Thursday, April 5, 2012

Liberals Are Not Smartier Than Conservatives (redux)

Last week, we offered some genuine proof that liberals are dumber that conservatives. Not only did we point out the kinds of errors they embrace in their thought processes, but we also pointed out how conservatives smoke them in testing. Now some liberal professor claims conservatism is the result of low brain power. Wrong.

The study (LINK) was done by a University of Arkansas psychologist and claims to have found that conservatism is the result of “low-effort thinking.” Essentially, the study claims that when the brain is firing on all cylinders, i.e. when it is engaged in “effortful, deliberate responding,” the mind tends toward liberalism. But when those deep thoughts are disrupted for various reasons (e.g. alcohol or time pressure), people become evil, stupid conservatives. How convenient for liberals who want to kid themselves about their own stupidity.

Let’s debunk this.

First, look at the labels this dipsh*t is using. Labeling conservatism as “low-effort” thinking is strong evidence of political bias. How do we know? Because what this study labels as “low-effort” thinking is actually defined by the study as the brain processes becoming “quick and efficient.” Thus, they have chosen a negative label (one implying limited brain power) to describe something which is actually a positive process (efficient use of brain power). Therefore, a more accurate description of the results of this study would instead be: “efficient thinking processes result in conservatism.” But that won’t comfort liberals.

Secondly, the study defines “conservative” wrongly. The study claims that conservatism “may be identified by several components,” which include: “an emphasis on personal responsibility, acceptance of hierarchy, and a preference for the status quo.” Wrong. Conservatism absolutely believes in individual responsibility. But individualism and acceptance of hierarchy are contradictory beliefs. And it is liberalism, not conservatism, which is marked with subservience to hierarchy. Liberals believe in leader worship, strong government, supremacy of experts and the superiority of certain classes of people. And if you want real world proof of this, look no further than any liberal country (e.g. Europe, Japan, South America) and you will find a heavy emphasis on strong government and social class, i.e. hierarchies, with a strong deference given to superiors telling inferiors how to live their lives. Only in America, the most conservative country on earth, is class minimized.

Moreover, if it were true that conservatives were beholden to hierarchies (and the status quo) then how can one explain that conservatives go against the MSM? America’s media and political class are center-left. If conservatives followed the herd, they too would be center-left. Yet, conservatives fight those groups and actively disbelieve what these authorities tell them -- again, it is liberals who do what they are told. Thus, again, we see that the study has tried to define conservatism as consisting of the worst traits of liberalism.

Third, the study is obviously wrong on its face because it is trying to explain ideology as a matter of brain function. Yet, ideology must be cultural in nature. How do we know this? Because different cultures produce different ideological results. The vast majority of the populations in Europe and Japan are far left by American standards and the vast majority of the populations in America and China are far right by European standards. This cannot be explained by brain function, it can only be culture. In other words, if ideology were the result of brain function, then all countries would exhibit similar ideological characteristics. Yet, they do not. That means brain function is not a predictor of ideology. And this study’s attempt to find such a link is a fool’s errand.

Fourth, the study looked only at political centrists, i.e. moderates. So the obvious problem here is whether moderates can be used as a proxy for conservatives? In fact, the authors admit that they do not know if conservatives get more conservative or if liberals get more conservatives (or more liberal) if tested in the same manner. Basically, the only thing they can say for certain is that when you put moderates under pressure, they give more conservative responses. This could mean they become more conservative under pressure. Or it could mean that moderates are more likely to fake liberal views until they are put under pressure, at which point their “real” beliefs appear. Or it could mean moderates are inherently conservative thinkers who delude themselves until it comes time to make a decision. Or it could be that conservatism is the human default for problem solving. Or it could just be that moderates realize that conservative ideas will give them the best result.

All we know for sure is that the study found this:
When moderates are put under pressure, so that a quick and efficient response is needed, they will resort to “conservative” thinking.
And the reasons for that are unknown. What cannot be concluded from this study, however, is that “low-effort thinking results in conservatism.”

Once again, what we see here is how far liberals will go to convince themselves they aren’t idiots. This study took the worst parts of liberal thinking and re-labeled them as conservative, conducted a useless test on moderates, and drew untenably broad conclusions while simultaneously ignoring overwhelming contradictory real world evidence all in the hopes of telling liberals that conservatives are stupid. Pathetic.

This is all starting to explain a lot, isn’t it? Who are your top five stupid liberals and what are their “shining moments” of stupidity?

130 comments:

Tennessee Jed said...

1) Barrack Obama - Too many to name just one. How about SCOTUS attack
2) the author of this study
3) Ted Kennedy - too many to name just one
4)Debbie Wasserman Schultz - every frickin' day
5) Elaine Kagan - the non-recusal

Look, I'm sure there are many golden oldies, but "what is fresh in the mind is most well define" {from the old poet Woodward)

Tennessee Jed said...

p.s. I'm guessing this was done to counter the Pew study.

TJ said...

Immediately, Nancy Pelosi comes to mind with her quote "we have to pass the law to see what's in it" regarding Obamacare. Also her remarks about unemployment benefits stimulating the economy. She could easily fill all of the top five slots.

Joel Farnham said...

What this study shows, is conservative thinking is based on Reality. Liberal thinking is based on fanciful constructs.

When pressured, the victim gives a response that is built in. Reality. It is why water-boarding does work. It taps into the primal(built-in) urges.

StanH said...

I like to post this when liberals ballyhoo their brilliance, it pisses them off, and that makes me happy.

“Any “corpse-man” in the 57th state, speaking Austrian, riding on the Intercontinental Railroad, while heading for the “English” embassy, via “Road Island” could tell you, conservatives, are much smarter than anyone over at Team Parasite most especially B-B-B-Biden or their Barry.”

Blithering is the natural state of the liberal. Critical thinking is as foreign to a liberal as is begging is foreign to a conservative. One immutable fact when looking at these two groups, liberals base their every decision on feelings, conservatives base their decisions on what is right, this one point dispels said professors complete thesis.

tryanmax said...

Andrew, I just have to say it in jest because a liberal would say it seriously: "Ha ha ha stoopid. Europe adn S. America isn't a countrys. UR so dum!"

LawHawkRFD said...

Andrew: I'm proud to say that my alma mater in Berserkeley declared conservatives insane a few years back, so the fact that Arkansas has declared me dull-witted as well doesn't bother me.

BevfromNYC said...

I mean you do have to admit it takes much "higher level" thinking to twist their logic and the back peddling that liberals must do to make their ideas more palatable to the general public.

AndrewPrice said...

Jed, Nice list. It's funny because when I try to think of "stupid conservatives," a couple come to mind. But when it comes to stupid liberals, there is just a flood. And most them have bunches of stupidities on their record.

I see, by the way, that Obama is now trying in serious damage control mode over his stupid Supreme Court statement. Whoops.

AndrewPrice said...

Also, Jed, isn't it funny how many of the Democrats you can think of to put on this list were sold to the public as "geniuses"?

AndrewPrice said...

TJ, I have long felt that someone should take the time to collect Democratic stupidities in a database and they would need an entire server just for Pelosi.

Those are definitely two classics. I seem to recall her also saying that contraception/abortion would stimulate the economy. There was something about her being opposed to fossil fuels and then turning around and pushing natural gas. And there are years of bomb-throwing contradictions.

Tehachapi Tom said...

Andrew
Liberal thinking is like a Corona typewriter
compared to a current day word processor, which is closer to conservative thinking.
Libs are so slow they need to stick to the first idea they manage to formulate. That is unlike the conservative brain which is not only fast but can multitask.
This allows for a conservative to process many concepts to their end result and see which is the best path to take then discard the poor choices.

AndrewPrice said...

Joel, That was my first thought too when I read their definition of "low-effort thought", that this means that when people realize it's important, i.e. when they are put under pressure, they go with what works -- conservatism. And it's only when you have time to talk yourself out of making the right choices that liberalism appears.

This study really shows how far liberals will go to try to protect the idea that they are smarter, even when their own evidence contradicts the exact point they are trying to make.

rlaWTX said...

When I have been doing other research, I occasionally come upon "ideology" research in Social Psychology - which, of course, I stop and read. [Invariably, conservatives are portrayed in a negative light.]

One of the consistent components of their operational definition of"conservative" is "Authoritarianism" - which is the same as the "acceptance of hierarchy". As far as I can tell, this component is there because of "religious conservatives" that are either Catholic (in action as well as name) or other "fundamental" sects. In this area, I can see where they get it, but they have confounded 2 variables, that might be correlated but are not equal. I think the "status quo" component comes from the belief that old "southern conservatives" (AKA racists) are ideologically conservative. Once again, they have taken a correlated concept and combined it into their operational definition.

Basically, their operational definitions of "conservative" are a result of laziness, the mono-culture in academia, and lack of desire to ACTUALLY understand their variables, which again proves the superiority of the true conservative mind.
[This conclusion is supported by an article at NRO about liberals not understanding the conservative point of view - enough so they can't actually argue against it effectively and are reduced to sensationalism and name-calling.]

AndrewPrice said...

Stan, That is a brilliance example of a certain "brilliant" president's idiocy! And let's not forget the 57 states and Hawaii being in Asia... and now the Supreme Court not having the power to overturn federal laws. We seem to be ruled by a Moron In Chief. And he is only the head moron looking at the ranks of his idiotic followers. The Democratic symbol of a jackass is well chosen and could only be improved by putting the jackass in a straight-jacket!

I hope more conservatives do begin to fight back on this because it's time we stopped letting liberals think they are smarter than conservatives.

AndrewPrice said...

tryanmax, Evading the point by misinterpreting something and then attacking the misinterpretation has LONG been a liberal defense mechanism when confronted with facts they don't like. They are the group for whom the idea of attacking the messenger was invented. Which is another sign of lack of enlightenment.

By the way, we keep talking about projection and I think it's funny how that is going on here again. Here is a liberal author who projects the worst traits of his own ideology onto conservatives and then tries to prove that conservatism is a knee-jerk reaction -- when liberals are the knee-jerker, herd followers. Amazing isn't it? It's becoming a pattern.

rlaWTX said...

I can also rant about the skewing of "positive" characteristics to those ideological or world perspectives that are "progressive".

One of those is Tolerance of Ambiguity. Being tolerant of ambiguity (able to accept grey areas, embracing the idea that there is no "right answer", able to make choices when very little data is available) is a "good" thing. A person is considered more enlightened, more mature when they have a high Ambiguity Tolerance. Conservatives regularly come out as low in Ambiguity Tolerance - which is BAD; therefore, conservatives are BAD (immature, unenlightened troglodytes).
Personally, being on that low end myself, I see this as a mix of being sensible, accepting that some things are WRONG, having a strong moral/ethical/religious compass. But, the research says that I simply am backward instead.

AndrewPrice said...

Lawhawk, It's funny how desperate liberals are to believe that there must be something mental wrong with people who don't agree with them. That alone strikes me as evidence of insanity.

AndrewPrice said...

Bev, True, it takes a lot of brainpower to hide their lack of brainpower! LOL!

In all seriousness, this is just more evidence that there is something wrong with liberal thinkers because they seek to define those who do not agree with them as somehow mentally defective rather than just believing differently. Add in their ready ability to accept massive contradictions and to ignore anything that doesn't fit their preferred version of reality and liberalism really is close to being a mental condition.

AndrewPrice said...

Tom, I agree. There are very few liberal thinkers who are capable of seeing the complexity behind problems -- they just come up with a quick "this is how I feel" answer and then all their effort after that goes into trying to defend that position. I've seen no evidence that they are capable of looking beyond "the easy answer", of seeing the long term effects, of seeing how their solutions will actually work, or of handling contradictory evidence.

Doc Whoa said...

I saw this headline and I hoped you would address this because naturally they are running around claiming it means that conservatives are stupid. Thanks for the debunk!

AndrewPrice said...

rlaWTX, I think that's right. They have basically taken a fringe portion of the conservative movement (a fringe that would actually be on the left if the left hadn't embraced atheism) and are trying to define conservatism though that group. It would be like us defining liberalism through the self-proclaimed anti-capitalism "anarchists" and then pretending they represent all of liberalism. It's nonsense.

And what proves this is nonsense, even without study, is logic. How can conservatives believe in authoritarianism when they advocate individual rights and smaller, limited government? Those are mutually exclusive beliefs. Yet, liberals are incapable of seeing this because they don't WANT to see it. They want to see conservatives as evil for demanding less government (that's evil because government fixed problems, hence conservatives want problems to go unfixed) and they see conservatives as evil for wanting dictators because conservatives are nasty, racist haters who want to enslave everyone. Not only are these two beliefs so biased as to be ridiculous on their face, but they are also contradictory -- you can't have both. Yet, liberals don't care, they WANT to believe both.

On the Southerners, they are confusing the non-political word "conservative" (i.e. resistant to change) with the political word. But the two are not the same.

And of course, once tropes like this set in in liberal academia land, they never go away. Look at Kinsey, whose research was ridiculous and any "scholar" should have recognized that the moment he published it, but Kinsey made a point liberals liked. So they believed it and ran with it and continued pushing it even after it was overwhelmingly debunked by decades of real world evidence.

Liberal academia is so without integrity and so blind to their own flaws and biases, that they really are worthless as thinkers or researchers.

Doc Whoa said...

Also, I see that Santorum has all but vanished from the news! Finally!

AndrewPrice said...

rlaWTX, That's more liberal bias -- they define the traits they THINK they have as good, define the traits they THINK conservative have as bad. And it never dawns on them that these things might not be good/bad as described or that liberals/conservatives may not have the traits they ascribe to them.

For example, it is obvious to me that conservatives are much more tolerant. Conservatives regularly accept people of all races/religions/ethnicities, etc. as well as different points of view, different beliefs, etc. Liberals have zero tolerance for those who aren't like themselves. Yet, liberals define themselves as tolerant and claim conservatives aren't because that is what they WANT to believe.

I've seen no evidence either that conservatives aren't capable of handling ambiguity whereas liberals are. Again, to the contrary, conservatives are very good at grasping ambiguity and dealing with it, i.e. they can see it and accept it. Liberals, on the other hand, are pigeon-holers -- they will wedge ambiguity into their prejudices and then run with their view of it, essentially defining it away.

I think what you have in academia is a bubble, where self-delusional, arrogant liberals sit around together telling each other how great they are and then they set out to conduct biased studies which prove what they want them to prove. Then they slap the label of science on these turkeys and act like they are surprised they found what they found. It's like listening to mental patients make up their own worlds and then get angry at those who refuse to acknowledge it.

AndrewPrice said...

Doc, You're welcome. I figured this one needed to be debunked because the MSM is running with the headline -- "conservatism results from low-effort thinking."

AndrewPrice said...

Doc, I haven't seen that! ;)

In all seriousness, there have been a series of articles lately saying things like "the fat lady sings to Santorum" and "Santorum fades into irrelevance." That's true, he's done.

The problem is that he's aiming for the next round now -- that's why he keeps mentioning Reagan 1976.

Joel Farnham said...

Doc,

I thought I read somewhere that Santorum was taking a week off. Euphemism for "He is considering quitting."

rlaWTX said...

I also think that your conclusion (echoed in other comments I have read about this study) that moderates choose to be PC when engaged in "high effort" thinking and are more honest when "impaired".

darski said...

I just read about the libtard that Ryan Gosling saved from traffic.

http://dailycaller.com/2012/04/05/maybe-ryan-gosling-shouldnt-have-saved-that-woman-from-a-cab/

If conservatives are really smarter we need to learn to get out of the way when libs want to (literally) self destruct.

AndrewPrice said...

Joel, He's taking four days off. Yeah, that usually is a euphemism for "planning to quit." But we'll see. Interestingly, polls now show Romney winning in PA. If that holds, then he needs to quit before PA or that could crush his hopes for the future because if he can't carry his home state against the world's biggest RINO, then he might as well drop out of politics.

AndrewPrice said...

rlaWTX, That's probably what is really going on here. My experience with moderates is that they tend to be "crowd-pleasers." So they go with whatever the mob is screaming at the moment. Typically, the mob is screaming leftist thoughts because liberals dominate the MSM, the music and film industries, and the schools, and they are the ones who scream the loudest when they don't get their way. So it makes sense to a crowd-pleaser to publicly go along with that herd... path of least resistance.

But when push comes to shove and it becomes time to make a meaningful decision, the moderates typically opt for conservatism.

In other words, when it doesn't matter, they play along with the liberals so they can fit in. But when it does matter (or when alcohol reduces their need to maintain the facade) they go with conservatives.

This is the reason that ending the liberal monopoly on the culture is so vital, because it gives us a chance to win these people over permanently to what they already believe.

AndrewPrice said...

darksi, I haven't read about her. But isn't this the second person Gossling has saved? He's becoming a regular superhero!

Here's your link: LINK.

K said...

With any luck, the left will actually swallow these "studies". Along the path of self congratulation lies political defeat.

(Barack Obama - SUPERGENIUS)

Two other points.
1. The Union domination of the Democratic party has lowered its collective IQ hugely - e.g Ed Schultz.

2. Studies like this are substantial evidence of the fascism of your opponent - basing their arguments on inherent characteristics of their opponents. This isn't Jonah's "Liberal Fascism", it's the real Euro-Soviet version.

AndrewPrice said...

K, Very insightful. This is evidence of a fascist mentality -- when you start trying to define you opponents as biologically inferior -- especially when you fake up evidence to do it.

I think the Democratic Party has become a party for the low IQ set, but is led by the high-elitist factor set. In other words, their base are union thugs (as compared to honest workers) and welfare cases, i.e. low IQ, low motivation. And their leadership is PHD-holding theory-crats who hold bureaucratic positions with the government or with schools... plus a few corrupt billionaires. These people may or may not be smart, but they are out-of-touch with reality and are incapable of generating practical solutions because they lack exposure to the real world.

Compare that to the Republicans who come from a wide-swath of America.

I think the left already believes its own press. They always have. That's one of the benefits of groupthink -- you can believe whatever you want and as long as people keep telling you that you're better and smarter, then you will believe it... and you will be shocked whenever it isn't confirmed by reality.

ScyFyterry said...

Excellent article as usual. When will liberals learn? Oh, that's right, never because they are learning impaired!

Doc Whoa said...

Joel, That's what it sounded like to me, except I can't see him quitting. Newt has already said he will stay in it until Romney gets 1441 votes. I can't imagine Ricky will quit sooner than Newt.

Doc Whoa said...

sorry - "delegates" not "votes."

ellenB said...

Andrew, How can liberals be "smarter" when they end up with hanging chads and the such in their districts? Do they intentionally "get stupid" when it comes to governing?

My five would include: Obama, Biden, Pelosi, Wasserman-Schulz, Olbermann, and a cast of thousands more.

T-Rav said...

Without directly answering your questions for a minute, I would say it's not just that conservatives are smarter than liberals, it's that we're wiser. A couple friends and I were just discussing this, and how all the left-wing grad students we know are joyless, unhappy types who see nothing around them but oppression of one kind or another. These people have, in many cases, never had a real job; they don't take any time to get to know the folks they're demonizing; they put their intellectual blinders on and shut out any evidence which might conflict with their theories. Conservatives actually take the time to get out of the ivory tower, smell the roses, and look for the good as well as the bad. And you can't really function without a comprehensive worldview like that.

Just thought I'd point that out.

darski said...

My vote for greatest liberal idiots would be the first 5 people how voted for Obama in 2008.

AndrewPrice said...

Thanks Terry! Yep, liberalism is a learning disability. Actually, it's not that they can't learn, they won't learn. They've put in place all kinds of defense mechanism which keep them from every needing to admit the truth.

AndrewPrice said...

Doc, I can't see him quitting, but he could at least decide to suspend his campaign. I think he better do it before PA also because if he loses that (and the polls seem to point to that) then he's finished short and long term. So needless to say, I hope he stays in and gets blown out.

AndrewPrice said...

Ellen, That's an excellent and deserving list! Perhaps we should have asked for the top 100? LOL!

On why liberals can't govern, you and I know the truth. But they would tell you that it's because their ideas get interfered with and have never had a chance to be tried.

AndrewPrice said...

T-Rav, I think it's all part of the same thing. A smart person (1) realizes that theory is not always the same as practice, (2) recognizes the need to re-evaluate theory against experience, (3) recognizes that the world is full of people with different views and beliefs and recognizes that some things are just a matter of opinion or preference, (4) doesn't accept contradictions, (5) doesn't ignore contrary facts, (6) doesn't adopt theories without a basis, and (7) doesn't try to project their own defects on others.

Liberals commonly violate each of those principles. And the only conclusion I can draw from that is that liberals are not smart at all. They may have some knowledge, but they are not smart by any other measure, because they can't apply it or verify its accuracy.

It's like someone who claims to grasp high mathematics but has never bothered to determine if their formulas are correct or not.

Tennessee Jed said...

Doc and Andrew - I want to revise my list of the dumbest liberals to include Santorum :)

AndrewPrice said...

darski, LOL! Getting right to the source of the problem! I like that.

AndrewPrice said...

Jed, LOL! Good call! He easily fits on the list!

Joel Farnham said...

Off Topic, Gary Sinese is hurt as a passenger in a car accident, canceled one concert and is going to reschedule others. God bless the man.

AndrewPrice said...

Joel, Gary Sinese is old-school Hollywood... the way stars should be. I wish him well.

DUQ said...

I'm sick of liberals trying to claim that somehow being a conservative is a mental deficiency. It's like having a child to you that you're stupid. It's funny at first, but it gets annoying very fast when they won't stop.

AndrewPrice said...

DUQ, It does get pretty annoying pretty quickly, doesn't it? What's worse is that they act like this is true even though it's pure garbage.

tryanmax said...

Here is my 5-headed Mt. Libmore along with their crowning "unchievements."

5. Lyndon Johnson – allegedly fond of showing off “Little Lyndon”
4. Jimmy Carter – “Malaise Forever”
3. Michael Moore – at over 400 lbs, literally the biggest hypocrite in America
2. Joe Biden – too many reasons to name
1. Barack Obama – in his own words, “Um, uhh, ah, hmm, uh, ummm?”

AndrewPrice said...

Mount Libmore! LOL! Excellent photoshop too!

That's a strong list too. LBJ belong on any list of liberal fools and idiots. He all but destroyed parts of the US. Jimmy Carter is another one the left tried to describe as a "genius" but who isn't really an idiot.

Michael Moore is a one-hit wonder who only got lucky that the left went insane right at the point when his film came out.

Joel Farnham said...

tryanmax,

I like that Moore was so heavy that he fell to the bottom. ;-) Lotsa Thumbs up!

T-Rav said...

My 5 dumbest liberals:

5. Jimmy Carter--enough said
4. Ed Schultz--freaking meathead
3. Kathy Griffin, disgusting wretch in every way
2. The Teleprompter-in-Chief
1. Joe Biden--it's gotta be Joe "Trains" Biden

tryanmax said...

Andrew, I wanted to include liberals from before LBJ, but most of them were just scary and not funny at all. I thought about Wilson, but really, that guy was a calculating monster. I couldn't include FDR either, for nearly the same reasons.

I guess that's reassuring in a way. The left is getting so wayward that they are becoming buffoons. Maybe they'll forget to keep breathing, eventually.

AndrewPrice said...

T-Rav, Biden easily holds the human record for stupidity. If stupidity was an Olympic event, he would be the all-time gold medal winner.

Schultz is truly an idiot.

This is probably before your time, but I would also add Patsy Schroeder. What a waste of human!

AndrewPrice said...

tryanmax, It's kind of strange isn't it that liberalism has gone from just a different (and wrong) philosophy to become a home for the mentally slow? I wonder how it all went so wrong? Too many drugs?


P.S. You do excellent photoshop work!

tryanmax said...

Nah! The stuff I do for Commentarama is slap-dash to get a laugh. The good stuff takes days and weeks.

AndrewPrice said...

It's still much better than the things I achieve for my articles! :)

What program do you use, by the way? I seem to be stuck with Paint and Paint.net. They're ok for little things, but not so great for anything complex.

Joel Farnham said...

T-Rav,

Good list.

On Ayn Rand, I hope you're not mad. I was just yanking your chain.

A lot of her stuff is way over-rated. Including Atlas Shrugged. If she had stayed away from the soliloquies and stuck with the incredibly accurate and prophetic Congressional acts, and just showed, not told she would have been far more famous and listened to author. As it is, she went on and on and on, kind of like Newt does. She didn't know when to shut up and trust her audience. I guess that is because she stuck around New York. In the bubble so to speak.

AndrewPrice said...

Joel, Don't worry about T-Rav, if he put up with my anti-Santorum harangues, then he has a very thick skin! ;)

On Atlas Shrugged, I think her concept is brilliant, I think her execution is terrible, and I think her solution is untenable. That story should have been about 1/3 as long as it is, and I think her conclusions need to be more proactive than "run away and do it better somewhere else."

That said, it is undeniable how influential that book has become. So clearly she knew what she was doing!

tryanmax said...

Andrew, I Photoshop with Photoshop. Nothing less.

Also...Dishonorable Mentions that I'm surprised no one else has named yet

Jane Fonda– I think everybody knows why

Elizabeth Warren – Harvard prof who tried to algore* the Occupy Movement

Al Gore[verb] \’al • gȯr\ : to take false credit for the invention of a thing; esp. when the claim is impossible (i.e. claiming to have invented the Internet)

Shepard Fairey – talentless hack who “designed” the HOPE poster

Chris Matthews – thrills up the leg substitute for actual thought

tryanmax said...

Now I am stoopid. I meant (e.g.) instead of (i.e.)

AndrewPrice said...

I see. That's easy to remember! :) I may have to look into that. I need something with a little more power than what I have. Unfortunately, that means I need to upgrade my brains -- I'm still analog.

Nice additions to the list! Let's not forget:

Jerry Brown - His own people called him Governor Moonbeam and the guy is a flake.

Cindy Sheehan - Who barks at the moon.

Robert McNamara - Who thought he was a Whiz Kid, but learned nothing over his years.

Dennis Kucinich - Who proved that there are NO depths to which liberals won't fall.

rlaWTX said...

spotted owls
delta smelts
sage lizards
Moonbeam Jerry
Ole Joe B
Reid & Pelosi
TOTUS, the eminent Professor of the Articles of Confederation - um - Constitutional Declaration - um - Independence Bill - um

AndrewPrice said...

rlaWTX, Good point! How dumb do you need to be decide to die off rather than move to a new forest when somebody cuts down your preferred forest?

In terms of the document TOTUS is looking for, I believe it is the Articles of Dependence.

rlaWTX said...

thanks! I knew I was close, but the teleprompter was on the fritz.

AndrewPrice said...

Speaking of TOTUS, I can't wait to see Obama debate someone competent this time! No more McCain flubbing his lines and obsessing about earmarks! Obama is in deep, deep trouble. :)

T-Rav said...

Andrew, yeah Patsy Schroeder is over my head.

I don't know what you're talking about with Santorum, though. Every time I have to read one of your harangues, I curl into a fetal position clutching a Bible.

T-Rav said...

Joel, no, of course I'm not mad. Actually, I think we broadly agree about Ayn Rand. She makes some great points about why collectivism sucks, but the Objectivist philosophy she would replace it with is unworkable (and in certain respects antithetical to conservatism). But she did sell a lot of books.

rlaWTX said...

T-Rav: at least you're not sucking your thumb too... ;)

AndrewPrice said...

T-Rav, I get that a lot! ;)


Pat Schroeder was a Congresswoman from Boulder, Colorado in the 1980s. She was on the House Armed Services Committee and she fought every single dollar that ever went to the military. She used to savage the generals who testified before her. She wanted the military to adopt feminist doctrine. She attacked every single thing Reagan ever did.

And when the Cold War ended, she had the nerve to claim that it was her resistance which "kept the military honest" and won the Cold War.

She is a royal P.O.S. and a total disgrace.

AndrewPrice said...

rlaWTX, Just wait until I decide to endorse Obama, then T-Rav will be sucking his thumb too... or he'll be driving to Colorado with a shotgun! :)

Of course, I would never endorse Obama, even in jest. Some things just aren't funny.

rlaWTX said...

[my browser has suddenly taken a dislike to the article on Ryan. first it ate all but the top 4 comments. So, I asked if it was just a me thing, and now it's eaten that comment too!]

AndrewPrice said...

We've had some problems lately. But there are only four comments, plus yours which has indeed vanished.

rlaWTX said...

And yo are right - that isn't funny. We'd have to find a way to discover whether you needed immediate physical or mental help. Then we'd have to scrape the rest of us off the ceiling.

rlaWTX said...

It's not just me!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
whew. I thought I broke something.

AndrewPrice said...

Yeah, that would be one of those -- "call the rubber room!" moments.

But rest assured, I wouldn't do that to you all. :)

AndrewPrice said...

No, we've had issues lately with comments vanishing. Sometimes they come back, sometimes the don't. Fortunately, it's not widespread.

I've also noticed that sometimes not all the comments show up and you have to hit refresh to see the new ones.

Blogger is apparently making some big change and I think that's probably the reason.

Joel Farnham said...

I remember Patsy Schroeder. She was just smart enough to cause trouble. Smarter than Pelosi, but meaner. She would love what Obama has done to the Military, especially the new medal that rewards non-performance.

AndrewPrice said...

Joel, That's a good way to describe her -- just smart enough to cause trouble. And you're right, she was a lot meaner than Pelosi. She was a hard-core, America hating turd and I despised her.

And her buddy was Ron Dellums who loved the Sandinistas and Cuba.

rlaWTX said...

after she became the NOW president, didn't she? spewing even more hateful insanity?

AndrewPrice said...

I'm not sure. I know she worked for Planned Parenthood and I know she ended up working for the publishing industry as a copyright lobbyists. I don't recall her representing NOW?

In any event, the spewing never stopped.

Ed said...

Love the image on this one! LOL!

Ed said...

On my list of stupid Dems, look at all the Dems in jail for graft or sex abuse. What was the name of that guy in NYC? Weiner?

AndrewPrice said...

Thanks Ed! I get a kick out of that sign generally and I though it could be amended slightly to fit the occasion. :)

Yep, Weiner. And don't forget Mayor Crackhead in DC.

Ed said...

Oh yeah, how could I forget him! And then you have the House post office scandal, the Keating Five and Abscab.

AndrewPrice said...

Ed, Good times!

AndrewPrice said...

rlaWTX, If you get the chance, you might find this article (below) interesting. It talks about the issues you mention above and it debunks a study which claims conservatives are bad at these things (e.g. ambiguity). Interestingly, the debunking is being done by Slate magazine, which is a leftist organ. And if they are calling bull, then you know the study was ultra-biased:

LINK

Joel Farnham said...

Interesting Article Andrew, of course it can be argued that it was written by a conservative so doesn't count. ;-)

You should check out the guy's picture. He LOOKS like a geek. hehehehe

Joel Farnham said...

Off-topic,
Santorum met with "conservative leaders" today. From this far away, I can't tell if they are conservatives, liberals, Muslims, Orcs, Romulans, Ferengi, horse whisperers, Greeks, Italians, Germans or anything. Your guess is as good as mine. All I know is he didn't confer with well-known conservative Republicans.

One thing, I did glean, some of his supporters still think that social conservatism is the only winning message.

AndrewPrice said...

Joel, I'm sure it won't count. Even if it was written by Obama himself, liberals would ignore it's meaning and just go on believing what they want to believe.

AndrewPrice said...

Joel, They've been playing that game all along. Every time he's met with Focus on the Family they call them "conservative leaders." I have yet to see anyone I would consider a leader of conservatives at these get-togethers.

Doc Whoa said...

Interesting article Andrew, an in Slate! Joel, how do you know the writer is a conservative?

AndrewPrice said...

Doc, He's a fake "conservative." He claims to be a "liberal Republican," but he's hold every leftwing belief you can imagine and he's attacked the Republicans at almost every turn. I would think his Republicanism is little more than a convenient shield to hide behind to claim he's an impartial liberal.

Here's more about him: LINK

tryanmax said...

RE: Photoshop -- there is a free alternative called GIMP, and I just learned of a mod called GIMPshop where the GUI has been redesigned to be as close to Photoshop as possible.

I haven't used the new interface yet, but I can vouch that GIMP gets you very close to Photoshop in terms of capability. The one thing I didn't like was the interface, which has apparently been fixed. You might want to look at it before dropping the cash on Adobe.

I've also read good things about paint.NET (getpaint.net) which is also free, but I've never tried it.

AndrewPrice said...

trynamax, GIMP? LOL! nice.

I like paint.net a lot -- very useful. I think, however, the real problem here may be user limitations. I know that even paint.net has more capabilities than I am using, I just never (bothered) learned what it is capable of.

I will check out GIMP though. Maybe it's time to finally try to learn how to do this stuff?

Doc Whoa said...

Thanks Andrew! You and Joel are a wealth of information!

tryanmax said...

The last line of the Slate article is a keeper.

AndrewPrice said...

Absolutely!

Congratulations. You haven't told us much about our way of thinking. But you've told us a lot about yours.

tryanmax said...

It stands for "GNU Image Manipulation Program" "GNU" is a recursive acronym for "GNU's Not Unix!" It's an alphabetic hall of funhouse mirrors.

tryanmax said...

I keep meaning to install and try all the freeware alternatives, but my work provides me with Photoshop, so the incentive just isn't there.

AndrewPrice said...

Wow, acronyms within acronyms within acronyms! I think my head might explode!

AndrewPrice said...

My big thing is I need to sit down and actually learn to use the functions. What I'm doing now is pretty much creating by accident.

tryanmax said...

It's like Inception but with a coma patient!

AndrewPrice said...

LOL! Yes... yes it is.

tryanmax said...

That's not much different than what I do, except I found people that will pay me to have accidents. You have the same accident three or four times and you remember how to do it on purpose. I know guys that have been in the business longer than I've been alive and they are not ashamed to Google for a tutorial now and then. All artists know that the best way to learn is to copy someone else's work.

AndrewPrice said...

The two things that have me intrigued are (1) clones -- which are really cool and people seem to be extreme good at making them, though I have no idea how. And (2) my holy grail would be something like Poser where people are making actual animated films. I haven't even looked at that stuff because I know it's beyond my technical level.

tryanmax said...

I'd love to get into 3D myself, but I've been focused primarily on 2D and web thus far. I'd love to get into character design as a career, but I need a different skillset.

What are you referring to as "clones"? That term means so many things anymore.

AndrewPrice said...

You see these all over Flikr. Here are the first two to come up:

Clones
More Clones

Somehow, people are populating photos with themselves without any of the versions of themselves looking like they don't belong in the image or the lighting going wrong. And I've seen a lot of neat ones -- clones fighting each other or hundreds of them working around the house, etc. People have even figured out how to make the different sizes or colors. It can get pretty creative.

tryanmax said...

Oh! That's what they call them!? Those are so easy! You just need a camera with a timer and a tripod. As for compiling the images, even simple stuff that comes bundled with a PC anymore can handle that. If you've never done it before, you could probably sort it out in an afternoon.

AndrewPrice said...

I figured it wasn't hard because I'm seeing thousands of these things now -- and some are getting pretty sophisticated. Flikr is a neat place to just hunt around and see what people come up with -- lots of creativity there.

Joel Farnham said...

tryanmax and Andrew,

Gimp is free. GNU is the open source stuff for Linux.

I like Gimp because it works.

AndrewPrice said...

Joel, You know what's funny is that I've found (for my limited uses at least) that all the free stuff works as well as the paid stuff. That's probably not true with the highest level features, but for anything I would do, it works just fine.

Anonymous said...

Thanks for this great post. I'm particularly wanting to mention--"On the Southerners, they are confusing the non-political word "conservative" (i.e. resistant to change) with the political word. But the two are not the same."

I know of someone (pretty convoluted on what my relationship with him is) who really confuses the hell out of me on where he stands ideologically. He made reference to the non-political definition of "conservative", and tried to tell me that's what it meant. I knew better, but was unable to counter it with something he could understand at that particular moment. Can anyone offer a simple definition of what WE mean by conservative? Sometimes, he is like talking to a brick wall, and I can't get through. He is of the kind that thinks college education guarantees intelligence, and is always trying to show me how "intelligent" he is by some of his condescending remarks. Other times, I can consider him a friend. Go figure.

Jen

AndrewPrice said...

Jen, Thanks!

College most definitely does not guarantee intelligence. It is merely a place to hone intelligence, but too many use it as a place to develop a sense of smugness rather than develop their minds.

The political meaning of "conservative" is rather a complex question because different groups latch onto the term. The best definition I can offer is in this article: LINK where I break out the difference between liberalism and conservatism so we can discuss how to spot conservative or liberal books. I think that would answer your question.

(It starts about 5 paragraphs down... "Liberalism and conservatism are often confused....")

Joel Farnham said...

tryanmax,

A fairly new company out is called DAZ 3D. It gives its base program away for free, and there is a forum as well. DAZ 3D I think it makes its money by selling or licensing things. If you sell your stuff, you will owe them money, but still it will give you experience in 3-D.

T-Rav said...

Jen, I like the six-part definition offered by Russell Kirk in The Conservative Mind. To wit:

1) Belief in some kind of overarching morality that exists outside of majority rule (call it God, call it natural law, whatever).
2) Respect for the non-homogenous nature of society.
3) Support for equality of opportunity and equality before the law, as opposed to equality of condition.
4) Respect for private property as critical to maintaining one's freedom.
5) Opposition to any kind of ideological blueprint for society (that is, anything ending in "ism").
6) Last but not least, accepting change when necessary, but not for its own sake.

You could list other things, but these are some of the first principles as I see it.

AndrewPrice said...

T-Rav, That is an excellent definition.

AndrewPrice said...

Joel, This looks like a sophisticated version of Poser?

tryanmax said...

Joel, I actually discovered DAZ not long ago. I signed up and downloaded the base package, but I've been too busy lately (go figure, two little kids) to spend any time with it. Still, it's a great deal!

tryanmax said...

Not to pile on, Jen, but I find the Merriam-Webster definition of "conservatism" surprisingly satisfying:

a political philosophy based on tradition and social stability, stressing established institutions, and preferring gradual development to abrupt change; specifically : such a philosophy calling for lower taxes, limited government regulation of business and investing, a strong national defense, and individual financial responsibility for personal needs (as retirement income or health-care coverage)

Joel Farnham said...

Andrew and tryanmax,

If you make any money from the images designed in DAZ 3-D, you will owe them MONEY. Still, it is a good program to learn from, plus there are freebies all the time. Check out the product list and limit the amount you want to spend to $0.00 to $4.99. It has some killer pictures.

rlaWTX said...

T-Rav, I like that list!

Jen, I think that we have had a bit of morphing in "conservatism" over the last 10 years or so. It used to be assumed that theological conservatives were political conservatives were southern conservatives. But the public has gotten more nuanced about political conservatism and the social, economic, theological threads have been separated.

Partially because of the whole "compassionate conservatism" movement with W, I think. Many of us so-cons were carried along by the idea of acceptance and use of faith-based interventions by the state. Instead, it became faith-based big government.

The Tea Party reaction also individuated the various threads. There were rabid (in the best way) econ-cons who were just not as interested in the so-con side of things who were dominating the message.

Also, conservatives have managed to differentiate their true past from the assumed racist, "southern" characteristics. We have been hammering away at race-based policies. We have supported "persons of color" in elections. I think a good way of knowing that our ideas of a color-blind society are being noticed is that they have made it into textbooks as evil!!
Yay us.

rlaWTX said...

Oh, Andrew, I liked that Slate article too.

AndrewPrice said...

Joel, That's good to know. I doubt I'll end creating anything profitable. :(

AndrewPrice said...

rlaWTX, It was a good article!

On the "Southern" characteristics, conservatives actually set out to repudiate that in the 1980s with conservatives calling for boycotts on people like David Duke -- ex-Klansmen who wanted to run as Republicans. Over time, we drove those people away from our side. But the left keeps trying to pretend they are "conservatives." The reality is they tend to be liberals or just out there on their own.

Anonymous said...

I know this is a little late, but was hoping someone would see it nonetheless. Thanks to everyone who replied to my question. Andrew, I read your suggestion (your LINK), and even went to the book list. The only thing I have ever read on your list is "Lord of the Flies" in high school English class. The interesting thing was, I can recall students in other classes reading "Animal Farm", and I know there was another one, but can't remember the title. Call me dumb, but where is the continuation of your list? I found part 1, and nothing else. I wasn't sure where to look.

One more thing. While reading the comments, I saw mention of Photoshop, Paint, GIMP, etc. This might not be of any help, but a free animation program can be found at: http://www.anim8or.com/main/index.html

I've only played with it very little. Check out some of the images in the gallery.

Jen

AndrewPrice said...

Jen, You're welcome. Yeah, I never got around to Parts 2 and 3 of the reading list. :(

Post a Comment