BS: Mudcat Neo-con invasion

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Neo-con invasion
From: Little Hawk
Date: 15 Feb 06 - 02:04 PM

Are you feeling marginalized, Larry K? Rejected? Ostracized? It may be that pesky dandruff that is ruining your relations with mainstream liberals, the people whom you most admire and wish to emulate. Well, there is an answer! RESDAN. That's right, Larry K, RESDAN can remove that unsightly dandruff within 3 days or YOUR MONEY BACK! RESDAN. Buy it with confidence, and regain your aplomb as you plunge fearlessly into the liberal mainstream and gain acceptance, respect, and recognition at last! RESDAN. (Only available in Canada.)

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Neo-con invasion
From: Little Hawk
Date: 15 Feb 06 - 02:07 PM

By the way, Condoleeza Rice doesn't look so much angry as coldly venomous, to me. Like a cobra.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Neo-con invasion
From: GUEST
Date: 15 Feb 06 - 02:42 PM

I think she needs a blowjob too.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Neo-con invasion
From: Don Firth
Date: 15 Feb 06 - 06:33 PM

Wolfgang, you're suggestion that my comment about making birth-control retroactive constituted a new euphemism for murder is a bit over the top. If one is so inclined, one can push it to that conclusion if one wishes, but that is not at all what I intended. It was purely a wisecrack, like suggesting to some pest that they "go play in the traffic." It is not a serious suggestion that they commit suicide. It is merely a hyperbolic way of telling the person that they are being a pest.

Let's try to maintain our perspective.

I would certainly not suggest that Martin Gibson be murdered or that he go get himself run over by a bus. Although there are times when the thought has its attractions, I really want him to stay alive. I figure that just having to be himself is punishment enough for the nastiness he feels impelled to heap on other people. That can't be easy to live with.

And Larry, "The best part of being a liberal is that thinking is optional." Really? With certain exceptions such as William F. Buckley, I've always been painfully aware of an anti-intellection streak in most of the conservatives that I've talked to or heard on radio or television. Shall we compare George W. Bush's I.Q. with the I.Q of John Kerry? Or Al Gore? No? Well, okay then.

Just as a passing thought, I'll bet that Bill Moyers has a higher I.Q. than Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly combined.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Neo-con invasion
From: Little Hawk
Date: 15 Feb 06 - 07:08 PM

There are some highly intelligent conservative spokespersons, but their general voting constituency in rural America seems to distruct intellectuals. I think it goes back to the old prejudice of straight-talkin' frontier folks against smooth-talkin' city slickers...a cultural phenomenon that has been played upon and mythologized in countless movies and stories of the American West, the American South, etc...

They like George Bush because he reminds them of themselves..."just a regular guy".

Very few American politicians do not at least try to somehow earn those hometown, simple folk credentials, because it will get you votes.

Jimmy Carter benefited from it, remember? He was just "a little peanut farmer from Plains, Georgia". Nixon tried hard to make out that he was just a regular middle class guy whose wife wore an inexpensive "Republican cloth coat". It's laughable, but they all do it one way or another if they possibly can. Reagan played on the noble, craggy Frederick Remington cowboy-style image. Kennedy reminded folks that he had fought heroically in the war and been wounded. Etc...etc...etc...

They all try to prove that they are the kind of guy you want coaching your kids' little league baseball team. What a line! LOL!

The worst possible thing an American candidate can do is fail utterly to meet those hometown expectations of Ay-Murrican masculinity and patriarchal toughness combined with fairness.

Excuse me while I snicker in my popcorn and wait for the cavalry to ride in to the rescue...

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Neo-con invasion
From: Don Firth
Date: 15 Feb 06 - 07:40 PM

Exactly so, Little Hawk. 'Tis a pity and a shame, but what is one to do?

I'm vaguely reminded of an old Twilight Zone episode in which a man wandered around lost until he stumbled into a valley where everyone was blind. He remembered the old adage, "In the valley of the blind, the one-eyed man is king." So, being sighted himself, he figured he had it made. Until the people in the valley, who had evolved without eyes and had no concept of vision, decided he was abnormal and felt they were doing him a favor when they blinded him.

I'm beginning to think that if a candidate for higher public office accidentally reveals that he or she possesses a brain and knows how to use it, they won't stand a chance.

What does that say about the state of our political system? Or our society in general?

Kinda scary sometimes. . . .

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Neo-con invasion
From: Once Famous
Date: 15 Feb 06 - 09:58 PM

DougR is kind of right. I do have more fun here than many. Ron Davies is absolutely obsessed that I am so unhappy. I think some of the language I hyave used has deeply offended him.

Big deal.

Ron, how do we know you are really Ron Davies? Personally, I don't really believe that you are. I could sign up as a member Ron Q. Davies or Ron Davies. That's Ron Davies with a . after the name.

You could put your address here and we could look you up.

But we could also have a dozen pizzas delivered to your house from different places all at the same time if you do.

So, posting with one's real name is seriously no big deal. It just serves that person's ego if he has to think so much about it.

Yep, DougR is right. I've been known to have some fun here.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Neo-con invasion
From: beardedbruce
Date: 16 Feb 06 - 03:38 PM

Don,

"Shall we compare George W. Bush's I.Q. with the I.Q of John Kerry?"

Actually, we did a year or two back- George was higher....


So what?

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Neo-con invasion
From: beardedbruce
Date: 16 Feb 06 - 03:50 PM

http://www.vdare.com/sailer/kerry_iq_lower.htm


and look at what is out on the net...

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Neo-con invasion
From: GUEST,Wesley S
Date: 16 Feb 06 - 03:57 PM

I don't really care what the number is - the question is does he put his IQ to good use ? In my mind the answer is no. Your milage may vary.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Neo-con invasion
From: beardedbruce
Date: 16 Feb 06 - 04:11 PM

As I said, so what? Do YOU? By MY standards?

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Neo-con invasion
From: Don Firth
Date: 16 Feb 06 - 04:14 PM

Tell you what, bb, I started to try to wade through all of that stuff and gave up when it when it became evident that it involved conversions, estimates, and assumptions that this score on this kind of test was the equivalent of that score on some other kind of test. Maybe a few straight facts are in there someplace, but it would take a lot of sifting to find them. And especially considering the general bent of the website, I really have my doubts that any honest, authentic information is to be found there.

I'm not yielding that point. But even assuming that Bush's I.Q. is higher than either Kerry's or Gore's, let me give you a hypothetical situation. Two guys live side by side. One has a riding mower that has all kinds of features and would be good for maintaining the pristine condition of a golf course. His next door neighbor has one of the old-fashioned hand-push variety. Guess which one has a lawn that would rival the tidiness of a golf course and which has a yard that looks like a jungle?

Throughout his administration, Bush has not demonstrated anything resembling a level of intelligence beyond what could be called "ordinary" or "about average." No matter how good your power mower is, if you don't take it out of the shed now and then. . . .

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Neo-con invasion
From: beardedbruce
Date: 16 Feb 06 - 04:26 PM

Don,

" No matter how good your power mower is, if you don't take it out of the shed now and then. . . ."


No arguement with your conclusion- but what exactly have you SEEN a Kerry administration do? You are comparing real world versus dream- and real world NEVER wins that comparison.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Neo-con invasion
From: Greg F.
Date: 16 Feb 06 - 04:33 PM

No, but we HAVE seen what a BuShite administration has done and intends to do- and that ain't a dream, its a goddamn real world nightmare.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Neo-con invasion
From: beardedbruce
Date: 16 Feb 06 - 04:35 PM

Don,

" And especially considering the general bent of the website, I really have my doubts that any honest, authentic information is to be found there. "


Again, if you want to dispute facts, that is fine- but if YOU can disallow information ( without looking at the information) from those sites that you dislike ( the SRS Rule) than I can, as well- and then what will we argue about?

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Neo-con invasion
From: Don Firth
Date: 16 Feb 06 - 04:59 PM

After wading through several screens and still not finding anything to get my teeth into, I took to scanning, and, assuming that there might by some kind of conclusion or summary at the end—and still not finding one—I decided if the writer of the page had any solid conclusions, he would not have hidden behind a fog-bank of speculation and obfuscation. If he had something to say, I couldn't find anyplace where he came close to saying it, but granted, I could have missed it. I assume that you've read it thoroughly. If you can excerpt the relevant section and post that, I will certainly read and consider it.

In the meantime, I clicked on a few of the links on the page and noted the sponsor of the site and who it is affiliated with. Yet another conservative "think-tank."

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Neo-con invasion
From: beardedbruce
Date: 16 Feb 06 - 05:18 PM

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/6/7/104717.shtml

http://davidm.blogspot.com/2004/10/bushs-iq-greater-than-kerrys-according.html

http://election.about.com/b/a/121198.htm




"In the meantime, I clicked on a few of the links on the page and noted the sponsor of the site and who it is affiliated with. Yet another conservative "think-tank." "

As if any LIBERAL think tank would publish the truth if it was not what they wanted you to think...

Actually, I try to look at BOTH sides of the issue, and it seems like the liberals are NOT going to tell you anything that makes their candidate looke bad.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Neo-con invasion
From: Bobert
Date: 16 Feb 06 - 05:35 PM

Hey, Ted Bundy was said to have a high I.Q.....

Like who cares??? Waht does this have to do with the steady stream of screw-ups on Bush's part...

If he's a danged genious he's saving his best for the end of the game...

And there's also the issue of character and integrity and Bush has failed miserably in those two areas...

Even his own party is starting to see it and rebel... And conservative columnists like George Will are rebelling...

Now back to the original program...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Neo-con invasion
From: Don Firth
Date: 16 Feb 06 - 06:05 PM

bb, I would not accept anything from a liberal think-tank without substantial verification either.

By the way, did you find the relevant paragraphs? I can verify figures. Random speculation isn't that easy to verify.

And Bobert's point just above is valid. "By their fruits ye shall know them."

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Neo-con invasion
From: Don Firth
Date: 16 Feb 06 - 06:08 PM

bb, I just checked the new links you posted. Maybe so. But Bobert's point is still valid.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Neo-con invasion
From: Amos
Date: 16 Feb 06 - 07:19 PM

An interesting essay by an arch-conservative on the cultism of the peculiarly Bushian Neoconservative movement can be found on this page.

Regards,


A

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Neo-con invasion
From: Arne
Date: 16 Feb 06 - 09:01 PM

BeardedBruce:

No arguement with your conclusion- but what exactly have you SEEN a Kerry administration do?

You have a point. But to be honest, Bruce, I have a hard time even imagining any other ways the maladministration could possibly f*** things up any more royally. Hate to say it, Bruce, but this maladministration has been one disaster after another, one bad decision after another, one botched job after another ... unless, of course, you want to count the "affirmative action" for the incompetent and crooked, and easy money, Dubya's given to the likes of Gallagher, Armstrong Williams, Michael Brown, Kerik (attempted), George Deutsch, anonanonanon ... and the money he's taken from the other crooks.

Yes, we don't know how Kerry might have fared, but it's impossible to believe he could possibly have done worse....

Cheers,

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Neo-con invasion
From: Bobert
Date: 16 Feb 06 - 09:18 PM

Yeah, Arne, this was the point I was trying to make a few months ago with one of the Bushites here and I challenged him to pick just one Bush policy that he would defend and ***he***, no me, choze Bush's handling of Katrina...

Thus a 300 plus "KatrinaGate" thread I started in which I laid out my arguments against Bush... Early going, there was a lot of huff and puff by not only this particular Bushite but the Bushites in general... No real rebuttals, mind you, but lots of name calling and huffing anf puffing...

"Well, now you don't talk so loud.." (Dylan)

See, yer absolutely right, Arne, and that is why the Bushites would rather divert attention away from Bush's record of failure... There isn't one policy that Bush has pushed thru that was anything but a redistribution of wealth away from the working class to his campaign donors...

Not one!!! No child left behind is a friggin' joke... Bush not only wouldn't write the checks but now state and local governments are in deeper in having to pick up where Bush quit... And entire jurisdictions have opted out of it because for the little you get, it costs you more... Total failure... Even the most recent Secretary of Education has had to roll back goals becuase it was apparent that the program was failing... But what has occured out of this propgram is increased recruitment of kids who aren't even old enough to shave... Yeah, get 'um young.... No child left unrecruited is about the sum total of the only thing that Repubs could have said Bush has accomplished other than theft, stupid wars, war crimes and the trashing of the Bill of Rights...

But, hey, Bush is a genious compared to Keryy!!! Well, if that's the case then the US is in serious trouble...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Neo-con invasion
From: Arne
Date: 16 Feb 06 - 09:19 PM

BeardedBruce:

NewsMax??? What a crock. But now we see where you get your curious notions....

But the other links don't say much either about methodology there (perhaps the Vdare linked-to-a-link-to-a-link Sailer stuff has more meat as to the supposed methodology, but it's still hand-waving and crap. None of these test are "IQ" tests, and for that matter, even IQ tests are notoriously suspect at measuring pure "IQ" [of there even is such s thing; Google "Spearman's 'g'" for a bit more on that), not to mention they're not very reliable at measuring samll difference and unuseful for comparison purposes. As the instructions for the WAIS-R (the most common clinical test used by psychologists) say, the results are for diagnosic purposes and for guiding clinical treatment only. They can tell you if someone is particularly disabled or gifted, but they can't tell you who's going to do better on even the next test, when the original scores are within a fraction of a SD. Other tests are quite similar in lack of precision. Personally, I had three quarters of a "full SD" difference between retests on the SAT verbal.

Cheers,

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Neo-con invasion
From: Peace
Date: 16 Feb 06 - 09:27 PM

My IQ has varied by over ten points at various times and under different conditions.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Neo-con invasion
From: Ron Davies
Date: 16 Feb 06 - 11:22 PM

Sorry, courageous "Martin"--you just don't come across here as a very happy guy. And we do all we can to make you happy. Don't you think that's altruistic- (look it up)- of us? But it seems nothing we say, particularly nothing I say, can make you happy. Can't understand it. It's a puzzlement.

Re: names: actually it's not a question of ego--it's a question of credibility--which, it pains me deeply to have to say, you're a bit short on.

Hope you enjoy the pizza.

Looking forward to your next calm, well-reasoned posting.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Neo-con invasion
From: Don Firth
Date: 17 Feb 06 - 01:44 PM

Using one's own name indicates a fundamental honesty. One is willing to take responsibility for what one posts, both credit and blame.

Don Firth
(Donald Richard Firth on my birth certificate)

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Neo-con invasion
From: Amos
Date: 17 Feb 06 - 01:52 PM

IQ is a very tiny part of the overall measure of a man or woman; I believe I have read somewhere that Hitler had a very high IQ. The larger question is to what ends that intelligence is applied. You can be terribly quick at deception, profiteering, shell-games, PR and doubletalk. You can be awfully canny at acting the part of a dumb and honest regular guy when you really see yourself as a brilliant expert manipulator untroubled by bourgeois standards of honesty. You can be a raving psycho and still have a very high capability for manipulating symbols.

The question of relative merit shows up more in what one produces.

Just compare the four offspring (two of Kerry, two of Bush) if you want a quick gauge of their relative merits. Two thoughtful, articulate and analytical, two meretricious, cliche-ridden, giggly and self-serving.

Ya pays yer money and you takes yer cherce.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Neo-con invasion
From: Don Firth
Date: 17 Feb 06 - 03:25 PM

If George indeed does have a fairly high I.Q. (I'm still not convinced), then considering his demonstrated business acumen and his stumble-bum behavior as president -- well, how often does he take his mower out of the shed, anyway?

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Neo-con invasion
From: beardedbruce
Date: 17 Feb 06 - 03:31 PM

Don,
The reason I brought up the IQ thing ( NOTE MY "SO WHAT?") was because of your
"Really? With certain exceptions such as William F. Buckley, I've always been painfully aware of an anti-intellection streak in most of the conservatives that I've talked to or heard on radio or television. Shall we compare George W. Bush's I.Q. with the I.Q of John Kerry? Or Al Gore? No? Well, okay then."

seems like we are drifting- YOU made a claim which I have refuted.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Neo-con invasion
From: Amos
Date: 17 Feb 06 - 03:49 PM

Let's see:

Offspring: alcoholic airheaded bimbos
Business Record: Series of dismal collapses barely escaped
Major accomplishments, Texas: Highest number of executions in history of state.
Major accomplishments, USA: Reversed a balanced budget into a hemmorhaging one. Largest trade deficit in history. Unnecessarily placed thousands of Americans in mortal peril by starting a war unilaterally. Worst record of civil rights since the nineteenth century. Organized the FEMA into ineptitude, costing millions of dollars and hundreds of lives. Poor military strategist. Politically inane and incompetent. Dramatically worsened American repute in every nation in the world.

By their products ye shall know them.


A

A

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Neo-con invasion
From: Don Firth
Date: 17 Feb 06 - 03:57 PM

Not refuted to my satisfaction. I want to see figures, not speculation on a neo-con web site.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Neo-con invasion
From: beardedbruce
Date: 17 Feb 06 - 04:17 PM

"Bush's SAT score was 1206 (566 Verbal, 640 Math). See the upper-left
corner of his Yale transcript:
http://www.iuptown.com/YaleProtest/bushs_yale_transcript.htm

This web page offers a theoretical conversion of pre-1974 SAT scores to IQ:
http://members.shaw.ca/delajara/Pre1974SAT.html

Based on that conversion chart, Bush's IQ would be about 129.


Another web page, "SQ, IQ, and self-skills in recent US Presidents"
mentions that Charles Murray, author of a book on IQ called "The Bell
Curve," compares a that SAT score to an IQ of about 125.

"On his SAT's, President GW Bush scored 566 verbal and 640 math, for a
total of 1206 (from http://members.shaw.ca/delajara/SATIQ.html ). The
Bell Curve author Murray estimates a 1206 SAT equates to about 125 IQ.
"
http://www.sq.4mg.com/Presidents.htm

" Finally, when it comes to raw IQ, Bush is in the mid-range of
American Presidents. In 1999, Charles Murray and I calculated, based
on Bush's SAT score of 1206 (old-style scoring system), that his IQ
was probably about 125 or a little higher..."
source: Steve Sailer, vdare.com:
http://www.vdare.com/sailer/karl_rove.htm"

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Neo-con invasion
From: Bobert
Date: 17 Feb 06 - 05:19 PM

Since when did S.A.T.'s equate to I.Q.??? Oh, I missed the part in that link that had Karl Rove's name in it....

Well, if Karl Rove says his boy is a friggin' genious then I reckon they better have Cheney tested 'cause Bush ain't hit a lick in life yet... Had he been born to any other family he'd probably be in jail... Way too much larceny and dishonestly in the boy's blood...

Amos really hit the nail on the head with his little sanpshot of Bush's life as a failure... One is hard-peressed to find one thing he has done well that is honorable....

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Neo-con invasion
From: Arne
Date: 17 Feb 06 - 05:54 PM

BeardedBruce:

From your link:

Your page quoting the journal article:

'The correlation between the two scores was 0.58. The standard error of estimate for the SAT total score was 102; the standard error of estimate for the Otis was 5.8. This correlation of 0.58 gives a spuriously low impression of the correlation between the SAT and the Otis due to restriction in the range of ability in this sample.'

A 0.58 R^2 is not all that good, FWIW.

If someone knows why they have 1300 for scores before 1974, please send an email to enlighten me.

[the table's last entry is 1280 SAT]

Hate to say it, Bruce, but this web page author (Mr. da la Jara) perhaps doesn't know that the SAT topped out at 1600 at the time (800 verbal and 800 math). Doesn't lead to too much confidence in the conclusions.

I'd note that SATs are nominally normed at 1000 combined (500 each, S.D. 100) and IQs are supposedly normed at 100 (S.D. 15). I'd also note that SATS are not taken by everyone, but rather by the college-bound (or hopeful) while IQ scores are supposedly for the population as a whole (who might be expected to be lower scoring).

Here's you page once again quoting the journal article, though:

In this group: Otis Gamma mean = 117, SD = 7.2; SAT mean = 980, SD = 126.

This gives a mean for Otis scores within this cohort of 17 above nominal IQ mean, but a mean SAT of 980, 20 points below nominal SAT mean. I'd note that these are "Otis scores", which are not necessarily normed the same as IQs (nor is it obvious that they are the equivalent of more common IQ measurement tests, such as the WAIS-R).

Here's more for you on SAT versus IQ estimation.

More specifically, see here.

As for Mr. Sailer's "conversion" of Kerry's score, you have even more significant problems;

1). The OCS tests indicate a mean of 50 and a S.D. of 10, but for what group??? The cohort of people taking the OCS tests is undoubtedly different than those taking the SAT. Do we compare that to the SAT population? The general population? The cohort taking the tests in paper referenced on the de la Jara page? Sailer does some handwaving about this, but is not able to provide any actual numbers for IQ mean and distribution of the cohort those taking the OCS (he seems to indicate that that of officers is a proxy for this, but it's not at all clear that the cohort of officers is the same as the cohort of those taking the OCS test).

2). The precision of the OCS tests is not all that great if it's scored 50+/-10. The scores could easily be a couple points higher or lower than measures. The fact that raw scores (questions answered right) were in the same range (50 some) indicates that there isn't a lot of precision; couple of questions here and there will make a couple of points difference.

Steve Sailer doesn't address these problems very much, and then he goes referencing Charles Murray (whose book was citing Cyril Burt's fraudulent date long after Kamin had proven it to be fraudulent).

So, if you're looking for authority here, I think you'd do better than to cite Steve Sailer.


Here's some more Sailer tripe:

After fighting and losing the most expensive Congressional race in the country in 1972, Kerry wound up the next year at a surprisingly non-glittering law school, Boston College.

Ummm, BC is one of the better law schools (tier 2, roughly, I'd say, IIRC the rankings when I was lookng around). OTOH, Dubya was denied admission to UT Law School, so perhaps Sailer, if he were honest, might opine about the significance of that.... Here's U.S. News on rankings in 2003: BC = 27th, UT = 15th. But Kerry got in to BC, and Dubya didn't get into UT.

* * * * *

But, as others have pointed out, the proof is in the pudding: At the very least, if Dubya has any brain cells left after CAS and coke abuse, he's too lazy to take the lawn mower out of the shed, as evidenced by his unrivaled train of career failures. And his absolute incomprehensibily when he tries to talk shows that something's definitely not quite there upstairs....

Cheers,

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Neo-con invasion
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 17 Feb 06 - 06:44 PM

There is a substantial body of published information on the correlations between various measures of achievement and ability (two different things) and while I'd have to do some collateral research before accepting the "conversions" in the Bush/Kerry IQ debacle as convincing what is presented there is "mostly credible."

The bottom line is that while either of them could be presumed to be in the "bright" category, neither would have had a particularly good chance of being admitted to my college, at the time of their admission elsewhere, based on the SAT scores given by this analysis. The scores quoted would not disqualify them, but they'd need to score extremely well against other criteria that were/are applied.

On the other hand, it should be noted that there is (was) no such thing as an SAT score that would guarantee admission in the absence of a good record with respect to other criteria. As an alumnus "interviewer" for my admissions office, I saw a couple of applicants with SATs at 95th percentile on BOTH tests - approximately 97th percentile overall, who were refused admission. The "dumbest" applicant that I interviewed who was admitted was at about 92d percentile overall, although many applicants with somewhat lower SATs were admitted - I just didn't get any to interview.

The IQ and SAT scores, found or imputed, make it "not surprising" that either of these persons could be admitted to most any good university, but neither appears to be particularly "gifted," making any quibbling about a few points one way or another simply trite and senseless. The basic "intellectual capacities" - if one chooses to call what these tests measure by that name - are sufficient for either of these two to be fully functional in an executive (or legislative) position. There is no real way to assess whether either of them has "lived up to his ability" except by observing what they've done and what they are doing.

A fair percentage of Mensa members drive cabs, make hamburgers, and sweep floors; and the average IQ of *functional inmates at facilities caring for the "criminally insane" may well be above the average for the population at large. I'd look it up, but I don't feel the need to be sure.

* functional = discounting those confined because they simply don't have the intellectual capacity to be make their way outside institutional care.

John

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Neo-con invasion
From: Once Famous
Date: 17 Feb 06 - 11:04 PM

Blah, blah.