For a while I have been really confused.
Speaker Boehner says that the budget legislation being discussed during dept ceiling talks will help create jobs by cutting spending and decreasing taxes. Now all the data I have seen has shown that unemployment is negatively correlated with state spending. Also most of the tax cuts will affect the top tax bracket and the corporate income tax. I am assuming that the Speaker and his friends are not blind or idiots, so how can he have reasonably come to this conclusion?
Then it hit me.
When a Republican (or most Democrats) says “jobs” he or she is really using the word as a rhetorical device for the more maligned word “profits.”
Now it all makes sense.
A very interesting and likely prediction, I think.
This is pretty much right on, which tells me just how loony things have become in this country. I’ not going to lie, as someone who grew up poor if there had been no public libraries I wouldn’t know shit right now.
The most comprehensive review of personality and political orientation to date is a 2003 meta-analysis of 88 prior studies involving 22,000 participants. The researchers—John Jost of NYU, Arie Kruglanski of the University of Maryland, and Jack Glaser and Frank Sulloway of Berkeley—found that conservatives have a greater desire to reach a decision quickly and stick to it, and are higher on conscientiousness, which includes neatness, orderliness, duty, and rule-following. Liberals are higher on openness, which includes intellectual curiosity, excitement-seeking, novelty, creativity for its own sake, and a craving for stimulation like travel, color, art, music, and literature.
In a perfect world, the political ideals of our scientists should be irrelevant. But we live in an imperfect world, and what this does is create a false opportunity for suspicion and conspiracy theories about science and its motives.
One thing that I haven’t seen addressed completely: Do most scientists become liberals because of their intellectual values, or do open and curious liberals just tend to become scientists?
Scientists are used examining arguments really hard, and I honestly think that most Republican arguments fall apart under any sort of reasonable scrutiny. People won’t like that explanation, but I truly think that is the case.
Rand is very clear: walking in the path of Christ and walking in the path of “Atlas Shrugged” hero John Galt will take you to two very different places. Which ought to give pause to political leaders who claim to embrace the values of Christ but adopt the politics of Rand.
Before Congress went on its Easter recess, the House of Representatives passed a 2012 federal budget blueprint drafted by Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., who credits Rand for inspiring him into entering politics, and who reportedly encourages his staff members to read “Atlas Shrugged.” The budget unabashedly bears the trademarks of Rand’s thinking: its glorification of individualism and private enterprise not as a companion to the collective pursuit of the common good but as a replacement for it; the gradual elimination of anything that compels the haves to share with the have-nots; the presumption that have-nots are “moochers” or “looters” and must be treated accordingly.
This article article is a bit heavy on the scripture for me, but I basically agree that the Randian “Objectivist” (ha!) philosophy is incompatible with the moral message from the New Testament. In fact, I think it is pretty obvious even from a cursory glance. I wouldn’t waste too much of my breath explaining that to most conservatives, though. I think it is pretty clear that they aren’t that worried about having a logically consistent world view.
Judson Phillips, Tea Party Nation
Hey, Tea Party Nation…
Part of me really wants the Tea Party and the Republicans to hand over the reins to a complete crackpot just so they can drive the crazy train right off the rails.