IQ tests for all Presidential candidates, please.

It is time for American politicians – indeed, I suggest all politicians seeking high office – to have mandatory IQ tests administered to them. This would save America – or indeed any other nation – from electing that particular breed of charming, persuasive, self-confident, but ultimately empty headed type that politics too often seems to attract. (I am sure you can think of a few who fit that description, without me naming them). Such mental lightweights do not have the cognitive resources to make the best decisions, or to think with a long term enough vision, to guide any nation to long term security, success, growth and stability.

So, I propose that an independent, international body be established to administer IQ tests to all current or prospective politicians, of all nationalities. I am sure that there would be some interesting revelations were such an examination to be performed. This IQ information should be made publicly available, and be searchable online. It should also be reported in the mass media. Were this to be done, I am sure there would be very interesting consequences. The electorate would have to hold, in its collective mind, a measurement of the basic mental capacities of each candidate. The electorate would also have to make a judgement as to whether a particular level of cognitive capacity was enough for the job. Though, of course, there could be a mandatory minimum level imposed. In such a world, a politician who was dumber than the base threshold – say an IQ of 130, perhaps – would be debarred from being a politician at all. However, it would be probably be more interesting – though perhaps less safe for the country – to leave that decision up to the collective mind of the electorate (though the IQ of that, is not particularly high).

A system of mandatory IQ tests for all prospective politicians, particularly for Presidential candidates, would allow for much greater understanding of the true intellectual power of the people in question. Until now, the intellectual reputations of politicians, particularly Presidential candidates, have been established through canny media campaigns, which resemble consumer goods branding exercises i.e. the statements and promises made often bear no relation to reality or truth. The campaign for Senator Barack Obama’s run for Presidency is a case in point. The media made him out to be a genius of the highest order. He was praised for an intellectual power that was deemed unprecedented. I saw absurdly high estimates of his IQ floating around...ones that would have made him among the smartest of people anywhere. Yet, a close look at the intellectual achievements of his life, reveals a perturbing thinness of evidence. If he is truly a great intellect, he hasn’t done much to show it. In fact, he has done less to show it than many men of fairly average intellect do. This does seem to suggest that his true intellect, is actually much closer to that fairly average impression. For instance, he became President of Harvard Law Review, essentially through affirmative action by all appearances. (For those of my readers who are not familiar with “affirmative action”, this is the practice of selecting people on the basis of race, not merit, or innate ability. Typically in such “affirmative action programmes”, the threshold for a minority race applicant is much, much lower than for a majority race applicant. This leads to obvious problems with the performance of such people, on the job.) Now, as President of Harvard Law Review, one would have thought that there would have emerged from the young Barack Obama, a fount of articles, to be published in its previously august pages...not so. The young Barack Obama published nothing in the Harvard Law Review, apart, perhaps, from his own name. It seems that was the extent of his writing abilities at the time. This fact is very strong evidence that the young Barack Obama was short on both ideas and writing ability. Both facts are not indicators of any high degree of intelligence. Yet, still, the media made him out to be some kind of genius for being “the first black President of the Harvard Law Review”. In actual fact, his conduct as President of the Harvard Law Review reveals a very modest intelligence at work.

The most effective way to stop the mass media being used to create false impressions of the intelligence of candidates is for their IQs to be made publicly known, having been verified by an independent body, external to the United States, with no ties to any one competing nation. Perhaps this could be an all nation effort under the UN.

Were President Obama’s IQ made known, I really think there would be a lot of surprise in many quarters. For the first time, people would have objective knowledge of the quality of his mind – and I am certain that his supporters will be very disappointed by what that objective measurement reveals. However, it would be unfair to imply that President Obama, alone, is probably not as bright as his “genius” marketing made him out to be. It is just that, in his case, the disparity between legend and truth is likely to be greater than for most other politicians. This is partly because his intelligence has been exaggerated more – and partly because he is probably not as bright as certain other recent politicians, despite all the positive press about his mental powers (as if he were some sort of Marvel Superhero).

Other politicians, too, would surprise the electorate by the essential mediocrity of their minds. This is a good surprise, for the people deserve to know the quality of the people they are electing. Some might think that it is enough to know where someone was educated, to gain an indication of their intelligence. This is fallacious thinking because it assumes that all candidates for admission are treated in the same way. They are not. Some politicians – indeed, many – come from very privileged backgrounds and gained admission to prestigious schools on the basis of family connections and the wish for said institutions to curry favour with their families – or repay old benefactions and the like. So, admission to a prestigious school, for people of such privileged background, may be no indicator of talent at all. However, it is an indicator of a kind of political influence, which is not the same thing.

Another point to bear in mind: a person’s educational history bears the same correlation to their innate intelligence, as does their appearance. This correlation is 0.381, if I remember correctly. Thus, candidates boasting about their education, is no more significant than saying: “I have got a pretty face!”.

No. The only way to settle all the uncertainty about the mental abilities of political candidates is for them ALL to have MANDATORY IQ tests performed, under controlled, observed, videoed conditions (to prevent cheating), by an independent body. Until then, politicians will do what they always do: lie about their intelligence and abilities to convince the electorate that they have some special, or at least adequate, ability to govern.

That being said, if anyone has any inside knowledge about the IQ of any politician please comment below, with your evidence and source. Thank you.

Posted by Valentine Cawley

(If you would like to support my continued writing of this blog and my ongoing campaign to raise awareness about giftedness and all issues pertaining to it, please donate, by clicking on the gold button to the left of the page.

To read about my fundraising campaign, please go to: http://scientific-child-prodigy.blogspot.com/2011/01/fundraising-drive-in-support-of-my.html and here: http://scientific-child-prodigy.blogspot.com/2011/01/fundraising-drive-first-donation.html

If you would like to read any of our scientific research papers, there are links to some of them, here: http://scientific-child-prodigy.blogspot.com/2011/02/research-papers-by-valentine-cawley-and.html

If you would like to see an online summary of my academic achievements to date, please go here: http://www.getcited.org/mbrz/11136175To learn more of Ainan Celeste Cawley, 10, or his gifted brothers, Fintan, 7 and Tiarnan, 5, please go to: http://scientific-child-prodigy.blogspot.com/2006/10/scientific-child-prodigy-guide.html

I also write of gifted education, child prodigy, child genius, adult genius, savant, megasavant, HELP University College, the Irish, the Malays, Singapore, Malaysia, IQ, intelligence and creativity.

There is a review of my blog, on the respected The Kindle Report here:http://thekindlereport.blogspot.com/2010/09/boy-who-knew-too-much-child-prodigy.html

Please have a read, if you would like a critic's view of this blog. Thanks.

You can get my blog on your Kindle, for easy reading, wherever you are, by going to: http://www.amazon.com/Boy-Who-Knew-Too-Much/dp/B0042P5LEE/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&m=AG56TWVU5XWC2&s=digital-text&qid=1284603792&sr=8-1

Please let all your fellow Kindlers know about my blog availability - and if you know my blog well enough, please be so kind as to write a thoughtful review of what you like about it. Thanks.

My Internet Movie Database listing is at:http://imdb.com/name/nm3438598/

Ainan's IMDB listing is at http://imdb.com/name/nm3305973/

Syahidah's IMDB listing is at http://imdb.com/name/nm3463926/

Our editing, proofreading and copywriting company, Genghis Can, is athttp://www.genghiscan.com/This blog is copyright Valentine Cawley. Unauthorized duplication is prohibited. Use only with permission. Thank you.)

Barack Obama and Mitt Romney's tax plans.

Barack Obama and Mitt Romney have both promised tax cuts, if elected, that sound delicious to the voter’s ears. Barack Obama has said he will cut corporate taxes from 35% to 28%. He has also said he will maintain the Bush era tax cuts for most voters, and raise taxes on those earning 250,000 dollars a year and more. Mitt Romney on the other hand, rather more adventurously, has promised to cut all individual tax rates by 20% - and to cut corporation tax to just 25%. Now, my question is: are these two men sane?

There is a profound problem with the idea that broad ranging tax cuts are possible in America, at this time. America, as the whole world knows, is deeply in debt. Indeed, its debt is so large that it would take many years to conquer it, with wide ranging tax INCREASES, and cuts to all government funded public services. It is simple not possible to cut taxes, as offered by Obama and Romney, and maintain existing services. Should either of these tax plans be implemented then one of two things would happen: the American debt burden would grow rapidly – or all publicly funded services would have to be dramatically cut, to balance the books. Barack Obama and Mitt Romney are making seductive promises to the electorate, which simply cannot be kept, without destroying America as a nation. Now, there is the real meaning of these promises: both Barack Obama and Mitt Romney would be prepared to destroy America, just to get elected.

America needs to cut public spending, and/or raise taxes, if it is to reduce its debt burden. This is the unavoidable truth. Barack Obama and Mitt Romney clearly believe that the American electorate is dumb...and perhaps they are right. They are certainly banking on the dumbness of the American people to get them elected, since what they are promising cannot be delivered without imperilling the United States itself.

I am hoping that the American electorate is bright enough to see the essential problem with promising significant tax cuts in an era of unprecedented national debt. It would be rash in the extreme to do so. Promising to do so, can only mean one thing – that the politician would do anything, absolutely anything, including bankrupt his own nation, just to get elected. What the American people need to do is pause for a while and reflect on whether they really want a politician like that, at the helm of their nation. By making such promises, both Barack Obama and Mitt Romney, reveal themselves to be dangerously unelectable. Should they be elected, the safety and long term security of the United States would be imperilled (if they keep their promises and are able to make them happen).

If any candidate wishes to promise significant tax cuts, they should also identify which public services they are going to cut, and by how much. The full truth needs to be declared. It is meaningless for a candidate to promise massive tax cuts, without also explaining how the budget will be balanced. It would also be very revealing if they do not intend to balance the budget, for that would be a plan to increase America’s debt burden...and that, now, at over 15 trillion dollars, is beyond the point at which it would be safe to increase it further.

So, remember this: Barack Obama and Mitt Romney, by declaring such fantastic, even delusional tax cutting plans, are declaring that they would bankrupt America, if it meant they could get elected again. I don’t know about you, but I wouldn’t want either of them in charge of my country. Would you?

Posted by Valentine Cawley

(If you would like to support my continued writing of this blog and my ongoing campaign to raise awareness about giftedness and all issues pertaining to it, please donate, by clicking on the gold button to the left of the page.

To read about my fundraising campaign, please go to: http://scientific-child-prodigy.blogspot.com/2011/01/fundraising-drive-in-support-of-my.html and here: http://scientific-child-prodigy.blogspot.com/2011/01/fundraising-drive-first-donation.html

If you would like to read any of our scientific research papers, there are links to some of them, here: http://scientific-child-prodigy.blogspot.com/2011/02/research-papers-by-valentine-cawley-and.html

If you would like to see an online summary of my academic achievements to date, please go here: http://www.getcited.org/mbrz/11136175To learn more of Ainan Celeste Cawley, 10, or his gifted brothers, Fintan, 7 and Tiarnan, 5, please go to: http://scientific-child-prodigy.blogspot.com/2006/10/scientific-child-prodigy-guide.html

I also write of gifted education, child prodigy, child genius, adult genius, savant, megasavant, HELP University College, the Irish, the Malays, Singapore, Malaysia, IQ, intelligence and creativity.

There is a review of my blog, on the respected The Kindle Report here:http://thekindlereport.blogspot.com/2010/09/boy-who-knew-too-much-child-prodigy.html

Please have a read, if you would like a critic's view of this blog. Thanks.

You can get my blog on your Kindle, for easy reading, wherever you are, by going to: http://www.amazon.com/Boy-Who-Knew-Too-Much/dp/B0042P5LEE/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&m=AG56TWVU5XWC2&s=digital-text&qid=1284603792&sr=8-1

Please let all your fellow Kindlers know about my blog availability - and if you know my blog well enough, please be so kind as to write a thoughtful review of what you like about it. Thanks.

My Internet Movie Database listing is at:http://imdb.com/name/nm3438598/

Ainan's IMDB listing is at http://imdb.com/name/nm3305973/

Syahidah's IMDB listing is at http://imdb.com/name/nm3463926/

Our editing, proofreading and copywriting company, Genghis Can, is athttp://www.genghiscan.com/This blog is copyright Valentine Cawley. Unauthorized duplication is prohibited. Use only with permission. Thank you.)

Samuel L. Jackson on Barack Obama.

Samuel L. Jackson, the Hollywood actor, voted for Barack Obama, he revealed in a recent expletive laden interview in Ebony magazine. Now, what struck me as very revealing was why he did so. Can you guess? Well, Samuel L. Jackson voted for Barack Obama for one reason and one reason alone – because Obama is black. That’s it. Samuel L. Jackson declared that Barack Obama’s policies meant nothing to him, really – all that mattered was that he was black. He voted for him because “he looked like me...and that is why people vote for people”. He said, in similar words.

In the same interview he accused the Tea Party of racism since their sole purpose was to get Barack Obama – a black man – out of office.

Now, these words of Samuel L. Jackson are very curious and telling. Mr. Jackson appears to be unaware that his choice of Barack Obama simply because he was black, rather any reason of substance, is, in fact, a racist choice. Samuel L. Jackson is showing an unconscious racism by this decision, whether he realizes it or not. Anyone who selects anyone, above others, for anything, for the reason of race, alone, is being racist. Race should not be reason for selecting for or against someone. Only matters of substance can form reasonable motivations for choosing one person over another. Samuel L. Jackson didn’t choose for any such reason – he chose Obama because they had the same coloured skin. This is the very same kind of reasoning which Jackson views as racist when he judges the Tea Party. They, too, are, it seems, wishing to choose a President, or determine a President, based on race...the white race. Samuel L. Jackson has declared the same motivation as the one he pins on the Tea Party – it is just the mirror image of it.

I hope for a day when race plays no part in political or other choices. People should be measured for their qualities, their abilities, their views, their aspirations and aims, their plans and their experiences – they should not be assessed on whether or not they belong to a particular race. The best candidate, in terms of a summation of all their qualities, is the one who should win – along with the best party as a summation of all they have to offer a country. The race of those politicians (or whatever other class of people is being considered under the circumstance) should not be a part of any rational, fair, humane decision making process. It should always be the best person wins. It should NEVER be – the person most like me, racially, wins. That is a racist decision, no matter who makes it, or whatever race they be.

I don’t think Samuel L. Jackson is aware that his decision was a racist one. I don’t think he has reflected too deeply on it. If he had, he would not have accused the Tea Party of similar thinking, implicitly, for he would have recognized that their views were simply mirrored echoes of his own. No. Samuel L. Jackson most probably does not intend to hold a racist view...but, in fact, he does. Sometimes people are not aware of the true meaning or implications of their own thinking. They don’t examine their own thought processes enough to become aware of them – they just act, almost reflexively. I think Samuel L. Jackson’s decision comes into this category of reflexive thought. He instinctively chose Obama because of the physical race based similarities he has with him. That is all. He never paused to reflect on whether or not such a decision was fair, reasonable or free of racist undertones. He just reacted. So many people do that. So many people “decide” without thinking. We need a different world. A world of more thinking, in which decisions are actually thought through and are not reflexive. We need a world in which people actually consider the context, implications and consequences of their thoughts before making a decision. The only basis on which Barack Obama should have been judged is on the substance of his life and his merits as a human being. No-one should have been judging based on his race. He should have been compared, in a race blind way, with all other possible humans who could have had his job – and being judged accordingly, positively or negatively. I think, had this been done, perhaps he would not have been elected. He seems, to an overseas, impartial, uninvolved eye, to have certain weaknesses as a candidate, which seemed to have been overlooked by the electorate, perhaps because they saw his race first, his suitability last.

Let future elections in America, and elsewhere be race blind. Let the decisions on who is to lead a nation be based purely on who would make the best leader, from the point of view of who would benefit the nation most. If such a person be black, then by all means elect them. However, such a person should never be elected purely BECAUSE they are black, or Hispanic, or Asian or white, etc. As always the winner should be the most optimal candidate, not the most “ethnically correct”.

The future of America is likely to see other Presidents who are minorities. I would be unsurprised to see an Hispanic President, given how quickly the Hispanic population is growing. Again, however, such a President should only ever be selected if they are genuinely the best of all candidates.

I am hopeful that some people might have learned a lesson from President Barack Obama’s election. Many people, I am sure, are a little disappointed at his performance. Yet, they should not be surprised, since many were like Samuel L. Jackson. They didn’t choose him for his capabilities...they chose him for his colour. Colour, alone, is no guide to a good leader. I hope America, and the world, choose future leaders without reference to race – for such concerns only ever corrupt and contaminate the electoral process and give rise to irrational decisions for which the country must pay the price. The world cannot afford to pay such a price – it needs to eliminate racism and choose the genuinely best candidates, in a colour blind fashion.

Posted by Valentine Cawley

(If you would like to support my continued writing of this blog and my ongoing campaign to raise awareness about giftedness and all issues pertaining to it, please donate, by clicking on the gold button to the left of the page.

To read about my fundraising campaign, please go to: http://scientific-child-prodigy.blogspot.com/2011/01/fundraising-drive-in-support-of-my.html and here: http://scientific-child-prodigy.blogspot.com/2011/01/fundraising-drive-first-donation.html

If you would like to read any of our scientific research papers, there are links to some of them, here: http://scientific-child-prodigy.blogspot.com/2011/02/research-papers-by-valentine-cawley-and.html

If you would like to see an online summary of my academic achievements to date, please go here: http://www.getcited.org/mbrz/11136175To learn more of Ainan Celeste Cawley, 10, or his gifted brothers, Fintan, 7 and Tiarnan, 5, please go to: http://scientific-child-prodigy.blogspot.com/2006/10/scientific-child-prodigy-guide.html

I also write of gifted education, child prodigy, child genius, adult genius, savant, megasavant, HELP University College, the Irish, the Malays, Singapore, Malaysia, IQ, intelligence and creativity.

There is a review of my blog, on the respected The Kindle Report here:http://thekindlereport.blogspot.com/2010/09/boy-who-knew-too-much-child-prodigy.html

Please have a read, if you would like a critic's view of this blog. Thanks.

You can get my blog on your Kindle, for easy reading, wherever you are, by going to: http://www.amazon.com/Boy-Who-Knew-Too-Much/dp/B0042P5LEE/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&m=AG56TWVU5XWC2&s=digital-text&qid=1284603792&sr=8-1

Please let all your fellow Kindlers know about my blog availability - and if you know my blog well enough, please be so kind as to write a thoughtful review of what you like about it. Thanks.

My Internet Movie Database listing is at:http://imdb.com/name/nm3438598/

Ainan's IMDB listing is at http://imdb.com/name/nm3305973/

Syahidah's IMDB listing is at http://imdb.com/name/nm3463926/

Our editing, proofreading and copywriting company, Genghis Can, is athttp://www.genghiscan.com/This blog is copyright Valentine Cawley. Unauthorized duplication is prohibited. Use only with permission. Thank you.)

Should presidential candidates have IQ tests?

My provocative opening question is not without reason. I am led to wonder whether Presidential or Prime Ministerial candidates should be forced to undergo IQ tests, before running for office, worldwide. This would ensure that unhelpfully dumb candidates did not get elected based on their charm, charisma, good looks, sonorous voice and popular appeal, alone. Those characteristics, whilst admirable in an actor, do not aid performance in decision making at the helm of a nation - they just make one look good whilst doing it.

This question came to mind after stumbling on some videos of President Obama "speaking", without a teleprompter. This is quite something to watch. He is totally incoherent, the words appearing randomized, without meaning in relation to each other - a stuttering, stumbling, rambling mess. I was shocked. I have never, actually, seen a poorer example of spontaneous speech than the videos of Obama on Youtube, speaking without a teleprompter, on asthma treatment, at a town hall. He quite obviously has no idea at all what he is talking about or what he should be saying. Without the teleprompter - which had failed - he is unable to construct a coherent thought. In the video he is seen to make excuses, saying he hadn't been sleeping much. It is quite sad - and shocking to watch.

Now I must say at this point, that I know very little about American politics, not having followed it closely. I also have no real interest in it. So my pointing out that Obama has trouble speaking without a teleprompter, should not be seen as a political statement. I have no wish to have any influence on American politics. I am just drawing your attention to a remarkable inability to speak spontaneously of a US President. Personally, this is not what I expected to see. I expected much more polish, skill and fluency from President Obama, than that. I suppose, therefore, that I had been influenced by all the image making that surrounds the man. I had not had the chance to see the underlying truth. Well, now I have. It is quietly sobering.

Take a look, if you will at the videos on Youtube that show Obama's propensity for verbal clumsiness and mistaken utterances. Try searching for "Obama without a teleprompter", and "Obama Gaffe Mania". The latter is a compilation of errors which are quite wide ranging in type and subject matter. They show that President Obama has great weaknesses in many areas.

Now, you will no doubt recall that President Bush (the last one), was frequently accused of being dumb. He also made quite a few errors in public, which gave the impression that he wasn't the brightest of the bright. So, my remarks do not just apply to President Obama, but Presidents in general. The question is: how bright should a President be?

I would suggest that a President should be bright enough to be able to understand all the issues put to him, for a decision to be made. A President should also be able to speak spontaneously, without script writers, on any subject pertaining to the ruling of a nation. Thus, a President should be well-informed, bright and capable of speaking clearly and thinking effectively. The gaffes, by President Obama, do not show these qualities. One of them, for instance, speaks of him being able to see many fallen heroes in the audience today. Thus it is that President Obama doesn't know that a fallen hero is a dead person. At least, his tongue doesn't know. This kind of statement does not encourage the belief that President Obama is an intelligent man. However, as I have said, there are other former Presidents, too, who were of questionable intellect.

It seems to me, that a minimal acceptable IQ for a President or Prime Minister, might be 130. That is two standard deviations above the mean for a Caucasian group and at the lower margin of "moderately gifted". One person in forty four has such an IQ, in Western nations. That doesn't seem too stringent, nor does it seem too light a requirement. Basically, such a person, as a child, would typically be the brightest person in the class, of an ordinary school. That should be the minimum intelligence for a candidate for high office. Anything less, risks the election of someone who cannot understand deeply enough the nuances of the decisions they have to make.

It is said, by some researchers, that a leader should not be more than 30 IQ points above the led, if they are to communicate effectively with them. This is an unfortunate constraint since it works directly against the ability of leaders to understand the issues they must grapple with. However, my proposed threshold of 130 is on that limit and is, therefore, still within the optimal range for effective leadership. Furthermore, it seems to me, that higher IQs than that would have the benefit of better decision making, which might overcome any decrement in the ability to lead through effective communication to the masses.

What is President Obama's IQ? I have no idea. However, I would be utterly unsurprised if it were considerably below my suggested cut off. The same applies to former President George Bush, of course. It seems to me that America would be better off with brighter Presidents than it has been its habit to elect. My proposed requirement for a decent IQ, in political candidates for high office, would ensure that politicians, in high office, at least, had the mental wherewithal to make informed decisions.

Do you agree? Do you think politicians should be forced to undergo publicly declared IQ tests? Would this improve the quality of political life, the world over? Or would it be unfair in some way, to require political figures to be at least moderately smart? Please give me your thoughts below.

(If you would like to support my continued writing of this blog and my ongoing campaign to raise awareness about giftedness and all issues pertaining to it, please donate, by clicking on the gold button to the left of the page.

To read about my fundraising campaign, please go to: http://scientific-child-prodigy.blogspot.com/2011/01/fundraising-drive-in-support-of-my.htmland here: http://scientific-child-prodigy.blogspot.com/2011/01/fundraising-drive-first-donation.html

If you would like to read any of our scientific research papers, there are links to some of them, here: http://scientific-child-prodigy.blogspot.com/2011/02/research-papers-by-valentine-cawley-and.html

If you would like to see an online summary of my academic achievements to date, please go here: http://www.getcited.org/mbrz/11136175

To learn more of Ainan Celeste Cawley, 10, or his gifted brothers, Fintan, 7 and Tiarnan, 5, please go to: http://scientific-child-prodigy.blogspot.com/2006/10/scientific-child-prodigy-guide.html

I also write of gifted education, child prodigy, child genius, adult genius, savant, megasavant, HELP University College, the Irish, the Malays, Singapore, Malaysia, IQ, intelligence and creativity.

There is a review of my blog, on the respected The Kindle Report here:http://thekindlereport.blogspot.com/2010/09/boy-who-knew-too-much-child-prodigy.html

Please have a read, if you would like a critic's view of this blog. Thanks.

You can get my blog on your Kindle, for easy reading, wherever you are, by going to: http://www.amazon.com/Boy-Who-Knew-Too-Much/dp/B0042P5LEE/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&m=AG56TWVU5XWC2&s=digital-text&qid=1284603792&sr=8-1

Please let all your fellow Kindlers know about my blog availability - and if you know my blog well enough, please be so kind as to write a thoughtful review of what you like about it. Thanks.

My Internet Movie Database listing is at:http://imdb.com/name/nm3438598/

Ainan's IMDB listing is at http://imdb.com/name/nm3305973/

Syahidah's IMDB listing is at http://imdb.com/name/nm3463926/

Our editing, proofreading and copywriting company, Genghis Can, is athttp://www.genghiscan.com/

This blog is copyright Valentine Cawley. Unauthorized duplication is prohibited. Use only with permission. Thank you.)

The most famous man in the world.

Who is the most famous man in the world? Indeed, who is the most famous man in history? There are many, many candidates, but, at this time, one comes to mind who really, really, really should not be there.

Whom do you think is the most famous man in history? Most would say Jesus Christ. Others, more topically, might say Barack Obama. The founders of various religions, come to mind: Prophet Muhammad, Buddha and so on. However, there is one man whose fame outshines them all - and whose fame really should not, at all. I would like you to think about who that man might be.

To decide this question, we first need a measure of fame. There is one that researchers into fame have come to agree on: the number of hits, on a search of the person's name, on Google. So, we will use that.

How many hits does the name: "Jesus Christ" get from Google? Well, on the 3rd July 2009, at 10.50 pm my time, in Singapore, it received 48,800,000 hits. That is a very respectable number indeed and does show that Jesus Christ is still uppermost in many people's minds. By comparison, the film star Ewan McGregor received 3,170,000 at the same time. Ewan, while famous, is no Jesus Christ. Even Tom Cruise received only 28,400,000. So, quite happily Jesus Christ is more famous than Tom Cruise (though, perhaps, the great Scientologist would dispute that).

So, is Jesus Christ the most famous man in history? Let us look at Buddha. He receives 29,100,000 hits. That is somewhat more than Tom Cruise - but rather less than Jesus Christ. Then there is the Prophet Muhammad. Here, though, we have a problem in that many people might be speaking of him, in Arabic and that won't appear in my search results. Thus, the results for Muhammad will be an understatement since most of the activity will not be in English. This, perhaps, explains the relatively few 2,760,000 hits for "Prophet Muhammad" in Google.

Can we find anyone more famous than Jesus Christ? He has, in English, beaten the leaders of other religions...he has beaten one of the world's most famous film stars: who could be more famous than him?

Well, one name comes to mind: Barack Obama. A search on Google reveals an astonishing 102,000,000 hits for that name, meaning that Barack Obama is more than twice as famous as Jesus Christ, by this measure. Perhaps that is a reflection of the almost messianic quality he has and the fervour many people show for him. It is, also, because he is always in the news, as "leader of the free world".

So, is Barack Obama the most famous man in the world? Well, I thought so, except that a little suspicion came over me. There was one more name that I wanted to try.

This name had, at the same time as the other searches, 120,000,000 hits. So, there is one person more famous than Barack Obama, making this person, in fact, at this time in history, the most famous person on Earth and in history (though this fame may not endure). Can you guess who that person is?

Michael Jackson is now the most famous person on Earth, according to Google.

Now, that is really something unpalatable, in my eyes. You see, the question has to be asked: is a man who wrote songs and danced to them, really deserving of being almost three times more famous than Jesus Christ? Or over forty times as famous as the Prophet Muhammad in English? What, exactly, makes Michael Jackson more deserving of our attention than the founders of the world's great religions? It is absurd. Michael Jackson's fame is completely absurd.

Michael Jackson's significance, in real terms, is dwarved by Jesus Christ, Buddha or the Prophet Muhammad - yet he is, at this time, more famous than any of them. All he did was create rather simple songs and dance to them. That is all. His songs are not particularly complex, not particularly indicative of great musicality (to my ears) - as music, in fact, they are outclassed by the works of many dead European composers. Yet, Michael Jackson is feted, in death, as if he were God himself. Frankly, it is both silly and disturbing. Yes, it is sad that a man who had so many plans, should die before achieving them. However, it does not merit, in any way, the 24/7 attention by the news media, he has received since his unexpected death. The only kind of death that WOULD merit that kind of response is that of a great genius, the founder of a world religion, or a humanitarian who had improved the lot of millions of his/her fellow humans. A song and dance man does not merit this kind of response.

There are those who call Michael Jackson a "genius"...well, to do so, is to kind of forget the nature of the contributions of true geniuses in music and other areas, in the past. The work of true geniuses is, always, of greater richness, complexity, depth and value than the entire body of Michael Jackson's works.

However, nothing I say will make any difference to the avalanche of eulogies and praise that has followed his death. I have no doubt that the attention will roll on for many more years to come. The whole global population will be steadily brainwashed into believing that the death of Michael Jackson is one of the most significant events in the 21st Century - and that the world will never be the same without him. Yet, none of the media manipulation will alter the bare facts of the situation: a song and dance man, of some skill, but not one of the world's "great geniuses" has died, somewhat before his time. That is all.

Of course, Michael Jackson deserves a fair measure of fame, simply for being one of the world's best selling "artists"...but he does not deserve to be the most famous person in history. That is ridiculous and, in a way, reflects how shallow modern society has become, that it should elevate to the position of "most famous" a man of such relative insignificance, in the great scheme of things. Were we living in deeper times, with people who had higher standards for what they regard as important, Michael Jackson would have received, for one day only, a brief mention, in the middle of most newspapers - and then they would pass on, having said all that needed to be said. However, in these shallow times, the death of a creative minnow, has resulted in a whale of a response. Indeed, the response, in some ways, seems more of an entire ocean, than a single whale.

Watching the endless publicity attendant on Michael Jackson's death, I was left to wonder how did the world treat the death of someone who had truly made a significant contribution: Albert Einstein? If you, my reader, were alive at that time and have memories of Albert Einstein's death, could you comment below about what the posthumous publicity was like? Was it as great as now Michael Jackson is receiving? If not, something is wrong with the world...for if a person of truly significant achievement receives less attention than a song and dance man, it says, most clearly, that the modern world doesn't know what is truly important (or that they didn't know in the 1950s).

Memories of Einstein's passing, below, please...if you have them.

(If you would like to learn more of Ainan Celeste Cawley, a scientific child prodigy, aged eight years and seven months, or his gifted brothers, Fintan, five years exactly, and Tiarnan, twenty-eight months, please go to:http://scientific-child-prodigy.blogspot.com/2006/10/scientific-child-prodigy-guide.html I also write of gifted education, IQ, intelligence, the Irish, the Malays, Singapore, College, University, Chemistry, Science, genetics, left-handedness, precocity, child prodigy, child genius, baby genius, adult genius, savant, wunderkind, wonderkind, genio, гений ребенок prodigy, genie, μεγαλοφυία θαύμα παιδιών, bambino, kind.

We are the founders of Genghis Can, a copywriting, editing and proofreading agency, that handles all kinds of work, including technical and scientific material. If you need such services, or know someone who does, please go to: http://www.genghiscan.com/ Thanks.

This blog is copyright Valentine Cawley. Unauthorized duplication prohibited. Use Only with Permission. Thank you.)

Phil Spector, Barack Obama supporter and murderer.

Today, I saw the oddest of photos. In it, Phil Spector, fabled music producer and now murderer, wore a very smart suit, a red tie and a badge that said: 'Barack Obama Rocks'. He had presumably been photographed recently, while dressed up for a court or other public appearance.

I was struck by the incongruity of it all: a man up on murder charges, expressing his support for Barack Obama. Now, that the verdict has come in, it is a man convicted of murder, expressing his support for Barack Obama. Sometimes, even politicians, could do without the support of some people. However, being supported by someone is not a voluntary act and President Obama can't choose who he is supported by and not supported by. Most politicians, in fact, choose to be supported by anyone with a pulse...but in the case of Phil Spector, I think this is a mistaken approach.

In case you haven't been reading the news, lately, Phil Spector, who pioneered the 'wall of sound', through working with the Ronettes and went on to work with the Beatles and the Ramones, has a nasty personal habit. Apparently, according to the prosecution, he has a liking for pointing loaded revolvers at women, which have some, but not all, chambers empty and pulling the trigger. He is on record for having done this six times. (Note that a revolver usually has a capacity of six rounds). On the first five occasions, he managed only to frighten the women concerned, for the chamber was empty. On the sixth occasion, the prosecution contended, the chamber was full and Phil Spector, who had placed the gun in the mouth of Lana Clarkson (in the prosecution's view), killed the 40 year old nightclub hostess that he had met only hours before.

Now, on learning of this, I was struck by the madness of it all. Phil Spector is an immensely rich, successful and, until now, respected music producer. He had everything in the world one could wish for. Yet, there was in him a sadism so profound that he thought it reasonable to terrify young women with imminent death, on a regular basis. The contrast between his successful outer persona, and the demonic man within could not be greater.

Furthermore, I was struck by the stupidity of playing Russian roulette with the lives of so many women. It is stupid because the odds are not good. It was certain that he would kill someone if he continued playing this game, with woman after woman - which he did. Indeed, it is difficult to conceive of how anyone could be so demonstrably stupid as to play Russian roulette at all - yet still be mentally capable of running a successful career as a music producer. One could conclude that music producers don't need to be very bright, after all - or that he was either a deluded man, who thought that he would never be so 'unlucky' as to kill one of the women - or that he was, in fact, a murderous personality who rather hoped that he did kill one of the women. The choices aren't good.

One thing is for sure. After becoming a famous man, Phil Spector will be remembered not for his musical work, but for being one of the most callous murderers that has come to light in years. He shall now be remembered perhaps for much longer than he would have been - but whereas he once had fame, he now has infamy - and one that may endure far longer than he would hope.

(If you would like to learn more of Ainan Celeste Cawley, a scientific child prodigy, aged eight years and seven months, or his gifted brothers, Fintan, five years exactly, and Tiarnan, twenty-eight months, please go to:http://scientific-child-prodigy.blogspot.com/2006/10/scientific-child-prodigy-guide.html I also write of gifted education, IQ, intelligence, the Irish, the Malays, Singapore, College, University, Chemistry, Science, genetics, left-handedness, precocity, child prodigy, child genius, baby genius, adult genius, savant, wunderkind, wonderkind, genio, гений ребенок prodigy, genie, μεγαλοφυία θαύμα παιδιών, bambino, kind.

We are the founders of Genghis Can, a copywriting, editing and proofreading agency, that handles all kinds of work, including technical and scientific material. If you need such services, or know someone who does, please go to: http://www.genghiscan.com/ Thanks.

This blog is copyright Valentine Cawley. Unauthorized duplication prohibited. Use Only with Permission. Thank you.)

A leader without a sense of morality.

President Obama is a leader without a sense of morality. He has demonstrated this, already, in his short Presidency, twice, to my knowledge - and perhaps more often, since I am not paying close attention to his daily deeds and utterances.

His first immoral decision was to give the go-ahead to the "harvesting" of embryonic stem cells from embryos. This cannot be achieved without murdering unborn children. Yet, he sees that as a reasonable decision - even though alternative sources, from adults, for stem cells are now available.

His second immoral decision was to try to save 540 million dollars annually by NOT giving free medical care to wounded and disabled war veterans of the US armed services. What he wanted to do was to refer them back to their private insurers and let the private insurance plans pick up the tab.

I was, at once, struck by the moral reprehensibility of sending young men out to war and then NOT taking care of them when (inevitably) many of them come back with lasting injuries and lifelong disabilities. He is saying, as directly as it is possible to say it: "I hereby order you off to war. You are to fight for your nation and do my bidding. However, I don't care if you lose your life, your health, your happiness. I don't care if you spend the rest of your life in a wheelchair - and I am most certainly not going to pay for it."

The idea that the US state would actually shirk its responsibility to care for those who have sustained injuries or loss, while working on behalf of the US government is quite appalling. It shows, however, most clearly, that Obama is not a man who understands moral issues. He is not a man of compassion and insight. He is a man who is a paradox - for though very charming and personable, he cares not for people. He does not care for the lives of unborn embryos and he does not care for the lives of combat veterans. Perhaps, deep down, all that Obama cares for, is Obama.

No nation can ask men to fight and perhaps die for it, and then turn its back on them, when they get disabled. Yet, Obama wanted to do just that: to turn the nation's back on its war veterans.

I find his early decision-making disquieting for what it says about him. President Obama is seemingly not guided by an inner sense of what is right, wrong or appropriate. This leads him to fail to care for those he should care for and fail to understand which course of action is the right one, in the sense of good and true.

Another indicator was his crass comparison of his bowling skills to those of athletes in the Special Olympics. Though he apologized later for his remark, the fact that he made it, seems to show that he looks down on the disabled. They are people to make fun of. Indeed, it is telling to note that two of his recent "boo boos" refer to disabled people: the withdrawal of medical support for disabled veterans - and joking about the abilities of disabled athletes.

I am beginning to think that President Obama is all charm and no soul. The outer image he presents is polished and urbane, but the inner world is empty of morality or compassion.

Only a man without compassion could joke about the Special Olympics. Only a man without compassion or morality, could withdraw state medical support for those wounded or disabled in the service of that state.

President Obama is yet at the beginning of his Presidency, but there are already cracks in his character showing that indicate his Presidency could be littered with many ill-founded decisions; decisions that have no moral underpinning.

Personally, I would like to see a President of less charm and more soul. Charm might make for good television - but soul makes for a good man - and good decisions.

Knowing what is right and what is wrong, is instinctual. If it is not in a man - as it is not in Obama - I think it is very difficult to acquire. Then again, a man without it would usually not value it or see any need to acquire it. Given this, the only thing that will spare America from an immoral Presidency, is if some of his advisers make up for his character defect, by supplying him with a solid moral viewpoint. Without it, President Obama may not, in fact, turn out to be the great President everyone expects him to be. Indeed, he may do unexpected harm to the nation that elected him with such expectation.

There was a great outcry about President Obama's decision regarding veterans' medical care and seeing that he was being met with a lot of resistance, Obama backed down and cancelled his plans. I was amused to see how this was marketed: "President Obama made the right decision not to move forward", said Daniel K. Akaka, Senate Veterans Affairs Committee Chairman. This is funny because it makes it look like Obama was the one who decided in their favour, when, in fact, he was the one proposing the move against them. His capitulation has been restated as his "decision".

A good President shouldn't need the moral outrage of others to tell him what a moral decision is, or is not. He should make moral decisions at the outset and not have the public inform him of the immorality of his choices, through their appalled reactions.

President Obama has a lot to learn, like any new President. Alarmingly, however, what he has yet to learn, it seems, is a basic sense of right and wrong. That could be awkward for the USA, in the years ahead.

(If you would like to learn more of Ainan Celeste Cawley, a scientific child prodigy, aged eight years and seven months, or his gifted brothers, Fintan, five years exactly, and Tiarnan, twenty-eight months, please go to: http://scientific-child-prodigy.blogspot.com/2006/10/scientific-child-prodigy-guide.html I also write of gifted education, IQ, intelligence, the Irish, the Malays, Singapore, College, University, Chemistry, Science, genetics, left-handedness, precocity, child prodigy, child genius, baby genius, adult genius, savant, wunderkind, wonderkind, genio, гений ребенок prodigy, genie, μεγαλοφυία θαύμα παιδιών, bambino, kind.

We are the founders of Genghis Can, a copywriting, editing and proofreading agency, that handles all kinds of work, including technical and scientific material. If you need such services, or know someone who does, please go to: http://www.genghiscan.com/ Thanks.

This blog is copyright Valentine Cawley. Unauthorized duplication prohibited. Use Only with Permission. Thank you.)

Barack Obama and the video store.

Sometimes, serendipity seems almost wise in what it presents to us.

Today, I came upon a most serendipitous sight. I was browsing in a video store, when I saw a video entitled "Barack Obama" in bold letters, with the subtitle: "The man and his journey". He seemed rather happy with himself, on the front cover, as you might expect. I was amused, however, at the video next to Barack Obama. It was entitled, "The Mesmerist". So, if you read left to right across the video shelves, it went: "Barack Obama, The Mesmerist". How funny and how telling, for what is he not, but a mesmerist who has captivated the mind of America and the world beyond?

There is something hypnotic about his presence on the stage, something that makes you think that what is being said is significant in the way Great Men say things of significance - and yet, when you look at the words, alone, when he is no longer there to say them, they seem pallid things of little strength and meaning. What we are witnessing, of course, is Barack Obama's charisma, at work, which invests his every word and every deed, with a seeming significance way beyond its actual import. More than any other President, he seems instinctively to understand the essence of stage presence and how to use it to his advantage.

Barack Obama has perfected the role of the President, as the President is envisaged by Hollywood. He comes across as a mature, solid, stable, reassuring patriarchal figure, the Father to a Nation, a man on whom all can depend. The only problem is, that it is difficult to discern how much of this impression reflects the true nature of the man, and how much is no more true of him, than an actor's characters are true of the actor themselves. It may be that the image Barack Obama projects is as distant from his true self, as that of Anthony Hopkins and Hannibal Lecter - or it may be that he is close to the role he portrays and that much of what we see is truly Barack Obama himself. At this point in time, it is not possible to know which case it might be: we will just have to watch and learn more of him, over time. However, it is true to observe that he has mesmerized his nation. Whether this mesmerism is an act, or comes unbidden from his natural character, the fact remains that he has an essentially hypnotic hold over his nation. In such a state, a nation cannot be expected to clearly assess his actions, words and deeds and judge the true quality of the President they have elected. It will take until the spell has broken, somewhat, and the nation is no longer fully enamoured of him, before they start to see him clearly, as he truly is, rather than as he projects himself to be.

(If you would like to learn more of Ainan Celeste Cawley, a scientific child prodigy, aged eight years and seven months, or his gifted brothers, Fintan, five years exactly, and Tiarnan, twenty-eight months, please go to: http://scientific-child-prodigy.blogspot.com/2006/10/scientific-child-prodigy-guide.html I also write of gifted education, IQ, intelligence, the Irish, the Malays, Singapore, College, University, Chemistry, Science, genetics, left-handedness, precocity, child prodigy, child genius, baby genius, adult genius, savant, wunderkind, wonderkind, genio, гений ребенок prodigy, genie, μεγαλοφυία θαύμα παιδιών, bambino, kind.

We are the founders of Genghis Can, a copywriting, editing and proofreading agency, that handles all kinds of work, including technical and scientific material. If you need such services, or know someone who does, please go to: http://www.genghiscan.com/ Thanks.

This blog is copyright Valentine Cawley. Unauthorized duplication prohibited. Use Only with Permission. Thank you.)

The meaning of Barack Obama's election.

Barack Obama is the President-elect of the United States. He shall be the first black President in the history of the United States. What does this mean for the question of race in the United States?

Well, everyone is saying that it means that America is no longer racist - but it is by no means so clear. You see, America is not what it used to be. More precisely, America is not as white as it used to be. Caucasians in America are on the decline and the "minority" races are on the rise. This colours the interpretation of what this particular election means, racially.

Wikipedia supplies data on the demographics of the US in 2006. At this time, 66% of Americans were non-Hispanic Whites; 14.8 % were Hispanic or Latin American; 13.4% were Black; some other race alone 6.5%; Asian alone 4.4%; two or more races 2.0%; American Indian or Alaskan native 0.68%; Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander: 0.14%. The figures don't add up to 100% exactly because Hispanics are being counted twice across all the races.

What can be seen from this is that America is very racially diverse and that the minority races are in very significant numbers. Indeed, in August 2008, the U.S. Census Bureau predicted that, by 2042, that non-Hispanic Whites would be in the minority, in the US.

Barack Obama won the election. However, this does not mean that racism is entirely on the wane in the USA. It could mean that whites (the expected origin of anti-black racism) are on the wane. There is still likely to be remnant anti-Black racism among some whites (the racist cries at Palin rallies is enough to indicate this), however this was overwhelmed by the weight of minorities voting for another minority. Racism is admittedly less of an issue in the USA than it used to be - but just because Obama won, that does not mean that racism is at an end.

Everyone is amazed at the election of a Black President. I am not so amazed myself. The changing demographics in the US have almost come to guarantee that a minority President was soon to be elected. Indeed, the time will come, when it will not be a surprise that a non-White is President - but a surprise that a White is President. You see, it is only just over 33 years before Whites become a minority in the USA. In that time, it is, perhaps, the White candidates who will find themselves unelectable. It may not be long before we will have seen the last White President of the United States of America.

(If you would like to learn more of Ainan Celeste Cawley, a scientific child prodigy, aged eight years and seven months, or his gifted brothers, Fintan, five years exactly, and Tiarnan, twenty-eight months, please go to: http://scientific-child-prodigy.blogspot.com/2006/10/scientific-child-prodigy-guide.html I also write of gifted education, IQ, intelligence, the Irish, the Malays, Singapore, College, University, Chemistry, Science, genetics, left-handedness, precocity, child prodigy, child genius, baby genius, adult genius, savant, wunderkind, wonderkind, genio, гений ребенок prodigy, genie, μεγαλοφυία θαύμα παιδιών, bambino, kind.

We are the founders of Genghis Can, a copywriting, editing and proofreading agency, that handles all kinds of work, including technical and scientific material. If you need such services, or know someone who does, please go to: http://www.genghiscan.com/ Thanks.)