everybody knows I am right.

Well that was just a general rule, about north and south and left and right wing, of course there are exceptions, but I think generally if you took some kind of poll along one of those lines that go horizontally across the earth, you would find the Liberal-O-Meter going down as you crossed the Canadian border and headed south. Also I am thinking of the very socialist govs of the nordic states as opposed to the comparatively chaotic govs of the underbelly of Europe. And my theory was that when times get tough (winter) people are inclined to hang together and to be dependent on their fellow man whereas when the living is easy (summer) people are more likely to strike it out on their own.

But it’s really just a speculation, I haven’t written my thesis on it yet. One of the problems is defining left and right (Drug selling is a liberal as opposed to conservative thing, oh c’mon), I mainly meant collectivist vs what do you guys call yourselves, Ayn Rand’s Freedom Band, Ayn’s Army, Rand’s Raiders? Whatever.

Wanting something for nothing is a universal human trait, born into us each and every one like our desire for mother’s milk. It has nothing to do with left and right.

There is a whole thing too about rural being more right wing and urban being more left wing. I don’t know if we have brought that thesis under the clear illumination of the light of Beaglesonia, but it seems like fertile ground, one of us being a city mouse and the other a country mouse.

My experience of National Geographic is as a bland, middle-of-the-road, not very analytic, publication. And I am sure that the interpretation of it that you gave me tilts towards your inclinations, and if I read it, which I probably won’t, I would come away with a different interpretation, and then we would be arguing our different interpretations of the article, which would be the same issues we usually argue about, so why would we need the article at all?

I read a lot. I read both daily newspapers, I read a weekly and a monthly magazine that have a lot of coverage on the news, I read articles in blogs, I read books. Sometimes people send me links, oh you gotta read this, and I am all, I read a lot of things, what I am interested in is what you are thinking, so tell me that, and put it in your own words, don’t send me long quotes.

Not that this is any slam on you, because you did put parts into your own words.

Most of our information does come from other people, but it’s not like we listen willy-nilly to those around us. We pick people to listen to, and generally these are the more learned, the Fred Trost’s, and not the guy on the next barstool. I thought I sensed something in your interpretation of the article saying that we just believe what people around us believe (which I will admit to a certain extent, but just a certain extent), so therefore all opinions are equal. Like they do on tv where they have an anti and pro vaxxer discussing the matter, and the implication is that both opinions are equal.

Which is just not true. And everybody knows that.