Would you rather be right or happy!

[proud2BlibKansan]

Would you rather be right or happy!

by George Harris Kansas City Star Reader Advisory Panel 2008

As a psychologist, I frequently see people caught up in disputes in which all parties think they’re right. And sticking to principle means fighting the good fight even if the fight exhausts resources and creates misery.

I recognize these disputes readily because I’ve had my share of them.

So I’m reluctant nowadays to tell anyone not to be so righteous, but I do ask people if they’d rather be right than be happy. Because often you have to give up one for the other. It’s a surprisingly difficult choice.

<skip>

So, for the record, I don’t know who’s right and who’s wrong in these arguments. Or who should relax and let go of principle. I’m pretty busy trying to keep my own head straight. But the older I get, the more I think I’d rather be happy than right.

http://voices.kansascity.com/node/2851

[BrklynLiberal]

1. Great question. I have usually chosen happy...

Nothing gained in being right and unhapppy...

[Sebastian Doyle]

2. it's not really an either or question.

Because I'm right about who and what has fucked up this country for the last 28 years, and I won't be happy until they are made to pay for their crimes.

Analyse that, Dr, George.

[elocs]

3. It seems like most of DU would rather be right than happy.

There is a lot of righteous here, self or otherwise.

[NashVegas]

4. Wow

I knew when Stirling Newbury wrote about the "pwning of the Progressive Movement," he was right. I had no idea how right.

However, in that context there is now a struggle for what kind of Obama nomination and presidency there will be. The explosion over Krugman's comments indicate that struggle is lost. We are going to be treated to a nice huge vat of "shut the fuck up" Obamism.

I just hope that the people now outraged over Krugman telling the truth, will remember this moment the next time that Obama tells the blogosphere to shut the fuck up, which he has done several times. He must, because as a representative plutocrat, he not only must create a loud noisy ball of people, he must have control over them, and will crush anyone who attempts to swim in that environment and direct it. He has promised his backers control over that ball, and anyone who moves it in another direction will be seen as a threat. He's already done this, and therefore, I am sure he will do it again.

[Schema Thing]

5. What "explosion" over what Krugman comments?