Is thinking 1 + 1 = 3 a difference of opinion or blatant stupidity?
I don’t think it is lack of education. You don’t need much education to read and understand the proof that Obama is Christian.
Students in Mississippi (and most other states in the middle of the country) normally take the ACT, not the SAT. If they do take the SAT, it’s usually because they’re applying to colleges in another part of the country where the SAT is the standard (and thus, probably among the best students in their graduating classes – average students are more likely to stay local, especially in MS, where the state universities are super-cheap and community colleges are often essentially free for locals).
The average ACT scores in Mississippi are not particularly impressive; in fact, the average composite score of 18.7 is the lowest in the US. (To be fair, though, Mississippi is one of only a handful of states where all students take the ACT, so this naturally brings the average down.)
Maybe a little. But surely you aren’t suggesting that most, or even many, people here who oppose Santorum do so not because they disagree with him but because they’re just partisan?
I consider not being a dumbass to be its own reward.
I like that idea. But not being a dumbass was cold comfort for me during the Bush administration.
It was cold comfort indeed, but vodka helped, along with my mantra of “It could be worse, I could be a dumbass.” 
Or overeducated the wrong way; e.g., by a Catholic institution or something, where you might learn some Jesuitical casuistry without really learning that that’s what it is.
I don’t think it’s stupidity. I think it’s being deliberately obtuse. They know what the hell it represents.
What I was specifically referencing was the idea that Santorum is not just wrong but crazy and evil. Here is a man with a long and distinguished history of government service who has lived an honorable and ethical life yet there are some who honestly seem to believe that he is a crazed theocrat who seeks to overturn the constitution. Such a position is as rational as Obama being a Muslim.
The irrationality of voters has clear policy implications. Since voters have no incentive to be rational or knowledgable in their votes, and irrational and uniformed voters have to be pursued by politicians. Polticians have to create policies that cater to the irrational and uniformed. We could try to better educate the electorate but with the internet information is easier to obtain than ever before and most people are just not interested. We could try to restrict who votes but the rascist legacy of voter testing makes this impossible.
What we need to do is to limit the power of the government so that the irrationality does the least bit of harm. If people make irrational choices in their private lives they are harmed and will eventually learn to make more rational decisions. If people vote irrationally they will never know it because the feedback mechanisms are so poor and the issues are so complex. For example some people who voted for Obama might now be sorry because gas prices are going up and they now have to pay more for gasoline. However the price of gas is set by hundreds of different factors all around the world. There is literally no way of knowing how much Obama has affected the price of gas.
Therefore the more freedom we give to individuals to make their own choices the better the decisions will be and the more choices we let the government make, the more irrationality we will have.
Missed the bit where he wanted to throw up on hearing JFK support the establishment clause, did you? Ethical, maybe, though there is the schooling bit. Honorable? I don’t think you can call homophobes honorable. I think he got his reputation honestly. He worked hard enough for it.
Uh, he only exists in politics as a focal point for people who can barely contain their rage at seeing a homosexual or a sexually active woman. Like, Rick Santorum is the candidate of people who would just go out on the streets and punch minorities and women in the face if they could get away with it. He’s one of the few people in mainstream American politics who can be validly compared to Hitler, as he’s rising to power on a tidal wave of ingroup-against-outgroup blind rage. What in the name of fuck is “honorable and ethical” about that?
Nonsense. As I never tire of pointing out, most Religious Right figures yearn for a new Fifties not for an Amerika Reich or an Evangelical Saudi Arabia.
Oh, so THAT’S your idea of “honorable and ethical.” OK then.
In the Fifties:
- Women couldn’t control their own reproductive choices
- Women who had children out of wedlock were shamed and shunned
- Women were discouraged from pursuing careers in politics and business
- Rape victims were thought to deserve their assault and were told to hide it from shame
- Black people were segregated away from whites, not just physically but through education and job opportunities.
- Blacks and other minorities were also discouraged from careers in business and politics
- Lynchings and murders of blacks and those who stood up for their rights was a real possibility
- Poll taxes prevented poor people (and poor blacks specifically) from voting
- Homosexuals were forced to hide and despise themselves
- Jews (and all non-Christian religions) were openly discriminated against
Being told that the Religious Right “only” wants to take us back to the Fifties is not a reassuring statement to anyone with an actual grasp of recent history.
They don’t believe homosexuals were in hiding, they believe they didn’t exist until they were invented by liberals in the late 70s. To take us back to the 50s, all gays will be eliminated.
No. I’m just saying Santorum is not comparable to Hitler.
It is an idealized version of the Fifties obviously-think Norman Rockwell or Father Knows Best and certainly not in the matters of racial relations.
Did the other 17% not know what “interracial” meant?
You mean back when the well-to-do white folk had black servants. shoeshine boys and handymen, and the wimminfolk stayed in the kitchen where they belonged?
His ONLY support comes from people who are demonizing a minority group for all of the country’s problems. Those same people often use violence against that minority and support their exclusion from society and from the equal protection of the law.
A country that elects Santorum President will immediately be a country where the situation for sexual minorities is comparable to that of Jews in the first years of the Nazi regime. The possibility of widescale murder is not unrealistic.
It’s easy for YOU, as one of Santorum’s Aryans, to not worry about this, but for some of us the fact that we stand a nonzero chance of being choo-chooed to death camps in the next five years is somewhat relevant.
How many black people were on Father Knows Best? How many women following careers instead of being homemakers? How many homosexuals?
By and large, the fifties are only idealized by straight white men. Wanting America to look more like that ideal is not very appealing to anyone who is not a member of that demographic.