Quote O’ The Day
Remember that these are people who have no idea how reality works.

Biden Expected To Sign Police Reform Executive Order

NBC News is reporting that Joe Biden is expected to sign an Executive Order on Police Reform since recent efforts in Congress have stalled. The Biden Junta hopes that this Executive Order (EO) will shore up faltering support among Black voters. Likely the policing EO will also give Biden an opportunity to rant against Donald Trump, always popular with the Left, insult half of America, shout for no reason and pound the little mini-desk in his fake Oval Office set.

The good news is that at least most of the Lefty Moonbats have stopped shouting “Defund the Police”. The bad news is that there has been absolutely no effort at bipartisan negotiations on real police reforms. A year and a half ago, South Carolina Senator Tim Scott wrote a not perfect bill with some police reforms. When the Democrats wouldn’t take up Scott’s bill, he said it was because the Dems cynically wanted the issue, a divisive racial issue. Read Deanna’s post here.

In 2020 and 2021, the Democrats have failed to move on the “George Floyd Justice in Policing Act”. Creepy Joe Bidenf has failed at absolutely everything he has touched (energy, supply chain, Afghanistan, to name a few) and he got a new dog last month. So what’s a failed President to do? Sign an Executive Order, that’s the ticket.

Not that I think Joe Biden remembers what his positions used to be, but he once was considered strong on law enforcement. From NPR July, 2021:

For years, Biden was a loyal ally to law enforcement, dating back to his days in the Senate when he crafted the 1994 crime bill with their direct help.

“When he was vice president, he would routinely have law enforcement at the residence,” said Chuck Wexler, executive director of the Police Executive Research Forum, a Washington, D.C.-based police think tank. “He told President Obama when he was vice president he wanted the police portfolio. So, he knows this issue.”

But while Biden may know the issue, the issue itself has changed with mounting calls for more accountability among police officers in the aftermath of George Floyd’s killing.

Now, Joe’s poll numbers are cratering and he desperately needs a win. Hence, the expected EO on Police Reform. As NBC reports:

President Joe Biden is planning to sign executive actions on police reform as early as this month, three people familiar with the plans said, as his administration seeks to unilaterally jumpstart an issue that’s a top priority for a key constituency.

The executive actions would follow Biden’s uphill battle to advance voting rights legislation, and could coincide with a similar effort by some Democratic lawmakers to revive the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act, which stalled on Capitol Hill after failed attempts to craft a bipartisan measure.

The focus on police reforms is part of what appears to be a last-ditch effort by the Biden administration to take action on some of the president’s signature initiatives in the run-up to his State of the Union Address on March 1. In addition to voting rights and policing, the White House and congressional Democrats are considering ways to resurrect Biden’s Build Back Better package, either by paring back the legislation or separating it into two bills, according to three sources familiar with the discussions.

The Squad already threatened Biden about breaking up Build Back Better and they don’t play. If Biden doesn’t sign the police EO, he will have nothing but failures to talk about in his March 1 State of the Union Address. Sweet Baby Jesus, that’s going to be awful anyway.

But, wait, there is more:

Two people familiar with the discussions said the White House could roll out the executive actions to mark the beginning of Black History Month in February.

Biden also is expected to use the moment to criticize former President Donald Trump, the people familiar with the discussions said. The president was sharply critical of Trump during a Jan. 6 anniversary speech and again on Tuesday while giving remarks on voting rights.

Yes, the old racist Biden will get a twofer. Black History Month and swatting Trump.

The EO signing will be a combination of the fake office with the teeny desk and the odd yelling like in this video about fewer democracies:

The Police Reform EO will be like everything else Creepy Joe has done: a failure and likely extra Constitutional.

A not so modest proposal for mandatory training

In the past week or so, we’ve seen a push by anti-Second Amendment folks to call for mandatory training prior to people being able to exercise their right to keep and bear arms. And not just to carry a gun, but to simply own one.

Now, we oppose this when it comes to gun rights for obvious reasons. However, it’s very clear that many don’t. As such, I figured I’d offer something of a compromise.

In particular, if gun control folks are going to be insistent on mandatory training, then I’m going to push back with calls for mandatory training before exercising other rights.

To start with, we should require mandatory training before allowing people to vote.

After all, an uninformed electorate could lead to all kinds of problems. I mean…<gestures toward the White House>.

We should require all citizens wishing to vote to undergo a mandatory training course prior to being able to cast a ballot. The course should require some degree of basic civics as to which elected officials can do what they cannot.

It should also include the constitutional limits to the government so that these voters don’t get led astray by promises that won’t pass legal muster. You know, things like free money, forgiveness of college loans, things like that.

Additionally, we should also require mandatory training before anyone can attend a house of worship of any faith.

After all, you wouldn’t want someone to walk into a mosque and do everything wrong, deeply offending our Muslim neighbors, now would you? The mandatory course would include a basic primer on all faiths worshipped in the United States so people can make an informed decision as to where to worship and what to do when they arrive.

The fact that such a course would amount to the coursework for a theology degree is completely irrelevant.

We should also require mandatory training before exercising one’s freedom of speech. After all, some people talk a lot of nonsense. I mean, I saw someone advocating for communism just yesterday. That shouldn’t be allowed!

So clearly, before people speak, they should be required to undergo a mandatory training class. I mean, they might offend someone by advocating for socialism, communism, or some other faulty line of thinking.

And while we’re at it, we need to mandate training for journalists. No, I’m not talking about journalism school–something that’s not actually required for one to become a journalist–but a government-mandated training course one must go through, lest they report inappropriately. I mean, we can’t have journalists giving government officials a hard time like they did President Trump, right?

What? What’s that? You think this is all out of line and unconstitutional?

Well, that may be, but if you’re someone who thinks I should be forced to undergo training before exercising a right protected by the Constitution, then why shouldn’t you be forced to undergo training before exercising some right precious to you?

It’s been said that the Second Amendment is treated as a second-class right. The idea of mandatory training in order to exercise it illustrates this idea perfectly. Especially since we know that many of these other proposals I just made would be shot down in a heartbeat.

After all, how is something a right if you must pass a course first in order to use it? At that point, it becomes a privilege.

If you have an issue with any of those proposals above, then you should at least show some consistency and stand against mandatory training for gun ownership.

Well – they’ve got  crap-for-brains to begin with, so ignoring truth is not ‘second nature’ but first nature for them.


BLUF:
They can look at contrary evidence clear in the face and just pretend it doesn’t exist, reject it out of hand simply because it goes against their preconceived notions that gun control is good.

You’re never going to talk sense into these people. You generally can’t reason someone out of a position they didn’t reason themselves into.

How anti-gunners ignore inconvenient facts

When it comes to a discussion of guns in America, there will always be something of a divide. Those who want to regulate almost anything will always want to regulate guns and those who do not wish to be ruled will argue against such regulations.

It’s really not a difficult dichotomy to comprehend, all things considered.

Currently, with violent crime raging, anti-gun folks are pushing hard and using the violence to justify any and all demands.

Take this bit regarding Iowa.

In 2018, the Center for American Progress and Progress Iowa wrote an issue brief warning that, while gun violence in Iowa remained relatively low compared with other states, efforts in the Legislature to weaken the state’s gun laws threatened the safety of Iowa communities. Unfortunately, Iowa lawmakers did not heed this warning and in 2021 continued to undermine gun safety in the state by repealing two crucial measures that have helped keep gun violence in Iowa at comparatively low levels: 1) the law requiring a permit, and therefore a background check, prior to every handgun sale and 2) the law requiring a permit to carry loaded, concealed handguns in the community.

At the same time, similar to trends in other states, the coronavirus pandemic has been accompanied by an increase in gun deaths in Iowa: According to early data from the Iowa Department of Public Health, gun-related deaths reached an all-time high in 2020, with an estimated 353 people killed. Once again, it is crucial that policymakers in Iowa take the issue of gun violence seriously and resist efforts to further weaken the state’s gun laws.

Now, on the surface, if you knew nothing else about guns or gun control, it would be easy to look at this plea and think that maybe it’s a good idea.

The problem is, it isn’t.

Now, 2020 was a nasty year for violent crime all across the nation. That includes states that have long favored gun control policies such as California, New Jersey, Massachusetts, New York, and so on.

2021 was a slightly different animal, but not by much.

Chicago saw the highest homicide rate it had seen in 25 years. Los Angeles had the highest it had seen in 15 years.

So clearly, it was rough for a lot of places.

However, we also saw violent crime go down in a couple of large cities. Dallas saw a declineSo did Miami.

So what’s the difference between these four cities? The two where homicides went up were in anti-gun states while the two where it went down were in pro-gun states.

Now, I’ll be the first to concede that this is just a data point and far from conclusive evidence. However, if fewer restrictions on guns result in greater violent crime as the anti-Second Amendment types claim, then shouldn’t Dallas and Miami have seen the worst violent crime compared to Chicago and Los Angeles?

What happens is that anti-Second Amendment folks don’t want to look at that. They prefer to ignore inconvenient truths whenever possible.

Gun-controlled states are having issues while non-gun-controlled states are having fewer problems. This isn’t opinion. This is a fact, one based on the actual numbers.

But you’ll never get an anti-Second Amendment type to acknowledge it. Instead, they’ll just pretend those facts don’t exist, all while pushing the next bit of gun control to strike their fancy. They’ll ignore it, all while pretending that those who oppose gun control want to do nothing to address violent crime.

The term is cognitive dissonance. They can look at contrary evidence clear in the face and just pretend it doesn’t exist, reject it out of hand simply because it goes against their preconceived notions that gun control is good.

You’re never going to talk sense into these people. You generally can’t reason someone out of a position they didn’t reason themselves into.

BLUF:
I’ll leave you with a GOP strategist marveling at Biden choosing to expend evaporating political capital on this base-placation exercise.  Which seems destined to fail.  Which, in turn, will only inflame the base’s dissatisfaction.  Galaxy brain stuff.  Americans do not generally view the right and ability to vote as under genuine threat.  They’re more worried about rising prices, various shortages, and other hardships.

Desperate Demagogue: Those Who Oppose My Elections Power Grab Are ‘Domestic Enemies’

One more post on that nasty, mendacious speech delivered by a desperate, shrinking president.  Mitt Romney made some strong points in rebuttal on Tuesday, and we followed up with a few additional arguments yesterday.  But we haven’t tackled this soundbyte yet, which was among the ugliest and laziest lines in the president’s extended expression of performative, impotent rage.  President Unity is really on a roll:

Continue reading “”

‘Just call the police’: The Insufferable White Privilege of Gun Control Advocates

The concept of privilege gets a bad rap in many circles, and understandably so. Many have taken it way too far, using it as a means of bullying their political opponents into submission. But while the excesses of this rhetoric are certainly problematic, I don’t think we should do away with the concept entirely. Behind all the moral grandstanding lies a kernel of truth, one that can provide some valuable insights if applied correctly.

The principle, essentially, is that certain people have unearned advantages, and those advantages can shape how they see the world. Affluence, for instance, can make someone blind to the needs of the poor. Likewise, those with an above average aptitude, intelligence, or physical appearance might find it difficult to relate to those who were not equally endowed with those gifts.

The problem with this blindness is that it can easily lead to hubris, that is, unwarranted self-confidence. Indeed, one of the hallmarks of privilege is thinking we know the best course of action for a given situation when we really don’t.

The classic example of this is the story of a famous French queen who, upon hearing that the peasants had no bread, simply replied, “then let them eat cake.” She was so unfamiliar with their circumstances that the solution she dismissively prescribed was positively laughable. Another example of privilege was when the lockdown elite told us to “just stay home,” seemingly oblivious to the fact that staying home is simply unfeasible for many working class people.

Now, progressives think they’re pretty good at pointing out places where privilege is leading to blindness and hubris (indeed, they often see privilege even where it doesn’t exist). But there’s one occurrence of privilege that always seems to get a pass, and that is the privilege associated with gun control.

Continue reading “”

BLUF:
Sotomayor [might as well add Breyer in as well, ed] may not make a blunder as obvious as this one again, but the thought process—or lack thereof—that led to it will not change.

At Minimum, Sotomayor Should Recuse Herself From All Decisions Regarding COVID.

Sonia Sotomayor’s ludicrous claim before her Supreme Court peers during oral arguments that one hundred thousand children were “in serious condition” from COVID-19 when three thousand would have been more accurate, is far more than just an embarrassment to the justice.
How could such an ill-informed person be a justice of our highest court? What else doesn’t she know—or, perhaps more exactly, doesn’t want to know?
Her full quotation makes it sound still worse.
“We have hospitals that are almost at full capacity with people severely ill on ventilators. We have over 100,000 children, which we’ve never had before, in serious condition, many on ventilators.”
None of those are true. We are currently going through a bump in cases of the vastly weaker Omicron variant, which many have compared to a cold and in the vast majority of instances can be treated at home with therapeutics.
Even extreme vaccine enthusiast CDC director Rochelle Wallensky admitted that hospitalizations for other age groups were fifteen fold greater than the pediatric—and those weren’t much.
Sotomayor wasn’t alone on the court with her what some might euphemistically call “mischaracterization.” Justice Stephen Breyer claimed “750 million new cases” of coronavirus had been reported in our country when the entire population is well less than half that.
Can you get two cases of COVID-19 at once? Who’d a thunk it?
What’s going on here? Are the two Supreme Court justices taking stupid pills? Is the “Wise Latina” not so wise after all?
She may not be a legal genius but that’s not the problem. The problem is what I have called “want-to-believe.”
Sotomayor and Breyer are so convinced of liberal/conservative ideology that they are unable even to see the arguments of the other side, sometimes to the extent that they do not even know they are there, that they exist.
This is even true when the arguments are about science, not politics—when facts, not opinions, are most important.

Continue reading “”

BLUF:
……as violent crime soared in the 1990s, states expanded gun rights in the form of concealed carry, driving violent crime down.
I’m sorry, but unless you have an answer for that, I don’t really care what you have to say
And when it comes to the Rittenhouse case, the only takeaway is that when you’re faced with a violent mob, you need all the firepower you can manage.

There are no gun control lessons out of Rittenhouse trial

Kyle Rittenhouse was found not guilty of murder by a jury. Even before that, though, we know he was innocent of all charges because we watched the whole thing unfold on video. We knew he was innocent.

Now, though, Rittenhouse is a free man, but some are using his situation to try and advance gun control.

No, it doesn’t make a lot of sense. Yet this isn’t the first op-ed I’ve seen that tried to make that case.

As the country awaits a U.S. Supreme Court decision in a New York state case that may create a federal constitutional right to carry guns outside the home, what lessons can the nation draw from the recent acquittal in Wisconsin of Kyle Rittenhouse and the convictions in the murder of Ahmaud Arbery in Georgia?

The obvious first lesson is that no one would be dead, maimed or going to prison if the men in these cases had not possessed firearms or had just left their weapons at home. The man Rittenhouse maimed learned that his self-proclaimed constant gun carrying not only did not protect him or others, but simply added him to the victim count when he pointed his gun at Rittenhouse.

No, we didn’t learn any such lesson.

Continue reading “”

Instead of Turtles all the way down‘, it’s going to be ‘Injections‘.
And as I understand it, the vaxx companies get about $30 per dose.
Do some simple arithmetic on that number related to population.


Moderna CEO Says Fourth Vaccine Dose May Be Needed Next Fall

Moderna CEO Stephane Bancel said Thursday that individuals may need a fourth shot of the Wuhan coronavirus vaccine, CNBC reported.

Bancel reportedly made the remarks while speaking with Goldman Sachs at a health care CEO conference. In the discussion, he noted that the efficacy of booster shots will decline over time. Because of this, he said those who received a booster dose this past fall will likely need another come fall 2022.

“Bancel said people who received their boosters last fall will likely have enough protection to get them through the winter, when new infections surge as people gather indoors to escape the cold.

However, Bancel said the efficacy of boosters will probably decline over the course of several months, similar to what happened with the first two doses. The Moderna chief was interviewed by Goldman Sachs during the investment bank’s health-care CEO conference.

‘I will be surprised when we get that data in the coming weeks that it’s holding nicely over time — I would expect that it’s not going to hold great,’ Bancel said, referring to the strength of the booster shots.”

Bancel added in the discussion that governments in the United Kingdom and South Korea have already ordered doses in preparation.

CNBC noted that a study published by the U.K. Health Security Agency found that booster doses are up to 75 percent effective at preventing symptomatic infections two weeks after receiving the shot. However, the efficacy of the booster shot begins to decline after roughly four weeks.

“I still believe we’re going to need boosters in the fall of ’22 and forward,” Bancel said in the interview. He mentioned that a mutation of the virus could change the course of the pandemic again.

“We have been saying that we believe first this virus is not going away,” he added. “We’re going to have to live with it.”

It’s too expensive, that’s why


Americans Aren’t Buying Biden’s Agenda
According to a recent poll, only 22 percent of people believe that the current state of the economy is “good” or “excellent.”

The new year often feels like an opportunity to correct past mistakes—for example, improving one’s diet or quitting smoking. This explains why 25 percent of Americans, and 40 percent of those under 30, make New Year’s resolutions. Based on the latest poll from The Economist and YouGov, the Biden administration should adopt a New Year’s resolution too. In particular, it should reconsider its domestic policy agenda. Americans aren’t buying it.

YouGov is an influential international research data and analytics group headquartered in London. Pollsters asked 1,500 American adults about the state of the economy, the COVID-19 pandemic, inflation and more. Their findings show that people aren’t particularly happy right now.

When asked whether the country is headed in the right direction, only 23 percent of respondents said yes, while 62 percent think we’re on the wrong track. Black Americans seem more content than most, with 38 percent answering yes, as opposed to only 22 percent of Hispanics. There is also a small gender disparity in these opinions: 33 percent of white male college grads believe the country is heading in the right direction, while only 22 percent of white female college grads have the same optimistic view. Meanwhile, only 17 percent of white, non-college grads of all genders are happy with the country’s current direction.

Continue reading “”

Not that having a deep intellect – or any brains at all for that matter – is a requirement to be seated on the court.


Today’s deep question: Will Twitter suspend Sotomayor for COVID misinformation?

A wise axiom warns us not to deduce Supreme Court decisions based on the questions asked by its justices during oral arguments. Perhaps, however, we can deduce their relative wisdom and grasp of reality from the questions they pose. In today’s debate over the legality of the Biden administration’s vaccine mandates imposed by OSHA, a few of the justices appear to have little grasp of the current facts of the pandemic.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor led the way on misinformation. Sotomayor was hardly alone in causing jaws to drop, but she was the clear leader. The transcript isn’t yet available, but observers shared their amazement on Twitter. First, Sotomayor misses the rationale for a mask mandate entirely:

Ahem. COVID-19 is a respiratory illness. If it were a blood-borne disease, no one would need to wear a mask, and there would be little need for a vaccine mandate in workplaces. That’s rather basic to the question of whether OSHA’s vaccine/mask mandate serves a rational purpose for a legitimate state interest.

That, however, was only the start of the nonsense. Here are more of Sotomayor’s bon mots……………….

 

As well they should. It all political Kabuki Theater….or worse.


January 6 Opening Day Celebrations Conclude With a Musical Number

Washington State Democrats  demoncraps! Push Bill Reducing Penalties for Drive-By Shootings

Washington state Reps. Tarra Simmons (D) and David Hackney (D) are pushing legislation to remove drive-by shootings from the list of crimes that elevate first degree to murder to a higher degree of murder carrying a mandatory life sentence.

FOX News reports that “drive-by shootings were added to the list of aggravating factors for murder charges in 1995.” At the time, drive-by shootings were one of a number of crimes that would elevate charges and Simmons and Hackney are now working to remove such shootings from the list.

The 1995 language that Simmons and Hackney want to specifically strike from the aggravating factors list says: “The murder was committed during the course of or as a result of a shooting where the discharge of the firearm… is either from a motor vehicle or from the immediate area of a motor vehicle that was used to transport the shooter or the firearm.”

Simmons says she believes the language surrounding drive-by shootings “was targeted at gangs that were predominantly young and Black.”

She added, “I believe in a society that believes in the power of redemption. Murder is murder no matter where the bullet comes from but locking young people up and throwing away the key is not the answer.”

Simmons points to Kimonti Carter as a example of why she wants to remove drive-by shootings from the aggravating factors list. Carter was convicted in a drive-by shooting that left two people dead in 1997. He received a 777-year sentence and Simmons said, “If he had been standing outside of the vehicle at the time, he would’ve faced 240-320 months in prison. Instead, he was sentenced to life in prison with no opportunity for parole because of this law.”

770 KTTH points out that Simmons and Hackney’s pushed to strike drive-by shootings from the aggravating factors list is posited as a pursuit of “racial equity in the criminal legal system.”

On July 22, 2021, KIRO 7 noted a surge of gun violence in Seattle and quoted Seattle Police Chief Adrian Diazwas saying, “We’ve seen more than a 100% increase in drive-by shootings this year alone.”

It’s called ‘sowing to the wind’, as in reaping exactly what you asked for, good and hard.


How Defund the Police backfired.

Over the last two decades, progressives have established a new consensus on crime. Nonviolent felonies like shoplifting and drug possession should be reclassified as misdemeanours. Cities should defund the police and spend the money on nurses, psychologists and social workers instead. Offenders should have minimal involvement with the justice system — and be kept out of jail wherever possible.

But now, rising crime is rapidly undermining the progressive consensus. Homicides rose 30% in 2020, and over two-thirds of America’s largest cities will have had even more homicides in 2021 than in 2020. At least 13 big cities will set all-time records for homicides, including Philadelphia, Austin, and Portland. Meanwhile property crimes in California’s four largest cities rose 7% between 2020 and 2021. Car break-ins in San Francisco declined temporarily in 2020, because Covid emptied the city of tourists, but they have since skyrocketed, reaching 3,000 in November. Many residents have stopped bothering to report crime.

Of course, many crime rates are still below what they were in the Eighties. And progressives are right to say that we shouldn’t panic about rising crime, since past panics contributed to cruel and crude responses, including overly long prison sentences with little in the way of real rehabilitation programmes. That’s why, in the late Nineties, I worked for George Soros’s foundation, among others, advocating for drug decriminalisation, reduced sentences for nonviolent crimes, and alternatives to incarceration.

But today it’s clear that the pendulum has swung too far in the other direction. In 2000, when I stopped working on criminal justice policy, progressives were advocating mandatory rehabilitation as an alternative to incarceration. Now, progressive prosecutors are simply releasing criminal suspects from custody without requiring rehab or extended probation. In Milwaukee, Wisconsin, for instance, a man who had run over the mother of his child with his SUV was released on $1,000 bail. Neither he nor his SUV were put under electronic surveillance. Soon after, he killed six people and injured another three dozen — by running them over with his SUV.

Continue reading “”

I hope the ‘a liberal is merely a conservative who hasn’t been mugged carjacked yet’ meme holds true for this one.


Carjacked congresswoman has a long history of embracing gun control

Last Wednesday, Democratic Rep. Mary Gay Scanlon had her luxury SUV stolen at gunpoint by a couple of armed men in Philadelphia. As Cam noted, five people are facing charges after this brazen carjacking that happened in broad daylight at FDR park.

Crime that happens in a dark alley at night is one thing, but this sort of daytime crime becomes common when the State abdicates its basic function in maintaining the rule of law. Philadelphia has done just that, extending its Brotherly Love to violent criminals thanks to far-Left Democrat D.A. Larry Krasner.

Those of us in the Second Amendment community know all too well how criminal-coddling policies that lead to crime spikes are used as a pretext to pass more gun control laws, which turn us – the law-abiding, tax-paying citizens who want to mind our own business – into criminals. That’s a feature, not a bug, of the gun control movement, and that’s what Rep. Mary Gay Scanlon’s campaign website showcases. Here are members of the Gun Grab Lobby who endorsed Scanlon’s congressional bid:

Continue reading “”

BLUF:
I suppose we should be glad that between the existential threat of climate change, which is urgent, and the threat to democracy from the “insurrectionist” right that nearly toppled our Constitution on January 6, some liberals still have the bandwidth to worry about NORAD’s Santa tracker.

Must be a cheerful life.

LIBERALS ARE MISERABLE PEOPLE

They say misery loves company, and that may be why liberals always want to extend their control over everyone and everything—because they are miserable people. Thomas Byrne Edsall covers some of the survey evidence about the misery and unhappiness of liberals in a New York Times article back in October:

Two similarly titled papers with markedly disparate conclusions illustrate the range of disagreement on this subject. “Why Are Conservatives Happier Than Liberals?” by Jaime Napier of N.Y.U. in Abu Dhabi and John Jost of N.Y.U., and “Conservatives Are Happier Than Liberals, but Why?” by Barry R. Schlenker and John Chambers, both of the University of Florida, and Bonnie Le of the University of Rochester.

Using nationally representative samples from the United States and nine other countries, Napier and Jost note that they

consistently found conservatives (or right-wingers) are happier than liberals (or left-wingers). This ideological gap in happiness is not accounted for by demographic differences or by differences in cognitive style. We did find, however, that the rationalization of inequality — a core component of conservative ideology — helps to explain why conservatives are, on average, happier than liberals.

Napier and Jost contend that their determinations are “consistent with system justification theory, which posits that viewing the status quo (with its attendant degree of inequality) as fair and legitimate serves a palliative function.”

Need I point out that Napier and Jost are far-left? Thus we shouldn’t be surprised that the issue of “inequality” shows up for heavy work here. I suppose it makes some sense, given how the super rich are skewing left these days, and must be unhappy with guilt about this.

But let’s continue with a paper less enslaved (see what I did there?) to leftist ideology:

Continue reading “”