Married people are happier than singles. College grads are happier than those without a college degree. People who were religious are happier than those who aren't. Sunbelt residents are happier than other U.S. residents. Republicans are happier than Democrats -- but both are happier than independents.
Liberals do quite often seem like vicious, angry types :-)
It's an interesting article--go take a read. It may make you happy.
19 comments:
By those standards shouldn't Democrats be happier?
How? Seattle and San Francisco, two liberal cities, have more dogs than children. They also have very high rates of singlehood.
They don't like religious types, which is why they always sneer at the "religious right".
The Sun Belt is more Republican than the liberal Rust Belt.
I guess I don't understand your question at all, unless you're just trying to stir the mud.
Nigel, I'm sure this state of being exists outside of just the last 6 years of President Bush's tenure.
Maybe being "for" something is just a happier state of being than merely being "against" something. I'm just saying.
Republicans are happy because they're ignorant and are so incredibly selfish.
Now *there's* that open-minded, tolerant attitude that's so often lacking in lefties.
/sarcasm off/
Wouldn't this mean that Democrats are better at math than Republicans, with Independents being even smarter?
Apparently not.
You do remember the post where where you said students that are better at math tend to be unhappier, don't you? Here's the article http://www.cnn.com/2006/EDUCATION/10/18/unhappy.achievers.ap/index.html
I couldn't find where you talked about it.
I've also heard that IQ and happiness are inversely proportional. This, coupled with the fact that Republicans tend to happier, suggests (though of course not difinitively proves) that they tend to be less intelligent.
No, Abe, I might have *quoted a story* that might have said that. I don't know whether it's true or not--just like I haven't studied the report in this post in detail.
Wow, some of you people really need to lighten up and take a little levity break here.
Jeez.
Tyler, if that's what helps you sleep at night....
"You do remember the post where where you said students that are better at math tend to be unhappier, don't you?"
Fords. Cars. Wheels.
Somebody needs to take Logic 101. Pay special attention to syllogisms.
Actually, I was just joking. It was just kind of funny to me how this story related to another. I wasn't expecting to be attacked. I'm sorry I was wrong about whether you believed the story you quoted or not. My.
This brings up another point. I could have been upset that you neglected to acknowledge what I had said. You just condescendingly told me that you *quoted a story* and then told me to lighten up, acting as though I was another stupid Liberal. I could have just attacked you back. But, I didn't, and I'm not going to, although I really felt like it. Which would have been more likely to make you acknowledge my point of view? Couldn't that be applied to the world situation? Maybe if the United States is a little more humble and willing to compromise, we wouldn't create such deep conflict around the world. I know the real issues are more complex (and this is completely off topic), but this does illustrate a point. Conflict, in any form, does not eliminate conflict.
You sometimes have had intelligent arguments with me and others who disagree with you in your discussion sections, but other times you'll simply attack us. Do you think we'll just ignore it and reply back intelligently, or will we attack back, so you can continue to label us as mean, angry hypocrites?
I'm not so sure you're correct, Abe. I mean, we haven't had a reason to go to war with the Germans, Japanese, or even the British in quite a long time. Sometimes, conflict *does* eliminate conflict.
If I carry your assertion ad absurdum, we'd all be holding hands and singing Kumbayyah. That only works in "pass the bong"-land.
The Democrat, Republican, and Independent one obviously proves ignorance is bliss. Arbitrarily associating with a party instead of actually looking at individual candidates and issues is the easier route, but those who take the time to sift through the facts also get to see how flawed the world is. It's sad that those who just roll though life are the ones who get to enjoy it the most.
“Maybe if the United States is a little more humble and willing to compromise, we wouldn't create such deep conflict around the world.”
Abe, I’m just wondering if you’re concerned about the lack of tolerance on the part of the militant Islamists, who have vowed to destroy not just the United States but the entire western civilization. Perhaps you explain to the assembled masses how we can get some more humility and willingness to compromise from the leaders of Al-Qaeda or the leadership of Iran.
I’m waiting for an answer.
I can see it's time to get out the love beads and the bong, call the hippies over with their guitars and sit around and cry and sing If I Had a Hammer.
I lived through the 60s and the 70s. The last thing I want is a repeat performance of that idiocy.
Okay, let's all go squat in a tree to save the weeds from evil developers.
I'm going to go by what I remember from World History here. World War I started because a series of conflicts escalated, and the U.S. eventually had little choice but to get involved. After it was over, unreasonable penalties against Germany ruined their economy. The German people were looking for some way to restore national pride, and, unfortunately, allowed Hitler to come to power, which was the primary cause of World War II. Had France and Britain chosen not to penalize Germany as much, we may have avoided the catastrophic conflict WWII was.
As for WWII, I would give credit to the United Nations for eliminating conflict. We just weakened Japan and Germany to the point they couldn't fight any more.
The same was true for Britain. I believe they tried a second time to reclaim us, and after a long period of peace, we became allies.
We didn't become allies with Germany, Japan, or Britain right away after we fought them. War eventually brought out a winner, but it didn't guarantee a stop to conflict. Fortunately conflict did cease for the most part in all three cases, but I wouldn't give it credit for ending the conflict.
I'm sure there are plenty of other examples places where conflict has either caused immediate problems or created conditions for another one in the future. I also know there are plenty of examples of non-violence working very well.
In the current world situation, terrorism is a problem with old roots. Roots caused by a conflict of some sort, I honestly am too tired to care or remember. We did what was necessary with attacking Al-Quaeda in Afghanistan, and I think as long as we work with the United Nations, we will handle Iran and North Korea successfully. The Iraq War was different. We went there without UN support and have found that many of our reasons for going there were faulty. It seems rather arrogant that we would do so. As a result of it, hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have been killed, much of their infrastructure has been destroyed, and, as we continue to lose our own soldiers, have no end in sight. It has also made the U.S. less safe as a result of increased hatred towards us.
I know you guys think that we have to stay there and kill all the terrorists or set up a government or whatever the hell were supposed to be doing. You also are going to say I don't have my facts straight about Iraq (Which I do.)
But consider the alternatives to the war. We didn't invade Iraq. Increased airport security and other measures stop terrorism anyway. The UN continues to watch Saddam Hussein to see if he actually does something wrong, while the ordinary, non-terrorist, Iraqi people continue to live semi-normal lives. They would continue to live in fear, but would have their infrastructure, homes, and would not be dead.
I realize this is off-topic. Sorry about that. I didn't start any of this though :)
Your interpretation of history is, to put it charitably, "interesting".
Post a Comment