>>> dhenwood at panix.com 08/16/00 04:18PM >>>
Charles Brown wrote:
>Sure , the head of the Central Intelligence Agency was
>unintelligent, right. Lot of anti-intellecutals at Yale ?
There are lots of smart people who are anti-intellectual. See your average bond trading desk or Fortune 500 boardroom for examples.
CB: I'm with you on that. So, the Bushes are smart but authentically anti-intellectual ? Must say that its the extreme form of theirs that makes me think they put it on. Reagan was anti-intellectual, but so natural about it. The other thing is that W seems to put on that he is dumb about subject matters that are part of the duty of the President. Not knowing the names of countries and the like. The bond traders are not supposed to be dumb in bond trading. W puts on ignorance of statesmanship while aiming to run the state.
By the way, I believe W doesn't know the names of the countries, I just think he purposefully doesn't learn things that the average smart person would learn if she or he was going to run for President.
My whole thesis is that the Bushes operate on the principle " it worked for Reagan"
And yes, there are a lot of anti-intellectuals at Yale. Hundreds of Q. Desmond Thistlethwaite IV's emerge from there every year, dreaming of a partnership at Simpson Thatcher and a yacht to call their own. Bush father & son are perfect examples of the species. The groundskeepers are more compelling conversational partners.
CB: Now there's some good data. Thanks.
Does Q. Desmond really move and shake at Simpson Thatcher , or do nothing, while someone else really runs the place ? If the latter, in analogy to W, who would really be running the U.S. empire if W was elected, since he is a little Lord Fauntleroy uninterested in doing much ?