Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach. And those who can't do either one of those spent the last several months working on a "study," which appears in the American Psychological Association's "Psychological Bulletin," to find any possible way to connect the American conservative movement to the most murderous hell-fodder in human history.

These four professors probably saved those who funded the study some money, since these things tend to go faster when the conclusions are drawn first.

Does this study contain any semblance of truth? Yes, it would appear that they spelled all the names correctly. After that, it's a free-for-all of left-coast shrink-o-babble and poli-sci "connect the dots" by campus moss living on the shady side of the real world.

In sections of this iconoclastic waste of paper (where are the environmentalists when you really need them?), attempts are made to link the ideologies of Ronald Reagan, Joe Stalin, Rush Limbaugh and Adolph Hitler – among others.

Let's take a brief look at these men.

Ronald Reagan was an actor, governor, then president of the United States and a man who spoke of the virtues of a free society – all while pushing communism to its knees and bringing down the Berlin Wall.

Adolph Hitler killed 6 million Jews and countless others, was determined to render an entire race of people extinct, and all this perhaps on only one testicle.

Rush Limbaugh hosts a radio show.

Joe Stalin snuffed out some 20 million human lives, but then again, he had both testicles, so he was twice as nuts as Hitler.

As far as I can tell, the only thing these men have in common is that they've all been compared to each other by faculty dweebs from Freetime University.

Among other attempts to jam macrocosms inside of microcosms, the Berkeley Bunch seem to relish in taking large groups and /or movements around the world and comparing them to an individual American conservative. Take this paragraph from the press release: "Concerns with fear and threat, likewise, can be linked to a second key dimension of conservatism – an endorsement of inequality, a view reflected in the Indian caste system, South African apartheid and the conservative, segregationist politics of the late Sen. Strom Thurmond (R-S.C.)."

Talk about forcing it. Two "systems" compared to the opinion of an individual thousands of miles away. Besides, Thurmond is now dead, which now makes him more comparable to the Berkeley Bunch's ideology than apartheid or the caste system. I can think of a senator who fits their comparison better, but this one is a Democrat from West Virginia. He's a former member of the KKK, but they won't mention him in their study, since he's not conservative. That would have thrown off their entire schedule. The Berkeley Bunch had a 7 o'clock dinner date with Preconceived Notion, and they were determined to be on time.

One of the professors put down the new issue of The Nation long enough to say, "They [conservatives] are more comfortable seeing and stating things in black and white in ways that would make liberals squirm."

This is a country where the left constantly plays the race card to create divisiveness and hatred, all in the name of maintaining minority support at the voting booth or to extort money from corporations which want to avoid negative PR shouted from the top of the shoddy soapbox of race pimps. The finger here is pointed, of course, at conservatives, when it's the left who politically separate blacks from whites with such ferocity it's as if they're getting a couple of wash loads ready at the sociological Laundromat.

Regardless of political affiliation, we all tend to be most interested in what's going on in our own corner of the world, with a tendency to become involved in it. It's a natural and understandable attraction. People with family histories fraught with coronary disease are more likely to support the American Heart Association. Homosexuals are most likely to lobby for the legalization of same-sex marriages, para and quadriplegics will push for spinal-cord research, and people who are most in need of having their heads examined drift toward the field of psychology.

Chances are, you'll never see a psychological profile of liberalism – at least not one coming from Berkeley. That would require an honest self-analysis. They would also have to look into a mirror, and, as anybody who rises at night to feed off the blood of normal people will tell you, they're unable to see their own reflection.