From: owner-shindell-list-digest@smoe.org (shindell-list-digest) To: shindell-list-digest@smoe.org Subject: shindell-list-digest V6 #291 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 291 Today's Subjects: ----------------- [RS] State IQ. [Jason Stanley ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 01 Dec 2004 09:02:35 -0600 From: Jason Stanley Subject: [RS] State IQ. Do some research before post crap like this. http://www.snopes.com/politics/ballot/stateiq.asp >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 > > > > Glad to see you are happy reading made up facts. > >__________________________________ >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 >*********************************** ------------------------------ End of shindell-list-digest V6 #291 ***********************************