January 06, 2004


"What can explain his popularity?" asks Neal Starkman in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, of George W. Bush. "Can that many people be enamored of what he has accomplished in Iraq? Of how he has fortified our constitutional freedoms with the USA Patriot Act? Of how he has bolstered our economy? Of how he has protected our environment? Perhaps they've been impressed with the president's personal integrity and the articulation of his grand vision for America?"

Starkman believes this to be unlikely. The real reason for W’s popularity, Neal explains, is that Bush has ingeniously cornered the Moron Vote:

It's the "Stupid factor," the S factor: Some people -- sometimes through no fault of their own -- are just not very bright.

It's not merely that some people are insufficiently intelligent to grasp the nuances of foreign policy, of constitutional law, of macroeconomics or of the variegated interplay of humans and the environment. These aren't the people I'm referring to. The people I'm referring to cannot understand the phenomenon of cause and effect. They're perplexed by issues comprising more than two sides. They don't have the wherewithal to expand the sources of their information. And above all -- far above all -- they don't think.

You know these people; they're all around you (they're not you, else you would not be reading this article this far). They're the ones who keep the puerile shows on TV, who appear as regular recipients of the Darwin Awards, who raise our insurance rates by doing dumb things, who generally make life much more miserable for all of us than it ought to be. Sad to say, they comprise a substantial minority -- perhaps even a majority -- of the populace.

Don’t understand the variegated interplay of humans and the environment? You Bush-voting idiot! Neal understands. He has the Supersized Democrat Mega Brain, and it tells him how to grasp the nuances of macroeconomics and such.

Neal’s hateful theme has been kicking around for a while in Monster Intellect circles. Phillip Adams, for example, wrote that the President’s "excruciating misuse of language" had "made him the darling of the angry and inarticulate." (As far as "misuse of language" is concerned, Adams is a repeat offender.) And remember this Democratic Underground wiseguy?

I would dare to assume that most of us here are in the upper 1%-20% of the population intelligence-wise. We must come to the realization that the majority of the population is in the lower 80% to 99% percent of the bell-curve. WE are not the norm. The Republicans understand that the average American is not very bright. They cater and pander to the masses. The Democratic Party tries to appeal to the population about "issues" that these people just don't understand.

Even Margo Kingston -- Margo Kingston! Wrong about everything! -- asserts the left’s brainiac superiority:

I believe that the people in my terrorist cell - you people - have got more brains than the other lot. The other lot has got the power, and we've got the brains. We have got to free our minds to use the brains.

If you’ve got the brains, how come you don’t have the power? Discuss amongst yourselves, intellectuals. For the next four years.

(Via Eye on the Left)

UPDATE. Victor Davis Hanson in today’s Australian, on a couple of genuinely stupid people:

Al Gore dubbed the Iraqi liberation a quagmire and, absurdly, the worst mistake in the history of American foreign policy. Howard Dean, more absurdly, suggested that the President of the United States might have had foreknowledge of September 11. Most Americans now shudder at the thought that the former might have been president in this time of crisis – and that the latter still could be.

UPDATE II. Mike G. sends a note to the Seattle Post-Intelligencer:

i wish I cud figger out how to be rel smart lik Neal Starkman. it isnt from making anny effurt 2 unnerstan wy uther Amurkans mite suport Prezdunt Bush that’s 4 shure. he just sez hes smart an were dum so i giss i beter beleeve him. Maybe whining about losing eleckshun after eleckshun makes u smarter cuz that shure seems 2 be the mane thing peepul lik him do.

Posted by Tim Blair at January 6, 2004 12:26 AM

Is there some manual called "How To Lose Voters and Alienate People" that these people are all cribbing from?

Posted by: Mike G at January 6, 2004 at 12:38 AM

Same old same old.

The left is virtuous and intelligent. It must be so, because the left is always right. Um... Always correct.

So the right is evil and stupid. If people support Bush, it must therefore be because they are stupid or evil or have been deceived by the stupid evil genius Bush. Except that Bush is stupid, so he couldn't deceive anyone. It's Karl Rove, working from the shadows!

Because no-one truly intelligent could ever disagree with anything the left has to say. Because the left is always right. You know what I mean! Stop laughing!

Anyway, if your opponents are idiots, there's no reason to bother with facts. Insults will do just as well.

Posted by: Pixy Misa at January 6, 2004 at 12:49 AM

The claim that people are leftists because they're smarter than other people brings to mind George Orwell's comment that some things are so stupid that only intellectuals could believe them; ordinary people weren't likely to be so foolish.

Posted by: Alex Bensky at January 6, 2004 at 12:49 AM

"We must come to the realization that the majority of the population is in the lower 80% to 99% percent of the bell-curve."

WOW! What a imbecile! How can a majority (51% or more) be in the lower 80% to 99% of the bell curve.

This what happens when leftists replace thinking with feeling.

Posted by: Reid of America at January 6, 2004 at 12:54 AM

Reminds me of the old joke:

Frustrated executive type says, "Argh, I'm surrounded by idiots." To which his colleague responds, "If you're so smart, how is it these idiots managed to surround you?"

Posted by: Dan Desch at January 6, 2004 at 12:58 AM

I have to question the intellect of anyone who uses a phrase such as "we have got to free our minds to use the brains", although I'll still give her top marks for trying to sound Australian by writing "the other lot".

Posted by: gaz at January 6, 2004 at 12:59 AM

Dammit Tim, I live on the other side of the world from Australia but I hate Philip Adams with a white-hot passion. It kept me up last night just thinking about it. His fakery of the Krauthammer interview, and his utterly made-up "plastic turkey" story, are what really put me over the edge. I can put up with people of his general political views as long as they're basically honest, but Adams is so dishonest, so disingenuous, so lacking in journalistic ethics, and so pompous in spite of it that if I lived in Australia I'd be hard-pressed to keep myself from marching on Canberra as a one-man pitchfork-waving mob to get the taxpayer-funded broadcaster to stop giving money to that bastard. Tim, what can I do to deal with this problem I have?

Also, is it true that Adams walks around carrying a manila folder with his name circled in red marker, and a copy of his latest book, so that everyone on the street can recognize him and give him the adulation he feels he so richly deserves? I actually heard this story from a Melbourne resident who is of the leftward political persuasion, thus demonstrating that even Australians of Adams' general tilt can still see that man for what an utter twat he is.

Posted by: Combustible Boy at January 6, 2004 at 01:33 AM

I'll admit that I'm not as sophisticated and nuanced as Mr. Starkman might desire. So who are the truly clever people, to whom I should look up and, in the interest of self-improvement, try to emulate? Let's see...Michael Moore, Noam Chomsky, Paul Krugman, Maureen Dowd, Robert Fisk, Ted Rall, Dominique de Villepin (I won't say it), Kofi Annan, Barbra Streisand, Ramsey Clark, Rachel Corrie... I could go on, but you get the picture. Besides, this is making my head hurt.

Posted by: Ernie G at January 6, 2004 at 01:42 AM

The definition of a leftwinger - hates IQ tests when they don't give politically-correct results (e.g., ethnic subgroup means differences), but loves IQ tests when they give the the "correct" results (e.g., an overeducated leftie getting a high score). Lefties are all about elitism with a thin film of fake egalitarianism on top.

And anyone who doesn't know that all bell curves by definition contain a "majority" of their data in their lower 80-99% has lost his or her claim to being in the top decile, IQ score or no.

Posted by: Kimberly at January 6, 2004 at 01:48 AM

Since I'm obviously right, the only explanation for disagreeing with me is that you're all stupid!,/b>

Posted by: mojo at January 6, 2004 at 02:03 AM

Wait - I'm confused - what about Clinton? If it's the Republicans who cater to the masses and pander to the "less intelligent" how did Clinton manage the huge victories? How is it that Al Gore came so close to winning the last election? I was told that both of these guys were not only Democrats, but extremely intelligent as well. Oh well, I guess I'll just go back to slogging around down here with the other 80-99%

Posted by: Teresa at January 6, 2004 at 02:04 AM

how did Clinton manage the huge victories

Umm, he didn't? I believe Clinton was elected and reelected with pluralities that fell short of a majority.

Posted by: R. C. Dean at January 6, 2004 at 02:11 AM

Ah, it's that old "You disagree with us, so you must be insane" argument again.

Didn't Josef Vissarionovich discredit that one pretty thoroughly?

Posted by: Andrew Duffin at January 6, 2004 at 02:26 AM

All this talk of inarticulacy brings to mind a quote, which I heard attributed to Steve Martin:

"Some people have a way with words, and others have a, uh . . . not way, I guess."

Posted by: dazed at January 6, 2004 at 02:41 AM

As for Clinton, one of his staffers, during the debate over Hillary's national health care plan back in April of 1994, lashed out at reporters during a Q and A session, telling them that Clinton "is the smartest president since Thomas Jefferson," a line that actually made it into the AP story (Apr. 2, 1994 if you want to check the AP archive, and the line is in one of the closing paragraphs of the story).

As for Hillary, her brain is actually so large she really resembles one of the keepers from Talos IV from the original Star Trek series, but uses her mind control powers to project an illusion of a normal sized cranium (with changing blonde hair-dos) so as to not scare little children or dumb hick swing voters falling for Bush's trickery in the war on terror.

Posted by: John at January 6, 2004 at 02:58 AM

Back when I taught College English, I was believed to be too conservative to be intelligent by Marxist/Feminist/ist-ist members of the faculty. I loved fucking with their heads in outdoing them in Decon-speech.

Now I'm a fascist, of course.

Posted by: ushie at January 6, 2004 at 03:05 AM

So called "leftist intellectuals" like Starkman always make me laugh. Me and all the other "Rocket Scientists" I work with are smarter than these idiots, so their belief that they the smartest people around is ludicrous.

I say on my blog that "Politics is not Rocket Science, but all the Rocket Scientists I know are Conservatives." In my opinion, it is the left that has the "moron vote" wrapped up, because only a moron could buy the nonsense that passes for reasoned arguments on the left.

Posted by: Rocket Man Blog at January 6, 2004 at 03:28 AM

WOW! What a imbecile! How can a majority (51% or more) be in the lower 80% to 99% of the bell curve.

Um, Reid, I hate to break it to you, but 80 to 99% of people are in the lower 80 to 99% of the bell curve. Shocking, I know.

Posted by: Angie Schultz at January 6, 2004 at 03:31 AM

These are people who survived their adolescent insecurities by latching on to their greatest success - schoolwork. They now define schoolwork/academia/intelligentsia as the greatest good, because they need it to create and maintain their self-image. Along the way they've avoided growing up, and have therefore had to replace the real world with a made-up one. These people can be identified by their belief that adulthood occurs automatically at age 18,or their belief that children possess a special wisdom. Wankers.

So it is written.

Posted by: Dave at January 6, 2004 at 03:49 AM

If Republicans are so stupid, how come we all are rich?

Oh that's right, we must have cheated the system.

(For the purposes of this argument, rich = anyone not on welfare.)

I work a 40-hour work week and make good money......am I smart or am I stupid?

Posted by: Easycure at January 6, 2004 at 03:52 AM

We were the most stupid people on earth during Reagan years,again in Bush Sr. and now with GWB.

During Nixon years (college years),I was one of those evil conservative who didn't sleep with 10-15 guys a night,smoked dope all day then take a trip down the la-la land lane on LSD or mushrooms but studied hard to use few more brain cells.
The great democratic party followers were spawned by those who knows not who their dadies were, not so sure if they know who their mums are since everything was miserably communal.

My stupidity will go on to vote for GWB in '04. Nothing pleases me more than seeing Wash.DC dem rats disappearing overnight as soon as the votes are in,we calls that "abandoning the sinking ship".
Buggers sure know how to run fast,so avoid any roads northward leading to I-495 (beltway)...

Posted by: Fly at January 6, 2004 at 04:00 AM

PS: Sorry about the grammatical errors. English is not my first or second language.

Posted by: Fly at January 6, 2004 at 04:04 AM

In other news, I may be psychic.

Posted by: scott h. at January 6, 2004 at 04:12 AM

Several years ago I heard a philosophy that has served me well in numerous situations: The stupider they think you are, the more surprised they'll be when you come to kill them.

Posted by: cary at January 6, 2004 at 04:13 AM

In fairness to Reid, I read that "80 to 99" figure that way, too, the first time. Then I realized what they must be saying, which wasn't much.

Posted by: IB Bill at January 6, 2004 at 04:36 AM

"Um, Reid, I hate to break it to you, but 80 to 99% of people are in the lower 80 to 99% of the bell curve."

Of course, by the same token, 80 to 99% of people are in the upper 80 to 99% of the bell curve. Actually, I think the criticism of Starkman and others like him is that they are claiming that 80 to 99% of people are in the lower half of the bell curve (i.e., the vast majority of people [read: Republicans] are below average in smarts), which of course is silly (unless you live in Lake Woebegone). Then there is the perhaps apocryphal story about some senator (I've heard it was Jacob Javits) who said it was a scandal that half the school children in New York were below average.

Posted by: Bruce Lagasse at January 6, 2004 at 04:49 AM

Here's the letter I just sent to the editor:

i wish I cud figger out how to be rel smart lik Neal Starkman. it isnt from making anny effurt 2 unnerstan wy uther Amurkans mite suport Prezdunt Bush that’s 4 shure. he just sez hes smart an were dum so i giss i beter beleeve him. Maybe whining about losing eleckshun after eleckshun makes u smarter cuz that shure seems 2 be the mane thing peepul lik him do.

Posted by: Mike G at January 6, 2004 at 04:50 AM

Maybe we yanks wouldn't all be so stupid if the political left - which controlled congress for 30 years starting in the early 1960's - were a little more concerned with teaching and a little less concerned with teachers unions.

Posted by: jmegna at January 6, 2004 at 04:51 AM

Neal has and incredible intellectual trump card, if you disagree with me, your stupid. The last time I used this technique I was 10 years old. But I am so stupid I forgot about it when I asked for a raise last month.

Posted by: perfectsense at January 6, 2004 at 04:53 AM

I'll teach you what it means to misunderestimate me!

Posted by: Fred Boness at January 6, 2004 at 04:54 AM

Don't misunderestimate the power of saying "Jesus" to voters in middle America.

Posted by: Zach at January 6, 2004 at 05:01 AM

Neal Starkman is either a racist or not nearly as intelligent as he thinks. Why didn’t he at least free-associate mentally along the themes of intelligence tests, IQ tests, standardized tests, controversy over disparate results for different races. Even if he doesn’t know older history, he should be intelligent enough to figure out the sort of thing....

Neal Starkman is yet another lib half-jokingly calling for the prospective voter’s passing an intelligence test as condition for the right to vote—yet another lib too young & ill educated to remember the racist history of literacy tests that were in fact condition for the right to vote.

Posted by: ForNow at January 6, 2004 at 05:08 AM

ForNow - Yep, lefties believe they're never "racist", not even when they're supporting standardized tests and voter literacy tests. Of course, any right-winger who dares support testing - even in the classroom - is immediately accused of being a eugenicist or a fascist, if not both.

I suppose tests are okay only when the lefties support them. Too bad so few of them have the intellectual capacity to complete a six-year PhD that requires calculus, statistics, matrix algebra, computer programming, and so on. Gee, you think there's a correlation with lack of understanding of psychometric methods and a tendency to make inane statements about tests?

Posted by: Kimberly at January 6, 2004 at 05:27 AM

Someone at Nat Review Online -- John Derbyshire, I think -- said that US Democrats are the party supported by (a) college professors and (b) down-and-outs in jail or in trailer parks, while Republicans are the party of those in the middle, intellect-wise.

Posted by: Noami Kleimpsky at January 6, 2004 at 05:33 AM

Kimberly of Number 2 Pencil—one of the first blogs I ever read!

It is an honor to make your acquaintance.

If you’re reading Tim’s site, I’d better be EXTRA careful about grammar & spelling! :)

Posted by: ForNow at January 6, 2004 at 05:41 AM

puerile shows on TV - If you want decent television, talk to that liberal bastion Hollywood, producers of the puerile shows. Although, I think a better description of the current state of TV would be prurient.

who appear as regular recipients of the Darwin Awards - Ste Corrie of the Dozers

who raise our insurance rates by doing dumb things - See above.

Equating intelligence with common sense is a rather specious argument.

Posted by: CPatterson at January 6, 2004 at 05:48 AM

So now it's the "S factor" that causes me to support Bush and here I thought it was the "PT factor" (plastic turkey). I wish someone with some book learnin' would 'splain it all to me.

Posted by: Randal Robinson at January 6, 2004 at 06:00 AM

Didn't Bush win Florida because a genius Democrat election official designed a simple ballot that a bunch of genius Democrat voters incorrectly punched and ended up voting for Pat Buchanan instead?

Posted by: Dave S. at January 6, 2004 at 06:04 AM

Tim, love the way you weave the barking mad howler monkeys Kingston and Adams into this story.

Posted by: Kate at January 6, 2004 at 06:09 AM

...WOW! What a imbecile! How can a majority (51% or more) be in the lower 80% to 99% of the bell curve....Posted by: Reid of America...

Maybe they meant some kind of distorted cumulative distribution function...maybe...nah!

Posted by: CSS at January 6, 2004 at 06:21 AM

How can anyone appear as a regular recipient of a Darwin award? By definition Darwin awards go to someone who kills themselves (or at least neuters themselves) in an act of stupidity. You'd think someone as smart as Neal would realize that no one can do either of those twice.

Posted by: Matt Moore at January 6, 2004 at 06:26 AM

I don't think I need to say any more than: "Intelligence is in the eye of the beholder."

It certainly explains the amount of lefty back-patting and elitism.

Posted by: Marty at January 6, 2004 at 06:36 AM

The reference to IQ has been removed from the article on the Seattle Post-Intelligencer website.

I believe Starkman was trying to say that the majority of the population is in the lowest quintile of intelligence. That is the way I read it. Why would it be removed? The PC patrol probably told him that mentioning IQ is a no-no.

Posted by: Reid of America at January 6, 2004 at 06:48 AM


I connected to this thread from a different site. Thanks guys, now I have to clean the beer spray off my screen. Fortunately, I am a Republican and therefore almost smart enough to wash the computer window thingy!

Semper Fi

Posted by: RickM at January 6, 2004 at 07:05 AM

Actually, this would seem to explain Phil Adams. He's a lot more smart than the rest of us. Thus, he can tell us any kind of idiotic lie to get us to do what he wants because we are all so stupid.

Well, except, wait a minute. We aren't doing what he wants. Gosh! We must be even more stupid than Phat Phil thought. Well, I guess he'll have to speak more slowly and use even simpler words in speech and writing. Keep dumbing down the lies until we can understand them enough to be convinced by the lies.

Posted by: JorgXMcKie at January 6, 2004 at 07:21 AM

The wiseguy has another fact to iron out. The average IQ has increased during the course of the 20th century.Read about this in an article which also pointed out this increase, a shift of the bell curve to the right( how apt)has occurred in conjunction with economic progress, the very thing leftoids hate as Latham has to contend with in the ALP.

The thrust can be summed up: economic liberty not only makes people happier, it makes them smarter too.

Posted by: d at January 6, 2004 at 07:31 AM

Clinton got the huge victories by:

a) not being a howling moonbat who wears his anti-Americanism like some kind of badge (in other words, a conservative Democrat). Heck, a lot of Democrats hated him; I remember a lot of liberals complaining that there was no real difference between the Democratic and Republican candidates any more.

b) being more interested in the economy than in national defense. The Cold War was over, and many Americans felt like it was time to beat the swords into plowshares. For a while, it actually looked like we would be able to be at peace, and resolve our remaining differences through debate instead of war. We were wrong, of course, but hindsight is 20/20.

c) pissing off the religious right, which is really no better than the loony left. Amazing how they've become so united under the banner of idiotarianism; Pat Buchanan is now speaking out against Israel at Earth First rallies, and Emmaia Gelman is defending religious theocracies that would stone her to death if she actually lived by their laws.

Posted by: Tatterdemalian at January 6, 2004 at 07:33 AM

Clearly, this democracy thing is not working for the left- it never has really. How to stop all the stupid people voting? Maybe we should all have to pass a test set and graded by Professor Robert Manne on what is wrong with the Howard government. That should filter out the stupid people. They could all then be rounded up and placed in re-education camps of which the left is so fond.

Posted by: Jeesea at January 6, 2004 at 08:25 AM

Teresa has a good point.

But this means that Al Gore is the biggest moron of them all. Surely he could have cajoled his boss into pushing a "No Child Left Behind" Act through a quiescent Congress. Had Gore accomplished this in, say, 1994 instead of playing with his wienerschnitzel while Hillary made a play for Healthcare Fuhrer, enough smart kids would have reached 18 in 2000 to push Gore into the White House. Yes, the depth of Gore's moronicity is breathtaking to behold.

Posted by: Tongue Boy at January 6, 2004 at 08:26 AM

Must be true that you get dumber as you get older....that's why I started out as a smart liberal, and I am now a dumb conservative!

Posted by: rinardman at January 6, 2004 at 08:38 AM

"Equating intelligence with common sense is a rather specious argument."

Not at all, under my definition, intelligence = common sense, not how many equations you can memorise.

Posted by: Zool at January 6, 2004 at 08:38 AM

The link between 'intellectual' and 'intelligent' is tenuous at best. The term 'intellectual' is best used to describe 'literary' intelligence - which seems to consist of an ability to 'believe' the plausible nonsense of social philosophy (Marx and Freud), while it is 'real' intelligence that is required to 'understand' the implausible reality of natural philosophy (Planck and Einstein).

Posted by: Sean O'Callaghan at January 6, 2004 at 09:00 AM

The amazing thing is the absolute ignorance Mr. Starkman brings to the issue.

Extensive studies have shown that tested IQ, educational achievement, economic success, ability to accurately answer questions on current events, and voting Republican are positively correlated factors in the U.S. That is, the average Democrat, as a statistical matter, is lower IQ, less educated, poorer, and more ignorant of current events than the average Republican. Complain about the studies if you like, but that's the way the current evidence points; there is no evidence available for the opposite conclusion.

Now, on to his questions. Because since he's more likely than the average American to be a poor, ignorant, uneducated dummy, we do owe it to charitably explain to Mr. Starkman how the world actually works.

He asks "Can that many people be enamored of what he has accomplished in Iraq?" Well, Bush's policies overthrew a murdering dictator and has brought that dictator in to stand for his crimes. They've established basic human rights. They've saved thousands of innocent lives. So, yes, Mr. Starkman, yes we can.

He asks, "Of how he has bolstered our economy?" Well, Mr. Starkman, the recession started under President Clinton, and ended under President Bush, despite the economic effects of the deadliest attack on U.S. soil in fifty years and the revealtions of Clinton-era crimes at important buisnesses such as Enron and WorldCom. I'd say, yes, that's something of which to be enamored.

"Of how he has protected our environment?" Well, Bush has not rolled back a single Clinton initiative that took effect before his entry into office, nor any that were announced before his election, with the partial exception that he pushed through a change in counterproductive Clinton-era coal plant rules. The consequence of that change is a net reduction in emissions. So, Bush has been protecting the environment more strongly than Clinton.

"Perhaps they've been impressed with the president's personal integrity[?]" Certainly. This president doesn't commit felonies to avoid the legal consequences of laws he himself signed, unlike the previous President.

The Patriot Act? Okay, I don't like some of the provisions myself. But the ones I don't like have never been invoked. Oh, and every power in the Act was one requested by Janet Reno's Justice Department without even the excuse of 9-11 to back 'em up. And at least the current Attorney General hasn't shown his concern for young children by launching paramilitary assualts on religious compounds backed by questionable warrants in the heart of America.

So, now we've explained Bush's popularity (his accomplishments), and shown that Mr. Starkman's commentary is itself evidence of the correlation between ignorance of current events and voting Democrat.

Posted by: Warmongering Lunatic at January 6, 2004 at 09:33 AM

I don't know who Neal Starkman is but he's not a journalist. The article reads like a send-up. Or maybe he's just a half-wit.

Whatever. For an antidote to infantile leftie tripe, read Victor Davis Hanson, printed in today's Australian courtesy NRO.

Posted by: ilibcc at January 6, 2004 at 09:39 AM

i like Preznident Goerge Bush cuz he give plastik turkey to da soldjers. Da soldjers like da plastik turkey so i like Preznident Goerge Bush.

Posted by: Randal Robinson at January 6, 2004 at 09:55 AM

It is this elitist thinking that give us the wonderful dictators we have so enjoyed this past century. Oh, to have someone with superior intelligence to tell me when to go to the toilet and how to wipe my bum. Neal Starkman and his kind need to wake up to the reality that "intellectuals" have been the cause or more deaths in the twentieth century than probably all wars up to that time. Please save me from my state if ignorant bliss!

Posted by: Dave in SLC at January 6, 2004 at 10:03 AM

Reid reports:
"The reference to IQ has been removed from the article on the Seattle Post-Intelligencer website."

Did anyone happen to save the uncensored version of Starkman's article before the P-I yanked the un-P.C. reference to IQ?

Posted by: Mary in LA at January 6, 2004 at 10:05 AM

Why do these idiots not know why there is "one man one vote?It is because if you disenfranchise the "stupid" people they will eventually put you up against a wall and shoot you.These intellectual feudalists are like the Bourbons,they have "learnt nothing and they have forgotten nothing"

Posted by: Peter UK at January 6, 2004 at 10:23 AM

The common mistaken lib equation is not one between intelligence & common sense, but between intellect & intelligence, & often seemingly between merit & intellect.

Intellect is not the only kind of intelligence or cognitive strength. There are also:—imagination;—the sensory faculties & intuition;—& commonsense perception & wisdom.

Cognition & intelligence are not the only kind of virtue & merit. There are also:—will & character;—ability & competence;—& feeling & sensibility.

The narrowing of honor to intellectual merit marks an intellectualist elite.

Posted by: ForNow at January 6, 2004 at 10:27 AM


Retarded Drunk Fratboy - 38,439

You - 0

Posted by: iowahawk at January 6, 2004 at 10:46 AM

This is from a member of a political party, the Democrats, which has a major component consisting of people who graduated from Schools of Education.


Imperial Minion.

Posted by: MonkeyPants at January 6, 2004 at 11:38 AM

MonkeyPants, that is a first-rate zinger. No liberal professor can adequately recover from it in a brief time, & if they go on speaking smoothly, notice how they’ll mix the drinks wrong. Don’t say it to them while they’re driving.

Posted by: ForNow at January 6, 2004 at 12:06 PM

Plato never dies.

Posted by: Jason at January 6, 2004 at 01:40 PM

"...in the lower 80% to 99% of the bell curve."

Does our brainy Democratic friend mean "in the bottom 1% to 20% [i.e., the left-hand side] of the bell curve"? Then how on earth does a majority (greater than 50%) fit into 20% of the curve, much less into 1%? You'd have to be mighty brainy indeed to figure out how to squeeze 'em all in.

Or does our brainy Democratic friend actually mean "below the 80th or 99th percentile," which is the literal meaning of his words? And why can't he decide between the two percentiles? Hey, I'd settle for being in the 98th percentile any day.

Posted by: Grimsby at January 6, 2004 at 03:00 PM

I thought you can only win a darwin award once, because you kind of get dead.

Posted by: Dave-26x at January 6, 2004 at 04:03 PM

Oh, you poor benighted FOOLS!!!

Don't you know that only by following annointed sages like Starkman can we have any hope of being saved from certain destruction at owr own hands?!

Posted by: Random Numbers at January 6, 2004 at 06:13 PM

This is an earlier version by staff writer Real Starkers.

It's the "Smartarse Factor", the "S" factor: Too many people -- and I blame them absolutely -- are just too smart for their own good.

It's not merely that some people cannot grasp that putting "nuance" and "variegated interplay" in the same sentence causes this effect - human, i.e. this reader, running away to the environment.

The people I'm refering to can understand any phenomenon, in fact for them two sides to an issue is just not enough of a challenge. Without some perplexity they might be forced come to a decision and you know where that can lead them to - being judgemental. They think they have the wherewithal to find where all the wit is. And above all -- and they do believe they are above all -- they've had too much to think.

You know these people; they're all around you (if you're one of them, keep reading, smartarse). They're the ones who keep boring shows about foreign policy or constitutional law or macroeconomics on TV, who appear as regular recipients of Peace Prizes, who raise our insurance rates by outlawing dumb things, who generally think they ought to make life more miserable for the likes of us. Glad to say, they don't compromise a substantial minority of the populace.

Posted by: Softly at January 6, 2004 at 11:59 PM

A typical leftist wallowing in his pathetic narcissistic pathology.

Posted by: Luis David Albright at January 7, 2004 at 12:37 AM

I could be mistaken, but I seem to recall seeing data in the past that indicated that the tendency to be Republican increases with your level of educational attainment (notwithstanding the predominance of lefties in academia). Has anyone seen this?

Posted by: IslandMan at January 7, 2004 at 03:28 AM

In order to make sure that stupid people don't vote, they will have 'S' for stupid tatoos on their arms. Smart people, on the other hand, will have 'S' for smart tatoos.

Posted by: Dean Douthat at January 7, 2004 at 04:20 AM

In a liberal democracy, when a group of people is frustrated in their attempt to gain political power, they have a few explanations to turn to:

(1) Ideas: "we're not saying the right things."

(2) Tactics: "we're not saying things the right way."

(3) Conspiracy: "the other side does not play fair."

(4) History: "we're losing now, but we're right and our moment will come."

(5) The Audience: "the majority is too dumb/immoral/intimidated/deceived to agree with us." This explanation often goes hand-in-hand with 3.

Right now, large numbers of lefties, particularly intellectual/media lefties, are settling on the 5/3 combo. What's-his-face's editorial in the SPI is classic case of 5. Debate among sensible lefties revolves around 1 and 2, having pretty much given up on 4.

So HA! to what's your face. I'm an American Bushman, and I can count up to 5.

Posted by: One more American moron at January 7, 2004 at 05:09 AM

While I disagree with Mr. Starkman, it does seem to me that the "right" to vote should be in some sense earned by a responsible electorate. It might be appropriate, for example, for anyone desiring to cast a ballot to have to pass the same test which immigrants must pass to become citizens and thereby acquire the "right" to vote.

Posted by: tbutler at January 7, 2004 at 05:23 AM

C'mon. Don't you guys realize that we're all being brainwashed into voting Republican by those H.A.A.R.P. mind-control rays that Kucinich has been warning us about?

Try this little experiment: Go to the cupboard and take out the tinfoil. Wrap it tightly around your cranium, at least six layers thick. Wait 5 or 10 minutes for your brain to recover from the constant bombardment it's been receiving since June 2000. There. Feel better? Don't you want to vote Democrat now? Told you so.

BTW, you might also want to have all your fillings removed. Dentists (who are overwhelmingly Republican) have been known to plant tiny transmitters in their patients' molars. It's true! I read it on the web.

Posted by: Bill C. at January 7, 2004 at 07:01 AM

We're all stupid because of our failing public school system....which is mostly the fault of policies and practices imposed on it by the left.


But seriously folks, remember the Mario Cuomo quote, something akin to us writing in crayon while they write with quill pens? Well, I guess the national agenda is written in crayon, and will be for the next 4 or so more years. And hell, crayons come in that cool huge box with the sharpener ;)

Posted by: Shark at January 7, 2004 at 07:23 AM


Well, are you going to deny that the American public school system is a dismal failure and a thoroughly inept institution that routinely hands out graduation diplomas to illiterates? And that the teachers' unions, which are solidly Democratic, had absolutely nothing to do with the crappy curriculum that focuses mainly on self-esteem and social promotion at the expense of literacy and knowledge?

Now I'm LMAO.

Posted by: Bill C. at January 7, 2004 at 10:14 AM

The Seattle P-I letters page is erupting:

Posted by: Paul at January 8, 2004 at 01:08 AM

Duh! is right: the S Factor exists. And what isn't mentioned is that it exists all across the political spectrum. There are dumb libertarians who mouth along while reading the words of Ayn Rand and hate the government. There are dumb socialists who mouth slogans from Marx and Engels while hating the government. There are dumb Republicans who drool at the mouth watching Ann Coulter and Bill O'Reilly and hate the government. There are dumb Christians, Democrats, feminists, Muslims, dogcatchers, and Swiss cheese distributors. Why is this a topic of discussion?

P.S. The sky is blue during the day.

Posted by: jon at January 8, 2004 at 04:09 AM

It's a topic of discussion, jon, because a bunch of pundits has stated that the ONLY reason anyone could disagree with their liberal Democratic point of view is pure stupidity. This tactic is so arrogant and counterproductive, so likely to backfire on the pompous twerps who use it, that it merely proves the stupidity of these pundits. It's ironic...and downright funny!

This seems to be a tactic reserved solely for use by liberals. Conservatives prefer to label their opponents as cowardly or unpatriotic, which is usually a more effective ploy.

Posted by: Chip at January 8, 2004 at 09:02 AM

To tell the truth, I love articles like Mr. Starkmans. It lets all of us "stupids" know exactly where we stand in his eyes. If only more of his fellow "smarts" would have the guts to stand and voice their opinion like he did. But I guess being brave and being "smart" just doesn't mix.

Posted by: trackersmurf at January 8, 2004 at 02:34 PM

I recall Larry Niven Wrote in Niven's Laws:

There is no cause so noble that one cannot find a fool following it.

My own way of saying it is:
No matter what you belive, there will be an idiot who agrees with you.

Posted by: Random Numbers at January 8, 2004 at 10:37 PM

I agree with what Random Numbers said.

Posted by: idiot at January 9, 2004 at 10:16 AM

I disagree with what idiot said.

Posted by: idioter at January 9, 2004 at 11:48 PM

LOL! That Starkman guy's really funny.

Nothing but elitism and snobbery. No doubt he wants to reestablish an Aristocracy, and since intelligence is strongly influences by genetics, he'll eventually get around to making membership hereditary.

Until then you'll have to pass an inteligence test (of his own design) to get in.

Perhaps he'd just settle for being appointed to the post of Mandarin....

Posted by: Fred at January 11, 2004 at 12:48 PM