Targuman Rotating Header Image

Obama holier than Bush?

I suppose, if invoking “Jesus Christ” is an indication. Most of you probably already know that Politico is reporting that President Obama has mentioned “Jesus Christ” more frequently in high-profile speeches than George W. Bush. This is likely as much political as it is a personal confession. I think that in many ways the fact that Bush’s Christianity was so overtly a part of his identity probably kept him from invoking Jesus as frequently, but why do you suppose it is acceptable for Obama to do so?

“I don’t recall a single example of Bush as president ever saying, ‘Jesus’ or ‘Christ,’” said Tony Perkins, president of the conservative Christian group Family Research Council. “This is different.”

To Perkins, Obama’s overtly Christian rhetoric is a welcome development from an administration that he largely disagrees with on the issues, though Perkins sees a political motive behind it, as well.

“I applaud that. It gives people a sense of comfort,” Perkins said. “But I think it’s a veneer, a facade that covers over a lot of policies that are anti-Christian.” That includes, in his view, Obama’s stance in favor of abortion rights.

The Rev. Barry Lynn, the executive director of the group Americans United for Separation of Church and State, doesn’t like the trend with Obama: “I don’t need to hear politicians tell me how religious they are,” Lynn said. “Obama in a very overt way does what Bush tended to do in a more covert way.”

“The real reason famous people die in threes”

Far Left

How to prepare for a career in academia

Following on from yesterday’s post…

Wizard of Id - June 23, 2009

The Wizard of Id by Parker and Hart

Why a PhD isn’t for everyone

For whatever reasons my post from January Why you shouldn’t go to grad school in the humanities has risen back to prominence in the last week. Please read the previous post for the comments (which was itself a comment on an article by Thomas Benton in the Chronicle) but I wanted to place one of the comments and my response here since I think it is worth continuing the conversation in a more public manner. “a” from Doxxa wrote:

While I understand your argument in terms of the economics of it.. just a thought: What is potentially lost in terms of the thinking capacity of our country, if the pool of those in the humanities shrinks further to only include those who fit your categories?:

“You are independently wealthy, and you have no need to earn a living for yourself or provide for anyone else. You come from that small class of well-connected people in academe who will be able to find a place for you somewhere. You can rely on a partner to provide all of the income and benefits needed by your household. You are earning a credential for a position that you already hold — such as a high-school teacher — and your employer is paying for it.”

Yes, it is competitive, and often based on connections and etc., but how is shrinking that pool going to assist with that problem? It may be better for that individual, but something is lost when the diversity of the pool of thought is smaller.

Thanks a. I should have clarified that, like Benton, I was referring to PhDs (not just any graduate degree). I actually do not believe that this would result in a loss of our county’s “thinking capacity.” A PhD program does not necessarily make someone a better “thinker” (although I hope it does!) but its main goal is to educate students in a very specific area of study. Just because someone is not achieving a terminal degree does not mean they are not still thinking and learning. Consider think tanks like the Center for Strategic and International Studies. Many of their members have PhD’s but certainly not all (and I think not even most). Yet they are some of the sharpest and best thought leaders in our country today.

I am certainly in favor of greater education and our secondary system in particular needs serious attention. But my point was two-fold. (1) One should only go for a PhD if they are serious about and understand the costs, both in financial expense and potential for job opportunities. (2) Do we always need PhDs? We are seeing degree inflation just as we have grade inflation. People should not get degrees just because everyone else has them. They can still be smart, thoughtful, and contributing significantly to our thinking capacity without that piece of paper.

“Free Education Sucka!”

i have long held that this would totally work

Wondermark by David Malki

HT to KO with whom I “audited” many classes at Cornell. :-)