Sarah Failin'

[Lord Jim]

So those voters were stupid, not idiots.

Well Joe, I don't fancy myself as either "stupid" or an "idiot"....(I won't dwell overlong trying to conjure up the distinction)

So I now count four rubatos....

[Scooter]

Given his age and past health problems, anyone who voted for John McCain knew there was a very real chance that they were voting to make Sarah Palin president. Either they liked that idea, or they didn't care that they were potentially voting to put, how did you put it, a "complete imbecile" in the Oval Office.

I wouldn't exactly characterize either position as being the height of wisdom.

[Joe Guy]

Well Joe, I don't fancy myself as either "stupid" or an "idiot"....(I won't dwell overlong trying to conjure up the distinction)

For the record, historically, there have been plenty of intelligent people who have done stupid things.

So, if you're actually admitting to having voted for McCain/Palin, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

[Guinevere]

So I now count four rubatos....

Please get over yourself. No one calls you names when*you* express strongly-held opinions.

[Lord Jim]

Please get over yourself. No one calls you names when*you* express strongly-held opinions.

You called me an "idiot" Guin... (actually, a "fucking idiot")

I think that qualifies as a "name"....

[dales]

Some people take their politics far too seriously.

Especially those that name-call, one can disagree with another's POV without resorting to this.

Live and let live.

WGAF?

[@meric@nwom@n]

Please get over yourself. No one calls you names when*you* express strongly-held opinions.

You called me an "idiot" Guin... (actually, a "fucking idiot")

I think that qualifies as a "name"....

Well surely you can see that you calling her a name is different than her calling you, or anyone else for that matter, a name. (And all you did was call her Rubato, imagine the reaction had you called her a fucking idiot.)

[oldr_n_wsr]

This reminded me of my outpatient group last wednesday. The counselor had us write down what we did this year over Memorial Day weekend and what we had done in previous, non-sober years. The last question was along the lines of "Why do we celebrate Memorial Day?". Out of the 14 people in the class only me and another person had it right (and using the word "celebrate" is IMO wrong). Five other people thought it was to honor all our troops living and dead (I give them a pass but pointed out Veterans Day). A total of 7 people had no clue what Memorial Day was. Not even a stab in the dark like "a three day weekend",or "50% off weekend at WalMart". Disapointing to say the least. I asked the counselor that in the coming week or two she ask the question again and see if anyone remembered after learning the reason for Memorial Day.

[Guinevere]

Please get over yourself. No one calls you names when*you* express strongly-held opinions.

You called me an "idiot" Guin... (actually, a "fucking idiot")

I think that qualifies as a "name"....

I didn't call you a name, LJ. I explicitly referred to those who supported Palin, not those who voted for McCain and in so doing voted for her as well (I actually *get* that dilemma, see Kerry, John and 2004 election running mate Edwards, Johnny . . . ).

Sheesh, it's NOT all about you (and I know you find that very difficult to believe). Not to mention, after all these years, do you really think I think you're an idiot?

[Guinevere]

Now this is almost funny: http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/weigel ... evere.aspx

Editing Wikipedia to Make Palin Right About Paul Revere
Posted Monday, June 06, 2011 8:25 AM | By David Weigel
This is a hell of a get by Charles Johnson. Starting on Sunday, as Sarah Palin kept explaining that her version of the Paul Revere "Midnight Ride" was historically accurate, Palin fans emerged on Wikipedia to "fix" the Revere biography. Palin's taking heat for saying Revere "warned the British"? No problem: Just add the line in italics.

Revere did not shout the phrase later attributed to him ("The British are coming!"), largely because the mission depended on secrecy and the countryside was filled with British army patrols; also, most colonial residents at the time considered themselves British as they were all legally British subjects.

That revision is deleted with the explanation "content not backed by a reliable sources (it was sarah palin interview videos)." The people who keep cleaning this up are getting sort of bored now.

[Andrew D]

There are stupid people everywhere.

I'm not talking about politics. Sure, voting to put Palin within a heartbeat of the oval office was stupid. But was pissing a vote away on Ralph Nader any less stupid?

Put politics aside and look at the numbers. The average IQ is 100. (The IQ system is structured that way.) The standard deviation is about 15. (The exact number varies, depending on who is doing the crunching.) So about two in three of us have IQs from 85 to 115. That means that about one in three of us have IQs either below 85 or above 115.

Only about one in twenty-five of us have IQs either below 70 or above 130. That means that about one in seven of us have IQs between 70 and 85.

Think about that.

Every time you go out in the world, one out of every seven people you encounter (on average) is stupid.

Not doesn't-agree-with-me-so-he-must-not-get-it stupid. Not isn't-up-to-speed-on-the-latest-political-developments stupid.

Just plain stupid.

You ever wonder why that guy ahead of you in line at the fare machine is completely mystified by the display that says "to add fare to your existing ticket, press D"? It's because he's stupid.

And if there are fifteen other people in line in front of you, the odds are that at least two of them are stupid. And you'll end up late for work because someone finds the phrase "insert card as shown" incomprehensible.

You ever wonder why things are so slow at the DMV? Sure, many times, you see people who, despite being allegedly "working," do not appear to be doing anything at all.

But other times, everyone you see appears to be working, so the problem must be something other than indolence. And it is; it is stupidity.

Sometimes the problem is that person who finds "have your photo ID ready" as inscrutable as an ancient Etruscan text. But other times the problem is not the person in line; it is the person behind the counter. You know, the one who keeps saying "let me bring up another screen," even though everyone knows that bringing up a million other screens won't help unless the person looking at the screen is capable of deriving meaningful information from whatever appears on it.

How many times have you had conversations like this in convenience restaurants:

YOU: I'd like two eggs, scrambled, hash browns, wheat toast, and coffee with cream please.

SERVER: How would you like your eggs?

YOU: Scrambled, please. And hash browns and wheat toast and coffee with cream. Thanks.

SERVER: Would you like any potatoes with those eggs?

YOU: Yes, please; hash browns. And wheat toast and coffee with cream. Thanks.

SERVER: Would you like toast with that?

YOU: Yes; wheat, please. And coffee with cream. Thanks.

SERVER: Coffee for you?

The server isn't being rude; you're just overloading her -- or him, but at 3:30 am in a Denny's, it's usually her -- with information she can't process that fast. You got through "two eggs, scrambled," and what passes for her mind was completely filled by "Eggs. Hmmm. Eggs. Where's that? Oh, yeah, here it is. Eggs. How many? Oh, yeah, two. Which box now? Over easy? No. Over medium? No. Oh, here we are; scrambled."

Everything else you said just sailed right past her, because the loading dock of her mind was completely full. Not her fault -- she's stupid.

It's enough to make one have second thoughts about representative democracy.

I mean, I understand the reasons for everyone's vote counting equally, and I am committed to the fundamental equality which that represents. Still, I have my doubts. Don't you?

Don't you ever wonder whether it is really a good idea to give an equal voice in the decision of who is to run our foreign policy to someone who does not even register a difference between Austria and Australia? And if (s)he did, would consider them both "over there" -- where Venezuela and Vladivostok are?

At State and local levels, we commonly vote on things that involve taxes -- what we are being asked to pay, what we are being promised in exchange for that, what the alternatives are, etc. And among the votes that will decide those questions are ballots cast by people who see balancing a checkbook the same way that you or I might see solving the three-body problem.

Maybe we should consider weighted voting. If your IQ is below 70, your ballot counts as one vote. If your IQ is betwen 70 and 85, your ballot counts as two votes. If your IQ is between 85 and 100, your ballot counts as three votes. If your IQ is between 100 and 115, your ballot counts as four votes. If your IQ is between 115 and 130, your ballot counts as five votes. If your IQ is above 130, your ballot counts as six votes.

Even as I was typing those words, the objections were screaming in my head. And I was screaming right along with them. Such a system would be intolerable.

Still, there is that nagging ....

Does it really make moral sense for our collective decisions to be made by people who have no idea what the decisions are even about?

I doubt it. But I don't have a sensible alternative ready at hand. So I guess I'll just content myself with what we have and count my blessings that it is still a lot better than what many other people have.

But I'll still know that stupid people are all around me all the time.

Oh, let's not forget this: Most stupid people vote Republican.

[Andrew D]

In operation, one of the inexorable laws of political discourse on this board:

The number of rubatos Lord Jim sees rises in direct correlation with his arguments' getting squashed by facts and reasoning.

[Gob]

There are stupid people everywhere.



Put politics aside and look at the numbers. The average IQ is 100. (The IQ system is structured that way.) The standard deviation is about 15. (The exact number varies, depending on who is doing the crunching.) So about two in three of us have IQs from 85 to 115. That means that about one in three of us have IQs either below 85 or above 115.

Only about one in twenty-five of us have IQs either below 70 or above 130. That means that about one in seven of us have IQs between 70 and 85.

Think about that.

Every time you go out in the world, one out of every seven people you encounter (on average) is stupid.

Some places have more than others..

[BoSoxGal]

bsg hearts Andrew D for his powers of accurate observation that some would call cynicism.

[oldr_n_wsr]

Sometimes the problem is that person who finds "have your photo ID ready" as inscrutable as an ancient Etruscan text.

You are right about that. I go to at least one AA meeting a day and every time the chairperson at the meeting says "please join me in turning off or putting your cell phone on vibrate as it is rude to interrupt the speaker". Invariably a cell phone goes off and disrupts either the speaker or a member sharing his story/concern/problems. I want to strangle these people. What part of "PLEASE JOIN ME IN TURNING OFF OR PUTTING YOUR CELL PHONE ON VIBRATE" don't you understand?

[Gob]

Comedian Tina Fey's famous impersonation of Sarah Palin left many thinking the 2008 vice-presidential candidate really said: "I can see Russia from my house."

Now even Fox News, which employs Mrs Palin, has been fooled by the lookalike Fey, accidentally displaying her picture during a story about the former Alaska governor.

The story on the America's News Headquarters program was promoting an interview with Mrs Palin, in which she said she was "50-50" about running for president next year.



Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/tv- ... z1OYkeCENT

[Liberty1]

OK, I can't stand it any longer. Time for at least a little balance.

That the Republican non-candidate, in fact, knew more about the actual facts of Revere's midnight ride than all those idiots unknowingly revealing their own ignorance by laughing at her faux faux pas? How secretly embarrassing this must be, to be forced to face that you're dumber than the reputed dummy.

As it happens, though, such phenomena are regular occurrences in American politics, reminding consumers of news to be wary when some fresh story seems to fit contemporary assumptions so absolutely perfectly.

The well-known fable is Revere's late-night ride to warn fellow revolutionaries that....

...the British were coming. Less known, obviously, is the rest of the evening's events in which Revere was captured by said redcoats and did indeed defiantly warn them of the awakened militia awaiting their arrival ahead and of the American Revolution's inevitable victory.
Palin knew this. The on-scene reporters did not and ran off like Revere to alert the world to Palin's latest mis-speak, which wasn't.

Like a number of famous faux gaffes in American politics, the facts of the situation no longer really matter.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washing ... itish.html

http://bostonherald.com/news/us_politic ... id=1343353

[Scooter]

This:

He who warned, uh, the … the British that they weren't gonna be takin' away our arms, uh, by ringin' those bells and, um, by makin' sure that as he's ridin' his horse through town to send those warnin' shots and bells that, uh, we were gonna be secure and we were gonna be free … and we were gonna be armed

is what she said, and bears absolutely no relationship to reality. No amount of spinning is gonna fix the lipstick on this pig.

[Liberty1]

Just imagine if she would have said there were 57 states, or written 2008 in an attendance book, or said he was in Iowa when he was in South Dakota, or that tornadoes killed 10000 people in Kansas.

[Scooter]

No one would be asserting that whoever said those things was correct, unlike you who are trying to turn history on its head because you have the hots for a gun-toting grandma.