you know, just when you think ol' dick has a clue (re: denouncing TIPS), he opens his mouth. what's that saying? "better to be thought a fool then open your mouth and confirm it"? something like that...

i just can't believe he thinks that only conservatives are deep thinkers. that's such a crock that i couldn't help but giggle when i read this post..

Posted by: anna on September 25, 2002 11:16 AM

So in Dick Armey's eyes -- and yours, I assume, since these statements made you proud to be a Texan -- those who work in "occupations of the heart" are never bright, since those in the arts are not as well-educated as those who work with engineering or economics; those who work in the arts don't comprehend and aren't deep thinkers, according to this line of reasoning. Hmmm...

I know several people, like myself, who work in the arts, i.e. the entertainment industry. I would consider most of us to be well-educated, intelligent, well-spoken people who are very adept at comprehension. Our political views range from conservative to liberal, but whether or not their political views may match your own (or Armey's) is irrelevant to whether or not we are "bright." No one ever said that a quantum physicist was less intelligent than a screenwriter, but no one is going to call the physicist "not bright" if he couldn't write a script. Making such a sweeping statement about people in the arts would almost be like saying that all conservatives are trigger-happy warmongers who won't be happy until we've got the whole world against us and are bombing countries for looking cross-eyed at the American flag.

What makes this post all the more surprising is that you yourself know several artistic individuals such as myself. Given what we're led to believe from Armey's comments, how long exactly have you shared these same ideas, even while calling many of us "friend"?

Dick Armey makes you proud to be a Texan. After reading this post, you and Armey make me ashamed to be a Texan.

Or maybe I just didn't comprehend you correctly.

Posted by: T.J. on September 26, 2002 06:57 PM

according to this line of reasoning

You've made a significant logical fallacy that led you to incorrect conclusions.

Armey made a statment: Liberals tend to work in "occupations of the heart". (You might be interested to know that my liberal father-in-law makes exactly the same assertion that Armey does here.)

You have turned this statement around to: Anyone who works in "occupations of the heart" is a liberal. These two statements are quite clearly different - just like "all cows have 4 legs" does not mean "everything with 4 legs is a cow." This is a case of Affirming the Consequent. (If A, then B. B, therefore A).

Armey made another statement: Liberals are "just not bright" and "have a narrow educational base".

You've connected your misconstrual of the first statement with this second statement to read: Anyone in an "occupation of the heart" is stupid and uneducated. It is a totally invalid conclusion. The only valid conclusion is: if you're a liberal, you likely work in the arts and you're probably dumb too. But Armey said and implied nothing about people who work in the arts.

If you wish to be offended by my endorsement of Armey's statements, you'll have to come up with a different reason than your occupation. If you want to pronounce yourself a liberal, then by all means go ahead and do so, and be offended.

Whether or not you can judge a person's intellect by their political opinions is another question.

I think that it is entirely possible to be brilliant in some areas but not have a deep understanding of other areas - the old Math vs. English thing. This should come as a surprise to no one, and is hardly disputable. You affirmed this notion in your comments as well. So it is really irrelevant how good a programmer, screen writer, or ditch digger someone is when you consider their comprehension of social, economic, and political issues.

It is my opinion that a great many liberals hold emotional, knee-jerk, simplistic, shallow positions. Example: "I watched Dead Man Walking and that made me sad. Therefore the death penalty is wrong." (That's essentially the argument made by a person you and I both know.) Or "Nuclear bombs kill and maim a lot of people. Killing and maiming is wrong. Therefore nuclear bombs are always wrong". Or "CEOs don't really work too much harder than the average manager, so they shouldn't be paid too much more than the average manager." (another real example)

These positions show a clearly superficial understanding and comprehension of the issues at hand. To the extent that they represent the beliefs and reasoning of people, those people have shallow understandings of those issues.

(For the record, it is quite possible for a liberal to have a well thought out position. I just don't know many. It's also quite possible for a conservative to have similarly shallow reasoning for his beliefs.)

Dick Armey makes you proud to be a Texan. After reading this post, you and Armey make me ashamed to be a Texan.

I hate to mention this, but don't you live in California now?

Or maybe I just didn't comprehend you correctly.

No, you didn't. You reacted to a bunch of illogical conclusions based on your emotional reaction to what you thought you read.

Posted by: Robert on September 26, 2002 11:14 PM

Sorry Robert, but if TJ is no longer a Texan, then that makes me a Texan now. I live here. I am ashamed to have Dick Armey representing me in anything other than a pie eating contest for every time he lets something come out of his mouth rather than go into it he comes out making himself and any associated with him look like a horse's ass.

Note, that is different than him actually being the posterior of a horse. I doubt that any horses have recently used him for what they normally would use that portion of their body. However, that is really a shame. He would be better employed in that fashion than in politics.

I suppose that I am not well-educated, not a deep thinker, etc. My two degrees and highly technical degree, my recent IQ score of 148, and my hobbies of reading apologetics, philosophy, and quantum mechanics texts all speak to that.

Just for a quick rundown, the death penalty is not a deterrant and often cannot be justified economically either as it often costs more to execute someone than to let them live for 20 years in prison. The atomic bomb continues to kill innocents for generations after it is dropped, and should therefore not be used.

In my opinion, most conservatives hold their opinions due to the same reasons most liberals hold theirs. Mommy and Daddy were a X, they raised me to be a X, I am a X. It's just what is "right". The great majority of people never look at any side other than their own and seek to justify their position rather than consider any other one.

If Dick Armey were to have said "I don't think liberals are very smart because I don't agree with their reasoning" that would have been honest and more to the point. The fault here, on both his part and yours, is that it takes the elitist standpoint of "Conservatives are right and if you disagree with conservatives you are obviously wrong. If you believe something which is wrong, you are dumb." If you want to take that standpoint, at least you could quit pretending to live in the basement of your ivory tower and waxing rhapsodic about your populist leanings which are as elitist as any that I (or my elitist breatheren George Washington, Ben Franklin, John Adams, and the rest of the framers of the Constitution who believed the common man too ill-informed to make solid decisions about government) could espouse.

Did I punch enough of your buttons? If I need to, I can write some more later.

Posted by: Patrick on September 27, 2002 09:16 AM

Oh, I guess I have to make sure that it's clear for all of us muddleheaded liberals. I admit my previous post was perhaps a bit full of highfallutin linguistics. So I'll just say it.

Dick Armey is a poo-poo head.
:-P

Posted by: Patrick on September 27, 2002 10:32 AM

If Armey was not intending to imply that those who work in the arts have some kind of lesser intellect that those who work with hard science, why did he make a point of it?

He said conservatives have a deeper intellect, which implies that liberals have a shallow intellect. He then pointed out that conservatives work in "occupations of the brain," while liberals work in "occupations of the heart." So far, everything's pretty clear.

Furthermore, he went on to say that "[Liberals] have a narrow educational base, as opposed to the hard scientists." WHOA! Did he mean "liberals" or "those in the arts" as opposed to hard science? If he's equating "hard scientists" with "conservatives," then it's safe to say that "liberal" equals "arts" in his mind, as well.

So, yes, it would indeed seem that Mr. Armey (and, by extension, yourself) would think that those of us with a more artistic bent aren't as capable of deep, comprehensive, intelligent thought as you are. And, of course, given that, we must all be liberals since, well, liberals are "not bright" by nature.

I thought you knew better, Robert -- if not from common sense, then at least from experience.

Oh, for the record, I consider myself neither a liberal nor a conservative; choosing one over the other on all issues without hearing both sides is too closed-minded for me.

And since when did "you aren't a current resident of Texas" supercede "born and raised in Texas" as qualifications for being a Texan? What kind of argumentative asinine immature garbage is that? I half-expected to see a "so there, nyahh nyahh" at the end of that statement.

Posted by: T.J. on September 27, 2002 05:23 PM

if TJ is no longer a Texan, then that makes me a Texan now. I live here.

I'm just saying, if you live in California, well, you know... I think there's something in the water out there or something. (Please guys, you are my friends, take that in the jesting spirit in which it is intended.)

Y'all are taking this, and me, and yourselves, way too seriously.

The fault here, on both his part and yours,

But that isn't what I said and you know it. I said:

These positions show a clearly superficial understanding and comprehension of the issues at hand. To the extent that they represent the beliefs and reasoning of people, those people have shallow understandings of those issues.

(For the record, it is quite possible for a liberal to have a well thought out position. I just don't know many. It's also quite possible for a conservative to have similarly shallow reasoning for his beliefs.)

Regarding elitism:

who believed the common man too ill-informed to make solid decisions about government

That's not elitist, it's a matter of fact and I agree with it. It's impossible for all the citizens to be experts in the myriad of subjects our various governments deal with regularly. I'm all for a representative democracy.

Now, your occasional hint that the common man is too stupid or irrational to make sound decisions (e.g., when it is appropriate to use a gun against someone else) - that's elitist and entirely distinct from your previous statement. Selecting men we believe to be well-qualified experts in matters of foreign, domestic, and military policy is just as reasonable as a company hiring a variety of consultants and experts. The elitism comes about when we view the state as a patriarchal figure, caring for its helpless children subjects much as a parent cares for his child. Government works for us at our pleasure. We are citizens, not subjects. Government works by virtue of our collective resources, not because those in government are superior to us - they are just the experts and have more resources at their disposal than we do individually.

Back to the point at hand: if you oppose the death penalty simply because it made you sad to see Karla Faye Tucker be interviewed on TV, then in my opinion you have a shallow comprehension. If you oppose the death penalty for reasons including the number of innocent people potentially executed, objections about the legal system, and questions of justice and humanitarian concerns, then you probably have a deeper understanding of the issues. And I will respectfully disagree with your conclusions and gladly debate them, but not with the contempt that shallow, overly simplistic views deserve.

I will repost a relevant line from my comment once more:

it is quite possible for a liberal to have a well thought out position. I just don't know many. It's also quite possible for a conservative to have similarly shallow reasoning for his beliefs.)

Please feel free read that line as many times as it takes for you to understand it. Clearly, once was not sufficient.

it would indeed seem that Mr. Armey (and, by extension, yourself) would think that those of us with a more artistic bent aren't as capable of deep, comprehensive, intelligent thought as you are. And, of course, given that, we must all be liberals since, well, liberals are "not bright" by nature.

TJ, you are proving his point here! Your conclusions are totally illogical. If you'd taken "real" classes like Pat and I, you'd know it. :-) (I am just kidding, lighten up!)

Here's what Armey said:
A. Liberals are dumb.
B. Liberals are artsy.
C. Conservatives are smart.
D. Conservatives aren't artsy.

What you think he said is:
A. Liberals are dumb.
B. All artsy people are liberal.
C. Conservatives are smart.
D. All non-artsy people are conservative.
E. Everyone is either a smart, non-artsy conservative or a dumb, artsy liberal.

You are leaving out the fact that there may be a great many non-liberal/non-conservative people like yourself who work in professions you define as artsy. In fact, people like you might well outnumber the liberals in those professions.

The most you could possibly logically conclude from Armey's statement is that artsy people have a narrow educational base and non-artsy people have a broad and deep educational base.

And you are proving that correct, because your educational base clearly did not include set theory, statistics, or logic.

So there, nyahh nyahh.

Posted by: Robert on September 28, 2002 11:47 AM

Armey was indeed quite clear on his differentiating between liberals, conservatives, and the degrees of their intellect at first. I will grant you that, and if that was all that he had said, then I probably would have laughed it off as Anna did.

I don't think he said all liberal people are artsy. Never said I thought that. You must have miscomprehended that...but we'll ignore that little slip-up before sending you out back with the non-bright kids. What I said was:

If Armey was not intending to imply that those who work in the arts have some kind of lesser intellect that those who work with hard science, why did he make a point of it?

He said conservatives have a deeper intellect, which implies that liberals have a shallow intellect. He then pointed out that conservatives work in "occupations of the brain," while liberals work in "occupations of the heart." So far, everything's pretty clear.

Furthermore, he went on to say that "[Liberals] have a narrow educational base, as opposed to the hard scientists." WHOA! Did he mean "liberals" or "those in the arts" as opposed to hard science? If he's equating "hard scientists" with "conservatives," then it's safe to say that "liberal" equals "arts" in his mind, as well.

Now, why'd he get things mixed up like that? Are you saying he slipped and made a faux pas, and that we should just ignore it and keep in mind what he probably meant? Are you saying he never meant to make that allusion? Sure, so he never came out and said, "All you artsy-fartsy are really stupid, and you're lib'rals, too!" But it was implied.

I'm not coming at this from a political perspective. The political opinions amuse me, if anything; I mostly don't care. I never said that I was smarter than you or vice versa, since there are things both of us can do that the other likley cannot; that is indeed based on education and occupational training, not intellect, and you'd better think very carefully before disputing that comment.

I take issue with the idea that I, and those of us who do work in some capacity with the arts or in some creative endeavor, should be automatically assumed to have a more limited intellect that those who work in the "hard sciences." I've taken issue with this for a long time. Armey happened to go on record with it, and you happened to agree with it. Armey probably believes it, you know better. But then, that must make you proud.

While I'll agree that writing a novel isn't anywhere near as important as curing cancer, that doesn't make it any less of an endeavor; I am no less of a thinker than the cancer scientist, even though the matters that occupy our thoughts might differ tremendously. How much education a person has can never clearly measure a person's intellect (and neither can one's political beliefs, in case you think that's the heart of the issue).

Y'all are taking this, and me, and yourselves, way too seriously.

You take it seriously enough to post it in the first place, so what's the problem? I sure didn't see anything "jesting" about it. Unless, of course, you forgot your sarcasm tags.

Posted by: T.J. on September 28, 2002 02:29 PM

Gee, whiz, I don't know about y'all, but, I'd rather be a "shallow","feel good" liberal any day than to be a miserable, arrogant conservative like Dick Armey.

Posted by: clee on September 29, 2002 08:36 PM

TJ, the reason i'm able to laugh this off is because comments like that are par for the course when coming from dick armey.
he's got a strange habit of making complete sense one day, and then sounding like an ignorant buffoon the next.
for example, he was one of the reps who came out pretty hard against TIPS. it was one of the few times that i found myself agreeing with him. then he turns around and spouts some crap like this. i just have to laugh because it's utterly ridiculous.

-but- i must say that this is my interpretation of his comments:
1. "Liberals are, in my estimation, just not bright people". that's pretty cut and dry; he thinks liberals are stupid.
2. "They don't think deeply; they don't comprehend; they don't understand..." meaning, liberals are shallow. they don't think critically about most issues.
3. "They have a narrow educational base, as opposed to hard scientists." armey seems to think that an education with a scientific emphasis is somehow more broad than a liberal arts education. funny, i always thought that math and science were pretty narrowly defined, while liberal arts programs emphasized a basic understanding of all sorts of subjects. just because one has a good understanding of a broad range of subjects, rather than a "deep" understanding of one or two, does not make their education shallow.
4. "If you were a southern, anglo, baptist liberal, I promise you, I would say you are not well-educated and probably not a great deep thinker, because that's what liberals are." liberals are not deep thinkers. they are shallow. you know, the same could be said of many knee-jerk republicans. this is just a stupid statement, and one that made me laugh my butt off.

ah, good old dick. always good for a laugh.

Posted by: anna on September 30, 2002 10:49 AM

Don't worry, Anna, I agree with what you said about Armey's comments (both versions, short and long). As I said, stuff like that amuses me more than infuriates me, simply because it amazes me that people would be that asinine.

Maybe mine was indeed a personal emotional reaction to what Armey said. Call it defensiveness, I don't care. But I didn't care for the insinuations that one's occupation defined intellect or vice versa. There are as many geniuses in the arts as there are idiots in, say, politics.

When I was in high school, many people thought that because of my grades and work ethic, I'd probably opt for one of the "hard sciences," something in medicine or law or even politics. I chose to concentrate on the creative arts instead; I currently work in Los Angeles in the entertainment industry. Does that make me any less of a thinker?

And this is all without considering the decidedly political slant Armey puts on things. It's one thing to say that someone is stupid because they don't share your policital beliefs -- that's something that will always happen, no matter how pointless it may be. It's another thing to assume that someone works in a certain profession because of said political beliefs -- that may or may not be true. But it's just silly to make assumptions about someone's intellect based on their occupation, whether or not their political views are an issue.

Unfortunately, people make asinine assumptions like this. And in case anyone thinks Armey or Robert are indicative of Texans as a whole in this matter, I am ashamed that I am also what they are proud to be.

Posted by: T.J. on September 30, 2002 02:24 PM

Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember info?