June 11 Sources: Are Dems More Like Foreigners?

Some Democrats think that they are more sophisticated than Republicans, more like Europeans. Many Republicans agree, but they are thinking decadence, not sophistication. It turns out neither is right. Americans left and right are more like other Americans than they are like others. The Pew report, “Two Americas, One American” explores this.

I was also interested in "America’s Energy future", explains ways we may be able to get 25% of our energy needs from renewables by 2025. This is a bipartisan effort, BTW, although I am sure liberals will find reasons not to like the solutions.

Below are the interesting sources for this week.

America’s Energy future
America’s Beautiful Game
Congress Debates. Here is Where the Public is on Gay Marriage
Battle Over Steel Exposes European Globalization Dilemma
Bush Troubles Shake the GOP Base
Iran Connect the Dots
Islam and the West
Oil Obsession
Two Americas, One American

Posted by Jack at June 11, 2006 1:15 AM
Comment #156423

The Pew review is an interesting read, especially their dichotomy between Euros and Americans, because they provide the data for the differences between Republicans and Democrats on a paltry and very general 2 issue set, but, don’t provide the data on the differences between Euros and Americans with data sampling of Euros on these same topics.

The review was quite appropriate to point out the chasm of difference between R’s and D’s on some major issues in narrative not included in the data sets. I thought this was revealing as the whole review leaves an overall impression after viewing the data that the divide is not that great. It is, and on a wide range of fundamental core policy issues.

Your remark: “Americans left and right are more like other Americans than they are like others.” is only valid on a very small set of measures in the article. On other issues, I think you would find Dem’s more like Euros than Rep’s, and Rep’s more like Middle Eastern nations than Democrats, (religion embedded in governance for example).

Posted by: David R. Remer at June 11, 2006 2:55 AM
Comment #156427

Indeed. I keep noticing the similarities in governing style between middle-east regimes and the current GOP crop.

The willingness to sacrifice rights…

The willingness to torture…

The religious aspect David mentioned…

I told some Reps that they should be the ones to leave America and live in Syria instead of Dems. The atmosphere in Syria would actually welcome conservatives.

Posted by: Aldous at June 11, 2006 3:31 AM
Comment #156429

Excellent post. I really appreciate it when someone brings interesting and fact based information to the table to discuss.
Unfortunately, it seems that these kinds of discussions fail to receive the kind of attention that inflammatory opinion based posts get.
I can see the relevance of this article in my own life. It seems that I am a centric minded individual. Looking at issues with a nonpartisan mind has led me to agree with one party on a certian issue and another party on another issue.
I used to think that bipartisanism was tearing our country apart. This article did a good job of pointing out some similarities between the parties, instead of focusing on division and conflict.

Posted by: stopculture at June 11, 2006 3:33 AM
Comment #156450


Did some nun scare you silly when you were a little boy? Why do you hate conservatives, religious people and patriots? Do you EVER have a positive thought?

Just wondering.


Good articles/links. Thank you for the effort you bring to these boards.

Posted by: Ilsa at June 11, 2006 9:10 AM
Comment #156454


Some good reading, but why is the sarcasm neccessary? “I am sure liberals will find reasons not to like the solutions”.I read the article “America’s Energy Future” and as a liberal I agreed with it.

Why is it neccessary for conservatives to criticize liberals before hearing their view and catagorize them as “hate America crowd” like the authors in Enterprise Institute article? In my mind it dicredits the credibility of the author.

The Pew survey was interesting in that as Americans we generally agree across the political spectrum but disagree on matters of degrees.

The Pew also suggests that the more educated a person is, the more liberal they tend to be. This is true even among Republicans (albeit a lesser degree than Democrates). I thought this was interesting becuase our founding Fathers were very well educated, well read on philosohopy and close to European culuture and the enlightenment movement in France and England. In his time Jefferson was known as the “French Infidel who wrote the Godless constitution” This may also explain why academia is dominated by liberals.

So is education a problem for conservatives?

Posted by: Jerseyguy at June 11, 2006 9:33 AM
Comment #156463


The education level debate confuses the hell out of me. Most Republicans are middle class and above, which would suggest that they should be better educated than Democrats. No offense to Democrats, but you guys do say greater wealth leads to greater education and you also label Republicans as the party of the weatlthy.
That being said, the rest of the results don’t seem to jive with this. I would tend to agree that the more educated people are, the more tolerant they are of others as they have a wider base of knowledge to see the worth of people who are different from them.

My speculation is this. Most people get their thinking from their parents. If their parents were liberals, than they will most likely be liberals, the same vis a vis conservatives. Becasue most colleges are left of center (that’s putting it mildly in many cases) liberal students will have their views reinforced while conservatives will probably either mellow slightly about their views, as evidenced by the Pew Center study, or become more hardened and reactionary.

I do think that this trend is reversing. Most of our professors in college nowadays are jsut as adamant in their liberalism now as they were back in the 60s when they were occupying the buildings in which they now teach. However, this current generation is the first to be more conservative than their parents. My belief is that as professors try to indoctrinate their students to their political views, which happens at campuses across the US, and students see how out of touch they are with how the world actually works, the more and more strongly reject liberals notions on many fronts.

Posted by: 1LT B at June 11, 2006 10:16 AM
Comment #156464


Education does not equal intellect.

Posted by: coonyjay at June 11, 2006 10:20 AM
Comment #156473


I understand your confusion. I am not sure I understand it either. I think here is another factor, regional culture. Living here in NJ, Jersey conservatives are more liberal or more moderate than Southern conservatives. My Father is a conseravtive, has an MBA and Votes Republican. This becasue he is a strong fiscal conservative. But socially more progressive than mainstream Republicans. I think this is typical of the North East conservative.


Good point, I never said it did. However, there are interesting trends about education and voting habits. Blue states have a generally more educated population than red states. And generally speaking, people with advanced degrees have intellect. I think they are trained to think differently and develop a different perspective. I have a bachlors degree, my has a phd in science and is a college professor. She and her collegues have a very differnt thought process than the average person when analyzing issues. Yes, my wife is quite liberal, but open to real fundemental causes and issues that are the root of problems.

Posted by: Jerseyguy at June 11, 2006 10:47 AM
Comment #156488


It depends on how you define liberal and what you think of academia.

“Intellectual” has a liberal connotation. But intellectual is not synonymous with intelligence. When I was in college, smart liberals got PhDs in history while smart conservatives got MBAs. I have an MA in history and an MBA. I thought the MA history was more fun but the MBA was harder. Please also see below.

You know I have to make snide comments against liberals because that is what I do. You all expect it of me and would be disappointed if I did not put a dig in somewhere. That is why I am on this side. I actually like liberals. Some of my best friends are liberal. If you want to see actual dislike, you have to read what liberals write about conservatives.


Democrats are bimodal in education and incomes. More people w/o high school vote Dem and more people with advanced degrees vote Dem. Republicans do better with the college educated w/o post grad. We see a similar pattern with income. The very poor vote Dem and the super rich do too. It is a strange pattern.

I think you are right about students and professors. The liberal professor are driven to distraction by some of their less liberal students.

Posted by: Jack at June 11, 2006 11:41 AM
Comment #156507

Jack and etal…

Aren’t we splitting hairs here. “Education does not equal intellect” or “intellectual is not synonymous with intelligence”. It sounds like you are trying to rationalize.

I think we need to recognize there are intelligent and educated people on both sides of an issue. There are many kinds of Conservatives and liberals. I think we are missing the bigger picture, as stated in the Pew survey; We are more similiar than disimilar. Differences are a matter of degree and seem associated with education.

What seems to differentiate a blue state from a red state are two things, general higher education levels and more economic opportunity. These two demographics empower people to have more choices, reduce high school drop out rates, reduce teenage pregnancy, lower divorce rates and vote democratic. In other words, all the moral values preached by social conservatives are being lived out in more educated and prosperous blue states.

Massachuettes leads the country favorably in all these categories and they have gay marriage.

How does this figure?

Posted by: Jerseyguy at June 11, 2006 12:32 PM
Comment #156529

I’ve learned Jack isn’t actually a conservative he’s a poll sniffing Rovian, looking for justiications for his ridiculous and indefensible positions. If it smells like a pole cat it is one.

What’s the point of this blather, Jack? I expect more than this from you. Republicans are just too stupid to see more than a provincial view? I don’t believe that. I believe Bush’s core doesn’t have a realistic or historical world view, that’s not conservatism to me.

Posted by: gergle at June 11, 2006 1:36 PM
Comment #156532

“I keep noticing the similarities in governing style between middle-east regimes and the current GOP crop.”

Yeah, it’s called democracy! That’s the similarities between the repubs and the middle east (well, part of it anyway) right now.

Posted by: rahdigly at June 11, 2006 1:39 PM
Comment #156541

Good God!

A brilliant man (or woman) raised in a strong catholic household can go get a post-graduate degree at Berkeley and still be against abortion. An unedumacated poverty-stricken minority can be a prostitute that wants to be able to have an abortion. It’s all up to individual’s data sets. It just so happens that at voting time (which is conspicuously different than polling time) more people end up looking conservative than liberal. You know, I find it very interesting that I have never been polled by Pew or similar. I poll Harris, but that’s by choice. Polls seem to hit high population areas, which are of course, either intellectual elites or destitute. Both typically left of center. So what does it all mean? To me it means that Jack’s post is right. We are all more alike than different.

I am fiscally NEOCON, but centrist in the social aspects (e.g., I am against abortion, but don’t want the Feds telling us what we can do about it).

Of course, Aldous goes crazy again, giving reasons why cons would be better off in the middle east:

“The willingness to sacrifice rights…”
“The willingness to torture…”
“The religious aspect David mentioned…”

Without understanding the motives behind ideas or actions, you are not getting the whole picture. Read Kant to understand how and why the motive for an action determines the value of the action.

Our government does not sanction torture as defined by the Geneva Convention. Having said that - Our men in black use very sane methods of torture when the ends justifies the means and is in the best interest of our nation and it’s people. Haven’t you ever watched “24”??? I love the way ol’ Jack takes it to the next level.

Our nation is a nation of Christians (majority rules). However, our government is not a christian government. Religion is NOT embedded in our governance. That is a crock. Morals are embedded in our governance. We do not, by law, let religion, ANY RELIGION, become our basis of law. Please provide an example (don’t bother with abortion, please - It will just start up a long series of off-topic posts).

Posted by: Bruce at June 11, 2006 2:13 PM
Comment #156550


The Blue/Red state is not a valid construct. In 1984 there was only one blue state - Minnesota - given Ronald Reagan’s great popularity. It is also true that more Californians voted for Bush than the total voter in Utah and more Texas voted for Kerry than the total voter in Vermont.

The persistent difference is actually urban versus suburban and rural. Dems almost always win central cities, even in red states and Republicans carry rural areas even in blue ones.

In general you cannot read too much into state differences in voting since VOTERs may be very diverse. It might be that the smartest part of one states population votes one way, while the majority votes another. We don’t know. If you look at SAT scores by state, you see that the distribution of intelligence does not follow politics. (It is just that upper Midwesterners are smarter than others.)

There are clearly cultural factors at work. The UnPC explanation might be that some ethnic groups have favored education more than others and that they are distributed unevenly over the U.S. If look at the map of U.S. ethnic groups you will find a much closer correlation with local educational achievement.


I like to look at poll data and try to understand why opinions are the way they are. I have some very strong opinions, but I do not take myself seriously enough NOT to have fun with some of these things. If I can stick it to the Dems, it is fun for me to do it. I expect they do it to me too.

Posted by: Jack at June 11, 2006 2:56 PM
Comment #156562

The only thing I can think of is that when you talk about unified thinking and then disparage a particular group is that you enjoy discord.
Simple knee-jerk rhetoric only inflames, without being constructive. More flies with honey,Jack not vinegar. Your a bright guy,and write well,why not try to approach our various problems with a real spirit of bi-partisanship?

Posted by: jblym at June 11, 2006 3:39 PM
Comment #156590


Let’s go through the time line.

I write an article saying that Dems and Republicans are more alike than differenet. (I had my comment re solutions because in an earlir posts I found myself defending wind power, since liberals found problems with this actual solution)

I get back a reply telling me that Republicans like to torture people and should move to Syria.

I get another telling me that liberals are more educated and asking if Republicans have a problem with education.

I ignore the Syrian slander and point out the strange shape the parties on educations (very uneducated go Dem; very educated go Dem; middle is Republican) and incomes.

I get responses talking about how Blue states are better than Red ones.

I get a response calling me a Rovian and saying “Republicans are just too stupid to see more than a provincial view? I don’t believe that. I believe Bush’s core doesn’t have a realistic or historical world view, that’s not conservatism to me.”

I point out that the Blue/Red idea is flawed and that blue and red states change each election. I show statistics indicating that blue and red states are similar in their educational attainment and indicated that it is more likely that differences among states is explained by different cultural factors and not politics.

Let me be clear. I write from a Partisan perspective. But if you compare my comments to those of the blue guys who write on the other side or in response to me, I am almost always more moderate. I think that the blue guys think that they are the truth and others are deviations. It is an article of faith that Bush is wrong. Blue is better than red etc.

Now I ask you. I have responded to the blue/red thing dozens of times. It is an incorrect construct. How should I address it besides as I have done?

I have responded to the idea that Dems are smarter or more educated than Republicans dozens of times. It is incorrect. How do I address it beside by showing why it is wrong?

No matter what I write about almost any subject, someone will write in telling me my president is a liar and/or stupid. Neither is true. How should I respond?

I do admit to making fun of liberals or being ironic in my replies. Sometimes I am the only one who gets the joke. But is it wrong to poke fun at someone who calls your leader stupid, who implies that you are in an uneducated group, who things our United States are divided into two groups, who says Republicans like to torture or hurt people etc? It is the least I can do. And they give me so much to work with.

Posted by: Jack at June 11, 2006 5:24 PM
Comment #156609

Well, I can only speak for myself, but I am 100% certain that my view of the world DOES have much more in common with the Liberal members of my family and my friends who live in Europe, than with my fellow American citizens who call themselves Christians, Conservatives, Republicans or Neocons.
No doubt about it.

Posted by: Adrienne at June 11, 2006 6:22 PM
Comment #156614

There was a great post on one of these columns a while ago that brokedown some red state/blue state statistics on violence, pre-marital sex, divorce rate, etc. The red states almost always fared worse. That got me to thinking, “chicken or egg?” Do the red states take a more hard-line stance on these social issues because they have to deal with it more, or do they have more problems because of the way they deal with them? I’ve copied the post below:


In red states in 2001, there were 572,000 divorces. Blue states
recorded 340,000. In the same year, 11 red states had higher
rates of divorce than any blue state.

Teenage Mothers and Births Out of Wedlock:

In each of the red states of Louisiana, Mississippi, and New
Mexico, 46.3 percent of all births were to unwed mothers. In blue
states, on average, that percentage was 31.7. Delaware has the
highest rate of births to teenage mothers among all blue states,
yet 17 red states have a higher rate. Of those red states, 15
have at least twice the rate as that of Massachusetts. There were
more than 100 teen pregnancies per 1,000 women aged 15 to 19 in 5
red states in 2002. None of the blue states had rates that high.
The rate of teen births declined in 46 states from 1988 to 2000.
It climbed in 3 red states and saw no change in another.

Violent Crime:

The per capita rate of violent crime in red states is 421 per
100,000. In blue states, it’s 372 per 100,000. The per capita
rate of murder and non-negligent manslaughter in Louisiana is 13
per 100,000. In Maine, it’s 1.2 per 100,000.

Domestic Violence:

As of 2000, 37 states had statewide policies or procedures to
address domestic violence. All 13 that didnⴠwere red states.

Alcohol and Drug Abuse:

The 5 states with the highest rates of alcohol dependence or
abuse are red states. The 5 states with the highest rates of
alcohol dependence or abuse among 12- to 17-year-olds are also
red states. The per capita rate of methamphetamine-lab seizures
in California is 2 per 100,000. In Arkansas, it’s 20 per 100,000.
The number of meth-lab seizures in red states increased by 38
percent from 1999 to 2003. In the same time frame, it decreased
by 38 percent in blue states.

Out-of-Marriage Sexual Activity:

Residents of the all-red Mountain States are the most likely to
have had 3 or more sexual partners in the previous year.
Residents of all-blue New England are the least likely to have
had more than 1 partner in that span. Residents of the mid-
Atlantic region of New York, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey were
the most likely to be sexually abstinent. Residents of the all-
red West South Central region (Texas, Oklahoma, Arkansas,
Louisiana) were the least likely. Five red states reported more
than 400 cases of chlamydia per 100,000 residents in 2002. No
blue state had a rate that high. The per capita rate of gonorrhea
in red states was 140 per 100,000. In blue states, it was 99 per

Posted by: David S at June 11, 2006 6:38 PM
Comment #156620

David S

Can’t you understand that the blue/red thing is a useful construct, but it has not real meaning for parties in any lasting sense? Millions of Californians voted for Bush and Millions of Texans voted for Gore. In 1984 there was only ONE blue state in the whole U.S.

Besides, you cannot judge by the group. How smart are you? Are you divorced? To you have some strange disease? Do you do drugs? Have you been in jail? It matters less about what others do.

BTW - “Residents of the all-red Mountain States are the most likely to have had 3 or more sexual partners in the previous year. Residents of all-blue New England are the least likely to have
had more than 1 partner in that span.” I am not sure who should be doing the bragging about this one.

Sort of like being the leading state in viagra sales.

Posted by: Jack at June 11, 2006 7:37 PM
Comment #156623


I bet lots of conservatives would agree that liberals have more in common with the French than with other Americans, but they would not view it as favorably as you do. Did you see the Southpark episode re San Francisco?

But your sample might not be that good. People tend to have things in common with family, no matter where they live, and you choose your friends, so they tend to be more like you.

My grandfather left Poland in 1900. When I met some Polish relatives nearly 100 years later, we still had some of the same quirks and characteristics. Genes and culture pass in families even across borders and time.

Posted by: Jack at June 11, 2006 7:56 PM
Comment #156638

Jack, I’m not sure I get the point of your post. All I was saying is that there is a direct correlation between states that have recently voted Republican/Democrat and social issues in those states. Of course there are people in Texas who voted Kerry, but not as many as voted Bush. It would hold to reason then that those voters would carry the same percentages, roughly, into other issues in that state. It was not a commentary about the people in those states, but about the effect the policies those people choose to enact has on those states. Regardless of how the popular vote may break down in, say, Utah, you can be sure the conservative vote will win and that conservative social programs will see more support than liberal.

Posted by: David S at June 11, 2006 9:48 PM
Comment #156641


How they voted in the last election is only one of many variables.

Utah is probably the most securly Republican State. DC (although not a state has electoral votes) is the most securely Democratic. I don’t need to tell you which would come out better in any social indicator contest. They ARE very different in culture, but politics is only one thing. New Hampshire tends to be red (although not last time) Vermont tends to be blue. Since they are similar in other ways, maybe that would be an interesting comparision.

The bigger difference is not among states, but rather urban, suburban and rural.

Liberals like to flatter themselves that they are smarter. The actual locations of private universities means little. They were founded decades or centuries ago and generally do not draw many local students. If Harvard got all its students from Cambridge, Boston and Medford, it would not be a top university. The general level of education is more telling. If you breakdown the states by SAT scores, the red/blue tells you nothing. Six of the top ten are red, but they also happen to be in the Midwest. Red/blue matters less than Midwest. Five of the bottom ten are blue. The country’s best school system is Iowa, which was red last time, but blue before that. The worst schools tend to be in central cities that are strongly Democratic.

The best public university is in blue California; the second best is in red Virginia. Does that tell you anything about the red and blue states?

In other words, you can read way to much into this blue/red.

Posted by: Jack at June 11, 2006 10:28 PM
Comment #156654

I think Jack has a point. Rural and suburban people, regardless of income, tend to be more Republican in their voting. Remember when Dean got into all that trouble about saying the Democrats should be the party of truck driving, rifle toting Southern men? The biggest issues to me in this case would be cultural ones. Rurual people are more isolated, have a closer sense of community, and are more likely to be religious than their urban counterparts. They are also far more traditional. Even those who are poor and could possibly benefit more from some of the Democrats social programs won’t vote for Democrats because of their stance on what they would call moral issues.

Democrats lose out big first on gun rights. Most rural people own guns legally, use them to hunt or for target practice, and see no reason why the government should have any interest in their firearms. The Democratic Party has become the party of gun control, and its cost them heavily. The NRA tipped the scales against Gore in both his and Clinton’s home states in 2000. Further, a win in either of these states would have won Gore the election no matter the outcome of Florida.

Furthermore, the Democrats consistent support of abortion hurts it. The fact that they are so beholden to women’s groups hurts it worse in that they cannot make common sense compromises. A person who might not otherwise be against abortion will change his mind very quickly when being told that a party states that his 14 year old daughter can get an abortion not only without his consent but without his knowledge.

I think a big issue will be the Catholic vote. I am a bit biased in this as a Catholic, but here’s my two sense. Most middle aged Catholics in America live in the northeast and mid-atlantic states and are blue collar. Most also vote Democrat because the unions tell them to vote that way. However, as more and more Catholics get white collar jobs, I think their votes will swing more and more Republican. The same in general with Hispanics.

If the Catholic vote, which has been one of the true swing votes of the last 20 years, does go firmly into the Republican side, the Democrats are in for a very hard time. They are already mainly isolated to large cities, this could decisively swing the balance to Republicans.

Posted by: 1LT B at June 12, 2006 5:05 AM
Comment #156660


We do not, by law, let religion, ANY RELIGION, become our basis of law. Please provide an example

“I swear oath on Bible…” ?

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at June 12, 2006 6:39 AM
Comment #156668

If you really want to see a lot of political and social juxtapositions that are quite similar, read:

The Enemy of My Enemy: the Alarming Convergence of Militant Islam and the Extreme Right by George Michael.

Posted by: Lynne at June 12, 2006 8:42 AM
Comment #156691

Blue-Red is a non issue. People will always vote the way they want regardless of so called state colours.
The stereo-types of Republican hayseeds chawing tobacco at the general store,and Democrat fat cats smoking ceegars while pretty young things are sitting on their laps are interchangeable.
We need to respond more to actual issues and the different responses from our elected officials.
Baiting each other with inflammatory nonsense,may be enteraining,but serves little purpose beyond titillation. I too, often respond with a particular partisan viewpoint,but try to always temper my natural inclinations with compassion.
It seems that I can often agree with points you make in your blogs,though not neccesarily with the entire message. I have no problem with respectfully,even forcefully disagreeing.
As I get a little older,and hopefully wiser,I do realize that our problems are not color-coded,nor party specific. They are universal in nature,and touch every American of all colors and creeds. Do I believe that one party can do a better overall job? Yes. But even at that I understand that Politicians campaign in poetry,and rule in prose. Keep up the interesting blogs.Jack!
P.S. Anybody who is against massive investment in wind energy production is an idiot.

Posted by: jblym at June 12, 2006 11:14 AM
Comment #156703

And yes I did read your blog about Kennedy

Posted by: jblym at June 12, 2006 12:08 PM
Comment #156727


I bet lots of conservatives would agree that liberals have more in common with the French than with other Americans,”

Shall I take this to mean that you all think that liberals have a well developed appreciation for the arts, a hightened sense of aesthetics overall, a healthy connection to the earth, and a taste for fresh, excellently prepared food? Okay, I have no problem with that. Btw, Europe is quite a big place — for instance, half of my family is from Scotland.

“but they would not view it as favorably as you do.”

Maybe so, but “variety is the spice of life” is it not? We can’t all consider reality TV, Garth Brooks, Walmart fashions, and 5-Can-Casserole the best things going…

“Did you see the Southpark episode re San Francisco?”

I made a point to watch that one, yes. I thought it was pretty damn funny — of course, it was a caricature. I can’t imagine that anyone who lived here would actually take offense. But I don’t know, maybe some people did. If so, they should try hailing from New Jersey like I do — all of America likes to make cracks about Jersey. Almost as much as they do the French!

“But your sample might not be that good.”

Well, as I said, I was only speaking for myself.

“People tend to have things in common with family, no matter where they live, and you choose your friends, so they tend to be more like you.”

Family, I agree, but when it comes to friends, I don’t select all of mine in order for them to be just like me. In fact, I find that it can often be a lot more interesting if friends are very different than I am, and have had experiences totally unlike my own. Conversation is never boring with such people, and you can learn about things you’d never even think to find out about otherwise.

“My grandfather left Poland in 1900. When I met some Polish relatives nearly 100 years later, we still had some of the same quirks and characteristics. Genes and culture pass in families even across borders and time.”

I agree. DNA doesn’t often fall all that far away from the family tree.

Posted by: Adrienne at June 12, 2006 12:57 PM
Comment #156754

Actually, I was thinking more along the lines of Le Pen. (Joking)

Tangental subject - There is a definite pattern to how each of us chooses friends AND the information we choose to hear from them.

For almost any trait the distribution will vary among countries. We can always assemble those with whom we share particular traits and maybe ignore the rest. When I was in Norway, I got along well with a leader of the Socialist Left party. You may imagine that we did not agree on politics, but we both liked to hike in the woods and thought cars were the bane of modern civilization (although we need them too.) We could passionately denounce the wimpy fat car driving non-hikers, but from oppostite ends.

Posted by: Jack at June 12, 2006 2:01 PM
Comment #156814

The Nasdaq is down nearly 60% since W took the lead in the polls in the spring of 2000 and started talking it down. If that stat belonged to a dem. they would be skinned alive. 100% is the most it can lose so we are over half way there.

Posted by: Schwamp at June 12, 2006 4:03 PM
Comment #156911


I have always thought that the beauty of American culture is its voraciousness: we will absorb anything we find useful, beautiful, or true. There is no culture like ours. It isn’t European, it isn’t African, it isn’t South American or Asian. It has forged unique amalgams of African and South American rhythms, European harmonies, and Asian lilt. Its foods are a borrowing and blending from all cultures. Its architecture a synthesis, its art a blinding array of styles and attitudes. Our play involves sports of all kinds, even futbol. Our movies and television shows are in demand all over the world and we absorb the world’s output as well. Our clothing, our cars, our housing stock, our city layouts are all constructed from pieces of others put together in a new and unique way.

I love this country.

Posted by: Mental Wimp at June 12, 2006 7:40 PM
Comment #157052

Mental Wimp, very well said.

“I love this country.”

Me too. I love the world, but just like my immigrant grandparents, I don’t want to live anywhere else but America.

Posted by: Adrienne at June 13, 2006 12:51 AM
Comment #157074

To those who feel more kinship with their European brothers and sisters, all I can say is…C’est le vie!

We’re here, we’re Conservative, and we ain’t going anywhere.

Posted by: David C. at June 13, 2006 2:10 AM
Comment #157105

David C,

To those who feel more kinship with their European brothers and sisters, all I can say is…C’est le vie!

For information, in French life is feminine ;-) so it’s “C’est la vie !”.

We’re here, we’re Conservative, and we ain’t going anywhere.

Nobody will dispute your last point!

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at June 13, 2006 6:23 AM
Comment #157707

Why is it, that democrates are always bashing the US and republicans are cheering its praises??

Posted by: MacIrish at June 14, 2006 4:22 PM
Comment #157766

MacIrish, I’m not democrat, I’m french.
And yes, I know, it’s worst in your eyes. But I don’t care that much.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at June 14, 2006 5:44 PM
Post a comment