You make your living through lefty alt-weeklies, right?

It's over, Angel. That second photo kills it.

They say FT Starbucks baristas get bennies.

Cute, Cridster, cute. She was great, and dispelled the notion that she's anti-gay during our session (although she didn't want me to ask her about it -- but somebody from the audience did).

When people tell me they hate her, I ask whether they've actually listened to her. I mean, how do you argue with 1. be nice to your husband, 2. have sex with him, and 3. take responsibility for your children?

When people tell me they hate her, I ask whether they've actually listened to her. I mean, how do you argue with 1. be nice to your husband, 2. have sex with him, and 3. take responsibility for your children?

I have actually listened to her. I don't waste my time hating her. But I do reserve for Mrs. Laura my very rare use of the word "cunt," which I use solely to describe women who actively work to abuse, belittle, hold back and otherwise harm other women.

No, you can't argue with what you say she says, but that's not all she says. (I have listened; I know.) I've heard her use the word "slut" to describe women just like you, Amy, so just because she didn't call you a slut to your face doesn't mean she doesn't think you are one. Probably she doesn't, though, because who has the energy to carry around that much poison in their soul? Which means that she's happy to sling language like that around on the radio, but doesn't really mean it, which makes her an insincere cunt, to boot.

The older I get, the more I believe in honesty. Not "yes, your ass does look fat in those pants" honestly, but the kind that says if you go on the radio and call women who've had abortions -- like you, Amy! -- "murderers" and "whores" and are happy to collect a paycheck for it, but don't really believe they are, and count them among your close friends, then you aren't really worth my, or anyone else's, time. You're just Mitch Albom with a different schtick.

Over the years, Mrs. Laura has said a great deal more than "have sex with your husband." She has said anyone raising a child without religion is guilty of abuse. She has told women who found themselves married to gay men that a) they must have know beforehand (because she would have, even though they wouldn't have had premarital sex, as per her beliefs); and b) even if they didn't, they still have to stay married, because the children are more important than whether your husband brings home a social disease. She told a single mom (slut!) that no, she can't finish her last year of college, even though it would mean her toddler would spend two whole mornings a week with grandma, because any sort of non-parental child care is tantamount to abuse. She told an orthodox Jewish woman with little kids that yes! yes she must honor the orthodox prohibition of "work" on the Sabbath and leave her oven on all day, even though it's a safety risk for young children, because of course this is exactly what G-d meant.

These are only a few of her charming pronouncements I picked up in the year or two I would occasionally tune her in.

Of course, none of this advice applied to Dr. Laura, who shed a first marriage, broke up another, put her kid in child care when necessary (although she called it "a playgroup"), left Judaism when it no longer suited her social schedule, etc.

I'm happy you've made a new friend, even one who now commands the sought-after 10 p.m.-midnight time slot here in Detroit, and has resorted to going on the Today show to say Eliot Spitzer wouldn't have gone to that whore if his wife was hauling his ashes regularly. She probably doesn't think you're a slut or a whore or a baby-murderer; I doubt she asked you how your mother feels about your "sucking her grandchild down a sink," one of the charming sticks she liked to beat her callers with. Anyone who calls this bitter hag expecting advice and not to gather material for a performance-art piece probably deserves what they're going to get.

And I expect she knows this, too. So she keeps laying it on thick, not believing a word, happy to spew bullshit into the air to keep the cash flow going.

Happy to be a cunt, in other words.

I've heard her use the word "slut" to describe women just like you, Amy, so just because she didn't call you a slut to your face doesn't mean she doesn't think you are one.

That's all right.

Cathy Seipp, likewise, probably thought I was a slut, too.

Listen to her on the radio tomorrow, and listen to this show I did with her. I used to think she was too mean to callers. I don't anymore.

It's easy to cling to a bad opinion of somebody. It takes more to listen to that person with an open mind and evaluate them fairly.

And I get letters from numerous men who'd do anything to get their wives to have sex with them who then turn to prostitutes or have affairs because they won't.

And I did have an abortion and if she thinks that's murder, she's entitled to that opinion. My opinion is that nobody knows for sure when life begins, and I think there's a difference between potential life and life.

If you don't like somebody's issues, debate them. To just call them names is immature and not helpful. And again, I'd venture that you haven't listened to her for quite some time.

Please. Why would I listen to her again, having given her enough of a chance that I could gather just those few anecdotes? How much open-mindedness does a listener have to have? Am I required to listen to her every day to have an opinion?

But you know what? I would give her a second chance, if I ever, EVER heard her acknowledge that maybe she doesn't know everything. We all change. We'd hardly be human beings if we didn't. And yet, I have never heard Mrs. Laura reverse herself on a single subject with any sort of honesty. Not once. Everything that was OK for her is bad for you, and maybe it was bad for you yesterday but it's OK for her today, but she doesn't have to explain why. It's like "1984" -- we're at war with Eastasia, we've always been at war with Eastasia. All that prattle about Judaism just stopped one day, and she read some perfunctory two-sentence statement that said, "It's not working for me anymore, so I'm no longer Jewish" and that was it? Having rubbed her listeners' ears in it for years, doesn't she owe them a little more than that?

Here's what it comes down to, for me: Some people feel called to offer advice. Of these, the best ones truly, genuinely want to help people make wise decisions, to sort out the static in their head and help them see what's best. And then there are those who offer advice as an excuse to indulge their own narcissism, because they, and only they, have it figured out. When I listened to Mrs. Laura, it was like a 5,4,3,2,1 to how long after the caller finished talking that she could turn the subject around to herself. It was hilarious:

Caller: I'm trying to lose weight, but I have two little kids and I just found out I'm pregnant unexpectedly, and I feel like I'm never going to be skinny again.

Mrs. L: Well, I limit myself to two Lorna Doones a day. You should see my thighs! I'm so fit and trim, you'd never know I was in my 50s.

(Nowadays, it would be: Well, if your husband goes to see a prostitute, you have only yourself to blame.)

Over the years of the Culture Wars, there's been a lucrative market in scolding others for behavior you indulged in yourself, back in the day. Some are better at it than others, but there's one type I simply cannot tolerate, and that's the kind that reaches the age of 40 or so, when the blood cools a bit in middle age, and promptly forgets what it's like to be 25. When people have questioned her on, say, her nude-photo hijinx, Mrs. L always has some pat answer, like, "I'm not a hypocrite, I'm a teacher," implying, well, I made my mistakes and learned from them, and now I'm trying to help you avoid them. But she never actually admits to making a mistake, and without doing so, she can't display a shred of empathy.

Oh, and by the way: The only person who knows why Eliot Spitzer visited prostitutes is Eliot Spitzer. Unless Mrs. Laura was the Spitzers' therapist, she knows no more than anyone else, and offering her book-pimping opinion about it was just crass.

But again, that's what this comes down to: Selling Mrs. Laura's books, and selling Mrs. Laura's advertising time, and plumping Mrs. Laura's pillows. Being on stage for her was good for both of you, and there's nothing wrong with that, but you really can't chide people for hating the old hag. She asks for it every time she opens her mouth.

I'm watching the call-in now. Notice she's managed to tapdance her way around the "what are you a doctor of question.

At least Rachel Maddow is forthright about not being "that kind of doctor."

Here, from Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dr._Laura

Schlessinger's Ph.D. is in physiology and not psychology; critics have characterized the show's name as deceptive. However, Her Ph.D entitles and qualifies her as a Doctor but instead she uses Dr. Laura mainly for a pen name and title for her show. She has never stated that she is a Doctor in Psychology or marriage and family counseling. When asked, she readily explains this in fax , email or on her show and has never tried to deceive her listeners intentionally.

She was a therapist for a bunch of years, but doesn't see patients anymore. She told me that once she got publicly known that got in the way of her sessions.

She does acknowledge mistakes she's made in this book, for example. And here are a few other things she says in the book:

•Closure isn’t necessary – or sometimes even possible.

•People-pleasing behavior is nothing about giving – it’s all about getting safety from criticism, anger, or rejection and ensuring being “liked.”

•Treat your spouse as if you loved him or her with your last breath – no matter how contrary to that you might feel at any one moment.

•There is effective complaining and ineffective complaining. Ineffective complaining has an intent other than solving the problem.

Makes a lot of sense to me.

And FYI, regarding your comment, "Being on stage for her was good for both of you" -- being on stage with her probably earned me demerits with people who are my audience, but I have yet to live with my finger to the wind, and I don't intend to start now.

Please don't get the impression I'm criticizing you for your appearance. Publicity is publicity, and they spelled your name right. But I will always call this woman what she is, and she isn't some nice little marriage counselor. She's a hateful bitch, always has been, and likely always will.

You're welcome to criticize me if you think I'm wrong about this or anything (that's why I have a blog instead of a monologue).

So, Nancy Nall disagrees with Amy Alkon about Dr. Laura? So does at least half of the radio audience, and probably more. I don't quite understand the vehemence, though. Is there a tiny bit of jealousy from a former columnist, currently looking for work?

Besides you, Amy, Dennis Miller has the best take, I think, on the "intellectual civil war" amongst the left & the right in your nation at this time. He has resided on both sides of that divide and has a simple question for anyone who comes on his program and starts criticizing him with the vitriol exhibited by the likes of Nancy on here: "Just because you disagree with me, does that mean you have to hate me in the way you seem to?"

Dear Amy:

I could not even read the negative comments in this blog about Laura Schlessinger. I watched both C-SPAN shows today and I thought she was a breath of fresh air. I felt the same way about you too. Thank you !
please post my name as "Tom"

Some people have so much investment in what they do and think - even when what they have done has nothing to do with thought - that they cannot stand being told anything they do is wrong.

But personal appearances like this, with unscripted dialogue, are the purest form of speech guaranteed by the First Amendment. Whether you are a fan of a personality like Amy or Dr. Laura or not, you should notice the difference between this and the scripted lying you are getting from your favorite political figure.

Of course, if all you can offer is one two-wrongs-make-a-right fallacy after another, you're not going to see this at all.

> being on stage with her probably
> earned me demerits with people
> who are my audience

That was my point. Sushi-eating lunchtime westsiders with the LA Weekly (or whatever city-side) want to think the opposition can be ignored....

> Publicity is publicity, and
> they spelled your name right.

Well, meeeeee-yow!

> offering her book-pimping
> opinion about it was just
> crass.

This principle is new to me: People who express ideas for money aren't allowed to gossip about things that every one else is talking about? If crass is the worst thing you can say about a daytime radio personality, your praise is backhanded but powerful.

> Is there a tiny bit of jealousy
> from a former columnist

Aha! OK, I have *got* to learn to follow the links... They explain so much.....

> "Just because you disagree
> with me, does that mean you
> have to hate me in the way
> you seem to?"

Our visitor Justin, like many others on the left, assigns conditions of clinical illness to those who disagree.

I think it's what happens to people who've never sampled any of life's really raw and nasty challenges. You begin to think of yourself as preciously unsullied virgin, and nothing could be worse than getting some of that goo on you... (cooties!)

If C-span or anyone else kicks out a podcast of this appearance, someone speak up.

Robert - it's an inherent flaw in the progressive movement.

Conservatives view liberals as wrong. Liberals view conservatives as evil.

When your intellectual opponent is wrong, you attempt to convince them of this wrongness.

When your intellectual opponent is evil, you can safely dismiss whatever they say and publish studies that "show" their worldview to be a mental illness.

Crid - don't say what I'm about to say. People will talk.

Fair's fair: earlier on, I commented on Dr. Schlessinger's evasion of the question of her doctorate. That was early in the phone-in segment, which I was watching live. The question came up again later, and she answered it forthrightly, adding that she was tired of being called on it.

Bottom line: whatever her doctorate is in, there are no degrees in common sense, which is what she's generally asked to dispense, not (for instance) medical advice. When necessary, I hope that she would (as Amy and any number of other reputable advice columnists do) call in a real expert for consultation. Maybe even some who holds a doctorate in the pertinent area.

Maybe the tent really is bigger over there on the right.

Amy, come over to the dark side. Yes, we'll take you...

Dennis Miller has the best take, I think, on the "intellectual civil war" amongst the left & the right..."Just because you disagree with me, does that mean you have to hate me in the way you seem to?"

Interesting point. I do think that there is a subset of the right who have lifestyles that are closer to what we've evolved to enjoy and are therefore comfortable in their own skin. Those people have better things to do than make themselves feel better by hating someone. There's another subset, though, made up of some of the fundamentalists and neo-cons, who are just as bad as the worst of the left. I get the same reaction when I tell them I'm atheist as I do from leftists when I tell them the NEA is pure evil.

As for Dennis Miller, I can't work up enough gusto to hate him, but I could understand how someone could. The ass-kissing abomination that was his NFL coverage made John Tesh's Olympic gymnastics commentary seem like refreshing entertainment by comparison.

"Here I am, an atheist whose job description on her business card is "godless harlot." I'm a woman who's never been married, and who has no desire to ever have children or GET married - which means I'm ONLY having premarital sex. And I'll only EVER have premarital sex."

I have listened to her before, and it didn't even seem that she acknowledges people like you (and me) exist, so I sort of lost interest in listening to her. Everything was always about da chyyylldrunnnn. It was sort of fun when she'd rip into some dimwit who desperately deserved it, but even that got old.

One time she took a call from a guy whose wife kept pestering him to have more kids, but he didn't want any more. She took him to task, 'How DARE you deny your wife the privilege of having all the babies she wants,' regardless, it seemed, of his lack of desire to be a father to more kids or the couple's ability to pay for them. She really lost me there, as I think children deserve two WILLING parents.

Never having actually watched football, I'm cool with hiring Miller to do it, even if he bored people,. And it was good that ABC tried to do something with the franchise after all those decades of boring jocks... It's like Cosell said in his book thirty years ago, jocks aren't entertaining to the general public until you get another fascinating personality (such as himself) into the mix. Trying to make it happen with Miller was an honorable failure.

Miller often gives the impression of hiring (virgin) English department graduates to write three versions of his next sentence from which he can choose. The sad part is, it often works for him. My favorite line from his rants:

"Growing up, my family wasn't very tight. We were more like a tour group with secrets..."

Amy, where are your hands in that second photo?? Never mind, don't tell me the truth. I'd rather imagine it.

"One time she took a call from a guy whose wife kept pestering him to have more kids, but he didn't want any more. She took him to task, 'How DARE you deny your wife the privilege of having all the babies she wants,' regardless, it seemed, of his lack of desire to be a father to more kids or the couple's ability to pay for them. She really lost me there, as I think children deserve two WILLING parents."

PJ - Are you sure this is accurate? These days, she's pretty consistent in telling callers that each parent weilds a one-vote veto on more babies specifically for the reason you cite - children deserve and need two parents who want to have them.

It was maybe three years ago, Snakeman - she may very well have changed her tune since then.

I am in total agreement with the Goddess on this one.

I've been reading this blog for a year now, and I finally am motivated to join in. Amy, you are one of the most open-minded and intelligent people I have ever heard. And I say that as one who does not always agree with you. Actually, I only disagree with you on religion (unless, of course, you are talking about Islam). I am also a huge Dr. Laura fan, even though I have two children and also have a job. I know that she would rip me up for that, but so what. Listening to her show and reading her books really has made me a lot nicer to my husband. You can learn a lot from people as long as you don't think you have to agree with every word they say.

> You can learn a lot from people
> as long as you don't think you
> have to agree with every word
> they say.

That's a great point. You should comment here more often. There are people who don't understand how that works. I've never admired anyone who didn't have some really gruesome faults, but I've admired a lot of people a great deal.

I learned something about Dr Laura last time Amy commented on her and I went to look her up on Wikipedia: In recent years she's moved away from Judaism somewhat, at least in the finer details. And apparently she hasn't been bashful about it. She's publicly said "It means less to me nowadays so I won't discuss it as often" or words to that effect. That's admirable from many perspectives.

Maybe having her sun at risk in Iraq had something to do with it.

Her son, I meant.

The scorching orb in the sky will survive this, I promise.

Hey, I don't like hypocrites. Sue me. She against extramarital sex. (Guess who's had naked pictures of herself all over the internet that were taken by her extramarital lover?) She's against working mothers. (Guess who's a working mother?)

And those three things you cited (as a previous poster pointed out) are not ALL she says. And, yes, she does think you're a slut. Whether she said it to your face or not. (And yes, she's a hypocrite for thinking so.)

To whomever said, "Conservatives view liberals as wrong. Liberals view conservatives as evil."

You don't have the slightest idea what you're talking about.

What do you think of her callers, Patrick?

Well, there's the "two wrongs" fallacy. I knew it wouldn't take long.

"She against extramarital sex." "she does think you're a slut."

*To her credit, that admonishment is always accompanied by the rationale that women should avoid unwanted prengancies, STDs, and men who only want them for sex. The fact that she largely ignores the possibility of two happy consenting adults engaging in consequence-free sex does seem rather school-marmish. But remember, she is talking to the lowest common denominator. I've never heard her call anyone a slut.

"She's against working mothers. (Guess who's a working mother?)"

*Her son's an adult and out of the house. And she's not against working mothers, just those who prioritize work over their families.

"Conservatives view liberals as wrong. Liberals view conservatives as evil."

*All I'm going to say about this is that you'll never hear any conservatives threaten to move to Canada if Obama is elected. When faced with electoral loss, Conservatives are far more likely to shrug their shoulders and look forward to the congressional elections in two years.

Patrick, the moment a conservative think-tank publishes a "study" that "proves" that liberalism is a mental illness and that liberals are inherently inferior, and the mainstream media publishes it, I'll concede your point.

Until then, shut your pie-hole.

"I have yet to live with my finger to the wind"

Whether cock, or not? That is the question!

--
phunctor

Crid writes: What do you think of her callers, Patrick?

That they probably represent a wide demographic of various attitudes, opinions, persuasions and interests.

In general? I would say they look for a reinforcement of their own self-righteous attitudes and positions. And good ol' Laura is the woman to give it to them.

Snakeman writes: I've never heard her call anyone a slut.

Then you don't listen to her. Even I've heard her do that and the only time I listen to her is when someone else happens to be doing so. So, you're looking at about 5 to 10 minutes of exposure every few months.

One example: a caller asked her what she should do about being invited to a baby shower for an unmarried friend, she being against premarital sex.

Dr Laura's response began with, "Okay, now, we don't celebrate sluthood."

Snakeman writes: *All I'm going to say about this is that you'll never hear any conservatives threaten to move to Canada if Obama is elected.

No, they threaten to move to France. Yes, I have heard that. It amazes me that you find a few vocal representatives of the opposing side and because of a handful of loudmouths, segue into the nonsensical idea that somehow, your side has the moral superiority locked down.

Brian writes: Patrick, the moment a conservative think-tank publishes a "study" that "proves" that liberalism is a mental illness and that liberals are inherently inferior, and the mainstream media publishes it, I'll concede your point.

No, they just have best-selling writers whose works things like "Liberalism Is A Mental Disorder" or accuse liberals of "Treason."

Just a few names to remind you that conservatives aren't the celestial beings with the morality factor on their side, lording it over their untermenschen liberal opponents. David Vitter, Newt Gingrich, Beverly Russell, Stanley Craig, Mark Foley and Rush Limbaugh.

Every time the moral superiority of the conservatives asserts itself, some scandal goes down to remind us all that conservatives and liberals are both human beings, both subject to the same failings, pettiness and malice.

I participate on an AOL message board at this time, intended to discuss the events of the day but often devolves into petty squabbling and vicious personal attacks. There are several soi-disant conservatives on that board who are dancing an Irish jig over the prognosis of Kennedy. And worse, with only one exception, not one of the other conservatives are calling them on it. They're either staying out of it, or are actually defending their brothers in bile, without actually indulging the festivities themselves. The one holdout correctly calls it sick and vile, and for this he's attacked.

So don't pretend that conservatives are so much better than the rest of us mere mortals; I'm hearing from several right now that could give lessons in cruelty and feigned innocence to Lizzie Borden.

Brian writes: shut your pie-hole

You open yours. Wide. So you can blow me!

Patrick - Rush Limbaugh is not UCB. He's not published in a peer-reviewed journal. His show isn't going to be used to generate medical diagnoses.

I mean, if you really want to get into it, Liberals meet all the traditional definitions of insanity, and many of the colloquial ones as well. After more than 300 years of failed attempts at collectivism, they still believe that they can get it right. Liberals believe all sorts of things that are provably false, yet they dare to tell me that I'm the one with a mental illness?

And so far as Kennedy goes, perhaps you missed it but they had to shut down the comments on the HuffPo thread about Cheney's last trip to the hospital. In fact, any thread that in any way mentions the name Cheney has comments disabled by default there because they know their denizens will spend the entire thread wishing for the most horrible deaths available to befall him.

So don't go pretending that conservatives are evil.

Humans are evil. It's their default state. Good is something that exists only by threat of violence, death, or eternal damnation.

And I wouldn't blow you with Andy Sullivan's mouth. You just aren't pretty enough.

Amy, you are one of the most open-minded and intelligent people I have ever heard. And I say that as one who does not always agree with you

Thanks so much, Karen. Great to see somebody like-minded.

Brian writes: I mean, if you really want to get into it, Liberals meet all the traditional definitions of insanity, and many of the colloquial ones as well. After more than 300 years of failed attempts at collectivism, they still believe that they can get it right. Liberals believe all sorts of things that are provably false, yet they dare to tell me that I'm the one with a mental illness?

Some liberal think-tank called you so, according to you (since I've never seen it). Regardless of who was on this panel, they are not liberalism itself, nor do they speak for all liberals.

What are the "all definitions of insanity" that liberals meet? And which colloquial ones? (How many colloquial definitions of insanity are there?)

I'm missing something here. First you say that the idea that conservatives are evil is a pretense. Then you say that "humans are evil." What are conservatives, then? French Poodles?

By the way, I'm not suggesting that conservatives are evil. At least not moreso than anyone else. However, many of them seem to hold to the idea that conservatives are "morally superior" (to quote Rush Limbaugh). That they are pro-life, the party of Christianity, the party of family values. What I am saying is that conservatives aren't better people than liberals. Both types (which, by the way, are NOT mutually exclusive) are just as prone to pettiness, malice, and just plain evil.

I also disagree with your statement that "Good is something that exists only by threat of violence, death, or eternal damnation."

Following that logic, if an atheist happens upon someone who suddenly is having a heart attack, they wouldn't do anything to aid them. He doesn't fear eternal damnation, being an atheist, and there is no threat of violence or death for not helping someone having a myocardial infarction. There's not even a law that says you have to.

I personally believe that if Amy were walking out in the parking lot and saw someone having a heart attack with no one else around, she would call 911, and try to aid this person. She's an atheist, and she is in no danger of violence, death or legal repercussions by failing to help someone. Nor does she have anything to gain by doing so.

As a matter of fact, I know for a fact that Amy answers letters that have no hope of ever appearing in her column. She did so for a friend of mine, actually, and gave him sound, much-needed and good advice. (I was advising him the same thing, but she was the "second opinion.") She was under no threat of violence or death for refusing to answer him, nor does she fear eternal damnation. So, why did she do a good thing for him? And no, she didn't know he was a friend of mine at the time.

So, I'm not pretty enough for you, huh? Well, fine! That's the second time in my life I've heard that! A guy I was dating a few years ago once asked me, "Will I see you pretty soon?" So I said belligerently, "Don't you think I'm pretty now?"

Following that logic, if an atheist happens upon someone who suddenly is having a heart attack, they wouldn't do anything to aid them. He doesn't fear eternal damnation, being an atheist, and there is no threat of violence or death for not helping someone having a myocardial infarction.

Human morality is hard-wired. Religion is business.

And you're right, Patrick -- I answer letters that never make my column (most of them never will). I feel good about helping people.

Heh. Brian, did you see that Cheney is giving the commencement address today at the Coast Guard Academy? I find this to be exceedingly hypocritical, especially because he was the one who was so gung ho about shutting it down!

Also, ...the moment a conservative think-tank publishes a "study" that "proves" that liberalism is a mental illness and that liberals are inherently inferior, and the mainstream media publishes it, I'll concede your point.

On the CT Post forum this morning, someone commented that the fact that Ted Kennedy being inflicted with a brain tumor proves that liberalism is a mental disease! That bastard!

On the CT Post forum this morning, someone commented that the fact that Ted Kennedy being inflicted with a brain tumor proves that liberalism is a mental disease! That bastard!

Patrick - One of the University of California schools of psychology produced a paper (I don't know that it was peer reviewed yet) that indicated that liberals were less averse to change and less subject to stress and more able to cope with interpersonal differences than conservatives, and that therefore conservatism ought to be considered as a personality disorder.

Amy - religion may well be business. But human morality is not hard wired. It is taught. If your parents didn't teach you to be nice and hav regard for your fellow beings, you would not. You would revert to form, and be a sadistic bitch like any other feral human.

Acting in a morally upright fashion is all about self-gratification. For the devoutly religious, they believe that they are "making themselves right with God". For the atheist "I feel good about helping people".

A distinction without a difference.

Patrick:

I'm missing something here. First you say that the idea that conservatives are evil is a pretense. Then you say that "humans are evil." What are conservatives, then? French Poodles?

What are the "all definitions of insanity" that liberals meet? And which colloquial ones? (How many colloquial definitions of insanity are there?)

Well, given that I'm not a member of the brain doctor association, I don't know if there even IS a clinical definition of insane. But there are legal and colloquial definitions.

The best colloquial one is this: "Performing an action repeatedly while expecting different results."

The legal one differs from place to place, but seems to be along the lines of a person acting without a commensurate understanding of the moral hazard of their actions.

I'd say that anyone who promotes socialism or communism falls into both categories at some level, wouldn't you?

Ergo, Democrats (liberals/progressives) (as a group) are insane.

"...is the automatic rejection of somebody you disagree with in any way. I don't operate that way"

Yes you do.

Brian: Well, given that I'm not a member of the brain doctor association, I don't know if there even IS a clinical definition of insane. But there are legal and colloquial definitions.

So, this is a candid admission that you lied when you said:

I mean, if you really want to get into it, Liberals meet all the traditional definitions of insanity, and many of the colloquial ones as well.

You maintain that liberals meet all traditional definitions of insanity, but you can't produce any of them (much less "all of them," which you would have to do to make your case.

And unless you think "one" and "many" are synonymous terms, you've also lied by saying that liberals meet "many of the colloquial ones as well."

Regarding your "doing the same thing over and over again, expecting different results," that's true of all political persuasions. Conservative ideals that don't work but they insist do? Abstinence-only sex education. School vouchers. (Jeb Bush, the narcissist-in-chief's brother, just recently regaled us in the St. Petersburg Times about the "effectiveness" of this idiotic mock-sham that is the school voucher program.) Trickle-down economics (which was rightly nicknamed "voodoo economics" by -- ironically enough -- the narcissist-in-chief's father).

It is the nature of the political beast to do the same thing over and over again, regardless of the colossal failures, to satisfy their base. Abstinence-only sex education is a laughable failure...but the religious reich will hear of nothing else. So, because the Republicans depend upon them, we will be subjected to abstinence-only sex education programs.

Contrary to what you believe, liberals don't have the market cornered on your SINGLE colloquial definition of insanity (which you dishonestly claimed was "many").

And also, I never said that conservatives were any more evil than liberals. Only that while they try to present themselves to the public as morally superior, we are continuously reminded that they are still human beings, no better morally than liberals.

And up to one more thing...you and I may disagree on many things, but I would appreciate it if you didn't start dragging out the "all traditional definitions of insanity" and be unable to produce a single one. Ditto, the "many colloquial ones" and only produce one.

I would rather debate the issues at hand, but I don't mind stripping off your rhetorical fig-leaves masking the tiny, tiny support system you have for arguments. If you don't like being exposed talking out your ass, I would suggest you refrain from doing so. Weasel words don't fly here. When you say, "all traditional definitions," you're going to be asked what these are. And if you start talking about "many of the colloquial ones," you're going to be called on it. Producing one for "many" is what we call "an embarrassing failure." We could also refer to it as "busted."

Get with the program. I don't mind exposing your dishonesty for what it is.

Are you really going to make me break out the DSM and do a full fucking analysis? I may not be a psychiatrist, but I am an engineer. Failure analysis is how I make my living. Modern American liberalism is an abject failure no matter how you evaluate it. Every single liberal program has led to more people being dependent upon government for their daily sustenance. And anyone who believes that more of the same is going to benefit humanity would do us all a favor if they simply removed themselves from the debate and the gene pool now.

You fall back on your self-proclaimed superiority because you know you cannot prove me wrong. You can't even use proof by assertion of superior intellect and get away with it.

And the true conservative positions have never been tested. Only half-measures. School vouchers don't solve the problem, they exacerbate it. Trickle-down economics only works when the government doesn't increase spending at twice the rate of revenue growth. True conservatism involves removing the influence and intrusion of government from the lives of people.

Try again, ad-hominem boy.

On the subject of ad hominem (and dishonesty...AGAIN) could you show me where I proclaimed my superiority? I'll save you some time by telling you now that you can't, because I didn't.

If you don't like the burden of proof being justly dropped on you, I would suggest you refrain from the use of "weasel words." When you start citing "all the traditional definitions of insanity," you're going to be expected to know those definitions. Otherwise, duuuuuuuh, you can't possibly know whether liberalism meets those definitions or not, and you're just talking out you ass, now aren't you?

On the subject of burden of proof and logical fallacies (such as ad hominem, which is not hyphenated, by the way), have you ever heard of "shifting the burden of proof"? Let me explain it to you. I don't waste my time proving your wrong, because I don't have to. The burden of proof is on someone who makes the assertion, and you've made many.

Show me that ALL liberal programs result in making more people dependent on the government for their sustenance. By the way, you might want to define "liberal program" while you're at it. (Amy, you're going to need MUCH more bandwidth. Brian has a TON of writing to do.)