http://www.alternet.org/mediaculture/106551/forget_red_vs._blue_--_it%27s_the_educated_vs._people_easily_fooled_by_p ropaganda/

This article really resonated with me.

OMG that is such liberal media..

All joking aside...dude...lol...that pretty much is saying all is lost.

that pretty much is saying all is lost
So far, all evidence points to this outcome.

Until the Millenium Falcom comes streaking out the sunlit sky and takes out the formation of 3 tie fighters bearing down on our only remaining hope I will continue to have this very cynical and very real outlook.

/cut the chatter Red 5


Cheers,

So far, all evidence points to this outcome.

Until the Millenium Falcom comes streaking out the sunlit sky and takes out the formation of 3 tie fighters bearing down on our only remaining hope I will continue to have this very cynical and very real outlook.

/cut the chatter Red 5


Cheers,


Haha..ha...ha...haaaaaaa Well it is then only the people who can stop it, change it and then build it...and I don't mean KBR should get the contract.

Before folks get too smug in proclaiming that the 'illiterate' classes are entirely responsible for our damnation, let's not forget who was largely responsible for the social events that led to that cognitive decline; the educated and well-off classes, and we're hardly immune to persuasive propaganda and groupthink. From one of the comments below the main article:

(James, author of "Lies my Teacher Told Me") Risen does a great job of describing the characteristics of the educated classes that make them susceptible to artful propaganda.

The first is Allegiance: educated adults tend to make high salaries, and their education level often has much to do with their parent's wealth level. However, these people prefer to see America as a strict meritocracy, rather than one where inherited wealth is the dominant feature.

"They achieved their own success; other people must be getting their just deserts. Believing that American society is open to individual input, the educated well-to-do tend to agree with society's decisions and feel they had a hand in forming them"... in this sense, educated successful people have a vested interest in believing that the the society that helped them to be educated and successful is fair.

The second is Socialization. This is the process of "learning how to behave" - the social rules, norms, language, etc. Risen again puts it well: "Education as socialization tells people what to think and how to act and requires them to conform. Education as socialization influences students simply to accept the rightness of our society."

Just look at the neoconservatives - well educated but totally insane, and responsible for the most disastrous U.S. foreign policy ever, just about.

The decline and degeneration of our critical thinking and literacy skills didn't happen overnight, but it *is* striking that the steepening of that slope has coincided with the universal penetration of television into American homes. Speaking of that infamous 1960 Nixon/Kennedy debate, it's worth noting that those individuals who heard the debate on *radio* largely judged Nixon the winner; those who saw the debate on televison thought that the charismatic Kennedy had won. The example was not lost on those who pay attention to such things and image has assumed an ever-increasing role in our political campaigns since...

Another thing I was thinking about recently was how technological innovations that were originally devised to improve efficiency have inadvertently sucked the literacy and critical thinking requirements *out* of many fields of employ, subjecting those who work in them to mind-numbing tedium and further de-emphasizing the importance of these skills - the one that comes to mind is the implementation of universal NPC codes on merchandise of all sorts. Shopping (and shipping) clerks across the country, as a result of this change, no longer have to key in, add up, and passively, if not actively, consider whether a price matches the item in question; they're reduced to automatons who serve only to feed a machine and I've seen many clerks become completely helpless when something won't scan. I've also repeatedly seen clerks, when I give them a combination of coin or bills such that it will enable them to give me an even value in change, freeze up, completely unable to calculate what they should return to me. While one might have complained about illiterate clerks in the days before universal UPC scanning (and like many other things that were once considered 'careers' but now aren't), the reductionism that has taken place in the job certainly hasn't improved things.

I'm swamped in drop-week grading, severely sleep-deprived, and lost my own train of thought with this; but the point I wanted to make is that it was a whole suite of events that brought about this decline, and many of the contributors were the result of unintended consequences, as well as plain old laziness and a self-centered interest by the educated/elite class in neglecting meaningful education for the masses.

Regards,
Nydia

I don't think the article necessarily suggests that the educated or elite are immune to being morons themselves. It even makes a point to mention that 42% of college grads never read another book after graduating.

It's not about class based stratification.

Jeez, that just makes want to take this gun I have end it all. It's very depressing, that article makes it seem like there's nothing left to

It's important to remember that educated is not a college degree, particularly not the liberal moronicy that humanities devolved into. Business degrees have long been rubber stamps conferring nothing but time and money spent, to say nothing of "XYZ Studies" and other such anthropological chicanery. Plenty of people get set up by their parents and never look back.


Jeez, that just makes want to take this gun I have end it all. It's very depressing, that article makes it seem like there's nothing left to

Join the depression, welcome to the modern dark age. Education is a constant battle against stupidity and our own natures, and we haven't been winning for going on five decades.

I wasn't necessarily, although the commentor I quoted blurred the lines a bit, referring to traditional 'class' stratification - the world has always been full of 'educated' elite morons - but rather that even those who *consider* themselves educated and astute are hardly immune from pernicious propaganda, peer pressure, and the herd mentality. I'd also submit that the 'anti-elitist' or 'egalitarian' movement, with regard to both education and what we expect from our public figures has had numerous unintended consequences as well (anti-intellectualism, even though the two were not originally, and should never have been, confounded, and the dumbing down and homogenization of complexity and curriculum in the service of 'accessibility').

Neither is what I originally popped back into this thread to comment on, however, but rather another personal observation/memory that percolated up while I was walking between buildings:

I remember, in the late 1980s, as personal computers were beginning to penetrate the average American workplace and home in significant fashion, a very earnest debate, and divide (as far as preference goes) with regard to how writing using a word processor/computor (the mental processes involved in composition itself) differed from writing longhand or using a typewriter. Although it was somewhat frustrating to have to produce numerous drafts of something, crossing lines out and pencilling in edits, etc, the sustained concentration and attention to detail necessary to produce a typed or longhand document differ significantly from the 'cut and paste', delete, edit in process, method of writing using a word processor and I believe that this difference is not small in terms of the effect it has had on writing itself and the cognitive process that goes into it. It unquestionably *does* allow people to be not only more spontaneous, but lazier, in that one can jot things down more easily in fits and starts and stitch it up as one goes along, and I think the net result has been not been positive from the standpoint of cognitive training (although the ease with which word processing, email, and the Intertubes have made dissemination of (cough) 'information' much easier has had transforming effects on the landscape with their own unintended consequences). I was discussing with a friend not long ago how most subject textbooks at the college level have become horrendous pieces of rubbish and I'm convinced this slapdash, short-attention-span, cut and paste world of writing we now live in plays a significant part in that, and doesn't do our students any favors with regard to *their* attention spans; and our most recent bastion of arguable literacy, the Intertubes, has been gradually, and now quickly, transforming into an image-based medium as well as print articles give way to YouTube and its ilk.

Regards,
Nydia

And speaking of those easily fooled...did anyone watch the Sarah Palin CNN interviews? Obviously Andrew Sullivan did:

Some readers think my continuing attempt to expose all the lies and flim-flam and bizarre behavior of Sarah Palin is now moot. She's history - they argue. Move on. I think she probably is history. Even Bill Kristol and his minions in the McCain-Palin campaign may not be able to resuscitate her political viability now. But even if she is history, she is history that matters.

Let's be real in a way the national media seems incapable of: this person should never have been placed on a national ticket in a mature democracy. She was incapable of running a town in Alaska competently. The impulsive, unvetted selection of a total unknown, with no knowledge of or interest in the wider world, as a replacement president remains one of the most disturbing events in modern American history. That the press felt required to maintain a facade of normalcy for two months - and not to declare the whole thing a farce from start to finish - is a sign of their total loss of nerve. That the Palin absurdity should follow the two-term presidency of another individual utterly out of his depth in national government is particularly troubling. 46 percent of Americans voted for the possibility of this blank slate as president because she somehow echoed their own sense of religious or cultural "identity". Until we figure out how this happened, we will not be able to prevent it from happening again. And we have to find a way to prevent this from recurring.

It happened because John McCain is an incompetent and a cynic and reckless beyond measure. To have picked someone he'd only met once before, without any serious vetting procedure, revealed McCain as an utterly unserious character, a man whose devotion to the shallowest form of political gamesmanship trumped concern for his country's or his party's interest. We need a full accounting of the vetting process: who was responsible for this act of political malpractice? How could a veep not be vetted in any serious way? Why was she not asked to withdraw as soon as the facts of her massive ignorance and delusional psyche were revealed?

The Palin nightmare also happened because a tiny faction of political professionals has far too much sway in the GOP and conservative circles. This was Bill Kristol's achievement.

It was a final product of the now-exhausted strategy of fomenting fundamentalist resentment to elect politicians dedicated to the defense of Israel and the extension of American military hegemony in every corner of the globe. Palin was the reductio ad absurdum of this mindset: a mannequin candidate, easily controlled ideologically, deployed to fool and corral the resentful and the frightened, removed from serious scrutiny and sold on propaganda networks like a food product.

This deluded and delusional woman still doesn't understand what happened to her; still has no self-awareness; and has never been forced to accept her obvious limitations. She cannot keep even the most trivial story straight; she repeats untruths with a ferocity and calm that is reserved only to the clinically unhinged; she has the educational level of a high school drop-out; and regards ignorance as some kind of achievement. It is excruciating to watch her - but more excruciating to watch those who feel obliged to defend her.

Her candidacy, in short, was indefensible. It remains indefensible. Until the mainstream media, the GOP establishment, and the conservative intelligentsia acknowledge the depth of their error, this blog will keep demanding basic accountability.

My point is not to persecute or hound some random person. I wish I had never heard of Sarah Palin. I wish this nightmare had never happened. I wish totally innocent by-standers, like Bristol Palin and Levi Johnston and Heather Bruce and Trig Palin, had not had their lives disrupted by this circus. It's distressing to everyone, which is why most journalists left many aspects of this charade alone. But Palin is claiming vindication, is on every cable show, is at the National Governors Association Conference, and is touted as a future leader of the GOP. There comes a point at which you have to simply call a time out and insist that this farce cease and some basic accountability and transparency be restored to the process. Since no one else seems willing to do so, the Dish will stay on the case. So where are those medical records anyway?

Thanks for linking that, Rover, and it's good to see Sullivan calling the whole mess for what it is, and particularly for calling out the media's role in it - plainly enough that even the more ideologically polarized might stand up and take notice. I can't help but think that this absurd end of the road with regard to the marketing of ideological sock-puppets as candidates, and the abrupt realization that anti-intellectual, anti-reality, hysteria-based movements have very ugly unintended consequences (the drivers have become the driven) can only be good for those that have called themselves 'conservatives' in recent decades, and hope that this sparks the beginning of an earnest drive to pull the GOP out of the morass that it has sold itself into.

Regards,
Nydia

Let's blow this thing and go home!

I don't think the article necessarily suggests that the educated or elite are immune to being morons themselves. It even makes a point to mention that 42% of college grads never read another book after graduating.

And someone please tell me that this is a bullshit statistic... 42%? That cant be.

Seems far too high to be true to me as well Ain. Saddest thing I ever hear is when I hear some High school grad bragging about how he's never had to read another book since he graduated from school.

I would find it hard to believe that someone with higher learning would shoot themselves in the foot by not reading after college.

Mom used to say while I was growing up " I don't care what you read, but you will be reading if you are sitting around idle during a storm".

I just can't understand that 42% of people would never read after graduating college. I feel like you have to enjoy or at least be very good at reading in order to even make it through. If you can't make it through leisurely stuff, how the hell did you manage to read 300 pages on econometrics?

What the fuck do these people do when they're on an airplane? A long car ride? The toliet (Unabridged version of Les Miserables this summer. Hell yeah)?!

I still call BS.

/crosses arms :mad:

.

Mom used to say while I was growing up " I don't care what you read, but you will be reading if you are sitting around idle during a storm".

I don't think she meant Mad Magazine.....:D

Sarah Palin went to at least three colleges studying journalism, and she still says "too, also" seemingly every fifth or sixth sentence in interviews. If she was unable to grasp the concept of redundancy with all that 'study' time, what hope is there for our college educated? :rolleyes:

I've seen those numbers before, including just as depressing numbers on how many of that minority actually finishes the books they start.

I believe I actually posted the source study here awhile back. Of course it's impossible to ever really know how accurate something like that is, but it wasn't just conjecture.

For what it's worth, the study did not include reading holy books, such as the Bible, Koran, Torah, etc.

What the fuck do these people do when they're on an airplane? A long car ride? The toliet (Unabridged version of Les Miserables this summer. Hell yeah)?!

The last flight I was on, the guy next to me watched rap videos on his iPod Nano Video thing and the lady next to me read the pictures in a magazine.

There are over 42 million American adults, 20 percent of whom hold high school diplomas, who cannot read

I hear stuff like this all the time and still don't understand how you can get through elementary school, let alone high school without being able to read.

I just can't understand that 42% of people would never read after graduating college. I feel like you have to enjoy or at least be very good at reading in order to even make it through. If you can't make it through leisurely stuff, how the hell did you manage to read 300 pages on econometrics?

What the fuck do these people do when they're on an airplane? A long car ride? The toliet (Unabridged version of Les Miserables this summer. Hell yeah)?!

I still call BS.

/crosses arms :mad:


The toilet? Sports Illustrated, EGM, US News and World Report, Car and Driver, Cigar Aficionado

Sarah Palin went to at least three colleges studying journalism, and she still says "too, also" seemingly every fifth or sixth sentence in interviews. If she was unable to grasp the concept of redundancy with all that 'study' time, what hope is there for our college educated? :rolleyes:

You left out "such as" and a few others. Her CNN interviews were essentially a replay of the Katie Couric interviews.

"Well wolf too also say that Barak Obama such as he has a relationship with a terrorist who also is an unrepentant domestic terrorist who had campaigned to blow up, to destroy our Pentagon and our U.S. Capitol right as we sit here in these chairs"

Sarah Palin bounced around between a bunch of crappy schools and community colleges. It took her six years to get her degree in Journalism. That's pathetic.

The best part is, they want Palin to lead the party and they want this guy out.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/11/11/paul.republican/index.html

I just can't understand that 42% of people would never read after graduating college.

That's not hard to believe when you see how many of the remainder never get past a book club or bestseller list. The current publishing strategy of "throw everything at the market and change the names for sequels of the successes" does not breed a healthy environment for literacy.

"Political leaders in our post-literate society no longer need to be competent, sincere or honest. They only need to appear to have these qualities. Most of all they need a story, a narrative. The reality of the narrative is irrelevant. It can be completely at odds with the facts. The consistency and emotional appeal of the story are paramount. The most essential skill in political theater and the consumer culture is artifice. Those who are best at artifice succeed. Those who have not mastered the art of artifice fail. In an age of images and entertainment, in an age of instant emotional gratification, we do not seek or want honesty. We ask to be indulged and entertained by clichs, stereotypes and mythic narratives"

I found this to be incredibly true. Insert Waiter customer service or sales person for political leader. Its all the same. Tell a 3rd party story appear to relate, look like the buyer and they will take whatever you tell them at whatever price. People like a good story, to be made to feel important and that they are smart in there choice, even if they arent really making a choice.

Sarah Palin bounced around between a bunch of crappy schools and community colleges. It took her six years to get her degree in Journalism. That's pathetic.

Wow, well not everyone has parents to lean on nor can afford to attend only college. Perhaps she was already a parent and working?

I'm not defending her mind you, she's clearly an odd duck and not suited to the role to which she was selected....

But wow...

Wow, well not everyone has parents to lean on nor can afford to attend only college. Perhaps she was already a parent and working?

I'm not defending her mind you, she's clearly an odd duck and not suited to the role to which she was selected....

But wow...


Yeah not everyone does, but she did. Probably your comment would have applied more accurately to Obama.

Definately alot of respect for all that Obama did with the adversity he faced growing up.

That's not hard to believe when you see how many of the remainder never get past a book club or bestseller list. The current publishing strategy of "throw everything at the market and change the names for sequels of the successes" does not breed a healthy environment for literacy.

Of those who did read a book in the last five years, most of them only read The Da Vinci Code. True story!

In 1982, she enrolled at Hawaii Pacific College (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawaii_Pacific_University), but left after her first semester. She transferred to North Idaho (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Idaho_College) community college, where she spent two semesters as a general studies major. From there, she transferred to the University of Idaho (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Idaho) for two semesters.[11] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarah_palin#cite_note-AP_College-10)[12] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarah_palin#cite_note-BooneSeattlePI-11) During this time Palin won the Miss Wasilla Pageant,[13] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarah_palin#cite_note-12)[14] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarah_palin#cite_note-StLouisPD_20080830-13) then finished third in the 1984 Miss Alaska (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miss_Alaska) pageant,[15] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarah_palin#cite_note-WaPo-14)[16] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarah_palin#cite_note-usweekly-15) at which she won a college scholarship and the "Miss Congeniality (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miss_Congeniality)" award.[8] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarah_palin#cite_note-Johnson-7) Afterwards, Palin attended the Matanuska-Susitna (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matanuska-Susitna_College) community college in Alaska for one term. The next year she returned to the University of Idaho where she spent three semesters completing her Bachelor of Science (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bachelor_of_Science) degree in communications (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communication_studies)-journalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journalism), graduating in 1987.This is called being lazy/too stupid to graduate college. She transfers back and forth between community college twice, and takes six years to get a degree from a college that she attended for 5 semesters.

I know people who are going to take about six years to graduate. It typically involves a shift in major, or transferring up to a much better institution that will not accept your previous credits. If it takes you six years to get a journalism degree between 5 different schools... You're doing it wrong. =P

These types of people are called flakes. And they should obviously be the President. :rolleyes:

(Not meant as a knock against community college. I myself attended for a year. Just saying that this track record is much less impressive than most students I know, and they're busy working jobs that pay 30k/yr and not trying to be President).

1987 - 1982 = 5 years not 6

Depends when she enrolled in each year and after which term she graduated. Also depends if she graduated during the year 1987, or at the end of the 1987 school year.

If she started at the beginning of the 1982 school year, and she graduated after completing then 87 school year, it would indeed be 6 years.

1982 school year
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987

See, 6 school years. If she graduated in May of 1987, that would be the end of the 86 school year.

I thought about that after I hit the send button. Now I'm sure the 'usual suspects' will pile on about my idiocy....

Idiot.




:devil

I thought about that after I hit the send button. Now I'm sure the 'usual suspects' will pile on about my idiocy....

Let this be a lesson.

Wow, well not everyone has parents to lean on nor can afford to attend only college. Perhaps she was already a parent and working?

I'm not defending her mind you, she's clearly an odd duck and not suited to the role to which she was selected....

But wow...

LOL

The daughter of the Heath EMPIRE!?!?! couldn't afford to attend college?!?!?!

Call me sexist but Palin so obviously relies on her looks to get things. I knew a slew of women in school and beyond who totally remind me of her, they use then abuse and fuck everyone, who befriends them, over just to get where they want. She was so offended by the "lipstick on a pig" thing and called it sexist but of course the signs at her rallies calleing her hot etc didn't faze her:rolleyes:

Now, don't get me wrong male or female are both highly capable of doing the same things.

Do you really think Obama would have won if he wasn't a good looking guy? Looks are a massive driving factor in politics. NFC how Cheney was able to rise to power looking like he does, to be quite honest :)

My point was that when Palin speaks it becomes very clear that intelligence, oratory skills and thought really played no part in her political career.

I'm not a fan of Romney but the guy has the looks of a ken doll which I'm sure are an asset but as much as I disagree with a large part of his philosophy the man is quite capable of handling the job as president.

The halo effect (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halo_effect) is fairly powerful (in every aspect of life, not just politics), but far from insurmountable. Otherwise, how do you explain a hag like Pelosi in the position she has maneuvered to? Trump? Greenspan? Gates? Etc. The list is long.

In fact, these days it's hard to tell which is chicken and which is egg (see: Chelsea Clinton's cosmetic work).

Do you really think Obama would have won if he wasn't a good looking guy? Looks are a massive driving factor in politics. NFC how Cheney was able to rise to power looking like he does, to be quite honest :)


He never was out front, but always was more of a behind the scenes type as he built his power base.

There's plenty of research that suggests there are gender effects interacting as well. Unattractive men and unattractive women have very different levels of disadvantage to overcome.