Are Blue States Smarter than Red States?

[Aleph Null]

http://www.buzzflash.com/farrell/04/08/far04027.html

Are Blue States Smarter than Red States?

by Maureen Farrell

There are those, one supposes, who still think that Paul, and not John, was the better Beatle. For some unknown reason, many honestly believed that Bob Hope was funny. And rumor has it that some people actually enjoy anchovies on their pizza. While these quirks might be best summed up with the axiom, "There’s no accounting for taste," preferences are often determined by intelligence, too. The majority of Americans chose wisely during the 2000 election, for example. Five out of nine Supreme Court Justices, on the other hand, made a really stupid mistake.

Given all that has transpired in the past three and a half years, unless you’re among the nation’s ridiculously rich (and consider Ebenezer Scrooge to be a personal hero), the smart choice in this election will be to give G.W. Bush the permanent vacation he richly deserves. Record deficits, ill-advised tax breaks, an unnecessary war, and a healthy dash of deceit are but a few ingredients in this no-brainer pie. Because clearly, if people rely on intellect instead of Pavlovian conditioning, they simply have to conclude, as did Bruce Springsteen, that it’s time for a change.

But middle-aged icons are not the country’s only sages. According to a recent Harvard study, America’s brightest rising stars are also gunning to unseat George W. Bush -- a sentiment underscored by recent Harvard graduate Natalie Portman’s decision to wear a "Vote for John Kerry" T-shirt on national TV. While this gesture was not enthusiastically embraced by Good Morning America or The Early Show (ABC used strategically placed flowers to block the shirt, while CBS shot Portman from the shoulders up), Charlie Rose allowed "Vote for Kerry" to peek out, unobstructed, across TV Land. Comedy Central also made no attempt to mask Portman’s "Kerry Me" T-shirt when she appeared on the Daily Show, providing a metaphor for Jon Stewart’s commitment to open commentary versus the networks’ habit of manipulating realties and covering things up.

Though ABC's Diane Sawyer cited "equal time" as the reason for the flowery censorship, Portman wasn't buying it. "Come on, you've got [Bill O'Reilly's] The O'Reilly Factor. That's on television; that evens it out!'' she said. Of course, in the wake of Disney's decision to dump Fahrenheit 911, it's now common knowledge that O'Reilly, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Matt Drudge and other right wingers broadcast regularly over Disney/ABC-owned radio stations. And to make matters less equal, John Stossel also recently attacked John Edwards on ABC's 20/20.

One could [weakly] argue, however, that the logical explanation for GMA's and the Early Show's censorship lies in the fact that mainstream commercial television, which speaks to a wider audience, is bound by more restrictions than either public television or cable TV. But, whatever the reason, this non-commitment to excellence exacts a beefy price. The Daily Show, for example, though considered "fake news" recently beat out Nightline for "outstanding news and information programming" while, according to a recent study, PBS viewers were considered far better informed than those who relied on FOX or network news.

And so, while a "Vote for John Kerry" endorsement would make perfect sense to enlightened PBS viewers, it might incite dittoheads to react as our ancestors did when anyone suggested that the earth was not flat. After all, why would competing morning shows want to alienate members of their audience or risk an onslaught of hate mail from totalitarian knuckle-draggers? Best to cover it up, else suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous numbskulls. And considering the response Portman generated after expressing a pro-Kerry opinion on David Letterman’s Late Show, avoidance, though mealy-mouthed and cowardly, makes sense.

Which brings us to the issue at hand. Why do people who endorse Bush appear to be on Stepfordian autopilot? Why are they so quick to shout down anyone who sways from their automaton script? Are they deluded? Brainwashed? A few episodes shy of a mini-series? Propagandists like Bill Kristol aside, smart people, by and large, seem to understand that George W. Bush is a disaster. Not too long ago, for example, 8 in 10 professional historians deemed this president "an overall failure," -- a conclusion readily reached by anyone who hasn’t: a) been brainwashed by Charles Krauthammer b) sold his soul to the GOP or c) suffered irreversible brain damage.

And so, when one looks at the projected electoral vote map for the 2004 election, and sees a big glop of red, the only logical question, aside from the divisive and negative and not very nice "Are these people morons?" is the less grating query, "Are blue states smarter?"

A few years ago, the Internet was abuzz with such speculation, as a chart listing the I.Q.s of each state, alongside whether they voted for Al Gore or George Bush, made the e-mail rounds. That information, which concluded that smarter states voted for Gore, was soon discredited. Earlier this year, the St. Petersburg Times repeated this claim as did the London-based Economist, but New Zealand’s Business Review called them both on their gullibility. "Internet hoax tricks mainstream major: Not so smart after all," the article declared, in a tone that seemed to involve pointing and laughing.

But hoax or no hoax, there is something bothersome about the sea of red that cannot be explained away as a matter of either opinion or taste. Having lived in both southern red and northeastern blue states (and having noticed the superiority of the blue state’s public schools) the explanation goes beyond questions of culture and involves something deeper. And so, starting with the hypothesis that Bush backers must, given all the evidence, be a bit slow on the uptake, researchers at BuzzFlash (namely me) consulted the publishers of Education State Rankings, 2003-2004 (via Google) and compared these findings against projected electoral votes in the 2004 election.

Asking, "Which State is Smartest?" Morgan Quinto compiled information based on 21 factors and concluded that Massachusetts is the most cerebral state in the union. But even more intriguing, according to projected electoral votes for 2004, Kerry is ahead in 9 in 10 of America’s smartest states, while Bush leads in but one, Montana, which, by many accounts, is Ted Kaczynski crazy.

As of this writing, this is how the candidates fare in the country's top ten "smart states":

1) Massachusetts -- Kerry, strong lead

2) Vermont – Kerry, strong lead

3) Connecticut – Kerry, strong lead

4) Montana – Bush, strong lead

5) New Jersey -- Kerry, strong lead

6) Maine – Kerry, barely leads

7) Pennsylvania – Kerry, weak lead

8) Wisconsin – Kerry, barely leads

9) Iowa – Kerry, barely leads

10) New York – Kerry, strong lead

There are holes in this theory, of course. Hawaii and California strongly back Kerry, for instance, even though their education standards leave much to be desired. On the other hand, it could be that smart people simply move to Hawaii and California after being educated elsewhere.

And, as you might imagine, research on whether or not morons support G.W. Bush remains spotty, at best. After all, though slower citizens might not realize that supporting Bush should be an embarrassment, who would admit, to Zogby or anyone, that they're absolute idiots? And though it’s doubtful that the "the Academy for Recognizing Stupidity Everywhere" relies on sound science, some of their more recent observations and conclusions are nevertheless noteworthy.

Not to be outdone by John Kerry (who, as has already been noted, is avidly supported by a Harvard-educated celebrity), "Stupidest Man of the Year" George Bush is backed by fellow World Stupidity Award nominees Jessica Simpson (who not only endorses Bush but reportedly told Secretary of the Interior Gale Norton "You've done a nice job decorating the White House") and Britney "I think we should just trust our president in every decision he makes" Spears.

Meanwhile, FOX News was deemed "Media Outlet Which Has Made the Greatest Contribution to Furthering Ignorance Worldwide" while The O'Reilly Factor won "the Stupidest TV Show" Award.

Still not sold? If you’re looking for even more unscientific proof that the smart vote's on Kerry, America Online's Instant Message (AIM) "Smarter Child" robot, a computer program designed to relay facts and information, also recently deemed John Kerry the wiser choice. "I'm a Kerry supporter myself," the computer program told a 13-year-old girl, adding, "George W. Bush is way uncool" and "I have my reasons, believe me. I really, really don't like George W. Bush."

And, while "Smarter Child" has since been reprogrammed to respond, "Robots don't get involved in politics," it still gets its point across. In response to "John Kerry rocks," Smarter Child says, "Right on!" Responding to "John Kerry is awesome," it says, "Absolutely. John Kerry rocks." But, when told "George Bush is awesome" it says, "other people I've talked to say they don't like George W. Bush."

"Clearly this is a smart robot," Democratic National Committee spokesperson Jano Cabreraal commented, though this sentiment was not shared by the 13-year-old’s mother. "What I find way uncool is undermining our commander-in-chief to impressionable children, especially while we're battling the war on terror," the mother said, displaying the blindly totalitarian attitude of Bush backers everywhere. Yes, Virginia, an opinionated robot is a bigger threat to the next generation than Bush’s blunders, which, if military officers, diplomats and CIA analysts are to be believed, have made us all decidedly more vulnerable.

So, what do you think? Are blue states smarter? Are Kerry supporters brighter? From where I sit, given the mountains of evidence, it's stupid to vote for G.W. in ’04, unless you’re actively rooting AGAINST America.

Those who embrace Bush may get offended, of course. People in denial usually do. But it’s not as if this stupidity is permanent. After all, Ebenezer Scrooge smartened up in a matter of hours. And, as is almost always the case, redemption is but a few heartfelt lessons away.

 

[jed turtle]

Subject: Reliable Sources About John Kerry
<UNDISCLOSED-RECIPIENT:;>

THIS IS PROBABLY THE TRUEST ACCOUNT OF KERRY'S VIETNAM EXPERIENCE AS
TOLD BY HIS FELLOW SOLDIERS...

Can you read this and tell any of these 18 men they are wrong about Kerry. Kerry shouldn't even be a Senator ~~ he should be court-martialed.


"We resent very deeply the false war crimes charges he made coming back from Vietnam in 1971 and repeated in the book "Tour of Duty." We think those cast an aspersion on all those living and dead, from our unit and other units in Vietnam. We think that he knew he was lying when he made the charges, and we think that they're insupportable. We intend to bring
the truth about that to the American people.

We believe, based on our experience with him, that he is totally unfit to be the Commander-in-Chief."

-- John O'Neill, spokesman, Swift Boat Veterans for Truth

"I do not believe John Kerry is fit to be Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces of the United States. This is not a political issue. It is a matter of his judgment, truthfulness, reliability, loyalty and trust -- all absolute tenets of command. His biography, 'Tour of Duty,' by Douglas Brinkley, is replete with gross exaggerations, distortions of fact, contradictions and slanderous lies. His contempt for the military and authority is evident by even a most casual review of this biography.
He arrived in-country with a strong anti-Vietnam War bias and a self-serving determination to build a foundation for his political future. He was aggressive, but vain and prone to impulsive judgment, often with disregard for specific tactical assignments. He was a 'loose cannon.' In an abbreviated tour of four months and 12 days, and with his specious medals secure, Lt.(jg) Kerry bugged out and began his infamous
betrayal of all United States forces in the Vietnam War. That included our soldiers, our marines, our sailors, our coast guardsmen, our airmen, and our POWs. His leadership within the so-called Vietnam Veterans Against the War and testimony before Congress in 1971 charging us with unspeakable atrocities remain an undocumented but nevertheless
meticulous stain on the men and women who honorably stayed the course.
Senator Kerry is not fit for command."

-- Rear Admiral Roy Hoffman, USN (retired), chairman, Swift Boat
Veterans for Truth

"During Lt.(jg) Kerry's tour, he was under my command for two or three specific operations, before his rapid exit. Trust, loyalty and judgment are the key, operative words. His turncoat performance in 1971 in his grubby shirt and his medal-tossing escapade, coupled with his slanderous lines in the recent book portraying us that served, including all POWs and MIAs, as murderous war criminals, I believe, will have a lasting effect on all military veterans and their families.

Kerry would be described as devious, self-absorbing, manipulative, disdain for authority, disruptive, but the most common phrase that you'd hear is 'requires constant supervision.'"

-- Captain Charles Plumly, USN (retired)

.

"Thirty-five years ago, many of us fell silent when we came back to the stain of sewage that Mr. Kerry had thrown on us, and all of our colleagues who served over there. I don't intend to be silent today or
ever again. Our young men and women who are serving deserve no less."

-- Andrew Horne


"In my specific, personal experience in both coastal and river patrols over a 12-month period, I never once saw or heard anything remotely resembling the atrocities described by Senator Kerry. If I had, it would have been my obligation to report them in writing to a higher authority, and I would certainly have done that. If Senator Kerry actually witnessed or participated in these atrocities or, as he described them, 'war crimes,' he was obligated to report them. That he did not until later when it suited his political purposes strikes me as opportunism of the worst kind. That he would malign my service and that of his fellow sailors with no regard for the truth makes him totally unqualified to serve as Commander-in-Chief."


-- Jeffrey Wainscott

.

"I signed that letter because I, too felt a deep sense of betrayal that someone who took the same oath of loyalty as I did as an officer in the United States Navy would abandon his group here (points to group photo) to join this group here (points to VVAW protest photo), and come home and attempt to rally the American public against the effort that this
group was so valiantly pursuing.

It is a fact that in the entire Vietnam War we did not lose one major battle. We lost the war at home... and at home, John Kerry was the Field General."

-- Robert Elder


"My daughters and my wife have read portions of the book 'Tour of Duty.'
They wanted to know if I took part in the atrocities described. I do not believe the things that are described happened.

Let me give you an example. In Brinkley's book, on pages 170 to 171, about something called the 'Bo De massacre' on November 24th of 1968...
In Kerry's description of the engagement, first he claimed there were 17 servicemen that were wounded. Three of us were wounded. I was the first..."

-- Joseph Ponder

.



"While in Cam Rahn Bay, he trained on several 24-hour indoctrination missions, and one special skimmer operation with my most senior and
trusted Lieutenant. The briefing from some members of that crew the morning after revealed that they had not received any enemy fire, and yet Lt.(jg) Kerry informed me of a wound -- he showed me a scratch on his arm and a piece of shrapnel in his hand that appeared to be from one of our own M-79s. It was later reported to me that Lt.(jg) Kerry had fired an M-79, and it had exploded off the adjacent shoreline. I do not recall being advised of any medical treatment, and probably said something like 'Forget it.' He later received a Purple Heart for that scratch, and I have no information as to how or whom.

Lt.(jg) Kerry was allowed to return to the good old USA after 4 months and a few days in-country, and then he proceeded to betray his former shipmates, calling them criminals who were committing atrocities. Today we are here to tell you that just the opposite is true. Our rules of engagement were quite strict, and the officers and men of Swift often did not even return fire when they were under fire if there was a possibility that innocent people -- fishermen, in a lot of cases -- might be hurt or injured. The rules and the good intentions of the men increased the possibility that we might take friendly casualties."

-- Commander Grant Hibbard, USN (retired)

.



"Lt. Kerry returned home from the war to make some outrageous statements and allegations... of numerous criminal acts in violation of the law of war were cited by Kerry, disparaging those who had fought with honor in that conflict. Had war crimes been committed by US forces in Vietnam?
Yes, but such acts were few and far between. Yet Lt. Kerry have numerous speeches and testimony before Congress inappropriately leading his audiences to believe that what was only an anomaly in the conduct of America's fighting men was an epidemic. Furthermore, he suggested that they were being encouraged to violated the law of war by those within the chain of command.

Very specific orders, on file at the Vietnam archives at Texas Tech University, were issued by my father [Admiral Elmo Zumwalt] and others in his chain of command instructing subordinates to act responsibly in preserving the life and property of Vietnamese civilians."

-- Lt. Col. James Zumwalt, USMC (retired)


"We look at Vietnam... after all these years it is still languishing in isolated poverty and helplessness and tyranny. This is John Kerry's legacy. I deeply resent John Kerry's using his Swift boat experience, and his betrayal of those who fought there as a stepping-stone to his political ambitions."

-- Barnard Wolff


"In a whole year that I spent patrolling, I didn't see anything like a war crime, an atrocity, anything like that. Time and again I saw American fighting men put themselves in graver danger trying to avoid... collateral damage.

When John Kerry returned to the country, he was sworn in front of Congress. And then he told my family -- my parents, my sister, my brother, my neighbors -- he told everyone I knew and everyone I'd ever know that I and my comrades had committed unspeakable atrocities."


-- David Wallace

"I served with these guys. I went on missions with them, and these men served honorably. Up and down the chain of command there was no acquiescence to atrocities. It was not condoned, it did not happen, and it was not reported to me verbally or in writing by any of these men including Lt.(jg) Kerry.

In 1971, '72, for almost 18 months, he stood before the television audiences and claimed that the 500,000 men and women in Vietnam, and in combat, were all villains -- there were no heroes. In 2004, one hero
from the Vietnam War has appeared, running for President of the United States and Commander-in-Chief. It just galls one to think about it."

-- Captain George Elliott, USN (retired)

.

"During the Vietnam War I was Task Force Commander at An Thoi, and my tour of duty was 13 months, from the end of Tet to the beginning of the
Vietnamization of the Navy units.

Now when I went there right after Tet, I was estricted in my movements. I couldn't go much of anyplace because the Vietcong controlled most of the area. When I left, I could go anywhere I wanted, just about. Commerce was booming, the buses were running, trucks were going, the waterways were filled with sampans with goods going to market, but yet
in Kerry's biography he says that our operations were a complete failure. He also mentions a formal conference with me, to try to get more air cover and so on. That conference never happened..."

-- Captain Adrian Lonsdale, USCG (retired)

.

"I was in An Thoi from June of '68 to June of '69, covering the whole period that John Kerry was there. I operated in every river, in every canal, and every off-shore patrol area in the 4th Corps area, from
Cambodia all the way around to the Bo De River. I never saw, even heard of all of these so-called atrocities and things that we were supposed to
have done.

This is not true. We're not standing for it. We want to set the record straight."

-- William Shumadine


"In 1971, when John Kerry spoke out to America, labeling all Vietnam veterans as thugs and murderers, I was shocked and almost brought to my knees, because even though I had served at the same time and same unit, I had never witnessed or participated in any of the events that the Senator had accused us of. I strongly believe that the statements made
by the Senator were not only false and inaccurate, but extremely harmful to the United States' efforts in Southeast Asia and the rest of the world. Tragically, some veterans, scorned by the antiwar movement and their allies, retreated to a life of despair and suicide. Two of my crew mates were among them. For that there is no forgiveness. "

-- Richard O'Meara


"My name is Steve Gardner. I served in 1966 and 1967 on my first tour of duty in Vietnam on Swift boats, and I did my second tour in '68 and '69,
involved with John Kerry in the last 2 1/2 months of my tour. The John Kerry that I know is not the John Kerry that everybody else is portraying. I served alongside him and behind him, five feet away from
him in a gun tub, and watched as he made indecisive moves with our boat, put our boats in jeopardy, put our crews in jeopardy... if a man like that can't handle that 6-man crew boat, how can you expect him to be our Commander-in-Chief?"

-- Steven Gardner

.



"I served in Vietnam as a boat officer from June of 1968 to July of 1969. My service was three months in Coastal Division 13 out of Cat Lo, and nine months with Coastal Division 11 based in An Thoi. John Kerry was in An Thoi the same time I was. I'm here today to express the anger I have harbored for over 33 years, about being accused with my fellow shipmates of war atrocities.

All I can say is when I leave here today, I'm going down to the Wall to tell my two crew members it's not true, and that they and the other 49 Swiftees who are on the Wall were then and are still now the best."

-- Robert Brant

.
"I never saw, heard of, or participated in any Swift boat crews killing cattle, poisoning crops, or raping and killing civilians as charged by John Kerry, both in his book and in public statements. Since we both
operated at the same time, in the same general area, and on the same missions under the same commanders, it is hard to believe his claims of
atrocities and poor planning of Sea Lord missions.


I signed this letter because I feel that he used Swift boat sailors to proclaim his antiwar statements after the war, and now he uses the same Swift boat sailors to support his claims of being a war hero. He cannot
have it both ways, and we are here to ask for full disclosure of the proof of his claims."

-- James Steffes


Voters in the United States of America need to see this article to get a genuine understanding of this scumbag. Thanks

</UNDISCLOSED-RECIPIENT:;>

 

[jed turtle]

"[WE] 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 Sens. Carl Levin (D-MI), Tom Daschle (D-SD), John Kerry( D - MA), and others Oct. 9,1998


"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





"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



"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


"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime .... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction .... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real" - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003


SO NOW EVERY ONE OF THESE SAME DEMOCRATS SAY PRESIDENT BUSH LIED--THAT THERE NEVER WERE ANY WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION AND HE TOOK US TO WAR UNNECESSARILY!

 

[jed turtle]

Subject: ALL VOTERS SHOULD READ
<UNDISCLOSED-RECIPIENT:;>

Observations by an Air Force Pilot.

Chris Thomas, Air Force Pilot:

I would like to add my two cents about my John Kerry experience.
During my career as an Air Force pilot, I spent two years flying a small twin engine prop plane around the Pacific from my base in Okinawa, Japan. On one trip we had to fly Senator Kerry, his congressional aide, and a Navy Captain (Vietnam, A-4 fighter pilot) who was also in Kerry's party to various locations in Vietnam and Cambodia as part of the MIA/POW talks.

When I met him, he was wearing a shirt with a picture of his sailboat on it. I told him I had a 27' sailboat in Okinawa, he remarked "Oh I never sail on anything less than 135 feet."

Thanks, Senator, "I feel even better about the meager salary I get paid for flying you around the Pacific."
When we first flew him into Phnom Penh, he went to the back of the airplane and grabbed the pizza that was put aside for the crew and passed it around to his staff. He was never offered any pizza because they were supposed to have lunch with the Cambodian government when we landed. The pizza was the crew's only meal for that day and he ate it.

Then when we picked him up in Cambodia, he was an hour late getting to the airport. Because fuel was an issue, we could not start the engines and therefore the air conditioning until he arrived. Phnom Penh at that time was over 100 degrees with 95% humidity and we were basically sitting in a greenhouse behind the cockpit windows.

When he finally did arrive, we were wringing out our clothes from the perspiration. He walks out of the air conditioned car, into the airplane and asks us "Could you guys get the air-conditioning running, I'm a little warm?" The other pilot had to physically restrain me from going back there and picking a fight.

Then we took him into Noi Bai airfield in Hanoi.

After we picked him up the next day (he stayed the night in Vietnam, we stayed in Bangkok) we taxied out, ran up the engines for take off and noticed that our prop rpm was vibrating all over the place.
We taxied off to the side to look at it, but there was a good possibility that there was an engine malfunction and the engine may fail if we took off with it.

Well, Mr. Senator sticks his head up in the cockpit and says "This plane WILL take off, I have a press conference in Bangkok in three hours!" (Maybe this is an indication of how he will run the FAA).

American service members lives be damned, we had our Senatorial orders. We ran the engines again, and did not have the problem, so we took off and made it back. During the flight, he told everyone how he
had taken a Cessna (a small General aviation plane)up with a fighter pilot, and the fighter pilot remarked that Kerry was one of the best pilots he had ever seen. I don't know about other pilots out there,but
it's hard to imagine a little, single-engine prop plane pilot being able to show the "right stuff."

After Kerry left the plane, the Navy Captain came up to us, apologized and said basically that "he knows Kerry is a jerk" and that we should be glad we don't have to deal with him every day. Your choice
folks. Elections in November. You want a mega-millionaire ego-maniac it's-all-about-me crew-eating-pizza-ite like Kerry or maybe a Green Party candidate like Ralph Nader? Or, God forbid, maybe even re-elect George Bush, a nice God fearing Christian bent on protecting us from terrorist attacks on US soil?

</UNDISCLOSED-RECIPIENT:;>

 

[Aleph Null]

None of those replies have anything to do with the article I posted (with which I do not agree, incidentally.)

If you want to say the article is wrong, or stupid, or whatever, fine. But please stop spamming the thread with yet more crap about Kerry's war record. Thank you.

-A0-

 

[jed turtle]

well, AO, not only is the article wrong AND stupid, or most likely merely the rant of a liar (or brainwashed sychophant), the point i was trying to make is that above and beyond the "dimwits are more intelligent than bushies " argument the author is setting up, the issue of lies and deceit - and ultimately honor - looks down upon the phoney "intelligence" argument and stares in disbelief. there are many who have a very high level of intelligence in many areas, and yet have no comprehension of the values that are necessary to inspire and lead a nation, much less even a family. better to be an honest floorsweeper than a devious genius. not that the "intellectual elite" are genius-level in the slightest...

 

[Green]

"Why do people who endorse Bush appear to be on Stepfordian autopilot? Why are they so quick to shout down anyone who sways from their automaton script? Are they deluded? Brainwashed? A few episodes shy of a mini-series?"

Ha!Ha!Ha!

 

[Safecastle]

There are a lot of big targets here, but I'll just point out, Ms. Farrell is not at all persuasive (though she could have been) since she fails to mention basic supporting facts such as, what the 21 factors are that went into determining the "smartest" state rankings. Nor does it help her cause for liberal intellectual superiority or her own integrity perhaps conveniently misspelling the name of the for-profit "research and publishing" organization that came up with the "smartest" rankings, as a part of their shelf of questionable books and CDs that are for sale. (Should be "Morgan Quitno Press," not an individual or other uncharacterized entity named "Morgan Quinto.")

And to have to rely upon "data" from "the Academy for Recognizing Stupidity Everywhere" to make her case, well ... what does this kind of article say about the brilliance of the people who would embrace it?

And all of this when her case could have been made in a far more convincing manner. After all, the blue states HAVE been shown in reputable surveys to consist of an average of about 4% more people with post-secondary degrees than the number of folks with those same degrees in the red states.

Of course, to my way of thinking, that is the flaw with those blue states (and not a reason for pride), and largely explains the error of their ways since those with liberal college educations are generally, as a group, the folks who have sold their souls and allowed themselves to be indoctrinated into the "enlightened age." ... Enlightened of the burden of having to carry the extra baggage that comes with traditional values, moral principles, and personal conscience.

 

[buff]

or risk an onslaught of hate mail from totalitarian knuckle-draggers? Best to cover it up, else suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous numbskulls

geez...now i'm a totalitarian knuckle dragging outrageous numbskull....

 

[astrogirl]

I am NOT deluded. I know the idea of President Kerry scares me!

These articles annoy the hell out of me. I like Kerry less than Bush, but I don't go around telling Kerry voters they are stupid. I think it's because if they fight fair, they will lose. I fail to see how all this name-calling could possibly win swing voters to their side, so I can't imagine what they have to gain by writing such hateful garbage.