Apparently these days writing a New York Times column requires little more than A) reporting the obvious and B) hurling insults about Dubya's intelligence. (Wait, was the previous sentence redundant? Hmm...)
Anyway, Nicholas Kristoff has taken it upon himself to set the record straight: "conspiracy theories and irrationality aren’t a black problem. They are an American problem." According to Kristoff, it's not just African-Americans who believe silly things like government creation of HIV to destroy the black community, or deliberately opening the levees to wipe New Orleans minorities off the map. Nope, apparently Americans of all colors think the government had a hand in the 9/11 attacks, and a majority of Americans do not believe in evolution.
As much as the Intelligent Independent wants to disbelieve Kristoff's statistics, they're probably fairly accurate. But we disagree with Kristoff's closing words: "Maybe, just maybe, this cycle has run its course, for the last seven years perhaps have discredited the anti-intellectualism movement. President Bush, after all, is the movement’s epitome — and its fruit."
Say what you want about Dubya's anti-intellectual tendencies; even after the man leaves office, I highly doubt the trend of blatant ignorance will subside anytime soon.
ON THE OTHER END of the intellectualism scale, the NY Times magazine ran a piece this weekend that looks at the phenomenon of dumping somebody because of the kinds of books they read. Instead of backwoods country-bumpkins thinking evolution is a scam, or White House country-bumpkins thinking evolution is a scam, we now examine yuppie intellectuals who cannot be with someone because they have never heard of Pushkin, who Wikipedia assures me is one of the greatest Russian poets ever to have lived. I've never read him. (Intelligent Independents know that you needn't have read Pushkin to be intelligent.) In fact, at the risk of sounding like a poor steward for this blog, I must admit that I too would have been dumped by the breathless girl in the opening paragraph.
I find it fairly pretentious that some people would reject others based on their taste in books. (NB: This appears to be more of a female hang-up, according to the article.) But I do understand that one's taste in books is often a proxy for deeper beliefs and compatibility issues -- such as the importance one places on reading in the first place.
For instance, the Intelligent Independent once dated a girl who was fun and perky and possessed many of the qualities prized by the Superficial Man. However, as you will see, the mental connection wasn't all there. One day in an online chat I engaged her in a dialog about her favorite book. Luckily for Intelligent Independent readers, her responses left me so shocked, so incredulous, that I saved that little snippet of chat for posterity. Now I will share it with you:
Intelligent Independent: what's your favorite book?That was the last time we spoke.
Lindsay: y
II: I'm trying to get to know you
II: We have little to talk about because we don't know each other
II: And we don't have a base of experiences to talk about
Lindsay: i dont read
II: I don't read either. But I have a favorite book. Have you ever read a book you enjoy?
Lindsay: no
II: You've got to be joking
Lindsay: nope
II: has everything you HAVE read been for class?
Lindsay: yes
II: and i take it none of that has been interesting. 1984?
Lindsay: whats 1984?
So in conclusion, rejecting someone based on their different taste in books? Pretentious and small-minded. Rejecting someone based on their complete ignorance of the written word? An intelligent move!
