That article misses its own point. Those numbers are not where the concept comes from. In any case, this is a re-thread and we've already discussed why those numbers are, for the most part, meaningless, useless, etc. Ie, 40th in literacy -- at 97%. So what?
edit: another thing - if someone says something negative about America, that is anti-america by definition. negative=anti-. But articles like this are more than just literally anti-america, they are designed to lessen your opinion of the US by misleading you, which is anti-american.
MMMMMMmmmmmmmm I really have to thank you for this, Ivan. Its a real morning pick-me-up. As good as my daily Dilbert. To see the ironies and hypocricies of neo-hippiism (c. 2005, russ_watters) in all their glory is just deliciously entertaining.
"neo-hippiism (c. 2005, russ_watters)"
Ah yes, I see this new word becoming a staple in my dialogue.....
thank you, thank you for a very appropriate label.
It would seem that according to our members, a 7th grade reading level is considered literate.
A true American?
More, MORE!!! Gimme more!!!
Good argument! That reminds me, where did Mr. Parsons go?
Argument? I made mine in post 2. If you have one, feel free to make it, but I'd just as soon get another neohippiism(c. 2005, russ_watters) article. Do you have any more?
How many times are you gonna try to come up with a word involving the prefix "neo" to describe liberals? Neo-con is here to stay, and nothing else is nearly as catchy - plus, anything with neo to describe liberals is just a blatent ripoff of the neo-con phrase, and no one will acceptit as legitimate. It's the same principal that made no one think twice about "Texans for Truth", when "Swift-boat Veterens for Truth" had already convinced people that they were the original organization "for Truth".
Plus, a classmate of mine used the phrase neo-hippy in 2004 to describe people who wear hemp necklaces and listen to bands like Phish and moe. (himself included) during an english presentation, so someone already beat you in coining that phrase (even though it's likely he didn't come up with that phrase either).
Can't you just be happy with controlling all three branches of government?
"Neo-hippiism" is a good-un. And there is a difference between bashing and constructive criticism. As addressed in other threads, is being against deficit spending, unfair trade policies, etc. anti-American or "neo-hippiism?"
Four key components of the never ending lie:
Make up labels for everyone who disagrees with you.
All labels are just subtopics of anti-American. [or whatever nation applies]
Ridicule all of the above.
Deny everything that sounds bad
Actually, "hippie" is the more important part. I try to make all labels I invent include some form of that word. I really don't take the term "neocon" seriously enough to create a counter-label.
Damn, tough to argue with that... :rofl:
No. But I guess since its my word, I need to define it:
A far-left subset of the Democratic Party that is the antithesis of the Religious Right. Neohippies typically support censorship, enviro-terrorism, flag burning, France, Phish, stone tools, and Birkenstocks. Neohippies are more easily identified according to what they are against: Nuke-anything, modern technology, money (except that which is contained in their trust funds), government (except where government provides for their every need), morality, anything/action American, hygeine.
Boy, do I ever enjoy springtime in Boston. I can't wait to visit my sister and have lunch in the middle of Harvard Square and watch the budding new hippies emerge from their winter's hibernation in their dorm rooms.
Edit: if you're interested Ivan, here's the previous thread on this article: https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=65791&highlight=america+numbers
A couple of people put some effort into debunking the entire list. For the purpose of brevity (and to avoid too much redundancy), I picked one stat.
A more telling example of a false sense of supremacy can be found in the city of New York. I remember living in New Jersey in 2002 and seeing banners on all the streets proclaiming it the "X Capital of the World." Fashion capital of the world. Milan, Paris, anyone? Technology capital of the world? Never heard of San Jose and the Silicon Valley? Sports capital of the world? Well, the Los Angeles area won 5 professional sports titles that year and had one more team lose in the finals. New York had the Nets lose to the Lakers. Entertainment capital of the world? Count the number of recording studios in film, television, and music in Hollyworld and count the number in New York. It isn't close. Theatre capital of the world? I suppose if you consider Broadway remakes and retreads to be legitimate theatre. I'd give this title to London myself. Financial capital of the world? I'll give it that one.
Isn't it you who's been chiming in so often telling anyone who uses the word "neocon" that it's just a propaganda word made up by the left, doesn't mean anything, and that neocons don't exist outside of liberal talk shows?
It's already a word man, you're too late...
So who, by that definition, is a neo-hippie? Dean? Kerry? Whether someone believes the word neocon is appropriate or not is irrelevant, the fact is that there are far-right radicals (I usually call them neocons, but not to offend anyone) running the country, and the worst part is that they're all hypocrites. Even if neo-hippies do exist, and i imagine that they do, at least they're not running the country, and at least they're not hypocrites.
Very few politicians would qualify. But then, that's kinda the point: very few politicians qualify as "neocons" too. Both labels apply to extremists who don't really exist in real politics. Ie, Rush Limbaugh isn't a politician and will never be one. This "journalist" (in quotes because real journalist report news - not their own opinions) quoted in the OP isn't one either.
If you think Bush is that far to the right, you may be in for a real scare in 3 years: Bush is a poodle.
Eh --- Hemmingway wrote to a fourth or fifth grade reading level. "Literacy" is a tough one to define: how many words in the English language, somewhere between half million and a million depending upon how much slang and how many arcane technical terms you want to include, and the average vocabulary is measured in single digit thousands (let's Google --- back in a moment)
--- smite me with "The Oxford" --- 10s of thousands for "educated." Shall we include constraints that words be used properly, spelled properly, declined and conjugated properly, chosen appropriately for intended audiences, recognized in all typefaces and scripts from the past two or three centuries, understood as to intent when misused by others, and on, and on, and on ----. Hit a city council meeting, a school board meeting, public hearings on bills at your state legislature, and tell me, under oath, that you understand every word spoken, or presented in the printed summaries of meeting/hearing agendas.
"Cat" for instance: how many uses for this single syllable? If I say "cat cracker," and the topic is "pet engineering," do you have any idea yet what I'm discussing? We need context in which to decide whether it's a kitty treat and it's proper preparation, or many millions of dollars worth of refinery equipment. There aren't a whole lot of international standards for the qualities discussed and quantitatively compared in the article, and it's pure unadulterated, pettifogging, disingenuous, dissembling codswollop on the part of the columnist who wrote the article to present any of the "statistics" as reproducible fact.
That literacy stat is my favorite because not only does it imply that 97% literacy is a bad thing, it ignores the fact that there are no internationally recognized standards for calculating it and the fact that the US Census no longer tracks it. So its not just misleading, useless, and irrelevant to say that we're 49th in literacy, its also wrong. Within the margin of error of such stats, pretty much every developed nation is tied for first!
HERE are full stats. Of particular entertainment value are the countries listed with 100% literacy.
HERE is a 1959 census report on literacy in the US. The gist is that literacy is not a relevant measure of education in a developed country. Educational attainment is what matters.
Thats why the census no longer tracks it and thus our percentage is forever fixed at 97%. Interesting to note, though - that report shows it at 97.8% (in 1959!). I refuse to accept that it has gone down since then. So where does this ubiquitous 97% come from?
I take it you welcome someone further right than Bush?
Separate names with a comma.