I think many on the left find their sense of self, and of righteousness, from being on the left. If they were to leave the left, they would feel dirty and immoral.

I think they have bought into the leftist dogma w/o making a careful study of what they bought into. They sort of join the club, and buy into all the rules/dogma. I think, in some sense, they fear if one part of their unexamined dogma is incorrect, then large parts of the unexamined dogma may be incorrect. I suspect this is why many on the left are so slow - or completely unwilling - to change positions on even a single issue - even when a huge number of facts are lined up against their original position.

I can change positions without feeling as if I am immoral or dirty. They cannot. Changing positions is, for me, a very moral thing. It makes me feel good about myself that I am willing to examine all sides of an issue. For a leftist, the thought of changing positions is terrifying.

pasca’s wager is based upon the assumption that you can’t find out what the payout will be. In scams, we already what the payout is and therefore there is no point wagering on it.

It’s not even about whether they are right or not. Obviously WMDs and whatever actually happened, but they never happen the way they say it happened.

Putin and Amanie and Chavez are always quick to accuse the US of being just as evil as the US says they are. It is why Mexican leaders said the wall that was being considered for the southern border, was another Berlin Wall. Even as Mexicans send gestapo police to crush revolts down south.

By Carol D. Leonnig
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, August 14, 2007; Page A02

Five reporters must reveal their government sources for stories they wrote about Steven J. Hatfill and investigators’ suspicions that the former Army scientist was behind the deadly anthrax attacks of 2001, a federal judge ruled yesterday.

and the small pox and bird flu scare? Yep. Now your catching on.

The “get in touch with feelings” Left wants to stay young and heartful — even if means giving up using brains.

There is also the TV based Unreal Perfection, in relationships as well as policies, where it is assumed that some solution exists with no costs or negative aspects.

On facts changing minds, there is the inherent issue about intentions. Bad results, but based on good intentions, are more highly valued by the Left than good results without the good intentions (e.g. free markets don’t have the good intentions).

On the Iraq war, how many people have given any quantity estimates for evaluation? Over many years I have (

My quantities: less than 2500 Americans killed, Bush gets an “A”; less than 5000, “B”; less than 10,000 a “C”.

Neo, I know you are an Iraqi Freedom supporter. Is there any number of US casualities which would lead you to say the war is not worth it?

[The reviews of “Explaining Postmodernism” seem great! Have you read it?]

In OIF, we have a rate of about 3000 dead over a period of four years, which comes to about 750 dead per year. In peace time, the US has a violent death rate of around 16,000 per year, during the same period.

When the losses among our troops reach 20,000 per year, then I’ll start demanding a new strategy.

And credit where credit is due, the “narratives” they came up with and put into the mouths of the accused surpass in the scope of inventiveness anything the mediocrity Thomas could ever write– not if he had a case of Scotch to inspire him.

Obviously, a larger number of US casualties is desireable as a tool with which to change the policy.

As for Explaining Postmodernism: yes, I have read it, and it’s excellent. Especially the second half.

How anyone can write this post and not mention Judith Miller is beyond me.

Because we care and you don’t. At least not about the same things.