 11/08/2008 9:35:31 AM

      seriously. What are you talking about? Bush has instituted a domestic spying program. Whats that? huh? please. Explain yourself. Dont just blurt out sad, sour grapes comments like Fox news. Please, part of being smart is using facts.

    • Posted By: Doc Howl @ 11/08/2008 9:29:10 AM

      "So I will watch in awe as our constitutional liberties are destroyed with the help of ultra liberals like Pelosi."

      Sorry, Cletus. Bush beat her to it.

  • Posted By: chillydogs @ 11/09/2008 12:42:51 AM

    Author Michael Hirsh, I disagree with you. The know-nothing morons who worshipped Bush and elected him twice are still out there. They were cheering at Palin's rallies and yellling "kill him" and "terrorist." Those crazies are easily led around by the nose. Karl Rove and his clones will begin now searching the countryside for a candidate to run against Obama in 2012. That candidate will use fear and lies, and not hesitate one second to slash and burn anyway that he/she can to get elected. The republicans won't value intelligence over knee-jerk impulsive actions. They'll just find another way to get the office back. Our only hope is to learn from their tactics and ignore them whenever they start spreading lies again.

    • Posted By: Vypurr @ 11/09/2008 9:26:46 AM

      Chillydogs.... leftists like yourself created the "kill him" at Palin's rallyes.... The secret service didn't hear it, and couldn't find anyone who did.

      http://www.timesleader.com/news/breakingnews/Secret_Service_says_Kill_him_allegation_unfounded_.html

      Stop perpetuating the BS. You, of course, are entitled the rest of your opinionated, nonsensical post.

      • Posted By: chris s. @ 11/09/2008 3:37:41 PM

        Vypurr, remember the crazy woman who said she was afraid of Obama because he was an arab? Nobody could dream her up.

      • Posted By: Pia1981 @ 11/09/2008 11:15:05 AM

        No, there is no way leftists created that hater at Sarah Palin's rally.

      • Posted By: 40YearR @ 11/09/2008 11:11:47 AM

        "Vypurr": What about the Secret Service reports of threats against Obama increasing while McC and Palin were beaming while we all heard people in the audience yelling "traitor"?

  • Posted By: rjharen @ 11/09/2008 1:36:04 AM

    Author Micheal Hirsh,I disagree withyou. You Know-nothing morons are now in charge, you Move-on idiots that think you are going to reason with people that have publicly sworn to kill us, who think that we're the problem and terrorists are freedom fighters. You know-nothing morons who have already forgot the World Trade Center and all the other acts of terrorism carried out by the same people Obama is now going to sit down with and work out our differences. I read about a man named Chamberlin who sat down with Hitler and was able to avert World War II, or did he start it by showing weakness in the face of aggresion. The history of the United States is written in the blood of good men willing to do what has to be done after you know-nothing morons try time and again to appease the people set on destroying our Nation and Freedoms. So good luck with your new snake oil salesman who has promised a whole lot Hope, Peace, Universal Health Care, Free College Education, and lower taxes. Quite the trick for a man with no record of any accomplishments other then pulling the wool over the eyes of a bunch of know-nothing morons.

    • Posted By: dubbleoj @ 11/09/2008 2:42:15 PM

      The nation and freedoms that you see today has been built on decades of oppression. To many countries of the world, we--and the all-consuming West--are the problem and the aggressors. We squeeze Ethiopia out of 50 cents per pound of coffee so that we can get a cheaper cup at Starbucks; 50 cents that could put an entire meal on a family's table. We impose our beliefs and values on cultures that do not share the same views and get angry when they don't rally to our banner of "profits above all." The suburbs, in fact our entire economy and way of life, is predicated on cheap fuel that we get from others. Don't you think that after over a century of blatant corporate imperialism that the Middle East would be somewhat pissed? If you look at the history--the facts--you'll see that we started the fight with them when we discovered they had oil. Staying insular and not realizing how the world is connected now is the beginning of our decline. The world wants the America that it once loved and respected, the America that fought against oppression instead of proliferating it. The world has hope in, and we have to deal with now, a president that has a more comprehensive view of the global political economy.

  • Posted By: 1hank111 @ 11/07/2008 1:56:31 PM

    The era of anit-intellectualism is over? Is that why no one is sure how Obama will govern. The American people just handed the keys to our country to the least experienced person in American History. How intellectual is that?
    President-elect Obama has never ran anything. He has spotty voting record in the Illinois Senate and is the most liberal Senator in the United States Senate. I am curious why the intellectual American media never properly vetted President-elect Obama. Obviously this election was a vast left-wing conspiracy.
    Mr. Hirsh I do agree it will be nice to have a President who is goo public speaker. Hopefully, the time of platitudes and oratory are over. We need substance not style.

    • Posted By: Jaybert @ 11/07/2008 2:44:16 PM

      A vast left-wing conspiracy? Obama may have less political experience than McCain, but what does that have to do with how intellectual he is? He is a graduate of Columbia and Harvard, was the President of the Harvard Law Review. He taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago for 12 years. He understands the judicial branch of government and the US constitution at an expert level. And as far as experience, he was a state senator for 7 years and a US senator for 4. He's written 2 books. And he's been elected president. And he's only 47. Give him some credit and be rational, America.

      • Posted By: CCryder @ 11/09/2008 1:17:16 PM

        Obama ran an almost flawless national campaign that beat entrenched politicians with many years of experience. That can't be easy. It's even more impressive when you consider that it was his first national campaign.

      • Posted By: 1hank111 @ 11/07/2008 3:36:25 PM

        I still see no political executive experience. A senator writes law, a lawyer interprets law, but the president must carry it to fruition. Where in Obama's record does he make executive decisions?
        As far as McCain is concerned he did not have a lot of executive experience either.
        Secondly, I do not question the intellect of the President-elect. I think he is very bright and has a sharp mind. I was questioning the intellect of the people that elected him. Just because you're the smartest man in the room does not mean you are fit to lead.
        Thirdly, I have never in my life seen a man running for president get so many softballs. The vitural the media bestowed on the McCain campaign was disgusting. I firmly believe that NBC, CBS, CNN, the New York Times, Newsweek etc. were more interested in creating history than covering it.

        • Posted By: Jaybert @ 11/08/2008 11:14:49 AM

          Executive experience, intelligence, and the media have nothing to do with the point of anti-intellectualism. The point is that there is a subset of conservative voters who are enamored by candidates who come off as average, simple, and anti-intellectual. Basically, people who want a hick-talking simpleton for president over an educated, thoughtful, and intellectual leader. Regarding the media, give me a break. Maybe the center is just a lot less to the right than you have been led to believe by Fox, which I notice you don't list in your post.

    • Posted By: fleepwood @ 11/07/2008 2:26:19 PM

      It's that we ARE SURE how Bush governed with his era of anti-intellectualism and lack of curiosity being noted. Obama will be a left of middle President, not far left. Think of a President that uses his intellect and doesn't show up in a flight suite on a Navy boat with a Mission Accomplished banner and you'll be able to better grasp the concept.

  • Posted By: independentnow @ 11/08/2008 4:41:42 PM

    It's great to see the media bias come out front and center. CNN selling Obama t-shirts, reporters and columnists gushing as if they'd found the new messiah. At least the left-wing media is being as overt as the right-wing media showing their bias. Can we ever hope to re-gain objective journalism in this country. I sure hope so, because at the end of the day the media is the worst practitioner of partisanship in America.

    • Posted By: buzzboyd @ 11/08/2008 6:38:25 PM

      I don't know. It was kind of weird how Fox News suddenly gushed and gushed and gushed when Obama was declared the winner. They all blow with the wind. Or maybe they all just blow. Can't tell.

      • Posted By: Vypurr @ 11/09/2008 9:41:01 AM

        That's because it's easy to confuse the Fox actual news broadcasts, which will tell both sides of the story, with their "opinion" type shows, which are all on the Right. You won't see that with MSM news broadcasts from NBC, CBS, ABC, etc... Charlie Gibson, Katie Couric, Brian Williams... they were all obvious Obama supporters.

        Most people either don't know or forget that Rupert Murdoch, the owner of Fox News, supported Obama.

        • Posted By: Pia1981 @ 11/09/2008 11:13:34 AM

          Vypurr, I used to watch Fox News until Sean Hannity chased me away. I used to watch Bill O too, who btw, back in the 80's dated a family member of mine...Bill has managed to alienate me as well.

          I am not so sure Brian Williams supported Obama, from what I have read about him, he is a die-hard conservative.

      • Posted By: independentnow @ 11/08/2008 10:33:00 PM

        I agree with the blow with the wind comment. Oh well, maybe we're beyond objectivity (some argue it never existed in the first place).

  • Posted By: faoifaoi @ 11/09/2008 9:57:30 AM

    Thanks, Hirsh. I agree entirely. And I can support and respect a proposal that is well-reasoned and thought out and pragmatic, even if it doesn't jive with my own ideals and agenda.
    I've been so sick of the reptile-brain mentality. Cheering for someone who can think through complex issues.

  • Posted By: kwagner @ 11/09/2008 9:12:38 AM

    I appreciate this article and the idea that we have a new leader who refuses to boil complicated ideas down to soundbytes, who actually believes that there are subtlties and nuances to every problem that should be explored and who is doesn't demand that we agree with him or be considered traitors and un-american-how nice!

  • Posted By: 2gofer @ 11/07/2008 3:15:17 PM

    Hirsch lives in a fairy tale world. Go ahead and beat up President George Bush as much as you like, he has effectively led us through a extremely challanging eight years doing what was needed for the nations interests rather than his popularity. He is a good leader who speaks poorly. By contrast, his predecessor was the opposite. Bill Clinton was driven by his popularity, was bouyed along by the dot com explosion and then lied his way out of office when it emploded, and failed to recognize the developing terrorist threat of Osama bin Laden. Jimmy Carter was quite astute, but could not lead. The result was a disaster that Ronald Regan led us out of in spite of his percieved limitations. It remains to be seen whether Obama's eloquence is in fact supported by leadership skills. I hope it is, but must be pragmatic and point out that there is no evidence of such in either of his Senatorial positions. His actions do not support his words. He speaks of proactive non partisan action but has behaved only in a reactive partisan manner. His reaction to the invasion of Georgia indicated "paralysis of analysis". We can only hope that his leadership skills will emerge.

    • Posted By: pdskep @ 11/07/2008 3:30:01 PM

      Perhaps it is you who lives in the fantasy world. So much wrong with your post so I'll only mention the last. As it comes to light that is was Georgia who was the aggresor 'read recent news about independent observers' reports' , a little bit of analysis turns out not to be so much of a bad thing. What exactly would be the correct reaction, start WWIII? Thank God pragmatism won out over knee'jerk, faith based thinking.

      • Posted By: 2gofer @ 11/09/2008 9:10:00 AM

        Perhaps we can find some common ground to establish discourse. Russia invaded Georgia rather than the other way around. If we disagree on that then there is no purpose in further discussion. In my world, when a nation invades a relatively defenseless neighbor, it is appropriate in the interests of stability and peace for the leaders of other nations to issue a prompt and firm statement that the invading nation should withdraw its forces and return to constructive resolution through negotiation on the issues that prompted the action. It isn't necessary or appropriate to vassilate while the invader, sympathizers, and other pundits to develop their rationalization for justification of the invasion. You seem to think otherwise which is your right. It would please me immensely to be proven incorrect.

      • Posted By: tmax @ 11/07/2008 3:52:21 PM

        Amen to that. Also, separate religion from government, as was intended by our forefathers. It only creates a lot of partisan claptrap to muddy up the waters of true intelligent discourse.

    • Posted By: Hannah B @ 11/07/2008 5:25:38 PM

      The one who failed to recognize the developing terrorist threat of Osama bin Laden was GWB. Clinton warned GWB of his suspicions re: potential terrorist threats when he turned the reins of the country over him in January 2000. GBW received at least ONE pdb that WE know about them but chose to do nothing about them. Then he kept readin while they were occurring. Now just WHO failed??????

  • Posted By: technologist @ 11/07/2008 3:53:34 PM

    >>The Republican Party has been hijacked by the religious right, and those are the ones that really scare me.
    Folks are scared when we don't agree to have abortions, free sex, glamorize violence, etc. There is a
    reason: God's law. Somehow you think it doesn't apply to you.

    reason: God

    • Posted By: SouthernIL52 @ 11/09/2008 9:03:32 AM

      God was running for president, but apparently there are those who thought so.

Reply

Report Abuse

Enter comments if any for reporting abuse