Jon Stewart's Daily Show Beats MSNBC in Viewer Trust

[Gaspar]

So holding aside the rhetoric,  are you for or against the US joining in the air strikes?   The Iraq war and subsequent occupation have been an unnecessary and unwarranted cluster-frack since it's inception under a different president.  We took out a stable (if despotic) ruler, and had no plans as to what exactly to do next.  It would seem that we are now progressing along the prudent path,  get our troops off the ground and return the military to Iraq and the ISIS forces, and give them air support when/if needed.  What would be another preferred action?  Because I'm fairly certain that the American people are already tired of Roman-style occupation operations.   

Our only concern should be the stability of the region, and containment of any nutballs that want to attack us or our allies. Beyond that, civil wars should be none of our business. Our first mistake was due to our involvement in the UN and the leadership role that Bill Clinton took in enforcing UN sanctions on Iraq for chemical weapons violations and violation of the 1991 cease fire provisions.  We put ourselves in the position as the UN's primary police force, a position we should have never accepted.  We need to stop being the bouncer for the UN.

Bush was nieve enough to trust without verification the rhetoric of the past and bring ground force to bare, starting an avalanche of dependence on US support.  Well, you can't stop an avalanche, you can only take shelter.  It's probably best that we take shelter, but if we, or our allies become targets, it is our responsibility to respond with the most devastating of force. . . So terrible that any enemy would think twice about attacking us again.

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." --President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." --President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from here, but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." --Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." --Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." Letter to President Clinton, signed by: -- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." -- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." Letter to President Bush, Signed by: -- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them." -- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." -- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." -- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." -- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do" -- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." -- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

[rebound]

Man, that is just a crack-up.   You realize that this kind of response is the reason that an even and rational conversation can't be had, right?  I seriously can't tell if your viewpoint is just that skewed, or if you are trolling.  Let's recap the conversation string:

You start with a general accusation related to "consistent foreign policy failures", and specifically cite the activities in Iraq right now as evidence of some implied long-standing ineptitude in the current foreign policy.  And really, I didn't want to get into the larger picture, because I am fully aware based on previous posts that your positions are so one-sided related to Obama that it's not even worth responding to.  But I couldn't help myself, because my initial reaction was "well really, given where we are, what kind of outcome are you expecting?"  It was, and is, a serious question.  As I initially positioned by "holding aside the rhetoric", given the US history in Iraq (we started the war, we propped up the current govt, etc) what is our best strategy going forward at this point?  There's probably good discussion there, and it could be had without throwing any president under the bus for a specific action, but I guess that's beyond your thought process.

Instead, you brush off any blame on Bush (the president who actively went out of  his way to start a war, let's not forget...) in one sentence, simply due to his naivete?  And then follow that with 17 (I counted) quotes  ALL FROM DEMOCRATS (amazing) going back to Clinton in support of various actions against Iraq.  What, there were NO GOP quotes during this time?  Nothing?  No Colin Powell quotes?  Rumsfeld? Cheney? Come on man, you should be able to do better.

But also, why only go back to Clinton? (who by the way, DID NOT start a war with Iraq.)  Who was president before Clinton?  Oh that's right, George Bush Sr.  (Who, like his son, DID start a war in Iraq, and left it so unfinished that it gave GWB and excuse to go back in.)

There is a TON of blame to go around for the long-standing debacle that is the US involvement in Iraq, going at least back to when we worked with the Shah of Iran to back the Kurds against Iraq in the mid-70's.  Heck, the whole region is f-ed up and has been through several US presidents, both GOP and Dem.  There's a ton of stuff around which to have long and interesting discussions.

But unless and until you can appreciate and present both sides, and post accordingly, it's just not even worth trying.

[Conan71]

Man, that is just a crack-up.   You realize that this kind of response is the reason that an even and rational conversation can't be had, right?  I seriously can't tell if your viewpoint is just that skewed, or if you are trolling.  Let's recap the conversation string:

You start with a general accusation related to "consistent foreign policy failures", and specifically cite the activities in Iraq right now as evidence of some implied long-standing ineptitude in the current foreign policy.  And really, I didn't want to get into the larger picture, because I am fully aware based on previous posts that your positions are so one-sided related to Obama that it's not even worth responding to.  But I couldn't help myself, because my initial reaction was "well really, given where we are, what kind of outcome are you expecting?"  It was, and is, a serious question.  As I initially positioned by "holding aside the rhetoric", given the US history in Iraq (we started the war, we propped up the current govt, etc) what is our best strategy going forward at this point?  There's probably good discussion there, and it could be had without throwing any president under the bus for a specific action, but I guess that's beyond your thought process.

Instead, you brush off any blame on Bush (the president who actively went out of  his way to start a war, let's not forget...) in one sentence, simply due to his naivete?  And then follow that with 17 (I counted) quotes  ALL FROM DEMOCRATS (amazing) going back to Clinton in support of various actions against Iraq.  What, there were NO GOP quotes during this time?  Nothing?  No Colin Powell quotes?  Rumsfeld? Cheney? Come on man, you should be able to do better.

But also, why only go back to Clinton? (who by the way, DID NOT start a war with Iraq.)  Who was president before Clinton?  Oh that's right, George Bush Sr.  (Who, like his son, DID start a war in Iraq, and left it so unfinished that it gave GWB and excuse to go back in.)

There is a TON of blame to go around for the long-standing debacle that is the US involvement in Iraq, going at least back to when we worked with the Shah of Iran to back the Kurds against Iraq in the mid-70's.  Heck, the whole region is f-ed up and has been through several US presidents, both GOP and Dem.  There's a ton of stuff around which to have long and interesting discussions.

But unless and until you can appreciate and present both sides, and post accordingly, it's just not even worth trying.

You think one-sidedness regarding Obama and previous Repiglican administrations doesn't apply to you either?  Read what you just wrote, you don't sound exactly open-minded on this.

Let's face it, our foreign policy is a train wreck.  We befriend despots when it serves our interests.  We depose those same despots when it serves our interests.  Unfortunately, we've adopted a doctrine that boots on the ground is the only way to cut the head off the snake instead of a good old fashioned Special Ops assassination.

My criticism of Obama stems from how tepid he is when it comes to actually performing in his role of foreign policy.  This is one area objective history will not be kind to him.  

[Gaspar]

You think one-sidedness regarding Obama and previous Repiglican administrations doesn't apply to you either?  Read what you just wrote, you don't sound exactly open-minded on this.

Let's face it, our foreign policy is a train wreck.  We befriend despots when it serves our interests.  We depose those same despots when it serves our interests.  Unfortunately, we've adopted a doctrine that boots on the ground is the only way to cut the head off the snake instead of a good old fashioned Special Ops assassination.

My criticism of Obama stems from how tepid he is when it comes to actually performing in his role of foreign policy.  This is one area objective history will not be kind to him.  

I don't know if tepid is the right word, and the Obama doctrine is actually a spectrum disorder covering all aspects of his administration that stems from one single philosophy.  Obama simply has no stomach for leadership.  He likes to speak, he loves the politics, and words are his medium.  He steps back from every issue, and stays as far away from understanding details as possible.  Healthcare, foreign policy, economics, environmental, even all of his various campaign pledges met their divorce from Obama at the point of implementation or actual administrative consideration.

This is a double edge sword for him.  The primary edge he uses cut off blame and scrape it to the plates of those around him, but the secondary edge cuts him deep because over time (as we see now) the world stops considering him as a leader, an ally, or a threat. 

He is simply a bag of words. A collection of highly lauded but poorly thought out chess moves.

Every enemy and ally we have has tested him at one point or another, and he has failed every single time, because his talk cannot be translated into action, and he gives NO attention to any detail of any policy he involves himself in. At the point of failure he sends out someone to explain that he either just learned about X or that X was caused by Y and had nothing to do with him.   He even does this when he knows that eventually the public will discover the truth.  It's pathological.

[Townsend]

This graph seems to show who's willing to fall for things more easily.  Which shows have the weaker minded?  Simpler folk tend not to question the sources.

[Gaspar]

This graph seems to show who's willing to fall for things more easily.  Which shows have the weaker minded?  Simpler folk tend not to question the sources.

But that's good news.  Since intelligent people are obviously the minority according to you, MSNBC offers programing specifically for them. 

Unfortunately MSNBC is so high-brow, that the void in that market requires an offering for those geniuses with a more limited attention span, and lower lexicon complexity. That's where the Daily Show comes in.  It offers a place where every story provides the instant gratification and the orgasmic laughter necessary to keep those distracted intellectual rock-stars informed.  Stupid people don't realize that sometimes the maintenance of intellectual superiority requires a poop joke.

The problem is that all of these stations require revenue from advertisers, and advertisers gravitate towards market share.  If there was only a way that the intelligent people could overcome the will of the vast population of morons?  Perhaps some day democracy and the free market will be abolished.  It's been holding down smart people for too long!

[Townsend]

But that's good news.  Since intelligent people are obviously the minority according to you, MSNBC offers programing specifically for them. 

Intelligent people realize television is mostly entertainment.

News shows are part of an entertainment division of a corporation.  What else are they going to do but entertain?

I'm sure you're smart enough to verify this though.

[Hoss]

But that's good news.  Since intelligent people are obviously the minority according to you, MSNBC offers programing specifically for them. 

Unfortunately MSNBC is so high-brow, that the void in that market requires an offering for those geniuses with a more limited attention span, and lower lexicon complexity. That's where the Daily Show comes in.  It offers a place where every story provides the instant gratification and the orgasmic laughter necessary to keep those distracted intellectual rock-stars informed.  Stupid people don't realize that sometimes the maintenance of intellectual superiority requires a poop joke.

The problem is that all of these stations require revenue from advertisers, and advertisers gravitate towards market share.  If there was only a way that the intelligent people could overcome the will of the vast population of morons?  Perhaps some day democracy and the free market will be abolished.  It's been holding down smart people for too long!

http://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapoza/2011/11/21/fox-news-viewers-uninformed-npr-listeners-not-poll-suggests/

NPR listeners and Sunday morning news viewers are more informed than MSNBC viewers.  I quit watching all of them for political anything years ago and started listening to NPR.  If I want entertainment I'll listen to conservative talk radio on my SiriusXM.  

[Townsend]

http://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapoza/2011/11/21/fox-news-viewers-uninformed-npr-listeners-not-poll-suggests/

NPR listeners and Sunday morning news viewers are more informed than MSNBC viewers.  I quit watching all of them for political anything years ago and started listening to NPR.  If I want entertainment I'll listen to conservative talk radio on my SiriusXM.  

Oh jeez dude...you're baiting the field.

We better go talk about these guys on PM.  CAN'T WAIT!!!

[Hoss]

Oh jeez dude...you're baiting the field.

It's usually almost as good an entertainment value as the conservative talk shows.   

[Conan71]

Rather than starting a new topic, I figured I'd share a piece from NPR yesterday on the political divide in America and how we have become more polarized over the last 20 years.  It offers a great in-depth analysis of why this is.  I generally take political polls with a grain of salt, but the analysis of the poll is a good read no matter what your political leanings are.

http://www.people-press.org/2014/06/12/political-polarization-in-the-american-public/

[rebound]

You think one-sidedness regarding Obama and previous Repiglican administrations doesn't apply to you either?  Read what you just wrote, you don't sound exactly open-minded on this.

Let's face it, our foreign policy is a train wreck.  We befriend despots when it serves our interests.  We depose those same despots when it serves our interests.  Unfortunately, we've adopted a doctrine that boots on the ground is the only way to cut the head off the snake instead of a good old fashioned Special Ops assassination.

My criticism of Obama stems from how tepid he is when it comes to actually performing in his role of foreign policy.  This is one area objective history will not be kind to him.  

My critique is/was regarding argument style, not specifically  a political position.  I found it hilarious (in lieu of a more derogatory adjective) that the answer given to a very specific question (basically, "OK, but what do we do now?"), was answered with a simplistic broadside against Obama and all things Democrat.  In Iraq at least, I would think that while each of us will have their own take on why/how we got there and where to go now, we should all be able to accept that this particular engagement has been going on for so long that it can't be discussed as simply "Obama (or Bush, etc) is fracking things up over there again..."   Complex situations require thoughtful discussion, and 17 cut/paste examples of why it's all the Dem's fault just struck me the wrong way.

So in that spirit, let me try to step up and (sort of) agree with you and Gaspar on something.  You mention your perception of Obama's tepid leadership.  Gaspar has a slightly different take on it, and suggests a more broad "spectrum disorder" is in play  (Love "spectrum disorder" by the way.)  I just had this same conversation recently with a good friend of mine from "across the aisle" and while my take on it is slightly different, I think we are in general agreement of where the core issue is coming from.   There's a line from an old John Prine song that goes "There were spaces between Donald and whatever he said..."  and it is this aspect of Obama, that perceived "distance" between the pageantry and public politics, and the nitty-gritty interpersonal politics and details required to effectively lead/govern that has been Obama's biggest issue throughout his presidency.  Especially in difficult times (and for a multitude of reasons, we've been in difficult times for longer than Obama has been in office), these very basic interpersonal skills are required to effectively lead.  Reagan and Clinton were both excellent at this and Obama, for whatever reasons, is not.  Per the old adage, the need to "keep your friends close and your enemies closer" is a fundamental right now, and Obama has real issues with the second part, and that very basic trait has hobbled him from the on-set.

[swake]

But that's good news.  Since intelligent people are obviously the minority according to you, MSNBC offers programing specifically for them. 

Unfortunately MSNBC is so high-brow, that the void in that market requires an offering for those geniuses with a more limited attention span, and lower lexicon complexity. That's where the Daily Show comes in.  It offers a place where every story provides the instant gratification and the orgasmic laughter necessary to keep those distracted intellectual rock-stars informed.  Stupid people don't realize that sometimes the maintenance of intellectual superiority requires a poop joke.

The problem is that all of these stations require revenue from advertisers, and advertisers gravitate towards market share.  If there was only a way that the intelligent people could overcome the will of the vast population of morons?  Perhaps some day democracy and the free market will be abolished.  It's been holding down smart people for too long!

Gasp, the reason for calling someone "intelligent" means that they are an outlier intellectually. The very concept is one of defining a minority.

Both MSNBC and Fox are mush for ideologues on either side. They aren't there to inform you, but to reinforce your beliefs. Personally I don't think I've watched more than 10 minutes of MSNBC ever. I have watched far more FoxNews than I have MSNBC and I watch very little of that. Other than local news I get very little of my news on the TV. The stories are too short and don't provide depth or detail. I listen to news on NPR and read newspapers from across the country and world. I use Google Translate a lot to read local news perspectives that you don't get in US or English language newspapers. I almost always try to read more than one perspective on every important news story, often five or six. And I watch the Daily Show, but you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what the Daily Show is and why it is funny for the most part. They aren't doing a funny take on the news, most often the stories are Satire about how news media presents the news. It's a show about news media more than it is about news itself. And Fox is a fertile hunting ground for such stories. 

You need to step out, stop watching just Fox, stop reading just Breitbart and WND and open your eyes. These are not honest news sources.

[Gaspar]

My critique is/was regarding argument style, not specifically  a political position.  I found it hilarious (in lieu of a more derogatory adjective) that the answer given to a very specific question (basically, "OK, but what do we do now?"), was answered with a simplistic broadside against Obama and all things Democrat.  In Iraq at least, I would think that while each of us will have their own take on why/how we got there and where to go now, we should all be able to accept that this particular engagement has been going on for so long that it can't be discussed as simply "Obama (or Bush, etc) is fracking things up over there again..."   Complex situations require thoughtful discussion, and 17 cut/paste examples of why it's all the Dem's fault just struck me the wrong way.

So in that spirit, let me try to step up and (sort of) agree with you and Gaspar on something.  You mention your perception of Obama's tepid leadership.  Gaspar has a slightly different take on it, and suggests a more broad "spectrum disorder" is in play  (Love "spectrum disorder" by the way.)  I just had this same conversation recently with a good friend of mine from "across the aisle" and while my take on it is slightly different, I think we are in general agreement of where the core issue is coming from.   There's a line from an old John Prine song that goes "There were spaces between Donald and whatever he said..."  and it is this aspect of Obama, that perceived "distance" between the pageantry and public politics, and the nitty-gritty interpersonal politics and details required to effectively lead/govern that has been Obama's biggest issue throughout his presidency.  Especially in difficult times (and for a multitude of reasons, we've been in difficult times for longer than Obama has been in office), these very basic interpersonal skills are required to effectively lead.  Reagan and Clinton were both excellent at this and Obama, for whatever reasons, is not.  Per the old adage, the need to "keep your friends close and your enemies closer" is a fundamental right now, and Obama has real issues with the second part, and that very basic trait has hobbled him from the on-set.

Rebound, I think we have more commonality than distance. My previous examples were in response to the continuing thread regurgitated by many on this forum that our participation in Iraq was some scheme hatched up by Bush to get oil, or punish Saddam for his daddy.  The example was to show that the rhetoric leading up to our attacks on Iraq during the Clinton years and the Bush years were echoed equally on both sides of the isle. It was not meant to serve as a broadside against all things Democrat, only as a reminder that this was a Democrat issue too, long before it was all Bush's fault.

I do launch frequent broadsides against Obama, but for good reason.  I have yet to see an issue he has displayed leadership on.  He has betrayed his own party more than he has served them.  I would be equally critical of him if he were a republican.  The R/D arena is not where I hunt.  I am a Libertarian, socially liberal, but very fiscally conservative.  I tend to be more critical of Dems because they have fully embraced the push towards more government and more centralized power structures and we know where that leads.  

All societies eventually collapse under the weight of centralized and concentrated systems.  Our founders knew this. We are lucky enough to have a constitution that frustrates that effort, but it's not immune to rust.  Democratic Republics are not permanent, they cannot be.  Eventually the people learn to use the power of government to get what they want rather then reliance on their own invention, innovation, and productive spirt, and politicians are happy to accept any power laid at their feet.  As the divide widens, the socialist end of the spectrum will ultimately win.  It always does.  Democratic forms of government naturally evolve into socialism. All we can do is delay the process.

Central planning will eventually destroy individual liberty by concentrating all political power in one person or in a committee; furthermore, it will eventually end our prosperity by laying the dead hand of state control on the economy. – Robert M. Thornton

Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide. – John Adams (1814)

The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism, but under the name of liberalism, they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program until one day America will be a socialist nation without ever knowing how it happened. – Norman Thomas

Democracy is indispensable to Socialism. – V.I. Lenin

Democracy is the road to Socialism. – Karl Marx

A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until a majority of voters discover that they can vote themselves largess out of the public treasury. – Alexander Tytler


There are some very thoughtful posters here.  I may not be one of them, and for that I'm sorry. There are also a few puerile.  We all have something to say, and in many cases, that may only be important to us, but we grow through the exchange and debate.  The idea is, that we need others to disagree with far more than we need people who share our opinions.  That is how we learn.  I respect your viewpoint and look forward to future exchange.

[Conan71]

So in that spirit, let me try to step up and (sort of) agree with you and Gaspar on something.  You mention your perception of Obama's tepid leadership.  Gaspar has a slightly different take on it, and suggests a more broad "spectrum disorder" is in play  (Love "spectrum disorder" by the way.)  I just had this same conversation recently with a good friend of mine from "across the aisle" and while my take on it is slightly different, I think we are in general agreement of where the core issue is coming from.   There's a line from an old John Prine song that goes "There were spaces between Donald and whatever he said..."  and it is this aspect of Obama, that perceived "distance" between the pageantry and public politics, and the nitty-gritty interpersonal politics and details required to effectively lead/govern that has been Obama's biggest issue throughout his presidency.  Especially in difficult times (and for a multitude of reasons, we've been in difficult times for longer than Obama has been in office), these very basic interpersonal skills are required to effectively lead.  Reagan and Clinton were both excellent at this and Obama, for whatever reasons, is not.  Per the old adage, the need to "keep your friends close and your enemies closer" is a fundamental right now, and Obama has real issues with the second part, and that very basic trait has hobbled him from the on-set.

Maybe he has Aspergers? Just something to chew on. 

Asperger's syndrome, also called Asperger's disorder, is a type of pervasive developmental disorder (PDD). PDDs are a group of conditions that involve delays in the development of many basic skills, most notably the ability to socialize with others, to communicate, and to use imagination.

Although Asperger's syndrome is similar in some ways to autism -- another, more severe type of PDD -- there are some important differences. Children with Asperger's syndrome typically function better than do those with autism. In addition, children with Asperger's syndrome generally have normal intelligence and near-normal language development, although they may develop problems communicating as they get older.

Asperger's syndrome was named for the Austrian doctor, Hans Asperger, who first described the disorder in 1944. However, Asperger's syndrome was not recognized as a unique disorder until much later.

What Are the Symptoms of Asperger's Syndrome?

The symptoms of Asperger's syndrome vary and can range from mild to severe. Common symptoms include:

Problems with social skills: Children with Asperger's syndrome generally have difficulty interacting with others and often are awkward in social situations. They generally do not make friends easily. They have difficulty initiating and maintaining conversation.

Eccentric or repetitive behaviors: Children with this condition may develop odd, repetitive movements, such as hand wringing or finger twisting.
Unusual preoccupations or rituals: A child with Asperger's syndrome may develop rituals that he or she refuses to alter, such as getting dressed in a specific order.

Communication difficulties: People with Asperger's syndrome may not make eye contact when speaking with someone. They may have trouble using facial expressions and gestures, and understanding body language. They also tend to have problems understanding language in context and are very literal in their use of language.

Limited range of interests: A child with Asperger's syndrome may develop an intense, almost obsessive, interest in a few areas, such as sports schedules, weather, or maps.

Hey, he's a known NCAA B-Ball junkie and loves golf

Coordination problems: The movements of children with Asperger's syndrome may seem clumsy or awkward.

Skilled or talented: Many children with Asperger's syndrome are exceptionally talented or skilled in a particular area, such as music or math.
What Causes Asperger's Syndrome?

The exact cause of Asperger's syndrome is not known. However, the fact that it tends to run in families suggests that a tendency to develop the disorder may be inherited (passed on from parent to child).

How Common Is Asperger's Syndrome?

Asperger's syndrome has only recently been recognized as a unique disorder. For that reason, the exact number of people with the disorder is unknown.  While it is more common than autism, estimates for the United States and Canada range from 1 in every 250 children to 1 in every 10,000. It is four times more likely to occur males than in females and usually is first diagnosed in children between the ages of 2 and 6 years.