The WSJ says accepting Theory of Relativity is "elitism"

The Wall Street Journal has decided to attack Democratic Underground while promoting a sort of intellectual populism. Let all that "think" be equal, they promote as they defend the new Governor of California as well as the current resident of the White House. I have one question for the Wall Street Journal. Do they accept the Theory of Relativity as a guiding principle in the discipline of physics?

They respond with an enthusiastic "Huh?!?"

Einstein's Theory of Special Relativity controls, among other things, our nuclear weapon arsenal, reactors that drive the propulsion systems of most major U.S. Navy ships, and nuclear power plants all over the globe. About all I know about Relativity is that it has an E, an M, a C and a squared in it somewhere. I trust and accept as a given that Mr. Einstein could do math a heck of a lot better than I ever could. I would also slap around anyone silly enough to suggest that either Arnold Schwarzenegger or George W. Bush should be put in charge of the Oak Ridge National Laboratories.

Okay... so we've agreed that only people who can do math better than me should be allowed to do be in charge of nuclear weapons research. The editorial board of the Wall Street Journal is pounding desks in NYC saying that's such an extreme example. Gotcha. Okay... well... I was thanking about a career change. I think I'll be a brain surgeon. I saw "I am Joe's Brain" on the Science Channel. I know basically what lobe goes where. Who's gonna be my first patient? The line starts here. Hmm... where did everybody go?

Okay... well, then we'll leave the physics research and the brain surgery to the guys who know math and anatomy better than me. I still am looking for that career change. How about investment advisor? There's lots of them. The editorial board of the WSJ surely couldn't have a problem with me being one of those as they are promoting such egalitarian ideals. Certainly they will want to promote these ideals by being the first to give me their trust funds to manage. Show me the money, WSJ... Hmm... where'd they go? They disappeared awful fast. The behavior of the Wall Street Journal editorial board suggests that an investment advisor should be of a certain level of intellectual competence. They don't want me anywhere near their trust funds. Looks like the editors of the WSJ practice a little "intellectual elitism" themselves when it's their trust funds at risk.

There are hoards and hoards of investment advisors out there. There aren't very many State Governors out there. Even fewer Presidents. If we are allowed practice "intellectual elitism" when we are discussing nuclear weapons, brain surgery and trust funds, why can't we practice it when we are discussing some of the most important jobs in the world. Certainly, guiding the largest and fourth largest economies on the planet deserve at least as much consideration.

Hey... I've got a better idea. Instead of bouncing around ugly terms like "intellectual elitism" why don't we just use a less controversial terminology? How about the term "qualifications?" Huh? What do you mean someone already thought of that? Guess I'm going to have to live with the fact that being qualified to do a job is an old idea I didn't just think up. I can live with the fact that I never heard of it before, but I wonder why the editorial board of a big publication like the Wall Street Journal would have heard of the concept before. Maybe we should check their qualifications?

(edited because I screwed up even that little bit of Einstein's theories)

General Relativity has to do with gravitation & how it warps the space-time continuum. Red shifts, curvature of light by dense stars, Tensor algebra -- very elegant mathematics. The famous equation you mention comes from the much earlier "Special" theory, which you can learn about in first-year college physics, & which requires no special mathematics.

"Special" relativity. :evilgrin:

First year college physics is a long way in my past and requires math more special than I possess in my skull anymore.

Has FR ever been attacked by a newspaper, let alone a major newspaper?

And I tell you, "specialism" may well be at the root of what is either right or wrong in America today, relatively speaking.

My brain is already cramped for the rest of the day from having to deal with Einstein, and you throw puns at me?

:eyes: Her book "Shut Up and Sing" criticizes the "elitism" of the left.

A dumbed down America would be the ideal environment for Laura and those bastards at WSJ.

Man, if there were ever a way to get DU on that map, that's it.

Who cares what they think? They are giving us publicity.

We do produce a lot of garbage here at DU, but we also produce a lot of truth. Outside of its business coverage, the WSJ is just a mediocre rag. The funniest part of the WSJ attack is how they prop up Bush. Bush isn't dumb, according to the WSJ, he just doesn't wear his genius on his sleeve.

That doesn't even pass the giggle test. The WSJ thinks its readers are idiots. Those readers who get their politics from the mediocre ramblings of the WSJ arguably are idiots (or predators on idiots).

At the end of one of the WSJ commercials that is pummelling the airwaves right now has a woman looking slightly off-camera when she says...

"The most surprising thing about the Wall Street Journal... is that I read it."

She make that statement as if it's shocking that she would ever consider reading ANYTHING.