Housing security in Hillsboro fades with economic growth - OregonLive.com

Housing security in Hillsboro fades with economic growth - OregonLive.com - an amazing story of supply and demand!

Why it's so hard to be open minded

Most of us have noticed how human beings tend to react to "consonant" (agreeing) and "dissonant" (disagreeing) data on a topic where they have strong emotions.

The recent findings of Drew Westen et al. are that humans, when faced with data that contradicts their strongly held positions, essentially "stop thinking" (the reasoning part of the brain shuts down). Humans also, when faced with data that supports their position, "feel good" (the pleasure center of the brain lights up).

This explains the enduring popularity (in some circles) of everyone from Rush Limbaugh to Michael Moore: we humans seem to have an inexhaustible appetite for being told things we already believe.

It makes phrases like "fact centered decision making" less laughable. I think we really do need to take extraordinary steps to remain open minded on topics we care a lot about - from global warming to transit to the War in Iraq.

Look at the bottom half of this article, and also here and here.

The Need for Victims

Some time ago Camille Paglia wrote about the Democrats' (I would say Leftists') singular world view - that every situation (as I recall her saying) had to be boiled down to a three-sided morality play, containing an oppressed victim, an oppressor, and the brave (Leftist) savior who saves the victim.

Every single major Leftist hot button is couched in this form, it seems. And it carries with it a strange set of imperatives.

For one, if your world view requires victims, you're always looking for someone to play that role, whether they really fit the role or not.

If a person or group starts to become strong and self-reliant, that violates the world view - they must be pushed back into their victim role. A black person who is too successful "isn't really black". Women perpetually earn less than men because of "discrimination" not career choices.

The need for a victim is so strong that it overrides common sense and can lead to an infantilizing or dehumanizing of the target - as when Palestinians disastrously vote for Hamas, and Leftists blame it on the Israelis and President Bush.

Sometimes a particular person or group can play both roles at once, as when US soldiers in Iraq are wickedly oppressing the victimized Iraqi people, but become victims as soon as they return home and lapse into PTSD-driven alcoholism.

Why else is it that Leftists only love US soldiers when they are the drug addled, dysfunctional Vietnam veteran of so many Hollywood stories? A brave soldier who serves well - is strong and might be a threat. Such a soldier can only serve as an oppressor, or perhaps a hero (if part of a Leftist armed group).

Any US soldier - one who is strong, competent, and not furthering a Leftist cause - is a threat to the Leftist cartoon universe. So is any person or group in a victim role who starts to show signs of growing or maturing into a non-victim.

Turbo's Leadership Development Lab

I'm pleased to be working with Larry Dennis and Turbo Leadership Systems. I'm extremely impressed with the quality of the leadership training.

It's hard to describe the training itself, and I get enthusiastic when I try. So instead, here is a video of some students recently graduated from the Leadership Development Lab:



Check out the comment at about 1:41.

It's Not Easy Pleasing Greens

It's Not Easy Pleasing Greens asks the question - are environmentalist against capitalism or against pollution?

Me, I think they're against capitalism, and their posture against pollution is just a convenient excuse. But I'm happy to be proved wrong.

Failure in Iraq as Political Chemotherapy

I've struggled to understand why so many otherwise sane Democrats are so eager for America to lose in Iraq, despite the obvious dangers that would increase for all Americans if we did.

I think I figured it out. It's like chemotherapy.

In chemotherapy, you purposefully take into your body something poisonous. You do this because the poison, while harmful to your body's normal cells, are much more harmful to cancer cells. You get sick, but the cancer dies. The sickness is the price you pay for (you hope) winning a battle to the death against cancer.

For Democrats, losing in Iraq is certainly bad for America, but it's much more bad for Republicans than Democrats. So they are purposefully seeking to harm America in order to win their domestic political struggle against Republicans.

Here's a test of whether this makes sense: are there any Democrats who hate George Bush more than they hate Osama Bin Laden? Are there any who would prize a victory over Republicans more than they would an American victory over Al Qaeda? If so, then the chemotherapy strategy may be a valid model for what they are doing.

What side is the Mainstream Media On?

In World War II, American journalists were allowed to cover the war. They could even ride along in American bombers to watch those brave crews in action.

But there were no passenger berths in a B-17, so a journalist who wanted to fly along had to first qualify as a door gunner and fly as a fighting member of the crew, wearing an American uniform, shooting at German fighters.

I think those journalists knew which side they were on. I think they knew which side they wanted to win.

Here's a test. Which side is THIS modern journalist on? This modern journalist is covering a struggle between A and B. He selectively reports:

• The recruiting successes of A, and the recruiting failures of B
• The military successes of A, and the military setbacks of B
• The reasons why A is justified in fighting, and the reasons why B is morally wrong to be fighting
• Glosses over the civilian casualties inflicted by A, even when deliberate, and focuses on the civilian casualties inflicted by B, even when accidental
• Attributes the actions of A to prior actions by B

I think you would be justified in saying that this modern journalist was on side A.

What I Saw in Iraq, by Joe Lieberman

What I Saw in Iraq
Iran remains a problem, but Anbar has joined the fight against terror.
BY JOSEPH LIEBERMAN

Article by the leading strong-defense, pro-American, anti-terrorist Democrat (okay, former Dem) on his first hand experiences in Iraq.

Vote now: Which Tom do you prefer?

Vote once on which Tom you prefer, using the only truly fair voting site on the Internet. You'll have to register. Results will only be reported when voting has closed.

Tom clean-shaven

Tom clean-shaven
Originally uploaded by tbcox23

And lo, here I am mere minutes later. Which do you prefer? Feel free to vote on this over at CrowdRules.