That may well be. It does mean he is kind of down with anyone else's level on it though - ancient history is interesting but if you are reading up on it for interest, you are reading up on it for interest.
That's certainly a fair point, but I would argue that a historian studying other areas of history will likely do it better on account of formal training. History being a weird field, you can easily know far more than a historian about a given area simply out of interest, as opposed to sciences, but they will I think be in a better position to study the matter rigorously and catch nuance and context which might result in an interested but casual reader being mislead.
Cynical, yeah, I think so, I'm not a big Newt fan, though I think he was badly maligned by the press back in the 90s, his various efforts at resurgence have not met with a lot of favor from many core conservatives and I'm no exception, I like him, but I wish he'd retire for real. The comment was made more towards Camilla's comments though. I've met a lot of politicians who were deep thinkers and a lot of professors who weren't, most who are both are though, and whether one likes what they say or agrees isn't particularly relevant to the claim. I don't much care for Karl Marx or Ayn Rand, both were deep thinkers.
Fair enough - My impression of him, and as a left leaning type he's never going to be a favourite, is that he was someone who was very good at what he did at the time he did it (pushing the agenda he did at the time it was pushed, as it was) but it isn't that time now and refighting old battles does no one any favours beyond playing partisan politics (tempting though it is for both sides).
Well, he was very good at pushing the agenda, but he was also a major author of it, and I tend to consider that an important variable in 'deep thinker' on political matters. I would agree though that in many ways Newt is trying to re-fight prior battles, and that this is not constructive. I could easily see a race between him and Obama amounting to a non-stop Bush and Clinton bashing.
I'm not sure I use deep thinker as you do though. I tend to see it as carrying a greater width of thought than Marx or Rand showed - I see it as something that in politics that people like to suggest they have, that they see the other side of the conflict.
Well there's no rigorous definition for it of course. My own internal definition is mostly field-oriented, to me a scientific deep-thinker is a theorist, poking around beneath the surface of the general mish-mash of debris that coagulates into 'accepted practice', so as an example, if people are debating the pros and cons of term limits and life-long SCOTUS appointments, the person who says 'with ever increasing lifespans, we should consider how a justice or senator who has held their position for a century might effect things' or for gun rights "in right to bare arms, what do we mean by 'bare' and 'arms'" as opposed to specifically talking about the established notion of 'carry a gun'. There's certainly no doubt that in politics it is something people like to think they have, though this is hardly limited to politics, I sort of take for granted that I am a deep thinker, but most people I know think they are too, and while in fairness my socializing tends to be biased toward interacting with those who are or think they are, it seems a pretty normal trait in and out of politics. I would say normally a loose rule of thumb for the difference with politicians is going to be those who say 'this is wrong/bad' and those who say 'this is wrong/bad because...'
The intuitive mind is a sacred gift and the rational mind is a faithful servant. We have created a society that honors the servant and has forgotten the gift.
- Albert Einstein
King of Cairhien 20-7-2
Chancellor of the Landsraad, Archduke of Is'Mod
- Albert Einstein
King of Cairhien 20-7-2
Chancellor of the Landsraad, Archduke of Is'Mod
An amusing column on the NYC mosque by Maureen Dowd....
20/08/2010 12:33:27 AM
- 1383 Views
She has a point. Bush had the guts to weather the storm on DPW.
20/08/2010 12:42:21 AM
- 793 Views
DPW? I keep sitting here trying to figure out what that means.
20/08/2010 12:50:14 AM
- 653 Views
Re: DPW? I keep sitting here trying to figure out what that means.
20/08/2010 12:56:44 AM
- 900 Views
Once again, listen to the Economist and don't use abbreviations that aren't obvious.
20/08/2010 06:38:08 PM
- 637 Views
That abbreviation was obvious and all over the place at the time the incident happened.
20/08/2010 07:59:08 PM
- 717 Views
I certainly don't remember seeing it anywhere. The abbreviation was unnecessary in any event.
20/08/2010 10:43:05 PM
- 639 Views
Sure, I could've done that, if I had realized it would puzzle people. I did not. *NM*
20/08/2010 10:59:42 PM
- 441 Views
well since Christie is actually a republican he makes a better example than Bloomberg
20/08/2010 01:53:44 PM
- 738 Views
Gingrich thinks he is a deep thinker?
20/08/2010 09:42:15 AM
- 602 Views
He makes historical references as often as possible, or at least in pretty much everything I've seen
20/08/2010 12:37:02 PM
- 707 Views
As he was a history professor and writes histories and alternate histories, this is not surprising
20/08/2010 05:33:48 PM
- 895 Views
I'm aware of that
20/08/2010 11:47:32 PM
- 625 Views
Re: I'm aware of that
21/08/2010 12:40:29 AM
- 911 Views
Re: I'm aware of that
21/08/2010 01:19:37 AM
- 767 Views
Re: I'm aware of that
21/08/2010 01:59:48 AM
- 654 Views
Conservatives love Rome. I don't know why.
21/08/2010 01:20:27 AM
- 709 Views
Rome was more often than not governed by aristocrats and did, after all, invent the republic.
21/08/2010 04:50:53 PM
- 1024 Views
Except there doesn't seem to be any conflict between either position.
20/08/2010 10:06:20 AM
- 837 Views
He has to learn he needs to be crystal clear on sensitive issues
20/08/2010 02:03:43 PM
- 908 Views
In Washington, one must always present the APPEARANCE of integrity...
20/08/2010 02:40:24 PM
- 758 Views
Clinton lied about the BJ but what is your airtight proof that Bush lied?
20/08/2010 07:44:53 PM
- 833 Views
This is a bit along the lines of what I have been thinking.
20/08/2010 07:49:15 PM
- 874 Views
I didn't see the problem either. He was simply stating the obvious.
21/08/2010 01:39:44 AM
- 615 Views
Then restating it for those who refused to hear it, so that someone else could refuse to hear it.
21/08/2010 04:22:30 PM
- 861 Views
Yes, his backtracking was quite pussy-ish. *NM*
21/08/2010 04:00:31 AM
- 310 Views
How did he "backtrack" exactly?
21/08/2010 04:35:33 PM
- 918 Views
c'mon Joel. are you being intentionally thick?
21/08/2010 05:02:27 PM
- 946 Views
Having read those quotes I don't think he was backtracking on anything. (With link to speech)
22/08/2010 06:27:06 AM
- 891 Views
did you take into your consideration
22/08/2010 03:50:59 PM
- 638 Views
I can't imagine why they would express concern over it. It wasn't controversial. That is on them
22/08/2010 03:58:32 PM
- 840 Views
I agree he is not backtracking
22/08/2010 06:49:36 PM
- 747 Views
While we're picking sides, I'm with Mook and Roland.
22/08/2010 08:20:11 PM
- 675 Views
I like how he's got rhetorical talents when it works
22/08/2010 08:32:15 PM
- 698 Views
nope just human *NM*
22/08/2010 08:37:17 PM
- 378 Views
that's not what Paul just said.
22/08/2010 08:42:24 PM
- 754 Views
He couldn't stay out, no.
22/08/2010 08:56:47 PM
- 800 Views
I don't want to argue with you on a Sunday, my religion says I have to relax.
22/08/2010 09:03:54 PM
- 820 Views
key word: seem
22/08/2010 09:06:40 PM
- 736 Views
I was only using that term for you guys. I don't feel like beating you with a rolling pin until you
22/08/2010 09:14:39 PM
- 634 Views
Seems I interpret his speech on the iftar differently from you and Tash - see my reply to Tash. *NM*
22/08/2010 09:25:13 PM
- 457 Views
I'm not even taking the time to comment on something so obvious as what he did. *NM*
22/08/2010 02:53:10 AM
- 436 Views
Joel
22/08/2010 05:37:45 AM
- 944 Views
His phrasing in the first speech implied that it was a bad idea. But legally they have the right.
22/08/2010 06:32:59 AM
- 864 Views
nonsense
22/08/2010 03:39:30 PM
- 815 Views
I still don't see how it can be misinterpreted except by intent by the listener.
22/08/2010 04:08:52 PM
- 789 Views
so we have reached the point of no return...
22/08/2010 04:18:46 PM
- 798 Views
In your case it would have to be number 2.
22/08/2010 07:38:20 PM
- 773 Views
ah, but I have no agenda here...
22/08/2010 07:41:59 PM
- 603 Views
lol.<3
22/08/2010 08:49:35 PM
- 779 Views
that it is...
22/08/2010 08:57:05 PM
- 733 Views
hee. Well, I still don't agree with you, but at least you're snuggly.^_^ *NM*
22/08/2010 09:09:22 PM
- 569 Views
Tash you are very much a fair person in this world
22/08/2010 08:34:38 PM
- 856 Views
Or there is another option: 3) He was using tact.
22/08/2010 09:01:49 PM
- 774 Views
I really have to disagree with your interpretation of that first speech.
22/08/2010 09:22:32 PM
- 1061 Views
Lies, prevarication and deceit again, eh?
22/08/2010 01:17:45 PM
- 1249 Views
that was a decent explanation....
22/08/2010 05:18:18 PM
- 717 Views
In the interests of fairness ( this does not support or detract from my position), here is the full
22/08/2010 09:22:50 PM
- 977 Views