Like A Patient Etherised Upon A Table
In her new blog, I Could Scream, Dymphna (of Gates of Vienna) discusses the mind-numbing (she calls it "mind-dumbing") rules on and discussion of women's attire generated by Islamic "scholars":

Her dress prior to becoming "more" Muslim was the traditional shalwar kameez, a long tunic over pants. There were complaints, though, that prior to donning the biljab, Ms. Begum's costume was nipped at the waist and had insufficiently long sleeves. Several Muslim scholars agreed that former mode of attire was "insufficiently Islamic"

‘O Messenger of Allah, what about the one who does not have a Jilbab?’. He said, ‘Let her use the Jilbab of her sister.’” So the Prophet(saw) made the wearing of the jilbab one of the conditions for the woman entering the public life.

The scholarly output generated about women's apparel is as mind-dumbing as the Human Rights Act. They are both part of a larger zeitgeist. On the one hand, protecting 'victims' and on the other hand, creating them. Life lived according to scholarly opinion or bureaucratic dictates on minutiae has this result: the mind becomes deflected to the surface of things and blind to the ebb and flow of deeper reality. Such negotiations through the vicissitudes of what it means to be human become no more than a series of small desperate measures dispensed in coffee spoons. The search for security is not an innocent one.

Don't you wonder what J. Alfred Prufrock might have made of Londonistan?

If you read this site regularly, you know that I strongly oppose the systematic subjugation of women under the Islamic boot. Dymphna is articulate and passionate and her new site is dedicated to examining the plight of women in the Middle East. Check out the new blog (which is hosted by The Belmont Club), and see what you think. It is sure to be an important contribution to exposing the institutionalized religious oppression of women under Islam.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 11:06 PM |

 
On the Death of a Young Lady, Cousin to the Author, and very dear to Him

Hush'd are the winds, and still the evening gloom,
Not e'en a zephyr wanders through the grove,
Whilst I return to view my Margaret's tomb,
And scatter flowers on the dust I love.

Within this narrow cell reclines her clay,
That clay, where once such animation beam'd;
The King of Terrors seiz'd her as his prey;
Not worth, nor beauty, have her life redeem'd.

Oh! could that King of Terrors pity feel,
Or Heaven reverse the dread decree of fate,
Not here the mourner would his grief reveal,
Not here the Muse her virtues would relate.

But wherefore weep? Her matchless spirit soars
Beyond where splendid shines the orb of day;
And weeping angels lead her to those bowers,
Where endless pleasures virtuous deeds repay.

And shall presumptuous mortals Heaven arraign!
And, madly, Godlike Providence accuse!
Ah! no, far fly from me attempts so vain;--
I'll ne'er submission to my God refuse.

Yet is remembrance of those virtues dear,
Yet fresh the memory of that beauteous face;
Still they call forth my warm affection's tear,
Still in my heart retain their wonted place.

-Lord Byron, 1802.



- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 7:18 PM |

 
Baseball As A Platonic Ideal
I got around to reading this wonderful column by David Brooks yesterday: "Whose Team Am I On?" (subscription required). But there was this one paragraph I must share because it sheds some light on why I love baseball:

Finally, a love for a team can be a philosophical love, a love for the Platonic ideal the team embodies. For teams not only play; they come to represent creeds, a way of living in the world. The Red Sox ideal is: nobility through suffering. The Cubs ideal is: It is better to be loved than feared. The Yankee ideal is: All cower before the greatness that is Rome.

Sigh...I do love the Yankess, but this observation is right on the money about all three clubs. And yet...I think Brooks' point holds true about baseball and sports in general.

By that I mean, that baseball itself embodies a platonic ideal; a creed or way of living in the world that differs from basketball or football. Baseball's ideal is: take time to smell the roses. Life is good. Football's is: get out of my way or I'll crush you AND the roses. Of course, this all reminds me of the famous George Carlin routine about the differences between Baseball and Football:

Now, I've mentioned football. Baseball & football are the two most popular spectator sports in this country. And as such, it seems they ought to be able to tell us something about ourselves and our values.

I enjoy comparing baseball and football:

Baseball is a nineteenth-century pastoral game.
Football is a twentieth-century technological struggle.

Baseball is played on a diamond, in a park.The baseball park!
Football is played on a gridiron, in a stadium, sometimes called Soldier Field or War Memorial Stadium.

Baseball begins in the spring, the season of new life.
Football begins in the fall, when everything's dying.

In football you wear a helmet.
In baseball you wear a cap.

Football is concerned with downs - what down is it?
Baseball is concerned with ups - who's up?

In football you receive a penalty.
In baseball you make an error.

In football the specialist comes in to kick.
In baseball the specialist comes in to relieve somebody.

Football has hitting, clipping, spearing, piling on, personal fouls, late hitting and unnecessary roughness.
Baseball has the sacrifice.

Football is played in any kind of weather: rain, snow, sleet, hail, fog...
In baseball, if it rains, we don't go out to play.

Baseball has the seventh inning stretch.
Football has the two minute warning.

Baseball has no time limit: we don't know when it's gonna end - might have extra innings.
Football is rigidly timed, and it will end even if we've got to go to sudden death.

In baseball, during the game, in the stands, there's kind of a picnic feeling; emotions may run high or low, but there's not too much unpleasantness.
In football, during the game in the stands, you can be sure that at least twenty-seven times you're capable of taking the life of a fellow human being.

And finally, the objectives of the two games are completely different:

In football the object is for the quarterback, also known as the field general, to be on target with his aerial assault, riddling the defense by hitting his receivers with deadly accuracy in spite of the blitz, even if he has to use shotgun. With short bullet passes and long bombs, he marches his troops into enemy territory, balancing this aerial assault with a sustained ground attack that punches holes in the forward wall of the enemy's defensive line.

In baseball the object is to go home! And to be safe! - I hope I'll be safe at home!

As far as where Basketball fits into the overal platonic ideal picture--ask me after this this weekend. It will depend on whether or not my team wins.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 4:13 PM |

 
The Sky is Falling
We are DOOMED! DOOMED! Here's the latest from the environmental Chicken Littles. And then there's also this to brighten your day.

I can't help but wonder what the motives are of people who make these claims. The first article describes them as "scientists", but that seems to me to be going too far. A better description is "true believer".

First, how do they know that "two-thirds" of the world's resources are used up? Is there a news ticker in Times Square that keeps track of all the world's resources and counts down as they are used?

I tried, but couldn't find the report online to read (I am truly curious about how much "science" is actually in it). Isn't it rather tiresome to hear this sad refrain over and over again to all the environmental doom and gloom purveyors? After all, we have been hearing the same predictions since the early 60's. And no matter how much is done in the environmental area; no matter how things improve (e.g., smog). From their perspective things only get worse.

My favorite environmental debunker is Michael Crichton. Read this essay, where he "proves" that global warming is caused by aliens.

There are real issues and challenges that we humans must deal with as conservators of our planet. But, it seems to me, that reports like the ones described above only try to generate hysteria and circumvent any real discussion and planning that might be done about these issues.

Chicken Little, meet the Boy Who Cried Wolf.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 10:48 AM |

 
Women of Afghanistan Making Steady Progress
Women are making steady progress in Afghanistan. For me this is an incredible achievement of President Bush's foreign policy. Women's rights are a real, tangible benefit of the democratization of the Middle East.


U.S. first lady Laura Bush (L) joins a roundtable with students and teachers while visiting the Women's Teachers' Training Institute at the Ministry of Higher Education at Kabul University in Afghanistan today. Bush visited Afghanistan for the first time to promote education for women, which was forbidden by the Taliban government overthrown by U.S.-led forces three years ago.

- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 11:08 PM |

 
Academic Groupthink
Pejman Yousefzadeh at Pejmanesque makes some predictions about the recent evidence (as if we needed more) of the lack of intellectual diversity in Academia:

...instead of admitting that there may be a wee bit of a problem here, we will instead hear the defenders of the academic status quo make the following tiring arguments:

-Republicans want to be businesspeople, and only Democrats care enough to give up money to educate young minds and engage in a life of scholarly contemplation (and get cushy tenured positions in the process!);

-There are plenty of Republicans in engineering schools, music schools, medical schools and other schools that don't involve the social sciences and where ideology does not make the least bit of difference; and

-Republicans are stupid.

Watch. These arguments will be made as surely as night follows day.

Can't say I disagree with him. Using a variety of strategies and rationalization to protect the group from negative information is one of the main symptoms of groupthink.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 10:44 PM |

 
The Sociopathy of One Prophet
More insanity from Islamic Imams.As a physician, this type of thing is simply unbelievable:

Accusations by Islamic preachers that vaccines are part of an American anti-Islamic plot are threatening efforts to combat a measles epidemic that has killed hundreds of Nigerian children, health workers say.

Government officials play down the anti-vaccine sentiment, but all the measles deaths have been in Nigeria's north, where authorities had to suspend polio immunizations last year after hard-line clerics fanned similar fears of that vaccine.

Nigeria, whose 130 million people make it Africa's most populous nation, has recorded 20,859 measles cases so far this year. At least 589 victims have died, most of them children younger than 5 and all in the north, the Nigerian Red Cross and the U.N. World Health Organization say.

Southern Nigeria, which is mainly Christian, had only 253 measles cases, and no deaths.

Health services are much better in the south. But the anti-vaccination sentiment in the north, evident from interviews with parents, seems to be a factor.

"Since the polio controversy, I have not presented any of my children for immunization because my husband said I should not," said Ramatou Mohammed, who was at Abdullahi Wase Hospital seeking treatment for her baby, Miriam, for a measles rash.

"I heard on the radio that the vaccine was contaminated. I still don't trust any vaccine," the 28-year-old mother of four added.

I can't decide which is more insane--the ignorant Imams of a religion bent on human sacrifice for achievement of its aims; or the passive puppets who listen to such ignorance--even when their child's life may be at stake.

And then there's this (hat tip: Power Line):

At that moment, from 20 to 40 militiamen loyal to the militant young Shiite cleric Moqtada Sadr and his Mahdi Army charged into the two-acre park of overgrown grass, concrete picnic tables and paths of colored tiles. Some of them wore checkered headscarves over their faces, others black balaclavas. They carried sticks, cable, pistols and rifles, a few with a weapon in each hand. They were accompanied by two clerics in robes and turbans: Abdullah Menshadawi and Abdullah Zaydi.

Garabet, an unveiled woman from an Armenian Christian family, never saw her assailant. He struck her twice in the back of the head with his fist. "I was afraid to turn around," she said.

She stumbled, then headed with others toward the black steel gate. Militiamen were shouting "Infidels!"

"It was chaos," she said. "Everyone was yelling." [....}

"They focused on the women," said Saeed's friend, Osama Adnan. "They were beating them viciously."

These stories represent yet even more evidence that the religion of Islam is completely incompatible with human life and human nature. That it takes ordinary men and women and converts them either to thugs and assassins; or to the helpless victims of those same religious thugs. Allah through Mohammad has introduced a sickness of the soul into the human spirit, and erasing this pathetic religion from the face of the earth is the only cure. If a more moderate version of this religion is possible, then its believers will have to deal more aggressively with the elements that claim they have the words of the Quran to justify their psychopathology.

How many millions more have to suffer and die because of the infectious sociopathy of one prophet? Enough.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 12:05 PM |

 
Freedom Will Do Him In
VDH has a thoughtful commentary on Syria's dilemma, now that the guys in the 'hood have changed:

His new Middle East neighborhood cannot make Syria's dictator Bashar Assad very happy. Turkey is democratic to his north. A million Arabs vote in Israel to the south. Palestinians are near civil war to establish democratic rule — their own terrorists more a threat to the newly elected Abu Abbas than are Israeli tanks.

Iraq to the east is settling down under its new autonomy, forging through blood and fire the Arab world's first true democracy. Lebanon is now afire with anti-Syrian sentiment, equating its occupation with the last obstacle to a democratic renaissance.

Beyond Syria's borders, Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak's announcement that he may be forced to act as if he will hold real elections is not welcome to Assad. Nor is the strange behavior of once-kindred Col. Moammar Gadhafi and all his unexpected talk of giving up forbidden weapons and letting Westerners back into Libya.

When Wahhabist Saudi Arabia promises municipal elections, or Afghan women line up at the polls for hours, then the world has been turned upside down. Syria's worst nightmare is not an American invasion, but an Arab League that is dominated by nascent democracies.

Thugocracies and kleptocracies, however, die hard. So will that of Bashar Assad. His henchmen probably blew up former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri, in fears that the Westernized entrepreneur dreamed of an open Arab Singapore or Monaco on the border. Now they are planning to unleash enough 1970s-style violence to terrify the Lebanese into preferring Syrian order to their own messy freedom. Hand-in-glove with fellow pariah Iran, Syria hopes to keep sending enough cash and expatriates back into Iraq to stop the democracy contagion before it infects any more.

Assad has a catastrophe on his hands, and there is little he can do. He tried the typical silencing technique that dictators approve, only to discover that fear didn't work anymore. Changes have been set into motionin the region that cannot be stopped--particularly in the usual violent way, since it will only facilitate the demands for freedom and democracy. In the end, these yearnings will do him in.

Read Hanson's entire post over at VDH Private Papers.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 1:03 AM |

 
All The Professors Are Above Average
Unbeknownst to most Americans, it seems that our country has devolved into the fictional town of Lake Wobegon, where "all the women are strong; all the men are good-looking; and all the children are above average."

Foolish me! I used to think that Garrison Keillor was joking--as in making fun of--when he would say this. Obviously many (including Keillor himself) apparently take this maxim seriously.

Theirs is a world where Larry Summers is not allowed free speech. Where children's self-esteem is catered to at the expense of their intelligence; and where no professor's competence can be challenged. Here is what Betsy's Page has to say:

Hello?!

Churchill is accused of plagiarism and of falsely characterizing primary sources to accuse the U.S. army of deliberately committing genocide by spreading smallpox among the Mandan Indians in the 1830s. This scholar, Thomas Brown, does a thorough accusation showing how Churchill, in his academic work, totally mischaracterized the research he was supposedly basing his research on. Read the accusation and see if you think that Churchill presented honest research. Here is the conclusion.

Situating Churchill’s rendition of the epidemic in a broader historiographical analysis, one must reluctantly conclude that Churchill fabricated the most crucial details of his genocide story. Churchill radically misrepresented the sources he cites in support of his genocide charges, sources which say essentially the opposite of what Churchill attributes to them.

It is a distressing conclusion. One wants to think the best of fellow scholars. The scholarly enterprise depends on mutual trust. When one scholar violates that trust, it damages the legitimacy of the entire academy. Churchill has fabricated a genocide that never happened. It is difficult to conceive of a social scientist committing a more egregious violation.

Verbs like "mischaracterize" and "misrepresent" are kindnesses. Deliberate "lie" might be more accurate.

Professor Collins seems to think that incompetence such as not knowing elementary facts of addition is the only reason to dismiss a tenured professor. That's a pretty high bar. Now, does Professor Collins believe that a professor at his university is fit for his job if the professor lies in his research? That is an egregious violation of the responsibility a scholar has. How can a university keep on a professor once it has been revealed that he lied in his research? How can students be held to a high standard in their research if the university, by not firing Churchill, gives an imprimatur of approval to dishonest research? This is what got Michael Bellesiles in hot water at Emory. Eventually Bellesiles had the grace to resign before he was fired. I don't sense that Churchill would behave similarly. They'll have to get Churchill out with a crowbar and a stick of dynamite. But, judging by Professor Collins' disregard of Churchill's academic malfeasance, this committee doesn't seem up to the task.

What in heaven's name does a professor have to do to be fired? Michael Caine, playing Dr. Frank Bryant in the movie Educating Rita responds to Rita's query if the university will sack him for being drunk during a lecture: "Good God no. That would involve making a decision. Pissed is all right. To get the sack, it would have to be rape on a grand scale. And not just with students, either. That would only amount to a slight misdemeanour. No, for dismissal it would have to be nothing less than buggering the Bursar.

Not only does Churchill have a right to his incompetence, but the taxpayers must pay him for it! This man has stolen others ideas and words and art. He deceived everyone about his Indian heritage and is a con artist extraordinaire. I have no idea if he has also done what Dr. Frank claims is the only significant academic malfeasance.

All I know is that if he is not fired, he will go on to ceate many "little churchills" out of the young minds entrusted to his care. They will learn thatincompetence, lying, cheating, and a complete disregard for truth, combined with an artful and unlimited arrogance will get you far in life.

Paradoxically though it may seem, it is none the less true that life imitates art far more than art imitates life.-Oscar Wilde
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 10:15 AM |

 
What A Great Idea !
According to Austin Bay, the new Iraqi Baathist "exit strategy" is to turn in Zarqawi. What a great idea!

The holdouts have always had two hole cards. The first is agreeing to quit fighting. This meant submitting to the democratic judicial process, but turning in your arms and asking for amnesty would lay the groundwork for a “deal with the prosecutor.”

The second card is turning in Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and the Al Qaeda internationalists..Fact is, turning in Zarqawi would be the Baghdad equivalent of Monopoly’s “Get Out of Jail Free Card” for the lower-level holdouts who engineer it.

The Saddamites who turn in Zarqawi would give the Iraqi government a tactical military victory –the terrorist kingpin is off the streets– and a major political victory. Sunni Muslims turning in the Islamist terrorist would be another strategic coup for the United States.

And, as Tigerhawk notes in the comments of the above quoted post:

If Sunni insurgents were to turn al-Zarqawi in, the consequences for al Qaeda would be more ominous than if Zal-Zarqawi’s defeat occurred on the battlefield contending with American or Iraqi soldiers. This is because al Qaeda would know that it could not count on even passionately anti-American Sunni Muslims, who otherwise might be expected to form the core of al Qaeda’s further recruitment efforts. This realization would make it almost impossible for al Qaeda to build its organization, or even trust affiliated organizations. In addition, the example of Sunnis rejecting al Qaeda would presumably resonate within al Qaeda’s pool of prospective recruits – not only will al Qaeda not be able to trust those recruits, but those recruits will no longer be able to trust other Sunni Arabs that they had thought were sympathetic. Any former friend might become an enemy. This risk alone should diminish the willinesness of the young radicals to throw in their lot with al Qaeda.

This is obviously a great idea, and it seems to me that the handwriting is on the wall for the Islamofascist thugs--Al Qaeda and other groups. It is becoming pretty obvious that they are losing the battle for hearts and minds in the Middle East, as the domino effect of Iraqi empowerment sweeps across the area.

And really, is anyone surprised that given a choice in the matter, human beings would rather live in freedom than under tyranny and oppression--whether it is the tyranny of a Saddam or the oppression of the Taliban or Wahhibism? Bin Laden and Zarqawi are already old news. Soon they will join the legion of vanquished supervillains in whatever hell such monsters are consigned after death.

They will have earned it.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 10:50 PM |

 
Spring Break !
I will be traveling today, so posting will be lighter than usual! Actually it will likely be lighter all week... I'll be in Chicago, then Houston--a combination of business and pleasure.

Since I am addicted to blogging (God help me), you can check back later in the day for something new; or just browse through my archives; or click on some of the links in the sidebar!
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 9:49 AM |

 
Nudadists of the World Unite!
Big Pharaoh is in excellent form as he gets to the heart of the multiculturalism scam. (hat tip: Roger Simon) Discussing the recent British court ruling discussed here, The big guy notes:

The girl's win proves that "religious rights" should be placed above all other rules and laws in Britain. The British court's ruling is so encouraging to me because I am thinking about suing the British education authorities when I go to the London school I enrolled in.

See, yesterday I converted to a religion called Nudadism. It is a very peaceful religion that rejects any form of clothing. In our holy book Nudaible, our god Nudenus orders us to go to school naked because clothing is an evil human invention that man made in order to cover Nudenus' creation. We have a verse in our Holy Nudaible that says "Oh Humans, We have created thou naked, thou go to school naked"

It would be a huge infringement of my religious rights if my London school prevented me from going to class naked. The evil racist bigot education authorities must understand that Great Britain is a "multicultural" society that must accept all religious beliefs. If my religion orders me to go to school naked then I have the right to go naked no matter what the school's rules are! I don't give a hoot about the school's uniform guidelines. Great Britain opened its door for me and so it must put up with ALL my religious rites even if they contradicted their laws and regulations.

Yes, that is the problem, isn't it? Read the entire post. Big Pharaoh, btw, blogs from Egypt.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 9:41 AM |

 
Flag Mystery
Neo-neocon is on the case! She wonders, "Where did all those Lebanese Flags come from?"

The Lebanese flag has to be one of the most beautiful flags ever, with its red stripes and the green cedar in the center. It was hardly ever seen before the Hariri assassination--and then, afterwards, it suddenly seemed to be everywhere, a veritable cedar forest.

Had everyone been hiding one under the mattress, waiting for the signal to come? Was there a special mobile flag factory, seeding them around the country? Or were they imported for the occasion (although most assuredly not from Syria)?

If you want to discover the solution to this puzzling mystery, go over to her blog and read the rest! And yes, the Lebanese flag is quite beautiful, don't you think?
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 12:07 AM |

 
CARNIVAL OF THE INSANITIES
Time for the weekly insanity udate, where the insane, the bizarre, the ridiculous, and the completely absurd are highlighted for all to see! Be sure to send in your entries to the Carnival, which will be posted every Sunday. Entries need to be in by 8 pm on Saturday to make their way into the list that week. Oh, and by the way, Happy Easter to everyone! Did you know that the word "Easter" comes from "Eostre" a pagan goddess of fertility? And that her symbols are rabbits, chicks, and eggs (all symbolic of fertility and life)?

1. The Easter Bunny? I'm devastated.

2. Ahhh. The impact of advertising!

3. UH-OH.

4. My only question is if this is true, why didn't they do it years ago?

5. I always knew they were a religion.

6. This has real potential for expanding the romance genre.

7. Hey, these guys are professionals--don't try to do this at home.

8. Kofi + Kojo = Korrupt.

9. It's just a hypothesis and requires continued data collection and analysis. But it looks promising.

10. Eeewwwww. This is totally gross. Really.

11. This guy is definitely a man of constant Soros.

12. This is an incredible picture. No kidding!

13. Just to let you know, Iran and North Korea are also playing in the Soccer World Cup games. So, who do European soccer players protest against? (See here and here). Europeans have gone off the deep end.

14. [sarcasm] May I suggest Michael Moore Elementary School? Or how about Boxer Elementary? Surely both options are better than being named for that guy. What did he ever do, after all? [/sarcasm]

15. We can hope, can't we? See #8.

Send all entries to the Carnival of the Insanities to patsanty*at*aol.com. If you want a link, be sure to include your blog URL!
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 10:48 AM |

 
The New Neanderthals
University of Wyoming economist Jason Shogren, along with colleagues Richard Horan of Michigan State University and Erwin Bulte from Tilburg University in the Netherlands report in an academic paper that free trade may have contributed to the extinction of Neanderthals 30,000-40,000 years ago. (hat tip: The Corner)

After at least 200,000 years of eking out an existence in glacial Eurasia, the Neanderthal suddenly went extinct.” [....] “Early modern humans arriving on the scene shortly before are suspected to have been the perpetrator, but exactly how they caused Neanderthal extinction is unknown.”

Creating a new kind of caveman economics in their published paper, [the authors] argue early modern humans were first to exploit the competitive edge gained from specialization and free trade. With more reliance on free trade, humans increased their activities in culture and technology, while simultaneously out-competing Neanderthals on their joint hunting grounds, the economists say.

Archaeological evidence exists to suggest traveling bands of early humans interacted with each other and that inter-group trading emerged, says Shogren. Early humans, the Aurignations and the Gravettians, imported many raw materials over long ranges and their innovations were widely dispersed. Such exchanges of goods and ideas helped early humans to develop “supergroup social mechanisms.” The long-range interchange among different groups kept both cultures going and generated new cultural explosions, Shogren says.

NRO asks rhetorically, "What does this say about the anti-globalization movement?"

According to Wikpedia, "globalization" is a term used to describe the changes in societies and the world economy that are the result of dramatically increased trade and cultural exchange. In specifically economic contexts, it refers almost exclusively to the effects of trade, particularly trade liberalization or "free trade".
The new Neanderthals are the anti-capitalists; the anti-free trade protesters; the anti-WTO protesters. They are generally allied with capitalism's historical enemies who claim that it is capitalism that causes world poverty and most of the ills of humankind.

The new Neanderthals ignore the evidence that has demonstrated over and over again that human misery has a cure--and that cure is capitalism and free trade. The latest ploy on the part of these protesters (who come from the ranks of Marxists, Socialists, and Communists--still in denial that their moment in history has passed and that their ideology was placed once and for all in history's dustbin) is to claim that capitalism and democracy are incompatible; and that REAL freedom requires more laws; more restrictions; more limits placed on those who produce by an elite made up from their ranks.

But then, a "new cultural explosion" that comes from the free exchange of goods and ideas is not what the neo-Neaderthals have in mind.

Is it too much to hope they, like their intellectual ancestors, will also become extinct?
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 9:33 PM |

 
Civilization and its Discontents
Sigmund Freud's powerful book Civilization and its Discontents argued that human instincts are out of sync with modern civilization; that aggression and other instinctual needs were once absolutely necessary for survival in a dangerous world, but that today these archaic impulses impede our ability to live happily in the present day and age. Among other innovative ideas from this short, but important work, Freud posits that the same aggression that was once directed towards survival, in the modern era is frequently turned inward, to the Self, rather than outward toward the environment, and causes the psychological phenomenon of depression. In psychiatry we refer to this as "aggression turned inward".

Our brains and bodies were designed for the "fight or flight" response--when in danger or threatened in any way, we physiologically respond with a burst of adrenalin (a hormone more formally known as epinephrine, a catcholamine); and that compound initiates a series of biological reactions that prepare us to either run away from the danger or to stand and fight.

It can be argued that depression and its concomitant emotion despair can be conceptualized as the inability--particularly in modern times-- to be able to "run away" or "fight" in the traditional sense. How effective would it be for the individual, do you think, if--called on the carpet by his or her boss--that individual responded by decking the boss or screaming and running out of the room? Bereft of these behavioral options in civilized society, we are still confined to the physiological response that such scenarios engender. This leads us to the concept of "stress".

What we know about "stress" and its long-term effects on our bodies and minds more than confirms Freud's psychological hypothesis. Freud was not optimistic about this situation, and believed that civilization's "discontents" were an unresolvable fact of life.

In a way, I touched on this same issue, but with a slightly different perspective, a few posts back when I discussed some of the concepts of evolutionary psychology in "Biological Fantasies".

In that post I tried to point out that successful societies use human nature in constructive and creative ways (even the negative aspects of it) in order to remain successful, because if they are foolish enough to try to remake human nature into some "ideal" that humans cannot possibly live up to or by their natures even accept, then they are doomed to fail. Human nature is a product of a long interaction with a hostile environment and it bequeathed to us --for good or ill--our present capabilities. I should add, that the concept of human nature includes the hard-wiring of our biological and physiological selves.

It seems obvious that we humans need to understand the limitations our brain physiology imposes on us--both the strengths and weaknesses--as well as the opportunities and challenges of those limitations.

Thus, societies which integrate within their structure a way for human aggression and sexual fulfillment (per Freud) and our need for coalitions, heirarchical structures and individual property (per the evolutionary psychologists); and reasonable outlets for "flight or fight" (via biology) will succeed over societies that to a greater or lesser extent find ways to thwart the expression of human nature.

A society that meshes with human nature and, in particular, finds ways for the many negative aspects of that nature (e.g., envy, greed, desire for power, desire for wealth, aggression etc. etc.)to be sublimated in socially useful and/or harmless behavior--rather than attempting to crush or deny that they exist--will be a very powerful and successful society. But there will always be the discontents.

Putting aside for the moment that some people may well be genetically endowed with less resiliant physiologies when it comes to handling stress, which may predispose them to clinical depression or other psychiatric illness; the "discontents" can also come from two general groups.

The first group of people are those who are unwilling to accept their own human nature for what it is and who insist on "unattainable perfection" in themselves (thus leading to psychological depression). I see many such people in my psychiatric practice.

The second group pursues or enforces unattainable perfection in others (thus leading to utopian idealism and the promotion of societies that deny and repress basic aspects of human nature).

The first group suffer terribly, but impact primarily themselves and their immediate families. The second is responsible for much of the misery and suffering of humanity as a whole throughout history. Either wittingly or unwittingly they suscribe to the utopian ideal (although their own individual behavior may seem the opposite)and support or enable those who start out only wanting to eliminate the "negative" aspects of human nature, but who end up destroying large numbers of humans in the process.

Not surprisingly those philosophies that understand and accept human nature are those that support human freedom. Those that condemn human nature (or a part of it) will ultimately end up supporting tyranny and oppression against actual humans.

Victor Davis Hanson comments on this group in his essay "America's New Discontents":

Of course, a tenured full professor like Churchill (with no Ph.D., a fraudulent resume, a litany of plagiarism — and a six-figure salary!) would not want to live under the Taliban or al-Qaida. Nor would Michael Moore under the Baathists — if his current high life is any indication. Such virulent public anti-Americanism, however, served a psychological need to reconcile a leftist's own life of largesse, through either cost-free disdain for what produced it or (safe) sympathy for those who hated it.

The wages of cultural relativism were not limited to such extremists. Legitimate disagreement and necessary debate about invading Iraq were quickly overwhelmed by a deeper furor that grew out of decades of this fuzzy relativism.

Ted Kennedy pronounced that Abu Ghraib "reopened under new management." Yet, the senator must have known that a few rogue American guards were not comparable to the systematic genocide of Saddam Hussein.

John Kerry's campaign slurred Prime Minister Ayad Allawi as a "puppet" — although he was the victim of Saddam's Gulag and a democrat willing to risk his life for the promise of a free Iraq.

Bill Clinton also seemed fuzzy about the true nature of tyranny, and thus was clueless about murderous theocratic Iran. Recently he cooed, "Iran today is, in a sense, the only country where progressive ideas enjoy a vast constituency" — as if theocrats there allow truly popular government.

Other elites wished outright that we would fail in the Middle East. Perhaps our defeat would prove that in a postmodern world American force can only be counterproductive or destabilizing to multilateral protocols.

Thus it was not the slur of a Joe McCarthy clone, but President Clinton's own National Security Council member Nancy Soderberg, who recently lamented on "The Daily Show with Jon Stewart" of George Bush's developing success in the Middle East: "It's scary for Democrats, I have to say. … Well, there's still Iran and North Korea, don't forget. There's still hope for the rest of us. ... There's always hope that this might not work."

"Not work"?

How sad that our most educated and sophisticated cannot fathom that an Iraqi Kurd, an Afghan woman or a Lebanese shopkeeper simply wants the same freedom and opportunity for their children that so many of the most blessed — but bitter — in America either take for granted, feel guilty about or so cynically dismiss.

Of course, the Ward Churchills, Michael Moores and various and sundry others who VDH refers to, see themselves as the "annointed elites" who--by definition--do not possess the human traits that need to be supressed (although those very traits are remarkably obvious to anyone who takes the time to observe them for a few seconds).

As Hanson observes, in these people we have the American version of the new discontents of civilization. Individually they can be dealt with and even helped; but the large groups of them that come together to "improve humanity for its own sake" are much more difficult to manage. Freud may have thought of them as "unresolvable facts of life", but I think of them in the conglomerate as an omnipresent psychological cancer that eats away at real human progress.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 11:37 AM |

 
Get it, Mr. Moore?
Remember this?

"The Iraqis who have risen up against the occupation are not "insurgents" or "terrorists" or "The Enemy." They are the REVOLUTION, the Minutemen, and their numbers will grow -- and they will win. Get it, Mr. Bush?"

Meanwhile, in Iraq, Moore's "Minutemen" are seeking a way out of the REVOLUTION:

Many of Iraq's predominantly Sunni Arab insurgents would lay down their arms and join the political process in exchange for guarantees of their safety and that of their co-religionists, according to a prominent Sunni politician.

Sharif Ali Bin al-Hussein, who heads Iraq's main monarchist movement and is in contact with guerrilla leaders, said many insurgents including former officials of the ruling Ba'ath party, army officers, and Islamists have been searching for a way to end their campaign against US troops and Iraqi government forces since the January 30 election.

“Firstly, they want to ensure their own security,” says Sharif Ali, who last week hosted a pan-Sunni conference attended by tribal sheikhs and other local leaders speaking on behalf of the insurgents.

Insurgent leaders fear coming out into the open to talk for fear of being targeted by US military or Iraqi security forces' raids, he said.

Sharif Ali distinguishes many Sunni insurgents, whom he says took up arms in reaction to the invasive raids in search of Ba'athist leaders and other “humiliations” soon after the 2003 war, from the radical jihadist branch associated with Jordanian militant Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.

Unlike Mr Zarqawi's followers, who are thought to be responsible for the big suicide bomb attacks on Iraqi civilian targets, the other Sunni insurgents are more likely to plant bombs and carry out ambushes against security forces and US troops active near their homes.

Sharif Ali said the success of Iraq's elections dealt the insurgents a demoralising blow, prompting them to consider the need to enter the political process.

One can only hope that Mr. Moore feels chagrined, humiliated, and even...more stupid than usual. But I guess that depends on whether or not he "gets it".
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 12:10 AM |

 
The Council Has Spoken !
This week's winners for Best Posts are up over at the Watcher's Site! Go and check them out for some good reading over the weekend. Here are the top winners:

BEST COUNCIL POSTS:

1. Iraqi Bravery Alpha Patriot (who just a few days ago was whining about how tough the competition was!)

And a 3-way tie for 2nd place!

2. About Last Night Little Red Blog

Science Fiction’s Dark Side Wallo World

Where Have All the Mothers Gone? Dr. Sanity

BEST NON-COUNCIL POSTS:

1. 2 Years Democracy in Iraq (Don't miss this one!)

2. More on the Babe Theory of Political Movements. WILLisms
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 10:03 PM |

 
Beyond Our Sun
This is exciting news:

This week, two teams working independently announced the first unambiguous detection of light from planets orbiting other sun-like stars. The achievements, researchers say, help set humanity on the doorstep of a golden age in exploring solar systems beyond our own.

Until now astronomers have detected their quarry through fleeting shadows or the subtle quiver of underbrush. They've had to rely on the faint dimming of a star as a planet swings in front of it or, more often, tiny wobbles that planets impart to their parent stars as they orbit. Although the technique the two teams used also is indirect, it finally reveals infrared light coming directly from the planets.

That light carries a wealth of information about the molecular composition of the planets' atmospheres. Armed with that information, scientists will pierce a critical barrier to uncovering the range of planetary environments that solar systems in our galaxy have to offer. The ultimate hope: finding Earth-like planets whose atmospheres carry the chemical signatures of life.

"These results are historic," enthuses Geoffrey Marcy, an astronomer at the University of California at Berkeley who heads one of the world's most prolific planet-hunting teams.

Over the past decade, and especially within the past few years, astronomers have been uncovering extrasolar planets at a furious pace. Dr. Marcy estimates that solid detections of planets orbiting other stars now number about 150. "We've discovered nearly all of the Jupiters and Saturns that exist around stars out to about 100 light years from Earth," he says. Many of them are so-called hot Jupiters - huge gas-giants orbiting very close to their parent stars.

What we need is a 5-year space mission to seek out new life and new civilizations; to boldly go where....wait! Haven't I heard this before?....... Oh dear, another Star Trek reference! I'm getting geekier as I get older.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 6:50 PM |

 
Just Say "NO" to the UN
New Sisyphus takes on the UN again in this excellent post, "UN Reform: We Are All Terrorists Now".

Therein lies the danger of the U.N., of course. Once created, it took on a life of its own and, like institutions everywhere, it has sought ever since to expand its power as widely as possible. For reasons we have discussed earlier, the U.N. currently finds itself at a crosswords with one of its founding members and largest financial contributors. The simple plain fact is that a huge majority of Americans have no confidence in the U.N and view it as nothing more than an anti-American talking shop. What Annan’s report aims to accomplish is enough reform to reconcile American decision-makers to the institution while, at the same time, strengthening its independence as an autonomous body.

That is a tall order, and one that the Secretary General fails miserably at. In fact, as we will see below, the report is nothing more than yet another attempt to frame “international law” in such a way as to make American action in the world “illegal.” Finally, and most ominously, it also contains a mechanism to lower the U.S.’ power in the Security Council and a legal code that would brand most of America’s military actions of the past forty years nothing more than “terrorism.”

You should read the whole piece. What's most interesting to me, of course, ist the psychology of all this. As you read the post, you realize--as New Sisyphus reminds us--how the entire UN document ( “In Larger Freedom: Towards Development, Security and Human Rights For All” “In Larger Freedom: Towards Development, Security and Human Rights For All” ) is cleverly written to appeal to the American Left. It discusses "Freedom from Want" and "Freedom from Fear" as universal goals, and seems to endorse the old socialist utopia idea:

In an era of global abundance, our world has the resources to reduce dramatically the massive divides that persist between rich and poor, if only those resources can be unleashed in the service of all peoples.

The real kicker, as others have pointed out, is that we (meaning the citizens of the United States) are the ones who are going to pay for this international socialist dream! The engine of productivity in the world is to be chained for the "good" of all peoples. And we are expected to go willingly to the slaughter.

Ayn Rand called this process "the sanction of the victim". I think it is an apt description. The UN cannot force its will on the US without our moral permission to do so. Morality is the most powerful weapon that evil wields in the war against good. Socialist morality is the morality of self-sacrifice. The self-sacrifice moral code allows the worthless to make outrageous demands of those who produce, counting on the fact that the producers will feel morally obligated to satisfy them. It is the duty of the producers to satisfy the needs of all and to embrace his status, all the while accepting sneers, abuse, and condemnation.

Liberal guilt--expressed through the Left's continual and relentlessly virulent public anti-Americanism--serves a "psychological need to reconcile a leftist's own life of largesse, through either cost-free disdain for what produced it or (safe) sympathy for those who hated it."

The UN is counting on this guilt to get its way. They are still the same corrupt organization, led by the same corrupt leader who brought us the oil-for-food scandal; the numerous sex scandals; and who hide a thirst for power behind their stated desire to help mankind. Today they are desperate to maintain that power and prestige in the world even as they see it sinking to new lows as their real motives are exposed. Over and over again, the US does most of the work, pays most of the money; and Kofi and his pals take all the credit.

Sometimes when I listen to a patient's neverending complaints about their situation; about how they feel constrained to do things so obviously bad for them, I have this fantasy where I get up and start shaking them, yelling, "Stop! Stop! Stop being a victim! You don't have to do this! You can choose to say no!" It's a fairly satisfying fantasy. Perhaps this essay is a variant on it.

When we deal with the UN, we have to learn to just say NO.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 11:24 AM |

 
Carry On
From the "Everything I know, I learned from Star Trek" files I keep, this scene from the movie Star Trek, The Wrath of Khan seems to me to be appropriate today.

The exchange between Kirk and Saavik occurs while on a simulation training flight for cadets that has taken an unusual turn and has led to to seemingly disastrous and tragic consequences--even though Savaak and her cadets did everything "correctly". Captain Kirk ends the exercise and notices that Saavik is uncomfortable:
KIRK
Well, Mister Saavik, are you going to stay with the sinking ship?

SAAVIK
Permission to speak candidly, sir?

KIRK
Granted.

SAAVIK (fights emotion)
I don't believe this was a fair test of my command abilities.

KIRK
And why not?

SAAVIK
Because... there was no way to win.

KIRK
A no-win situation is a possibility every commander may face. Has that
never occurred to you?

SAAVIK
... No sir. It has not.

KIRK
How we deal with death is at least as important as how we deal with life, wouldn't you say?

SAAVIK(falters)
As I indicated, Admiral, that thought had not occurred to me.

KIRK
Well, now you have something new to think about. Carry on.

Yes. Exactly.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 5:14 PM |

 
The Wonderful Complexity of Life
Now, this research is enormously important if it can be repeated:

In the Purdue experiment, researchers found that a plant belonging to the mustard and watercress family sometimes corrects the genetic code it inherited from its flawed parents and grows normally like its unflawed grandparents and other ancestors.

Scientists said the discovery raises questions about whether humans also have the potential for avoiding genetic flaws or even repairing them, although the plant experiments did not directly address the possibility in higher organisms. They said the actual proteins responsible for making these fixes probably would be different in animals, if the capacity exists at all.

''This means that inheritance can happen more flexibly than we thought,'' said Robert Pruitt, the paper's senior author.

I'm really not surprised that Life is so flexible. It seems to me that there are innumerable strategies that living things must have developed on a physiological level in order to survive throughout history. This research has discovered one such strategy and the implications are enormous--if the human genome inherited a similar potential. This discovery could open up ways to permanently "fix" genetic disorders.

Science is a process of discovery and then there is constant checking and evaluation of that discovery. This finding, if it is able to be replicated by other researchers, doesn't invalidate the Mendelian theory that has held for 150 years--it adds to to it; and to our understanding of the wonderful complexity of Life.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 4:49 PM |

 
GUILTY!
All right. Let me say it. I FEEL GUILTY GUILTY GUILTY because I have not been posting so much the last day or so. I HAVE NO EXCUSE! I am busier than usual with work, but the main reason is that the only thing going on in the last few days seems to be the Terri Schiavo situation and I don't have a lot more to say about that than I already said here.

The truth is that the Schiavo tragedy saddens me terribly and I don't feel like doing much. All my creative juices seem to have dried up for the moment. So, instead of fighting it, I'm just going to wait it out and let my soul rebound naturally.

I am working on a few essays off-line, but don't seem to be able to say exactly what I want to say quite yet. Nothing jumps up at me in the op-eds or news stories. I don't even want to comment on other blogs much.

So, if you are bored, you can go here to check out a few of my favorite past posts.

I'm gonna take two aspirins and blog in the morning. Or maybe the afternoon.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 1:18 AM |

 
Protests in Qatar
Here are some photos of a Demonstration against Terrorism in Qatar, where they recently had a suicide bomber in the Qatari capital, Doha, killing one Briton and injuring 12 people attending a theater performance. This was the first major terrorist attack in the country.

I suspect the demonstrations are an example of a type of "NIMBY" phenomenon (Not In My Backyard)--long overdue in this region. As the Islamofascist Terrorists get desperate and continue to attack other Muslims and innocents in Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Qatar,Turkey, and other places around the world, we may begin to finally see a backlash against these thugs, instead of the steady diet of admiration and rationalization of their behavior by mainstream Muslims. Their Terrorist's tactics appear to be wearing thin and losing them supporters and this, combined with the obvious benefits of a new-found freedom may be the ultimate undoing of the jihadis.








(Photo hat tip: Free Thoughts)
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 8:35 PM |

 
Can't Wait Till 2008?
Then check this out! Something for both sides to love/hate!
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 1:55 PM |

 
Like Grownups
From the Weekly Standard Scrapbook:

An international team of 250 scientists, conducting research first reported last Thursday in the British joural Nature, has completed a full map of the X or "female" chromosome which helps determine sex in human beings. The researchers found much greater genetic variation between the sexes than they had expected. All told, as the Los Angeles Times described the teams's conclusions, "men and women may differ by as much as 2 percent of their entire genetic inheritance, greater than the hereditary gap between humankind and its closes relative--the chimpanzee."

Huntington Willard of Duke University, one of the key researchers participating in this latest effort, told the Chicago Tribune that by now "any of us over the age of two realizes taere are plenty of differences between males and females that are characteristic of the two sexes."

Alas, however, scientists have yet to discover an explanation for the inability of Harvard University faculty members to discuss this subject like grownups.

Actually, you don't need scientists to devise an explanation for the Harvard faculty childishness. It's hard work to be a grownup! Maturity involves having to think, and not just feel.

These days, if you don't want to make the transition from adolescent to adult, there's always academia!

UPDATE: I rest my case. (my daughter would respond, "Mom, you HAVE no case!" But, nevertheless I think this is illustrative of what I am talking about)
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 9:37 AM |

 
Man of La Qaeda
Beautiful Atrocities presents JIHAD: THE MUSICAL

ACT I - MADRASSA

OVERTURE

Mohammed, a Muslim youth, arrives at Ye Olde Madrassa, run by lecherous cleric Rashid, who raps about how Muslims will slaughter all infidels

RASHID: Jihad on the Dance Floor

At night, madrassa boys compare extremely limited knowledge of girls

MADRASSA BOYS CHORUS LINE: 72 Virgin Stomp

Mohammed receives letter from sister Nasreen, who wonders what life is like outside of burqa.

NASREEN: A Little Scratchy Under Here

Robert Fisk, masochistic lefty journalist, is beaten up by madrassa boys, to his delight

FISK: I've Been a Bad, Bad Boy

Rashid dreams of chain of bargain basement madrassas to continue youth outreach

RASHID: Just Let Me Get My Hands on You

MADRASSA BOYS WET DREAM SEQUENCE, featuring burqa-clad can-can chorus

Go check out Acts II and III! Somebody needs to go an produce this play--I think Mel Brooks could do it (Springtime for Bin Laden in Afganistan, anyone?).
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 12:50 AM |

 
Biological Fantasies
From a Cato Institute Policy Report:

In the spring of 1845, Karl Marx wrote, ". . . the human essence is no abstraction inherent in each single individual. In its reality it is the ensemble of social relations." Marx's idea was that a change in the "ensemble of social relations" can change "the human essence."

In June 2004 the communist North Korean government issued a statement to its starving citizens recommending the consumption of pine needles. Pyongyang maintained that pine needle tea could effectively prevent and treat cancer, arteriosclerosis, diabetes, cerebral hemorrhage, and even turn grey hair to black.

Tragically, human nature isn't at all as advertised, and neither is pine needle tea. According to the U.S. State Department, at least one million North Koreans have died of famine since 1995.

Marx's theory of human nature, like Kim Jong Il's theory of pine needle tea, is a biological fantasy, and we have the corpses to prove it. Which may drive us to wonder: if communism is deadly because it is contrary to human nature, does that imply that capitalism, which is contrary to communism, is distinctively compatible with human nature?

The article goes on to discuss evolutionary psychology, which is a relatively new area of psychology that "seeks to understand the unique nature of the human mind by applying the logic and methods of contemporary evolutionary biology and cognitive psychology."

Somewhere between 50,000 and 10,000 years ago, during the Pleistocene era, when humans adapted from a "hunter-gatherer" to "agricultural" mode of living, the physiology and structure of the human brain--and hence, human psychology--was finalized by the concerted environmental and biological pressures on the human species during the previous 1.6 million years. In other words, modern human beings have the brain of their stone age ancestors. Our brains are not designed specifically for the "modern" world that we live in.

The article goes into some of the recent research of evolutionary psychologist, who are trying to understand exacly what "human nature" is all about. Basically, the results of their research shows that we are hard-wired--and therefore psychologically the same "hunter-gatherers" of 50,000 years ago. OUr social interactions are thus defined and limited by those ancient humans. Their findings are

- WE ARE COALITIONAL
We tend to form into groups of 25 - 150 most easily. Larger groups--where we do not have face-to-face contact with other members, are instinctively considered less trustworthy; and we tend to think often in terms of "us" versus "them". Having said that, when we develop social institutions that reinforce this built-in coalitional tendency (e.g., representative, democratic government) social tensions are relaxed and societies can thrive. OTOH, when political rhetoric encourages people to identify themselves as members of groups with no biological basis (e.g., "rich" versus "poor") tensions rise and animosity interferes with social stability. Free trade, or capitalism, encourages us to be wary of other groups, but also wo view them as partners in mutually beneficial trade; rahter than as "enemies".

-WE ARE HEIRARCHICAL
If you look around you will see evidence of this in every aspect of our life. Most social organizations have formal heirarchical structures (president, VP and the like). Even in area that aren't "formally" organized (e.g., high school or middle school) dominance and status issues are a primary concern of the students who vie with each other to be the most "cool". We so dislike being at the bottom of a heirarchy, that we naturally form coalitions that help to check the power of the dominant groups.

-WE ARE ZERO-SUM THINKERS
We have difficulty in thinking of resources or wealth as ever-expanding, and tend to think that their gain must be our loss. This leads to envy and all the associated social and political conflicts. And yet, the first two characteristics (coalition and heirarchy forming qualities) show that by working together and engaging in mutually beneficial trade and thereby increasing productivity, wealth can be created beyond what we think it can. But this tendency from hunter-gatherer days makes us have difficulty understanding our own economic system (especially if coalitions are formed which enhance the "us" versus "them" thinking).

-PROPERTY RIGHTS ARE NATURAL
In order to prevent the allocation of all resources to those at the top of heirarchies, the recognition of individual property rights has been part of our make up for thousands of years. Animals mark out territories for exclusive use in foraging, hunting, and mating--and so did our ancestors. This again is "hard-wired" into our species.

-MUTUALLY BENEFICIAL EXCHANGE IS NATURAL
Trade, exchange, and division of labor are human universals that existed long before complex societal structures.

-WE CAN NAVIGATE THE "US" vs."THEM" CONUNDRUM BY TRUST
We have a biological capacity for and need to trust others. This psychological trust enables us to solve otherwise unsolvable social problems--e.g., how to deal with strangers; outsiders; and other groups. Without this biological instinct to give other humans the benefit of the doubt, complex social interactions are impossible.

A recent article in the LA Times titled "The Anatomy of Give and Take" discusses some very recent research that tries to explain the economic interaction of humans, using high technology equipment such as MRI scanners. In one such experiment, two individuals are pitted against each other in an attempt to see which one could maximize their financial gain in the marketplace:

As the pair wavered between cooperation and betrayal, scientists recorded how their brains changed. The researchers hoped to discover the secret of trust — the human variable missing from the mathematics of modern economics.

The terms of the experiment were simple: At the beginning of each round, Belur could put up to $20 in play. Any investment automatically tripled. Tang then decided how much to return and how much to keep.

Belur's safest strategy was to hoard all of her money. Tang's most logical move was to cheat her partner at every opportunity.

There was a riskier but potentially more profitable way.

They could trust each other.

The experiment was part of a new frontier in the exploration of the brain — a field called neuro- economics that seeks to understand the biology underlying economic behavior.

In universities and research centers across the country, scientists are probing the brain with coin flips, $5 bills and gift certificates from Amazon.com. Bit by bit, they are assembling a mosaic of the financial brain, identifying how competing neural circuits shape decisions.

This is the new field of "neuroeconomics", trying to figure out why people trust each other, when economic theory says they won't. Yet the field of evolutionary psychology has evidence that such trust is built-into our brains, and it is what makes such economic activities as "trade" and "production" possible.

Matt Ridley, in his book The Origins of Virtue: Human Instincts and the Evolution of Cooperation tackles this issue head-on (and is well worth reading, I might add).

What all this information is leading to is the idea that human nature must be taken into account as we evaluate the usefulness and consequences of certain economic and political systems that are advocated in the world today. We are clearly well-suited to some things and not to others. There are some social, economic, and political systems that are like the Procrustean bed and try to adjust human nature to their theories. These almost always end in catastrophy, human misery, and death. There are some social, political and economic systems which encourage war, domination, and the accumulation of wealth by the top of the national heirarchy.

Many will say that it is capitalism that does these things, but they are incorrect, and all the evidence leans to the opposite conclusion. In fact, among social, political and economic systems, democratic capitalism is probably the one and only system that is MOST CONSISTENT WITH HUMAN NATURE.

Far from encouraging the "survival of the fittest", capitalism simultaneously encourages cooperation for mutually beneficial trade as well as competition. Far from encouraging war and dominance; capitalism encourages trust and human cooperation; as well as alliances to maximize productivity and wealth creation. Far from concentrating wealth in the hands of a few, capitalism makes it possible for anyone to accumulate wealth (contrast for example the number of people who earn over $100,000 a year in the U.S., with those do in Cuba. The only really wealthy person there is Fidel Castro and his cronies. Likewise, in Iraq, the only wealthy were Saddam and his thugs). Envy is a real human emotion, but only in a capitalist system can one transform one's envy into socially acceptable action to imporve one's own lot without attacking or destroying others.

Human nature is what it is. This is not tragic, it is simple truth. The biological fantasies of the Utopians; and the delusional fantasies of communists and socialists and all their heirs, have lead to incalculable levels of human suffering all over the globe, as the proponents of these theories have tried to force humans to some "ideal" state. All these systems have failed the real-world tests in the last century; and all current versions of these ideologies will also eventually fail and fade away. To the extent that they attempt to incorporate some aspects of "human nature" into their failing system, they may last a bit longer (e.g., China); but it is much more likely that human nature will transform the ideology than the reverse.

What we see in the Middle East today is the re-assertion of human nature after years of being crushed under the oppression of yet another social system that has attempted to rebuild humans along the lines of a religious "ideal", spiked with totalitarian fantasizing.

As with Kim Jung Il's theory of pine needle tea, how many deaths will it take before the social engineers of the New Procrustean Empire (following in the steps of the communists and socialists) abandon their attempts to force human beings to adapt to their fantasies?

The answer, my friend, is blowing in the winds of Freedom.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 6:02 PM |

 
What A Difference A Year Makes !

From Cox and Forkum
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 10:56 AM |

 
Long Live The King!
GM's Corner (The Place Where Truth, Honesty and Integrity Are Honored Above All Else!) won last week and has been crowned "King of the Blogs!". He is now in the running against two other excellent blogs and needs your help to retain his crown.

So head on over to the King of the Blogs website and vote for him. Long Live The King!
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 9:53 AM |

 
Good News From the Arab Street
Arthur Chrenkoff has a roundup of good news from the Islamic world--a special "Pro-Democracy edition. He starts out:

While throughout major cities of Western world crowds - albeit much diminished since three or two years ago - have turned up over the weekend for anti-democracy rallies to protest the second anniversary of the start of the liberation of Iraq, one region of the world remained strangely unaffected by the "anti-war" and "anti-occupation" fervor: the notorious "Arab street" has failed to join the "European street" and the "American street" in condemning yet again Chimpy Bushhitler and his imperialist policies. The only significant exception throughout the Middle East was Turkey, where rallies in three major cities could only muster several hundred people between them.

Everywhere else, the second anniversary of invasion did not incite much public excitement - possibly because the local residents were too busy rallying against terrorism and theocracy, and for freedom, democracy and human rights.

And here's a sample of good news from Egypt:

EGYPT:
Since early December, Cairo has witnessed a series of anti-government demonstrations demanding free and democratic election that would not result in an automatic re-election of President Mubarak to his fifth consecutive term in office. "The rallies, organised by the Egyptian Movement for Change, have coined a slogan —'kefaya' (enough) -- to vent their exasperation with Mubarak and his consecutive administrations."A few days ago, Egyptian opposition activist Ayman Nour declared to the cheering crowd of about 1,000 supporters that he will stand against Hosni Mubarak in the presidential election later this year. Said Nour: "They [the ruling party] have to apologise for the false elections during the past miserable 50 years... We have never chosen a president before ... Change is coming one day, and that day is soon."On the second anniversary of the Coalition entry into Iraq, some 300 protesters have gathered in the capital to rally against the occupation. By all accounts, large sections of the crowd have spent most of the time venting their anger at their own government, sporting "No to Mubarak" stickers on their foreheads and chanting the opposition slogan "Enough!"

It is beyond me why anyone would demonstrate against the encouraging events that are taking place today in a part of the world that has been under the boot of dictatorship for decades and decades. You would have to be pretty far out in space to not understand the incredible yearning for Freedom that is sweeping the world.

Today it was reported that there was heavy unrest in Kyrgyzstan . Interestingly, that country's most famous son, Salizhan Sharipov, is now in space aboard the International Space Station (he is a Russian citizen and a cosmonaut). Sharipov is an ethnic Uzbek, from an Uzbek village that is within the borders of Kyrghizia. (hat tip: Jim O)

So perhaps it is unfair to suggest that being "far out in space" is an excuse for the behavior of the new anti-Freedom movement (which is the same as the old "anti-U.S." movement). The Arab "street" has figured out which way the wind is blowing.

Only the clueless Left seems to be in need of a weather man.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 11:48 PM |

 
Incredible Space Photos
Here is a great site if you enjoy absolutely fantastic space pictures:

Astronomy Picture of the Day
Each day a different image or photograph of the universe is featured, along with a brief explanation written by a professional astronomer.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 6:53 PM |

 
The Value of One Life
Several readers have asked me why I haven't commented on the Terri Schiavo case, and have asked for my thoughts. I do not feel that I am able to comment in any detail, since I personally have experience with some of the intense emotions that are swirling on both sides of this issue.

I feel sorry for the parents of Terry Schiavo; I feel sorry for the husband; and most of all, I feel sorry for Terri. I know what I would do in this situation, but I cannot speak for the people who are actually living it.

ShrinkWrapped, a psychoanalyst's blog has a very articulate post up on Narcissism and Empathy which makes some excellent points about the case.

Certainly, the entire tragedy has become a three-ring circus; and I suspect that many things have become lost in the transition from tragedy to media comedy. I don't presume to know Terri Schiavo's wishes; and I don't presume to know Michael Schiavo's motivations. If there must be an error made in this case, then as a human being and a physician, I hope the error is made on the side of Life. Doctors don't always know what they are talking about; Love can be expressed in many ways; and Life, well, determining Life or Death is an exceedingly compelx matter that cannot be reduced to a simplistic battle of slogans and labels.

Oh, and one more thing. I found this comment by a reader of The Corner to be very perceptive:

No, I am not a right to lifer. I am a pro choice absolutist. Moreover, my daughter is so sick of hearing me tell her I do not want any extraordinary measures to prolong my life that she promised to throw me down the stairs if things go wrong.

And yet, I find the specter of the most powerful people in the only superpower drop everything to focus on the destiny of a single badly disabled woman edifying.

This is democracy and this is progress. If you do not believe me just compare it to legalized honor killings in Jordan, Pakistani tribal customs which consider gang rape of a woman a just verdict or the enslavement of girls to repay debts in Ghana. In fact, the valiant efforts to end those practices once and for all are the best indicators of democratic progress.

We have come a long way baby and for that we should be truly grateful.

The one thing we can know for sure whatever the outcome of this terrible situation, is that we are fortunate to live in a society deeply invested in the value of one individual human life. As long as the meaning of one life or one death can generate such intense emotional debate and passion, then our nation remains vibrant and committed to the basic principles on which it was founded.

UPDATE: 3/23- as the case progresses to its terminal phase, I think Charles Krauthammer's op-ed piece today is well worth reading.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 12:35 PM |

 
Life in Academia - Who Are We To Judge Saddam Hussein?
I came across this article by Fred Siegel in the NY Observer, just surfing around today. It discusses the Radical Professors in today's academia. Here is just a small part (read the entire piece!):

Back in the fall of 2003, when Dr. Dean was still riding high in the Presidential primary, I’d listened in on a conversation among undergraduate Deaniacs outside my office at Cooper Union in the East Village. "This just doesn’t feel like America any more," one of them said to a friend, who replied, "Fuck Bush," and pointed to a button on his jacket bearing the same slogan.

It’s an old professor’s habit, but I had to engage them. "What does that mean?" I asked the fellow with the button. "Bush is bullshit," he replied, "the most evil man in the world." When I said that wasn’t an argument and pressed him, he acknowledged that "Saddam isn’t a good guy," but "who are we"—he pointed both to me and his like-minded friend—to "judge Saddam Hussein?"

"Why not?" I asked. He replied with an answer right out of the postmodern playbook. Americans can’t judge another culture, he insisted, because there is no common morality. But if that’s the case, I asked, why then was George Bush "undoubtedly the most evil man in the world?" He seemed puzzled by the idea that his version of an emotional truth might seem incoherent to others.

Like the fascist writers of the 1930’s from whom their postmodern teachers had drawn their ideas, these Deaniacs were both engaged in politics and deeply cynical about democracy, which they saw as a game manipulated by nefarious forces led by Fox News. As they see it, there is little to argue; the only question is "which side are you on?" Doubtful that informed debate could settle much, they hoped to impose their will on a backward country that wickedly refused to see the appeal of a "Fuck Bush" platform.

I was taken aback by my conversation with the Deaniacs; their sheer coarseness stunned me. Even at the height of the "Ronald Reagan is going to blow up the world" mania of the 1980’s, I had never seen a "Fuck Reagan" button. But the coarseness was consistent with the dominant mood in academia outside of the sciences.

Recently, the professoriat has been embarrassed by a series of dustups exposing the irrationalist underside of academic life. After Hamilton College invited a former Brinks holdup terrorist to take a faculty position, it compounded its problems by asking "Indian" poseur Ward Churchill of the University of Colorado to speak, only to back off when he was found to have delivered a rant about how the people killed in the World Trade Center were "little Eichmanns." Columbia’s alumni, if not its administration, has been discomfited by the ravings of Joseph Massad, a professor so extreme in his support of Palestinian terrorism as to have labeled Yasir Arafat a collaborator with Israel. Harvard president Larry Summers has been forced to don the sackcloth and ashes after he commented reasonably that the differences between men and women might—and his stress, the transcript shows, was on might—be one part of the reason why there are fewer females in the sciences.

While radical professors, disguised as "academics", ponder questions like, "Who are we to judge Saddam Hussein?"; and as political activism--rather than the pursuit of knowledge-- became their main activity; it transpired that policymakers had to look elsewhere for a source of ideas. The academic's role was thus taken over by think tanks, which...well, think., as opposed to just emoting and spewing slogans.

The transformation of our "intellectual" centers of knowledge into vast emotional swamps of multicultural victimhood, offended by any idea that they don't like, can be best appreciated by the fact that in this last election, academia contributed little or nothing in the way of usable ideas--though it was a major source of Democratic Party funding. In fact, one might arguably equate the almost complete lack of ideas (except for the repetitive mouthing of the words, "I have a plan") and the knee-jerk opposition to any Republican idea just because it was Republican-- as one of the most significant factors in the decisive defeat of the Democratic Party.

You see, like the radical professors discussed in this article, no longer are the Democrats bothered by pesky ideas, which might actually have to be defended by reason and logic. No, they rely almost totally these days on the primacy of their feelings, which they proudly point out need no defense, since they are honest feelings. Howard Dean's recent comment that the Republicans are brain-dead; and Senator Byrd's equation of Republicans with Nazis are a perfect examples of the emotional nothingness the current Democratic Party has to offer.

Don't like bringing Democracy to the Middle East - NO BLOOD FOR OIL!
Don't like Bush's policies? BUSH IS HITLER!
Don't like this or that? NO NO NO NO!

From their perspective, they can readily identify with poor Saddam, who was just another helpless victim of U.S. imperialism.

Having had no new ideas since the Vietnam era, is it so surprising that they eagerly recycle those old slogans that were popular from that era? They meant little then, and less now; but are symbolic of a time in history when the Left felt it was winning. But they stopped thinking too soon.

Having lost the Cold War, they now intend to dress up their socialist/communist agenda in a new set of anti-U.S., anti-Israel; anti-Freedom; anti-Democracy; anti-Capitalism clothing. But even after 20 or more years, the emperor is still naked. Genocide is tolerated if it comes from their side of the political spectrum. Moral equivalence is applied to situations that demand moral judgement. Freedom of speech is touted, unless they don't like what you say. I could go on, but I haven't the inclination to waste so much of my time documenting what has already been documented everywhere.

And running through it all, like a river of denial and projection, is a vast, pervasive cluelessness. A lack of insight or self-awareness so incredible and so blindingly transparent that it is almost awe-inspiring in its magnitude. This kind of mindless emoting in lock- step on the part of large numbers of the "intellectual elite" is a Totalitarian's dream! The slogans and banners are the stuff of dictator's fantasies. For these professors and their minions, the mindset of Orwell's 1984 is a deliberate lifestyle choice.

These are our new intellectuals. Is it any wonder that a fraud like Ward Churchill is their poster boy? And that tyrants like Saddam and Fidel are their cause celebre? Vive la revolucion!
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 1:00 AM |

 
The Thing With Feathers
This is truly inspiring, from an Iraqi on the 2nd anniversay of the Iraq war. He answers the question, "Was it worth it?" I urge you to read the entire post from his blog, Democracy in Iraq (hat tip: TFS Magnum):

Now I answer you, I answer you on behalf of myself, and my countrymen. I dont care what your news tells you, what your television and newspapers say, this is how we feel. Despite all that has happened. Despite all the hurt, the pain, blood, sweat and tears. These two years have given us hope we never had.

Before March 20, 2003, we were in a dungeon. We did not see the light. Saddam Hussain was crushing Iraq's spirit slowly, we longed for his end, but knew we could not challenge him, or his diabolical seed who would no doubt follow him and continue his generation of hell on Earth.

Since then, we now have hope. Hope is not a tangible thing, but it is something, it is more than being blinded by darkness, by being stuck in a mental pit without any future.

Hope has been the greatest product of the last two years. No doubt, many have died, many have died by accident or due to crimes. But their sacrifices are not, and will not be for nothing. I refuse to let it be, and my countrymen stand with me.

Our cities are smoking, our graveyards full, and terrorists in our midst. But we are not defeated. We are not down, we are not regretful. We are not going to surrender. For all that the two years have brought, the greatest thign they have given us is a future, and a view of the finish line.

"Hope" is the thing with feathers-- That perches in the soul-- And sings the tune without the words-- And never stops--at all-- -Emily Dickenson

Everything that is done in the world is done by hope. -Martin Luther King

Hope is a waking dream. -Aristotle

We should not let our fears hold us back from pursuing our hopes. -John F. Kennedy

He who does not hope to win has already lost. -Jose' Joaquin Olmedo

How far that little candle throws his beams! So shines a good deed in a weary world. -Shakespeare
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 2:21 PM |

 
Weekly Insanity Update
Welcome to the weekly roundup of the insane, the ridiculous, the unbelievable and the obnoxious. Why don't we just call it the "Carnival of the Insanities"? If you would like to get linked next week, just send me a post you've written that is either insane or talks about some insane, ridiculous piece of news and I guarantee I'll include it!

1. Better late than never. Sort of like closing the barn door after....you know.

2. The mind boggles. Incredibly creepy image.

3. This sort of thing wouldn't be allowed to be discussed at Harvard. The faculty would be in an uproar!

4. Just a matter of time before the Congressional hearings.

5. A true man of the people...Yeah. Right.

6. The original Liberty Babe!

7. I thought it was an invitation to boredom...who knew?

8. BEWARE! This is what happens when you take steroids!

9. "In order to tarnish the image of Islam"? We needn't bother.

10. Right-left and the scrotum in Greek sculpture? Isn't academia wonderful?

11. Yet another psychiatric syndrome that afflicts the Left.

12. Obesity will solve social security. Two problems taken care of!

13. You know what? I think Krugman's jealous because he didn't get asked!

14. Many guys think this would take all the fun out of the game.

UPDATE: Here are the result of the [extremely unscientific, completely biased] Poll:

HARVARD FACULTY POLL
Do you have any confidence in the judgement of the Harvard Faculty?

NO
(176)99%
YES
(2)1%

Total Voters : 178
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 10:53 AM |

 
Unrelenting Spin, Unrelenting Bias
Cori Dauber over at Rantingprofs performs an invaluable service. Every day she reads thoroughly through the NY Times, Washington Post and other media newspapers and discusses her findings in her blog. She is an Associate Professor of Communication Studies (and of Peace, War, and Defense) at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

Today in one of her posts "At Least they Covered It" she shows just how biased the Times is for about the millionth time:

I can't help mentioning that this is on the front page. Or that this is on the front page.
Yet the article, "Insurgency Loses Ground, Top Marine In Iraq Says," is stuffed inside the paper on page A-5. (The online edition has the slightly different headline, "Insurgency Is Fading Fast, Top Marine in Iraq Says,")

But the lead paragraph is the same in both editions:

The top Marine officer in Iraq said Friday that the number of attacks against American troops in Sunni-dominated western Iraq and death tolls had dropped sharply over the last four months, a development that he called evidence that the insurgency was weakening in one of the most violent areas of the country. (My emph.)

Notice the phrasing there, by the way -- a development he called evidence. And what, prey tell, would the reporter consider evidence that the insurgency was weakening? That is the great mystery of press coverage of this war. What stable metric can the military count on as evidence that they're doing real damage to the enemy and things are improving, at least on the security side?

Today was the 2nd anniversary of the start of the Iraq war. You would think this story would merit front page coverage. Clearly it is far too positive for the front page. I guess we should just be grateful, as Cori suggests, that they bothered to print it at all.

If you want to check out some of the other in-depth analyses of how the media covering the war, how about this one? Or this? Every day, with few exceptions, multiple instances of how the war on terror in Iraq and Afghanistan is being distorted; spun and mischaracterized by the mainstream news. The good news is buried (or not mentioned at all); the bad it trumpeted over and over. There is a complete lack of understanding about military matters generally; and specifically an incredible disinterest in familiarization with the way the military works (you might think this would be important--particularly if you intend to criticize the military on a regular basis. It would be nice if you knew what you were talking about). Occasionally, an outlet produces something reasonably balanced, but not often enough for anyone to trust what they say; or to mitigate the overall impression one gets that they want you to think that everything is a disaster and utterly hopeless.

I would question such paranoid feelings...except..except that on a daily basis, I see the same stories that give evidence to the unrelenting spin and unrelenting bias of the mainstream media. I'm just glad Cori reads them all and documents them, so I don't have to anymore.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 2:06 AM |

 
Politically Incorrect Musings
Hence, they are likely to be true. Check out John Leo's Townhall column (hat tip: Jim O):

A new book, Why Men Earn More by Warren Farrell, goes further, examining a broad array of wage statistics. His conclusion: When reasonable adjustments are made, women earn just as much as men, and sometimes more.

Some of Farrell's findings: Women are 15 times as likely as men to become top executives in major corporations before the age of 40. Never-married, college-educated males who work full time make only 85 percent of what comparable women earn. Female pay exceeds male pay in more than 80 different fields, 39 of them large fields that offer good jobs, like financial analyst, engineering manager, sales engineer, statistician, surveying and mapping technicians, agricultural and food scientists, and aerospace engineers. A female investment banker's starting salary is 116 percent of a male's. Part-time female workers make $1.10 for every $1 earned by part-time males.

Surprisingly, Farrell argues that comparable males and females have been earning similar salaries for decades, though the press has yet to notice. As long ago as the early 1980s, he writes, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics found that companies paid men and women equal money when their titles and responsibilities were the same. In 1969, data from the American Council on Education showed that female professors who had never been married and had never published earned 145 percent of their male counterparts. Even during the 1950s, Farrell says, the gender pay gap for all never-married workers was less than 2 percent while never-married white women between 45 and 54 earned 106 percent of what their white male counterparts made.

Citing Internal Revenue statistics, Farrell notes that women who own their own businesses net only 49 percent of what male counterparts make. Since it can't be that male bosses are holding them back here, women seem to be seeking certain lifestyle trade-offs-forgoing the highest possible income for more free time and flexible hours. They also seem to be avoiding some high-paying jobs. Female engineering managers make on average $83,000, but only 10 percent of the managers are female, indicating that many women are bypassing careers that could pay them more.

Farrell argues that many men outearn women by a willingness to take risky and dangerous jobs as well as work that exposes them to stress and bad weather or that requires a transfer to an undesirable location in another city or country. Women are more likely than men to pick glamorous jobs that tend to pay less. A London School of Economics study tracking 10,000 post-1993 United Kingdom graduates from 30 universities found that males were earning 12 percent more than women. The men tended to stress salary and were more likely to take up engineering, math, and computing. The women were more apt to seek socially oriented jobs and as undergraduates had favored majors in education and the arts.

Much of Farrell's book is written in the style of a self-help book. It lists 25 ways women can improve their earnings, 10 of them advising the careful selection of high-paying fields and subfields. In nursing, an anesthesiology nurse can make more than the average doctor. An Army therapist is better paid than many other therapists. In the field of languages, Farrell advises, skip French and learn Arabic or Farsi. You will earn more.

Farrell was a board member of the National Organization for Women in the early 1970s but broke with the movement over its antimale excesses. He believes that the academic world and the news media have been incurious custodians of the myth that male oppression prevents women from achieving equal pay. It's a sturdy myth, and data that contradict it are typically buried or never updated. Given the current campus climate, no broad and honest academic study of women's pay is possible today. Farrell bluntly advises women to put the victimization rhetoric on hold and just do what it takes to get the high-paying jobs. Good idea. (emphasis mine)

This is really good advice, and something I've been saying in this blog over and over (see here for an example of what I think of today's women's movement). The entire Larry Summers affair is a reminder of the kind of intellectual and emotional repression now sanctioned by the women's movement as part of the psychology of victimhood that they've adopted, even in a country and a system that has brought them the most political, economic and personal freedom on the planet.

There are real atrocities being committed against women in the world. Real oppression, degradation and humiliation exists and it is culturally and religiously sanctioned--but not in the U.S. Women unfortunate to live in those medieval countries desperately need the women of the U.S. to stop their whining and hysteria about "being oppressed" and to do something substantive to help fight for change.

My psychiatric advice? Grow up. Take responsibility for your own life and stop blaming others(especially men) for the choices that you are making. Realize that you are lucky, because in America you have choices. Many women around the globe aren't so fortunate.

Changing your behavior along these lines would go a long way to ending your membership in todays women's victimhood club.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 3:50 PM |

 
BUSH vs KERRY - One More Time--Just For Fun!
Here is a fabulous photo essay of George Bush vs. John Kerry. It's hilarious; and I think it truly captures the essential psychological differences between the two men. (hat tip: Tim Blair).
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 1:45 PM |

 
Guys in Clownsuits:The New Antiwar Movement
Once again the Left comes down firmly on the side of tyranny. Charles Krauthammer is wrong--these people aren't capable of feeling shame. They are so totally, completely, unremittingly, unreservedly and unrepentantly CLUELESS that the only proper response to their antics is total, unrestrained laughter.

-They could be showing solidarity with the brave citizens of Iraq who risked their lives for democracy.

-They could be marching to support the proud people of Lebanon who are demanding their freedom from Syria

-They could denounce Castro's crackdowns on free speech and intellectual inquiry

-They could demand accountability of the United Nations' since its Oil-for-Food scandal--the largest in world history and its sex scandals have hardly benefited mankind

-They could stand for FREEDOM and DEMOCRACY instead of OPPRESSION AND TOTALITARIANISM

For once in their pathetic lives, they could stand for something that actually results in benefiting humanity in the real world, instead of in their imaginations.

Jeff Goldstein has the right idea:

I would only add that those attending might also consider wearing bright red noses and big floppy shoes. And one of those fake flowers that squirts water pinned to the lapel.

Because if you really must protest, you may as well dress the part, right?

An antiwar protester, a little down on his luck....
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 1:36 AM |

 
Definitely Not The Right Stuff
This past year, the Boo, who is a fabulous soccer goalkeeper had the opportunity to play for the Michigan Hawks--a nationally ranked soccer club. One of the coaches at her summer soccer camp was the coach of a U-13 team on the club. This invitation caused extreme excitment for my daughter, since her dream is to play professional soccer someday, and frankly (not just speaking as a mother!) she has real talent as a goalkeeper.

Unfortunately, she had already made a committment to another team. We tried to find a way for her to play on both teams, but the rules did not permit it. This was a difficult learning experience for her. She desperately wanted to play for the Hawks, but didn't want to let her friends and coach on the other team down.

Several friends recommended that I let her play for the better team, and that it was in her long-term interests to play with the Hawks, rather than a much less well-regarded team. I told her it was her decision (she's that age where we are trying to let her take more and more responsibility for her actions). Anxiously, she asked me what I thought she should do.

I'm not you, I told her. I can certainly understand why you would want to break your commitment and choose to play for the Hawks. But for me, a commitment is a commitment and it is more important to follow through and keep your promises, than to break them for whatever short-term gain you think you will get. Whatever you decide will have to be your choice, though, not mine.

She thought about the issue for a few more days, but finally decided to stay with the original team and only play in tournaments with the Hawks. I can't tell you how proud of her I was.

That's why it is so disheartening to read things like this in the NY Times, which seems to gloss over the fact that these people they are celebrating have broken their commitments. The Times , however, refers to breaking commitments as "UNVOLUNTEERING"!

Like Michele Malkin, this makes me want to gag. This is the kind of life decision that tells the entire world what your character is--the kind of stuff you are made of--and it is clearly NOT the right stuff, in my opinion.

These people were not drafted against their will into the military. They volunteered willingly. What did they think? That their commitment only counted if they approved of their orders? If they want to take a principled stand, then let them take the consequences of not following orders and be court-martialed and sentenced.

But desertion (and that is what it is, no matter how the Times sugar-coats it) isn't a "principle." It is the act of someone without any.

My daughter, I'm happy and proud to say, has the right stuff.

UPDATE: Captain Ed has more on this story.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 5:45 PM |

 
Another View on Social Security
In this article, Judge Ray Holbrook and Cooky Oberg present a "Model for Social Security Reform." In it they highlight a program initiated by Galveston County in Texas (my old stomping grounds) that was designed to replace social security benefits for county employees in 1980.

When I was county judge in 1979, many county workers were concerned about the soundness of Social Security, as many people are today. We could either stay with it — and its inevitable tax increases and higher retirement ages — or find a better way. We sought an "alternative plan" that provided the same or better benefits, required no tax increases and was risk-free. Furthermore, we wanted the benefits to be like a savings account that could be passed on to family members upon death.

Our plan, put together by financial experts, was a "banking model" rather than an "investment model." To eliminate the risks of the up-and-down stock market, workers' contributions were put into conservative fixed-rate guaranteed annuities, rather than fluctuating stocks, bonds or mutual funds. Our results have been impressive: We've averaged about 6.5% annual rate of return over 24 years. And we've provided substantially better benefits in all three Social Security categories: retirement, survivorship, disability.

Our plan vs. Social Security

Upon retirement after 30 years, and assuming a more conservative 5% rate of return, all workers would do better for the same contribution as Social Security:

• Workers making $17,000 a year are expected to receive about 50% more per month on our alternative plan than on Social Security — $1,036 instead of $683.

• Workers making $26,000 a year will make almost double Social Security, $1,500 instead of $853.

• Workers making $51,000 a year will get $3,103 instead of $1,368.

• Workers making $75,000 or more will nearly triple Social Security, $4,540 instead of $1,645.

• Our survivorship benefits pay four times a worker's annual salary — a minimum of $75,000 to a maximum $215,000 — rather than Social Security's customary onetime $255 survivorship to a spouse (with no minor children). If the worker dies before retirement, the survivors receive not only the full survivorship but get generous accidental death benefits, too.

• Our disability benefit pays 60% of an individual's salary, better than Social Security's.

In 1980, labor unions and some traditionally liberal Democrats provided mighty opposition. They considered taxpayer-fed Big Government programs the only secure ones, to the exclusion of other options. However, we held meetings that included debates with Social Security officials and put it to a vote: Our workers passed it by a 3-to-1 margin in 1981 — just in time.

We got our plan in place before the U.S. Congress passed a "reform" bill in 1983 that closed the door for local governments to opt out of Social Security.

This is not a fantasy or an untested program; it is a successful alternative to social security--used by a large county government in Texas-- that has been tested in the real world for over 20 years. If this doesn't demonstrate the fact that people can do much better saving for retirement through a private plan, then nothing will convince the naysayers. As the article above suggests, the opposition to such plans of choice really come from "traditionally liberal Democrats...[who] consider taxpayer-fed Big Government program the only secure ones." These people are the new reactionaries, opposed to anything new or demonstrably better because they are invested in the past.

I hope this program gets the attention it deserves.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 2:44 PM |

 
Euro-Pretense, Moral Bankruptcy, and Shame
Charles Krauthammer says all that needs to be said today:

As an advocate of that notion of democratic revolution, I am not surprised that the opposing view was proved false. I am surprised only that it was proved false so quickly -- that the voters in Iraq, the people of Lebanon, the women of Kuwait, the followers of Ayman Nour in Egypt would rise so eagerly at the first breaking of the dictatorial "stability" they had so long experienced (and we had so long supported) to claim their democratic rights.

This amazing display has prompted a wave of soul-searching. When a Le Monde editorial titled "Arab Spring" acknowledges "the merit of George W. Bush," when the cover headline of London's The Independent is "Was Bush Right After All?" and when a column in Der Spiegel asks "Could George W. Bush Be Right?" you know that something radical has happened.

It is not just that the ramparts of Euro-snobbery have been breached. Iraq and, more broadly, the Bush doctrine were always more than a purely intellectual matter. The left's patronizing, quasi-colonialist view of the benighted Arabs was not just analytically incorrect. It was morally bankrupt, too.

After all, going back at least to the Spanish Civil War, the left has always prided itself on being the great international champion of freedom and human rights. And yet, when America proposed to remove the man responsible for torturing, gassing and killing tens of thousands of Iraqis, the left suddenly turned into a champion of Westphalian sovereign inviolability.

A leftist judge in Spain orders the arrest of a pathetic, near-senile Gen. Augusto Pinochet eight years after he's left office, and becomes a human rights hero -- a classic example of the left morally grandstanding in the name of victims of dictatorships long gone. Yet for the victims of contemporary monsters still actively killing and oppressing -- Khomeini and his successors, the Assads of Syria and, until yesterday, Hussein and his sons -- nothing. No sympathy. No action. Indeed, virulent hostility to America's courageous and dangerous attempt at rescue.

The international left's concern for human rights turns out to be nothing more than a useful weapon for its anti-Americanism. Jeane Kirkpatrick pointed out this selective concern for the victims of U.S. allies (such as Chile) 25 years ago. After the Cold War, the hypocrisy continues. For which Arab people do European hearts burn? The Palestinians. Why? Because that permits the vilification of Israel -- an outpost of Western democracy and, even worse, a staunch U.S. ally. Championing suffering Iraqis, Syrians and Lebanese offers no such satisfaction. Hence, silence.

Until now. Now that the real Arab street has risen to claim rights that the West takes for granted, the left takes note. It is forced to acknowledge that those brutish Americans led by their simpleton cowboy might have been right. It has no choice. It is shamed. A Lebanese, amid a sea of a million other Lebanese, raises a placard reading "Thank you, George W. Bush," and all that Euro-pretense, moral and intellectual, collapses.

YES, YES, YES.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 11:13 AM |

 
Still Having Problems With Blogger
I'm still having many many problems in posting. Sometimes I can access my edits; sometimes I can't. Everything has to be done with numerous attempts to get it to work properly. It is frustrating work at the moment, since I never know if something I write will get posted on the site; disappear into the ether; or just keep bouncing around until it gets posted after I give up trying. So please bear with me!

If you work with Blogger currently, you can begin to appreciate how constant frustration and thwarted hopes can lead to violence.

I wonder if this post will get through?
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 10:43 AM |

 
The Council Has Spoken !
The winners in this week's Watcher's Council Vote for Best Posts are up!

BEST COUNCIL POSTS:

1. Trust Us. We’re from the Government. The Sundries Shack

2. International Women's Day in Iran Dr. Sanity

BEST NON-COUNCIL POSTS:

1. The New United Nations: American Pressure At WorkNew Sisyphus

2. Looking at the Navel AgainBaldilocks

You can check out all the winners over at the Watcher's site - Watcher of Weasels.

Oh, and by the way, one of the Council seats has opened up and is up for grabs! If you are interested in applying to be on the Watcher's Council you can check out the rules and let the Watcher know! Good Luck!
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 10:24 AM |

 
Blah Blah Blah
MEMRI has a comprehensive round-up of items documenting an increasing tension between Egypt and the U.S.

We have a whole host of anti-American cartoons with the obligatory comparison of Bush to Hitler in the Egyptian press:


A whole host of articles that compare the U.S. with Nazi Germany:

Columnist 'Adli Barsoum wrote in the government daily Al-Gumhuriyya: "Egypt staunchly rejected American attempts to interfere in the MP Ayman Nour affair. America does not have any right to impose upon us its false role of defense of human rights, democracy, and free speech, when it has [both] an early and recent history of human rights violations in forms unknown to [even] Hitler's Nazis.
"The Ayman Nour affair is an internal Egyptian matter, whether a criminal affair, a political affair, or anything else. The Egyptian judiciary are the only ones who may express an opinion on this matter, and the Egyptian people are the only ones who may express criticism about it."

What has brought on this Egyptian frenzy of comparing the U.S. to Nazis (and to tsunamis destroying the world; and to cowboys beating up the world; and to Bush as an angel with cloven feet tricking the world --check out all the lovely cartoons at the MEMRI site)? The Egyptians are really really pissed because:
1. there has been a "frivolous discussion in the [American] media" of Egypt's domestic affairs, which, according to them, is not appropriate in relations between two allied nations.
2. there is a "negative atmosphere" created by leaks to the American media from various circles within the U.S. administration. The latest of which quoted American intelligence sources suggesting Egypt had been a partner in the development of Saddam Hussein's chemical weapons programs.
3. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's statements about the arrest of Egyptian parliament member Ayman Nour.
4. The postponement of Rice's visit to Egypt was mentioned as another source of tension between the two countries

Egypt is sooooo upset at all this,that Egyptian Presidential Spokesman Suleiman 'Awwad stated President Hosni Mubarak would not hold his annual visit to the U.S. this year!!

Big Pharaoh, an Egyptian blogger, has some insight into Egypt's sudden anger at the U.S.:

It was interesting to watch the editorials in the government owned newspapers the past 3 or 4 days. I noticed an unprecedented array of anti-America articles and columns that reminded me of the days preceding the war in Iraq. What happened? Well, the government unleashed its dogs.
This new offensive attack on America and its president started after Bush’s latest speech (where he mentioned that democracy is on the march in the Middle East) and the mounting US pressure on President Mubarak after Noor’s arrest. The first government official to attack the speech was Egypt’s secretary of state who ridiculed Iraq by referring to the bombs and killings there. Mr. Secretary failed to mention the 8.5 million purple fingers though!
I expect ferocious anti-Americanism to dominate the government owned media in the coming days especially after the government’s forced release of Ayman Noor. The government wants to tell us: hey, don’t forget that we’re not the cause of your ills, don’t ever think that we succumbed to US pressure, the cause of your ills is America, they occupy Iraq, they help Israel, they abused prisoners in Abu Ghraib, blah blah blah.

So, let me get this straight. Egypt's President Mubarak is so upset with the U.S. that he won't make his annual visit to Washington, eh? Boy, that will show those evil Nazi Americans!

Perhaps Mubarak is actually worried that President Bush might be a bit upset at Egypt's lack of democratic reforms? Perhaps Mubarak is just a teensy bit concerned that the U.S. won't give Egypt the annual check for "military and economic foreign aid"-- which last year was a mere $2 Billion or so? That the American gravy train isn't a done deal these days?

I just don't think the usual Egyptian blah blah blah is gonna work anymore.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 1:13 AM |

 
Where Have All The Mothers Gone?
This study about the power of "good" mothers in overcoming aggression or "bad" behavior in children is really interesting--particularly for the societal implications. Researchers discovered that "good" mothering was able to prevent aggressive and self-destructive behavior in at-risk monkeys. In human terms, "Good" mothering provides a child with respect, love, and security-- the basic aspects of "nurture" that are essential for normal development.

These findings support previous research that good mothers were able to mitigate a genetic defect in children that led to aggressive and "bad" behavior.

Good mothering can abolish the impact of a "bad" gene for aggression, suggests a new study, adding spice to the "nature-versus-nurture" controversy....

For 26 years, she and her colleagues followed the fate of 1037 children born in 1972 in Dunedin, New Zealand. They found that children were much more likely to grow up to be aggressive and antisocial if they had inherited a "short" version of a gene called MAOA. It makes monoamine oxidase A, an enzyme which helps to break down neurotransmitters such as serotonin, and was less efficient in the individuals with the "short" version.

But carriers only went off the rails if they had had an awful, abusive upbringing. Carriers with good mothering were usually completely normal, showed the New Zealand study.

From a psychological perspective then, the freedom and empowerment of women in society are absolutely critical because they are responsible for the earliest environmental influences on children--influences that will impact the child throughout his or her life. If the society has little respect for women and regularly demonizes, debases or humiliates them, it will have a profound generational impact. This is why encouraging women's rights around the world should be a high priority in US Foreign Policy.

The article goes on to discuss the implications:

But an obvious implication is that a "bad" gene in humans could potentially be kept in check by good parenting. "The general principle of parenting is important and can have impacts not only at the level of behaviour, but also in hormonal activities, brain chemistry, structure and function, and at the level of gene expression," he says.

Failure to provide the correct mothering may reset the brain's circuitry irreversibly to patterns of antisocial behaviour, aggression and self-destruction, possibly to enable sheer survival in the absence of motherly protection during infanthood.

Women subjected to institutionalized, societal abuse (such as what we saw under the Taliban; and what we see to a greater or lesser extent in almost all Islamic countries--where physical abuse is sanctioned; where women are sexually demonized; where they are deprived of education, as well as physical, social, economic and political freedom) are hardly in a psychological position to be able to provide effective "nurturing" to children.

Women whose own aggressive impulses have been savagely constrained by society and who have few options to sublimate those impulses, are at grave risk of encouraging aggressive and violent "acting out" on the part of their children on their behalf-- especially the male child who must be seriously conflicted about his love for and identification with a lowly-regarded woman.

In other words, such women will hardly prevent inappropriate aggression in their offspring, when such aggression vicariously meets their own needs. And the male children will have to assert their separation and distance from the debased female that is their mother, as aggressively and violently as possible.

And if you doubt the impact that mothers with such societally and religiously-sanctioned inadequacies could have on children , check out this article. Or look at the photos below and ask yourselves where have all the mothers gone?(from LGF):







UPDATE: Several emails have asked if I think men have any role in "nurture". The answer is that men, or fathers, have a profound impact, but their role usually occurs later in the child's life. There is no question that a "good" male parent can undo or compensate for a failure of nurturing on the part of an impaired or absent mother. Males are perfectly capable of providing the love, respect and security necessary. In the older child (e.g, toddler and older), male figures are critically important in helping their son's "reign in" aggressive impulses and find socially acceptable ways to express those aggressive impulses.

We have just discussed how male children in societies that demonize or debase women must overemphasize their "maleness" in order to separate from the mother. As grown men, far from being able to mitigate the aggressive impulses of a child, such men will encourage these impulses in order to "prove" to the world at large that they (and their sons)have not been "feminized". Cultures where women have extremely low status almost always encourage the development of inadequate, "macho" men, who need to prove their manliness and constantly are responding to insults of their "honor".
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 5:21 PM |

 
SPACEMANIA !
Now here's a special tour that a real space aficionado shouldn't pass up!

Our program begins with a private gala dinner and welcome lectures at the American Museum of Natural History’s Rose Center for Earth and Space with our study leaders, Neil deGrasse Tyson, Mike Shara, and James Oberg. Continue to NASA Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland, Smithsonian’s National Air and Space Museum in Washington D.C., and Kennedy Space Center in Cape Canaveral, Florida to enjoy an unprecedented red carpet tour of the grounds and witness a possible Space Shuttle launch. The stateside portion of the program culminates at Johnson Space Center in Houston, where we attend high-level meetings with astronauts and administrators to discuss the Apollo, Shuttle, and Space Station programs. Continue to Russia to trace the evolution of the Soviet space program, explore the MIR Space Station Simulator, and speak with Russian officials and cosmonauts about current efforts of Russian-American cooperation in space. Observe a Soyuz launch and enjoy the opportunity to train as cosmonauts in an optional zero-gravity flight or other training activities.

**NOTE: I have no financial connection to this! A friend is one of the expert tour guides and clued me in to it. If you're interested, check it out at the link!
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 9:30 AM |

 
AMNESIA vs HYPOCRISY
From Mirriam-Webster Online:

am·ne·sia : the selective overlooking or ignoring of those events or acts that are not favorable or useful to one's purpose or position

From NRO, here's how some prominent DEMOCRATS felt about filibusters during Clinton's term of office:

Barbara Boxer – 5/14/97:

“It is not the role of the Senate to obstruct the process and prevent numbers of highly qualified nominees from even being given the opportunity for a vote on the Senate floor.”

Dick Durbin – 9/28/98:

“If, after 150 days languishing on the Executive Calendar that name has not been called for a vote, it should be. Vote the person up or down.”

Tom Harkin – 1/5/95:

“I do not believe that I as a member of the minority ought to have the right to absolutely stop something because I think it is wrong, that that is rule by minority.”

Ted Kennedy – 3/7/00

“The Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court said: ‘The Senate is surely under no obligation to confirm any particular nominee, but after the necessary time for inquiry it should vote him up or vote him down.’ Which is exactly what I would like.”

Pat Leahy - 6/18/98

“If we don’t like somebody the President nominates, vote him or her down. But don’t hold them in this anonymous unconscionable limbo, because in doing that, the minority of Senators really shame all Senators.”

Of course another word comes to mind:

hy·poc·ri·sy: a feigning to be what one is not or to believe what one does not; especially : the false assumption of an appearance of virtue

I'll let you decide.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 7:27 PM |

 
Honorable vs. Dishonorable Conduct
The American Enterprise interviews the Swift Boat Veteran's John O'Neill:

O'NEILL: The one who conceived of this was Admiral Roy Hoffmann. He began contacting many Swift Boat people in January and February last year. At that time, I was in the hospital. I had given my wife a kidney for a transplant.

I became a part of it in early to mid March. I was motivated by several things, the first and most important being a genuine fear of what would happen to our country, our national security, and our armed forces if John Kerry became Commander in Chief.
The reason we had our press conference on May 4 was that we thought if we could come forward quickly, we might be able to prevent John Kerry from becoming the Democratic nominee and allow the Democratic Party to pick someone else, in which case we could all go home.

TAE: At the Swift Boat veterans' May 4 press conference you had an open letter calling Kerry unfit to be Commander in Chief. It was signed by virtually all of John Kerry's commanders in Vietnam. Yet the story fell flat. The media ignored it. How did your group react to the media blackout?

O'NEILL: We were shocked. We couldn't believe it. I haven't been involved in politics or media relations, and I thought the job of the media was primarily to report the facts. It was obvious to me that many hundreds of his former comrades coming forward to say that he lied about his record in Vietnam and that he was unfit to be President would be important information for Americans. I only then became aware of the bias of the media.

TAE: How do you explain the media's response?

O'NEILL: The establishment media was very pro-Kerry. They were opposed to any story that was critical of Kerry, and I believe that they were captured by their own bias. We met with one reporter around that time. We told a story to him relating to Kerry's service. He acknowledged it was true and terribly important. And he told us he would not print it because it would help George Bush. That's when we began to realize we had a real problem on our hands.

TAE: Is there anything other than pro-Kerry bias to account for the establishment media's attitude to the story?

O'NEILL: Perhaps a second factor is that there are very few veterans in the established media. It makes it very difficult for them to understand the story or to care about it. That's very different from the situation 40 or 50 years ago when most people had served in some fashion in the armed forces or had uncles or brothers who had.

(There is a lot more, and I recommend you read the rest).

Now, compare and contrast with these statements by John Kerry, reported by P.J.O'Rourke recently, as Kerry sets himself up to run in 2008:

"We learned," Kerry continued, "that the mainstream media, over the course of the last year, did a pretty good job of discerning. But there's a subculture and a sub-media that talks and keeps things going for entertainment purposes rather than for the flow of information. And that has a profound impact and undermines what we call the mainstream media of the country. And so the decision-making ability of the American electorate has been profoundly impacted as a consequence of that. The question is, what are we going to do about it?"

Translation: We the people are too stupid to see through the lies and deceit of the evil sub-media, even though the brave and capable REAL media discerned the truth and tried to tell us how wonderful John Kerry was.

New Sisyphus points out the following salient points in his critique of Kerry's incredible comments:

You may be surprised to hear that the MSM “did a pretty good job of discerning” over the last year, given that the New York Times, CBS and the BBC all had to fire lead personnel over the fact that they just damn well made stuff up out of whole cloth in service to an obviously partisan political agenda. But then, if you’re reading this, your part of a dangerous sub-culture, aren't you?

And what, Senator, are we going to do about these dangerous people that keep disagreeing with the MSM and have the nasty habit of not keeping their ill-informed, non-making-stuff-up mouths shut? Here we see the cold iron of the liberal’s tendency to want to shut their opponents up that lies behind the calm façade and the Birkenstocks.

Read both the O'Neill interview and the Kerry comments. Ask yourself which person--O'Neill or Kerry--calls for silencing free speech? Ask yourself, who wants to stop the flow of information? Ask yourself, who does not want to compete in a free market of ideas?

You watched the same campaign that I did in 2004. Did the Swift Boat Veteran's get a shot at defending their position in the mainstream media? Did John Kerry respond to their accusations? Has John Kerry to this day ever filled out the Form 180 for the complete release of all his Vietnam records, including his medical records (in spite of MULTIPLE promises that he would do so--even one recently on Meet the Press)?

Ask youself, why it was important that a document purporting to come from one person who commanded Lt.George Bush in the TANG (and who was conveniently deceased) during the Vietnam war was considered a "critical" news story; while the sworn affidavits of 274 living veterans, including ALL the superior officers of Lt.John Kerry, was not?

John Kerry thinks he is going to run for President in 2008. But I think the American public is on to his scam. As part of that dangerous "sub-culture" Kerry is so opposed to, I intend to frequently remind everyone of the con artist the Democrats nominated in 2004.

I am forever thankful this dishonorable, pitiful, self-obsessed human being did not become the President of the United States.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 9:53 AM |

 
Greenspan Maxed Out
MaxedOutMama analyzes the recent testimony to Congress by Alan Greenspan and concludes that Paul Krugman (who is supposed to be an economist, but is really a less articulate version of Maureen Dowd, with an academic degree) is deluded.

The budget deficit can't improve unless major action is taken.

But, as the latest projections from the Administration and the Congressional Budget Office suggest, our budget position is unlikely to improve substantially in the coming years unless major deficit-reducing actions are taken.
Congress doesn't have enough self-control to do it, so legislation to force a balanced budget is necessary:

In my judgment, the necessary choices will be especially difficult to implement without the restoration of a set of procedural restraints on the budget-making process. For about a decade, the rules laid out in the Budget Enforcement Act of 1990 and in the later modifications and extensions of the act provided a framework that helped the Congress establish a better fiscal balance.

But that's not enough either:

I do not mean to suggest that the nation's budget problems will be solved simply by adopting a new set of rules. The fundamental fiscal issue is the need to make difficult choices among budget priorities, and this need is becoming ever more pressing in light of the unprecedented number of individuals approaching retirement age. For example, future Congresses and Presidents will, over time, have to weigh the benefits of continued access, on current terms, to advances in medical technology against other spending priorities as well as against tax initiatives that foster increases in economic growth and the revenue base.

Check it out. I couldn't agree with her more--either about the unsustainable spending or about the la-la Democratic reactionaries.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 9:46 PM |

 
Let Her Speak !
Hirsi Ali has won a court battle in the Netherlands (hat tip: Free Thoughts):

The Hague Court refused to censor MP Ayaan Hirsi Ali on Tuesday, dismissing a court challenge to her criticism of the Islam faith and a planned sequel to her controversial film "Submission".

The ruling comes after several Muslims took legal action against the Liberal VVD MP in a bid to prevent her from making what they believe to be insulting, offensive or blasphemous remarks against the Islamic faith.

They also demanded the court block a sequel to the film Submission, which accused the Islam faith of endorsing domestic violence.

Hirsi Ali made the film in co-operation with Theo van Gogh. The 10-minute documentary is believed to have played a key role in the filmmaker's murder at the hands of a suspected Islamic militant last November.

But the court in The Hague ruled on Tuesday there are insufficient grounds to ban a follow-up film, asserting that Hirsi Ali has not acted illegally with her statements. The court did accuse the MP though of testing the bounds of what is acceptable.

The theme of the follow-up film is the oppression of the individual under Islam. The lawyer representing the claimants, Robert Moszkowicz, claimed that the film will certainly contain blasphemous elements.

If you ask me, the real "blasphemy" would have occurred if this case had been decided against Ali. Let her voice be heard! Let the voices of all the women who suffer under the primitive and medieval attitudes of their religions be heard!

And let all voices in the free world condemn Islam for its institutionalized oppression of women. If that is blasphemy, then so be it.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 8:37 PM |

 
Where Did All The Weapons Go?
This is a really important piece by Christopher Hitchen at Slate and should be read by all the people who jeeringly and categorically state that Saddam did not have WMD:

It was eye-rubbing to read of the scale of this potential new nightmare. There in cold print was the Al Hatteen "munitions production plant that international inspectors called a complete potential nuclear weapons laboratory." And what of the Al Adwan facility, which "produced equipment used for uranium enrichment, necessary to make some kinds of nuclear weapons"? The overall pattern of the plundered sites was summarized thus, by reporters James Glanz and William J. Broad:

The kinds of machinery at the various sites included equipment that could be used to make missile parts, chemical weapons or centrifuges essential for enriching uranium for atom bombs.

My first question is this: How can it be that, on every page of every other edition for months now, the New York Times has been stating categorically that Iraq harbored no weapons of mass destruction? And there can hardly be a comedy-club third-rater or MoveOn.org activist in the entire country who hasn't stated with sarcastic certainty that the whole WMD fuss was a way of lying the American people into war. So now what? Maybe we should have taken Saddam's propaganda seriously, when his newspaper proudly described Iraq's physicists as "our nuclear mujahideen."

My second question is: What's all this about "looting"? The word is used throughout the long report, but here's what it's used to describe. "In four weeks from mid-April to mid-May of 2003 … teams with flatbed trucks and other heavy equipment moved systematically from site to site. … 'The first wave came for the machines,' Dr Araji said. 'The second wave, cables and cranes.' " Perhaps hedging the bet, the Times authors at this point refer to "organized looting."

But obviously, what we are reading about is a carefully planned military operation. The participants were not panicked or greedy civilians helping themselves—which is the customary definition of a "looter," especially in wartime. They were mechanized and mobile and under orders, and acting in a concerted fashion. Thus, if the story is factually correct—which we have no reason at all to doubt—then Saddam's Iraq was a fairly highly-evolved WMD state, with a contingency plan for further concealment and distribution of the weaponry in case of attack or discovery.

I urge everyone to read the entire article AND the source article in the NY Times, which originally reported the "looting". Especially those who dismiss the possibility that Iraq under Saddam posed any threat.

And yes, I believe Saddam had WMD and/or significan WMD capability and my fear is that those weapons are now somewhere else. My bet is Syria;and I also bet that we will have more evidence and/or confirmation of this soon.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 5:26 PM |

 
An Illness of the Soul
The Captain has the truth about Cuba's medical care. Is anyone surprised? Castro is a con artist whose lies, distortions, cheating and lack of concern for reality rivals Ward Churchill's (or is it the other way around?).

I grew up during the Cold War. I was assailed with stories about the Soviet Union and its "scientific achievements" and "economic progressiveness". I had the impression that the USSR was a serious rival of the U.S. After all, didn't they launch the first man into space? A remarkable achievement, right?

Some years later, I was sent to the USSR on a NASA trip at the height of the Cold War to meet with some of the researchers at the Institute for Biomedical Problems (IBMP). From the moment I arrived in this people's republic, it was obvious that I was in a 3rd world country. Everything was grungy and dirty. And I mean everything. The sheets at the slummy hotel I was staying at were filthy. I shared a bathroom with two other rooms, both occupied by men. The bathroom was so disgusting that for two days I couldn't bring myself to take a shower (the tub was crusted in dirt and didn't look as if it had been cleaned in years). There were dead bugs on the floor of the room. The radio in the room did not work. The window in the room could not be completely closed (it was November and the outside temperature was about 18 degrees). Did I mention that this was an ELITE hotel for academics visiting the IBMP and other Soviet institutes?

As I wandered around Moscow, the only people I saw were standing in lines to get food. There was one line for bread. One for milk. One for meat. The faces of the people were dull and resigned. Faceless women wrapped in scarves for warmth sluggishly swept the dirt on the sidewalks from one side to the other (I could never figure out why). Above the streets, on the buildings were old banners that proclaimed in Russian "Glory to Soviet Science".

When I tried to buy something in a "tourist" store (under the supervision of several Soviets assigned to me) the clerks (there were four of them, although there were very few people in the store) completely ignored me for the longest time; then when I went to pay they never once spoke to me or looked at me. They kept up a conversation among themselves that seemed to have something to do (as far as I could tell from my limited Russian)with the last time they had bought meat it had been bad.

At the IBMP, scientists I was supposed to confer with on psychological issues in space, spent most of their lecture time talking about the "wonders" of Soviet science. Their papers were peppered with such phrases. In private, when they were sure none of their bosses were listening, they would plead with me to tell them what other researchers were doing in their field. Did I think that their research was interesting or useful? Most places I have travelled in the world to visit scientists, I would be queried at length about my work. But the Soviet scientists were desperate to know what was going on in their fields. They were not permitted to read "outside journals"; there was noone who could review and critique their work, except their immediate colleagues. All too often, the political considerations overrode scientific ones.

Every evening these scientists would quietly apologize to me and others in the group because they had to publicly denouce us as "capitalist liars". Over and over again we were told, "We have to say these things to get along here."

It was an eye-opening experience for me to see up-close how totalitarianism chips away at the human soul and at human dignity; destroying any talent; encouraging mediocrity; crushing independent thought; and eliminating initiative. The evidence of this simple truth was all around me.

Take a close look at the pictures over at Captain's Quarters at the link above. What you are seeing is the world of people who don't care anymore. I saw the same thing in the Soviet Union in the 80's. The stench of hopelessness and mediocrity is unmistakable. These are the symptoms of a slowly disintegrating human soul.

Which is why this is so incredibly appalling. That artists would defend Castro and his oppressive regime is the height of self-delusion and is a betrayal of the human spirit that art expresses.

And if you are inclined to think of Cuba as a "worker's paradise" you might just read this post by an EMT who was at Guantanamo for a while and is now in medical school. Here is some of what he has to say:

We deployed in the vicinity of the fenceline. We met the refugees as they approached, and with weapns in hand, denied them entry to the base. They had managed to traverse a kilometer deep minefield covered by towers with machine guns to get to this point. They had left everything they had ever known in order to get out of there. And we stopped them. We had orders. We had our orders, so we followed them. After enough shouting and threatening, the refugees eventualy gave up and headed back. Back into Cuba. While I was sweating my balls off under the hot sun, these refugees made a mistake. They had gotten through the minefield the first time, but they had not followed in their own footsteps going back. While I was thinking to myself how I wish these people would hurry up and go back so that I could head back to someplace with air-conditioning, one of them stepped on a landmine.

That explosion touched my world.

Then, I witnessed the worst thing I ever saw in my life.

As the dust cloud wafted away from those refugees, nobody ran. Nobody screamed. Nobody said anything.

They just laid down to die in the middle of a minefield that was the sun's anvil.

Think of how badly you would not want to die like that. Think about that real hard. Think about slowly dying of exposure in a minefield. Think about what would make you risk such an outcome. Think about it real hard, and then remember that as bad as that was, it was better than going back.

The apologists of tyranny are again hard at work trying to redeem the one of the last outposts of communist enslavement. They see a "worker's paradise", but underneath the "civilized" veneer of Castro's Cuba is the deadening illness of the soul that infected all the other failed communist and socialist "paradises".

The only cure is Freedom.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 9:54 AM |

 
He's Definitely In Trouble Deep
But is he gonna keep his baby, Lebanon? Hopefully not.




Papa don’t preach, I’m in trouble deep
Papa don’t preach, I’ve been losing sleep
But I made up my mind, I’m keeping my baby, oh
I’m gonna keep my baby, mmm... Madonna
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 9:30 PM |

 
Yet More Probems With Blogger
Briefly, over the weekend, I thought that things had been fixed on Blogger. I was wrong. Today I have wasted several hours of time trying to post several items and it has been completely random which ones got through. THIS IS GETTING INCREASINGLY FRUSTRATING AND WASTING A CONSIDERABLE AMOUNT OF MY TIME TO BOOT.

I don't know what to do except to look around at other webhosts. Unfortunately, this gives me great anxiety, since I feel I have only just got a handle on this blogging thing.

I'm not even sure this post will get through. ARGGGGGGGGGG.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 5:37 PM |

 
Freedom Rally in Lebanon
Check out The Corner for more pictures. This was the largest pro-freedom rally in the history of the Middle East! The Lebanese have taken matters into their own hands now. Let us hope they succeed in reclaiming their freedom.


Anti-Syrian protesters carry Lebanese flags during a rally in Beirut March 14, 2005. Hundreds of thousands of people rallied in central Beirut on Monday in the largest anti-Syrian protest in Lebanon since the assassination of former Lebanese prime minister Rafik al-Hariri exactly a month ago.
 

New Sisyphus:

Totally outdoing Hezbollah's "We Love To Be Occupied" rally last week, the Lebanese people have again taken to the streets in their hundreds of thousands to demand independence, freedom and sovereignty.

Read it all!
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 3:54 PM |

 
New Book Recommendations
Here are several new books I've been reading in the last few weeks:



Since the War on Terror began, I have read Bat Ye'or with great interest; so I was particularly eager to read the new book, Eurabia. She has also written Islam and Dhimmitude and has been a pioneer researcher on the concept of Islamic dhimmitude . I found Eurabia to be a though-provoking and profoundly disturbing book, tackling the islamization of Europe. Ye'or documents the process by which the European continent is slowly but surely committing cultural suicide as one by one they capitulate to Islamic extremism. I hope Ye'or is wrong, but I fear she may be right. Even as I write this, the Dutch are awakening from the multicultural dream they built in their society to discover that it is really a nightmare.

One thing I truly liked about the book is the courage Ye'or's demonstrates to look directly in the face of Islam and see it for what it is, and what it represents: the subversion of the Western values of freedom of thought, freedom of religion, and freedom of speech. Highly recommended.

The absolute best science writer out there is Matt Ridley. His books are well-written, informative, and true to the science. Here are two that are, in my estimation, particularly excellent:


The first is a incredible romp through the human genome, highlighting parts of different chromosomes that are known to be connected to significant medical problems. Ridley is knowledgable and intertwines biology with human interest and philosophy. Genome is probably the best science book I have ever read that was written by a non-scientist. The author really understands his subject matter, and is able to bring enthusiasm and insight to some extremely fascinating biological problems.

The Origins of Virtue is about the evolution of cooperation in human society. Ridley asks the question of why humans are impelled to live in cooperative, complex societies, if Darwin's "suvival of the fittest" is really focused on individuals? It looks at the roots of human trust and virtue by analyzing recent research that suggests that self-interest and mutual aid are not incompatible.

Finally, I'd like to recommend two works of fiction. The first, Inkheart, was recommended to me by my 12 year old daughter, who enjoyed it and knows that I like literature written for children and adolescents. Inkheart is a fantasy/mystery that explores the heart and soul of reading and books (it reminded me in that regard of the Jasper Fforde Thursday Next novels----see the right sidebar). Imagine that characters in a book come alive, not in your imagination, bu for real; and they enter your world, bringing their book world with them. Imagine if the character that enters your world was truly evil. Funke is an excellent writer, who understands adolescents. I can understand why kids really like this book. I did too.



My final recommendation is not a new book. It is one I read and enjoyed many years ago and reread recently, to discover that I enjoyed it just as much--if not more-- this time around! I understand it is going to be a major motion picture this summer, but nothing can replace the old audio and PBS Video series in my heart. I am referring to The Hitchiker's Guide to the Galaxy, specifically the 25th anniversary edition.



Has it really been 25 years??? Doug Adams (who died in 2001) was a genius. After I read the special 25th anniversary edition, I had to go back and read the other books in the series, too. I will never forget the first time I read that book. I was laughing so hard, I almost fell out of my chair, gasping for breath. It was clever, intelligent, and brilliantly executed. It is still that good and that funny. This time around, I really began to appreciate Marvin, the depressed and suicidal robot. I recommend you read all the books; listen to the audio CD ;and watch the DVD BBC production, too. You'll be glad you did.


- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 11:39 AM |

 
Our Secret Weapon Against the Mullahs!
[evil laughter]



Jeff Stahler, The Columbus Dispatch, Ohio


[/evil laughter]
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 12:30 AM |

 
NO SUBMISSION
Ayaan Hirsi Ali will be on 60 Minutes tonight to talk about her film with Theo van Gogh, Submission, and the sequel she is planning. You can watch a clip of the film here.

Here is what one site says about the film:

Submission is a 10-minute film directed by Theo van Gogh and written by Miss Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a Liberal party member of the Lower House of the Netherlands Parliament.The film seeks to highlight the mistreatment of women born to Muslim families. The film was shown on the Dutch public broadcasting network (VPRO) on August 29, 2004. The film displays the bodies of Muslim women who have been beaten. The bodies are used in the film as a canvas for verses from the Quran used by Muslim men to determine husband-wife relations. The women include one that suffers wife beating and one that is raped by her uncle.The film is controversial . According to Mohammed Sini of the Islamic and Citizenship Foundation, the film is offensive to Muslims, stating: "If there is a reaction, Theo van Gogh will have to protect her (Ayaan Hirsi Ali)." The film was dismissed by Nabil Marmouch, the Dutch representative of the Arab Europe League, who said, "I know what she is up to with this film. She wants extra security and she wants others to feel sorry for her. She is simply looking for attention."A Labour Party member of the Lower House of the Netherlands Parliament, Mrs. Khadija Arib, said, "I admire anyone who wishes to point out that the mistreatment and oppression of women is an evil. I question, however, whether this is the right way to do it. I am truly concerned that Hirsi Ali simply wishes to be confrontational when presenting others with this message."

Because Ms. Ali and Theo van Gogh dared to "insult" the religion of peace, Mr. van Gogh is dead--butchered by one of the peaceful practitioners of said religion; and Ms. Ali lives daily in fear of her life. Dutch authorities have had to put her in prison for her own safety.

LGF has some additional information. Including quotes that blame Ali for van Gogh's death.

Many in the Muslim community are offended by Hirsi Ali’s critique of Islam and are not surprised that this film led to violence. Nabil Marmouch, a Muslim political leader, told Safer, “You cannot emancipate women by insulting them, unless of course, that is your hidden agenda, to insult them and to create what has happened here in the Netherlands.”

What can you say about a woman of such defiant and desperate courage?

You know what? Let us offend Islam. Let us insult them and demand that they stop the oppression of women. Let us say that those who would support such behavior are disgusting and despicable and unworthy of respect or countenance. And that they deserve even more condemnation because of their pathetic unwillingness to take responsibility for their religion.

I will watch tonight, and I urge all of you who have not seen the film to click on the link above to get a preview.

In my opinion, this film should be shown at the Universities, in the classrooms; in every movie theater in the country. The pathological treatment of women condoned and encouraged by Islam MUST BE EXPOSED AND SHOWN FOR THE SICKNESS IT IS.

There can be NO SUBMISSION to this sickness by anyone in the civilized world.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 6:10 PM |

 
You Go Fox !
I like Fox News a lot. Beginning back in 2001, I began to watch it almost exclusively, although I frequently check things out on CNN and MSNBC for comparison and to remind myself why I like Fox best. Why? Well, it is because Fox chooses their stories--i.e., what stories to emphasize--in the same way that I would. All news shows filter the news by doing this, not just Fox. I believe that their choices are more "fair and balanced" than the other stations overall. My favorite show is Brit Hume's report every evening. I think it is simply the BEST news show on TV.

Well, Fox News is finally getting some praise. This is possibly slightly more astonishing than the fact that President Bush's policies are being credited with some of the transformation going on in the Middle East (see here, for example)! New Sisyphus declares that the station, by providing the public with information about the Saddam-UN-Oil-for-food Scandal has played an important role (along with Bush) in leading to a transformation of sorts at the UN.

Actually, there's much much more in the post than good words about Fox and you should definitely read it all. Here is a sample:

What is responsible for the momentum of change sweeping through the United Nations at the moment?

The answer lies in four related but separate phenomena: Fox News and other conservative media, the rise of the Blogosphere, the Republican majority in the United States Congress and, most importantly, the President himself. Each has played a role which, together, has created a moment of pressure that is bending an unwilling United Nations to the American view of what is to be done.

Fox News and the Oil-For-Food Scandal

First, it is clear beyond doubt that had Fox News not pursued the United Nations Oil-For-Food Scandal, no one would have. It is simply a fact that the kind of international bureaucratic corruption the story implicates is of no interest whatsoever to the MSM, for reasons both political and cultural.

Political, because to target one’s political bedfellows is simply bad tactics. Much better, like in today’s Washington Post for what must be the 116th time, to take perfectly ordinary Congressional junkets attended by left-wing-scare-monster Tom DeLay and sneer and slime about it enough until there is the “appearance” of scandal. (The next step in the liberal playbook of course, is the serious and high-minded editorial that points out that while no actual corruption can be proved in this instance, it is the duty of all good public servants of the Republic, and especially [insert conservative’s name here], to resign since even the appearance of corruption weakens our democratic system and the public’s faith in our institutions of government.)

Cultural, because despite all evidence to the contrary, it is simply a matter of faith among liberals that the United Nations is an embryonic trans-national governing body that uses democratic norms to enforce the ever-increasing tangle of legal obligations that will usher in, if not world government, at least an international consensus of good behavior. It simply stuns and amazes us that people continue to believe this despite the record of abject failure of the U.N to act in Bosnia, Kosovo, Rwanda, Cambodia, Iraq and, now, Sudan. Fortunately for liberals, there are always a number of academics to explain why the latest genocide is really the United States’ fault, Rwanda being only the latest example.

It is just SO MUCH FUN to see major changes happening in the world for the good because of the BushChimpHitler (for the simple ability to face reality and act accordingly) and the Evil Fox News (for its willingness to report that reality and not be politically correct all the time) and to know that between them they are driving the Left absolutely bonkers to see their cherished beliefs go down the toilet!

I'm laughing out loud!
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 12:02 PM |

 
Weekly Insanity Update
Today is Sunday, so it is time for the weekly roundup of the insane, the ridiculous, the outrageous and the unbelievable! This week we have a bumper crop! So many insanities, so little time....

1. A crack in the wall of the BushChimpHitler meme?

2. Probably not the best way to get something off your chest....

3. So now it's a crime to sell cookies in NYC without a permit? What's next?

4. Maybe the team's name was the "Dogs", in which case it wouldn't be quite so unnatural.

5. This is really not very cricket! (and just a teensy bit catty, but funny)

6. Betsy asks a very good question. What is taking so long, and will we ever hear about accidently stuffing documents in the pants fiasco again?

7. Will Vietnam be the next Iraq? Bwahahahahaha.

8. No, we're not a banana republic, but somebody in this story is bananas.

9. OTOH, maybe NEITHER should be accepted.

10. What part of "you lost; get over it" doesn't he understand?

11. Jesus is a Liberal and Jehovah is a neo-con, perhaps (rebelling against the Father?) And maybe Allah is a feminist? The Holy Spirit is probably gay. (warning: there's a very annoying ad you have to let play before you can get into the site)

12. I'm sure he deserved it. And, so does he.

13. Mourning is difficult--some people just can't let go of their loved ones.

14. Whose brilliant idea was this one? Just what we needed. Why not toilets flushing or the wonder sound of vomiting (like I'm doing now).

15. Does it help to know that "Easter" is actually a word that comes from "Oestre" the pagan goddess of fertility? Probably irrelevant for the politically correct among us.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 11:15 AM |

 
Bits and Pieces from the Middle East
A compilation of news from Lebanon.

A last postcard from Afghanistan.

Bush to Tap Envoy in Afghanistan as Iraq Ambassador.

Some Iraqi election news.

The Saturday Briefing from Regime Change Iran.

Big Pharaoh has an update on Ayman Noor in Egypt.

And this seems like some encouraging news about women's rights in Saudi Arabia.

How about this: Iraq is boycotting Syrian Products! (hat tip: Instapundit)
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 11:35 PM |

 
The New NASA Chief
I personally don't know the new pick for NASA Chief, Mike Griffin, but here is what the official White House announcement says about his qualifications:

Dr. Griffin currently serves as Space Department Head at Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory. Prior to that, he was President and Chief Operating Officer of In-Q-Tel, Inc. He also served in several positions within Orbital Sciences Corporation, including Chief Executive Officer of Magellan Systems, Inc. Earlier in his career, Dr. Griffin served as Chief Engineer at NASA and as Deputy for Technology at the Strategic Defense Initiative Organization. He received a bachelor's degree in Physics from Johns Hopkins University; a master's degree in Aerospace Science from Catholic University of America; a Ph.D. in Aerospace Engineering from the University of Maryland; a master's degree in Electrical Engineering from the University of Southern California; a master's degree in Applied Physics from Johns Hopkins University; a master's degree in Business Administration from Loyola College; and a master's degree in Civil Engineering from The George Washington University.

Also, according to CNN: (hat tip: Christine)

Griffin, a rocket scientist with an MBA, had previously worked at NASA as the agency's associate administrator for exploration in the late 1980s and early 1990s under the first President Bush....Before returning to APL in April 2004 to head the space work, Griffin worked as the chief operating officer of In-Q-Tel, a private non-profit enterprise funded by the Central Intelligence Agency to invest in companies developing leading edge technologies.

This information tells me several things.

1. Griffin is a REAL scientist who has made it in the rigorous academic world of the physical sciences as a researcher (he may even be OVER-educated for the position--something most of his predecessors cannot claim);
2. Griffin has had experience with the NASA culture as a scientist and an administrator;
3. Griffin has had REAL experience in business and technology.
4. Griffin IS NOT just another bureaucratic hack from another part of the Space Agency;
5. Griffin IS NOT just another bureaucratic hack from one of the many cravenly subservient aerospace companies associated with NASA and who merely recycyle NASA bureaucratic hacks and do whatever NASA tells them to do.
6. Griffin IS NOT an astronaut, who for the most part just follow the NASA party line and, despite their credentials, have been and are a major impediment to serious science at the Agency.

For all these reasons, many people at NASA--particularly the more incompetent, change-resistant managers, invested in the old way of doing business--will hate his guts and do everything in their power to obstruct him. If Griffin is truly "the chosen one" --who will make the necessary changes in NASA culture that will restore balance to the tension between science, technology, business and government and ignite a revolution in space exploration--then he very possibly could become one of the most pivotal and important NASA Administrators we've had in a long, long time.

But, if he is seduced by the dark side of the NASA culture, then he'll just be yet another in a series of Sith Lords leading the Agency towards its inevitable decline.

And since I am only a simple flight surgeon, trying to make my way in the universe, I will let Time and Space determine which statement--or neither-- might be true.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 4:41 PM |

 
The Bizarro World of Academia
From Victor Davis Hanson's Private Papers blog, we get some "Teachable Moments" about the bizarre world of academia:

In other words, Ward Churchill’s plight gives us a glimpse into the strange world of the contemporary postmodern university of tenured ideologues, where professed identity politics, ethnic or gender chauvinism, and a disbelief in empiricism allow a con man to bully his way to guaranteed lifetime employment, and a handsome salary, and the right to say anything at all, no matter how inflammatory.

Well, almost anything at all — as we have learned in the almost simultaneous case of Harvard president Lawrence Summers, who, in some remarks, entertained the possibility that innate gender differences might in part explain why women are underrepresented in the hard sciences on university faculties. It was the sort of informal speculation that most Americans sometimes engage in and was not limited to genetics; his remarks wandered all over the larger context of socialization, child rearing, habit, custom, and gender discrimination. Qualifiers, backtracking, disclaimers, and cautious admissions characterized his speculations about innate difference.

Summers’s comments before scholars were apparently meant to incite the sort of “conversation” that universities exist for, challenging orthodoxies, shaking up complacent thinking, and, yes, perhaps provoking hurtful emotions that galvanize further debate. In some sense, his was a highbrow version of the common popular inquiry about why white basketball players, for example, are underrepresented in the NBA: Is it that white adolescents don’t grow up with the familiar culture of the court, that they don’t have enough role models in the game, or, terribile dictu, that they simply don’t jump as high or run as fast as African Americans — or all or some or none of the above?

If there is anything that the Ward Churchill saga teaches us, it is that free speech is only for those who are on your own side, and that the free speech of all others must be silenced. It is that the freedom to offend is the perogative of the politically correct, and in their hands it becomes a basic right. But if you dare to offend the minions of the politically correct, you will be ruthlessly destroyed.

The search for truth in the halls of knowledge is now trumped by feelings and appeals to emotion. Good and Evil; ethics and morality have become relative; every whim is equal to every other whim; and no distinction can be made among cultures because all are equally valid --except of course that if they are primitive, they are bound to be "better" than the technologically advanced ones, since we all know that technology is evil. In this bizarro world, Terrorism can be justified--even against children (hat tip: LGF)

In the bizarro world of academe, "truth" is now defined by anyone who "believes" something is true; not by any facts or even by objective reality. And this, unfortunately, is a lesson learned all too well by the hapless students who are foolish enough to put their intellectual development into the hands of these annointed elite.

Instead of pursuing reason and fostering independent thinking, colleges and universites which were once centers of knowledge and learning, have become temples dedicated to the worship of emotion, run by the high priests of mediocrity.

Tenure, once a firewall built to protect the pursuit of knowledge, has become a refuge for those who would destroy the very foundations of knowledge. Isn't it time for these privileged, upscale, oppressed professors to have to deal with the real world for a change?

Isn't it time we demanded some accountability from those who would teach our children?
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 11:07 AM |

 
The Council Has Spoken !
This week's winners in the Watcher of Weasel's Council are in:

BEST COUNCIL POSTS:

1. Wounded Italian Journalist: Victim of Conspiracy or Polemecist? The Moderate Voice

2. Greenspan in the CrosshairsThe Sundries Shack


BEST NON-COUNCIL POSTS:

1. Bill Maher: Over the Edge! BuzzMachine

2. Protests in Unlikely PlacesPublius Pundit

Check out all the winners over at the Watcher's Site!
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 9:24 PM |

 
I Dream of Genie....

It's a tight squeeze....
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 5:11 PM |

 
Burying the Real News
Thank goodness Cori Dauber at Rantingprofs reads the NY Times and notices these little tidbits--which she points out are buried deep within articles that most people won't bother to read. This article was ostensibly about the recent Shia Mosque suicide bombing:

The attack occurred as senior Shiite and Kurdish officials said in interviews that they had reached an agreement in principle on forming a coalition government, but were still negotiating some sticking points. They have agreed that a transitional basic law approved last spring will be the basis for a new government, and that Sunni Arabs should be given prominent government posts. The transitional law says, in part, that Islam should be a source of legislation rather than the sole source.

You remember that basic law. It took some time to get all parties to agree to that one. It has some aspects, despite the pride of place for Islam, that will sound a bit familiar.

All Iraqis are equal in their rights without regard to gender, sect, opinion, belief, nationality, religion, or origin, and they are equal before the law. Discrimination against an Iraqi citizen on the basis of his gender, nationality, religion, or origin is prohibited. Everyone has the right to life, liberty, and the security of his person. No one may be deprived of his life or liberty, except in accordance with legal procedures. All are equal before the courts.
There's a good bit more in here updating the status of negotiations, particularly with the Kurds, but the two key points seem like done deals: a continued effort to bring in the Sunnis, and an agreement that Islam will be a basis for the law, not the basis for the law.

Oh, gee whiz, look what else is buried in here.

New details also emerged on Thursday about the shooting on March 4 of an Italian journalist who had been held hostage. A United States Embassy official here said the soldiers who fired on the car carrying the hostage were providing security for John D. Negroponte, the United States ambassador to Iraq.

"The mobile checkpoint was set up to enhance security for Negroponte," the official said. It was not clear whether Mr. Negroponte, whom President Bush has nominated as the first director of national intelligence, had passed through the checkpoint before the shooting.

Both of these buried stories deserve their own headline and emphasis. Getting this kind of important information about what is going on in the world is exactly why I used to read the papers; and I subscribed to several major ones so I wouldn't miss it.

This particular tactic described by Cori is one of the reasons why I don't subscribe to the Times any longer.

The first tidbit is rather exciting news about the developing Iraqi democracy. The second story is extremely relevant information regarding the Sgrena incident at the checkpoint.

Wouldn't you have wanted to know about these things independently of a headline that read "Bombing at Shiite Mosque in Mosul Leaves 40 Dead" on page A-8?

My 12 year old could edit a story better than this.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 3:25 PM |

 
**!@!?&!?%!*$@** BLOGGER !*&%$$#@!
Blogger has been down all day, since my first post before 7 am this morning. I think it has impacted all Blogger users and not just me. Several posts I wrote earlier are have magically appeared on the site.

Since I am a mental health professional and am above such things (HAH), I am valiantly trying to keep my temper. Blogger's service is free, and I am getting what I pay for, I guess.

Sigh.

On the bright side, if everyone would hit the Tip Jar, I could eventually afford to move to a better service! (Notice how I am trying to make lemonade from lemons?)

My wheeling and dealing brother thinks I should make such requests more frequently (this is the first time I've "blegged" actually). But he is the one with most of the business smarts in the family. In deference to him, I strongly encourage you to drop a Tip to Dr. Sanity using the Amazon or Paypal buttons on the right sidebar. Or, by mailing a tip to the PO address listed there.

THANKS!
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 8:45 PM |

 
Perpetual Adolescents
The New Sisyphus comments on the "Italian Job"--better known as the Guiliana Sgrena Story:

But the recent absurd heights to which the story has risen has forced our hand. Really, we're not sure which is funnier: that an Italian Communist would think that she is significant enough to warrant our attention, let alone an assassination order, or the spectacle of a full state funeral for a fallen state security officer.

We mean no disrespect to the dead, but, somehow, we get the feeling the poor man's funeral would have been a bit less grand had he merely been beheaded by the usual suspects.

The incident shows the depths of the pathology that is Western anti-Americanism and offers, yet again, another cautionary and exemplary tale for Americans: until and unless we begin to decline to act as the world's superpower, the world's economic engine, the world's policeman, the world's lender of last resort in all instances, the Western pathology will grow. Like the over-spoiled adolescents of Orange County we grew up with, the nations of Europe and the wider West will continue with infantile temper tantrums and faux-rebellious posing, in one long hissy fit against "Daddy," putting at risk all that is of value in our Western Civilization.

New Sisyphus makes some excellent points and you should read his entire post. I particularly find his assessment of Anti-Americanism to be right on target. It has reached truly pathological proportions, with a toxic mixture of ideological paranoia; individual narcissism and national denial. I only wish we were dealing with "over-spoiled adolescents" who will eventually mature as they grow up.

Unfortunately, we are not dealing with adolescents (although they are behaving as badly and irresponsibly), we are dealing with adolescent--or rather, INFANTILE, psychological defense mechanisms that are being used by individual ADULTS and NATIONS of adults.

The adolescent-adults of Europe have little incentive to grow up, since they know that America will always be there to rescue them from their own poor judgement and self-destructive behavior. And when we do, they will be sullen and ungrateful, muttering darkly about our high-handed tactics and how we don't treat them like adults. They will call us names and make fun of us behind our backs to their peers and not want to be seen as agreeing with us on anything in order to define this "independence".

No, the Europeans are far worse than ordinary adolescents. They are PERPETUAL adolescents.

God help us.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 8:19 PM |

 
Three Things I Could Care Less About
One

Two

Three

My question about all three is, why all the fuss?
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 5:51 PM |

 
Life on Mars--Again?
I have always been fascinated by the idea of extraterrestrial life in the universe. In a 1983 article I published in the American Journal of Psychiatry (Vol. 140:5,pp 519-527, May, 1983), I wrote:

...there may be many opportunities for psychiatric input into the space exploration effort over the next 25 or more years. At the risk of sounding like the author of a science fiction story, I would like to suggest some areas of research that are purely speculative at this point but in which psychiatry may play an important role. The first area is in extraterrestrial psychology. A considerable amount of money has been spent on the search for extraterresrial intelligence (SETI). The field of exobiology has existed for many ears and has grown considerably since it was first speculated that life in the universe could be based on an element other than carbon, e.g., silicon. Only science fiction writers have made attempts to speculate on the differing psychologies that such biologically alien beings might have.

If scientists are correct and the probability is high that intelligent life outside of our own exist, the problem of communicating with and understanding such beings may become imperative. The scope of the problem is tremendous, not only in speculating how the different biology has affected the alien psychological development (which would certainly lead to a better understanding of the interactions among biology, psychology and environment in living organisms), but also in studying human response to the potentially infinite number of forms such life might take.

The image above was taken by the Mars Express spacecraft and shows what appears to be a dust-covered frozen sea near the Martian equator. The flat plain is covered with irregular blocky shapes that look just like the rafts of fragmented sea ice that lie off the coast of Antarctica on Earth. Such images are tremendously exciting because of the mereist hint of a suggestion of the possibility of life on the Red Planet.

Why is the possibility so exciting? Think about what it would mean if life in any stage of development were discovered there. The scientific, philosophical, and psychological implications would be incalculable.

If just one picture of the earth, floating in the darkness of space could lead to a paradigm shift in thinking about our planet; how much more explosive would it be for us to begin to see ourselves as just one life form out of many in the universe? The jumble of emotions that humans would experience at such a reality would run the gamut of all human emotion--exhilaration, anxiety, fear, yearning.

Well, we shall see if the latest claims turn out to be true...
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 9:50 AM |

 
International Women's Day in Iran
As far as I am concerned, there cannot be too much written documenting and increasing awareness about the abysmal situation of women under the religion of Islam.

Here is how International Women's Day was celebrated in Iran ((From the Students for a Democratic Iran Coordinating Committee):

Several Iranian women activists and some of their male supporters were beaten and arrested today, as they defied basic taboos of the Islamist ideology and Gender Apartheid enforcers of the Islamic republic.

Shouting slogans, like, "Na roosari, Na toosari!" (No Veil, No Submission!) the demonstrators were loud and defiant.

The protesters had gathered for the celebration of the "Int'l Women's Day," at Laleh Park located in the center of Tehran, when militiamen and plainclothes agents rushed them, as the brave female protesters removed their mandatory veils.

At least 50 women were arrested and seen transferred to regime buses that quickly left the scene. Regime security forces had previously closed most accesses to the area, in order to exercise ease of control and avoid more supporters joining the demonstrators.

Speaking to Pars TV, the SMCCDI Coordinator had declared, yesterday evening, the Movement's support of maverick Iranian women and asked for their protection. "It's the duty of every Iranian man to be at laleh Park and support their wives, mothers and sisters who are seeking to break the chains of slavery and discrimination" Pirouznia had stated.

The Islamic regime instated its' Gender Apartheid policy, following the 1979 revolution based on deep Islamist principles that established women as half a man and the source of temptation. Gender Apartheid proponents include "Abolhassan Bani-Sadr", the first president of the Islamic regime. An obvious fanatic and backwarded in his kind, he, Bani-Sadr, actually stated "the hair of a women is an emanating source of temptation that harms men's intelligence."

It is astonishing to me that there are women who justify Islam and even describe it as "liberating" because it "frees" women from having to worry about issues like fashion or looks. By that line of reasoning, you could say that Death "frees" people from having to worry about Life.

When I started my career in psychiatry, one of my earliest and most difficult cases was a woman--I'll call her Alice--who was seen frequently in the ER because her husband used to beat her fairly regularly. She had been hospitalized several times because of internal injuries from these beatings, but despite our trying to convince her to get help, Alice vehemently refused, claiming that she loved her husband and that he loved her. Her hospital room would be filled with flowers and cards from the repentant spouse. Both Alice and her husband would have nothing to do with us, and denied they even had a problem.

The last time I saw Alice, she was unconscious and being wheeled into the operating room after a particularly savage beating from her loving husband. She never made it off the operating table. I thought of how we tried desperately to warn her that the violence would not stop unless something changed. We literally had pleaded with her to let us help her the last time she was discharged from the medical unit.

Rarely since then have I felt so helpless or impotent as a professional. Rarely have I felt so angry about the kind of psychopathology and lack of insight that lead to situations like Alice's.

Since then I have come to realize you cannot force someone to change psychologically. The professional part of me understands that Alice had many opportunities to make a change in the toxic relationship she had with her husband. She had the opporutnity to get help; she could have stopped accepting his way of expressing his "love". She could have faced the reality of her situation. But she didn't, and now she was dead. The husband was convicted of her murder. And Alice, who was without doubt a tragic victim of domestic abuse, was at the same time a willing accomplice to her own murder.

Alice might have chosen differently. Most women in Islam cannot choose their fate. From birth to death they are ruthlessly oppressed and subjected to the medieval, misogynist attitudes of their religion and culture. In many Muslim countries they have as many rights as the family dog--perhaps less. I have little sympathy for apologists of this situation, whether they are male or female; religious or fanatic.

To those who claim that Islam is compatible with women's rights and self-determination, I say: DO SOMETHING ABOUT THE INSTITUTIONALIZED ABUSE AND OPPRESSION OF WOMEN UNDER ISLAM.

Individual cases of domestic violence clearly cannot be prevented in every case; and there will always be women like Alice and men like her husband in every culture or creed. But Muslims can stop justifying this psychpathological behavior as compatible and sanctioned by their religion. Until that religious sanction is withdrawn, claims that Islam is a religion of peace--or even that it is civilized--are laughable.

Personally, I have my doubts that the religion of Islam is compatible with equality and freedom for women. But if it is, then it will have to stop beating up 50% of its population in order to act out male fantasies of superiority, potency and power in the other 50%. Because if an individual, nation or religion has to act those fantasies out, the truth is that they are covering up and trying to compensate for the pathetic and desperate soul of a murderer.

UPDATE: If you think I am being unnecessary harsh on Islam, I urge you to check out the latest Arab TV transcriptions over at MEMRI :

Clip No. 556 - Al-Azhar Sheik Farhat Al-Munji Explains Wife-Beating in Islam

Clip No. 509 - Discussion on Wife-Beating: Ten Toothpick Blows Do Not Cause Much Pain http://memritv.org/Search.asp?ACT=S9&P1=509

Clip No. 392 - Sheik Al-Qaradhawi: Wife Beating Yes, Homosexuality No

Clip No. 226 - Sermon on Qatar TV: With Some Women, Life is Impossible Unless You Carry a Rod

There are many more. If you can read the transcripts of these videos without wanting to vomit, you're a stronger person than I am.

UPDATE 2: Consider the following pictures of women police graduates from Iran (hat tip: LGF):


The immediate response is to laugh at how ridiculous these poor women look. But consider for a moment the kind of "policing" they will be asked to do for their masters. Just go back to the original link in this post for an example. They are a corps of Alices in black burkhas with automatic weapons, who will be used to efficiently ensure that other women cannot shout slogans, like, "Na roosari, Na toosari!" (No Veil, No Submission!)
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 6:51 PM |

 
Desperately Seeking Tyranny
Two interesting perspectives on the "Pro-Syria" March by Hizbollah yesterday. The first is from Iraq the Model:

I have noticed that some media sources are focusing on the size of the demonstrations and the number of the people who were gathered to attend at that time and place.
I think that the number of participants doesn't make a demonstration strong at all.
The BBC says :
The crowd dwarfed previous opposition protests urging Syrian troops to leave.

I think that the opposite is true as it proves how the tyrants in Syria and their allies in Lebanon are so scared of the growing sense of liberty among the people in Lebanon.
The reason why I adopt this opinion is very simple; the opposition rallies were calling for liberty to their country and rejecting the Syrian interference which has infiltrated all important life sectors in Lebanon in the last 15 years.
While Hizbollah's rallies are allegedly opposing the "western foreign interference" which in fact doesn't exist!
Moreover, these rallies are actually encouraging the Syrian interference (that's foreign interference, right?) in the interior affairs of Lebanon and condemning the decision of international community represented by resolution 1559.

I see no patriotism at all in holding pictures of another country's president (err…I mean tyrant) and chanting "Long live Asad…Long live Syria" when that very administration you're cheering and chanting for has been keeping your country a hostage for over a decade.

And from The Astute Blogger (hat tip: Roger Simon)

What does it say about the neojihadists that their demonstration in Beirut today was a man-only affair?

YUP: that's right: While watching news reports on TV and looking at jpegs at blogs, I couldn't help but notice a HUGE difference between the two sides in Lebanon: on the one hand, the anti-Syria demonstrations in Beirut were obviously, totally PLURALISTIC: men and women; Christians, Druze, and Sunni; and people of all ages; and they were all HAPPILY proclaiming their the occupation of their country by the fear-mongering forces of anger and repression. On the other hand, today's Hizballah demonstration was huge, but exclusively male - and angry looking; even their speakers sounded angry - ESPECIALLY Nasrallah.

I think this says a lot about each side - EVERYTHING, in fact.

Certainly everything that needs to be said. Read each piece and then you decide how much sense these anti-democracy, pro-Syria demonstrations make. Protesting foreign interference? Yet Syria is not a foreign country interfering in Lebanon?

And, didn't Saddam used to get such numbers in the street whenever he wanted to? Especially with the armed men on the rooftops and surrounding the area. And, didn't he get 99.9% of the vote too?

I bet you could get most anyone to demonstrate for anything under those circumstances. Hizbollah is desperately seeking tyranny.

UPDATE: Also check out the Lebanese blog Across the Bay for some insightful assessments of all this.

UPDATE II: Jihad Watch has more: was the entire demonstration a "hoax"?
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 9:24 AM |

 
It's A Mad Mad World
Beautiful Atrocities has this scoop:

SEN. CLINTON & MRS. HYDE

Being the diary of a woman who, gobbling red pills & blue pills, veers from mild-mannered red-state conservative to ruthless blue-state dominatrix.

Scrappleface on Dan Rather's imminent retirement:

Dan Rather to Confess: 'I'm a Conservative American'

(2005-03-06) -- A leaked copy of Dan Rather's farewell address, scheduled for delivery Wednesday night, contains the veteran newsman's shocking confession that, despite decades of liberally-biased reporting, he's actually a registered Republican and has secretly channeled millions of dollars to GOP candidates.

"For all of these years, I have lived a lie," Mr. Rather will say as he bids goodbye to his CBS Evening News audience member. "I have overcompensated for my natural instincts by aggressively slanting the news in favor of my political opponents -- those pathetic liberals.

And from the Borowitz Report, we have this gem:

GREENSPAN TO HEAD UP U2
Becomes Lead Singer as Bono Leaves for World Bank

Longtime Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan stunned the worlds of finance and pop music today by announcing that he would leave his post “effective immediately” to become lead singer of the Irish rock band U2.

In filling the key position with the platinum-selling musical act, Mr. Greenspan is replacing U2 lead singer Bono, who is rumored to be heading for the top job at the World Bank.

Mr. Greenspan struck many observers as an unlikely choice to assume such an important role in one of the world’s most influential rock bands, since his convoluted and often cryptic use of the English language seems incompatible with the more straightforward demands of rock music.

If you really need a laugh, be sure to check out all three. Remember HUMOR is a very advanced psychological defense mechanism!

- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 10:30 PM |

 
All Hail King Jeremy!
Jeremy at American Warmonger is going for a threepeat as King of the Blogs! We strongly urge you to go over there and vote for the man (you can vote for him every three hours). This princely fellow helped me re-design my blog and I'm forever grateful to him! He also needs trackbacks to help his cause, so do that too, if you can.

All Hail the King!
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 8:39 PM |

 
Turning Point
Michael Barone notes the following in discussing four US Presidents who presided over turning points in American history -- Washington, Lincoln, FDR, and GWBush:

It seems unlikely that George W. Bush will be a giant in history like the presidents inaugurated 72, 144 and 216 years before. The threats to the nation are not as great. Yet his presidency may come to be seen as another turning point, and one in which the president's character, and the choices he need not have made but did make, could shape the nation for a lifetime to come.

Bush, as Yale's John Lewis Gaddis has noted, has transformed American foreign policy more than any president since Roosevelt and has decided to wield America's power proactively to advance liberty and democracy around the world. The recent advances toward democracy in the Middle East suggest he is on the side of history.

George Bush wasn't born "great"; and by no standard could one say that many of the decisions of his life were "great". He came into the Presidency as a flawed man and he will leave the same way; and in that he is little different from all the other men who have held that esteemed office.

But greatness was thrust upon George W. Bush by events in the world, and he has risen to meet those events with integrity, honor, and determination. I am not paid to say this (as some have suggested) but I believe it; and I see the evidence that supports it all around the world now.

It seems to be extremely difficult for those who dislike Bush to accept that he will have a much more significant place in history than his Democratic predecessor, but their weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth will not change the fact that Bush has transformed the world and moved humanity that much closer to universal liberty. We are not there yet, unfortunately, but because of Bush the way has been made clear for many millions of people.

In the coming days and months and probably years (Lord, I hope not!), you can look for those on the Left to continue to oppose every action; denigrate every idea; denounce every plan; gleefully highlight every mistake; and attack any person who stands on the same side of history as Bush. They will offer no alternative, because they have none. Their behavior is solely determined by fear. Fear that their own ideas and ideology have finally--finally--been shown for what they represent: the very antithesis of Freedom and Democracy. They are fading into the tapestry of history.

People in the world--when given a choice --reject the prophets of doom and gloom, and those of totalitarianism and oppression. They yearn for Freedom and self-determination. The ideology of the Left--that brought us communism, socialism and all forms of totalitarianism is dying. All that remains is the narcissistic rage of its followers and their ability to destroy what others create.

In their rage they cry out "LOOK AT ME! I AM STILL IMPORTANT! LOOK AT ME! DAMN IT, LOOK AT ME!" Then they throw their rocks, or spears, or rhetoric, or lies to get your attention.

Soon, no one will turn to look their way any longer.

UPDATE: Dawn's Early Light has a roundup of all the articles reconsidering Bush's policies in the light of events around the world. (hat tip: Polipundit)
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 5:22 PM |

 
Attacking The Root Cause
Over the last several years, I have seen many articles like this one, asking, "When are we going to get serious about the Saudis?"

Schwartz draws our attention to a pregnant detail -- that “Few in the West seemed to notice earlier this week when 2,000 people assembled in Hilla, near Baghdad, to protest a car bombing that killed at least 125. The demonstrators chanted ‘No to terrorism! No to Baathism and Wahhabism!’ "

“No to Wahhabism?” Yesterday we quoted Bernard Lewis as noting: "As an interesting result of (the strong presence of Wahhabism in Islamic education in Germany but not in Turkey), of 12 Turks arrested so far who have active membership of al Qaeda, all 12 were born and brought up in Germany, none in Turkey…”

How strange it would seem if the last important bastion of Wahhabism is in accommodationist Europe – the House of Saud having been shriveled to impotence and the other Arab states too busy democratizing and nation-building to be distracted by Islamofascists crying out from the ash heap, where they squat beside the communists.

Interestingly, here is a rather unheralded article that discusses the emerging metamorphosis of Saudi Arabian attitudes toward terrorism:

As it faces an armed revolt from within, Saudi Arabia is gradually confronting a painful issue that was long taboo: whether the religious traditions of the kingdom have promoted Islamic terrorism.

Radical clerics, accustomed to preaching violence against unbelievers, are being watched more closely. The government says about 2,000 have been removed from their mosques in the past three years.

Religious charities that once funneled billions of dollars to promote extremist ideologies around the world are being regulated for the first time. In schools, reformers are wrestling for control of textbooks and classrooms that have long taught intolerance and hostility toward non-Muslims.

and then this yesterday from the AP: "Saudis Tout Campaign to Fight Terrorism":

Saudi Arabia touted its anti-terrorism efforts Monday, saying it has arrested 700 terrorist suspects and started some of the strictest controls in the world against terror financing.

The statements came in a news conference laying out the kingdom's new campaign of billboards, television spots and school programs aimed at combating Islamic extremism in Saudi society.


"The bottom line is that no Saudi citizen will be able to escape the clear message that intolerance, violence and extremism are not part of our Islamic faith or Saudi culture or traditions," said Adel al-Jubeir, a foreign affairs adviser to Crown Prince Abdullah bin Abdulaziz.

It occurs to me to wonder if this change may be the single most important shift in the Middle East that is going on right now. In fact--is it too bold to say it?--it may be exactly this shift of gargantuan proportions in Saudi attitudes that was the ultimate objective of the US invasion of Iraq and overthrow of Saddam Hussein.

Does that theory make it seem like I'm overanalyzing the US strategy in the war on terror and crediting the Bush Administration with too much here?

If one posits that the source of Islamic extremism lies in the Wahhabist schools and madrassas of Saudi Arabia; and that for a very long time that country has been exporting the religious ideology that establishes the underpinnings of Islamic extremism--then it is important to comprehend what a seismic shift is going on right now in Saudi Arabia. The demonstrations in Lebanon, Kuwait, and even Morocco; the thaw in Egypt--all these events are very important in and of themselves--but they also serve as additional pressure points on the Saudi Royals that their continued support of extremism and terrorism will lead to their inevitable decline and disappearance from history.

The Saudi Royals are not stupid. They see what is happening now. In 2001, there was little we could do to push them to change, especially with our dependence on their control of oil. Yet, by invading Afghanistan and Iraq, we have basically changed the face of the Middle East, and the full repercussions of those actions are just now being felt. The House of Saud is perfectly aware that change is coming--they can see it with their own eys. Psychologically, we have made an end run around them, and now they have to make some big decisions about their exportation of Wahhabism and support of terrorism--and the future of their own rule at the center of Islam. We have seen that at each step since 2001, more and more pressure has been exerted on the House of Saud to begin to implement change.

In truth, within Saudi Arabia lies the "root cause" of the world's terrorism problem. But until recently, that country has been untouchable. They have been like a weed spreading its seeds outward, popping up in every part of the the world's garden. Like any good gardener, we are attacking the root of the weed by digging our way around it, so that it will be (hopefully) somewhat easier to pull it out without destroying the garden.

I don't know that I'm correct on the assumption that the Saudis were a target all along in the war on terror. For some it will seem that such an approach is rather too subtle for the Bush Administration. But maybe there is some real intelligence (as in "IQ") behind the strategic moves in the war on terror.

Just maybe.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 10:21 AM |

 
The Problem of Legislative Entrepreneurship
Samizdata has a brilliant post on the "distributed stupidity in government" (hat tip: Instapundit)

I do not think it is an exaggeration to say that there is now a crisis of excessive lawmaking in the West generally, and in the Anglo-Saxon world in particular. It is not that our political class is hell bent on tyrranny, impure and simple. It is more that they have become legislative entrepreneurs, so to speak. And just as a businessman who is delighted to make a fast buck selling mobile phones does not bother himself about the grief inflicted by railway travellers with mobiles on other railway travellers, so too, lawmakers who are "aiming" at one particular group of alleged wrongdoers have a tendency to neglect what you might call legislative collateral damage. The laws pile up, and the other legislators, the ones who you would hope would be sitting there solemnly trying to limit that collateral damage, neglect that duty, because they are too busy hustling through other little laws of their own, aimed at other preferred clutches of alleged wrongdoers. Laws go straight from legislative entrepreneurs to government regulators, without no intervening process of scrutiny that is worthy of that adjective.

Which means that government regulators are then tempted to mutate into what you might call regulatory entrepreurs. They cannot possible enforce all their laws, rules and regulations. There are not enough hours in the history of universe for that to happen. So, just like the legislative entrepreneurs, they also lose sight of the big picture (it having become too big to bother with) and decide for themselves which regulations to take seriously. How? Any way they please. In accordance with what rules? Whichever ones they decide to go with.

The author is basically discussing the unintended consequences of many laws (like the McCain-Feingold fiasco, which now seemingly may seriously impede bloggers' free speech if some regulatory hacks have anything to do with it). There is even a modest proposal to name the phenomenon:

I hereby propose the verb "McNab", to describe the process of innocent people being seriously screwed by crazy laws. As in: I've been McNabbed.

Read the entire post.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 12:35 AM |

 
Liberty Update
Women demonstrate for their rights in Kuwait! “Our democracy will only be complete with women,” said a placard written in Arabic. “We are not less, you are not more. We need a balance, open the door,” said one written in English.
Events are moving so fast in the Middle East, it is absolutely incredible! (hat tip: LGF)

UPDATE: And now PAKISTAN !
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 9:00 PM |

 
One Picture's Worth 150,000 Words!
And the word is "Freedom"!


150,000 Protesters demonstrate for Freedom in Lebanon today.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 3:26 PM |

 
TROLL SCAM
Well, Well, Well. A gaggle of Trolls has hit this blog and accuse me of all sorts of things. One thing I can now accuse them of is that THEY HAVE BEEN ALL ONE PERSON. Jerome, Lila, Peter, Jenna, and Chere all seem to share the same IP address! Isn't that amazing?

And they accuse me of dishonesty? This is apparently a kind of Troll Scam that is not unique to this site. If I go back through my 2000+ comments, I'll bet I will find many other nom de guerres with this IP address (I use that phrase because I'm sure they think they are at war with me).

They have all been banned and any other names from that address.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 1:50 PM |

 
COMMENT POLICY
I am really beginning to wonder if there is anyone on the Left who is capable of rational discourse anymore. Take a brief look at some of the commenters on this blog who happen to disagree with me, and what you will find is

-Foul language
-name-calling (mostly using foul language)
-the ubiquitous "Hitler" references; and of course comparing my blog to "fascism"
-A complete inability to address the topic of the post

Consequently, I am REVISING MY COMMENT POLICY. Heretofor, I have given people a second chance to clean up their language and to refrain from calling me or other commenters names.

I am not going to give a second chance anymore. From this point on, ANY use of casual foul language, or foul language name calling, analogies etc. etc. will result in the comment being DELETED and the person making the comment BANNED.

I will be the sole arbitor of when language goes over the top, since this is my blog and my threshold.

Feel free to disagree with me; argue your perspective; present your case; whatever. If you don't like a post, you are free to say so. But I will no longer tolerate abuse of me personally or of the other people who comment and discuss things here.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 12:52 PM |

 
New Rules of Engagement?

Cox and Forkum have a roundup, too. You know, it is one thing to make a tragic mistake during war. But what does it tell you that this event is being exploited yet again to denounce America and the Iraq war? Sorry, but it gets tiresome to hear the same old worn out slogans and kneejerk reactions.

I don't notice the anti-war airheads exploiting the beheadings of innocent people or the deliberate bombings of Iraqis. I guess they must have missed those events somehow.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 9:40 AM |

 
An Italian Perspective
At least one Italian is not impressed with Giuliana Sgrena, Here's her perspective on the whole Sgrena Saga.

In the end, the Italian communist journalist Giuliana Sgrena has been released. I have to say that I have been predicting since the beginning that she would have returned home alive.

Like the "two Simonas" - those two actresses who succeeded in making us believe that they were hostage and then came back to Italy smiling and insulting the US and then Iraqi PM Allawi and praising the Al Qaeda Terrorists in Iraq - and after only two months they were photographed swimming and laughing as if nothing were happened. Try to compare them to the faces of the other three Italian hostages, those valuable men who were the comrades of the heroic Fabrizio Quattrocchi.

Read the rest of what she has to say.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 12:44 AM |

 
"Bush Sends His Greetings"
Who says Bush can't take credit for what is happening in the Middle East as Freedom Fever spreads? Rich Lowry at The Corner reports that the Lebanese protesters shouted, "Bush sends his greetings!" as they watched Assad's speech the other day.

Notice that they didn't shout, "Kerry [or Cole or Chomsky or Clinton or Kennedy or Moore or Soros or Krugman or Dowd or Pelosi or any number of other Democratic or Leftist icons] sends his greetings."

Just...BUSH. Isn't that sweet?

UPDATE: Apparently Assad is listening carefully.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 11:19 PM |

 
Superheroines
Christine Larson, writing in the Washington Monthly describes the "Seven Mistakes Superheroines Make":

Female action stars have always had it harder than the guys. A few win mass appeal and become icons of female aspiration—Wonder Woman first graced the cover of Ms. magazine in 1972—but most flounder for fans beyond adolescent male comic-book readers. It might seem that tightrope-walking between Amazonian strength and femme-fatale status does requires a golden lasso and invisible plane.

But the good news for Hollywood—and audiences—is that there is an enduring formula that works. Superheroines since the 1970s—from Wonder Woman to Princess Leia, Charlie's Angels to Lara Croft, "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" to "Alias's" Sydney Bristow—have all followed a few simple rules to find success on the big and little screen. And every would-be action babe who has flopped has broken at least one of them. So what's the secret?

1. Do fight demons. Don't fight only inner demons.
2. Do play well with others. Don't shun human society.
3. Do exhibit self-control. Don't exhibit mental disorders.
4. Do wear trendy clothes. Don't wear fetish clothes.
5. Do embrace girl power. Don't cling to man hatred.
6. Do help hapless men. Don't try to kill your boyfriend.
7. Do toss off witty remarks. Don't look perpetually sullen.

Boy, that's the truth! I like Halle Berry, but couldn't stand Catwoman. I almost like Hermione Granger as much as Harry Potter (better, sometimes when Harry is whining). When I was a kid I loved Wonder Woman and Supergirl. Why is it so hard to portray women as anything other than sexy?
I don't mind sexy, but how about intelligent, strong and smart too? Without those added qualities, "You're not likely going to see a bunch of little girls arguing about who gets to play her."

Most of my heroes while I was growing up were men, I have to admit. In my imagination I became them when I played. Girls today have so many more options and that is great for them.

Superheroines and Superheroes are a psychological abstraction of the best that is within each individual man and woman. "Truth, Justice and the American Way" -- Superman's motto-- essentially sums it up nicely.

Real superheroes are dedicated to honesty and integrity; they are effective in obtaining justice and they are the American ideal of the lone figure who stands up to evil and defeats it decisively.
Now, more than ever, we need them--both male and female versions--to renew our dedication to those values.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 7:41 PM |

 
Too True !

NASA Administrator--The Job No Sane Person Wants! (hat tip: Cooky)
Click on the cartoon to enlarge!
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 2:57 PM |

 
Weekly Insanity Update
Time for the weekly roundup of the insane, the ridiculous, the obnoxious, and the mildly annoying; not to mention outrageous. I don't make up these stories, they come to my inbox unaltered and in pristine quality. I just collect them. If you have a link to an insane story or post, send it my way for inclusion in next week's Update!

1. 1. Here is one thing we can definitely blame Bush for!

2. Cows have a secret life? Who knew?

3. Cognitive dissonance; contradiction in terms; and total misuse of language.

4. Titillating.

5. Is this the face that launched a thousand ships and then moved on?

6. Actually, I prefer them steamed.

7. And I always thought it was the length of a different appendage that determined this!

8. Interesting "demands" from a Sex Pistol, aren't they?

9. And he wouldn't he be able to do this "important work" while castrated because...?

10. The Kafkaesque logic of the government of Niger .

11. Tolkien knew something about this.

12. Fake singing banned in China.

12. Kiss of death. No, not the Godfather.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 11:09 AM |

 
Three Little Lefty Blogs
It seems to Dr. Sanity that many of the key blogs that lean to the left have taken on the mantel of character assassinators and try their best to ruin the reputations of anyone who disagrees with them--like Brit Hume, Alan Greenspan, and a host of others too numerous to mention. Their task is a herculean one, since many many people think it is their own characters that require adjustment. For just one example, take a peek at this. It is a modest example of the kind of thing some of the Lefty blogs seem to delight in.

So in same juvenile spirit ,but with much more class, I offer the following Gilbert and Sullivan-inspired ditty. You, dear reader, get to pick which three Lefty blogs best fit the song!

(With abject apologies to the genius of Gilbert and Sullivan and their Mikado and for having the three little maids sink so low)



THREE LITTLE LEFTY BLOGS

Three little Lefty blogs are we
Vile as total jerks can be
Reveling in malicious glee
Three little Lefty blogs

Everyone is a source of fun
Nobody's safe, for we care for none
We are a joke that's just begun
Three little Lefty blogs

Three little blogs who, consciously
obfuscate the truth, you see
Freed from all integrity
Three little Lefty blogs
Three little Lefty blogs

One little blog is a snide dumb-dumb
Two little blogs, each one a bum
Three little blogs is the total sum
Three little Lefty blogs
Three little Lefty blogs

From three little blogs not a word that's true
Wondering who next to screw
Filled with hate-filled venom spew
Three little Lefty blogs
Three little Lefty blogs

Three little blogs who, consciously
obfuscate the truth, you see
Freed from all integrity
Three little Lefty blogs
Three little Lefty blogs !
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 2:58 PM |

 
You Say You Want A Revolution?
Charles Krauthammer (my favorite psychiatrist pundit):

Revolutions do not stand still. They either move forward or die. We are at the dawn of a glorious, delicate, revolutionary moment in the Middle East. It was triggered by the invasion of Iraq, the overthrow of Saddam Hussein and televised images of 8 million Iraqis voting in a free election. Which led to the obvious question throughout the Middle East: Why the Iraqis and not us?

To be sure, the rolling revolution began outside the Middle East with the Afghan elections. That was followed by the Iraqi elections. In between came free Palestinian elections that produced a moderate, reform-oriented leadership, followed by an amazing mini-uprising in the Palestinian parliament that rejected an attempt to force corrupt cronies on the new government.

And it continued -- demonstrations in Egypt for democracy, a shocking rarity that led President Hosni Mubarak to promise the first contested presidential elections in Egyptian history. And now, of course, the "cedar revolution" in Lebanon, where the assassination of opposition leader Rafiq Hariri led to an explosion of people power in the streets that brought down Syria's puppet-government in Beirut.

You say you want a revolution? Well, we DO want to change the world. We want more freedom, more democracy, more empowerment of indivudal people. And that seems to be what's happening. Read Krauthammer's entire piece.

Change is good. Let's have more!

And speaking of change-- neo-neocon discusses the process of change in "A Mind is A Difficult Thing To Change" (Part I and Part II):

When I first started this blog, one of the things I was sure I'd do an awful lot of writing about is what it means to change one's mind on a topic as fundamental and emotional as politics: who does it, why they do it, how they do it.

- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 11:05 AM |

 
The Height of Folly
This article by Michael Billok discusses the recent decision by U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina regarding enemy combatant Jose Padilla. He takes the reader through the arguments and gives them historical perspective (see here also) and concludes:

Finally, the court completely ignored Supreme Court precedent. During World War II, U.S. citizen Herbert Haupt was captured while trying to blow up bridges, railroads and manufacturing plants for Nazi Germany. The Supreme Court held in its "Ex parte Quirin" decision that Haupt could be tried by military tribunal, and he was subsequently executed. Haupt and Padilla were both United States citizens; both planned acts of destruction on behalf of an enemy of the United States; and both were captured on U.S. soil, oddly enough, in Chicago. Yet the court practically dismissed Quirin out of hand, even stating that "Quirin involved a war that had a definite ending date. The present war on terrorism does not."

Enter Encyclopedia Brown. The boy detective creation of Donald Sobol, Brown could solve any mystery over dinner and before dessert. He once examined a sword that was supposedly inscribed and presented "at the First Battle of Bull Run" in 1861 and immediately classified it a hoax. How so? In 1861, there hadn't yet been a Second Battle of Bull Run, so nobody could know the 1861 battle was the "first," and not simply the only, battle.

So, a question for the judiciary: How did the Supreme Court know in 1942, the year Quirin was decided, that World War II would have "a definite ending date" in 1945? Do presidents in wars with known ending dates have more discretion to fight the enemy than presidents in wars where the conclusion is unknown? What's the matter? You haven't touched your dessert.

Along the way to this excellent concluding point, Billok notes:"Instead, much like a certain presidential candidate, Judge Floyd believes that this is a law enforcement matter, not a military matter."

AHA! We get to the heart of the matter! The fundamental premises underlying this court decision, and indeed, underlying many on the Left who are arguing about the civil liberties of terrorists at Guantanamo or about Abu Ali or Jose Padilla are these: The War on Terror is not a REAL war. Dealing with terrorists is a LEGAL matter, not a MILITARY matter. And finally, a sub-premise: dealing with it in a MILITARY manner threatens our very way of life and the freedoms we enjoy.

We went throught most of this discussion (I thought) during the 2004 presidential campaign. These premises were (if I'm not mistaken) rejected by the American public when it rejected John Kerry. Indeed, a substantial number of Americans supported Kerry and his approach; but even more supported President Bush and his. Yet these fundamental premises have not gone away.

If you understand this premise, then all the behavior and rhetoric as well as the fears and anxieties of the Left fall nicely into place.

Let us examine the three aspects of this premise.

1. The War on Terror is not a REAL war.
In my opinion, the WOT has a ridiculous name--it should be the war on Islamofascism or the war on Islamic Extremists, which would be more to the point. But anyone who doubts that we are in a REAL war, with REAL enemies determined to kill as many Americans and eliminate Freedom from the face of the earth, is simply in complete denial. You are beyond rational discussion, and I cannot help you.

2. Dealing with terrorists is a LEGAL matter, not a MILITARY matter.
In the normal course of events, the President (or anyone else for that matter) has no authority to incarcerate American citizens without due process. Such a thing would be an unspeakable violation of individual rights AND do terrible damage to the very underpinnings of a "free" society--making a mockery of them.

I unreservedly agree with that statement. Reasonable people, however, can and have asserted that there are other factors and situations which must be taken into account. These situations are, fortunately fairly rare, but recognizing them as critical for the survival of the nation itself requires that we discuss them.

In fact, as the above links show, this issue has been rationally debated and assessed before in US history, and that the highest court in the land weighed in on the issue. During wartime, the President, as Commander in Chief of all the military services, does have the constitutional authority to declare someone captured in the course of waging war against us--even an American citizen--an enemy combatant; and can incarcerate that person or persons militarily until the cessation of combat. This is a significant Supreme Court decision relevant to the argument.

And, unless you are prepared to commit national suicide, the reasons for this court decision are clear: during war time our enemies want to kill us in any way they can; and they will use any means they can--including our own confused American citizens--to accomplish that goal. This was true during the Haupt case in World War II. It is even MORE true today, when weapons of mass destruction, able to kill thousands at a time, can fit into a small suitcase.

3. Dealing with it in a MILITARY matter threatens our very way of life and the freedom we enjoy.
Let's think about this one for a moment. It is a reasonable issue to bring up (as I mentioned previously here).

When I was in medical school, I rented a cute little house in Santa Monica, California. Being a trusting soul, I left my back door open all the time, even at night. I stubbornly defended this (in retrospect stupid) behavior to my astounded friends as an issue that was deeply important to me. I needed to believe that I could trust people. I felt I was saying "See, I trust you! You don't want to burgularize my house or attack me, because I believe in you and don't think you would do that!"

OK, I was very young and naiive then. I also felt that this genuinely trusting behavior demonstrated my committment to freedom (no locked doors for me!) and belief in the goodness of my fellow man.

It took three burgularies while I was at school to convince me that this was not a rational approach to dealing with my beliefs and feelings. Of course, I still believe in Freedom--more than just about anything. I also still believe in the basic goodness of people (but that goodnesss and good will too often gets twisted and manipulated from within and without). But I am no longer trusting to the point of idiocy in dealing with these aspects of my view of life.

So, what about you? Do you believe in freedom to the point that you would cheerfully leave the doors of your home unlocked (as I once did), so as not to impede the "freedom" of the murderer or burgular? Do you think freedom is so absolute a concept that, having entered your home, you would then happily assist the burgular in finding your treasures; and threatening your family with harm? Are you willing to let him kill you or your loved ones to make this point?

Let's take this one step further. I might be inclined--since I am still a trusting sort--to leave my doors unlocked most of the time, especially if I lived in a quiet town or neighborhood where there wasn't much crime and where such things are rare or even unheard of occurrance. I might consider it a reasonable and even occasionally a practical thing to do, as an expression of my rights as a citizen.

But what if the local police put out a bulletin informing me and other householders that they had reliable information that led them to believe there was a vicious murderer on the loose in my town or neighborhood; and that the m.o. of this murderer was to enter his vicitm's home to commit his murders.

Would it be reasonable and prudent under those circumstances to continue to blithely keep my doors unlocked, claiming that my "freedom" to keep it open would be violated were I to lock it; and wouldn't I, in a way, be almost challenging this vicious murderer to enter my home and do his worse?

Would it not be the height of folly to do such a thing? I may be a trusting soul, but I am no longer an irrational, completely emotional one. Under the circumstances where I knew there was a murderer out there, I would bolt my door until this person were apprehended and the danger to my home and the lives of my loved ones had passed.

Wouldn't you?

It is not a betrayal of the concept of a free society to batten down the hatches during a storm. It is not an offense to the goodness within mankind to recognize that there is evil out there, and that evil chiefly depends on these very values of the good to achieve its purposes. One of my favorite quotes is by the statesman Edmund Burke (on the sidebar of this blog): "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."

One of the most reasonable things we can do --at a minimum, I would think--is not to make it so damn easy for evil to kill us.

UPDATE: Andrew McCarthy weighs in on the Padilla case.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 5:51 PM |

 
The Council Has Spoken !
This week's winners for BEST POSTS are up at the Watcher of Weasels:

BEST COUNCIL POSTS:

1. Freedom on the March Alpha Patriot

2. More Bad News From Russia: The Putin Youth The Moderate Voice

BEST NON-COUNCIL POSTS:

1. The United Kingdom and the United States: Civil Liberties in the Age of Terror
New Sisyphus

2. Washington's Birthday a National Holiday... Again Right Wing Nuthouse

Check out all the excellent winners selected by the Watcher's Council! And if you want to nominate one of your own posts, take advantage of the Watcher's "Link Whorage" offer.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 2:33 PM |

 
The Physician is Healing Herself
Sorry for the slow posting. I've been feeling a bit under the weather. Will get back to it tomorrow sometime.

Feel free to browse around. And if you get bored, click on some of the links and visit some of the great blogs on my blogroll.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 1:52 AM |

 
Iranian Propaganda Tidbits
Here are a few Iranian propaganda tidbits, from MEMRI:

9/11 and Pearl Harbor Planned by the US

The following are excerpts from an Iranian TV series called "The New Fascism":

Iranian strategic expert 'Ali 'Askari: We have seen that 9/11 was a domestic need of the American administration as well as an external need. So, the following suspicions grow stronger: Either the Americans were involved in this matter or they let the events of 9/11 develop as they developed.

Iranian political expert Manouchehr Mohammadi: There are many events like these in American history. It has been proven that the Japanese military attack on Pearl Harbor and on the American war ships was planned in advance and implemented with the authorization, support, and encouragement of US President Roosevelt. They needed a pretext such as this to enter WW II and in order to affect public opinion so it would give its consent to enter the war. The exact same thing happened on 9/11. This (tactic) is not used only by Hitler and George Bush. All the influential people and all the arrogant politicians need this pretext in order to carry out their aggression.

More Iranian TV (although it sounds like it could be here in the U.S.):

Comparing Bush to Hitler, Stalin, and Gengis Khan:

In his book Mein Kampf, Mr. Hitler explicitly referred to this, and when Goebbels wrote the Nazi party's platform, Hitler said to him: "Whenever you make a decision, the people will not be involved. Either the people is [sic.] with you or against you." This is exactly what Mr. Bush is saying today, following the events of 9/11. Today we are witnessing a new fascism, which is rooted in the old fascism. These are Mr. Hitler's words. Stalin, too, said to Trotsky, his last foreign minister: "If Russian society opposes you, it means its annihilation."

This is also what Genghis Khan wrote to his eldest son, Jochi, in his will. The message in all this is: Stay away from reason and logic, the public is not involved in your decisions or your government's decisions, and anything you decide– the public will either be with you or against you.

Or, how about this one:

Satan: An Anti-American Music Video

The following are excerpts from an anti American music video aired by Iranian TV:

Satan, Satan, conceited Satan He occupies countries with the weapon of tyranny.
Allah Akbar, there is no god but Allah.
Allah Akbar, there is no god but Allah.
Satan, Satan, conceited Satan He occupies countries with the weapon of tyranny. Satan, Satan, conceited Satan He occupies countries with the weapon of tyranny.
By the law of the jungle he deploys his armies. He slaughters children using horrifying bombs in the name of peace he invades the country He mobilizes hatred, and spreads corruption.
By the law of the jungle he deploys his armies. He slaughters children using horrifying bombs, in the name of peace, he invades the country, He mobilizes hatred, and spreads corruption.
This is Satan, the source of tyranny.
This is Satan, the source of tyranny.
This is Satan, the source of tyranny.

Sort of catchy, don't you think?
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 9:31 PM |

 
Emotional Blackmail
Ann Coulter writes about the deplorable hypocrisy of the Left when it comes to Gays:

Democrats tried working out their frustrations on blacks for a while, but someone – I can't remember who, but it probably wasn't Sen. Robert Byrd – must have finally told them it really wasn't helping to keep disparaging every single black person in a position of authority in this Republican administration.

So now liberals are lashing out at the gays. Two weeks ago, the New York Times turned over half of its op-ed page to outing gays with some connection to Republicans. There is no principled or intellectual basis for these outings. Conservatives don't want gays to die; we just don't want to transform the Pentagon into the Office of Gay Studies.

By contrast, liberals say: "We love gay people! Gay people are awesome! Being gay is awesome! Gay marriage is awesome! Gay cartoon characters are awesome! And if you don't agree with us, we'll punish you by telling everyone that you're gay!"

In addition to an attack on a website reporter for supposedly operating a gay escort service and thereby cutting into the business of the Village Voice, another Times op-ed article the same day gratuitously outed the children of prominent conservatives.

These are not public figures. No one knows who they are apart from their famous parents. I didn't even know most of these conservatives

I have written before about the Left's "Rainbow Hypocisy" (i.e., their tendency to equally sneer and condescend to all minority groups, while at the same time claiming to represent their "best interests").

This is a particularly repellant example of how the Left holds minorities hostage and use them to further their agenda. Anyone who doesn't "toe the line"--or in this case is born into the "wrong" type of family-- is sacrificed to that agenda. As Coulter notes, this type of emotional blackmail is on the totalitarian's agenda.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 3:01 PM |

 
The Decline of the CIA
This essay by GABRIEL SCHOENFELD in the WSJ is absolutely incredible. It clearly, dispassionately and chillingly analyzes what has gone wrong at America's Central Intelligence Agency. After Schoenfeld is done with his analysis, you will begin to understand the dimensions of the problem that Porter Goss is facing. If Goss finds a solution that can fix this agency, it will be an absolute miracle, and he should be nominated for beatification.

Schoenfeld cites two works by former CIA personnel in his discussion. The first is the widely acclaimed "Imperial Hubris" by Anonymous (better known as Michael Scheuer) and the second is Melissa Boyle Mahle, author of "Denial and Deception."

Here is a sample comment or two about the first author by Schoenfeld:

Sentiments like these mark the author of "Imperial Hubris" as something of a political hybrid--a cross, not to put too fine a point on it, between an overwrought Buchananite and a raving Chomskyite. This alone, one might think, should have unfitted him for a high position of trust within the CIA. But that is not the end of it. Even as he lambastes the U.S. from his isolationist position, reserving special fury not only for America's alliance with Israel but for our "hallucinatory crusade for democracy," Mr. Scheuer also swivels to assail Washington for being insufficiently hawkish in waging the war on terror.
"An Unprepared and Ignorant Lunge to Defeat" is how Mr. Scheuer titles his chapter on Afghanistan. What appears to exercise him most is the fact that after September 11, the U.S. waited almost a month to respond to al Qaeda's attacks.

and:

All of which leaves only two questions. How did a person of such demonstrable mediocrity of mind and unhinged views achieve the rank he did in the CIA, and how could so manifestly wayward and damaging a work have been published by someone in the agency's employ? To the second question, at least, an answer of a sort is ready to hand, if one that raises disturbing questions of its own.

Of the emphasis during the Clinton administration on Affirmative Action at the CIA combined with the desire for it to maintain a "risk-averse" position vis a vis the White House (as documented in Denial and Deception" )Schoenfeld writes:

Today, after more than a decade of submission to this powerful tool, CIA employees can take pride in being part of a very inclusive institution indeed. One measure of this, as the agency itself boasts on its Web site, is the number of "affinity groups" it supports within its ranks. There is, for example, the Asian Pacific American Organization, which "assists in recruiting, mentoring, counseling, and monitoring the advancement of Asian American officers to insure that equity is occurring." The Black Executive Board functions to advance the "multicultural environment" and provides guidance "to senior management on all matters affecting recruiting, hiring, retention, networking, assignments, promotions, and career development opportunities." The Hispanic Advisory Council "provides input" on Hispanic issues, while the Native American Council serves as "a champion of diversity in the [CIA] workplace." There is also ANGLE, the Agency Network for Gay and Lesbian Employees, which is "geared toward fostering the principles of diversity and creating opportunities" for the agency's "gay, lesbian, bisexual, and trans-gendered employees."

These, then, have been the fruits of an effort going back well over a decade and consuming a large quotient of the agency's senior-level attention--the same period in which al Qaeda was gathering force and training thousands of Islamists, and when the CIA's overriding need, conspicuously unmet all those years, was the hiring of more officers capable of speaking and reading Arabic.

What it boils down to is that our major intelligence agency became a showcase for the government's affirmative action policies at the expense of actually doing the real intelligence work that might have prepared us for 9/11 and the rise of Islamofascism.

Of course, the decline of the CIA was multifactorial. But the primary rot can be traced to a decade old quest for mediocrity, incompetence and conformity to political correctness. Read the entire article.

Now a confession of sorts. When I first read the Gabriel Schoenfeld article it rekindled memories of my dealings with the CIA while a flight surgeon at NASA. It happened that I was fortunate enough to be one of the people invited on a trip in 1985 to the Soviet Union (the height of the Cold War). It was just after I had been the crew surgeon for a secret DoD space mission. Little did I realize that my participation in that mission was noticed by the Soviet authorities, who could not explain the presence of an otherwise unremarkable and unimportant NASA doctor on a trip of significant political and scientific import(we were the first official visitors permitted into Star City and Russian Mission Control). Of course the Soviets assumed I was a CIA operative.

Naiive as I was, this explanation did not occur to me until it became obvious that one of the young men "assigned" to our group began to take a special interest in me (I guess it wasn't my great beauty or wit that charmed him). At a reception at the Embassy in Moscow, he danced with me, inviting me to secretly accompany him to a dacha not far from Moscow. He asked me a lot of questions and fortunately I was able to readily figure out what was going on (the embassy officials were kind enough to help me out in this regard!) I managed not to divulge any state secrets, but became interesting to the CIA upon my return to the states.

Some years later I returned to the USSR, when they were in the midst of their Afghanistan adventure and stimulated even greater interests in my Russian hosts who invited me to stay beyond the "official" visit I was on (a visa extension was hurridly arranged while on an airplane from Tashkent to Moscow--so that tells you something); and I was then wined and dined by two young gentlemen in an exclusive restaurant near Red Square. When we were all very very drunk, they casually admitted to me that they were KGB and wouldn't I pretty please give them some little tidbit for their masters. I taught them the Wizard of Oz song "Ding Dong the Witch is Dead" as we linked arms and danced through an empty Red Square at 2:00 AM. Needless to say, the CIA were very interested in my impressions then, also. It was not long after this last fiasco, that the Soviet Union crumbled (and I assure you, I had nothing to do with it, although the decline of American intelligence probably began with my escapades!)

So ended my career as a not so covert espionage agent. My excitement at all of this attention from both the KGB and the CIA was probably mediated by my love of spy novels and my tendency to occasionally indulge in melodrama (my "histrionic" qualities, if you want the psychiatric term).

But since that time in my life I have been intently interested in the workings of the Intelligence community, and am not surprised in the least at what has been going on in the CIA for the last 15 years or so.

Sad, isn't it, that the superhero spys of Clancy and other writers are just figments of an overactive imagination?
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 12:56 AM |

 
The Democrats' Dilemma
Here it is, encapsulated in an interview by Jon Stewart with Nancy Soderberg, as transcribed by James Taranto.

So, what are they? Democrats? Or, Americans?
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 4:00 PM |

 
The Immigration Issue - My Two Cents
There is a lot of debate right now about the problem of Immigration, especially in the time of terrorism. Michele Malkin has written extensively on this (here, here, here) and recently Polipundit has proposed several recommendations. Frank at Now You Know has written several posts (here and here) that put forth a first-hand perspective on the problems of Immigration from someone who lives near the Arizona border.

Being the grandaughter of two sets of immigrants (both my father's parents and my mother's came to this country in the early 1900's from Italy), I have some strong feelings about immigration policy.

The poem by Emma Lazarus on the Statue of Liberty expresses these feelings:

The New Colossus

Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.
"Keep ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she
With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

This poem lyrically communicates one of the oldest and most deeply-felt American values. Most Americans, like myself, have ancestors that came to this shore seeking freedom from oppression, and a new chance at life. America has always opened her arms and welcomed them. And we are a strong and vibrant country because of it.

The recent introduction into the politically correct lexicon of "multicultural" is, I feel, a perversion of the message on the Statue. There is, of course, nothing intrinsically negative to valuing and treasuring, and even maintaining one's cultural heritage--as I and my family still do. But the implication of the multicultural gurus is that every culture; every tradition is morally, politically, economically, socially, aesthetically, and in every other way equivalent to American culture.

I do not think that perspective is entirely true. The implication of the "diversity" divas is that diverse cultures are the strength and beauty our "national quilt". Well, yes each diverse component does contribute. But it is the overall quilt itself that is the desired result. It is the quilt's entire design that determines its beauty, meaning, and utility. A quilt is a fabric design made by cutting shapes from one or more fabrics and sewing them on top of another piece of fabric. In America we have made a "crazy quilt" comprised of the members of every national, ethnic, religious and racial group on the planet. The "batting" and "bindings" of the quilt are what pull the individual blocks together into its overall pattern. No one block determines the overall pattern and each block is subsumed into the pattern.

I have no problem with natives of say, Turkey, or Haiti, or China saying that their cultural beliefs are better than America's. That is their perogative--I don't agree with them--but they are entitled to their opinion. But if the culture is so excellent--why are people coming to the U.S. to live? If they are not open to another culture and accepting that other culture's values and goals, why come here? In other words, the immigrant--by the viture of the fact of their immigration is acknowledging the superior qualities of the country he or she immigrates to--or why immigrate? Becoming a citizen of this country presupposes that you accept those values and are no longer a Turk, Haitian, or Chinese--but now an American. If you abhor American values, why immigrate here?

Now that I have expressed my feelings --which you may or may not agree with--I'd like to address the very real problem that every free country has: how do you control your borders with the intent of "providing for the common defense" while at the same time asking the world to "Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free"? You will notice that this question is very similar to one previously discussed here . That is because the basic premises and the underlying values are identical.

It seems reasonable to me that the solution to this problem is also similar; and that there should be a re-examination and re-evaluation of all of our current Immigration Policies with the idea of maintaining our basic values, but making it harder for those who wish to do us real harm to enter our borders unhindered. There is room for compromise between having a totally open border and its opposite--a border that is completely closed to all but a few elites.

I would propose that there be a moratorium on legal immigration for a period of time (perhaps 6 months to 1 year); as well as resolute enforcement of all current laws concerning both illegal and legal immigration; while all issues,problems, laws, and proposals are on the table and discussed in the context of a war on terror. At NASA, we used to have what was called a "Tiger Team" which was a group put together to address a high priority problem and make recommendations for its solution, both short and long-term. This would be a much better way to go than the usual "congressional hearings" BS, where partisan hacks can frolic unhindered.

I don't have all the solutions and I doubt that even a "Tiger Team" would be able to come up with a plan that would please everyone. But this is a very high-priority issue and it should be addressed seriously now, before our current policy failures contribute to the next 9/11-style attack within our country.

All I know for sure is that we must come up with strategies that are consistent with our values; and at the same time offer real security to American citizens during the difficult years ahead.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 2:42 PM |

 
Iwo Jima and Iraq
Vodkapundit compares Iwo Jima to Iraq, with some surprising conclusions (well, not to me, but probably to some!)

The battle for Iwo was one of the toughest in the entire Pacific Campaign. 70,000 Marines invaded, 6,821 of whom never came home. An additional 19,217 were wounded, and 2,648 suffered combat fatigue. All in just five weeks of fighting.

The battle for Iraq continues, but the results aren't nearly so bad. To date, about 1,400 killed and 10,000 wounded in just less than two years of fighting.

But Iraq and Iwo Jima still have a lot in common – and more than might be obvious even to the serious student of history. To see at long last what I mean, let's look at the critiques.
There's a strong chance that invading Iwo was a mistake. We didn't need it as a forward staging area for Operation Olympic. Iwo didn't control some resource vital to Hirohito's war machine. In fact, we invaded Iwo Jima and sacrificed nearly 7,000 lives for… an emergency airbase.

That's right. All of that effort, all of those injuries, all of those lives, just so that bomber crews might have a safe place to put down in case of emergency. I don't mean to say Iwo wasn't necessarily worth it. Every airman who found refuge there owed a debt of honor to the Marines who died there. And the propaganda value of the famous flag-raising on Iwo was priceless.

Read on.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 10:02 AM |

 
A Genuine King
Although my own pretensions were dashed last week, there is another set of pretenders to the crown that is now held by Jeremy at American Warmonger ! I have to say that Jeremy is definitely a prince of a guy, a king among men, and that I plan to vote for him as often as possible.

He is the one who has been working on my template (taking time out of his kingly duties, I might add) so the least I can do is be a loyal subject!

Vote for Jeremy over at the King of the Blogs.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 12:42 AM |

 
Haloscan commenting and trackback have been added to this blog.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 8:58 PM |

 
Another Great Blog Design!
Greetings! This is Jeremy from American Warmonger. I have redesigned the good doctor's website. Her haloscan commenting will return shortly. If you like the design I can do the same for you. All you have to do is ask.

This has been a commercial from the American Warmonger.

We now return you to your regular blogging.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 8:25 PM |

 
A New Clarity For Some, Wishful Thinking For Others
New Sysiphus :

You know the script, you've seen it all before. There is a tenuous cease-fire in place between the Israelis and the Palestinians. Then, there is a suicide bombing. Israel demands that the Palestinians live up to their obligations and stop them and stop those responsible. No one backs Israel up. Israel is accused of being "unreasonable." The Palestinians dissemble, disclaiming responsibility and, at the same time, claim they are powerless. The peace process breaks down. It's Israel's fault. And so it goes.

No longer.

LONDON (Reuters) - World powers on Tuesday demanded immediate Palestinian action to catch those behind a Tel Aviv suicide bombing that broke a fragile ceasefire with Israel.

Palestinians responded angrily to the statement by the Middle East quartet comprising the European Union, Russia, the United Nations and the United States, while Israel complained that Palestinians were failing to confront militant groups.

The quartet met on the sidelines of a London meeting on Palestinian reform hosted by British Prime Minister Tony Blair and clouded by Friday's suicide bombing of a Tel Aviv nightclub, in which five people were killed.

The group called for "immediate action by the Palestinian Authority to apprehend and bring to justice the perpetrators" and demanded "further and sustained action" against terrorism.

"We are very upset at the quartet statement," said a Palestinian official who asked not to be identified.

I bet you are.

Imagine the shocked look on this Palestinian's face when he was informed that the old game is up and it's time, finally time, for the Palis to put up or shut up.

Today's unanimous Quartet declaration is even more evidence that the President's foreign policy has carried the day and a new clarity is coming into focus with regard to Middle Eastern affairs. (emphasis mine)

Meanwhile, those who are completely UNCLEAR continue to dismiss, deny, denigrate and laugh at the obvious conclusion that Bush (yes, that "Chimpy Bushitler" that they are all so fond of)and his foreign policy have caused this to happen. Here's one sample: (hat tip: Hugh Hewitt)

But it literally never crossed my mind that Bush's fans would credit him with for this positive event, as though his pro-democracy speeches exercise some sort of rhetorical enchantment.

This is the kind of thinking, of course, that has convinced God knows how many people that Ronald Reagan personally won the Cold War. It's the old post hoc ergo propter hoc (after this, therefore because of this) logical fallacy. This is a president and an administration that chronically refuse to accept responsibility for the bad things that have happened on their watch--even things like the insurgency in Iraq that are directly attributable to its policies. Barring any specific evidence (provided, say, by Lebanese pro-democracy leaders)that Bush had anything in particular to do with Syria's setbacks in Lebanon, I see no particular reason to high-five him for being in office when they happened.

Let us congratulate the Lebanese, not those in Washington who would take credit for their accomplishments.

This Leftist Talking Point is being echoed ad nauseum (even on this blog):

If you are going to credit him with all of this then you need to credit him with the disasters as well. As far as the chimpster going down in history as a great president...let's give it a few years and see what comes out THEN we can put him in his rightful place.

Hugh Hewitt points out that

By citing to Reagan, Kilgore demonstrates that he wouldn't accept even "specific evidence (provided, say, by Lebanese pro-democracy leaders) that Bush had anything in particular to do with Syria's setbacks in Lebanon," because he won't accept specific evidence from Eastern European leaders that Reagan had anything to do with the fall of the Soviet Union

In other words, there is nothing that will convince these people that the ideas and principles that Bush elucidates to this day; that directed his actions in Afghanistan and Iraq; had anything whatsoever to do with the wave of democracy sweeping the region that they, themselves believed was immune to democratic processes. What a hoot!

This is not merely denial on their part, but a pervasive, almost desperate denial.

Just consider why they are so desperate: if IDEAS and PRINCIPLES really can have such a profound impact on BEHAVIOR--then what does that say about their ideas and principles???

I suggest the Left begin to re-assess what they are "thinking" (in psychiatry, we refer to it as "wishful thinking"). It is apparent that this "new clarity" doesn't apply to them or their highly emotional wishes.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 8:04 PM |

 
Paranoia in Politics - Several Primers
I thought I'd refer my readers to two excellent books that practically define the discussion of paranoia in politics; and one that discusses psychological defense mechanisms in general.

The first is the classic essay by Richard Hofstadter, "The Paranoid Style In American Politics" which can be found in the book of the same name.



The main essay in this book was based on a lecture delivered at Oxford University in 1963. Hofstadter says:

I call it the paranoid style because no other word adequately evokes the qualities of heated exaggeration, suspiciousness or conspiratorial fantasy that I have in mind. In using the expression "paranoid style," I am not speaking in a clinical sense, but borrowing a clinical term for other purposes.

Hofstadter's gives an historical perspective of paranoia in politics. This "style" is characterized by "the feeling of persecution as central, and it is indeed systematized in the form of grandiose theories of conspiracy." Hofstadter separates groups that entertain the paranoid style (and maintain that the "conspiracy" is against the nation, or culture and not any one individual personally; and individuals who have the paranoid style. Hofstadter believes that groups with this style appear more rational and disinterested to the observer than an individual with the style would. The former can appeal to unselfish patriotism and express moral indignation, while the latter cannot.

Having lived through the days when it was the Right that exemplified the classic paranoid stance (e.g., remember Joe McCarthy? or the John Birch Society?), I have no compunction in saying that the pendulum has shifted with the tides of political fortune. As the Right (e.g., the Republicans) gained more and more political power in the 80's and 90's (despite a brief interval when Bill Clinton and the Democrats were in charge), the paranoia that had once been so prominent on the Right passed into the minds of the newly powerless--the Democrats and the Left. The emergence of organizations like Moveon.org and the mainstreaming of personalities like Michael Moore and other extreme Leftists, enabled the conspiracy theories to begin to blossom in full bloom from that side of the political spectrum.

There is a nice essay in the Weekly Standard by one of the bloggers at Power Line that discusses Hofstadter's book and its relevance to the political situation today.

This kind of paranoid style has always and will always exist in politics, particularly among those groups and individuals who feel disenfranchised or marginalized in the political power heirarchy.
Paranoia remains a frequent--albeit infantile--method to psychologically cope with feelings of impotence, rage, and marginalization. Denial, projection and displacement also are common; and without the intervention of rational thought and a modicum of psychological insight, it can be extremely distructive to a rational discussion of important issues on a national level.

The second must-have book to understand paranoid psychopathology in politics is Robert Robins and Jerrold Post's Political Paranoia: The Psychopolitics of Hatred.



Robins and Post deal in detail with the psychopathological mechanisms that underlie the paranoid in politics. They offer several case studies, including one of Richard Nixon (probably one of the more paranoid presidents in recent times) and Oliver Stone as well as evaluations of such tyrants as Joseph Stalin, Pol Pot,Idi Amin, and Hitler.

Finally, a third book that I believe is extremely useful in understanding the "tools" of the paranoid, i.e., the psychological mechanisms of denial, projection, distortion, and displacement that are essential for the developement of scapegoating and conspiracy theories; is a more general classic by George Vaillant, Adaptation to Life .



In this wonderful and readable book you will find extensive discussion of all the psychological defense mechanisms--both healthy and unhealthy--and how people use them in their everyday life.

It is important to remember that any of these psychological processes--paranoia, projection, denial, distortion--can be used by anyone, regardless of where they may be on the political spectrum. Understanding the psychological process of defense mechanisms and the reasons why people choose paranoia, denial and other infantile defenses --instead of ones that are more productive and healthy--goes a long way to developing strategies for countering them when you have to deal with their consequences in public life.

At the present time, the Left (especially more moderate Democrats) would do well to carefully reconsider their paranoid stance. In my personal opinion (which you can take or leave as you wish) the Democratic party has been hijacked by extremists who --in spite of what they say--care very little for the health of their country and would rather it be destroyed--than abandon their feelings, and re-examine their ideological premises. A little psychological insight would go a long way here.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 2:10 PM |