Post-election chat with Seymour Hersch

[cema]

Baltimore, Md.: [...] "Backwards" southern and western neighbors? Can't you see that this attitude is one of the very reasons that these so-called "backwards" people don't pay attention to candidates from the coasts?

Too many stereotypes being reinforced by you, and I'm not talking about the midwestern one. Looking down your nose at others not like yourself sure isn't going to entice anyone to vote for your side.

For what it's worth, I voted for Kerry...

Seymour Hersh: [...] i did not see any evidence that kerrey talked down to any group, or dealt with them in terms of stereotypes. he simply refused to publicly attacks homosexuality.

What, does not he just understand what he is being asked?

Aside note: plenty of calls from familiar place names. Maryland, I miss you.

Comments

[email-animal.livejournal.com]

I am not going to play Hersch's advocate, but in the context of the exchange, it wasn't him who expressed the thought. Which does not mean that Hersch does not think of red states as backwards.

Heck, he might even be right about some of them.

But people who think of themselves as tolerant and progressive need to behave accordingly.

How tolerant one must be of human stupidity?

(I am asking you not to pick up a fight with you, but to see where you draw the line).

[cema.livejournal.com]

That's right, it was not Hersch, but he could have said a couple of words about the attitude expressed by someone else. This kind of attitude is not unusual.

Heck, he might even be right about some of them.

And the other side may be right about some of the lefties too, so what? The big picture still is incorrect.

How tolerant one must be of human stupidity?

No "must" here, the modality is different. If someone is aloof and condescending, it does not square well with his self-image of tolerance and human brotherhood.

And in terms of fighting for electoral votes, who is more stupid, the one who is stupid or the one who calls him stupid?

[email-animal.livejournal.com]

And the other side may be right about some of the lefties too,

Yes, they are. We do want to legalize gay marriage. We just don't see anything wrong with it.

And in terms of fighting for electoral votes, who is more stupid, the one who is stupid or the one who calls him stupid?

Is electoral votes the only correct measure to intelligence? Is it even a correct measure of intelligence. You have answered yourself in your question - I can hardly add to it.

[cema.livejournal.com]

I read that 23% of Gay vote went to Bush this time, and the same number did the last time too. Generally, I would suggest Gay issues were not as important as they might appear.

I certainly was not talking about that, though; when people dismissed as rednecks are themselves dismissed as aloof intellectual snobs, I may not be happy about that, but I do feel justice has been served.

Of course, the elections were not about how the urban elite and the country bumpkins feel about each other, but about other things mostly. But these feelings exist.

As to the measure of intelligence, I would rather not go into that. The best measurement of intelligence is IQ, and it is not good enough. Everything else is worse and is bad.

[(Anonymous)]

The best measurement of intelligence is IQ

Are you sure about that? What does this measure of intelligence predict or correlate with, exactly?

[cema.livejournal.com]

Mathematical, verbal, logical, and some spatial aptitude. Other similar tests test mechanical aptitude, physical (i.e. physiological) aptitude etc. There is also some correlation with g, a proposed generalized intelligence quotient, but I have not actually studied that concept myself, only read that it was accepted as a vague estimation of overall intelligence.

Keep in mind that intelligence is not the same thing as smarts.

[(Anonymous)]

By explaining the IQ with a set of aptitudes, you're just juggling words. Draw a bridge to the real life.

Keep in mind that intelligence is not the same thing as smarts.

I'm glad you've mentioned that. Don't you think that smarts is a better predictor of a person's ability to function in the society? Don't you think that it matters more?

[cema.livejournal.com]

Real life is overvalued.

Did I say anything about "person's ability to function in society"? Anyway, it was not me who started talking about intelligence.

[(Anonymous)]

Real life is overvalued.

What are you waiting for, then? Sell high!

Anyway, it was not me who started talking about intelligence.

What a marvelous excuse! Don't you think that making election choices is one of the person's functions in society?

[cema.livejournal.com]

I don't have much of one. :-)

Speaking of intelligence, it should be augmented by other important and often overlooked qualities such as maturity. Everything else being equal, higher intelligence certainly helps; but everything else is not equal. Besides, there are kinds of work that require certain specific abilities which can be tested for. A person with high IQ (measured as usual) is likely to be a better computer programmer than a person with low IQ (measured the same way). Whether he is going to be a happier person, and how much each will achieve in his life, cannot be derived from the IQ scores.

[(Anonymous)]

I read that 23% of Gay vote went to Bush this time, and the same number did the last time too.

It should come as no surprise as gays are not particularly supportive of abortion for obvious reasons: making abortion illegal shuts the door for any and all kinds of selective abortion.

[cema.livejournal.com]

Gays, abortions. Do you think they cared that much?

[(Anonymous)]

I think quite a few of them sincerely believe that given a foetal "gay gene" test, quite a few "pro-choice" parents would choose to terminate pregnancy once it is known that the foetus has the gene. And this, from a particular viewpoint, can be construed as genocide.

Moreover, gays themselves tend not to have children who might be at risk of the military draft, or subjects to excessive taxation in the future due to today's rampant budget deficits, etc; therefore, the litmus test is most likely Bush's stance on gay marriage, but even some heterosexuals do not care much about marriage nowadays.

[cema.livejournal.com]

You are not the same anonymous, are you? (But the same as above, right?)

The gayocide theory is interesting, but I doubt it has anything at all to do with the real issuea in these past elections.

The second paragraph smells of some conspiracy theory (we need children in order to institute draft? I did not get it), but I am sure if you explained what you meant in more detail, I would be able to grasp it better.

[(Anonymous)]

To put it succinctly, having no children makes a person somewhat more likely to adopt the "apres nous le deluge" (sorry for no accents) attitude. And who knows, maybe some "macho" gays voted for Bush to spite "girlie men" advocating gay marriage.

[cema.livejournal.com]

I am sure there are all sorts of strange people around, even people who vote for one candidate so spite the other ("anybody but Bush" etc). However, I do not think they played an important role in these past elections.