The standards for genius have certainly changed....

... if Matt Groening and George Soros outrank Steven Hawking.

That's what a poll of 4,000 Britons conducted by the Telegraph found, anyway.

The number one genius slot was tied between Albert Hoffman (creator of LSD) and computer scientist Tim Berners-Lee. However, since Hoffman died in April, and the poll was to count only living geniuses, Hoffman was technically disqualified.

Berners-Lee, if you have never heard of him, was the fellow attributed the major share of the creation of the World-wide Web.

Here are the top ten, along with my selected highlights from later in the list:

1 (tie) Tim Berners-Lee and Albert Hoffman
3 George Soros
4 Matt Groening
5 (tie) Nelson Mandela and Frederick Sanger
7 (tie) Dario Fo and Steven Hawking
9 (tie) Oscar Niemeyer, Philip Glass, and Grigory Perelman

Quick--how many of the top ten have you actually heard of?

Would you have thought that creating the Simpsons qualified you to be ranked the world's fourth greatest living genius?

Here are other interesting selections:

Richard Dawkins and Rupert Murdoch were among those tied for number 25.

Prince, Noam Chomsky, and several others tied for number 32.

Mohammed Ali, Bill Gates, and Osama bin Laden were among those tied for number 43.

Brian Wilson (of Beach Boys fame) tied with Henry Kissinger and several others for number 49.

Dolly Parton (I can't make this shit up) was in a multi-way tie for the 97th greatest living genius in the world.

Jolene, Jolene, Jolene, Jo-lene, I'm begging of you please, don't take my man....

I know that every time I hear it, I think, pure f**king genius.

Waldo, I know, will realize that only his recent death probably kept John Mortimer off the list--and, frankly, comparing Rumpole of the Old Bailey to the Accidental Death of an Anarchist, it's pretty obvious that standards of literary acclaim are ... somewhat different in Europe.

Dolly Parton?

Comments

A Libertarian Martin Luther King Jr. Day post

In which we travel into interesting waters . . . (for a fairly long trip, so be prepared) Dr. King's 1968 book, Where do we go from here: chaos or community? , is profound in that it criticizes anti-poverty programs for their piecemeal approach, as John Schlosberg of the Center for a Stateless Society [C4SS] observes: King noted that the antipoverty programs of the time “proceeded from a premise that poverty is a consequence of multiple evils,” with separate programs each dedicated to individual issues such as education and housing. Though in his view “none of these remedies in itself is unsound,” they “all have a fatal disadvantage” of being “piecemeal,” with their implementation having “fluctuated at the whims of legislative bodies” or been “entangled in bureaucratic stalling.” The result is that “fragmentary and spasmodic reforms have failed to reach down to the profoundest needs of the poor.” Such single-issue approaches also have “another common failing — ...

More of This, Please

Or perhaps I should say, "Less of this one, please." Or how about just, "None of them. Ever again. Please....For the Love of God." Sunshine State Poll: Grayson In Trouble The latest Sunshine State/VSS poll shows controversial Democratic incumbent Alan Grayson trailing former state Senator Dan Webster by seven points, 43 percent to 36 percent. A majority of respondents -- 51 percent -- disapprove of the job that Grayson is doing. Independents have an unfavorable view of him as well, by a 36/47 margin. Grayson has ignored the conventional wisdom that a freshman should be a quiet member who carefully tends to the home fires. The latest controversy involves his " Taliban Dan " advertisement, where he explicitly compares his opponent to the Taliban, and shows a clip of Webster paraphrasing Ephesians 5:22 -- "wives, submit to your husbands." An unedited version of the clip shows that Webster was actually suggesting that husba...

A reply to Salon's R. J. Eskrow, and his 11 stupid questions about Libertarians

Posts here have been in short supply as I have been living life and trying to get a campaign off the ground. But "11 questions to see if Libertarians are hypocrites" by R. J. Eskrow, picked up at Salon , was just so freaking lame that I spent half an hour answering them. In the end (but I'll leave it to your judgment), it is not that Libertarians or Libertarian theory looks hypocritical, but that the best that can be said for Mr. Eskrow is that he doesn't have the faintest clue what he's talking about. That's ok, because even ill-informed attacks by people like this make an important point: Libertarian ideas (as opposed to Conservative ideas, which are completely different) are making a comeback as the dynamic counterpoint to "politics as usual," and so every hack you can imagine must be dragged out to refute them. Ergo: Mr. Eskrow's 11 questions, with answers: 1. Are unions, political parties, elections, and ...

Search This Blog