If you are a potential Republican Presidential candidate, you are likely to get your college transcript and/or test scores leaked to the press. For some reason that doesn't seem to happen to Democratic candidates.
For example, everybody in the media could just tell that John Kerry had higher grades at Yale than George W. Bush. In 1999, The New Yorker printed Bush's GPA (77, a C+) and SAT score (1206, about 1300 post 1995. But nothing came out about John F. Kerry except a cryptic page in his data dump of military records recounting his scores on the Naval Officer Qualifying test in 1996. In 2004, I pointed out they were even lousier than Bush's on the Air Force Officer Qualifying test in 1968. When asked about my analysis by Tom Brokaw, Kerry replied that he must have been out drinking the night before. In 2005, however, it emerged that Kerry's grade point average at Yale was a 76.
While President Obama's grades and test scores are carried around in the nuclear code football chained to an Air Force officer's wrist (just kidding, nobody knows where they are), Texas Gov. Rick Perry's Texas A&M transcript has already been leaked, and he hasn't even announced he's running. It makes for pretty good reading. For example, Perry got a C in Phys. Ed. his fall semester of his sophomore year, but by his spring semester, he was all the way up to a B. So, he's a quick learner.
Posts
106 comments:
Interesting, though I find it hard to be confident as to the meaning of the grades in 1968 (back when college really meant something) at Texas A&M. Is that the equivalent to a B at said school today? A-?. Hats off to Perry for leaking it though.
I'd like to think this is a hoax: too many D's and F's.
How did someone get this..
I mean honestly, how can you get someone's transcripts.
The only plausible way I can think of if someone impersonated him over the phone and got them to mail it to some phony address.
But is it that easy?
Maybe someone else can shed some light on this.
Perry is pro-immigration.
Although he did get an "A" in "World Military Systems" - pretty much at the height of the Vietnam War, no less [circa 1970].
Not sure what to make of that...
There's one obvious conclusion to draw from all of this. Anyone who believes that these individuals are actually the ones running the country or getting themselves elected to anything above dogcatcher is simply a fool. It would be interesting to try to determine at what historical point our leaders were so completely replaced by mere "front men"...
I suspect Romney's transcripts look a little different.
Frankly, at this point I would even vote for a right wing candidate that had the IQ of a potato chip instead of voting for Obama, as long as they voted consistently to the right on critical issues of immigration, spending and expansion of government, taxes, and entitlements.
Its hard to do worse than Obama- arguably even Bush was better as he did less damage to the country in 8 years than Obama has done in 2 and 1/2, and he voted to the right on only some of these issues.
This isn't really a comment about Perry per se, but the Perry article got me thinking about the fact that lefties and their followers in academia and media pull out all stops on trying to prove (through cherry picking data, exaggeration, obfuscation, and outright lying) that right wingers are less intelligent than they are.
Its really a delusional combination of denial and projection that comes into play. We see this a lot from the left.
Their ideas ignore the facts, their positions are frequently hypocritical when it suits them, and they keep following on with an ideology that has been refuted by the real world again and again but it is the right who are irrational and stupid.
The Tea Party pushes for spending within one's means, and they are the ones being irresponsible.
The Tea Party holds civilized protests, the left frequently has resorted to violence, property damage, intimidation, and silencing others by any means necessary yet the right are the radicals and terrorists.
The left pushes for drugs, sexual fornication without regard to consequences, unrestrained spending, reliance on the state instead of self, etc. and yet it is the right who is immoral and evil.
The list goes on....
Perry's candidacy will give new life the the "Aggie joke," a Texas version of the American Polish joke, Canadian Newfie joke, and Braziian Portuguese joke. Perry attended Texas A & M, and thus is an "Aggie."
Sample: Two Aggies on a bench watch a dog licking his privates. First Aggie: "I wish I could do that." Second Aggie: "Go ahead. He don't bite."
By now there must be language analysis programs that can convert a persons ad-libbed speaking into a verbal IQ score. Most people can figure this out with uncanny accuracy, but it's not scientific. In my opinion, Obama's mangled syntax, less than dazzling vocabulary, simplistic explanations and analogies, and total lack of bon mots puts him on verbal par with George W. I'm guessing Kerry, Bush, and Obama are all of comparable intelligence. Aw hell, you can throw into that group Michelle Bachmann, Mitt Romney, Rudy Giuliani, and Sara Palin, too.
Most competitive presidential candidates can probably be placed in a fairly narrow band of IQ scores (Nixon was an outlier). At the moment I have no theory why this is so. Perhaps a set of key traits are being selected for where some are correlated with IQ while others are anticorrelated with it.
On the other hand Reid and Pelosi will never make viable presidential candidates because they are vicious and dumb, but somehow that makes them perfect leaders of a Democratic Congress. "You have to pass it to see what's in it." I'm sorry, but that's a retarded bully talking.
"While President Obama's grades and test scores are carried around in the nuclear code football by that Air Force officer (just kidding, nobody knows where they are)..."
Yes and he and his handlers released Michelle's senior thesis instead. Talk about hiding behind a woman's skirts! Although I must say, that was probably a smart move--her skirts are wide enough to hide the faults, flaws and failings of the whole Democratic Party.
Unfortunately, there's little political traction in pointing this out in the coming campaign since the Dems can always counter that Obama now has several years on-the-job experience. Even excluding time spent being presidential on the golf course, that gives him the edge.
I give him credit for taking a crack at O-Chem, even though the results were disappointing.
Assuming these records are legit, of course.
@ Declan S.
I would even vote for a right wing candidate that had the IQ of a potato chip
This statement is going to be a classic.
The first thing that went through my mind was: if candidate had the the IQ of a Pringle potato chip, she (of course a she) would at least be well stacked.
"I suspect Romney's transcripts look a little different."
Which is why they haven't yet been leaked? Also, because the admins at BYU probably lean more to the Right than those at Yale and A&M.
"Its hard to do worse than Obama- arguably even Bush was better"
Bush was worse: massive deficits, tax cuts for the rich, open borders, economic collapse, two incredibly pointless wars, multiculturalism ("Islam is a religion of peace"), a massive new healthcare entitlement, the Patriot Act, and support for set-asides, quotas, and AA.
What's worse, he did it all in the name of "conservatism" so that WE got blamed. And at the end of it all 2 out of every 3 Republicans still approved of the job he did.
Obama is at least giving the bad name to the lefties. Even better, illegal immigration rates have collapsed under his watch, though that's mostly thanks to the crappy economy.
"the Dems can always counter that Obama now has several years on-the-job experience"
Maybe. I suspect the campaign will try to pretend that Obama hasn't been president from 2009-2012. They'll still be talking about Bush's mess, and talk endlessly about the damage caused by the half of congress controlled by Republicans. The fully Democratic congress that was there for the last two years of Bush's term, however, had nothing to do with this mess.
My observations:
1. I did not know "they" had life long academic records; though the progressives have desired such for several decades;
2. It should be now realized that these records are firmly in the hands of the progressives:
3. they can obtain such without outcry when making infowar against targets perceived as threats by progressives.
4. The progressives can also prevent information being leaked from their own life long files when it suits them.
"Frankly, at this point I would even vote for a right wing candidate that had the IQ of a potato chip instead of voting for Obama, as long as they voted consistently to the right on critical issues of immigration, spending and expansion of government, taxes, and entitlements.
Its hard to do worse than Obama- arguably even Bush was better as he did less damage to the country in 8 years than Obama has done in 2 and 1/2, and he voted to the right on only some of these issues."
My thoughts exactly--and expressed better than I could have. Thanks.
I tried calculating a GPA from that sheet based on A=4, B=3....and it comes out to about a 2.16 (the PE classes and Organic Chem II don't have credit hours listed so I left those out).
I thought I had bad grades, but this is much worse.
If these transcripts are real, I think it has to be pretty brutal to Gov. Perry's presidential chances.
I agree that Romney's transcripts would most likely provide a stellar contrast.
But I think so would Mayor Bill White's, someone with technocrat bonafides from the Texas state public education system.
I still regret he lost the governership.
I'd prefer a norm where statewide and national candidate release their college and graduate transcripts and standardized test scores. If employers can request them, I think it's reasonable that the voting public should be able to see them, too.
Hopefully Anonymous
http://www.hopeanon.typepad.com
In response to Kaz:
Under the Texas Public Information Act, Chapter 500, Texas Government Code, almost everything in a state employee's personnel file is a public record, available to anyone who asks for it. Every since Lena Guerrero lied about her college degree - she didn't have one -- elected officials have made their transcripts part of their files to show they completed the education claimed during their campaigns. Ergo, a reporter simply asked the governor's office staff for a copy and got it.
I watched Idiocracy again this morning. The everyman protagonist obtains a position in the cabinet when he aces an IQ test and achieves the highest score. Mike Judge's film really is fantasy.
OT, the Tottenham riots are today's lead google story. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14436529
This story is the only one mentioning race, and says "not all of the rioters were black."
"How did someone get this..
I mean honestly, how can you get someone's transcripts.
The only plausible way I can think of if someone impersonated him over the phone and got them to mail it to some phony address."
The only plausible way I can think of is that someone in the university leaked them. Academia is not exactly full of right-wingers, you know.
Think that sounds too conspiracy theory? Then why, as Steve points out, is it the GOP candidates who routinely get their transcripts and scores leaked and not the Dems?
I doubt this will be an issue in the campaign. Any mention of Perry's grades will only highlight the fact that Obama hasn't released his grades, which I doubt most Americans are even aware of. They just assume he made nothing but A's because he's perfect, don't you know?
I mean honestly, how can you get someone's transcripts.
Some Democrat administrative official at A&M leaked them to the press. Surely that part is obvious.
What's fascinating is the cone of silence which covers Obama's records.
Anyone who saw Perry's interview on The Daily Show w/ Jon Stewart (available online) should know the guy isn't very bright. In fact he appeared to be one of the dumbest guests the show has ever had. Clueless, no one home, kind of dumb. I was embarrassed for him. He seems like a TERRIBLE candidate for that alone. Smart young kids, who don't know better, will flock Democrat if he's elected, for the simple reason they don't wish to be associated in any way w/ the "dumb party".
"RKU said...
There's one obvious conclusion to draw from all of this. Anyone who believes that these individuals are actually the ones running the country or getting themselves elected to anything above dogcatcher is simply a fool. It would be interesting to try to determine at what historical point our leaders were so completely replaced by mere "front men"..."
Throughout history high offices are slowly robbed of their effective power as the means of executing the office becomes stereotyped, and a breed of "advisors" springs up, ready to explain to the newest occupant just how his job is supposed to be done (including - especially, in America - the job of getting elected). The identity of the actual occupant becomes irrelevant. This means corruption and an institutionalized absence of creativity, the latter leading to inevitable disaster in times of crisis. And that's why institutions die.
I don't think the figurehead-izing of American politics is any more mysterious or conspiratorial than that. Which isn't to say that the military or the Rockefellers or whoever aren't really running things, I have no idea, but they aren't the reason asses like Perry can end up in the White House.
I like George W. Bush, but being manipulated by the neocons into starting a war with Iraq for Israel's benefit did not show much intelligence in my opinion. I think it's believable that both Bush and Kerry were at the top 5% among 20 year olds (IQ 125)when both men were 20; however I suspect that with Bush's self-confessed alcohol abuse, by the time both men were 50, Bush had fallen to the 85%ile among 50 year olds (IQ 115) while Kerry remained IQ 125. However any alcohol related IQ decline would only show up on a fluid test.
I'd like to think this is a hoax: too many D's and F's.
He's better have a good excuse for those grades, like "I partied instead of studying" or "I, for one, DID inhale. A LOT."
Even if Texas A&M was a very demanding school in the late 60s (which it might have been for all I know), it's worrisome that Perry did poorly in a range of subjects, failing or scoring C's and D's in math and science but also in Shakespeare. That last one is especially damning: All he had to do was read the plays and parrot back what he heard in class to get at least a C.
The phrase "gentleman's C" was not invented yesterday. C was a mediocre grade at best even back then.
So, Texans, what's the story on this guy? Dumb? Dyslexic? "Troubled"? A party-hearty type from a rich family who didn't need good grades to succeed?
The prime directive is to prevent a goy uprising.
By now there must be language analysis programs that can convert a persons ad-libbed speaking into a verbal IQ score.
I think this works at the low end, but using too much vocabulary and verbal complexity quickly becomes redundant and ineffective and thus more a sign of pretentiousness and insecurity than intelligence.
Most people can figure this out with uncanny accuracy, but it's not scientific.
People notice when someone chooses their words appropriately, organizes their thoughts well and can get to the point, but such skills are too subtle to be measured by a computer.
In my opinion, Obama's mangled syntax, less than dazzling vocabulary, simplistic explanations and analogies, and total lack of bon mots puts him on verbal par with George W.
You obviously missed his February 9, 2009 press conference. You can find it on youtube. According to the brilliant Dick Morris:
"I do think that it was a refreshing change to see a president this articulate, this fluid, this well-informed, this obviously intellectually dexterous. I don't agree with much of what he said, but he was obviously very impressive" ("O'Reilly Factor," FNC, February 2, 2009).
This is high praise from a neocon like Morris whose politics are in great conflict with Obama's.
Most competitive presidential candidates can probably be placed in a fairly narrow band of IQ scores (Nixon was an outlier).
Nixon's IQ was high because unlike many other presidents, he was a self-made man who couldn't rely on family connections or good looks to get where he is. A lot of these self-made presidents seem to have extremely high IQ's (Nixon, Clinton, Carter, Obama). Reagan is perhaps the big exception.
By contrast those who inherited their political power (Bush, JFK) seem less impressive (Hillary is the exception).
the guy got one 'A' in a remedial "intro to college" type course.
"I like George W. Bush, but..."
OK, you said enough there, Selina Kyle.
"Frankly, at this point I would even vote for a right wing candidate that had the IQ of a potato chip instead of voting for Obama,"
Great, than it's settled, you're voting Repub. in '12.
First of all his GPA is something like a 2.5 there. it's not great but it's about the same or better than Bush and Kerry's were. Also I'd much rather have a guy who's got common sense, will repeal Obamacare and stop appointing lesbians to the Supreme Court, than an egghead leftist Muslim like we have now.
"Sample: Two Aggies on a bench watch a dog licking his privates. First Aggie: "I wish I could do that." Second Aggie: "Go ahead. He don't bite."
Bawww-Hawww everybody play along at home...
Did you hear there was a fire at the Jared Taylor memorial library last week? Burnt up all 9 of the books, and 6 weren't even colored in yet!
Seriously, how can anyone say anything positive about Bush? From what I can see, pro-business/pro-immigration Perry is the same type of establishment Republican that Bush was.
Bachmann all the way.
What about Thaddeus McCotter? He seems like a quick wit and has a terrifically Dickensian name.
He comes across well in this CSPAN interview: http://www.c-span.org/Events/C-SPAN-Interview-with-Rep-Thaddeus-McCotter-R-MI-7262011/10737423098-1/
Hey "Truth" Why don't you think Obama's transcripts have been released? Do you think affirmative action was just a 'little' help for him? or a lot??
"Anyone who saw Perry' interview on The Daily Show w/ Jon Stewart (available online) should know the guy isn't very bright"
Are you suggesting Texas Republicans would select an idiot to be their governor?
I find this very hard to believe...
Breivik bombs Oslo.
Blacks burn London.
Never a dull moment in new Europe.
PLEASE God, Romney over this guy.
Without knowing the college transcripts of recent presidents, I suspect that Perry, if elected, would be the dumbest president in modern history.
I laughed at his stated major of "pre-veterinary". He had C's and D's in his science courses, and vet school has a lower acceptance rate than medical school.
Obviously, low academic performance (and by proxy, maybe low IQ) is no hindrance to success at the highest political levels. We've had studies about the smarts of presidents, but what about the IQ's of governors and senators? Any guesses?
I live in Texas.
No one knows much about this guy.
He has been very successful in keeping his real story private.
There have always been massive rumors to the effect that he is gay.
One other thing; everybody involved in politics here is too afraid of him to say much of anything on the record. Something to think about...
OBTW, was LBJ really dumb or really smart?
Rhetorical.
Obama is a "self-made man"? Ridiculous.
Why aren't there ice cubes at Aggies' rallies?
They lost the recipe.
I had a "D" in freshman psychology. After the 1st week, I found it so obvious - nothing I didn't know from reading Psychology Today in high school. I skipped the rest of my classes, not realizing there were mid-semester exams worth half the course marks. I had to get 95% in my finals to get my "D".
Maybe Rick Perry got all his C's and D's the same way.
Obama is a "self-made man"? Ridiculous.
Self-made in the sense that he didn't inherit his political power from his daddy like Bush or from his spouse like Hillary. Now obviously he had a lot of crucial help from rich and powerful supporters like Oprah, but being able to gain the support of rich and powerful people is the modern definition of political talent.
Few comments:
1) How did they get his transcripts? I work at a college, and I have access to the school history of everyone who attended there in the last 30-40 years. Presumably, someone with more time and fewer ethics than myself leaked this.
2) I'd be willing to buy that Perry was a poor student while not being dumb. Partying too much, not attending class often enough, not giving a d@mb in general could lead to a C-average in spite of ability.
"Geoff Matthews said...
1) How did they get his transcripts? I work at a college, and I have access to the school history of everyone who attended there in the last 30-40 years. Presumably, someone with more time and fewer ethics than myself leaked this."
I think that in Texas it is easy to college records of anyone running for office. A consequence of some old Texas pol lying about her academics.
" 2) I'd be willing to buy that Perry was a poor student while not being dumb. Partying too much, not attending class often enough, not giving a d@mb in general could lead to a C-average in spite of ability."
I spent most of freshman year sleeping until noon, and missed most of my subsequent classes. The only C-D I got was when I didn't get that there were mid-term tests - which I missed. After that,I still slept most mornings, but got the dates of the exams.
Given Perry's academic record, I strongly doubt that he just partied too much. In fact, partying probably helped him in his political career.
So, I think Perry is a pretty dumb guy with good social skills. He is likely more stupid than Bachmann or Palin.
What is the minimal IQ one should accept in a president? 110? 95?
Self-made in the sense that he didn't inherit his political power from his daddy like Bush or from his spouse like Hillary. Now obviously he had a lot of crucial help from rich and powerful supporters like Oprah, but being able to gain the support of rich and powerful people is the modern definition of political talent.
This is not what the term 'self-made' usually means. For Obama to be 'self-made' he would had to have been successful without being Dick Cheney's cousin, born into an affluent, politically connected family, without need for affirmative action, and actually been able to live his accustomed life-style without public sector employment.
He's almost the antithesis of 'self-made'. He's never even had a job.
"Obama is a "self-made man"? Ridiculous.
Self-made in the sense that he didn't inherit his political power from his daddy like Bush or from his spouse like Hillary. Now obviously he had a lot of crucial help from rich and powerful supporters like Oprah, but being able to gain the support of rich and powerful people is the modern definition of political talent."
As as Steve speculates, the CIA favor bank helped him along at times.
Yawn. He is unelectable.
RKU,
You're not so dumb when you don't have Mexicans on the brain. Um, duh - March 4, 1933? Or maybe, April 12, 1945? Depending on your interpretation of FDR's executive style...
I am in a generous mood, so here it goes.
The Texas Constitution was deliberately set up to limit the power of the Govenors office rather harshly. That R. Perry has managed to turn it into a vehicle for instilling real fear into the political class of this acutely political State is an absolutely non-trivial fact.
The boy has talent.
He has a great deal in common with LBJ and virtually nothing in common with George Bush 2.
Most folks around here assume that if he runs, it will not be to win the nomination outright but to gain the votes to exert serious leverage on the actual winner. Like Supreme Ct. veto power.
I am in a generous mood, so here it goes.
The Texas Constitution was deliberately set up to limit the power of the Govenors office rather harshly. That R. Perry has managed to turn it into a vehicle for instilling real fear into the political class of this acutely political State is an absolutely non-trivial fact.
The boy has talent.
He has a great deal in common with LBJ and virtually nothing in common with George Bush 2.
Most folks around here assume that if he runs, it will not be to win the nomination outright but to gain the votes to exert serious leverage on the actual winner. Like Supreme Ct. veto power.
Once more with feeling:
The personnel files of all Texas employees are mostly public. Perry held quite a few state positions before his first election as Agriculture Commissioner in '94, and would have included his transcripts in his file back then. Since he's been continually employed by the state government all that time, his personnel file would be active. All anyone has to do to see one of these files is ask in writing. Ergo, I'm sure a reporter just asked for a copy.
Thanks, Anonymous (whoever you are), for the Thaddeus McCotter pointer. Very interesting and appealing guy in some respects--to me. He doesn't stand a chance, I'd guess. Anyway, it was good to hear someone smart and sensible.
"I had a "D" in freshman psychology. After the 1st week, I found it so obvious - nothing I didn't know from reading Psychology Today in high school"
I can relate to this. I dropped a coveted spot (at that time) in 2nd year. My reasoning was similar: The material seemed a mix of trivial truths and important untruths.
I still remember the day in my first week. I was sitting in a lecture, with a head full of Descartes, Plato and Wittgenstein, listening to some dullard explain the stages of child development. I recall the phrase '...at around age 11, we see the emergence of pubic hair...' as I closed the door behind me.
Gilbert Pinfold.
"Smart young kids, who don't know better, will flock Democrat if he's elected, for the simple reason they don't wish to be associated in any way w/ the 'dumb party'."
I doubt it. An encouraging utterance I heard from a late twenty-something white male in line in front of me at the grocery store: "Obama's not cool any more, dude."
My prayer:
God,
I don't care about IQ: Please give me a President with leadership ability (that includes several social skills, the most important of which is the ability to forge amiable behind-the scenes relationships with his opponents) and a common sense.
"That's about it, God.
"Thanks.
Amen."
Bill Bonner in the Daily Reckoning says that his Texas friends say that Perry is truly dumb while Bush only acted dumb.
Politics is a chess board--often
a 3-D chess board, not a mere checker board. Social judgments made up close in the day to day jockeying and maneuvering are fairly accurate estimates of functioning "g". Perry has been around too long and had too many jousts to be a mere puppet. He seems advised by some very bright dudes. If he's bright enough to follow their coaching,he's bright enough to play the game.
"Are you suggesting Texas Republicans would select an idiot to be their governor?"
the really sad part is that even a Texas republican idiot is still way better than Obama or the Democrats.
I mean seriously. Texas is 40% white and hanging in there pretty well. Compare that to mostly white Michigan run by Democrats. Ugh, freakin' insane.
Stupid is as stupid does.
Perry is better than Obama. Just like the guy who owns a concrete company is better for the economy than some chick with an art history degree from Harvard.
Maybe Republicans have their (poor) transcripts leaked more because they believe it benefits them more to be seen as not being intellectuals. Not a lot of people who judge people by their o-chem grades were going to vote for Perry anyway. But now those people have more reasons to call him a moron, helping to create a backlash from conservatives. Being called an idiot by liberals helped Bush: he used that false impression the same way that Kerry attempted to use the false impression of being extremely intellectual. For instance, I don't believe for a minute that Bush couldn't accurately produce nuclear. It was a put-on to make liberals scream about what an idiot he was.
"Hey "Truth" Why don't you think Obama's transcripts have been released? Do you think affirmative action was just a 'little' help for him? or a lot??"
Well, I suspect that Barry's transcripts have not been released, because they don't exist.
You see, Barry went to school in, what was basically, the pre-computer era. No doubt the admissions officers have been offered GRAND sums of money to leak his transcripts, but you can't release what has been destroyed, now can you?
Personally I think in lieu of the cover story of graduating from Columbia, he was in Colombia, (or the Middle East) doing CIA work, which if you think about it, is probably more impressive than taking Poly Sci 301, isn't it?
"had a "D" in freshman psychology... I skipped the rest of my classes, not realizing there were mid-semester exams worth half the course marks. I had to get 95% in my finals to get my "D".
This HBD stuff is helpful! You got a "D" in a college course because you could not read the syllabus.
That makes perfect sense.
Perry was Yell Leader at A&M. In aggie terms, that's a much higher profile position that student body president, and requires more politicking to achieve.
"Perry was Yell Leader at A&M. In aggie terms, that's a much higher profile position that student body president, and requires more politicking to achieve."
THAT DOES IT, I'M SOLD!
http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/images/blbushcheerleader.htm
After "Jimmy", "Bill" and "Al", do we really need a "Rick" in the White House? It's the most immature of men's names-- boys' names, really. The eternal teenager.
Now "Dick"-- that's a real man's name...
Yeah, Texas has really shaped up since the days of Ma Ferguson. Now with the pray-a-thon this guy has become such a hit with the overclass metro left you'd think he were Alaskan.
Which, come to think of it, he might as well be. The only choice in Texas is between Ralph Yarborough Dems (see NPR favorites such as Jim Hightower & the late Molly Ivins) and Ted Stevens Republicans. They've successfully channeled everyone else's taxes into many a farm subsidy or space shuttle. In the year 2011, this scheme represents an improvement on Obama's how?
Don't know much about Perry but I thought his pet project the Trans-Texas Corridor was one of the most monstrous things I had ever heard of. Glad to see that's been dropped. If he ever became president I suspect he'd accelerate the Mexicanization and NAFTAization of your country to something approaching the speed of light.
Look at his signature on his wikipedia page - the slow, patient, neatly capitalised script of a genuine simpleton.
the guy who owns a concrete company is better for the economy than some chick with an art history degree from Harvard
This might be the single most profound observation ever made at iSteve.
RKU:
There is a long history of stupid and/or ignorant people having a lot of power. Typically, they either become the captive of their advisors, or they follow their sycophants. I imagine the same is true in modern times. Nobody can know enough to be an expert on all the stuff a president or prime minister needs to make decisions on, but different people have different levels of background knowledge and native intelligence and outside contacts to give them a check on what their advisors are saying. And it's possible to go just as wrong ignoring your advisors as following them blindly.
My sense is that Bush was more willing to trust his own circle of contacts than the institutional expertise of the CIA, State Dept., and Pentagon, and that he mostly made worse decisions than he would have listening more to their advice. Obama seems to be following institutional advice, probably too much. I suspect one explanation for this is that Bush had both extensive contacts with experts outside the institutions of government, and executive experience with the way bureaucracies shade their advice and information toward their institutional interests, but he might not have been bright or informed enough to differentiate between good and bad advice from different quarters. Obama has neither extensive personal contacts with experts, nor executive experience, and so probably finds himself much less able to go against his departments' advice.
The more I've watched this administration, the more I have wished that Hillary had won the nomination and election--the added experience and contacts would probably have put her in a better position to govern. (FWIW, I'm not much of a Hillary fan, but her performance as Secretary of State looks much stronger than Obamas as president.)
.
I'm kind of skeptical about the usefulness of grades and test scores to evaluate people who have, since their school days, done enough stuff to have a shot at becoming president. SAT scores or grades are probably pretty helpful in deciding which kids will do well in harder schools, but not which adults will do better at super demanding jobs.
"The boy has talent.
He has a great deal in common with LBJ and virtually nothing in common with George Bush 2."
Recall that LBJ set the stage for ending America through third world immigration. Perry seems to be happy with this program.
Perry can go to hell.
So, he's a self-made man because he got his from bureaucrats, not daddy.
I think I'll take nepotism over bureaucrat-ism. At least it implies talent, somewhere.
"Seriously, how can anyone say anything positive about Bush? From what I can see, pro-business/pro-immigration Perry is the same type of establishment Republican that Bush was."
You're exactly right, which is why the media and republican strategists are playing up his phony populist-right bonafides and Texas drawl (just like they did for GW). His weak stance on illegal immigration, support for privatizing state highways and turning them into private toll-roads, and the attack on private property rights (he was a major pusher of the Texas leg of the NAFTA Superhighway) almost cost him the Texas republican primary in 2010.
"A lot of these self-made presidents seem to have extremely high IQ's (Nixon, Clinton, Carter, Obama)."
Obama a self-made man with an extremely high IQ??
Oh, wait, you're the one who thinks Michael Jackson is a musical genius.
Never mind.
"Perry was Yell Leader at A&M. In aggie terms, that's a much higher profile position that student body president, and requires more politicking to achieve."
Political pundits have noted that Perry's number one talent is for getting elected.
For whatever reason, Perry wins.
A lot of these self-made presidents seem to have extremely high IQ's (Nixon, Clinton, Carter, Obama). Reagan is perhaps the big exception.
True, but Reagan had exceptionally high levels of charisma and personality.
Also Perry is more or less self-made and he's not highly g-loaded, it appears.
-osvaldo m.
Rick Perry is NOT right wing. He is nothing more than yet another "compassionate" conservative whose policy views are pretty similar to those of ole' George a few years back. Basically, he's a liberal with a religious streak. And worst of all he is sympathetic to illegals.
Truth said: "Well, I suspect that Barry's transcripts have not been released, because they don't exist.
"You see, Barry went to school in, what was basically, the pre-computer era. No doubt the admissions officers have been offered GRAND sums of money to leak his transcripts, but you can't release what has been destroyed, now can you?"
Harvard Law School has his transcripts, believe me.
Bawww-Hawww everybody play along at home...
Did you hear there was a fire at the Jared Taylor memorial library last week? Burnt up all 9 of the books, and 6 weren't even colored in yet!
Hey, good idea. My cousin told me he was caught in Tottenham and had to figure out a way to hide from all the blacks. Luckily there was an employment center right around the corner.
"Hey, good idea. My cousin told me he was caught in Tottenham and had to figure out a way to hide from all the blacks. Luckily there was an employment center right around the corner."
This looks fun.
Recently conservatives floated a plan to base welfare benefits on IQ. Leaders of the black community denounced this as racist and suggested a measure fairer to blacks would be to base benefits on IQ or shoe size, whichever was larger.
My cousin said he was worried about his friend, because they were split up in all the commotion. I told him not to worry, he just called me from the library.
"So because there are laws preventing the perceived discrimination against minorities, any minority who got a job or education partly because of race is not self-made?"
Actually, yes. If you get an education or a job partly because of the demographic you occupy, you are not self-made.
"There's no statistical evidence showing affirmative action gives blacks an unfair advantage in life."
Nonsense. Affirmative action confers inherently unfair advantages on its recipients. That's what's meant by "affirmative".
"On the contrary, the Bell Curve reported that blacks and whites with equal IQ have the same wages, and whites are still richer after controlling for IQ."
So apparently blacks and whites have different saving and spending habits. No surprise there.
"Whatever boost blacks get in life from affirmative[sic] is more than negated by the very discrimination affirmative action was installed to prevent."
Oh, really. And of course you have some statistical evidence to back this assertion up.
"And btw, the biggest beneficiaries of affirmative action are white women, and thus the white men they marry and mother."
Irrelevant. The topic under discussion was what constitutes a self-made man. But if you want to include women, it makes no difference. Those who benefit from affirmative action are not, by definition, self-made.
My nephew is worried that out-of-town Asian and Indian rioters might drive in and take advantage of the chaos. I told him not to worry, as Tottenham charges for parking.
"Bawww-Hawww everybody play along at home...
Did you hear there was a fire at the Jared Taylor memorial library last week? Burnt up all 9 of the books, and 6 weren't even colored in yet!"
- The wise latinos will never have this problem- all of their great literature is spread across the walls of inner-city buildings from coast to coast.
Actually, yes. If you get an education or a job partly because of the demographic you occupy, you are not self-made.
Why not? And whats the statute of limitations on this? If a black gets a job 30 years ago because of race, and then goes on to get promoted several times because of merit, are you going to label him an affirmative action case for the rest of his life? And what about all the white people who get jobs because of race? Are they affirmative action cases too? Most of the actors, models, reality Tv stars and politicians would not be where they are if they weren't white. Do you think Bill Clinton or Jimmy Carter would have become president if they weren't Southern white males? And what about all the whites who got their education because they were raised in a nice white neighborhood with good tax payer funded schools. I guess none of them can ever qualify as self-made. I guess Bill Gates is not self-made if we apply your sophistry.
Nonsense. Affirmative action confers inherently unfair advantages on its recipients
Yes because black people are so advantage in America. 12% of the U.S. population but 0% of the U.S. senate, only 0.25% of the Forbes 400, dramatically overrepresented among the unemployed and incarcerated, high mortality rate. Yup, the advantages of affirmative action are simply endless.
Oh, really. And of course you have some statistical evidence to back this assertion up.
The Bell Curve documents the statistical evidence. Blacks with an IQ of 100 earn the same wages and whites with an IQ of 100. If blacks were getting an unfair advantage because of affirmative action, they would be making more money than whites of the same IQ. Instead the data shows that affirmative action is doing exactly what it was intended to do: Protect blacks from racial discrimination and allow them to go as far in life as whites with identical IQ's can go.
Those who benefit from affirmative action are not, by definition, self-made.
The data shows the opposite. Affirmative action simply eliminates barriers to entering certain fields and allows those with merit to become self-made. Take away affirmative action and whites have an unfair advantage because America is run by caucasoids and all races practice nepotism not just on the family level but the racial level too.
When I heard of Perry's C's, D's, and F's, I wondered- is this representative of his entire academic history, or just a part of it? I did poorly my first semester as an undergrad (as apparently a lot of students do, and many universities have policies that go easier on freshman), but thereafter I was pulling A's. I ended with a 3.7 avg, then went on to ace my way through a competitive engineering graduate program to get an M.S.
It wouldn't surprise me if the "facts" were cherry-picked like many of the "facts" we hear from the Dem-controlled MSM.
"SAT scores or grades are probably pretty helpful in deciding which kids will do well in harder schools, but not which adults will do better at super demanding jobs."
Why then not use corporate CEOs for a control group? How did they fair in college? I'd wager most of them faired pretty well - cum laude, at least.
Politics - the business of getting elected and staying elected - involves too much bullshit and bribery for my taste. Grades matter.
"Take away affirmative action and whites have an unfair advantage because America is run by caucasoids"
Asians are mostly not caucusoid. They do not benefit from affirmative action, yet they manage to do very well. If nepotism runs America, explain why Asians do better than whites and you win.
(BTW, funny how you manage to move the goal posts. It used to be "whites" people like you referred to. But since you can classify South Asians as "caucasoid," that allows you to fold in their success with that of whites.)
As for Rick Perry: Lyndon Baines Johnson and George W. Bush - the only two presdents who were genuine Texans - were quite possibly the two worst presidents in American history, in terms of real damage done. I will not be voting for any Texan without a strong reason to believe that he is unlike those two. Perry gives me no reason to think he's any different.
Asians are mostly not caucusoid. They do not benefit from affirmative action, yet they manage to do very well.
They're probably not doing that well when you consider how smart, hardworking and educated Asian Americans are. How many Asian American billionaires can you name? How many Asians are in the U.S. senate?
And "Asians", particularly South Asians are genetically much more similar to whites than blacks are. According to Rushton's genetic similarity theory, we are nicer to people who share more copies of our genes, so Asians don't face as much discrimination as blacks who are genetically much more distant.
"They're probably not doing that well when you consider how smart, hardworking and educated Asian Americans are..."
Wait wait wait wait...what?????
Are you saying that it's possible for one race to innately be smarter, and harder working and better educated than another???
Why you fucking racist!!!
"How many Asian American billionaires can you name? How many Asians are in the U.S. senate? "
Billionaire is not an appointed position, but there are a fair number of Asian billionaires in the US. Are we allowed to adjust our expectations to accomodate the enormous number of Jewish billionaires in the US?
There are two Asians in the US Senate (both from Hawai'i), but also two South Asians who are Republican governors...of Southern states, no less.
The largest Asian populations in the US are in Hawai'i (42%) which has long had two Asian senators, and California (11%) which has two Jewish senators. Funny how it's always the Jews keeping the yellow man down...
"And "Asians", particularly South Asians are genetically much more similar to whites than blacks are."
But Chinese are genetically pretty far distant, and yet they do far better than whites, too.
"According to Rushton's genetic similarity theory, we are nicer to people who share more copies of our genes, so Asians don't face as much discrimination as blacks"
Disfavoring people due to genetic dissimilarity is not the same as disfavoring them out of malice. Genetic similarities may simply make it easier for people to communicate, to get along, to work together for some common purpose. Most if not all species communicate more easily with their own than with other species, for reasons of genetic similarity. There is little reason this would not be the case within species, as well.
By the way, how do blacks do in countries where they're not beset by the legacy of slavery and racism? Haiti, Nigeria, Somalia, Ethiopia, Kenya, or Rwanda, anyone?
For your theory to work, it has to work across national boundaries. Corruption, violence, unemployment, illegitimacy - blacks seem to run into the same problems over and over again no matter where they go (witness the London riots). "Racism" is a highly inadequate explanation for those problems - practically a Rube Goldbergian one.
"The Bell Curve documents the statistical evidence. Blacks with an IQ of 100 earn the same wages and whites with an IQ of 100. If blacks were getting an unfair advantage because of affirmative action, they would be making more money than whites of the same IQ."
Not necessarily. I am not quite as much an IQ fetishist as others around here. There are other reasons that whites of the same IQ might make more than blacks - work ethic, ambition, discipline vs. impulsivity, career choices, etc. IQ explains a large part of income differences, but it doesn't explain everything.
Yes because black people are so advantage in America. 12% of the U.S. population but 0% of the U.S. senate --Catperson
Well, the Senate was 1% black a couple years ago, but America made the mistake of removing that fellow from his seat!
BTW, it's also much more difficult for blacks to get gun permits than it is for whites. Mention that, though, and they change the subject.
"There are other reasons that whites of the same IQ might make more than blacks - work ethic, ambition, discipline vs. impulsivity, career choices, etc."
I though all of that WAS IQ.
' "There are other reasons that whites of the same IQ might make more than blacks - work ethic, ambition, discipline vs. impulsivity, career choices, etc."
I though all of that WAS IQ.'
- No. Most of these other factors would fall under Impulsiveness (or if you're looking at the glass half full, 'Self-Discipline'). Psychologists separate this from IQ, and it is a very important factor in overall life outcome. Impulsive people are more likely to get involved with drugs/alcohol, gambling, etc., less likely to finish a hard task (like studying for tests), less likely to go the extra mile on the job, etc. Like IQ, though, it also has a genetic component and early tests of impulsiveness strongly factor into later success in life.
I've known people who were bright but lazy (High IQ, low self-discipline) and others who were only of average IQ, but very self-disciplined. It probably depends on the degree of both traits, but if I were the hiring manager, I'd hire the latter over the former for most jobs.
Obama strikes me as more in the same category as Nixon and Clinton and Reagan than in the category of Bush or Gore or Kennedy. Obama had some advantages from being black, and he appears to have taken advantage of them--one clear example being his getting a book deal for Dreams From My Father, before he'd really accomplished much in life. I assume he also had some disadvantages. But what he didn't have is that massive set of connections and inside knowledge and help that someone like Bush or Gore or Kennedy got, by virtue of family connections. That looks pretty plausibly self-made to me.
Not necessarily. I am not quite as much an IQ fetishist as others around here. There are other reasons that whites of the same IQ might make more than blacks - work ethic, ambition, discipline vs. impulsivity, career choices, etc. IQ explains a large part of income differences, but it doesn't explain everything.
Work ethic is largely controlled by the fact that the Bell Curve looked at wages, which is amount of money earned per unit of time on the job. Whites may earn more money by working more hours, but that doesn't create greater wages, it just multiplies those wages over more hours.
Career choices are largely controlled by controlling for IQ. Whites are unlikely to be making smarter career choices because that implies they have higher IQ's, and IQ was controlled in this analysis.
Impulsivity is also largely controlled by controlling for IQ. Obviously there's a lot more to imulsivity than just IQ, but is there any evidence that blacks are more impulsive than whites after you control for IQ?
And even if blacks do have personality handicaps independent of lower IQ, they also have many advantages over whites that a fair free market should reward such as charisma, rhythm, physical strength, aggression, motor coordination, creativity and more youthful appearance.
And there's no evidence that whites are more ambitious than blacks. On the contrary, blacks have more testosterone which facilitates greater drive.
cat person:
I doubt racial discrimination or animus tracks all that well with genetic difference. Blacks and whites in the US probably seldom got as hostile as, say, Serbs and Croats, or Sunni and Shia Iraqis, or Irish Catholics and Northern Ireland Protestants have gotten in the last 20 years.
It's an interesting question how AA affects blacks' success. My rather uninformed impression is that blacks at the bottom get very little benefit from it--dropping out of school and spending time in prison make it hard to, say, qualify for a federal job or job with a federal contractor that's trying to keep their racial numbers looking right, and folks at the bottom are mostly not going to be applying to any college, so admissions help doesn't matter. On the other hand, it seems like blacks at the top in terms of ability and family background benefit more from it--middle class college educated blacks might find it a bit easier to get a job out of college from employers eager to make their racial numbers look good, their kids will probably be applying to colleges, and AA in admissions might mean a kid gets into Duke instead of University of Maryland, and later on, their consulting business may get some favorable treatment by virtue of being a minority owned business.
All that is consistent with the idea that much of AA is about benefits for blacks at the top. And given that blacks at the bottom are often poor, poorly educated, not very smart, unable to vote, or simply not very interested in voting (the same is true for whites at the bottom, in general), policies to benefit them probably dont pay off in terms of getting elected. I assume thats why we can have very unpopular AA policies kept in place for years, but we can't address the godawful ghetto schools of DC or Baltimore. Fixing this schools would benefit the kids of people who mostly don't vote, whereas it would cut off patronage jobs for people who mostly do vote and volunteer in elections and do have connections and such.
Catperson,
So you concede the fact that believing that Asians are smarter and harder working than whites makes you a racist?
"Career choices are largely controlled by controlling for IQ."
No, they aren't. Women and men of equal IQs make different career choices that result in different levels of income for each.
Similarly, family connections harve a pretty big impact on some career choices--the common image (I've seen examples, but not statistics, so maybe this is wrong) is that doctors tend to beget doctors, tradesmen tend to beget tradesmen, and that scientists often beget scientists. Surely some of that is the overlap of IQ, other personality traits, and social class, but I think a lot more is the connections and exposure to the profession and having the notion that this is something you might want to do with your life. If your dad and grandpa are both doctors, and your uncle is a dentist, probably a career in medicine seems more plausible and real to you. If your dad is an electrician, your uncle is a plumber, and your brother is an HVAC tech, you know enough to get into those fields, can probably find someone to take you on as an apprentice, etc. And so on.
The fact that he got such poor grades on gym and other gimmes suggests that he was really lazy. That makes the rest of his grads something of a black box with regard to his intellect.
Post a Comment