Glenn linked to this Wired article about how the brain minimizes cognitive dissonance by ignoring information that clashes with our preconceptions and passed along a reader comment that it explained ClimateGate. Indeed. It also explains the missing WMD in Iraq, the Dems undying belief in the efficacy of the minimum wage, why HuffPo readers tilt left (and JOM readers tilt right), and why Met fans will take hope from the Jason Bay signing. In a nutshell, people (including scientists) want affirmation, not information. Neuroscience is discovering how the brain is hard-wired to provide it.
For more on neuroscience, and for assistance in finding your inner David Brooks, check out this interview at The Browser with Brooksie his bad self:
Right. And I started with the easy ones. One very accessible one, but by a guy who is very serious, is a book called The Happiness Hypothesis. It’s by Jonathan Haidt, who is a psychologist at the University of Virginia.
People seem to absolutely rave about this book. One online reviewer says: “This is my all-time favourite book. It contains the most practical advice for daily living I have ever seen.” And a lot of them seem to be like that: “The most entertaining, interesting, educational book I have ever read,” etc. etc. So what does it reveal about the working of our minds?
Haidt uses the metaphor of a boy and an elephant. He says our minds are structured like a boy riding an elephant, and the boy is the conscious reasoning part, the cortex-based brain. And it can see very far, and make certain steering decisions. But most of the work is done by the elephant, which is the unconscious part of the brain. His work is to try to explain what the elephant is doing.
Great metaphor except that the boy is well aware that his control is less than total and that he has to work within the context of the elephant's training and disposition; I don't think every person has that same self-awareness.
Brooks promoted The Browser and Arts and Letters Daily in his recent column.
If I ever found an inner David Brooks, I'd have most of it hacked out with a scalpel and the rest irradiated to death, because David Brooks is a cancer.
Why nobody's done that yet with the outer David Brooks, I'll never know.
Posted by: bgates | December 30, 2009 at 09:36 AM
and, once every so often the elephant goes careening out of control ...
Former Fox News Channel commentator Rudyard Kipling wrote about this
and, there's the occasional incident at the circus
Then there's the whole issue of nature vs. nurture argument between Indian elephants and African elephants ...
We live in a world that's increasingly PC - I fear we may end up in a world where the "P" stands for Pachyderm.
.
Posted by: BumperStickerist | December 30, 2009 at 09:38 AM
A more likely explanation for AGW is that the Boomer generation is fixated on the idea that THIS IS THE END.
I can forgive them for being afraid of nuclear war, but they extended this fear into a theory that the destruction of the major nations on the planet WOULD MEAN THE END OF ALL LIFE!!11!
Then there was "Silent Spring"... and the "Population Bomb"... the "Coming Famine"... the "New Ice Age"... "Global Warming"... claims that the jungles are being cut down at a rate that would have them either gone years ago or having started with an area larger than the Earth's surface...
Oh, and the ludicrous "FROGS WITH EXTRA LEGS!!!!!!!" panic. I suspect we'll learn something similar about the "transsexual fish" panic that's been kicking around for a few years (Hey, folks -- take a look at fish. Their reproductive organs don't differ all that much from male to female ANYWAY, and there are numerous species that can switch genders as needed by the local population. That some would show dual or intermediate characteristics isn't all that surprising.)
I have no doubt other generations had their end-of-timers and doomsayers, but I can't think of one that wallowed in it as gleefully as the Boomers.
Posted by: Rob Crawford | December 30, 2009 at 09:38 AM
Oh, forgot that we're running out of landfills, too.
Posted by: Rob Crawford | December 30, 2009 at 09:48 AM
As a boomer, I feel that mankind will benefit greatly when my generation is eradicated from the planet.
Posted by: Captain Hate | December 30, 2009 at 09:49 AM
Ditto that, Cap'n. And I am one as well.
Posted by: Old Lurker | December 30, 2009 at 10:01 AM
Rob, I think there's something to that embrace the doom scenario. I think there remains a vestige of Puritanism in the West , and many people believe that happiness and prosperity are wrong and the product of something evil. Julia Childs felt that was behind Americans' reactions to food. And she loved to say,"The more butter the better!" As her influence fades, we see that attitude rising again under the guise of disgusting "nutritional" advise, the organic and locavore movements.
Posted by: Clarice | December 30, 2009 at 10:42 AM
And then the neuroscientists found that their research theories about biases were actually affected by their own biases :>)
Posted by: Barry Dauphin | December 30, 2009 at 10:42 AM
*Thwack* Barry.*thwack,thwack,thwack*
Posted by: Clarice | December 30, 2009 at 10:50 AM
So so true.
Posted by: sylvia | December 30, 2009 at 11:07 AM
You know, that hardwiring explains why arguing almost never works. I pride myself on (mostly) staying calm and trying to reason with people. And I have lots of endurance with an argument. I could counterpoint all day long. But I notice you can list every reason in the book and be as logical as you want, but you know you are starting to make progress when someone starts yelling at you or leaves or hangs up, etc.
Because once you lay it all out logically for them, and there is nothing they can argue back, that's when their ego will not let it happen, and they shut down. Because they want to believe what they want to believe. So arguing and debating with most people is a waste.
Posted by: sylvia | December 30, 2009 at 11:16 AM
"the Dems undying belief in the efficacy of the minimum wage,"
Well this one could also explain the Pubs undying believe in slave labor. Case in point, India probably 25 cents an hour min wage. Germnay $25 dollars an hour min wage. Which country is doing better? And by the way, we tried slavery here in the South. Although it provided the good life for a few, it was hardly a sustainable lifestyle as a whole. Proof in the pudding my friend.
Posted by: sylvia | December 30, 2009 at 11:20 AM
Filters work overtime in certain brain structures compatible with careers in engineering, bean-counting and Banking.
That group consistently displays a conservative predisposition, with nerve pathways carved in stone. The narrow band-width of reality explains a lot, but we don't need science to confirm it, do we?
In the Land of Myopia, the blind man is King.
Posted by: Semanticleo | December 30, 2009 at 11:32 AM
Doesn't this relate to Jung? Wasn't he the guy that said we all in general liked a certain art because we all have common pathways in thinking? And something about these pathways were inherited by a shared human condition. I'm not sure I remember exactly from my class. But his thoughts are now being proven by science.
Posted by: sylvia | December 30, 2009 at 11:37 AM
we used to just call people pigheaded.
I think Freud also enters into it. We allow ourselves certain restrictions and liberties according to the general influence of society. Today, the Id is dominant. In the past the Superego and Ego were dominant.
One can argue neuroscience all day long, but the reality is that with Darwin, WW I, The Depression, and the postwar boom external events have caused sea changes in human behavior.
Posted by: barack hussain soetero obama | December 30, 2009 at 11:44 AM
Sylvia,
I hope you do not believe that the difference between German and Indian economy is the minimum wage. If so you lose all credibility
Posted by: PaulV | December 30, 2009 at 11:52 AM
Wow. MODERN NEUROSCIENCE (nod of reverence to the new Gods and Goddesses, the MODERN NEUROSCIENTISTS) demonstrates that folks tend to want affirmation of existing beliefs. I'll bet Plato and Aristotle and the folks of the Book never could even have dreamed of that, because they didn't have MODERN NEUROSCIENCE.
Posted by: Thomas Collins | December 30, 2009 at 12:02 PM
I think there remains a vestige of Puritanism in the West , and many people believe that happiness and prosperity are wrong and the product of something evil.
I hesitate to blame the Puritans, largely because they get blamed for so much.
Besides, it's curious how often the belief in impending doom is married to hedonism. Bit of a chicken-and-egg problem there -- are they hedonists because they believe they are doomed, or do they believe they are doomed because they're hedonists?
On the dietary stuff -- there's a strain of belief that I think is almost uniquely American that holds that with JUST THE RIGHT DIET, you can live forever. I want to say it was born out of the (real) scientific progress of the late 1800s -- discovery of nutrition, yadda yadda, giving rise to the cranks like Kellog, etc. It has never quite gone away, and perversely seems to have lodged itself quite deeply in the upper middle class. Which is why the press can't help but run every press release from CSPI and such.
Posted by: Rob Crawford | December 30, 2009 at 12:08 PM
PaulV -- sylvia lost all credibility months ago.
Posted by: Rob Crawford | December 30, 2009 at 12:08 PM
If you would care to read about an example of widespread cognitive dissonance, then I would suggest this piece. After reading this:
one might justifiably wonder from whence the increase in "confidence" arises among the great Muddled Class.Posted by: Rick Ballard | December 30, 2009 at 12:17 PM
If a whiff of inflation comes wafting in the beginning to mid part of next year, I'm wondering if that will make folks scurry to real estate what with Fannie and Freddie having unlimited amounts of funds for mortgages.....?
Posted by: glasater | December 30, 2009 at 12:24 PM
Rick, The Rev, Jackson is working on ending foreclosures. All is right with the world.
Posted by: Clarice | December 30, 2009 at 12:34 PM
"I hope you do not believe that the difference between German and Indian economy is the minimum wage"
No, but it is a small example that countries with high minimum wages aren't doing that badly.
Posted by: sylvia | December 30, 2009 at 12:38 PM
Rob, your "just the right diet" point is excellent.
I'd still wed it to some unconscious strain in America (and certainly Britain) that there's something morally wrong about enjoying delicious food.
(I'm prejudiced. I don't recall Mr. Garfinckle's New method Hebrew School ever referencing gluttony. I don't think it's a Jewish sin.I think I had to look it up to see what it meant)
Posted by: Clarice | December 30, 2009 at 12:38 PM
"PaulV -- sylvia lost all credibility months ago."
I know. I am not credible to people who like to engage in groupthink.
Posted by: sylvia | December 30, 2009 at 12:40 PM
I am not credible to people who like to engage in groupthink.
Much better we continue to aruge guilt when all evidence to the contrary says otherwise.
Posted by: Sue | December 30, 2009 at 12:58 PM
You know when you come down to it, people don't actually "think". They "like".
They pick a group leader or leaders, based on who they "like". This liking can be based on perception of power or competence or social skills. Sometimes these qualities can go hand in hand with intellectual prowess, but it's not a direct match. The people pick multiple leaders ranging in scope from local, to say a blog leader, to leaders on a governmental level, say Al Gore. And then the people adopt the ideas of these group leaders. And they often defend to the utmost the ideas of those leaders and pounce on those who go against it. Also the leaders adopt ideas that they think the people will like, so kind of a symbiotic relationship there.
So that's how humans work. Really not too different from the animal kingdom following the pack leaders. I suppose that's practical. I mean really, who has time to think? It's a lot of work, let the others do it I suppose.
Posted by: sylvia | December 30, 2009 at 12:58 PM
nerve pathways carved in stone
Leo, if this were true, you'd be an engineer.
Posted by: Charlie (Colorado) | December 30, 2009 at 12:59 PM
"Much better we continue to aruge guilt when all evidence to the contrary says otherwise."
And we are talking about what?
Posted by: sylvia | December 30, 2009 at 01:01 PM
Rob, come to think of it, your notion should be expanded to cover everything. Ralph Nader made a nice living persuading this same set of folks that risk was avoidable and that a no risk life had no ending. I suppose that when he dies (like certain cult leaders) he'll be buried in secret so no one knows he passed on.
I remember how he killed the nuclear energy industry by pretending that windmills and unicorn driven water wheels were risk free substitutes that only corporate greed prevented from doing their part.
Posted by: Clarice | December 30, 2009 at 01:01 PM
I'd still wed it to some unconscious strain in America (and certainly Britain) that there's something morally wrong about enjoying delicious food.
Ah, but the irony is that "gluttony" as a sin is about being overly concerned with food, not just consuming or enjoying it too much. Your typical American vegan/vegetarian/whatever is a glutton in the "Seven Deadly Sins" sense, as are those who insist on "organic" or "local" produce.
Posted by: Rob Crawford | December 30, 2009 at 01:02 PM
Charlie -- if what 'cleo said was true, there'd never be any innovation. Engineers also tend to be quite an eclectic bunch -- as someone once said, it's not unusual to find an engineer taking an upper-level humanities course, but damned if I've ever found a humanities major taking an upper-level engineering course.
Posted by: Rob Crawford | December 30, 2009 at 01:06 PM
It is? I'm DOOMED. I suppose I'll be put in charge of the tandoor ovens in hell..
Posted by: Clarice | December 30, 2009 at 01:07 PM
Sylvia, German unemployment has been hovering around 10 percent for twenty years, and the only reason it's not higher is that the German government pays money to companies directly to keep people on the payroll rather than have them on unemployment after a layoff. It would be higher yet except for the legally required 5-7 weeks of vacation and something like 20 paid holidays per year; on average you need 5 employees in Germany to do the work of 4 employees in the USA.
Posted by: Charlie (Colorado) | December 30, 2009 at 01:10 PM
And what's your point Charlie? Germany still ain't a bad place.
Posted by: sylvia | December 30, 2009 at 01:13 PM
I suggest the McD's Quarter Pounder with Cheese diet. I started going on it after a guy I knew told me QPwC were the only things he ate. This is the second time I am on it and I've lost a little weight on it both times. And not only that, I am never hungry.
Eat one meal QPC early in the day. With real Coke and fries if you want. And then at night have a light snack. It works for me.
Posted by: sylvia | December 30, 2009 at 01:18 PM
Oh gawd - that explains so much!
Posted by: Jane | December 30, 2009 at 01:22 PM
It is? I'm DOOMED. I suppose I'll be put in charge of the tandoor ovens in hell..
The key is "overly". Shopping at the farmer's market because you like the taste of fresh tomatoes is one thing; refusing to eat a sandwich because it has non-organic, non-local tomatoes on it is another.
Posted by: Rob Crawford | December 30, 2009 at 01:22 PM
Glasater,
Moderately priced <$250K housing is being picked over pretty well at the moment. The 1.9% figure applies to a universe of 75-80 million from which a sales number of 1.4-1.5 million units is derived. That's unreasonably low by a very large margin. I would be surprised if total sales of existing homes came in at less than 5 million units in '10. It's the clearest example of cognitive dissonance within the survey, too negative about the short term and too positive about the longer term.
Posted by: Rick Ballard | December 30, 2009 at 01:23 PM
But by the way, much like the Atkins diet, the QPwC diet only is only good for about a month I think. After a while you build up a tolerance and it doesn't work as well. But a good change of pace. I mean if you calculate it, and don't cheat, it is probably only about a 1200 maybe 1300 calorie diet.
And also when I say light snack, I mean a pudding cup or half a soup, something under say 200 calories.
Posted by: sylvia | December 30, 2009 at 01:36 PM
Being an engineer or a "hard" scientist (chemistry or physics) means living in the real world, because what you do can have real consequences.
Good engineeers (and scientists) have a methodology they use to unravel and solve problems. That doesn't preclude creative thinking. Really good engineers and scientists can be incredibly creative and imaginative. That I-pod you use, cell phone you carry and the flat panel display you are reading this on is evidence of that.
People that have limited intellect, no technical education to speak of and little mental discipline always like to mock engineers as dull and nerdy. I mock people that play golf to much because frankly I can't play golf very well. So there's that kind of confirmational bias, too.
An appreciation of the derivations that Alfred Duhem Gibbs made from the three laws of Thermodynamics takes a bit more brainpower than cruising the Pompidou Museum of Modern Art in Paris.
The one leads to a modern technological civilzation. The other, well, not so much.
Posted by: E. Nigma | December 30, 2009 at 01:54 PM
Thanks for clearing that up, Rob.Maybe I'll get an easier assignment like deviled eggs.
Posted by: Clarice | December 30, 2009 at 02:03 PM
"Oh gawd - that explains so much!"
roflmao!
Lordy, sometimes I am just "gobsmacked" by the things our shun-ees say/think/believe.
Posted by: centralcal | December 30, 2009 at 02:17 PM
People that have limited intellect, no technical education to speak of and little mental discipline always like to mock engineers as dull and nerdy.
Well, to be fair -- we are.
But that doesn't have anything to do with "narrow-minded" or "nerve pathways carved in stone".
Posted by: Rob Crawford | December 30, 2009 at 02:21 PM
QED: You can lead a horse to water, but why bother? (Or, who wants to?)
Posted by: sunzeneise | December 30, 2009 at 02:21 PM
Maybe I'll get an easier assignment like deviled eggs.
Which would lead me to gluttony! Love those things...
Posted by: Rob Crawford | December 30, 2009 at 02:21 PM
I make mine with tuna in olive oil, capers, cognac, etc. You'd never want to leave, Rob.
Posted by: Clarice | December 30, 2009 at 02:24 PM
Cognac?! I'd never be able to leave!
Posted by: Rob Crawford | December 30, 2009 at 02:26 PM
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/12/just-what-did-president-obamas-executive-order-regarding-interpol-do.html#comments>Tapper got a response to his question about the EO Obama signed with regard to INTERPOL. His snark and unnamed Bush official who approvingly approved the signing of the EO is at the link. Apparently we are all just making, how did he say it? Oh yeah..."nefarious insinuations and accusations". Got to love the press looking out for us, no?
Posted by: Sue | December 30, 2009 at 02:29 PM
I suspect that is correct, sue which is why I did not leap to the McCarthy arguments against the EO.
Though I'd bet the former Bush official quoted is James Comey or one of his buddies.
Posted by: Clarice | December 30, 2009 at 02:41 PM
I wish you would explain it to me Clarice because I find it so troubling. First of all why on earth would he sign such an order? And secondly, doesn't it make it a short leap to try Bush and Cheney for war crimes?
Thirdly: How can you make deviled eggs without horseradish?
Posted by: Jane | December 30, 2009 at 02:48 PM
It is a former counterterrorism official, according to Tapper. Richard Clarke and Larry Johnson come to mind.
I am not questioning what he was told, just the way he reported it. And using an unnamed source to shore up the Bush credentials when it is totally unnecessary. Name the official.
Posted by: Sue | December 30, 2009 at 02:48 PM
Jane,
Mayo, yellow mustard, dill pickle juice, salt, pepper and dash of paprika. Voila.
Posted by: Sue | December 30, 2009 at 02:51 PM
No no No - It's not even worth bringing the water to a boil if you don't have horseradish - and lots of it.
Posted by: Jane | December 30, 2009 at 03:00 PM
It would be Clarke, Scheur, is too much of an inveterate nationalist to go along with this
Posted by: narciso | December 30, 2009 at 03:00 PM
I've never had deviled eggs with horseradish in them.
Posted by: Sue | December 30, 2009 at 03:09 PM
Jane-mustard.
Read the tapper piece for an explanation. It seems a standard grant of immunity for the agencies files and personnel while they are working here.
I am not a great fan of Interpol,BTW..as you could see from my Sami case I once knew a great deal about the organization. OTOH a great deal about them has been exaggerated by the Scientologists who have often been in the Interpol target zone.
Posted by: Clarice | December 30, 2009 at 03:13 PM
I read it Clarice, but I didn't get it. Does it not mean that if they decide to go after an American citizen, that citizen cannot get any discovery?
Posted by: Jane | December 30, 2009 at 03:17 PM
I've never had deviled eggs with horseradish in them.
OMG you are in for the BIGGEST treat. I insist you make them!
Posted by: Jane | December 30, 2009 at 03:18 PM
And what's your point Charlie? Germany still ain't a bad place.
That having average unemployment there be what we consider a major recession here might not be a selling point.
Posted by: Charlie (Colorado) | December 30, 2009 at 03:20 PM
I'm not a big fan of deviled eggs anyway. But I will try it next time I make them.
Posted by: Sue | December 30, 2009 at 03:21 PM
A lot of my friends are pressuring me to resist groupthink and think for myself. I'm trying to resist their pressure.
Posted by: Lovey Howell | December 30, 2009 at 03:27 PM
BTW, Rob, I think you got the mistaken impression I was taking Leo in any way seriously. I assure you that was in no wise the case.
Posted by: Charlie (Colorado) | December 30, 2009 at 03:30 PM
Germany? Best. Sausage. Ever.
Posted by: Gilligan | December 30, 2009 at 03:31 PM
Caine's Mayonnaise. That's the ticket for top notch devilled eggs. By the way, did you hear about the recent neurological study finding that consuming three devilled eggs a day combats neural degeneration? No? Neither did I, but, since there is a study proving just about anything one wants to prove in the relationship between nutrition and health, I'm sure there's one out there.
Posted by: Thomas Collins | December 30, 2009 at 03:39 PM
Jane, I expect he signed it because we are working with Interpol on international banking and terrorism issues. If a citizen sued to see our files in such matters we could claim a FOIA exception for ongoing investigations. Without this EO Interpol cannot.
Now, I could be wrong--As you see McCarthy takes a diametrically opposed position, but I dn't think I am. If Interpol tried to get stuff on a US citizen here that violated our constitutional rights, I'm pretty sure how the courts would come down.
Posted by: Clarice | December 30, 2009 at 03:45 PM
Hmmm, thanks Clarice. Perhaps I am letting my complete distaste for this President get the best of me. I just can't imagine him coming to the rescue if Interpol went after one of his political enemies.
Posted by: Jane | December 30, 2009 at 03:53 PM
Clarice, is it possible under Federal FOIA for the Prez to issue an Executive Order exempting from FOIA items produced in a national security investigation? I'm just wondering whether there would be another way to protect the US/Interpol docs from Federal FOIA requests without the EO that was issued.
Posted by: Thomas Collins | December 30, 2009 at 04:00 PM
I assure you that was in no wise the case.
I know. I'm just always happy to get a boot in on him.
Posted by: Rob Crawford | December 30, 2009 at 04:01 PM
TC--I am no expert on FOIA and it's been years since I researched or worked with it, but I believe the files of an ongoing investigation of that sort are always exempt from a FOIA request on national security grounds and or criminal investigative materials in an ongoing case.
Posted by: Clarice | December 30, 2009 at 04:06 PM
**and or THE EXEMPTION RESPECTING criminal investigative materials in an ongoing case.
***
Posted by: Clarice | December 30, 2009 at 04:07 PM
Clarice, I'm confused:
If they (Interpol) have immunity, can't they spirit away, or try to spirit away American individuals without consequence to the Interpol agents?
And, why should Interpol work here? Give US authorities the info to track whatever case they are on.
Posted by: mockmook | December 30, 2009 at 04:10 PM
Here we go again. Sylvia is a real person behind your computer screens, a fact that seems to escape some of you.
Take pride, Sylvia, in being one of CentralCal's "shun-eees," it means you are actually out of the high school clique stage.
Posted by: Sara (Pal2Pal) | December 30, 2009 at 04:20 PM
This new French carbon tax was scheduled to go into law on Jan1, 2010. The tax was steep: 17 euros per ton of carbon dioxide (USD $24.40). In a stunning move, and surely a blow to warmists everywhere, the tax has been found unconstitutional and thrown out. Originally found here (Google Translation).
Posted by: Neo | December 30, 2009 at 04:31 PM
OK, thanks, Clarice. So, under the more charitable analysis, the EO provides an extra layer of protection to the materials.
Posted by: Thomas Collins | December 30, 2009 at 04:32 PM
mockmock, the president hasn't legal authority to allow a foreign institution to "spirit you away".
Yes,TC and to the Interpol employees (from say, tort suits) for something that happens in connection here with their investigations.Now, I'm not saying those who object to the provision are lying or even wrong, it's just that it is my opinion that their's is an unjustified hair on fire attack.
Posted by: Clarice | December 30, 2009 at 04:37 PM
Let's go really out there with conspiracy theories. What if Obama doesn't want anyone to find out what INTERPOL has on him in his early days? Okay, I'm officially admitting I have ODS.
Posted by: Sue | December 30, 2009 at 04:46 PM
Thanks Clarice
But, I'm not saying that Obama "allows" anything.
Isn't he essentially giving them diplomatic immunity? So, if they are caught trying to spirit someone away, they, at worst, get kicked out of the country? And, if they succeed, you can't prosecute them, can you?
Posted by: mockmook | December 30, 2009 at 04:50 PM
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1070021.html>source
So. Does what Obama just did make a difference with regard to US citizens?
Posted by: Sue | December 30, 2009 at 04:50 PM
Only if you are trying to sue an Interpol agent for running over you on the way to his DoJ office or you want something in his files.
Interpol hasn't an airline. It doesn't spirit people out of countries. It assists law enforcement agencies on international crimes by gathering up information and acting as a communications channel.
Of course I think the UN and all its offshoots like this one are useless wastes of money and should be shut down but I really don't see the sharp reaction to this EO as being justified. (I have been wrong before though.)
Posted by: Clarice | December 30, 2009 at 04:58 PM
Clarice,
If INTERPOL issues a warrant, would our law enforcement be required to execute it?
Posted by: Sue | December 30, 2009 at 05:00 PM
I don't believe Interpol ever "issues a warrant". It has no legal authority in any jurisdiction to do so.It will pass on to one country the information that an arrest warrant has been issued in another if extradition proceedings seem likely or if the second govt requests that information.
Again, it is basically an information facilitator.
Posted by: Clarice | December 30, 2009 at 05:32 PM
"Take pride, Sylvia, in being one of CentralCal's "shun-eees""
Thanks Sara. I do. I guess it takes one independent thinker like yourself to appreciate others.
Posted by: sylvia | December 30, 2009 at 07:05 PM
That must be it, and how thankful we lesser folks should be that the two of you independent thinkers continue to join us despite our many imperfections.
Posted by: Clarice | December 30, 2009 at 07:15 PM
::grin::
Posted by: Sue | December 30, 2009 at 08:13 PM
And what's more Clarice, Ms. anti group think re-emerges after her last embarrassment in the "Groupthink" thread. What are the odds of that?
Posted by: Jane | December 30, 2009 at 08:51 PM
I want to know how C-cal got to be the boss? Did she run for the position or did she just get appointed? If she thinks it will help her take Cheney away from me, she has another think coming.
Posted by: Sue | December 30, 2009 at 09:19 PM
It was a fair caucus, Sue. You left at 3 a.m. claiming you needed some sleep and she won at 3:01. Fair is fair.
Posted by: Clarice | December 30, 2009 at 09:32 PM
I don't mind C-cal being the boss, as long as she doesn't pull rank and take Cheney from me.
Posted by: Sue | December 30, 2009 at 09:47 PM
Sue,
I don't think anyone would dare get between you and Cheney.
Posted by: Jane | December 30, 2009 at 09:55 PM
Well, there is a little problem named Mrs. Cheney. But I willingly cede to her superior claim on him.
Posted by: Sue | December 30, 2009 at 10:05 PM
There is however no longer a Mrs Rove. Nor is there a Mr. Jane. So....kismet
Posted by: Jane | December 30, 2009 at 10:07 PM
Ohh...I'm seeing it now Jane. As long as I'm invited to the wedding. I want to meet the Magnificent Bastard.
Posted by: Sue | December 30, 2009 at 10:11 PM
You are definitely invited.
I hope he is not really short.
Posted by: Jane | December 30, 2009 at 10:23 PM
Actually, I think your Rep Senate candidate's a lot cuter. If you got him over the finish line, Jane...............
Posted by: Clarice | December 30, 2009 at 10:29 PM
Oh he is very cute and very married and Don Surber has a pix of him as a centerfold here.
Posted by: Jane | December 30, 2009 at 10:35 PM
Do they have same day registration there? And where's your guest room?
Posted by: Clarice | December 30, 2009 at 10:43 PM
Jane,
Dear Gussie...I'm speechless.
Posted by: Sue | December 30, 2009 at 10:45 PM
OH BABY, OH BABY, OH BABY!!!
LOVE the link, Jane.
Posted by: bad | December 30, 2009 at 11:12 PM
Well bad ain't speechless. ::grin::
Posted by: Sue | December 30, 2009 at 11:16 PM