I find it absolutely disgusting, vicious, vomit – producing and hateful that a huge army of pathetic losers is now crawling out of the woodwork to argue that Carly Fiorina’s achievements are not that great and she wasn’t even a real secretary anyway.

The only people who have the right to comment on Fiorina’s achievement are those who have achieved more. Everybody else sounds like a sore loser of massive proportions when he (it’s always some underemployed fellow who does it) begins to assign grades to people with hugely successful careers.

Ta-Nehisi Coates is a victim of his own journalistic talent. His articles are meticulously researched, never rushed, always supported by mountains of evidence, and deeply insightful.

In the age of snappy soundbites, though, these skills are not that valued. People skim the headers and write responses to the articles based on what they assume the journalist must be saying. And then Coates has to beg people at least to read what he wrote before opining on it.

It’s not that surprising that careless, stupid journalists proliferate since the readers can’t deal with more nuanced, complex writing.

“People who are willing to admit they are more narcissistic than others probably actually are more narcissistic,” said Brad Bushman, co-author of the study and a professor of communication and psychology at The Ohio State University.

“People who are narcissists are almost proud of the fact. You can ask them directly because they don’t see narcissism as a negative quality – they believe they are superior to other people and are fine with saying that publicly.”

This is completely, totally and utterly wrong. Narcissists believe that they are victims of everybody else’s egotism. They see themselves as selfless, altruistic, quiet little victims who are unfairly persecuted by everybody else. Do you know somebody who keeps complaining that other people are too selfish? Somebody who keeps asking, “Why does everybody hate me so much?” or “What have I ever done to people to be treated this way?” Somebody who always feel under-appreciated? That’s your narcissist right there.

Here is a question I have: what is the Liberal philosophy of foreign policy in this country? What is its organizing principle?

The Conservative philosophy of foreign policy exists and everybody knows what it is. Its organizing principle is that the US should strive to be the world’s policeman / arbiter / “a force of good in the world.” Leaving aside the issue of whether this is a good philosophy and whether we agree with it, I want to point out that it exists and everybody is familiar with it, not only here but pretty much everywhere in the world.

Now my question is: what is the alternative? I’ve been trying to find out what the organizing principle behind the Liberal approach to foreign policy is for years but it’s a lot more elusive. Liberal commentators are very open as to what they don’t want to see happening in terms of US foreign policy. They are, however, very reticent concerning what they do want.

Sometimes I think that the ideal foreign policy for Liberals is that of a complete Buchanan-style withdrawal coupled with a stream of payments to poorer countries. This would be akin to paying the world to leave us alone so that we can engage in contented navel-gazing without being disturbed by pesky outsiders.

At other times, it seems like there is not even such a limited philosophy in place, and the Liberal response to every situation that arises is strictly situational and based on “let’s see what the other side is advocating and do the exact opposite.”

Does anybody have an answer?

Shimon Peres gave a talk in Ukraine and encouraged Ukrainians never to go on vacation because vacations are a waste of time and he’s never taken one in his 90+ years of life.

I only have one response when I hear this sort of thing: poor fellow, what a horrible, empty personal life he must have had. Never to have met a person with whom he’d want to spend 6 weeks in bed actively not working. Never to have known the kind of love that makes one want to spend the day, the week, the month looking at the beloved person, walking and talking with her. Never to have been wanted by anybody for three whole days of uninterrupted togetherness.

---

Yes, I know he had a wife. That must have been a beaut of a relationship if he had to hide from it at work every day of his life.