>
This post will be a series of factual statements from which the reader can draw his/her own conclusions, because giving my own -- as I did in the headline -- would be inflammatory.
Morgan Quinto Press publishes, yearly, Smartest State Awards. The most recent, free, results are here, and for 2006 to 2007. My statistics come from this page.
Quinto uses 21 factors processed through a formula (details of which can be found here) to assign a numerical value to each state. That value shows how "smart" the state is compared to the national average.
For example: Vermont was the smartest state in '06-'07, with a "Smart Rating" of 18.57. Arizona was the least "smart" state, and rated -17.61.
I printed a map of the US that showed which states' electoral votes were awarded to Obama in the 2008 election, and which states went to McCain. I used the map and Quinto's Smart Rating numbers to make the following calculations:
*The 27 states that went to Obama had a total Smart Rating of 43.45.
*The 23 states that voted for McCain had a total Smart Rating of -65.27.
*States that went to Obama had an average Smart Rating of 1.609.
*States that went to McCain had an average Smart Rating of -2.838.
I also think it's important to note that eight of the ten "smartest" states voted for Obama.
>
Showing posts with label election. Show all posts
Showing posts with label election. Show all posts
Monday, December 8, 2008
Saturday, November 29, 2008
Equal rights for one.
>
Abraham Lincoln is mentioned almost every time the media discusses Obama because it's whites' coded way of congratulating themselves for electing a black man and their having made it possible.
Every newsboy and newsgirl feels the need to say/write, at least, and very often apropos of nothing, that Lincoln is Obama's favorite president.
Notably: Obama is considered by the US media and the vast majority of its white people to be black and not white because -- apparently and terribly -- the One-Drop Rule still applies: "A person with any trace of African ancestry is considered black." Obama's mother was white and of Northwestern European ancestry. Obama's father was a black Kenyan, of black Kenyan ancestry. Therefore, Obama's ancestry makes him exactly -- to continue to speak very crudely -- half white and half black.
But we call him black.
Obama, like all bi- or multiracial people, is considered black, instinctively, by white people and white institutions because his skin color doesn't match his own mother's. The One-Drop Rule is embedded in white Americans' thinking.
Which means whites have a lot more discriminating to do:
"Genetic evidence appears to support the Out of Africa hypothesis. In the western half of Eurasia and in Africa, this hypothesis also seems the better explanation, particularly for the apparent replacement of Neanderthals by modern populations." (Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History -- scroll to/run a Find for "A Compromise Hypothesis.")
So Europeans and Africans, if not all people, share a common ancestor. A black one. Which means we're all black, according to One-Drop, the rule the US still applies.
Our genes also show that there is more genetic variance within "races" than between them. And that "race" is a stupid social construct (much more here) that has and is and will continue to be used to evil ends.
Skin color, despite science, remains a handy dividing line between an Us and a Them, and a handy indicator of who to hate, even if it's ourselves.
And let's hope Obama funds scientific research and gets it into public schools to begin the end of America's intense stupidity.
>
Abraham Lincoln is mentioned almost every time the media discusses Obama because it's whites' coded way of congratulating themselves for electing a black man and their having made it possible.
Every newsboy and newsgirl feels the need to say/write, at least, and very often apropos of nothing, that Lincoln is Obama's favorite president.
Notably: Obama is considered by the US media and the vast majority of its white people to be black and not white because -- apparently and terribly -- the One-Drop Rule still applies: "A person with any trace of African ancestry is considered black." Obama's mother was white and of Northwestern European ancestry. Obama's father was a black Kenyan, of black Kenyan ancestry. Therefore, Obama's ancestry makes him exactly -- to continue to speak very crudely -- half white and half black.
But we call him black.
Obama, like all bi- or multiracial people, is considered black, instinctively, by white people and white institutions because his skin color doesn't match his own mother's. The One-Drop Rule is embedded in white Americans' thinking.
Which means whites have a lot more discriminating to do:
"Genetic evidence appears to support the Out of Africa hypothesis. In the western half of Eurasia and in Africa, this hypothesis also seems the better explanation, particularly for the apparent replacement of Neanderthals by modern populations." (Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History -- scroll to/run a Find for "A Compromise Hypothesis.")
So Europeans and Africans, if not all people, share a common ancestor. A black one. Which means we're all black, according to One-Drop, the rule the US still applies.
Our genes also show that there is more genetic variance within "races" than between them. And that "race" is a stupid social construct (much more here) that has and is and will continue to be used to evil ends.
Skin color, despite science, remains a handy dividing line between an Us and a Them, and a handy indicator of who to hate, even if it's ourselves.
And let's hope Obama funds scientific research and gets it into public schools to begin the end of America's intense stupidity.
>
Tuesday, November 25, 2008
Statistics: Black people had nothing to do with Calif. Prop 8's passage.
>
Well: very, very little to do with it.
Fox News and other media outlets have been harping on the fact that 70 percent of black voters voted in favor of California's Prop 8 (which bans gay marriage).
This stat is used to claim that black people, therefore, are responsible for Prop 8's passage.
In CA on November 4, black people comprised less than 7 percent of voters because black people make up less than seven percent of the CA population. Also, roughly half of the people in the US vote.
So maybe 70 percent of 5 percent of a certain demographic of voters were pro-8.
And this meager percentage was responsible for Proposition Bigot's passage?
Why was something so moronic as the above allowed on the air (teevee news) and in newspapers?
I can understand Fox News running with this: Their audience hates facts like they hate canker sores. And, likely, gays and blacks just as much.
But supposedly legit media broadcasting this guano?
...Did there have to be "another side" to the story so people wouldn't think nor care as much about the evil meddling the Mormon Church perpetrated in CA?
I want to hear the excuses for the media running with this story so I can die a bit more inside.
...And I suggest everyone Google "Mormon marriage." It's far scarier than gay marriage.
>
Well: very, very little to do with it.
Fox News and other media outlets have been harping on the fact that 70 percent of black voters voted in favor of California's Prop 8 (which bans gay marriage).
This stat is used to claim that black people, therefore, are responsible for Prop 8's passage.
In CA on November 4, black people comprised less than 7 percent of voters because black people make up less than seven percent of the CA population. Also, roughly half of the people in the US vote.
So maybe 70 percent of 5 percent of a certain demographic of voters were pro-8.
And this meager percentage was responsible for Proposition Bigot's passage?
Why was something so moronic as the above allowed on the air (teevee news) and in newspapers?
I can understand Fox News running with this: Their audience hates facts like they hate canker sores. And, likely, gays and blacks just as much.
But supposedly legit media broadcasting this guano?
...Did there have to be "another side" to the story so people wouldn't think nor care as much about the evil meddling the Mormon Church perpetrated in CA?
I want to hear the excuses for the media running with this story so I can die a bit more inside.
...And I suggest everyone Google "Mormon marriage." It's far scarier than gay marriage.
>
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
Planned obsolescence.
>
The majority of Americans are against publicly funding embryonic stem cell research. The larger part of the populace is against laws that would fund such research even when this research is allowed to be performed only on embryos that would be discarded. That is to say (write): incinerated. Burned as though in hellfire itself.
Someone I know who has multiple sclerosis is against using taxpayers' money to fund the above, even with the stipulation mentioned above. And he (according to scientists) likely could benefit the most!
Americans can choose to use stem cells from embryos or choose not to. Either way, the embryos end up destroyed. Throwing them in an incinerator is one way to get rid of them. Another way is to involve them in research that could cure or benefit people who have MS, Parkinson's, nerve damage (including paralysis) and on, on, on.
Choice one: the one hundred percent guarantee that no good comes from the destruction of embryos. Many people holier than me, who claim to care about these embryos and human life more than I do, take this position. Which is a touch like saying "I care about waste management so much that I refuse to support recycling." (Awful simile.)
Choice two: the likelihood that the destruction of embryos eventually will lead to the easing and eventually curing of some of the worst ailments humans can have.
America prefers door number one. An incinerator door. The majority of US-ians believe it is morally correct that no good come from embryos bound for distruction. ...It is better that embryos be destroyed by fire than by beneficial research.
And that is nucking futs.
...The US is about to have new leadership. Leadership is about a lot of things -- and Americans have heard every cliche that supposedly defines it during the presidential campaign.
Here's a specific example of leadership: Issuing an executive order to correct the wrongheaded policies against stem cell research.
PS: This isn't meant to be a blog about politics or political issues. I'll try to write something smutty very soon to cleanse our palates.
>
The majority of Americans are against publicly funding embryonic stem cell research. The larger part of the populace is against laws that would fund such research even when this research is allowed to be performed only on embryos that would be discarded. That is to say (write): incinerated. Burned as though in hellfire itself.
Someone I know who has multiple sclerosis is against using taxpayers' money to fund the above, even with the stipulation mentioned above. And he (according to scientists) likely could benefit the most!
Americans can choose to use stem cells from embryos or choose not to. Either way, the embryos end up destroyed. Throwing them in an incinerator is one way to get rid of them. Another way is to involve them in research that could cure or benefit people who have MS, Parkinson's, nerve damage (including paralysis) and on, on, on.
Choice one: the one hundred percent guarantee that no good comes from the destruction of embryos. Many people holier than me, who claim to care about these embryos and human life more than I do, take this position. Which is a touch like saying "I care about waste management so much that I refuse to support recycling." (Awful simile.)
Choice two: the likelihood that the destruction of embryos eventually will lead to the easing and eventually curing of some of the worst ailments humans can have.
America prefers door number one. An incinerator door. The majority of US-ians believe it is morally correct that no good come from embryos bound for distruction. ...It is better that embryos be destroyed by fire than by beneficial research.
And that is nucking futs.
...The US is about to have new leadership. Leadership is about a lot of things -- and Americans have heard every cliche that supposedly defines it during the presidential campaign.
Here's a specific example of leadership: Issuing an executive order to correct the wrongheaded policies against stem cell research.
PS: This isn't meant to be a blog about politics or political issues. I'll try to write something smutty very soon to cleanse our palates.
>
Saturday, November 8, 2008
Sarah Palin: complete, utter, hopeless, idiotic moron.
>
The following is reprinted from HuffingtonPost.com. Click the title of this post to see the article I quote below:
Nicholas Graham
The following is reprinted from HuffingtonPost.com. Click the title of this post to see the article I quote below:
Nicholas Graham
"According to Fox News Chief Political Correspondent Carl Cameron, there was great concern within the McCain campaign that Palin lacked 'a degree of knowledgeability necessary to be a running mate, a vice president, a heartbeat away from the presidency,' in part because she didn't know which countries were in NAFTA, and she 'didn't understand that Africa was a continent, rather than a series, a country just in itself.'
"Palin was apparently a nightmare for her campaign staff to deal with. She refused preparation help for her interview with Katie Couric and then blamed her staff, specifically Nicole Wallace, when the interview was panned as a disaster. After the Couric interview, Fox News reported, Palin turned nasty with her staff and began to accuse them of mishandling her. Palin would view press clippings of herself in the morning and throw 'tantrums' over the negative coverage. There were times when she would be so nasty and angry that her staff was reduced to tears.
"Cameron also reports, along with CNN, that McCain's senior foreign policy adviser was fired a week before the election for attacking, in defense of Sarah Palin, various McCain aides who he felt were undermining Palin."
Me again:
Watch the video below, which is the interview Nicholas Graham at HuffingtonPost referenced in the above article. I was going to post bullet points from the interview, but found myself transcribing everything Cameron said. Watch the video. You'll laugh. You'll cry. You'll hope Palin stays the fuck in Alaska for the rest of her life.
And oh my freaking gods the apologism O'Reilly engages in is so so so pathetic.
Best. Video. Ever.
>
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
To reduce cognitive dissonance all of us will say:
>
At least X and/or Y passed/didn't pass!
PS: I didn't use "cognitive dissonance" in a wholly proper way. OCD wanted to let you know that I know.
>
At least X and/or Y passed/didn't pass!
PS: I didn't use "cognitive dissonance" in a wholly proper way. OCD wanted to let you know that I know.
>
Pat Buchanan will say:
>
Something somehow regarding Israel that reminds us he hates Jews but loves their real estate.
>
Something somehow regarding Israel that reminds us he hates Jews but loves their real estate.
>
Conservative/Republican pundits will say:
>
Certainly it can't be denied that the W. Administration's current handling of the Existential* War On Terror made it easier for Obama to win because, had there been a terrorist attack -- especially in the US -- voters would have been more inclined to vote for McCain. That there wasn't is a credit to the current president, who we haven't talked about for months and has done a lot of important things for the country when we weren't paying attention.
(Person making comment, and likely the host or anchor of whatever show this is said on, takes it as no-need-to-even-speak-about-it-obvious that United States-ians vote for Republicans when they're scared.)
*Existential: (1) Of, relating to, or affirming existence. (2) a: Grounded in existence or the experience of existence: empirical. b: Having being in time and space. (3) [translation of Danish eksistentiel & German existential] : existentialist.
Existentialism: A chiefly 20th century philosophical movement embracing diverse doctrines but centering on analysis of individual existence in an unfathomable universe and the plight of the individual who must assume ultimate responsibility for acts of free will without any certain knowledge of what is right or wrong or good or bad.
Calling the War On Terror "Existential": "Existential" is a hard word to understand, and does OK in the speeches it is made to be part of. And calling terrorism an existential threat, strictly, is true: Terrorism exists and it is a threat.
But I don't think Republicans in DC and governors' mansions go in for the "analysis of individual existence in an unfathomable universe and the plight of the individual who must assume ultimate responsibility for acts of free will without any certain knowledge of what is right or wrong or good or bad."
Existentialism recognizes moral relativism, and the GOP mocks moral relativism.
All of which makes everything perfect: The Bush Administration's Existential War On Terror is entirely contradictory.
Which is icing when your war is against terror: a state of intense fear. An idea! A feeling! A state of mind!
--Back on track (well, back to the one I switched to after the first paragraph): No matter what we call whatever conflict we're in, if we are, it must be won.
How?
Since universal health care was an idea cooked up by socialists and would help all US citizens and not only corporations (though it would help them immensely) or people who have so much money that they hire other people to tell them how to spend it, I will not ask for universal health care. Instead, I would like the government to know that my state of terror -- intense fear -- would almost entirely be eradicated if I was bought a new MacBook.
This war is about winning hearts and minds. The above is how to write me off as a big Mission Accomplished.
Well... Since the US is spending $5,000 per second waging its Existential War On Terror for Hearts and Minds, I'm going to get greedy and ask for a completely geeked-out MacBook Pro. Still cheaper than a second in Iraq.
...But shit. I'm already on our side. No heart or mind to win.
(In retrospect, it's nice to have written the above -- and for it to be the truth -- since the PATRIOT Act -- which was made law for the purpose of Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism -- has taken away at least one of my liberties: the freedom to know what freedoms have been taken away by acts of Congress and the White House.)
So, then, here's how to win our existential war existentially: Let's get our soldiers out of Iraq, where it is very easy for them to get very hurt and/or very dead, let Iraq take care of its own shit with, in part, its budget surplus--
Aside: How many times does Iraq's government have to implore us to remove our soldiers, and how many times do we have to steadfastly, resolutely, rebuke them? We have an easy out we refuse to take because, in part, idiocy has become a virtue and the White House sets the standard. And damned high.
--and give the soldiers kick-ass MacBooks?
Throw in new iPhones too.
Which would be cool but, of course, still too little. But at minimum (which it would be close to) it would be a nice addition to what our returned soldiers have received since 2002: the denial of proper health care, horrible pay, horrible name it.
Christ. Let's teach the world to sing al-fucking-ready.
(This post: with thanks to m-w.com.)
>
Certainly it can't be denied that the W. Administration's current handling of the Existential* War On Terror made it easier for Obama to win because, had there been a terrorist attack -- especially in the US -- voters would have been more inclined to vote for McCain. That there wasn't is a credit to the current president, who we haven't talked about for months and has done a lot of important things for the country when we weren't paying attention.
(Person making comment, and likely the host or anchor of whatever show this is said on, takes it as no-need-to-even-speak-about-it-obvious that United States-ians vote for Republicans when they're scared.)
*Existential: (1) Of, relating to, or affirming existence. (2) a: Grounded in existence or the experience of existence: empirical. b: Having being in time and space. (3) [translation of Danish eksistentiel & German existential] : existentialist.
Existentialism: A chiefly 20th century philosophical movement embracing diverse doctrines but centering on analysis of individual existence in an unfathomable universe and the plight of the individual who must assume ultimate responsibility for acts of free will without any certain knowledge of what is right or wrong or good or bad.
Calling the War On Terror "Existential": "Existential" is a hard word to understand, and does OK in the speeches it is made to be part of. And calling terrorism an existential threat, strictly, is true: Terrorism exists and it is a threat.
But I don't think Republicans in DC and governors' mansions go in for the "analysis of individual existence in an unfathomable universe and the plight of the individual who must assume ultimate responsibility for acts of free will without any certain knowledge of what is right or wrong or good or bad."
Existentialism recognizes moral relativism, and the GOP mocks moral relativism.
All of which makes everything perfect: The Bush Administration's Existential War On Terror is entirely contradictory.
Which is icing when your war is against terror: a state of intense fear. An idea! A feeling! A state of mind!
--Back on track (well, back to the one I switched to after the first paragraph): No matter what we call whatever conflict we're in, if we are, it must be won.
How?
Since universal health care was an idea cooked up by socialists and would help all US citizens and not only corporations (though it would help them immensely) or people who have so much money that they hire other people to tell them how to spend it, I will not ask for universal health care. Instead, I would like the government to know that my state of terror -- intense fear -- would almost entirely be eradicated if I was bought a new MacBook.
This war is about winning hearts and minds. The above is how to write me off as a big Mission Accomplished.
Well... Since the US is spending $5,000 per second waging its Existential War On Terror for Hearts and Minds, I'm going to get greedy and ask for a completely geeked-out MacBook Pro. Still cheaper than a second in Iraq.
...But shit. I'm already on our side. No heart or mind to win.
(In retrospect, it's nice to have written the above -- and for it to be the truth -- since the PATRIOT Act -- which was made law for the purpose of Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism -- has taken away at least one of my liberties: the freedom to know what freedoms have been taken away by acts of Congress and the White House.)
So, then, here's how to win our existential war existentially: Let's get our soldiers out of Iraq, where it is very easy for them to get very hurt and/or very dead, let Iraq take care of its own shit with, in part, its budget surplus--
Aside: How many times does Iraq's government have to implore us to remove our soldiers, and how many times do we have to steadfastly, resolutely, rebuke them? We have an easy out we refuse to take because, in part, idiocy has become a virtue and the White House sets the standard. And damned high.
--and give the soldiers kick-ass MacBooks?
Throw in new iPhones too.
Which would be cool but, of course, still too little. But at minimum (which it would be close to) it would be a nice addition to what our returned soldiers have received since 2002: the denial of proper health care, horrible pay, horrible name it.
Christ. Let's teach the world to sing al-fucking-ready.
(This post: with thanks to m-w.com.)
>
Monday, November 3, 2008
I have to mow the lawn tomorrow, too.
>
The kind of people who look forward to watching Meet the Press every Sunday know that, by all calculations, the only possible outcome of tomorrow's election is Obama's victory. Some of these people will use this knowledge to justify not voting tomorrow.
I'm already doing it.
>
The kind of people who look forward to watching Meet the Press every Sunday know that, by all calculations, the only possible outcome of tomorrow's election is Obama's victory. Some of these people will use this knowledge to justify not voting tomorrow.
I'm already doing it.
>
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
Elect "I'm Stupid" in '08!
Class warfare and socialism.
Republicans maintain that raising taxes on those that can afford tax increases is class warfare. A sort of warfare designed to "spread the wealth." Which is, according to those that know nothing of socialism, the larger part of the definition of socialism.
The smaller and smaller crowds McCain and Palin draw boo and hiss and sometimes call for Obama's murder when "spreading the wealth" is mentioned as something Obama supposedly desires. (Weather he does or does not -- and, if so, would attempt to do so -- is something to write about another time.)
I was running some errands, and passed by a trailer park as I did so. The entrance was a field of McCain/Palin signs.
These not-wealthy people overwhelmingly seem to support a campaign that has made it crystal clear they will give tax cuts to big corporations and the wealthy, on top of keeping W.'s tax cuts, which overwhelmingly favored the wealthy, permanent.
Many, I would guess, are so-called values voters. Many will vote in direct opposition to their economic interests because Republicans don't favor abortion.
Which is obvious. Because in W.'s first term, when the GOP
(which stands for Grand Old Party, which is synonymous with "Republican," and good to know if your local/state reps. and or senators list themselves on your ballot next Tuesday as members of the GOP to distance themselves from the Republican political philosophy the same way they would Aristotelian philosophy, which is a worldview just as wrong as their own)
had a veto-proof majority in the House, owned the Senate and the executive branch, they passed a law that made abortion illegal.
...Wait...
They didn't.
They didn't fight for any of the values the values voters put them in place for -- and they didn't do it because if they did they would have been voted out of office because their values are extremely unpopular.
Fine then. I'll end on this note, half-made points and all, because I don't feel like writing (but promised to do so in a post last week):
If you're going to vote McCain/Palin against your interests (beyond the economic ones, even) because of "values" promises that are sure to be not-kept, I reserve the right to call you a goddam idiot.
You goddam idiot. Your vote is as well thought-out as this essay.
Republicans maintain that raising taxes on those that can afford tax increases is class warfare. A sort of warfare designed to "spread the wealth." Which is, according to those that know nothing of socialism, the larger part of the definition of socialism.
The smaller and smaller crowds McCain and Palin draw boo and hiss and sometimes call for Obama's murder when "spreading the wealth" is mentioned as something Obama supposedly desires. (Weather he does or does not -- and, if so, would attempt to do so -- is something to write about another time.)
I was running some errands, and passed by a trailer park as I did so. The entrance was a field of McCain/Palin signs.
These not-wealthy people overwhelmingly seem to support a campaign that has made it crystal clear they will give tax cuts to big corporations and the wealthy, on top of keeping W.'s tax cuts, which overwhelmingly favored the wealthy, permanent.
Many, I would guess, are so-called values voters. Many will vote in direct opposition to their economic interests because Republicans don't favor abortion.
Which is obvious. Because in W.'s first term, when the GOP
(which stands for Grand Old Party, which is synonymous with "Republican," and good to know if your local/state reps. and or senators list themselves on your ballot next Tuesday as members of the GOP to distance themselves from the Republican political philosophy the same way they would Aristotelian philosophy, which is a worldview just as wrong as their own)
had a veto-proof majority in the House, owned the Senate and the executive branch, they passed a law that made abortion illegal.
...Wait...
They didn't.
They didn't fight for any of the values the values voters put them in place for -- and they didn't do it because if they did they would have been voted out of office because their values are extremely unpopular.
Fine then. I'll end on this note, half-made points and all, because I don't feel like writing (but promised to do so in a post last week):
If you're going to vote McCain/Palin against your interests (beyond the economic ones, even) because of "values" promises that are sure to be not-kept, I reserve the right to call you a goddam idiot.
You goddam idiot. Your vote is as well thought-out as this essay.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)