James Lileks smacks down Professor Bainbridge and I'm inclined to agree with Lileks, but that might just be because he writes better. Or it might be that elitist snobs grate on my last Midwestern nerve. Here's the lovely retort:
Yes, they're all as dumb as sacks of soybeans. But Iowa is a lovely place, and as gratifying as it feels to micturate all over the central states, they have some good points. Now that the airplanes and the postal service have extended their reach to the inner reaches of the American continent, all manner of books and periodicals are available. The women are frequently seen in the smartest of smocks, and the men in the barber shops discourse on the latest advances in wireless telephony and moustache waxes. To the amazement of many visitors from Cali-fornia, large sections of the urban areas are not characterized by poverty and gang violence, the freeways move at a speed that many fear will bruise the internal organs, and houses of great size and comfort can be had for surprising sums of money. You can live here for $375,000.And here's part of the pithy post that prompted it:
Or, of course, you could move to San Jose, and live here for a little more. And you'd be near cutting-edge technology production, too.
How is it that we persist in allowing these unrepresentative, yahoo infested, pissant states decide who gets to run for President? The notion that the Ames straw poll matters would be preposterous were it not so pernicious.Yahoo infested? Surely the good Professor is ignoring Paris Hilton and Tom Cruise in his estimation of Californian superiority. Please. California is about to implode economically, debt-wise, the housing market will crash (again), the highways are choked, and at any moment the whole state could drop into the sea should Saint Andreas get moody. I'm not sure we want to rely on California to decide our fate.
What do you think? Would you prefer Iowans or Californians deciding your Presidential fate?