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.
Monday, February 28, 2005
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!
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?
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
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?
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.
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.
Sunday, February 27, 2005
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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!
Congratulations to King Jeremy of American Warmonger, who won fair and square. He'll make a great King!
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:
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:
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.
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.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:
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?"
Shame on you for turning your education to the service of the willfully blind and power-mad monsters ruining our country.Another one wrote in response to a third commenter who supported my view:
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?
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?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.
Jesus would slap the shit out of you.
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:
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.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.
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.
Saturday, February 26, 2005
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?"
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?"
Friday, February 25, 2005
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.
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.
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!!!
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!!!
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".
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".
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!)
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!)
Thursday, February 24, 2005
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.
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.
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?
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?
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).
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).
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.
Wednesday, February 23, 2005
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!
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!
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!
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!
The Ex-Girlfriend
Mark Steyn makes an amazingly accurate assessment of the U.S. relationship with Europe:
But, in the broader sense vis-Ã -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.
But, in the broader sense vis-Ã -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.
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!)
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!)
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!
"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!
Tuesday, February 22, 2005
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.
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.
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!
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
Monday, February 21, 2005
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).
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).
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"
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"
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.
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.
Sunday, February 20, 2005
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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!
Saturday, February 19, 2005
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!)
...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!)
Friday, February 18, 2005
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
"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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)