That's why I try to read blogs written by people smarter than me too!
FunMe
· 1 year ago
Are elites people like those in the photo: men only with nice blue suits? ;-)
John Aravosis
· 1 year ago
Well, the crowd kind of admitted they were elites, but it still begs the question of 'so what'? As John Stewart, I believe, said - I want m president to be smarter than me.
jr
· 1 year ago
Fox calls everyone "elite" who doesn't want to lasso all the Mexicans and nuke all the Muslims
Bush_Bites
· 1 year ago
You should have asked Mr. Conservative whether he thinks we should leave Iraq immediately, then, since the vast majority of Americans want that too.
Of course, his argument is stupid.
We elect people and hire experts to figure these things out because most of us are too busy or without the backgrounds to become experts on every issue that comes along, even if we had the motivation.
What an idiot.
Bush_Bites
· 1 year ago
Regarding your last question:
I always thought Jimmy Carter's big failing was that he wasn't a leader. He was a smart guy who made a lot of good decisions, but ultimately couldn't lead the country to follow him. And that was his fatal flaw.
(Reagan, on the other hand, made a lot of bad decisions--and a couple good ones, I'll admit--and was able rally the country to his side time and time again, even to the point of getting people to call their congressmen and demanding they support Reagan's bills.)
sittenpretty
· 1 year ago
mostly MERKINS are stoopit,less than25 % have a higher education
sittenpretty
· 1 year ago
Mr Obama ..is more than smart,he is cool and unflappable....courage under fire,ive NEVER seen anybody like him,in public life,cept for FDR,and JFK
Mr. Byrd in West Virginia used his elite status as a superdelegate to support Obama over Hillary. I
Sage24
· 1 year ago
I have come to the conclusion that Hillary Rodham Clinton is stark, raving, mad. What else can drive this woman to keep changing the rules, to suit her loser status? She has tried every trick in the book, even Rovian ones, to win this nomination, and she is still behind. She is even making up rules, and forgetting the ones she agreed to. This is one pathetic woman, who should be sent packing, by the wimpy Democratic bigwigs, who are unable to put a stop to this lunacy. Her desperation is obvious, and I question the sensibility of her supporters; they remind me of the Bush supporters, who believed everything he said, and went along with the BS. Time they opened their eyes, and faced reality.
Dave of the Jungle
· 1 year ago
Fortunately, John "Nine Luxury Homes" McCain is not an Elitist.
OlderAndWiser
· 1 year ago
I am a proponent of as much education as a person can get, and that doesn't mean just formal education (I only have 2 yrs of liberal arts at a community college, but I read far above my real education). True "elitists" don't want that because ignorance can be cured by real education, not just the kind of training you get nowadays to just make money. Everyone knows of very rich people who wouldn't Adam Smith, for instance, if he came back and introduced himself. True elitists would prefer to keep the masses ignorant, happy campers and leave the "real" decisions up to them.
The real reason that people would not support the Kyoto Protocol is that they, in their ignorance, would prefer to keep their SUVs, large houses, and endless consumption, something Bush knew when he told people to "go shopping" after 9/11, and the reason he continues to cheerlead for this "great economy" we're having. It's what advertisers know, what the media knows, what all of them try to sell us--whether goods or ideas or even people.
OlderAndWiser
· 1 year ago
BTW, has anyone noticed the Dow has fallen more than 400 pts this week?
I do believe the bad economy might be "on" for Wall St., too. Oil futures are at $134.81/bbl. Maybe business is learning what we in the trenches already know.
Andrew
· 1 year ago
John. A.....Your argument is a good one, but you omit one glaring point in all of this. Elites have power, knowledge and access which is fine. But their shortcoming is in not sharing that wisdon and knowledge with the common man so that he too may gain from that knowledge. Perhaps it's human nature for some to feel it necessary to stay one step ahead of his fellow man so as to surpress knowledge while advancing ones personal agenda. But history is repleat with those who had knowledge ( in financial circles this would be considered insider trading ) and gaining financially from that knowledge which in turn elevates the individual with access to that information. If the playing field is ever going to be leveled for all, then access to knowledge is what is required. To a large extent, the Internet has allowed that gap to close. But those that are well connected simply because they are shouldn't be the only voices heard when making societal decsions, especially if information is held back from the masses. it would seem more appropriate today then ever before, that an eltist would believe what you don't know can't hurt you, when in fact it usually does and it is the individual with a lack of access who is the one that gets hurt in the end.
Chrissy
· 1 year ago
John your response should be to the republican: Thank God were a Republic, because in a Republic we vote on leaders to make decisions for us. I would hate to see what life would be like if we had to vote directly on every treaty.
Indigo
· 1 year ago
"Elite" is the 21st century word for "aristocrat" and it isn't working well. There's a dictionary definition out there that suits some and distresses others but the bottom line has nothing to do with dicitonaries and everything to do with tossing around impressive words that offer subliminal evidence that the speaker is a superduper smart person and the listener had better shut up, sit still, and pay attention. Bad politics is bad politics is bad politics but tossing around fancy words makes it worse than bad, it makes it stupid. In sum, it's elitist! :-)
ThingsComeUndone
· 1 year ago
John you let the Conservative set the Premise Most Americans ate for the environment. Maybe we are not for the environment at the cost of our job but someone else's job, well the Conservatives do look the other way at outsourcing good jobs. Now even that Premise is false Germany Spain, Denmark, Norway etc all are making green power jobs as their countries try to comply with Kyoto we on the other hand are being left behind in fields we invented in the 70's. Ask the Conservative if he would like an oil stock like Exxon or a green power European stock like Vestas Wind Systems. A 5 year chart of both stocks would surprise you.
MorgaineSwann
· 1 year ago
You just made the argument for Super Delegates and the Electoral College. The Founders wanted to take the will of the people into account, but left the actual choice up to those with the education to make a sound selection. Unfortunately, we've let that system deteriorate to the point that we might as well dump it. The way they use them now, they don't vote independently, they get assigned based on the popular vote, so they're a useless entity that just messes things up.
No offense, John, but you are an elite. I don't know if you're elitist, but you are an elite - well educated, well traveled, well connected, white, male and attractive. Even your sexuality can be considered elite, since gay men are overwhelmingly represented in the history of philosophy, the arts, politics and most other "elite" pursuits. None of that is bad, of course, and you have a point - the people making the decisions should know what they're doing. That's fine if you have an elite class that cares about the welfare of others as Jefferson and Adams did. If you've got greedy, amoral creeps like Cheney and Bush in charge, you've got big problems.
When poor people hear the word "elitist" they think of snotty rich people who look down on them. When the Scots-Irish immigrants that mixed with the Indians and slaves around here arrived in America, they came directly West to the wilderness because they didn't want anything to do with the elites in the East. They don't like or trust them. This is Ron Paul country. People here aren't really white, but they want to be, and they are fearful of not being considered white. The US government went to considerable effort to keep them defined as non-whites for a century or so (look up "Melungeons" and ethnic cleansing), so it's a sensitive point. A "white" Appalachian isn't the same as a white Oregonian. Appalachians are triracial and in denial.
I'm an Obama supporter, but living in Appalachia, I've seen how people feel about him, and it's entirely possible he IS elitist toward my neighbors. Some would say I am, too, because I've been tainted with Northern education and East Coast living, though people in the East still see nothing but my Native roots. People in this area are sick of being ridiculed by the rest of the country. Unfortunately, they're also largely illiterate, superstitious and easily manipulated by TV evangelists and local church leaders. It's a bad combination, and one Karl Rove knows how to play like a violin.
Obama's problem in Appalachia isn't just race - it's religion. At best, people here think he's a Muslim. At worst, as bizarre as I know this sounds, there's a whispering campaign in the churches that he's - ahem - the anti-Christ. No, I'm not kidding. I wish I were. A large part of the population here believes that the Apocalypse is immanent. They believe with everything in them that the bible is the direct and infallible word of "god." That's why they voted for GW Bush. That's why they're afraid of Obama. No amount of logic is going to work with them. The best thing to do is probably to get the b.s. out in the open, but the media won't touch it or doesn't get it. Most of the time it's better to leave people with their backwards beliefs, but in this case, calling them out on this might be the best way to defuse it. We've passed the realm of cultural sensitivity and are firmly into batshit territory. The problem is how to do it without calling them stupid.
Some people here could be reached, but Obama made no effort to do so. Louisville is the elite area of Kentucky, and that's where he stayed. He gave people here no reason to trust him, did nothing to assure them that he's an American, a Christian, that he cares about their lives. Half the people here don't get MSNBC on their cable systems. They don't watch CNN, they never heard of Jon Stewart or Stephen Collbert. The local news repeats the misquotes and reinforces the misconceptions about him. He's very much the "other" in their perception. Being African American is just the beginning of the problem. There's an irrational fear of reprisals from the black community if he wins the election. They aren't sure he'd be loyal to America in an attack.
The area he needs to worry about stretches through Southern Ohio, Western Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Kentucky, Indiana, down into Georgia and Alabama. If he can't win without winning those areas, he's got work to do.
Back to the original topic, now - should my neighbors be the ones to decide things like signing on the the Kyoto Treaty or the International Criminal Court? Do we really want a one person, one vote system, or do we need to restore the Electoral College to its original purpose and let the Super Delegates put Hillary in the White House? Is there a workable compromise between the two?
Sorry the comment is so long. I'm frustrated that no one on MSNBC or CNN has a clue about the reality behind Tuesday's election results.
therepguy
· 1 year ago
Republican fascism and christian fundamentalism has one thing in common... they require dumb ass followers!
Thus bush and company gave America "No Child Left Behind"... OR EDUCATED FOR MATTER!
Republican fascism is out of control and needs to put back down no matter what the cost!
kladinvt
· 1 year ago
Like the neanderthals, these people have stopped evolving, so NO, public decisions should NOT be left in their hands. Let them bob their heads to FoxNews or American Idol, eat their Cheetos, recline in their LaZboys & stay out of the way of progress!
kit
· 1 year ago
You are making the argument for why we are a republic - a standard part of our education when I was young, though not fashionable now to talk about.
The idea is that all the people on their own would likely not have the interest or knowledge to understand the scope of all the issues for which government is needed, and could be easily misled. Conversely, rule by unelected elite is equally misguided, not to say unfair. The solution was to have an intermediary level of elected representatives who must appeal to the people but also are expected to exercise their own judgment, then take their chances with the people again. This, combined with the checks and balances in the government (i.e., three branches) and among governments (the federal system), as well as among other sources of economic and social power, leads, in theory, and messily, inefficiently, to a system of government that is both responsive and reasonably rational.
The Electoral College citation above is a reference to the most dysfunctional and useless part of this design.
On the whole it works pretty well. The "What's the matter with Kansas?syndrome is actually, in my opinion, an example of what happens when the system does not work as described above, when demagogues mislead people who end up supporting things that are against their best interests.
As for Kyoto, I don't think there is evidence that "the people" were opposed to dealing with this issue. That was a battle between elites - liberal and conservative. I suspect that "the people" would have gone along with dealing with global warning if given a chance, but the liberals couldn't really make the case and the conservatives demagogued it with nonsense about loss of sovereignty. That is changing now.
BillP
· 1 year ago
The real key is education. A well informed citizen can be trusted to vote intelligently. It is just that there is almost no educational content available. Instead, we get intentional propaganda and no real discusssion of the real issues. Our leaders lie to us, repeatedly, until we don't really know what they are really thinking. Our media is totally consumed with money making, so American Idol is more well known that the Iraqi map.
It is the same issue as with a free market system: if the people are informed, then they can make a good decision. So instead, our media is full of advertising images and no real content at all.
All Comments
;-)
Of course, his argument is stupid.
We elect people and hire experts to figure these things out because most of us are too busy or without the backgrounds to become experts on every issue that comes along, even if we had the motivation.
What an idiot.
I always thought Jimmy Carter's big failing was that he wasn't a leader. He was a smart guy who made a lot of good decisions, but ultimately couldn't lead the country to follow him. And that was his fatal flaw.
(Reagan, on the other hand, made a lot of bad decisions--and a couple good ones, I'll admit--and was able rally the country to his side time and time again, even to the point of getting people to call their congressmen and demanding they support Reagan's bills.)
http://www.nbc.com/Saturday_Night_Live/video/pl...
What else can drive this woman to keep changing the rules, to suit her loser status? She has tried every trick in the book, even Rovian ones, to win this nomination, and she is still behind. She is even making up rules, and forgetting the ones she agreed to. This is one pathetic woman, who should be sent packing, by the wimpy Democratic bigwigs, who are unable to put a stop to this lunacy. Her desperation is obvious, and I question the sensibility of her supporters; they remind me of the Bush supporters, who believed everything he said, and went along with the BS. Time they opened their eyes, and faced reality.
The real reason that people would not support the Kyoto Protocol is that they, in their ignorance, would prefer to keep their SUVs, large houses, and endless consumption, something Bush knew when he told people to "go shopping" after 9/11, and the reason he continues to cheerlead for this "great economy" we're having. It's what advertisers know, what the media knows, what all of them try to sell us--whether goods or ideas or even people.
I do believe the bad economy might be "on" for Wall St., too. Oil futures are at $134.81/bbl. Maybe business is learning what we in the trenches already know.
If the playing field is ever going to be leveled for all, then access to knowledge is what is required. To a large extent, the Internet has allowed that gap to close. But those that are well connected simply because they are shouldn't be the only voices heard when making societal decsions, especially if information is held back from the masses.
it would seem more appropriate today then ever before, that an eltist would believe what you don't know can't hurt you, when in fact it usually does and it is the individual with a lack of access who is the one that gets hurt in the end.
Bad politics is bad politics is bad politics but tossing around fancy words makes it worse than bad, it makes it stupid.
In sum, it's elitist! :-)
Now even that Premise is false Germany Spain, Denmark, Norway etc all are making green power jobs as their countries try to comply with Kyoto we on the other hand are being left behind in fields we invented in the 70's.
Ask the Conservative if he would like an oil stock like Exxon or a green power European stock like Vestas Wind Systems.
A 5 year chart of both stocks would surprise you.
No offense, John, but you are an elite. I don't know if you're elitist, but you are an elite - well educated, well traveled, well connected, white, male and attractive. Even your sexuality can be considered elite, since gay men are overwhelmingly represented in the history of philosophy, the arts, politics and most other "elite" pursuits. None of that is bad, of course, and you have a point - the people making the decisions should know what they're doing. That's fine if you have an elite class that cares about the welfare of others as Jefferson and Adams did. If you've got greedy, amoral creeps like Cheney and Bush in charge, you've got big problems.
When poor people hear the word "elitist" they think of snotty rich people who look down on them. When the Scots-Irish immigrants that mixed with the Indians and slaves around here arrived in America, they came directly West to the wilderness because they didn't want anything to do with the elites in the East. They don't like or trust them. This is Ron Paul country. People here aren't really white, but they want to be, and they are fearful of not being considered white. The US government went to considerable effort to keep them defined as non-whites for a century or so (look up "Melungeons" and ethnic cleansing), so it's a sensitive point. A "white" Appalachian isn't the same as a white Oregonian. Appalachians are triracial and in denial.
I'm an Obama supporter, but living in Appalachia, I've seen how people feel about him, and it's entirely possible he IS elitist toward my neighbors. Some would say I am, too, because I've been tainted with Northern education and East Coast living, though people in the East still see nothing but my Native roots. People in this area are sick of being ridiculed by the rest of the country. Unfortunately, they're also largely illiterate, superstitious and easily manipulated by TV evangelists and local church leaders. It's a bad combination, and one Karl Rove knows how to play like a violin.
Obama's problem in Appalachia isn't just race - it's religion. At best, people here think he's a Muslim. At worst, as bizarre as I know this sounds, there's a whispering campaign in the churches that he's - ahem - the anti-Christ. No, I'm not kidding. I wish I were. A large part of the population here believes that the Apocalypse is immanent. They believe with everything in them that the bible is the direct and infallible word of "god." That's why they voted for GW Bush. That's why they're afraid of Obama. No amount of logic is going to work with them. The best thing to do is probably to get the b.s. out in the open, but the media won't touch it or doesn't get it. Most of the time it's better to leave people with their backwards beliefs, but in this case, calling them out on this might be the best way to defuse it. We've passed the realm of cultural sensitivity and are firmly into batshit territory. The problem is how to do it without calling them stupid.
Some people here could be reached, but Obama made no effort to do so. Louisville is the elite area of Kentucky, and that's where he stayed. He gave people here no reason to trust him, did nothing to assure them that he's an American, a Christian, that he cares about their lives. Half the people here don't get MSNBC on their cable systems. They don't watch CNN, they never heard of Jon Stewart or Stephen Collbert. The local news repeats the misquotes and reinforces the misconceptions about him. He's very much the "other" in their perception. Being African American is just the beginning of the problem. There's an irrational fear of reprisals from the black community if he wins the election. They aren't sure he'd be loyal to America in an attack.
The area he needs to worry about stretches through Southern Ohio, Western Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Kentucky, Indiana, down into Georgia and Alabama. If he can't win without winning those areas, he's got work to do.
Back to the original topic, now - should my neighbors be the ones to decide things like signing on the the Kyoto Treaty or the International Criminal Court? Do we really want a one person, one vote system, or do we need to restore the Electoral College to its original purpose and let the Super Delegates put Hillary in the White House? Is there a workable compromise between the two?
Sorry the comment is so long. I'm frustrated that no one on MSNBC or CNN has a clue about the reality behind Tuesday's election results.
Thus bush and company gave America "No Child Left Behind"... OR EDUCATED FOR MATTER!
Republican fascism is out of control and needs to put back down no matter what the cost!
The idea is that all the people on their own would likely not have the interest or knowledge to understand the scope of all the issues for which government is needed, and could be easily misled. Conversely, rule by unelected elite is equally misguided, not to say unfair. The solution was to have an intermediary level of elected representatives who must appeal to the people but also are expected to exercise their own judgment, then take their chances with the people again. This, combined with the checks and balances in the government (i.e., three branches) and among governments (the federal system), as well as among other sources of economic and social power, leads, in theory, and messily, inefficiently, to a system of government that is both responsive and reasonably rational.
The Electoral College citation above is a reference to the most dysfunctional and useless part of this design.
On the whole it works pretty well. The "What's the matter with Kansas?syndrome is actually, in my opinion, an example of what happens when the system does not work as described above, when demagogues mislead people who end up supporting things that are against their best interests.
As for Kyoto, I don't think there is evidence that "the people" were opposed to dealing with this issue. That was a battle between elites - liberal and conservative. I suspect that "the people" would have gone along with dealing with global warning if given a chance, but the liberals couldn't really make the case and the conservatives demagogued it with nonsense about loss of sovereignty. That is changing now.
It is the same issue as with a free market system: if the people are informed, then they can make a good decision. So instead, our media is full of advertising images and no real content at all.
BP