Too Dumb To Understand

edited June 2010 in A Moving Train
http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/06/16/ ... index.html

(CNN) -- President Obama's speech on the gulf oil disaster may have gone over the heads of many in his audience, according to an analysis of the 18-minute talk released Wednesday.

Tuesday night's speech from the Oval Office of the White House was written to a 9.8 grade level, said Paul J.J. Payack, president of Global Language Monitor. The Austin, Texas-based company analyzes and catalogues trends in word usage and word choice and their impact on culture.

Though the president used slightly less than four sentences per paragraph, his 19.8 words per sentence "added some difficulty for his target audience," Payack said.

He singled out this sentence from Obama as unfortunate: "That is why just after the rig sank, I assembled a team of our nation's best scientists and engineers to tackle this challenge -- a team led by Dr. Steven Chu, a Nobel Prize-winning physicist and our nation's secretary of energy."

"A little less professorial, less academic and more ordinary," Payack recommended. "That's the type of phraseology that makes you (appear) aloof and out of touch."

The monitor's chief word analyst found these three sentences insensitive: "Already, this oil spill is the worst environmental disaster America has ever faced. And unlike an earthquake or a hurricane, it is not a single event that does its damage in a matter of minutes or days. The millions of gallons of oil that have spilled into the Gulf of Mexico are more like an epidemic, one that we will be fighting for months and even years."

"You shouldn't be saying that in Katrina land," said Payack, referring to the 2005 hurricane that devastated the Gulf Coast. "New Orleans lost a third of its population; it's still recovering."

But he praised Obama's phrase "oil began spewing" as active and graphic.

At a micro level, the average word in the speech contained 4.5 letters, a bit longer than is typical for the former constitutional law professor, Payack said.

Obama's nearly 10th-grade-level rating was the highest of any of his major speeches and well above the Grade 7.4 of his 2008 "Yes, we can" victory speech, which many consider his best effort, Payack said.

"The scores indicate that this was not Obama at his best, especially when attempting to make an emotional connection to the American people," he added.



I find it interesting that anytime a speech by the President is criticized, its b/c we are just not smart enough to understand the big words. During the President's State of The Union address when support for healthcare reform was dwindling among the American public, Obama reminded us "This is a complex issue...I take my share of the blame for not explaining it MORE CLEARLY to the American people."

He is heralded as a man of the people, but he is a Harvard elitist. And if only he could shorten his words to 3.8 letters per, and drop the grade level to around 7.0, we could understand his grand vision.

Better yet, just color me a picture Mr. President.
Post edited by Unknown User on
«1

Comments

  • Jason PJason P Posts: 19,158
    He singled out this sentence from Obama as unfortunate: "That is why just after the rig sank, I assembled a team of our nation's best scientists and engineers to tackle this challenge -- a team led by Dr. Steven Chu, a Nobel Prize-winning physicist and our nation's secretary of energy."
    With a Noble Prize winning physicist and a Noble Prize winning president tackling this issue, we should have nothing to worry about.
    Be Excellent To Each Other
    Party On, Dudes!
  • chris32482chris32482 Posts: 213
    I understand what you're saying, but the sad truth is a lot of Americans are not very intelligent. That's why they watch FoxNews.
  • maj4emaj4e Posts: 605
    I see what you're saying but I see it completely opposite. I think it's a shame that people are too stupid to understand the words our President uses. "Harvard elitist" is a funny term, if someone in your or my family went to Harvard we'd probably be excited. Bush went to Yale what of it?
  • It's absolutely no wonder that CNN is dwindling in the ratings war.

    JUST STOP THE LEAK - SERIOUSLY.
    Bristow, VA (5/13/10)
  • inmytreeinmytree Posts: 4,741

    JUST STOP THE LEAK - SERIOUSLY.

    feel free to do so...
  • blackredyellowblackredyellow Posts: 5,889
    edited June 2010
    maj4e wrote:
    I see what you're saying but I see it completely opposite. I think it's a shame that people are too stupid to understand the words our President uses. "Harvard elitist" is a funny term, if someone in your or my family went to Harvard we'd probably be excited. Bush went to Yale what of it?

    I don't get the "Harvard elitist" part either... I understand "elitist", no one wants someone who's out of touch with everyday life and thinks their better than everyone, but why throw Harvard in there? Like you said, if any friend or family member of any of us went there, that would be an great accomplishment. Leave it to partisan hacks to turn a positive thing into a negative. Ohhh... he's smart... that's baaaaddddd....
    Post edited by blackredyellow on
    My whole life
    was like a picture
    of a sunny day
    “We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
    ― Abraham Lincoln
  • maj4e wrote:
    I see what you're saying but I see it completely opposite. I think it's a shame that people are too stupid to understand the words our President uses. "Harvard elitist" is a funny term, if someone in your or my family went to Harvard we'd probably be excited. Bush went to Yale what of it?

    I don't get the "Harvard elitist" part either... I understand "elitist", no one wants someone who's out of touch with everyday life and thinks their better than everyone, but why throw Harvard in there? Like you said, if any friend or family member of any of us went their, that would be an great accomplishment. Leave it to partisan hacks to turn a positive thing into a negative. Ohhh... he's smart... that's baaaaddddd....


    "leave it to partisan hacks to turn a positive thing into a negative"

    This statement just described the entire philosophy behind partisan politics. :)

    It's a shame.
  • MoonpigMoonpig Posts: 659
    http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/06/16/obama.speech.analysis/index.html

    (CNN) -- President Obama's speech on the gulf oil disaster may have gone over the heads of many in his audience, according to an analysis of the 18-minute talk released Wednesday.

    Tuesday night's speech from the Oval Office of the White House was written to a 9.8 grade level, said Paul J.J. Payack, president of Global Language Monitor. The Austin, Texas-based company analyzes and catalogues trends in word usage and word choice and their impact on culture.

    Though the president used slightly less than four sentences per paragraph, his 19.8 words per sentence "added some difficulty for his target audience," Payack said.

    He singled out this sentence from Obama as unfortunate: "That is why just after the rig sank, I assembled a team of our nation's best scientists and engineers to tackle this challenge -- a team led by Dr. Steven Chu, a Nobel Prize-winning physicist and our nation's secretary of energy."

    "A little less professorial, less academic and more ordinary," Payack recommended. "That's the type of phraseology that makes you (appear) aloof and out of touch."

    The monitor's chief word analyst found these three sentences insensitive: "Already, this oil spill is the worst environmental disaster America has ever faced. And unlike an earthquake or a hurricane, it is not a single event that does its damage in a matter of minutes or days. The millions of gallons of oil that have spilled into the Gulf of Mexico are more like an epidemic, one that we will be fighting for months and even years."

    "You shouldn't be saying that in Katrina land," said Payack, referring to the 2005 hurricane that devastated the Gulf Coast. "New Orleans lost a third of its population; it's still recovering."

    But he praised Obama's phrase "oil began spewing" as active and graphic.

    At a micro level, the average word in the speech contained 4.5 letters, a bit longer than is typical for the former constitutional law professor, Payack said.

    Obama's nearly 10th-grade-level rating was the highest of any of his major speeches and well above the Grade 7.4 of his 2008 "Yes, we can" victory speech, which many consider his best effort, Payack said.

    "The scores indicate that this was not Obama at his best, especially when attempting to make an emotional connection to the American people," he added.



    I find it interesting that anytime a speech by the President is criticized, its b/c we are just not smart enough to understand the big words. During the President's State of The Union address when support for healthcare reform was dwindling among the American public, Obama reminded us "This is a complex issue...I take my share of the blame for not explaining it MORE CLEARLY to the American people."

    He is heralded as a man of the people, but he is a Harvard elitist. And if only he could shorten his words to 3.8 letters per, and drop the grade level to around 7.0, we could understand his grand vision.

    Better yet, just color me a picture Mr. President.


    So let me get this straight in my own head then - the point that you are making is: education = elitest, am I right in suggesting that?

    You believe that your elected president is talking down to you because he percieves himself to be more educated? But for such an educated man to use words that he knows you won't understand, that would not make him very smart though right?

    So he's elitest, a socialist, a communist, a muslim, a fascist, not born in the US, a rascist, a nazi etc etc etc, jesus come on and change the record, criticise the guy on his policies, follow through or lack there of, but this other stuff is just laughable

    So next time just vote the dumb guy in, the guy that you could have a beer with, I mean what's the worst that could happen there right?
  • I didn't write the article.

    I just find it interesting.

    He is an elitist, and no, education does not equal elitist.

    He is an elitist b/c everytime we don't fall for his next "redistribution of wealth" (a Marxist philosophy) scheme, he says it's b/c he didn't explain it well enough to the people. Meaning if we could just understand him more, then we'd go for it. If only we were as smart as Obamessiah.

    The whole Dem philosophy is that we exist to support the gov't, which is in direct contrast to the intention of the founders and the Constitution.

    I do understand his policies and I disagree w/ them.
  • Pepe SilviaPepe Silvia Posts: 3,758
    I didn't write the article.

    I just find it interesting.

    He is an elitist, and no, education does not equal elitist.

    He is an elitist b/c everytime we don't fall for his next "redistribution of wealth" (a Marxist philosophy) scheme, he says it's b/c he didn't explain it well enough to the people. Meaning if we could just understand him more, then we'd go for it. If only we were as smart as Obamessiah.

    The whole Dem philosophy is that we exist to support the gov't, which is in direct contrast to the intention of the founders and the Constitution.

    I do understand his policies and I disagree w/ them.


    but you DID write the 2 or 3 paragraphs which is what contained the harvard elitist comment.

    and what is the republican philosophy then?
    don't compete; coexist

    what are you but my reflection? who am i to judge or strike you down?

    "I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama

    when you told me 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'
    i was thinkin 'death before dishonor'
  • FiveB247xFiveB247x Posts: 2,330
    Redistribution of wealth? It's very apparent that you do not understand what that actually means if you're applying it to our nation. And even if you did grasp this concept, it'd be much closer to the rich stealing from the poor in a pyramid scheme compared to Obama or others handing money to the poor.
    I didn't write the article.

    I just find it interesting.

    He is an elitist, and no, education does not equal elitist.

    He is an elitist b/c everytime we don't fall for his next "redistribution of wealth" (a Marxist philosophy) scheme, he says it's b/c he didn't explain it well enough to the people. Meaning if we could just understand him more, then we'd go for it. If only we were as smart as Obamessiah.

    The whole Dem philosophy is that we exist to support the gov't, which is in direct contrast to the intention of the founders and the Constitution.

    I do understand his policies and I disagree w/ them.
    CONservative governMENt

    Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. - Louis Brandeis
  • Pepe SilviaPepe Silvia Posts: 3,758
    FiveB247x wrote:
    Redistribution of wealth? It's very apparent that you do not understand what that actually means if you're applying it to our nation. And even if you did grasp this concept, it'd be much closer to the rich stealing from the poor in a pyramid scheme compared to Obama or others handing money to the poor.
    I didn't write the article.

    I just find it interesting.

    He is an elitist, and no, education does not equal elitist.

    He is an elitist b/c everytime we don't fall for his next "redistribution of wealth" (a Marxist philosophy) scheme, he says it's b/c he didn't explain it well enough to the people. Meaning if we could just understand him more, then we'd go for it. If only we were as smart as Obamessiah.

    The whole Dem philosophy is that we exist to support the gov't, which is in direct contrast to the intention of the founders and the Constitution.

    I do understand his policies and I disagree w/ them.


    i wonder how he feels the state of new york should react? i mean they take in more in taxes than they get back, the rest is -redistributed- through the other 49 states
    don't compete; coexist

    what are you but my reflection? who am i to judge or strike you down?

    "I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama

    when you told me 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'
    i was thinkin 'death before dishonor'
  • __ Posts: 6,651
    I find it interesting that anytime a speech by the President is criticized, its b/c we are just not smart enough to understand the big words. During the President's State of The Union address when support for healthcare reform was dwindling among the American public, Obama reminded us "This is a complex issue...I take my share of the blame for not explaining it MORE CLEARLY to the American people."

    He is heralded as a man of the people, but he is a Harvard elitist. And if only he could shorten his words to 3.8 letters per, and drop the grade level to around 7.0, we could understand his grand vision.

    Better yet, just color me a picture Mr. President.

    This post makes no sense, especially in the context of the article you posted. Obama is being criticized in the article for assuming everyone is educated enough to understand his speech. How is that talking down to anyone? The whole point is that he didn't talk down enough. :?
  • FiveB247xFiveB247x Posts: 2,330
    Very true... he's either an elitist talking down to the people or a simpleton... easy way to paint someone into a corner in order to complain about them.
    scb wrote:
    This post makes no sense, especially in the context of the article you posted. Obama is being criticized in the article for assuming everyone is educated enough to understand his speech. How is that talking down to anyone? The whole point is that he didn't talk down enough. :?
    CONservative governMENt

    Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. - Louis Brandeis
  • Pepe- I'm gonna break my rule of ignoring you this one time.

    Rep philosophy: Gov't exists to serve the people. Not the other way around.
  • scb- wrong.

    the point is he thinks that if he dumbs it down, then we'll go along. HE thinks his failure is being to intelligent for the masses.

    He can't conceive that the people would reject his philosophies.

    And to whoever said he's not redistributing wealth in this country, I can't help you. You are helplessly void in the area of current events. Just say you understand it and are a Marxist. But to say that it is not going on is assinine. The whole HC Bill is a redistribution of wealth.

    Max Baucus (D) Montana said:
    "The last couple three years the mal-distribution of income in America is gone up way too much, the wealthy are getting way, way too wealthy, and the middle income class is left behind. Wages have not kept up with increased income of the highest income in America. This legislation will have the effect of addressing that mal-distribution of income in America."

    ???????
  • FiveB247xFiveB247x Posts: 2,330
    And exactly what year did the Republican philosophy go out the window? What decade (not recently obviously)?
    Pepe- I'm gonna break my rule of ignoring you this one time.

    Rep philosophy: Gov't exists to serve the people. Not the other way around.
    CONservative governMENt

    Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. - Louis Brandeis
  • FiveB247xFiveB247x Posts: 2,330
    Perhaps you should understand the philosophies and comments you're making before throwing them around.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxism

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redistribution_of_wealth

    The separation of wealth has more to do with the way our system works which is facilitated by business's working for their own benefit alone, which is backed by lobbying, the market manipulations and self-interest profit motive decisions compared to a government plan or policy as you so casually seem to mention.
    scb- wrong.

    the point is he thinks that if he dumbs it down, then we'll go along. HE thinks his failure is being to intelligent for the masses.

    He can't conceive that the people would reject his philosophies.

    And to whoever said he's not redistributing wealth in this country, I can't help you. You are helplessly void in the area of current events. Just say you understand it and are a Marxist. But to say that it is not going on is assinine. The whole HC Bill is a redistribution of wealth.

    Max Baucus (D) Montana said:
    "The last couple three years the mal-distribution of income in America is gone up way too much, the wealthy are getting way, way too wealthy, and the middle income class is left behind. Wages have not kept up with increased income of the highest income in America. This legislation will have the effect of addressing that mal-distribution of income in America."

    ???????
    CONservative governMENt

    Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. - Louis Brandeis
  • JeanwahJeanwah Posts: 6,363
    http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/06/16/ ... index.html

    (CNN) -- President Obama's speech on the gulf oil disaster may have gone over the heads of many in his audience, according to an analysis of the 18-minute talk released Wednesday.

    Wow, CNN, instead of dealing with the real issue (oil spill) we're going to knit-pick the speech. A classic example how journalism has failed the public, and diverts the real issue. Just like any American mainstream medium. This is exactly why NOTHING will be done about the spill, because Americans would rather bitch about Obama rather than demand action regarding BP and the oil.
  • blackredyellowblackredyellow Posts: 5,889
    Pepe- I'm gonna break my rule of ignoring you this one time.

    Rep philosophy: Gov't exists to serve the people. Not the other way around.

    ok... when was the last time republicans were in control and they actually did anything close to this so-called "philosophy"?
    My whole life
    was like a picture
    of a sunny day
    “We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
    ― Abraham Lincoln
  • Drowned OutDrowned Out Posts: 6,056

    He singled out this sentence from Obama as unfortunate: "That is why just after the rig sank, I assembled a team of our nation's best scientists and engineers to tackle this challenge -- a team led by Dr. Steven Chu, a Nobel Prize-winning physicist and our nation's secretary of energy."

    Obama's nearly 10th-grade-level rating was the highest of any of his major speeches and well above the Grade 7.4 of his 2008 "Yes, we can" victory speech, which many consider his best effort, Payack said.
    I found these interesting. I can't believe the first quote would make people think he's 'aloof and out of touch'. Seriously? :eh: :wtf: It's a plainly worded statement of fact (well...probably not fact - the team was likely recommended to him, not assembled by him)....but wtf? are people really that dumb? If his best ever speech is at a grade 7 level....I guess so.
  • Black,R, Y: Many Conservatives are unhappy w/ Republicans, b/c they have abandoned our principles. Everyone's favorite punching bag, BUSH, really failed Conservatives on a lot of issues: spending, SS reform, border security, etc.

    Conservative and Republican used to be synonymous. Not so much anymore.

    Since you asked, I would say Reagan was the last president to adhere to conservative principles.

    And I'm not debating the entire Reagan Presidency or the Cold War here today.
    (who's got the energy for that? Its too hot.)
  • five34b7- Why don't you respond to the quote from Baucus. He is one of the authors of Obamacare.

    Take all the time you need to look him up.
  • FiveB247xFiveB247x Posts: 2,330
    I am very familiar with him and don't need to look him up. So when exactly is the US gonna be a full Marxist nation... just curious..wanna venture a guess?
    five34b7- Why don't you respond to the quote from Baucus. He is one of the authors of Obamacare.

    Take all the time you need to look him up.
    CONservative governMENt

    Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. - Louis Brandeis
  • You always respond to a question with a question?

    You're boy, Baucus, said this was gonna work to fix the "mal-distribution" of income.

    All I hear is crickets.
  • FiveB247xFiveB247x Posts: 2,330
    Who said he was "my boy". You should make stupid, general assumptions based on things you don't know. I'm no democrat or republican and just to be clear, I didn't care all that much for the healthcare plan as I feel it was a very watered down version of what they could have accomplished. And I didn't like the economic bailouts either. Politics isn't a sport, yet your reply is similar to a sports fan complimenting their winning team or side... so silly.
    You always respond to a question with a question?

    You're boy, Baucus, said this was gonna work to fix the "mal-distribution" of income.

    All I hear is crickets.
    CONservative governMENt

    Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. - Louis Brandeis
  • blackredyellowblackredyellow Posts: 5,889

    He singled out this sentence from Obama as unfortunate: "That is why just after the rig sank, I assembled a team of our nation's best scientists and engineers to tackle this challenge -- a team led by Dr. Steven Chu, a Nobel Prize-winning physicist and our nation's secretary of energy."

    Obama's nearly 10th-grade-level rating was the highest of any of his major speeches and well above the Grade 7.4 of his 2008 "Yes, we can" victory speech, which many consider his best effort, Payack said.
    I found these interesting. I can't believe the first quote would make people think he's 'aloof and out of touch'. Seriously? :eh: :wtf: It's a plainly worded statement of fact (well...probably not fact - the team was likely recommended to him, not assembled by him)....but wtf? are people really that dumb? If his best ever speech is at a grade 7 level....I guess so.

    oh boy... he gave a speech at a grade level that 15 year olds are able to understand... and that's a problem to some?

    Let's see... remember how much of a moron you were in 10th grade? remember all of the stupid shit that you did (or didn't do)? Apparently giving a speech that those knucklehead or older can understand makes you an elitist. If that's too high of a level for his "target audience", then it says a lot more about the American people than it does about our President.
    My whole life
    was like a picture
    of a sunny day
    “We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
    ― Abraham Lincoln
  • __ Posts: 6,651
    scb- wrong.

    the point is he thinks that if he dumbs it down, then we'll go along. HE thinks his failure is being to intelligent for the masses.

    So HE's the one who wrote the article you posted then?? :?
    He can't conceive that the people would reject his philosophies.

    And to whoever said he's not redistributing wealth in this country, I can't help you. You are helplessly void in the area of current events. Just say you understand it and are a Marxist. But to say that it is not going on is assinine. The whole HC Bill is a redistribution of wealth.

    Max Baucus (D) Montana said:
    "The last couple three years the mal-distribution of income in America is gone up way too much, the wealthy are getting way, way too wealthy, and the middle income class is left behind. Wages have not kept up with increased income of the highest income in America. This legislation will have the effect of addressing that mal-distribution of income in America."

    ???????

    None of the rest of this post is relevant to the original post.
  • dasvidanadasvidana Grand Junction CO Posts: 1,349
    I didn't write the article.

    I just find it interesting.

    He is an elitist, and no, education does not equal elitist.

    He is an elitist b/c everytime we don't fall for his next "redistribution of wealth" (a Marxist philosophy) scheme, he says it's b/c he didn't explain it well enough to the people. Meaning if we could just understand him more, then we'd go for it. If only we were as smart as Obamessiah.

    The whole Dem philosophy is that we exist to support the gov't, which is in direct contrast to the intention of the founders and the Constitution.

    I do understand his policies and I disagree w/ them.
    I think it is a mistake to suggest that democratic or republican philosophies are homogeneous. Within each pary is a spectrum of beliefs to be sure. As far as Obama goes, I think his response to the oil spewing is horrible, but not because I think he is a Marxist.

    By the way, your comments suggest a tone that leads me to think that you're really trying to goad people into arguing with you rather than having an honest discussion/disagreement of a current event. If that is the case, you should run for public office.
    It's nice to be nice to the nice.
  • dasvidana wrote:
    By the way, your comments suggest a tone that leads me to think that you're really trying to goad people into arguing with you rather than having an honest discussion/disagreement of a current event.

    BINGO.
    Gimli 1993
    Fargo 2003
    Winnipeg 2005
    Winnipeg 2011
    St. Paul 2014
Sign In or Register to comment.