May 2008

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
        1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29 30 31

« Monte Hall Problem | Main | Time Management »


Ymal Brucker

Lawrence J. Peter - the discoverer of "The Peter Principle," once said:

"I've been studying governments, man and boy, for over forty years. I have yet to discover whether we are being led by well-meaning fools or by really bright people who are just putting us on."

'Course Peter was a Canadian, so his analysis may not fit.


Funny how everybody who picks the dim-witted does so because they assume that I-D-E-A-L-L-Y he will be surrounded by smart advisors.

In other words... "yes, we know we've had eight years of the opposite now... but we'd still vote in the same way... because, statistically it's not very likely that it will happen again. so, yes, put us up for the dim-witted candidate. again.".

Clearly Fake

The problem with the electoral process isn't that we're being given a choice between smart/immoral and dumb/moral candidates. The problem with the system is that a vote cast by a dumb voter counts as much as one cast by a smart voter, and there are more of them (dumb voters).


currently on paper at least your president is a committed christian the problem is that he's killed quiet alot of people in iraq for no particularly good reason. nobody who voted for him would have seen that coming. and the world thinks he is foolish. so I'd have to go for smart but dodgey option. we have had years of that in Ireland.
Bertie ahern being a case in point. he was very influential in getting agreement in northern ireland but got alot of money from somewhere early in his career. Dodgey but smart!

Bruce Harrison

Scott, you're drinking the Kool-Aid again. What you blithely neglected to mention is that those are DEMOCRAT (and Mainstream Media) stereotypes of the candidates. It has little bearing on the truth.

For example, George Bush (the current president) had better SATs than Al Gore and better grades than John Kerry. He's also the first president to have a Harvard (or any school's) MBA. Yet he's characterized by liberals as having intelligence that is just this side of a tree stump.

Since you mentioned individual candidates, I'm going to be just as tedious as you were and mention them, too. But I'm not going to be talking about the current crop, but rather give you examples of each type from past presidents.

Clinton (Bill) was so busy trying to get as much poontang as he could that he let terrorists attack us time after time and did nothing. He was whip-smart but totally without a moral or ethical base to guide him. He responded to polls rather than making the right, tough but possibly unpopular decisions, and ended up getting impeached and disbarred for lying under oath. You rarely hear him stated in this way in the mainstream media, though - if they were honest, then this sentence: "Today, former president Bill Clinton gave a speech. . ." would read like this: "Today, impeached, disbarred, admitted and convicted liar and admitted philanderer former president Bill Clinton gave a speech. . ."

Jimmy Carter was another president whom we were told was "whip-smart" by the mainstream media. He is also an anti-semite and is arguably the worst president of the 20th century. Under his whip-smart watch, he let Islamic terrorism rise against us in Iran and did nothing other than wring his hands, emboldening them and starting us down the road to 9/11. He then gutted our military and intelligence wings, leading to the abortion of a "raid" to free the hostages which did nothing more than kill American servicemen. Now, he's meeting with terrorists and laying a wreath on the grave of the architect of the Munich Olympics massacre, Yassar Arafat.

Ronald Reagan, on the other hand, really did nothing. Other than bringing down both the Berlin Wall (which went up under "Camelot" John Kennedy) and the Soviet Union. He also bombed Khadaffi after Khadaffi's agents blew up Pan Am flight 103. That "dim-witted" man made a simple statement to the world: kill Americans and you will pay the price. He also restored the military and intelligence agencies that Carter had gutted - which were then re-gutted by that alley cat in heat Bill Clinton.

So Scott, let's take the "intelligence" stereotypes out of the equation. It comes down to one question: is it better to have a president who is a principled leader than an amoral follower of polls?

I'd suggest the former - but you obviously don't see it that way. So once again, I am thanking God that you don't vote.


Politicians are a scary thing down below. All want to be leadears and to be followed. I would prefer the one that I know about, dancing nude in the oval office after all is not my business unless there is a leak of information and I get to see what the President of the United States is doing with the project to be held in Iraq.

The little character is what I am afraid of....


Using your defintions I will take the dim witted ( I prefer slow witted ) since the the hair brained slippery types get us in more trouble, faster then we can get out. The present threesome demonstrates the inability of the masses to produce qualified candidates but the ideas put forth by the twin terrors in this instance make it manditory to go with McCain so that the country can recover in less time.

Ellis Wyatt

I didn't plan to read the comments and instead planned to write something along the lines that Jeffrey G. Harper wrote a couple of posts up. Since he hit the nail on the head, I won't rehash, but will expound on one point -- Scott's initial premise is flawed in that it assumes that one can be a major party candidate for President of the United States and be "dumb" or "dim-witted."

Though the media certainly work hard to create perceptions that fit their story lines, none of the names listed (Reagan, Bush, Sr., Clinton, Bush, Jr., Obama, McCain) is a "dumb" or "dim-witted" person. Neither is any one of them a "genius" or "whip smart," for that matter. Given that the initial premise is irretrievably flawed, this is an impossible question to answer completely, but Mr. Harper did a nice job anyway.


The vast majority (including myself) picked the Intelligent but slightly immoral president.
Do you think most Americans feel this way after Bush or do you just have an audience that favors intellectuals strongly?
Do you think there are populations of bible reading hillbillies who haven't heard of Dilbert or the Internet who would pick the dumb but moral president?
It seems to be that these people must exist or how did Bush get voted in?
People who think the scriptures of their religion are more important than human rights scare me! These people have been effectively brainwashed and don't know it!
(that means anyone who for religions reasons is anti-gay, anti-abortion, believes in suicide bombing and so on)


I have no choice... I will vote however the programmers have lined up my feeble little brain to vote. Even the fact that I vote is out of my hands... Actually, you can't blame me for anything I have done or ever will do because I have no other choice but to follow my hologramistic programming.


After seven years of dumb-but-charactered (if not honest or moralled),
how can anyone want to go through that again?


interesting... although i have to say that this blog may be brainy-biased...

at least you have better choices.

in argentina we have like two choices:

1. Peronists: shortminded, unprepared and VERY VERY corrupt. but they own the country. Their power is unbeatable.
2. Any other party without power: unable to govern, unprepared. every time they are in command, the peronists destroy them.

so, u see. u re not that bad...


Give me the smart one everytime. After the current group of ninnies e need the smarts


George Bush flew jet fighters.

George Bush is a moron.

Therefore, morons CAN fly jet fighters.

Important Note: Bush did not fly fighters in combat or under fire. Thus we can draw no conclusions as to how morons would perform in jet fighters under stress conditions.


Give me the smart one everytime. After the current group of ninnies e need the smarts


You are missing the more important question. Why does it always boil down to these two types?


As we are still struggling to determine the definition of "is" we now need to discern the definition of "smart" and "bumb." Since we do not give our canidates an IQ test smart and dumb become subjective qualities. If the ideals of free and perverted sex fits your worldview then I suppose it is considered smart. But if your worldview is determined by virtue of a monogomous relationship in the institution of marriage then that appears to be dumb. Smart and dumb, when considering politics, should be determined by consequences of the person in power actions. If his/her actions brings about a better life, not to be confused with easier, then that person is most likely smart. Your outlook is to simplistic and reveals the ignorance of the lie of liberalism. The failure of ideas comes not from the lack of appreciation for what you are trying to do; rather they comes from quality of the idea and the consequences of implimentation. as far as our current caste of canidates their platitudes of servitude reveal a lack of depth of knowledge of our current crises. Sorry, but for this group they are all losers.

Chris Benson (Asparagus Pee Guy)

I have a second comment:

I used to believe that it didn't matter if I didn't vote, because the influence of one person on a system as big as the world didn't matter. I've watched presidents since the 60's, and whatever they did didn't seem to have much influence on my life.

But this Bush Jr. administration has shown me the light - that man has cost me personal freedoms and conveniences, cultural intellectual progress, the lives of thousands, threats to the environment, and a casual estimate of $100,000.

Chris Benson (Asparagus Pee Guy)

This should not be a no-brainer (pun intended). I'll take the guy who lets me retire at 58 and doesn't get people killed over the guy who makes me work till I drop and leaves my dead grandchildren in debt every time.


Do you think it matters who the president is? Isn't s/he really just a figure head like our Queen? It's corporate america (and even some mulitnationals) that run your country - why else are you in Iraq?

The election process is really just a giant exercise in DMD!


What's that Forrest Gump vs. Stalin thing? Stalin was anything but bright. He had just enough shrewdness to be a stubborn peasant.



GW Bush got better grades in college than John Kerry.


The trouble with a smart but morally bankrupt individual is that it's far too easy for them to use their personal flaws to distract the country from real issues.

The trouble with a dumb but morally sound individual is that true morality cannot exist without intelligence; otherwise they are simply parroting what their parents told them as a kid and are not actually evaluating each situation uniquely to determine what the true moral choice actually is.

Can't really win, but between the two, I'd go with the one who has the capacity to be moral but choses to bend the rules before the one who can never be truly moral at all.


I can't help it--I go for the principled guy. The portrayal of Bush this way never convinced me, but I can't help seeing McCain as this honest, principled, good guy, and Clinton just strikes me as kind of slimy.


I don't know if anyone has pointed this out already but the plain fact is that it doesn't matter.

If the nice-but-dim character got in, he/she would be 'advised' (read: manipulated) by smart-but-dodgy characters anyway.

I suppose that using such logic brings us to a preference of smart-but-dodgy since they would spend so much effort fending off 'advisors' of similar character that they wouldn't have time to do anything dodgy with the country.

The comments to this entry are closed.