It's official, we be dum.

[AtticaFlinch]

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-10-04/americas-smartest-cities---from-first-to-worst?cmpid=p_yahoo

Tied for 46 out of 55, we still beat Dallas and San Antonio, but...

Daily Beast IQ Score: 66

Houston hosts many of the world’s largest energy corporations and NASA, but the number of postsecondary institutions for a city this size is abysmal

I guess the Daily Beast hasn't been informed about all those medical schools over in the TMC.

[KimberlySayWhat]

I was shocked to see that they actually allowed a southern city at number one.

[barracuda]

The ranking is dumb. Who buys *new* books from brick-and-mortar bookshops anymore?

[sevfiv]

Hmm...

Well, for downright education numbers for large cities we don't seem to be too far off (though numbers are kinda low all around):

2000 Census, population 25 years and older

New York

High School graduates or equivalent: 24.4%

High school graduate or higher: 72.3%

Bachelor's degree or higher: 27.4%

Graduate or professional degree: 11.6%

Los Angeles

High School graduates or equivalent: 17.4%

High school graduate or higher: 66.6%

Bachelor's degree or higher: 25.5%

Graduate or professional degree: 9.1%

Chicago

High School graduates or equivalent: 23%

High school graduate or higher: 71.8%

Bachelor's degree or higher: 25.5%

Graduate or professional degree: 10%

Houston

High School graduates or equivalent: 20.4%

High school graduate or higher: 70.4%

Bachelor's degree or higher: 27%

Graduate or professional degree: 9.7%

Phoenix

High School graduates or equivalent: 22.9%

High school graduate or higher: 76.6%

Bachelor's degree or higher: 22.7%

Graduate or professional degree: 7.6%

Philadelphia

High School graduates or equivalent: 33.3%

High school graduate or higher: 71.2%

Bachelor's degree or higher: 17.9%

Graduate or professional degree: 7.5%

San Antonio

High School graduates or equivalent: 24.2%

High school graduate or higher: 75.1%

Bachelor's degree or higher: 21.6%

Graduate or professional degree: 7.9%

[LTAWACS]

This is another one of those idiotic survey things much like the one used to det we are the fattest city.

[editor]

The ranking is dumb. Who buys *new* books from brick-and-mortar bookshops anymore?

People who want to read new stuff and don't want to wait for an e-version to come out?

[LTAWACS]

People who want to read new stuff and don't want to wait for an e-version to come out?

What if I buy my books from ebay and such?

[AtticaFlinch]

People who want to read new stuff and don't want to wait for an e-version to come out?

I don't think this survey analyzed books bought at discount/used retailers like Half-Priced or any online retailers. Between Amazon and Half-Priced in the past year, I've probably bought between 30 and 40 books and have read at least 3/4 of them. Then, if you throw in the 15 to 20 library books I've read, I've read quite a bit in the past year. But, by the way this survey was run and weighted, since I bought zero books from a Barnes and Noble or a Borders, the most my individual IQ can be is 150, just 3/4 of the total 200 possible points.

I think smarter people don't pay full retail for their books. By attempting to quantify book purchases as a measure of intelligence, and then weighting it so heavily against the whole, this survey has proven to be the dumbest survey yet to denigrate Houston.

[barracuda]

People who want to read new stuff and don't want to wait for an e-version to come out?

The ranking doesn't account for new-book sales via amazon and other internet stores. It's also disingenuous for them to disregard the used book market, which is considerable in Houston as well as Dallas.

I don't think this survey analyzed books bought at discount/used retailers like Half-Priced or any online retailers. Between Amazon and Half-Priced in the past year, I've probably bought between 30 and 40 books and have read at least 3/4 of them. Then, if you throw in the 15 to 20 library books I've read, I've read quite a bit in the past year. But, by the way this survey was run and weighted, since I bought zero books from a Barnes and Noble or a Borders, the most my individual IQ can be is 150, just 3/4 of the total 200 possible points.

I think smarter people don't pay full retail for their books. By attempting to quantify book purchases as a measure of intelligence, and then weighting it so heavily against the whole, this survey has proven to be the dumbest survey yet to denigrate Houston.

Precisely.

[AtticaFlinch]

But a comparison with in-print figures supplied by publishers shows that the numbers are more likely to represent about 65%, even after unsold books and returns are deducted.

http://www.publisher...e/CA374063.html

It should also be noted these clowns at the Daily Beast are only measuring non-fiction book sales, and considering these are the latest non-fiction top ten numbers, I ... er... don't this this is any accurate measure of intelligence.

RankTitleAuthorPublisherPublication Date1True Compass: A Memoir (Hardcover)Edward M. Kennedy Hachette Book Group01-Sep-2009

2Where Men Win Glory: The Odyssey Of Pat Tillman (Hardcover)Jon Krakauer Random House01-Sep-2009

3What Happy Working Mothers Know: How New Findings In Positive Psychology Can Lead To A Healthy And Happy Work/Life Balance (Hardcover)Cathy L. Greenberg John Wiley & Sons01-Sep-2009

4Glenn Beck’s Common Sense: The Case Against An Out-Of-Control Government, Inspired By Thomas Paine (Trade Paperback)Glen Beck Simon & Schuster01-Jun-2009

5Mastering The Art Of French Cooking (Hardcover)Julia Child Random House01-Oct-2001

6Official Book Club Selection: A Memoir According To Kathy Griffin (Hardcover)Kathy Griffin Random House01-Sep-2009

7Culture Of Corruption: Obama And His Team Of Tax Cheats, Crooks, And Cronies (Hardcover)Michelle Malkin Perseus01-Aug-2009

8Guinness World Records 2010 (Hardcover)Guinness World Records Hachette Book Group01-Sep-2009

9The Total Money Makeover: A Proven Plan For Financial Fitness (Hardcover)Dave Ramsey Thomas Nelson, Inc.01-Feb-2007

10The Official SAT Study Guide, 2nd Edition (Trade Paperback)The College BoardMacmillan01-Jul-2009Source: Nielsen BookScan. Data does not include sales from Wal-Mart, Sam’s, BJ’s, or libraries.

http://en-us.nielsen.../rankings/books

Just look at some of the quality intelligence building books on that list... Wow. This survey is absolute crap. If reading an autobiography by Kathy Griffin, anything by Glenn Beck or a French cookbook marks someone as intelligent, then I choose "other."

Edit: Made the list readable.

[barracuda]

^ Glenn Beck and Michelle Malkin are considered nonfiction? That made me laugh pretty hard. Just about every word coming out of those two is fictitious.

[AtticaFlinch]

^ Glenn Beck and Michelle Malkin are considered nonfiction? That made me laugh pretty hard. Just about every word coming out of those two is fictitious.

Yep.

We have three pieces of political propaganda, two self-help books, two inconsequential celebrity biographies, one study guide, one book of useless facts and one cookbook. There are no books about science and no books about history.

[august948]

^ Glenn Beck and Michelle Malkin are considered nonfiction? That made me laugh pretty hard. Just about every word coming out of those two is fictitious.

It's good you've read all their books and checked all their facts and determined just about every word they write is fictitious.

You have read all their Beck's and Malkin's books, right? Otherwise we might think you are just blustering on based on something you heard someone say. We wouldn't want to think that, now would we?

[AtticaFlinch]

It's good you've read all their books and checked all their facts and determined just about every word they write is fictitious.

You have read all their Beck's and Malkin's books, right? Otherwise we might think you are just blustering on based on something you heard someone say. We wouldn't want to think that, now would we?

Guh... I'm not complaining because I'm probably the worst at it, but we can really turn anything into a political discussion here, can't we?

You call it bluster, and I call it a joke. Barracuda just so happened to beat the other side calling Ted Kennedy's memoirs fiction. Besides, I think the subtitle of Malkin's book says more than enough to the concern for veracity of her book: "Obama And His Team Of Tax Cheats, Crooks, And Cronies." And, I didn't read Beck's book either, but while I was at my grandfather's house a couple weekends ago, I saw it sitting on his coffee table and even picked it up. I read the back cover too, but I didn't read inside the book as I wasn't sure my system could handle all the self-righteous outrage the back cover promised. I think I'd either explode or I'd cry if I had to read anything else about the pitiable, unfair lot we've forced on rich white folks.

[Fringe]

Obviously all the smart people moved to Sugar Land. 

[AtticaFlinch]

Obviously all the smart people moved to Sugar Land.

All the Asians? They live off Bellaire and the Beltway too.

That would have been a much more fun stereotype to use as a rubric with this "smart" list. What percentage of your city is Asian? The higher your per capita Asian count, the higher your city's IQ!

[barracuda]

It's good you've read all their books and checked all their facts and determined just about every word they write is fictitious.

You have read all their Beck's and Malkin's books, right? Otherwise we might think you are just blustering on based on something you heard someone say. We wouldn't want to think that, now would we?

No, nor do I need to. The clownish behavior of those two is well documented.

[august948]

No, nor do I need to. The clownish behavior of those two is well documented.

Their behavior, especially Beck's, is undoubtedly clownish. But that doesn't make every word they write fictitious. If you've got a legitimate beef with everything they've said or wrote, then state your case and back it up. Otherwise take the hyperbole the chron boards.

[august948]

Guh... I'm not complaining because I'm probably the worst at it, but we can really turn anything into a political discussion here, can't we?

You call it bluster, and I call it a joke. Barracuda just so happened to beat the other side calling Ted Kennedy's memoirs fiction. Besides, I think the subtitle of Malkin's book says more than enough to the concern for veracity of her book: "Obama And His Team Of Tax Cheats, Crooks, And Cronies." And, I didn't read Beck's book either, but while I was at my grandfather's house a couple weekends ago, I saw it sitting on his coffee table and even picked it up. I read the back cover too, but I didn't read inside the book as I wasn't sure my system could handle all the self-righteous outrage the back cover promised. I think I'd either explode or I'd cry if I had to read anything else about the pitiable, unfair lot we've forced on rich white folks.

My objection isn't specifically political...it's factual. There's morethan enough of the "rah-rah, my side is best" garbage going around foreveryone. If you make an assertion, be prepared to back it up. Otherwise it's no different from what Hannity and Beck spout every day.

Off the top of my head, a case can be made for the "Tax Cheats" and "Cronies" part of the subtitle. "Crooks" is more subjective since I don't think even Obama's vetting team could have missed any convicted felons. I'll have to browse the book next time I see it at the bookstore and see what her backup is.

[barracuda]

Their behavior, especially Beck's, is undoubtedly clownish. But that doesn't make every word they write fictitious. If you've got a legitimate beef with everything they've said or wrote, then state your case and back it up. Otherwise take the hyperbole the chron boards.

I didn't say everything in Beck's and Malkin's books are lies. But I do see irony when a professional liar writes a nonfiction book.

[AtticaFlinch]

Their behavior, especially Beck's, is undoubtedly clownish. But that doesn't make every word they write fictitious. If you've got a legitimate beef with everything they've said or wrote, then state your case and back it up. Otherwise take the hyperbole the chron boards.

Yeah, but ten-to-one their fact-checkers are the least paid and most overworked person on their staffs. And, I'd bet they're too preoccupied with ensuring their bosses aren't writing anything too libelous to be concerned with the facts.

My objection isn't specifically political...it's factual. There's morethan enough of the "rah-rah, my side is best" garbage going around foreveryone. If you make an assertion, be prepared to back it up. Otherwise it's no different from what Hannity and Beck spout every day.

Well, we don't make a living off passing our biases on easily duped maroons. Just sayin'. The difference is pretty glaringly obvious, but whatevs.

Off the top of my head, a case can be made for the "Tax Cheats" and "Cronies" part of the subtitle. "Crooks" is more subjective since I don't think even Obama's vetting team could have missed any convicted felons. I'll have to browse the book next time I see it at the bookstore and see what her backup is.

"Cronies" and "tax cheats" are more than a little subjective as well. Ironic too, considering the legacy of the Bush administration who Malkin seems to have slavered all over.

[august948]

I didn't say everything in Beck's and Malkin's books are lies. But I do see irony when a professional liar writes a nonfiction book.

I believe your statement was "Just about every word coming out of those two is fictitious". That would make just about everything in their books lies also, wouldn't it? But, regardless of whether just about everything in their books are lies or just some things are, have you read through them so you can make that determination yourself or are you relying on someone else's opinion? If you've done your homework and thought it logically and come to the conclusion that Malkin and Beck are professional liars whose books are fictitious then that's one thing. If you've just jumped to conclusions based on hearsay and conjecture then that's quite another. Which is it?

[august948]

Yeah, but ten-to-one their fact-checkers are the least paid and most overworked person on their staffs. And, I'd bet they're too preoccupied with ensuring their bosses aren't writing anything too libelous to be concerned with the facts.

The staff fact-checkers may or may not be the least paid and most overworked people, but if they allow the facts to get too out of whack then they might end up in a libelous situation anyway.

Well, we don't make a living off passing our biases on easily duped maroons. Just sayin'. The difference is pretty glaringly obvious, but whatevs.

Indeed we don't. However, we also don't have the opportunity to rebut claims in real or near-real time with Beck, Malkin, et al so they can get away with much more buffoonery. On a board such as this, though, everyone has plenty of opportunity to rebut claims and ask for evidence so someone can make fatuous claims but they should also expect to be challenged. That's a pretty glaringly obvious difference to me.

"Cronies" and "tax cheats" are more than a little subjective as well. Ironic too, considering the legacy of the Bush administration who Malkin seems to have slavered all over.

Cronies and tax cheats are not too subjective unless you start playing around with definitions, a la Clinton and his "I did not have sex with that woman" statement. For balance though, Malkin may not have looked too closely at Bush and others, but I'm pretty sure I others did. Or were the bookstores not filled with anti-Bush books by various pundits during his term?

[ricco67]

One thing Beck does that others ON BOTH sides of thetalking heads is that he will call out stupidity when he sees it from the right or the left.

He actually went after Bush back in '05-'06 about quite a few of his policies while Limbaugh, Hannity, and others were still giving group hugs.

\uring the election seasons, he has consistantly had Republicans, Democrats AND Independents on his program and then dared every one of them to call out what their respective parties have done wrong.

Sorry, you can't get much more impartial than that.

Having read his book "An inconvienent book", he gave blistering comments on both sides of the global waming update. As far as I know, he hasn't made up his mind on the topic, but he was leaning that something IS happening, but that it isn't man made and brought scientists in from both sides to try to convince him.

After I have tried to listen to air america for several weeks, it was all they could do but blame every single bit of bad news on the Republican party and refused to acknowledge any differing viewpoints.

The only way to get to the truth on any topic is to listen to all sides of a debate and make your decision that the truth is somewhere in the middle.

To simply go down ideological lines in something you're for or against simply means you are a puppet of that particular party and that makes you no better than the talking heads you're accusing of being liars.

I'm a moderate conservative that throws stones at both sides, and if you believe everything I said is BS, then go join your friends in A Qaeda if you're unable to listen to an opposing view.

[AtticaFlinch]

I'm a moderate conservative that throws stones at both sides, and if you believe everything I said is BS, then go join your friends in A Qaeda if you're unable to listen to an opposing view.

So... if I think this opinion is BS I must have friends in "A Qaeda"?

Interesting. So... it really doesn't matter what I say, you're going to disagree with me if I disagree with you, and my reasons aren't important, as I'm simply a villain for disagreeing with you...

Edit: Just because you're willing to throw stones at your own people doesn't mean both sides have an equal number of reasons for stones to be thrown.

[AtticaFlinch]

The staff fact-checkers may or may not be the least paid and most overworked people, but if they allow the facts to get too out of whack then they might end up in a libelous situation anyway.

Not really. Not when it comes to politicians. There's a double-standard that exists with what can be said about politicians due to the backlash that would occur if a politician sued for libel, especially if said politician lost. It's considered bad form for politicians to sue for libel unless the error is way egregious. Writing for Journalism 1301.

Indeed we don't. However, we also don't have the opportunity to rebut claims in real or near-real time with Beck, Malkin, et al so they can get away with much more buffoonery. On a board such as this, though, everyone has plenty of opportunity to rebut claims and ask for evidence so someone can make fatuous claims but they should also expect to be challenged. That's a pretty glaringly obvious difference to me.

Sure, if the claim had been serious. Had Barracuda literally meant Beck's and Malkin's books were literally works of fiction that were literally misplaced on the non-fiction list, then sure, I can see why a literal challenge would be warranted. However, and (sigh) again, it's glaringly obvious it was a joke. It indicated wit, not a sharp political observation.

Cronies and tax cheats are not too subjective unless you start playing around with definitions, a la Clinton and his "I did not have sex with that woman" statement. For balance though, Malkin may not have looked too closely at Bush and others, but I'm pretty sure I others did. Or were the bookstores not filled with anti-Bush books by various pundits during his term?

Not really. Those are charged words and phrases. Tax cheats? Yeah, cheat is about as objective a word as there is. And, crony when used in a political context necessarily has negative implications. Look it up. Even Wikipedia agrees, and everybody knows Wikipedia is infallible.