It means whatever you want it to mean.

It reads as if the first clause is driving the second clause. Would the work ethic be as strong without the pleasure in perceived annoyance factor?

I have a sign over my desk that says, “Annoy a liberal: Work, succeed, be happy.”

One observation is that the modern liberal is not a liberal at all, but a collectivist instead http://www.orgonomy.org/article_terrorism_trueliberal.html . I agree with this.

A collectivist mentality is inherently group think – one in which a person’s entire identity is determined by his group membership. [And they call conservatives racists and/or fascists!] A person is considered good not by his personal actions, but whether he supports the “correct” political groups and causes. Members of a group who support the “wrong” causes are outcasts and considered evil [think of the modern “Uncle Toms” – Thomas Sowell and Clarence Thomas].

Collectivists look at the sorry state of man and ask, “Who [i.e., what group] did this to us?” Since people are born good, it must be society that makes them bad. Never mind that society is run by people. Recognition of this sorry state correctly leads to the idea that man needs redemption, but they reject the Christian concept of redemption because accepting it would require the admission that it can be achieved only by God. This just will not do since it would also require accepting God’s plan. Therefore, man must redeem himself. This is nothing more than pride – the Christian concept of Original Sin. [What else is new under the sun?] Since God has been rejected, morality must also come from man, hence relativism.

Collectivists have no right to disagree with me because what I have said here is my truth.

Generally speaking, seeing yourself as a victm and making victims of others is seen by most experts in the field to be a way of avoiding responsibility in the case of people with character problems, and avoiding reality for people with more significant mental problems.

I think embracing the victim mentality is the greatest indicator of a disorder – of unhealthy thiking – in liberals.

I believe it alone is worthy of study.

Anyone in therapy who continually points to not getting their share, sympathizing with others they see not getting a fair shake and continually trying to feel better about themselves through political action to relieve that suffering (and thus their own) would rightly be directed inward by a psychiatrist.

Instead, it seems far too many professionals in psychiatry concur and validate these feelings and the associated behvior as commendable and right.

I know liberals who are so consumed with the belief that people are being victimized, discriminated against, or otherwise suffering hurt feelings as victims of something they don’t agree with politically that they can’t be a happy person much of the time (maybe at all).

I am no expert, but it appears that when some do take a break, get on with their lives or enjoy themselves, they often feel compelled to flog themselves afterward taking the time for selfish gratification. In a lot of ways it resembles the outlook of early religious puritans who also wrestled with guilt and shame.

The irony is that none of the people in whom I have observed this behavior are actually activists or involved in any way in helping the people they see as victims.

One recently announced that he planned to join the Peace Corps. Another might boast of jointing the ACLU, but that is as substantial as their contributions get. Mostly, it seems, they talk, complain, and share their feelings. But as they are not involved in trying to right any of the problems they talk about, these sessions appear to be little more than self-administered therapy for their own benefit, not the alleged victims.

Again, it isn’t my field, but for all the world the spectacle looks like a vicious circle of being genuinely hurt, followed by being guilty for doing nothing to help, sharing with others who also do nothing about it, slandering their political enemies and hoping (of late) that Obama is elected president and ends their pain.

Notice I said “their” pain. I’m not convinced they care about the “victims’” pain as much as their own.

There is ample evidence of that, I think, as it is clear their social and political remdies applied often not only fail to alleviate problems, they serve to make things worse.

Perpetually giving hungry people fish because it makes you feel good to be the one who fed them, is not as valuable to the hungry as teaching them to fish. That’s lost on some of the liberal people I know, but then they don’t even give people a fish. They just talk about doing it.

It is fascinating to observe. I would like to know more.

The data supporting that conservatives are generally happier with their lives is pretty clear, well above the leve of happiness for people who identify themselves as liberals or left-leaning.

It never seems to occur to those on the left that happiness can be attributed to their healthier outlook, the general sense of well being that faith produces, and the like.

Instead, conservatives are chastised for being happy when they have no right to be. I would ask, how healthy and productive would it be for a psychologist to take in a patient he found to be law abiding, hard working and committed to family and his church and determine, like leftists ideologues that he has no right to be happy.

If that is true, the psychologist might be obligated to correct the sociopathic behavior that allows someone to be happy when the things he believes and trusts in are the very reason for the missery he ignores.

Bill Clinton planted a “poster child” in the audience of one of his town hall meetings during his campaign for president. The plant asked if he [Clinton] would be a kind of father to us all. According to Goldberg in his Liberal Fascists, Hillary is proposing the same parent-child relationship with the voters.

What better evidence do you need?