Cynical Nation

But, then, conscientious liberals cannot enjoy automobiles because there is global warming to worry about.

Let me assure you that does not apply in all cases. I have a great new sports car and I had no problem getting rid of my old car with the Kerry-Edwards sticker.

Republicans are happier than Democrats

Thats probably true. It is also true that the more intelligent you are, the more difficult it is to be happy. Thats well established and known. You can draw your own conclusions :)

"Thats probably true. It is also true that the more intelligent you are, the more difficult it is to be happy. Thats well established and known. You can draw your own conclusions :)" (Blue Wind)

Actually that's generally untrue, as most successful business people tend to be more Conservative than not. They look forward to challenges as opportunities.

Liberals tend to predominate in Communications, journalism and teaching, and many tend to look at new challenges as potential disasters.

Of course, teaching, journalism and communications programs are all degrees one can get with a course load heavy in the less demanding Liberal Arts courses and with a minimum of math and the hard sciences. The students who major in those areas, are generally (generally, not in all cases) among the least competitive of all College applicants.

Think about it.

It's true.

P.S. I'm not subscribing to the view that Liberals are universally dumber (Tom Sowell), unhappier (George Will) or patholgical (Mike Savage), there are many who merely believe a lot of things that just aren't so.

There are also an awful lot who accept Liberlism as a religious dogma and thus view any opposition as "heresy" and justification for the most absurd kind of personal attack - those folks are generally miserable people, who maintain a consistently negative outlook on nearly all things. They are generally rather shortsighted, and "concrete" (taking everything literally, without seeing analogy, irony or humor) which comes across as "dumb" within the confines of a general discussion.

White House and Congress Trade Away American Security

The United Arab Emirates ports management deal finally exposes our economic and trade policies for what they are: a government's pursuit of money (for a select few) over the interests of most Americans.

The ports management deal is not an isolated mistake. Far worse has happened, but perhaps nothing as nakedly blatant. For example, how does it benefit Americans when:

Drug companies are allowed to write a new Medicare prescription drug benefit that keeps prices artificially high for seniors by forbidding government-negotiated prices based on volume?
The American-funded Import/Export Bank subsidizes Chinese nuclear power development? Is it possible we are not sending enough money to Communist China?
Congress has repeatedly neglected our national and economic security:

The majority of our oil comes from abroad, much of that from countries with unstable, unfriendly populations
The majority of our computer equipment is manufactured overseas
The majority of our food in imported from foreign countries
Over two-thirds of the products sold in major retailers is imported from countries like Communist China and Mexico
Our soaring budget deficit leaves deeply indebted to foreign countries like Communist China, to whom we owe $1 trillion
Illegal immigration is accepted—and legal immigration is abused—to secure cheap labor (exposing us to unknown security risks)
Congress sees the results of these unhealthy dependencies (declining American wages, record trade and budget deficits, national security vulnerabilities) and just pours fuel on the fire. It passed CAFTA after NAFTA. It refused to crack down on widespread illegal Chinese trade practices by threatening to withdraw from the World Trade Organization (WTO).

Most in Congress have demonstrated that they will not change course; they are simply too indebted to big-money campaign donors and lobbyists. We must replace them.

John, I'm with you on the illegal immigration (especially closing our southern border), even to the point of reducing overall immigration quite drastically.

I may even agree somewhat on Free Trade, I prefer "Fair Trade" - free trade between partners that treat each other equally. China, Japan and many other "trading partners" tariff our goods and don't allow us anywhere near the access they have here.

That problem is a bi-partisan one. Certaqinly most Republicans favor Free Trade and see cheap labor as a good thing overall, but it was a Democrat controlled Congress that expanded GATT in 1991 and a Democratic Congress, with a Democrat in the WH that passed NAFTA in January of 1994.

You're also right about our dependence on foreign oil. We currently get about 60% of our oil from foreign sources.

The problem is an economic one, but not the one that conspiracy theorists, who wrongly think that "some Americans are selling out the rest of us" (that's just NOT so), think it is. It's that so long as foreign oil remained cheap, there was ZERO incentive for us to seek alternative sources of energy.

If the market price for oil suddenly rose to $100/barrel, then the gasification of coal, taking oil from both oil sands and shale oil, which the U.S. and Canada have in incredible abundance would become competitive.

Up until recently (the past few years) the world market price for OPEC oil was cheap and relatively stable. With the turmoil in the Mid-East, the mounting problems in Africa (Nigeria, etc) and the rise of thuggish, aqnti-American dictators, like Hugo Chavez in Venezuela, the world oil market has become increasingly unstable, thus the heavy push for alternative forms of energy like E85, which can be made from corn and saw grass, among other cheap and available sources.

E85 may one day soon become a cheaper, cleaner and more readily avaiable source of energy than petroleum.

But the hysteria over Dubai Ports World purchasing the ports servicing contract, with its takeover of the British company POSN Co., is not backed by prevailing facts.

Did you know that we trust the UAE to inspect foreign containers in offshore ports bound for U.S. ports? Did you know that many of our Navy's fleet routinely anchor in the harbor around Dubai and that the kingdom of Dubai has contracted with the U.S. Navy to do some basic service maintenance on the ships in that fleet?

The UAE has been an American Allie on the current war on terrorism since 9/11.

The contract should be openly and fairly vetted, but NOT with the view that all Arab/Muslim countries are our enemy, for that is simply not the case at this point.

http://www.comedycentral.com/sitewide/media_player/play.jhtml?itemId=59389

Unhappy liberals...

I don't know; I suppose you can be liberal and also be unhappy, but is it related?

It seems to me that the liberal world-view is basically a happy one. It presupposes that people are generally good and that people should be treated with kindness.

The conservative world-view on the other hand is one that is founded on fear and anger. It assumes that those that aren't hugely successful are lazy and out to steal you wealth.

Liberalism is a complicated and exacting, not to say grim and scolding, creed. And not one conducive to happiness.

Liberalism is complicated and exacting. Anything that takes thought usually is.

Conservatism is simple and undemanding. All you need to do is follow the leader.

Actually that's generally untrue, as most successful business people tend to be more Conservative than not. They look forward to challenges as opportunities.(JMK)

Do you have any evidence to back that up? Or is it just an idea you have? Bill Gates is a pretty successful businessman and he's also pretty liberal. The fact is that there are just as many liberal people in business as there are conservative - just like everywhere else.

Liberals tend to predominate in Communications, journalism and teaching, and many tend to look at new challenges as potential disasters. (JMK)

Again the first part is nothing more than a stereotype, the part about new challenges is just hyperbole. Do you have any evidence to support it?

P.S. I'm not subscribing to the view that Liberals are universally dumber (Tom Sowell), unhappier (George Will) or patholgical (Mike Savage), there are many who merely believe a lot of things that just aren't so.(JMK)

Neither liberals or conservatives as a whole are universally dumber as a whole. Both sides have intelligent people as well as dullards. It's ironic really, conservatives used to complain about liberals generalizing about how stupid they are - but apparently it's ok when the shoe is on the right foot.

There are also an awful lot who accept Liberlism as a religious dogma and thus view any opposition as "heresy" and justification for the most absurd kind of personal attack - those folks are generally miserable people, who maintain a consistently negative outlook on nearly all things. They are generally rather shortsighted, and "concrete" (taking everything literally, without seeing analogy, irony or humor) which comes across as "dumb" within the confines of a general discussion. (JMK)

Or you could as easily have said:

There are also an awful lot who accept Conservatism as a religious dogma and thus view any opposition as "heresy" and justification for the most absurd kind of personal attack - those folks are generally miserable people, who maintain a consistently negative outlook on nearly all things. They are generally rather shortsighted, and "concrete" (taking everything literally, without seeing analogy, irony or humor) which comes across as "dumb" within the confines of a general discussion.

Gee works either way, and either way it's a generalization.

> It seems to me that the liberal world-view is basically a happy one. It presupposes that people are generally good and that people should be treated with kindness.

Wouldn't such a worldview lend itself to frequent disappointments?

"Liberals tend to predominate in Communications, journalism and teaching, and many tend to look at new challenges as potential disasters.

Of course, teaching, journalism and communications programs are all degrees one can get with a course load heavy in the less demanding Liberal Arts courses and with a minimum of math and the hard sciences. The students who major in those areas, are generally (generally, not in all cases) among the least competitive of all College applicants." (JMK)

"Again the first part is nothing more than a stereotype, the part about new challenges is just hyperbole. Do you have any evidence to support it?" (GZ)

Sure, over 80% of the MSM press and newsmedia are registered Democrats. That's a fact. Those in the press who've majored in journalism and communications are, like education majors, generally among the least competitive College applicants, according to researchers like Thomas Sowell, whose been sounding the alarm on the sad state of American teaching & education for decades.

It's also a fact that more business-people than not, tend to be more "Market oriented," generally a Conservative viewpoint.

Such folks tend to trust that people are generally better left to their own devices, that liberty alone is enough for people to succeed. Certainly not ALL people, but many.

It's undeniable that market driven economies work far better than government managed ones. In fact, I can think of few government directed ones (Hitler's & Musollini's worked for a time, though they worked as semi-Corporatist, and NOT fully government directed economies) that have worked well at all.

As to the Conservative dogmatists, I've seen few.

Even such hardcore Conservative icons as Pat Buchanan and the hugely egotistical Rush Limbaugh tend to respond to critics with humor, unlike their Liberal counterparts. I've rarely seen a Rhodes, Franken or Moore respond to their critics and opponents with humor, or even good nature.

Bottomline, Liberals tend to see people as a collection of victims, Conservatives tend to see people as resilient beings who need only liberty (personal responsibility) and the opportunities that brings to thrive.

I think that's the basis for their different perceptions. Even if the Conservative view (that people only need liberty, not government's help) were wrong (it could be, but I don't see any evidence that it is), they'd still be "happier for being more hopeful, while Liberals, who view people as a collection of various victims, even if that view is correct (it could be, but I see no evidence that it is), would tend to be more unhappy...and also more dogmatic, believing that only a cruel and heartless person could perceive the world differently than themselves.

I do believe that THAT is the perceptual basis for the dicrepancies in both how the two ideologies view the world & each other and why one tends to be more hopeful/happy and the other more pessimistic/unhappy.

> It seems to me that the liberal world-view is basically a happy one. It presupposes that people are generally good and that people should be treated with kindness.

Wouldn't such a worldview lend itself to frequent disappointments?

Yes and no.

Yes, in as much as there would many times when people would not act as you would hope. But this doesn't mean you shouldn't expect people to be good.

No, because people tend to live up to expectations. If you expect someone to act properly there is an increased chance that they will. When you expect someone to be lazy/dishonest/criminal I believe they are more likely to be just that.

This is a true liberal point of view, at least I think so, and a Christian point of view as well; not unlike the Golden Rule.

Then again, this could just be my inner liberal talking...

I've rarely seen a Rhodes, Franken or Moore respond to their critics and opponents with humor, or even good nature.

Rhodes has a sense of humor, but I'll agree that it doesn't extend to her opinions of folks on the Right.

From what little I've seen Moore is a bit like Rhodes, but not quite as bad.

Franken on the other hand is good natured and has a terrific sense of humor.

Bottomline, Liberals tend to see people as a collection of victims

Close, but no cigar. Liberals see people, particularly the less powerful and less influential, as potential victims. The whole idea is to make sure everyone is treated fairly and isn't victimized.

"Liberals see people, particularly the less powerful and less influential, as potential victims. The whole idea is to make sure everyone is treated fairly and isn't victimized." (Bob)

Bob that may well be your view, your version of Liberalism, and a number of other individuals as well, GZ comes to mind as one, but the prevailing viewpoint of the most visible "liberal organs" from the NY Times, to AAR, to MoveOn.org, is that "poor people are victims of some sort of discrimination, either in education or access, that working people are victims of the businesses that employ them and criminal predators are 'victims of society.' " Sure, that view is more extreme than the one you hold, but that has increasingly become the "mainstream" of modern American Liberalism.

Those who subscribe to THAT particular view, are probably much more pessimistic in outlook, certainly more so than those who believe that Liberty is the primary need for most people and that most people can thrive, so long as they aren't unduly burdened by government action.

"Fairness" itself is a very nebulous term.

For one person, such as myself, say, "fairness" might mean merely "equality before the law" & "equal access to educational and employment opportunities" and such a person might well argue that "disparate impact." or "equality of reult/outcome" is not, in any way, encompassed by that definition of "fairness."

Others may well argue that, "If there was anything close to true equality of opportunity, we should expect something close to an equality of result."

I do not and have not ever believed that to be the case and that would probably be a major "bone of contention" between many Liberals and myself.

As I said, I don't believe the happiness/unhappiness theory in its entirety because people tend to find happiness where they will. Some people need to feel like the underdog fighting against incredible odds and are probably "happier," at least in their own way, doing that, then they otherwise might be.

Others, like yourself, who define yourself as "Liberal," simply define that term and viewpoint somewhat differently than the more extreme elements, like the folks at the NY Times, AAR, etc do.

Extremism isn't a virtue. There's an element of truth to both sides of the political debate. I wish the folks nearer the middle would take back control of the debate because then there might be room for a little compromise and maybe some progress.

I think we both agree that things could be better.

I for one would be willing to try out a conservative approach to solving a problem, even if I don't agree with it, to test it and see if it works. And if it doesn't I would hope that you (both the personal and collective conservative you) would be willing to try the liberal approach in turn.

That's very reasonable Bob.

The "political debate," such as it is today, seems driven by maybe 20% of the population, maybe even significantly less.

It's easy to forget that the largest segment of the population, by far, is the 80+% who read neither the NY Times, nor the WSJ and watch "Survivor" and other such TV fare rather than 60 Minutes, Dateline, FoxNews or CNN and use their computers primarily, if not solely, for chat rooms and porn.

Those are the people both sides seem intent on reaching with 10 second sound bytes and looking to sway the general mood of such voters - "good times" or "bad times," as perception matters more than any actual reality does.

And Hey! That makes sense, since it's that group, as disengaged as many of them may be, who really control elections, as their size alone swamps both commited sides of the political spectrum.