[img]1|left|Ari Noonan||no_popup[/img]I will posit the thesis that partisans on the left grow angry 98 percent faster than conservatives, who almost never do, because:

Dealing mainly in single-level concepts, they refuse to concede someone could disagree with such unalloyed logic that they tend to erupt when contradicted by a debate partner.

On his radio program this morning, Dennis Prager, conservative and in the premier tier of American thinkers for the last 25 years, wondered why, in families, partisans of the left seem to lose control of their temper far more than conservatives.

No such thesis can be proven, I am confident. But if you agree, why do you think this is so? The left hates. The right merely disagrees. Bursting with envy of those who have what they don’t, the left calls the other side evil, racists and, more generally, bigots.

Have you listened to Bill Press, to Thom Hartman, to Mike Malloy who occupy 9 hours a day on the only liberal radio station in town?

If you are opposed to gay marriage, you are not a normal, reasonable person. You are a homophobe. If you disagree with the President, you are exposing your rancid racist colors.

There are only two other Republicans in my entire family, my sister and her husband, who is dying of cancer. My other sisters are inclined to hang up or at least withdraw if the conversation flows to politics. As Mr. Prager noted this morning, how could he — or I — hate the other side the way the left does because we then would hate most of our family members?

Why?

Logic Says. Reality Says.

If you dropped five conservatives and five liberals into a bucket, rattled the bucket and emptied it, isn’t it reasonable to assume that if the boys ended up with three libs and two conservatives on one side and the reverse on the other, the amount of gray matter would be fairly equally distributed.

One would do think.

Does This Prove Me Wrong?

I give you the editor of the Jewish Journal, an insecure chap who has flaunted his disdain for the religious dimension of Jewish life, but who will run through a hail of bricks to demean anyone who disagrees with his left wing politics.

I have pleaded before for him to convert to Lutheranism, to the Baptist church, to any religious outpost that will prevent him from further embarrassing the Jewish people.

Most Fridays when his newspaper comes out, Mr. Editor shows a remarkable lack of intellectual guile and savvy.

Today he was talking about the Ground Zero mosque, though he is much too paralyzed as a comatose prisoner of the politically correct — which always means the left — to call it that.

If you think I was being hyperbolic earlier when I talked about how the left jumps into a mine shaft when someone disagrees with their inviolable concepts, consider Mr. Editor’s dishonest construction of the beliefs of people he loathes.

Taste a spoonful of Mr. Editor’s deliberate, mean-spirited mischaracterization of his political opponents, politics being his true religion:

“It is shameful, really, this culture war over the rights of one group of Americans to build their house of worship where they have been granted the legal right to do so. What we are witnessing is hate-mongering disguised as sensitivity, bigotry disguised as vigilance.”

We, who profoundly disagree, do not have to be imaginative to find examples of left wing journalists’ misbehavior. We just dip our curious fingers into today’s newspaper.

I don’t know if he is smart enough to realize that he has assigned the wrong argument to conservatives or missed by a mile because he is not apurveyor of news.

Mr. Editor: Opponents of the mosque unanimously agree that the barnstorming imam has a right to build there, or even atop my computer in Culver City. The issue is entirely about sensitivity, a concept that consistently eludes the left, apparently because it is too darned nuanced. They have tortured what Newt Gingrich said about not allowing the Nazis to honor their own at the Holocaust Museum. Instead, they lied and claimed Mr. Gingrich compared Muslims and Nazis. Perhaps we are dealing with a Van Gogh colony who have lost their organs of hearing.

Would that Mr. Editor felt a fraction as passionate about his Judaism.

I have not one doubt Mr. Editor, red-eyed and quivering with fury, believes that we are bigots. He told us the same thing about Prop. 8 and gay marriage generally. You could tell him Judaism was bad, good, indifferent, though, and he would sleepily shrug.

To feel entirely on the side of the angels, Mr. Editor today gratuitously inserted the name of Sarah Palin into his argument. Made him feel worthier, I suppose.

Mr. Editor, I am begging you, as Don Imus likes to say, convert. Please convert.