The Gooblygook of Intellectuals
I just finished reading a long article on Radicalized Pedagogy and, boy, is my head spinning. I don't claim to be an intellectual. I'm a basic reasoner, which simply means, I think (or reason) common sensibly, something I deduced while in college studying Economic and Sociological Theory. Sociology to me was simply a common-sense approach to the study of society (or societies). The Sociology originators (Comte, Diderot, Marx, Proudhon, Durkheim, Weber, Sorokin, Thorstein Veblen, et. al.) were encyclopedists in that they observed societal life in purified settings. In other words, sociological observations were made free of bias (one's on particular beliefs or some outside influences, etc.) and in as pure a thinking atmosphere as could be produced.
But even Sociologists are becoming transfixed by their intellectualism and are writing radical articles that are so gummed up by intellectual verbalizing, it's really difficult to understand just what the hell their points are. I see poverty in a neighborhood and using common-sense reasoning it's easy to deduce why that neighborhood is impoverished. Look at the defined neighborhood's ethnic majority, whether it's workingclass (low-salaried) or not, and how distant or isolated it is from the Middle Class. Ethnically, you notice the neighborhood is a Black neighborhood. Blacks make up the most out-of-work people in this country and even when they get work, it's low-salaried work. And, of course, it's easy to deduce that since it's a Black neighborhood, by discriminating factors (like Gerrymandering), yes, it's isolated from the Middle Class (the process in White terms is called Racism).
One problem with intellectuals is they have to publish and publish frequently in order to maintain their livelihoods and intellectual presence. They are insatiable writers. So I can deduce from this that intellectuals are writing to impress other intellectuals. Not being an intellectual, of course, I find their expansive writing untranslatable into a language I understand.
I'm Bitching
I've been writing on this blog for almost ten years now. There are certain phrases and designations I use (like referring to Ronald Reagan as Ronald "Raygun" Reagan and a recent posting on Christian Reprobate John Hagee and his idiot saying that Obama's trying to divide Israel in half is the reason for the Ebola (named after a river) epidemic in West Africa) and now suddenly, I see other writers using these terms and referring to idiot characters using my sentiments. Statistics show my blog gets "looked at" over 150 times a day. Yes, I know a lot of those are spammers, probably the majority of them, but some of them are blog writers and Internet media pundits. So far, of all the people who visit my blog only a few of them list The Daily Growler in their blog lists. I thank these people for honestly appraising this blog as worthy of their reference to it in an acceptable way. Anyone can call Ronald Reagan Ronald Raygun; I don't hold a patent on the name, but on the other hand, give some credit where credit is due. Damn, I hope I'm not being paranoid.
Is Obama Now the Worst of Our Long-Line of Worthless Presidents?
I've always said over the decades I've lived, we've been ruled by poor little spoiled rich brats with Ivy League-propaganda backgrounds; an ex-haberdasher; a ex-general (Ike "I Like Golf" Eisenhower); a Texan who won his first election with the aid of voters in a cemetery in Duvall County, Texas, by 80 votes; a California Quaker crooked lawyer; a man who couldn't walk and chew gum at the same time; a peanut farmer; a Grade B actor (who shared top billing with a monkey in his most famous role); a failed oilman who also was head of the CIA (a Yale man); a Hillbilly profligate from the backward state of Arkansas (I noticed Monica Lewinsky is making a comeback lately by claiming she's being harassed unmercifully on the Internet); that failed oilman's worthless son (a Yale man) who up until President Obama came along was the worst president in the history of our worthless presidents.
Obama warned us in his book he wrote right before he was nominated to be the Dumbocratic Party candidate (that had Black people raising their hands praising God they were so hopeful) that his two heroes were Lincoln and Ronald "Raygun" Reagan. Then, after his multimillion-dollar extravagant inauguration (paid for by the taxpayers), when he met with Georgie Porgie Bush, he said he really liked the fellow and that G.W. was the kind'a guy you could have a beer with and have a fine bullshit conversation with (a Good Ol' Boy, in other words). Then, during his inauguration speech, Obama warned us that he was going to forget the past and think only futuristically. "Yes, We Can!" he bellowed in an attempted impersonation of Martin Luther King's Washington Mall speech. And that Yes We Can turned out to mean, "Yes, we can keep on keepin' on in G.W. Bush's footsteps...war, war, and more war, more wars than G.W. ever criminally started."
As I write this, the U.S. and Britain (we go together hand in hand with our former colonizers) have in a secret move pulled all but 9,000 troops out of Afghanistan and Obama has declared our involvement in Afghanistan as over. Oh yeah, over except for 9,000 troops still there and God knows how many contractors and soldiers of fortune are still there; plus the drone operators in Nevada (and God knows where else) will still be blowing away innocent civilians under the banner of killing terrorists. How many innocent civilians have had to die in order for us to kill terrorists. We kill terrorists and the next thing you know, they're stronger than ever, i.e., ISIS or ISIL
So who is the worst president ever?
thegrowlingwolf
for The Daily Growler
No comments:
Post a Comment