There is a news report starting to make the rounds amongst the MSM on a study that claims to have discovered why conservatives tend to be happier than liberals and it is just the sort of bilge that the MSM loves to promulgate. We may see more of it over the next several days because, while it is titled "Conservatives Happier Than Liberals," it is basically saying that the reason conservatives are happier is because they just don't care about other people. This purported research claims to pinpoint the reason conservatives are happier and it is because they have theirs and they don't care if everyone else is poor and downtrodden. In contrast they claim liberals are less happy because they care more about people and are all heartbroken that people suffer "inequalities."
Yes, they are telling us that if you're a happy conservative, it's because you are a hateful, meanie. Thank you New York University.
The two "researchers," John Jost and Jaime Napier of New York University, claim an interest in understanding why religious extremism is connected to conservatives. Both have interests in "political conservatism and religious fundamentalism" wherein they seem to assume that conservatives are but fascists in deed if not name. On her webpage, for instance, Napier says that she is interested to "explore the relationship of political conservatism to 'system justifying' ideologies, such as opposition to equality, fair market ideology, economic system justification, and right-wing authoritarianism." Why are conservatives fascists? Jamie wants to know.
Obviously these two researchers have predetermined that conservatism is an evil, oppressive ideology and they have set out to prove their thesis. With this in mind we can turn to the results of their recent "research" that claims that conservatives are happy because they hate everyone else.
Even though Jeanna Bryner of livescience.com puts a happy face on the story with her headline, the text following clearly casts conservatives in the worst possible light. Her very first line provides the context of the "research" upon which she reports.
Individuals with conservative ideologies are happier than liberal-leaners, and new research pinpoints the reason: Conservatives rationalize social and economic inequalities.
In other words, conservatives are happy because they ignore the "economic inequalities" of their fellow citizens and don't worry themselves over other's troubles. They just don't care about other people. This is exactly what this "research" claims.
Let's look at the key word they use as the fulcrum of their study. Here's what "rationalize" means:
-to bring into accord with reason or cause something to seem reasonable: as
a: to substitute a natural for a supernatural explanation of
b: to attribute (one's actions) to rational and creditable motives without analysis of true and especially unconscious motives ; broadly : to create an excuse or more attractive explanation for
-to provide plausible but untrue reasons for conduct
In other words to "rationalize" is to lie to oneself and everyone around you, to explain away reality with a false but reasonable seeming explanation.
This is what Bryner, Jost and Napier are positing that conservatives do: lie. And that lie makes them happy. Not a very noble action is it?
However, the very notion that conservatism is all based on a lie proves that "open minded" is not a phrase that one could possibly associate with the work of these people. They start out at the beginning with the premise that conservatives are bad people. All subsequent results are geared to prove that thesis.
Bryner goes on...
Regardless of marital status, income or church attendance, right-wing individuals reported greater life satisfaction and well-being than left-wingers, the new study found. Conservatives also scored highest on measures of rationalization, which gauge a person's tendency to justify, or explain away, inequalities.
So, conservatives merely "explain away" the fact that some Americans are poor? They shrug their shoulders and just happily ride off into the sunset. Oh, mean, nasty old conservatives.
Even the questions of this study are skewed to get a predetermined result.
The rationalization measure included statements such as: "It is not really that big a problem if some people have more of a chance in life than others," and "This country would be better off if we worried less about how equal people are."
Of course, this very question is divorced from any REASONS that "some have more of a chance than others," doesn't it? It seems that the researchers simply take at face value that "inequalities" is simply an obvious evil, quite despite why these inequalities might or might not exist. This study completely discounts any explanations as but mere "rationalization" which completely reveals their own rationalization and makes the lie to any pretense to scientific research and places this thing itself squarely in the camp of pure justification.
Thomas Jefferson was one of the most widely recognized liberals of his day and one of his most formative concepts is that there is a "natural aristocracy among men," by which he meant some people will simply be better at some things than others. Some may end up with more in life because of these natural abilities that others may lack. In fact, this reality undergirds our entire system of liberty by which we are all free to exploit our own abilities to succeed. But Jost and Napier obviously discount this philosophical idea as an evil from the outset.
More proof of their own bias is in the next paragraph of Bryner's piece.
To justify economic inequalities, a person could support the idea of meritocracy, in which people supposedly move up their economic status in society based on hard work and good performance. In that way, one's social class attainment, whether upper, middle or lower, would be perceived as totally fair and justified.
Notice the obvious assumption that people really don't "move up" in economic status when she writes, "in which people supposedly move up..." What's with the "supposedly"? If people really didn't move up the economic ladder due to their hard work, then we'd all be making the same amount we made when we first joined the work force as teenagers or young adults! Obviously people DO move up the economic ladder and it can only be because of their personal efforts.
Next we get the words of the researchers further revealing their bias.
"Our research suggests that inequality takes a greater psychological toll on liberals than on conservatives," the researchers write in the June issue of the journal Psychological Science, "apparently because liberals lack ideological rationalizations that would help them frame inequality in a positive (or at least neutral) light."
Ah, we see. Those liberals are so loving and caring that they just can't stand to see someone in need and it just tears them up inside. They can't explain away those darn ol' "inequalities" and frame them in a "positive" light as the uncaring conservatives are able to do.
So many things wrong with just one little paragraph.
First of all, conservatives don't explain away inequalities and go off on their merry way unconcerned over the plight of their neighbors. Conservatives do feel there is no way around a certain amount of inequalities, but no conservative is "happy" because of inequality and they also have no particular interest in fostering it among others. Further, they do not see inequality in any "positive" light. Inequality lacks any moral value in this instance. It just is. It is also, on an individual basis, not a permanent state. Inequalities can be changed by individual effort as far as conservatives are concerned. This is where some level of satisfaction comes in for conservatives. The notion that it is within the power of the individual to change inequality brings a hope for the future that cannot help but cause a sunny outlook. And this is also a good reason why liberals are unhappy. After all, liberals wallow in a victim mentality, they assume everyone is against them and nothing can be done to address inequalities in life. How can such a dark view of the world not make them unhappy?
But, to explain why their central assumption that liberals care more and that they get more upset about inequalities is wrong headed thinking, one only needs to look at the statistics of charitable giving. Conservatives give far, far more to help people out than liberals. It begs the question that if liberals are so torn up inside about people doing badly, why then don't they try to do anything about it by trying to help others like conservatives do? And if conservatives can so easily "explain away inequalities" why do they bother to give so much of their money and time to help others? If there are any lies being told, it seems that liberals are doing it more often than conservatives.
There are substantive reasons why conservatives believe as they do but this study relegates any reasons to automatic assumptions of evil and moves on from there. Unfortunately for any efforts at "science," this particular study is so bound up in preconceived notions that any results are useless to any greater understanding of why conservatives are happier than liberals in the U.S.
But, since it makes liars and uncaring louts of conservatives everywhere, the MSM should love this badly skewed "research." Thus far it has appeared on Fox News, Yahoonews and MSNBC as well as its original source, livescience.com, so we just might be seeing more of this report.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Lefties need to keep
May 7, 2008 - 23:37 ET by robert108Lefties need to keep redefining words to fit into their ideology, and to explain why their ideology doesn't work. Now, these lefties are attempting to redefine "happiness", which of course has nothing whatsoever to do with hate.
here's a bit more for these
May 9, 2008 - 12:38 ET by TruthMongerhere's a bit more for these fine researchers...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sermon_on_the_Mount
blessed are the poor
talk about rationalizing
that Jesus just doesn't care about anyone else
he must be a conservative
I am happy, and dont try any tricks!
May 8, 2008 - 00:03 ET by JoggerNotEfffing Libs! Go lay an egg or somptin!
"It begs the question
May 8, 2008 - 00:05 ET by Republic1"It begs the question that if liberals are so torn up inside about people doing badly, why then don't they try to do anything about it by trying to help others like conservatives do?"
Oh, liberals want to help. Help through the creation of a massive, patronage-laden, self-perpetuating state bureaucracy that has the power to forcibly appropriate money for the benefit of political insiders. These two liberals from NYU might also want to study the history of the last century and come up with a rationalization for why socialists and communists like themselves racked up the highest politically motivated murder toll in human history.
"Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him." -Muhammad
Liberals are hopeless (the emotional state, not an insult)
May 8, 2008 - 01:01 ET by justmeLiberals want to help, but they see themselves as having no power to help. They believe they need someone bigger (gov't) to take on their (and others') troubles for them. Such helplessness can only breed depression and anger. Think about it. Every time (which happens so infrequently as a conservative that you have it burned into your memory) you find yourself without an ounce of power to alter a situation, doesn't it alternately depress and enrage you? It does me. Conservatives approach their spheres of influence as just that--situations in which they have some power to change things. This is inherently optimistic. It also explains why conservatives give more of their time, talents, and treasure. We actually believe we can make a difference with our little bits. And I contend that we do.
Except
May 8, 2008 - 01:24 ET by Defector01When the liberals actually succeed in getting power and proceed to screw everything and anything up for everybody, at which time they feel better and are happy, conservatives aren't because we have to both deal with it and clean up afterwards, and we aren't supposed to question a liberal's intelligence and/or ability to problem solve.
A conservative at the bottom believes he can work hard and be dilligent and it will allow him to rise up in the world. A liberal can be at the top of the world and perpetually believes they're at the bottom of it.
One other side note: If we as conservatives did indeed hate everyone and anyone around us that was different, wouldn't that by definition make us less happy? After all we are surrounded by people unlike us who don't act think (look) etc like us, so that I'd assume would make us angry and sad. Or is that me using conservative logic for a liberal problem?
I have only ever made one prayer to God, a very short one: O Lord, make my enemies ridiculous. And God granted it - Voltaire
liberals don't want to
May 9, 2008 - 12:39 ET by TruthMongerliberals don't want to help
they just want to care
that's good enough for government work
OK.
May 8, 2008 - 00:23 ET by MightyMouthLiberal solution to Samolia:
Send in just enough UN troops with ROE to not accomplish nothing.
Conservative solution to Somalia:
Invade the country and restore order.
I hate to be a monday night quarterback, but which way should we have gone? I have no understanding why the US doesn't stand up for it's losses of men and women!? It's almost like we have an unlimited supply of patriots to die for the political whims of "leaders". In case you wonder where I am coming from, we need to complete the jobs! And that includes Irag, Afghanistan and other places we need to present our power to secure our national security How many years have we been in Japan and Europe? Answer is: 60+. McCain may not be far off with 100+ in the middle east.
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
Difference between peace-keepers....
May 8, 2008 - 01:50 ET by TheAngryConservative...and peace-makers. Somalia is turning into another Afghanistan as we speak. Nothing short of brute military force will make any bit of difference in that hell-hole. The "government" that exists has no power to enforce order...so it is completely useless.
Anybody that thinks a "diplomatic" solution is going to work in Iran is delusional. I understand that part of the world is apparently predisposed to disorder...but there are lines you don't cross.
Going to be *very* interesting when oil either goes dry or is no longer the main fuel-source on this planet. My tip?
Be somewhere else.
The Angry Conservative
Liberalism: The aversion to the idea that able-bodied people can (and should) take responsibility for their own life rather than being dependent on the government.
I agree MM
May 8, 2008 - 12:05 ET by ahusserYou know what or get off the pot. If you are going to do something half-a$$ed just don't do it. Right now I would like to save money by getting out of the UN, out of NATO, out of Korea, the defense of Taiwan and Japan. Pull all the troops in places where our security isn't an issue and no more foreign aid for anything or anyone. If you want to help people in Myanmar or whatever private charity would be the only means. Why would anyone want to be allied with us at anytime other than to get the money. You know we can't finish any job militarily without the whiny left running away. They did it to us in Vietnam, The Iran hostage crisis, Grenada, Panama, Lebanon (Reagan was prez and I couldn't figure that one out unless the Dim congress was on his back), Somalia, Iraq1 and Iraq2. The left reminds me of the Monty Python sketch "Runaway, Runaway"
I guess the authors of this
May 8, 2008 - 00:47 ET by ckc1227I guess the authors of this study missed previous studies showing that "uncaring" conservatives give more of their OWN time and money to charities than the typical, bleedin' heart, oh-we-care-so-much lib. If you're a typical lib, nothing says "I care" quite like stealing and spending someone ELSES money on those in need.
More anti-conservative liberal spin...
May 8, 2008 - 00:49 ET by PrairieSkyI've heard this garbage before, every couple of years or so..."Those mean old conservatives/Republicans...They don't care about poor people." Yada yada yada! Isn't it interesting that the results of these "studies" are often conveniently released during an election year??? Coincidence? I doubt it.
"...peace is the highest aspiration of the American people. We will negotiate for it, sacrifice for it, we will never surrender for it, now or ever." President Ronald Reagan, January 20, 1981
→ Hatred brings happiness
May 8, 2008 - 01:25 ET by Cool ArrowSeems to be working for Jeremiah Wright who's takin' the cash and moving far away from those people of color he left shooting each other in Chicago. Not working out so well for the young men to whom he taught his gospel of squalor, victimhood, and hopelessness.
♣ a seal
HATE SELLS...
May 9, 2008 - 05:20 ET by danybhoycool arrow,
I'm sure you & others here @ NewsBusters noticed how he moved into a very nice hood with those very "rich white people" he denounced the moment he had the chance. He can say what he wants, he may believe it to some extent. But at the end of the day, he wants to get paid like everybody else.
DO as I say, NOT as I do...
"Some of us are wise, some of us are otherwise" Mark Levin
»→ Hate sells in ♠♦♥♣
May 9, 2008 - 06:24 ET by Cool ArrowPolitical correctness requires I identify all suits.
You wouldn't expect Wright to retire among the thugs he trained, would you?
Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss.
♣ a seal
God I Hate Liberals.....
May 8, 2008 - 01:39 ET by liberal_bug_zapperGod I Hate Liberals..... and somehow, I feel happy.... hmmmm.
____________________________________________________
"A pessimist sees the difficulty in every opportunity; an optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty." ~ Winston Churchill
hate is a form of love, ya
May 9, 2008 - 12:41 ET by TruthMongerhate is a form of love, ya know
i hate em too
So typical....
May 8, 2008 - 01:42 ET by TheAngryConservativeI'm also interested to know what their definition of "inequality" is. Any economy built on capitalism is going to be inherently unequal. This is not because the system is stacked against us all...but because the smarter and/or more hard-working people reap a benefit (generally) and those who waste their lives away reap nothing (excluding people that are perfect wastes of good space and air like Paris Hilton). This is as it should be. You can bemoan the "meritocracy", but when you take a look at how union members generally conduct themselves by thinking seniority is everything (it isn't)...can you blame us??
Also, these "scientists" seem to have a predefined answer for how ALL of society is. Is there racism? Yes. Is there sexism? Yes. Do bad things happen to good and honest people? Indeed. But it all averages out and people generally get out what they put in. It's like Kid Rock said in "Only God Knows Why"..."you get what you put in...and people get what they deserve".
Maybe these scientists should look into why liberals are so miserable and hateful...at least more so than the average joe. Maybe they should look at why career second-banana, natural sciences D-student (credit: Noel S.) in science, Al Gore has the audacity to call people who don't think his way "flat earthers" when his ilk hasn't proven anything and it's obvious he's a duplicitous cretin that is simply trying to enrich himself.
Conservatives are grounded in facts and in what they can see as it relates to the political theater. Liberals (for the most part) are emotion-driven. There's another word for that tactic...propaganda.
Here's a tip for any liberals that happen to be reading (including the short-sighted individuals who did this study)...if you try to prove your points by insulting people, nobody with half a brain is going to take you seriously. The fact that this qualifies at a news story at an ostensibly "reputable" news outfit is just disgusting.
The Angry Conservative
Liberalism: The aversion to the idea that able-bodied people can (and should) take responsibility for their own life rather than being dependent on the government.
Some people are just good at making money
May 8, 2008 - 08:03 ET by HelenSI don't know where I read it but someone once said that if you pooled everybody's money into one pot and then distributed it evenly, within a year (a generous estimate of time) the same "inequalities" would exist.
Some people are just better at making money than others - unfortunately I'm not one of them. The same thing happens with lottery winners. How often has it happened that someone wins several million dollars and then within a few years is broke again? There has to be something more going on than unfair discrimination or whatever evil the libs would like to blame it on.
"Cry havoc and let slip the dogs of war" - Shakespeare
Seek and ye shall find
May 8, 2008 - 01:51 ET by CobraMan"Our research suggests that inequality takes a greater psychological
toll on liberals than on conservatives," the researchers write in the
June issue of the journal Psychological Science, "apparently because
liberals lack ideological rationalizations that would help them frame
inequality in a positive (or at least neutral) light."
Or it could be that liberals are convinced that inequality and oppression is endemic in our society and they keep seeing it everywhere they looks BECAUSE of that conviction. It’s a form of delusion, they are sure that this endemic problem exists and they tend to only observe behavior that would indicate inequality and oppression in every situation they examine. Since they always examine a situation in order to observe that expected behavior, they falsely believe that they really are observing that behavior in every situation even when they are not. They try so hard to find that behavior in others to justify their belief of an endemic problem, but they are only feeding on their own fears and are creating excessive anxiety through a misconception of American society.
In other words, they are so CONVINCED that we’re all going to hell in a hand basket that they CREATE that vision of hell everywhere they look in order to justify their baseless fear and the anxiety.
The rest of us, on the other hand, realize that life is combined of the good, the bad, and the indifferent and we try to capitalize on the good over the bad because we don't want to life in fear and anxiety all our life.
Personally, I'll take a happy outlook over a fearful one any day.
→ Knock and it shall be opened
May 8, 2008 - 02:06 ET by Cool Arrow"apparently because liberals lack ideological rationalizations that would help them frame inequality in a positive (or at least neutral) light."
No, it's just because Liberals carry around all that guilt for enslaving able bodied Americans with their "can't do" gospel.
If we were talking about bears in Jellystone Park, there'd be a Liberal at every campsite preaching the danger of feeding the bears. That it causes the bears to become sad beggars rather than the proud foragers they naturally are.
But Republicans also continue to overlook the state of bondage and unnatural dependence created by the Democrat plantation masters.
Guess they figure it would make them seem hateful, what with all those grumbling bears.
Yogi & Boo Boo?
May 8, 2008 - 02:31 ET by mastersofdeceitYogi & Boo Boo?
→ Yes, Yogi and Boo Boo
May 8, 2008 - 02:59 ET by Cool ArrowExcept Yogi was forthright in admitting he was stealing picnic baskets.
♣ a seal
If liberals stay up so late
May 8, 2008 - 02:17 ET by RainsfordIf liberals stay up so late at night worrying about the welfare of others, how come they don't seem to want to do anything about Tibet, Myanmar, Darfur, North Korea and Iran (with women and their lack of homosexuals)? How come they didn't even blink when Saddam was gassing the Kurds and operating rape rooms? How come they didn't mind as Pol Pot, Mao, and Stalin went ahead and wiped out half of their populations? How come FDR didn't have trouble with turning away the Jews fleeing Hitler, and locking up Japanese because their eyes looked different then his?
The only people liberals give a shit about are people who can vote for them. They will care about Africa/East Asia when we open up our presidential elections to the U.N. General Assembly.
Ah lib logic, happiness =
May 8, 2008 - 04:57 ET by taterAh lib logic, happiness = hatred
I hate to break it to them but constant hatred tears up a person inside. Anger is a deadly sin for a reason...sure you may get some bit of warped happiness but it doesn't last long when you realize nobody likes a debbie downer who's always mad at the world.
Now if you want to know what happiness comes from, well you could say it's almost like love...you have many good reasons but hatred isn't one of them.
"They need to have a course in college called common sense and everyone should take it. Problem is there isn't too many people that could pass or teach it." -my grandfather
Ah, Science
May 8, 2008 - 06:12 ET by AgnosticThis study is brought to you by the same scientific method that proved the "truths" of communism, global warming and the effectiveness of the UN.
→ More science
May 8, 2008 - 06:28 ET by Cool ArrowSame scientific method that determined a spider with no legs is deaf.
♣ a seal
Happy People
May 8, 2008 - 07:52 ET by philhoeyThis soulds like something written by Al Gore - a pile of bovine excrement.
I deeply care about people I just don't wear it on my sleeve.
Nor does this explain why people change their position or have different positions based on the subject.
This kind of study only confirms the position of Thomas Jefferson - there are a few enlightened elite and the rest are sheep to be told how to think, what to say, where to live. I do not agree with this position but liberals somehow feel they are 'annointed' to run our lives.
The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.” – Marcus Aurelius
I saw this article
May 8, 2008 - 07:49 ET by HelenSI saw this article yesterday on LiveScience and read it and was immediately disgusted by it. Not surprised, though, because they have such a left bent that it hurts my teath to read them but I keep going back for the occasional scientific update that they can't too obviously twist or misrepresent.
Just as an aside: curiously it is on their page that I often read of the discoveries of a myriad of new creatures being discovered around the world, all the while weeping and wailing the advancing destruction of global warming! Pathetic.
But I went back to the article this morning that this thread is about, conservatives being happier, and just had to post a comment. Some of the comments are surprisingly rational (like mine, of course - username Vikingwench :o) but of course there are the left delusions equally represented.
"Cry havoc and let slip the dogs of war" - Shakespeare
Everyone: Go to the link
May 8, 2008 - 08:50 ET by KillgraveEveryone:
Go to the link Helen provides, and bomb these suckers with logic. It's highly probable that the idiots who generated this "study" and the idiots who push the story will be reading the comments. Let them have it.
WTH - thanks for covering
May 8, 2008 - 07:54 ET by KillgraveWTH - thanks for covering this. I had the misfortune of reading this nonsense when it first came out.
Regarding this incessant whining about "inequalities". What is so hard to comprehend? Just look at the natural world around us. The strong, the hard-working, and, yes, the lucky get ahead.
I can see a liberal scolding an alpha lion because he is so "mean" to the smaller, weaker lions in the pride. It doesn't occur in his tiny, tiny mind that the survival of a species is heavily dependent of the advancement of the strong and the hard-working. It's particularly ironic that liberals heavily push the concept of evolution and natural selection, yet are completely oblivious to its significance to our own species.
I'll put it in another way. In a liberal reality, all football games would end with scores being tied. It doesn't matter how talented or hard-working a team would be. In fact, a team doesn't even have to take to the field, or even show up. The only thing that matters is that end-outcome be equal. This is the only way that liberals can be "happy" in this world.
»→ Killgrave
May 8, 2008 - 08:04 ET by Cool ArrowOddly enough, Liberals understand the rules of the Animal world very well until it comes to interaction with Humans.
And Liberals are loudly vociferous when it comes to the theory of Natural Selection and all of life evolving from a common happenstance in some primordial ooze.
But as I mentioned in my Jellystone Park analogy earlier, "Don't feed the bears" somehow does not translate into Darwinian Liberal talking points, but it figures neatly into their plans.
♣ a seal
Don't we see their
May 8, 2008 - 08:09 ET by HelenSDon't we see their desperation for equality or "fairness" in some of the news about animals we read? Like the penguin that was losing it's feathers so they put a little wet-suit on it so it could swim and stay warm...or the eagle whose beak was broken so they're going to try to give her a fake one...or the dolphin who was given a prosthetic fin in order to swim... (I've read all of these articles within just the past few weeks)
Maybe these are just opportunities for the prosthetic engineers to practice their skills and to experiment. But it seems to contain at least an element of preventing nature from being mean to the damaged and wounded.
"Cry havoc and let slip the dogs of war" - Shakespeare
I find it odd that leftists
May 8, 2008 - 08:43 ET by KillgraveI find it odd that leftists would be compelled to play "the hand of God" in the situations you describe. Maybe there were genetic and/or behavioral deficiencies that resulted in these two animals having problems. By intervening, these liberals are opening the possibility that the two subjects will breed and contaminate future lines with these impurities. Hence further suffering.
And liberals lecture us ad infinum about our lack of compassion towards our fellow human beings. If this is the case, isn't is hypocritical to spend thousands of dollars of medical technology on two hapless animals when the resources could be used on a needy child?
Killgrave....but.....but....
May 8, 2008 - 08:52 ET by motherbeltKillgrave....but.....but......but.....they meant well!!!
They had good intentions!!!!!
Isn't that what matters?????
<sarc>
OK THEN...
May 8, 2008 - 11:57 ET by danybhoymotherbelt,
So did Bush when he invaded Iraq, his intentions were good as well, yet I don't see libs praising Bush for meaning well.
"Some of us are wise, some of us are otherwise" Mark Levin
Killing with Kindness
May 8, 2008 - 09:17 ET by CobraMan"By intervening, these liberals are opening the possibility that the two
subjects will breed and contaminate future lines with these impurities.
Hence further suffering."
It's worse than that. Their intervention will not save the poor creatures but will, instead, lead to a very slow and painful death for them, especially the penguin in the wetsuit. Don't these idiots know that a penguin is susceptible to overheating just like any other creature? This poor animal is going to die of heatstroke simply because that wetsuit will assuredly retain the penguin's excess body heat that would normally be shed by contact with the water (a penguin‘s feathers are not completely waterproof in order for the penguin to shed excess body heat while swimming, a process that will not occur now thanks to the liberals fondness for stupid ideas). Death through dehydrating and heatstroke is a very slow and painful process.
Umm,
May 8, 2008 - 08:19 ET by voodoodaddyChange a couple of words in this statement and then you have the truth:
"To explain economic inequalities, a person should support the idea of meritocracy, in which people move up their economic status in society based on hard work and good performance. In that way, one's social class attainment, whether upper, middle or lower, would be perceived as totally fair and justified."
Hard work and good performance are not justifications, they are explanations you morons.
Wasn't there another study
May 8, 2008 - 08:37 ET by dscottWasn't there another study a year or two back about this subject?
Anyway, I just find this an interesting case study in liberal psyc. Projection. Pot meet Kettle, Kettle meet Pot. So libs are rationalizing why they aren't happy by claiming the achieving of happiness means you don't give a crap about your fellow human being. Sounds like an excuse to be continually miserable to me. This is to justify the unending liberal guilt over inequality because in their minds the world is a zero sum game, those people are poor because well off people stole it from them (Victim Thinking). In order not to point the finger at themselves due to their own idiotology (use of the word ideology is just not appropriate here) they drag the rest of us into their emotional peutrid swamp so they can't be individually responsible for other people's poverty, i.e. it's the society/groups fault not theirs specifically. Liberal guilt is basically about their refusal to acknowledge their own selfishness or callousness by Projecting it on others.
All this because they don't want to acknowledge that every choice has a consequence. They want a consequence free lifestyle. Of course, society is responsible to pay (more socialistic nonsense) the consequences of their lifestyle. Pick your consequences and then make the appropriate choice you bunch of immature little brats. There, I gave you the confirmation bias you want, conservatives are stingy, heartless, mean spirited people who won't give you what you want at their expense. %$%#$% I'm getting flash backs of my ex #$%#$%$
Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, starving the poor one gallon of ethanol at a time. Fill your tank with E85 and cull a village.
For a group who doesn't
May 8, 2008 - 09:02 ET by suzycreamcheeseFor a group who doesn't seem to care about the welfare of others, conservatives sure do donate more of their time and money to charity organizations. This has been proven
Liberals will only adopt a cause so that they can plaster their cars with bumper stickers and get up in the faces of anyone with an opposing viewpoint. I never get the idea that they really care for anyone's plight because they're so vocal and angry about it. Just go to zombietime.com and check out the pictures. If the good people of the world say "black," they will inevitably say "white" just to set themselves apart in this big, scary world.
People who truly care about causes do it less vocally--they selflessly donate their time after work and on weekends; they send in their hard-earned money; they volunteer for projects that will promote an organization. And they do all this without tooting their own horn.
Don't worry Suzy, they have a rationalization for that too ..
May 8, 2008 - 09:18 ET by EllisWyattCheck out this beauty of a comment:
"I think deeper down the article in implying and I think rightfully so is that conservatives as a group are really less intelligent then liberals and that convervatives actually don't posess the REAL critical thinking skills needed to assess the real conditions of the world but instead rely on rote dogma and similar parlor tricks like mentioning their religious credentials like church going, quoting the bible, "donating" money to the poor, or condeming abortion or womens rights for the umpteenth time. Which of course infuriates liberals because 99.9% of the time that has nothing to do with the real issues being discused. Hense their unhappiness."
If you're not outraged at the media, you haven't been paying attention.
"And they do all this
May 8, 2008 - 09:23 ET by Killgrave"And they do all this without tooting their own horn."
Liberals stridently promote eastern philosophies and religions, purely because they are NOT western and NOT christian.
However, again, they don't get it. Pure, positive karma only occurs when one gives of themself with absolutely no intention of getting anything in return (Jesus also talked about this). Craving and/or requiring recognition and attention corrupts the act of giving.
But maybe my argument is moot, since a typical leftist doesn't intend on giving away anything except SOMEONE ELSE'S money/resources.
"Craving and/or requiring
May 8, 2008 - 09:28 ET by tater"Craving and/or requiring recognition and attention corrupts the act of giving."
Jesus spoke of that too quite a bit, and always added "they have received their reward" I'd prefer not to have that reward.
"They need to have a course in college called common sense and everyone should take it. Problem is there isn't too many people that could pass or teach it." -my grandfather
amen Killgrave
May 8, 2008 - 10:15 ET by candanceIf you insist on praise from your fellow man for doing some good deed, you've already been rewarded for that and have no right to lay claim to any further benefit, whether you call it "karma" or anything else.
Jesus made that concept pretty clear in the gospels.
Maybe they should try a little prayer
May 8, 2008 - 09:10 ET by kenro85The Serenity Prayer
God grant me the serenity
to accept the things I cannot change;
courage to change the things I can;
and wisdom to know the difference.
Living one day at a time;
Enjoying one moment at a time;
Accepting hardships as the pathway to peace;
Taking, as He did, this sinful world
as it is, not as I would have it;
Trusting that He will make all things right
if I surrender to His Will;
That I may be reasonably happy in this life
and supremely happy with Him
Forever in the next.
Amen.
--Reinhold Niebuhr
That's a beautiful
May 8, 2008 - 09:28 ET by motherbeltThat's a beautiful prayer...I never knew there was more of it, after the well-known part.
Ridiculous
May 8, 2008 - 09:34 ET by MeanderingWhat a ridiculous nonsense. I can't speak for all conservatives, but I'm happy because I have values and I live by them. I help those around me and I do care about those less fortunate, but I believe in a higher power and it gives me comfort that there is a loving Heavenly Father who cares for all of us, even liberals. I mean really, what kind of questions are those? These researchers have lost all credibility in my mind and should never be allowed to study anything else ever again. I'm not bitter at anyone, but full of love something that liberals couldn't begin to comprehend. Thanks for setting the record straight!
Warner, Who is funding this
May 8, 2008 - 09:48 ET by NL207Warner, Who is funding this "research"? I'd bet it's the taxpayers.
If it is, I think these researchers need to seek employment opportunities elsewhere. I hear Mickey Dee's has employment amenable to the useful skills of these two individuals.
Conservatives can't hate
May 8, 2008 - 10:26 ET by balboaConservatives can't hate anybody; that would require feelings.
surveys - who believes `em ,anyhow ?
May 8, 2008 - 10:36 ET by northernskepticI fully expect to see a headline anyday now, that shouts : The DEAD are happier than the living! Two graduate students from Harvard went to a cemetary and stopped at each headstone.They asked the deceased to rap on their stones three times to indicate if they were dissatisfied with their condition.
Since none of the deceased responded by rapping , they drew the inevitable conclusion - THE DEAD ARE MUCH HAPPIER THAN THE LIVING!
Since this is the kind of crap that passes for scholarship in the Mid Stream Media, is it any wonder a thinking person regards them as little more than entertainment for the intellectually challenged?
"Conservatives also scored
May 8, 2008 - 10:42 ET by Novice"Conservatives also scored highest on measures of rationalization, which gauge a person's tendency to justify, or explain away, inequalities."
I think that is what Modern Liberals do with abortion. I always ask them how they can be pro-killing pre-born babies and sleep so good at night. I am often quite troubled by the practice.
If only they could share their secret....
Novice
'Gee what breakthrough! Now I can hate myself!'
May 8, 2008 - 15:07 ET by Johnny LucidWithout a doubt I'm dating myself, but I think the other old farts here will get the reference.
Wayback when Chevy Chase used to do Weekend Update on SNL, one night he reported on the then recent UN resolution that equated Zionism with racism.
Chevy continued: "When asked to comment on the UN resolution, singer Sammy Davis, Jr. said, 'Gee what breakthrough! Now I can hate myself!'"
I know, when I am feeling
May 8, 2008 - 13:11 ET by bassndudeI know, when I am feeling down and out, I go out and drive my 4X4 GMC around the bridges. The view of those homeless folks, standing in the rain or snow, always perks me up and I feel better. It makes me happy to see the despair in their eyes and faces. </sarc>
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
Conservatives don't hate everyone
May 8, 2008 - 13:43 ET by LionKingConservatives love the unborn, all races. We try to allow them to live, but its liberals that insist on abortion, even the wicked partial-birth abortion.
It was conservatives that showed love and compassion for the disabled -- we tried to save Terri Schiavo from state-sponsored murder! (starving someone to death constitutes MURDER)
If liberals are wrong,
May 8, 2008 - 13:51 ET by MeanderingIf liberals are wrong, they'll "Fight to the death" that's their not. Sounds to me that this is exactly what they are doing.
If you ask me, this whole
May 8, 2008 - 16:12 ET by MrSnugglesIf you ask me, this whole study is one big "rationalization" or "justification" as to why lefties are so depressed. ironic really.