Why Smart People are Liberals
Because they think they're perfect.
-
Tools:
From time to time, a study comes out showing that liberals are better educated, more intelligent, and generally all-round more successful people than conservatives. The liberal media loves to crow about this "proof" that they and their cocktail buddies really are the best and the brightest they always thought they were; conservatives grouse about leftist bias in media and academia and move on.
What neither side considers is that these studies may actually be right - but indicate something quite different from what they assume.
The Smartest Guy (or Girl) in the Room?
Set aside for a moment the question of liberal voters, and consider only the leaders of leftism - high officials of the Democratic party, media personalities and journalists, professors and administrators of major colleges, high-powered trial lawyers and union officials. Other than their political beliefs, what unites this group in similarity?
For the overwhelming majority, their formative years were spent in elite colleges. Bill Clinton went to Georgetown, Oxford University on a Rhodes Scholarship, and Yale Law School where he met his wife. Barack Obama reportedly attended Occidental College, Columbia University, and Harvard Law School. For some peculiar reason, though, not too many people remember knowing him there whereas Slick Willie cut rather a wide collegiate swath.
On down the list, virtually every major leftist is an alumnus of our finest non-technical educational institutions. The obvious rejoinder is to complain that our modern Ivy League indoctrinates its pupils in statist liberalism no matter what they come in believing, and that's true - Hillary worked for Barry Goldwater's campaign before a long stint in the Ivy League converted her to a fervent supporter of "Mr. Liberal" George McGovern.
As biased as they may be, it is a fact that our leading colleges are stuffed full of smart brains, both in the faculty and the student body. There's a reason they're considered the best, and not just by their own propaganda.
Is there something else that might induce these very, very bright kids to believe a philosophy that is false on its face, and which the lowliest ordinary worker can perceive to be untrue?
Yes, there is.
 |
| A diploma just as meaningful as Harvard's. |
The Humility of Failure
Every year at about this time, newspapers and magazines fill with guides as to how to get your kid into an elite college, the assumption being that an Ivy League degree is a surefire path to wealth and power. This isn't entirely true, but it certainly does improve the odds.
Given that every kid with half a brain or an ambitious parent is trying to get into Harvard, it follows that Harvard can be very, very, very picky as to who they let in. In fact, you almost have to be Ms. Perfect to get an admissions letter from the top institutions; the application packets of some of these high-school kids read more like a resume for Secretary of State.
Even the slightest glitch can doom your kids application, so the diligent parent moves heaven and earth to ensure there is not one. And that's the key:
These kids have never been allowed to experience personal failure.
Arrested for underage drinking? Mom and Dad beat the cops back to the police station with lawyer in tow. Didn't quite make honor roll one semester? An unscheduled parent-teacher conference, and Teacher wears some nice new jewelry next week. Not making it in Spanish class? A summer in Mexico should do the trick!
The hallmark of our current reigning elites of both parties, almost all veterans of our finest colleges, is that they assume that they are smart enough to run the world and tell everyone what to do.
Why? Because that's the way it's been their entire life.
The Unfailing Bureaucrat
Most of these people have spent the bulk of their career in government where there really is no such thing as failure. Bureaucrats never fail, they just didn't get enough taxpayer money. Politicians do lose elections, but generally because the other guy lied or the voters were too stupid to understand what was best for them.
The careers where conservatives often end up - business or the military - have no such cover. If your business goes bankrupt, you have failed and everyone, including yourself, knows it. If your brigade is defeated or has casualties, you have failed. Not one single businessman or military leader, ever, has led a career without the salutary experience of failure. In fact, military training is intentionally designed to cause failure so that future leaders will learn how to accept it, deal with it, and come back stronger to ultimate success.
Consider Donald Trump, one of America's most famous and successful businessmen, who's considering a run for President. He certainly acts full of himself and as arrogant as our politicians, but with him, it is merely an act. He viscerally knows he can fail: he very nearly did back in the early 90s when several of his companies went bankrupt and his own net worth was estimated as being many millions in the negative.
Yes, he's smart, and he knows it; but he doesn't think he's perfect. In order to have achieved what he has, he knows his limitations and he knows when to listen to dissenting advice - as every successful leader must, because it's impossible for any one person to know everything and to be right all the time.
How about our elites, the products of our elite colleges? Here's what a professor at Yale and Columbia has to say:
I’ve had many wonderful students at Yale and Columbia, bright, thoughtful, creative kids whom it’s been a pleasure to talk with and learn from. But most of them have seemed content to color within the lines that their education had marked out for them. Only a small minority have seen their education as part of a larger intellectual journey, have approached the work of the mind with a pilgrim soul...
The ability to engage in introspection, I put it to my students that day, is the essential precondition for living an intellectual life, and the essential precondition for introspection is solitude. They took this in for a second, and then one of them said, with a dawning sense of self-awareness, “So are you saying that we’re all just, like, really excellent sheep?”
Yes. If there's one phrase that describes our national elites and so-called leaders, it's "arrogant sheep." They all think alike, they all act alike. None of them could ever conceive of the possibility that they might be wrong or that "lesser people" might be right. Since they run the government, naturally the government should tell everyone what to do. After all, they are the government, and they know everything. Don't their diplomas say so?
In other words, their entire life experience is the very definition of statist liberalism: they are the best, and they do know better than everyone else, so it's only proper that they force everyone else to do what they say - for their own good of course. After all, they went to Harvard or Yale, where everyone knows only the smartest super-geniuses go - as they remind themselves every day.
People that smart couldn't ever be wrong - and if you disagree with them, then ipso facto, you are wrong by definition! How dare you question your betters, peasant? Shut up and get back in line!
Following Lambs to the Slaughter
That, perhaps, is why Sarah Palin is such an existential threat to our self-anointed rulers. It's also large part of why your humble correspondent finds her so appealing despite some misgivings.
Ms. Palin famously did not go to an elite college - she bounced around from second-rate institution to third-rate institution, doing such ostentatiously pedestrian things as playing basketball and winning beauty contests, getting a journalism degree, and working as a sports broadcaster. How much further from Hillary Clinton's formative years is it possible to get? How much closer is Sarah Palin to reality?
Yet Ms. Palin knows true success in a way that an Ivy Leaguer never can, because unlike our elites, everything Ms. Palin has ever received she has earned against ferocious opposition. Our elites may have earned their way into Harvard by hard work, toeing the line, and parental connections, but once in, they're in a club that no sin can get them kicked out of. People like Sarah Palin, as the old Eastern Airlines slogan had it, "have to earn their wings every day."
So they do - and in doing so, they come to know the limits of their own selves, of human nature, and of power in general. Our current elites recognize no limits to their own brilliance and wisdom, to the power of government, or to the obligation of lesser beings to do as they're told.
In their limitless arrogance and self-absorption, they're leading us off a cliff from which all their brainpower and fancy degrees cannot save them or us.
It will take an extraordinary ordinary person who understands reality and what really matters. Saving our nation requires a kind of reality-based person entirely absent from the Ivy League and almost entirely missing from our leadership elites for many decades - really, since Ronald Reagan.
Maybe that's why our country has been on a downhill slide - well, since the departure from this earth of Ronald Reagan. He never had a fancy degree and the elites hated him for it, but his firm grounding in reality made him the greatest president of the 20th century.
-
Tools:
What does Chinese history have to teach America that Joe Biden doesn't know?
Hi,
Your logic is rather flawed.. I'm a Liberal and I worked for everything that I have in life. My parents didn't pay for my college, nor did I go to an ivy league school. Right now, I'm making the choice between doing either my SECOND Bachelors or my first Masters degree. This is all on my own, while I'm working, not borrowing money from "mom and dad", and without sending my Spanish teachers to Mexico. So, it can't be the "Rich" argument that you're presenting as to why Liberals are more educated.
Let me turn this around on you..
Could it be that maybe we (liberals) have a higher personal value of education and more of a want to learn than Conservatives? You don't see Conservatives touting more funding for the public University system, do you?
The reason why I and many others on the left don't like Sarah Palin is not because she didn't attend an ivy league college, it's because she's an idiot! I don't think there is much in terms of education that could be given to her to elevate her intelligence much above a bumbling baboon.
Great article here, and I think it's the correct explanation for SOME liberals.
There are other explanations for why "smart" people are liberals such as the overwhelming urge to follow Group Think. You touched on this with the "sheep" concept.
Just about all universities are liberal, whether they be Ivy League or not. Most degree programs are based entirely on Group Think, and to some extent that's unavoidable because we learn by standing on the shoulders of people that came before us. So we have to accept some 'traditional thought'. But liberals don't know when to stop and critically review when/if the professor happens to be wrong. Or even if the professor COULD be wrong.
I'm in IT and I see this all the time. Techies tend to be pretty heavily liberal not because they aren't smart but because they're used to accepting whatever the traditional idea is on something they have not themselves personally studied and evaluated. That's what college teaches you to do.
So when they see mainstream political views (ie. whatever the MSM happens to be pushing) they assume those concepts are true. Like any good academic, they accept those concepts and move on. When others don't, they assume those people are idiot deniers and don't bother getting into the details.
Group Think, sheepism, whatever you want to call it - that's the reason why most "normal" non-elite liberals are liberal.
This is a good topic. Could really be a whole series.
@Ifon
Are you sure about that?
First, I was a conservative until I moved out of my home state. I went to college as a conservative and I did debate my teachers as well as ask many questions.
It wasn't until I saw conservatism in action that my views changed. Go to Wyoming sometime..
You talk about liberals being sheep, I have seen more conservatives parrot what Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck have to say than I have ever seen a liberal parrot anyone! (Michael Moore included)
This is also leaving out the fact that a majority of conservatives are Christian without question and don't ask whether it's true or not, but assume its true while denying other religions or maybe the idea there is no god.
Petrarch,
Looks like you have picked up at least one liberal troll.
Which means you are doing something right.
I know Palin won't ever win the Presidency (BTW, I really like Alan West - now there's a Commander-in-Chief!), but like you, I admire her a lot. She is a courageous lady who has had to work for the successes she has had, and puts up with a constant tsunami of leftist attack-and-smear tactics. And of course, she would have been a million times better than you-know-who. This is confirmed by the troll's comments calling her an "idiot" comparable to a "bumbling baboon".
BTW, here are some recent achievements en route to the utopia the liberals/leftists such as the troll tracking you are building:
http://www.steynonline.com/content/view/3884/28/
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1370511/Fury-equality-watchdog-calls-teachers-ask-11-year-olds-gay.html
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/263244/re-burdens-citizenship-mark-steyn
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/impounds-and-illegals/
Also, here is something the Leftists/Liberals worked (and are still working) very hard for:
http://www.zerohedge.com/article/skunked-bill-gross-how-us-will-likely-default-its-debt
I have come to the conclusion that Leftists/Liberals *cannot* be persuaded by any objective evidence contrary to their beliefs and talking points, no matter how mountainous or how damning the pile.
@Ifon,
I am in IT too, and you are spot on when you say that Techies seem to be heavily liberal. One major reason for this is wanting to fit in and avoid making waves. I am openly Conservative and I am pretty sure that it costs me!
The troll is right about one thing though - Liberals aren't sheep - they are rabid pit bulls, snarling and biting, infecting all around them. They are truly the Pod People/Living Dead who are shambling through human civilization, destroying and poisoning anything they touch.
Best wishes to you Conservatives out there.
AI
@a liberal
Been to Wyoming. What part offends you?
Perhaps you're referring to the fact that a few days ago Wyoming passed a law that allows gun ownership without permits or licenses. That's called individual *choice* - something your side likes to crow about but never actually offer. Wyoming's crime rate is 20% lower then the national average, the 7th lowest in the nation. Perhaps every state should start following their lead.
Your last part doesn't make any sense. Why would any Christian deny that there is a God?
There are plenty of Christians that debate and intellectualize the meaning of God and why they believe versus not believe.
Most Christians fully understand the contradictions of an omnipotent/omniscient God versus the laws of physics. It bothers them but they choose to believe in a creator because they are bothered *more* by the alternative.
For instance, it's just as alarming to notice that every academically-accepted view of the beginning of life and the origin of species (Big Bang, spontaneous generation, etc) defies the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Yet your side has no trouble believing that. How come?
Of course to see the logical discussions that Christians have, you'd have to actually evaluate real believers and not just swallow the facade that you get on Comedy Central.
@AI
LOL..
I love how you refer to me as a "Troll" and how I'm using liberal talking points when I've decided for myself what I think of Sarah Palin.. and many people agree with me. Did you get your opinion from Shawn? I've heard the SAME exact words from his show in how he describes Sarah Palin..
It's not JUST the media that smeared her, she did and does a pretty good job of that herself. Oh.. and I'm not into Obama and I didn't vote for Obama either. You're assuming too much and that I fit your stereotype of a typical granola munching hippie liberal. Not at all.. Quite the contrary..
You know, I didn't know I was THAT distructive.. I wasn't the one writing an article claiming that the only reason why people with a different opinion than you are smarter and liberal because they are "sheep" or super rich. You know.. If that was the case and I was destructive, I would have asked why we're in 2 wars that aren't ending that was started by a president who believed he had a religious mandate or why the conservative ideas of "Free Trade" (yes, expanded by Clinton, but not helped by GW) seemed to only benefit the rich or the "haves" vs the "have nots".. But that's besides the point.
You notice how I didn't personally attack anyone? But yet am being called a "Troll"? I think you've lost a debate before you even started. If you'd like to have a constructive debate, let's start on what this article was about instead.
Let's start with your information.. Shall we?
Not all liberals believe in things like "Keeping open boarders". You should know that.. Just as not all conservatives want to keep them open. I mean Bush, Clinton, Bush and Reagan didn't do anything about it.. Where there is 1 Democrat, there are 3 presidents that are REPUBLICAN. Your guys didn't do it. That's a fact.
In reference to http://www.steynonline.com/content/view/3884/28/
Nice reference to a NON News site.. (Definitely not the quality of Scragged either).
1.) Has anyone thought the logical question that maybe.. just maybe.. parent's are making some really bad decisions and letting their children watch things that SHOULDN'T be on TV to get those kinds of ideas? We're already letting them listen to Brittney Spears talk about sex and if it's all that they're seeing.. that's what they're going to want. I believe that shootings, sex before adulthood, drugs, etc are glorified via the music/movie industry.. Why the hell else would any girl want or have a pushup bra unless there was a demand for it? and NO I'm not for this.
2.) in reference to http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1370511/Fury-equality-watchdog-calls-teachers-ask-11-year-olds-gay.html
Although I can see how someone could see this as absurd, I can see why they're asking this. I've grown up with people who were gay, who didn't know or didn't want to say anything due to the ridicule and hatred against gays. Being that there is scientific evidence learning towards being gay is genetic (http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/07/15/have-scientists-found-gay-gene/) I think that some of this is pointing out something early and telling them it's OK if they are. This can be linked with the early article where children are growing up way too early and are being forced to deal with these things at an early age.
As far as parental notification, would you want your parents to know that you could have a genetic difference that is condemned by many people?
*Continued*
3.) next http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/263244/re-burdens-citizenship-mark-steyn
can you tell me anything done other than amnesty that has taken action to solve the issue of illegal immigration? Both Republican and Democrats are voting to keep them here and give them amnesty. Amnesty almost came up during Bush's second term.
My issue with illegal immigration is that it forces wages down for naturalized citizens. that and it allows for people that don't have an allegiance to this country in.. I'm not for Illegal immigration. I think this is something that we can be in agreement over, but for other reasons.
4.) Next, http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/impounds-and-illegals/
Once again, I'm not for illegals.. You're bringing a knife to a gunfight. Bring some ammunition next time and a legitimate link to an actual news site. Wasn't the Governator supposed to leave the state in a better place?
5.) http://www.zerohedge.com/article/skunked-bill-gross-how-us-will-likely-default-its-debt..
Agreed.. I think it was a problem for many years, especially when we were going into two wars and have bases all over the world. How we're sticking our noses into everyone's business all the freaking time! I think it's also a problem when both Democrats and Republicans BOTH have complained about the deficit when it's convenient, but then shut up when it's their side in the office..
Best wishes to both Liberals and Conservatives alike..
@Ifon.. You're next.
A troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community. A Liberal's posts are clearly neither off-topic nor extraneous, and by current standards of political discourse, not particularly inflammatory. So it's appropriate to welcome him the Scragged.
I didn't plainly say so in the article, but it should be clear that I wasn't saying this was the SINGLE explanation for the existence of liberals; that would be absurd. I do think it a very applicable explanation for why our elites are generally liberal; I take it that you wouldn't consider yourself a member of America's ruling elite, so your different life experiences wouldn't directly pertain to the argument.
Repeating what someone else has said does not necessarily make one a sheep. In the hundreds of articles on Scragged, there are only a handful of arguments that are 100% new and unique owing nothing to other writers and thinkers. What makes you a sheep is parroting others' arguments without thinking about or analyzing them, or being able to at least attempt to defend them based on evidence.
There are liberal sheep, and yes, there are conservative sheep. The situation we find ourselves in today, is that people on both sides often refuse to acknowledge the other side's evidence. Sometimes this is for good reason because the "evidence" is fradulent, as in the Climategate global warming scam we've extensively documented here, but it certainly murkies the water and makes intelligent debate harder.
Simply because you don't understand the other side's thought processes and underlying logic doesn't mean it isn't there. Occasionally, Scragged has even strayed into the topic of religion, exploring the underlying evidence-based logic underpinning major tenets of Christianity. in particular, and Buddhism on occasion - the point being that many of their beliefs actually have rational, provable reasons why they're a good idea.
Liberalism is logical on its own bases too. The problem is the underlying assumptions are false. For example, Democrats often point to a problem, prove that the problem exists, and consider that to be sufficient proof that the government should Do Something. Conservatives look at history and understand that, much if not most of the time, government "solutions" merely make the problem worse at vast expense. So even though the problem was real, it's not fixable by government.
Another false assumption is the idea that "smart people" know better. Why should I do what the government tells me to do, instead of what I want to do? Sometimes that's because what I want to do is directly harmful to someone else, like drunk driving, and in that case most conservatives would agree that government intervention is proper.
But most of the time, government bureaucrats simply assume that they know better than normal people what their own money should be spent on or what they should be doing with their lives. Which, no matter how smart any single bureaucrat may be, is false on its face, as the USSR conclusively proved.
In fact, you're coming close to the truth in your post:
"Has anyone thought the logical question that maybe.. just maybe.. parent's are making some really bad decisions and letting their children watch things that SHOULDN'T be on TV to get those kinds of ideas?"
BINGO. The problem is parents, and corrupt culture. Government has nothing to do with it; it is not the solution in any way.
Petrarch, you are too kind and decent to the Lefty Liberal Pod People.
I labeled the perp as a "troll" the moment I read "Palin is an idiot", "has the intelligence of a bumbling baboon" or phrases to that effect.
There is no way, no matter what gigantic pile of evidence you present to Lefty Liberals, that you will convince them that:
- The Religion of Peace is anything but
- AGW/GlobalWarming/Climate Change is a scam (amply proved by the publicly posted tinkered computer programs, incriminating emails, complete cover-up of raw data, astounding locations of temperature measuring instruments e.g. just beside huge air-conditioner heat vents etc. etc.)
- IQ is genetic, and it matters (read Steve Sailer's scholarly articles)
- Whites have done enormous service to all of humanity (I am not white, BTW), so they should stop feeling guilty
- Marriage and other (olden day) social norms are vital for preserving any civilization
- Printing money, huge taxes and monstrous social welfare programs always end in disaster
- NPR and the MSM are all (heavily) tilted to the left
- Etc
Best wishes to you and all Conservatives.
Lefty Liberals, may the Utopia you insist on building engulf you and yours for eternity, sometime soon (and I just hope we Conservatives somehow escape, though I don't see how that is possible).
AI
Ok.. I now have some time to respond and no, I didn't skip out.. Being that I'm (I too am in IT and I also have a girlfriend that needs my attention as well.)
Now, where to begin..
@Ifon:
"Been to Wyoming. What part offends you?
Perhaps you're referring to the fact that a few days ago Wyoming passed a law that allows gun ownership without permits or licenses. That's called individual *choice* - something your side likes to crow about but never actually offer. Wyoming's crime rate is 20% lower then the national average, the 7th lowest in the nation. Perhaps every state should start following their lead."
No, actually I was referring to Wyoming being mostly owned and run by Ranchers and that if it wasn't for the Government many of the people protested while I was there, most of them wouldn't have jobs or a lively hood. There were a lot of run down buildings, ghost towns, and people without work. People without health insurance that would criticize the idea of Single Payer health care, but wouldn't be able to afford health insurance if their life depended on it. Businesses and the local government that I lived around would nickel and dime people because of the lack of money. Conservatism was in practice there.. The rich made the money, the poor were uneducated and poor.
That's only the start of my annoyances.. I have quite a bit to say about my experience, but most of it is opinion.
Ok so on your Gun reference.. So you're saying its a GOOD thing for everyone to have a gun without license and permit? You must either have a lot of faith in your fellow man and live in a bubble or you must be very very stupid.. You know, one story I heard (which was true) when I went to Cheyenne was of a man that after finding out his wife was cheating on him, grabbed his hunting rifle and shot her through the window of the Old Chicago. So, idiots and violence must be there as well.
I haven't read the bill yet, but have you ever thought to yourself, some of the problems we have in society is the fact that many people that own guns, really shouldn't have them? I mean, in Michael Moore's Film "Bowling for Columbine" someone could get a gun with opening a banking account. Things like this are still happening in other states, Just recently a radioshack was giving out guns with a Satellite subscription. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-03-29/montana-store-s-gun-with-satellite-tv-deal-draws-criticism-as-sales-soar.html.
Why do we put so much more into being able to kill someone we don't agree with vs having educated debates on what may be right and what may be wrong? What about the people bringing guns to Political political functions. (http://articles.nydailynews.com/2009-08-18/news/17933699_1_protest-area-carrying-gun-control) (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/08/gabrielle-giffords-shot-c_n_806211.html)
These are the things that I'm finding wrong with parts of America and maybe much of middle America in the heavily Republican and Religious areas. When something doesn't go their way, the first place they go is to the Gun Cabinet rather than doing the right thing and running for office and debating the person that they have a problem with.
Next, on religion..
My point of view on it is that I don't believe in God, Christ, Allah, YHVH, etc. After seeing so many people shunned out of their families over faith, people claiming that the world is going to end over their faith, claiming that I am going to burn in hell if I don't believe in their faith, claiming that they (a small mass of people) are right while others (Buddhists, Hindus, etc) are wrong in theirs and are willing to blow people up over it. I'm sick of it! It's your perogative if you believe in Santa Claus as well as Jesus Christ, but at least be open to the prospective that you MAY NOT be right and it all may not exist! I am open to the idea of not knowing whether or not there is a God.. I could be wrong and if given the proof, I'd re-evaluate my position.
The thing is that there is no proof one over another. Muslims claim they have proof, Christians claim they have proof, the Jews had their religion stolen by both religions while the Buddhists had a guy that walked on water over a hundred years before Christ was said to exist! The Egyptians had Hoarus who rose a man from a tomb in the ground.. Much like Lazerus and Jesus.
The Muslims want to blow up Israel, The Christians are being killed by the Muslims in their countries, while the Muslims are condemmed here by the Christians and the Christians (Ann Coultier) claim that Christians are "Perfected Jews". The Muslims are taking over Europe wanting their 12th mahadi, while people here are claiming that this nation was created as a Christian Nation, without looking at the writings of Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin. (Also see the Treaty of Tripoli) This is all while claiming Christ is going to return to take all the Christians away.
All the while, I and many others want to be left alone to raise a family and hope that others can do the same and accept each others differences. I'm to the point now where I long for the day that Jesus, Mohammad, YHVH and others become texts that sit next to Greek and Egyptian Mythology. I hope we start looking at science and proving things to ourselves in our origins without having to rely on "Bronze Age Superstitions". Do I believe in Evolution.. It could be a possibility. Do I claim I know where I came from? No and I don't think we will know in my lifetime.
Your problem with Thermodynamics is this.. If something bigger than the universe had to create the universe and you say it's God, than something more powerful had to create God. When you start saying God was there forever and knows no time, than you're going beyond scientific discussion and into Mythology.
This is my problem with religion. The fact that people put blinders when it's something that they don't want to hear and be open to the idea that maybe.. just maybe.. they could be wrong. Instead.. We lay in fear and cling to our "guns and bibles" as Obama puts it..
@Petarch: Thank you for not seeing that I'm a Troll, even though I don't have the same ideas as you.. My goal is not to call people here names and make personal attacks. My goal is the same goal as any other debater: to become better and question my own ideas while questioning others.
To AI: May the Rapture take you and the earth becomes a peaceful place.
to everyone else.. Best Wishes.
A Liberal
@ A Liberal
I appreciate that you are not a "fit the mold" liberal, but i will have to dissagree with you on the gun issue. I am a Conservative, an athiest, active duty military, and a "gun nut". I get very concerned when people advocate government intervention with fire arms.
About Bowling for Columbine:
http://www.spinsanity.org/post.html?2002_11_24_archive.html
http://www.scribd.com/doc/34892518/The-Truth-About-Bowling-for-Columbine
Re: Gun Control - the facts and opinions you (probably) didn't know
Here are some of the untold stories and facts which simply "do not exist" in the Lefty Universe:
http://www.crimefree.org.za/Role-players/Criminologist/guncontr.htm
http://www.jweekly.com/article/full/10731/legalizing-concealed-weapons-could-help-prevent-violence/
http://www.wagc.com/GunsSaveLives.html
Gun control information Part 2:
http://www.fredoneverything.net/Smith.shtml
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/0407/steyn042307.php3
http://replay.waybackmachine.org/20080518082528/http://www.issues-views.com/index.php/sect/2001/article/2012
Gun control information Part 3:
http://jpfo.org/filegen-a-m/dial911anddie.htm
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2004/01/06/do0602.xml
http://article.nationalreview.com/print/?q=Y2RjNzdlMjczZmU0MDdiZDVhMzY0ZmFiZTRlZDJjZDc=
Gun control information Part 4:
http://www.westernstandard.ca/website/article.php?id=2681
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/02/guns_save_lives.html
http://www.gunowners.org/sk0802.htm
Gun control information last part:
http://dartreview.com/issues/2.26.01/gunssave.html
There are many others, but you see what I mean ...
And in case you are interested in statistical analysis, there is even a book called "More guns less crime" by John Lott, an interview with whom is at the link below:
http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/493636.html
BTW, here is a presentation detailing the Leftys' progress on Utopia-building and what it means for us:
http://www.stansberryresearch.com/pro/1011PSISBBVD/PPSIM310/PR
(I know, it's from a Investment firm that wants to sell you something, but that doesn't negate the historical/present analysis)
Best of luck, Conservatives ... we are going to need it!
And wishing you Endless Utopia ASAP, Leftys.
AI
Just to make one more point regarding guns: The 2nd amendment has nothing to do with crime, hunting, self-protection, etc. It is about the citizenry being able to overthrow a corrupt government. The Founding Fathers knew that an armed citizenry was the final check and balance. Read their writings and you'll understand what they understood: governments tend towards tyranny and at some point the only solution is a bloody revolution. Arm the citizens and you will either check this tendency, prolong the time between liberty and tyranny, or allow for the government to be overthrown.
So, you can talk all you want about crime, but you've completely got the premise of the argument wrong. Bearing arms has always been about protection against tyrannical government. All else is secondary.
To A Liberal: You said: "Your problem with Thermodynamics is this.. If something bigger than the universe had to create the universe and you say it's God, than something more powerful had to create God. When you start saying God was there forever and knows no time, than you're going beyond scientific discussion and into Mythology."
There's plenty of evidence and discussion to suggest other dimensions. Why not step from our dimension up to the next? If you haven't read it, I might consider reading "Flatland" by Edwin A Abbott (written in 1884 more of a satire on Victorian social structures). It's really a great way to understand dimensions and how we might understand other possibilities.
So, might not God exist at a step higher? Asking the question isn't delving into mythology, but considering the possibilities.
@Fennoman
'A Liberal' totally missed my point on thermodynamics. I didn't say I had any problem with it. I said that the 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts the core tenet of macro-evolution. Darwinists conveniently ignore that.
I was pointing out that he and his ilk don't mind contradicting the laws of science when it fits their beliefs but they get all agitated when others contradict the laws of science to fit different beliefs.
In fact, not only do creationists not have a problem with thermodynamics, but we know that it proves our case. Thermodynamics is one of the best arguments *for* intelligent design.
Since his comments missed so many of my points, originally, I figured there was no point in responding.
The NY Times read this article!
Our Reckless Meritocracy
The ruling class proves, again, that it is too smart for its own good.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/06/opinion/sunday/douthat-our-reckless-meritocracy.html
HERE is a story about the promise of America. A boy grows up in rural Illinois, the grandson of a farmer who lost everything in the Great Depression. He goes to his small-town high school and then attends his state university, where he walks onto the basketball team and graduates Phi Beta Kappa. He does a stint in the Marine Corps Reserves, gets his M.B.A. and then goes to work for one of the Midwest’s regional banks.
In a different era, he might have stayed there for the rest of his career. But he’s lucky enough to be coming up in the 1960s and ’70s, just as the WASP elite is fading and the big East Coast institutions are opening their doors to strivers from all over. So our Illinois farm boy climbs and keeps on climbing.
He moves to New Jersey and goes to work for Goldman Sachs. He rises to become the company’s C.E.O., and a millionaire many times over. He goes into politics, winning a term in the United States Senate and then getting elected governor of New Jersey. When Barack Obama wins the White House, he’s discussed as a candidate for Treasury secretary. And when he loses his re-election bid, he returns to Wall Street as the head of a financial services company.
By now you may have guessed that I’m talking about Jon Corzine. If so, you probably know that his inspiring story has an unhappy ending — for New Jersey, which faced an enormous budgetary mess when Corzine left office; for his latest Wall Street firm, MF Global, which filed for bankruptcy last week after somehow mislaying some $600 million in customer money; and for the former farm boy himself, who resigned on Friday in disgrace.
But this sudden fall from grace doesn’t make Corzine’s life story any less emblematic of our meritocratic era. Indeed, his rise, recklessness and ruin are all of a piece. For decades, the United States has been opening paths to privilege for its brightest and most determined young people, culling the best and the brightest from Illinois and Mississippi and Montana and placing them in positions of power in Manhattan and Washington. By elevating the children of farmers and janitors as well as lawyers and stockbrokers, we’ve created what seems like the most capable, hardworking, high-I.Q. elite in all of human history.
And for the last 10 years, we’ve watched this same elite lead us off a cliff — mostly by being too smart for its own good.
In hereditary aristocracies, debacles tend to flow from stupidity and pigheadedness: think of the Charge of the Light Brigade or the Battle of the Somme. In one-party states, they tend to flow from ideological mania: think of China’s Great Leap Forward, or Stalin’s experiment with “Lysenkoist” agriculture.
In meritocracies, though, it’s the very intelligence of our leaders that creates the worst disasters. Convinced that their own skills are equal to any task or challenge, meritocrats take risks than lower-wattage elites would never even contemplate, embark on more hubristic projects, and become infatuated with statistical models that hold out the promise of a perfectly rational and frictionless world. (Or as Calvin Trillin put it in these pages, quoting a tweedy WASP waxing nostalgic for the days when Wall Street was dominated by his fellow bluebloods: “Do you think our guys could have invented, say, credit default swaps? Give me a break! They couldn’t do the math.”)
Inevitably, pride goeth before a fall. Robert McNamara and the Vietnam-era whiz kids thought they had reduced war to an exact science. Alan Greenspan and Robert Rubin thought that they had done the same to global economics. And Jon Corzine thought that his investment acumen equipped him to turn a second-tier brokerage firm into the next Goldman Sachs, by leveraging big, betting big and waiting for the payoff.
The NY Times read this article!
Our Reckless Meritocracy
The ruling class proves, again, that it is too smart for its own good.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/06/opinion/sunday/douthat-our-reckless-meritocracy.html
HERE is a story about the promise of America. A boy grows up in rural Illinois, the grandson of a farmer who lost everything in the Great Depression. He goes to his small-town high school and then attends his state university, where he walks onto the basketball team and graduates Phi Beta Kappa. He does a stint in the Marine Corps Reserves, gets his M.B.A. and then goes to work for one of the Midwest’s regional banks.
In a different era, he might have stayed there for the rest of his career. But he’s lucky enough to be coming up in the 1960s and ’70s, just as the WASP elite is fading and the big East Coast institutions are opening their doors to strivers from all over. So our Illinois farm boy climbs and keeps on climbing.
He moves to New Jersey and goes to work for Goldman Sachs. He rises to become the company’s C.E.O., and a millionaire many times over. He goes into politics, winning a term in the United States Senate and then getting elected governor of New Jersey. When Barack Obama wins the White House, he’s discussed as a candidate for Treasury secretary. And when he loses his re-election bid, he returns to Wall Street as the head of a financial services company.
By now you may have guessed that I’m talking about Jon Corzine. If so, you probably know that his inspiring story has an unhappy ending — for New Jersey, which faced an enormous budgetary mess when Corzine left office; for his latest Wall Street firm, MF Global, which filed for bankruptcy last week after somehow mislaying some $600 million in customer money; and for the former farm boy himself, who resigned on Friday in disgrace.
But this sudden fall from grace doesn’t make Corzine’s life story any less emblematic of our meritocratic era. Indeed, his rise, recklessness and ruin are all of a piece. For decades, the United States has been opening paths to privilege for its brightest and most determined young people, culling the best and the brightest from Illinois and Mississippi and Montana and placing them in positions of power in Manhattan and Washington. By elevating the children of farmers and janitors as well as lawyers and stockbrokers, we’ve created what seems like the most capable, hardworking, high-I.Q. elite in all of human history.
And for the last 10 years, we’ve watched this same elite lead us off a cliff — mostly by being too smart for its own good.
In hereditary aristocracies, debacles tend to flow from stupidity and pigheadedness: think of the Charge of the Light Brigade or the Battle of the Somme. In one-party states, they tend to flow from ideological mania: think of China’s Great Leap Forward, or Stalin’s experiment with “Lysenkoist” agriculture.
In meritocracies, though, it’s the very intelligence of our leaders that creates the worst disasters. Convinced that their own skills are equal to any task or challenge, meritocrats take risks than lower-wattage elites would never even contemplate, embark on more hubristic projects, and become infatuated with statistical models that hold out the promise of a perfectly rational and frictionless world. (Or as Calvin Trillin put it in these pages, quoting a tweedy WASP waxing nostalgic for the days when Wall Street was dominated by his fellow bluebloods: “Do you think our guys could have invented, say, credit default swaps? Give me a break! They couldn’t do the math.”)
Inevitably, pride goeth before a fall. Robert McNamara and the Vietnam-era whiz kids thought they had reduced war to an exact science. Alan Greenspan and Robert Rubin thought that they had done the same to global economics. And Jon Corzine thought that his investment acumen equipped him to turn a second-tier brokerage firm into the next Goldman Sachs, by leveraging big, betting big and waiting for the payoff.
We could have gotten rid of some of these intellectuals had we not done TARP. It's another ethereal program invented out of a textbook.
NYT finally gets it, but as usual, they're a year behind you. For poorer folks to climb, the kids of righer folks have to fall
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/09/29/the-glass-floor-problem
It is a stubborn mathematical fact that the top fifth of the income distribution can accommodate only 20 percent of the population. If we want more poor kids climbing the ladder of relative mobility, we need more rich kids sliding down the chutes.
Even the most liberal parents are unlikely to be comfortable with the idea that their own children should fall down the scale in the name of making room for a smarter kid from a poorer home. They invest large amounts of economic, social and cultural capital to keep their own children high up the social scale. As they should: there is nothing wrong with parents doing the best by their children.
The problem comes if institutional frameworks in, say, the higher education system or the labor market are distorted in favor of the powerful — a process the sociologist Charles Tilly labeled “opportunity hoarding.” The less talented children of the affluent are able to defy social gravity and remain at the top of the ladder, reducing the number of places open to those from less fortunate backgrounds.
I am None Party Affiliated and have noticed that Liberals only seem smart but are not. They flip flop on the context of a discussion or argument and only seem to win when they confuse the person they speak to. That said usually the Conservative is rather dull minded but in the end they are both ignorant. Liberals tend to base everything they think say and do on assumptions, bias, and bigotry. At this point your typical Liberal as saying a resounding "HUH?" when they can't wrap their elementary school brain around the logic. The thing is even though not all Conservatives are racist a lot of liberals do the opposite believing that it's somehow not racist. For example Liberals are biased against white young men when it comes to jobs. Even though blacks and whites have had equal opportunities for years and statistically Republicans have done more for minorities the Liberals tend to believe in reverse-racism, reverse bigotry, and reverse chauvinism and scale tipping believing somehow that more racism, bigotry, and bias brings about change, balance, and equality.. When in logical reality it just creates more racism, more bigotry, and more bias. Going back to my original point it's hard to argue scientific logic with a Liberal because it's like arguing with an overly articulate elementary school child. They are still children. You can start out a topic, argument, or conversation talking about 1 thing and with their flip flopping, taking things out of context, and switching definitions of things the Liberal seems to win arguments but don't realize they aren't saying anything in reality. Anyone who studies real sciences, logic, and other science based programs will understand that Social Sciences and Political Sciences are not real science even though they wish deeply for this to be true... The reality is that people that study Psychology, Social work, Sociology, and Politics are not logical minded people but rather are great at rationalizing but rationalizing doesn't always lead to a viable conclusion. In the end Liberals may be more articulate than Conservatives but both are rather stupid types of people. It's just that Republicans are more obvious with their shot comings where as Democrats hide behind flapping lips and flip flopping contradictions, hypocrisy, and smooth talk. Liberals can talk for hours without acting saying anything real. One 1 last note however I have noticed that Republicans are great at pretending to be stupid while Democrats are great at pretending to be smart. Even though this isn't the case for all Dems or Reps it seems to be true for a great number of them. Conservatives hide their smarts in an attempt to get away with stuff. While the real stupid people called the Liberals are blissfully unaware just how stupid they are but their arrogance leads them to believe they are smart. But when you hold what they say up to the light of scientific logic you will clearly see that Democrats are nothing more than overly articulate children that see the world in an elementary school level.
To "A liberal Said" Your very first post says all that needs to be said about you and your beliefs. You tout your academic achievements "I am working on my second bachelors degree or my masters degree" Then you go on to say "When do you see conservatives touting more funding for university's" It sounds to me like you are pissed off that we tax payers didn't pay for your education. After all you feel you are so much smarter than the rest of us and so you are ENTITLED to your higher education so you can save us from ourselves. You high brow people who feel you are so superior to the rest of us are the problem, you are damn sure not the solution!