I don’t think he meant it as personal satisfaction, in the way you’re taking it. In other words, he doesn’t mean personal fulfillment. He means it in the sense at servicing the customer, supplying the widest range of products that make the most people satisfied.

And when that is the measure, ‘greed’ is the best means.

A life in which the highest degree of satisfaction is derived from consumer goods—like computers, cell phones and movies—is an empty life indeed.

There’s only one thing that makes a man or a woman run into a burning building, try to defeat an armed criminal or serve his country in time of war. And that thing is not the profit motive.

“Public service” is not a dirty word.

It’s not just us right wingers Mitch. It’s the historical community as well (a group of people that is by far liberal in its political beliefs). Don’t you remember the recent interview with Clinton, where the ABC(or was it NBC) reporter asked him about what he thought about his administration being labeled the most corrupt administration in history, or something like that. Clinton got all uncomfortable and what not. So again, it’s not just us, its the average joe also.

Reeves singles out for disapproval this group, whom he says are the core of what’s wrong with liberalism today:

Your wrong Mitch, re-read his article. He specifically says these people are ‘good people’. He didn’t single them out for disapproval. Like I said above, his point here is not to criticize, but to give a description.He is trying to show why these people are idealists (or what I would describe as unrealists).

You also write, What do these groups have in common? Well, they’ve dedicated their lives to service of ideals, or service to others. They’re not just looking to get rich, like the rest of us, they’re primarily motivated by the desire to make the world better for other people.

That reminds me of this article by Economist Walter Williams. Here’s my favorite part,

“People in the education and political establishments pretend they’re not motivated by such “callous” motives as greed and profits. These people “care” about us, but from which areas of our lives do we derive the greatest pleasures and have the fewest complaints, and from which areas do we have the greatest headaches and complaints? We tend to have a high satisfaction level with goods and services like computers, cell phones, movies, clothing and supermarkets. These are areas where the motivations are greed and profits. Our greatest dissatisfaction is in areas of caring and no profit motive such as public education, postal services and politics. Give me greed and profits, and you can keep the caring”.

My point exactly.

“They” would be the people running the country today, who call themselves conservatives, and the reason they call Clinton’s administration one of the most corrupt in U.S. history is simple: they’re liars.

In fact, the Clinton administration was one of the most honest in American history. His Republican enemies engaged in a massively funded attempt to discredit his administration, and the best they could come up with was a bunch of rumors. Oh, and also the fact that he liked to have sex outside of marriage, and lied about it.

I figured out what else bugged me about Reeve’s article—it took me a few days, but I finally am able to articulate it. It’s this:

Reeves singles out for disapproval this group, whom he says are the core of what’s wrong with liberalism today: Many are conservationists, social workers, civil rights activists, and teachers, those who stand outside the business rat race that consumes the lives of most Americans.

What do these groups have in common? Well, they’ve dedicated their lives to service of ideals, or service to others. They’re not just looking to get rich, like the rest of us, they’re primarily motivated by the desire to make the world better for other people.

Such people are suspect, says Reeves. Be afraid of idealists, trust only the greedy.

That’s not all he was known for. There is a reason they call his administration ‘one of the most corrupt administrations in USA history’.

And can you really make a case that there’s a causal relationship between liberal politics and messed-up personal lives, or is it simply that Hollywood stars are … stars.

It wasn’t me that brought up Hollywood, that was you. You brought them up as an example of ‘happy liberals’, and they sure don’t seem happy to me.

As far as I can see, sexual promiscuity, in particular, crosses ideological lines. Remember the Clinton prossecution? Remember how the Clinton’s leading opponents turned out to have bits of fluff of their own on the side? The only difference between liberals and conservatives on that score is that it’s the conservatives who are hypocrites.

I think Clinton’s big sin in the eyes of his prosecutors wasn’t that he fooled around, it’s that he fooled around with women who were so common. If he’d dipped the presidential penis into girls who were from the right kinds of families, nobody would have cared.

So, yes, I’d say go right ahead and compare Bush to Clinton. Clinton looks like fricking Abraham Lincoln compared with the foolish boy prince we have in the White House today. Eight years of peace and prosperity is hard to argue with.

You’re right about my spam filter. I need to find a better one because currently, if I allow even one link, a large amount of spam will get through…I’ll try to find a plug in that fixes that.

The 20th Century was fucked up? Could’ve fooled me. Would you rather be living in 2004 or 1904?

Right, but it was also ‘intellectuals’ that were the strongest supporters of Communism/Socialism, in fact, it is only intellectuals currently that argue for ‘democratic socialism’. Intellectuals are good, don’t get me wrong, they have their purpose. But I wouldn’t go so far as to say I’d want to be ruled by them. I much prefer the current system of a Republic/Democracy than plato’s being ruled by philosophers.

As for hollywood, I think it is pretty self evident to most people that they are one of the most emotionally bankrupt group of people around. You always see them getting divorced, drug rehab, caught stealing, etc…It’s so common that it doesn’t even make front page news anymore.

And as for social workers and what not, I didn’t mean to imply that they weren’t important. Or didn’t do a good for society. What I meant to say is that if you live a life detached from the normal worries of society (unemployment, growth etc), you tend to have a different view of life. I’m not saying that view is necessarily a bad view, just that it tends to be different.

As for liberals being unhappy, well I guess that is easier for someone to see from the outside than from the inside…But lest you think I am completely off, there was a poll recently published that showed conservatives to be happier and more sexually fullfilled than liberals. Of course that poll isn’t conclusive, like I said before, I think this is easier seen from the outside than from the inside. And like with most generalizations, hard to ‘prove’ to someone else.

Oh, and as for your Bush comments…don’t make me start comparing him to Clinton

Stalin wasn’t an intellectual. Neither was Hitler, or Mao, or any of the other villains of the 20th century.

And in what way is Hollywood a “perfect mess”? They create a lot of art and a lot of wealth. They’re one of the most successful industries in America.

I’d like you to explain to me how “conservationists, social workers, civil rights activists, and teachers” are out of touch with reality. Pay particular attention to teachers now: they work all day with children, they get paid very small wages, and they get very little respect from society (Exhibit A: Mr. Reeves’s column). Doesn’t get more real than working with children.

Also, Reeves says liberals’ personal lives are in a “shabby state”? Certainly most of the liberals I know and see around me seem to lead reasonably happy personal lives, no different from the conservatives I know. Depression and dysfunctional families seem to be spread out equally on both sides of that particular ideological divide. Can you point me to some of these liberals whose lives are in a shabby state? And contrast them with the Religious Right, in particular those preachers who seemed to get busted regularly in the 1980s for doing business with hos. And the high-level, conservative Washington staffers who were paying for sex with Washingtonienne?

If I were looking for an example of someone with a personal life in a “shabby state,” I’d want to find someone who came from a family with a long history of government service: father a U.S. President, grandfather an influential Senator (and Nazi sympathizer). I’d look for someone whose family connections and inherited wealth had shielded him from the repercussions of a life as a wastrel and drunk, even to the point where he could be elected President of the United States himself. I’d look for someone who sent young American men and women off to die in a war fought based on, at best, faulty intelligence, and, at worst, outright lies, while this man’s own daughters drank illegally and partied at college. Sound like the description of any liberals you know?