No doubt the majority of the traders, bankers and lawyers that have precipitated the current financial crisis have come from the hallowed halls of academia.
Just because you claim to think that doesn't necessarily make you smart!
Give the Tuttles a go.
Paul Snr would certainly take the airs and graces out of any graduate.

I agree with Col Rouge in one respect:

"When the pipes back up, we phone for a plumber, not an expert in ... accountancy."

A touch of hypocracy from the most opinionated 'fornicator' (his word) on OLO?

I agree Romany, but sadly current politics is so caught up in spin that there is simply no place for "solutions whose outcomes go way beyond any one person's term of office." The opinion polls are more important than a coherent policy and appearance matters far more than performance. Just watch the pollies desperately staying "on message" while studiously avoiding giving any answer that goes outside what their market research has covered (Rudd is absolutely masterful at this). It would be funny if it wasn't so dispiriting.

Col Rouge says "We have a couple of “intellectuals” here, a wannabe emeritus professor,,, [and] another, who indulges in peeing on the common folk from the pinnacle of his ivory academic tower and is renown for the images of his sister and brother which he has posted to this forum." Oh come off it Col. You post off-topic flamebait like that and then get upset when someone flames you? I'd take your views more seriously if you weren't so obviously spoiling for a fight.

I am amazed at the "anti-intellectualism" of many of the comments expressed here. Two persons offered us "proof" of their genius status based on IQ, University background and/or languages studied. Somehow, in my opinion, their brilliance was not shown by their comments. Romany, bennie, and the information found at the website cited by Ho Hum, all hit the target for me.

What some posters seem to forget is there is a difference between someone who is arrogant, condescending etc and someone who is intellectual.

Anyone who has had anything to do with Mensa or savants knows that I Q has little to do day to day smarts. Both can be real world dumb. Many geniuses have had shall we say strange traits. I think it was Thomas Edison who quoined “genius is 99% perspiration 1% inspiration.”

I have often railed against (generalized) labels when referring to specific people as it is always found dubious on closer examination.
I have to those who are unable (for a multitude of reasons) and those who refuse to reason (again for a number of reasons; often emotional, religious dogma, perceived self interest or simply fear of the unknown (different)) not from any sense of superiority but merely as acknowledgement of reality.

Intellectual to me is a combination of unemotional observation, knowledge, analytical and logic skills … Again IQ and education are not essential.
I have seen “primitive” natives in PNG display more wisdom and common sense at times than some PhDs.

Some PhD recipients pontificate on subjects well outside their real area/topic of their PhD thesis and expect special reverence on all topics regardless of their specialized (unrelated) learning.

Likewise I abhor those who either use irrelevant titles ‘GM’, president, (of some organization) or politician as automatically bestowing special superior knowledge/judgement as though wisdom etc is gained when their buttocks come in contact with the executive leather. Ms Palin is just such a case.

It should be noted though neither is an ill informed nor dogma influenced opinion a guarantee of correctness. There are some who resort to unnecessary ad hominem comments to those who challenge their opinions. Especially when those opinions are based on fallacious details or flawed emotional reasoning.
Ani intellectualism as a concept is flawed often misinterpreted, misused and so vague as to be investigatively (if there's such a word) worthless.

Examinator, Romany, you make good points. Regrettably, as evidenced here, a great deal of commentary is based more on defensiveness than any real analysis.

Spikey, well said RE Churchill's comment, it's a prime example.
Churchill reacts against what's seen as a simplistic, sweeping attack on the small mindedness of some Americans. In response, he makes a simplistic, sweeping attack on Australians.

Way to go there Chief. How's about taking a moment to calm down and think for a minute huh?

Romany, Examinator, good points on the word 'intellectual.' Col, I think you've provided a more nuanced version of Churchill's kneejerk reaction. For some reason the word intellectual seems to be like a red rag to a bull for you, but it needn't be a loaded term. As Examinator points out, intellectualism isn't a cut and dry thing.

Regardless of how smart you are, there will always be certain pursuits that can people look like an idiot, be it messing about with the controls on a DVD player, or perhaps Churchill's contribution to this debate (sorry Churchill, but really, the hypocrisy there really is worth a giggle, unless it was intentional satire, in which case I dip my hat to you).

Palin's performance in the media interviews as well as the VP debate was enough of a indicator as to how she handles such matters as well as pressure. In both instances, it was a fail. During the debate, she could only resort to cliches, and hell, that was an improvement on her performance in the media interviews. I suppose you can make similar arguments on Biden, but I'd argue given McCain's health and Palin's inexperience it's more significant.

They're VP's though. McCain isn't. McCain's clearly been floundering somewhat, and the fact of the matter is that Obama has shown discipline. I suppose one can resort to the 'Liberal media' conspiracy though I think that's crap, because clearly the media blowtorch has been on for a long time. Seems obvious that Hillary was a far more competent adversary than McCain and Obama was able to face that one down.