THE PSYCHOLOGY OF MODERN LEFTISM
6. Almost everyone will agree that we live in a deeply troubled
society. One of the most widespread manifestations of the craziness of
our world is leftism, so a discussion of the psychology of leftism can
serve as an introduction to the discussion of the problems of modern
society in general.

7. But what is leftism? During the first half of the 20th century
leftism could have been practically identified with socialism. Today
the movement is fragmented and it is not clear who can properly be
called a leftist. When we speak of leftists in this article we have in
mind mainly socialists, collectivists, "politically correct" types,
feminists, gay and disability activists, animal rights activists and
the like. But not everyone who is associated with one of these
movements is a leftist. What we are trying to get at in discussing
leftism is not so much a movement or an ideology as a psychological
type, or rather a collection of related types. Thus, what we mean by
"leftism" will emerge more clearly in the course of our discussion of
leftist psychology (Also, see paragraphs 227-230.)

8. Even so, our conception of leftism will remain a good deal less
clear than we would wish, but there doesn't seem to be any remedy for
this. All we are trying to do is indicate in a rough and approximate
way the two psychological tendencies that we believe are the main
driving force of modern leftism. We by no means claim to be telling the
WHOLE truth about leftist psychology. Also, our discussion is meant to
apply to modern leftism only. We leave open the question of the extent
to which our discussion could be applied to the leftists of the 19th
and early 20th century.

9. The two psychological tendencies that underlie modern leftism we
call "feelings of inferiority" and "oversocialization." Feelings of
inferiority are characteristic of modern leftism as a whole, while
oversocialization is characteristic only of a certain segment of modern
leftism; but this segment is highly influential.

FEELINGS OF INFERIORITY
10. By "feelings of inferiority" we mean not only inferiority feelings
in the strictest sense but a whole spectrum of related traits: low
self-esteem, feelings of powerlessness, depressive tendencies,
defeatism, guilt, self-hatred, etc. We argue that modern leftists tend
to have such feelings (possibly more or less repressed) and that these
feelings are decisive in determining the direction of modern leftism.

11. When someone interprets as derogatory almost anything that is said
about him (or about groups with whom he identifies) we conclude that he
has inferiority feelings or low self-esteem. This tendency is
pronounced among minority rights advocates, whether or not they belong
to the minority groups whose rights they defend. They are
hypersensitive about the words used to designate minorities. The terms
"negro," "oriental," "handicapped" or "chick" for an African, an Asian,
a disabled person or a woman originally had no derogatory connotation.
"Broad" and "chick" were merely the feminine equivalents of "guy,"
"dude" or "fellow." The negative connotations have been attached to
these terms by the activists themselves. Some animal rights advocates
have gone so far as to reject the word "pet" and insist on its
replacement by "animal companion." Leftist anthropologists go to great
lengths to avoid saying anything about primitive peoples that could
conceivably be interpreted as negative. They want to replace the word
"primitive" by "nonliterate." They seem almost paranoid about anything
that might suggest that any primitive culture is inferior to our own.
(We do not mean to imply that primitive cultures ARE inferior to ours.
We merely point out the hypersensitivity of leftish anthropologists.)

12. Those who are most sensitive about "politically incorrect"
terminology are not the average black ghetto-dweller, Asian immigrant,
abused woman or disabled person, but a minority of activists, many of
whom do not even belong to any "oppressed" group but come from
privileged strata of society. Political correctness has its stronghold
among university professors, who have secure employment with
comfortable salaries, and the majority of whom are heterosexual, white
males from middle-class families.

13. Many leftists have an intense identification with the problems of
groups that have an image of being weak (women), defeated (American
Indians), repellent (homosexuals), or otherwise inferior. The leftists
themselves feel that these groups are inferior. They would never admit
it to themselves that they have such feelings, but it is precisely
because they do see these groups as inferior that they identify with
their problems. (We do not suggest that women, Indians, etc., ARE
inferior; we are only making a point about leftist psychology).

14. Feminists are desperately anxious to prove that women are as strong
as capable as men. Clearly they are nagged by a fear that women may NOT
be as strong and as capable as men.

15. Leftists tend to hate anything that has an image of being strong,
good and successful. They hate America, they hate Western civilization,
they hate white males, they hate rationality. The reasons that leftists
give for hating the West, etc. clearly do not correspond with their
real motives. They SAY they hate the West because it is warlike,
imperialistic, sexist, ethnocentric and so forth, but where these same
faults appear in socialist countries or in primitive cultures, the
leftist finds excuses for them, or at best he GRUDGINGLY admits that
they exist; whereas he ENTHUSIASTICALLY points out (and often greatly
exaggerates) these faults where they appear in Western civilization.
Thus it is clear that these faults are not the leftist's real motive
for hating America and the West. He hates America and the West because
they are strong and successful.

16. Words like "self-confidence," "self-reliance," "initiative",
"enterprise," "optimism," etc. play little role in the liberal and
leftist vocabulary. The leftist is anti-individualistic,
pro-collectivist. He wants society to solve everyone's needs for them,
take care of them. He is not the sort of person who has an inner sense
of confidence in his own ability to solve his own problems and satisfy
his own needs. The leftist is antagonistic to the concept of
competition because, deep inside, he feels like a loser.

17. Art forms that appeal to modern leftist intellectuals tend to focus
on sordidness, defeat and despair, or else they take an orgiastic tone,
throwing off rational control as if there were no hope of accomplishing
anything through rational calculation and all that was left was to
immerse oneself in the sensations of the moment.

18. Modern leftist philosophers tend to dismiss reason, science,
objective reality and to insist that everything is culturally relative.
It is true that one can ask serious questions about the foundations of
scientific knowledge and about how, if at all, the concept of objective
reality can be defined. But it is obvious that modern leftist
philosophers are not simply cool-headed logicians systematically
analyzing the foundations of knowledge. They are deeply involved
emotionally in their attack on truth and reality. They attack these
concepts because of their own psychological needs. For one thing, their
attack is an outlet for hostility, and, to the extent that it is
successful, it satisfies the drive for power. More importantly, the
leftist hates science and rationality because they classify certain
beliefs as true (i.e., successful, superior) and other beliefs as false
(i.e. failed, inferior). The leftist's feelings of inferiority run so
deep that he cannot tolerate any classification of some things as
successful or superior and other things as failed or inferior. This
also underlies the rejection by many leftists of the concept of mental
illness and of the utility of IQ tests. Leftists are antagonistic to
genetic explanations of human abilities or behavior because such
explanations tend to make some persons appear superior or inferior to
others. Leftists prefer to give society the credit or blame for an
individual's ability or lack of it. Thus if a person is "inferior" it
is not his fault, but society's, because he has not been brought up
properly.

19. The leftist is not typically the kind of person whose feelings of
inferiority make him a braggart, an egotist, a bully, a self-promoter,
a ruthless competitor. This kind of person has not wholly lost faith in
himself. He has a deficit in his sense of power and self-worth, but he
can still conceive of himself as having the capacity to be strong, and
his efforts to make himself strong produce his unpleasant behavior. [1]
But the leftist is too far gone for that. His feelings of inferiority
are so ingrained that he cannot conceive of himself as individually
strong and valuable. Hence the collectivism of the leftist. He can feel
strong only as a member of a large organization or a mass movement with
which he identifies himself.

20. Notice the masochistic tendency of leftist tactics. Leftists
protest by lying down in front of vehicles, they intentionally provoke
police or racists to abuse them, etc. These tactics may often be
effective, but many leftists use them not as a means to an end but
because they PREFER masochistic tactics. Self-hatred is a leftist
trait.

21. Leftists may claim that their activism is motivated by compassion
or by moral principle, and moral principle does play a role for the
leftist of the oversocialized type. But compassion and moral principle
cannot be the main motives for leftist activism. Hostility is too
prominent a component of leftist behavior; so is the drive for power.
Moreover, much leftist behavior is not rationally calculated to be of
benefit to the people whom the leftists claim to be trying to help. For
example, if one believes that affirmative action is good for black
people, does it make sense to demand affirmative action in hostile or
dogmatic terms? Obviously it would be more productive to take a
diplomatic and conciliatory approach that would make at least verbal
and symbolic concessions to white people who think that affirmative
action discriminates against them. But leftist activists do not take
such an approach because it would not satisfy their emotional needs.
Helping black people is not their real goal. Instead, race problems
serve as an excuse for them to express their own hostility and
frustrated need for power. In doing so they actually harm black people,
because the activists' hostile attitude toward the white majority tends
to intensify race hatred.

22. If our society had no social problems at all, the leftists would
have to INVENT problems in order to provide themselves with an excuse
for making a fuss.

23. We emphasize that the foregoing does not pretend to be an accurate
description of everyone who might be considered a leftist. It is only a
rough indication of a general tendency of leftism.

OVERSOCIALIZATION
24. Psychologists use the term "socialization" to designate the process
by which children are trained to think and act as society demands. A
person is said to be well socialized if he believes in and obeys the
moral code of his society and fits in well as a functioning part of
that society. It may seem senseless to say that many leftists are
over-socialized, since the leftist is perceived as a rebel.
Nevertheless, the position can be defended. Many leftists are not such
rebels as they seem.

25. The moral code of our society is so demanding that no one can
think, feel and act in a completely moral way. For example, we are not
supposed to hate anyone, yet almost everyone hates somebody at some
time or other, whether he admits it to himself or not. Some people are
so highly socialized that the attempt to think, feel and act morally
imposes a severe burden on them. In order to avoid feelings of guilt,
they continually have to deceive themselves about their own motives and
find moral explanations for feelings and actions that in reality have a
non-moral origin. We use the term "oversocialized" to describe such
people. [2]

26. Oversocialization can lead to low self-esteem, a sense of
powerlessness, defeatism, guilt, etc. One of the most important means
by which our society socializes children is by making them feel ashamed
of behavior or speech that is contrary to society's expectations. If
this is overdone, or if a particular child is especially susceptible to
such feelings, he ends by feeling ashamed of HIMSELF. Moreover the
thought and the behavior of the oversocialized person are more
restricted by society's expectations than are those of the lightly
socialized person. The majority of people engage in a significant
amount of naughty behavior. They lie, they commit petty thefts, they
break traffic laws, they goof off at work, they hate someone, they say
spiteful things or they use some underhanded trick to get ahead of the
other guy. The oversocialized person cannot do these things, or if he
does do them he generates in himself a sense of shame and self-hatred.
The oversocialized person cannot even experience, without guilt,
thoughts or feelings that are contrary to the accepted morality; he
cannot think "unclean" thoughts. And socialization is not just a matter
of morality; we are socialized to confirm to many norms of behavior
that do not fall under the heading of morality. Thus the oversocialized
person is kept on a psychological leash and spends his life running on
rails that society has laid down for him. In many oversocialized people
this results in a sense of constraint and powerlessness that can be a
severe hardship. We suggest that oversocialization is among the more
serious cruelties that human beings inflict on one another.

27. We argue that a very important and influential segment of the
modern left is oversocialized and that their oversocialization is of
great importance in determining the direction of modern leftism.
Leftists of the oversocialized type tend to be intellectuals or members
of the upper-middle class. Notice that university intellectuals (3)
constitute the most highly socialized segment of our society and also
the most left-wing segment.

28. The leftist of the oversocialized type tries to get off his
psychological leash and assert his autonomy by rebelling. But usually
he is not strong enough to rebel against the most basic values of
society. Generally speaking, the goals of today's leftists are NOT in
conflict with the accepted morality. On the contrary, the left takes an
accepted moral principle, adopts it as its own, and then accuses
mainstream society of violating that principle. Examples: racial
equality, equality of the sexes, helping poor people, peace as opposed
to war, nonviolence generally, freedom of expression, kindness to
animals. More fundamentally, the duty of the individual to serve
society and the duty of society to take care of the individual. All
these have been deeply rooted values of our society (or at least of its
middle and upper classes (4) for a long time. These values are
explicitly or implicitly expressed or presupposed in most of the
material presented to us by the mainstream communications media and the
educational system. Leftists, especially those of the oversocialized
type, usually do not rebel against these principles but justify their
hostility to society by claiming (with some degree of truth) that
society is not living up to these principles.

29. Here is an illustration of the way in which the oversocialized
leftist shows his real attachment to the conventional attitudes of our
society while pretending to be in rebellion against it. Many leftists
push for affirmative action, for moving black people into high-prestige
jobs, for improved education in black schools and more money for such
schools; the way of life of the black "underclass" they regard as a
social disgrace. They want to integrate the black man into the system,
make him a business executive, a lawyer, a scientist just like
upper-middle-class white people. The leftists will reply that the last
thing they want is to make the black man into a copy of the white man;
instead, they want to preserve African American culture. But in what
does this preservation of African American culture consist? It can
hardly consist in anything more than eating black-style food, listening
to black-style music, wearing black-style clothing and going to a
black-style church or mosque. In other words, it can express itself
only in superficial matters. In all ESSENTIAL respects more leftists of
the oversocialized type want to make the black man conform to white,
middle-class ideals. They want to make him study technical subjects,
become an executive or a scientist, spend his life climbing the status
ladder to prove that black people are as good as white. They want to
make black fathers "responsible." they want black gangs to become
nonviolent, etc. But these are exactly the values of the
industrial-technological system. The system couldn't care less what
kind of music a man listens to, what kind of clothes he wears or what
religion he believes in as long as he studies in school, holds a
respectable job, climbs the status ladder, is a "responsible" parent,
is nonviolent and so forth. In effect, however much he may deny it, the
oversocialized leftist wants to integrate the black man into the system
and make him adopt its values.

30. We certainly do not claim that leftists, even of the oversocialized
type, NEVER rebel against the fundamental values of our society.
Clearly they sometimes do. Some oversocialized leftists have gone so
far as to rebel against one of modern society's most important
principles by engaging in physical violence. By their own account,
violence is for them a form of "liberation." In other words, by
committing violence they break through the psychological restraints
that have been trained into them. Because they are oversocialized these
restraints have been more confining for them than for others; hence
their need to break free of them. But they usually justify their
rebellion in terms of mainstream values. If they engage in violence
they claim to be fighting against racism or the like.

31. We realize that many objections could be raised to the foregoing
thumb-nail sketch of leftist psychology. The real situation is complex,
and anything like a complete description of it would take several
volumes even if the necessary data were available. We claim only to
have indicated very roughly the two most important tendencies in the
psychology of modern leftism.

32. The problems of the leftist are indicative of the problems of our
society as a whole. Low self-esteem, depressive tendencies and
defeatism are not restricted to the left. Though they are especially
noticeable in the left, they are widespread in our society. And today's
society tries to socialize us to a greater extent than any previous
society. We are even told by experts how to eat, how to exercise, how
to make love, how to raise our kids and so forth.

It was funny when Ted first wrote it, now its just boring.

Bluto plagiarized Theodore Kaczynski:
THE PSYCHOLOGY OF MODERN LEFTISM
6. Almost everyone will agree that we live in a deeply troubled
society. One of the most widespread manifestations of the craziness of
our world is leftism, so a discussion of the psychology of leftism can
serve as an introduction to the discussion of the problems of modern
society in general.
....

"Bluto" wrote in
oups.com:

THE PSYCHOLOGY OF MODERN LEFTISM

[edited for brevity]

How to spot a baby conservative
KID POLITICS | Whiny children, claims a new study, tend to grow up rigid
and traditional. Future liberals, on the other hand ...
Mar. 19, 2006. 10:45 AM
KURT KLEINER
SPECIAL TO THE STAR

Remember the whiny, insecure kid in nursery school, the one who always
thought everyone was out to get him, and was always running to the teacher
with complaints? Chances are he grew up to be a conservative.

At least, he did if he was one of 95 kids from the Berkeley area that
social scientists have been tracking for the last 20 years. The confident,
resilient, self-reliant kids mostly grew up to be liberals.

The study from the Journal of Research Into Personality isn't going to
make the UC Berkeley professor who published it any friends on the right.
Similar conclusions a few years ago from another academic saw him
excoriated on right-wing blogs, and even led to a Congressional
investigation into his research funding.

But the new results are worth a look. In the 1960s Jack Block and his wife
and fellow professor Jeanne Block (now deceased) began tracking more than
100 nursery school kids as part of a general study of personality. The
kids' personalities were rated at the time by teachers and assistants who
had known them for months. There's no reason to think political bias
skewed the ratings — the investigators were not looking at political
orientation back then. Even if they had been, it's unlikely that 3- and 4-
year-olds would have had much idea about their political leanings.

A few decades later, Block followed up with more surveys, looking again at
personality, and this time at politics, too. The whiny kids tended to grow
up conservative, and turned into rigid young adults who hewed closely to
traditional gender roles and were uncomfortable with ambiguity.

The confident kids turned out liberal and were still hanging loose,
turning into bright, non-conforming adults with wide interests. The girls
were still outgoing, but the young men tended to turn a little
introspective.

Block admits in his paper that liberal Berkeley is not representative of
the whole country. But within his sample, he says, the results hold. He
reasons that insecure kids look for the reassurance provided by tradition
and authority, and find it in conservative politics. The more confident
kids are eager to explore alternatives to the way things are, and find
liberal politics more congenial.

In a society that values self-confidence and out-goingness, it's a mostly
flattering picture for liberals. It also runs contrary to the American
stereotype of wimpy liberals and strong conservatives.

Of course, if you're studying the psychology of politics, you shouldn't be
surprised to get a political reaction. Similar work by John T. Jost of
Stanford and colleagues in 2003 drew a political backlash. The researchers
reviewed 44 years worth of studies into the psychology of conservatism,
and concluded that people who are dogmatic, fearful, intolerant of
ambiguity and uncertainty, and who crave order and structure are more
likely to gravitate to conservatism. Critics branded it the "conservatives
are crazy" study and accused the authors of a political bias.

Jost welcomed the new study, saying it lends support to his conclusions.
But Jeff Greenberg, a social psychologist at the University of Arizona who
was critical of Jost's study, was less impressed.

"I found it to be biased, shoddy work, poor science at best," he said of
the Block study. He thinks insecure, defensive, rigid people can as easily
gravitate to left-wing ideologies as right-wing ones. He suspects that in
Communist China, those kinds of people would likely become fervid party
members.

The results do raise some obvious questions. Are nursery school teachers
in the conservative heartland cursed with classes filled with little
proto-conservative whiners?

Or does an insecure little boy raised in Idaho or Alberta surrounded by
conservatives turn instead to liberalism?

Or do the whiny kids grow up conservative along with the majority of their
more confident peers, while only the kids with poor impulse control turn
liberal?

Part of the answer is that personality is not the only factor that
determines political leanings. For instance, there was a .27 correlation
between being self-reliant in nursery school and being a liberal as an
adult. Another way of saying it is that self-reliance predicts
statistically about 7 per cent of the variance between kids who became
liberal and those who became conservative. (If every self-reliant kid
became a liberal and none became conservatives, it would predict 100 per
cent of the variance). Seven per cent is fairly strong for social science,
but it still leaves an awful lot of room for other influences, such as
friends, family, education, personal experience and plain old intellect.

For conservatives whose feelings are still hurt, there is a more
flattering way for them to look at the results. Even if they really did
tend to be insecure complainers as kids, they might simply have recognized
that the world is a scary, unfair place.

Their grown-up conclusion that the safest thing is to stick to tradition
could well be the right one. As for their "rigidity," maybe that's just
moral certainty.

The grown-up liberal men, on the other hand, with their introspection and
recognition of complexity in the world, could be seen as self-indulgent
and ineffectual.

Whether anyone's feelings are hurt or not, the work suggests that
personality and emotions play a bigger role in our political leanings than
we think. All of us, liberal or conservative, feel as though we've reached
our political opinions by carefully weighing the evidence and exercising
our best judgment. But it could be that all of that careful reasoning is
just after-the-fact self-justification. What if personality forms our
political outlook, with reason coming along behind, rationalizing after
the fact?

It could be that whom we vote for has less to do with our judgments about
tax policy or free trade or health care, and more with the personalities
we've been stuck with since we were kids.

Kurt Kleiner is a Toronto-based freelance science writer.

So, in conclusion, Ted Kazinsky was a liberal.


"Fuzzy Logic" wrote in message
...
"Bluto" wrote in
oups.com:

THE PSYCHOLOGY OF MODERN LEFTISM

[edited for brevity]

How to spot a baby conservative
KID POLITICS | Whiny children, claims a new study, tend to grow up rigid
and traditional. Future liberals, on the other hand ...
Mar. 19, 2006. 10:45 AM
KURT KLEINER
SPECIAL TO THE STAR

Remember the whiny, insecure kid in nursery school, the one who always
thought everyone was out to get him, and was always running to the teacher
with complaints? Chances are he grew up to be a conservative.

At least, he did if he was one of 95 kids from the Berkeley area that
social scientists have been tracking for the last 20 years. The confident,
resilient, self-reliant kids mostly grew up to be liberals.

The study from the Journal of Research Into Personality isn't going to
make the UC Berkeley professor who published it any friends on the right.
Similar conclusions a few years ago from another academic saw him
excoriated on right-wing blogs, and even led to a Congressional
investigation into his research funding.

But the new results are worth a look. In the 1960s Jack Block and his wife
and fellow professor Jeanne Block (now deceased) began tracking more than
100 nursery school kids as part of a general study of personality. The
kids' personalities were rated at the time by teachers and assistants who
had known them for months. There's no reason to think political bias
skewed the ratings - the investigators were not looking at political
orientation back then. Even if they had been, it's unlikely that 3- and 4-
year-olds would have had much idea about their political leanings.

A few decades later, Block followed up with more surveys, looking again at
personality, and this time at politics, too. The whiny kids tended to grow
up conservative, and turned into rigid young adults who hewed closely to
traditional gender roles and were uncomfortable with ambiguity.

The confident kids turned out liberal and were still hanging loose,
turning into bright, non-conforming adults with wide interests. The girls
were still outgoing, but the young men tended to turn a little
introspective.

Block admits in his paper that liberal Berkeley is not representative of
the whole country. But within his sample, he says, the results hold. He
reasons that insecure kids look for the reassurance provided by tradition
and authority, and find it in conservative politics. The more confident
kids are eager to explore alternatives to the way things are, and find
liberal politics more congenial.

In a society that values self-confidence and out-goingness, it's a mostly
flattering picture for liberals. It also runs contrary to the American
stereotype of wimpy liberals and strong conservatives.

Of course, if you're studying the psychology of politics, you shouldn't be
surprised to get a political reaction. Similar work by John T. Jost of
Stanford and colleagues in 2003 drew a political backlash. The researchers
reviewed 44 years worth of studies into the psychology of conservatism,
and concluded that people who are dogmatic, fearful, intolerant of
ambiguity and uncertainty, and who crave order and structure are more
likely to gravitate to conservatism. Critics branded it the "conservatives
are crazy" study and accused the authors of a political bias.

Jost welcomed the new study, saying it lends support to his conclusions.
But Jeff Greenberg, a social psychologist at the University of Arizona who
was critical of Jost's study, was less impressed.

"I found it to be biased, shoddy work, poor science at best," he said of
the Block study. He thinks insecure, defensive, rigid people can as easily
gravitate to left-wing ideologies as right-wing ones. He suspects that in
Communist China, those kinds of people would likely become fervid party
members.

The results do raise some obvious questions. Are nursery school teachers
in the conservative heartland cursed with classes filled with little
proto-conservative whiners?

Or does an insecure little boy raised in Idaho or Alberta surrounded by
conservatives turn instead to liberalism?

Or do the whiny kids grow up conservative along with the majority of their
more confident peers, while only the kids with poor impulse control turn
liberal?

Part of the answer is that personality is not the only factor that
determines political leanings. For instance, there was a .27 correlation
between being self-reliant in nursery school and being a liberal as an
adult. Another way of saying it is that self-reliance predicts
statistically about 7 per cent of the variance between kids who became
liberal and those who became conservative. (If every self-reliant kid
became a liberal and none became conservatives, it would predict 100 per
cent of the variance). Seven per cent is fairly strong for social science,
but it still leaves an awful lot of room for other influences, such as
friends, family, education, personal experience and plain old intellect.

For conservatives whose feelings are still hurt, there is a more
flattering way for them to look at the results. Even if they really did
tend to be insecure complainers as kids, they might simply have recognized
that the world is a scary, unfair place.

Their grown-up conclusion that the safest thing is to stick to tradition
could well be the right one. As for their "rigidity," maybe that's just
moral certainty.

The grown-up liberal men, on the other hand, with their introspection and
recognition of complexity in the world, could be seen as self-indulgent
and ineffectual.

Whether anyone's feelings are hurt or not, the work suggests that
personality and emotions play a bigger role in our political leanings than
we think. All of us, liberal or conservative, feel as though we've reached
our political opinions by carefully weighing the evidence and exercising
our best judgment. But it could be that all of that careful reasoning is
just after-the-fact self-justification. What if personality forms our
political outlook, with reason coming along behind, rationalizing after
the fact?

It could be that whom we vote for has less to do with our judgments about
tax policy or free trade or health care, and more with the personalities
we've been stuck with since we were kids.

Kurt Kleiner is a Toronto-based freelance science writer.

Bob Crantz wrote:
So, in conclusion, Ted Kazinsky was a liberal.


No, liberals don't have the balls to actually make bombs and
blow things up. They just talk a lot.

DSK

In article , DSK
wrote:

Bob Crantz wrote:
So, in conclusion, Ted Kazinsky was a liberal.


No, liberals don't have the balls to actually make bombs and
blow things up. They just talk a lot.

Yep. And perform acts of violence by proxy.

PDW

Clinton was responsible for the deaths of millions. :-)

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Peter Wiley" wrote in message
. ..
In article , DSK
wrote:

Bob Crantz wrote:
So, in conclusion, Ted Kazinsky was a liberal.


No, liberals don't have the balls to actually make bombs and
blow things up. They just talk a lot.

Yep. And perform acts of violence by proxy.

PDW

It's unreasonable to blame her for the shortcomings of her husband.

PDW

In article , Capt. JG
wrote:

Clinton was responsible for the deaths of millions. :-)

Hahaha.. I was talking about Bill's blowjob.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Peter Wiley" wrote in message
. ..

It's unreasonable to blame her for the shortcomings of her husband.

PDW

In article , Capt. JG
wrote:

Clinton was responsible for the deaths of millions. :-)

you mean for millions of potential lil' Clintons, it was close but no cigar?
Scout

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
Hahaha.. I was talking about Bill's blowjob.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Peter Wiley" wrote in message
. ..

It's unreasonable to blame her for the shortcomings of her husband.

PDW

In article , Capt. JG
wrote:

Clinton was responsible for the deaths of millions. :-)