5 ms·

Not at all. I have reasonably high standards for scholars. This is not about you. It's about the definition in the dictionary. It has as a primary entry for sc

by jeromec 16y ago

Not at all. I have reasonably high standards for scholars. This is not about you. It's about the definition in the dictionary. It has as a primary entry for scholar "a distinguished academic". The definition for "professor" from Wikipedia: The meaning of the word professor (Latin: professor, person who professes to be an expert in some art or science, teacher of high rank[1]) varies by country. In most English-speaking countries it refers to a senior academic who holds a departmental chair ... etc. I don't know how you equate "Senior Lecturers regarded as professors" by a university to a 6th grade history teacher who may also be the school gym teacher filling in. That's stretching things a bit.

anamax 16y ago
> In most English-speaking countries it refers to a senior academic who holds a departmental chair Which Obama didn't.... In general, real professors have publications. Heck, so do real academic doctors. Honorary and "we're giving him an appointment to curry favor" ones don't.
- jeromec 16y ago
  Bottom line: Point 1: You had a problem with me referring to President Obama as a scholar. Regardless of your semantic arguments, dictionaries also define scholar as simply a student or learned person. Point 2: The university statement clarifies how and why Obama was regarded as a professor -- and not just an "honorary" one. Point 3: Most academic doctors or professors with publications do not go on to become the President of the United States. Have you ever stopped to think maybe he was busy in service of the public as well as his family? Honestly, the original point was about the contrast in perspective, as far as the Constitution is concerned, between Obama and Bush. I really don't see what you are challenging.
  - anamax 16y ago
    > Most academic doctors or professors with publications do not go on to become the President of the United States. Irrelevant. Becoming president doesn't imply that he's anything else. Or, do you want to argue that he's an astronaut too? He didn't ever go into space, but that's just because he had better things to do. > Have you ever stopped to think maybe he was busy in service of the public as well as his family? It doesn't matter why he doesn't have scholarly output. If he doesn't.... FWIW, almost every other editor of the Harvard Law Review managed to crank out a paper or two during their tenure. > Honestly, the original point was about the contrast in perspective, as far as the Constitution is concerned, between Obama and Bush. I really don't see what you are challenging. You seem to think that teaching a class tells us something important. Without scholarly output, we know nothing about what he did. (I'm a lecturer at a major university....)
    - jeromec 16y ago
      You seem to think that teaching a class tells us something important. Correct. In the context of a presidency, along with his words, I believe we can infer a regard for the Constitution. And Obama made essentially this point. Take a look at an excerpt from a speech by President Obama on national security: We are building new partnerships around the world to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al Qaeda and its affiliates. And we have renewed American diplomacy so that we once again have the strength and standing to truly lead the world. These steps are all critical to keeping America secure. But I believe with every fiber of my being that in the long run we also cannot keep this country safe unless we enlist the power of our most fundamental values. The documents that we hold in this very hall - the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights -are not simply words written into aging parchment. They are the foundation of liberty and justice in this country, and a light that shines for all who seek freedom, fairness, equality and dignity in the world. I challenge you to find any reference Bush made to any of the above documents at any time while on the subject of national security where he is clearly expressing a regard for the document(s) as a guide.

by jeromec 16y ago

anamax 16y ago

> In most English-speaking countries it refers to a senior academic who holds a departmental chair Which Obama didn't.... In general, real professors have publications. Heck, so do real academic doctors. Honorary and "we're giving him an appointment to curry favor" ones don't.

jeromec 16y ago
Bottom line: Point 1: You had a problem with me referring to President Obama as a scholar. Regardless of your semantic arguments, dictionaries also define scholar as simply a student or learned person. Point 2: The university statement clarifies how and why Obama was regarded as a professor -- and not just an "honorary" one. Point 3: Most academic doctors or professors with publications do not go on to become the President of the United States. Have you ever stopped to think maybe he was busy in service of the public as well as his family? Honestly, the original point was about the contrast in perspective, as far as the Constitution is concerned, between Obama and Bush. I really don't see what you are challenging.
- anamax 16y ago
  > Most academic doctors or professors with publications do not go on to become the President of the United States. Irrelevant. Becoming president doesn't imply that he's anything else. Or, do you want to argue that he's an astronaut too? He didn't ever go into space, but that's just because he had better things to do. > Have you ever stopped to think maybe he was busy in service of the public as well as his family? It doesn't matter why he doesn't have scholarly output. If he doesn't.... FWIW, almost every other editor of the Harvard Law Review managed to crank out a paper or two during their tenure. > Honestly, the original point was about the contrast in perspective, as far as the Constitution is concerned, between Obama and Bush. I really don't see what you are challenging. You seem to think that teaching a class tells us something important. Without scholarly output, we know nothing about what he did. (I'm a lecturer at a major university....)
  - jeromec 16y ago
    You seem to think that teaching a class tells us something important. Correct. In the context of a presidency, along with his words, I believe we can infer a regard for the Constitution. And Obama made essentially this point. Take a look at an excerpt from a speech by President Obama on national security: We are building new partnerships around the world to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al Qaeda and its affiliates. And we have renewed American diplomacy so that we once again have the strength and standing to truly lead the world. These steps are all critical to keeping America secure. But I believe with every fiber of my being that in the long run we also cannot keep this country safe unless we enlist the power of our most fundamental values. The documents that we hold in this very hall - the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights -are not simply words written into aging parchment. They are the foundation of liberty and justice in this country, and a light that shines for all who seek freedom, fairness, equality and dignity in the world. I challenge you to find any reference Bush made to any of the above documents at any time while on the subject of national security where he is clearly expressing a regard for the document(s) as a guide.