Sunday, February 18, 2018

Bad Art for a Bad President

I think my interest in oil painting is starting to pay-off.

I know enough, for example, to see that Obama’s hands are out of proportion to his body (too large). There is also a severe anatomical problem with this left hand. Notice the weird fold of skin and muscle next to his pinky finger. No normal human hand looks like that.

This is the work of a seriously inadequate artist named Kehinde Wiley. It looks to me like the artist was trying to draw a thumb tucked under there.

Also notice the color of the light. It is different on Obama’s head versus his hands. This is just inexcusable, low-quality work.

I don’t see how you can justify annoying mistakes like this…even if they are supposed to be part of some over arching message like it is cool and significant to have deviant, dopey looking portraits of America’s first (half) black president.

The portrait of Mrs. Obama has also been condemned, rightfully, for failing to provide an accurate portrayal of her…except, perhaps, for her arms. This one was painted by Amy Sherald.

If the Obamas were so dumb to commission and accept art this poorly executed, then their liberal/leftist supporters should ask what else have this couple been dumb about?

For my take on young Obama and the recent David J. Garrow presidential biography, see

John C. Drew, Ph.D. is an award-winning political scientist.

Saturday, January 6, 2018

Hot Potato: Should I Try to Transfer from Williams College to Stanford?

I was a little surprised I created a stir on Quora by answering a question posed by an anonymous
student at Williams College who asked whether or not it would be a good idea to bail out on Williams and hope for a transfer to Stanford University. I ended up getting a startling 19,100 views. The specific question was: "Should I try to transfer from Williams College to Stanford?" The same author posted the following additional comment:

Maybe it isn’t really that I want to go to Stanford specifically, but that I feel like I don’t fit in at Williams (I would try to transfer to some other schools too). It’s only my first year, so I know it’s still early, but I feel like I’ve missed out on a lot of opportunity.
I applied ED to Williams, not thinking that I would get in. I wasn’t confident in my resume/applications, even though I did relatively well at a rigorous high school in Silicon Valley. Williams has so many opportunities for me as a student interested in medical school - I’m already sort of performing research in a lab, all my profs know me, and I did fine in my pre-med weeder courses first semester (3.87 GPA).
I don’t know whether it’s just feeling geographically isolated, but I also feel like the opportunities at Williams don’t really fit me. I like the idea of smaller class sizes, but the classes here are too small for me to feel comfortable in. The music department (which I am heavily involved in) pays too much attention to me as a freshman and I’m overwhelmed with how many groups I’ve been asked to play in. People are so liberal that I’m sometimes scared that I might say something inappropriate (even though I’m also liberal).
It probably seems like I’m complaining about everything that’s good about Williams, but I think I would honestly thrive more if classes were a bit bigger and there were more musicians to compete with.

My response went like this:

I feel your pain. I never heard about Williams College until I got the invitation to interview there for a job as an assistant professor in the political science department. I didn’t know it was the top ranked school in the nation.

As a native Californian, nothing prepared me for life at a New England liberal arts college, and I quickly figured out that being there was a mistake. It was so cold and lonely when I arrived that I knew, almost immediately, that I had hit a dead end in my life.

I wish I would say that things got better there overtime, but they did not. In my experience, Williams College is just way too small and far too geographically isolated to be a good choice for your undergraduate education. If you have an opportunity to transfer to Stanford, I would take it in a heart beat.

From your anonymous comment, it appears that you are objective about the school’s strengths and weaknesses. I imagine that the question is whether or not things will get better if you stick around or if you should trust your gut feelings and bailout now.

I suppose the first thing I would recommend is that you should trust your gut instincts. Whether you fully appreciate it or not, Williams College is a very unusual place. Most recently, it was listed as one of the top ten worst schools in the U.S. for freedom of speech. A while back, it also made the list for the top ten druggiest schools in the nation.

The fact of the matter is that you are not the first person to think it was situated in a rotten part of the country. Many years ago, students and faculty who thought just like you bailed out on the school and founded Amherst College instead. The smallness of the school, which they spin as part of its success, coupled with the geographic isolation make it the sort of place where you do not have much anonymity or privacy.

In my experience, the campus leftists have a polarizing “you are with us or against us” attitude which, in the end, leaves pockets of undergraduates hating each others guts after four years of claustrophobic conflict. It doesn’t sound to me like you are bailing out because you are falling behind or failing in your classes.

I would close by saying that no one will judge you harshly for testing out Williams College and then finding out that it is too small, too cold, too myopic and too leftist for your tastes. In fact, it might mark you as a particularly insightful and objective person if you bail out as soon as possible. You will, after all, be in good company.

I ended up with a four year contract there and I left after three years myself. My college sweetheart lived near Stanford and I grew to really love that area even as that relationship died off. As I say, trust your instincts.

John C. Drew, Ph.D. is an award-winning political scientist.

Friday, December 15, 2017

Pete Farwell: The Track and Cross Country Coach Who Might Have Gotten Me Into the Olympics

Pete Farwell, Cross
Country, Track and Field
Coach at Williams College
Earlier this week, I learned that my old friend, Pete Farwell, was inducted into the U.S. Track & Field and Cross Country Coaches Association (USTFCCCA) Hall of FameMeeting Pete was one of the highlights of my time as a political science professor at Williams College.
I was interested in Pete, in part, because I competed in cross country and track as a high school student in Southern California. With only the most inadequate coaching, I still managed through sheer will-power to break an impressive list of school records posting a 4:23 mile, a 1:52 half mile and a 0:50 quarter mile all at age 18.
I ended up at Occidental College because I was recruited for my skill as an athlete and not for my, as yet, undeveloped skill as a political scientist.
After a couple of weeks running with Pete and his team I ended up thinking I might have been an Olympic athlete if I had had him as a coach during my youthful years. I hung out with Pete and his team largely to get exercise and be of service. I got to fire the starting gun a couple of times and attended team events. I ended up learning so much from him that benefited me for years including mixing up my workouts, icing down afterwards, and correctly running heel to toe.
One of his best tricks as a coach was to not allow his cross country runners to have a slow rest day prior to a regular season cross country event. Then, at the very end of the season, he gave them a rest period prior to the championship. The result was a profound psychological and physiological advantage that supercharged his athletes and overwhelmed their opponents.
Pete was very kind to me and had me over to his home a number of times for dinner. We were both interested in Buddhism and meditation. We never talked politics. I’m glad to see him being honored. He was, without a doubt, the best cross country coach I ever had in my entire life and the best one I ever met.

Here's some more information I harvested off of the internet regarding Pete and his remarkable achievements. 


Pete Farwell has been at Williams College since 1979, and is the head coach of the men’s and women’s cross country teams.

Through the 2016 season his men’s teams have won 13 New England regional titles plus six runners-up and four thirds), 16 NESCAC titles and 8 ECAC titles, garnering Farwell nine regional coach of the year honors. He was named 1994 National Coach of the Year after leading the Williams men to the first of its two NCAA championships.

In 2015 Farwell’s Eph men’s team finished second at the NCAA Championships, just nine points from the title, while his Eph women’s team won the NCAA title by a margin of 98 points.

Since 1993 the men’s teams have finished in the top ten 18 times, and the women’s teams won the NCAA title in 2002, 2004 and 2015 and have recorded four runner-up finishes with 15 top eight placings in the past 16 years.

Coach Farwell’s women’s teams have won four New England regional titles, including 2015 to go with nine runners-up finishes and two thirds, seven NESCAC titles and five ECAC titles, and he has been chosen women’s regional coach of the year four times, NESCAC Coach of the Year four times, and National Coach of the Year three times in 2002, 2004 & 2015.

Altogether Coach Farwell has coached 24 men harriers to 37 All-American finishes (including two national champions) and 19 women to 29 All-American finishes (including one national champion).

Bringing to the sport a Williams (’73) liberal arts undergraduate education combined with a scientific knowledge of physiology (M.A. in P.E. Coaching, Central Michigan University ’90), Coach Farwell has devised a training plan that improves runners of all levels. His devotion to every athlete on the team helps make Williams one of the deepest Division III teams in the nation.

Farwell’s personal 23-year competitive experience included a 23rd-place finish (2:20) at the Boston Marathon and the 6-mile Williams school record.

Altogether he has coached 83 different track All-Americans to 204 All-American performances, plus relay members (11 men’s and 12 women’s All-American relays).


Williams College is one of the leading colleges in the world, ranked first among liberal arts colleges for 14 consecutive years by US News and World Report and by Forbes, second among all undergraduate institutions.

John C. Drew, Ph.D. is an award-winning political scientist.

Thursday, December 14, 2017

Big on Quora: Is it true that Barack Obama is cheating on his wife?

According to David Garrow’s new book, Rising Star, Barack Obama was cheating on Michelle Obama for sure…back when he was a student at Harvard Law School.

Prior to meeting Michelle, Obama was living with Sheila Miyoshi Jager back in the in the mid-1980s in Chicago. Garrow reports that Barack allegedly proposed to her in 1986. But no marriage resulted because her parents thought she was too young. Jager is Dutch and Japanese.

Next, Obama started dating Michelle while he was a summer intern at her Chicago law firm. After the summer was over, Obama started hooking up with Sheila Miyoshi Jager when they were both back on the Harvard Law School campus.

As you can see in Garrow’s book, it looks like Obama humiliated Michelle by cheating on her with the woman who he had earlier asked to marry him at least twice. Jager and Barack saw each other on and off after Barack and Michelle got together. Garrow asserts that, at this time, Barack Obama was in “two powerful, overlapping relationships.”

Given the question above, however, it may be more accurate to say that Obama has cheated on Michelle before and that if he is cheating on her today it would not be the first time this has happened in their relationship. For more details, see

Barack Obama Publicly Humiliates Michelle Obama – The Secret’s Out

John C. Drew, Ph.D. is an award-winning political scientist.

Hot on Quora: Hillary Clinton and Donna Brazile admitted to rigging the primaries against Sanders and paying for the Trump dossier. What does this mean for the democrats?

"Trish Drew" by John C. Drew,
Ph.D. Oil on canvas, 11" x 14".
I think these developments help the public see much more clearly something that conservatives have been saying about the Democrat party for years: It is thoroughly unprincipled and utterly corrupt. It is amazing to me that so many of the supposedly bright people around the mainstream Democrat party did nothing to maintain an attitude and reality of impartiality during the primary season even though Hillary ended up buying control of the operations of the DNC with her gift of $10 million to pay down its debts.
Personally, I liked Bernie Sanders more that I liked Hillary. He seems like a fundamentally fair man. Hillary, however, always appeared to me as an evil person who would do anything, including bending and breaking the rules just to win the presidency. Hillary represents the globalist elite that don’t give a damn about the interests of the white working class.
Ultimately, this revelation from Donna Brazile will take away from the Democrat party one of its most cherished talking points, the suggestion that it is purer and more honest and more fair than the Republican party. It also takes away the argument that the Democrats will - if given real power - exercise that power in a fair, lawful, ethical manner. Too many mainstream Democrats participated in this charade. I don’t see how the voters ever trust them again.
I expect that moderate and swing voters will see that allowing the Democrats to hold power would only give them the opportunity to do the same cynical power ploys with the full capacity of the federal government that they now do within their own party. If you cannot operate your own party lawfully and ethically, how can the voters expect you to operate our national government lawfully and ethically?
All in all, this latest revelation should give many in the white working class (particularly young men and women) the satisfaction that they made the right choice in voting to stop Hillary and her extremely cynical supporters and campaign workers. It would have been much better to write in Bernie Sanders than to tolerate this sort of unbelievable, over-the-top, rigging of the Democrat primary.
John C. Drew, Ph.D. is an award-winning political scientist.