From: owner-shindell-list-digest@smoe.org (shindell-list-digest) To: shindell-list-digest@smoe.org Subject: shindell-list-digest V6 #290 Reply-To: shindell-list@smoe.org Sender: owner-shindell-list-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-shindell-list-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk shindell-list-digest Wednesday, December 1 2004 Volume 06 : Number 290 Today's Subjects: ----------------- [RS] politicos among us [sharon G ] [RS] The 411 on Voter IQ [RockinRonD@aol.com] Re: [RS] The 411 on Voter IQ ["Jens Brokvist" ] [RS] Voter IQ [Christy Thomas ] [RS] Re: shindell-list-digest V6 #289 [Jason Stanley ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 01 Dec 2004 06:10:39 -0500 From: sharon G Subject: [RS] politicos among us Hope (which, as we've heard, springs eternal) is released, the song ends on a very uplifted note. Meanwhile, back in his office...Richard has talked about how stuck he was on the crumbling sand castle, which he already saw as a metaphor. He knew that he had the seeds of something which really spoke to him, but was having a hard time actualizing it. Hmmm...the solitary artist locked in a personal, self-reflective struggle. Enter the bird. In desperation, he literally injects Mavis into the song (by injecting her into the narrator's landscape.) Mavis-in-the-flesh does for Richard what Mavis-in-the-song does for the narrator. Meta-writing! Okay, perhaps I should leave future literary analysis for the experts. But the beautiful thing is that [what I see as] Richard's transforming metaphor became for me my own metaphor, which does for me what it did for the song which is what it did for him... When Richard was on WFUV's City Folk Morning last Friday, they welcomed him into the studio by playing the album cut of Mavis...so they naturally began the interview by talking about the song and its meaning(s). Richard's one and only explicit point was that the song is a metaphor through and through. Claudia Marshall kept encouraging him to give us the "magic decoder", to reveal what he thought the song meant. He just insisted that he likes people to be able to interpret for themselves. I love that. And with that, I'll excuse myself so I can go give thanks and eat my weight in yams. Cheers, Amy i have to say i have enjoyed reading the posts since the election but i have to point that i think that the richard list has come to be what ihave heard eschewed for many years... G-d forbid.... its become The Dar List.... sharon ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 1 Dec 2004 08:21:57 EST From: RockinRonD@aol.com Subject: [RS] The 411 on Voter IQ I thought this was rather interesting and worth sharing in view of the recent debate here: US Election 2004 Results Listed by Average IQ STATE AVG. IQ PRESIDENT ELECT 1 Connecticut 113 John Kerry 2 Massachusetts 111 John Kerry 3 New Jersey 111 John Kerry 4 New York 109 John Kerry 5 Rhode Island 107 John Kerry 6 Hawaii 106 John Kerry 7 Maryland 105 John Kerry 8 New Hampshire 105 John Kerry 9 Illinois 104 John Kerry 10 Delaware 103 John Kerry 11 Minnesota 102 John Kerry 12 Vermont 102 John Kerry 13 Washington 102 John Kerry 14 California 101 John Kerry 15 Pennsylvania 101 John Kerry 16 Maine 100 John Kerry 17 Virginia 100 George Bush 18 Wisconsin 100 John Kerry 19 Colorado 99 George Bush 20 Iowa 99 George Bush 21 Michigan 99 John Kerry 22 Nevada 99 George Bush 23 Ohio 99 George Bush 24 Oregon 99 John Kerry 25 Alaska 98 George Bush 26 Florida 98 George Bush 27 Missouri 98 George Bush 28 Kansas 96 George Bush 29 Nebraska 95 George Bush 30 Arizona 94 George Bush 31 Indiana 94 George Bush 32 Tennessee 94 George Bush 33 North Carolina 93 George Bush 34 West Virginia 93 George Bush 35 Arkansas 92 George Bush 36 Georgia 92 George Bush 37 Kentucky 92 George Bush 38 New Mexico 92 George Bush 39 North Dakota 92 George Bush 40 Texas 92 George Bush 41 Alabama 90 George Bush 42 Louisiana 90 George Bush 43 Montana 90 George Bush 44 Oklahoma 90 George Bush 45 South Dakota 90 George Bush 46 South Carolina 89 George Bush 47 Wyoming 89 George Bush 48 Idaho 87 George Bush 49 Utah 87 George Bush 50 Mississippi 85 George Bush source: _http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/200http://www.mindfully.org_ (http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2004/US-Election-IQ2004.htm) Why am I not surprised? RockinRonD ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 1 Dec 2004 15:33:37 +0200 (EET) From: "Jens Brokvist" Subject: Re: [RS] The 411 on Voter IQ http://www.snopes.com/politics/ballot/stateiq.asp ~Jens > I thought this was rather interesting and worth sharing in view of the > recent debate here: > > US Election 2004 Results Listed by Average IQ > STATE AVG. IQ PRESIDENT ELECT > > 1 Connecticut 113 John Kerry > 2 Massachusetts 111 John Kerry > 3 New Jersey 111 John Kerry > 4 New York 109 John Kerry > 5 Rhode Island 107 John Kerry > 6 Hawaii 106 John Kerry > 7 Maryland 105 John Kerry > 8 New Hampshire 105 John Kerry > 9 Illinois 104 John Kerry > 10 Delaware 103 John Kerry > 11 Minnesota 102 John Kerry > 12 Vermont 102 John Kerry > 13 Washington 102 John Kerry > 14 California 101 John Kerry > 15 Pennsylvania 101 John Kerry > 16 Maine 100 John Kerry > 17 Virginia 100 George Bush > 18 Wisconsin 100 John Kerry > 19 Colorado 99 George Bush > 20 Iowa 99 George Bush > 21 Michigan 99 John Kerry > 22 Nevada 99 George Bush > 23 Ohio 99 George Bush > 24 Oregon 99 John Kerry > 25 Alaska 98 George Bush > 26 Florida 98 George Bush > 27 Missouri 98 George Bush > 28 Kansas 96 George Bush > 29 Nebraska 95 George Bush > 30 Arizona 94 George Bush > 31 Indiana 94 George Bush > 32 Tennessee 94 George Bush > 33 North Carolina 93 George Bush > 34 West Virginia 93 George Bush > 35 Arkansas 92 George Bush > 36 Georgia 92 George Bush > 37 Kentucky 92 George Bush > 38 New Mexico 92 George Bush > 39 North Dakota 92 George Bush > 40 Texas 92 George Bush > 41 Alabama 90 George Bush > 42 Louisiana 90 George Bush > 43 Montana 90 George Bush > 44 Oklahoma 90 George Bush > 45 South Dakota 90 George Bush > 46 South Carolina 89 George Bush > 47 Wyoming 89 George Bush > 48 Idaho 87 George Bush > 49 Utah 87 George Bush > 50 Mississippi 85 George Bush > > source: _http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/200http://www.mindfully.org_ > (http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2004/US-Election-IQ2004.htm) > > Why am I not surprised? > > RockinRonD ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 1 Dec 2004 06:04:11 -0800 (PST) From: Christy Thomas Subject: [RS] Voter IQ RockinRonD although i agree with the sentiment of the Voter IQ post...there is really very little chance that is accurate. Obviously no one has given IQ tests to everyone in ANY state...let alone ALL of the states - so I'm curious as to how they came up with these estimates - the information provided is rather vague and, apparently, not verifiable. Other sites show estimates of IQs for each state based on SAT scores (which is NOT a measure of intelligence)...there are obvious problems there, since not everyone takes the SAT. although Mississippi has a really bad educational system...i doubt the state average puts them in the mid- 80s. and, there are a lot of bright, well-educated people in Connecticut and Massachusetts...but...when averaging IQs for an entire state...the results would very likely be right around 100. Also, there is a fairly high correlation between income and IQ...and W's self-proclaimed "base" of very, very wealthy people would suggest that his supporters come from all points in the IQ continuum. Nonetheless, i enjoyed the post! Peace, c __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Get it on your mobile phone. http://mobile.yahoo.com/maildemo ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 01 Dec 2004 08:47:14 -0600 From: Jason Stanley Subject: [RS] Re: shindell-list-digest V6 #289 Alright, I will try and hit everyone's comment on this so read through. First, Vanessa, Actually Vanessa, since you can't right anything of substance other than accusing the "other side" of being ignorant" and incapable of understanding subtletly I am pretty much ignoring you until you can. > <> > I've been involved in increasingly many conversations with people like > Jason Stanley, and you're so right: one of the scariest things to > contemplate is that people really do think (or not think) in precisely > this manner. > > I thought your earlier comments were quite to the point. It's sad, > though, that our (liberals, intellectuals, people with BRAINS) ability > to appreciate subtlety and nuance will often work against us when it > comes to winning the minds of the American people (cf. any of the > Kerry/Bush debates). > > ::sigh:: > > - --Vanessa > >>Believe it or not, the U.S. is a safer place because of GWB's >>presidency. Name the last attack since 9-11 on the U.S. >> >> > >I would point out that the 11 September attacks happened on Dubya's watch in >the first place. When was the last attack on the US prior to that? The US >isn't safer since 11/09; just less complacent. > >Dave. > > > Dave, If you remember that had been being planned out for years and would have happened whoever was president due to Clinton's compacency. There have been attacks against Americans abroad over Clintons watch and not a damn thing was done about it. Even when he had the chance he didn't take it. Remember the USS Cole? >Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 19:36:16 -0500 >From: Rongrittz@aol.com >Subject: Re: [RS] (off-topic) You made my point so why even argue? > > > >>>one of the scariest things to contemplate is that people really do think (or not think) in precisely this manner. << >>> >>> > >As my old boss used to say, it's like arguing with a drunk. > >And we haven't even begun to discuss Bill's original point #2: > > > >>>Bush will appoint Supreme Court Justices and federal judges who will interpret law rather than those who attempt to create laws which suit their personal sensibilities. << >>> >>> > >Please. If they think that Bush isn't going to cave to the wishes of his (ahem) 52% "mandate" and look to appoint judges whose PERSONAL SENSIBILITIES put them firmly on the anti-abortion side of the potential overturning of Roe v. Wade (not to mention the "gays are not entitled to equal rights under God and the law" side of the gay-marriage debate), they must think that we just fell off a turnip truck. > >RG > > > Ron, Just because I believe one thing on the war on terror doesn't mean everything Bush says is taken as the way it should be. Personally I think people should have right to have an abortion, but personally I wish they would adopt the kid out instead. Another issue I have is medicinal MJ. It is not the governments business if some sick person anywhere in the country wants to grow some weed to make themselves feel better. The last I can think of off hand is euthanasia. Again, not the govs business. >------------------------------ > >Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 19:54:16 EST >From: FJPQ@aol.com >Subject: Re: [RS] (off-topic) You made my point so why even argue? > >In a message dated 11/30/2004 7:44:22 PM Eastern Standard Time, >Rongrittz@aol.com writes: > >Please. If they think that Bush isn't going to cave to the wishes of his >(ahem) 52% "mandate" and look to appoint judges whose PERSONAL SENSIBILITIES >put them firmly on the anti-abortion side of the potential overturning of Roe >v. Wade (not to mention the "gays are not entitled to equal rights under God >and the law" side of the gay-marriage debate), they must think that we just >fell off a turnip truck. > > > >To my mind turnips are a tad more intelligent... > >Scared and Disgusted somewhere near Paterson >Fran > > > - -------------------- >Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 20:00:03 EST >From: FJPQ@aol.com >Subject: Re: [RS] (off-topic) You made my point so why even argue? > >In a message dated 11/30/2004 7:57:32 PM Eastern Standard Time, FJPQ@aol.com >writes: > >To my mind turnips are a tad more intelligent... > >Scared and Disgusted somewhere near Paterson >Fran > > > >Oops...I meant smarter than W and his band of what ever they are.... bleck > > > Same as Vanessa. >------------------------------ > >Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 20:41:10 -0500 (EST) >From: Chris Foxwell >Subject: Re: [RS] (off-topic: politics) Rebuttal/Clarification > >On Tue, 30 Nov 2004, Jason Stanley wrote: >....................... > >Okay, I've collected myself a bit. First off, an apology is order. It >was cheap of me to fire off an underhanded insult without actually >responding to the content. I'm sorry for that. It's been a HELL of a >day, some relationship trouble (isn't it always?), blah blah blah, >whatever. That doesn't excuse something cheap and dirty like that, and I >apologize. > > > That is pleasantly suprising and very nice of you, thank you. >The sentiment behind my loose-cannon remarks are firmly entrenched in >logic, however. Let me see if I can do a better job clarifying things. >Jason, there is a big difference between "weapons" and "Weapons of Mass >Destruction". The latter phrase implies the ability to deliver payloads, >the ability to turn horrible weapons like anthrax into REALLY horrible >weapons, like carpet-bombs full of anthrax. (And if you don't accept that >definition, fine, but it was specifically that which Bush was targeting: >Iraq's possession of WMDs *and their ability to strike us with them.*) >You have blatantly and incorrectly inserted "WMDs" whenever I said >"weapons" while reading my earlier post. Yes, Iraq had weapons...but they >did NOT have WMDs, or the ability to strike with them. Yes, Iraq would >have used WMDs if they had them...but they didn't. They had weapons, not >WMDs. They had anthrax, not the ability to launch an anthrax missile at >our coasts. Go down and read your own post, and my earlier post, with >that in mind, and you'll see that I am not at all agreeing with you; >rather, you are making a gross generalization. (Perhaps I should have >been clearer in my terminology.) Hence my lamentation at the lack of >subtlety and nuance in those who follow your line of reasoning. > >That pretty much clears things up, I think. My earlier post stands in all >its long-winded glory, once you separate "weapons" from WMDs. I will now >address some of your more outrageous assertions. > >"Again, I don't think you are in a position to say how much they had of >what weapon." Um, agreed, 100%. You know who *is* in a position to make >that judgement? The WEAPONS INSPECTORS. HANS BLIX. The IAEA. *Exactly >those people who said that Iraq had no WMDs.* THAT is who is in a >position, and THAT is who I am paraphrasing and referencing. Yes, Iraq >had "weapons". No, they did not have WMDs, with capability to launch >them. So sayeth EVERYONE who has been over there to investigate. >Remember, Bush's claim was that Iraq had WMDs and the capability to strike >us. And we found...what, that their missiles had a range of 300 miles? >An abandoned shack instead of Powell's highly-vaunted mobile chemical >labs, which turned out to be old traincars? Hello... > > > I remember watching the news while the war was going on and they found missiles that went well over what was allowed by the U.N. I can't find the quote so take it or leave it. Another problem with Hans Blix and his group is it doesn't do a whole lot of good when every time they go to look somewhere they move the stache. I am willing to make a wager with you. 50 bucks says within 6 months the prove they had they WMD's they were looking for, not even counting anthrax. >"If you are referring to other Muslim countries, like Iran, just wait >until they are near getting the weapons and see what happens." No, I was >actually referring to North Korea. Guess what? They already have the >weapons. They already have the ability to strike the United States. >They have said, oft and repeatedly, that they would love to nuke us to the >stone age. Hmm...why are we in Iraq again? Because Iraq is *threatening* >us? Please. My 7-year-old cousin can pick apart the illogic in that >claim. > > > According to the U.S. and other countries, they are 3-8 years away from having any WMD's. If they have chem or Bio weapons now let me know where you saw it. >Again, apologies for my rude e-mail from before. I have no problem in >being firm and emphatic when arguing, but I have a problem with caustic >verbal volleys that accomplish nothing, so I'm a little upset with myself >for that. By the way, JK, thanks for the personal note of commiseration >and support. It was pretty humorous, and yeah, I've definitely >encountered the nonsensical spiderweb of "logic" that your discussant was >following, and that I feel I'm butting heads with here. > >- --Chris > > > Glad you have everyone on the board supporting you. Good luck. >------------------------------ > >End of shindell-list-digest V6 #289 >*********************************** ------------------------------ End of shindell-list-digest V6 #290 ***********************************