Suppose for the sake of argument the US becomes a country populated mainly by superstitious people, poorly educated on average and highly suspicious of those who are not, be they scientists or humanists. What's so wrong with that? I.e., must knowledge be widespread for a people to possess power?
The only problem I see with a plan of allowing the US to devolve into a nation of superstitious people is that democracy won't work then.
Of course, our current constitutional form is highly predicated on elites basically running the show, so arguably things wouldn't change much.
The real question is: how long did it take us to bounce back? I count three searches for attractive women in the Sept. 1, 2001 list. By Oct. 1, there were again three women in the search top 10, but we don't maintain that level of superficialness? So how long until there were consistently three women in the list?
Um, 1, what do you mean by 'people' there. Because if the U.S. retains power, but it becomes populated (and hence run) by anti-intellectuals who don't believe in science or the humanities or basically any kind of objective fact, it and the whole world is in trouble. Fortunately that's not likely to happen.
Also, the way I read it "Top 10 gaining searches" isn't the 10 most common, but the 10 that gained the most.
SCMT, that's 3 women in the top 10 declining list--if we assume that most people thought "Daisy Cutter" was a woman the bounceback is in Nov. 01 ("Malanie Thornton" surely should be "Melanie Thornton" who, apparently, was Aaliyah.) Otherwise, Feb. '02, driven by Olympic athletes and a nipple.
Weiner:
You're looking at the monthly summary of gainers; I was looking at the weekly summary for Oct. 1 (J-Lo, Jolene Blalock, and Metit Marrit or something, I think). Also, I'm looking for consistent placement - month over month - so Nov. 02 by itself is not an answer.
Also, I can't write HTML. Fuck to oboe. I think the real sign of recovery is the week of Oct. 15, when "Bert is evil" hit the top 10. Remember this?
Your casual dismissal of the possibility that Nostradamus was right - indeed, none of the above comments even addresses the question - is an offense against all open-minded people everywhere.
I say we should teach the controversy; a democracy should leave room for different schools of thought. At the very least, a commission should be appointed to find out the following: what did Nostradamus know, and when did he know it?
Fortunately that's not likely to happen.
Are you kidding, or do you actually envision a mechanism by which it's not likely to happen?
I suppose what I really meant to ask is this: Without significant countervailing benefits, I would not want to live in a country dominated by superstition and suspicious of learning. Suppose one of those countervailing benefits is a high standard of living, including a relatively high degree of personal liberty. I'd like to have that benefit, even if my neighbors were more likely to believe Nostradamus than Richard Dawkins.
But we assume, by mechanisms implied in Kotsko's 2 and Weiner's 4, that there's some efffect by which if too many of my neighbors become too ignorant, the countervailing benefit is itself imperiled.
Is that a sound assumption? Was the electorate that put, say, FDR in office significantly less superstitious / ignorant?
Assuming "the City of God" is New York City
That fails the giggle test.
Kidding. I think the country is already run by anti-intellectuals who don't believe in science or the humanities or basically any kind of objective fact. Agnostic about the populace.
I think we need a different test case than FDR. FDR shows that if the Forces of Darkness drive the economy off the highest cliff ever that we may get some good policies in. And, since facts are in fact true, I believe that if the Republicans get the chance to continue their current economic policies eventually the economy will crash and burn and we will get some sounder policies, or some extremely scary ones. But the countervailing benefit will already have been imperiled.
That's not to dismiss your point--I think it's a good one. But I don't know what to say about it. It may be that Nostradamus is harmless tomfoolery, but I suspect that Left Behind isn't.
Nostradamus was right, but not about that about which people commonly take him to be talking.
(teeth gritted) Okay, I give: what was he right about?
After a longish hiatus, I'd just like to chime in here to say that ogged nailed it. The country that produced Mark Twain and H.L. Mencken has disappeared. I suppose Christopher Hitchens and Andrew Sullivan are their replacements, and we had to import them. I mourn the republic to which I have long pledged allegiance.
I thought Peter Snees was British. And dear GOD we are fucked if Hitchens and Sullivan are in any way replacements for Mencken and Twain.
Snees is British, though he'll be along to deny it any second.
Yeah, Ashley Harkleroad must have been pretty cheesed to have her mad momentum totally stalled by some 16th century French dude. That first picture is hosted by art.com, I note with amusement.
I think we get David Sedaris and Adam Gopnik.
Joe Frank and that guy from This American Life who wishes he were Joe Frank.
Isn't Snees an American living in Britland? How's about some Hendrik Hertzberg and Paul Krugman? (Actually I'm not quite sure what the question is.)
Isn't Snees an American living in Britland?
Technically speaking, yes, but for our purposes, he's a Brit pretending to be an American.