I don't know whether George Will's column today increases or decreases my internal George Will ratio.

For those not familiar with the George will ratio, it's the number of times I agree with a column vs. the number of times I disagree with one. It usually floats around 1:6-1:7 and excludes his endless fluffy bios and baseball blather.

I'm not sure if he's saying it's a good thing or a bad thing, but in his analysis of the recent study showing conservatives tend to be happier than liberals, he attributes this to conservatives remaining ignorant of the world's problems. Ignore for a minute his blather blaming FDR for all our problems, and consider how he ends the article:

But, then, conscientious liberals cannot enjoy automobiles because there is global warming to worry about, and the perils of corporate-driven consumerism, which is the handmaiden of bourgeoisie materialism. And high-powered cars (how many liberals drive Corvettes?) are metaphors (for America's reckless foreign policy, for machismo rampant, etc.). And then there is -- was -- all that rustic beauty paved over for highways. (And for those giant parking lots at exurban mega-churches. The less said about them the better.) And automobiles discourage the egalitarian enjoyment of mass transit. And automobiles, by facilitating suburban sprawl, deny sprawl's victims -- that word must make an appearance in liberal laments; and lament is what liberals do -- the uplifting communitarian experience of high-density living. And automobiles . . .

You see? Liberalism is a complicated and exacting, not to say grim and scolding, creed. And not one conducive to happiness.

So, do I disagree with this article or not? Am I such a liberal that I see this statement criticizing liberals as a great credit to our philosophy? That we actually care about something other than ourselves? We don't live for unenlighted self-interest and that's a bad thing?