dssdfsdfsdfsdfsdf

Starting Back Softly

Medved makes a great case here in that rag known for accompanying cheap continental breakfasts at cheaper hotels, but it has some good insights.

In our bitterly polarized society, liberals and conservatives not only argue over the right approaches for public policy but also do battle over which ideology more reliably produces private happiness. The left recently embraced an academic study that says right-wingers were whiny kids who grew into insecure adults, while conservatives trumpeted surveys showing that it's self-identified liberals who count as self-pitying and pessimistic.

Who's winning 'Happiness Wars'?

Lordy, Lordy . . . . .I'M BACK

Has it been that long?

Study Ties Political Leanings to Hidden Biases

WOW, THAT'S SHOCKING. YOU MEAN, WE HAVE BIASES THAT CONTROL THE WAY WE THINK? THAT'S OUTSTANDING.

Though it kind of brings up an old joke in my mind, say starting with, how many Berkley scientists does it take to . . . . . .(state the obvious)

Without going into too much detail about this preposterous story, however, does anyone want to take a look and maybe point out just one fo its ridiculous aspects.

big dumb jackass

god, how i love ted rall. he reminds me fondly of the hours and dollars i wasted in an "elite" ivy grad school. i do miss my colleagues the most. watching them wax hither and thither on all sorts of subjuects, viewing some thing in reality and wondering if it would work in theory. what most amuses me though, and rall is the greatest exponent of this technique, is the liberal's insistence on categorizing a certain type of behavior as rotten and then blithely acting in the same way. for example, "there is no such thing as a conservative intellectual". he proclaims from on high a magnificent commandment, ostensibly noting that conservatives are of closed mind, not thoughtful, and incapable of discerning truth through theory. however, it is exactly this type of dogmatic thinking that he condemsn with such a statement. certainly, the hypocrisy should be easy for the effete to see, and i suspect it is. however, liberals give themselves a pass, because they fight for the righteous commandments of the liberal way - - inclusiveness, equality, redistribution . . . yadda yadda. yet, when rall speaks of the traditions of small l liberalism, he neglects to accurately describe what that actually means. it is in now way inherently progressive, as he claims, but rest on the merits of plurality. that all ideas compete openly. might it be that conservative ideas fall into that pantheon. of course they do, but rall wants them eliminated from academic debate. because, like so many other bottom feeders, he wants to prey on the young and impressionable, knowing full well that most of his ideas are without merit and will poorly penetrate the keen minds of those with experience. the pussy's not bad either.

THE MOST INTELLIGENT THING EVER SAID

People serious about reducing the role of money in politics should be serious about reducing the role of politics in distributing money

Cockalorum . . . .

1.A little man with an unduly high opinion of himself.
2.Boastful talk; braggadocio.

for context read this . . .DON'T TRUST SOLDIERS UNDER 30

"Congress ought to raise the minimum age of military service to at least 30. Not only do older recruits make better soldiers--ask any officer--they'll be more realistic veterans after the fighting ends."

Cowardice??? Probably . . .

But, it may just be a simple god complex. That's indicative of an IVY LEAGUE pedigree, right? I mean, I saw it quite a bit during my tenure. I am glad it didn't take. This author also displays another strange tendency characteristic of IL "geniuses" . . . ignoring the obvious, mistating the genuous, and embracing the tenuous, as long as it results in the desired theoretical outcome.

I am sure our friend here is in wonderful shape after decades of abstaining from meat products, devouring wheat grass shakes, and lifting heavy mirrors to enjoy his own glorious visage, but a simple fact of life for most of us is that we are in our best shape in our late teens and early twenties. Ever notice you don't see a lot of 30 year old ball players? That's because their bodies can't heal properly anymore. It may be possible that combat is as strenuous as basketball or tennis.How wonderful he is to give us some insight on his mind.

How he longed to be a big fish in a little pond. However, as is often the case with such cockalorums, he failed to see beyond his own naivete. Had he enlisted with the grunts, he would soon have found that there is another pool of candidates that the armed services choose from. In fact, the line is quite long to enter the service academies and it is doubtful that he would have passed their rigorous criteria. Indeed, his AFQT was like a, well an ivy league engineer applyint to Microsoft through the mail room. I wonder if he would be so bold to disparage the many common Americans who ssek work through the mail room.

But, let me not criticize so much. Let's all just marvel at his wit and cunning. That part where he discovered in the "hidden text" of his enlistment contract that the army could send him anywhere . . . . that was just sheer brilliance. Imagine all of the other dopes that signed up thinking the Army was only stationed in Peoria. This author sure wasn't one of "the idiots" that day.

So, Bravo, Bravo to you, my cowardly friend. And your bs lies. I am sure you have sat at night, whatever of your little manhood in hand, dreaming that someone that you were the most brilliant person they had ever met, and also oh so brave and cunning. I just hope that someday, when that little spot on your sheets dries, you can come down to earth and see what life could truly mean by following the examples of those "idiot" kids who will someday have extraordinary tales to tell, rather than griping twenty years later that they "could've been" - - -Ivy League degree, cubicles, personalized coffee mugs and all.

Sentimentality, Wasted

In a monumental tribute to bad taste and the exploitation of a parent's tragic misunderstanding, the Washington Post has outdone itself with this opinion today, "A Life, Wasted".

The piece was written by Paul Schroeder managing director of a trade development firm in Cleveland, and the unfortunate father of a slain U.S. Marine, Lance Corporal Edward "Augie" Schroeder II. Certainly Mr, Schroeder's loss tugs at the heart strings of most of us; Americans, mothers, fathers, brothers and sisters. And his involvement, as the Post presents it, as a begrieved and concerned average American father, seems legitimate enough. Unless, of course, you know what the Post should tell you, but rarely ever does in their daily maelstrom of contempt for the Bush administration.

Paul Schroeder is no average American, at least in the sense that most average Americans would consider themselves average, which is not necessarily what the Post associates with average. He was, in fact, Ohio's first trade liaison to China, serving at the behest of former Governor Richard Celeste, who was famous for being appointed as the Director of the Peace Corps by Jimmy Carter, becoming embroiled in his father's fraudulent bankruptcy declaration, nearly being indicted with a great many of his political appointees, and approving his wife's "informal" judicial litmus test, demanding that any judge appointed must be in favor of abortion on demand. (For all this, he was later appointed by Bill Clinton as ambassador to India.)

Mr. Schroeder's life's work and major passion, China, undoubtedly often put him at odds with many policies of the Bush administration. It is no wonder that the loss of his child would further exacerbate any animosity and lead to the heart-felt and well-intentioned, if not well thought out condemnation of the war in Iraq.

Indeed, Mr. Schroeder is bitter and angry, as he should be. The fault does not lie in his grief, but in the Post's contemptuous exploitation of it. Even if we pardon their deception in passing Mr. Schroeder off as an unbiased man, far from the realm of politics, noble in his grief, how can we pardon the publication of Mr Schroeder's assertions, made in the deepest throngs of devout sadness, which come across as immutable laws of physics yet derive from nothing more than mere opinion:

Though it hurts, I believe that his death -- and that of the other Americans who have died in Iraq -- was a waste. They were wasted in a belief that democracy would grow simply by removing a dictator -- a careless misunderstanding of what democracy requires. They were wasted by not sending enough troops to do the job needed in the resulting occupation -- a careless disregard for professional military counsel.

Once again, the Post has handed us emotive speculation when we need facts and perspective. All war is hard. All wars create death. In every war since the beginning of time, commanders and soldiers in the field have groused about a lack of men, materials, and ammunition. Patton was famous for it in WWII, but it didn't stop him from plowing across Europe and it hasn't stopped our recent military success in Iraq. That is not to disregard the personal scarifices of the fallen and their families, but in context, and with perspective, Iraq has been far less lethal than any previous war.

Again, the restoration of Europe to political order and the creation of democracy in Japan was not an easy task. Many young Americans persihed on far away shores after the the greatest military conflicts had subsided. But the job still got done even as papers like the Post lamented the "exorbinant" costs and claimed the Marshall Plan would never succeed.