The futility of arguing with beautiful liberal idiots

NOTE: I wrote this article when I was fonder of conservatism than I should have been. With justification, I'm now less conservative and certainly more fair and balanced than Fox News, which even my staunchest conservative friend loathes. If you read what I wrote about Fox News, you'll see why.

Just a model used to illustrate the general concept of beauty; NOT Megan
Just a smart model, not Megan

Unlike most conservatives, I agree with liberals on some issues, so my frequent criticism of them stems not from a reflexive assumption that they are idiots but from a mountain of incontrovertible evidence suggesting that too many libs are bereft of the critical thinking skills that help separate fact from fanciful fiction.

A Facebook friend with whom I had no prior contact wrote to say that he loved my blog, which likely made him wonder why someone he'd just defriended and blocked was on my list of friends even though Megan (not her real name) appeared to be impervious to facts that would lead any intelligent person to question whether their cherished opinions are valid even though they are often based on fictional assumptions—in this case, about the exiguous intelligence of Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik, who wasn't a moron, according to Megan and her friends. My response to him follows:

When I added her as a friend, I hoped that she would not be as rigidly liberal as she now seems. Thanks to the heavy-handed way Facebook filters News Feed content (as I discussed in an article), I don't see what she posts, and I presume she doesn't see what I post. In any case, after scanning her profile at the time we became friends, I came away being far more impressed by her appearance than her brainpower.

I've never personally met Megan, so I will limit what I'll say about her because I might be dead wrong, but I have met plenty of women like her who use their stunning appearance to lure men with enough money to give them an exalted lifestyle. Add in the usual undeserved accolades that often go to gorgeous women (see the beautiful woman syndrome), and the endless praise goes to their heads, swelling it to the point where they cannot even consider the possibility they may be wrong. When combined with the usual dogmatism that often accompanies political opinions, it is no wonder why Megan or others like her are so fond of the vacuous Obama. When you live in a world in which money grows on trees, it is easy to skate through life with magical Disney-like thinking that makes it effortless to adore simpletons like Barack and Dupnik.

One of the reasons why I am correct more often than most* is that I am always willing to consider the possibility that I may be wrong. I question everything, including myself, my beliefs, and even supposedly set-in-stone scientific “facts” that sometimes turn out to be nothing more than deceptively seductive myths. In searching for evidence to support my conclusions, I sometimes find that I am wrong, and I have the flexibility to admit it rather than to sweep that issue under the rug—as liberals often do—or to participate in the common ego defense mechanism of mustering a defense to support an indefensible viewpoint … all to avoid the pain of admitting that one was indeed wrong. That's too much wasted energy for me; I'd rather admit my error and move on, appreciative of the fact that I am now less deluded.

As a doctor, I am trained to quickly assess intelligence because that is often a useful diagnostic tool. In assessing Sheriff Dupnik, it is clear to me that he figuratively has a few blanks in his six-shooter. His third-rate intellect would impress no one—except those daffy enough to admire Obama.

As an aging beauty well past her prime, one might think that as the years eroded Megan's appearance they may have filled her mind with something other than liberal mush that permits her to pat herself on the back for advancing the fanciful narratives that give liberals such delight as they wantonly disregard the truth and fill the many missing links in their logic with blatant fabrications akin to, but less immediately injurious than, the delusions emanating from the mind of Jared Loughner, who wondered if the imaginary bird on his shoulder could chat with him about government. However, he has an excuse: profound mental illness (schizophrenia), while they have nothing but a terminal allergy to evidence that doesn't mesh with their often (but not always) twisted world view.

I was once proud of the fact that I stood in line for hours to vote for Jimmy Carter, thinking I was doing myself and the world a favor. Similarly, many people who now adore Obama will later rue their support of him (such as this regretful Obama voter), but Megan will likely not ever realize that his impressive style camouflages a dearth of substance. Obama can charm the pants off people so well that many never question why this reputed genius has yet to advance a single brilliant idea to kickstart our economy. The answer is obvious.

To stave off the usual complaints I receive after mentioning the beautiful woman syndrome, I will reiterate that not all beautiful women have this syndrome. Interestingly, several gorgeous women wrote to me and demonstrated impressive honesty and insight by admitting they had it or have it, such as this woman, whose transformation from “being fat and unattractive” to hot model gave her a unique vantage point from which to assess her personality change.

Related articles:

Not all liberals want more of your money


  1. When I spoke of “how I am correct more often than most,” I wasn't referring to how I performed in medical school, in which I often answered twice as many questions correct as other students who passed. Instead, I am referring to my predictions that are relevant to political discussions.

    Example: Russian Professor Igor Panarin is frequently credited as being the first person in the world who predicted the eventual collapse of the United States precipitated by economic problems then invisible to most people. Panarin made his prediction in the summer of 1998, shortly after I predicted in one of my books that things will get bad enough to precipitate an intergenerational civil war. Don't think so? Read this.

    Coincidentally, I took a break while writing this (1-13-2011) and turned on Fox News to hear Megyn Kelly and Eric Bolling discussing the inevitability of skyrocketing food prices, food shortages, and even hunger riots. Earlier, she said that housing prices have fallen even more than they did during the Great Depression, and we are not even close to bottoming out.

    I don't enjoy being a doomsayer, nor am I looking for a pat on the back for seeing that the United States was headed for economic disaster when everyone else thought we were headed for a stock market of 20,000 and beyond. My only hope is that some people realize that if I had the foresight to see what others did not way back then, then perhaps they should listen to me now, too.

    Here's the message I wish to inculcate: People are by nature generally optimistic. They repeatedly put their hopes into politicians who rarely deliver on their promises. Election after election, things get worse, not better. Now for the scary part: Even if you combine the best ideas from all potential 2012 Presidential candidates, those ideas will not suffice to solve our economic problems that are far worse than most people imagine (here's just one of them). Their inside-the-box ideas will only slow our fall, not stop it, and certainly not reverse it so that future generations can be more prosperous than their parents, which was previously the norm—and now seems like pie-in-the-sky wishful thinking.

    There's the rub: We live in an inside-the-box world. People with outside-the-box ideas don't succeed in politics because voters prefer tired old ideas to fresh thinking. No politicians have the courage to do what needs to be done, and as long as voters are willing to reward them (by voting for them), politicians will continue to give us platitudes and economic Band-Aids instead of brilliant new ideas that could send our economy soaring to the stratosphere. We can reinvigorate our economy, but only if we are receptive to good outside-the-box ideas.

    The good news: We will be receptive to those ideas.
    The bad news: We won't be receptive to them until after we crash and fall further than you think.

The views expressed on this page may or may not reflect my current opinions, nor do they necessarily represent my past ones. After reading a slice of what I wrote in my various websites and books, you may conclude that I am a liberal Democrat or a conservative Republican. Wrong; there is a better alternative. Just as the primary benefit from debate classes results when students present and defend opinions contrary to their own, I use a similar strategy as a creative writing tool to expand my brainpower—and yours. Mystified? Stay tuned for an explanation. PS: The wheels in your head are already turning a bit faster, aren't they?

“The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function.”
F. Scott Fitzgerald

Reference: Imagining dialogue can boost critical thinking: Excerpt: “Examining an issue as a debate or dialogue between two sides helps people apply deeper, more sophisticated reasoning …”

Comments (0)

post commentPost a comment or subscribe to my blog