Juan Williams Fired from NPR

NPR is just to esoteric for my tastes. Also feel manipulated when I listen. Far better ways to satisfy curiosity about the world around us. Spend some time at Walmart, work at a soup kitchen or just walk around a major city and observe. You can learn a lot more.

Why do they always want me to go to Madagascar?

 

What was I saying about emotional appeals?

 

Usually, I find if they want you to go to Madagascar, there's a reason that is well explained and relevant, in my experience. Often, the selection of stories is thought-provoking. I find listening to NPR interesting more for what they do in relation to what I do than anything. I'm sure you can broaden your horizons at Wal-Mart. But I don't push shopping carts around for a living (a point that also applies to your homeless example), so those experiences do not speak directly to something I do for a living the way listening to other journalists would. Those are two different experiences.

 

Mr. Mayhugh,

Keep in mind YGBFKM seemingly is very insecure about his intelligence, as evidenced by his belittling of zagoshe and his standoffish tendencies when someone makes blanket statements about the intelligence of Republicans.

Hope that helps.

 

That's funny.

 

I want people smarter than me running my country, no matter which side of the political spectrum they're on.
Non-NPR talk radio dismisses anyone smarter than me as "elite," Republicans as well as Democrats. Sarah Palin isn't "elite," therefore she deserves to run the country.
There are conservatives on this board I'd trust to run the country better than Hunter-Gatherer Barbie.

 

Terrier, that's called "populism." Your Democratic populists of the early-20th century were much the same way. They appealed to the notion that they were "one of you." This is 21st century populism. In general, we are slow to catch on to that because we tend to associate populists with the labor democrats, the Huey Longs, etc.

But I agree, there's this notion out there that folksy wisdom should rule the day while we live in a world that is much more complicated than that. I tend to think the Phds we like to pick on for being "elitist" or "nerds" actually know what the hell they are talking about.

 

I don't think most people reject folks as "elite" just because they're smart or well educated.

It's more a "we're smarter than you" attitude that causes resentment. When that attitude is paired with a career mostly in government and/or academia, the resentment is multiplied.

People respect common sense & real world experience. We all know super smart people with no common sense.

If I'm having surgery, I obviously want a smart, well educated surgeon. I'd also like him to have plenty of experience.

Managerial roles can be very different. Just as has been discussed on education threads, people learn differently. There are plenty of C students who get it. Who can see and take advantage of opportunities. Who know how to surround themselves with smart people and who can make good decisions.

Leadership and decision making among other important traits do not necessarily correlate with Ivy League educations.

And, to summarize all of this, I submit this clip of Rodney Dangerfield from Back to School.

It's hilarious and it shows the difference between real experience & pie-in-the-sky theory.

 

So the notion is, if you are busy getting educated, you are doing so at the expense of life experience? Certainly, that could be the case to a degree (no pun intended), but I find the assumption that those who continue their educations in adulthood having to do so at the expense of actual work as being off. That's not usually the case at all. There are disciplines that lend themselves to being more academically-oriented -- for example, what else will an economist do besides study, in a very academic manner, economic issues, whether for a university or private company? But what should you do, eliminate those fields because they don't lend themselves to being "real world?"

 

It's not a question of an education being at the expense of real world experience.

But, most people eventually go out and get real world experience. Some don't. Some very smart people don't.

And, so when someone who's only real business experience is running a failed muffin shop (John Kerry) wants to tell me how the real world works, I have to question if he really knows what he's talking about.

When someone has no experience in corporate America (every Kennedy, President Obama, most of Obama's cabinet & top advisors), it's hard for me to believe that they understand the challenges that business face. Do they understand the effects of government taxes & regulations? Do they understand how pension & healthcare obligations effect business? Do they understand what is necessary to create a job?

Your plumber, electrician, or carpenter may not have an Ivy League education, but he probably understands these issues as well or better than most academicians or government types who have never run a business.

That's not being anti-elite. That's just expecting our leaders to understand what's actually happening in our economy.

Again, I know it's a comedy, but the Rodney Dangerfield character understands how the world works a lot better than the professor in the clip I linked to.

 

So Ronald Reagan was not qualified to be president by your definition. How convenient you leave him off the list. Same with Gerald Ford, John McCain, Sarah Palin, etc.

Is it by accident that, when you list people who have no business experience, you only list those from the party you disagree with? How very un-journalistic of you.

 

Joe the Plumber.

Not named 'Joe.'

Not a plumber.