They do have high ratings, but then, so do Jerry Springer and traffic accidents. I rather doubt the problem was the questions though; how to ask non-leading questions (to the extent that is possible; recall my other recent thread on eye witnesses... ) is pretty well known at this stage. If Gallup and Rasmussen can manage it, I imagine most PhDs can, too, and few researchers want to risk their professional reputation by the exposure of amateur methodology. Which incidentally goes for that tangential swipe at climatology, too. Speaking of tangents...:

Proof Bush indisputably LIED and specifically about IRAQ is hard to find, but things like this: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A18890-2004Sep13.html

force us to choose between incompetence or dishonesty. I watched him live when he responded to a question about bin Ladens location during a national press conference by saying he was "not too concerned about him." I watched him live again during a national presidential debate a few months later when Kerry called him on it and he responded, "I just don't think I ever said that; it's another one of those 'exaggerations.'" Not about Iraq, just the guy who blew up the WTC, and I literally jumped out of my chair when I heard Bush say that, because I knew it was BS: Do you honestly think I remembered what he said better than HE did? I cannot prove it a lie without crawling in Bushs head, but it is about as close to a lie as one can get, and implying KERRY lied about something Bush indisputably (but apparently not undeniably) said was pretty brazen.

Of course, the BIG question here is: Bush said on camera that he was unconcerned about the man responsible for 911, Kerry called him on it, and Bush denied saying it on camera. If the Democratic Party was really serious about defeating Bush and the Republican Party, and the two of them are not just engaged in smoke and mirrors to obscure what BOTH parties are doing to the country why did Kerry not air both clips in 24-7 in all 50 states and end the election right there? That makes "there you go again" and "my opponents youth and inexperience" look like nothing; it is like FDR saying he did not care about Pearl Harbor and the GOP not burying him with it in the very next election.

I can not help thinking of that scene from a Prisoner episode when Patrick McGoohan demands to know "whose side are you on?!" and Number Two says, "it doesn't matter; both sides are becoming the same...."


I doubt you would hear much about the inaccuracy of the test; you would probably hear a great deal about economic disparities causing educational disparities. You certainly SHOULD, and that remains the central issue; white males from similar economic backgrounds do just as badly, but there are no affirmative action programs to help them. Conversely, wealthy women and racial minorities do not need them, and score well on those same IQ tests for that very reason.

While uneducated voters disproportionately voting conservative does not mean conservatives are disproportionately uneducated, conservative politicians know who gets support from the uneducated, and from bigots. Consequently, attacking both educational opportunity in general and affirmative action in particular serves their own interests very well. Educated voters tend to vote left and uneducated ones tend to vote right, so it is obvious which one conservative politicians want to predominate. That they can both pander to bigots AND reduce education in general by attacking affirmative action is just icing on the cake. The best thing liberals could do for both their personal interests and their stated cause is to drop affirmative action completely and concentrate entirely on increased education for all those who cannot afford it, as well as improving the financial situation of those people so they can afford more education even without direct assistance with it. Of course, that assumes they are not playing both ends against the middle just as assiduously and effectively as conservatives are.


Honestly, I wish they were all pushing a political agenda; that can be debated on its merits. Most are pushing personal agendas masquerading as political ones.