“A team of social psychologists,” reports Gene Healy, “including the University of Virginia’s Jonathan Haidt, provides some of the most detailed answers yet, putting libertarians on the couch in a new study, ‘Understanding Libertarian Morality.'”
“For several years now, at YourMorals.org, they’ve let self-described liberals, conservatives, and libertarians speak for themselves, by voluntarily taking a battery of psychological tests measuring personality characteristics, cognitive style, and moral values. Along the way, they’ve compiled the ‘largest dataset of psychological measures ever compiled on libertarians’ — with more than 10,000 respondents.”
“Libertarians tend to be dispassionate and cerebral, less likely to moralize based on gut reactions like disgust (one source, the authors suggest, of our disagreement with conservatives on social issues).
“‘We found strong support,’ they write, for the proposition that libertarians ‘will rely upon reason more — and emotion less — than will either liberals or conservatives.’ Blubbery Clintonian empathy isn’t our bag, baby; we don’t ‘feel your pain.’ Where ‘liberals have the most ‘feminine’ cognitive style … libertarians have the most ‘masculine.’ And where others often ‘rely on peripheral cues, such as how attractive or credible a speaker is,’ when formulating opinions, libertarians are more likely to pay ‘close attention to relevant arguments.'”
“When people are rational, they observe reality as it is, and are more likely to be concerned with justice and avoid misplacing compassion. So the starting point is, unavoidably, a return to reason. … I certainly understand your concern and agree with you that the arguments we’ve made in favor of justice for men are less intuitive and less visceral than the arguments feminists make. But since we know our more complex arguments are the right ones, we have the answer: to make people fairer, kinder, and more compassionate, one has to first make them able to think and reason. In the introduction to F.A. Hayek’s The Road to Serfdom, economist Milton Friedman underscores this point: ‘The argument for collectivism is simple if false; it is an immediate emotional argument. The argument for individualism is subtle and sophisticated; it is an indirect rational argument.”
“Sure, making people just isn’t easy. But it certainly won’t work if you aim for the gut instead of the gray matter. As usual, Oscar Wilde said it best in one of his plays: ‘She thought that because he was stupid he would be kindly, when of course, kindliness requires imagination and intellect.'”
As has been saidover these pixelated pages, “government commissions are where accountability goes to die.” You get my meaning. For example: Some major cost-cutting measures suggested by Obama’s deficit commission’s preliminary report only kick-in in 2050 and 2075.
Like his father, Rand Paul promises to be a beacon for liberty. Intuitively, Rand cleaves to free-market principles. Here are some salient points Rand has made in response to some silly questions, concerning the deficit commission’s preliminary report, fielded from Face The Nation moderator Bob Schieffer:
“… if you’re serious about the budget, you have to look at the entire budget–military and domestic, if you want to make a dent in the debt.
“…I don’t think I want to raise taxes right now. I think government
is too big and so I think we need to cut spending. The way I see it is, is that you want the private sector to have more money. I want to expand the private sector because we have a– a serious recession so I want to leave more money in the private sector. I want to shrink the ineffective sector of the economy which is the government.”
“… I want to be on the side of reducing spending. So I think really the compromise is where you find the reductions in spending. But I don’t think the compromise is in raising taxes. I mean here, you have to put things in perspective. We now consume at the federal level twenty-five percent of the Gross Domestic Product. [Actually, it is more like 40%, as a lot of spending is off budget] Historically, we were at twenty percent. So we’ve taken five percent away from the private sector. And the private sector is the engine that creates all these jobs. I want to send that five percent back to the private sector.”
“He’s backwards,” said Sarah Palin about Barack Hussein Obama’s lack of economic smarts. She spoke on the occasion of Judge Andrew Napolitano’s Fox Business show, Freedom Watch, going daily. Palin has an unadorned way of looking at things. She spoke forcefully and fairly knowledgeably about monetary policy tonight.
Less welcome was what Palin adorned on the occasion. Palin, a natural beauty with a glowing skin, had squeezed herself into the sort of Little Black Dress Ann Coulter wears to every event. Worse still was the orange, bottled tan with which Palin’s arms, shoulders, and alarmingly large bosom had been sprayed. The difference between the pallor of Palin’s face and the bright orange of her decolletage was plain to see on the TV. Less so in the online clip. Oy vey.
Palin does not need to heed TV’s repulsive stylists; most of them have acquired their “talents” making-up Kim kardashian’s private parts for public viewing. Palin should tell the image consultants to back off. There is no need to repeat the make-over failures of the McCain campaign.
It’s good to see Mrs. Palin coming to grips with monetary policy. A mature, natural beauty like Palin has no need to adopt the trashy TV look.
UPDATED I: I don’t understand the question below. Was Palin fundamentally wrong about monetary policy tonight? Did she recommend bad policies? Why do you care where she got the ideas she was promoting vis-a-vis the Fed? If she’s reading Ron Paul’s End The Fed, or Tom Woods’ Meltdown—why do you care? Speaking to—and against—current monetary policy makes Palin and Bachmann better than almost any other pol around.
UPDATE II (Nov. 16): Let me correct the above statement: “Speaking to—and against—current monetary policy makes Palin and Bachmann better than almost any other AMERICAN, most of whom draw a blank at the causes of inflation and the devaluation of the country’s coin—except to hoot obscenities at the Chinese, as a primate would scream at a someone with a coveted banana.
A manifestly malevolent stranger gropes, feels, and frightens this reporter’s small little girl. And the attack bitch does not let up; she persists in the futile exercise. The little girl has the healthier attitude. She screams bloody murder and doesn’t stop, even as her mother tries to subdue her. I would not subdue her.
Why doesn’t an infantile American people listen to the sounds coming out of the mouths of babes?
I will not be flying anytime soon. I urge you all to do the same.
Good-to-be-groped: This is the Tribune reporter’s impetus; help parents turn their kids into malleable little sheep.
I see that the newspaper has blocked the shocking YouTube in which Mandy, its reporter’s daughter, is frisked, groped, pawed by a TSA agent who only gets more aroused and adamant with each yelp from the tiny terrorist.
All Big Daddy aims at is to help make groping a game. Perhaps Myron, who was kind enough to send the clip, can locate the transcript of the actual newspaper report.
UPDATE I: Some state politicians are tabling objections. This via New Jersey’s Back Room:
State Sen. Diane Allen (R-Edgewater Park), state Sen. Michael Doherty (R-Washington Twp.) and other legislators will join Deborah Jacobs, executive director for the American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey, at the Statehouse on Monday to discuss their opposition to the new Transportation Safety Administration (TSA) screening procedures at United States’ airports and the nationwide reports of passenger abuse.
Doherty, Allen, and Assemblywoman Valerie Vainieri Huttle, Assemblywoman Alison McHose, Assemblyman John DiMaio and Assemblyman Erik Peterson will announce the introduction of a resolution urging Congress to immediately review the new TSA screening procedures and the reports of passenger abuse occurring at airports.
The problem I foresee is with backroom deals, whereby the bastards develop a certain system of what I call sectional privileges and rights, based on professional need and proximity to power. That’s the problem. The new Tea Party pols have been silent so far. Or, as far as I know.
UPDATE II (Nov. 16) JUST FOLLOWING ORDERS. After a day of radiating and rogering innocent men and women, One TSA agent urged WND, “to remind people that the policies come from Washington, including … President Obama. The individual agents, including Christians, the agent said, are as helpless and upset as the passengers.”
“‘Over the years TSA has certainly become more invasive in its SOP procedures. First the changes regarding liquid carry-ons, and now the implementation of Standard Pat-Downs along with the roll out of Advanced Imaging Technology. As each and every change has been handed-down and implemented I would cringe anticipating an understandable negative reaction from the general public (not to mention myself),’ the agent said.”
“‘Attack the system,’ the agent asked. ‘Out the misguided bureaucrats … but spare our Christian brothers.'”
[SNIP]
Where have we heard the “I was just following orders” excuse? Damn this brother to hell. If he were a true Christian he’d quit his cushy job rather than abuse other human beings.
UPDATE III: PENILE PAT-DOWN. That was the lot of radio host Owen JJ Stone of “The Alex Jones Show.” “Stone [noted] how the TSA thug directly patted down his testicles, penis and backside while his hand was inside Stone’s pants. Stone was initially embarrassed to reveal the full scope of the groping but related the details of what amounted to nothing less than outright sexual molestation.”
As the lede in “Congress: Call Off Your TSA Attack Dogs!” details, I was touched inappropriately. The “touching” caught me by surprise because my molester did not utter a murmur, just did her thing. What’s more, I did not know that these proceedings had been put in place. As a news person, I would have known had they been widely reported at the time. I didn’t because they were not.
I don’t intend to fly. That piece of dreck Janet Napolitano says that the traveler who doesn’t submit should seek alternative means of traveling. Does the deranged dodo not know that people fly for business and work-related purposes? How are you supposed to get to DC from, for instance, where I live? Embark on a two week train odyssey? She’s messing with livelihoods.
Predictably, some statists on Fox News such as Bill O’Reilly and his blond Squad don’t seem particularly perturbed.
Did you know that the nation’s airports are not required to have Transportation Security Administration screeners checking passengers at security checkpoints? The 2001 law creating the TSA gave airports the right to opt out of the TSA program in favor of private screeners after a two-year period. Now, with the TSA engulfed in controversy and hated by millions of weary and sometimes humiliated travelers, Rep. John Mica, the Republican who will soon be chairman of the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, is reminding airports that they have a choice.
There is no substitute for intelligence (as in IQ). The Examiner again:
many security experts have urged TSA to adopt techniques, used with great success by the Israeli airline El Al, in which passengers are observed, profiled, and most importantly, questioned before boarding planes. So TSA created a program known as SPOT — Screening of Passengers by Observation Techniques. It began hiring what it called behavior detection officers, who would be trained to notice passengers who acted suspiciously. TSA now employs about 3,000 behavior detection officers, stationed at about 160 airports across the country.
The problem is, they’re doing it all wrong. A recent Government Accountability Office study found that TSA “deployed SPOT nationwide without first validating the scientific basis for identifying suspicious passengers in an airport environment.” They haven’t settled on the standards needed to stop bad actors.
“It’s not an Israeli model, it’s a TSA, screwed-up model,” says Mica. …
