Luke, I Am Your Father....

In what has to be the most depressing news I have heard in a long time, presidential hopeful Barack Obama is related to Dick Cheney. Apparently, way back in the days of yore, a distant relative of Obama's married a relative of Cheney's and as the generations begat through time, it turns out the Dick Vader is the eighth cousin, once removed, of The Man who would change the world.

Not since I saw Empire for the first time have I been so profoundly shocked. I don't think there is any chance for our Vader to turn back to the good side, though. Oh, and Obama's reaction?

"Every family has a black sheep."

Buying The War

Ah, the liberal media...you gotta love 'em. This is an excerpt from a Bill Moyers journal episode called "Buying the War" which details how complicit the mainstream media was in selling the Iraq War. Check it out on PBS if you get a chance.

Ah, The Liberal Media

Since the comments section of the Sanchez post has been threading the way of the "liberal" media, I thought I would share this picture with all of you taken last October of 2006. Here we see President Bush meeting his "troops" or more specifically: Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham, Michael Medved, Mike Gallagher, and Neil Boortz.

Now I tried to find a photo of Bill Clinton talking with his "troops," which is every single person in mainstream media if you believe conservatives, but I couldn't find one. I offer this photo, as well as the highly popular broadcasts of each one of these individuals, as evidence that the media is, in fact, not liberal. Talk to anyone who lives in a rural area in our country and they only hear right wing talk show hosts. The 3-5 conglomerates that own these stations will not put on any liberal hosts. How's that for fair and balanced?

So when General Sanchez says things like the press is "unquestionably engaged in political propaganda that is uncontrolled" he would be 100 percent correct!

OmygodIcan'tbelieveit! (Part Deux)

Warning: The following contains substantiated rumour, inuendo, gossip, and no substanative facts whatsoever (aka trying not to cause the ineveitable conservative tapping into their inner rage, flying off the handle at yours truly, and accusing me of being a communist)

But........

An avid reader of Notes From the Front just sent me this email (the names have been changed to protect the innocent...)

Jill (my wife) says that it is a widespread rumor that Michelle Bachmann is having an affair with someone in Washington, apparently another congressman. One of Jill's acquaintances observed Bachmann playing footsie with some guy in a meeting, and upon further discussion with those in the know learned that it's common knowledge she is having an affair.

I guess when Bush rejected her advances she went on to fry other fish.

And apparently her husband likes to watch, since she would never do anything without him telling her to do it.

Could it be true? Well, I know this is tabloid stuff but this is the closest I will EVER get to going Paris Hilton on all y'all's asses. I have scanned the Internet and found nothing. Perhaps Notes From The Front will be the first to break this story!!!

Well Well Well

Looks like ol'Markdelphia is right again. And all it took was a little time...

The Ex-CEO of Qwest, Joseph P. Nacchio (left), has alleged that the United States Government, specifically the NSA (National Security Agency), withdrew a 200 million dollar contract because Qwest refused to participate in a surveillance program. Now I know you must all be thinking that yours truly is caught in a time loop. Didn't we already have long and hard debates about this many moons ago? Wasn't Qwest the only company out of all the tele-communications companies to say NO to the NSA back when they wanted to listen to our conversations? Didn't Dave and Crabmaster Scratch argue vociferously that, because of the 9-11 attacks, these programs were needed?

And wasn't I told I was being "paranoid" and "libelous" by insinuating that our government wanted to use the NSA program for things other than protecting our nation from terrorism?

Well, the answers to all these questions is YES, of course but the current allegation by Mr. Nacchio is not being made in regards to surveillance programs since 9-11.

No, sir.

Then CEO Nacchio was approached by the NSA on February 27, 2001, A FULL SIX MONTHS BEFORE THE 9-11 ATTACKS!!!

That's right, folks. It comes as no surprise to me, but possibly to others who read and post here, that Herr Cheney wants to be up all of our collective asses with tweezers-you know, to make sure that we are all good little followers of the state. I'm sure that our beloved Fuhrer also wants to keep an eye (or ear in this case) on any dissenters and political enemies that might be plotting against him. And if anyone gets too powerful....or steps out line......

Ah, less government....you gotta love it.

Could any of this be true? As this story comes out, neocon pundits will point to the fact that Joe Nacchio has been found guilty of insider trading and will say anything to beat the rap. But a recent article in the Star and Tribune describes Nacchio as vainly attempting to tell the court that his sale of stock couldn't have been improper due to the fact the NSA cancelled the contract. Of course, this is proving difficult because all references to the NSA program have been redacted from court papers for "security concerns."

So that's what the kids are calling breaking constitutional law these days. Cool!

My questions are these: why did the Bush administration, who has stated repeatedly that the NSA program is necessary because of 9-11, want to bypass the courts and warrants back in February of 2001, well before the attacks? Have other companies complied? If so, why didn't this "necessary" surveillance prevent 9-11?

And why exactly did they want American's phone records again?

A Nightmare

The commander of coalition forces in Iraq from 2004-2006, Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, is speaking out.

In a recent interview, Sanchez, the top military man in Iraq during that time period, called the Bush Administration's handling of the war "incompetent" and a "nightmare with no end in sight." He went on to say that the Bush administration's plan is "catastrophically flawed and unrealistically optimistic." And how does he feel about the surge?

"A desperate move that would not achieve long term stability."

You may recall that Gen. Sanchez was forced into retirement because of the Abu Ghraib scandal. So is it sour grapes? Or is he covering his ass for the history books?

Could he be right?

We have a Winner

Al Gore has won the Nobel Peace Prize. And I, for one, am very happy. Regardless of what you might think about climate change, there is no doubt that there hasn't been anyone who has raised awareness more on the issue than our former VP.

Along with Gore, the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) was given the award "for their efforts to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about man-made climate change, and to lay the foundations for the measures that are needed to counteract such change"

Even our current president has been talking more of the need to help combat climate change. I think we are headed down a good path, here, folks and kudos to the big Al for leading the way.

My Point About Conservatives Completely and Utterly Proven

Today's column by Katherine Kersten illustrates my contention from earlier in the week that conservative pundits are losing their minds. Vietnam and Iraq are two completely different countries and to make the assertion that Iraq would fall into chaos if we left, just as Vietnam did, is fucking moronic. Do these conservative pundits just make up a bunch of shit, ignore basic facts, and then print it as truth?

A 5th grader will tell you that Iraq and Vietnam are about as different as night and day. Not to mention the fact that it was our fault that the violence escalated regionally in Vietnam because we stayed to long, not because we left too soon. And aren't we doing quite a bit of trade with Vietnam now? Isn't the country more or less stable because we left?

You know, it's a nice pleasant fantasy when I am told to just ignore folks like Katherine Kersten and maybe they'll go away but people read what she is saying and think it's true.

And they can't see that they are being lied to by what is, without a doubt, the greatest propaganda machine in the history of the world.

Is It True?

A reader sent me this yesterday and I thought I would throw it out to all of you and see what you think. It was written earlier this year but I still think it is appropriate.

A Psychiatrist's Analysis of George W. Bush

George Bush's "irrational"consideration of a "surge" in the wake of the Iraq Study Group report -- which apparently defies all credible counsel -- has begun to generate speculation regarding his sanity. References to Bush's delusions" have appeared in the mainstream media and throughout the blogosphere. As a psychiatrist, I understandably get concerned when I see clinical terminology bandied about in political discourse, and thought it might be of interest to share a professional perspective on this question. I have a distinct clinical impression that I think explains much of Mr. Bush's visible pathology.

First and foremost, George W. Bush has a Narcissistic Personality Disorder. What this means, is that he has rather desperate insecurities about himself and compensates by constructing a grandiose self-image. Most of his relationships are either mirroring relationships -- people who flatter him and reinforce his grandiosity -- or idealized self-objects -- people that he himself thinks a lot of, and hence feels flattered by his association with them. Some likely perform both functions. Hence his weakness for sycophants like Harriet Miers, and powerful personalities like Dick Cheney.

Even as a narcissist, Bush knows he isn't a great intellect, and compensates by dismissing the value of intellect altogether. Hence his disses of Gore's bookishness, and any other intellectual who isn't flattering him. Bush knows that his greatest personal strength is projecting personal affability, and tries to utilize it even in the most inappropriate settings. That's why he gives impromptu back rubs to the German Chancellor in a diplomatic meeting -- he's insecure intellectually, and tries to make everyone into a "buddy" so he can feel more secure. The most disturbing aspect about narcissists, however, is their pathological inability to empathize with others, with the exception of those who either mirror them, or whom they idealize. Hence Bush's horrifying insensitivity to the Katrina victims, his callous jokes when visiting grievously injured soldiers, and numerous other instances. He simply has no capacity to feel for others in that way.

When LBJ was losing Vietnam, he developed a haunted expression that anybody could recognize as indicative of underlying anguish. For all his faults, you just knew he was losing sleep over it. By the same token, we know just as well that Bush isn't losing any sleep over dead American soldiers, to say nothing of dead Iraqis. He didn't exhibit any sign of significant concern until his own political popularity was sliding -- because THAT'S something he CAN feel. Which brings us to his recent "delusion." To be blunt, I don't see any indication that Bush has any sort of psychotic disorder whatsoever. The lapses in reality-testing that he exhibits are the sort that can be readily explained by his characterological insensitivity to the feelings and perceptions of others, due to his persistently self-centered frame of reference.

Mr. Bush knows that things aren't going his way in Iraq, and he knows that this is damaging him politically. He also sees that it is likely to get worse no matter what he does, and in fact it may be a lost cause. However, he recognizes that if he follows the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group, Iraq will almost certainly evolve into a puppet state of Iran, and given his treatment of Iran he will completely lose control of the situation -- and he will be politically discredited for this outcome. The ONLY chance that he has to avoid this political disaster, and save his political skin, is to hope against hope for "victory" in Iraq. Advancing the "surge" idea offers Bush two political advantages over following the ISG recommendations. One is that if it is implemented, maybe, just maybe, he can pull out some sort of nominal "victory" out of the situation. The chances are exceedingly slim, granted, but slim is better to him than the alternative -- none. Alternately, if the "surge" is politically rejected, he gains some political cover, so when things inevitably go bad, he can say "I told you so" and blame the "surrender monkeys" for the outcome. Most people probably won't buy it, but some (his core base) will. Now, I know what many of you are thinking -- is George Bush willing to risk the lives of hundreds, maybe thousands more American soldiers, on an outside chance to save his political skin, in a half-baked plan that even he knows probably won't work at all? Yes, he is. Because George Bush is that narcissistic, that desperate, and yes, that sociopathic as well.

Especially interesting about Mr. Bush, but quite common, Narcissistic Personality Disorder is frequently associated with alcoholism. The insufferable "holier than thou" attitude associated with "Dry Drunk" Syndrome" is indicative of underlying narcissism. Also, the way that Bush embraces Christianity is characteristically narcissistic. Rather than incorporating the lessons of humility and empathy modeled by Jesus, Bush uses his Christian faith to reinforce his grandiosity. Jesus is his powerful ally, his idealized "buddy" who gives a rubber stamp to anything he thinks . Finally -- and this will sound VERY familiar to many readers -- those persons with NPD are notoriously unable to say they're sorry. Admitting error is fundamentally incompatible with their precarious efforts to maintain their sense of order. Anyone having this particular character flaw almost certainly has NPD.

(Dr. Paul Minot, psychiatrist, Waterville, Maine)

I think that this analysis could easily extended to cover several conservatives I know as well.

Rush Limbaugh Phony Soldiers Comment

I figured since we are debating this in comments I would put this out front on the blog and let everyone judge for themselves.

Please! For the love of Mike....STOP THE INSANTIY!!!

Over the course of the last few years, y'all have heard me dish on a variety of things that irritate me about folks on the right side of the aisle. To be fair, the left side of the aisle irritates me as well, especially lately. Someone needs to let the Democratic Party know that every time Harry Reid speaks, rather than projecting strength, millions of Americans get the sudden urge to discuss the fine art of quilting and drink warm milk.

Lately, however, right minded folk seem to be losing their minds. I mean this quite literally and it's getting worse everyday. I'm sure that many folks who post here of the conservative ilk will tell you that liberals are just as bad but it's simply not true. Liberals have a plethora of other faults, to be sure, but they aren't anywhere close to what the conservatives are going through at present. They aren't even in the same ballpark. While it's true that everyone is capable of psychosis, in the last few weeks, conservative pundits have collectively demonstrated new depth to the word "loony."

Rush Limbaugh, on his daily radio show last week, called Iraq and Afghan troops that have criticized the war, "phony troops." Leaping to his defense, fellow radio host Melanie Morgan said, on Fox News, that soldiers like VoteVets.org Chairman Jon Soltz are part of the “soldiers who are fake, or who are embellishers, or who are posers.” Morgan then claimed that Soltz, who served honorably in both Kosovo and Iraq, has a “far left, anti-America agenda” and that he “undermine[s] the real mission of our troops, our heroes who are out there”



I have two words for you Melanie: FUCK and YOU.

The day you get shot at, truck bombed, or have shrapnel removed from your head is the day you can speak with any kind of authority of what constitutes a loyal solider. The same could be said to Rush, who the last time I checked, received a deferment in Vietnam because he had an anal cyst. And people think that these two individuals are accurate judges of what is patriotic and what is not? What a joke....

I challenge anyone here to find a liberal, as well known as Limbaugh and Morgan, who has called combat troops serving in Iraq and Afghanistan "phony" or "Anti-American." Where do Bushies come up with this shit? Oh yes, that's right....THEIR INSANELY WARPED MINDS!

Another shining example of this is Michele Malkin who, when commenting on Sally Field's statement at the Emmys that if "women ran things there would be no war," declared that Ms. Field is, obviously, the "type of mom who buys her kids liquor, condoms, and a hotel room on prom night rather than suiting up and doing battle."

Uh.....what?

Maybe it's the fact that they can see their support slipping away like granules of sand through their fingers. Or maybe they just can't get out of that "tap into my inner, delusional rage..make something up...and right it down as fact" loop of insanity. Clearly, these people aren't thinking rationally. But how did they get here? Where did they insanity begin?

I say it began with OJ.

Laugh all you want but I think that when OJ Simpson was found innocent of a crime he clearly committed, I believe that certain powerful folks, of the conservative persuasion, saw a golden opportunity. I speculate they realized that they could make up whatever they wanted, throw in some jingoistic lingo, tap into American paranoia and ignorance, and voila! Instant Mandate!

They sure have accomplished a lot, haven't they? They have lowered the level of civility in this country to the point of where we are now: calling US soldiers, who risk their lives for us everyday, "phonies" simply because they don't agree with their bizarre vision of patriotism. They have also given rise to groups like Moveon.org. The beef over the General Patreus ad made me laugh so hard I almost threw up. You see, this what you get, Bushies et al, when you lower the political discourse in this country to the mental and emotional level of a thirteen year old girl. You get liberal groups who say dumb ass shit that makes no sense. For every yin, there must be a yang...

So, I have to say that I quite literally can't take this anymore. Listening to any conservative pundit today on just about any topic is like listening a robot slowing breaking down...muttering unintelligible drivel. I've tried to listen...tried to be fair...but I just can't do it anymore. Would someone (or several someones) please slap these people in the face? You know, like in the 1940s when a woman would get too emotional and a man would have to bust them across the chops?

Maybe, just maybe, it will snap them out of their continually spiralling descent into delusion and cease to waste our time.

Torture Is For Pussys

Just ask these guys. Great article today in the Washington Post which details how real men (i.e. men who don't have dick size envy) can extract information from an enemy. Torture, to put it simply, does not work. Just out of curiosity, have US interrogators tried to maybe...oh...I don't know....use a softer approach like getting some Islamists drunk, showing them some porn, and seeing what they might give up.

I know that when I've had a few cocktails and have worked a little tail I am a little more conducive to dishing out secrets :)

This is what happens...

....when you privatize health care. Read this article from today's New York Times.

And people are worried about the government taking over health care? It sounds to me like the government just caught a bunch of thieving scumbags playing "pinch the penny so I can keep my vacation home" with people's lives.

The Regan Mantle

Sounds frightening, doesn't it? One of my readers sent me this column from Nancy Scola. Click here to read.

I have gone back and forth on my feelings for President Reagan. I didn't like him when he was in office. I appreciated him a little more later on in life. Now....I don't know...maybe his D looks so much better than President Bush's F right now.

I think perhaps my grandfather, at 91 years young, put it best. Bear in mind, he did vote for Reagan twice.

"What do I think of President Reagan?" Poppo asked in response to my question regarding our 40th president.

"Well, he was a good actor."

Amen, Pop, amen

So True

This one is hilarious. It really puts "terror" into perspective.

Fresh Celery

Ah, fall.....that crispness in the air....the leaves about to turn....there really is no other season like it. It happens to be my favorite. Baseball playoffs, football season, and a strong sense of a new beginning.

Perhaps this feeling of a new start has to do with the fact that this is the time of year when school is back in session. Minnesotans greeted the 2007-2008 school year with a full page spread in the Minneapolis Star and Tribune detailing how a full third of our schools are in jeopardy. That's right, folks. We here in the great North Woods are is deep trouble. No Child Left Behind trouble.

For those of you who don't know, No Child Left Behind (NCLB) is the education program of our current president, George Bush, which he signed into law shortly after he took office in 2001. Before I give my own take on it, however, I feel that we really need to understand what No Child means and how it works. Since I don't want to bore you with a lot of "edu-speak," I thought that a sports analogy would facilitate a deeper understanding of what is expected of our students under the NCLB laws.

Imagine that American students are on football team......(cue blurry, dreamy lap dissolve and "doodle oodle oo" music)

1. All teams must make the state playoffs and all must win the championship. If a team does not win the championship, they will be on probation until they are the champions, and coaches will be held accountable. If after two years they have not won the championship, their footballs and equipment will be taken away until they do win the championship.

2. All kids will be expected to have the same football skills at the same time even if they do not have the same conditions or opportunities to practice on their own. NO exceptions will be made for lack of interest in football, a desire to perform athletically, or genetic abilities or disabilities of themselves or their parents. All kids will play football at a proficient level!

3. Talented players will be asked to work out on their own, without instruction. This is necessary because the coaches will be using all their instructional time with the athletes who aren't interested in football, have limited athletic abilities, or whose parents don't like football.

4. Games will be played year round, but statistics will only be kept on the 4th, 8th, and 11th games.It will create a New Age of Sports where every school is expected to have the same level of talent and all teams will reach the same minimum goals. If no child gets ahead, then no child gets left behind. If parents do not like this new law, they are encouraged to vote for vouchers and support private schools that can screen out the non-athletes and prevent their children from having to go to school with bad football players.

No Child Left Behind is quite possibly the worst piece of legislation in the history of this country. It is ignorant, racist, and gives a big "Fuck You!" to people that are poor-something that has been quite common in the last six years.

It is ignorant because it assumes that the only way to measure assessment is to test children. Apparently people like President Bush and Margaret Spellings (our Secretary Of Education) have not picked up a book on learning styles in...oh, I don't know....25 years!

Everyone learns differently. Some learn in a more tactile way. Others learn in groups. Some learn by writing or research. Howard Gardner, a professor at Harvard University, identified, in 1983, eight multiple intelligences or ways people learn. They are: Linguistic intelligence, Logical-mathematical intelligence, Musical intelligence, Bodily-kinesthetic intelligence, Spatial intelligence, Interpersonal intelligence, and Intrapersonal intelligence. Testing would fall under the "Logical-mathematical intelligence" umbrella. As we can see, NCLB ignores the other seven ways people learn and thus is an extremly ignorant way to gauge learning.

It is racist because it does not take into account recent research that suggests that different cultures learn differently. The work of Gardner can be applied here as well. Some people are inherently bad test takers because it is simply not a part of their cultural environment. Or they can't speak English, the only way the test is available incidentally. In the last ten years, we have undergone a massive influx of immigrants from all over the world and they are immediately expected to conform to standardized testing. What if the only way they have been tested in the past is oral exams?

It says "Fuck You" to poor people because of how the questions on the test are worded. It assumes knowledge and understanding where there might not be either . One question on the test included the words "fresh celery." Well, nearly everyone from poorer families and/or from a non white group got that question wrong because they had no idea what fresh celery was. They had never seen it before in their lives! Did people at the Department of Education actually THINK when they drew up these tests? Or did they just do their usual Bushie bullshit and try to ram a square peg into a round hole? LEARN, DAMMIT, THE WAY NORMAL PEOPLE DO!!!!

Actually, I suppose it's prudent to mention that the one good thing that has come out of NCLB is the aggregate data that proves that people learn differently especially if they are from another culture. Ironically, NCLB invalidates itself by illustrating that a large segment of our student population doesn't do well on standardized tests.

As a result of poor test scores, they are punished by the slow removal of Title I money, which is basically what is happening with nearly a third of our schools in Minnesota. My children's school, replete with cultural diversity, is now on "warning" as they have failed to achieve NCLB standards in the 2006-07 school year. Students that failed to achieve the minimum requirements? ESL (English as a Second Language) and learning disabled kids...the ones who don't acquire intelligence through the "Logical-mathematical" arena.

If we really want our children to achieve basic knowledge sets, we need to start applying Gardner's theories on a national level. Everyone should be taught in a way that is most suitable to their comfort of learning. Grading should be based on a balance of testing, group work, hands on learning, classroom participation and oral exams. To simply focus on testing is so narrow minded and downright silly that we are really doing our children a great disservice

Because once the Title I money is taken away, schools usually get reconstituted, meaning class size increases in other schools in the district. This exacerbates the problem further and learning is even more diminished. Of all of the policies of President Bush, this one really is the worst, hands down. Y'know, people always ask me, when I go off about how incompetent Bush is, to give them a specific example of how Bush is destroying the future.

I always start with this one.

Chris Rock about the War on Terror

Joanne Tucker sent me this hilarious video of Chris Rock. Finally, all is explained!

Mr. Ahmadinejad Goes To New York

As I write these words, the President of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is about to speak at Columbia University in New York. The introduction that is being given before he goes on, by Lee Bollinger, president of Columbia University...well...to say that it is not very welcoming would be the understatement of the year. It makes me wonder why the right is as bunged up as it is over this visit because basically President A just got bitch slapped all over the mother!

The reaction to this whole visit has been hilarious, in sad and pathetic way. I could write a long essay about the substance of President Ahmadinejad's speech, being delivered as I am composing the remainder of this post, but what's the point? We already know what he is going to say. At this point I am more interested in illustrating how little we understand Iran fully exposed by the silly reaction of conservatives in this country.

President Ahmadinejad is not the leader of Iran. The leader of Iran is the Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Supreme Leader. The president of Iran has the power he has because he is granted it by the Ayatollah. The Ayatollah grants him his power as long as he goes out, spews his bile of lies AND gets a reaction from the West. President A currently holds a whopping 20 percent approval rating in his country and is generally loathed by most citizens, largely due to the fact that the economy is in the tank.

By reacting to him the way the conservative fake outrage machine has in the past few days, they have GIVEN, not taken away, power from him. They have demonized him to biblical (pun fully intended) proportions, comparing him to Adolph Hitler (as if!) and launching him onto the world stage and limelight....a stage he is all too willing to occupy for lengthy periods of time. Even more farcical is that fact that it has been President Bush's own policies in Iraq that have led to the hard line factions of Iran further cementing their power in the region, thus making Iran the larger enemy today than it was six years ago when reform seemed to be on the horizon.

Oddly, the outrage has been directed at President A's visit to Columbia but not to his speeches earlier in the day at the National Press Club or the Council on Foreign Relations. I wonder why this is so? (I know the answer...just want to see if y'all do :))

Anyhoo, it has been a truly remarkable day for myself as well as other people in this country that know a thing or two about Iran, to see an already semi-scary guy fully "made" into the enemy that conservatives want him...or actually NEED him to be. Ah, well, just another example of what Army Sargent Ben Busch called a "childish understanding of the region."

America is Not Fighting WWIV

Steve Chapman, columnist in the Chicago Tribune, had a great column in the Sept 16the Edition. Click here if you'd like to read it.

Some quotes with which I agree completely:

"to equate our current challenges with the Nazis and Soviets is to grossly misunderstand our enemies."

"Osama bin Laden must rejoice to be depicted as endangering our entire culture and way of life."

"The vision of a monolithic Islamic movement hostile to everything we value is equally warped. We usually associate the religion with Arab militants, but the world's biggest Muslim populations are in Indonesia, Bangladesh, Pakistan, India and Nigeria, not the Middle East. Some Muslim countries, such as Turkey, Indonesia and Senegal, are free and democratic. The others vary greatly in political openness and personal liberty -- sort of like non-Muslim countries."

"Radical Islamic elements pose a danger to our security that will demand vigilance, resources, and in some instances, military action. But let's not make it more than it is."

Yes, let's not make it more than it is because to do so would be costly mistake that will, in fact, make things worse.

Blinding Me With Science! SCIENCE!!!

You know what? When I was in school, I should've had more respect for science. All those years ago, I would thumb my nose at science and math geeks with their fancy schmancy numbers and dorkwad experiments. Little did I know at the time that it would be science that would save the day and answer the question that has confounded me from the very first day I started this blog. In fact, as if by some heavenly intervention, my question from last week regarding the giant chasm between conservatives and liberals has, at last been answered.

Why DO conservatives think the way the do? Why do liberals think the way they think? Well, now I know. Sadly, I also know that my quest to build bridges may be in vain. I have to say, folks, that it's over. It's all over......

Conservatives think the way they do because their brains are different. It's just that simple.

According to a new study from scientists at New York University and UCLA, published in the journal Nature Neuroscience, liberals were 4.9 times as likely as conservatives to show activity in the brain circuits that deal with conflicts, and 2.2 times as likely to score in the top half of the distribution for accuracy.

The jounral reports that participants were college students whose politics ranged from "very liberal" to "very conservative." They were instructed to tap a keyboard when an M appeared on a computer monitor and to refrain from tapping when they saw a W.M appeared four times more frequently than W, conditioning participants to press a key in knee-jerk fashion whenever they saw a letter. Each participant was wired to an electroencephalograph that recorded activity in the anterior cingulate cortex, the part of the brain that detects conflicts between a habitual tendency (pressing a key) and a more appropriate response (not pressing the key).

Liberals had more brain activity and made fewer mistakes than conservatives when they saw a W, researchers said. Liberals and conservatives were equally accurate in recognizing M. Researchers got the same results when they repeated the experiment in reverse, asking another set of participants to tap when a W appeared.

Now, does all this mean that conservatives have smaller brains? Not enough synaptic connections? Are liberals actually smarter than conservatives?

No. What it shows that is that conservatives brains are wired to be more resistant to new ideas or change. Liberals, on the other hand, are more open to new ideas and the parts of their brain that deal with conflict are more active. This is not necessarily a good thing for liberals as they could be more open to (dunh dum dah!!) conservative ideas. Speaking for myself, I wish that I had the same synaptic connections that conservatives do so I could filter out bullshit as well. :)

This explains sooooo much, doesn't it? I mean, look at President Bush. I have always wanted to know why he is so stubborn and now I do. His brain is made that way. He can't process information that doesn't conform with his existing brain patterns. His mind is set...quite literally.

Think of all the debates we have had here over the years that have ended in frustration. Well, there is no need to be frustrated anymore. We have the proof! We have the evidence! I don't know about all of you but I take a great amount of comfort now in knowing that there is absolutely nothing I can do. It's impossible to physically change someone's brain.

Well, unless your last name is....Frankenstein. (Cue chilling organ music), (maniacal laughter)...Hah Hah Hah Ah Ha Ha Ha Ha!!!!!!