^^^ If you don't want to read all that, the short answer is... The president of Harvard had a plan for eugenics that involved testing people to separate those from the fast track to leadership positions in society and government and the fast track to being a blue collar worker. The test he used is known as the SAT. The SAT had its origins in tests that were used to "prove" that black men and women were truly inferior to whites. That was the work of Carl Brigham. This goes somewhat to MikeDC's post about how the left still promotes this kind of thing.
I'll give you something to think about. Quayle may have suffered from malapropism, but I challenge you to find anything he did specific to his job as VP that wasn't quite good.
everyone with any intelligence knows that the SAT and IQ tests are worthless, and don't prove anything.
I challenge you to find anything that he did on the job. Seriously, all reports were that Quayle was a good man, but he's not all that smart, and he isn't someone I would want as vice president.
I am not particularly interested in defending Quayle, but... http://www.tellurideofficialguide.com/mag/winter_05/high_style/histyleprofiles-quayle.html [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]As vice president for President George H.W. Bush, he traveled extensively in foreign affairs matters, just as Bush had done for eight years while serving as the vice president for President Ronald Reagan. As he says in his memoirs, Standing Firm, the president, “appreciated the importance of solid diplomatic information and understood the importance of good relations around the world.” In this role, Mr. Quayle traveled to 47 countries promoting the U.S. in areas of trade issues, free enterprise, human rights and other diplomatic affairs. [/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The American Family: Discovering the Values that Make Us Strong, (co-authored with Diane Medved, Ph.D.) he puts the case before us that “when families fail, societies fail.” Although he was criticized and often ridiculed by the media for his speech in May 1992 when he spoke about the importance of values in what has become known as the “Murphy Brown Speech,” both political parties, enlightened journalists and some pundits have come to realize the correctness and very truth about what he said then and throughout his years in public service. Vice President “Dan Quayle was right,” wrote a journalist for the Atlantic Monthly. And now we hear comedian Bill Cosby step-up the rhetoric concerning these very same ideals.[/FONT]
Yogi Berra suffered from malapropism, too. "90% of the game is mental, the other 90% is physical" -- he's a hall of fame catcher.
I guess it'd be alright to stock up the next administration with Harvard graduates. The very best of the academically qualified. What of these people don't have a pulse and are out of touch with the American public? You can hate Karl Rove, but he dropped out of college, and worked his way up. He's an incredibly smart human being. Dick Cheney flunked out of Yale, but he's a smart guy as well.
The "American Public" is about as broad of a group as you can get. People who "work their way up" in thier profession are not necessarily in tune with such a broad spectrum of people. All his work was constricted to his own political party. The "American Public" is a much larger group than that. I'm not saying he didnt work hard, but I don't think you can assume that he really took steps to get a full experience with the American Public.
"smart" is the worst word in the english language. It has no meaning. As I said, there are different types of intelligence, and some people are good at one kind and some are good at other kinds. If you put Thomas Edison, John Locke, Isaac Newton, Beethoven, Garry Kasparov, Margaret Thatcher, Petere Ueberroth [for administrative skill] and Werner Von Braun in a room, who is "smarter?" It all depends on what use you're talking about. Again, the issue is what sort of person you want making executive decisions for the country. I know some really smart people, but most of them are ill-suited for that sort of position.
Neither Democrats or Republicans are Nazis. Sure you can draw some parallels, but the first thoughts of Nazism are anti-semitism, mass genocide, racism, and anti-handicapped peopleism.
No. But you get cash which is just as good as money. lol. As far as Denny's challenge in post 78, I would have thought it had to do w/ Liberals tending to be more theoretical & big picture and conservatives being more literal/hands on.
I wouldn't say IQ tests are worthless, they're accurate predictors of all sorts of things. That need not undercut your other point, however, that there are all sorts of really smart people I wouldn't want to be ruled by. I'd gladly trade off some pure IQ for good judgement and a wealth of experience. IQ is worthwhile, it's just that when you go across the line into making it determinative, you inevitably start crushing the humanity out of things. Which is ultimately why I'd put myself on the libertarian side of the spectrum. When push comes to shove, everyone has the right to do anything they can, and no law or authority ought to prevent them by saying they don't have the "tools to do the job". On the other side, you've got folks who bring up the "intelligence" of our elected leaders as if everyone ought to be doled out into their jobs based on some sort of IQ test.
Ronald Reagan used SAT scores as a unit of measurement in his State of the Union speeches. Is Reagan a believer in eugenics? If not, then he shouldn't be even bringing it up in the first place. "Families stand at the center of our society. And every family has a personal stake in promoting excellence in education. Excellence does not begin in Washington. A 600-percent increase in Federal spending on education between 1960 and 1980 was accompanied by a steady decline in Scholastic Aptitude Test scores. Excellence must begin in our homes and neighborhood schools, where it's the responsibility of every parent and teacher and the right of every child." (State of the Union, 1984) "Confident in our future, and secure in our values, Americans are striving forward to embrace the future...We see it in the renaissance in education, the rising SAT scores for three years—last year's increase the greatest since 1963. It wasn't government and Washington lobbies that turned education around, it was the American people who, in reaching for excellence, knew to reach back to basics. We must continue the advance by supporting discipline in our schools; vouchers that give parents freedom of choice; and we must give back to our children their lost right to acknowledge God in their classrooms." (State of the Union, 1986)
Two points. He was a democrat (as well as union president) Looks more like an attack on the Democrats' proclivity to pour good money after bad on the fire known as education. (To mix metaphors nicely)
