Dr. Sanity - An Index of "Best" Posts
When I started blogging, I never thought I had so much to say. It was my intent to post at least once a day, but soon it became so addictive that I was posting three and four times a day! My family says I need help, so I might just check myself into a 12-Step Blogging Program, but only if they have a high-speed internet connection.

Anyway, I thought I would index a few of (what I consider) my "best" posts, so that they would be indexed in one place. There is an Archive at the bottom of the left sidebar of this site, but it only has the entire month's worth of posts and they are not independently listed. However, you are welcome to browse through all my posts if you are so inclined. I hope someday to have a search feature on the site, as well as an index by post title. Someday.....

JULY
35th Anniversary of Apollo 11

AUGUST
Psychiatry 101 : Psychological Defense Mechanisms

SEPTEMBER
Optimism versus Pessimism
The Wonderful World of Denia
lHistrionics As A Determinant of National Policy
For Our Children's Children
Defenders of Truth
The Doctor is Somewhat Confused About These Memos...
It's So Unfair
Enabling Behavior For Terrorism
The "Girlie Women" of Today's Feminist Movement
A Lesson in Narcissistic Rage

OCTOBER
President Bush's Optimistic Vision
The Left's Rainbow Hypocrisy
John Kerry's World
A Short Course on How to Be A Victim
Adult Conversations
That Way Lies Madness

NOVEMBER
The Psychology of Bush Hatred
A Nuanced Meaning of Tolerance
The Psychiatric Costs of War
Liberal Groupthink
Arafat Burial Suggestion
Best of Dr. Sanity's Election Posts

DECEMBER
I Wonder...
Witchunt
Poor Man, History Has Passed Him By
Polish the Boot

JANUARY
Passive Aggressive Behavior in Response to the Iraq Elections
PIE-STUPID Syndrome
Self-Esteem is Not Necessarily Good For You
Challenger--A Flight Surgeon Remembers
They Couldn't Care Less About Freedom
Competing Inaugurals
Defending Against the Reckless Hate of Islam
WMD and Death By Chocolate Cake
The Unholy Coalition of Defeat
Concrete Thinking
Dedicated to Darkness
Suicide is Painless
A Fable with a Moral

FEBRUARY
"Rational" Discourse on the Left
Protect and Defend
Paranoia Strikes Deep
More Paranoia on the Left
He Feels It Is True, Therefore It Is...
9/11 and Paranoia
How Do You Solve A Problem Like Lynne Stewart?
Death By Chocolate Cake (Without WMDs) - A Recipe
Mars Doesn't Need Women
Piano Repairmen
Suicide and Its Nuances
A Classic Case of Hysteria
Yes, This is Islam
Ayn Rand and Me

DR. SANITY'S SONG RIP-OFFS (Gilbert and Sullivan, Monty Python and Others shamelessly stolen to make a political point!)
Cole's A Lumberjack
50 Ways to Force Regime Change
The Great UN Pretender
American Pie - The Democrat Version
Come Back When You Grow Up
Delicious Blasphemy (The Taliban Rag)
The Pirates of the U.N.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 11:12 PM |

 
Who'd A Thunk It?
UNBELIEVABLE!

For those who doubted that engaging the enemy on his ground by bringing about regime change in Afghanistan and Iraq was the right thing to do--JUST LOOK AT WHAT'S HAPPENING!

• Afghanistan had free and democratic elections despite the threat of violence.
  
• Iraq had free and democratic elections despite the threat of violence
  
• Libya has given up its desire for WMD
  
• Palestine has had free elections (of a sort anyway)
  
• Ukraine citizens took to the streets and changed their government peacefully
  
• Saudi Arabia has held open municipal elections and some modest reforms (still a long way to go, however)
  
• Egypt has announced some democratic reforms and open elections
  
• Syria suddenly hands over Saddam's brother and 29 Ba'athists to the Iraqis
  
• And today, Lebanon's government has resigned to the cheering thousands of Lebanese in the streets of Beirut who are demanding freedom

The last time so many significant political changes occurred was when the the Berlin Wall crumbled and resulted in the collapse of Communist dominos all over the world. President Reagan's "Mr Gorbachov, tear down this wall!" statement is widely credited now with the beginning of that paradigm shift. History will credit the vision and committment of President George W. Bush to Freedom and Democracy as the intellectual impetus for what is happening now.

What a terrible blow to the Left, who would like to maintain the delusion that Bush and his administration are stupid, unprincipled, and dangerous (just as they did with Reagan until recently). But the whirlwind changes for the Good happening in the Middle East and elsewhere speak for themselves. The only ones who could grieve about these changes are the Islamofascist terrorists, who unwittingly unleashed the forces that are transforming the world.

The road to Freedom is not always smooth, and there will be many bumps ahead. Syria and Iran will most certainly not give up their oppression and despotism easily, but there is reason to be optimistic after all of the above. But what has already occurred is HUGE and represents an UNDENIABLE victory for Freedom and the human spirit. I wish I could be around 50 - 75 years from now to see these seeds come to fruition.

Who'd a thunk it?
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 3:58 PM |

 

Lebanese protesters celebrate after Prime Minister Omar Karami resigned in Beirut, February 28, 2005. Lebanon's Syrian-backed Prime Minister Omar Karami, under popular pressure after assassination of an ex-prime minister, said on Monday his government was resigning.

 
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 1:40 PM |

 
Daniel in Jabba's Palace
Captain Ed at Captains Quarters reports that Israel is going on the offensive at the UN and intends to try to get the Security Council to condemn the recent suicide bombing in Tel Aviv.

Israel plans on doing something rather remarkable today, an act of faith that has echoes of Daniel in the lion's den. Israel will request that the United Nations Security Council condemn the terrorist bombing that killed four people in Tel Aviv this weekend and demand that the Palestinian Authority dismantle the terrorist groups operating in its territories as a prerequisite to further negotiations on autonomy:

After watching Israel make concession after concession in the Peace Negotiations with the Palestinians, how can there be any doubt that they truly desire peace? After watching every concession and conciliatory gesture be greeted with yet another round of murderous insanity on the part of the Islamic terrorist group du jour, how can there be any doubt that they could care less about peace?

Personally, I happen to think that the UN is a corrupt, bureaucratic mess that stands firmly behind every dictator and thug on the planet. As these super diplomats sit back and issue mild rebukes while genocide is taking place in Darfur; as they count their hard-earned bribes, it is impossible to understand why anyone--let alone the usual UN whipping boy, Israel--would seek some sort of moral sanction from this august body. It is likely to be a complete waste of Israel's time --whatever the result.

This is hardly "Daniel in the Lion's Den". "Daniel in Jabba's Palace" seems closer to the mark.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 11:37 AM |

 
The Sounds of Silence
One of the tragic consequences of moral and cultural relativism: "How Many More Women Have To Die Before This Society Wakes Up?" An excerpt: (but read the entire article)

The five Muslim women killed in recent months were murdered by their husbands or partners because they had "insulted" the family honour by wanting to end the relationship.

One woman was strangled; another drowned in a bath. In another case, a 21-year-old Turkish woman who was forcibly married to her cousin was stabbed to death on the street by her husband in front of their three-year-old daughter. Police records show that 45 "honour killings" have been committed within Germany's two million-plus Muslim community in the past eight years. Now that at least five have occurred in just four months in Berlin alone, the German authorities and local Turkish leaders are desperately trying to find out why.

Karl Mollenhauer, a Berlin police psychologist, blamed Islamic religious leaders for failing to address the problem. Last week, he also suggested that the German authorities were at fault for failing to intervene in case they were branded racist.

"We have silently allowed a parallel society to develop because of fears that we would sow hatred by talking openly about its injustices. The women have paid the price for this," he said.

Such are the consequences of an ideology that grants moral equivalence to cultures that celebrate death with cultures embracing life. This politically correct silence that refuses to condemn and root out culturally-sanctioned murder for fear of being labeled "racist", is itself a sickness that has been silently creeping into Western Civilization. A sickness that gives a moral validation to the speech and behavior of tyrants and despots, while muffling the voices of those who desire freedom.

Hello darkness, my old friend
I've come to talk with you again
Because a vision softly creeping
Left its seeds while I was sleeping
And the vision that was planted in my brain
Still remains
Within the sound of silence

In restless dreams I walked alone
Narrow streets of cobblestone
'Neath the halo of a street lamp
I turned my collar to the cold and damp
When my eyes were stabbed by the flash of a neon light
That split the night
And touched the sound of silence

Do not let the darkness become a friend so familiar--so numbing--that you lose your own voice.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 8:05 PM |

 
Weekly Insanity Update
Good Sunday Morning! It's time for the weekly round-up of the insane, the ridiculous, the bizarre, and the utterly mad! Don't forget to send your entries in those categories to Dr. Sanity! Thanks to those who sent in this week. As always, there are many more insanities that went on this week than I could possibly count. But here are a few to ponder:

1. Everybody raise your hand if you've ever thought of killing him, too. Now, be honest.

2. Love letters. Who knew kids could be so cruel? Or teachers for that matter.

3. Don't you wish he'd just stop apologizing already?

4. Men, do not--I repeat, DO NOT--read this article. Freud had something to say about this, but since there are no "innate differences" between men and women (see #3 above), I'm not sure what to make of it.

5. Never in the history of the world has there been such a devilishly evil supergenius! Why, he's behind everything! (even the King of the Blogs tournament!)

6. CON Artist extraordinaire. IMHO, he deserves a "kickout" not a "buyout".

7. Boy, you just can't trust anyone with anything these days. (I don't think you'll like this one either, guys).

8. I'm sure some people think this is "cool", but I think it's rather creepy myself.

9. Rall Nonsense. Or is that redundant?

10. Will wonders never cease!

11. Still whining after all these years.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 12:59 PM |

 
Results Are In!
Well it was a lot of fun! Readers got to participate in my secret fantasy of wanting to be royalty--a fantasy I've supressed ever since my Dad called me his little princess....)) But, the results are in, and American Warmonger is the new King of the Blogs!

Boy, did I get dinged for the design of my site! That seems to be the 'weakest link' in the competition on my part. I really was rather proud of the site--especially since, when I started blogging less than a year ago, I knew nothing about HTML, Templates, etc. etc. I am a bit technologically/computer impaired, and if you knew how long it took me to figure out how do do things and the number of books I had to read to be able to do a hyperlink; as well as how many times I've had to do things over again--and the number of times I screwed up my basic template--you'd understand! But hey! Blogger is free, and I'm getting what I paid for!

I want to thank all of those who voted for me and supported me with trackbacks. Especially Frank at Now You Know; Barry at The Royal Flush, Dymphna at the Gates of Vienna, ljmcinnis at R Cubed and neo at Neo-neocon. Your blogs are great! If only I had received just one more vote (Jeremy got the votes 88-87, but I won the trackbacks 7-5 ), then I would have been QUEEN!

[paranoid rant]I will lay the blame squarely on the shoulders of KARL ROVE, a subtle, Machievellian, and ruthless architect of evil; whose behind-the-scenes manipulations caused me to lose. I feel strongly that it is definitely all his fault![/paranoid rant]

Congratulations to King Jeremy of American Warmonger, who won fair and square. He'll make a great King!
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 12:34 PM |

 
The "Rational" Discourse of the Left
Here at Dr. Sanity's blog (at least in the comments section to this post) we can see political macrocosm in miniature: the psychological tactics of the Left --the projection, the paranoia, the denial, the intense emotion; but unfortunately, very few facts or logical argument--played out as it is in the larger world.

In a post where I quoted New Sisyphus who gave some history about legal decisions related to civil rights during wartime I said:

It seems to me that a free society like ours must make some compromises with the kinds of civil liberties that are discussed above. Not to do so would be to willingly commit suicide and allow those who would destroy our liberties free reign to cynically use our own laws to forward their murderous goals.

Having said that, there must always be some tension, anxiety, and free discussion whenever such powers are invoked; and it is always useful to review them to ensure that there is a balance. The key test of a free society's dedication to liberty is that such powers are easily relinquished, once the threat has passed.

Perhaps the most important function of a democratic government is to protect and defend the homeland so that we can enjoy the blessings of our freedom. Trying to balance that crucial role with maintaining those freedoms is, as New Sisyphus says, figuring out how you "wage a war for our country without losing the liberty that makes our country worth fighting for?"

For saying that it is always useful to review and discuss issues of civil liberties in wartime, one of my commenters has this to say:

Shame on you for turning your education to the service of the willfully blind and power-mad monsters ruining our country.

When Bush is given the power to lock up or kill anyone -- that word anyone includes you. Or are you above the rest of us human beings?

Another one wrote in response to a third commenter who supported my view:

Consider how low you and the freaky doctor have fallen to be supporting torture and oil wars and claiming anyone who doesn't is .. what? Unamurican?

Jesus would slap the shit out of you.

This was said after he used an ad hominem attack on the third commenter, likening him a "whore" and making other vicious attacks on his personal integrity.

I must say that I could not possibly make up better evidence documenting the hysteria (noun: meaning "exaggerated emotional response") of the Left. I could not possibly have asked for better examples of projection, denial, or distortion.

I suggest that there be a rational discussion about the issue of civil liberties during war--what are the legal precedents; what are the differences between being an American citizen and not? What is the definition of "enemy combatant" and how is that different from a POW? These are all important legal questions and have everything to do with how the U.S. government will manage places like Guantanamo--and there are legal precedents that need to be looked at. John Ashcroft acted within the U.S. Law. I'm not saying I completely agree with his actions after 9/11, but he did nothing illegal; nor did he do anything that previous AG's and US government officials have not done during war. Read the link at New Sisyphus, if you would like to understand this point.

Anyway, I suggest a discussion based on differing viewpoints and possibly differing outlooks with the goal of finding some compromise that will not be "national suicide". For that suggestion, I am hit with comparisons of Nazi Germany (always a favorite of the Left to compare anything they don't like to the Nazis); accused of supporting a "war for oil"; and supporting torture.

This appears to be the Left's idea of a rational discussion. Frankly, it is cluelessness like this that permits them to support the academic freedom of Ward Churchill while denouncing Larry Summers; support peace by beating up those who support the military; scream for 'free speech', while trying to drown out any viewpoints they don't agree with; give Clinton's sexual excapades a free pass, while they focus on a nobody's private sex life as the scandal of the century; approve of Clinton's draft dodging, while denouncing Bush's TANG service; support intervention in Kosovo--where the US has NO national interests; yet fanatically oppose a war in which our national interest is paramount; state they are for 'freedom and democracy', yet desperately hope that Iraq's nacent free and democratic society fails so they can blame Bush. Shall I go on?

Oh, and here's an intelligent comment:

When you cheer for ignoring and violating our Bill of Rights, you are destroying it for your own kids and grandkids, you know. You are destroying the very idea behind America.

Our Declaration of Independence claimed all human beings have inalienable rights, and our Bill of Rights codified our citizens' rights, which are also considered inalienable.

Bush and Crew became constitutional traitors, and fifth columnists, when they broke with our Constitution, and ignored our Bill of Rights, after 9/11.

This statement is the same type of distortion that plagues the Left. Anyone who disagrees with them are obviously "traitors" (a psychological projection--it is their own thoughts that likely dwell on betrayal). They claim that they are trying to protect freedom and reference the Declaration of Independence and Constitution when it suits their purposes. But constitutional law and the discussion of this issue go back even to those early times in our history. They who are always "nuanced" in their appreciation of Islamic fundamentalism are constitutional absolutists all of a sudden. The Declaration and the Constitution are not national suicide pacts that insist we protect the rights of people who are actively trying murder us and destroy our way of life.

There is clearly some room for a discussion of how to deal with terrorists without resorting to their tactics and without commiting national suicide. But why not argue the fundamentals with Mssrs. Zarqawi, Zawahiri and Bin Laden, instead of me? It is they who seem to be unclear on the concept.

Let me thank all those who attempted to discuss this rationally in the thread. I appreciate your ideas and arguments.

I'm sure that all politically correct right-thinking Leftists will be outraged at the above arguments. They probably won't like that I have analyzed the psychological mechanisms they are using to avoid the reality of our war with Islamofascism. But, I could care less about their feelings. If they have something rational to contribute to the discussion and can do so without resorting to ad hominem attacks, I welcome the discussion. Until then, they can keep their whining to themselves.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 1:34 AM |

 
VDH - Merchants of Despair
Yesterday's Victor Davis Hanson column is a great one: "The Merchants of Despair"

Some on the hard left sought to cite our support for Israel or general "American imperialism" in the Middle East as culpable for bin Laden's wrath on September 11. Past American efforts to save Muslims in Kosovo, Bosnia, Somalia, Kuwait, and Afghanistan counted for little. Even less thanks were earned by billions of dollars given to Egypt, Jordan, and the Palestinian Authority. The Islamofascist vision of a Dark Age world run by unelected imams — where women were in seclusion, homosexuals were killed, Jews were terrorized, Christians were routed, and freedom was squelched — registered little, even though such visions were by definition at war with all that Western liberalism stands for.

This flawed idea that autocrats supposedly hate democracy more for what it does rather than for what it represents is not new. On the eve of World War II isolationists on the right insisted that America had treated Germany unfairly after World War I and wrongly sided with British imperialism in its efforts to rub in their past defeat. "International Jewry" was blamed for poisoning the good will between the two otherwise friendly countries by demanding punitive measures from a victimized Germany. Likewise, poor Japan was supposedly unfairly cut off from American ore and petroleum, and hemmed in by provocative Anglo Americans.

By the late 1940s things had changed, and now it was the turn of the old Left, which blamed "fascists" for ruining the hallowed American-Soviet wartime alliance by "isolating" and "surrounding" the Russians with hostile bases and allies. The same was supposedly true of China: We were lectured ad nauseam by idealists and "China hands" that Mao "really" wanted to cultivate American friendship, but was spurned by our right-wing ideologues — as if there were nothing of the absolutism and innate thuggery in him that would soon account for 50 million or more murdered and starved.

Ditto the animosity from dictators like Ho Chi Minh and Fidel Castro. The Left assured us instead that both were actually neo-Jeffersonians whose olive branches were crushed by Cold Warriors, and who then — but only then — went on to plan their own gulags in Vietnam and Cuba.

The always articulate VDH is just getting started as he blasts the critics of the Iraq war. Read the entire piece.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 8:59 PM |

 
All For Fun and Fun For All !
OK folks, it has come down to the wire! Get over to King of the Blogs and vote for me ONE LAST TIME! And if you can trackback on your own blog, give them one supporting me. Overnight, Jeremy pulled ahead, so I need your help.

If I win, you will all be rewarded with riches far beyond your wildest dreams!

If I lose, I will be petulant and say I didn't really want it to begin with (a strategy that my cat uses very effectively). Or, I might just blame OBL. We'll see.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 10:54 AM |

 
Protect and Defend
New Sisyphus has an excellent discussion on balancing civil liberties with security needs and trying to fight a war. This was one of the more interesting parts:

Listen to a modern debate about the USA Patriot Act or of the detainees at Guantanamo Bay and you’re more than likely to hear two sides talking right past each other.

The reason for this is that opponents of the President’s actions (let’s call them “civil libertarians” for short in this context) cannot conceive that the state has the authority to hold suspects for war-related activity outside of the normal criminal justice system. As the Bush Administration has successfully argued, again and again, enemy combatants, even if citizens of the United States, are simply not subject to the criminal law any more than German troops in Normandy were on D-Day.

This is why all the civil libertarian talk about jury trials, judicial review, the right to counsel and to bail and all the other normal accoutrements of modern criminal procedure is all beside the point. All those norms, as important as they are in their context, simply do not apply.

To understand why, you have to understand the story of seven devoted Nazi agents who came ashore in the dead of night in Long Island, NY, and near Jacksonville, Florida, in 1942. Their mission: to sabotage America’s war industries and transport infrastructure using any means necessary. In addition to being a devoted National Socialist, ready and willing to die for the cause, one of them, named Haupt, was also a citizen of the United States.

Ex parte Quirin, 317 U.S. 1, 63 S.Ct. 51, 87 L.Ed. 7 (1942)

The FBI quickly rounded up the Nazi agents and President Roosevelt ordered them held and tried by a special military commission. Roosevelt ordered that the jurisdiction of the new special military tribunals extended to:

"…all persons who are subjects, citizens or residents of any nation at war with the United States or who give obedience to or act under the direction of any such nation, and who during time of war enter or attempt to enter the United States ... through coastal or boundary defenses, and are charged with committing or attempting or preparing to commit sabotage, espionage, hostile or warlike acts, or violations of the law of war, shall be subject to the law of war and to the jurisdiction of military tribunals."

The agents filed a petition of habeas corpus to challenge their military detention under the military commission. The petitioners’ arguments will sound familiar to anyone who has followed the Guantanamo debate...

It seems to me that a free society like ours must make some compromises with the kinds of civil liberties that are discussed above. Not to do so would be to willingly commit suicide and allow those who would destroy our liberties free reign to cynically use our own laws to forward their murderous goals.

Having said that, there must always be some tension, anxiety, and free discussion whenever such powers are invoked; and it is always useful to review them to ensure that there is a balance. The key test of a free society's dedication to liberty is that such powers are easily relinquished, once the threat has passed.

Perhaps the most important function of a democratic government is to protect and defend the homeland so that we can enjoy the blessings of our freedom. Trying to balance that crucial role with maintaining those freedoms is, as New Sisyphus says, figuring out how you "wage a war for our country without losing the liberty that makes our country worth fighting for?"
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 10:35 AM |

 
Paranoia Strikes Deep
Paranoia strikes deep
Into your life it will creep
It starts when you're always afraid
Step outta line, the men come, and take you away
-Buffalo Springfield

I know. I know. I keep writing about Paranoia and Projection (see here , here and here). But the world of Politics attracts Paranoia like flypaper attracts flies. And it is deeply disturbing to observe.

The recent multiple sitings of paranoia exhibited by the Left would be amusing, if it weren't so alarming. Between the Gannon affair (which Glenn Reynolds wraps up here rather nicely) and Mo Hinchey's ravings; between the deeply disturbed fantasies at the Democratic Underground (I won't link to them); between the gay-baiting; the paternalistic and condescending attitude towards successful Blacks and Hisanics; the Left has plummeted into a hell of their own making.

There is a reason that human beings experience suspicion, distrust and hypervigilance. That reason is because there is REAL danger in the world. Our ancestors in the caves knew this to be true. They lived with continual danger just to survive every minute of every day. Those who did not have the psychological capacity to perceive the danger in the environment surely died out long ago.

But this important psychological trait which senses danger and strives to protect the ego; and which is accentuated in children and early in life, is appropriately balanced out by the development of the rational faculty--the intellect.

The tools of the Paranoid are denial, distortion, and projection. These psychological tools are almost always pathological when used to cope with the real world. For the user these three primitive psychological defenses permit a rearrangement of external reality (so that actual reality may be avoided); for the beholder, the users of these mechanisms frequently appear crazy or insane. These are known as the "psychotic" defenses, common in overt psychosis, in dreams, and throughout childhood.

Denial is a refusal to accept external reality because it is too threatening. There are examples of denial being adaptive (for example, it might be adaptive for a person who has a terminal illness to use some degree of denial). But for the most part, denial is only useful as a short-term strategy, to permit a person to come to terms with reality. As a long-term strategy to protect self-identity, it is potentially lethal--since the person or group that uses it extensively is blinded to the real danger that might be out there.

Distortion is a gross reshaping of external reality to meet internal needs. Hinchey's bizarre accusations against the evil genius Rove are a perfect example. It is more acceptable to believe that some evil person has tricked you, than it is to believe that you behaved stupidly.

Delusional Projection occurs when an individual or group have delusions about external reality, usually of a persecutory nature.

It is easy to see how all these psychological manipulations work together to keep a person or a group insulated from reality. In truth, we witness such behavior all around us.

How does reason balance suspicion? You say to yourself: is this feeling paranoid? Do I have facts to back up my suspicions, or do I only feel that it is so? Are these facts? Or, are they distortions, because I really really want to believe this is true?

How do you tell a fact from a distortion? 9/11 was a FACT. It was planned and funded by Al-Qaeda and carried out by Islamic terrorists. These are FACTS. The widespread belief among Muslims that the Jews are behind 9/11 and that they did it so that the blame would fall on Muslims is a DISTORTION, which comes from DENIAL of the facts; and represents a PSYCHOLOGICAL PROJECTION. It is a PSYCHOLOGICAL PROJECTION because many Muslims want desperately to believe that Islam is a peaceful religion and prohibits such acts, despite what is said in the Qu'ran, and what is practiced in the real world.

Here is another example. The CBS documents that Dan Rather used in his 60 Minutes story were forged. Therefore they CANNOT BE REAL DOCUMENTS. The BELIEF that what the forged documents contained is true (e.g., the "fake but true" argument) is only a BELIEF, not a fact. The statement that Karl Rove is responsible for leaking the documents in order to embarass Dan Rather/CBS/the Democrats when it was discovered that they were forged--is a BELIEF, based on PROJECTION.

Many people were overjoyed to have something that suggested their beliefs about President Bush were accurate and are angry that their belief was debunked. They felt angry, embarassed and humiliated for believing a hoax. Rather than admit they were foolish/unprofessional/acting on their emotions, they prefer to believe that someone very powerful must have set them up. This new belief makes them feel better about themselves; and simultaneously does exactly what they hoped the forged memo would do--embarass the Bush Adminsitration. Then like a true, arrogant paranoid individual, they pat themselves on the back at their heroic, courageous, and "principled" stand that their BELIEF trumps any facts. Note that their BELIEF in the truth of this will not be responsive to any facts to the contrary.

Emotions are an important part of life, but if you base all your behavior on what you FEEL, then you are vulnerable to all sorts of psyshopathology. Paranoia is an extreme of what otherwise would be helpful and normal reactions to the perception of danger. Paranoia distorts reality in the service of protecting the self from having to deal with unacceptable thoughts or feelings. It is useful to protect the integrity of the sense of self--sometimes even at the expense of one's life.

Paranoia helps individuals and groups defend against their own hostility and their perceived insignificance. Often the emotions displayed by the paranoid are covering up the exact opposite emotion within. The Paranoid cannot afford to face facts or reality because to do so would do two things:

(1) display to the world the deep, irrational hatred which he is defending himself against by making himself the "victim" of someone else's deep, irrational hatred; and

(2) admit his own insignificance, because if he is NOT the center of a plot and the focus of his "enemies" then he must be shamefully unimportant - a nobody.

You would think that a Paranoid person would be reassured to discover that people or groups are NOT out to get him. That there is no conspiracy against the group. You would be wrong. This is the last thing that the Paranoid individual or group really want, because--if they are not being persecuted, or betrayed, or lied to, or oppressed--then the Paranoid must face the devastating reality of his own insignificance. This he cannot do and it is why the alternate reality was constructed in the first place.

The Paranoid solution to unacceptable thoughts or feelings is to say, "If I am having these bad thoughts or feeling or behaviors, then someone else must be to blame and is making me do it." The Paranoid person does not take responsibility for his own thoughts or feelings or behaviors.

The healthy individual's solution is to take responsibility for his or her thoughts,feelings, and behaviors. Even if it is painful to acknowledge. But by owning his or her feelings, the healthy individual is able to exert control over inappropriate behavior that might spring from those feelings.

Another way of saying this is that you cannot choose the feelings that you experience- emotions are not generally under conscious control; but you can choose how to act on those feelings, because behavior is under conscious control.

Paranoia strikes deep. It will creep into your heart when you are afraid of your own feelings and try to disown them by blaming the "Jews", the "Blacks", or "Gays" or even President Bush. History has been littered with millions of dead bodies resulting from the denial, distortion and projection of paranoid leaders like Hitler,Stalin, Hussein, and Bin Laden. But those people had followers who believed just as they did, and did most of their dirty work.

You have to stop, look and see what's going down in your own heart if you want to understand how such evil can exist.

UPDATE: Go here for a discussion of some of the comments on this post.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 11:08 PM |

 
The Council Has Spoken!
The winners at the Watcher of Weasels' Weekly Post Contest are up:

BEST COUNCIL POST:

1. Waiting Little Red Blog

2. Some Students Need Lessons In Respecting Our Troops The Education Wonks

Dr. Sanity snagged 3rd Place with How Do You Solve a Problem Like Lynne Stewart?) in a tie with Wallo World's Jumping Between Truth Frames .

BEST NON-COUNCIL POSTS:

1. Co-Opting Jihad Gates of Vienna

2. Shattering the Islamic Terrorist Stereotype QandO

Check out all the winners here. And, while you're at it, go over to King of the Blogs and vote for Dr. Sanity to be King (Queen) of the Blogs!! You can apparently vote for me once a day--so if you have voted before, go on back and vote again!

This is the last day of self-promotion, I promise!!!
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 7:28 PM |

 
Applying the "Gannon Standard"
Fair is Fair. Right Wing News takes the opportunity to show what happens when the "Gannon Standard" is applied to other White House Reporters:

In fact, the left is such a stickler over this issue -- in the case of Mr. Gannon at least -- that they're demanding to know why the White House didn't do a long, detailed examination of Jeff Gannon's sex life.

Who'd have thought this would be such a big issue to the left after they spent the Clinton years claiming that it was OK for the President to commit perjury as long as he was lying about sex? Interesting thought: I wonder how the left will react when Hillary's sex life is given "Jeff Gannon treatment" when she runs in 2008? Why am I guessing that they'll be upset?

In any case, that's beside the point -- especially since I have a hot, juicy scoop (well, it should be at least as big of a "scoop" as the lefties had with Gannon) . I've found another person who's getting into White House press conferences even though she's not a reporter!

Her name? It's Helen Thomas.

Read all about the "fair" and "objective" and "neutral" questions that a real professional "objective" and "fair" reporter asks during the White House briefings. Oh yes, I forgot "neutral".
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 4:02 PM |

 
All For Fun and Fun For All ! (BUMP 5)
[It is Day 5 in the KOTB contest, and I am the woman who would be king! My opponent has had to resort to having his mother plead his case. Let me say that I will never, if elected King, permit the "Mommy Test" to interfere with the kingdom's national security interests! My opponent calls himself a "warmonger"--just another psychological projection. HAH There is still time to vote if you haven't. Thank you for your support during this campaign. It's been great fun!]

I have been identified as a Pretender for the Crown! Dr. Sanity is up for "King of the Blogs"! Clearly they have a gender identification issue, but nonetheless.... (the person who runs the site is named Queen, so maybe that counts!).

At any rate, it is all meant to be fun, but that doesn't mean I won't use every ruthless and cutthroat maneuver at my disposal to win the crown. So, all of you out there who read my blog can go over and VOTE for me, AND if you have a blog, give a trackback ping to the King of Blogs post announcing this week's pretenders.

And may the best woman win! (that narrows down the field!)
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 11:22 AM |

 
Bring On The Executioners
How's this for achieving Politically Correct Feminist Nirvana? Swedish government bans any opinion that male and female brains are different. (hat tip: The Corner)

The government considers female and male as social constructions, that means gender patterns are created by upbringing, culture, economical conditions, power structures and political ideology.

Apart from taking a position on this scientific question, the government has deiced to side with the most extreme researchers: gene theoreticians who for ideological reasons state that biology can not have any saying in explaining why male and female behaviour differs.

This reminds me about the Soviet biologist Trofim Lysenko. Lysenko was by Stalin proclaimed a scientific genius and his "creative darwinism" was hailed as a huge step forward for genetic research. Lysenko argued that learned traits could be inherited and that by manipulating the environment one could easily cause fundamental changes in plants and animals. Career hungry politicians loved him. Ideology meant everything, experiment and science nothing.

The real scientists, who protested, were cleaned out (and executed). (emphasis mine)

Let me just say this once and get it out of my system: Is the entire world going completely insane?

There. I feel better.

Unfortunately, my feeling better does not change the reality that neurobiological research is now being controlled by the government in a country usually considered "scientifically advanced" by the rest of the world. Well, they won't be for long. From this point on they should be considered just another third world, primitive tribe that forbids anything the witch doctor objects to. I am sure all the "victims" of scientific research --all those evil hypotheses and experiments of scientists who think maybe women and men just might be differnt--also feel much better. For now.

This is the politically correct world of the Left and its logical endpoint. Ideology is everything; truth, science, and reason are nothing. There is nothing to stand in their way now!

Bring on the executioners.

UPDATE: Check out here for some salient points about Political Religion.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 8:14 PM |

 
Messages from Earth
Message 1: Earth calling the Mainstream Media!

Read this article about Abu Ali, recently accused of plotting to assassinate the President of the US.

In 1999, Ahmed Omar Abu Ali was the valedictorian for the Islamic Saudi Academy (ISA), a K-12 school with campuses in Fairfax and Alexandria, Va., that is directly controlled by the Royal Saudi Embassy in Washington.
ISA is dedicated to teaching Wahhabism, the hate-cult that serves as the de facto Saudi state religion. The curriculum: defiance of the authority of "unbeliever" governments, including ours; repudiation of democracy; cultivation of hatred of non-Muslims as well as Muslims who do not follow the fundamentalist Wahhabi creed.
Last year, the Saudi Institute, a dissident human-rights monitoring agency in Washington (saudiinstitute.org), exposed the use at ISA of a textbook for 6-year-olds titled "Monotheism and Islamic Law," which instructs Muslim children, attending first-grade classes, in hatred of Christianity and Judaism.

The textbook is produced by the Saudi Ministry of Education. Ali Al-Ahmed, head of the Saudi Institute, points out that instructors at the school are Saudi government employees.

The first article I read in the local newspaper concerning this story proclaimed in its headline: "Virgina High School Honor Student Arrested for Plotting to Kill President". It seems a looooong stretch to say "Virginia High School Honor Student" and compare that to what is described in the article above, doesn't it?

I am accustomed to the distortions of the MSM, yet when I read that headline, my first thought was surprisingly NOT of a high school that was run by the Saudis (I didn't even know they had such schools in the U.S., and the article did not explain this either); and it was NOT that the high school was even the teensiest bit religious. In fact, I thought (silly me ) exactly what the writer wanted me to think: that a typical American kid, graduating from a typical American high school, in a typical American state, who was very very smart, was arrested for wanting to kill President Bush.

Do you see why I try not to read the regular newspapers anymore?

Message 2: Earth to Democrats!

Meanwhile, back at Mars Central, we have Charles Rangel saying this:

Top House Democrat Charlie Rangel said Tuesday that it was an act of discrimination to label groups like Hezbollah "Islamic terrorists."Asked about the refusal by some European governments to declare Hezbollah an Islamic terror group, Rangel told WWRL's Steve Malzberg and Karen Hunter, "To call it Islamic terror is discriminating, it's bigoted, it is not the right thing to say."

Rangel even questioned whether, in fact, a worldwide Islamic terrorist movement even existed, saying, "We just take for granted that there is an Islamic terror movement because we do have some fanatic people who come from Islamic countries."

Personally, I question whether Charlie Rangel exists.

What planet do these people come from?
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 2:12 PM |

 
The Truth Revealed!
In the spirit of Mo Hinchey (I have learned so much from this guy, I am humbled), I make the following claims:

Jeremy at The American Warmonger is the man who fired that other gun on the grassy knoll in Dallas on November 22, 1963. He is also the person behind the anthrax scare in 2001. A secret advisor to Vladimir Putin's desire to bring communism back to Russia; has had a White House Press Pass for some years (even though he is only a blogger!); and has secretly sent money to support Ward Churchill!! In fact, he was single-handedly responsible for Churchill getting tenure!

This clearly demonstrates how despicable the man is.

While I have not a shred of proof for any of these claims, I KNOW that Jeremy is behind these awful events and I believe that he should be investigated thoroughly and completely. Only then will the TRUTH be known. And until we prove all the above beyond a shadow of a doubt, the TRUTH will not be known! How do I know this? Well, clearly, this guy has a history going back many years. That says it all for those of you who are clear-thinking and intelligent, like me.

It was very, very, very brave of me to make these claims, don't you think?

It is completely irrelevant that I am competing against this MONSTER for King of the Blogs. But surely you will vote for me now that THE TRUTH HAS BEEN REVEALED! (I will be on CNN later today with more documentation, if the producers there get around to calling me).
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 12:16 PM |

 
DARFUR - NO EXCUSE

Read Nicholas Kristof's article.

During past genocides against Armenians, Jews and Cambodians, it was possible to claim that we didn't fully know what was going on. This time, President Bush, Congress and the European Parliament have already declared genocide to be under way. And we have photos.
This time, we have no excuse.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 12:18 AM |

 
Giving A Press Pass
Neo-neocon, a new blog that I really like (maybe because she's articulate and in the mental health field like myself!) has some interesting thoughts on a "phrase whose time has come" - i.e., "Press Pass" (and no, I don't mean the kind that Jeff Gannon and the White House Press people get). Here is her definition:

the strategic spiking of a story that, if properly investigated, would be likely to reflect poorly on someone the MSM considers a friend or a good guy.

Let's see. How many "press passes" can you identify? Neo-neocon mentions just two:

1. "The NY Times gave a press pass to Eason Jordan for his Davos remarks."

2. "The MSM gave a press pass to John Kerry on his failure to sign a form 180."

Here are a few of mine:

3. "The media gave a press pass to John Kerry on his 'Christmas in Cambodia' story."

4. "The UN Oil-for-Food Scandal has mostly received a press pass by the international media."

5. "All the good news in Iraq gets a press pass in the Mainstream media."

6. "Any news from Afghanistan gets a press pass in the Mainstream media."

I definitely think she's correct--this is a word whose time has come. Any other examples that you can think of, feel free to leave in the comments!
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 8:17 PM |

 
Domino Theory
The dominos begin to fall:

The leader of this Lebanese intifada [for independence from Syria] is Walid Jumblatt, the patriarch of the Druze Muslim community and, until recently, a man who accommodated Syria's occupation. But something snapped for Jumblatt last year, when the Syrians overruled the Lebanese constitution and forced the reelection of their front man in Lebanon, President Emile Lahoud. The old slogans about Arab nationalism turned to ashes in Jumblatt's mouth, and he and Hariri openly began to defy Damascus...

"It's strange for me to say it, but this process of change has started because of the American invasion of Iraq," explains Jumblatt. "I was cynical about Iraq. But when I saw the Iraqi people voting three weeks ago, 8 million of them, it was the start of a new Arab world." Jumblatt says this spark of democratic revolt is spreading. "The Syrian people, the Egyptian people, all say that something is changing. The Berlin Wall has fallen. We can see it." (emphasis mine)

The new Berlin Wall! This is definitely getting exciting!
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 4:37 PM |

 
The Ex-Girlfriend
Mark Steyn makes an amazingly accurate assessment of the U.S. relationship with Europe:

But, in the broader sense vis-à-vis Europe, the administration is changing the tone precisely because it understands there can be no substance. And, if there's no substance that can be changed, what's to quarrel about? International relations are like ex-girlfriends: if you're still deluding yourself you can get her back, every encounter will perforce be fraught and turbulent; once you realise that's never gonna happen, you can meet for a quick decaf latte every six – make that 10 – months and do the whole hey-isn't-it-terrific-the-way-we're-able-to-be-such-great-friends routine because you couldn't care less. You can even make a few pleasant noises about her new romance (the so-called European Constitution) secure in the knowledge he's a total loser.

World leaders are always most expansive when there's least at stake: the Queen's Christmas message to the Commonwealth is the ne plus ultra of this basic rule. In Her Majesty's beloved Commonwealth family, talking about enduring ties became a substitute for having them.

That's the salient feature of transatlantic dialogue since 9/11: it's become Commonwealth-esque - all airy assertions about common values, ties of history, all meaningless. Even Donald Rumsfeld is doing it.

This is sad, but true. Although NATO will hang around for a while, Europe is old history now for us. Our external problems with Islamic fundamentalism are its internal problems (as Steyn indicates in the article). They just haven't figured that out yet.

Soon European states will be immersed in an internal battle that even if the U.S. wanted to, it would not be able to help them with--except insofar as our larger strategy to transform the Middle East into an enclave of democracy may ultimately be helpful.

Like the girl who dumped the guy because she felt she had a better deal with someone else; Europe may have to come to terms with its own opportunistic and fairly self-destructive psychology -- a psychology that has brought about a casual acceptance of the welfare state and the unrelenting pursuit of socialist economic and political solutions, despite their catastrophic local history-- before it can have a meaningful relationship with anyone, especially the U.S.

Meanwhile, we can remain "good friends". Let's do lunch.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 10:01 AM |

 
All For Fun, and Fun For All! (BUMP 3)
[BUMP 3: Thanks to all who have gone over to vote for me and for the Trackbacks! It's not too late--GO VOTE!]

I have been identified as a Pretender for the Crown! Dr. Sanity is up for "King of the Blogs"! Clearly they have a gender identification issue, but nonetheless.... (the person who runs the site is named Queen, so maybe that counts!). At any rate, it is all meant to be fun, but that doesn't mean I won't use every ruthless and cutthroat maneuver at my disposal to win the crown.

So, all of you out there who read my blog can go over and VOTE for me, AND if you have a blog, give a trackback ping to the King of Blogs post announcing this week's pretenders.

And may the best woman win! (that narrows down the field!)
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 9:48 AM |

 
King of Blogs Challenge: Mystery Bloggers !
As part of the "King of the Blogs" competition, I have to answer the following challenge question:
"Assemble a group of bloggers to be a Superhero team. Explain their powers, and who they will be fighting, and why."

Have you ever seen the movie Mystery Men ? (It's very funny, even if Janeane Garafolo is in it!) Well, along those lines, my Superhero Team shall be called "The Mystery Bloggers"!

The Therapist
Fighting for Truth, Justice, and Psychological Insight is the Therapist - Dr. Sanity , who with her ascerbic wit and trenchant psychological interpretations of their behavior, always leaves her enemies struck dumb with self-awareness and humility(and as a side-effect, the men's auxilliary appendages become withered and impotent). Psychological insight is a powerful weapon and it must be used with the utmost reason and logic against those who would try to destroy the good--whether consciously or unconsciously!

The Voice
Fighting for the rights of those who cannot speak for themselves is Songstress7 from News from the Great Beyond! Her voice is her secret weapon, and with it she can break the crystal silence that threatens to engulf the helpless. With her to speak for them, the sick and downtrodden need have no fear from the forces of death and indignity. (She has even been known to watch episodes of ER so that her vocal weapon can be honed to scalpel sharpness).

Ogre
By typing a secret Randian text into a special computer, this mild-mannered guy is instantly transformed into the Hulk of the Blogsphere (with Ragnar Danneskjold overtones!). The Ogre over at Ogre's Politics and Views is as much known for his reasoning abilities as he is for his brute strength and fierecness.He fights looters on his own violent terms! His battle is against the ignorant armies of the night; and he uses his ogre-sense, sharpened by computer know-how, to bring the enemies of civilization into submission!

Underdog
Pietro at The Smarter Cop is Underdog, the defender of the downtrodden, perrenial losers of the world. He singlehandedly was responsible for an amazing victory over a diabolical and ancient evil, slowly devouring the world, that found its home in New York. Underdog's secret weapon is his magic bat, a talisman discovered in the ruins of a house Babe Ruth once lived in. With his magic bat, Underdog is able to champion the American Way and bring hope to even the most hopeless of the wretched!

The Mystery Bloggers will be holding tryouts for their Superhero Team next Saturday. Email The Therapist for an appointment!
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 12:24 AM |

 
Smart Women, Dumb Behavior
Now the Yale feminists are getting into the act.

In an attempt to pull Yale President Richard Levin into the national debate about women in science, more than 100 female scientists at the University have signed a petition asking Levin to respond publicly to Harvard President Lawrence Summers' recent controversial statements.

The petition, organized by the Graduate Employees and Students Organization, calls for Levin to reject Summers' statement that the small number of female scientists compared to male scientists in academia may be a result of natural differences in aptitude, organizer Rachael Jackman GRD '07 said.

How can so many smart women behave so stupidly? Here is a transcript of Summer's statements. If they can determine from this transcript that Summers said anything of an unscientific or unreasonable nature, I'll be a monkey's uncle (or aunt).

The man was asked to challenge and provoke the thinking of his audience and his remarks were intellectually challenging and well within the bounds of scientific discourse. But I guess that's the point really, isn't it? Having your dogma challenged by scientific hypotheses that might prove it wrong if tested--is very threatening and scary. Better not to allow anyone to even conceive of a hypothetical that could lead in that direction.

Here's a good defense of everything Summers said; and more here if you are so inclined.

Grow up, girls, and stop playing the victim. You a merely offering behavioral case studies for your real detractors to exploit.

The cult of female victimhood (otherwise known as thet today's feminist movement) truly embarasses me.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 7:59 PM |

 
Outsurgents and Other Random Thoughts
As usual, Thomas Sowell has a great "Random Thoughts" column up today:

How can you be an "insurgent" in someone else's country? Yet despite the fact that the wave of terrorism in Iraq is led by an outside terrorist who is murdering Iraqis, our media still calls his terror campaign an "insurgency."

Maybe we should call them "outsurgents", or possibly just "terrorists"? Read all of Sowell's random thoughts--you'll be glad you did!
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 4:38 PM |

 
End of Story
In some circles it is common to blame suicide on forces external to the person who killed themselves. Often the suicidal person will leave a note blaming such and such a person in their life for the fact that they are now choosing to commit suicide. It is, of course, the ultimate revenge. Revenge from beyond death on those who incurred their wrath in life.

So it is with Hunter Thompson, the late gonzo journalist who committed suicide. As a friend of mine comments, "this alcohol-swilling, druggie kills himself, and the papers blame it on Bush."

Indeed.

There is only one person to blame for the loser known as Hunter Thompson--who was in my opinion a second-rater at best; and that person was Hunter Thompson. And that should be the end of the story.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 2:04 PM |

 
Free Arash and Mojtaba
Today is Global Blogger Action Day, and all bloggers are being called on to give visibility to the plight of Iranian bloggers Arash Sigarchi and Mojtaba Saminejad, both in prison in Iran because of their blogging.

Blogs are free sites through which people publish thoughts and opinions. Iranian authorities have been clamping down on prominent sites for some time, since they threaten the total control of the repressive regime of the mullahs.

The former Soviet Union found it necessary to squelch the use of computers and the budding internet for the same reason. You cannot have a closed society if people have free access to ideas, thoughts and opinions.

FREE ARASH AND MOJTABA NOW

And here are three Iranian blogs to keep you updated on what is going on inside with those who want a democratic society:

Student Coordinating Committee for Democracy in Iran

Democracy for Iran

Regime Change Iran


Spread the word.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 11:14 AM |

 
More Paranoia on the Left
Wow! It's an epidemic! Now we have Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez saying that Bush is out to kill him!(hat tip: Captain's Quarters)

Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez has said he believes the US government is planning to assassinate him.

"If they kill me, the name of the person responsible is [President] George Bush," Mr Chavez said.

Mr Chavez - who offered no evidence to back his claim - said any attempt on his life would backfire and threatened to cut off oil supplies to America.

He was apparently reacting to growing criticism by top US officials of his left-wing government.

As I have said all along, when an individual or group continually uses the psychological defense mechanism of "Projection", it is not unusual for it to completely degenerate into full-blown psychotic paranoia. Chavez, along with Congressman Hinchey, are now just two more datapoints in the compelling evidence trail that proves the Left has completely lost their collective mind.

Sad.

UPDATE: More blatant paranoia here (scroll down to the comments, where he says
I don't think we'll ever have definitive proof about this claim, but there is an ally in Congress should anyone want to keep digging. The more we continue to track down the Gannon stuff, the more that all the other balls of yarn are going to unravel).
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 8:54 PM |

 
Spreading Liberty
Here is a pretty impressive speech by President Bush today in Brussels, in which he once agin lays out his vision of spreading democracy in the Middle East as a strategy for long-term peace and security. He talks about Israel and the Palestinians; Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Lebanon, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Russia and Ukraine and emphasizes the common heritage of liberty that both the U.S. and Europe possess that will continue to make them allies to further freedom:

This strategy is not American strategy, or European strategy, or Western strategy. Spreading liberty for the sake of peace is the cause of all mankind. This approach not only reduces a danger to free peoples; it honors the dignity of all peoples, by placing human rights and human freedom at the center of our agenda. And our alliance has the ability, and the duty, to tip the balance of history in favor of freedom.

We know there are many obstacles, and we know the road is long. Albert Camus said that, "Freedom is a long-distance race." We're in that race for the duration -- and there is reason for optimism. Oppression is not the wave of the future; it is the desperate tactic of a few backward-looking men. Democratic nations grow in strength because they reward and respect the creative gifts of their people. And freedom is the direction of history, because freedom is the permanent hope of humanity.

If you read the entire speech, you will see that Bush is conciliatory to the Europeans, but is not backing down one inch on American policy in any area. Bravo!

UPDATE: An extended discussion of the speech is up at New Sisyphus: "Our Man in Brussels"
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 7:26 PM |

 
Games Within Games
An interesting game is being played out right now between Iran and the U.S. as documented here. After reading this, it is hard to take any newsreports from the mainstream media seriously, since it is clear that not much can be taken at face value.

There is real intelligence--in every sense of the word--taking place right now. I'm very glad that we seem to be doing something about Iran's nuclear ambitions. I wonder where this activity will lead?

I'll bet the mullahs are wondering, too.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 11:26 AM |

 
He Feels It Is True; Therefore It Is...
LGF has a full transcript (as well as an audiotape)of a rather bizarre rant by a US Congressman at a community meeting, accusing Karl Rove of planting the CBS memo forgeries:

Congressman Maurice Hinchey (D-NY): Well, you know, they are manipulating the media, they did it in the very beginning through intimidation. They would intimidate the people in the, uh, in the press conference. And ... they would ask -- they would allow questions to be asked only of people that they knew were going to ask the right kind of questions, from their point of view. And, you know, that has its effect, had, had its effect on people. People have been -- people in the media have been intimidated. The media has changed in the last four years. People have changed in the last four years. They've had a very very direct, aggressive attack on the, on the media, and the way it's handled. Probably the most flagrant example of that is the way they set up Dan Rather. Now, I mean, I have my own beliefs about how that happened: it originated with Karl Rove, in my belief, in the White House. They set that up with those false papers. Why did they do it? They knew that Bush was a draft dodger. They knew that he had run away from his responsibilties in the Air National Guard in Texas, gone out of the state intentionally for a long period of time. They knew that he had no defense for that period in his life. And so what they did was, expecting that that was going to come up, they accentuated it: they produced papers that made it look even worse. And they -- and they distributed those out to elements of the media. And it was only -- what, like was it CBS? Or whatever, whatever which one Rather works for. They -- the people there -- they finally bought into it, and they, and they aired it. And when they did, they had 'em. They didn't care who did it! All they had to do is to get some element of the media to advance that issue. Based upon the false papers that they produced.

Audience Member: Do you have any evidence for that?

Congressman Hinchey: Yes I do. Once they did that --

Audience: [Murmuring]

Congressman Hinchey: ...once they did that, then it undermined everything else about Bush's draft dodging. Once they were able to say, 'This is false! These papers are not accurate, they're, they're, they're false, they've been falsified.' That had the effect of taking the whole issue away.

Audience Member: So you have evidence that the papers came from the Bush administration?

Congressman Hinchey: No. I -- that's my belief.

Audience Member: OK.

There's more, and I should mention that the audience clapped and cheered this deep thinker on. (and by the way, did I mention that he is a US congressman?? Not someone hospitalized for their paranoid delusions?)

This is the Left's new version of Descartes' "I think, therefore I am". In their view, "I feel it, therefore it is", seems to sum up their entire philosophy of life, as well as the nuances of their "thinking". Evidence or facts are entirely unnecessary.

The congressman and others like him are therefore indistinguishable from the sickest paranoid delusional patients I have seen. And, paranoid patients generally don't accept they are sick or that there is something wrong with their thinking either.

UPDATE: Here's a great post from neo-neocon (who is also a therapist) that discusses the Liberal's dilemma of feeling, instead of thinking.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 11:14 PM |

 
Festering Bias
As a voracious reader of both fiction and non-fiction, I found this profoundly disturbing:

In exceptional cases, we find that a lone tale of egregious political correctness opens a window onto the pervasive, often carefully hidden, bias festering in today's academy. Last October, in an Op-Ed for the Wall Street Journal, I exposed what seemed but a single case of political correctness at Harvard University — the rejection by Harvard University Press of Linda Waite and Maggie Gallagher's superb new book, The Case for Marriage. Four months later, it now looks like dislodging one great obscuring rock at Harvard Press allowed the sun to shine in on all manner of squirming, scampering mischief-makers.

When Harvard University Press, under highly unusual circumstances, rejected The Case for Marriage, it claimed that the book wasn't up to scholarly snuff. But the real sin of Waite and Gallagher was to debunk feminist orthodoxy by showing that marriage is not just another lifestyle choice, but the best available family arrangement.

Let me make it very clear that I am not interested one way or another in the particular subject of Kurtz' piece. The so-called "plight" of gays in this society who want to get "married" leaves me unmoved. And that pretty much goes for the rabid anti-gay types, too. In my opinion, the former are just another group of professional victims, and the latter are just another group of legislative thugs.

But the idea of one group or another controlling a university press is appalling. Academia should be the bastion of intellectual inquiry on all sides of a question, whatever that question may be, and no matter how controversial to the Left or the Right. The issue should not be the political correctness of the topic, but the scientific rigor of the discussion. Not the political persuasion of the author, but the intellectual quality of his or her thought.

Kurtz presents a catalog of the thought control exerted by the Harvard University Press editors, who, along with a majority of the Harvard University faculty, have turned what was once a great institution into an intellectual den of second-rate hacks. These guys and gals wouldn't get the point of "free intellectual inquiry" even if it were a baseball bat whacking them on the side of the head. Too bad it isn't.

Read Kurtz' entire dismaying piece. Think about the hundreds (if not thousands) of Ward Churchills on campuses across the US; puzzle over the unbelievable anti-free speech attacks on Larry Summers; consider the current goings-on at Columbia; the campus attacks on military recruiters; the attitudes expressed by academics here; or visit the FIRE website--and you will begin to get an idea of the festering bias that is rotting the intellectual institutions of our country.
Remember, these are the institutions that are supposedly teaching our children to think.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 6:33 PM |

 
Weekly Insanity Update
Time for the weekly roundup of the insane, the ridiculous, the unbelievable and the downright obnoxious! It is hard to believe, but I don't make these tidbits up--I just collect them. Feel free to send in your favorites! And see if you can figure out which of the above categories each of the stories fit into. I collect, you decide!

1. The drug of choice for those still suffering from the results of Nov. 2!

2. The Curse of the Mommy?

3. No brain, no pain.

4. Death to the tyrant who would deny the peoples the beautiful shoes!

5. Iranian sex change ? What would Allah do?

6. Well, $25 million is an incentive after all....

7. Remember the Beach Boys Song? Maybe if they wish and think and hope and pray it might come true (and then they'd be happy).

8. Sheesh. More shoes! (see #4).

9. And he would stake OUR lives on it, too. I wonder why he's forgotten Beslan?

10. Sentence commuted. A victory of sorts for the anti-death penalty folks?

11. THIS is Free Speech. THIS clearly is not. Ummmmm. I see.

12. It was horrible, Officer! It just attacked and came at me like a wild animal!
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 10:37 AM |

 
Amazing Stuff
Life on Mars? Maybe not.(hat tip: technudge)

The Web was abuzz this past week when news reports began circulating that a pair of NASA scientists had found possible evidence of life on Mars.

According to a report on Space.com, the scientists told a group of NASA officials that they were preparing a paper on the subject for submission to the journal Nature.

The Space.com report states that what the scientists found "according to several attendees of the private meeting, is not direct proof of life on Mars, but methane signatures and other signs of possible biological activity remarkably similar to those recently discovered in caves here on Earth."

But NASA appears to have dashed some cold water on those reports. In a press release issued Friday, the agency states that the published reports are incorrect.

Boy, I would really, really like to see evidence of life on Mars or anywhere else in the galaxy. Can you imagine the impact that definitive proof of this would have on the way people think about life, the universe, and everything?

Remember when the first Apollo mission sent back images of the beautiful blue planet we lived on and stunned the imagination of the world? They say that the environmental movement and the way we think about our planet changed dramatically from that point on. Just imagine the impact of knowing we aren't the only life in the universe? Just imagine if that life were even evolved or sentient.

Amazing stuff.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 4:16 PM |

 
Gannonquiddick
Readers might be interested in this article which has the White House press corps' reactions to the Jeff Gannon/James Guckert controversy. (hat tip: Instapundit)

Many on the Left and even a number of commentors on this site have gleefully pointed to Gannon as some sort of example of the inherent evilness of the Bush administration and the failure of his policies. They wish.

For me it is yet another example of the idiocy and cluelessness of the Left and their complete inability to assess what is important and what is not. If it was a security "breach" to have Gannon there, then surely half the White House press corp should be under suspicion. What do we know about their personal lives, for example? And, by extension, what we do know of Ted Kennedy's personal life should automatically disqualify him from being anywhere near the President, right?

But then, the Left isn't really interested in the President's health, now are they?

UPDATE: Power Line is on the case, asking "Have they no shame?" Check out their comments on the situation.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 3:55 PM |

 
IWO JIMA
60 years ago today, the battle of Iwo Jima began.

...more than 110,000 Americans and 880 ships began their assault on a small volcanic island in the Pacific, in the climactic battle of the last year of World War II. For the next 36 days Iwo Jima would become the most populous 7 1/2 square miles on the planet, as U.S. Marines and Japanese soldiers fought a battle that would test American resolve even more than D-Day or the Battle of the Bulge had, and that still symbolizes a free society's willingness to make the sacrifice necessary to prevail over evil--a sacrifice as relevant today as it was 60 years ago.

The attack on Iwo Jima capped a two-year island-hopping campaign that was as controversial with politicians and the press as any Rumsfeld strategy. Each amphibious assault had been bloodier than the last: at Tarawa, where 3,000 ill-prepared Marines fell taking an island of just three square miles; at Saipan, where Army troops performed so poorly two of their generals had to be fired; and Peleliu, where it took 10 weeks of fighting in 115-degree heat to root out the last Japanese defenders, at the cost of 6,000 soldiers and Marines.

Iwo Jima would be the first island of the Japanese homeland to be attacked. The Japanese had put in miles of tunnels and bunkers, with 361 artillery pieces, 65 heavy mortars, 33 large naval guns, and 21,000 defenders determined to fight to the death. Their motto was, "kill 10 of the enemy before dying." American commanders expected 40% casualties on the first assault. "We have taken such losses before," remarked the Marine Corps Lt. Gen. Holland M. Smith, "and if we have to, we can do it again."

My father fought on Iwo Jima with the Marines and was wounded. I've heard stories about it since I was a small child. Pop is gone now, but the stories he told me remain. Read the entire article and you will see and understand the level of committment, courage, and sacrifice necessary for us to succeed against an even more determined and dug-in enemy today.

Thank you, Marines; thank you so much for preserving my freedom--then and now. Thank you, Pop.

UPDATE: Here's an Iwo Jima web site I have always liked (and with music!)
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 11:06 AM |

 
Scapegoats
"Don't Vilify Drug Companies" expresses my own opinion about how the big pharmaceutical companies are all too often the scapegoats of modern medicine.

Drug companies - "Big Pharmas" - are the villains of medicine and health care, at least according to much media, many politicians and lots of polls. The logic of that blame is perverse. I think it also shows a stunning and very American ingratitude.

Our scapegoating of drug companies says much more about us than them. Our childish and unrealistic view of drug makers rests on twin towers of American infantilism. We want something for nothing. And we want to be protected from all risks and compensated when bad things happen, when we become "victims."

The population of Western nations at the start of the 21st century is by far the healthiest population in human history. We take that for granted. We routinely expect what in truth are medical miracles. And we expect these miracles to come for free - and risk-free. Reality, of course, doesn't work that way. And so we affix blame: on insurance companies, on HMOs, on doctors, but mostly, these days, on drug companies.

We expect drug companies to be altruistic, not to be motivated by profits, unless, of course, we have pharmaceuticals in our union pension plan or 401(k). We expect them to invent in just a few years medicines that will be used for decades without side effects. We expect perfect regulation of these companies. And we expect that if anything ever goes wrong, we should be able to sue the pants off the drug companies and get compensated.

Read the entire piece, which is a timely essay as the media and government prepare to scapegoat the drug companies yet again.

Here is an example of the incredible arrogance and insufferable condescention of one FDA bureaucrat:"FDA Scientist: No Need for Pain Drugs"

I find myself (not so) secretly hoping that Dr. David Graham, associate director for science and medicine at the FDA's Office of Drug Safety suffers horribly from osteoarthritis at the least. What a goon.

As I have said in a previous post : publish the risks and let the people decide for themselves whether they "need" these drugs.

UPDATE: In a radical departure from emotion and hype, a FDA panel today has decided that the BENEFITS of these pain medications outweigh the RISKS, and will permit them to remain on the market. Expect an outcry from the Left about the collusion of government with business to kill people.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 8:51 PM |

 
The Council Has Spoken !
This week's BEST POSTS are up over at the Watcher's site. Here are the winners. Congratulations to them all!

BEST COUNCIL POSTS:

1. Kofi to World: Thank Us For Iraq! The Sundries Shack

2. The Complexity of W's Middle Eastern Policy Alpha Patriot

BEST NON-COUNCIL POSTS:

1. Red Like Ward = Black Like Me American Digest

2. The End of the Cold War: Testing the Left's Central Thesis New Sisyphus

Check out all the posts nominated here.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 5:27 PM |

 
The Paradigm Shifts
New Sisyphus, a member of the State Department Republican underground has a must-read post that begins with a cry from one of his friends:

"Don't you understand? They hate our guts and everything we stand for! They don't want us there and, believe me, we don't want to be there!"

He then goes on to compare the rise of National Socialism in Germany and the origins of WWII and the current situation with Islamofascism. But here is the crux of his argument:

Many liberal critics (and those of the paleo-right) sneer when speaking of Bush’s strategy, noting that democracy is only likely to produce even-more vehement anti-American regimes.

They miss the point entirely. We, too, understand the sickness. We, too, realize that it will be decades before it recedes. But in the meantime, freer and more democratic Islamic states will open up more domestic opportunity, even if they don’t produce governments that agree with us on many points.

Turkey is the new Middle East’s future. We are likely to be hated for some time to come. But we are hated in Spain and France as well. The hatred, by itself, the opposition to U.S. policies, by itself, is only of minimal import.

A nascent fascism has taken root in the Muslim world. There is no escaping the hate, the anger, the all-important grievances. But what we can escape is the full consequence of that hatred. By opening up a democratic space in the Middle East, we allow other, competing interests—like the interest of bettering one’s lives, of one’s children having a better life—to fight it out with the Grievance Party. By creating a context for the natural give-and-take of democratic politics we increase the likelihood that the hatred will be deflected and minimized until it recedes. (emphasis mine)

And this is the point. Changing the culture of Islam, and bringing democracy to an area flooded with authoritanism and paternalism will not make everything better instantly. But it is in our interest in the long-term to begin the process of change in that cauldron of anger, resentment and oppression known as the Middle East. Those who cannot or will not look at the big picture and like babies, cry and demand that everything be what they want it to be in a magical instant; those who whine that women don't have instant rights in Iraq (like one of my commenters); or that people still (gasp) disagree and kill each other there; or even that America is still not universally loved and admired-- are missing the enormity of the change that has begun.

We have initiated a major paradigm shift. As I emphasized in the quote above, we have given people back their self-interest and the means to pursue their own happiness. And that is completely different from making them happy.

They will have to do that on their own.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 11:16 AM |

 
9/11 and Paranoia
Popular Mechanics debunks some of the persistant 9/11 conspiracy theories and myths. And here is another site that lists articles that disprove many of the lunatic theories.

The term "paranoia" refers to both a specific diagnosis (Paranoia or Delusional Disorder) as well as to a personality style and trait, characterized by guardedness, hypersensitivity, isolation , and suspiciousness. The individual or group exhibiting paranoia also tends to use the psychological mechanism of "projection", were they exhibit a pattern of disowning uncomfortable feelings and attributing them to others.

People or groups with paranoid disorders often have a variety of conspiracy theories, and these theories are always culturally and era-dependent. When I was first starting out as a resident in psychiatry, Patty Hearst was kidnapped by the Symbionese Liberation Front (SLF) and most of the paranoid patients I saw had delusions related to that event. Noone has them anymore, however. Nor do they have complex delusions about George Washington or Thomas Jefferson (although, in those president's days I'm sure there were many who incorporated these powerful and famous individuals into their particular theories).

9/11 has also become a focal point historically for many conspiracy theories. Other recent conspiracy sitings involve President Bush (who is either an evil genius, or a complete idiot controlled by others--like Cheney, or Big Oil etc.); Haliburton; AIDS (a disease deliberately developed to wipe out Blacks and/or homosexuals--depending on the particular paranoid); Israel (an always popular favorite--you wouldn't believe all the power they have over the world!)and of course, the vast Right Wing Conspiracy to denude the environment, destroy the weak and powerless, and undermine the foundations of science and truth.

Of course, there are always the dependable "standbys" for conspiracy theorists: the US Government in general; the CIA; Aliens (extremely popular during the run of "The X-Files" on TV) and the infamous "Trilateral Commission"--or some other secret association that is out to control the world (e.g., the Jews and the Protocols of the Elders of Zion).

Believe me, I've heard them all.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 5:32 PM |

 
Institutionalized Misogyny
Recently Saudi Arabia held their first ever municipal elections--what some say was their first step toward democracy. Women were not allowed to participate. From MEMRI we have the reported justification for this position:

Some also claimed that women's participation in the elections goes against the principles of Shari'a. Sheikh Dr. 'Abdallah Faqih stated: "All the ulema have agreed that the imam must be a man, because the Prophet said 'A nation ruled by a woman will not succeed,' and this was related by Muhammad Ibn Isma'il Al-Bukhari [in his collections of reliable Hadiths]. [This ban] is because this post is a heavy burden that demands great capabilities – which the woman usually does not possess…

"No texts appear to contradict this Hadith in either the Koran or the Sunna. Furthermore, there are texts that support this ruling, such as the words [of Allah in the Koran], 'Men are superior to women' [34:4] and the words, 'Bring two witnesses from among your men, and if there are not two men, bring a man and two women' [82:2].

"A woman is prohibited from holding high office, because doing so requires mingling with men, and being alone with them. Also, she must bear a heavy burden, which is not suitable for the character of the woman. [However,] the woman can bear and direct small positions, such as directing a hospital or a school, since Omar ibn Al-Khattab appointed Al-Shifaa bint 'Abdallah Al-'Adawiyya superintendent of weights and measures in the Al-Madina marketplace, and this is mentioned by Al-Hafez ibn Hajar in the biography of Al-Shifaa. But this is on condition that there is no prohibited mingling or being alone [with men]." [8]

Misogyny is defined as an exaggerated pathological aversion towards women. The institutionalized misogyny of Islam is doctrinal and --as you can see from the example-- is strongly supported by a Islam's founding documents and articles of faith.

Try as they might, the women who defend Islam as a religion keep running into a brick wall of those documents: the Qur'an, the Hadith, and Sunna (which also form the basis of Shar'ia, or Islamic Law).

Islam is not historically alone in its misogyny. Here are several doctrinal passages from Judaism and Christianity that testify to their original anti-female attitudes (the source of these quotes is here).

Judaism:
On the one hand, the Hebrew Bible does not directly revile women, and has few such direct and blunt anti-feminine statements compared to its descendants and sister religions.[5] On the other hand, through its treatment of women as chattel, it legitimizes the subsequent development of blatant misogyny....

The road from here to the institutionalized, daily deprecation of women in the Jewish morning prayer is a short one: "Blessed art thou, O Lord our God, King of the universe, who hast not made me a woman"

Christianity:
The Church's anti-feminism has not been fed by ancient creation myths alone. The New Testament itself is a rich source for such an attitude, mostly coming from St. Paul:

"Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church" (I Cor 14: 34, 35).

"Let the women learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression" (I Tim. 2: 11-14; probably pseudo-Pauline).

"Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife..." (Ephesians 5: 22-23).

These often quoted verses (see also I Cor. 11: 2-16) have all served, generation after generation, as documents authorizing the putting down of women.

Ursala King in her 1987 article in Comparative Education: "World Religions, Women and Education" states very clearly that women "were always excluded from formal education once sacred knowledge became transmitted in an institutional manner".

Her point is an important one, because it also contains the cure for "institutionalized" misogyny, and this is how Western Civilization managed to extricate itself from their religiously misogynistic origins. The solution: Separation of Church and State.

The Separation of Church and State principle is a part of the United State's historical, legal and political heritage. It simultaneously preserves and protects our religious liberty; while preventing the doctinal aspects of any particular religions from impinging on the individual freedom of both women and men. By separating the Church and State, men and women are free to participate in religion or not, according to their pleasure. If a religion, freely practiced, promotes the subjugation of women, for example, women and men are free to leave it since there is no "state-sponsored" religion they MUST belong to.

This "flip-side" to religious freedom (the freedom to NOT be religious) was a critical concept that advanced the legal, political and economic emancipation of women.

When it comes to misogyny, the trouble with Islam is the attempt to make Islamic Law (better known as Shar'ia) not only the law of the religion, but also the law of the land. It does not allow the possibility of dissent and choice within the larger context of the society or culture.

This is why Canada's recent decision to permit Islamic Law to exist and be applied within their country is so profoundly retrogressive and misogynistic. It was clearly a serious blow for women who hope, by means of exposing their religion to the modern world, that the religion would be able to adapt and change to reality.

This inability to tolerate dissent and debate new ideas(think Martin Luther nailing his ideas to a church door)combined with a fanatic resistance to any change or questioning of their religious tracts, have caused Islam to remain mired in the hopeless primitivism of the middle ages; while Christianity, Judaism have evolved and remained relevant to living in the world of reality.

Allah has become a third-rate deity, presiding over a barbarous and primitive theology that may have worked for a military leader in the 7th century, but it is not a ideology that will bring happiness and prosperity to very many in the 21st.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 1:59 PM |

 
How Do You Solve A Problem Like Lynne Stewart?
Lynne Stewart reminds me of a song from The Sound of Music-"How do you solve a problem like Maria? A fliberty gibbet a will-o-the wisp...." Andrew McCarthy asks himself this question, too and he grapples with Lynne Stewart, the PERSON, versus Lynne Stewart, the Lefty Kook, recently convicted of aiding and abetting terrorism. He knew her, worked with her and had a very real sense of her decency. Yet, he was able to say:

There is something wrong with Lynne's brain. Obviously, she loves being a darling of the loony Left — a Left so loony it now makes common cause with theocratic, homo-phobic, misogynistic psycho-killers, since, after all, they too hate America. Nestled among this element, her humanity synapse disengages, such that she can spout about faraway terrorist kidnapping victims and other unknown civilians as legitimate targets with all the contemplative depth of a dinner companion asking you to pass the salt.

But she is not without humanity. What has happened to her here is very far from a tragedy — a tragedy is when someone unwittingly crosses the path of Abdel Rahman's ilk and is ruthlessly murdered for the great offense of being an American, or a Jew, or a Christian, or anything other than an Islamic militant. This is what Lynne Stewart promoted, and for that she must pay dearly.

So, what is it that is "wrong with Lynne's brain"? If we could figure it out, perhaps we could understand all those others on the Left who "make common cause with theocratic, homo-phobic, misogynistic psycho-killers". Is it just because they are anti-American, anti-Capitalists? Or is being anti-American, anti-Captitalists another symptom of the brain disorder?

I think it is the latter. Let me explain. In a previous post, I discussed how one goes about enabling terror. Now I propose to explain why someone would do that, and why. Some of this I touched on when I described a classic case of hysteria .

As in a case of hysteria, or a conversion disorder--where the symptoms are not intentionally produced, but are the result of unintentional--or unconscious-- motives, the Lynne Stewarts of the Left are not deliberately being obtuse. They aren't even deliberately evil. They truly don't see anything wrong with being a nice person and kindly grandmother, and simultaneously thinking that a terrorist attack in Indonesia where children might be killed is a wonderful thing. This kind of cognitive dissonance is the result of a psychological defense mechanism called "repression". Repression is necessary in the expression of a conversion disorder where some physical symptom (blindness, paralysis, pain) becomes the focal point; so that the individual is able to avoid the unacceptable thought or feeling. For that to occur, the unacceptable thought or feeling must be ruthlessly stashed away from awareness, or repressed.

But symbolic physical symptoms like blindness are not the only way that repression can be manifested. Another, and much more frequent psychological strategy to rid one's self of the unacceptable thought or feeling is to display a contradictory and often unbelievable (to an outside observer, anyway) dissassociation, or disconnect, between a person's thoughts and feelings on the one hand; and behavior on another.

This is why so often the Lynne Stewarts present an unsolvable puzzle to an outside observer. How can they argue for Peace and behave violently? How can they demand Free Speech but simultaneously suppress it in others? How can they be for Diversity and squelch any dissenting opinions? How can they claim to be for freedom and democracy, and make common cause with those who would destroy it? The catalog of paradoxes goes on and on.

The key is to focus on what the Lynne Stewarts DO, not on what they SAY. On BEHAVIOR, rather than SPEECH. They can yell slogans of LOVE, PEACE, and FREEDOM; but if their actions are HATE-FILLED, VIOLENT, and support OPPRESIVE REGIMES, they are using repression to hide the true feelings that underly their actual behavior.

Often, repression requires stronger and stronger psychological defenses be erected as time goes by and reality keeps up its steady knocking on their door. So, repression often leads to projection and denial. (see here for a discussion of all the psychological defense mechanisms).
When confronted with irrefutable proof of their own actions and consequences, such people must eventually resort to a complete denial of reality. Or, alternatively, they will project the blame for their behavior onto another person or group ("It is the fault of the Israelis" or the "Jews", or the "Blacks"--and more recently, of "Bush", "Haliburton" and so on ad nauseum) . Or, they may utilize both mechanisms.

The level of self-awareness or insight into themselves is abysmally low. All available psychological defenses are rallied to prevent the acceptance of the fact that they did something bad or wrong. It MUST be (in Lynne Stewart's case, for example) the government, the U.S., Capitalism or President Bush, that is to blame!

How do you solve a problem like Lynne Stewart? Therapy won't help. She is too far gone to spend any time accepting that her own behavior has led to her current situation. Her self-identity is not likely to be shaken by events in the real world. Those events can and will be twisted so that it only confirms her world view. Her sense of herself must be preserved at all costs. Even if it means the death of thousands.

Just send her to jail where she can't do any more harm. And stop feeling sorry for her. She's made her choice.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 11:45 AM |

 
Upping the Terrorist's Ante
Dymphna over at the Gates of Vienna has an extremely interesting post up about "The Muslim Boys" --a ruthless gang in Great Britain that embraces Islam:

The emnity of other criminals doesn't deter them. Nor does police action. One thing which does anger them-mortally so for their victims-are peers who fail to convert to their way of thinking, or who backslide. They are dealt with summarily and without mercy. Forced conversions are a new twist on an old terror; for the bruvs, it's all a part of loyal family feeling. David Cohen, a journalist from The Evening Standard, reports this conversation with "Winston," a Muslim Boy who agreed to be interviewed:

Here's how gang member Winston describes "conversion". "You got to be Muslim to be in our group," he tells me. "If you not down [cool] with Muslim, we visit your home, maybe strip you naked in front of your f***ing mother, we put a gun in your mouth. We give you three days [to change your mind], then, if you not down with it, we f***ing blow...

She makes an extremely provocative comparison of Catholicism in Haiti and its transformation when it came into contact with the Haitian's belief system:

Islam is learning a bitter lesson in underclass Britain. It is a lesson the Catholic Church learned in Haiti, when the African population subverted Christain saints to their own native religious needs. Try as they might, the Catholic missionaries never prevailed; voodoo and Catholic saints were intertwined in a complicated but completely Haitian worldview. It worked for the Haitians; it subverted the Church. Now, in Britain, the Poverty Driven Children are re-imagining Islam for their own needs.

Unfortunately for the terrorists in Islam, a new generation of jihadists just upped the ante.

Read the entire post. I especially like the Haiti analogy and the image of one belief system modifying another when the two come into contact. I wonder if that concept is something that we could consciously use to deal with the Jihadis...? It reminds me how the threat of the "Africanized Kiler Bees" (an extremely aggressive bee that began to take over in the southern U.S.) was somewhat neutralized by mating them with the more docile indigent bees. The resulting hybrid was not particularly dangerous.

"The Muslim Boys" story illustrates one resultant variant of the Jihad mindset when mixed with an even more virulent belief system; but wouldn't it also be possible to dilute that mindset in the same manner by "mixing" it with something else? Maybe aggressive democratization and individual freedom? Just asking....
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 12:57 AM |

 
Global Hot Air Day
Today, February 16, 2005 , the Kyoto Treaty officially goes into effect. JunkScience has put up a clock that measures the amount of money that the Kyoto Treaty is costing as it supposedly leads to decreasing global warming. (hat tip: Tim Blair):

JunkScience.com is announcing real-time counters that display the costs of the treaty and the changes in temperature allegedly due to its greenhouse gas emission caps.

Now you can check on the treaty’s “progress” everytime you visit JunkScience.com

You can go here to find out more about the reality (or lack thereof) of the global warming menace, but for fun, I recommend you consider reading Michael Crichton's new novel, STATE OF FEAR, which has an incredible amount of science documentation in it. It will open your eyes about some of the propaganda of the Environmental movement.

For my review and to order the book, you can go here. Or not.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 7:56 PM |

 
Report From the Academic Front
The American Enterprise Institute recently held a symposium on political bias on college campuses. A reader at The Corner sums it up ,but here is a sample of some of the arguments of the AAUP (American Association of University Professors) as reported by the reader:

1. It is no surprise that most faculty in social sciences are liberals, since those fields traditionally have been about questioning identity, writing "progressive" history, and other causes.

2. Among liberals, there is a tremendous range of opinion, and critics such as Klein are simplifying their ranks.

3. Outsiders haven't the "expertise" to police the faculty. Professors have undergone rigorous training that makes us trust their judgment more than that of journalists and the public.

4. Folks such as David Horowitz are mounting an intimidation campaign. (Bowen recalled his own experience having his class visited in the early 80s by rabble-rousers at Accuracy in Academia).

5. Conservatives prefer going into business, while liberals have a stronger social bent.

6. Most students come into college with too many conservative prejudices and they need to be shaken up.

7. He has never heard of a hiring committee that asked a candidate about political affiliation.

8. Finally, he said, "So the faculty is Democrat. So what?"

Yes, he actually argued these points. David French, of FIRE, took him to task for many of them. French said, " So what? Here's what: diversity orientation seminars that are manipulative and coercive; speech codes; star chambers; religious organizations asked to strip themselves of their religion; etc." He noted that if a discipline comes to define itself by an agenda (such as questioning the government), it's no longer a discipline.. Or rather, it's an agenda passing itself off as a discipline.

There has been a considerable amount written about the liberal bias of university campuses. The FIRE (Foundation for Individual Rights in Education) person on this symposium brings up some of the consequences of the lack of academic diversity on campus (as opposed to the politically correct type of "diversity"), but all you have to do is go to their site to see instance after instance of how free speech is CONSTANTLY stifled on campus. And the stifling is being done by the same people who are demanding freedom of speech for people like Ward Churchill.

Clearly this person speaking on campus was not allowed to speak freely. He had his papers torn up, was verbally threatened; and bottles were thrown at him. Police escorted HIM and not the protesters away from the campus. As Kos presents it, it was a clear victory of some sort--but hardly for free speech. And it perfectly exemplifies the" freedom of speech" granted to anyone deemed as politically incorrect by the campus Left (If you want more examples, go to the FIRE site).

For a video of the AEI conference and some transcripts of papers, you can go here.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 3:45 PM |

 
I'm With Roger
Roger Simon calls on bloggers on both sides of the political spectrum to get behind a national referendum in Iran:

I think the blogosphere should devote itself to this, make the call for a democratic referendum in Iran one of our top priorities. We have been accused of late (falsely, I believe) of being a destructive force, of tearing things down like a mob. Surely, the call for a referendum in Iran is not that. It is the promotion of democracy at its purest. Bloggers on all sides of our political spectrum should be able to get behind that. I'm in.

Read the entire post, which quotes Michael Ledeen. Down with the Mullahs! Down with Shar'ia!

I'm definitely in.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 11:13 AM |

 
Death By Chocolate Cake (without WMDs!)
Well, I've had a number of emails requesting the infamous recipe for my "Death-By-Chocolate Cake" (Click here for the original post), so I decided to share it. It's very simple to make and my family really likes it. I've been making it for several years now and probably originally got the recipe from some magazine, which one I've long forgotten (otherwise, I'd mention it). I prefer to eat it either unadorned, or with a high quality vanilla ice cream, but if you are a purist, you are free to use chocolate ice cream instead.

Death-By-Chocolate Cake
1/4 c. oil
2 eggs
1 1/3 c. water
1 chocolate cake mix (get your favorite--I like devil's food chocolate cake)
Mix the above ingredients by hand (do not use electric mixer). Pour into greased 9x11 inch pan. Sprinkle 12 ounces Semi-Sweet Chocolate Chips on top (I like Hershey's). Bake at 350 degrees for 30-35 minutes.

Cool about 5 minutes. Poke holes in cake (it should still be warm) and spread with 1 large jar of Smuckers Hot Fudge Topping.

Enjoy!
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 9:56 AM |

 
Book Recommendation - State of Fear



Yesterday's news photo above, showing protestors demonstrating outside the White House demanding that Bush sign the Kyoto Treaty, reminded me that I wanted to tell you about a good book I just finished reading.

The book is Michael Crichton's State of Fear, and it is a provocative and informative thriller--among the best of Crichton's novels (and he's had some good ones!) Crichton has always impressed me for his thoughtful, scientific outlook (read this speech Crichton gave at Cal Tech in 2003, for example).

The author has taken a controversial subject (global warming and the environment) and infused a fast-paced, absorbing, and thrilling plot with real facts and details from environmental science.

The entire environmental movement has become, IMHO, more of a propaganda machine than a real discussion of the scientific data and their implications for our planet. Environmentalism is now a big organization bringing in huge donations and famous spokespeople to plug its themes. And they have surrepticiously infiltrated many aspects of our lives. For example, one of my own pet peeves is how this same environmental movement thrusts "pop" environmentalism down the throats of kids in K-12 schools, thus ensuring an army of environmental drones for the years to come.

We think we know a lot about what is wrong with our environment, but Crichton shows us that we may be very mistaken in the many unsubstantiated beliefs that people accept uncritically. In fact, part of the interest of the book is that many of those beliefs are myths.

For that fact alone, I'm certain that many people will absolutely HATE this wonderful story. But the facts and reasoning that are used in the plot; as well as the copious use of footnotes from scientific papers, only enhanced my enjoyment of the story.

I guiltily admit I thoroughly enjoyed the part where one of the self-righteous hollywood pro-environment types was literally eaten-- in a rather guesome passage-- by cannibals in the jungle primeval. Poetic justice of the highest degree. You will also discover why signing the Kyoto Treaty is really a prime example of the idiocy of the entire movement(especially in the form espoused by the protesters in the above picture). I highly recommend the book for your reading pleasure!

- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 10:21 PM |

 
Piece of Cake
Robert Spencer at Jihad Watch is excited. It seems that a certain Dr. Badawi, an economics professor and Muslim scholar, has offered $1 Million to anyone who could find Qur'anic references condoning a religious war, or jihad. Well, it was a piece of cake for Spencer. Here are just a few (and he's willing to provide more if Badawi is not satisfied:

And this, which identifies the enemies of the Muslims as disbelievers and friends of Satan:

Let those fight in the cause of Allah Who sell the life of this world for the hereafter. To him who fighteth in the cause of Allah,- whether he is slain or gets victory - Soon shall We give him a reward of great (value). And why should ye not fight in the cause of Allah and of those who, being weak, are ill-treated (and oppressed)?- Men, women, and children, whose cry is: "Our Lord! Rescue us from this town, whose people are oppressors; and raise for us from thee one who will protect; and raise for us from thee one who will help!" Those who believe fight in the cause of Allah, and those who reject Faith Fight in the cause of Evil: So fight ye against the friends of Satan: feeble indeed is the cunning of Satan. (4:74-76)

Here the religious warriors, or the angels who protect them, are to behead those who do not believe:

Remember thy Lord inspired the angels (with the message): "I am with you: give firmness to the Believers: I will instil terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers: smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them." (8:12)

Cf. this verse, which also makes clear the religious character of the fight:

Therefore, when ye meet the Unbelievers (in fight), smite at their necks; At length, when ye have thoroughly subdued them, bind a bond firmly (on them): thereafter (is the time for) either generosity or ransom: Until the war lays down its burdens. Thus (are ye commanded): but if it had been Allah's Will, He could certainly have exacted retribution from them (Himself); but (He lets you fight) in order to test you, some with others. But those who are slain in the Way of Allah,- He will never let their deeds be lost. (47:4)

So, congratulations to Jihad Watch--and when you get the million from Dr. Badawi, feel free send a few bucks this way!

Of course, I won't be holding my breath....
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 5:30 PM |

 
Breaking News - Zoloft is Innocent
Chris Pittman, the teen who murdered his grandparents, burned down their house, and freely admitted to his crime but blamed the fact that he was taking the antidepressant Zoloft for his actions--has been found Guilty by the jury. I'm just glad that the antidepressant isn't once again taking the rap for someone's behavior.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 3:26 PM |

 
The Truth Is Out There
Here's an interesting story that didn't get reported (hat tip: Polipundit):

Before we move back from Iraq, a word about the resignation/firing of CNN's chief news guy Eason Jordan for having suggested, in remarks at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, that journalists have been killed by coalition forces in Iraq on purpose.

Let me related this short story: About a year ago, two CNN journalists were killed in an ambush on the road between Hillah and Baghdad.

Brigadier General Mark Kimmitt - the military briefer - asked for a meeting of the bureau chiefs of the major western media. At that meeting he expressed his sorrow over the murder - by terrorists - of the CNN crew and asked the bureau chiefs to take down his personal cell phone number.

He told them that if any of their reporters or crews got into trouble - any time of the day or night - to call him. "Don't worry about protocol," he said. "Get to me as quickly as you can, and we'll try to get help to your people as quickly as we can."

That meeting was never, to my knowledge, reported.

In light of the the Eason Jordan Kerfuffle, it would sure be nice to understand what criteria the mainstream media use to determine what is newsworthy and what is not. The fact that someone is making arbitrary decisions about what to print has become a real issue in the conflict between the MSM and the blogsphere.

"All the news that's fit to print" is a good motto if you really are printing ALL the news; but determining what is "fit" is the issue here. I would like to suggest that one way the mainstream media could do better is to be up front about the criteria that each uses to make their determination of what is "fit" to print.

In other words, why not tell us, the readers, how they make their decisions each day? What matters most to them in deciding if a story should be printed; and what determines where it will be printed in the paper?

One of the truly wonderful things about the blogsphere is that there are an almost infinite number of stories out there and because we are so many, we --unlike the MSM--can print them all. And no matter how remote, uninteresting, wildly inaccurate, or sensational, they are out there for anyone who wants to look.

In the blogsphere at least, ALL the news--and the truth--is out there, and each of us readers get to determine, using our own rational faculties (or not) what is important and relevant and true. NOT an editor with his/her particular agenda; but hundreds of thousands, each with their own particular agenda. And we get to pick and choose; not someone else on our behalf. And not someone else pretending to be "objective" and "neutral".

Personally, I find I like it better that way.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 10:51 AM |

 
Scientific Progress Goes Boink!
Here is an example of Islamic science (hat tip: Jim O):

Islamic Science: Neil Armstrong Proved Mecca is the Center of the World
The following are excerpts from an interview with Dr. Abd Al-Baset Al-Sayyed of the Egyptian National Research Center. Al-Majd TV aired this interview on January 16, 2005

Dr. 'Abd Al-Baset Sayyid: The centrality [of Mecca] has been proven scientifically. How? When they traveled to outer space and took pictures of the earth, they saw that it is a dark, hanging sphere. The man said, "Earth is a dark hanging sphere – who hung it?"

Interviewer: Who said that?

Dr. 'Abd Al-Baset Sayyid: [Neil] Armstrong. Armstrong was basically trying to say: Allah is the one who hung it. They discovered that Earth emits radiation, and they wrote about this on the web. They left the item there for 21 days, and then they made it disappear.

Interviewer: Why did they make it disappear?

Dr. 'Abd Al-Baset Sayyid: There was intent there…

Interviewer: So it may be said that this suppression of information was significant.

Dr. 'Abd Al-Baset Sayyid: It was very significant, since…the Ka'ba [in Mecca]… They said it emits radiation. This radiation is short-wave.

When they discovered this radiation, they started to zoom in, and they found that it emanates from Mecca – and, to be precise, from the Ka'ba.

Interviewer: My God!!

Dr. 'Abd Al-Baset Sayyid: It was said…

Interviewer: Does this radiation have an effect?

Dr. 'Abd Al-Baset Sayyid: They found that this radiation is infinite. When they reached Mars and began to take pictures, they found that the radiation continues beyond. They said that the wavelength known to us… or rather the shortness of the wavelength known to us… This radiation had a special characteristic: It is infinite, and I believe that the reason is that this radiation connects the [earthly] Ka'ba with the celestial Ka'ba.

Imagine that you are the North Pole and I am the South Pole – in the middle there's what is called the magnetic equilibrium zone. If you place a compass there, the needle won't move.

Interviewer: You mean that the pull is equal from both sides?

Dr. 'Abd Al-Baset Sayyid: Yes, and that's why it's called zero-magnetism zone, since the magnetic force has no effect there. That's why if someone travels to Mecca or lives there, he lives longer, is healthier, and is less affected by Earth's gravity. That's why when you circle the Ka'ba, you get charged with energy.

Interviewer: Allah be praised.

Dr. 'Abd Al-Baset Sayyid: Yes, this is a fact.

This is a scientific fact…

Interviewer: Because you are distant from…

Dr. 'Abd Al-Baset Sayyid: Earth's magnetic fields have no effect on you in this case.

There's a study that proves that the black basalt rocks in Mecca are the oldest rocks in the world. This is the truth.

Interviewer: The oldest rocks? Yes. Has this been proved scientifically?

Dr. 'Abd Al-Baset Sayyid: It's been scientifically proven, and the study has been published.

Interviewer: They took basalt rocks from Mecca…

Dr. 'Abd Al-Baset Sayyid: …Basalt rocks from Mecca, and investigated the places where they were formed.

In the British Museum there are three pieces of the black stone [from the Ka'ba] …and they said that this rock didn't come from our solar system.

Astonishing, indeed.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 8:42 PM |

 
Is It Too Much To Ask For The Truth?
Apparently so. Check out comments here, here, and here to get a flavor of the mainstream media's reaction to Eason Jordan's resignation. They appear upset that a group of bloggers (shudder theatrically) tried to bring down someone important like CNN's Eason Jordan. Their attitude can be summed up by: "Who the hell do you bloggers think you are?!?!"

Well, who do we have to be? I was under the impression that this is a free country and that people can say what they please (perfect example: Michael Moore and his loyal followers have been saying not very nice things about Bush for several years now, but I don't see the MSM calling them a "lynch mob". Perhaps the difference is that he does not have..oh, what's the word...TRUTH on his side??)

What I saw in the blogsphere was outrage at the reports of what Jordan said at Davos; tempered by a desire on the part of most bloggers (not all) to see the actual videotape of the comments to support their conclusion that Jordan spoken inappropriately. After all, it was two DEMOCRATS that first expressed outrage (Barney Frank and Chris Dodd) and they were present when the remarks were made. Was it any wonder that the blogsphere leaped to the conclusion that if Frank and Dodd thought the remarks were outrageous, then they must be well beyond the pale?

Reporting Frank's and Dodd's reactions, along with a number of other very appropriate journalistic follow-ups (e.g., getting Gergen's and other eyewitnesses to comment) on the part of the blogsphere led to the perfectly reasonable demand that the tapes be made public so as to clear up any discrepancies in the eyewitness testimonies. All this was quickly reported and discussed in the blogsphere; but for some mysterious reason was not deemed "news" by the MSM until quite a few days had elapsed.

But no matter, ALL DISCUSSION OF EASON JORDAN WOULD HAVE STOPPED IF THE VIDEOTAPE OF JORDAN'S COMMENTS HAD BEEN RELEASED AND IT HAD BEEN SHOWN THAT HE (1) DID NOT SAY WHAT WAS REPORTED; (2) WAS TAKEN OUT OF CONTEXT; (3) IMMEDIATELY RETRACTED OR BACKED OFF FROM THE COMMENTS AS REPORTED. Interestingly, the tapes will never be released. Why, I wonder?? Inquiring minds want to know what precisely was on the tape, wouldn't you think? Wouldn't the truth stop all this blogsphere hysteria of making a mountain out of a molehill?? Or, just maybe it might expose the whole flap for the mountain it is, rather than the molehill that the MSM would like it to be.

And, don't you think it is telling that Jordan resigned without releasing the tape? Bill Roggio succinctly points out:

I am of the belief that the content of this tape is even worse than expected. The accounts of Mr. Jordan's reactions are likely to be correct; but the damning information may be the reaction of the audience. If the audience reaction is as anti-American as Davos attendee Rony Abovitz described, the American public may be quite upset indeed with Eason Jordan, and by default, CNN for knowingly employing a person that recklessly encourages such anti-American sentiment. (emphasis mine)

Yes. I am of the same opinion.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 2:28 PM |

 
Nothing But Forgotton
Mohammed at Iraq the Model has an exuberant post about the election results from Iraq yesterday. He talks about his own candidacy and his pride in the election process, even though he didn't win. It is well worth your time to read. Mohammed concludes:

Generally speaking, all politicians realize the role of the United States and the coalition forces in protecting the new born democracy and most of the major players realize the necessity of a strategic partnership with the United States for the good of Iraq and for the success of the war on terror.

The event of elections in Iraq was a huge turning point in the history of the region and Iraqis and their political parties have proved-despite the lack of experience-that they can do well and show high performance in a process of change that represents the first signs of a bright future for this country and the Middle east.
No one will stop the train of democracy and those who stand against the change will soon be nothing but forgotten.

And in this country, let us also forget the Kerry's, Kennedy's, Boxers and so many on the political Left who stood firmly against democracy and who even as the Iraqi people risked their lives to vote--minimized, downplayed and underhyped the process so that they could proceed with their own aggrandizement.

And even if they don't permit us to forget them, we can rest assured that they will be forgotten by history.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 10:19 AM |

 
Happy Valentine's Day
The History Channel has a good summary of the history of Valentine's Day, and its mysterious origins. It has always been one of my favorite holidays.

The oldest known valentine still in existence today was a poem written by Charles, Duke of Orleans to his wife while he was imprisoned in the Tower of London following his capture at the Battle of Agincourt. The greeting, which was written in 1415, is part of the manuscript collection of the British Library in London, England. Several years later, it is believed that King Henry V hired a writer named John Lydgate to compose a valentine note to Catherine of Valois.

And here is an interesting piece on the science of love and attraction.

And even on this day that has come to celebrate love, one can count on some religious morons to find a way to nix any normal expression of love or happiness. What is it with these guys? They put women in shapeless, sexless, identity-less burkhas because they are afraid of women's sexual appetites; and they even ban flowers that are colored red. These guys have very serious problems with their masculinity.

Well, my husband bought me a dozen roses (pink and red); some chocolate-dipped strawberries; and is taking me out to a fancy-schmancy place for dinner tonight to celebrate. Just about anything might happen next...so see ya tomorrow!

HAPPY VALENTINE'S DAY!

- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 8:33 PM |

 
Dancing with Lady Liberty
More analysis of why the Left has abandoned all its former principles (if they ever had any besides the acquisition of power) and chosen to embrace tyranny and support anti-Americanism wherever they find it. Ross Terril in the Boston Globe proposes that they have switched dancing partners and are no longer dancing with Lady Liberty: (hat tip: Instapundit)

DEMOCRACY IS FRIEND to the common man and authoritarianism is a crutch for millionaires with a villa in Italy -- right? Maybe no longer. Lady Liberty has acquired a new dancing partner. Politics in both Europe and the United States have unhitched the left from its trusted partner, democracy. American liberals now often spurn blue collar opinion that is democracy's fuel. They mostly reject global idealism that is liberty's post-communism vocation. This has allowed a Republican president to make democracy his cause. On the dance floor of the 21st century, the right embraces Lady Liberty.

A very interesting piece that I urge you to read. Someone in an email asked me why I am spending/wasting so much time dissecting the Left. It's a good question, and here's my answer.

I believe that the greatest threat in the world today is rampant Islamofascism and the terrorism they use to achieve their goal--worldwide tyranny in the name of religion. Those on the Left have allied themselves with the Islamofascists--some deliberately and consciously, understanding that the goals of the two movements have been similar all along; some unconsciously because they are unwilling to believe that their original premises ALWAYS enabled Evil and Tyranny.

Either way--deliberately or not--the Left is actively working to further the Islamofascist's agenda. The genius of George W. Bush is that his policies have made this obvious to the average American for the first time since the 60's. Instead of mere rhetoric about Freedom, Bush has acted andactually freed millions--he has taken the Left's "talking points"and shield away from them and exposed them for the hypocrites they have always been.

The Left has never taken responsibility for the millions of people killed and enslaved in the name of Communism and Socialism in the last century. They have hardly blinked an eye at the misery their theories have caused. They actually still believe that their ideas support the common man and enhance freedom. They see no moral difference between defending against terrorism and the terrorism itself. They are morally, intellectually, and spiritually bankrupt and have decided that an alliance with the terrorists is their last best way to achieve the power they have always desired and which has always been at the root of their theories. They have made a strategic mistake in their new alliance, because the superior nihlism of the Islamofascists will devour them when and if they succede in their plans for humanity--but that point is neither here nor there.

Although they are weakened by historical events over the last 20 years, the Left still has considerable power in the U.S. and other Western countries. By exposing their motives and their tactics, I like to think that I am doing my small share in the War on Terror.

To those who innocently embrace the Left and mistakenly believe that the U.S. is the greatest threat to Freedom in the world: WAKE UP AND SEE WHAT YOUR SIDE IS REALLY SUPPORTING. STOP ENABLING TERROR AND TYRANNY. STOP BEING A USEFUL IDIOT IN THIS NEW CENTURY.

In the name of the best within you, change partners and dance with Lady Liberty.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 3:28 PM |

 
Weekly Insanity Update
Another Sunday, another roundup of the insane, the ridiculous, the moronic and the otherwise unbelievable! Not a comprehensive list by any means this week, but I decided to leave a certain CU Professor, a CNN executive, and a nobody (or is he well-known?) gay/rightwing/porno-connected journalist off the list; so that naturally limited what was available! If you have any items to submit, feel free to email them to me.

1. And the winner in Iraq is....

2. YIKES!

3. I'll bet the human rights people are extremely upset about this!

4. An example of letting the inmates run the asylum?

5. This is a human...errrr...animal tragedy!

6. So what's next? Illegal bellybutton exposure?

7. Don't you hate when you forget to pay a doctor's bill and this happens to you?

8. YAWN.

9. With any luck, this is just someone's idea of a joke.

10. And we should listen to Kofi because....? (Is Iraq safe enough for the UNers? I didn't know.)

11. Bin Laden's Valentine's Day greeting! (hat tip: Betsy's Page)
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 11:17 AM |

 
Gannon Has His Say
If anyone is interested, here's what Mr. Gannon has to say for himself. There seems to be a lot of Lefty outrage at his behavior, which so far seems a lot less problematic than Eason Jordan's.

I'd still like to see the Jordan videotape. If he was misquoted, I'd like to see for myself.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 8:57 PM |

 
Mars Doesn't Need Women
Unlike the movie , it appears that "Mars Doesn't Need Women"--at least according to the Russians.

This week, the director of Russia’s top space medical institute told students that only men should be allowed on the first mission to the Red Planet, because women are too weak to endure the flight's rigors. His comments once again exposed the internal contradictions of a country that put the first woman into space while having the reputation of being the last European bastion of male chauvinism.

How sad that in the 21st century there are so many morons of the male persuasion. I know many men who are "too weak to endure the flight's rigors"; and many women who would be far superior choices for a Mars Mission.

Women pioneers have existed throughout history. Think of Elizabeth Gunn, who with her four children braved the grueling 6 month trip around Cape Horn to California in 1851. Or you could go here, to read the profiles of the many other pioneer women, who--along with men every stage of the way--braved the new frontier of the American West.

Or, how about my own grandmother--Margaret Rizzi--who stowed away at the turn of the last century at the age of 16, and came to New York City, where, knowing not one soul, she established a business of her own and made her way in a new world.

Or you could look no further than Dr. Shannon Lucid, an American Shuttle astronaut since 1979 who served as a Board Engineer 2 on Russia’s Space Station Mir (launching March 22, 1996 aboard STS-76 and returning September 26, 1996 aboard STS-79). Dr. Lucid holds an international record for the most flight hours in orbit by any non-Russian, and holds the record for the most flight hours in orbit by any woman in the world. From February 2002 until September 2003, Dr. Lucid served as NASA’s Chief Scientist stationed at NASA Headquarters, Washington D.C., with responsibility for developing and communicating the agency’s science and research objectives to the outside world.

But hey, why spoil these male fantasies that women are weak and helpless? They make men feel so big and strong and virile and potent--especially when the men are really such pathetic wimps otherwise.

I remember a man pointing out to me that women weren't "cut out to be doctors"; and that "femininity is just the absence of masculinity" (I think he was referring to the fact that men have a "Y" Chromosome and women do not; or maybe he was referring to the somewhat overrated male appendage that is frequently called on to demonstrate some sort of superiority and is magically able to make men as a group better doctors, pilots, and probably garbage collectors and bloggers, too!).

I found it interesting (and hilarious) during my astronaut selection research, that the Russians, who used a stolen copy of the MMPI psychological test (which is proprietary) in their selection process; felt it necessary to change the names of some of the scales of the test. In particular, the "MALE / FEMALE" scale became the "COURAGE / DEPENDENCE" scale. No wonder Russian men feel so superior to women--they just defined it that way. More convenient for them probably.

Isn't it time we stopped this nonsense? Male or female; black or white; whatever. When it comes to space exploration or any other dangerous human endeavor -- only the BEST will survive. I believe there are inherent biological differences between men and women. Just as there are biological differences among individual women and individual men. So what? What counts is that we encourage equal opportunity for the most talented among us in every field--whether they be women or men.

Being the BEST doesn't depend on gender, race, religion, or creed. The factors it does depend on, I submit, women have in the same measure as men.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 4:59 PM |

 
Rather Redux
OK, I won't gloat. Especially since it is now "old" news (I go to bed too early!) I think the best point was made by Jonah Goldberg at the Corner. And, let's not forget Ace: "Jordan Says Journalists Targeted by Bloggers". Hah!
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 11:22 AM |

 
The First Amendment: A Brief Review
Boy, I really get tired of dealing with this one.

The First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States says:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Perhaps it is time to review this, since everyone seems to go around screaming that their "freedom of speech" is being violated these days. Note the highlighted word "Congress". The first amendment prevents the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT from abridging the freedom of speech. It doesn't prevent anyone else from abridging someone's freedom of speech--for example ME, restricting the comments made on my blog for any arbitrary reason I may decide.

Is this shocking? It shouldn't be. Since only government can truly silence freedom of speech. If your employer doesn't like what you're saying and fires you, you can still say what you want while unemployed--you have just suffered some consequences for your particular opinion (and yes, it is terribly unfair, but what can you do? Other people have freedom of speech, too and sometimes it trumps yours-- like when you are on their property). If I don't like what you say on my blog, I could delete your comments--but you could go somewhere else and make them.

So you see (and I have pointed this out before) there is a difference between being able to speak freely, and having to deal with the consequences of your speech. The limit of consequences is the First Amendment, which prevents the government from making your speech illegal, thus keeping you out of jail or suffering a worse fate at the hands of Big Brother.

Betsy's Page sums it up:

When will these people understand that the First Amendment concerns the government's restriction of someone's right to speak, not a university's decision to invite or not invite someone to speak at their campus, particularly when that speaker is under suspicion of fraud in his academic research.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 12:56 AM |

 
The Council Has Spoken !
The Watcher's Council has selected its BEST POSTS for this week:

BEST COUNCIL POSTS:

1. Bush Jong-Il The Sundries Shack

2. A Classic Case of Hysteria Dr. Sanity


BEST NON-COUNCIL POSTS:

1. Just. Shut. Up. Victory Soap

2. Today's Hate Essay: Yo, Ward? What Are You DOING Here, Bitch? Hog on Ice

Don't forget to click over to the Watcher of Weasels to find out all the winners! It makes for great reading.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 5:29 PM |

 
Breathtaking Hypocrisy
Let me get this straight. Two Democrat members of congress (John Conyers of Michigan and Louise Slaughter of Rochester) are calling for congressional hearings because an unknown journalist, from an unknown news organization was given a press pass to White House news conferences; but no one appears to think that the comments to an international audience of a News Directer at CNN who accuses the US military of deliberately targeting journalists (without a shred of proof) is a big deal????

What if the journalist apologizes or "clarifies" his purpose in daring to ask a "pro-Bush" question?

Or, how about this: After 5 years of the most vile, vitriolic, no-holds-barred insults, insinuations and outright slander of the President of the United States; the Democrats are whining because they think the White House should stop its "personal attacks" on Harry Reid, when said "personal" attacks amount to a expose of his voting record over the years???? Reid has been the Democrat's Minority leader since December, 2004-so after a mere 6 weeks, the guy is offended!

And then there's this: The Democrats are denouncing Bush for being "partisan" and "dividing" instead of "uniting"; while at the same time doing this???

Wow. Breathtaking.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 12:38 PM |

 
Nobel Peace Prize
Here is an idea for a Nobel Peace Prize Nominee that I can get behind! (hat tip: Free Thoughts) It has been given to several UN Agencies in the past; why not an entire country??
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 10:04 AM |

 
Don't Get Your Hopes Up

Cox and Forkum reminds us of the harsh reality of the "peace process" in the Middle East--especially if the Palestinians are involved. It reminds me a bit of Charlie Brown and Lucy with the football--how many times are we going to fall for that old trick? Time will tell if this time they mean it, but don't get your hopes up.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 1:19 AM |

 
Piano Repairmen
One of my biochemistry professors in college passed on to me a powerful metaphor that I have appreciated almost daily in my professional life. He and I were discussing one day my interest in how the brain works and the concept of consciousness; and whether it would be better for me to go to medical school or to apply to study graduate biochemistry.

Think of the brain as a beautiful, elegant, and melodious grand piano, he told me. Now imagine that someone had taken an axe to that lovely piano, chopping it into millions of tiny little pieces. Biochemisty, he said, is picking up one of those millions of pieces and attempting to appreciate the sound of the music that could be played on the piano. Imagine Beethoven's 9th Symphony being predicted from the study of dopamine and norepinephrine pathways!

His point, I think, was that biochemistry, while it is one path to understanding, cannot begin to describe the vastly complex and intricate functioning of the human brain; and that it seems inconceivable that anyone could imagine all that the human mind is capable of from just a study of the interaction the small molecules within. At some point, the level of complexity reaches a certain threshold that makes it surpass the mere sum of its microscopic parts. I decided to go to medical school and eventually wound up in psychiatry (with a detour to get a graduate degree in biochemistry along the way).

So, I read the other day that Psychiatrists are beginning to believe in the reality of evil. Somehow, I was reminded of that professor's anecdote.

For a long time now, behavioral scientists have been somewhat overly giddy with the many practical successes in medicine and psychiatry directly attributable to understanding a few of the pieces of the chopped up piano. But however much they know and understand, they are no closer to really understanding either the human capacity to create beauty or its capacity to do evil.

Outside the ivory tower, though--here in the real world--we are able to feel awe listening to the beautiful strains of a Beethoven symphony; and likewise, we are also able to feel revulsion at the all too frequent evidence of human evil

Psychiatry is the branch of medicine dealing with the diagnosis and treatment of mental disorders. We are the piano repairmen of the medical world. We willingly use the science of the biochemists who create the drugs; but we should never forget that we are dealing with more than a conglomeration of chemicals and electrical circuits.

Good and evil exist within all humans--the capacity to create life and the capacity to desstroy it. I don't think that antidepressants would have helped Hitler appreciate the Jews; nor would placing Saddam on antipsychotics have helped the Iraqi people. And, even if they might have helped, those two psychopaths and thousands like them in history would have been unlikely to agree to treatment. There are some things that medication cannot fix. Some pianos that cannot be tuned--maybe because there is a crack in the baseboard;or the materials used in construction were warped; or even that those same materials were irreversibly changed by exposure to malignant environmental factors.

Any piano repairman will also tell you that some pianos start out as lemons (just as some cars) and cannot produce the same sounds as their peers. Some are so broken that even after repair they are not much more than junk.

It is possible we will never adequately be able to explain fully every aspect of human brain function--expecially what leads to good or evil--by resorting only to the chemicals and the electrical circuits. But maybe we don't have to.

Maybe it is just good enough to nurture the good and fight the evil, whenever we observe either in ourselves or in others.

- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 8:51 PM |

 
Suicide and Its Nuances
Wretchard has an interesting post discussing a recent essay by Nelson Ascher about the Left's desire for revenge since the fall of the Berlin Wall. The master at the Belmont Club concludes: "The Left may have embarked upon a journey of revenge. They will find suicide."

As a psychiatrist, I am aware that often, suicidal impules exist side by side with homicidal impulses. Like two sides of a coin, suicide and homicide are psychologically intertwined in that they both frequently originate from intense emotions of anger and rage; with one impulse directed outward and the other inward. This being so, suicidality can have a wide variety of expressions and patterns. Here is a list of a just a few of the patterns, where the anger/rage goes from MOST INTERNALIZED to MOST EXTERNALIZED:

1. The Hopeless, Passive Suicide
This suicidal person is totally withdrawn and passive in their suicidality. They may refuse to eat, preferring to waste away. Their hopelessness is pervasive and they are indifferent to the outside world because their anger is completely internalized.

2. The Lone Suicide
This is the person who is serious about suicide and plans it so that they will definitely be dead at the completion of their suicide act. They do not generally involve others and do not leave a suicide note. What would be the point?

3. The Ambivalent Suicide
Not so sure they really want to die, they leave lots of clues that they are thinking about killing themselves (e.g., calling friends, relatives, acquaintances, or hotlines); and choose methods that are likely to fail. They often do not succeed and are "rescued" at the last minute. If they do succeed it is because of some accident of fate. They leave suicide notes telling specific people it "wasn't their fault", often phrased so that it is clear that the suicide believes it was.

4. The Thoughtless Suicide
Well, most are thoughtless, but this kind is so wrapped up in themselves and their pain that they choose a type of suicide, not particularly realizing that they will likely kill other people when they kill themselves. Its not so much that they WANT to kill other people, its just that they are thoughless and preoccupied with their own pain and really don't care much about other's. The guy who left his SUV on the RR tracks in California, then jumped out at the last minute, causing death and destruction to everyone but himself is a good example.

5. The Angry Suicide (angry at a specific person)
This one is overtly angry--usually at a specific person (e.g., a woman who broke up with him) and intends to commit suicide, but ALSO wants to make sure the person he/she is angry with dies at the same time.

6. The Angry Suicide (angry at the world)
This is a clever variant of #5. Instead of killing themselves directly, they provoke authority (e.g., police) with the intent of making others do the dirty workfor them. They tend to see the problem something in other people, and not in themselves; so don't take any responsibility for their own feelings.

6. The Suicide Bomber
This one coldly and calculatingly straps explosives to him or herself, with the intent of killing as many innocent people as possible as they blow themselves up. They don't see anyone as "innocent" really--all are guilty of the sin of not believing what the bomber believes, and therefore all deserve of death. These individuals are the most outwardly focused, having completely purged any human feeling from their heart except rage. They also don't take any responsibility for their feelings, but expect to get rewarded for that fact.

I don't pretent that the list is exhaustive, but it gives you an idea of how the expression of suicidal behavior depends on the emotional state and self awareness of the suicidal person. At the one end of the spectrum, the person is totally consumed with anger toward himself; at the other, totally consumed with anger toward others.

Getting back to Wretchard's point: the Left may indeed be suicidal (and we have recently observed ample evidence of that side of their group personality), but I believe that many of their number are perfectly willing to strap on the explosives and take the U.S. and/or the Western Civilization along with them in their catastrophic death fantasy.

We are their target because they believe us guilty-guilty-guilty of the horrible sin of demonstrating to them the worthlessness of their ideology in the real world.

I wonder what the Left's version of the "72 virgins in heaven" reward is?

- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 11:26 AM |

 
Marital Therapy and Eyewitness Testimony
Here is an excellent reason (from a new blogger in the mental health field) why we need the videotape to know exactly what CNN executive Eason Jordon said at the Davos conference and in what context:

And, speaking of videotapes and eyewitness reports: I used to work in a clinic that videotaped all therapy sessions for training purposes. I saw many couples (oh, couples therapy--now, there's a mighty hot kitchen!). Over and over, I thought I heard one or the other member of the couple misrepresenting what had been said in a session. And, in such cases, I had the extremely satisfying option of saying, "Well, shall we look at the videotape to see what was actually said?" It was often a real mind-blower for the client to see how he/she had misperceived statements made only a few moments earlier. We all do this to a certain extent, constantly editing our memories in one direction or another. But some people do it to a much greater extent than others, and some people do it much more in one situation or another.

Certainly, we would all like the satisfaction of really knowing exactly what Jordan said, because until we do, the "he-said, she-said" aspect of this will not go away. As the neo-neocon points out, eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable--especially when it involves something both sides are intensely emotional about.

- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 10:54 PM |

 
Any Comments, Mr. Jordan?
As Glenn Reynolds points out: here's some REAL targeting of journalists in Iraq.

Any comments, Mr. Jordan? CNN?

- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 8:47 PM |

 
Disappearing Act
Iraq has disappeared into the same blackmedia hole that claimed Afghanistan! Isn't that amazing? This is a disappearing act worthy of the best circus and carnival acts. Today, I notice that on Memeorandum there is exactly ONE story related to Iraq--about the comeback of Ahmed Chalabi; and one commentary from the WSJ (registration required) on RealClearPolitics.

Was it only 10 days ago that Iraq was the focal point of the news and blogsphere? And the piece of the sky that was falling for the Chicken Littles? Now, it has all but disappeared from the radar, just as Afghanistan did after the successful election last year.

I suppose this means that the mainstream media can no longer find sufficiently negative stories with which to attack the current administration's policies in Iraq and/or Afghanistan. Positive stories just don't cut it, I guess. Successful elections are borrrrrring.

It's so much more fun to be able to report things like what this Baltimore Mayor said; or a certain bizarre pseudo-intellectual from CU. Now that's the ticket!
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 5:36 PM |

 
BAD BUSINESS
Why would anyone work for a company that made a policy like this? From the company website we get:

Weyco Inc. is a non-smoking company that strongly supports its employees in living healthy lifestyles.

Hell, they don't just strongly support their employees living healthy lifestyles--they FORCE their employees to live healthy lifestyles. I wonder if they fire people who are HIV positive? Or have Hepatitis C? Or some other health risk? Maybe they will fire you if you have a strong family history of breast cancer; or heart disease? Maybe you would have to give up fast food--or your relatives?

I would never permit someone I worked for to tell me how I could live my life--especially my life outside of work. The slippery slope begins with the "best" of intentions. First- smoking (obviously for my own good); then maybe they won't keep you on because you put on a few pounds (not that I have, of course) or because you skydive or fly planes (too dangerous). I willing to bet that they'll keep you on if you're incompetent (it wouldn't be FAIR to discriminate against slackers).

In my humble opinion, it is just about the STUPIDEST business policy I have ever heard. You can bet that the potential pool of good employees available to this asinine company is going to rapidly shrink. Why? Because, if you're at all intelligent, you might begin to reflect on the logical next step for the idiots that run the company. YOUR lifestyle could be next.

BOYCOTT WEYCO! PEOPLE OF MICHIGAN UNITE! MAKE WEYCO WAY GONE!

The sooner these jerks go out of business, the better.

- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 10:11 AM |

 
Transcript Discovered!
This just in! Iowahawk has the transcript of Eason Jordan's comments at Davos! (hat tip: LGF)

Sort of.

- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 12:01 AM |

 
A "Bad Case of Intellectual Cystitis"
Please read Mark Steyn's new essay in the Telegraph: "I hate to rain on Europe's parade, but....". It's fabulous, especially the end:

Now I take the point that "democracy" - as in elections - isn't every thing. In the development of successful nations, the universal franchise is usually the last piece of the puzzle, as it was in Britain. Anyone can hold an election: Mugabe did; so did Charles Taylor, the recently retired Psycho-for-Life of Liberia. The world's thugocracies have got rather skilled at being just democratic enough to pass muster with Jimmy Carter and the international observers: they kill a ton of people, put it on hold for six weeks and then, when the UN monitors have moved on, pick up their machetes and resume business as usual.

I prefer to speak of "liberty" or, as Bush says, "freedom", or, as neither of us is quite bold enough to put it, capitalism - free market, property rights, law of contract, etc. That's why Hong Kong is freer than Liberia, if less "democratic". If I had six or seven centuries to work on things, I wouldn't do it this way in Iraq or Afghanistan. But the "war on terror" is more accurately a race against time - to unwreck the Middle East before its toxins wreck South Asia, West Africa, and eventually Europe. The doom-mongers can mock Bush all they want. But they're spending so much time doing so, they've left themselves woefully uninformed on some of the fascinating subtleties of Iraqi and Afghan politics that his Administration turns out to have been rather canny about.

Will the naysayers continue forcing their ever more strained dribble of urine over the Bush landscape? Well, the Parisian journalist Frederic Royer has just launched a new weekly tabloid called L'Anti-Americain. The first issue includes a parodic diary by George W Bush with the entry: "Ask the CIA: Where's China?"

Hilarious! Bush is so dumb he can't even find the real 21st-century superpower on a map! As it happens, it was the Canadian prime minister, a renowned sophisticate and indeed a fluent franco-phone, who last year declared in public that China was the most important nation in the southern hemisphere.

If that 1999 New Hampshire primary-season gag is the highlight of M Royer's first issue, it seems to me that Europe's vast anti-American pissoir is coming down with a bad case of intellectual cystitis.

It is really worth your while to read the paragraphs that precede this conclusion, since Steyn is at his humorous/pithy best and starts out with a remarkable analogy. Let's just say it will piss some people off.


- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 8:30 PM |

 
Calling A Spade A Spade
While the battle rages over CNN’s Chief News Executive, Eason Jordan's claim that the U.S. military is deliberately targeting journalists in Iraq (see here for a roundup on that), I think it's fair to raise the opposite question:

Are Journalists deliberately targeting the U.S. Military in Iraq?

Scrappleface is on the case!

Spurred by CNN executive Eason Jordan's accusations that U.S. troops have targetted journalists in Iraq, the Pentagon today issued revised rules of engagement for encounters between U.S. forces and the members of the news media

Under the new guidelines, U.S. troops will first offer journalists an opportunity to throw down their cameras and notebooks and approach with hands raised.

"We're there to kill terrorists, not journalists," said an unnamed Pentagon official. "The new rules are designed to make it easier for our personnel to distinguish between the two, since they're often found together and have similar objectives."

Once in captivity, the so-called Prisoners Of Undetermined Loyalty Embedded with Terrorists (POULET), will be treated according to the Geneva Conventions, although the Justice Department has yet to rule on their official status.

In psychology, humor is defined as the overt expression of ideas and feelings (especially those that are unpleasant to focus on or too terrible to talk about) in a way that provokes pleasure and laughter. Humor will let you call a spade a spade in a civilized manner. Perfect, huh?

- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 6:43 PM |

 
Slavery and Tyranny
Thomas Sowell reminds us about how slavery was ended in the last century: (hat tip: Betsy's Page)

...nowhere before the 18th century was there any serious question raised about whether slavery was right or wrong. In the late 18th century, that question arose in Western civilization, but nowhere else.
It seems so obvious today that, as Lincoln said, if slavery is not wrong, then nothing is wrong. But no country anywhere believed that three centuries ago....

The anti-slavery movement was spearheaded by people who would today be called "the religious right" and its organization was created by conservative businessmen. Moreover, what destroyed slavery in the non-Western world was Western imperialism.

Nothing could be more jolting and discordant with the vision of today's intellectuals than the fact that it was businessmen, devout religious leaders and Western imperialists who together destroyed slavery around the world. And if it doesn't fit their vision, it is the same to them as if it never happened.

As anti-slavery ideas eventually spread throughout Western civilization, a worldwide struggle pitted the West against Africans, Arabs, Asians and virtually the entire non-Western world, which still saw nothing wrong with slavery. But Western imperialists had gunpowder weapons first and that enabled the West to stamp out slavery in other societies as well as in its own.

Sowell makes these comments in reviewing a book "Bury the Chains". I urge you to read the entire Townhall commentary. I had never thought to connect the abolition of slavery and the abolition of tyranny as parallel processes, but Sowell does, and it's very eye-opening.

Too many people today seem to rush to the conclusion that the equation of [moral conviction + business+ fighting against tyranny = the Good ] is a fascist plot. But those who have the courage to look beyond such stereotyping can see that history is filled with examples of free people with the courage of their convictions overcoming tyranny and hate. I believe we are in such an historical period now.

- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 1:34 PM |

 
True Colors
Victor Davis Hanson discusses the Boxer-Rice exchange as symbolic of a new reality:

Reflect for a moment. The first African-American woman to be nominated as Secretary-of -State was called a veritable liar on global television by Senator Boxer, with the sort of withering invective that was never unleashed against Madeline Albright, Warren Christopher, or any recent previous nominee for Secretary-of-State of the past century—or Boxer’s own colleagues who drafted and passed the resolution for war. Yet while Rice was calm for hours and relied on her ample memory, Boxer was abrasive in her few minutes of prepared attack and misled despite her voluminous notes.

This is all haywire. According to the 1950s Democratic mythology that we all grew up with, the stereotypical aggressor in such an unfair exchange should have been a senior Southern reactionary male, replete with drawl and barely contained racist anger, who ambushes the upstart and distorts the record in an act of name-calling—before hitting the airwaves to besmirch her further and, finally, to cut and paste the exchange into crass political ads to raise money for his own entrenched sinecure.

What in the world has happened to us?

VDH then answers his own question:

The former idealists and reformers have become backward-looking. Like most reactionaries whose comfortable world is vanishing, they are frustrated, looking for scapegoats—and acting very, very bizarrely.

Read the entire article. Of course I like it because it says what I've been saying all along: Something strange is happening here. The so-called "progressives" are now the reactionaries, looking backward and yearning for the good old days of the past; and the "conservatives" are forward-thinking and advancing to meet the challenges of the new century.

When did this remarkable role-reversal come into being? Well, I propose that it began with the intense disappointment felt by Democrats after the 2000 election did not go their way. But focal point of the change occurred on September 11, 2001; and after that the slope of the change increased dramatically.

When you speak to a Democrat or someone from the Left, just notice the barely (if at all) concealed rage and loathing. Notice the overidealization of Clinton and how "wonderful" it was back then when we were significantly less aware of the international terrorist threat. Notice the harping about Vietnam and the constant use of analogies and memes from that era. And then notice that the things they once fought for (minority/women's rights, freedom, equality) are nothing to them now.

Psychologically it is well-known that the true character of a person (and in this case a movement) may be easily hidden and covered up under most circumstances. But the character will shine through no matter how much a person might like to suppress it--when there is a crisis or an emergency. The response to 9/11 and its aftermath has shown that the true colors of many Democrats--especially the more Left-leaning ones.

And it ain't a pretty sight.

- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 10:27 PM |

 
Exquisite Irony
Carter Laren at Capitalism Magazine reminds us that the Nazis were SOCIALISTS (something the Left conveniently seems to be forever forgetting) as he comments on the Paula Zahn interview with Ward Churchill (I know I promised not to mention that guy again, but he insists on impinging himself on my radar--sort of like an incoming mortar attack):

In a bumbled interview last night, CNN anchor Paula Zahn expressed outrage at professor Ward Churchill's unwillingness to apologize for public remarks in which he compared the victims of 9/11 to Adolf Eichmann, the infamous Nazi bureaucrat responsible for managing the logistics of the holocaust.

But why are Zahn and others so shocked? Churchill's viewpoint is merely a logical extension of the ideas that Michael Moore and other Leftists have been advancing all along: namely, that corporate America is evil and capitalism is an oppressive, exploitative system deserving of punishment from seething Middle Easterners.

So long as the Leftist version of America is treated as legitimate, Churchill's characterization of World Trade Center office workers as "little Eichmanns"--technocratic cogs in a monstrous machine of capitalist imperialism--should come as no surprise.

Churchill shouldn't be denounced just for naming explicitly what others have only dared imply. Instead, the entire Left (including Churchill) should be detested for spewing their venomous ideas and for maligning the only economic system ever developed that respects individual rights: capitalism.

It has always struck me as exquisitely ironic that the Socialists of the Left equate Bush and Reagan (and anyone they don't like, for that matter) with the ultimate group carrying socialist credentials--the National Socialist German Workers Party (NSDAP) of Hitler. Hah!

- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 7:00 PM |

 
Suicidal Behavior
I am not one of those who think it is a good idea for the country for the Democratic party to go in the direction that Howard Dean is likely to take it. The Dems are stuck in a quagmire of their own making and heading Left is only going to make them sink deeper. Don't do it! You really want to live--I know it!!


by Nick Anderson, Kentucky -- The Louisville Courier-Journal


- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 5:25 PM |

 
Who're You Gonna Trust?
Well I guess this is the latest twist that the media is applying in order to make it seem like Iraq is going to the dogs and that the US has wasted its time there:

"Iraq Shiite leaders demand Islam be the source of law "

And, of course, all the Left's drones are doing the usual groaning and moaning, along with several of the anxious Right.

Except, apparently, the headline is NOT TRUE--according to Omar at Iraq the Model, who says:

Anyway, back to the main subject and the alleged statement; I chose to wait until the next news hour and of course until I chill out a little bit after the disturbing news and then I heard this update on the story "Haider Al-Khaffaf, a senior Sistani's aide says that no such statement was released".
And going back to Friday's news, another senior aide of Sistani said from Kuwait that "the future constitution of the country is an issue that is left for the National Assembly to deal with".

And, he goes on to say:

Well, maybe elections were religion Vs secularism, but that would be the perspective of the cleric-like politicians and not the people's. It is true that Mullahs seize power in Iran but that Iranian model cannot take place in Iraq, simply because there's no place for a totalitarian regime in future Iraq and power can not be monopolized by any particular small group.
Bottom line is, the last word will be the people's from now on in Iraq and Iraqis will never accept a one man rule no matter what; They're tired of being controlled and they will never, ever approve a new kind of tyranny under any name.

Let's give the Iraqis a chance here. They may indeed revert to tyranny at the drop of a hat, but it seems unlikely that the people who were so joyous on January 30th and danced in the street celebrating their newfound freedom would rejoice about a new plan of enslavement.

I'd like to let events play out a bit over the next year or so as the Iraqis write their consitution and struggle with keeping all the various factions united in a nation--in other words, take the baby steps necessary toward a free society. I don't particularly trust the media's negative spin--they have repeatedly shown they will do or say anything to make Bush look bad. And the next stage in demonstrating that Bush was wrong will be to spin everything the Iraqis do or say to make it seem like they WANT to be oppressed.

I'm sure there are all sorts of potential despots hanging around in the mosques and cafes, etc., eagerly waiting for the slightest opportunity to seize power and oppress the people of Iraq under their particular form of tyranny. These kind of religious and secular thugs exist in every society--even our own.

Like Omar, I will put my trust in Freedom, and the Human Spirit.

- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 10:45 AM |

 
Instantaneous Indignation

So far, I have it on good authority that Evil President Bush plans on cutting the following: (see here, here, here , for example)

-Local Law enforcement
-Health care
-Environmental Protection
-American Indian schools
-Home heating aid for the poor
-National Park Service
-School budgets in low-income communities
-Smithsonian Institution
-Arts and Humanities
-Farm and commodity programs
-Subsidy payments to farmers

I'm not sure, but this MONSTER we elected is probably also cutting aid to babies; dogs for blind people; grants for university professors; programs that help little old ladies cross the street; and subsidies for bloggers. Also, as part of this budget, the evil genius has authorized the use of force to make sure people starve, freeze, scream in pain, and wallow in misery. What a fiend!

So, let me get this straight. In the same breath that Democrats and the media are screaming about BUDGET DEFICITS and FISCAL IRRESPONSIBILITY and such; they basically imply that EVERYTHING the President plans to cut is OFF-LIMITS and SACRED? Is that the message here? In short, yes. That is the message.

I expect we will see even more laundry lists of things the evil bastard plans to trim in the coming days from our indispensable victim-watchers and compassionate elites in the media and on the Left.

No discussion here obviously. Just mindless opposition to whatever Bush wants to do. Just instantaneous NIMBY indignation: NOT IN MY BACK YARD--not MY program, baby!

Then whose?

Just once I'd like to see--instead of complete, knee-jerk opposition, whining, and incoherent rage--some SPECIFIC programs that the Democrats think should be cut.

Don't. hold. your. breath.

- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 5:58 PM |

 
Weekly Insanity Update
Time for another round-up of the insane, ridiculous, bizarre and downright obnoxious and/or stupid. You should know that I don't make any of these things up ! Thanks to those of you who sent me suggestions and links.

1. Compare here and here. Have the brave Islamofascist thugs captured a GI Joe --or was it a Cody Special Ops doll? Oh, No! A string of kidnappings and threats across Iraq! And then, we have the big capture that we've been waiting for!

2. Oh my God! Have we discovered signs of intelligent life on the Left? Or am I just wishful thinking?

3. Understatment of the century.

4. If true, this represents a heretofor unheard of level of intelligence in a government agency. Call me skeptical.

5. Definitely NOT genocide.

6. What's the big deal? They consider Dan Rather a journalist, don't they? What does bias have to do with it?

7. What a difference a few years makes. Or maybe its just a different political party proposing it???? Wasn't this guy a Democrat?

8. Doesn't the term "suicidally stupid" seem to apply here? Or perhaps, "dhimwitted". And speaking of suicidally stupid.....

9. Oh, noooooooooooooooooooooooo! Don't go!

10. People for the Ethical Treatment of Computer Viruses? It's about time.

11. You really DON'T want to read this one. Remember, I warned you.

- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 11:19 AM |

 
Cole's a Lumberjack or Something....
With regard to the animated intellectual battle going on between Professor Juan Cole and Jonah Goldberg over at The Corner, I thought I'd weigh in with my assessment. Read on.

I'm On The Faculty
(in honor of Juan Cole and to the tune of "I'm a Lumberjack" from Monty Python)

Cole:
I'm on the faculty and I'm OK
I think all night and I sleep all day.

Chorus:
He's on the faculty and he's OK
He thinks all night and he sleeps all day.

Cole:
I think ideas, I write them down, I go to the university.
On Wednesdays I go slumming and let students lecture me.

Professors:
He thinks ideas, he writes them down, He goes to the university.
On Wednesdays he goes slumming and lets students speak for free.

Chorus:
He's on the faculty and he's OK
He thinks all night and he sleeps all day.

Cole:
I think ideas, I worship Kos, I wear weird-colored socks.
I put on Arab's clothing and hang around in mosques.

Professors:
He thinks ideas, he worships Kos, he wears weird-colored socks.
He puts on Arab's clothing and hangs around in mosques.

Chorus:
He's on the faculty and he's OK He thinks all night and he sleeps all day.

Cole:
I think ideas, I read big books, and know how things should be
I never have to bother with crude reality.

Professors:
He thinks ideas, he reads big books? He knows how things should be? ...
He's never has to bother with crude reality?
He's on the faculty and he's OK He thinks all night and he sleeps all day. ...

All:
He's/I'm on the faculty and he's/I'm OK He/I think all night and he/I sleep all day.

- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 10:25 PM |

 
Book Recommendations
I do a LOT of reading and like most fanatical readers, I love to buy books. My adoring spouse, who is tolerant in most areas, has frequently threatened divorce if I purchase one more book (I have a library of thousands). He doesn't mean it, but it makes him feel much better to threaten me.

At any rate, I have decided to make some book recommendations to the readers of my blog. I have established links in the sidebar for you to get more information on the books over at Amazon.com. If you purchase them through the link, then I get a small portion of the proceeds and it helps me support this blog. These are all books I have read and enjoyed over the last three months. I hope you will enjoy them, too.

You also can feel free to drop some money in the Tip Jar (either PayPal or Amazon) at any time! If I raise a lot of money this way, I promise not to do an Andrew Sullivan. So, without further ado, here are some books I've read lately and think very highly of:

NON-FICTION RECOMMENDATIONS

The Case For Democracy by Natan Sharansky
-In this book, Sharansky discusses the links between freedom and peace, tyranny and terror. I was struck by how much Sharansky's ideas must have influenced the President's foreign policy. Sharansky has been a KGB prisoner and a human rights hero, so he knows what he is talking about. I VERY highly recommend the book!

Anti-Americanism by Jean Francois Revel
-Revel spells out numerous examples of anti-Americanism from around the globe and demonstrates their intrinsically contradictory and illogical character. These are, he maintains, convincing signs that anti-Americanism is not a rational analysis of America's faults, but an obsession that borders on delusion. Anti-globalization, cultural criticisms, scapegoating--all of these are cogently and clearly discussed. In Revel's words: "[in every period of history marked by progress] there exists what one might call a 'laboratory society' where civilization's great inventions are tested. Not all are necessarily blessings, but they irresistibly prevail. Other nations have to adapt to these innovations, whether they like it or not....In the twentieth century, it was the turn of the United States. Hence it is not without reason, even if obviously overblown, that for billions of people the spread of the liberal economy is synonymous with Americanization." Extremely interesting!

Unholy Alliance: Radical Islam and the American Left by David Horowitz
-I have written many times about the psychological and political connections between the Islamic terrorism of today and the Leftist movements of the 20th century. It is not an accident of history that they are connected, as Horowitz spells out. Horowitz is an historian, and his interest is in identifying those who wish for America's failure in the Middle East. His conclusions are provocative and will really make you think.

Blog by Hugh Hewitt
-A good read, telling you all you ever wanted to know about the phenomenon of blogging and the blogsphere. Not too deep, but I really enjoyed it.

FICTION RECOMMENDATIONS

As my old high school english teacher used say, "de gustabus non disputandem est" [concerning taste there is no argument]. All of the following books appeal to me because of the incredible creativity of their plots; the excellent writing of their authors; and their mesmerizing ability to immerse you in a world extremely different from our own, but at the same time hauntingly similar. Some are examples of great and detailed prose (Clarke); engaging and complicated plot and characters (Rowling); or breathtaking creativity and humor (Fforde). I certainly enjoyed them, and I hope you will! WARNING: I read a great deal of fiction--much more than non-fiction and have broad tastes, including science fiction, fantasy, mystery, and romance novels. The books listed below are some of my current favorites.

Jonathan Strange and Mr. Norrell by Susanna Clarke

ALL of the Harry Potter Books (including the one that will be coming out in June, 2005) by J.K.Rowling:
Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone
Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets
Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban
Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire
Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix
Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince (publish date: June, 2005)

The Tuesday Next Series by Jasper Fforde, including:
The Eyre Affair
Lost in a Good Book
The Well of Lost Plots
Something Rotten

Happy Reading!

- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 4:04 PM |

 
Academic Stupidity
Belmont Club has two posts on the Ward Churchill/Academic Freedom issue (Part I and Part II) that are really worth reading. I weighed in a few days back here, if you're interested.

I have to admit that I was probably wrong. Apparently the courts have decided that academic freedom can include personal speech when one works for a state or federal institution--which Churchill does. Sigh... it would have been so therapeutic if the university regents could have fired him. Unfortunately, it seems as if they are stuck with this moron for life (his or theirs). A clear case of Academic Stupidity. They should have been more careful who they gave tenure to, so they and we must live with the consequences of that. Parents, think very carefully before you send your children to that particular university.

On the other hand, apparently "academic freedom" does not apply to student free speech, as this article (and many other cases I cited previously) indicates. When it comes to students, you are only free to speak when your views are considered politically correct.

Maybe it is not so amazing that someone like Ward Churchill was able to gain tenure after all. He certainly didn't get it for his academic credentials.

And now I promise never to speak of him again--he's already getting far too much attention for such a jerk, and it will only reinforce his malignant narcissism.

- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 2:11 PM |

 
Fanfare for the Common Man
Here is a moving tribute to the uncommonnly courageous people--men and women-- of Iraq (hat tip: The Corner)

And then after you watch the three-minute video linked above, and listen to Copeland's great music accompanying it, you can go here to read about a particularly pitiful piece of humanity and her insane perspective of the world. (hat tip: Michelle Malkin)

And as you read what she has to say, you might just hear--echoing in the background--the monumental theme from "Looney Tunes".

- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 6:57 PM |

 
Diagnosis: Tyranny
One of the most inspirational passages of President Bush's SOTU speech was a reprise of his Inaugural. It had to do with tyranny and freedom:

In the long term, the peace we seek will only be achieved by eliminating the conditions that feed radicalism and ideologies of murder.

If whole regions of the world remain in despair and grow in hatred, they will be the recruiting grounds for terror, and that terror will stalk America and other free nations for decades.

The only force powerful enough to stop the rise of tyranny and terror and replace hatred with hope is the force of human freedom.

We have come to appreciate that the popular belief that the "root cause" of terrorism must be poverty is incorrect (see here), and what Bush is proposing as an alternative is rather radical: Tyranny is the root cause.

As Daniel McGroarty in RealClearPolitics put it:

Witness George W. Bush’s new twist on the root cause argument: What’s lacking isn’t economic opportunity, but political freedom – not material want, but moral autonomy.


Let me also propose something radical. TYRANNY is also the root cause of poverty. Wherever you find political oppression, you will find poverty. Wherever despots control the means of production, you will find poverty. That is why it is so easy to believe that poverty could be the "root cause". But it is only a symptom of a larger disease. Political freedom and the extent to which it enables capitalism and the free market determines the wealth of nations.

Victor Davis Hanson has a wonderful editorial at his site that pulls it all together (hat tip: LGF):

What explains this automatic censure of the United States, Israel, and to a lesser extent the Anglo-democracies of the United Kingdom and Australia? Westernization, coupled with globalization, has created an affluent and leisured elite that now gravitates to universities, the media, bureaucracies, and world organizations, all places where wealth is not created, but analyzed, critiqued, and lavishly spent.

Thus we now expect that the New York Times, Harper's, Le Monde, U.N. functionaries who call us "stingy," French diplomats, American writers and actors will all (1) live a pretty privileged life; (2) in recompense "feel" pretty worried and guilty about it; (3) somehow connect their unease over their comfort with a pathology of the world's hyperpower, the United States; and (4) thus be willing to risk their elite status, power, or wealth by very brave acts such as writing anguished essays, giving pained interviews, issuing apologetic communiqués, braving the rails to Davos, and barking off-the-cuff furious remarks about their angst over themes (1) through (3) above. What a sad contrast they make with far better Iraqis dancing in the street to celebrate their voting.

There is something else to this shrillness of the global throng besides the obvious fact of hypocrisy — that very few of the world's Westernized cynical echelon ever move to the ghetto to tutor those they champion in the abstract, reside in central Africa to feed the poor, give up tenure to ensure employment for the exploited lecturer, or pass on the Washington or New York A-list party to eat in the lunch hall with the unwashed. Davos after all, is not quite central Bolivia or the Sudan (Emphasis VDH). Just go read the whole thing, will you? (My comment!)

Many places in the world are afflicted with a disease that, if left untreated, is fatal. To put it in medical terms:

Diagnosis: TYRANNY
Symptoms: terrorism, poverty, hopelessness
Treatment: FREEDOM and its economic partner, CAPITALISM



- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 4:22 PM |

 
The Council Has Spoken!
I am deeply honored to have won this week's Watcher's Council Competition for BEST COUNCIL POST. If you have not already seen the post on this site, here is the Link:

Challenger - A Flight Surgeon Remembers

This post was very difficult and somewhat painful to write, but I'm glad I finally did after waiting to talk about it for 19 years. If you check it out, read the comments it has generated for several illuminating discussions about NASA.

Coming in 2nd is a great post by The Moderate Voice:

Remembering the Horrors and Significance of Auschwitz


The BEST NON-COUNCIL POSTS chosen:

1st: Spelling It Out at Cold Fury

2nd: Bush Hatred Is Porn for the Left at Almost Daily

As always, I hope you will check out all the winners at the Watcher's site: Watcher of Weasels.

- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 12:45 PM |

 
A Classic Case of Hysteria
I vividly remember a young patient who I first saw in the Emergency Room many years ago--I'll call her Barbara. Barbara was a 16 year old high school student who decided to skip classes at her school one afternoon and arrived home only to discover her mother in bed with a man who was not her father. Clearly upset, she ran out of the front door of the house and tripped over a potted plant, landing in the grass of the well-manicured front lawn. When she tried to get up from her fall, Barbara discovered that she was completely blind.

Barbara was brought in by her parents, and the story was related to me by the mother, who asked to see me alone. When I finally spoke to Barbara, she seemed completely indifferent to what had happened. Had she hit her head? No. She had fallen on her outstretched hands and closed her eyes and when she opened them she had been unable to see. Had she been upset, I asked. No. Was she angry at her mother? No. How did she feel about the fact that she couldn't see. What am I supposed to feel, she wanted to know and shrugged her shoulders with supreme boredom of a teenager. both of her parents were significantly more anxious and emotional about her situation than she was.

Her case was not difficult to diagnose (although we did all the necessary medical tests to make sure it was not a serious medical problem). Back then we called it "hysterical blindness"; now it is called a "Conversion Disorder". Barbara's case even had what was known as "la belle indifferance"--the notable lack of conern seen in the sufferers of a conversion disorder. You see, this was a classic Freudian case, the kind that he used to write about with all the obligatory symbolism (e.g., the blindness symbolized the fact that she didn't want to "see" or "look" at something that was too painful for her to accept). It is the kind of case that was very common in Freud's part of the century, when there was a general lack of sophistication about medicine and psychology. Hysteria become less and less frequently seen in the 70's and 80's as the public became more educated about medical and physiological matters. It is uncommon today, but still occurs occasionally.

On further questioning about what had made her come home that day, Barbara became quite animated as she described the precipitating event that lead to her unexpected decision to cut class. She had just been told by her boyfriend of several months that he was seeing another girl and wanted to break up with her. Feeling she would not be able to get through the rest of the day without crying, and not wanting her friends to see her upset, she came home. Interestingly, she was angry--extremely angry--at her ex-boyfriend and the girl he was now dating. She had no difficulty in expressing that emotion. When asked more confrontationally about what she found when she came home, she admitted it had been a shock to see her mother with another man, but what was REALLY bothering her was the deceitful, lying, ungrateful, evil boy who had broken up with her. She was able to express some decidedly homicidal rage about his behavior. About her mother's behavior, she had nothing to say.

Barbara, I submit to you, is a perfect metaphor for the Democratic Party of the 21st Century. Like Barbara, they have had a rude psychological shock, stumbled, and become blind to the serious events happening in the world around them. They feel they have been deceived and lied to --betrayed even--and have chosen to direct their rage against President Bush, the symbol of all the evil in the world. By doing so, they don't have to focus on the real evil --the horrific attacks of 9/11. They appear to be sublimely indifferent to the reality around them and choose to focus on events and incidents that are trivial in comparison. Like Barbara, their world is falling apart, but all they can do is close their eyes to it and focus ("displace") their anger onto a convenient target whose election was a blow to their narcissism.

Over the next two months, Barbara slowly became well again. In psychotherapy, we focused on trying to get her to "see" what she really couldn't bear to face--the breakup of her parent's marriage and the end of her childhood idealization of them--and come to grips with it. The loss of a fickle boyfriend she barely knew hurt also, but was not the real trauma she had to deal with. Somehow, she had to develop the necessary maturity to cope with the new reality of her world--to "see" it for what it was. And somewhere along that difficult psychological path, her vision returned.

I sincerely hope that the Democrats are able to negotiate that same path.


- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 11:17 PM |

 
Get Over It
From Cox and Forkum:

Yes, this is a related, but new psychiatric syndrome--first described here
But for the people who suffer from it, the cure is considered worse than the disease: self-reflection; psychological insight; and rational thought.

- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 6:23 PM |

 
Academic Freedom vs. Academic Accountability
It seems that there is a lot of confusion these days among university professors about the difference between the concepts of "academic freedom" and "academic accountability". Many of them appear to believe that having "academic freedom" means never having to say they're sorry--or at least, never being accountable for what they say; and forever protected from criticism of their their thoughts and opinions and behavior--no matter how UNacademic or asinine.

When the criticism originates in a scholarly journal in response to a scholarly publication, it is more palatable. But usually, scholarly journals are the repository of scholarly ideas--a place where those ideas can be presented with evidence or data to support them; discussed; disagreed with, or refuted. This is a form of academic accountability. Those professors--even with tenure--who never publish their ideas for the academic community to analyze or dissect, soon lose credibiity within their fields (or should, at any rate). Those with crackpot ideas; no evidence or data to demonstrate their ideas; are subject to the indignity of not being published at all--their papers and the elucidated ideas insufficiently robust to even make it onto the academic cutting block. These latter will never (well, hardly ever) achieve tenure--except in those fields where scholarly ability is not valued.

One such area appears to be "ethnic studies". I wonder what "ethnic study" led Professor Churchill to opine his delusional personal beliefs and disguised it under "academic freedom"? He is currently finding out about the impact of "peer review" as the general public become aware of some of the more outrageous things he says. And, isn't it interesting that --although his expressed feelings managed to hurt thousands of people who had relatives and loved ones in the 9/11 attacks; there is no outrage from the same multicultural, politically correct university community who are so often tenderly concerned about the hostile impact of "conservative" views-- speech is only free, apparently, for those who have views the university crowd agrees with (see here, for example)

Of course Churchill has a right to free speech. But just because Churchill works for a university does not make him some holy, sacred being whose ideas and opinions must forever be sacrosanct and unquestioned. Who does he think he is? Mohammed? Are his writings like the Koran that they must not be ridiculed and laughed at? That they can't be exposed for the academic shams they are? What will he do? Issue a fatwa against those who think he is a crackpot and that he should be fired?

Frankly, I personally agree that Churchill is a complete idiot and a malignant human being. He is certainly entitled to his opinions on September 11, and he can identify with and dress up as Che Guevara and other Leftist thugs all he wants for all I care (he's probably so narcissistic he thinks the picture linked to isn't completely hilarious). But if I lived in Colorado I would deeply resent that MY tax money was being used to promulgate his personal agenda; and not to further the cause of science and scholarship in any way that I could see.

It is probably too much to hope that his academic colleagues would see him for the joke that he is and laugh him out of the field. But I have no problem with him having to be accountable for his views to the people who pay him. And tenure or not, in my humble opinion, those people should fire his ass.

UPDATE: Sweet.

- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 5:13 PM |

 
Amazing
Apparently--except for a toy soldier being held hostage--there is nothing going on in Iraq that the media is reporting. Let me rephrase that--there is nothing going on there (like Freedom, etc. ) that the media can twist to hurt the U.S. right now.

I noted just prior to the Iraqi election the number of stories being discussed over at Memeorandum that were negative doom and gloom essays/headlines. I guess Scrappleface was right! The Iraqi voting disrupted news reports of bombing! Amazing.

- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 10:40 AM |

 
Yes, This IS Islam
Here is an eye-opening and brutal run-down on the crimes of Islam against women, and the "blindness" exhibited in Europe and western countries about the practices of muslims living in their countries that oppress women.

Western women have long wryly accepted that their mates rarely notice new outfits and new hairdos. Muslim males, by contrast, take a more intense interest in what female family members wear on their heads, what they put on their faces, how they wrap their bodies, who they shake hands with (no one) and talk to, and obsess more about their genitalia than British lap dance king Peter Stringfellow and the wardrobe chief for Caesar's Palace combined.

Little girls, who should be playing jump rope and taking tennis lessons, are forced to submerge their individuality in hot, uncomfortable, anonymous robes that severely limit movement. This is called teaching them to be "modest". They are made to attend school looking different, and apart, in their headscarves, a barrier, as it is intended to be, to integration.

All these elaborate protocols are done in the name of "protecting" women and girls from themselves. But the truth is, it is self-defense on the part of the Muslim man. To protect Muslim women, immigrant families to the West comply only 50 percent with normal Western dress codes. How often have I seen, in the south of France in the baking heat of summer, a North African family walking across a parking lot, daddy and the teenage son in smart Bermuda shorts, T-shirts and Reeboks, hair cut trendily short and gelled, as Western as you please, and lumbering along in their snappy wake, struggling with the shopping and the swathes of draperies, two or three ambulatory swathes of black sheeting.

That was just the introduction. Read all about the 14 year old girl, abducted and raped by an adult male, who on her rescue and return to her family was brutally murdered by her father for "shaming" the family. Or the bride dressing for a wedding ceremony stabbed 22 times by her cousin because his tender sensibilities were upset that she was marrying a divorced man.

These incidents ocurred in Western countries. If muslim women cannot get protection and justice in these countries, where can they get it? If Britain, Canada, France and Germany--supposedly FREE and under the rule of law, turn a blind eye to the despicable treatment of immigrant muslim women--what hope is there for those women? This probably explains their high suicide rate (four times the rate of the indiginous women).

Yet, over and over again we hear the refrain that the behavior of muslim men toward muslim women is "not" Islam. That it is contrary to "real" Islam (despite the manuals issued by imams on how to beat a wife or daughter so that it doesn't "show"). We even witness the apologists among the women who claim that covering themselves is their "choice" and allows them to be who they "really are".

Frankly, this bullshit is beginning to make me sick. I have no problem with such muslim women apologists wearing whatever they want. But their perspective would be ever so much more persuasive if women who choose NOT to have their individual identities submerged under a shapeless, formless and oppressive religion, were not murdered so frequently by raging, dysfunctional men, shaky about their masculinity.

The apologists, female and male, must face the reality: This IS Islam. Only then can something be done to change it.

UPDATE: And for those of you who STILL cannot accept the evil currently being practised under the auspices of Islam, here it is in their own words: "There can be no end to jihad" (hat tip: Jihad Watch)

- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 7:44 PM |

 
Defeatist Elitists
Thomas Sowell's column about the Iraqi elections is worth a read--as usual, he says it all and in a way I wish I could:

The defeatists have been defeated.

Remember all the political outcries that the Iraqi elections should be postponed because it would be impossible to hold elections with terrorism rampant throughout the country?

Fortunately, most Iraqis do not see the American media, with its distorted picture of their country, so they went to the polls -- with a higher turnout than in our own elections last November. Over here we worry about whether falling snow will reduce turnout. But the Iraqis braved threats of death in order to take control of Iraq.

First and foremost, it was a great victory for the Iraqi people. It was also a great victory for the magnetic appeal of freedom, even in a country that has so long been denied it. What some of our own politicians and media pundits are obviously afraid of is that it will also be seen as a victory for President Bush.

In the eyes of some people, nothing that the Bush administration does can be right. If the President were to create a program that would end earthquakes and tsunamis tomorrow, critics would demand to know why he is allowing wildfires and lightning to continue killing people.

The defeatists who have been defeated are already saying that the election is "just the first step" toward democracy. Every step is just one step. Invading Normandy was just one step, the battle of Midway was just one step. But, without those steps, World War II might not have been won.

Senator John Kerry loudly proclaimed on "Meet the Press" that the Iraqi election represented President Bush's "last chance" to "get it right." Nothing is easier than to demand more from somebody else -- even when you yourself have been an obstacle to achieving what has already been achieved.

Senator Kerry has a long record as a defeatist and obstructionist. Back in 1971, he said, "we cannot fight communism all over the world" -- adding in the same arrogant tone he uses today, "I think we should have learned that lesson by now."

Ronald Reagan never learned that lesson -- and hundreds of millions of human beings are free of communist tyranny today as a result. But during all the years when President Reagan was building up our military forces and our intelligence agencies, Senator Kerry was consistently voting against the appropriations required to do so.

What both men were doing was consistent with their respective assumptions and goals. Senator Kerry was just one of the defeatist elitists who regarded the communist bloc as a "fact of life" which we could only accept and which it was futile to waste resources opposing.

They imagined themselves to be so much wiser than other people that condescension was only natural, as they brushed aside any other viewpoint with such dismissive words as "cowboy" or even "stupid." The fact that events proved the defeatist elitists dead wrong in the Cold War -- and now again in the Iraqi elections -- has not yet broken through their smugness.

Probably nothing ever will. But that does not mean that the rest of us need to keep taking their high opinion of themselves seriously.

Senator Kerry has been a defeatist in another way. He has been quick to throw to the wolves foreign allies who have been depicted as mere accomplices in America's futile efforts. People like Senator Kerry not only pushed for our withdrawal from Vietnam but for our cutting off all aid to the South Vietnamese government that was resisting the North Vietnamese Communists -- who were backed by aid from the Communist bloc.

During the current struggle for Iraq, Senator Kerry has called Iraqi Prime Minister Allawi a "puppet" -- once more giving aid and comfort to the enemy by undermining an ally, in this case a man who is putting his life on the line in a country where terrorist assassinations have become a way of life.

Senator Kerry's long years of defeatism, obstructionism and abetting our enemies have been largely overlooked by the mainstream media. But much of that media has been doing the same thing. The courage of the Iraqis should shame the defeatists -- if they had any shame.

But of course, they don't.

- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 2:17 PM |

 
50 Way To Force Regime Change
As the President prepares for his State of the Union Speech, I submit this little ditty as a follow-up on his inspiring Inaugural that envisioned the end of tyranny and peace through freedom (Sorry, Paul Simon!)

50 Ways To Force Regime Change

The problem was inside Iraq, Bush said to me
The answer was easy--just to bring democracy
We swore we'd help them in their struggle to be free
There must be fifty ways to force regime change

He said it's really not my habit to intrude
And anyway, no matter what my meaning's misconstrued
But I'll repeat myself at the risk of being rude
There must be fifty ways to force regime change
Fifty ways to force regime change

We can ignore every whim, Kim
Better stop being bad, Assad
Just go to hell, Fidel
And all will be free
Get a new man, Iran
You'll find you can't ban spam
Let everyone be, Kofi
And embrace liberty

He said it grieves me so to generate dislike
There are so many ways for them to stop my strike
And then he just explained it as if talking to a tyke
About the fifty ways

He said why don't you-all just listen to my speech
And I'll try not to make that Boxer child screech
And then he just proceeded to discuss them each to each
There must be fifty ways to force regime change
Fifty ways to force regime change

We can ignore every whim, Kim
Better stop being bad, Assad
Just go to hell, Fidel
And all will be free
Get a new man, Iran
You really can't ban spam
Let everyone be, Kofi
And embrace liberty


- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 11:06 PM |

 
Ayn Rand and Me
This month marks the Centenary of Ayn Rand. Rand had a profound impact on me, beginning when I was 12 years old and read The Fountainhead for the first time. Looking back, I remember the enormous emotional wallop of that book. My parents were in the middle of a bitter, angry divorce and I felt completely helpless and hopeless in dealing with the situation. What was going to happen to me and my brothers? Ayn Rand couldn't have arrived at a more opportune time in my early life. It would be years before I fully appreciated the intellectual acccomplishment of the The Fountainhead, but the "sense of life" projected by the main characters hit me like a freight train. It was the first time that I considered the idea that I WAS IN CONTROL OF THE OUTCOME OF MY OWN LIFE! Yes, I was a child, but my parents actions or inactions could not determine my fate. Only I could do that. I was torn up inside by what was happening to my family, but it wasn't my fault, and I could not take responsibility for my mother and father's actions. Nor did I have to let their rage and bitterness destroy my joy in life.

It was truly a liberating experience for a young girl on the verge of womanhood, and is probably the main reason why I naturally came to believe that I could do anything I wanted to in my life. It was about the same time that I first started thinking about being a physician. [My mother had hoped I would become a nurse. My grandmother took me aside and said, "Don't listen to her--you live in America and you can be a doctor if you want to!" My grandmother immigrated from Italy just before WWI, because--as she used to tell me- "Women didn't stand a chance to do what they want there." She had been disappointed in my mother, who had enormous artistic and musical talent, but who abandoned it totally when she married my father. Ayn Rand would have loved my grandmother].

Over the next few years I read Anthem, We the Living, and finally Rand's magnum opus--Atlas Shrugged. By the time I graduated from high school, I was a devoted fan. And I had begun to appreciate the philosophy of individualism and freedom that she espoused in her books, not just the emotional sense of celebrating life and happiness. One of my close friends at the time and I actually subscribed to her newsletter, and hoped to go to New York and take several courses offered at the Nathaniel Brandon Institute, which promoted her philosophy. I completely idealized her as a person and believed that she was one of her own heroes. On that I was soon to be set straight. I won't go into the details as Nathaniel Brandon has written extensively on that period of time, but it soon became apparent to me that Ayn Rand had a dictatorial streak a mile long. Apparently, one was not to sacrifice one's own thoughts and integrity to anyone--except her. To be part of her inner circle meant unquestioning obedience or face expulsion.

Thus Ayn Rand taught me a second, truly important lesson. You can judge a person by their behavior; but you must judge an idea separate from the person who conceives itor promotes it. Ayn Rand had many fine intellectual qualities and her ideas were brilliant. But as a person, she managed to wreak havoc in the lives of all the people who were important to her and came to betray her own intellectual legacy [I have come to learn that Rand probably used/abused amphetamines to maintain her weight, and it strikes me that this may have had a pronounced effect on her increasing paranoia and irritabiity through her life--especially her personal life. How she would have hated that if it were known to her! She, who espoused reason above all, was slowly having her reason eaten away by a drug she believed was safe!). I came to understand Rand as a flawed human being--brilliant, but not exactly one of her own heroic characters. And I was able to appreciate that a critique of her or her ideas was not a betrayal of reason, as some of her supporters maintain to this day.

As for her ideas! Her denunciation of totalitarianism and tyranny. Her brilliant defense of capitalism. Her emphasis on reason as man's primary means of survival; on "selfishness" as the right of all individuals, and her rejection of the idea of "a moral duty to subjugate others for the sake of some "higher" good, whether for the sake of Allah in the Middle East or for the sake of the "common good" in the West. Freedom cannot be spread abroad nor protected here at home without a moral defense of individualism and capitalism. " (here)

In my opinion, her ideas represent moral and philosophical foundation of "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness". She was not the only philosopher who contributed to the defense of Individualism and Liberty, but she was the first to defend it on moral and ethical grounds; and the first to see Capitalism as the natural extension of human liberty. "I am not primarily an advocate of capitalism," she wrote in 1971, "but of egoism; and I am not primarily an advocate of egoism, but of reason. If one recognizes the supremacy of reason and applies it consistently, all the rest follows."

I was fortunate to hear Rand speak just once while I was in college. When she died of lung cancer in 1982, it was a sad day for advocates of Freedom. Something she is reported to have said not long before her death was quite striking. She was talking about her own impending death, but rather than allowing death to be something that she passively accepted, she merely turned the concept around psychologically and claimed that death was the "end of the world"! Because of course, from her perspective, her death was the end of her world.

But Howard Roark, John Galt, Dagney Taggert, Francisco d'Anconia Hank Reardon and the worlds she created will live forever. Thank you, Ayn Rand.

Ayn Rand Centenary commemorated by Cox and Forkum

- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 5:43 PM |

 
I AM WOMAN HEAR ME ROAR....
Yeah right. Why aren't we hearing more women roaring their support for this? Standing up proudly for the women in Afghanistan and Iraq? Instead of wasting time waving their panties at Bush (here)? The Women's movement has become a bunch of lightweight pathetic whiners, whose priorities have become entangled in anti-democratic, freedom-oppressing totalitarianism.

Just another group of professional victims.

- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 11:26 AM |