James O'Keefe's NPR sting has to be one of the most beautifully orchestrated deceptions in the annals of journalism. I think the academy award for performance in a documentary should go to that bushy-bearded "Arab" who, on hearing NPR executive Richard Schiller say, "Let me take off my NPR hat" and launching into his Tea Party rant, intones in a marvelously phony North African accent, "I like it when you take off your NPR hat." That was the laugh line of the year.
So now everybody will be talking about how embarrassing it was and how NPR has put its neck in the noose and how they will soon be losing their federal funding -- which they say they don't need anyway. All that scurrilous badmouthing of the American public will be reverberating around the political arena for quite some time.
The question that hangs in my mind, though, is this: How could people who think of themselves as so intelligent be such suckers? How could they be taken in by an American black and a bushy-bearded "Muslim" talking in a grade-B Hollywood accent and really believe they were being offered $5 million? After all, these are people who define themselves as being intelligent. They're the "educated elite" of whom we supposedly don't have enough of in this country. And yet they were no more alert than a bunch of high school dropouts sitting around a shabby ACORN office in Baltimore. How do you explain that?
Well, I think it is possible to offer an explanation. Here's an attempt.
So where do NPR intellectuals get the idea they are the only smart people around? Only by ignoring the opposition. Tune in to Fox News any night and listen to Charles Krauthammer, Bill Kristol, Steve Hayes or Fred Barnes discussing complex issues. Could anybody say that they are not intelligent? Would it be correct to say that they understand the opposing liberal position but just don't happen to agree with it? Now, try this. Can you imagine Charles Krauthammer being taken in by a bunch of bushy-bearded strangers claiming to be Orthodox rabbis ready hand him $5 million for taking a more balanced view on their effort to move the Dome of the Rock off the Temple Mount?
I'd say it's an easy one, too, but it doesn't have anything to do with their politics. It has to do with $3,000,000 being dangled in front of them. People will believe almost anything if money is involved. Just ask Bernie Madoff's "investors".
AspenValley wrote: I'd say it's an easy one, too, but it doesn't have anything to do with their politics. It has to do with $3,000,000 being dangled in front of them. People will believe almost anything if money is involved. Just ask Bernie Madoff's "investors".
Excellent point. We could also ask politicians who depend on campaign contributions to get elected/reelected.
Does it then not follow that as long as politicians can legislate economic success that special interests will continue to bribe them?
Does it also not follow that no matter what future campaign finance reform that is passed will just create a new set of loop holes?
AspenValley wrote: I'd say it's an easy one, too, but it doesn't have anything to do with their politics. It has to do with $3,000,000 being dangled in front of them. People will believe almost anything if money is involved. Just ask Bernie Madoff's "investors".
Excellent point. We could also ask politicians who depend on campaign contributions to get elected/reelected.
Does it then not follow that as long as politicians can legislate economic success that special interests will continue to bribe them?
Does it also not follow that no matter what future campaign finance reform that is passed will just create a new set of loop holes?
Can't argue with a word.
Durned if I know what anyone could do about it. It's the system we've got, and it's corrupt as hell.
Maybe the only thing to be done is to at least get people to realize that politicians don't represent THEM, they represent dollars dueling it out on competing agendas Or maybe not even competing. As far as I can the big money interests ALWAYS end up in charge, no matter which candidate ends up in office.
Local_Historian wrote: It seems that sometimes, the more intelligent a person is, the stupider they are about 'street smarts' type of things.
I totally agree with you here. I've seen many 'book smart' people over the years who have the common sense of my 12 year old boy. I think people who have to struggle through many crappy jobs and work their way through school are far better off in the end than those who just go from high school, to college, then straight to their career.
Local_Historian wrote: It seems that sometimes, the more intelligent a person is, the stupider they are about 'street smarts' type of things.
I totally agree with you here. I've seen many 'book smart' people over the years who have the common sense of my 12 year old boy. I think people who have to struggle through many crappy jobs and work their way through school are far better off in the end than those who just go from high school, to college, then straight to their career.
Bill, struggling through crappy jobs and working your way through school IS a form of education, so yes, naturally if you compared people with the same two degrees, one of whom had someone paying their way and one of whom worked their way through, I would argue that the latter has more education than the former even though they have the same credential.
On the other hand, I think the "smart people lack common sense" meme is a bit overplayed. We all know the eccentric genuis who can't figure out how to put on his socks, but I think that is really a pretty rare phenemona and might be linked to other issues like Asperger's Syndrome than "caused" by their intelligence. I know quite a number of extremely smart people, both in "book smarts" and "practical" smarts, who not only excell in highly technical and scientific fields but also know how to change their own oil, build a chicken coop, and bake a loaf of bread. Generalizations are often untrue, and in my experience, people who can quickly learn "book smarts" generally can quickly learn practical skills as well.
rofllol 
