Comment: well, yes, and no.

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: Jon Stewart is not a deep thinker (see in situ)

well, yes, and no.

if you want to define a "deep thinker" in the traditional academic sense, perhaps not. But he most certainly is smart.

Now, even as Stockman was laying out his case, did Stewart feign to disagree with his assessment, even though he intellectually understood what Stockman was laying out? Or, was his innate socialist elitist (abstraction of the false peace of mind 'knowing' some nebulous govt agency and law are 'protecting those whom I want protected'-arbitrary emotive satiation) proclivities that prevents him from truly comprehending?

Who knows, in finality? As no one can truly 'read' read other's minds.

Well, from all the actions, statements, and bodylanguage one can observe, I'd surmise that almost all mid-level 'movement'-liberals, and MSM types deploy, well, rather, are drowning in their own neurological psychosis of faith in bad ideas, daily, even beyond what those of us may see as malice, or even simple childish pettiness.

But, are we all to a certain extent limited by our own various levels of internal biases? Absolutely.

Stewart is not dumb. That much is certain. As are most upper echelon geopolitical Fabian Socialists; they're malicious Machiavellians.

But, where does brother of NYSE's COO stand?

I'd say he's smart, he's pretty quick off the cuff. Malicious? It'd be easy to assume. But, moi? Not sure. I'm more inclined to assess that he's simply a victim of his own ideological bias.

Often, you can clearly tell that Jon Stewart actually have read some of the author's works before he interviews them.

Of course, you can do a cursory chapter reading and invoke a few key words/phrases to SOUND like he read and comprehend their works.

But, more apropos of the Stockman interview, the most saddest thing is that the audience watching actually deemed a comedian, however smart he may be, to be more fit to discern economic matters, than an actual economist who has a pretty good track record of at least understanding and explaining the source, the real cause of econ malaise!

Yet, these are the same a-holes that ridicule Tom Woods, TWO-Ivy League graduate, just because he doesn't subscribe to their idiotic Statist Collectivist Fascist Religion in the Tyranny of Good Intentions!

Apparently invoking "he's a Harvard Grad" only has gravitas, ONLY when they're referring to a 'liberal.' But then again, I suppose we also do it to Krugman. So, fair point. But, unlike Paul Krugman, Woods has a great track record. When's the last time any actual entrepreneur who actually paid attention to what Krugman says? Jim Rogers? Eric Sprott? Doug Casey? LOL. Think not. Krugman's a rockstar economists to those whom never bothered to even study the subject on a perfunctory level, but like the gun issue, they know everything about they want to regulate away. LOL.

And, frankly, I figure, in the age of the internet, the whole notion of 'explain it, as if you're speaking to a layman' type of nonsense should be null and void. EVEN to a Comedy Channel audience. I'm always of the mind that if treat your audience smart, even if they're not, they'll eventually catch up, recognizing the fact that you respected enough to treat them with an understanding that they have a capacity to attain that knowledge.

The brain automatically works to catch up to those who are smarter, not the other way around; which is why it always puzzled me that adults talk to children like morons. Developing child's mind is a beautiful neurological sponge; even if they don't get what you're talking about at the moment, the neurological seeds planted are certain to blossom, on their own, in time: parents would benefit more from reading their children Shakespeare and Mises, than Barney.

But if you're one Dr. Ronald Ernest Paul, you may coalesce your message in essential terms that communicates that you clearly understand complex concepts enough that you can state them in succinct terms that anyone can comprehend, without condescending; both novice and adepts would clearly see that 'yes, indeed that individual speaks from depth of knowledge and due diligence.'

Dr. Paul is a great example of someone who speaks of most complex ideas and distills it down in his own terms, that still communicates to any alert listener, 'indeed he knows WTF he's talking about,' and what's more? Can inspire one to look beyond the primer.

Stewart, on the other hand was a bit condescending, to a degree, which frankly I have no problem with; he is who he is. The problem was the sheeple moron audience, who thought the comedian was right, and the economist, who actually got his numbers right, was wrong, because he was a Reaganite, even though he quit the administration over BS govt stats & morally hazardous policies.

It's always dismaying to observe the invisible prison bars of the mind, in people. Never ceases to amaze.

Predictions in due Time...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGDisyWkIBM

"Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it's realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy." - Dr. Ronald Ernest Paul