Posted by Lurch on November 28, 2006 • Comments (6)Permalink

This sweet little bit is lifted in its entirety from Tom Tomorrow's Modern World:

Anyone who’s spent any time reading right wing blogs already understood this to be true:

Lohse, a social work master’s student at Southern Connecticut State University, says he has proven what many progressives have probably suspected for years: a direct link between mental illness and support for President Bush.

Lohse says his study is no joke. The thesis draws on a survey of 69 psychiatric outpatients in three Connecticut locations during the 2004 presidential election. Lohse’s study, backed by SCSU Psychology professor Jaak Rakfeldt and statistician Misty Ginacola, found a correlation between the severity of a person’s psychosis and their preferences for president: The more psychotic the voter, the more likely they were to vote for Bush.

But before you go thinking all your conservative friends are psychotic, listen to Lohse’s explanation.

“Our study shows that psychotic patients prefer an authoritative leader,” Lohse says. “If your world is very mixed up, there’s something very comforting about someone telling you, ‘This is how it’s going to be.’”

The study was an advocacy project of sorts, designed to register mentally ill voters and encourage them to go to the polls, Lohse explains. The Bush trend was revealed later on.

The study used Modified General Assessment Functioning, or MGAF, a 100-point scale that measures the functioning of disabled patients. A second scale, developed by Rakfeldt, was also used. Knowledge of current issues, government and politics were assessed on a 12-item scale devised by the study authors.

“Bush supporters had significantly less knowledge about current issues, government and politics than those who supported Kerry,” the study says.

If there are no questions, class is dismissed for the day.


Posted by: deuddersun at November 28, 2006 10:23 PM

Noooooooooooooow I finaly unnerstan'!

Good post.


Posted by: Chuck Cliff at November 29, 2006 12:07 AM

Jeeze, I guess this means I'll have to change my stage name. Hmmn, if I can't be CrazyBird, what do I choose? LazyBird? Ah! -- NastyBird!

Serious (almost), this is kind of obvious -- didn't W. Reich have a thing about the similarity between the screw/hang-ups of what he called red- and black-facists?

I haven't seen any statistics, but it seems like there are a disproportionate amount of wrongwingers, at least among their public figures who have strange sexuality patterns -- as they themselves define such -- myself I could care less what they do!

Posted by: George at November 29, 2006 03:50 AM

Re a blog you wrote on Pen and Sword. You are wrong about LTC Peters in Germany for 10 years. Not commom, but I knew NCO's who had done it longer. I also met Peters in Germany in 1st Armored Division ~1985. He was as I remember a 1st Lt. in military intelligence. Seemed pretty sharp at the time. But then you probably don't care as that would not fit your preconceived notions......

Posted by: Mike at November 29, 2006 08:44 AM

Lurch - love this post and will read the link article. This confirms some casual observations that include my little gang of mil retirees in the office. The Bush supporters are the ones who assiduously follow American Idol and can recount every play of the weekend's ball games. They also seem remarkably ignorant of history, current events and political processes. My two cents and 783 days to go. Mike

Posted by: Lurch at November 29, 2006 10:52 AM

Thank you for reading our efforts here, George, and commenting. However, I don't post on Pen & Sword. That fine blog is the personal blog of Jeff Huber, who is a member of our community and occasionally posts here as well. I did report Mr Peters' wiki biography once on P&S, though, in a comment.

We have discussed Mr Peters twice, here and here.
and in both cases I riffed off of others' posts on him.

Thank you for correcting my thoughts on the possiblity of homesteading in Germany. I have no doubt he was sharp then. My issue with him rises solely from what I see as his subscription to the ludicrous theories of PNAC and their failed strategy for defending Israel in the Middle East. I also take exception to his unwillingness to admit to reality in Iraq.

I don't have too many preconceived notions, and my opinions on Messers Bu$h, Cheney, Rumsfeld et al and the merry eleves of PNAC are based solely upon empirical evidence.

Posted by: Lurch at November 29, 2006 10:57 AM

Thanks for the commentary, Mike, as always. Please give my best wishes to your fellow retirees, and why aren't they reading me, Fixer and Gordon, and Jeff Huber every day? 782 and a wake up isn't quite S H O R T !! but we're all looking forward to being two digit midgets.

Post a comment

Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)

» Fixer
» Terry
» Jeff
» Bulldog
» Lurch
» Barndog
» Alternate Brain
» American Hajii
» All Spin Zone
» Bruce Webb
» Dark Bilious Vapors
» Daily Kos
» Meanderthal
» Nitpicker
» One Pissed Off Vet
» The Otter Side
» Pen and Sword
» Rob's Blog
» Today in Iraq
» Why Now?

» AmericaBlog
» Atrios
» Firedoglake
» Jesus General
» Liberal Avenger
» Mark Kleiman
» Rising Hegemon
» Rude Pundit
» Skippy
» Sullywatch
» Think Progress
» TBogg
» Uggabugga
» Wolcott
design by m2 web studios

Powered by
Movable Type 3.121