The Self-Absorbed Americans

TOTALLY self absorbed.

At least according to the editors of Time Magazine, USA edition.

I really, really wish I didn't believe this...

.

So. How do you spend your day?

Fascinating. Here are some charts loaded with data about how Americans spend their day. Not much to my surprise, time spent on 'correspondence' and 'sports and recreation' don't even show up on the charts. More to my surprise, neither does 'religious activity.'

well, maybe if you blow the chart up by about 500% you could see something.

News Flash!!

This just in from The Week:

Britons actually spend slightly more time reading news online than looking at pornography.

And:

Alabama Republican gubernatorial candidate Bradley Byrne was accused in a GOP rival's campaign ad of believing in evolution. Byrne insisted he's a creationist who believes "every single word" in the Bible.

Proving once again just how far apart the England and the US are culturally.

American viewpoint

A democracy probably works best when you have an informed electorate like we have here in America.

If you wonder why we always seem in need of some political hygiene, consider these facts assembled by Glenn Greenwald of Salon.com:

"Half of Americans now say Iraq had weapons of mass destruction when the United States invaded the country in 2003 -- up from 36 percent last year, a Harris poll finds" (Washington Times, 7/24/2006); "Nearing the second anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, seven in 10 Americans continue to believe that Iraq's Saddam Hussein had a role in the attacks" (Washington Post, 9/6/2003); "The same poll in June showed that 56% of all Republicans said they thought Saddam was involved with the 9/11 attacks. In the latest poll that number actually climbs, to 62%" (USA Today/Gallup poll, 10/6/2004); "The latest Harris Poll has some interesting results on public opinions of Saddam Hussein's possible links to al Qaeda. Of those Americans polled, 64% agree that Saddam Hussein had 'strong' links to al Qaeda" (Harris poll, July 21, 2006); "49 percent of Americans think the president has the authority to suspend the Constitution . . . Only a third of Americans understood that much of the rest of the world opposed our invasion [of Iraq]. Another third thought the rest of the world was cheering our invasion, and a third thought the rest of the world was neutral" (Rick Shenkman, June, 2008).

70% of Americans think Saddam had a role in 9/11. Well, look on the bright side. At least they aren't buying that 9/11 Truthteller nonsense Jesse Ventura is peddling.

Me? I'm going back to the Middle Ages to finish my essay on the Ossetians. I think they were involved in 9/11 somehow.

P T Barnum was right

Which is also the name of one of Jay Leno's funniest bits, back in the days when I still watched him. Any way, I seem to be in an unusually snarky mood today, so here is a scholarly rumination on the judgment of the American public.

As for me, I never drink .... water.

Read this, please.

I don't often think of myself as an 'educator' - it has unpleasant connotations for me, careerist out of touch administrators being the least of it. But, I suppose, I am one. And as such, along with the rest of my persona, I was encouraged to read this analysis by Nicholas Kristof in The New York Times this morning. The first step to solving a problem is being aware that you have a problem. Kristof is aware.

After pointing out that as many Americans believe in flying saucers as believe in evolution, that 36% of the population thinks the government was involved in the 9/11 conspiracy, and a number of equally depressing facts about our ignorance and gullibility, he writes:

“America is now ill with a powerful mutant strain of intertwined ignorance, anti-rationalism, and anti-intellectualism,” Susan Jacoby argues in a new book, “The Age of American Unreason.” She blames a culture of “infotainment,” sound bites, fundamentalist religion and ideological rigidity for impairing thoughtful debate about national policies.

Even insults have degenerated along with other discourse, Ms. Jacoby laments. She contrasts Dick Cheney’s obscene instruction to Senator Patrick Leahy with a more elegant evisceration by House Speaker Thomas Reed in the 1890s: “With a few more brains he could be a half-wit.”

I especially like his conclusion, harking back to an era when being 'conservative' almost implied being an intellectual:

The dumbing-down of discourse has been particularly striking since the 1970s. Think of the devolution of the emblematic conservative voice from William Buckley to Bill O’Reilly. It’s enough to make one doubt Darwin.

There’s no simple solution, but the complex and incomplete solution is a greater emphasis on education at every level. And maybe, just maybe, this cycle has run its course, for the last seven years perhaps have discredited the anti-intellectualism movement. President Bush, after all, is the movement’s epitome — and its fruit.

Remberance of things past: 9/11

Looking at the enormous urban square that was once the Twin Towers leads Anna Quindlan in Newsweek to say:

There was a moment when it seemed that what had happened to this nation would result in an unparalleled display of those things that make America great: audacity, community, a sense of the future as a broad plain upon which this country could make its mark for good. Instead, at almost every turn, our government and, yes, many of our citizens took the narrowest road. Instead of expanding we contracted. Instead of a new juncture, we retreated to old ways.

Some clever words from 'Newsweek'

"Americans like history as long as it's over fast enough."

Anna Quindlen in Newsweek.

Too true. Especially now that my university, feeling suitably intellectual after the greatest upset in sports history, has done away with any history requirement at all for its students.

(for another sad commentary on American taste, see this)

Thomas Sowell and what's good for the country

A few days ago I wrote off the top of my head in a response to something Jack wrote that Thomas Sowell had said the US needed a military coup. I'd vaguely remembered reading him on NRO to that effect. Here's a description of what he said on Hannity and Colmes regarding his column, and a reference to the column itself found on News Hounds.

I’m not sure if the interview with Sowell was a rerun of a segment I previously missed or had been pre-taped for airing on Memorial Day (the show seemed to be comprised of a mixture of both). During his portion of the interview, Alan Colmes questioned Sowell about a recent National Review column in which he wrote, “When I see the worsening degeneracy in our politicians, our media, our educators, and our intelligentsia, I can’t help wondering if the day may yet come when the only thing that can save this country is a military coup.”

That's pretty much what I remembered, although you will note that he is not, quite, advocating such a move. Nor saying that it would be a good thing. Just that it might be the only thing that could save our country. Personally, I am not sure you could accurately speak of 'our country' after such a coup, but that may just be me.

Buying stock in America

Here's a quote from the Economist, a fairly conservative British magazine, in Time:

If the US were a stock it would be a 'buy', says the Economist, "an undervalued market leader, in need of new management." That is because more than any other rival, the US corrects itself.

Wonder when the correction comes.

Monica Goodling: That Voice!

I had a lot of trouble taking Monica Goodling's testimony seriously. Here was a law school grad, admittedly a fourth tier law school but still, who was one of the most powerful people in Bush's Dept of Justice, and she talked with a high pitched little girl voice. I couldn't figure out what was going on and thought it was all a put on - the more like a little girl she sounded, the less likely those investigators might be to think she might be responsible for a breach of the law ("I know I crossed a line" as she put it). I admit that it didn't help that my starting assumption was that she was lying.

Apparently though, at least according to this story I heard on NPR's "Marketplace," it's part of a broader phenomenon. It would explain a lot. For several years now I have thought that some young women's voice sounded so shrill because my ears were getting old and wearing out.

Now if I could just convince myself that it must be true if I heard it on NPR ...

Immigration bill autopsy

At least according to John Derbyshire over on NRO. I don't think anyone at 'National Review' was happy with the immigration bill. Feel free to read it and give me your comments.

The Derby is most interesting as fights his way through the pro-immigrant argument that Bush makes that there are some jobs that Americans won't do. He is skeptical but finally admits that there are, indeed, some jobs that could not be filled at the going hourly wage. His response is bracing:

I would still say: Well, then, let those jobs go hang. If you can’t, for love or money, find any citizens or legal residents to pick your apples, at wage levels not so high that consumers refuse to buy the apples, well, let the apples rot. That’s hard on you, I understand. You’ll have to find some other way to make a living. That happens to people, though — it’s happened to me a couple of times. And the U.S.A. won’t fold for want of apples.

As for me, I am not sure it is a question of Americans being willing to do the jobs, but whether or not there are enough Americans to fill all the jobs. Historically we are at relatively low levels of unemployment, so where do we find the workers?

Teenagers? Well, if you are willing to work with an entire crew of teenagers, get to it. Just be sure you adjust your hours so that they can still make it to school - which, if it is doing its job is busy ensuring that they will not have to do such work as adults. When you think about it, that is in fact the purpose of our education system.

Of course there are always retirees who can at least work part time. Somehow, though, I can't quite see too many of them being capable of putting in even 20 hrs a week at, say, the local chicken factory here in beautiful (and aromatic) downtown Wilkesboro. I am also not sure that most employers want to deal exclusively with part timers, although there are some advantages to that (fewer benefits to pay for, for one).

Anyway, there is always the Derbyshire solution: find another line of work. As he says, the USA won't fold if you drop dead, as it were.

Fred Thompson is NOT running!

After all, he keeps saying so. Yet no one even among Repubs seems entirely happy with their roster of candidates. Some people are even beginning to listen to Ron Paul! There is, however, a great Repub hope waiting patiently out there in the wings: Fred Thompson. I don't know much about him, other than he is a good actor, so I was interested in this analysis by Peggy Noonan in the Wall Street Journal [for technical reasons I don't understand I cannot link- sorry]. She thinks he is running a great uncampaign. All he needs to do is wait for the current candidates to disgrace themselves a bit more, to become a bit staler, a bit more unwelcome, and then pounce.

Or something like that.

Here's a taste of what she sees in him:

Why would he run now? Because he thinks there's noone of greater stature on the field. Because he thinks he's got a better, shrewder read of the base than the rest of them. Because he's at an age where you throw the dice or know you never will. Because he thinks the one essential to modern presidential leadership, the one thing you must have now, in the age of terror, is the ability to communicate, and he reads himself as the best communicator. And because he's at a point in his private life where it's possible for him. He's got a wife who's got his back and two kids who've given him a second chance. Even in great careers it's the private life that's hardest to get right. He feels he has.

People speak of Mr. Thompson's movie-star looks. But he's not beautiful, he's heavy and gray. What he has is bearing. He has the manner of someone who thinks a great deal of himself, and thinks it after long personal pondering of his good points, bad points, high points and low. He may or may not be correct in his conclusions, but I suspect they are part of his draw. I suspect people pick them up.

Another actor in the White House might be interesting.

Mulsims in America

They have arrived! That great old American trait of trying to make a buck by selling you anything possible is now focusing on Muslim Americans. Advertisers are now figuring out how to target Muslims consumers without offending everyone else. There is also the little problem of which type of Muslim to focus on, since our Muslim population is so diverse. The story from The New York Times is here.

Somehow, I see this as a positive sign.

"Happy Ramadan" cards, anyone?


.

What did they say and when did they say it - Iraq version

Don't you sometimes have a vague memory of the stipendiary punditry bloviating about the war over the last four years and consistently being wrong? But then when you catch the same guys talking now, they seems so reasonable? Willing to admit a few errors in judgement, while still insisting that their judgement now is 20/20 is the American public would just continue to show common sense by listening to them? Your memory must be playing tricks on you.

Check out Tom Tomorrow's retrospective right here.

How the MSM really sees us

They see us, i.e. the American reading public, as a bunch of self absorbed ignoramuses. Check this out. And my great fear is they may not be wrong - after all, their jobs depend on being right about how little we care about anything beyond our own smug self-regard, because.... well, we actually do pay people for this.

And my school just decided to dump any history requirement for undergrads because... its hard, and students don't like it, and they might go to another school. There's certainly no need in the 21st century for Americans to know anything about history.


Also check out the main page of the linked blog - Central Asia is fascinating.