There are usual caveats: Of course Obama isn’t illiterate or Bush-dumb because as Jesse Louis Jackson once said, “God doesn’t make junk,” and the intelligence-challenged just aren’t allowed near Harvard, much less become editor of that university’s Law Review.
Neo is focusing on the fact that Bush also graduated from Harvard (and Yale). What struck me (other than Smith’s lousy writing) was the “God doesn’t make junk” part of the quote. Is Smith implying that while God made Obama, someone else made Bush? if so, who?
Posts
6 comments:
Is Smith implying that while God made Obama, someone else made Bush?
I don't think he's doing that any more than he's implying that Obama is, in fact, dumb with his the intelligence-challenged just aren’t allowed near Harvard, much less become editor of that university’s Law Review, since Obama didn't become editor of the Harvard Law Review.
I think this just fits the context of his point that discussions about whether politicians are dumb merely obfuscate a more important discussion of whether their actions are stupid.
Eric Hines
Erik von Kuenhelt-Leddihn in one of his many books pointed out that democracies stunt men. It produces lower class of men.
Obama WAS the editor of Harvard Law Review.
Steve Sailor just wrote a fantastic essay on this very thing How smart is Obama?
Obama WAS the editor of Harvard Law Review.
When?
http://www.nytimes.com/1990/02/06/us/first-black-elected-to-head-harvard-s-law-review.html
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0808/12705.html
Eric Hines
WLW - The article you linked is close to the edge of what I consider acceptable on my blog.
Eric - I think the "editor" thing is a semantic dispute. Based on some very brief research - including the Politico article you linked - it appears that Obama was *an* editor of the Harvard Law Review and then became President of the Law Review - which appears to be the closest thing the Review has to a "the editor".
It's sloppy language on the part of most of those who write about it (including Smith) but it doesn't change my reading of his statement about God not making junk.
Obama may very well have sat in both chairs--they are distinct positions. M research is no more extensive than yours.
As you say, it's a relatively minor thing, and it doesn't change my remark about the obfuscation.
After all, if he's a sloppy writer in other areas, how is he not merely sloppy with his junk remark?
Eric Hines
I don't think they are distinct positions. My understanding is that "President" is a first among equals editor. It looks to me like there is no one called "the editor" at Harvard Law Review.
I didn't say that Smith wasn't sloppy in his comment about junk. I was simply pointing out an instance of his sloppiness that I found particularly amusing.
Post a Comment