Am I to understand that this article's point is that Barack Obama is dumber than Sarah Palin because she's self taught and he went to an Ivy League school?
The article says nothing about Palin or Obama, why bring that up? In any case, Sarah Palin graduated from the University of Idaho (after transferring around a few different schools).
The preceding rant is to be taken merely as a preface to something shorter and more aphoristic I wanted to say about commentary on the U.S. election. It has to do with the comparison that is made, usually by insinuation but often overtly -- throughout the mass media, and especially in the elitist mass media -- between the educational backgrounds of Barack Obama and Sarah Palin.
And prefaces are not content. One can agree with the preface and not the body of the argument.
I'm not going to argue. I give up. Logically the preface is part of the rest of the text. Problem is, there is no rest of the text. But I guess that doesn't matter. If the preface is supposed to lead to a political discussion, even if the preface is non-political, that makes the entire preface political.
I just wish I had such keen eyes. Without the author's last graph, who could have known the rest of his text was so political in nature?
This is still HN right?