Yes, I do believe that is what it is for.

Glad you noticed.

Oh, puhleez, give us more research on this... <yawn>

"The results suggest that encouraging cultural participation may be one way to encourage healthfulness"

---

No, they don't. I have no reason at all to doubt the actual RESULTS of the study, but any "suggestions" drawn about what those results might mean, or how they can be used to "improve health", are areas that haven't yet been studied at all. That is the opinion of the researchers involved, not a scientific fact.

This is what often happens with otherwise good studies. The researchers take a solid, repeatable finding and then postulate what it MIGHT mean, thereby introducing their own biases and beliefs into otherwise scientific research. All this study may show is that "artsy" men live "better" lives. It DOESN'T prove that men uninterested in the arts can be changed, and it doesn't prove that changing them would have any effect at all.

That doesn't mean it definitely won't work to try to change them, but it could just as easily be a completely futile or even counter-productive effort, as far as these researchers yet know.

The problem is every correlation is seen as causation, qualified with the a "might" or "may." This is why you'll see an identical study next week saying the exact opposite. I think this is what they call garbage science.

Oh, man! Come on. Ballet sucks for men. Who wrote this tripe? Nonsense. Plain nonsense.

I'm sure some will take this as a deliberately provocative post, but haven't we already known this to be true?

Men and women who are liberal, peace-loving individuals tend to be happier.

We enjoy art, we enjoy the aesthetics of life and the philosophy behind the human condition, and not just the black-and-white tangibles.

We have a brighter social, altruistic, outlook on life and our fellow human beings. We also, tend to be less dogmatic and more educated. Free from superstition and fear, and more open to change. It's really not that hard of a concept to grasp ... helping people makes you feel better.

Being able to enjoy the finer things in life makes you feel better.

Irony, is a greater virtue then faith.

Conservatism (especially on the social front) is an unsustainable position. When you're constantly battling progression and favor tradition over forward movement ... the very definition of stagnation takes effect.

I attribute this study to this simple fact of life. Most know this, but few will admit it. We are a PC nation.

Plus, most would like confuse a people who love peace and art as being "bleeding hearts" or pacifists. This is the greatest irony of course as it's the truly strong and righteous that fight for the less unfortunate and those who can't fight for themselves. Is there any better definition of a liberal then this?

Well said chad! And certainly a good reason NOT to defund the National Endowment for the Arts, which brings fine arts and cultural exhibits as well as performance arts directly to communities that would otherwise not have access! It would seem that the conservatives would suck all the joy out of life for everyone--I guess misery wants company!

Wow - so only liberals like the theater, museums, art galleries, etc. You "tend to be" more educated? You are less dogmatic? You really haven't watched the "liberals" who shout down anyone who disagrees with their point of view, start by calling people names instead of debating issues, and who insist that how they see life is the way everyone else MUST see life have you? That's odd, because those same liberals are all over the place and they aren't fighting to help those who can't help themselves, they are fighting to have others give hand outs to those they deem worthy of help.

Fortunately you really don't understand what conservative means. It does not mean hide bound to tradition. It means taking responsibility for you own actions, holding others responsible for their actions, helping others with a hand up not a life long hand out, encouraging people to be the best they can be but understanding that not everyone can be everything in life, and on the political front, it simply means keeping the government interference with my life at a minimum.

JJMurray

That's my whole point. Just because the other side "has a different point of view," doesn't make it valid. This is true for everything, not just conservative vs. liberal. Everything is not, and should not, be up for debate.

Sometimes, people are just wrong.

Fortunately you really don't understand what conservative means. It does not mean hide bound to tradition. It means taking responsibility for you own actions, holding others responsible for their actions, helping others with a hand up not a life long hand out, encouraging people to be the best they can be but understanding that not everyone can be everything in life, and on the political front, it simply means keeping the government interference with my life at a minimum.

I agree with everything you just said. Unfortunately, this is most certainly not the definitive conservative position and it is a mere caricature of the liberal position. The whole "big government" thing is a false issue. We don't need "small" government, we need "competent" government.

Chad - I always like it when a liberal tells me what a conservative "really" is and how I obviously don't know. It just proves how unwilling they are to see through someone else's eyes while claiming to be so empathic, sympathetic, etc.

As for government - notice I NEVER said small government. In this day and age of sound bites "small government" has become the phrase of the day because the media simply will not talk about what conservatives are actually saying. What I said was "keeping the government interference with my life at a minimum". And while I agree with you that we need "competent" government I suspect we will have some very big differences on what would be considered competent government spending and rules.

I don't think everyone needs to have the same view of life--that being said, what you have written can apply equally to "conservatives" who would force their views on the "liberals." Somehow we need to get to a happy medium, but that does take compromise, which I do not see on the parts of either side!

JJMurray

I think we got off on the wrong foot here.

I'm not trying to tell you what a conservative is or isn't. I am commenting on the path of conservatism over the past few decades however. Your party has been absolutely highjacked and infiltrated by the Christian right and a movement of anti-intellectualism that is simply unprecedented. For god's sake, Regan wouldn't even be allowed into today's GOP.

I have NO doubt there are some highly sophisticated conservatives still out there. As I've said, my position is simply that social conservatism is an unsustainable policy and one that is incompatible with a thriving, global and multicultural society which must adapt and evolve within constant change.

Thus is simply the global reality we face.

But, I have many fiscally conservative views myself, so I think we may actually find more agreement then you would have initially thought.

The problem, as I've said, is that you guys have let the "village idiots" take over your party and push their own personal agendas and narratives. There are of course derelicts within the left as well, but to provide a false equivalency is intellectually dishonest.

nurse - If you read what I wrote defining what "conservative" means, there is nothing to force on anyone. Basically it is a philosophy of the individual being responsible for their own actions. If you don't take responsibility for your actions there is no "requirement" for anyone to do anything about that. That doesn't mean "abandon the poor" as it is often portrayed, it simply means that others are not required to help when you mess up. As a conservative I would try to help if I could, but making me help by forcing me to do something would be anathema to conservatism.

As for compromise...when it comes to government, that's why I want "minimal" government interference in my life. I fully understand they have a role that will interfere with my life but I want to keep that to as little as possible since I believe on average that I know quite well how to live my life. If the government needs some of my money (taxes) to ensure we have police, firemen, a military, good roads, etc. I understand and support that. When they say they "need" my money so they can fund "Cowboy Poetry" or that I can't eat anything with trans fats in it because they think I'll eat too much and become unhealthy, then I have a problem. So yes, somewhere in between those two I'm sure we could find a compromise once we get some "competent" politicians in government as Chad pointed out.

Chad - Conservatism isn't actually a "party". I am a conservative but I am not a Republican. Republicans have tried to say they are conservatives but that's just like any politicians, they say what they hope will get them votes. Democrats are the same with liberals. We could both name names of plenty in each party that are more conservative or liberal than the...wait for it...party line, but in general the two try to align (at least in public) with those two philosophies.

Liberalism has been just as much hijacked unfortunately by people like Moveon.org who can't post an article that doesn't personally attack someone who disagrees with them, or Michael Moore who distorts the truth in order to make those he disagrees with look bad or worse. How about the Southern Poverty Law center which is in the business of determining which groups are "hate" groups but never once picks a a far left liberal one despite what they say or have physically done?

You say we may have more in common than I think but I suspect we really don't. All I need to do is read you calling a group of people "village idiots" or even "derelicts" to see we have a very different approach.

As for social conservatism being unsustainable - there is no reason it cannot be. When your core values are those that I have noted before there is no reason a society that embraces those values cannot thrive and prosper. Those values do not mean stagnation as you seem to imply. If they did, the US would have collapsed 200 years ago. Even today the largest block of people in this country identify themselves as "conservative", not because they do or do not believe in abortion, but because they believe in things like personal responsibility vice government care taking.

Chad - Conservatism isn't actually a "party".

Yes, of course. I would have thought that goes without saying.

However, if you were true to such a concept, which liberal would you vote for in the upcoming election? Which lib do you have agreements with (despite the fact they are liberal?)

If I had to vote conservative in the next election, I would most likely choose Romney.

Liberalism has been just as much hijacked unfortunately by people like Moveon.org who can't post an article that doesn't personally attack someone who disagrees with them, or Michael Moore who distorts the truth in order to make those he disagrees with look bad or worse.

Again, this is a vast false equivalence on your part.

You say we may have more in common than I think but I suspect we really don't.

Okay.

As for social conservatism being unsustainable - there is no reason it cannot be. When your core values are those that I have noted before there is no reason a society that embraces those values cannot thrive and prosper. Those values do not mean stagnation as you seem to imply. If they did, the US would have collapsed 200 years ago.

Well, if it's your contention that we live in the same world as we did 200 years ago, then I guess you would be right. It's my opinion however, that we find ourselves in a very different landscape; politically, socially and ethically.

Even today the largest block of people in this country identify themselves as "conservative",

Have you looked around this country lately JJ? I wouldn't necessarily be looking at the majority consensus as a bright spot. As we've gotten more and more conservative over the years, have we gained all that much? Globally, where are we ranked educationally? Where are we ranked on healthcare, infant mortality, math, science, generational prosperity, social equality?

This is another part of the conservative mindset where I find pause. This false notion of greatness ... as though simply being American means we are exceptional?

Just look in our backyard. You can literally draw a line through the country and tally up the red-state agenda. Just curious, which part of the country do we find the majority of violent crimes? How about teenage pregnancies? The south even downloads more porn than the north! How's that for the "moral majority"?

If that is too terrestrial for you ... let's look at the world. The left-leaning, secular, socialist, liberal, nations of Scandinavia are some of the most peaceful and prosperous nations on the earth. Educationally they are first. Crime is at an all-time low. and, the people surveyed continuously rank as some of the happiest on earth.

While I realize correlation does not equal causation, at a certain point we just need to get real with ourselves.

Look at the country today - okay I have and all the things you point out lead me to "liberals" (as embodied by the Democrat party) have controlled the House for 64 year since 1931 and the Senate for 58 years. Now, who determines policy in this country? The President or congress? I would argue that it has been liberal policies which have shaped this country for the majority of the last 80 years and yet you blame conservatives.

You complain about the majority and yet they elected a liberal President and gave him huge majorities in Congress for 2 years. If your contention is they don't know what they are doing then that speaks volumes.

You of course reject any idea that liberalism too has been hijacked even though I gave several examples of prominent liberal organizations which have gone far outside the mainstream of the country which tells me you cannot possibly even see that liberalism can even have a bad side to it.

You also seem to equate conservatism with religion, I do not and have said so before. The two can align on some issues, but liberals seem to have no problem accepting endorsements when a religion or group of religious leaders agree with their position. That's okay with you so long as they agree with you and THAT is the difference. Conservatism, as I have said, doesn't impose itself on others it simply wants to keep others from imposing their ways on us. If you don't want to eat trans fats then don't, but don't insist that the rest of us can't if we want to.

As for the idea of American exceptionalism...yes, I do think this COUNTRY is exceptional. I think that exceptionalism has suffered in the last few decades but I still believe that the form of government that we have continues to have the potential to be one that grants the individual the most rights of any in the world while promoting personal exceptionalism through freedom. The idea that "anyone can become President" was an entirely new idea to the world and while our government has made that exceptionally difficult, I think President Obama is also a demonstration of that. A virtually unknown, not from a super rich family, with limited time spent in public office became the President of this country. I believe this country can continue to be a shining example to others in the world that people, given the chance to be free and to work hard can achieve almost anything.

I have had the privilege of having lived in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East during my life and yes, I think in comparison your "average" American has more opportunity to succeed here than anywhere else I have been and yes, I think that makes America exceptional.

I would argue that it has been liberal policies which have shaped this country for the majority of the last 80 years

Okay.

That's one way to look at it.

Another way would be to subtract a few years from your figure as we were actually headed in a pretty good direction until Regan decided to deregulate everything.

How did that work out for us again?

Then, once Clinton ushered in an era of economic growth and a national surplus, we decided to give another conservative a shot.

Where did that get us again?

1 falsified war later, countless lives lost, a national debt beyond our grasp, further deregulation, and on and on.

Look, we can argue politics all night long. The truth is neither will win the debate.

Only history can decide, but I for one will sleep better at night knowing which side I'm on.

Be well JJ, it's been fun conversing with you. I find your arguments rational, well articulated and easy to follow along. I just disagree is all.

Hey, chad--

That was a good read. Thanks.

I like watching sports and going to the gym but I get a buzz at art museums and galleries, always have. As an unexpected side benefit I have noticed a lot of hot artsy women like the same thing.

@MAM

That might be the paint fumes...I think the author might be using the incorrect synonym in the title of the article

Nothing wrong with looking at artworks and works of art at the same time.

Great, so now every time my husband and I go to the museum I should think of some ulterior reason, sweet. Stupid f'ing article with no proof.

Bald, I liked your post, very amusing. Off to the museum with my "happy" husband, thank goodness it isn't football season.... then we'd both be pissed.

Steve,

I agree, but the issue is broader than what the article targets. Enrichment is much broader than most of us think it is and it is not just cultural enrichment, like ballet, museums and the symphony. While these things can be rewarding and enrich our lives, so too can craftsmanship or the creation of something worthwhile or beautiful be enriching and even enlightening.

An aware and thankful approach to a simple chore like washing the dishes can be very enriching in the moment, too. Awareness of our existence in the moment and our thankfulness are things we often loose sight of.

I build things in my workshop out of wood and I find the activity and finished creation to be most satisfying. Immensely frustrating at times but deeply satisfying.

Those involved in the arts who are miserable are another matter. Why do it if it makes one miserable? I suspect their misery has nothing to do with art or the arts but has more to do with personality or character. A flaw? Maybe, maybe not. It depends on the person who is miserable. Would they be miserable doing something else? It all just depends.........

Amen, brother

zapper--interesting information. I have always thought about how art and museums have enriched my own life. It is scary that art and music have been taken out of so many school programs. These are some of the things that make us civilized. It is really sad to me that our culture is so lacking in the civilities of life. As we see a decline in interest and study of the arts and an increase of interest in sporting programs and "reality TV" programs, we are seeing a decrease in compassion for our fellow citizens, decrease in the understanding of history, and the rise of horrendous greed that may actually destroy our country. Many years ago, Robert Heinlein wrote, in a book called "Friday", that the loss of civility in a culture would be a sign of the destruction of the culture. We are definitely seeing that decrease in civility in our country.

Very interesting observation, one that I think/hope most people are coming to realize. Art, Music, the lesser of the aggressive side compared to sports, is sadly diminishing, and interestingly enough the amount of violence in schools is increasing. Is there a coloration between them? I'm not 100% sure, but I do know that Art and music shouldn't be taken out of an educational curriculum, I would highly suggest that people support their Art programs in school.

I'm sure it's not just you, but some of us really do find the arts enrich our lives!

And here I thought the saying was that "money can't buy happiness."

Ah but money CAN buy more opportunities for happiness.

In fact I want to take part in a study where they give me a lot of money and then track to see how happy I am.

Guess I'm defective. :-)

You and me both, pal. :P

Wilson - so because someone said the world is ending on X and it doesn't, that means god doesn't exist? Interesting (if greatly flawed) logic you have there.

Church makes you more stupid. Sleeping makes you more intelligent. Therefore, people should spend more time sleeping than going to church.

Your syllogism might work if your premises were correct. You clearly already have drawn your own conclusions about the worth of spirituality so I'll leave the "church makes people more stupid" remark alone for now. As for sleep--sleeping doesn't inherently make you more intelligent. If you are not exposed to good books, culture, meaningful conversation, research, challenging activities, etc. (either one or any combination of these) sleeping won't make up for the lack of these things. Some people spend most of their time sleeping and are no more intelligent than anyone else. The fact that the world didn't end on May 21 doesn't prove anything about God. The Bible didn't say the world would end on May 21 (you can read it cover to cover--it's not in there). I don't know of any religious texts, Christian or otherwise, that claimed the world would end on May 21. The only thing proved by the end of the world silliness is that trusting Harold Camping is a bad idea.

JJ

No, I don't think anyone is arguing that god doesn't exist ... I think people are just a little tired of the certainties postulated by man (in god's name)

God, is an unquantified variable. It would be quite silly to attack something we know nothing about ... wouldn't you agree?

God is a unanimously-owned concept within the human condition. We all have equal-right to our chosen experience within the numinous and that of the transcendent (even atheists like myself).

The point is religion fails on all levels. Spiritually, emotionally, philosophically, intellectually. And, it most certainly has no place with our secular, pluralistic government.

I'll never understand it. Those who harp against the "governments control over our personal lives" the most ... are the very ones most likely in favor of instilling a set form of dogmatic standards and religiosity within our democracy.

It goes back to my original point. Social conservatives are of "one" book. Intellectually and spiritually.

Liberals, prefer to rely on the works of the many for inspiration, revelation, truth and beauty.

Lol Koley, thank you, you took the words right out of my mouth.

Chad - I quote from the original post: "This proved that God is just a fairy tale."

I do not belong to any organized religion because I feel that "organized" religions are no better than overlarge unions. They have become a business onto themselves and while they may provide some good to others, their main goal seems to be to keep themselves in business. However, I do believe in God (my own sketchy definition applies) but I do not rely on God to do much for me beyond helping me find the strength within myself to overcome the obstacles I run across in life. As for how other people believe - well, I think that's up to them. I do not criticize their beliefs (or non beliefs) nor do I try to persuade them what is right or wrong in their religious views because all such things are based on an internal "faith" and you simply cannot debate faith.

As for liberals vs conservatives once again you try to pigeon hole exactly what a conservative is and how they think and act. When you do so then you give up your righteous indignation when someone decides to pigeon hole all liberals as living in a fantasy world of hope while forcing others to give up what they have earned through hard work so the liberals can give it away in support of some cause they have decided is worthy of their attention.

Personally I see only one major difference between the typically defined liberal and conservative. The liberal is in favor of having government take care of people (hence taking from the people to give to other people) while conservatives, while willing to provide assistance, want people to make their own way and either succeed or fail on their own.

I agree,

My post did seem like a blanket statement ... moreso then I intended. It's hard to sometimes provide the necessary amount of context within these short posts, but I didn't mean to compartmentalize all libs and conservatives.

Chad - Fair enough. I know brevity is a good thing, but it can lead to confusion as well.