DU IS IN THE WALL STREET JOURNAL PEOPLE!!!

[La_Serpiente]

CHECK THIS OUT...WE ARE ON THE WALL STREET JOURNAL OPINION PAGE!!!!

WE ARE UNDER THE HEADER OF "THE COGNITIVE ELITE"

http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110004149

HERE IS WHAT THEY SAID!!!

The Cognitive Elite
It's been nine years since Charles Murray and the late Richard Herrnstein published "The Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life," in which they argued that American society has become stratified along lines of intelligence, so that a "cognitive elite" consisting of people with high IQs who enjoy levels of wealth and power far disproportionate to their numbers. (The book was hugely controversial because of its section on the radioactive subject of racial disparities in IQ scores, but the cognitive-elite argument did not depend on the race section.)

The emergence of a cognitive elite may be inevitable in a knowledge-based economy, but it is a development Murray and Herrnstein viewed with considerable concern. What's fascinating is that liberals, who denounced Murray and Herrnstein over the racial aspect of their book, seem to view rule by the cognitive elite as the natural order of things. And of course they think they are the cognitive elite. We saw this in Jonathan Chait's Bush-hating cover story last month in The New Republic (which was, but is no longer, available online), in which Chait opined that the "striving, educated elite" views the president, because of his success despite his "dullness," as "an affront to the values of the liberal meritocracy." (In 1994 TNR devoted an entire issue to a series of essays on "The Bell Curve"; views ranged from harsh criticism to furious denunciation.)

The same phenomenon is evident in the reaction to Arnold Schwarzenegger's election as governor of California. The Oakland Tribune reports that state Sen. John Vasconcellos, a San Jose Democrat, has called the governor-elect "a boob" and is threatening to leave office on the grounds that he's too good for Californians: "If people want this actor to govern . . . they don't need or deserve me."

Sacramento Bee blogger Dan Weintraub has an interview with another Democratic state senator, Sheila Kuhl of Santa Monica, who opines that it's up to the Senate "to save the state." When Weintraub asks "from what?" Kuhl replies: "From ignorance. This guy has no idea how to run a state." She tells Weintraub she may skip the governor's State of the State speech, "because frankly I don't think there is going to be a lot of content that anyone's interested in. What's this guy got to say to us about the state of the state? Nothing."

And it's not just elected officials. The San Francisco Chronicle hits the streets of the Bay Area, where voters favored keeping Gray Davis in office, and manages to find one Sydney Webster of Oakland, a self-described "hair-color diva," who opines that Bay Area residents are simply "smarter" than people elsewhere in the state.

There's no reason to think that liberals actually are smarter than conservatives; there is plenty of brainpower on the political right. And surely Bush's and Schwarzenegger's detractors are mistaken when they characterize them as dull. The president, after all, is a graduate of both Yale and Harvard, and the governor-elect is a self-made immigrant businessman. It is possible for very intelligent people not to be snobs about it, not to adopt the pose of an "intellectual," and that would seem to describe both Bush and Schwarzenegger.

Some liberals also tend to overestimate their own intelligence. Consider this post from the Angry Left Web site DemocraticUnderground.com:

I would dare to assume that most of us here are in the upper 1%-20% of the population intelligence-wise. We must come to the realization that the majority of the population is in the lower 80% to 99% percent of the bell-curve. WE are not the norm. The Republicans understand that the average American is not very bright. They cater and pander to the masses. The Democratic Party tries to appeal to the population about "issues" that these people just don't understand.

If it comes as a revelation to the Democratic Undergrounders that 20% is less than a majority, they're not exactly rocket scientists, are they?

AHHHHHHH...

[La_Serpiente]

1. I would never think that they'd start citing us

I am assuming they are out to attack us...Democratic Underground is supposed to be the last refuge for us DU's...and now THEY'VE INFILTRATED US ALREADY!!!! GEEZ, CAN'T THEY JUST LEAVE US ALONE!?!

[La_Serpiente]

2. Not to mention that's like stereotyping

Now that they've associated the two "DU and Academic Elite", they are out to discredit us...A$$holes

That's almost like stereotyping us out there...not everyone on this site shares that view...I sure the hell don't...this is just supposed to be a site to share ones ideas and beliefs.

[fishnfla]

42. First Rush, now these creeps

We're getting some attention. The smear campaign, apparantly, is to parse out outrageous quotes to make us look bad. Coming soon: more outrageous quotes.

[piece sine]

45. did you read the comments on the thread?!

Mid-thread, I was in there begging other posters to be careful. This was serious. It's kinda hard to claim it's all out-of-context when the "superiority" stuff goes on and on and ON....

[NewYorkerfromMass]

48. I admit we sometimes do overestimate our superiority and intelligence

but even by the most conservative estimates we still are superior to the right wing neanderthals who think the world ends at our shores and personal responsibility at each paycheck.

[ignatius]

56. Exactly. Why don't they quote some of the racist,hate-filled remarks

made by Limbaugh and the free republic. In a way, for this conservative piece of trash to quote us, is a compliment. They must feel threatened by some of the ideas and analysis done on this site that shows the conservative idiology they push to be faulty.

It is definitely creepy, however, that a big brother type(s) is watching us.

Can Ann Coulter's hero's ideas, Senator McCarthy and his witch hunts this time for liberals, be far behind?

Hey WSJ reporters, FBI, CIA or whomever, welcome. Stick around, maybe you will learn something besides trickle-down and tax cuts for the rich.

[Renew Deal]

61. WSJ writer obviously listens to Limpballs.

[Erika]

3. WSJ is Conservative Biased.

They are nothing more than Fox/Bush News. It is sad because at one time you could read them and gleen a little truth and knowledge about our country's economy. Now, just skip them and go to the RNC and Karl Rove for the same biased spiel.

[hang a left]

4. not very complimentary, were they

[DoveTurnedHawk]

9. They Weren't (eom)

DTH

[bearfartinthewoods]

38. well..i posted, in that thread, that it was an arrogant piece of crap

and i wasn't the only one. they didn't report on that though...big surprise.

[homelandpunk]

84. I hope the poster is embarrased and ashamed

ANYONE who publishes arrogance and superiority on this board invite the trolls to give us a balck eye...the mod's who keep posts like that up are just as responsible. Interesting they will let posts like that stand but now yank the ones with the f word in it....weird...the FCC is getting lenient on the f word and DU is clamping down...strange...
Fascist publications WAIT for a post like the one in question, and then write editorials like this one to throw a bad light on us. And we are too dense to know that, it seems, otherwise why was that post allowed to stay up? KEE-RICED.

[Wonk]

5. Here's the link to that post they're quoting.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=495887

How come "they" (bloggers or commentators referring to DU) never quote me? Rhetorical question...

[Pastiche423]

13. They don't quote you, Wonk

because you are not an intellectual snob.

You are simply an intellectual.

[LittleApple81]

32. and here is one of the replies in that thread...

you're linked to the Wall Street Journal's own newsblog....the folks at work are talking about it.

your opinion is famous, M'dear. Too bad I disagree with you so profoundly I'm compelled to publicly address this so thousands of new visitors don't think we ALL think like you. And you do have a lot of support here, as well, but that only compounds the problem.

[moondust]

39. They chose to ignore post #16 which starts off

"This is incredibly condescending, and misses the real point"

Selective editing is dishonest.

[Ivory_Tower]

79. I just finished reading Franken's new book

I just read "Lies..." this week, and this editorial is a textbook example of what Franken is describing. Take one post, or one comment, ignore everything else around it, and focus on that one post to create a broad generalization.

I personally thought the post was pretty condescending (and ironic, too, given the "80% of the people are in the majority" tautology), but it certainly provoked a lot of disagreement. That, of course, would not fit the theme the editorial was trying to present ("Liberals are elitists, and stupid too"), so they ignore the critical posts. It's the "Fair and Balanced" way of presenting things, after all.

Another thing -- the WSJ is attacking an internet message board? How lame is that? DU is hardly a editorial board, nor a corporate mass media entity. There are lots of posts, mostly unfiltered. You can draw any conclusion you want with the proper post selection. Maybe next time they'll write something about how liberals have an obsession with bare-assed smiley-faces or gay ducks.

Selective editing IS dishonest. It's also the norm for some media elites.

[oasis]

Fuck WSJ and their crooked cannibalistic capitalist cronies in the WH

:dunce: Another dummy speaking truth to power.

[Paschall]

6. Cognitive elite

And to discuss this important issue, the writer quotes an anonymous user's completely unsubstantiated rant on an internet forum?

The nation's median intelligence just slipped another notch.

ON EDIT: Well, of course the Journal writer wasn't really trying to "discuss" the idea of a cognitive elite. He's just whining. "The liberals think they're smarter than us."

[REP]

7. Someone Already Called It

When that post was made, someone said how it would be used to demonstrate that that liberals are pseudointellectual elitist morons. I think several people pointed and made fun of that ridiculous post. But what does the WSJ do? Act as though that post went unchallenged and underided!

[AP]

27. WSJ and Rush mention DU in same week. Hmmm. Coincidence?

Why do they so shamelessly reveal the nexus?

[Dogmudgeon]

8. Academic Elite? Moi?

I tried several times to get into grad school, and each time, money was the issue that kept me out.

Note that our Wise and Courageous Commander has an MBA from a school that is hardly a place where commoners go.

You can't be an academic elitist in the USA if you can't pay for the privilege. And if you can pay, you don't even have to be all that academic.

--bkl

[incapsulated]

10. Conveniently ignoring...

That the majority of replies were in passionate disagreement with that post.

What else is new?

:eyes:

[Robin Hood]

11. Two words, "Fuzzy Math".

And the sheeple ate it up. Gore was boring(see intelligent). People understand Bush(See not intelligent).

The proof is in the pudding, too bad this writer chooses to ignore the obvious. But what can we expect from the moronic majority. Put that in your paper and smoke it.

[NJCher]

12. WSJ--they even believe their own propaganda

ROFLOL! A drunk with a cocaine problem goes to Yale and Harvard and that makes him intelligent?

And the "self-made" businessman makes his millions off of violence. Oh and he's an "immigrant," from that downtrodden third-world country where all those other poor Teutonics reside and toil in backwater industries.


Cher

[Supply Side Jesus]

14. These are the same clowns

who smeared the Clinton's with the suicide of Vince Foster(Foster mention the WSJ op-ed dicks in his suicide note, who where at the time doing a hachett job on him), published manufactured rumors of then Gov. Clinton and the CIA running drugs together through Mena Arkansas, and had the distatse to run the ordering information on "The Clinton Chronicles." These fuck nuts have no crediabilty.

[prolesunited]

15. And how could we miss this?

"Angry Left Web site" <-- I think it has a nice ring to it.

[Awsi Dooger]

18. And why was that capitalized?

Is there a union I've been pathetically unaware of, the ALW?

Well, at least my mom will finally read about DU. The WSJ editorial page is virtually her only source.

[Buns_of_Fire]

16. They surely called part of it correctly...

It is possible for very intelligent people not to be snobs about it, not to adopt the pose of an "intellectual," and that would seem to describe both Bush and Schwarzenegger.

Lord knows, the man has gone out of his way not to appear "intellectual." Gee, did everyone misunderestimate Boosh because he planned it that way? Is his mighty intellect so powerful that ke knew he had to hide it from the populace lest they reject him out of jealousy? Has Rover had to continually warn him not to quote Sartre or Kierkegaard when he answers questions "off the cuff?"

Naaaaaaaaah..... :evilgrin:

[Erika]

17. A True Endeavor For Bush

Set him in a round classroom and tell him to sit in the corner. He'll be circling forever.

[Erika]

19. Remember His Campaign Pledge?

He said he'd seat every child at the table of plenty so they could participate in America's bounties? He's changed that to sign up at WalMart and be given your application for government food stamps, government subsidized child care, and government insurance. But the Waltons show up on Fortune 500 list as America's wealthiest. Is there something wrong with this picture.

[La_Serpiente]

20. I just wrote them an e-mail

I just wrote to them an e-mail.

[Erika]

23. I also sent them an email

I expressed my disappointment that they had turned themselves into a mouthpiece of the right-wing Bush administration. We need to start expressing our opinions more. Thanks.

[Aidoneus]

21. is that something to be proud of?

granted that I spit on the WSJ's editorial page, the author dismisses DU as deluded elitists. Who posted that, and what thread, anyway (assuming it's real)? At any rate that's a real POV here on occasion and a deluded fixation to get over (to say nothing of a cheap cliche), and one that I also spit on--I'll run out of spit quick at this rate, so I should stop there..

[Wonk]

22. re: what thread, see post #5. nt

[La_Serpiente]

24. I'm the one that posted that

But I totally disagree with it...I already wrote to them an e-mail voicing my concern. I'm not proud that it's in the WSJ, but I wanted to bring it to everyone's attention just to let you guys be aware.

[AP]

26. janekat posted it...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=495887

There's the thread.

I'm not clear why LaS. claims authorship.

[La_Serpiente]

28. I said I claimed ownership

Because Aidoneus was wondering who the hell posted it. However, I didn't post the original post, but the post on the WSJ reporting it.

[homelandpunk]

72. janekat needs to be banished for making us look like arrogant shits

I almost wanted to puke when i read that post when it was originally posted and wondered how on fucking earth the mods let it sit there. Doesn't DU know they wait for a post like this and then write an editorial to use it in???!!! fuck how naive and how dense. I was going to reply to it and say this, but did not...AND SURE ENOUGH, THE TROLLS WERE THERE TO USE IT!!!! GOD FUCK IT, PEOPLE!!!!! THIS ARROGANT SHIT SHOULD NOT BE LEFT ON HERE LONG ENOUGH FOR THEM TO USE AGAINST US!!! I HOPE JANEKAT TAKES HER/(HIS?) SUPERIORITY AND LEAVES OR IS BANISHED IMMEDIATELY!!!

[Kamika]

35. maybe not but you know what they say

No publicity is bad publicity

[Mari333]

25. funny how he overlooked any posts

that mention many of us
losing our jobs
having family members filing for bankruptcy
sons or daughters being deployed or already dead overseas
veterans who frequent the boards, including active military
and the bitter fact that yes, FAUX viewers did think (as did 70% of USers polled at one time) that Iraq has WMDs and Iraq had something to do with 9/11.
The WSJ is a rag, always has been.

[w4rma]

29. DUers aren't any smarter. We're just better informed.

And the editorial section of the WSJ is all propaganda. Believe what is said there at your own risk (and unfortunately everyone elses risk, also).

[ibegurpard]

30. Do Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Tom Delay and others care

what the Wall Street Journal might say about some of the outrageous things they say? Obviously not. Liberals HAVE to stop wringing their hands about what someone might say. Although I disagree with the hypothesis of the post cited that said Americans are stupid, I DO agree that many of them are woefully misinformed and don't care to rectify that situation. We have to adjust our strategies to recognize that fact. Anyone who thinks WELL-INFORMED voters would blame Gray Davis for the Republican and Bush-sponsored sacking of California and replace him with Conan the Barbarian has their head in the sand.

[JustJoe]

31. Not so much dumb as led by the id.

That mysterious 10%
that decides the way elections went
and go.
It's time for a change, a turn, so
they look at the list & pick the one
most unlike the one who's in,
but one who can win.
Hey--
simple, subconscious, like a wish.
All at once they turn that way,
like a school of fish.

[spooky3]

33. I share Al Franken's view of WSJ

the reporting is often quite good. The editorial page is wingnut, and often, simply inaccurate or deliberately misleading in "facts" included to make its arguments. That's why it's included in Lying Liars...

[jumptheshadow]

34. Two comments

1) Somehow the WSJ missed the comments of the DU posters who disagreed with the lady who started the original thread. There were a few DUers who disagreed with the basic premise and wrote intelligent posts in response.

2) Still, the WSJ story, while not complimentary, will ultimately help bring in a dozen or two new posters who will endure the test of time on this board.

[Awsi Dooger]

36. Regarding #1, replace "Somehow" with "Predictably"

But your #2 is dead on, and more accurate and relevant than anything mentioned so far.

A dozen or two new and lasting DUers is far too low, IMO. The WSJ daily circulation has slipped from 20 years ago, at least as of last year when the paper jazzed up its appearance. But it's still in the 1.7-1.8 million range, if I remember correctly.

[Iverson]

37. This stuck out for me.

"The president, after all, is a graduate of both Yale and Harvard, and the governor-elect is a self-made immigrant businessman."

Anyone inside academia (and most people outside it) should be moved to pity at such a weak effort to rehabilitate Bush's intelligence. His appearance at ivy league schools surely was not on his merits. His inarticulate dogmatism is more revealing than any favors his dad may have called in.

And in any case the name-dropping game has nothing to do with patterns of thoughtfulness and reflection. Oodles of folks who never went to ivy league schools or college at all are extremely bright, just as paying tuition somewhere is no guarantee that ya got smarts.

But that may be the best that the Wall Street Journal can do.

[Q]

40. Taking one paragraph...

...from thousands is an easy way to make an argument...but not very honest or accurate.

[fishnfla]

41. Headline: The dinosaurs at the archaic WSJ editorial page unable to define

the term "flamebait thread". An intern in the mail room had to explain the concept to them, and how message boards work in general.

Like poppy and the grocery store scanner, these ivory tower types are so out of touch with the real world.

hey Paul Gigot! Take your Lexus, and shove it up your egalitarian ass!

[paradisiac]

43. do they have an inferiority complex?

I'm beginning to think rightwingers suffer a huge inferiority complex in respect to their intelligence vis-a-vis liberals. I've read several of these dopey pieces that explain how rightwingers are actually intelligent people despite all evidence to the contrary. I wonder why they feel articles need to be written to defend their intelligence. George W. Bush may not be able to find Guatemala on a map, but don't forget he's a graduate of Yale. A lack of snootiness is what makes conservatives seem so dumb, that explains it.

"Do you have blacks, too?"
-- George W. Bush, meeting with Brazilian President Fernando Henrique Cardoso; allegedly, in this incident, reportedly witnessed only by members of the White House Press Corps, Condoleezza Rice was present and jumped in to save Cardoso from having to answer, informing Bush that in fact Brazil is home to more blacks than any country outside Africa (unverified date: November 2, 2001)

"One of the common denominators I have found is that expectations rise above that which is expected."
--George W. Bush, Los Angeles, Sept. 27, 2000

[LeahMira]

44. The Bell Curve...

... is such ridiculous "science" that I'm amazed the Wall Street Journal would cite it or that any DU poster would buy in to it's really strange conclusions.

Read "The Mismeasure of Man" by the late Stephen J. Gould for a good insight into the Bell Curve nonsense. Then read Howard Gardner's work on the "Seven Intelligences" (some info is on the internet) to find out what intelligence is all about.

JMO, but I think that the great musician or the great athlete is every bit as intelligent as the great politician, but just in a different area.

I'm really tired of all the sorting devices that some people have come up with in order to make sure that only a few people get to win the race. Hey! It's not a race!!!

[Changenow]

46. That the Wall Street Journal and Rush

are reduced to quoting anonymous postings from an Internet discussion board demonstrates the weakness of their positions (as well as the level of critical thinking they expect from their followers). For all we know Rush and the WSJ author could have posted the comments they maligned.

It is ironic that the bell curve argument has been shown to be absolutely without merit by the President of the United States. An individual need not have even normal intelligence to be powerful and rich, all he needs is parents with those attributes. The reverse is also true, high intelligence is not the key to success if there is no door.

[spooky3]

50. Good points!

[Dudley_DUright]

47. Only the WSJ editorial page

would lend any credence at all to that steaming pile of pseudo-scientific hate speech titled "The Bell Curve". Anything they say after that cannot be taken seriously, although it is interesting that they are trying to push the meme the "Angry Left" (capitalized no less). This pejorative is what they will try to use against Dean if he wins the nomination. These idiots are so transparent.

[kodi]

49. well, i did get a good education, but i never let it go to my head

the wsj just attempted to stamp DU as some mutant form of lenin's "vanguard of the revolution."

it was a slick way of calling evil DUers a bunch of commie bastards via the use of code words and associations.

typical wsj smear

[kentuck]

51. Why do you think they want to portray us as the Far Left ?

By giving an example that was not illustrative of the gist of the thread? They are trying to tear down DU before you gain credibility for your ideas and your common sense.

[Dover]

52. And if Bush has his way, fewer and fewer WILL be educated.

Some like 'em dumb. Much easier to manipulate, hence their anti-intellectual tactics.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

53. Two Points

Most of the folks on a Bell Curve are in the middle....


And I don't think all Republicans are stupid... Some vote Republican out of informed self interest....


I'll defer to John Stuart Mill." A person who doesn't vote for the common good shouldn't be allowed to vote."

[F.Gordon]

54. self-made immigrant businessman?

WTF??!!!

The guy gets his career jumpstarted with his "body", not his brain. He hits the Hollywood Lottery by walking around with a corn cob up his ass...his only acting line being..."I'll be back..."?? WTF??!!!

He takes his Lottery winnings and puts it in those investment business thingees, and that makes him a self-made immigrant businessman???

Sure. Okay. Whatever.

[MrPrax]

55. Why the Bell Curve...

as a comparison, other than to denigrate.

And why didn't the WSJ go over to Freeperville and get contrasting quotes suggesting DUmmies were all idiots and traitors and killed...

I am shocked and horrified to be thought of as intelligent, as opposed to advocating murder and blind fidelity to ideology...

Apparantly vigorous debate, makes you elitist

[Carolina]

57. I could give

a rat's ass about what the WSJ 'opinionators' think. As Vince Foster so tragically wrote in his suicide note: "the WSJ editors lie without consequence."

Do we expect anything positive about anything democratic from the pages of their rag? And does their readership include significant numbers of people beyond their conservative wingnut base?

They can denigrate, dismiss, discredit and disreputably write about us all they want. But we know that they are among the hypocritical lying liars. So, fuck 'em

[leesa]

58. I, for one, am not ashamed to be intelligent and I refuse to allow

them to insist that I be dumb like they are. They have made people be ashemed of caring for the environment (tree huggers), people(welfare lovers), and most everything that makes us human. I will not become intellectually lazy and hateful and uncaring like this trash insists I become.

[Coventina]

59. They've been monitoring for a long time

They attempted to attack DU using me after the 2002 election.

They're PATHETIC!

[Renew Deal]

60. You wrote that? n/t

[Coventina]

65. If you mean the sad "karmic hug" post

that WSJ published and mocked in their online version, then yes, I wrote that.

That was when I learned that drinking and posting don't mix, even in the Lounge.

[youngred]

62. What a biased POS OPED

not the best way to be cited

[Cat Atomic]

63. I think DU has become an official Republican target. Be proud.

It's an honor to be despised by the despicable.

[janx]

67. No doubt. It is a target of the wingnut pundits, to be sure.

Let them rant. I was an independent voter until very recently, when I registered as a Democrat for the first time in my life--and I'm not the only one around here who has done so.

[GinaMaria]

64. Is DU a threat?

Seems there are two attempts in a week to discredit and undermine a private web site. Funny how FR and LuciferAnn get a pass.

Certainly makes me more determined to stay and keep fighting. Hope you all feel the same way.

I have tremendous respect for education and learning. I realize I am in the minority. It just doesn't excite most people the way it excites me. But, enthusiasm can be contagious. So keep talking to people outside DU. Keep debating and researching the issues. People may come to check the site out because of this editorial. When they do, they may for the first time read things they've never heard before. There is a shocking difference between what is pumped through American's radios and televisions vs. articles posted here.

Peace and Patience,
Gina

[Gloria]

66. DU joins Buzzflash among the WSJ elite!!!

Right after the coup, when Buzz was just starting up, this is what the WSJ said:

"Buzzflash.com is the shrillest and the most dimwitted political site on the web."


That's the gold standard!!!! I'm glad to see we DU has met the test!!

[screaming_meme]

71. Do you realize they're dissing us?

Fuck the whores at the WSJ!!

[janx]

68. WSJ used to be a reputable publication. Now its editorial page

has joined the low-brow quality of the right-wing radio talk shows and screaming cable TV "pundits." It's still hard for me to believe that its editorial content is in any way connected to the rest of the paper...but there you have it. Anything for a buck, I suppose.

[Fatima]

69. Folks, it's the WSJ, relax.

it's one of the major organs of the ruling party elite.

(it's a right-wing rag)

Let's be happy we're making waves. Right now, most of the country is asleep or attuned to football.

[rucky]

70. Shape up, folks!

NOTE: This post only applies to a small number of DUers...

The "Sheeple" Attitude Has Bitten Us On The Bee-hind. And it will continue to do so as long as those who carry that attitude continue to insult the strawman they've characterized as a "typical American" in an attempt to bolster their own esteem.

It's bad strategy, a false assumption, and serves no purpose but to divide us in a paternalistic war that contributes to social elitism and the manipulation of the average apolitical citizen.

Egalitarians don't think like that - so leave that sort of rhetoric for the Bush Pioneers.

"The Democratic Party tries to appeal to the population about "issues" that these people (a majority of americans) just don't understand."

That says more to me about the Democratic Party than the people who don't understand. Our inability to get a clear message past the wall of corporate media spin, and through to general public - is our own fault. So the mass media propogates lies. The editorial pages of the WSJ dig deep into our own ideological think tanks to slander us as a whole. That is today's reality. If you sit in an ivory tower and criticize, then all your knowledge (that we all work very hard to gather) counts only as much as your vote does. If we share what we know with the uninformed, don't-care-to-be-informed, and the misinformed, then we can fix this problem. But they will only listen to us if we approach them with genuine concern and respect for them.

[FubarFly]

75. Well said.

Although i understand the sentiment, I cringe whenever I see the word "sheeple". The real idea is to get people better informed and then let them make up their own minds. And that means listening as well as talking. The "sheeple" have more to teach us then I think many people realize. There is a reason why they choose to tune out the Democratic message when they do hear it. Actually there are many reasons. I wonder how many "superior" DU'ers really understand what they are?

[Classical_Liberal]

77. Frankly that post was from someone in the conservative

DLC wing in the Democratic Party. Democratic and Liberal unfortunately aren't the same.

[Bandit]

73. Do they need copywrite permission to print someone else's words?

I would think that may be an issue.

[Nlighten1]

74. Interesting they even provided a link back to DU

cool.

[the_real_38]

76. Can you believe that people fall for that s***?

They make it seem like being 'elite' is about putting on intellectual airs, and not having more money than everyone else.

I call that projection - and I sure hope that doesn't come off as ivory-tower or anything.

[Clete]

78. So I guess a posturing ham actor who

committed sexual crimes on women is okay with the WSJ. Well, their financial and investment advice sucks too. I stopped reading it years ago because I found I made better investment decisions without their insight.

[eleny]

80. Oh, I see!

I read this thread and followed the link back to the thread the WSJ quoted. Unless I'm fuzzy about this, it's the same thread that Limbaugh referred to as well. If that's correct, then it's a concerted effort to convert "Democratic Underground" from a verb to an adjective. Yet another affirmation of DU's success. "They" have set their sights.

Too bad that their chief evangelist had to check out for 30 days. Just when eduactional threads are being posted pointing us to research about the history of the Bush family business and other embarrassing moments. Rush was so good at stringing adjectives into hyperbolic conclusions. What will they do without him?

So, they've turned over their cards. And we can go back to the business of educating, organizing and $upporting our own treasures. The liberal writers, talk radio hosts, candidates all over the country - you name it. It's a smorgasbord of progressive efforts out there. I feel all the more energized to lend support and encouragement to as many as I can.

Cards? Hey, WSJ - I gotcha cards right here.

[Jack Rabbit]

81. Cognative elite theory

Perhaps it doesn't occur the author of the piece that the state Democratic leaders are right about Arnold. The elevation of this ignoramous to high political office, like the presence of Mr. Bush in the White House or of Dan Quayle in the Vice Presidency, is evidence that the cognative elite theory is a crock of shit.

The Wall Stree Journal's editorial page is best used for lining birdcages and wrapping three-day old fish.

[Rex]

82. opinions are like assholes

everybody has one.

[Generic Other]

83. If we are the cognitive elite, we can only claim title by default!

What are the known facts? Many of us have been screaming bloody murder for the last 3 years as we watched neo-con policy end up in disaster after disaster. The majority of our friends, neighbors and co-workers were silent or backed the neo-cons.

We tried to educate, warn, and plead with our fellow Americans to use critical thinking skills, to become informed, to prove their intelligence and their commitment as citizens of this nation to help shape its policies in a responsible fashion. How many chose to follow our lead? 20%? Is that the WSJs number? I don't know if it was that high.

I don't think intelligence can be measured on some bell curve test. Intelligence is measured by a person's ability to live his or her life in a manner that suggests one gains insight as one ages, that one is a lifelong learner. That is the difference between an intelligent person and all the rest of the people on this planet. If being a compassionate person, an honest person, a responsible person both in my personal life and as a citizen of my community means I should be subject to ridicule by the WSJ, then so be it. I have been called worse names.

Yes, I am an elitist. On your standardized intelligence tests, I scored in the upper 2 percentile. 98% of the people taking the tests scored lower than I. But I don't consider this a mark of my intelligence. The mark of my intelligence is in my contributions to the betterment of humanity. If I leave this earth a worse place for my having been here, I will view myself a miserable failure. I believe that even a genius can be stupid. Because smart people can do stupid things.

If I can sleep nights without ever worrying about what self-serving fascists have done to my country, I will castigate myself for having been a dumb idiot. If I allow myself to be deceived and manipulated, slandered and abused, to be hypnotized like a suggestible fool, I will deserve to be called stupid. I will have earned the title "dunce."

Until then, I am proud not to be a part of that group.
Even if it is in the majority!

And by the way, to the WSJ: I don't want to be a rocket scientist. I'd rather be a janitor.

[Solly Mack]

85. If they are attacking us, it just means we got to them

and tweaked their itty bitty feelings. The opinion piece showed little more than feelings of insecurity on the part of the author...

[Feanorcurufinwe]

86. I'd like to get in a poker game with the author of this piece.

It is possible for very intelligent people not to be snobs about it, not to adopt the pose of an "intellectual," and that would seem to describe both Bush and Schwarzenegger.

If this guy thinks Bush is 'very intelligent' I bet he'd fall for my bluffs as well.

[kaitykaity]

87. Locking.

Please see rule #2 here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=463744

2. The subject line of a discussion thread and the entire text of the message which starts the thread may not include profanity, excessive capitalization, or excessive punctuation. Inflammatory rhetoric should also be avoided. Exceptions may be allowed for threads about our shared political opponents and/or policies which we generally oppose.