As you sow, so shall you reap

J.E. Dyer writes about the way in which Obama, having joined with those who sought to destroy American norms and institutions, may finally realize that he’s crawled to the top of a possibly worthless heap — and one that he helped reduce to that level.

Michelle Obama Malkin points out that college students don’t have to act the way these did.  It appears that, at some level, those in attendance felt that this was how youth acts around Obama, and that trumped any notions of respect and solemnity.

Be Sociable, Share!
  • Oldflyer

    Book, I hope you have an edit feature available to yourself.  I think you meant Michelle Malkin when you typed Michelle “Obama”.
    I expect that you get the sort of behavior that you encourage.  I have no idea why the venue was full of college students, specifically what inducements were provided to get them to come.  I suspect, however,  from the behavior that they were offered the chance to actually see in the flesh, you know, I mean, really,  the “Rock Star” President. Free Tee shirts, too.  I doubt that they would have come for a dreary memorial service for people who meant nothing in their little lives.
    I  notice that we have still heard very little of the dead beyond; the Judge, the Congesswoman’s Aide (Zimmerman?), and thanks to the blogosphere the little old fellow who took one for his wife.  Of the other wounded, nada.

  • Bookworm

    Aack!  I make that exact mistake (Michelle Obama instead of Michelle Malkin) all the time when typing, but this is the first time I’ve actually published.

    As you’ve probably noticed, I don’t make many traditional typos, the type in which one simply mistypes things, a la “The quik red fox jmped ovvr the lazy brownn dog.”

    My typos are actually word association errors.  I use words that sound alike but are spelled differently, words that have similar letter patterns, entirely different words that have the same rhythm patterns, etc.

    I like to think of it as a sign of creativity.  The main problem with this type of “creativity” is that, since these words make sense in my brain (why would I type them otherwise?) I often don’t catch the mistakes when I proofread.

  • Ymarsakar

    It’s cause you are a woman, Book. Your brain keeps making connections all the time, zooming between every sub-station and topic.
    I don’t think it’s the reason you think it is. Meaning, when you proof read, the brain reads the first 3 letters and the last letter. It uses a sort of pattern recognition, which is why writers can read their stuff all they want, but they need other proof readers to catch the errors in their entirety. They are TOO familiar with what their stuff looks like, to the point where they are not actually paying attention to what is written. They are doing a short cut, their brain is short cutting from the image pattern to a memory association. Rather than a total analysis of the visual data.
    It’s the same for creative types as uncreative types.

  • Bookworm

    I think you’re right about the pattern recognition, Y.  I’m especially strong on that, since I’m mildly dyslexic.  Words, on their own, can be problematic for me, but I can get things in context.  I often read by absorbing a sentence or a short paragraph.  I know I miss small words, but for the most part, reading comprehension tests show me at the 95-100% level, so I’m not too worried.  I also can read really, really fast this way.  :)

  • suek

    I thought that had to be too good to be true…but I hoped.

  • Ymarsakar

    Women are also better pattern and code recognizers, based upon a couple of tests I saw. I scored 70% on code recognition, 99% on verbal and 99% on vocabulary. 99% better than the others, that is. But while I scored 70% better than males on code recognition, it was only like 50% better than females that took the same test.
    So there’s some kind of 10-20% upper limit difference here. Regardless of upper tier intellectual brackets.
    This probably has something to do with the multi tasking specialty of women or the analogy of multiple tracks with women (one track mind with men).
    Men have to take the train off the track before getting another train. Women can have shuttles zooming by in 3 dimensions, switch boarding it up like a diva maestro.
    I judge it a survival function with men. When you see a guy and his friends watching some critical Superball football or whatever sporty thing they are zooming in on, and you come up to them and try to talk to them about an unrelated subject, they are essentially ignoring you. They are mouthing the right words but their single train track is essentially occupied and you aren’t going to get through until the train finishes going wherever it is going. This is rated based upon a priority system of what can be done now.
    As a survival function, it works this way. When males are focusing on single issue activities like shooting, cutting wood, using weapons, or killing game, distractions are going to get people hurt. If a male is chopping wood and his mind suddenly decides to go into lalaland or think about something completely unrelated, he’ll find he might be missing a piece of his body soon enough. It’ll be attached to the axe instead.
    So when people talk to guys focusing on activities that require their total attention, they are only devoting a minuscule amount of attention to the unrelated issue. They’ll sort of look your way, think about it for a second while they pause their activity, then go back to their activity has if nothing happened.
    Pure survival. This is especially true of males back in the age of muscle powered activities. Stuff was dangerous back then, when everything was powered by muscles. If male started daydreaming, accidents will and did happen. Swinging ice picks. Pulling on pulleys. Mining.

  • Charles Martel

    Like Book, I can grasp meaning from very little information.

    For instance, I need only to see “W. . .. .” to know that it very obviously is going to say, “When in the course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another.”

  • Tonestaple

    I read once that women tend to have a bigger corpus callosum than men do.  If true, this gives women better communication between the two halves of their brain which may explain “woman’s intuition” and multi-tasking.  And, keeping up with what Ymarsakar said, women multi-tasking makes sense evolutionarily because there would be multiple children to keep track of, plus all of the tasks involved in maintaining whatever passed for a home while the menfolk were out doing their single-minded hunting.  So if women couldn’t multi-task, the kids would have died and the house would have burned down.