A reader writes:
Rudy enrolled at
From "Rudy: An Investigative Biography of Rudolph Giuliani" by Wayne Barrett on page 34:
"After seven semesters at Bishop Loughlin, Rudy's grade average of 84.8 earned him a ranking of 130, putting him in the class's second quintile. His report cards for those years show columns of mostly B's and C's, a few A's and one D. He scored a 65 in chemistry, a 74 in Latin and a 92 in American history. His combined College Board scores, 569 in verbal and 504 in math, were twenty-seven points shy of 1100, and quite ordinary."
Wayne Barrett is a writer at the Village Voice and professor at the Columbia School of Journalism, if you want to check with the source.
Here's his academic history: "He attended
In comparison, George W. Bush scored 1206 and Al Gore 1330 on the SAT. All these scores are under the tougher pre-1995 scoring system. Add 70 or 80 points to get the equivalent under the current scores. Does anybody know what John McCain scored to get into
It's striking that more than a few men considered Presidential Timber wouldn't have gotten a callback if they had applied to join, say, the Navy SEALs. It's not that a fairly high IQ is so utterly crucial to being a good SEAL, but it does improve the odds. There are many men who want to be SEALs, and plenty of them have reasonably high IQs, so it's no-brainer for the Navy to weigh IQ in the mix of qualifications.
Being Presdient, in contrast, does not generally require the physical ability to infiltrate an enemy harbor and silently kill sentries, so one might expect that IQ would be even more important in the Chief Executive job than in being a scuba commando.
Certainly, "intangibles" can make up for a modest IQ in a President, but are we so sure we are good at evaluating the intangibles of politicians? How good a job did we do with George W. Bush? And he wasn't some nobody from nowhere. He was the son of a President. Many important people had met him during the twelve years his father had held the two highest offices in the land, and few had thought him a worthy successor. We knew that his own parents considered him inferior to his own brother Jeb. And yet, the Republican Establishment got behind him in 1999, drinking Karl Rove's Kool-Aid that his intangibles would somehow make up for Bush's tangible deficiencies.
My published articles are archived at iSteve.com -- Steve Sailer
Posts
81 comments:
I guess we have that Democratic governor of Florida to blame for G.W. Bush as President -- the one who barely beat Jeb Bush the first time. Had Jeb already been settled in as governor of Florida, maybe the establishment would have picked him for the Presidential run. He is clearly smarter and more articulate than his brother. Too bad the Bush name is so tarnished now -- Jeb would make a good President.
I usually think "emotional intelligence" and other speculative forms of intelligence not measured by hard IQ are bullshit, but maybe there's something to it in the case of Giuliani. Being able to navigate a multi-ethic, multi-cultural city such as New York might require an intuition about group dynamics not required to become, say, the governor of Tennessee. I don't mean this in a touchy-feely sense, but more in a Machiavellian sense.
Maybe a Giuliani, who has had to maneuver among Irish, blacks, Jews, Italians, Latinos, etc. would be better suited to deal with a complex world than, say, John Edwards.
Smart people can do badly on SATs, but dumb people can't do well. If he graduated magna cum laude from NYU law, he's either pretty bright or there was some hanky panky. (I say this as a Democrat who does not support him.)
My favorite part about this article is the factlet that Al Gore's SAT was 1330 (or 1410.) It seemed like there were so many people talking about how brilliant he was, etc., etc. I mean, yeah, he's a smart guy, but he's by no means off the charts.
So what does 1073 mean in terms of IQ?
Fact is the electorate has been dumbing down since the nation's founding.
While there is something to be said for an increased breadth of view from expanding the electorate, and there is much to be said for keeping all citizens enfranchised, it seems we have passed the point of diminishing marginal returns, yes?
Intelligence is the one thing everyone thinks they have enough of, and any amount more is suspect. So odd!
My favorite part about this article is the factlet that Al Gore's SAT was 1330 (or 1410.) It seemed like there were so many people talking about how brilliant he was, etc., etc.
Your memory fails you. I don't ever recall a single person saying Gore was brilliantly intelligent. I do recall a general feeling that he was fairly intelligent, as well as extremely knowledgeable on the issues.
Bush's intelligence is often underestimated because of his flagrant displays of ignorance. Of course, that ignorance is simply due to the intellectual laziness which has been Bush's hallmark throughout his life.
Though there are no hard and fast rules, Id estimaate 1073 on the old SAT to be an IQ of 110-113
Intelligence not linked to wealth
Alan -- if anything our leaders have generally gotten smarter.
What is instructive is not abstract measures of intelligence, which do not measure drive, ambition, principles, management ability, integrity, and political courage, but CAREER.
Consider Abraham Lincoln, our greatest President. What sort of SAT score would he have had? Yet his leadership, communication skills, and determination were all forecast by his career as a Railroad lawyer.
Both George Washington and Ike were considered "dull" and unintelligent plodders, but both presided over unruly coalitions in War Time leadership and exercized restraint in face of those who argued for war with Britain or the Soviet Union. Their ability to manage that unruly coalition and navigate the shoals of surrender or war made them wise choices over "smarter" men like Adlai Stevenson.
Consider "smart" men like Jimmy Carter, a nuclear engineer and protege of the "nuclear Admiral" ... Carter was extremely well read, an engineer, but a disaster as President because he lacked the ability to lead internally and deter aggressive acts by outside enemies. Or perhaps the example of Richard Nixon, "tricky Dick" who was considered "smarter" than Kennedy and Humphrey.
Guiliani in his career demonstrated:
*Understanding that taking on the Mob and White Collar Crime made him popular.
*Macho toughness sells in an age of feminized and feminist politicians.
*Getting things done in his career required a network of friends, patrons, etc.
[In this he echoes Lincoln who had a ton of "Lincoln Men" i.e. cronies who formed the basis of his Administration and got Lincoln patronage jobs with the Railroads or supported his Senatorial campaign beforehand.]
Guiliani seems at least smart about politics, including when to take a baseball bat to your opponents knees and when to lay off.
Bush flew fighter jets. That he actually survived means he had at least average to above average intelligence and minimally competent judgment in survival situations.
Bush's problems lie in being bad at politics: unable to grow/maintain his base with patronage, communicate constantly his positions and manipulate the media, reward friends and punish enemies. His career as a remote Baseball exec and Governor in Rep-friendly Texas did not inspire confidence.
Had Bush not run against a divided, self-destructive Democratic Party slowly morphing into a lifestyle expression of an Urban elite with two of the worst politicians in living memory, Gore and Kerry, he would have lost. A Dick Gephardt, a Joe Lieberman, would have easily trounced GWB.
But Rudy seems plenty smart where it counts: politics. So far he'd be the most effective President of all the guys running. He's certainly the most articulate and "authentic" before the cameras, no mean skill and the mark of a professional. No fake Southern Accents for him.
Warren G Harding – Dolt (before you smirk look how well the country did under his normalization policy)
Calvin Coolidge - Intelligent
T. Roosevelt - Dolt
FDR – Dolt
Truman - Dolt
Eisenhower – Intelligent
JFK – Dolt
LBJ – Dolt
Richard Nixon - Genius (I think the smartest president of the modern era)
Jimmy Carter – very intelligent
Ronald Reagan – Dolt
G Bush – Intelligent
Bill Clinton – Genius
GW Bush – Dolt
Karl Marx – Genius (just for comparison purposes)
It is not intelligence that matters but principles.
FDR was a dolt?
Hal K,
Thats the dumbest thing on this comments section. It would tax even a liberal to believe that.
Was Abe Lincoln REALLY the best prez?
He weakened the principle of a Union by preventing secession by the south..and for what?
So slaves who would have been freed sooner or later (as they were elsewhere in the world) could be exported abroad (but died before he could implement it)?
Steve, what do you think about the theory that pre-senile dementia is primarily responsible for Bush's glaring deficiencies?
You're pointing up one of the problems with this exercise--you're going to have very different opinions of whether Abraham Lincoln was a good president if you're from New York or Kentucky.
Furthermore, while an incompetent president is bad no matter your politics, a competent president who pushes forth an agenda you disagree with can be very bad indeed. I would regard FDR as very competent and skilled; he brought us through the Depression, accomplished a major transformation of the economy through the New Deal, and got us through WWII. Now of course the paleocons despise both the New Deal and WWII, so from their point of view he was a horrible president!
Furthermore, while many of the best presidents weren't particularly bright, I think Bush's ignorance (more than a low IQ) is really hurting him as a president. (It's not that he can't learn, it's that he doesn't care to.) He invaded a country and got us stuck in the middle of a civil war between two groups of people who hate our guts. So I think you want a president who's (a) competent and (b) agrees with you. You want intelligence and principles. But if you're forced to choose, you want the guy with principles, because an idiot on your side is better than a genius on the other side.
Steve,
Thanks for posting my email. I would like to add something else.
Wayne Barrett suggests that Giuliani embellished his high school academic record on page 34 and his college academic record on page 50.
Barrett says that Giuliani later stated that a teacher told his father that Giuliani "was one of the brightest kids in that class" from page 34.
From page 50 "As is his nostalgic tendency, Rudy later hyperbolized the level of his academic achievement at Manhattan, claiming to have graduated magna cum laude; records indicate that he only graduated with honors".
As a New Yorker and as someone who has watched Giuliani for years, this is typical Giuliani behavior: Take credit for everything.
I think I have made the point here before, but I give Giuliani high marks for one of the first decisions he made as mayor of New York -- ignoring the Rev. Al Sharpton. A couple of months into his first term, there was a scuffle at a black Muslim mosque between cops looking for a suspect and the black Muslims; Sharpton demanded a meeting with the mayor to discuss police relations with the black community; Giuliani refused.
If you think about it now, that was a brilliant move on Giuliani's part. He understood that kowtowing to Sharpton would make him look weak and embolden Sharpton; he also realized that fighting Sharpton was a losing proposition. So he simply starved him of oxygen.
The other attraction of Giuliani is his authenticity. Giuliani is who he is: not a paragon of family values, or a some other sort of poseur, but a flawed human being who had the managerial and political skill to revitalize America's largest city, and the composure and stature to lead it through the disaster of 9/11.
I think the GOP has long condescended to its base, thinking they need some George Allen or George W. Bush type who can out-redneck everyone. Most Republicans are smarter than that though. That's why Giuliani has been able to raise cash and support in states like Texas.
dave
Giuliani raised cash and support in Texas and other places because he hit the campaign trail from 2002-2006 raising money and support for other Republican candidates. The favors are now being called in.
...had the managerial and political skill to revitalize America's largest city, and the composure and stature to lead it through the disaster of 9/11.
Is this an excerpt from his campaign website? If not, it should be.
"Is this an excerpt from his campaign website? If not, it should be."
It wasn't but if someone wants to pay me to write that sort of crap, I'll take it.
"Giuliani raised cash and support in Texas and other places because he hit the campaign trail from 2002-2006 raising money and support for other Republican candidates. The favors are now being called in."
True, but true also for McCain. Giuliani is raising the bigger bucks.
Is there any research on what things other than IQ make a good leader, and on how critical IQ is? This seems like the sort of thing the military would have done, and it would be interesting to see.
Bush is a bit of a special case, because his public persona requires him to act dumber than he really is. And even though his two terms have been pretty bad for the country, I wonder how much of that is just external stuff--Katrina was going to clobber New Orleans no matter who was president, and most of the meltdown was local incompetence and demographics, not FEMA incompetence. Post-9/11, we were pretty sure to do something dumb with our military, the feds were sure to wipe themselves with the bill of rights, etc.
Not quite sure what the point of this post is. That we need brilliance in a president? I'm not so sure. Did it take brilliance for Giuliani to figure out that if he didn't get a handle on New York's street crime nothing else would matter much? No. It just took brightness, which he has; and, more important, the street toughness, call it character, to stay the pro-police anti-thug course when the entire progressive New York establishment was braying for his head.
Whether he'd make a good president I have no idea, but character, not brilliance, is what counts in that job too.
This is a link to the actual information online:
http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0028,barrett,16371,1.html
Wayne Barrett is the source of the information.
I don't think it would take a brilliant mind to solve any of the major problems facing America at this time.The trouble is that there are vested interests opposed to their solution, and politicians don't wish to oppose them for fear of losing votes, funding, or media support.
One dumb mistake Giuliani made was putting NYC's emergency HQ in the WTC -- which had a bull's eye on it since '93 -- but for the most part, he was a solid mayor.
BTW, I happened to see Giuliani at a couple of different restaurants in Manhattan in the last few years. Two mildly interesting observations about that. He didn't have a ton of security with him (just one or two plain-clothes guys), but everyone left him alone in both places. Could be they respected his privacy (as in the case of me and my friends) or they didn't like him. Also, the two places I saw him in were good restaurants -- the Rosa Mexicana in the UES and Frank's Steakhouse in the Meatpacking District -- but definitely not the sort of places trendy types go to be seen. Frank's at the time was part of a "guns & beef" promotion where for $100 you could go shooting at range in Midtown and then get a voucher for a steak dinner, so we trooped in there with our rolled up paper Osama bin Laden targets full of bullet holes.
Does anyone else find the apparent fact that Giuliani graduated Magna Cum Laude from NYU's School of Law suspicious? I know NYU Law wasn't then what it is now, but either Giuliani finally discovered some long dormant focus and motivation or that score is misreported. People with SAT v-scores in the 500's don't graduate Magna Cum Laude from law school.
mens -- yes Abe was our greatest President. He preserved the Union against great odds and enormous political opposition, while most generals in the Union Army were borderline incompetent and incapable of victories for years, eroding public support. A masterful display of politics.
Lester -- GWB is not IMHO demented. He is essentially his father: a mostly out of touch patrician, bad with words, dyslexic, contemptuous of politics, lazy, and unable to develop a consistent public effort to rally support for his policies. The Elder Bush's failure to initially react to Saddam's invasion of Kuwait was mirrored by the younger one's paralysis on 9/11.
SFG -- The other way to look at Iraq is that *creating* the civil war in Iraq allows the US critical leverage through use of military force to favor one side or the other to cause trouble or resolve it to our advantage on the Sunni-Shia and Arab-Persian fault-line. At least Bush's policy was different than the first Bush-Clinton's pathetic attempt to buy favor with Islamists and avoid military engagement no matter what cost. Being weak and beaten only invites aggression from guys like bin Laden and his followers.
Anon -- of course Rudy takes credit for everything. NYC politics is brutal. How else could he club the special interests down for a while?
No he destroyed a significant part of the meaning of a "Union".
TR, FDR & LBJ dolts? MayKay, is this your own ranking?
I think either Barack or Hillary would be a disaster for us as president.
John Edwards would be the only democratic candidate who would not be an unmitigated disaster.
Guiliani and McCain would be just like four more years of Bush.
We have got to amend our primary process to where establishment candidates prevail simply because all the others cancel each other out, and someone with a hard third of the party's backing and money simply waltzes through.
This country needs a Ron Paul or a Tom Tancredo for a good eight years.
Since we have so many Oprah-esque fads like Emotional IQ (EQ) these days, I suppose somebody ought to devise a test of Political IQ (PQ).
Bush Jr. listened to Beltway blowhards, simple as that. Those war hawks were either lying or stupid, or both.
What has happened to our definition of "smart" these days that the most loudmouthed fools are considered the most "intelligent"? That's IQ? I remember when all the pundits were predicting the U.S. military would roll into Iraq, depose Saddam, and then deal with throngs of crowds hailing us as "liberators." Instead, we have terrorists-youth gangs chanting "Muqtada Al-Sadr."
We should count our lucky stars that the Arabs never really united to cause us some real problems after that campaign. (A reminder what a non-formidable enemy the Arabs really are, by the way. They are crippled by their own greed and clannish mentality.)
So much for the high-IQ back-patting Ivory Tower.
Obama, Biden, Edwards, Dodd, the rest of the dwarves would be an unmitigated disaster. What naive, utopian, and foolish people believe is that the Muslim's world fundamental desire to destroy Globalization and it's engine (the USA) is not going to go away. We could kill bin Laden tomorrow (and we should) but the problem would still be there. None of them would nuke out of existence any country suspected of nuking us.
Given that Pakistan is nearly under bin Laden's control, Iran has or soon will have nukes, North Korea will sell to anyone, and Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Egypt, Jordan, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, UAE, and Oman have all announced "nuclear programs" in reaction to Iran ... the likelihood that we will get nuked is near 100% without obvious will and ability to simply erase nations on the mere suspicion. Neither Hitler nor Tojo had the ability to strike in NYC and the Pentagon, killing over 3,000 and destroying two landmark skyscrapers. If not for Flight 93's bravery the White House or Capitol would have been gone.
Hillary though I loathe her has at least some balls. The rest of the Dem Dwarves? None at all. Clay Aiken is more butch than they are.
Either Rudy or McCain would be quite different from Bush: NEITHER is in hock to the House of Saud, thus no more half-measures and piddling around. Either would not be shy about nuking em if they had to, which is good because our enemies ought to fear us. Which currently they don't. Since each are weak on traditional Rep social values, they might have to get religion on illegal immigration. Even Dem candidates are getting an earful as folks are fed up (and predictably ducking).
Bush did not "listen to the Beltway" which was solidly on the Bush-1/Clinton path of do nothing. Bush instead saw his father lose re-election as he saw it by half-measures on Saddam and roused himself at least for that. And then fell back in the Bush family patrician laziness.
We pretty much handily defeated Saddam's fearsome army in three weeks with few casualties and far fewer troops. Anyone who stood and fought against us died horribly. No oil fields ablaze, no "Stalingrad of Baghdad," no mass slaughter of our guys in "killing zones" and no 10 million refugees in Saudi Arabia. But then Seymour Hersh was predicting the slaughter of our guys in Afghanistan two days before Kabul fell.
Everyone was so absolutely wrong on Afghanistan, Gulf War 1 (where we were supposed to be slaughtered by Saddam's "million man army") and the Invasion that it's no wonder critics had little credibility.
The Ivory Tower being so completely wrong early on, they had zilch credibility later when it was needed.
The most serious issue going forward is definitely nuke proliferation. Iran is crucial not just because it is governed by nutters but because it getting nukes will spur Arab countries to get nukes, etc. Of all the candidates running, only McCain, Giuliani and possibly Clinton would have the will to bomb the crap out of Iran (conventionally) if that's what it takes to keep them from getting nukes. Maybe Bush will make it easier for them and do it himself before his term is over.
Ooh, this SAT info is good stuff. I like anything that convinces people to not support Guiliani.
Yikes!
The classification of presidents by intelligence without evidence is unbearably painful. I'm not thinking of Steve who always backs up his assertions on other's intelligence with facts (and made no declarations about Rudy's intelligence). This also goes along with the peeve of those saying our presidents have gotten smarter, again with no evidence.
One of the most valuable things I've learned from this blog is that the people are extremely well represented; people get who they deserve in all times and all places. For example, Steve was the one who figured out that our presidents had gotten dumber and this was directly related to the I.Q. of the electorate.
Steve, what effect would fully enfranchising felons have on our elections??
Shudder!
(I read somewhere awhile back where a sociologist figured most would not vote, but, contrary to conventional wisdom, they would break evenly between the two parties. I find that hard to believe.)
Hillary needs a good 8 inches, period.
Given that Pakistan is nearly under bin Laden's control, Iran has or soon will have nukes, North Korea will sell to anyone, and Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Egypt, Jordan, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, UAE, and Oman have all announced "nuclear programs" in reaction to Iran ... the likelihood that we will get nuked is near 100% without obvious will and ability to simply erase nations on the mere suspicion.
Could you keep your insane mastubatory fantasies to yourself, please?
"Ooh, this SAT info is good stuff. I like anything that convinces people to not support Guiliani."
He seems smart enough to appoint smart subordinates who he listens to, and that's a lot better than President Hillary Clinton.
I'm all behind him despite the low IQ.
News flash: many of those low IQ "trailer trash" white felons would probably vote Republican. No need to worry about them voting for Obama or Nader.
It's the wealthy who see some advantage in "globalization." (They assume they won't be out-competed).
A nuclear armed Arab bloc? Not a good thing. But they'd nuke each other first. Pakistan would exchange nukes with India, and so on. Maybe that would prompt Europe to re-grow some balls. They come in handy in wartime situations. (Of course, the French sat around reading Karl Marx while under the shadow of the Russian Bear, so don't depend on Europeans...)
SFG wrote:
'FDR as very competent and skilled; he brought us through the Depression, accomplished a major transformation of the economy through the New Deal, and got us through WWII. '
You have to be kidding about FDR being competent, after over 10 years the country came out of the depression. The USA cam out of the depression when his policies could no longer prevent it from coming out of the depression and there was no way we could loose WWII. As a thought experiment try to invent a scenario where we loose. If you think FDR was competent at governing (rather than getting votes which is what politicians are experts at) you must think the Marten Van Buren who avoided a war and help end a depression fast was a super competent person. The fact is most President’s success or failure is a functions of the popular beliefs of their time. Even the idiot Bush can say that before his invasion of Iraq their was a belief that the relatively large middle class that Iraq had would prevent chaos also it was widely believed that a relatively wealth country would not descend in chaos and war and that its oil wealth could be used to rebuild the country easily. Both wrong.
BTW I forgot to rate: Hoover - Intelligent
does it really matter who the president is as long as the border is open?
any other policy decisions are rendered irrelevant as long as the US stays on schedule to becoming mexico in 2050. by 2050 half of the presidential candidates will BE mexican.
muslims are so easy to deal with it's painful to watch american politicians stumble around in the dark.
it's also funny to hear them blather about nations that might get nuclear weapons, when they are clearly in no hurry to invade north korea, which already has them.
Well, the beauty of it is not how smart you are, but how smart you THINK you are. In that case, Al Gore is truly off the charts. (you can detect I've had enough of his condescending speech, especially towards women and the elderly)
This obsession with IQ is nice - and certainly very important in the grand scheme of things. But let's keep in mind that the Presidency is an executive position - not an R&D or academic one. Most executives (successful ones) I know are good leaders, and don't try to intellectualize and figure out everything on their own - they simply can't. I would argue that a very hi IQ in an executive leader is in many ways detrimental bc it detracts from the administrative and management that creates progress and derives from his/her leadership. I think everyone is missing this point. Its not a college bull session all nighter where a bunch of really smart people just get together and "figure stuff out" - were that it were that easy.
I see the future stretching our before me; monstrous, unyielding, like Nostradamus on acid.
Hillary Clinton will become the 44th President of the United States of America. She will be succeeded by Jeb Bush, who, in turn, will be succeeded by Chelsea Clinton.
God help us!
Giuliani's NYC page says he graduated magna cum laude. His Giuliani Partners page says he graduated cum laude. I think plain cum laude is more likely correct.
http://www.nyc.gov/html/records/rwg/html/bio.html
http://www.giulianipartners.com/giuliani.aspx
"Consider Abraham Lincoln, our greatest President. What sort of SAT score would he have had? "
A fairly high one. He obviously had excellent verbal skills and later in life started working his way through Euclid for fun.
-HH
I wonder what Romney and Obama have for IQs? Offhand I'm betting they're the smartest on either side, though Clinton is probably pretty bright too.
IQ matters, yes, but I'm not sure that IQ and principles are the only things that count. Its pretty clear to me that character and leadership skills aren't just buzz words. Unfortunately they're pretty hard to evaluate from a distance.
I would agree that character and leadership skills are important. (I think I was responding to someone discussing IQ vs principles, but if not I stand corrected.) As you say, they're hard to judge from a distance. Indeed, I think there was an article in the NYT about how the ability to obtain power (political skill) correlates poorly with the ability to use it well (managerial skill). In particular there are narcissistic, charismatic types who are good at getting people to believe in them but lousy managers. This is seen in both business and politcs.
Huggy that is fact. Musharraf had to cede whole provinces to the Taliban and bin Laden. See the Dawa accords. The whole Northwest Provinces, from which AQ and the Taliban launch attacks in Afghanistan. The madrassas and in particular the Red Mosque made him back down publicly inside Islamabad. Sharia Law is now the law of the land. Musharraf hangs by a thread and the fear of what the Americans and Indians might do. ISI is totally infiltrated by bin Laden's boys. That's it.
All of these other nations have publicly announced their nuclear programs in that well known right-wing rag the NYT.
The Muslim war against the West is not going to go away anymore than your idiot fantasies about "the end of history." ANY President will have to pick either abject surrender, some form of appeasement, or some form of war. Jefferson had to eventually spend more money than he ever wanted on the US Navy after payments to the Bey of Algiers and other North Africans for ransom consumed 20% of the Federal Budget. It got cheaper to fight them. Recall the "shores of Tripoli" in the USMC hymn? That was the Battle of Dema 1805.
History won't go away just because you don't like it.
Given the House of Saud, Iran, Pakistan, Iraq, Sudan, and other Muslim nation's habit of exporting terrorism aimed at the US to keep their troublesome young men occupied with us having all those nukes would be sure to lose several American cities, absent a huge fear that their nations would simply vanish (and themselves, their tribes, families, and wealth) by an American response. So far bin Laden's and Khomeni's argument that Americans are weak and prone to legalisms "absolute proof" in a "court of law" required to retaliate have carried the day.
That is the central challenge for the next President (one Bush failed at): crafting policies that will realistically deter us getting nuked by "deniable" cut-outs. It's easy for leaders in Muslim countries threatened by islamists like bin Laden to simply point them out at us. Since they literally have to live with the crazies with the guns and they're a hell of a lot closer and the consequences more immediate than we are. Musharraf has survived I think six different assassination attempts/plots.
[North Korea is assumed to be under the umbrella AND Leash of China. If that means anything.]
SFG: Machiavelli said the same thing in the Prince and Discourses. The next President's IQ being high or average will matter little, instead his skill at politics and managing will crucial.
What is the average SAT score of successful gangsters?
Is it larger or smaller than their average SSI and PSI scores (Street Smarts Intelligence, People Skills Intelligence)?
Debka junkies are infiltrating the forum...
How about we cede Israel to "them"? You know, cede back their own land and leave their lands?
"How about we cede Israel to "them"? You know, cede back their own land and leave their lands?"
Oh, that'll work. Just like when Bush ceded Don Rumsfeld to the Democrats and they started being nice to him. Same thing: the Muslims will be our friend if we give them Israel. 'Cause that's really what's driving them in Waziristan...
Yes, we most definitely need philosopher kings as President. Or better yet, just restrict voting rights to people with an IQ over 135. Yeah, that's the ticket....
Who was it who said, "I would rather be governed by the first 200 names in the Boston phone book, than by the Harvard faculty"?
Great Post! I am sharing it on the Mitt Report.
Who was it who said, "I would rather be governed by the first 200 names in the Boston phone book, than by the Harvard faculty"?
OK, I give up. Who?
How about we cede Israel to "them"? You know, cede back their own land and leave their lands?
Maybe after the Serbs get Kosovo back.
And when will the Muhammedans return Constantinople to Christendom?
Maybe after the Serbs get Kosovo back.
And when will the Muhammedans return Constantinople to Christendom?
Kosovo and Constantinople were worth having. Israel is not.
"Kosovo and Constantinople were worth having."
To whom: the Muslims or Christendom?
"Israel is not"
Again, to whom?
Apr 17, 2007
Page 1 of 2
The inconvenient Serbs
by Spengler
When the outcome of a tragedy is known in advance, it finds ways of occurring earlier than expected. In this case, the fate of 100,000 Serbian Christians who remain in Kosovo may pre-empt the debate over Europe's eventual absorption into the Muslim world.
A new book on the Islamification of Europe appears almost weekly, adding to the efforts of Ben Wattenberg, Oriana Fallaci, Bat Ye'or, George Weigel, Mark Steyn, Philip Jenkins and a host of others. Scholars debate whether the decline and fall of Europe will occur by mid-century, or might be postponed until 2100. The inconvenient Serbs may force the issue on Europe a great deal sooner.
If Serbia and Russia draw a line in the sand over the independence of Kosovo, we may observe the second occasion in history when a Muslim advance on Europe halted on Serbian soil. The first occurred in 1456, three years after the fall of Constantinople, when Sultan Mehmed II was thrown back from the walls of Belgrade, "The White City", by Hungarian and Serb defenders. The Siege of Belgrade "decided the fate of Christendom", wrote the then Pope Calixtus III. Not for nothing did J R R Tolkien name his fictional stronghold of Minas Tirith "The White City".
While America's attention is riveted on Iraq, Russia is outraged at the American-backed plan for Kosovo's independence, proposed by UN special envoy Martti Ahtisaari. Kosovo comprised the historic Serbian heartland, Christian Serbs comprise less than a tenth of the present population. Perhaps 200,000 Serbs have left the province since the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) made Kosovo a protectorate in 2000.
...
Contrary to American propaganda at the time, no massacres had occurred; the Serbs had shot a few thousand Muslim militants in their efforts to pacify the province. Clinton, then secretary of state Madeleine Albright and UN ambassador Richard Holbrooke deluded themselves that they could cash in the chips earned in Kosovo at the negotiating table in the Middle East. The neo-conservatives cheered the Clinton bombing campaign, believing perhaps that any American show of force was better than no show of force.
Once again Washington's attention is directed toward the Middle East. Washington proposes to sacrifice the remaining Christians in Kosovo in order to earn Muslim support ...
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/ID17Ak01.html
Who was it who said, "I would rather be governed by the first 200 names in the Boston phone book, than by the Harvard faculty"?
OK, I give up. Who?
Buckley.
Oh, that'll work. Just like when Bush ceded Don Rumsfeld to the Democrats and they started being nice to him. Same thing: the Muslims will be our friend if we give them Israel. 'Cause that's really what's driving them in Waziristan...
You're right. Why risk losing the privilege of 9 billion a year payouts?
Better to play it safe...
How about we cede Israel to "them"? You know, cede back their own land and leave their lands?
Maybe after the Serbs get Kosovo back.
And when will the Muhammedans return Constantinople to Christendom?
Lol! All of which would be opposed by the same crowd of usual suspects, of course.
As Wes Clark said, there's no room in the 21st century for ethnostates (while observing the taboo of ever mentioning the jewish ethnostate).
Some people appreciate the luxury of having the Jews gathered in one spot just in case they need to be targeted, but I don't. I believe America is wasting a ton of economic and moral capital on that failed state.
Know anything about Wolfowitz's IQ/SAT score?
"As Wes Clark said, there's no room in the 21st century for ethnostates"
That must have been the non-Jewish, less-intelligent half of Wes Clark speaking. The trend is toward ethnostates now. See, for example, the Scottish drive to have an independent state; also, the Catalans, the Basques, the Kosovars, the Kurds, the Eritreans, etc.
"We" might be willing to throw Israel and the Jews to the crocodiles in hopes of being eaten last. However most Jews and certainly Israelis have other ideas. As do the Serbs, Indians, Ethiopians, and others threatened by Muslims.
All you need to know is Iran went out of it's way to slaughter Argentinian Jews for the reason of ... slaughtering Argentine Jews. Not that anything other than pro-forma anti-Israeli sentiment made a lick of sense for the Iranians. Seeing as how they shared a mutual enemy: Saddam. But there you go.
Be that as it may, throwing Israel over the side means forgoing cell phone technology, software development, and gene therapy. Given that Israel is a center for all that. Well who cares about curing your Dad's Parkinson's if it means making Muslims happy.
"High" intelligence as measured by working with abstract concepts has not generally correlated with political success. Washington and Eisenhower were not geniuses yet led effectively.
Israel may contribute to the fields of cell phone technology, software development, and gene therapy, but it isn't the "center" of these fields. Israel is the center of white slavery and ecstacy trafficking.
"Obama, Biden, Edwards, Dodd, the rest of the dwarves would be an unmitigated disaster. What naive, utopian, and foolish people believe is that the Muslim's world fundamental desire to destroy Globalization and it's engine (the USA) is not going to go away. We could kill bin Laden tomorrow (and we should) but the problem would still be there. None of them would nuke out of existence any country suspected of nuking us."
I'm equally opposed to globalization. I believe that the Muslims are right to want us out of their business, so long as they are willing to sell the oil at a reasonable price to us. And I think they are.
They aren't going to nuke us because we would, rightly, exterminate them with a massive strike.
I don't want them telling us how we should live and we have no business telling them how they should live. I also don't think it's smart of them to seek to fight us on what are our terms: they'd be far better off to agree to a ceasefire until we leave in Iraq, for example. But morally wrong? No.
As far as felons voting: I had an uncle who was a felon. He voted all the time (often several times) and bought guns, under his own name even. (He had several sets of ID and names.) Died of old age and never got bothered.
He said as long as they never fingerprinted you you could do any damn thing you wanted. He got tickets all the time and never paid one-had several licenses under several names, he'd get warrants and just not use that one for seven years.
So much for Homeland Security. I still have three of his passports. Too bad the birthdates are all before 1928.
That must have been the non-Jewish, less-intelligent half of Wes Clark speaking. The trend is toward ethnostates now. See, for example, the Scottish drive to have an independent state; also, the Catalans, the Basques, the Kosovars, the Kurds, the Eritreans, etc.
Nah. His attitude is typical of so many Jews: Europe is for everyone, the United States and Canada are for everyone, Israel is for the Jews, and the Third World is for its native inhabitants.
If Israeli is the center of so much profitable business (which "we" should not want to lose), then why can't Israel fund its own military and its own government? Where are the profits from all those lucrative industries going? I think we know the answer.
Where are OUR profits going?
What's the latest tally on how much the latest Iraq war is costing us? It rises all the time.
With "friends" like Israel, who needs an enemy?
Israeli has hundreds of nukes - but its government would like the US to use OUR nukes on Iran, instead. Cheap #&$*s.
Isn't it time we cut the apron strings and let the 800-pound gorilla fend for itself?
Israeli is a lonely outpost of Western values in a hostile sea of barbaric enemies. Any amount of money we spend to defend it is money well sp----
Sorry, can't go on. I'm laughing too hard.
The center of international criminality, ecstasy trafficking, white slavery, torture techniques, and brokering of American military secrets to the Chinese...thatz ol' Iz.
Pardon me, but many people are absolutely disgusted with that collection of rich poor relatives misnamed a "nation."
Israeli is also the center of nuclear weapons in the Middle East. (Btw, why is it "Middle" East? It used to be "Near" East. Is there an East more West than the "Middle" East? The explanation is that, just like "Middle Earth" or "The Middle Kingdom," the "Middle East" is the *Center* of Everything. Because God's Chosen People are there. And because the other major religions are there. Just another example of how many assumptions are packed into supposedly neutral terms.)
Nukes, ecstasy, white slaves, inextriditable Wall Street crooks, US military secrets for sale, the Holocaust industry and whining, it's the capital of whining, too.
I don't like Israel.
"If Israeli is the center of so much profitable business (which "we" should not want to lose), then why can't Israel fund its own military and its own government?"
Israel can fund its own government and military, and would be better off if it did so entirely. American aid comes with a hefty price tag: American influence over Israeli policy. If it weren't for American aid and American influence, Israel would never have agreed to the disasterous Oslo "Peace" process, which managed to increase the number of dead on both sides by a factor of ten in a few short years. Israel also would never have let Saddam Hussein pelt it with Scuds without responding.
Another negative effect of American economic aid is that it supports Israel's highly-taxed welfare state, which restrains Israel's economy. Without this aid, Israel would be forced to cut back on transfer payments, tighten its federal budget and lower taxes to spur economic growth. Israel's economic growth would then surge, and it would be better off than it is now.
"Where are the profits from all those lucrative industries going? I think we know the answer."
I'm going to guess you probably don't know the answer, so I'll help you out with this one. After the United States and Canada, Israel is responsible for the largest number of companies listed on Nasdaq. So most of the profits from Israeli industry are going to the shareholders of these companies, most of whom are American investors.
"Where are OUR profits going?"
I assume by "OUR profits" you are actually wondering where the approx. $3 billion in U.S. tax money earmarked for Israel gets spent. Your share of that $3 billion last year was about $1.09 (for the numerate among you: $3 billion in aid / $2.7 Trillion federal budget * {$2.7 billion / 300 million Americans} = $1.09). Of that $1.09, probably 80 cents or more is spent here -- at companies like Boeing, Raytheon, etc. This is one reason that U.S. aid to Israel (and similar aid to other countries) retains political support -- industry lobbyists welcome the lion's share of the money which goes to them.
BTW, if Israel is the "capital of whining", some of you perennial Israel- and Jew-bashers should move there. If anyone on this website is prone to whining like bitches, it's you guys.
Spend a little time on self-improvement: learn how to make a decent living and get laid once in a while. Then you won't spend so much time being bitter about things over which you have little control.
I test very high but am an awful leader of my peers and have not been very successful in life. I believe IQ, SAT, and Army intelligence tests are both a) easy to improve upon by focused study, so therefore do not test "innate" intelligence, if that even exists, and b) heavily skewed towards testing mere verbal mastery.
I also firmly believe test scores change throughout life depending on how well-conditioned your mind is. This ties in with the studying aspect but I would like to take the point further by invoking my experience. At second grade my IQ test score was 150. In the lazy morass of my early twenties I took an online IQ test and scored something like 117. Several years after that test, I effected an absolute renaissance in my brain by spending two years in highly focused classical piano study -- the effects on my logical reasoning and mathematical ability (not to mention test scores, as evidenced by two Army intelligence tests I took) were striking.
My main point, however, is that my SAT was 1380 (1420, if you count best verbal + best math) and I couldn't even lead a platoon of recruits in Basic Training. The obsession over politicians' test scores is ridiculous.
Incidentally, I also do not have a college degree, much less a law degree like Guiliani.
"I test very high but am an awful leader of my peers and have not been very successful in life."
Eva, you probably haven't been successful because you are barking up the wrong trees -- not every career requires you to do a lot of peer leadership, and leadership skills can be improved, in any case. If you are as intelligent as you say you are, there are fields where you can make a lot of money without having to manage others: e.g., securities analysis, radiology, securities compliance/law, actuarial work, etc. If you think you might have an aptitude for any of those fields, you should consider finishing your undergrad degree. Try some different stuff in the meantime, and see what fits -- volunteer in a hospital, pick up a book on securities analysis in Barnes & Noble and see how it strikes you, etc.
I know it's a little after the fact but I read this article because of Giuliani's dismal performance at Houston Baptist University when discussing his changed views on abortion. Maybe it was my reaction to his muddled response but this man who appeared to be such a hero after 9/11 looked like a big kid who hadn't done his homework. It was shocking that a presidential candidate would blunder so badly over the unavoidable abortion issue.
The press hasn't seemed to hone in on the mistake but I truly believe it was the death knell for his candidacy. I think he would've fared better had he remained unapologetically pro-choice.
His campaign is going really bad…he should be ahead of them all right now.
I am confused……maybe he is trying not to peak to early.
www.voterudy08.com
How good did we do with Bush? Let's see -- he reinvigorated the economy which was sharply declining before Clinton departed (and tanked after 9/11), gave us 7 uninterrupted years of economic growth, made the country far safer (no more terrorist attacks), removed Saddam and the Taliban from power, liberated 45 million people, sparked the Arab Spring, isolated Iran and North Korea, and generally set the scene for a far brighter and freerer global future. Of course, some would blame the GFC on him simply because he was in power when it began, but that ignores the fact that he had little to do with the underlying causes. (Barney Fag and Clinton had far more to do wtih the housing bubble and related moral hazard of government guaranteed loans that were the key underlying cause.) Wonder why he never hear about ignorant hayseed Clinton's test scores? If he's so brilliant, why's he hiding them?
Post a Comment