I am suggesting that without getting rid of our ignorance (which is quite profound, in my opinion), our activism is pointless. Action without knowledge can only result in disastrous consequences.
I have read and heard some of BHO's speeches. He is a very impressive speaker (probably the best I have heard). But he does nothing to attack ignorance. Instead, he appears to be exploiting it (I say appears, I have no direct knowledge of this, of course).
Ross Perot, in my opinion, did a much better job of promoting knowledge than has BHO.
"The problem is not just the things we do not know (consider the one in five American adults who, according to the National Science Foundation, thinks the sun revolves around the Earth)"
The author goes on to point out that not only do we indulge in our ignorance, we are actually proud of it.
How else can you explain Bush getting over 50 million votes in 2000 after his ignorance was documented for all to see (i.e., who is the President of Pakistan). From that, I can conclude that at least 50 million Americans do not consider ignorance to be a big deal.
As to your generalization that the quote makes sense to "those of us with brains", I consider myself to be decently equipped with brains...and the quote sounds bogus to me. So your generalization is not true in my case.
I applaud you, however, if you think you have researched the issues, and agree with BHO's quote.!!!
I was one of the "loony left" who marched against the war back in Jan-Feb 2003. I am a peacenik...I should be a natural supporter of Obama, No ?
My support for McCain is rationaled as follows: only a warrior can end a war. It is hard enough to end a war as it is (i.e., when your original objectives have been met), and harder still to do so otherwise (i.e., when you original objectives have not been met). In fact, if you look at the history of warfare.. it is next to impossible.
Only a warrior capable of forgiving the other side can bring an end to this war.
How will President Obama (or President Clinton) end this war ?
Yes, I know he "voted for" torture. I was disappointed. He is a politician, I guess...and you can chalk these as reasons he is not (and has not been) my #1 choice.
He was also a prisoner of war for many many years, and he understands torture. And, (inspite of the talk of the 100 year war), he has found a way to harbor no anger at Vietnam, or the Vietnamese people. These are both quite significant achievements.