NEW YEAR'S EVE
Here's the best reason I can think of to be orbiting Earth on New Years Eve! An email from a friend, Jim Oberg, author of the book Pioneering Space; and with a website of the same name:

According to information from Russia's Mission Control Center,
the International Space Station on December 31 will enter and
depart from the year 2006 fifteen times before settling
permanently into the New Year. See http://mcc.rsa.ru/

The station's official on-board time is Greenwich, or
Eastern Standard Time + five hours. So it will be
'officially' the new year at 7 PM EST on Dec 31,
as it passes over the Indian Ocean. The crew,
however, will have been asleep for a few hours
by then.

They will already have been able to celebrate
an unofficial new year, several times in fact.

As the station circles Earth, it will pass over time zones
that have popped into the new year by passing local
midnight. On average it will take about 4 minutes to
traverse each ground-based time zone.

The first time this happens is at 6:14 AM EST (11:14 GMT)
when the station reaches the first ground-based time zone
to pass local midnight, the zone right to the west of the
international date line in the mid-Pacific. The station will
be passing near the Aleutians at that point.

It will continue to happen every time the station orbits Earth,
which takes about 98 minutes (referenced to a point on the
Earth's rotating surface -- in pure 'inertial space' a single
orbit takes about 92 minutes). Each time the station comes
around, one or even two more time zones will have passed
local midnight so the time overflying "2006-land" will get longer
and longer.

The LAST time the station moves from 2005 to 2006 will be over
the mid-Pacific just east of the date line, and that occurs at
5:08 AM EST on January 1. By the time it comes around again
the last time zone with local time still before midnight will have
'expired' and transitioned into 2006 as well.

Outer space forces its visitors to adjust to entirely new
patterns of time, divorced from earth-based astronomy-driven
time-givers. I wrote a chapter on this for my book 'Pioneering
Space' and would be happy to send it to anybody, or discuss
this theme as part of New Year's Eve commemoration.

Wow. And, talking about partying too much:


As you prepare for New Year's Eve, be very careful to considers the consequences of overindulgence !

The Carnival of the Insanities will be posted first thing in the morning (well maybe not the first thing) and thenI plan to take the rest of the day off from blogging. See you Monday--Have a safe and happy evening!

- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 6:47 PM |

 
THINKING OUTSIDE THE IDEOLOGICAL BOX OF THE LEFT
Victor Davis Hanson suggests that we are being plagued by success:

Now the horror of 9/11 and the sight of the doomed diving into the street fade. Gone mostly are the flags on the cars, and the orange and red alerts. The Democrats and the Left, in their amnesia, and as beneficiaries of the very policies they suddenly abhor, now mention al Qaeda very little and Islamic fascism hardly at all.

Apparently due to the success of George Bush at keeping the United States secure, he, not Osama bin Laden, can now more often be the target of a relieved Left — deserving of assassination in an Alfred Knopf novel, an overseer of Nazi policies according to a U.S. senator, a buffoon, and rogue in the award-winning film of Michael Moore. Yes, because we did so well against the real enemies, we soon had the leisure to invent new imaginary ones in Bush/Cheney, Halliburton, the Patriot Act, John Ashcroft, and Scooter Libby.

Ah yes. We know what that is all about, don't we? We are not so much plagued by success as we are plagued by the psycholgoical displacement, denial , and self-delusion of the Left; and a public that is increasingly able to be manipulated by irrational hysteria and never-ending succession of "scandals" that rewrite history and distort the current reality .

Hanson wonders:

Why are we like children who damn their parents for not providing yet another new toy when the present one is neither paid for nor yet out of the wrapper?

One cause is the demise of history. The past is either not taught enough, or presented wrongly as a therapeutic exercise to excise our purported sins.

Either way the result is the same: a historically ignorant populace who knows nothing about past American wars and their disappointments — and has absolutely no frame of reference to make sense of the present other than its own mercurial emotional state in any given news cycle.

Few Americans remember that nearly 750 Americans were killed in a single day in a training exercise for D-Day, or that during the bloody American retreat back from the Yalu River in late 1950 thousands of our frozen dead were sent back stacked in trucks like firewood. Our grandparents in the recent past endured things that would make the present ordeal in Iraq seem almost pedestrian — and did all that with the result that a free Germany could now release terrorists or prosperous South Korean youth could damn the United States between their video games.

Once again, I am struck by the incredible failure of our current educational system to turn out rational, thinking adults with a modicum of knowledge about the world. This system's failures are not so much in the area of the sciences (contrary to what the brouhaha about Intelligent Design suggests; and contrary to the stem cell controversy); as much as they are in the humanities--history, language, art, philosophy.

In other words, those areas of the curriculum that are predominantly controlled by the pseudo-intellectuals of the Left, who scorn reason and embrace feelings. More and more we are seeing the terrible consequences of a lack of intellectual diversity in a K-12 educational system that promotes a false self-esteem and a cultural relativity that becomes the foundation for self-indulgence and emotionality instead of scholarship. By the time most of these kids get to the college level, they are ready to be subsumed into the intellectual conformity mandated by Leftist elites.

The last thing these "elites" want is someone who is able to reason or have independent thoughts; or able to put current events in historical perspective; or to (god forbid) think outside the ideological box of the Left.

Even those students who major in the sciences still passively absorb much of the ideological pap fed to them by the professors they are required to listen to in their non-science classes.

The "adolescents" that Hanson writes about are in truth the adults in our population who despite because of their successful negotiation of our modern multicultural and politically correct educational system, remain intellectually, pychologically and morally challenged. They surround themselves with others of like mind and never have to deal with real intellectual diversity.

In a recent post, Neo-neocon discusses what it is like to finally break free of the liberal bubble and have to deal with friends who are stunned at your transition to the "dark side".

It's easy to move through life in a liberal bubble if everyone around who disagrees is silent and invisible. The only way to change that is to challenge it by standing up, speaking out, and bursting the bubble. It's very difficult; but you may find, as I did, that most of your worthwhile relationships survive the blow, although many are never quite the same again.

You will find her entire essay very interesting. Especially now, as a new year approaches, thinking outside the ideological box of the Left--and opening one's eyes for a change-- could be an extremely illuminating experience.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 11:35 AM |

 
Testamonials...Mostly
Thespis Journal, which provides links, commentary, and news on all things political and theatrical, has their list of 2005's Top 10 Bloggers. Dr. Sanity is proud and honored to be listed at #3 , and in the company of the other very fine blogs on the roll.

Many thanks.

Meanwhile, The Anchoress has this to say:

I’ve decided that my personal must-read blog every day really is Dr. Sanity. This is not to put down any other blogger - a glance at my blogroll is more than indication that I have lots of blogs I call “favorite” and I mean it. If they’re in my blogroll, I read them and like them. Indeed, some of the blogs in my blogroll I WISH I could imitate! But Dr. Sanity is prolific without being overwhelming, and always interesting, in an odd and edgy way.

Odd? Edgy? I wonder where she got those ideas? I'm sure I don't know what she is talking about! This is what my friends say about me...you can just imagine what some of my enemies say--and no, their remarks can't be reproduced here!
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 11:23 AM |

 
THE COUNCIL HAS SPOKEN !
This week's winners in the Watcher's Council are now posted at the Watcher of Weasels . Every week the Council nominates posts from the blogs of the Council members, and posts from around the blogsphere. The Council then votes to select the "Best" of all these posts. This week includes some of my favorite blogs!


BEST COUNCIL POSTS:

First Place

Above Thy Deep and Dreamless Sleep… Gates of Vienna

Second Place

The Suicidal Pursuit of Perfection ShrinkWrapped

BEST NON-COUNCIL POSTS:

First Place

The New, Updated, Alice In Wonderland Sigmund, Carl, and Alfred

Second Place

Political Entomology and Blue-Bellied Liberals One Cosmos

Be sure to check out all the winners in this last week of 2005 at the Watcher's Site. It makes for great reading in the New Year!
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 11:02 AM |

 
Oh, Really?
Tigerhawk eviscerates the NY Times for it's non-stop wrongness when it comes to matters of finance (and he has the graphs to demonstrate it):

We have reached the end of the year, which naturally moves us to look at how the financial markets have done. Yes, it is once again time to remind our readers how wrong the New York Times has been.

On April 2, 2005, the Grey Lady complained at length about the Bush administration's economic policies, and declared "the dollar is heading down, no matter what." Oh, really?

Read it all, of course. Financial matters are hardly the only area of "wrongness" in which the paper of record indulges these days. They have been spectacularly wrong on the Iraq war; on matters of national security; and just about any other major issue (except possibly the Yankees).

Tigerhawk attributes the Times' consistent error-proneness to its inability to understand "complex systems" and he refernces a lecture that it happens I have just finished reading (hat tip: Larwyn), by Michael Crichton. Crichton's speech is primarily about how badly the environment is being managed by "environmentalists"; but his concluding idea is applicable to stock market predictions; unintended consequences of national security leaks; and even the management of a complex system like the war in Iraq and against terrorism in general:

Now, if we are to do better in this new century, what must we do differently? In a word, we must embrace complexity theory. We must understand complex systems.

We live in a world of complex systems. The environment is a complex system. The government is a complex system. Financial markets are complex systems. The human mind is a complex system---most minds, at least.

By a complex system I mean one in which the elements of the system interact among themselves, such that any modification we make to the system will produce results that we cannot predict in advance.

Furthermore, a complex system demonstrates sensitivity to initial conditions. You can get one result on one day, but the identical interaction the next day may yield a different result. We cannot know with certainty how the system will respond.

Third, when we interact with a complex system, we may provoke downstream consequences that emerge weeks or even years later. We must always be watchful for delayed and untoward consequences.

The science that underlies our understanding of complex systems is now thirty years old. A third of a century should be plenty of time for this knowledge and to filter down to everyday consciousness, but except for slogans—like the butterfly flapping its wings and causing a hurricane halfway around the world—not much has penetrated ordinary human thinking.

On the other hand, complexity theory has raced through the financial world. It has been briskly incorporated into medicine. But organizations that care about the environment do not seem to notice that their ministrations are deleterious in many cases. Lawmakers do not seem to notice when their laws have unexpected consequences, or make things worse. Governors and mayors and managers may manage their complex systems well or badly, but if they manage well, it is usually because they have an instinctive understanding of how to deal with complex systems. Most managers fail.

Why? Our human predisposition treat all systems as linear when they are not. A linear system is a rocket flying to Mars. Or a cannonball fired from a canon. Its behavior is quite easily described mathematically. A complex system is water gurgling over rocks, or air flowing over a bird’s wing. Here the mathematics are complicated, and in fact no understanding of these systems was possible until the widespread availability of computers.

One complex system that most people have dealt with is a child. If so, you've probably experienced that when you give the child an instruction, you can never be certain what response you will get. Especially if the child is a teenager. And similarly, you can’t be certain that an identical interaction on another day won’t lead to spectacularly different results.

If you have a teenager, or if you invest in the stock market, you know very well that a complex system cannot be controlled, it can only be managed. Because responses cannot be predicted, the system can only be observed and responded to. The system may resist attempts to change its state. It may show resiliency. Or fragility. Or both.

An important feature of complex systems is that we don’t know how they work. We don’t understand them except in a general way; we simply interact with them. Whenever we think we understand them, we learn we don’t. Sometimes spectacularly.

I urge you to read Crichton's entire argument, because it is extremely good. As I mentioned, he is primarily concerned with the deliberate manipulation and hysteria that underlies the modern environmental movement. However, the environment and financial markets are connected in an interesting way.

As Marxism's predictions about capitalism were repeatedly demonstrated in the real world to be bogus, the intellectuals of the Left have moved on to other arenas in which they could attack capitalism. Quoting from Stephen Hicks again (page 153-4; I'm telling you, this book is invaluable):

A second strategic change in Left strategy involved a more audacious change of ehtical standards. Traditionally, Marxist socialism had supposed that providing adequately for human needs was a basic test of a social system's morality. The achievement of wealth, accordingly, was a good thing since wealth brought with it a better nutrition, housing, healthcare, and leisure time. And so capitalism was held to be evil because Marxists believed that it denied most of its population the ability to enjoy the fruits of wealth.

But as it became clear that capitalism is very good at producing the wealth and delivering the fruits--and that socialism is very bad at it--two new variations on Left thought turned this argument on its head and began to condemn capitalism precisely for being so good at producing wealth.

One variation of this argument appeared in the increasingly popular writings of Herbert Marcuse....

Following Marx, Marcuse believed that the historical purpose of the proletariat was to be a revolutionay class. Its task was to over throw capitalism. But that supposed that capitalism would drive the proletariat into economic misery, which capitalism had failed to do.
[...]
By making the members of the proletariat wealthy enough to become comfortable, capitalism had created a captive class: The proletariat had become locked into the capitalist system, dependent on its goodies, and enslaved by the goal of climbing the economic ladder....
[...]
Capitalism's producing so much wealth, therefore, is bad: It is in direct defiance of the moral imperitive of historical progress toward socialism. It would be much better if the proletariat were in economic misery under capitalism, for then they would realize their oppression and then be psychologically primed to perform their historical mission.

The second variation was seen in the Left turn that rising concern with environmental issues took. As the Marxist movement splintered and mutated into new forms, Left intellectuals and activists began to look for new ways to attack capitalism. Environmental issues, alongside women's and minorities' issues, came to be seen as a new weapon in the arsenal against capitalism. (emphasis mine)

It seems clear that the remnants of the 20th century Marxist social disease are still infecting portions of this country--including the editors and many of the journalists of the NY Times--and other MSM outlets. They probably absorbed the infection without even conscious awareness, as they percolated through various esteemed academic institutions. These institutions represent a hidden residual of pathogenesis and are the reason that Marxism continues to exert itself virulently in our society.

Marx and his intellectual heirs are hopelessly linear; as is socialism and communism. Only capitalism and free markets have the ability to adapt to the complexity of human life and interactions and optimize human progress, freedom and happiness.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 5:10 PM |

 
Some Good Things For The New Year
ShrinkWrapped has a round-up of all the things you can do to stay sane in 2006, including his own "Top 10" List. Here are two of them:

4) Decrease the amount of negative input. Cancel the New York Times. They seem to believe their job is to put as negative a spin as possible on every story that has George Bush attached to it and the only way to save this valuable institution is to put pressure on them that they might understand. Remember, even if they are right some of the time, they can't be right all the time. The best way to figure out when they are correct is by comparing their stories with those who disagree; to that end...

5) Read more blogs! My blog roll is a good place to start. As a bonus, check out how the same stories sound on the Daily kos or Atrios or the Democratic Underground; compare and contrast!

Read the rest to ensure a sane new year!

Meanwhile, The Anchoress has a list of predictions for 2006, including this one, which made me fall off my chair laughing:

11) Howard Dean will not be DNC chair by the end of the year. He will be replaced by affable eye candy of some sort, capable of bumper-sticker-speak. John Kerry will make all sorts of noises about running again for the WH, but at the last possible moment, he will declare himself uninterested due to his deep committment to the people of Massachusetts. A quick search through his Beacon Hill garbage will reveal a bloody horse’s head.

Read all 17 of them!

At One Cosmos, Gagdad Bob's alter ego has a terribly mean-spirited and horribly unfair, razor sharp comedy routine that stabs in the heart pokes fun at the left side of the political spectrum. But, they enjoy are used to being victims, so they should survive it.

On a more profound note, Sigmund, Carl and Alfred discuss the battle for your soul and offers a lot of interesting ideas to ponder in the new year.

All of the above should keep you occupied for a while--I'll be back later in the day after I finish a variety of projects that require my undiluted attention!
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 11:55 AM |

 
CONTRADICTORY DISCOURSES
In looking through a vast number of editorial cartoons which I do on a regular basis, I was struck by the following three which seemed to me to illustrate very clearly what Stephen Hicks wrote about in Explaining Postmodernism. In this excellent and well-reasoned book, Hicks discusses a leftist strategy which he describes as "using contradictory discourses as political strategy". (page 184)

Using contradictory discourses as a political strategy

In postmodern discourse, truth is rejected explicitly and consisteny can be a rare phenomenon. Consider the following pairs of claims.

- On the one hand, all truth is relative; on the other hand, postmodernism tells it like it really is.
- On the one hand, all cultures are equally deserving of respect; on the other, Western culture is uniquely destructive and bad.
- Values are subjective--but sexism and racism are really evil
- Technology is bad and destructive--and it is unfair that some people have more technology than others.
- Tolerance is good and dominance is bad--but when postmodernists come to power, political correctness follows.

There is a common pattern here: Subjectivism and relativism in one breath, dogmatic absolutism in the next.

In other words--don't waste your time looking for any sense in the contradictory demands and rhetoric of the political postmodernists--better known as the Leftwing Democrats.






They are patriotic and support the military.








They have a plan to win by giving up.



And, when it comes to domestic energy policy--they demand that the oil and energy industry produce results; but demonize everything these industries do; and then make it impossible (or at least illegal) for them to be successful!


Need we even discuss issues like (gasp!) the so-called torture techniques (like not providing Korans)? Or, other types of intelligence gathering currently in the news? We insist--no WE DEMAND that we be kept safe from terrorists; but we will not allow even the most reasonable and sensible actions to ensure it.

There are so many other contradictory discourses that we are pummeled with on a daily basis, that it is a wonder we can function at all in the world of reality.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 9:32 PM |

 
DON'T LET THEM BE MISUNDERSTOOD
Baby do you understand me now
If sometimes you see that I'm mad
Don't you know that no one alive can always be an angel?
When everything goes wrong I seem bad

Well I'm just a soul whose intentions are good
Oh Lord, please don't let me be misunderstood - The Animals


Victor Davis Hanson explains how Hollywood is struggling to make sure we don't misunderstand the poor terrorists; and that we don't for a moment think that we are the good guys:

When terrorism goes to the movies in the post-Sept. 11 world, we might expect the plots, characters and themes to reflect some sort of believable reality. But in Hollywood, the politically correct impulse now overrides all else. Even the spectacular pyrotechnics, beautiful people and accomplished acting cannot hide it.

Instead, moviegoers can anticipate before the opening credits that those characters who work for the American government or are at war with terrorists will likely be portrayed as criminals, incompetents or people existing on the same moral plane as killers.

Read it all to appreciate exactly what kind of universe the elites of Hollywood are living in:

Actors, producers, screenwriters and directors of Southern California live in a bubble, where coast, climate and plentiful capital shield the film industry from the harsh world. In their good intentions, these tanned utopians can afford to dream away fascist killers and instead rail at Western bogeymen — even in the midst of a global war against Middle East jihadists who wish to trump what they wrought at the World Trade Center and Pentagon.

If Hollywood wants to know why attendance is down, it is not just the misdemeanor sin of warping reality, but the artistic felony that it does so in such a predictable manner.

The terrorists are really just some soul's whose intentions are good--just like you and me! I somehow manage to supress my deeply religious and sociopathic needs to blow myself up and kill people who don't agree with me. How about you?
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 3:40 PM |

 
JUST DESSERTS
"Life is uncertain. Eat dessert first"- attributed to Ernestine Ulmer, who, as far as I can tell, never did anything else except utter this oft-repeated phrase; so it is likely she never really existed.

Nevertheless, as 2005 draws to a close, this post is the grand finale of Dr. Sanity's "DESSERT TRILOGY"--which began with WMD and Death-By-Chocolate Cake; and continued with Axis of Evil Fruitcake .

Inspired by this story in the news (OK, I'm a few days too late; but the court was 25 years late), for the New Year, I am going to share with you in time for the New Year my family's three most favorite desserts!

Since justice is finally being done at home and abroad, I shall henceforth refer to these three exquisite examples of equity, fairness and just plain goodness--as the "Just Desserts". Enjoy and Happy New Year!

The Boo's Bread Pudding

5-6 C day old Challah bread cubes
4 C scalded milk
1/2 C butter, melted and cooled
1 C sugar
1/2 t salt
4 eggs, beaten
1 t cinnamon
1 t nutmeg
1 C raisins

Lemon Sauce
1/2 C white sugar
1/2 T cornstarch
1 C hot water
3 T lemon juice
1 T lemon zest

Preheat oven to 350 degrees. Spray an 8x11 inch casserole with nonstick spray. In a large bowl combine bread cubes, 1 C sugar, salt, cinnamon, and nutmeg. Mix in raisins. In another bowl, blend milk, melted butter, and eggs. Add wet ingredients to dry and mix together without turning bread mixture into mush. Pour mixture into prepared casserole dish. Place casserole dish into a larger baking pan. Pour hot water into baking pan about 1/2 up the side of the casserole dish, creating a water bath. Bake for 45- 50 minutes. Sauce: In a small saucepan, combine 1/2 C sugar, cornstarch, hot water, butter, lemon juice, and lemon zest. Cook on medium heat until bubbling and thickened. Stir constantly to avoid scorching. Serve with bread pudding.

Norman's Ricotta Cheese Pie

Pastry
use 9 in. round layer cake pan. Sift together in a bowl:
2 C flour
1/2 t salt
1 C shortening (cut in with pastry blender until pieces are size of small peas. Sprinkle gradually over mixture, 1 t at a time
2 egg yolks, slightly beaten
1-2 Tbs cold water

Mix lightly with fork after each addition. Add only enough water to hold dough together. Mix until egg is thoroughly combined and blended.

Filling
Combine:
3 C ( 1 1/2 lbs) Ricotta cheese
1/4 C flour
2 T grated orange peel
2 T grated lemon peel
1 t vanilla extract
1/8 t salt

Beat until foamy 4 eggs; add gradually 1 C sugar. Stir beaten eggs into Ricotta mix until blended and smooth. May add: 1 t cinnamon; 1/2 t cloves; 1/4 t nutmeg; or chopped walnuts. Pour into pastry. Bake at 350 degrees about 50-60 minutes (until pastry is golden brown). Cool on rack.

Pat's Apple Crunch Pie

Crumb Topping:
½ C plus 2 T flour
½ C packed light brown sugar
1/3 C granulated sugar
1 t ground cinnamon
1 stick (1/2 C) cold butter, cut in small pieces

Filling:
7 medium to large tart apples (about 3 ¼ lb., such as Granny Smith, Pippins or Greenings)
1 T lemon juice
½ C granulated sugar
3 T flour
½ t ground cinnamon
1/8 t ground nutmeg

Have ready a 9 inch pie plate and a cookie sheet. Place oven rack in lowest position in oven. Heat oven to 450 degrees. Line pie plate with pie crust. Flute or crimp edge. Crumb topping: Mix flour, sugars and cinnamon in a medium bowl. Cut in butter until mixture forms moist coarse crumbs that clump together easily. Filling: Peel, half and core apples. Cut in 1/8 inch thick slices by hand. Put into a large bowl. Toss with lemon juice to coat. Mix remaining ingredients in a small bowl. Sprinkle over apple slices; toss to coat. Layer apple slices in pie shell, mounding them higher in the center. Pat topping evenly over apples to form a top crust. Place pie on cookie sheet to catch drips. Bake 15 minutes. Reduce oven temperature to 350 degrees and bake 45 minutes longer or until a skewer meets some resistance when center of pie is pierced (apples will continue to cook after pie is removed from oven) and topping is golden brown. If topping is browning too quickly, drape a piece of foil over pie. Cool pie completely on wire rack before serving.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 11:34 AM |

 
FEMINISTS** TAKE NOTE, PLEASE
If your Marxist/Marcusian supposition that inequality of outcome is the key barometer that determines the presence or absence of oppression; then this should throw a philosophical monkey wrench into your belief system:

Either: (1) Men are clearly being "oppressed" by the educational and social system--and not women; or (2) Marx and Marcuse were abysmally wrong; their theories have now been conclusively disproved; and you need to check or abandon your premises; or, (3) Both of the previous statements are true and you are totally out of luck.

OTOH, if all your posturing victimhood and irrational rage were simply rhetorical devices used to disguise your true agenda of world socialist domination, then you would seem to be succeeding.

** by "feminist", I am referring to the hysterical leftist branch of a movement that once stood for equal opportunity for women; and now stands for nothing (see here or here for a more thorough explanation of this point)
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 2:16 AM |

 
WILL WONDERS NEVER CEASE ?
This article from the MSM could qualify as the 8th wonder of the world this year for its fairness and balance:

On Nov. 20, the Tribune began an inquest: We set out to assess the Bush administration's arguments for war in Iraq. We have weighed each of those nine arguments against the findings of subsequent official investigations by the 9/11 Commission, the Senate Intelligence Committee and others. We predicted that this exercise would distress the smug and self-assured--those who have unquestioningly supported, or opposed, this war.

The matrix below summarizes findings from the resulting nine editorials. We have tried to bring order to a national debate that has flared for almost three years. Our intent was to help Tribune readers judge the case for war--based not on who shouts loudest, but on what actually was said and what happened.

The administration didn't advance its arguments with equal emphasis. Neither, though, did its case rely solely on Iraq's alleged illicit weapons. The other most prominent assertion in administration speeches and presentations was as accurate as the weapons argument was flawed: that Saddam Hussein had rejected 12 years of United Nations demands that he account for his stores of deadly weapons--and also stop exterminating innocents. Evaluating all nine arguments lets each of us decide which ones we now find persuasive or empty, and whether President Bush tried to mislead us.
[....]
After reassessing the administration's nine arguments for war, we do not see the conspiracy to mislead that many critics allege.

Read the entire case and the matrix that the Tribune sets up for its analysis. On several items, the Chicago Tribune concludes that the Administration may have "exaggerated" what information it had (based on what we know today); but most of the major points of its case for war were accurate.

I will leave it for history to decide whether Bush actually "exaggerated" (and they will base their determination on much more than on what we know today--while we are still embroiled in Iraq); or, whether he courageously decided to "connect the dots" that his predecessors had barely noticed, and in doing so, changed the course of history in a way decidedly disadvantageous to Islamofascism.

RightwingNuthouse has more.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 6:18 PM |

 
MOONBATS OF THE YEAR !
Over at Little Green Footballs, nominations are open for the LGF Annual Robert Fisk Award for Idiotarian of the Year (Fiskie for short). Let us by all means call an idiotarian an idiotarian. There are so many worthy nominees, I hardly know where to begin.

But of course, that has never stopped me before....

So, to mock honor a few of my favorites, I have penned a short poem which can be sung to the tune of "How Do You Solve A Problem Like Maria" from the Sound of Moonbats Music)

HOW DO YOU PICK AN IDIOTARIAN?

How do you solve a puzzle like Dan Rather?
How do you catch a bug like Ramsey Clark?
How do you find a word that means Pelosi?
A flibbertijibbet! A will-o'-the wisp! A lark!

Many a thing you’d like to say to Sheehan,
Articulating what Noam Chomsky just can't say;
And someday Howard Dean,
Played by Sean Penn on the screen,
Will silently and softly fade away.

Just when you think you’ve counted all the fruitcakes,
Just when you think you’ve locked them in the vault--
Kofi will tell all
With Matthews on Hardball
And claim that it was really Bush’s fault!

Oh, how do you cure an illness like Ward Churchill?
And what would you ever do with Mary Mapes?
Why would you ever listen to George Clooney
And other assorted leftist jackanapes?

Oh how do you solve a puzzle like Dan Rather?
How do you hold a moonbat in your hand?

UPDATE: Michelle Malkin thinks that the NY Times and MSM should be added to the nominees and Dymphna has honored those entities with a special song, too. She claims she has caught the "Dr. Sanity Disease"! I regret to inform her it is terminal....
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 2:32 PM |

 
DEMOCRAT INSURGENTS, DEAD-ENDERS, AND TERRORIST-ENABLERS
AJ Strata is ready to fight the "battle for America"

Surprisingly, the liberals want a fight for the future of America over the issue of national security. In their world there is no war, simply crimes to fight in court. In their world we cannot monitor communications from people who are willing to die to kill as many of us as possible. We must protect the terrorists’ rights to plan and execute deadly attacks once they have crossed our borders.

The left is West Wing, the rest of want something like 24. The liberals are for the Gorelick Wall that ensures we will not be able to stop a future 9-11 attack, since they are desperate to pretend 9-11 changed nothing.

The NY Times is crowing about the results of their leaking of classified material and the fact we now will fight the future in the courts.

Defense lawyers in some of the country’s biggest terrorism cases say they plan to bring legal challenges to determine whether the National Security Agency used illegal wiretaps against several dozen Muslim men tied to Al Qaeda.

The lawyers said in interviews that they wanted to learn whether the men were monitored by the agency and, if so, whether the government withheld critical information or misled judges and defense lawyers about how and why the men were singled out.

The NY Times is expecting to put terrorists back on the street again. And they seem giddy about it

AJ has been all over the story of the NSA leak and FISA (see here and here) and he has even theorized that the leaker may be the FISA Judge who "quit in protest" from the FISA court (did he really quit? Because he has been unusually quiet about it....).

ShrinkWrapped pursues the story from the psychological perspective and exposes the motives of both the Democrat opportunists as well as the "civil liberties absolutists" and their different quests:

The opportunistic Democrats need to hold onto their power; they need the fawning MSM elites to confirm their conviction that they are smarter and better than their opponents, and they are often willing to do anything to regain that power, even if it damages their country and harms other people.

The civil liberties absolutists, on the other hand, present a more complicated scenario. They are much more like my young female patient. They insist that the world should be the way they want it to be, and further, try to force others to collude with them in imagining the world is the way they wish. If they win one victory, they need to escalate; this is the logic of the pursuit of perfection. Thus, if the administration agrees to allow lawyers to visit inmates in Guantanamo, they cannot be satisfied, but then must escalate to demanding full rights of access to the American legal system. If they ever were to become successful at getting people to agree with them, their logic insists that the West effectively disarm; we must stop all NSA intercepts, stop monitoring Mosques and other locations, and maintain the inviolability of personal privacy from any government intrusion. Because their true demands are so extreme, they can only face marginalization by pressing their agenda; further, if they truly cared about civil liberties, they would find a way to compromise because the greatest risk to civil liberties would be posed by a second attack on the scale of 9/11 or worse. Were such an attack to occur, all notions of acceptable limits of governmental intrusion would be jettisoned, with the agreement of the vast majority of the American people. In either case, whether they win or lose the current argument, they ultimately must lose.

What is a reasonable person to make of this suicidal clash of perspectives? The Democrats and the Left have long since gone around the bend in demonstrating over and over again that they will do anything--even to the point of putting the entire nation at risk--to destroy Bush and get revenge on the Republicans. They have committed themselves to this goal above freedom; above reason; above the lives of their fellow Americans. For them, there is no compromise--there is only the destruction of their enemy -- Bush.

If only they could direct some of that fierce single-mindedness toward fighting the country's true enemy--you know, the ones that are trying to destroy America and western civilization? The ones that killed 3000 Americans on 9/11? The ones that DAILY state the goal of destroying America and the eradicating our culture by any means possible?

But that would require insight and a willingness to examine their own motivations--and the revelations that would result are unacceptable to their self-concept.

ShrinkWrapped's essay is an appeal to the more reasonable civil libertarians (of which I count myself) who have justifiable legal arguments regarding the potential loss of civil rights as we fight the war on terror. The pursuit of the kind of "perfection" in civil liberties is folly in a time of war. We have appropriate checks and balances and the powers to intrude on indivdidual rights ebb and flow from one branch to the other, depending on the nation's needs. Most of the time, it seems to me, that the legislative and judicial branches are the ones who are far too intrusive and blind to the civil rights implications of their actions.

It would be optimal if this hysteria were brought down to a reasonable level and discussed with the reality of the Islamofascists and their international collaborators in mind. The Democrats and the Left have long since abandoned reason and wholeheartedly embraced hysteria and self-delusion; but those of us who have our eyes open and our vision unimpaired clearly see the suicidal and self-destructive implications of adopting their talking points.

As AJ says, if it is a war they want, bring it on. We will just have to gird our [intellectual] loins and fight the insurgents, dead-enders and terrorist-enablers here at home. I hope that someday, when the Democratic leadership faces the consequences of their behavior and the complete irrelevance of their opportunistic ideology; that they come to appreciate how they were the authors of their own self-destruction.

Always assuming, of course, that they haven't dragged the rest of us down with them.

UPDATE: In case you have forgotten the attitude of the Islamic fanatics we are dealing with, Solomon2 gives us a revealing glimpse of these moral monsters and the casual indifference they display about killing those who don't believe as they do. You can ignore this kind of rhetoric and its call for mass murder only at your peril.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 10:46 AM |

 
MOST CLEVER POLITICAL PUN OF 2005
Adapted from Winston Churchill by Robert Godwin at One Cosmos and describing the peripatetic, plagiarizing professor, Ward Churchill:

"Never have so many owed so much to a faux Sioux."
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 8:32 PM |

 
OUT OF THE MOUTHS OF .... DEMOCRATS !
The Anchoress has a fascinating story about how her Democratic neighbor is starting to view the antics of her elected representatives in Congress.

This neighbor's angry opinions may represent some of the "unintended consequences" that the Dems are accruing on issues of national security.

I certainly hope some of them take time to read what the Anchoress' neighbor has to say; and to digest its implications. But, they probably won't, since they seem to be living in that same bubble they are always accusing Bush of being in.

Ask not for whom the bubble bursts--it bursts for thee.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 4:39 PM |

 
FIGHT OR FLIGHT / CONFRONTATION OR APPEASEMENT
Michael Yon in his latest post discusses the differences and similarities between propaganda and truth and uses two media montages to demonstrate:

It’s interesting to compare these two montages. The first from an un-attributed source, perhaps even a work of propaganda, shows people at their best, braving terrorists to vote in Iraq, then dipping their fingers in the purple ink, and smiling with pride, strength and hope.

The second montage by MSNBC, linked below, conveys the ultra-violence of nature against man, the cruelty of man against man, and helps explain why we want the world to be more like the impression we are left with after the “propaganda” montage. And yet, as someone who was out there experiencing some of what was depicted in both slide shows, it’s important to add that both are accurate in what they portray, while each is confined in scope. The difference is subtle, perhaps purely rhetorical. But the consequent impact, and how it influences public opinion, is something closer to cataclysmic.

Go to Yon's site for links to the two different montages.

I have a theory about how and why propaganda and/or truth (or a combination of both) would have profound impact on people's behavior.

Let me first start by reminding everyone what the respective definitions of propaganda and truth are:

propaganda - 1 : the spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person
2 : ideas, facts, or allegations spread deliberately to further one's cause or to damage an opposing cause; also : a public action having such an effect

truth - 1 a archaic : FIDELITY, CONSTANCY b : sincerity in action, character, and utterance
2 a (1) : the state of being the case : FACT (2) : the body of real things, events, and facts : ACTUALITY (3) often capitalized : a transcendent fundamental or spiritual reality b : a judgment, proposition, or idea that is true or accepted as true c : the body of true statements and propositions
3 a : the property (as of a statement) of being in accord with fact or reality

And second, let us review the way our bodies are hardwired to deal with danger. From a March, 2005 post:

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".

When we hear a story that is factual and true from which we perceive danger to ourselves or our loved ones, that true story stimulates the "fight or flight" response. So it was with 9/11. The nation was initially stunned by the images of the WTC towers attacked and then collapsing. As it became clearer what had happened, these images made a connection to people's hardwired responses. We saw a threat, and we began to respond to it in exactly the way we were programmed. Initially, the dominant response to this threat was to "fight"--but within days, we were also beginning to hear from a sizable number of the population whose intitial response was to run away from the danger and/or pretend it didnt' exist.

Whichever response was stimulated, both are the psychological and behavior strategies that are fundamental to our physiology. Both strategies have their uses, depending on the situation.

Now, let us consider for a moment some propaganda. As stated in the definition, propaganda seeks to deliberately use certain ideas, facts, or allegations to further one's cause or to damage an opposing cause

The best and most effective manner to damage an opposing cause is also to tap into the basic hardwiring of human beings. If you can present facts or allegations with an appropriate slant that triggers the innate physiological signal for "DANGER! DANGER!", then your propaganda will be optimally effective and have profound effects on the way a situation is perceived by an individual.

Two examples:

-showing the "death count" in Iraq over and over again; emphasizing the number of soldiers killed and the number of bombs going off (even though such information may be entirely true) without also showing the deaths in the context of operational goals or strategy; or without also showing (or, deliberately ignoring) the positive and successful images

-discussing the "invasion of privacy" of a top-secret program during a war as if it were something entirely new in American history; or without any discussion of how the same strategy was used in previous administrations; previous wars--i.e., without putting it into any context except that your personally are in imminent danger of being monitored by the government

There are many more that could be used. But the two above are not examples of "truth" as we have defined it--they are both examples of propaganda, because they deliberately are slanting information in order to further a particular point of view and denigrate the opposition point of view. This is how most propaganda works. This is also why bad/frightening news tends to cause more of a response than good news ("if it bleeds, it ledes")

In fact, what is interesting to me is that certain parties are using propaganda--though they would vehemently deny it-- and a distortion of the truth (i.e., the truth that America is in danger) in order to futher only one particular political manifestation of the "fight or flight" paradigm. Specifically, the motivations of all of these propagandists are in the camp that counsels "flight" --better described as "immediate withdrawal" and/or continued appeasement of the danger. This strategy is often referred to as the pacifist or antiwar strategy.

Despite their objections to the propaganda from the other side (and that too, does exist), the fact remains that they are also using propaganda--and using it much more effectively than their political oppononents on the fight/confrontation side.

Whenever truth or propagandized truth is utilized for the opposite perspective (fight), it is roundly condemned and generates an extreme response from the "flight" side, who cry "no fair!" Case in point is that whenever people are reminded of 9/11 by the President, it is denounced as "warmongering." Or, more recently, the revelations that the military pays for their side of the story to come out in Iraq. Both are roundly denounced (and twisted into propaganda, I might add, by the Leftist/antiwar crowd who use this to claim that we are headed for a police state--something I would call "fearmongering"). This is how it has come to pass that only antiwar propaganda and pacifist "truth" are able to be headlines in our media.

Now, it is certainly true that propaganda can also be used to make people fear a nonexistent threat and to mount the drums of war. But what we are witnessing is propaganda being used to make people fear a nonexistent police state and to mount the drums of peace.

The former strategy was used effectively by the Germans in WWII; and the threat used was focused on the Jews as the source of all evil. This strategy is also used today by the Islamofascists who actively encourage war against Jews and other infidels. Again, the psycholgoical motivation of both these these scapegoating actions are to explain their own cultures' failures in the real world. It is propaganda because its intent is to deliberately foster a certain point of view (one that blames others instead of themselves).

The latter strategy is being used by the Democrats, the Left, and the antiwar crowd.

The choice of confrontation or appeasement is in essence a biological one. Fight or Flight is as old as humanity. The use of propaganda and/or the truth are strategies to mobilize one or the other response in a population of humans.

The issue isn't really propaganda vs. truth -- both sides use the two of them to justify behavior. The issue is fight or flight (biological imperative) with concomitant confrontation or appeasement (conscious choice).

Which will it be?

- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 9:50 AM |

 
FAIR DEAL
A recent letter to the editor from the NY Post (hat tip: Hugh Hewitt)

I offer a proposal: The U.S. military will withdraw from Iraq, the Patriot Act will not be renewed and the United States will stop monitoring phone calls by potential terrorists.

In return, if there is another terrorist attack on the United States, the Democratic Party will disband and contribute all of its assets to the families of victims, all Democratic senators and congressmen will resign and The New York Times will contribute $1 trillion to the fund for the families.

Fair deal?

Richard Slawsky
Milford, CT

It is too bad that I don't hate the Democrats that much that I'd be willing to sacrifice innocent American lives just to demonstrate what a bunch of completely clueless and gutless dingbats they have evolved into in the last 50 years or so.

It is a tempting suggestion, though.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 1:13 AM |

 
HOSTILE BEYOND REASON
William Kristol in The Weekly Standard:

No reasonable American, no decent human being, wants to send up a white flag in the war on terror. But leading spokesmen for American liberalism-hostile beyond reason to the Bush administration, and ready to believe the worst about American public servants-seem to have concluded that the terror threat is mostly imaginary. It is the threat to civil liberties from George W. Bush that is the real danger. These liberals recoil unthinkingly from the obvious fact that our national security requires policies that are a step (but only a careful step) removed from ACLU dogma.

On Monday, December 19, General Michael Hayden, former director of the National Security Agency and now deputy director of national intelligence, briefed journalists. The back--and--forth included this exchange:

Reporter: Have you identified armed enemy combatants, through this program, in the United States?

Gen. Hayden: This program has been successful in detecting and preventing attacks inside the United States.

Reporter: General Hayden, I know you're not going to talk about specifics about that, and you say it's been successful. But would it have been as successful-can you unequivocally say that something has been stopped or there was an imminent attack or you got information through this that you could not have gotten through going to the court?

Gen. Hayden: I can say unequivocally, all right, that we have got information through this program that would not otherwise have been available.

Kristol goes on to discuss the "fever swamp" into which American liberalism is descending.

A generation ago, Richard Hofstadter wrote compellingly about The Paranoid Style in American Politics; and he was primarily concerned with the conspiratorial fantasies of the Right side of the political spectrum. Our present political climate however, offers much support for those who suspect that paranoid strain has now infected the Left side with virulent case of the same illness.
Psychologically, it is very difficult to abandon paranoia once it is taken on by a particular group, since it--and the accompanying delusions that it generates-- serves the purpose of accounting for an unacceptable status quo. Without a scapegoat who is considered to be racially, sexually, physically, or intellectually inferior, onto which your own fears can be projected; it would be horrifying and untenable to look inside one's own heart and soul for the source of the fear.

This is the nature of projection and paranoia. The unacceptable thoughts or feelings are denied ("not owned") by the person experiencing them, and instead are projected onto another individual or--as in this case--a group. Thus, the person who originally had the offensive thought or feeling becomes the helpless victim of the evil "other" and they do not have to cope with the fact that the evil lies within themselves. This is the origin of almost all acts of racism, sexism, anti-semitism, etc. It is the source of most prejudice in the world; and certain prejudices that become socially acceptable--like the casual anti-semitism of the Middle East; or the causal anti-Republicanism adopted by the intellectual "elite" of this country.

Projection is never a good long-term psychological strategy--nor is it healthy--in an adult; and using such a defense mechanism represents a primitive attempt to shirk the responsibility for one's own feelings, thoughts, and actions. It causes and has caused much human misery, death, destruction and some of the most horrific acts that humans are capable of. When entire countries subscribe to a projected delusion (e.g., the "Jews" are to blame; the "Blacks" are the cause of all of our problems; "Republicans" are evil; Bush=Hitler) it can lead to genocide and other behaviors that are paranoid and psychotically delusional. Full-blown paranoia occurs when one's mind severs the connection with reality entirely.

In the most recent example of this sort of thinking on the Left, we have been subjected to the wild ravings of pundits who compare Bush's actions to protect American citizens after 9/11 and during what many consider to be WWIV to the actions of Hitler; or Apartheid, or (insert dictator's name here).

As Michael Barone calmly points out:

The New York Times' Christmas gift -- sorry, holiday gift -- to the nation's political dialogue was its Dec. 16 story reporting that the National Security Agency has been intercepting telephone conversations between terrorism suspects abroad and U.S. citizens or legal residents in the United States.

What the Times didn't bother telling its readers is that this practice is far from new and is entirely legal. Instead, the unspoken subtext of the story was that this was likely an illegal and certainly a very scary invasion of Americans' rights.

Let's put the issue very simply. The president has the power as commander in chief under the Constitution to intercept and monitor the communications of America's enemies. Indeed, it would be a very weird interpretation of the Constitution to say that the commander in chief could order U.S. forces to kill America's enemies but not to wiretap -- or, more likely these days, electronically intercept -- their communications. Presidents have asserted and exercised this power repeatedly and consistently over the last quarter-century

America has always had discussions about the balance of power within the three branches of government and always will. It is reasonable to have checks and balances; it is even reasonable and normal to expect that the balance will sometimes shift to the executive (in times of war, perhaps) or to the legislative (in times of peace) and even sometimes to the judiciary. This is a dynamic balance that is able to adjust to the historical circumstances and national requirements.
The hysteria and paranoia generated by the deeply hostile and inaccurate journalism of the NY Times and other media outlets--in addition to the possible leaking of national security information that is helpful to the enemy in a time of war--is deeply troubling, because it represents a newer, more lethal expression of paranoia in American politics by the Democrats and the Left.

Let us hope that the disease is not terminal--either for them, or for the rest of us.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 1:14 PM |

 
THE MEME OF FOUR
ARGGGGGGGGH! I've been memed! GM Roper passed this on to me last night and I must respond or else be thought terribly rude. Which actually doesn't bother me much usually, but I like GM and would suffer guilt and angst if I ignored him.

Sigh. OK here goes.

Four jobs you’ve had in your life: Denny's waitress, lobbyist, flight surgeon, psychiatrist!

Four movies you could watch over and over: The first three Star Wars movies. The Lord of The Rings, Sense and Sensibility, Where Eagles Dare!

Four places you’ve lived: Los Angeles, California; Milwaukee Wisconsin; Houston, Texas; Ann Arbor, Michigan

Four TV shows you love to watch: Star Trek, Quantum Leap, Maverick, Bonanza (sorry, I don't watch many new TV shows)

Four places you’ve been on vacation: (Other than Paris; Rome; Madrid; London): Fresno,California; New York; Honolulu, Hawaii; and Vancouver,B.C.

Four websites you visit daily: Mugglenet; Washtenaw County; TCS Daily; and Townhall.com

Four of your favorite foods: Fajitas; Lasagna; General Tso's Chicken; and Apple Pie.

Four places you’d rather be: the beach; the mountains; the forest; the desert.

Four albums you can’t live without: Manhattan Transfer Christmas Album; Enya, Shepherd Moon; Loreena McKennitt, The Book of Secrets; Michael Franks, The Best of Michael Franks

And now, I pass the baton of the Meme of Four on to Dymphna at Gates of Vienna and Neighborhood of God--who I am sure will have more much more interesting answers!

Curse you, GM Roper!
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 11:33 AM |

 
CARNIVAL OF THE INSANITIES - Special Christmas Edition
Time for the weekly insanity udate--SPECIAL CHRISTMAS EDITION!!-- where the insane, the bizarre, the ridiculous, and the completely absurd are highlighted for all to see! This holiday season has generated probably the most unbelievable absurdities in history. Note to all bloggers! Those of you who sent in regular entries to the Carnival this week, will have them linked next week in the first Carnival of the Insanities for 2006. Entries for next week need to be into me by 8 pm ET on Saturday, New Year's Eve. Only one post entry per blogger, please. SO MANY INSANITIES! SO LITTLE TIME!
***NEW*** Feel free to add your own Christmas or Holiday insanities in Trackbacks to this post!

1. What ever happened to "good old Saint Nick"?

2. Santa condemned for 'profiling'! And to these guys, he's Satan! Gee, the big guy doesn't get a break either in secular or religious circles! Or from little kids anymore!

3. Yes, this would be a little disturbing for reasons I can't exactly pinpoint. But it gets an award anyway!

4. Some people are easily offended. Some people are wrongly offended. Some people are just plain offensive.

5. Hell yes, baby! Santa has come early! Sort of the anti-Fitzmas.

6. Be afraid; be very afraid. (hat tip:Perrero). He's very scary. And he's coming to town!

7. A...creative...Christmas lights display. And a blog devoted to the beauty-impaired displays. Didn't I say once there was a blog for everything?

8. The true Christmas spirit ?

9. Peace and Harmony. Goodwill toward men.

10. Lost in translation? And it doesn't translate into Hebrew, either!

11. Santa Clauses are coming to town. Forty of them! Don't forget, Virginia, Santa is a magical and cuddly man, not a fat, smelly slob!

12. A guide to dealing with family during Christmas. Very useful, sort of.

13. This should really help with jobs in the Christmas tourist industry there.

14. I learned a new word -- YOB !

15. A very merry un-Christmas to them (couldn't happen to a nicer, more patriotic bunch).

16. Disturbing Secrets. He sees you when you're sleeping.

16. Merry Christmas, President Bush. (Heh. Think of it as a lump of coal for the Democrats)

16. Sleep in heavenly peace. And thank you for your sacrifice.


Carnival of the Insanities can also be found at The Truth Laid Bear's ÜberCarnival.

***************************************

If you would like to Join the insanity, and add the Carnival of the Insanities button to your sidebar (clicking on it will always take you to the latest update of the Carnival), click on the "Word of Blog" below the button to obtain the html code:



- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 10:48 AM |

 
From Our Family To Yours: Have A Joyous Christmas Filled with Warmth & Love!




*A special Christmas edition of the Carnival of the Insanities will be posted Christmas morning--otherwise, I will be back blogging on December 26th. See you all then!
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 5:32 PM |

 
Capitalism is Good For The Soul
One cannot escape noticing that the intellectual trend in the West is to continually bash capitalism, business, and free trade; while simultaneously enjoying the benefits of them. Especially at Christmastime.

Our academics rail against business. Our government constantly seeks to control it. Our youth are propagandized to death about its evils. Popular culture refrains from painting Islamofascists as the villians in movies out of political correctness, but does not hesitate to make big businessmen evil and grandiose. Religions are almost universal in denouncing the evils of money and spending it, even as they ask you to give them some.

One harmful result of this sorry situation is that there are few people--even among those who stalwartly defend the free market, who understand and appreciate the essential morality of capitalism.

The foundation of capitalism is human freedom in its most classical, liberal tradition.

Contrary to the many articles and books written about it through history by economists and scholars, capitalism's incredible production of wealth is only a side-effect that occurs when political freedom is present. It has been argued, and I agree, that both captialism and freedom themselves are prerequisites for moral behavior.

The moral case for capitalism is not taught at our universities, nor is it argued much in our culture; and certainly not in our churches. In fact it has been more or less universally accepted that systems such as communism and socialism are morally superior to capitalism--even though in practice such systems have led to the death and enslavement of millions, and to those unlucky enough not to die from them, they have led to the most horrible shrinking and wasting of the human soul. Not to mention the pathetic economic conditions of the people unfortunate enought to live in those countries have to deal with.

The truth is that not socialism, communism nor any kind of religious fundamentalism is even compatible with morality.

If one's actions are coerced by the state or religion or both; if human activity is legislated and regulated or ordained down to the last minute detail--particularly to the degree we see in other countries of the world (e.g., Cuba, China, Saudi Arabia, etc.),then how can it be argued that one's arctions are moral? They are not voluntary, but coerced.

Morality, however, is a matter of choice, not mandate. One cannot hold a person responsible for actions that are coerced or forced from him. Morality can only exist when freedom of action exists. Moral actions in any field of human endeavor require freedom.

Conduct may only be thought of as moral or immoral when it is freely chosen by the individual. It is only then that the moral significance of the action can be assessed. It is only when we are free to act that we can exercise moral judgement.

Which brings us to a capitalist system. Only in a free economic system within a free political system is it possible to be moral, since true benevolence toward others, compassion, charity, and generosity cannot exist without freedom. Benevolence, generosity, charity, and compassion that are mandated by the state; or by a religion--on pain of death or other consequence; or by any regulations on behavior; or by force--are meaningless insofar as individual morality is concerned.

In a previous series of posts on Narcissism and Society, I stated:

We have seen that the development of a Cohesive Self is dependent on two separate, equal and parallel developmental lines that arise originally from the biological and psychological fusion of the Infant and Mother early in life. If each of these lines are not interrupted in their normal evolution the Infant will eventually become an Adult with both narcissistic poles adequately developed and be able to function in the world in a healthy way—both in his attitude toward his own physical and psychic self; and in his attitude toward other human beings.

In some ways, the rise of human civilization from the cave to the present day has resulted because of attempts through the Rule of Law and social controls to set limits on the unrestrained Grandiose Self. This is primarily due to the destructiveness of the Narcissistic Rage generally associated with that part of the Self.

Because of this, the Grandiose Self has received a bad reputation philosophically, morally, and politically. The natural development of Governments and Religions (which ultimately are an expression of the Idealized Parent Image/Omnipotent Other side of the Self)have all too often attempted to ruthlessly suppress the Grandiose Self--much to the detriment of the individual AND the success of the particular society or religion.

In fact, despite the obvious truth that governments, nations, and religions are in a much better position to wreak far more systemized misery and death on human populations, it is almost always the Grandiose Self that gets the blame. As Wretchard at The Belmont Club pointed out in a recent post, a review of the 20th century, for example, shows that all the "people's revolutions" supported by the Left and purportedly for the purpose of "freeing" large populations of people; resulted instead in enslaving them and increasing authoritarian rule.

Without a political or economic framework that is able to incorporate what we refer to as "human nature" into its calculations, all so-called "perfect" societies and ideologies will at best simply fail in the real world; and at worse cause untold human suffering. With the best of intentions (this is perhaps debatable), the social engineers of philosophy, political science, and economics have caused so much more slavery, misery and death on a grand scale--that the grandiose CEO's of the largest corporations can be considered mere pikers by comparison.

When we talk about the individual versus society; or the individual versus the state; or indeed any discussion of individual rights versus the rights of a group, we are also referring to the psychological tension between the two poles of the Self. Any political or economic system that expects to succeed in the real world will have to accommodate that tension, and find a way to optimally negotiate the needs of BOTH sides of the Self--that is, they will have to take into account human nature.

A perusal of any list of economic systems will demonstrate that ALMOST ALL OF THEM are relatively extreme expressions of the Idealized Parent Image/Omnipotent Object. Almost all emphasize the group, the community, the collective, the nation, the state, or god at the expense of the individual. Examples are numerous. Socialism and Communism; fascism and religious fundamentalism.

The major exception is Capitalism, where the individual and the individual's needs are emphasized over the the group.

All other economic systems besides capitalism routinely mouth moral platitudes about ending poverty; bringing justice etc. etc. But, the only economic system that is capable of doing just that is the one constantly accused of causing poverty and injustice--capitalism.

The WSJ put it thusly (from a previous post of mine):

Policy makers who pay lip service to fighting poverty would do well to grasp the link between economic freedom and prosperity. This year the Index finds that the freest economies have a per-capita income of $29,219, more than twice that of the "mostly free" at $12,839, and more than four times that of the "mostly unfree." Put simply, misery has a cure and its name is economic freedom.

The reason that systems such as socialism and communism don't work in the real world and are ultimately destructive of the individual self; and of the human soul, is that they remove moral action and judgement from the individual and place it in the collective. The individual is not permitted to make his/her own moral judgements, and must obey the mandates of the collective. This can only work when the individual is stripped of all freedom to act independently and fears reprisals for doing so.

Thus political freedom and economic freedom go hand in hand. Capitalism cannot exist for long inside an oppressive regime. Since it is more compatible with human nature than any other economic system, it will cause any totalitarian regime that permits it to some degree to last longer (China is a good example), but that can only be a temporary state. Without true political freedom, economic freedom cannot last and will either wither away slowly; or, alternatively cause individuals living under the oppression to demand more political freedom.

You can't be a "little bit" free because human nature will always demand more and more freedom once it has had a taste of it; until the despot who rules is finally deposed, or he totally crushes those who oppose him. In situations where the latter happens, you will always find the worse scenarios of poverty, oppression,misery, death, genocide and/or human degredation.

Likewise, true political freedom cannot last, and in the end is meaningless, where there is no economic freedom. Think for a minute about what money really is. Anti-capitalist intellectuals are rather fond of the phrase "money is the root of all evil", but, in truth, money is the most efficient method of allowing individuals to make moral judgements. The phrase "put your money where your mouth is" is actually a more meaningful insight for understanding the importance of money and its relationship to freedom.

This is, of course not to say that everyone will make good and/or moral decisions. Nor do all people necessarily spend or even earn their money wisely. They clearly don't. But that is neither here nor there. That is why political freedom demands a rule of law, and the protection of individual and property rights from other individuals and from the state.

Capitalism is good for the soul. It is the only system where the soul and the self can flourish, where individuals have a right to their own life and liberty, and can make the specific choices in the pursuit their own particular happiness. A system where every human exchange is a win-win situation.

So, this Christmas season, don't feel guilty about buying and giving gifts--either humble or extravagant-- for those you love. Don't agonize about the "reason for the season". Didn't the Three Wise Men bring riches to complement their adoration of the child? Didn't the little drummer boy sing his heart out? He gave the best within himself. And that is what capitalism and freedom together encourage.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 1:12 PM |

 
AXIS OF FRUITCAKES
Now that there's an opening in the Axis of Evil--a career opportunity of limited potential, but nevertheless coveted by many--I think we have an outstanding applicant to fill it.


I suspect this news makes the two leaders above somewhat uneasy. Rand Simberg has some interesting thoughts on the topic.

But they can always turn to the third sociopathic member of this exclusive club of fruitcakes for help in plotting world domination...

And, just so you can keep up with the comings and goings of this club member, for your reading enjoyment, I refer you to this blog, dedicated to the "Dear Leader Comrade Generalissimo, brilliant statesman, political genius, and military commander." (hat tip: SC&A)

In honor of the three of them, today I am sharing my recipe for

"AXIS OF EVIL FRUITCAKE"

1 C sugar
1/2 C butter, melted
1 egg
pinch of salt
1 1/2 C applesauce
1 t cinnamon
1/2 t cloves
1/2 t nutmeg
2 t baking soda
2 C flour
1 1/2 C golden raisins
1 C currants
1 C candied fruit mix for fruitcake
1 C pecans
1 C red candied cherries for fruitcake (one small container)
1 C candied pineapple chunks for fruitcake (1 small container)

Blend ingredients in a large bowl. Pour into 2 or 3 loaf pans (depending on the size of the pan) lined with wax paper. Bake in 350 degree oven for 1 hour, or until knife inserted in middle comes out clean. Let cool completely. Refrigerate for a day or two before serving. Can be frozen, too. Wrap well in foil and ziploc bags and store in the refrigerator or freezer. You can spike it with brandy, but the applesauce base keeps it moist. Enjoy.

Moral: Handled properly, a variety of candied fruits and nuts can be extremely delicious after they are all democratically mixed together and baked in an oven possessing a steady temperature.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 11:58 AM |

 
Some Technical Help, Please?
I have received a few emails from readers who complain that sometimes my sidebar extends over the blog text area, preventing them from reading the post. I think this is just the browser that they are using and its interpretation of my template--but I don't know for sure. I understand their problem because sometimes--for just a moment when my blog is loading on AOL--I can see the sidebar extending over the text area; but then it readjusts and everything looks normal. This doesn't happen all the time and I suspect it is related to the continuously updating blogrolls I keep on the sidebar (the ones that only list blogs that have posted recently).

I have two technical questions: 1. Is this a correct analysis of the problem? and 2. is there anything I can do with my template; or the readers with problems can do; so that this doesn't happen?

Thanks for your help!!
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 11:21 AM |

 
THE NEW BENEDICT ARNOLDS?
AJ Strata was one of the first to speculate that so-called "protest" resignation of Judge Robertson from the FISA court may have really been because he was one of the leakers of the classified NSA program. He and others are now wondering if Jay Rockefeller's atypical silence may not also be suggestive:

We will know for sure if Robertson starts missing days on the bench on the DC circuit court - a position he has not resigned yet. But one he cannot retain while under investigation.
Mac Ranger believes this fits his scenario where an all of sudden very quiet Senator Rockefeller is also under investigation for leaking the NSA program. The NY Times story that leaked and damaged the surveillance program mentioned the good Senator by name. Guess he forgot to go on background.
Now Rush Limbaugh has joined the dance in looking at Judge Robertson as a possible modern day Benedict Arnold.

This is serious talk, folks. As Jack Kelly points out, after the extreme reaction we all witnessed to the supposed "outing" of Valerie Plame; the whining and wailing and gnashing of teeth about the critical nature of our intelligence capability and the seriousness of its compromise; we now have a situation where:

A grave crime was exposed Dec. 16th when New York Times reporters James Risen and Eric Lichtblau published a story revealing President Bush authorized the National Security Agency to listen in on conversations between al Qaida suspects abroad and people in the United States without first obtaining a warrant.

"We're seeing clearly now that (President) Bush thought 9/11 gave him license to act like a dictator," wrote Newsweek's Jonathan Alter. But the scandal was not the program Risen and Lichtblau wrote about. The scandal is that they wrote about it.

The Left has made a mountain out of Plame --a relative molehill in the great scheme of things--and now they are hoist on their own petard (how's that for mixing metaphors?). Not that I think that the disclosure of classified information in both cases should not be taken as a serious offense; but there was every reason in the Plame affair to believe that the person who actually compromised her was her own husband; while with the NSA dustup, we are dealing with a matter with consequences several orders of magnitude more serious for our national security.

The angry hysterics of the Left can reason it out--if they are capable of even the most rudimentary reasoning skills anymore. Whatever the statutory or constitutional precedent or legality of President Bush's actions--and I happen to think the legal evidence is decidedly in the President's favor--his actions follow a tradition of jockeying for power between the executive and legislative branches that has embroiled most administrations and most congresses since our nation was founded. It would be the President's inaction and lack of attention to these issues in after 9/11 that would be more worrisome.

OTOH, there can be no doubt that the release of information regarding a highly classified and active national security program that is tracking the enemy during a war is definitely illegal; not to mention irresponsible and treasonous. That such an action could possibly be justified as taken "for the good of the nation" is laughable. That the Left sees this as an indication of imminent "fascism" is hilarious, given that it is not different significantly from what previous presidents have done (and most of them did not even do it in a time of active war with military operations ongoing ).

There may be some cynical creatures out there (myself included) who have wondered if Valerie Plame was ever in any real danger because the supposed "secret" of her CIA involvement was made public several years after her covert status was ended. But even the most cynical person in our midst cannot help but conclude that in the NSA leak, we are talking about exposing possibly hundreds of thousands of innocent American lives to the risk of terrorist attacks that might have been prevented by this very program.

If Valerie Plame's position at the CIA was classified; and if was deliberately leaked for political purposes then whoever did it should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

The act of deliberatly and maliciously exposing a highly classified program (there is no "if" in this case) and the leaking of of highly classified information (again, no "if") during a time of war so that it aids and abets the enemy and puts American lives at risk--is usually referred to as "treason". Whoever conspired to do it should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

In 1780 Benedict Arnold formed a plot to surrender the fort at West Point, New York to the British. His name has gone down in American history as synonymous with the word "traitor".

Whoever leaked the NSA program (and I am certain that the person or persons will eventually be identified--and it may or may not be Rockefeller or Robertson-- and whoever willingly published that information in the media, is playing the same lethal game betrayal that Arnold engaged in; and I sincerely and earnestly hope they suffer the same historical consequences.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 11:10 AM |

 
THE COUNCIL HAS SPOKEN -- AND DR. SANITY WINS !
This week's winners in the Watcher's Council are now posted at the Watcher of Weasels - AND DR. SANITY WINS!!!! Thank you very much to the Watcher's Council - There are some wonderful posts this week, and I'm honored that my post was selected.

Every week the Council nominates posts from the blogs of the Council members, and posts from around the blogsphere. The Council then votes to select the "Best" of all these posts.

Congratulations to all the other winners!

BEST COUNCIL POSTS:

First Place

The Idiot's Guide To Victimhood -- Getting It and Keeping It Dr. Sanity

Second Place

Gender Warfare Without the Glass Ceilings Gates of Vienna

BEST NON-COUNCIL POSTS:

First Place

Legal Analysis of the NSA Domestic Surveillance Program The Volokh Conspiracy

Second Place (a two-way tie!)

Planned Parenthood Boasts It Covered Up an 11-Year-Old's Rape The Dawn Patrol

December 15th 2005: A Day of (Cautious) Hope and Optimism The Belgravia Dispatch

Be sure to check out all the winners at the Watcher's Site. It makes for great Holiday Reading!
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 12:57 AM |

 
Here's Johnny !














From caveman to civilized being (or to put it another way: from Boston Red Soxer to NY Yankee)* !

This reminds me of a Biblical story for some reason....

It will be interesting to see how well his ego will fit into the new team; but it will at least make for an interesting year in baseball.

*I am an unrepentant Yankee fan.

UPDATE: I get the feeling that some people feel this way about it:


- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 1:53 PM |

 
PSYCHBLOGGER TOUCH AND GO !
Dr. Sanity is going to do a few "touch and go's" around the mental health blogsphere and bring her readers some psychological wisdom from a few of the psychbloggers (not psychobloggers!) who live there.

Here we go!

First, check out Gaghdad Bob at One Cosmos for an intelligent psychological analysis of the bizarro world of the left. This man is pure brilliance! Be sure to buy his book.

Dr. Helen has some good advice for the American Psychological Association: stop advocation politically correct "diversity" and be more welcoming to a diversity of ideas.

ShrinkWrapped tackles "Moral Relativism and Enabling Evil" and looks at a new pedophile musical. (Maybe it is a scam similar to The Producers ?)

Holocaust denial is the topic over at Neo-neocon, as she brings her thoughtful analysis to the Nazi influences on the Middle East in the 1930's.

Assistant Village Idiot always has something interesting to say (even on other people's blogs)--just scroll down! And, BTW, I think he should be promoted to "Associate"!

Shrinkette covers the "The 12 Neuroses of Christmas" just in time for the holidays!

GM at GM's Corner issues Christmas...err...holiday....greetings to both his Democrat and Republican friends. 'Tis the season, and all that!

Sigmund, Carl & Alfred (who, technically isn't any of those three - but I like him anyway!) shares the secret of why he is adored by women and respected by men all over the world.

ENJOY! (And if I forgot anyone, let me know in the comments and I'll add you).
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 11:28 AM |

 
Oh Lord Won't You Buy Me A Mercedes Benz ?

What can you say about Kofi Annan? Roger Simon points out that the good news is that he only has 12 more months as Secretary general. The bad news is that he has 12 more months as Secretary
General. Claudia Rosett asks the right questions about Annan's recent blow-up at a reporter during a news conference, when the reporter asked about Kofi's involvement with the purchase of a Mercedes for Kojo. Apparently the question hit a sensitive nerve. (hat tip: Instapundit)

Frankly, Annan is behaving an awfully lot like a certain overgrown dictator currently on trial in Iraq; with whom he has been very friendly in the past. In fact,

A certain person channeling Janis Joplin recently wrote a song about the two of them, and it goes like this:

Oh Lord, Won't You Buy Me A Mercedes Benz?
Saddam drove two Porsches, And I Won't Make Amends
I worked Hard To Support All My Dictator Friends
So, Lord, Won't You Buy Me A Mercedes Benz?

Oh Lord, Won't You Buy Me Some Oil For Food?
I'm Counting On You Lord, To Give Me That Crude
Prove That You Love Me; And I won't Be Rude
Oh Lord, Won't You Buy Me Some Oil For Food?

Oh Lord, Won't You Buy Me A Media Pass?
I try to be civil but I'm full of gas
I can't wait to get out of this UN morass
So, Lord, Won't You Buy Me A Media Pass?

Everybody All-together!

Oh Lord, Won't You Buy Me A Mercedes Benz?
Saddam drove two Porsches, And I Won't Make Amends
I worked Hard To Support All My Dictator Friends
So, Lord, Won't You Buy Me A Mercedes Benz?

As you know (or maybe not) Annan is the Very Model of a Secretary General...

UPDATE: OOPS! Last night I hit the "Publish" button instead of the "Draft" button and this wasn't quite ready for prime time! It has now been tweaked. Sorry about that!
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 9:25 AM |

 
A LITTLE REASON FREE FROM PASSION, PLEASE
For those interested in the legal arguments for the NSA intercept program and the constitutional delineation of presidential power, John Hinderaker at PowerLine has a complete summary that I urge you to read. The bottom line?

That is the current state of the law. The federal appellate courts have unanimously held that the President has the inherent constitutional authority to order warrantless searches for purposes of gathering foreign intelligence information, which includes information about terrorist threats. Furthermore, since this power is derived from Article II of the Constitution, the FISA Review Court has specifically recognized that it cannot be taken away or limited by Congressional action.

That being the case, the NSA intercept program, which consists of warrantless electronic intercepts for purposes of foreign intelligence gathering, is legal.

Some people don't like that such a clear case can be made for the President's actions. For them, Bush is simply a liar and a fascist; and the law is completely irrelevant.

Consider the following statements:

The first is from Daily Kos (via LGF) discussing the coming Kristalnacht in America:

It won’t come in the same form. It never does. But it’s coming. The lure of fascism is too powerful for men like the ones currently pissing all over our Constitution.

Probably won’t be the Jews. Maybe Arabs. Maybe gays. Maybe “libruls.” Who the f*ck knows? It almost certainly won’t be recognisable to most people until it’s far too late.

If we let it happen.

As you can see, when it comes to the high anxiety of the Left today, they do not fear Osama Bin Laden or Abu Musab Al Zarqawi--they fear George Bush.

The next two quotes come from an article by Jonathan Last; the first by Stafford Cripps, a Liberal Labor member of Parliament and well-known Marxist in England prior to WWII:

Cripps wrote that after Churchill became prime minister he would "then introduce fascist measures and there would be no more general elections."

Cripps, like many of his contemporaries on the Left in the mid-20th century feared not Hitler--but Churchill. Simone de Beauvoir concurred and

did not believe that Germany was a "threat to peace," but instead worried that the "panic that the Right was spreading" would drag France, Britain, and the rest of Europe into war..

How interesting that the Left then and now should so much fear the imminent implementation of fascism within democracies, but were completely and willingly blind to the rise of fascism in Germany (then) and the dominance of fascism within Islam (now). This is suggestive of a serious detachment from reality secondary to some form of self-delusion.

Long ago, Aristotle pointed out that the law was "reason free from passion." We can only be thankful that our legal system protects us from the histrionic rantings of people suffering from a terrible political affliction.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 8:52 PM |

 
A MURTHA MOMENT
Speaking as a psychiatrist, I have to compliment Victor Davis Hanson for his perceptive insight into the motivation of some of the loudest detractors of President Bush.

And, of course, he is also correct that a little empathy and listening would probably have gone a long way, if the President had chosen to do that and stroke the egos of the men involved. It does seem, however, that the President has his hands full every day stroking the egos of just the people who mostly agree with him.

This entire process is not dissimilar to what is done in psychotherapy. An adversarial relationship between patient and therapist is inevitably counterproductive and generally does not lead to positive results. Consider, though, that one therapist might have a caseload of several hundred clients. Sometimes it is difficult to be completely empathetic and responsive every day to everyone. The therapist is human after all. That is, of course, exactly what most patients need to learn to accept and cope with in life.

The President, too, is only human. The burdens of the person in that office only seem to get heavier and more demanding and more life and death with each administration. I can only imagine what it is like to have to live under such crushing responsibility.

However, one would optimally wish that our elected representatives would not need such continual "stroking" (as if they were Hollywood celebrities) and that the entire country would not have to suffer because of a blow to the narcissism of their congressperson. One might also hope that they could cut the President some slack (particularly since they expect to receive it from him). Maybe they all think they would do a better job? So, perhaps it is too much to expect that degree of maturity from elected representatives.

That's when you have to remember that all the people involved in government are only human, after all. I'm sure that all of them--even the President-- have "Murtha moments".

Group hug, anyone?
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 1:29 PM |

 
BAMBOOZLED
One of my favorites, Thomas Sowell discusses "Merry You-Know-What":

Over the years, we have gotten used to the American Civil Liberties Union launching legalistic jihads against recognitions of Christmas, in between coming to the rescue of murderers and terrorists.

The ACLU invokes that famous phrase about a "wall of separation between church and state" -- a phrase found nowhere in the Constitution but somehow considered to be part of Constitutional law.

The Constitution forbad Congress from creating "an establishment of religion" but this was no mysterious concept known only to deep thinking legal scholars.

The people who wrote the Constitution all knew exactly what an establishment of religion was because they had all lived under one -- the established Church of England.

Being established meant that everyone had to pay taxes to support that church, whether they belonged to it or not, and that people who didn't belong to the established church could not be admitted to various institutions or be appointed to certain official positions.

This had nothing to do with Christmas, merry or otherwise.

It is one of the sad signs of our times that we allow the ACLU to bamboozle us, or bully us with lawsuits, over something for which no one ever passed a law.

Both sides of this argument have been raging in recent years; and this year in particular the fighting has been fierce. I only began to get annoyed in the last ten years or so, when the excuse that was always given--by schools, by the Girl Scouts, by just about every institution that I questioned about it--that the reason they could not sing traditional Christmas Carols; could not have a decorated tree; could not call it Christmas vacation; could not risk the possibility however remote, of offending someone; was that they were afraid of getting sued.

And it wasn't even that they thought they would lose the lawsuit if one was brought. It was that the expense of merely fighting a lawsuit was more than they could handle financially.

In other words, just as Sowell says, we have been bamboozled and bullied into "politically correct" thinking about Christmas. The ACLU has slowly evolved from an organization that used to be concerned with issues of real freedom and real oppression--into just another schoolyard bully who flexes his muscles and expects everyone around to obey his every wish--or else.

Those of us who have allowed ourselves to be bullied by the ACLU, must also take some responsibility for the situation. The first time we started being blackmailed and pushed around by the litiginous hooligans whose secular beliefs are as equal as anyone else's--but not more equal--we became just like kids who, when threatened, allow a bully to steal their lunch money on a regular basis instead of fighting back.

I am glad to see we are finally standing up to the bullies in our society.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 11:09 AM |

 
That Special Quality That Defines Modern Journalism...
Ever wonder what it is? Well Varifrank knows! (hat tip: OBH)

My hat is off to the editorial staff of Time Magazine for their choice of ‘person of the year”. I spend hours and hours asking myself “ What is that “special quality” that so perfectly defines modern journalism? What is it that makes the people who make their living writing for such fine organizations like Time Magazine feel so comfortable with their chosen profession that while at bars, parties and high school reunions they feel perfectly comfortable to be able to say publicly and proudly “ why yes! I am indeed a journalist! And who might you be - lowly and pathetic subhuman of the class know to us as “subscriber”?

I often sit around and ponder the exact nature of the makeup of the modern journalist, but this year I need only look at the “2005 Time Magazine Person of the year” to get an answer. Inspired! Genius! A work of Art! This is what makes all the money that their parents spent sending them to Columbia Journalism School, the hours and hours spent faking homework assignments, the fingers bleeding from reading Chomsky and Fast. The hours and hours donated to the DNC to help further the cause of righteous leftist idealism, the days spent learning how to forge documents; this is where it all pays off, the choice for “Person of the year”. And what a choice it was.

Go and read it all, for it is inspired.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 9:48 PM |

 
WHERE DOES HE GET HIS "CRAZY" IDEAS ?
Where does this president get such crazy ideas? Obviously, he should be impeached, right?

McCarthy puts it all in perspective.

McKubin Owen discusses the constitutional source of broad executive power in wartime; John Hinderaker offers a legal opinion; and Judge Posner argues that Bush would have been criminally negligent if he hadn't taken this step with the NSA.

I just heard a Democratic strategist on FoxNews say that he cannot understand why the Democrats are persisting in this suicidal strategy on national security. He meant suicidal for the Democrats; but it is also suicidal for the country as a whole.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 8:00 PM |

 
AWOL
How quickly the feigned outrage fades....

IT SEEMS like only yesterday that every high-minded politician, pundit and professional activist was in high dudgeon about the threat posed to national security by the revelation that Valerie Plame was a spook. For daring to reveal a CIA operative's name — in wartime, no less! — they wanted someone frog-marched out of the White House in handcuffs, preferably headed for the gallows.

Since then there have been some considerably more serious security breaches. Major media organs have broken news about secret prisons run by the CIA, the interrogation techniques employed therein, and the use of "renditions" to capture suspects, right down to the tail numbers of covert CIA aircraft. They have also reported on a secret National Security Agency program to monitor calls and e-mails from people in the U.S. to suspected terrorists abroad, and about the Pentagon's Counterintelligence Field Activity designed to protect military bases worldwide.

Most of these are highly classified programs whose revelation could provide real aid to our enemies — far more aid than revealing the name of a CIA officer who worked more or less openly at Langley, Va. We don't know what damage the latest leaks may have done, but we do know that past leaks about U.S. successes in tracking cellphones led Al Qaeda leaders to shun those devices.

So I eagerly await the righteous indignation from the Plame Platoon about the spilling of secrets in wartime and its impassioned calls for an independent counsel to prosecute the leakers. And wait … And wait …

Ahhh yes. When it comes to matters of real national security, you can always count on the political opportunists to cut and run. Those feckless creatures who live and die by the poll numbers would do well to notice this little fact.

Somehow, I don't think it is a coincidence.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 12:43 PM |

 
SUICIDE BOMBERS IN OUR MIDST
"The Constitution is not a suicide pact."

There is a reason the U.S. president is the single most powerful executive of any democratic government. The combination of his foreign relations powers, his commander-in-chief powers, his emergency powers and his executive order authority makes him ideally suited to effectuate America’s national security interests. And war-making is the quintessential executive responsibility.

By its nature and design the executive power is more agile and responsive. By its nature and design the legislature is deliberative and rigid.

Both logic and history dictate that the executive’s primacy in national security matters be recognized. Is it any wonder that Congress has only used its formal war-making power five times, yet U.S. presidents have ordered military forces into combat zones more than 100 times? And in the latter part of the 20th century, presidents have significantly expanded this behavior. For two reasons: our ability to recognize national security threats is greater now, as are the actual threats. To argue in the face of this reality that the response to this challenge must be handled primarily by the legislature or even the judiciary is to unilaterally disarm against a clear and gathering threat.

Even the Supreme Court recognizes that it isn’t capable of taking the lead on national security matters. Twice the Supreme Court was given an opportunity to place limits on the president’s national security authority to engage in electronic surveillance and twice the Court has declined to do so. In each instance the Court explicitly stated that their rulings on the 4th amendment did not apply to cases involving national security.

No, Congress by its design and make up is ill suited for taking the lead role in this task. And to leave this authority in the hands of the courts would be the quintessential example of a “constitutional suicide pact.”

Ironically, many historians credit the phrase “The Constitution is not a suicide pact” to the Supreme Court. The author of this phrase is none other than that uber-executive Abraham Lincoln. Historian James G. Randall acknowledges that “No president has carried the power of presidential edict and executive order (independently of Congress) so far as [Lincoln] did.”

Read the entire article. I wait with bated breath for the congressional hearings on the limits of executive power. As the article above notes, the supreme court has already weighed in on this issue.

I think Scott Ott has captured the flavor of the revelations related to this so-called "scandal". This is getting to be completely ridiculous and political ;not to mention suicidally destructive behavior in a time of war.

What a field day Al Qaeda must be having. They don't need to recruit suicide bombers for the US -- they already have most of the the Democrats!

UPDATE: SC&A ponders limitless hypocrisy.

UPDATE II: Andy McCarthy wonders if we've gone insane. My response: some of our number certainly have.

UPDATE III: From John Schmidt, who served as Associate Attorney General in the Clinton Justice Department, "President Had Legal Authority to OK Taps" (hat tip:LLB)

UPDATE IV: Note: Comments on this thread have been closed.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 10:16 AM

 
SOME OBSERVATIONS ON SELF-DELUSION
Mark Steyn looks at the Sydney Riots with his usual insight, and makes a startling conclusion:

These days, whenever something goofy turns up on the news, chances are it involves a fellow called Mohammed. A plane flies into the World Trade Centre? Mohammed Atta. A gunman shoots up the El Al counter at Los Angeles airport? Hesham Mohamed Hedayet. A sniper starts killing petrol station customers around Washington, DC? John Allen Muhammed. A guy fatally stabs a Dutch movie director? Mohammed Bouyeri. A terrorist slaughters dozens in Bali? Noordin Mohamed. A gang-rapist in Sydney? Mohammed Skaf.

Maybe all these Mohammeds are victims of Australian white racists and American white racists and Dutch white racists and Balinese white racists and Beslan schoolgirl white racists.

But the eagerness of the Aussie and British and Canadian and European media, week in, week out, to attribute each outbreak of an apparently universal phenomenon to strictly local factors is starting to look pathological. "Violence and racism are bad", but so is self-delusion.

Why do I say this is "startling"? Well, not just because all the perps of these barbaric crimes had the name Mohammed--although that is an extremely interesting fact--but because Steyn dares to confront the appalling self-delusion that is rampant not only in France and Australia, but also among the Leftist intellectual elites here in the U.S.

We hear the term "self-delusion" quite a bit these days, but what does it really mean?

Engaging in "self-delusion" is the act of deceiving one's self about some aspect of reality.

Since this is exactly what I have been trying to address in the last several posts (here, here, and here for example), I thought I would make some observations on self-delusion. As I have noted in previous posts, we humans have quite a number of psychological strategies with which we are able to deceive ourselves about the external world.

Just a few examples to show what I mean by this:

- by using projection some very violent and angry people are able to convince themselves that they are working for peace and harmony.

- by using delusional projection some religious fanatics who behead innocent people are able to convince themselves that they are pure and holy, while" infidels" like Jews are monsters who "eat babies" and decend from "pigs and monkeys"

- by using displacement, some people are able to convince themselves that there is a devious plan to imminently replace our secular government with a Christian theocracy; while they are singularly unconcerned about religious fanatics actively waging war on the U.S. and the rest of the world trying to institute an Islamic theoracy.

- by using fantasy some people are able to convince themselves that these particular religious fanatics are reasonable and sensible people, amenable to negotiation

- by using denial some people are able to convince themselves that there is no such thing as Islamofascism and that the war on terror is just a political ploy by an administration they don't like to accumulate power.

- by using repression some people would like to eliminate all personal thoughts about 9/11 and wipe it from our collective consciousness

When dealing with well-defended people like this, one of the refrains commonly heard when you point out their defense to them, is that it is not they who are in denial about reality--it is you! It is not they who are projecting, it is you! It is not they who fail to see the danger, it is you!

You think you are living in a democracy but you are wrong, the members of this "reality-based" community say, we are living under fascism (see here, for example).

For them it is simply a matter of opinion whether or not a person is out of touch with reality; and their opinion is just as good as yours, thank you very much.

But let's examine that interesting perspective (usually they convey it with a sneer, as in: "That's just your opinion.")

Probably the first prerequisite for accusing someone of engaging in self-delusion is that one must accept that there is an objective reality, external and independent to one's self; one's beliefs or one's emotions/feelings. Without such a fundamental epistomological foundation, it is completely meaningless to accuse anyone of self-delusion, althought postmodern intellectuals do it all the time.

As they wallow in their preferred form of social subjectivism, it is perfectly "reasonable" (if that is the word) from their perspective to impute delusion to others--even if every time they do so, they effectively demonstrate the invalidity of their own philosophy. That is why it is so amusing to observe their appropriation of the term "reality-based community" -- when they don't believe in any reality except for their own emotions!

It gets excessively wearisome to constantly point out to them that there is a world that exists outside their heads and outside their emotions; and that the entire purpose of reason --which they reject in favor of feelings --is about understanding that world.

Their social subjectivism posits that our minds are disconnected from reality to begin with. How then is it possible for them to accuse anyone of "self-delusion"? One simply has a differing POV that is by their definition as real and true as anyone else's.

After all, that is the basis of the multiculturalism and the "politically correct" relativism that they persistantly espouse.

That is why I have some disgruntled commenters on my blog who insist that it is I who am projecting when I point out the anger and rage that is evident in the antics of many antiwar protesters; or the use of other psychological defenses as evidenced by people's behavior.

You see, they think they can get away with their interpretations simply because they don't have to deal with external reality --if they feel it, it must be true. In this case, the actual behavior of many antiwar demonstrators is the evidence in the real world that what they say they are for and how they actually behave are somewhat out of sync (assuming the usual meanings of the words "peaceful" and "tolerant").

This is pretty much the same way that a child who doesn't yet understand about causation or responsibility or even truth, is behaving when they angrily retort to someone who accuses them of something they don't want to take responsibility for ("you broke that lamp!" "No, you broke it!" "No, you did!") Those who do not believe in an external reality--or personal responsibility or truth --may freely accuse those with whom they disagree of the same kind of distortion and blindness.

How fortunate that most adults have developed cognitive capabilities that enable them to determine causation--even if a child (or another adult for that matter) doesn't understand the concept. A series of questions are asked and answered-- Who threw the ball that broke the lamp? Whose fingerprints are on the ball? What direction did it come from? Who was in the place where the ball was thrown; were there witnesses?-- and, in the example of the broken lamp, truth is fleshed out and responsibility assigned.

For all children--and sadly, many adults these days-- "reason" is nothing more than a creative process, and is disconnected from cognition or perception. As I have mentioned in previous discussion, children in particular, tend to use the more "primitive" psychological defenses, because their minds are not yet mature enough for optimal cognitive functioning.

As they grow and mature both physically and mentally, they do not need to lose that creative process that utilizes their emotions as perceptual tools -- they only need to learn to subordinate it to their cognitive faculties.

[Brief aside: Most artists, for example, depend on access to both faculties--emotion and cognition. One would never appreciate this with the high number of Hollywood actors and actresses who completely shun the cognitive process in favor of solely using their creative and emotional process in understanding the world. This is not usually important, except insofar as such individuals are looked up to and given almost godlike status. Nevertheless, they really only cause a lot of trouble when they try to make others accept their--shall we say--creative interpretations of reality? Truly brilliant artists who stand the test of time are exactly the ones who have subjugated their creativity to reason, and managed to bring forth a work of art that is meaningful to others, as well as themselves. If they cannot do this, they never amount to anything more than a second- or third-rate artist, irrespective of medium.]

Now, getting back to the concept of "self-delusion". When both sides are convinced that the other side is deluding themselves, it becomes extremely important that SOME ADULT SOMEWHERE examine the external reality and follow a process of reason to assess the truth.

Much as the Left (who as a group are heavily invested in the whole postmodernistic touchy feely thingy) would like to believe that they have exclusive rights to the truth, they have actually dealt themselves out of any contest for discovering truth by insisting that truth is relative. If it IS relative, they they must agree that I am as correct in what I think as they are.

OTOH, if truth is NOT relative, but exists outside of whatever one side or the other feels is true, then by all means, let's get down to the evidence which will prove which side is correct. I'm game.

Do you begin to see what a house of cards they have built for themselves? If truth is relative, then by their own standards, it is not possible for anyone to be self-deluded-- since self-delusion (they call it "emotional truth" ) is their only reality.

What is most laughable is that their entire way of dealing with the world is based on a fundamental self-delusion - the denial of external reality.

When you live in a world where objective reality is unacknowledged, is it any wonder that from your perspective noone can every prove that what you feel is true, isn't really true? That is why the same distortions and creative fabrications resurface time after time in political discussions these days. The entire "Bush lied about WMD" for example. No matter how many times this is debunked, it gets recycled by the reality-based deprived community. Or, take the case of the pathetic Mary Mapes, who continues to (religiously) adhere to the belief that the forged TANG memo represents truth and deny the reality of any facts to the contrary or to her fundamentally illogical position. Her behavior is entirely consistent with the philosophy that if you feels something is is true, it is true.

In other words, she is engaging in self-delusion.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 11:11 PM |

 
"Completely Clueless" is...
...synonymous with "Democratic Underground". John Hawkins has the evidence.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 6:05 PM |

 
WORK TO DO !
I have a busy day today; trying to catch up on some work that I've been putting off until my vacation and doing some holiday baking at the same time. I will be back blogging tonight.

Today, check out Michelle Malkin, Protein Wisdom, and Mudville Gazette.

Oh, and check this out, and while you are at it, please note the date. I don't know about you, but I'm shocked that the Clinton Administration allowed such a thing--did they think we were at war or something?

The answers to "NAME THAT PSYCHOLOGICAL DEFENSE" will be posted tonight.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 12:04 PM |

 
A NEW HITLER RISING
Baron Bodissey at The Gates of Vienna notes the eerie similarities.

Meanwhile, Congress would rather diddle around instead of working with a Republican administration to address this latest threat to civilization in the war on Islamofascism.

Roger Simon notes some big-time diddling around, as well as overt appeasement of the Iranian thugocracy.

UPDATE: Lest you think that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's denial and paranoia are a symptom confined to Iran, you might check out this MEMRI translation of a column by an Egyptian writer. This hatred of the Jews is rising again all over the Middle East, and it is getting more and more virulent. The UN is incapable of addressing the problem Interesting, isn't it, that the UN was founded after WWII for the precise purpose of preventing another Hitler and Holocaust? Now they are complicit in enabling a potential international conflagration that could make Hitler look like a piker.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 7:10 PM |

 
LET'S PLAY "NAME THAT PSYCHOLOGICAL DEFENSE" !

Having just posted a review of Psychological Defense Mechanisms, I came across this wonderful post by John Hawkins at RightWingNews, listing the top 10 quotes from the Democratic Underground. After reading them, I thought it would be fun to play a game of "NAME THAT DEFENSE!"

RULES: There can be more than one defense at work for each quote (that is the beauty of defenses--they are so multipurpose and handy!); If you need to review which defense is which, go to this post. Here we go! (Correct Answers will be posted tomorrow)

1. Republicans are) Pure Concentrated Evil. false christians filled with hate and fear who desire to put the world in bondage and extract all the value and profit they can from their spoils of their pillage. May they all suffer unfortunate doom.

a. PROJECTION
b. ALTRUISM
c. DISPLACEMENT
d. A & C
e. Hey! This guy is completely normal, Doc!

2. The Conspiracy Is Real And It Must Be Stopped. Now tell me again why "conspiracy theories" are out of bounds? If conspiracies don't exist, why are there federal laws against them, and laws against them in every state?

There most definitlely is a conspiracy in place, ongoing, that is transforming our country into a fascist oligarchy. The evidence is undeniable. And the Bush family is at the epicenter of it.

Bush's grandfather was a buddy of Hitler. Bush's daddy murdered JFK. That's the answer to the great mystery. No mystery at all. Why the f*ck was George H.W. Bush in Dallas that day. Hmm? Why can't he recall where he was? Bullsh*t.

Why are the Bush's best buddies the bloodthirsty oil-barons of Saudi Arabia -- Bandar Bush and all? Why were they buddies with Saddam Hussein. With the Iranian clerics? Even with Osama Bin Laden?

a. DELUSIONAL PROJECTION (Paranoia)
b. DISTORTION
c. HUMOR
d. INTELLECTUALIZATION
e. What? You mean what he says isn't true?

3. "Would the Republicans have Dean "rubbed out" if they perceive him as a real threat - by bringing the Democratic Party back to being in real competition to them? I'm convinced that is what happened to JFK - he was "terminated" so there would not be a Kennedy dynasty. In my opinion, the big-wigs in the Republican party are really, seriously dangerous. I worry about our guy."

a. PROJECTION (The Democrats themselves really want Dean "rubbed out")
b. PASSIVE AGGRESSION
c. DISTORTION
d. ANTICIPATION
e. This guy is just plain stupid.

4. "Will Karl Rove have to be suicided?

Once the election fraud comes out and it's clear Roves fingerprints are all over it, and that it leads all the way to Bush's desk, Bush's best defense will be a Rove "suicide" - remember the old maxim in politics - dead men tell no tales.
to tell."
If left alive, Rove would have too many tales to tell."

a. DELUSIONAL PROJECTION
b. FANTASY
c. ALTRUISM
d. PASSIVE AGGRESSION
e. Wishful thinking?

5. "no pride-- we should be ashamed of what they've (the troops in Iraq have) done...in our names, not proud of them. They've served as thugs and enforcers for a corrupt foreign policy. They've helped shatter a country already brought to it's knees by ten years of draconian sanctions and an invasion premised upon bald-faced lies. The've participated in a war of aggression that mocks international law. They've murdered untold numbers of innocent civilians. Their occupation has created an insurgency that threatens to consume Iraq in civil war, and causes the deaths of additional innocents. They have destroyed homes and lives for no good purpose whatsoever.

I am deeply ashamed of them. There is nothing noble about what they've done in Iraq. They have not served or defended us-- they served fascism.

a. DENIAL
b. REPRESSION
c. HYPOCHONDRIASIS
d. PROJECTION
e. He's a helpless victim of the Bush Administration! I would be ashamed, too!

6. "I was at the boiling point a long time ago. Back in January I prepared a safe room to hide GLBT people and Muslims and anybody else that needed to flee the fascism. I asked my relatives to seriously consider sending those not able to fight out of the country, elderly and young mothers. I was preparing. Then Schiavo hit and W**’s tumble began. I feel much better now but suspect that this bunch will not go peacefully and legally when their time comes.

I continue to employ passive resistance against them. I sense that civil unrest could develop around the 06 elections. This country is a tinder box of discontent and angst and the Repukes may want to incite violence so that they can declare martial law. I am watching for an “in your face move” such as a pardon or something more abhorrent. I stand with you, you do not stand alone. I have many relatives buried in Arlington. This is my country. I will defend the Constitution with my life if I must."

a. PASSIVE AGGRESSION
b. ANTICIPATION
c. REACTION FORMATION
d. HUMOR (unintentional)
e. This guy is a real patriot, Dr. Hitler!

7. (William Rehnquist)is going to be buried in Arlington Cemetery. I know where his grave is. I was visiting Arlington a couple years ago on a biz trip there. While walking among the headstones, I came across Rhenquist's, as his wife died in the 90's and was already buried there.

I actually marked it on a map so when I return someday I could go spit on his grave"

a. ACTING-OUT BEHAVIOR
b. DISPLACEMENT
c. FANTASY
d. SUBLIMATION
e. Naw, he's just letting off a little steam. He didn't mean it.


8. "i refuse kentuck i just refuse. why do you think the (American) people are so dumb because they have been being dumb down consistantly alst decade especially during bush time. i refuse and tell my children i refuse to allow them to be dumb down. they had better use their brain to follow me. i have high expectation,. i will not feed into the dumbing down of america. i tell my friends, exactly i expect more out of them, i especially tell my older nieces and nephews and their friends, i will not play their dumb down game

no no no"

a. PASSIVE AGGRESSION
b. DENIAL
c. PROJECTION
d. DUMBNESS
e. ALL OF THE ABOVE

9. "you see the dots, you're just not connecting them. If Zarqawi's actions benefits Bush, who do you think is directing him? if there even is a Zarqawi"

a. DENIAL
b. INTELLECTUALIZATION
c. DELUSIONAL PROJECTION
d. DISPLACEMENT
e. This guy is probably an academic Middle East expert.

10. On a helicopter with 9 American Blackwater employees in it being shot down in Iraq: Good. F*ck em. Live by the sword, go down in a Russian helo by the missile. Perhaps the rest of Blackwater will get slaughtered too, good riddance to bad sh*t.

a. PROJECTION
b. ACTING OUT
c. DISPLACEMENT
d. A, B, & C
e. Actually, this speaker is just a complete prick.

Correct Answers will be posted tomorrow!

UPDATE: 12/20/05 8:37 pm. As promised, here is my best take on the answers:

1. a- This is a perfect example of PROJECTION.
2. a- This is even more out of touch with reality and is DELUSIONAL PROJECTION (paranoia)
3. Either a or e could be correct.
4. Most likely b - FANTASY (they would love for this to happen)
5. While there is considerable PROJECTION (d) in this tale of woe, I also lean towards HYPOCHONDRIASIS (c) because of the whining aspect and identification with victimhood.
6. This speaker reeks of PASSIVE AGGRESSION (a) and/or REACTION FORMATION (c) - particularly the line, "I will defend the constitution with my life if I must" seems rather suspect in light of the earlier paragraph.
7. This could be either (a) ACTING OUT or (c) FANTASY
8. e - ALL OF THE ABOVE
9. This is an interesting combination of (b) INTELLECTUALIZATION and (c) DELUSIONAL PROJECTION
10. For this speaker, I'm inclined to say e - HE'S JUST A PRICK is probably the best answer (although, (d ) is also likely to be present).
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 5:58 PM |

 
PSYCHOLOGICAL DEFENSE MECHANISMS - A Review
Psychological defense mechanisms are psychological strategies used by individuals (and by extension--groups of indidivuals and even entire nations at times) to cope with reality and to maintain self-image intact.

A healthy person will use many different defenses throughout life, including immature and/or pathological ones. A defense mechanism becomes pathological when it is used persistantly and leads to maladaptive behavior that will eventually threaten the physical and/or mental health of the individual; or, when it distorts reality to such an extent that it puts an individual's life or health at risk.

Since all of the psychological defense mechanisms can be used by adults to adapt to life, the question becomes: When is a defense mechanism considered really "adaptive" and when is it considered "pathological"?

What we call "mental illness" is actually a manifestation of an individual's continued pathological adaptive response to events in his/her life. The following factors make a defense "pathological":

-the defense is used in a rigid, inflexible, and exclusive manner
-the motivation for using the defense comes more from past needs than present or future reality -the defense severely distorts the present situation
-use of the defense leads to significant problems in relationships, functioning, and enjoyment of life
-use of the defense impedes or distorts emotions and feelings, instead of rechanneling them effectively

The use of "mature defenses" generally allow people to channel negative or destructive feelings and/or behaviors into more socially appropriate types of behavior that bring pleasure to both the user and to the world at large.

Art can be a perfect example of the mature sublimation of negative emotions to create something that is beautiful, pleasurable, and/or compelling to experience. Art may also be a way to manifest destructive emotions-- in which case it may bring some temporary relief of those emotions, but rarely brings pleasure either to the artist or his audience. In the latter case, it is a less mature defense called acting-out rather than sublimation. Here is an example of art used as sublimation; and here is one of art as acting-out.

Here is a listing of some of the most common psychological defenses from the Psychotic defenses to Mature defenses:

Level 1 Defense Mechanisms (Psychotic) - Almost always pathological; for the user these three defenses permit someone to rearrange external reality (and therefore not have to cope with reality); for the beholder, the users of these mechanisms frequently appear crazy or insane. These are the "psychotic" defenses, common in overt psychosis, in dreams, and throughout childhood. They include:

Denial - a refusal to accept external reality because it is too threatening. There are examples of denial being adaptive (for example, it might be adaptive for a person who is dying to have some denial (EXAMPLE, EXAMPLE, EXAMPLE, EXAMPLE )

Distortion - a gross reshaping of external reality to meet internal needs (EXAMPLE, EXAMPLE, EXAMPLE)

Delusional Projection - frank delusions and paranoia about external reality, usually of a persecutory nature (EXAMPLE, EXAMPLE, EXAMPLE, EXAMPLE)

Level 2 Defense Mechanisms (Immature) - are seen frequently in adults and are common in adolescents. For the user these mechanism alter distress and anxiety caused by reality or other people; while for the beholder, people who use such defenses are seen as socially undesirable, immature, difficult and out of touch. They are considered "immature" defenses and almost always lead to serious problems in a person's ability to cope with the world. These defenses are seen in severe depression, personality disorders, and adolescence. They include:

Fantasy - tendency to retreat into fantasy in order to resolve inner and outer conflicts (EXAMPLE)

Projection - attributing one's own unacknowledged feelings to others; includes severe prejudice, severe jealousy, hypervigilance to external danger, and "injustice collecting". (EXAMPLE, EXAMPLE, EXAMPLE, EXAMPLE, EXAMPLE , EXAMPLE (remember that projection is a primitive form of paranoia, so it is common in today's world)

Hypochondriasis - the transformation of negative feelings towards others into negative feelings toward self, pain, illness and anxiety (EXAMPLE, EXAMPLE)

Passive Agressive Behavior - aggression towards others expressed indirectly or passively (EXAMPLE)

Acting Out Behavior - direct expression of an unconscious wish or impulse to avoid being conscious of the emotion that accompanies it (EXAMPLE, EXAMPLE)

Level 3 Defense Mechanisms (Neurotic) - are fairly common in adults. They can have short-term advantages in coping, but they often cause long-term problems in relationships, work, and enjoyment of life for people who primarily use them as their basic style of coping with the world. They include:

Intellectualization - separation of emotion from ideas; thinking about wishes in formal, affectively bland terms and not acting on them (EXAMPLE)

Repression - seemingly inexplicable naivete, memory lapse, or lack of awareness of physical status; the emotion is conscious, but the idea behind it is absent (EXAMPLE and, of course, Scarlet "I won't think about that today" O'Hara from Gone With The Wind)

Reaction Formation - behavior that is completely the opposite of what one really wants or feels (e.g, taking care of someone when what one really wants is to be taken care of; studying to be a pilot to cover-up being afraid to fly). Note - this can work in the short term as an effective strategy to cope, but will eventually break down. (EXAMPLE)

Displacement - separation of emotion from its real object and redirection of the intense emotion toward someone or something that is less offensive or threatening in order to avoid dealing directly with what is frightening or threatening (EXAMPLE, EXAMPLE, EXAMPLE, EXAMPLE, EXAMPLE)

Dissociation - temporary and drastic modification of one's personal identity or character to avoid emotional distress (EXAMPLE , EXAMPLE, EXAMPLE)

Level 4 Defense Mechanisms (Mature)- are common among most "healthy" adults and are considered the most "mature". Many of them have their origins in the "immature" level, but have been honed by the individual to optimize his/her success in life and relationships. Use of these defenses gives the user pleasure and feelings of mastery. For the user, these defenses help them to integrate many conflicting emotions and thoughts and still be effective; and for the beholder their use by someone is viewed as a virtue. They include:

Sublimation - transformation of negative emotions or instincts into positive actions, behavior, or emotion (EXAMPLE, EXAMPLE, EXAMPLES, art, sports, hobbies, or even one's choice of profession)

Altruism - constructive service to others that brings pleasure and personal satisfaction (EXAMPLE)

Suppression - the conscious decision to delay paying attention to an emotion or need in order to cope with the present reality; able to later access the emotion and accept it. (EXAMPLE)

Anticipation - realistic planning for future discomfort (EXAMPLE)

Humor - overt expression of ideas and feelings (especially those that are unpleasant to focus on or too terrible to talk about) that gives pleasure to others; (humor lets you call a spade a spade, while "wit" is actually a form of displacement) (EXAMPLE, EXAMPLE, EXAMPLE)

Research on the use of mature defenses (Level 4) has shown that they lead to:
1) excellent adjustment as an adult,
2) happiness(by self-report),
3) job satisfaction,
4) rich friendships,
5) fewer medical hospitalizations over life,
6) better overall health;and
7) a lower incidence of mental illness.

OTOH, use of immature Defenses (Levels 1, 2, 3) is related to:
1) poor adjustment as an adult,
2) higher divorce rates and marital discord,
3) poor friendship patterns,
4) higher incidence of mental illness,
5) greater number of sick leave days taken,
6) poorer health generally.

You can see from some of the examples of these defenses I have chosen, that defense mechanisms are not limited to individuals. Societies also sometimes need to protect their self-images and cope with events in the world. They need to explain why their society is failing; why the ideologies or religions they embrace aren't successful in relieving their misery; why they are not as important in the world as they feel they should be, etc. etc.

Societies, like individuals, can adopt mature defenses and deal with reality; or they can deny reality and look elsewhere for the source of their problems. Many countries, like individuals, prefer to put the blame for their own failures onto an outside source, since that is safer for the self-image. A "healthy" country, like a healthy individual will evaluate the facts and utilize mature defenses to cope with and change the situation they find themselves in. They are not afraid of their aggressive impulses because those impulses are reigned in by reason and not indulged in lightly. When necessary, healthy societies look inward. When necessary, they focus outward.

In a recent post I focused on the importance of psychological defenses in our lives:

I say this over and over, but it bears repeating: psychological defense mechanisms (which include some relatively primitive psychological responses like projection - the mechanism involved in most forms of racism, for example) are not diagnoses. The very dysfunctional ones might be conceptualized as a process of the psychological self that is somewhat similar to when the physical self experiences a fever.

A mild fever suggests that the body is coping with an intrusion into its physical defenses. Most often the fever itself becomes self-correcting, setting off a series of defensive actions that lead to a return to normal functioning. If the fever persists and becomes too high, it becomes a red flag that something serious might be going on and the underlying cause needs to be found.

It is likewise when the ego deploys a psychological defense (especially one that persists despite reality; or one that is severely dysfunctional and causes great problems in the person's life). We do not say that "fever" is a diagnosis. It is a symptom that when it doesn't go away makes us take action. A defense mechanism is also a symptom that suggests our psychological self is trying to cope with a disturbing reality. If an individual has insight and self-awareness (the ability to objectively observe and be conscious of one's own thoughts, feelings, and behaviors and their meaning), then the defense mechanism can even becomes a valuable tool with which to understand our own fears and prejudices - just as a fever becomes the red flag that leads us to look for an underlying problem.

Feel free to add your own examples in the comments if you think they are applicable.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 10:30 AM |

 
DEAD-ENDERS
Those who worship at the altar of multicultural tolerance and political correctness should take note that the subject of the following article is the inevitable intellectual and moral dead-end of their precious ideology.

Let us all be tolerant and sensitive to the feelings of genocidal cultures led by homicidal maniacs.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 10:22 PM |

 
RELEASE THE HOUNDS
The Iraqi elections last Thursday--which may well be considered the greatestAmerican foreign policy achievement in the last 10-12 years since the collapse of the USSR; vindicated in every way possible the difficult choices made by President Bush since September 11, 2001. Remarkably, they also highlighted the effectivenesss of this administration --despite much work which still needs to be done--in protecting America from another major terrorist attack.

Since that triumphant event a few short days ago, the American public has been subjected to the following:

- DENIAL - by the MSM and key Democrats about the significance of the Iraqi elections. When they were not ignoring it completely, the achievement was couched in the typical "Yes, but...." terms used by the self-destructive passive aggressive to undermine anything positive and accentuate everything negative.

- PARANOIA, DISTORTION with overtones of HYSTERIA : as extreme and completely unjustified accusations of "abuse of power" by the President --except of course, that the pissant Congress (including the Democrats) knew full well what was happening all along since they had been briefed on it from the beginning almost 4 years ago. AND they concurred. AND they knew it was well within the law and fully applicable to the war situation. Nevertheless, this did not prevent the Dems from jumping on the paranoid bandwagon and suggesting that we are imminently under a threat of a "police state".

- ACTING OUT BEHAVIOR : as a news organization that once, many years ago used to be the most respected in the media; deliberately and with malice aforethought completely disregard the national security interests of this country during a time of war in order to promote a book by one of their own. This is usually called high treason. and as rogue intelligence service deliberately seeks to undermine the executive branch of government by "leaking" classified information on supposedly "secret" detention centers (except that all the host countries knew full well about them, as did the Europeans who are "shocked, shocked".)

- PASSIVE AGGRESSIVE BEHAVIOR - as Dems launch the threat of a filibuster on the Patriot Act; thus resulting in no vote to extend its provisions. Rational people can argue about some of the provisions in this, but to eliminate it altogether is the act of a willful child, who wants to have his cake (security and protection from terrorism) and eat it too (thus making it easy for terrorists to operate freely in this country). The Republicans are even more to blame on this one.

- FANTASY: as the whole concept of torture is redifined and "compassionately" dumbed down in the middle of a war, when our enemy is the most violent, barbaric and fanatically uncivilized entity; having signed no international agreements and recognizing no limits to their own depraved and murderous behavior.

All of this has occurred within the last week. All of this DEMented behavior when we should be celebrating a great victory over the Islamofascist enemy and an triumph of the human spirit that was not believed possible a few short years ago. I will leave it to you to make your own conclusions about the motivations behind such incredibly destructive hysteria.

I feel like I am in the middle of some alternate universe, where the good is always made out to be bad; where distortion and paranoia rule; and where evil effortlessly triumphs.

In The Simpsons it is usually humorous as the aging, but still malevolent Mr. Burns turns toward Smithers and gleefully yells, "Release the hounds!" whenever some poor, unsuspecting individual upsets him. But in the cartoon, noone is ever really injured and even Mr. Burns' worse behavior always comes to naught.

The Left has indeed released the hounds; and they are wringing their hands with glee at all the destructiveness and rage that has been unleashed.

But, somehow, I can't bring myself to laugh at their undiluted hatred anymore. Life is not a cartoon, and there are consequences that we all will have to pay for their malice.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 8:01 PM |

 
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! This has been a week of rare idiocy (as always!). Calling all bloggers! Be sure to send in your entries to the Carnival, which will be posted every Sunday. Entries need to be in by 8 pm ET on Saturday to make their way into the list that week. Only one post entry weekly per blogger, please. Thanks for all the submissions. I use as many as possible!
SO MANY INSANITIES! SO LITTLE TIME!
***NEW*** Feel free to add your own insanities in Trackbacks to this post!
***NEXT WEEK WE WILL HAVE A SPECIAL "CHRISTMAS" EDITION OF THE CARNIVAL! If your Christmas post didn't make it in this week's, watch for it next week
*************
1. Trouble in a Communist paradise. Alert Hugo Chavez!

2. Yes, I can believe it.

3. Cell phones and terrorism. (hat tip: SC&A)

4. Now why would they do a thing like this? Usually they're totally preoccupied with corruption....

5. A foolproof nominee for this week's Carnival was recently observed leaving the solar system... (that happens a lot on Larry King!)

6. Behavioral patterns of the North American Tube Sock.

7. And this is newsworthy because....?? However, it might partly explain this.

8. Global warming from a Narnian perspective?

9. Mona Lisa: 83 percent happy, nine percent disgusted, six percent fearful and two percent angry.

10. Someone get this woman some help--quickly!

11. More proof that Nobel Prizes (in Literature and Peace, anyway) do not mean anything anymore, sadly. I expect this program will be nominated soon.

12. Congratulations to the Dhimmi winners! I don't understand why the lady in #10 wasn't nominated.

13. Judy Blume he wasn't. Dr. Seuss this isn't - I really like the "keep us safe" part (see #14)

14. Poor Zarqawi- with jihadis like these who needs enemies? But the MSM demonstrates once again which side they are on. Zarqawi should be proud of them, at least.

15. Waiting for just the right moment to actually have an idea!

16. This is clearly more of a national priority than any of these issues. Here's a good explanation of politics in a nutshell-- or how not to solve real problems.

17. If this new drug doesn't work, you can always try this one. (hat tip: Shrinkette)

18. The Iraqstreet Boys??

19. A mini-Carnival of Insanities for your reading pleasure!

20. WOW! There's a blog for everything ! Really!

21. The state of Idaho really likes this movie.

22. Definitely over the (lap)top !

23. Only in Academia! The oxymoron of the day: Participatory Dictatorship. Yeah, right. They dictate, you participate--or else.


Carnival of the Insanities can also be found at The Truth Laid Bear's ÜberCarnival.

***************************************

If you would like to Join the insanity, and add the Carnival of the Insanities button to your sidebar (clicking on it will always take you to the latest update of the Carnival), click on the "Word of Blog" below the button to obtain the html code:


- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 11:32 AM |

 
The Power of the Blogsphere?
Hmmmm. Somebody may have recently been surfing the internet to look for ideas on how to deal with the situation in Iran.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 6:40 PM |

 
SADDAM'S WMD vs MY DEATH-BY-CHOCOLATE-CAKE
In light of this interesting tidbit of information, I thought I would revisit the entire issue of Saddam's WMDs (and also because I will be busy today with Christmas preparation stuff!) and recycle two posts from early 2005. The Death-By-Chocolate Cake recipe should come in handy for you chocoholics during this Christmas and Hannukah season. More blogging (maybe) tonight!
*******************************************

It is probably a good time to refer you once again to Alpha Patriot's excellent roundup from last July of the WMD's that supposedly don't exist in Iraq. Why the press persists in pushing the delusion that no WMD's were found is beyond me. Why President Bush does not trumpet this information is also a mystery, since what is listed at the link are real, verifiable items that were found and are known.

I suspect it is a type of "concrete thinking" (see here) that is to blame for this situation; or possibly an unbelievable lack of imagination. Presumably, the skeptics expected to find nuclear missles conveniently lined up and pointed at the U.S. ; or warehouses of biological weapons with labels and detailed plans of how to distribute the stuff attached to each vial. Or maybe they even expected to find a written, signed confession by Saddam admitting that he had plans to develop and use whatever weapons he could find that would kill large numbers of people.

Or maybe, just maybe, no amount of evidence would ever convince some people that Saddam was a threat to the U.S. and the entire world and that he had the WMD's we saw him use and that he threatened to continue to use.

Let's use an analogy! Let's say that people in my neighborhood got together and voted (in the interests of neighborhood health) that I couldn't bake my "Death by Chocolate" cakes anymore (these cakes have been known to be lethally caloric). I reluctantly agree, and say I am complying with this order, but refuse to let anyone check by looking in my pantry for the key ingredients.

Finally, tired of being manipulated by me, and concerned that I might go ahead and bake one of those destructively high calorie cake things, my neighbors force their way into the house and find THAT I HAVE NO CAKE SITTING ON THE COUNTER WAITING TO BE EATEN! How foolish they were to doubt my word! How stupid they were to imagine I might be up to my old chocolate baking tendencies!

On the other hand, they discover while carefully going through my pantry that there are 2 boxes of devil's food cake mix; chocolate bars, hot fudge topping, cake pans, pudding mix, flour and sugar, mixing bowls and a number of other questionable items. They even find a recipe book which includes several variants on the "Death-by-Chocolate" Cake theme--muffins, breakfast loaf, etc. And, on top of that, they have a video showing me carrying a cake-like item out of the house the day before they barged in to verify my compliance with their silly order. They suspect that I took one of the cakes to work to share with my co-workers. I calmly refuse to tell them anything.

So what is the conclusion? That I had no pre-existing cake, waiting to be eaten? Or, that I had all the ingredients to make that cake at a moment's notice, despite my having said I wouldn't; and that I even made one just before they came to check, but had taken it somewhere else to eat?

I don't know about you, but I think if you conclude that I haven't been making my famous "Death-by-Chocolate" cake because one isn't sitting out on the counter for you to find, then you are more foolish than even I could possibly have imagined. BWAHAHAHAHA!

And for those of you who are interested, here's the recipe--just in time for the infidel holiday:

Death-By-Chocolate Cake (without WMDs!)

It's very simple to make and my family really likes it. I've been making it for several years now and probably originally got the recipe from some magazine, which one I've long forgotten (otherwise, I'd mention it). I prefer to eat it either unadorned, or with a high quality vanilla ice cream, but if you are a purist, you are free to use chocolate ice cream instead.

1/4 c. oil
2 eggs
1 1/3 c. water
1 chocolate cake mix (get your favorite--I like devil's food chocolate cake)

Mix the above ingredients by hand (do not use electric mixer). Pour into greased 9x11 inch pan. Sprinkle 12 ounces Semi-Sweet Chocolate Chips on top (I like Hershey's). Bake at 350 degrees for 30-35 minutes.

Cool about 5 minutes. Poke holes in cake (it should still be warm) and spread with 1 large jar of Smuckers Hot Fudge Topping. ENJOY
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 1:55 PM |

 
THESE ARE A FEW OF MY FAVE INFIDELS
Inspired by the National Review cover on the right, I would like to present Mr. Abu Musab Al Zarkawi singing "These Are a Few Of My Fave Infidels" (sung to the tune of "These Are A Few Of My Favorite Things") **

Congressman Murtha and Ms. Cindy Sheehan
ANSWER and MOVEON and Boxer and Dean
All those who buy what the NY Times sells--
These are a few of my fave infidels!

Nancy Pelosi and Georgio Clooney;
Moonbats and Lefties and all that are looney;
All those who protest with loud, angry yells--
These are a few of my fave infidels!

Feminist nazis and darling Code Pinkers;
Kerry and Kos and those other deep thinkers;
Secular nuts in their own little hells--
These are a few of my fave infidels!

When The Bush speaks,
When Iraq votes,
When I'm feeling sad;
I simply remember the the brave DNC
And then I don't feel so bad!

**Note to my long-suffering readers: I really promise I won't do any more of these for a while!! When I'm in a good mood they just come to me and I feel compelled to write them down. I'll enter a therapy program in 2006 to eliminate this horrible addiction.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 3:14 AM |

 
The Ulcer of Discontent
If you read nothing else today, read Victor Davis Hanson today. His is a voice of sanity and wisdom.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 6:41 PM |

 
THE DEMENTORS OF THE LEFT
I was in the process of writing a post on the dementors* of the Left (thanks to The Anchoress for giving me the idea - I hope she gets better soon!), when I came across this wonderful post by Gaghdad Bob at One Cosmos, "The Envy of the Left (or No Good News Goes Unpunished)":

What is critical--and so perverse--about envy, is that it is not an attack on "the bad" or frustrating, but a hateful attack on what is good. As a result, the psyche of such individuals confuses what is bad and what is good, and cannot experience a sense of gratitude toward the good, the sine qua non of happiness and mental health. The envious person does not want to have a relationship with the good object, but wants to be that object. If it cannot be the object, then it attacks it to eliminate the tension.

Yesterday was an instructive but disturbing case study in the many ways of envy. Here we had such wonderful news coming out of Iraq, but the left found a multitude of ways to devalue, attack, and "spoil" the news through their excessive envy--by ignoring it, by downplaying it, by qualifying it, and by completely assaulting it with near-psychotic delusions.

I went trolling around the darker precincts of the blogosphere yesterday in search of envious attacks on the good news, and they weren't difficult to find. These samples are mostly taken from dailykos and the Huffington website. Note the specific quality of infantile spoiling:

--"Both sides are participating in these elections to screw the other side and not for any real reason beyond that (although promises to end the occupation, even if lies, represent a tasty carrot)."

--"This is our last chance to leave on terms where we can still claim some marginal success. Because it's all downhill from here. It's the Joke of the Week. An inside joke that few seem to get."

--"Democracy isn't elections. Many a dictator has won an 'election' by overwhelming landslide."

--"This is precisely what BushCo want us to believe. Distract us from the violence and the deaths, of both U.S. and coalition forces and the Iraqi people, by staging these phony elections and giving us these photo ops."

--"Earlier this week, on Air America, I heard about a truck of ballots being intercepted on it's way from Iran. With Iran & the U.S. both wanting a desired outcome, I don't think it matters what the Iraqis want. Either Iran or the U.S. is going to win this election, votes be damned."

You simply must read the whole piece; and when you do, you will understand the nature of the Left in this country. They are the dementors; the suicide bombers who don't care even that they themselves will be destroyed as long as they kill others; the infantile, childish, perverse, destructive--the insatiably envious.

This "reality-based" community simply cannot tolerate the fact--not even when it is staring them in the face as it was yesterday in Iraq--that they are the ones completely out of touch with reality. They have become the foul creatures who delight in sucking anything positive out of the soul. They stand for nothing but destruction. They feed on it; they believe they will grow strong on it.

With the complicity of the MSM, these soul-less beings are determined that no good news will be unpunished. Their unrelenting attempts to ensure that this country is defeated in Iraq; and in the greater war on terror simply to undermine the current President and his administration is beyond belief. If I weren't witnessing it every single day, I would have a hard time believing that such insanity could be so pervasive in this wonderful country.

But the sad truth is that I cannot even drive down my own street without seeing the signs that say "Impeach Bush". I cannot go to a "Holiday" party and not hear the glee and enthusiastic response by many when some BDS-inflicted individual predicts that the Iraqis will "never be able to handle a democracy" or that the only reason we went to Iraq was "for the oil" --yes, they are STILL saying this blessed mantra. They are still saying that BUSH LIED. They are still saying that it was an ILLEGAL and UNJUST war. They are still saying that there is no such thing as terrorism and that the only fascism they see is the Bush administration.

They themselves have suffered the ultimate "kiss" of a dementor-like ideology. This ideology has sucked them dry and destroyed their own spirit; and now they too must go out and destroy all that is good and hopeful--lest it remind them that once, long ago, they had a soul.

Their envy is palpable. It is malignant and it is consuming them. But they don't care. They have convinced themselves that they stand for things like "peace" and "freedom" and "truth"--but they have really chosen to ally themselves to the side of darkness and despair, slavery and oppression, lies and distortions; and they can no longer even appreciate when a truly magnificent achievement takes place before their very eyes.

They only believe in empty words. The wondrous reality completely escapes them.


*Dementors - "Dementors are among the foulest creatures that walk this earth. They infest the darkest, filthiest places, they glory in decay and despair, they drain peace, hope, and happiness out of the air around them....Get too near a dementor and every good feeling, every happy memory will be sucked out of you. If it can, the dementor will feed on you long enough to reduce you to something like itself...soul-less and evil. You'll be left with nothing...." (from The Prisoner of Azkaban by J.K. Rowling)
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 5:50 PM |

 
WHAT TO DO ABOUT IRAN?
Charles Krauthammer today discusses the psychosis of Iran's president--and to get the most chilling effect, you must read the entire piece:

Lest you get carried away with today's good news from Iraq, consider what's happening next door in Iran. The wild pronouncements of the new Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, have gotten sporadic press ever since he called for Israel to be wiped off the map. He subsequently amended himself to say that Israel should simply be extirpated from the Middle East map and moved to some German or Austrian province. Perhaps near the site of an old extermination camp?

Except that there were no such camps, indeed no Holocaust at all, says Ahmadinejad. Nothing but ``myth,'' a ``legend'' that was ``fabricated ... under the name `Massacre of the Jews.'''

This brought the usual reaction from European and American officials, who, with Churchillian rage and power, called these statements unacceptable. That something serious may accrue to Iran for this -- say, expulsion from the U.N. for violating its most basic principle by advocating the outright eradication of a member state -- is, of course, out of the question.

The question is, what to do about Iran: its genocidal maniac president; its lunatic mullahs; and, of course, its soon-to-be-operational nuclear weapons program?

While Europe has diddled around, even the Iranian regime's lying reassurances that its nuclear program was strictly "peaceful" has gone by the wayside. The Iranians see clearly that they needn't bother to reassure people who are willfully blind, particularly since Europe isn't going to do anything about it even if they opened their eyes.

While the UN and its chief appeaser negotiator bask in the glowing warmth of the entirely meaningless Nobel Peace Prize; they can rest assured in the knowledge that, because of their institutional incompetence and fundamental stupidity, the world teeters closer toan Iranian-style armageddon. Always put off to tomorrow what you can't blame the US for today.

I suspect that both Europe and the UN intend to leave the dirty work to Israel--that way they can have their cake and eat it too. By that, I mean that these courageous international leaders can continue to pretend that Iran is peaceful; or that they are even reasonable, in order to justify not doing anything themselves to upset the mullahs; while at the same time they can freely able to point any finger of blame at Israel--whether it is successful in destroying the Iranian nuclear program (the ideal situation) or not. In either case, Israel will not generate any feelings of gratitude in the world community, but will continue to be the world's beloved scapegoat.
Much has been made about the fact that the Iranian nuclear program is hidden and well-protected; and that there is no hope of a single strike that would "take out" facilities there (the way Israel once did with Iraq and Saddam).

But here are a few modest suggestions:

- Is there a reason why the US cannot arrest Ahmadinejad the next time he is in New York--particularly since there is every reason to believe he was involved int he Carter-era Iranian hostage taking of Americans. He needs to be held responsible for that criminal act. His arrest would definitely stir things up and that might not be a bad thing if the Iranian death star is not yet fully operational. Why not?

- Sherlock Holmes once wanted to find out where someone had cleverly hidden something he needed. He correctly reasoned that if it was something precious to the individual who hid it, that when threatened, the first thing they would do is to check and make sure it was still intact. Such a strategy could be very efficient.

- There are other targets besides the nuclear weapons facilities that--if taken out--would effectively neutralize such facilities; e.g., certain religious persons.

- There are other targets besides the nuclear weapons facilities that are precious to the President of Iran and if taken out would further destabilize him (clue: one of them is mentioned in Krauthammer's piece). Mentally destabilizing him before Iran becomes capable of using nuclear weapons would be better than after.

- There is a strong freedom movement in Iran, which, given the chance (and enought firepower) could make a change in leadership possible. It would seem that practically anyone else in the position of power would be a better bet for, not only the Iranians, but the rest of the world.

I'm only a blogger (and hence can say some things that the State Department would be unlikely to say), but it seems to me (to quote a well-known source) that "the time has come; the time is now; ; [Iran's nuclear capabiltiy] must go go go; we don't care how." It is really that simple, and even those who habitually put their hands over their eyes and refuse to look at what disturbs them, are able to at least smell the stench of mortal danger that emanates from that country.

And, I concur with Mark from Mexico in suggesting that, whatever is done should be "appropriately lethal." AMEN

UPDATE: Sigmund,Carl&Alfred link to a video demonstrating how Hizbollah has been inspired by the antics of the President of Iran.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 1:27 PM |

 
Listen To Your Grandmother
The old saying, "If you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all" would indeed seem to apply here; but if they really believed in the truth of that grandmotherly admonition, then they would never be able to say anything about anything at all....

And wouldn't that be a pleasant change?
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 11:37 AM |

 
THE COUNCIL HAS SPOKEN !
This week's winners in the Watcher's Council are now posted at the Watcher of Weasels. Every week the Council nominates posts from the blogs of the Council members, and posts from around the blogsphere. The Council then votes to select the "Best" of all these posts. I'm proud to have been selected two weeks in a row for the honor of Best Council Post! Congratulations to all the other winners.

BEST COUNCIL POSTS:

First Place

America's Kids and Two Days of Infamy The Education Wonks

Second Place

George W New World Man

BEST NON-COUNCIL POSTS:

First Place

An Open Letter Silent Running

Second Place

Living Tribute Florida Cracker

Be sure to check out all the winners at the Watcher's site. It makes for great weekend reading!
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 10:04 AM |

 
HERE'S TO FREEDOM !


Raise a purple finger for Freedom!




UPDATE: The Officer's Club takes a look at the trivialization of the Iraqi elections. Betsy notices an interesting omission; And Scrappleface headline: Iraqis Vote in Droves, Bush Awaits Concession Call!

And finally, John Kerry, who continues to find novel and ingenious ways to express his malignant narcissism (and thoroughly disgust me in the process) is currently pacifying his loser leftist friends (and probably his wife) with talk of impeachment. That this appalling excuse for a human being (and I don't say that lightly) has any credibility after his treasonous behavior in two separate wars, is a testament to the lunacy of American politics. No matter how many times he is appropriately squashed, the man springs back like a the political cockroach he is.

TODAY'S NEWSFLASH to John Forbes Kerry - YOU LOST (again). THE IRAQIS WON.

UPDATE: Some Democrat-type sites deplore the lack of a sense of humor of some bloggers who actually took Kerry seriously--he was joking! It is a legitimate point, but then I'd like to ask them where all the signs saying "Impeach Bush" on people's lawns in Ann Arbor suddenly sprang from? There is a joke in here somewhere, I'm sure. We just probably don't agree on what--or who--it is.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 1:14 PM |

 
TRUE COLORS OF THE LEFT
In a comment on this post, we can see revealed the true feelings that the Left have toward the professsionals in the U.S. Military services, who have taken on the responsibility of defending freedom for all of us. They normally hide these feelings underneath the cloak of "compassion" and "peace" and general caring about humanity. And, of course, their "bring the troops home" and "not another mother's son" is all a carefully constructed smokescreen to disguise their hatred of all things military. But sometimes, that unfiltered hatred and contempt comes shining through without all the usual trappings of their superior intellect. In response to a comment that suggested that military personnel were proud to serve and that it dishonored them to suggest that their sacrifices were useless or meaningless, this diatribe was posted:

Dishonor the soldiers?

There's an inherent honor in joining an organization that must destroy free will and independent thought in order function properly?

Sorry to disillusion you chumps, but striving to be a drone among thousands of other drones doesn't, by any logic, seem honorable does it? It seems like the the sort of endeavor that would appeal to the insecure and incompetent--Not able to go it on their own in life. Need the group identity and all that... I've known plenty of dedicated soldiers and they do have a tendency toward imbecility.

I was just reminding you that your moronic sentimments about the laughable undertaking in Iraq, and 'supporting our troops,' is actually supporting the sacrificing of these revered (by you) young people for a highly questionable cause.

For myself, I see it as a handy sort of Darwinism. We're overpopulated anyway. But the army is undermanned--I'm sure everyone who responded could come to such terms with local recruitment officers that you all could ship out within a few months and go help spread freedom. What's keeping you? Are you homosexuals? Or just dispensers of bullshit and cowards?

Besides displaying a profound lack of understanding about the military (what else is new for the Left? They don't care enough to even try to understand this particular "culture"--which of course, has no place in their "multicultural" utopian paradise); this is pure, unadulterated and unvarnished prejudice and bias--with obvious overtones of hate and bile. I am sure that all on the Left agree that it must be a sign of serious mental illness.

Without making any diagnosis, however, I can say with absolute certainty that this individual certainly captures the spirit of projection, paranoia and denial that is so pervasive in today's Left and clearly demonstrates the Left's true colors. I once referred to those colors as a "rainbow hypocrisy." The irrational and hysterical prejudice against all aspects of the military is simply another of many examples of the intellectual and moral bankruptcy of many on the Left, who sincerely cheer and support people like Tookie Williams and Saddam Hussein even as as they call Arnold Schwarzenegger a murderer and refer to our troops as "terrorists".

In the real spirit of Darwinism, I can only hope that this friendly and compassionate commentor has not managed to reproduce himself/herself. If such is the case, then s/he may continue to live free without any interference from me.

S/he may also continue to dispense bullshit and be all the coward s/he can be.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 10:01 AM |

 
AHHHHH, INSIGHT !
This is what happens when you break out of your self-imposed template, and actually take a look at reality:

Think about everything you’ve heard about the conditions in Iraq, the role of U.S. forces, the multi-layered complexities of the war.

Then think again.

I’m a journalist. I read the news everyday, from several sources. I have the luxury of reading stuff newspapers don’t always have room to print. I read every tidbit I could on Iraq and the war before coming.

Everything I thought I knew was wrong.

Maybe not wrong, but certainly different than the picture in my head.

I liken it to this; It was real struggle for me to choose to see the Harry Potter movies. I had read the books and loved the pictures I had in my mind of the details I read. I didn’t need to see a movie; I had a movie playing in my head of exactly how I perceived the stories.

I had similar notions about Iraq, Mosul, the war and what exactly soldiers do. And it was handily shattered like glass today by a group of soldiers, half of them younger than myself.

There are houses of this city that by Fairbanks standards are luxurious. Or at least they were at one time. They are ornate and gated and in neighborhoods with schools, stores and mosques. They are also ghosts of what they once were. They are still lived in, but after years of war and lack of many basic municipal services, the houses look spent and tired around the shutters.

There is garbage on the streets, in yards, in open areas. There is a stench. There is grime. But there are also people.

They are vivid, unlike their surroundings. They are excitable and friendly and conversational. They live in conditions I hope I don’t have to experience in my own life. Yet, if my neighborhood saw two wars, the breakdown of the national and local governments and decline of municipal services, I’m not sure I wouldn’t be in the same boat.

I still haven’t seen U.S. troops engaged or encounter car bombs or explosives. But I did see them play backgammon with some local police and Iraqi soldiers. I saw them take photos with more locals and make jokes mostly lost in translation. They gave advice and expertise to local troops on how to conduct a neighborhood patrol. They drank the local customary tea, and many admitted they’ve become addicted to it. They know several locals by name. I didn’t hear one slight or ridicule of a very distinct culture. One soldier mentioned it might be a good idea to clean up the trash around one polling place, and another commented on the status of women in the culture, but they were nothing but respectful, friendly and buddy-buddy with the Iraqis they mingled with today.

And this is good stuff.

More than anything in the last few days I’ve heard from soldiers and commanders that people back home don’t quite get it. They don’t see the real picture. They don’t get the real story. Some of them, like Lt. Col. Gregg Parrish, look seriously pained in the face when he says only a part of the picture is being told; the part of car bombs and explosives and suicide bombers and death. It’s a necessary part of the picture, but not a complete one, he says.

Read it all.

Ahhhh, insight! It's amazing what facing reality can do for your perspective.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 10:08 PM |

 
WE WIN, THEY LOSE
The day before the Iraqi vote, Mohammed at Iraq the Model says:

Tomorrow it’s going to be us who decide and I can feel the greatness of the responsibility because the result will draw the shape of our future and will determine how long it will take till we can announce victory in this war; our war against the past, against the past’s illusions and the past’s mistakes; with our hands we can make this war last shorter… with our own choices.

One year ago we wanted to defeat terror and the shadows of dictatorship and tell them that we are not willing to go backwards and that we’re ready to build a new Iraq where the people choose their representatives…
The choice didn’t matter then as much as voting itself did; all we wanted to do was to go and cast our votes regardless of the choices we made.

Yesterday we were sitting together with our friends talking and discussing our points of view. We found that our ambitions are way bigger than the mere idea of voting or practicing our right to elect, now we feel that our votes are a responsibility and a heavy one.
We are hesitant and worried about our choices and maybe the opinion polls results that we’ve seen-or at least from what I hear from people I meet-indicate that there’s a higher percentage than normal of people who haven’t made up their mind yet on who to vote for.

Me and my friends were sitting discussing “who’s best for Iraq?” and the reasons on which each one of us based his/her opinion. I was seeing a drastic change in the sense of the historic responsibility we shoulder.
I see my friends call their friends and acquaintances encouraging them to vote for this candidate or that list and putting effort in convincing them with this or that idea.

In a matter of one year questions and answers changed a lot; less than a year ago the question was “will you vote?” But now the question is “who are you going to vote for?”
We are making progress, definitely we are!

Meanwhile the peripatetic and chronically depressed Senate Minority Leader, Harry Reid said in his usual bland monotone that [the president] "is still not focused on what needs to be done in convincing the American people and showing the American people what his plan is in Iraq."

He wants timetables, timelines, measurable outcomes; powerpoint bullets; and all the other bureaucratic accoutrements that are the hallmark of official bulls***. Having worked for the Federal Government for far too many years in the past, I am perfectly aware of the the complete uselessness of these time-wasting and completely fantasy-driven types of documents that appease the bureacrats and managers, but have nothing to do with reality. They are about as useless as....as a Democrat in wartime.

I will leave it to the commanders and the men and women on the ground to develop the specific tactics necessary to achieve victory. Those tactics are never condensable to a powerpoint presentation with its pretty bullet charts and timelines; since in the real world they must be adaptable, flexible and proactive depending on the situation on the ground.

As far as our overall strategy, we should simply adapt President Reagan's well-known strategy for victory in the the Cold War, to the Iraq War and the GWOT: "WE WIN, THEY LOSE" . We also need to remember another profoundly true point made by Reagan: "No arsenal, or no weapon in the arsenals of the world, is so formidable as the will and moral courage of free men and women."

And as the Iraqis have already demonstrated twice before and will demonstrate again tomorrow: WE ARE WINNING.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 8:31 PM |

 
IT WILL ALWAYS BE A HOPELESS QUAGMIRE FOR SOME...
As proof of this, I cite the neverending press negativism about Iraq from Media Reality Check and practically anything said on the subject from instant hero John Murtha (never heard of him before his famous hopeless remarks about VietnamSomalia Iraq) and the usual Democratic knights who say NIE.

...So, I dedicate this song to the pessimists, doomsayers, the Looney Left and all the negative and hopelessly depressed Democrats.

NOT GETTING BETTER (EVER)

(Sung to the tune of "Getting Better" by the Beatles)

It's fun to get mad at the Prez
And trash everything that he says
He's holding us down, making us frown
We'd rather have Hugo Chavez!

We'll never admit it's getting better
Here at home or in Iraq
We'll never admit it's getting better
Until we get the White House back.

We used to be happy, you see
But now we're the knights who say NIE
Iraq gets to vote
But we really hope
That noone pretends they are free.

We'll never admit it's getting better
We stand for nothing and have no plan
We simply hate to admit it's getting better
And we hate that we lost and now he's the boss
And we'll thwart him as much as we can.

We'll never admit it's getting better
Here at home or in Iraq
We'll never admit it's getting better
Until we get the White House back.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 9:50 AM |

 
THE SAME WAVELENGTH
A spirited 70 year old Iraqi woman has voiced my sentiments exactly:

"Anyone who doesn't appreciate what America has done in Iraq ... what President Bush has done ... can go to hell."

I am just too polite to say it myself.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 12:45 AM |

 
We Are Approaching A Moment....
Hugh Hewitt comments on the coming showdown with Iran and its not-so-secret-plans to wipe Israel off the map:

On March 7, 1936, "a small token of German troops paraded across the Rhine bridges at dawn...and entered the demiliterized zone," wrote William Shirer in The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich. "As [General] Jodl testified at Nuremberg, 'Considering the situation we were in, the French covering army could have blown us to pieces.'"

"It could have," concluded Shirer, "and had it, that almost certainly would have been the end of Hitler."

We are approaching such a moment.

All Things Beautiful is also concerned that a confrontation is coming and discusses the metastaticizing cancer of Iran.

...if we do not help Israel stop Iran from going nuclear, it will be the last Chamberalinean move we will get to make.

And finally, Solomon2 thinks that--in addition to the saber-rattling of Iran's president towards Israel--that there is a media war being waged against the Jewish state.

There is no way to predict with any certainty what the future will be. But we cannot passively wait for the reason-impaired president of Iran to see the "light" and hope that he is only joking about his plans for dealing with Israel. A moment is fast approaching when a decision will have to be made about how to deal with Iran--and no matter what the enlightened journalists or members of the Left say, the problem is not Israel.

Israel wants nothing more than to be left in peace by its neighbors. But its neighbors cannot deal with the shame they feel about either the mere presence of a Jewish state in the Middle East, or the incredible economic success of that state compared to their own oppressive economies.

The Palestinian issue could have been solved two decades ago, if the Palestinians wanted it solved; and if the other countries of the Middle East wanted it solved. The truth is that Israel is the only country that desires peace. And they are surrounded by countries that would prefer a different "final solution."

The thought of any of those countries controlled by the "religion of peace" possessing nuclear weapons is absolutely bone-chillingly frightening. Is there anyone who has paid attention for the last 20 years --or even the last few weeks--who could doubt the purpose of those weapons?

Who do you trust? And if you reply that you trust Iran; or the PLO; or the UN; or even the anti-Israeli Media; ---then the moment in which we could change history has already passed yet again; and we might as well proceed to the beginning of the next holocaust.

Because it is coming. And we have been warned.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 7:25 PM |

 
Listen Up, Dowd
The Anchoress has some really really good advice for Maureen Dowd. And if Maureen doesn't take it, I'll know she has been spending her time reading and taking tips from the book mentioned in my previous post.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 2:24 PM |

 
THE IDIOT"S GUIDE TO VICTIMHOOD - Getting It and Keeping It
Neo (that's her new nickname, I understand!) speculates on the way the minds of people like Bianca Jagger and Ramsey Clarke operate. She correctly concludes that they consider "victimhood" the key quality deserving of their attention and pity. This is in part because they have an intense narcissistic need to see themselves as "champions of the oppressed", hence the constant need to find and maintain an oppressed class of people to champion.

It particularly seems to help their egos if those they champion are, what I would call "undeserving victims" (just like Alfred P. Doolittle's "undeserving poor")-- they have needs as great as the most deserving of victims; in fact, their needs are even greater!

The following excerpts are reprinted in its entirety without permission, from Worlwide Victimhood, Inc. (WWV) a wholly owned subsidiary of Dr. Sanity Enterprises, a multinational conglomerate (just kidding!):

A SHORT COURSE ON HOW TO BE A VICTIM

Chapter I: THE ADVANTAGES OF VICTIMHOOD

This brief guide is for those searching for an expedited pathway into the exalted status of Victimhood. Becoming a victim --as we all have learned from famous TV stars, prominent politicians; religions, races, and even nations--is an advantageous state of being in many ways, several of which are:

-You are not responsible for what happened to you
-You are always morally right
-You are not accountable to anyone for anything
-You are forever entitled to sympathy
-You are always justified in feeling moral indignation for being wronged
-You never have to be responsible again for anything

As you can see, these are some heavy-duty privileges; and they are not given to just anyone. This list is not exclusive. There are many benefits of Victimhood; and in our current society, new rewards are continuously being discovered! You, too, may be someone who blazes a new path for future victims!

The badge of victimhood must be "earned" (ha ha, just kidding!) by one of two methods: (1) Membership in a special "victim" class; or (2) having something bad actually happen to you. Method 1 is definitely is superior in every way since it eliminates the need for something bad to actually happen to you (as long as it once happened to someone like you--you are set); thus this method is preferable and automatically puts all sorts of celebrities and famous people on your side. They will not be concerned if you are a good person or a bad person; just as long as you meet the basic victimhood criteria.

You are probably tempted to ask what that basic criteria is for most famous people to support you? Here is a tip (keep it under your hat): most famous people--especially undeserving famous people (i.e., people who are famous not for any particular talent they have, but because they might have a good publicist, for example) have an intense need to feel that they are "champions of the oppressed." This relieves them of the pervasive feelings of guilt under which they must function. Hence, all you have to do is to convince them that you are "oppressed" by one of a number of usual "oppressors", and you are home free!

Here is a handy list of possible oppressors that can be used by almost anyone searching for victimhood status:

- caucasian, heterosexual males
- Republicans (either male or female)
- conservatives (either male or female)
- businessmen or women (commonly referred to as "little eichmanns")
- capitalists
- rich people
- Christians (particularly Republican or conservative)
- the U.S. Military (all services)
- Americans (as a general group)
- Israelis (Jews)

Note: This list is not exhaustive, but it is a good place to start if you are pursuig victimhood for fun and profit.

Chapter II: THE BADGE OF VICTIMHOOD

Victimhood is automatically conferred if you are a member of one or more of the following groups:

- An underrepresented race (whoever is in the minority--the majority are barred from victimhood)
- An underrepresented gender(males are prohibited from victimhood)
- An underrepresented sexual orientation (heterosexuals are not allowed to be victims)
- A nation without land (e.g., Palestinian)
- Any nation the U.S. has a disagreement with
- A religion stuck in the Middle Ages (e.g., Islam)
- A person in jail (your crime is immaterial, but the worse the crime, the better)

Other individuals or groups may petition for Victimhood if they meet the following criteria:

- The Liberal Media confers it on them
- You appear on talk shows and spill your guts about some distasteful event that happened to you
- You use drugs or alcohol but get into treatment after you get in trouble
- You find God after you get in trouble
- You are very sorry for your reprehensible behavior or actions and have a reputable person to blame for why you did it (President Bush is always a good choice, but any parental figure--even God-- will do)
- If you are a nation or religion, it is always safe to be a victim of the Jews
- If you are incompetent at your job and unable to get ahead it is generally due to someone else's behavior; or it might be due to Adult Attention Deficit Disorder-- either way works.
- If you haven't achieved your proper level of power in the world (even if you are a dictator, surprisingly) you could be a victim of American foreign policy
-If you have economic problems, it is likely you are a vicitm of Capitalism (remember, that socialism, communism, fascism, and other ideologies are completely off the hook since they proactively blame Capitalism for all the problems of the world)
-If you are addicted to ANYTHING, you are likely to be a victim!
-If your feelings are hurt by someone--either intentionally or unintentionally-- you are a victim (call our toll-free number above if you have any questions, but most Universities have special policies that cover you)
- If you can attract Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Ramsey Clark, or Bianca Jagger to your cause, you are, by definition, a victim! Case closed!

Having something bad actually happen to you is the second method of achieving Victimhood. However, as mentioned in Chapter 1; it is a much less direct method than the methods listed above and is not recommended.

Why, you might ask? Simple! Waiting around for something bad to actually happen to you is an extremely inefficient way of becoming a victim. After all, you cannot control when or where natural disasters occur. Statistically, other disastrous events (e.g., lightening striking; plane crashes; etc.) do not occur frequently enough to be reliable. And it is important to note that many people who suffer victimhood in this natural way will eventually get on with their lives! And that is the LAST THING YOU ACTUALLY WANT TO DO! Remember the most politically correct type of Victimhood is the kind you can inflict on yourself! Be professional! Our motto at WorldWide Victimhood, Inc. is "Take Control of Your Victimhood!".

IMPORTANT NOTICE: If you are lucky enought to already be a member of an approved victim group AND something bad happens to you (e.g., a hurricane or other natural disaster) well, that is, as we say in the biz, the best of all possible worlds (assuming, of course, that you survive the experience). Then you are a victim twice-over, and entitled to what we will refer to as the Platinum Club victimhood membership rewards. (Discussed in a Chapter yet to be written).

Chapter III : HOW TO EFFORTLESSLY MAINTAIN YOUR VICTIM STATUS

Here are a few helpful strategies to maintain your prized Victimhood status in spite of all efforts to placate, apologize to; help, or support you.

- Resist Resist Resist taking any responsibility for your own behavior. It can always be made to seem like someone else is at fault
- Have a ready list of other people, nations, religions, groups etc. to blame for your situation and do not accept help from those on your list
- Constantly demand your rights
- Use the medium of Television to tell your story as often as possible; however, any member of the media (print, TV, radio) is usually supportive of your goals and will work with you to best frame your victimhood to elicit optimal sympathy.
- Did I mention that you must NEVER take any responsibility for your own behavior? If I did, it is because it cannot be mentioned too often.
- Play up the victim's position of enhanced moral authority. Weep about your plight whenever possible. Do nothing to make things better.
- Become a spokesperson or a media darling for any of the groups who make up International A.N.S.W.E.R.
- Make commercials for Moveon.org; or at least let them use your story to explain how oppressive one of the oppressor groups listed in Chapter 1 are.

When using any of the above strategy, make sure you ACT like a victim--crying, whining, using anger effectively--all these can enhance other's perception of your Victimhood

NEVER take any steps to improve your situation--that way is the OPPOSITE of true, enlightened Victimhood.

Frequently going to see a psychiatrist or mental health professional can improve your Victimhood credentials (and you can apply the other strategies to resisting therapy to change); Other medical professionals are also useful in this regard, and a side benefit is that YOU CAN SUE THEM LATER if you don't like what they say; thus insuring further victimization!

Suicidal gestures are VERY helpful and can garner much sympathy. It is noteworthy that even large groups can use this strategy by encouraging suicidal behavior (or even homicidal behavior--which is counterintuitive, but fortunately often true!) on the part of the most vulnerable of their members (e.g., children or teens are good choices)

As you can see, there are many paths to Victimhood. Keep your head up and really look around for opportunities. One group in particular deserves special mention for their unfailing and extraordinary efforts at maintaining and feeding their Victimhood for decades. I am speaking of course, about the Palestinians. Through their previous president, Yasser Arafat, they creatively resisted worldwide attempts to ease them gently from their role of victim. Their efforts have inspired many others --especially people and nations in the Middle East. But the Palestinians are, without a doubt the Gold Medal Winner of our WorldWide Victimhood, Inc. Annual Awards. Note how, their current president has just provided lifetime benefits to those lucky enought to be members of the family of a suicide bomber! This deserves its own unique award as it represents extraordinarily creative efforts in the annals of victimhoodology.

We at WWV, Inc. encourage all of you potential victims out there to watch and learn from real professionals. They are out there--everywhere you are--and their example can be an inspiration to strive for failure and achieve nothing in Life but to make others pay for their sins against you.

************END EXCERPT******************

DR. SANITY DISCLAIMER: To all those real victims out there, who are struggling to overcome diseases; recover from disasters and events; and move beyond those traumas that have temporarily and painfully interrupted your lives--I heartily salute you and in no way aim to denigrate your efforts. Taking responsibility for your life will empower you and enable you to grow beyond whatever you have experienced. May you always rise above what Life has presented to you and exceed all expectations--even your own.

UPDATE: Additional information and tips on calculating the level of victimhood (called the "PC factor") for the victimhood-seeking individual can be found here.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 9:21 AM |

 
Iraqi Elections
Keep checking over at Iraq the Model this week, as the Iraqi elections take place. He is posting frequent updates. The voting has already begun today, and there should be a lot interesting information you won't see in the MSM (what else is new). Gateway Pundit is also keeping close watch on events.

Kudos to the Iraqis, who have definitely earned a joyful celebration of dancing as they assume all the rights and privileges of a free society.

UPDATE: Sorry about the links!! They're fixed now. I don't know what I was thinking!
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 1:00 AM |

 
WHO SAYS THERE WAS NO IRAQ - AL QAEDA CONNECTION ?
I really liked the part of President Bush's speech today at the World Affairs Council (a private, non-profit, non-partisan educational organization in Philadelphia), when he reminded us of Osama Bin Laden's 1998 Fatwa. Here is what Bin Laden said in that document:

No one argues today about three facts that are known to everyone; we will list them, in order to remind everyone:

First, for over seven years the United States has been occupying the lands of Islam in the holiest of places, the Arabian Peninsula, plundering its riches, dictating to its rulers, humiliating its people, terrorizing its neighbors, and turning its bases in the Peninsula into a spearhead through which to fight the neighboring Muslim peoples.

If some people have formerly debated the fact of the occupation, all the people of the Peninsula have now acknowledged it.

The best proof of this is the Americans' continuing aggression against the Iraqi people using the Peninsula as a staging post, even though all its rulers are against their territories being used to that end, still they are helpless. Second, despite the great devastation inflicted on the Iraqi people by the crusader-Zionist alliance, and despite the huge number of those killed, in excess of 1 million... despite all this, the Americans are once against trying to repeat the horrific massacres, as though they are not content with the protracted blockade imposed after the ferocious war or the fragmentation and devastation.

So now they come to annihilate what is left of this people and to humiliate their Muslim neighbors.

Third, if the Americans' aims behind these wars are religious and economic, the aim is also to serve the Jews' petty state and divert attention from its occupation of Jerusalem and murder of Muslims there.

The best proof of this is their eagerness to destroy Iraq, the strongest neighboring Arab state, and their endeavor to fragment all the states of the region such as Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Sudan into paper statelets and through their disunion and weakness to guarantee Israel's survival and the continuation of the brutal crusade occupation of the Peninsula.

In fact, if you read the entire paranoid rant, you will discover that one of the major justifications of the fatwa was Iraq. In Bin Laden's mind, the "aggression" against the Iraqi people after the 1991 war that contained Saddam and freed Kuwait from his invasion; gave him the right to order the indiscriminate murder of Americans.

As Bush so appropriately commented in his speech today (I'm paraphrasing and when I get a link I'll put it up), "It is Bin Laden and his followers who are inflicting devastation and ruthlessly killing and oppressing the people of Iraq."

No connection, huh?

UPDATE: Still no link, but look what the MSM considers the most important part of Bush's speech (this actually was spoken in a Q&A period after the speech). Typical.

UPDATE II: Here is another link to an article about the speech. It again emphasizes the death count of Iraqis; the allegations of abuse in Iraqi prisons, and makes these snide comments:

Bush needs a relatively smooth showing during Thursday's elections in Iraq to hold up as a sign of progress and try to counter daily news of suicide bombings and U.S. troop deaths that have soured the American public on the war.

Bush is fighting to get his second term back on track after a year in which Americans lost faith in his ability to manage the war and a growing number came to believe his administration misled them in making the case for the U.S.-led invasion.

Boy, I am sick to death of these yahoos. I'm glad I listened to the speech for myself and don't have to rely on them to tell me what was important.

UPDATE III: Here is the White House fact sheet on the speech, but no text yet OK, here is the text of his speech; and the part that particularly interested me is the following:

In a 1998 fatwa, Osama bin Laden argued that the suffering of the Iraqi people was justification for his declaration of war on America. Now bin Laden and al-Qaeda are the direct cause of the Iraqi people's suffering.

Too bad that the Muslim world didn't do anything about the suffering of the Iraqi people under Saddam and his brutal regime. Osama was silent then. And after Saddam invaded Kuwait, I don't remember hearing Osama condemn that either.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 3:22 PM |

 
The Whos Have Had It
John Leo at RCP says it's beginning to look a lot like...something else:

A Christmas quiz:
The "winter program" at Ridgeway Elementary School in Dodgeville, Wis., changed the lyrics of the Christmas carol "Silent Night" to the more inclusive "Cold in the Night." ("Cold in the night, no one in sight, winter winds whirl and bite.") After this success, the program's next step will obviously be:

(a) Changing "O Holy Night" to "Uh-oh! Wholly night!" a song about a lunar eclipse.

(b) Singing "O Little Town of Bethlehem, Pennsylvania."

(c) A song celebrating the comeback of the American auto industry, "Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Ford."

(d) A ditty about hoping for snow at the Panama Canal, "I'm dreaming of a white isthmus."

The modern name for Christmas trees is now:

(a) Giving trees

(b) Trees of color

(c) Seasonal conifers

(d) Inclusion bushes

(e) Tall lit-up flora

(f) Those pointy green things with needles and lights

What I want to know is, have we all been sleeping these last --oh, I don't know--10 years or so? How in heaven's name did all the political correct assininity become so prevalent? How did it sneak up and like the Grinch, sneaking down from his mountan, steal Christmas away from us?

Isn't it time to say "enough is enough" to this mind-boggling insanity? "Cold in the Night"? Trees of color?? Red and Green offensive? What is the matter with these people? Who died and made them holiday fuehrers? Does the multicultural mob live in thrall to the White Witch? Or are they simply PC Grinches?

Whos like me are just about fed up with their shennanigans.

Right about now these Christmas Grinches are up the side of Mt. Crumpit:

"Pooh-Pooh to the Whos!" he was grinch-ish-ly humming.
"They're finding out now that no Christmas is coming!
"They're just waking up! I know what they'll do!
"Their mouths will hang open a minute or two
"Then the Whos down in Who-ville will all cry BOO-HOO!

"That's a noise," ginned the Grinch,
"That I simply MUST hear!"
So he paused. And the Grinch put his hand to his ear.
And he did hear a sound rising oer the snow.
It started in low. Then it started to grow...

But the sound wasn't sad!
Why, this sound sounded merry!
It couldn't be so!
But it WAS merry! VERY!

They can try all they want, but they haven't stopped Christmas from coming at all.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 11:42 AM |

 
HEH
Glenn Reynolds with his trademark, "Heh" , captures the growing despair of jihadists around the world.

With Saddam loyalists recognizing that if they don't vote they will be left out of the new democratic Iraq; Zawahiri admitting that AQ is losing it; and the moderates in Bangladesh and Indonesia standing up against the killings---what's a poor Islamofascist to do these days?

Of course, since most of the Democratic Party think this war is unwinninable; that Iraq was a strategic mistake (even as they position themselves to take credit for victory there); and that American soldiers are terrorists--I suppose that Bin Laden et al could turn to them for help and advice.

2006 should be extremely interesting!

UPDATE: And let me add, that as the party of donkeys "tests out" some themes for 2006 and 2008 to see which ones will "resonate" with their base (do they believe in anything except polls anymore?) ; history will simply pass them by. Heh.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 10:21 AM |

 
DEMOCRATIC DEPRESSION
BizzyBlog reports on some extremely good economic news for Americans (news that made it into a Chinese newspaper, but not into any American paper except the WSJ:

In a separate editorial later in the week (requires subscription), The Journal noted that household net worth has increased $10 trillion since the Bush tax cuts took effect in 2003. That’s a 24% increase in roughly 2-1/2 years. The negative financing gap means that companies were, on the whole, able to finance their capital expansions out of profits instead of borrowing money or selling stock.

Read all the good economic news, and consider that we've had major disasters and rising gas prices--neither of which has slowed down economic growth.







The MSM is trying hard to keep this information close to the vest, but the true state of affairs is "leaking" out (Quick! Where's Fitzgerald??). With Iraqi elections to be held this week and likely some troops coming home next year, the positive economic outlook has really induced a serious depression in the Democrats.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 10:04 PM |

 
TOUCH AND GO !
Here are few quick touch and go's to direct you to some interesting reading around the blogsphere:

Solomon's House has a fascinating piece up about "Millions for Defense, Not One Cent for Tribute" referring to the ransoms for American citizens demanded by Ottoman Empire Barbary pirates.

Meanwhile, The Anchoress discusses the "socially acceptable" prejudice (which I talked about in the run-up to the 2004 election here. )

Over at Camp Katrina, guest blogger, Amal Chaaban offers news analysis and refreshing Muslim perspectives on world events. This week she covers "The Good, The Bad, And the Ugly"

Dymphna at The Gates of Vienna is keeping a close watch on what's happening in Pakistan, and thinks trouble is brewing...

GM's Corner is hosting the very first Carnival of German-American Relations...

and, be sure to regularly check Iraq the Model this week for newIraqi election updates!
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 7:49 PM |

 
NARNIA
Last night the family went to see Narnia. The Boo, who is grounded for reasons we won't go into, had not wanted to go, saying it was "for kids" (she is 13 years old). She promised to sulk the entire movie, and made sure we knew how displeased she was to be dragged along.

I was enchanted. Never before have I seen a movie so absolutely true to the book; so beautiful visually; and so well-acted and moving. I had read the books many years ago, and had forgotten how incredibly relevant they were now--especially as I heard Lucy and Peter argue that they could not possibly leave Narnia and its people to the destructiveness and malevolence of the White Witch. In a flash of insight, it occurred to me that the hostile reception of Narnia on the part of many of the "anti-Christian coalition" (see here for example) had less to do with the movie's underlying (Christian) theology/mythology (which I thought was not at all emphasized) than it had to do with what must have been their intense identification with Edmund, whose inner conflicts and whining bitterness with its concomitant desire for power (especially over his siblings) leads him to betray his family and Narnia to a cold and ruthless evil. Edmund's deliberate refusal to acknowledge what both he and Lucy see at the beginning of the adventure eerily parallels the present; and his redemption at the end was so well-done that even the most cynical among us could feel a spark of hope for the human race.

But I don't want to get too caught up in the movie's parallels with today. Basically, it is a story about good and evil. About the choices each of us make in confronting the world and coping with its unpleasant and painful realities. The opening scene of London being bombed and the Pevensie's reactions set the stage for the entire drama. Even sent far away into the calm and peaceful English countryside by a well-meaning and loving parent, the children are still confronted with the reality of good and evil; still have to make choices about which side they belong on and who they choose to love and support. These issues and conflicts are so well-dramatized in the movie, that--even though there were small children all over the audience--I did not hear a sound from them throughout.

At the end of the movie, the Boo turned to me with tears in her eyes and hugged me. "Thanks for making me come to see this, " she whispered, "it was an absolutely fantatstic movie."

Now, that is extraordinarily high praise coming from a teenager.

(PajamasMedia has a roundup of reviews; as does RadioBlogger)
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 12:45 PM |

 
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! This has been a week of rare idiocy (as always!). Calling all bloggers! Be sure to send in your entries to the Carnival, which will be posted every Sunday. Entries need to be in by 8 pm ET on Saturday to make their way into the list that week. Only one post entry weekly per blogger, please. Thanks for all the submissions. I will use as many as possible!
SO MANY INSANITIES! SO LITTLE TIME!
***NEW*** Feel free to add your own insanities in Trackbacks to this post!

1. This will be blamed on Lieberman. Just watch.

2. Euphemisms for the Mafia and Star Trek!

3. Gee, no kidding ? Who would have thought it?

4. Equidistant from Kyoto and Reality and Agence France-Presse Freaks Out

5. Library loonies. Blogsphere loonies. Compassionate lefty loonies.

6. Has he beheaded anyone yet? Meanwhile, Media Matters seems to be rather tolerant of this guy But then, he's just speaking truth to power. And he has important demands!

7. A response by the warmonger and puppy-kicker community. Also, Rumsfeld gets fiesty and proves turnabout is fair play...

8. Is she ever in any other mode?

9. It might also be said, "Pro-unionionism is the syphillic infection of the corporation." We all have our favorite metaphorical styles.

10. Now this is an incredibly creative victimhood whine.

11. Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo! She can't do that to us!

12. Some good reasons why military people tend to vote Republican.

13. Sandwich monkey?

14. I think somehow, we should not expect a correction from the Times.

15. The aptly named "People's Republic of Seabrook" weighs in on the "glorious leader". Get ready for yet another Hitler reference.

16. The ACLU digs for dirt (and doesn't find it). You'd think they were frustrated journalists or something. Meanwhile, someone actually trusts the U.S. --what a concept!

17. OIF blogging--simplified!

18. Earthlings can rest easy. (via Betsy's Page)

19. New Canadian strategy to get young people to the polls: fear!

20. No faith in rice, or in the price of cookware either! (via Instapundit)

21. Recently leaked blogger archives from 1863...

22. Princeton is always considerate of terrorist's feelings. In other academic news, poor Ward Churchill is being harassed!

Carnival of the Insanities can also be found at The Truth Laid Bear's ÜberCarnival.

***************************************

If you would like to Join the insanity, and add the Carnival of the Insanities button to your sidebar (clicking on it will always take you to the latest update of the Carnival), click on the button below to obtain the html code:


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

 
STOP THE DSM-V, I WANT TO GET OFF !
This is what happens when you confuse psychological defense mechanisms (which are descriptions of psychological processes used by all human beings as they cope with life) with a clinical (and presumably treatable) psychiatric diagnosis.

ShrinkWrapped has an excellent analysis which I refer you to.

I say this over and over, but it bears repeating: psychological defense mechanisms (which include some relatively primitive psychological responses like projection - the mechanism involved in most forms of racism, for example) are not diagnoses. The very dysfunctional ones might be conceptualized as a process of the psychological self that is somewhat similar to when the physical self experiences a fever.

A mild fever suggests that the body is coping with an intrusion into its physical defenses. Most often the fever itself becomes self-correcting, setting off a series of defensive actions that lead to a return to normal functioning. If the fever persists and becomes too high, it becomes a red flag that something serious might be going on and the underlying cause needs to be found.

It is likewise when the ego deploys a psychological defense (especially one that persists despite reality; or one that is severely dysfunctional and causes great problems in the person's life). We do not say that "fever" is a diagnosis. It is a symptom that when it doesn't go away makes us take action. A defense mechanism is also a symptom that suggests our psychological self is trying to cope with a disturbing reality. If an individual has insight and self-awareness (the ability to objectively observe and be conscious of one's own thoughts, feelings, and behaviors and their meaning), then the defense mechanism can even becomes a valuable tool with which to understand our own fears and prejudices - just as a fever becomes the red flag that leads us to look for an underlying problem.

Quite frankly, the fact that some psychiatrists and psychologists want to make defenses themselves diagnoses concerns me greatly, since it suggests to me that there is a desire to control human behavior via pathologizing any behavior that goes against the tenets of the controlling authority.

Back in the 1980's the World Psychiatric Association condemned the former Soviet Union for doing exactly the same thing with their diagnosis of "Sluggish Schizophrenia" - which made opposition to the State's communist system a severe mental illness (see this post)

ShrinkWrapped observes:

However, if I may use a sophisticated Psychiatric term to encapsulate this idea: putting this into the DSM would not only be ridiculous but it would be crazy!

The DSM (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, which is the "official" listing of accepted Psychiatric diagnoses) already contains diagnostic entities which cover delusions (fixed, false ideas that do not conform with reality) and obsessions (preoccupations with ideas that limit a person's daily functioning). All of the examples of pathology mentioned in the article could be covered by diagnoses that contain such symptom complexes. On the other hand, once the DSM includes pathological bias, just imagine the fun the legal professional and the professional victims associations could have with such a diagnosis.
[...]
Between the Psychiatric profession's need to pathologize all forms of behavior (which tends to mitigate responsibility for selected, favored, victim classes) and the legal profession's need to make money off of any and every misfortune (which requires assigning blame for everything untoward that occurs, whether it originates from malice, misconduct, or bad luck), we are attacking some of the foundations of our society.

Instapundit sums it up nicely:

So when homosexuality was unpopular, it was a mental disorder. Now that it's popular, not liking it is a mental disorder. Evidence for either position? Not much. My diagnosis: How about we recognize a disorder consisting of turning intellectual fashions into pseudoscience? Seems like this is a case of "mental health" consisting largely of agreeing with whatever political opinions psychiatrists hold at a particular moment in time. Psychiatry, heal thyself.

Can "Republicanism" be far behind as a new diagnosis in DSM-V representing extreme bias? I expect not, if some have their way.

UPDATE: Sigh....Like I said.... It is instructive, I think, to note which side of the political spectrum eagerly anticipates this sort of perverted social engineering and control; and which side finds it oppressive and an assault on human freedom.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 4:57 PM |

 
DOWN THE PARANOID PATH
I have friends who have expressed to me their fears that President Bush is going to imminently establish a "Christian Theocracy" in the U.S. Some of them have been saying this with great authority every since Bush was elected in 2000.

At first I tried to argue with them, pointing out that I saw nothing different in Bush's behavior or speech about religion than previous presidents. They would just respond, "Wait and see."

The truth is that they were convinced--almost to the point of paranoia--that a religious theocracy was about to be imposed by the Republicans. They would point to the "faith-based" initiative and to the Terry Schiavo case with great glee, as if somehow this proved their point.

They always had remarkably little to say about the real threat of an imposed theocracy by Islam--a religion, which unlike the Christian (or Jewish) religions stated unabashedly on a daily basis all over the world that they intended to impose their religion everywhere by either peaceful or violent means. This did not seem to worry my friends very much, because they were so intently focused on Bush.

Nowadays, when they state this fear (still with a straight face), I merely comment rather mildly, "Well, he better get on with it because he only has three years left in office."

I just recently read this article at American Thinker, about attending the White House Hanukkah Party; and it occurred to me that my paranoid friends might be reassured about the President and his perceived "excessive religiosity" and theocratic leanings.

A second thing that I came away with this night had to do with the role of prayer and study and the respect for religion in the White House. Many of those who hate the President do so because they are very uncomfortable with the role of religion in his life - that he is a born again Christian, and that he is not afraid to speak about his faith. Since President Bush’s belief system is very different from the secular progressive vision (that of the New York Times editorial page), and that of the elites who pledge allegiance to that vision, an increasing emphasis on religion by the President is seen as a very dangerous thing by these secular elites.

Some prominent rabbis have grown nervous that a new Christian tide emanating from the White House and the President’s supporters in the evangelical community will sweep over and change America (for the worse of course), since serious devout Christians are very dangerous people.
On line to get into the White House, I spoke to a rabbi from Maryland who has for several years conducted Torah study groups in the White House for Jewish employees. I suspect that the fact that this goes on is not widely known, and that it is a new phenomenon in the White House. The President has brought to the White House a respect for those who believe and pray and study, rather than a secularist’s scorn for religious observance. And this respect is not limited to Christian believers. The President held a one hour session with Jewish educators the day of the Hanukkah party. This was not just to light the White House menorah, but included a serious discussion of education issues, as well as Israel and the situation in the Middle East. As Scott Johnson related, the attendees were very heartened by what they heard. For the first time ever, the White House kitchen was officially certified as kosher for an event.

Great respect for ceremony and tradition, whether military or religious, is apparent in this White House.

I have never heard the President attack those who are not religious believers. He understands that this too is a belief system. And those who are not religious believers nor observant are not under pressure to become more religious in the White House. I doubt, though, that there is a New York Times study group in the White House just yet, though it really takes a lot of faith to believe what is in that paper. (NOTE: Read the entire article. The gratuitous jab at the NY Times is solely the author's, but I happen to agree wholeheartedly)

Sadly, though, it is very likely that even these observations would not reassure those who are already miles and miles down the paranoid path. They undoubtedly will continue to see what they want to see to the bitter end; because their distorted vision of Bush (and Christianity) is actually more comforting to them than truth (or reality) ever could be.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 12:58 PM |

 
THE COUNCIL HAS SPOKEN !
This week's winners in the Watcher's Council are now posted at the Watcher of Weasels. Every week the Council nominates posts from the blogs of the Council members, and posts from around the blogsphere. The Council then votes to select the "Best" of all these posts. I'm proud to have been selected two weeks in a row for the honor of Best Council Post! Congratulations to all the other winners.

BEST COUNCIL POSTS:

First Place

"...Have a Great Time Dieing in the War. From, Miguel." The Sundries Shack

Second Place

Iran’s Nuclear Game The Strata-Sphere

BEST NON-COUNCIL POSTS:

First Place

Murderous Peaceniks Seraphic Secret

Second Place

On Patriotism, Redux (UPDATED) Protein Wisdom

Be sure to check out all the winners at the Watcher's site! They make for great weekend reading.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 11:45 AM |

 
THE INCREDIBLE MATHEMATICAL KORAN
I am hoping this guy is in charge of the Iranian missile guidance or at least a researcher in their nuclear program:

Muhammad Rateb Al-Nabulsi: Would you believe, Mr. 'Alaa, that the Koran includes Einstein's theory? This was presented at the fifth convention on the wondrous nature of the Koran, held in Moscow. I am referring to the verse: "A day in the Lord's reckoning is like a thousand years in your reckoning."

The Arabs use lunar calendar. Now, it takes the moon one month to revolve around the Earth. If we want calculate how many kilometers the moon travels in each cycle, it is very easy. We take the center of the Earth and the center of the moon, and connect them with a straight line. The length of this line is half the Earth's diameter, plus half the moon's diameter, plus the distance between them. Anyone of our students could calculate this. One must multiply the two diameters by 3.14 – pi, you get a circumference, you multiply it by 12 for each month of the year, then you multiply it by 1,000 for 1,000 years...

Any high school student with a calculator could calculate the distance the moon travels around the Earth in 1,000 years.

The verse says: "A day in the Lord's reckoning is like a thousand years in your reckoning." Hence, the distance the moon travels around the Earth in 1,000 years is the same distance light travels in one day. If we divide this figure by the number of seconds in one day, we will get the precise speed of light 299,000,752. [emphasis mine]

I can't help noticing that the verse in question is shockingly similar to Psalms 90:4- "For a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past, and as a watch in the night."

But even more importantly, light travels at precisely 186,282.397 miles per second; or 299,792,458 meters per second.

Close, but no cigar. But it does explain why I think this person would be an absolutely perfect choice for overseeing Islamic missile guidance systems.

This sort of scientific rigor reminds of the incident in the 19th century, when the Indiana state legislature tried to pass a law making Pi equal to a rational number (3 or 3.2). The guys behind that debacle must have been calculating the value of Pi based on readings from the Koran.

Who knew it could be so useful?
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 7:55 PM |

 
SOMEWHERE IN THE VICINITY OF BETELGEUSE?
Nutcase that he is, Iran's President has nevertheless given me a great idea! I think that the U.S. should cave in to international pressure and graciously offer the Palestinians not just a state, but an entire planet!

Perhaps Mars or Venus? Or maybe a planet somewhere in the vicinity of Betelgeuse? Someplace dry and deserty where their population will have the opportunity to explode.

Think of the potential for them to claim their destiny and come closer to Allah!

And since the Chinese are poised to take the lead in the latest space race AND are on the UN Security Council (how convenient is that?)they could be designated as the country in charge of the Palestinian Migration! The Iranian Mullahs could supervise, and we could send them, along with all the useful Palestinian bureaucrats on the first ship to scout out the territory and do all the really important tasks necessary to set up a new society.

The thing is, I seem to remember hearing--or maybe reading?-- about something like this.

Don't worry, it will come to me.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 3:28 PM |

 
PANIC
Norman Podhoretz in a forthcoming Commentary Magazine is simply a must-read: (hat tip: Power Line)

Yet in spite of these similarities, there is also a very curious difference between the American panic of 1776-7 and the American panic of 2005-6. To put it in the simplest and starkest terms: in that early stage of the Revolutionary War, there was sound reason to fear that the British would succeed in routing Washington’s forces. In Iraq today, however, and in the Middle East as a whole, a successful outcome is staring us in the face. Clearly, then, the panic over Iraq—which expresses itself in increasingly frenzied calls for the withdrawal of our forces—cannot have been caused by the prospect of defeat. On the contrary, my twofold guess is that the real fear behind it is not that we are losing but that we are winning, and that what has catalyzed this fear into a genuine panic is the realization that the chances of pulling off the proverbial feat of snatching an American defeat from the jaws of victory are rapidly running out.

Of course, to anyone who relies entirely or largely on the mainstream media for information, it will come as a great surprise to hear that we are winning in Iraq. Winning? Militarily? How can we be winning militarily when, day after day, the only thing of any importance going on in that country is suicide bombings and car bombings? When neither our own troops nor the Iraqi forces we have been training are able to stop the “insurgents” from scoring higher and higher body counts? When every serious military move we make against the strongholds of these dedicated and ruthless adversaries is met with “fierce resistance”? When, for every one of them we manage to kill, two more seem to pop up?

Winning? Politically? How can we be winning politically when the very purpose for which we allegedly invaded Iraq has been unmasked as a chimera? When every step we force the Iraqis to take toward democratization is accompanied by angry sectarian strife between Shiites and Sunnis and between each of them and the Kurds? When our clumsy efforts to bring the Sunnis into the political process have hardly made a dent in their support for the insurgency? When the end result is less likely to be the stable democratic regime we supposedly went there to establish than a civil war followed by the breakup of Iraq into three separate countries?

There has been one great exception to this relentless drumbeat of bad news: it occurred in January 2005, in the coverage of the first election in liberated Iraq. To the astonishment of practically everyone in the world, more than 8 million Iraqis came out to vote on election day even though the Islamofascist terrorists had threatened to slaughter them if they did. This very astonishment was a measure of how false an impression had been created of the state of affairs in Iraq. No one fed by the mainstream media could have had the slightest inkling that these 8 million people were actually there, so invisible had they been to reporters who spent all their time interviewing the discontented Iraqi Man in the Street and to cameras seemingly incapable of focusing on anything but carnage and rubble.

But the mainstream media soon recovered from the shock

Read it all.

Podhoretz is absolutely correct. Certain segments of our society are in a panic. I would say they are in the middle of a full-fledged panic attack. Why? Because if Bush's policies are successful in Iraq, Afghanistan, and the Middle East--these groups know that they will be frozen out of power for years to come.

Who would listen to the MSM after they have worked overtime in the last four years to make Iraq into another Vietnam for their own glory and power?

Who would listen to the wimpy Democrats who have whined and vacillated and had to be dragged, kicking and screaming piteously (and still are to this day) to do the right thing to protect our country?

Who would listen to the lunatic Left and the remnants of the old communist/socilist religions, who have willingly aligned themselves with the enemies of freedom, and hidden their murderous 20th century ideolgies under the cover of "anti-war" and "peace" slogans. The only thing they are "anti" is American. The only "peace" they want is a piece of the action when a new set of thugs come to power. They have thrown their lot in with the enemies of civilization itself, rather than to take responsibility for the enormity of the suffering and human misery brought about by the implementation of their political views over the last 100 years or more.

Oh yes. We have seen the true colors of all these sunshine patriots and utopian demagogues--particularly in the last four years; and the more we see, the clearer it becomes that their only motivation is a desperate, panicked desire to hold onto power--especially power over other people. As they hyperventilate and grasp at straws (expect a new accusation against the Bush administration to surface regularly as each one before is shot down with facts), they can see their power and influence fading fast. They have shown they will pay any price to bring America to its knees; they will advance any falsehood; and undermine any good.

Wretchard the other day suggested that we have already been victorious in Iraq, and I agree with him. The Iraqi people have stood up and made it clear that they want and deserve freedom and democracy.

Victory when it came, was both greater and less; more partial and more complete than expected. It did not take the European form of parades down the Champs Elysee, followed by a return to old and establish ways of governance. What the destruction of the Ba'athist regime did was reanimate long suppressed local and ethnic interests and channel them into competition through the ballot box -- with the occasional recourse to violence. Tremendous forces have been unleashed which critics of the war will point to as signs of an incipient civil war, but which supporters of OIF will describe as a newly liberated society feeling its way forward.

The MSM, the Democrats, and the Left are hoping that the spell they have woven to veil the eyes and cloud the minds of the public will last a little while longer(at least into the 2006 election cycle, where they hope to get back some of that lost power).

But their whimpering and weaseling; flip-floping and blustering is simply their pretzel-like way of waiting to see if Americans will suddenly realize that we have actually won the war; brought democracy to the Middle East; and derailed a threat to human freedom and dignity so severe and barbaric, it makes Hitler and his minions seem like second-class, second-rate thugs. In other words, they are positioning themsselves to try to take credit for any victory; while at the same time they are hoping for defeat since they believe that is the quickest way for them to get their power and status back.

Granted, they wouldn't mind a victory in Iraq if they could also have the latter outcome (i.e., the defeat of Bush and the Republicans)--especially if Democrats could somehow take credit for victory in Iraq. But they are perfectly willing to facilitate defeat in Iraq, encourage and enable the deaths of American soldiers, and ensure the success of America's enemies-- if that scenario will result in the demise of their most hated opponent.

In their hearts, they know that they deserve to be in power (it was stolen from them, you see); and they are in a panic because historical irrelevance is staring them in the face. They realize that their 20th century utopian vision is deservedly crumbling and crashing down all around them and its pieces will soon join the myriad of other anti-human ideologies in the dustbin of history.

All the clinical symptoms point to a diagnosis of an acute panic episode, brought about by an inadvertant--and unwilling-- exposure to reality.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 11:45 AM |

 
LET IT SNOW !
The presents are all bought and wrapped, and I just finished addressing all my Christmas cards. What can I say? I'm a Christmas fanatic and usually have everything done early in December.

We are expecting 7-8 inches of snow this evening, but I'm a happy camper and grateful that I don't have to go out. Although there's a lot to blog about (the craziness never seems to stop), I have taken enough abuse for one day and I'm going to take the evening off and catch up on my reading.

Unless something spectacular and/or brilliant comes to me tonight, I'll be back blogging tomorrow.

In the meantime, visit The Anchoress, Sigmund, Carl & Alfred, Beautiful Atrocities, neo-neocon, ShrinkWrapped , Assistant Village Idiot or any of the other wonderful blogs I have on my sidebar.

Oh, and you might go on over to Roger Simon's and consider his question, "Which side are you on?"

In the meantime, Illegitimi non carborundum . LET IT SNOW!
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 8:55 PM |

 
SPOILED BRATS
Thomas Sowell writes:

The idea that what I want overrides what you want has increasingly become part of our thinking, our policies and even our laws. There is literally a federal case before the Supreme Court over the fact that many colleges and universities refuse to allow military recruiters on campus.

Why? Because, as the academics will tell you, they are opposed to the military, either in general or because they think the military are discriminating against homosexuals or for whatever other reasons they have.

These academics have every right to be against the military, for any reason or for no reason.

If they don't like the military, they can stay away from the military, since there is no draft. But what they want is to keep other people away from the military, by preventing students from hearing what the military recruiters have to say, as students hear what recruiters from all sorts of other institutions and movements have to say on campus.

The reason there is a legal issue is that a federal law has been passed, saying that colleges and universities that forbid military recruiters from coming on campus are no longer eligible to receive federal money.

Academics are outraged. They see this law as a violation of their freedom -- including their right to violate their students' freedom. It is classic spoiled brat politics, based on the idea that what I want overrides what you want.

I'm inclined to agree with Sowell on the "spoiled brat" aspect of things. Freedom of speech is a paramount right; an essential freedom for the Left when it involves their right to be irritating, pathetic, revolting, and downright sick. They also get to decide what's offensive and seem to think that what they ban or forbid (on campus or elsewhere) is perfectly legitimate.

But when there are consequences the Left doesn't like that result from their taking a particular political stand (e.g., losing your federal funding for discriminating against a part of the federal government; losing your audience because the public doesn't care for political diatribes disguised as "entertainment") , then "spoiled brat" is precisely and exactly the word to describe their juvenile temper tantrums.

Free speech is great when it issues forth from their ideology; but when it is expressed by someone they don't like; or is something with which they happen to disagree--well, that's another thing entirely.

UPDATE: More "free speech" as interpreted by the Left. Honestly, who let them out of their playpen?
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 3:31 PM |

 
BUT, SERIOUSLY
Is there any sane person who could possibly take the UN seriously anymore? Consider this and this for example.

And, isn't it interesting that the Nobel Prize has evolved into a forum for legitimizing anti-US, anti-Israel harangues, as well as a mouthpiece for the appeasers and enablers of terror. This "noble" committee shares these important duties with certain member states of a completely worthless international body.

It is times like this that I think we desperately need a JRR Tolkien or a CSLewis more than ever (which is why their books have had a resurgence). But instead, we are presented with pathetic nothings like Harold Pinter and Mohamed ElBaradei , both of whom are touted as the new symbols of all that is right and good.

[A brief pause while the echoes of hysterical laughter fade]

But, seriously, Iowahawk and Cox and Forkum have captured the true relevance and spirit of the UN; while Scott Ott has the most realistic take on the Nobel situation.

UPDATE: More evidence (if you needed it) on how despicable the UN has become. (Hat tip: The Corner)
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 11:28 AM |

 
Deja Vu-- All Over Again

Apparently, Democrats fear a backlash at polls for their Iraq remarks . Yes, I imagine they do. Since they aren't burdened by genuine principles, their path is clear. They need to wait and see which way the polls are going to go to decide what stand to take, making sure that they are poised to switch direction at a moment's notice if the situation changes.

Meanwhile, John Kerry consults his plastic surgeon:

As other Vietnam era heroes of the Left spring into action:

- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 9:22 PM |

 
Watcher's Council Has An Opening!
Congratulations to ShrinkWrapped, who has joined the Watcher's Council! He replaces e-Claire one of the original Council members. Yet another seat has opened up because Wallo World is retiring from the Council.

For those interested in applying for the open position, go here for more information.

Also, the Watcher always gives bloggers an opportunity each week to nominate their own posts directly to the Council. If you are interested, check out the information here.

I can attest to the fact that being on the Council gives you a great opportunity to read some excellent blogs, and to give more exposure to your own writings. And it's a lot of fun to participate in the judging every week.

Let's hear it for the Watcher of Weasels!

I have been out and about giving several lectures today, so I will do some serious blogging later this evening. Meanwhile, you might go over to the Watcher's site and see what posts are nominated this week!
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 6:49 PM |

 
QURANIC PSYCHIATRY
The Baron at Gates of Vienna has an absolutely fascinating discussion of Sheikh Syed Mubarik Ali Shah Gilani, best known as the man Daniel Pearl was attempting to interview when he was kidnapped and then murdered. But the Sheikh is also the Islamic authority figure for a large Islamic community right here in the U.S.

This is a must read investigative article about the Sheikh and his influence. Of course what interested me the most in what the Baron reports is the Sheikh's foray into what he calls "Quranic Psychiatry":

Book 1, Ultimate Fraud of Freudists contains results of a research and demonstration project done at the Psychiatric Research Institute, Saudi Arabia – and U.S.A Research Centers since 1977. In front of researchers from eight countries, El Sheikh Syed Mubarik Ali Shah Jilani, Vice Chancellor of International Quranic Open University, demonstrated the affects of chapters and lines from Holy Quran in healing some “incurable” mental and physical diseases. Since a large number of patients have been healed by the qualified practitioner of Quranic Psychiatry (QOU), this book gives theoretical and practical explanations of causes and remedies of many “incurable” diseases.
El Sheikh Jilani was declared Imam of Quranic Sciences in a meeting of physicians and researchers in Taif. Afterwards, Dr. Rushdee Mahmood was inspired to write a long poem in Arabic extolling the extraordinary title and honor bestowed upon his eminence El Sheikh Syed Mubarik Ali Shah Jilani, Hashmi, Wal Husseini.

Book 2 Psychiatry The Ultimate Betrayal by Bruce Wiseman carries the following declaration: “This publication has been made possible in (an effort aimed at) freeing mankind from the damaging practices of psychiatry and restoring human rights and dignity to psychiatry’s victims.” This is an abridged version being printed with the permission of the author and the Citizen Commission on Human Rights. Book 1 and book 2 compliment each other. Quranic Psychiatry scientifically proves that healing for some incurable mental (and other) diseases lie outside the ken of so-called psychiatry. Bruce Wiseman also proved it his way with statements acknowledging that many diseases are not due to physical cause-thus supporting the fact that man has non-physical aspect (the soul) that often requires specialized treatment.

The reader will find that these two books are meant to warn and save mankind from the worlds most cruel profession, and the worst kind of murdering mechanism which leaves patients neither alive nor dead. (Emphasis mine)

Wow! The world's cruelest profession?

I guess we are even then, since I consider Islam the modern world's cruelest--and most barbaric--religion. But I digress.

Here is an excerpt from the Sheikh's book on psychiatry:

In a Qur'anic Psychiatry clinic, a therapist carries out certain tests to determine the main cause of mental disorders. He or she is trained to use a thread of a particular length. This is given to the patient who holds it for some time. It is then measured very carefully. The Qur'anic therapist reads certain prayers, blows on the thread, and measures the thread again. The thread will either increase, decrease, or stay the same in length. If no change is registered, or course this means the disorder has a physical cause. If it has increased by a good length, this is due to the influence of a non-human agent. If it has decreased in length, this is due to sorcery. If it has increased length but not very much, this the effect of the evil eye. For each change, a special prescription is applied. One may also use the footprint test in the same manner as above.

In the history of pseudo-psychiatry, such psychiatrists have never been able to heal one suffering from schizophrenia, epileptic fits, seizures, psychosis, or neurosis. They are more criminal than murderers who at least kill once and for all.

People in the West know about all of these things, but have no power against them. Only a qualified Qur'anic psychiatrist can treat and save mankind. Many stories have been woven around such people as Uri Geller, a classic example of one suffering from jinn possession. His case is quite common in the East. However, in the name of "research," his promoter, Professor John Taylor, uses this fraud to obtain grants and other moneys for further study. I met the professor myself, in London University, and told him the reality of the case, but he was not interested for the above reason.

The reader can appreciate, I'm sure, the amount of scientific rigor that the Sheikh imparts to his theory. What struck me was how similar his writing was to what I have read in medieval textbooks of medicine that offer primitive explanations about the mental disorders that were observed at the time. The sheikh's explanation of jinns and satanic forces as the etiology of mental illness is surprisingly similar to the thinking in the early Middle Ages. Since the 7th century and the rise of Mohammed, in fact, little original work in medicine--or psychiatry-- was produced in the Arab world because the Koran was seen as the authority for all knowledge. No schools for higher learning existed unless they taught the Koran. This is still the case over thirteen hundred years later.

Here is an article discussing Roman Catholic doctrine toward mental illness in the Middle Ages:

Although mental illnesses, like physical ailments, were often construed as products of demonic influence during the Middle Ages, they were also given partial material explanation. As psychiatrist Jerome Kroll has suggested, "Mental . . . illnesses were attributed as much to overwork, overeating, and overindulgence in sexual activity as to climactic conditions, magic spells, and demonic possession" (1973, p. 281). However, such illnesses were still viewed as products of sin; counsel provided by priests, repentance, and even exorcism were considered the most efficacious remedies. Penitential literature, voluminously produced during this period, played a large role in mental healing. These works discussed a wide variety of indiscretions and prescribed specific acts of penance.
Sacramental practices also facilitated a sense of mental wellness. Extreme unction (called "anointing of the sick" in antiquity and renamed this after the Second Vatican Council), was often administered to those deemed at the end of their lives and was meant to allay anxieties and to help to prepare for death. Although on rare occasions this sacrament was said to restore physical health, according to the Council of Trent its primary impetus was to strengthen "the soul of the sick person by exciting in him great confidence in divine mercy." It aided the person to more easily bear "the miseries and pains of his illnesses" and to resist "the temptations of the devil" (O'Connell, 1986, pp. 114-115). Thus, as with physical wellness, medieval mental health was subsumed under a more vital notion of spiritual well-being.

Catholics nowadays tend to reject psychiatric disorders as a consequences of sin or a manifestation of evil. Islam and Islamic "scholars" remain mired in the early days of the religion's founding, with little interest in allowing in new ideas or the scientific method to its thought processes. At one time the disciples of Mohammed may have been incrementally "more humane" than their counterparts in early medieval times when it came to treating the mentally ill, but it can hardly be considered in any way "humane" to deprive patients of the benefits of science and to reject the incredible advances in the understanding and treatment of the mentally ill that have transpired in the last hundred years particularly.

Western medicine --particularly psychiatry--are far from perfect; and its theories and treatments have at times been abusive and counterproductive; but at least it has not been totally stagnant for centuries.

So-called "Quranic" Psychiatry is neither humane nor "scientific" as the Sheikh proclaims; and as this earlier post demonstrates. It is simply another abuse of psychiatry perpetrated by religious fanatics and anti-science zealots.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 10:00 AM |

 
AT HOME IN SADDAM'S CORNER
Ramzi bin al-Clark, I mean Ramsey Clark is surely either the most misguided fool on the face of the earth; or he long ago was seduced by the dark side of the Force, finding the evil within irresistable and compelling. I am inclined to give more credence to the latter theory, particularly since Clark ONLY seems interested in attaching himself to mass murdering despots or thugs. He has much to answer for (and I am not only referring to his pathetic little organization of the same name).

From an editorial in the Rocky Mountain News:

The son of Tom Clark, a man President Truman appointed first to attorney general and then to the Supreme Court, Ramsey Clark rose far and fast. And so for the past few decades he's been able to devote his legal expertise to defending a rogues' gallery of some of the most notorious mass killers in modern times. Clark is currently in Baghdad - naturally - as a court-appointed adviser to Saddam Hussein's defense team.

The judge chose the right man. Clark is "the war criminal's best friend," as a headline in Salon once explained - a legal expert who has advised genocidal monsters in the Balkans and Rwanda, for example. And guess who rose to defend the PLO from a lawsuit brought by the family of the wheelchair-bound Leon Klinghoffer after he was slain and tossed off a cruise ship in 1986? Exactly.

Even the most despised among us deserve competent defense, but Clark's association with political ogres goes well beyond a mere technical role. He is irresistibly drawn to any "anti-imperialist" opposing the West - Slobodan Milosevic, Fidel Castro, the North Vietnamese - no matter how bloody their hands.

He should feel right at home in Saddam's corner.

In short, Clark is an enabler, supporter, and defender of genocidal maniacs. When recently calling for an impeachment of Bush (that's right, kiddos; this "man of peace" defends Saddam but demands Bush be impeached) said:

We have to take the Constitution back, back from crimes against peace, from war crimes, and crimes against humanity. You know, the Nuremberg tribunal called the war of aggression the supreme international crime, and it is.

Only a man in terminal denial and without a clue to his own culpability as an accomplice in the murders of several hundred thousand people could possibly utter such drivel.

Or someone who delights in deliberate, and vicious evil.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 1:19 AM |

 
THE BUSH ECONOMIC BOOM AND THE THEORY OF LEARNED ECONOMIC HOPELESSNESS
The Bush economic boom is better than any in the last 10, 20...even 30 years!

Even Paul Krugman is perplexed (note: that is not hard for him to achieve).

The Democrats and the Left depended on high oil prices and devastating natural disasters to prove beyond all shadow of a doubt that Bush's economic policies were creating poverty and economic decline. Just imagine if we had not had high oil prices; or a series of natural disasters that wreaked havoc in part of the country.

Meanwhile, attempts to decrease the annual rate of growth in Federal entitlements from a 6.3% increase to a 6.2% increase (a whopping cut of 0.1%) caused this incredible hysteria.

And just to put the above pitiful attempt to decrease the federal deficit in context, imagine what would happen if some quasi-"feel-good" program that in reality did nothing for the poor were put on the chopping block. The mild accusations of simply " hating" the poor would undoubtedly morph into accusations of "genocide" that would undoubtedly make the headlines in the various media outlets (something like: BUSH UNLEASHES 'GENOCIDE' ON THE POOR!).

So, what is behind the fact that people don't feel that the economy is doing well? I propose a variant of Seligman's theory of "Learned Helplessness". But instead of being helpless in the face of inflicted pain; Americans are being inflicted with command hallucinations that unceasingly tell them that the economic situation is dire.

Seligman's theory states very simply that when a person is placed in a situation where there is no way to avoid inflicted pain, it leads to a profound fatalism and resignation to one's situation; and thus presumably to depression and hopelessness. Even when there may be a possiblity of improving the situation; the belief remains intact that there is nothing one can do to stop the pain.

The Santy variant of the theory is purely hypothetical, but is based on empirical observation, and goes like this: When a person is bombarded with unrelenting news reports and news analyses that insist that conditions are bad bad bad; and that people (somewhere) are suffering --even when such assertions are completely untrue-- and that as long as certain people are running the country and remain in power, it is hopeless to imagine that things could change and get better.

In other words, "Santy's Theory of Learned Economic Hopelessness"** works like a mindless political lesson drilled into the mind over and over again--e.g., Republicans hate the poor; Bush hates Blacks; Capitalism oppresses everyone etc. etc.--until facts, reality and truth are completely irrelevant.

Individuals may even momentarily break out of the induced hallucination long enough to note that they themselves are actually doing pretty well financially; but then they are told that they represent an aberration and that everyone else is suffering horribly. So, even if someone were to question the message's veracity; it is used as an opportunity to inflict guilt; and that effectively reinforces the learned economic hopelessness.

If we believe those who propagate the economic hopelessness and thrive off the perception of doom and gloom, then the only cure is to put them back in power.

Except for the fact that it would be like saying the only cure for your sickness is to stop the tough but effective treatment, and to allow the illess to proceed on its natural course, unimpeded.

But at least you could pretend that everything would then be wonderful; and that poverty and economic hardship would soon be erased from the face of the earth; that hurricanes hardly ever happen; and that unnatural disasters like 9/11 are simply an illusion done with smoke and mirrors.

And then those darn voices of doom in your head would finally shut up.

**NOTE: this theory only applies when Republicans are in political power at either the state or federal level. When Democrats are in power we are in an indisputable economic boom.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 6:59 PM |

 
Delusional Paranoia - A Textbook Example
Hugo Chavez. (more here and here and here)



Of course, it's probably not paranoia if they really are out to get him...

I'm hoping they really are out to get him-- for the sake of his mental health, of course.







From Cox and Forkum.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 2:32 PM |

 
ARGGGGGH
Blogger was down for several hours last evening. I seem to have lost several posts I was working on into the ether and don't have the energy to redo them this morning.

Check out neo-neocon's theory of conspiracy theories

Power Line has a discussion of the destructive CIA leaks, which seem to have the purpose of simultaneously trying to embarass the Bush Administration as well as to harm its own credibility and ability to function. Sounds like someone there is on a suicide bombing mission.

If you want some comic relief, I suggest you head over to Protein Wisdom, which has the Progressive Left's list of "Do's and Don'ts".

I have to work this morning (real, paying work). More later.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 10:06 AM |

 
WISHFUL THINKING
The idea that Howard Dean knows anything at all about whether the war in Iraq is winnable or not is an idea which is just plain wrong.

The vile and baseless accusation that our soldiers are "terrorists" sounds remarkably similar to what the same person's testimony in 1971, and is presumably his nuanced way of "supporting the troops".

Both of these individuals are engaging in fanciful bouts of "wishful thinking."

"Wishful thinking" may be defined as the illusion that what you wish to be true, actually is true.

In an earlier post I said:

Their denial is complete on this issue. It is simply not possible for them to admit that Bush was correct and they were wrong. This is unacceptable knowledge. Bush must be wrong, and America must fail for them to maintain not only their self-esteem, but also their worldview

When psychological denial is in play, wishful thinking flourishes.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 11:33 PM |

 
IN DEFENSE OF DEFENSES
NOTE: Go here for my primer on Psychological Defenses. Some of the examples have lost their link, but I will be updating it in the next week or two)

Because I use psychiatric and psychological concepts to describe behavior in this blog, many people accuse me of labeling anyone who disagrees with me politically as having a mental illness.
This is not true; and it suggests that most of these critics know little about psychiatry, psychiatric diagnoses, or psychological defenses.

While I do believe that some of the people I describe might indeed have a mental illness; and that some are, in fact, perfectly healthy but simply malevolent or evil; it is simply not the case that by exposing certain psychological defense mechanisms that explain their behavior, I am giving the political opposition a medical/psychiatric diagnosis. Nevertheless, if a particular diagnosis fits, I am perfectly content to let them wear it.

In discussing psychological defense mechanism, what I am trying to do is understand how and why people behave in the way that they do. Describing psychological defenses is not the same thing as "making a diagnosis" for one very simple reason. All humans utilize psychological defenses, all the time. Both Democrat and Republican; Left and Right. Good and Bad.

Psychological defenses are involuntary, regulatory coping processes.

By themselves, defenses are not evidence of "illness". When used, they may appear to be "sick," evil, or even irrational, but they reflect a creative adaptation to the world. George Vaillant, a brilliant researcher in this area, and a Professor of Psychiatry at Harvard, uses the analogy that defenses mechanisms are deployed in a fashion similar to physical symptoms such as a fever, cough or elevated white blood cell count. All of the latter physical symptoms occur when an individual is coming down with an illness.

Vaillant points out that the body reacts to the environment with these physiological responses in order to prevent or ameliorate the attacking illness. Without these normal physiological responses, we would be at the mercy of many illness and die. In similar fashion, the psychological defenses are employed by the ego to respond to a threatening reality. With varying levels of success, our defense mechanisms ameliorate, distort and/or transform reality in order to protect our psychological self. The healthier and more mature defenses are a remarkably creative synthesis of our conflicts, needs and external reality that enable us to both give and receive pleasure in life.

Some defenses may be considered "immature" or even completely out of touch with reality; while others are "mature". This is not necessarily a value judgement, since it only reflects the fact that throughout development from childhood to adulthood; certain psychological strategies are generally discarded in favor of healthier and more effective strategies. The difference between them is that the psychotic and immature defenses may cause considerable human misery and are, in the long run, not particularly adaptive or healthy. In some cases, they can distort or warp reality to such an extent, that the user's very life is at stake.

Thus, when I see the predominance of "immature" strategies (e.g. projection, fantasy, acting out)--and/or some of the more primitive and potentially psychotic strategies (denial, distortion, paranoia)--being used by supposedly grownup adults, I begin to look around for explanations for their conduct. When I see such strategies being used by large groups or even nations, I cringe; because significant human misery is not far behind.

The careful observation and analysis of behavior is what I do for a living. I am very good at it; and I enjoy my profession. By helping people become aware of what they are doing that wreaks so much havoc in their life, I help them to change their behavior and therefore their lives. By pointing out and helping them to understand some of the unconscious motivations and conflicts they have, I help them to understand the psychological defenses they have employed which may be getting in the way of their pursuit of happiness. By making the unconscious conscious, we begin to understand why they are behaving irrationally and why the have problems in their life. The goal is to get them to abandon those defenses that are distorting reality and holding them back; and to develop a new synthesis so that even their conflicts are put to a positive and productive use in their life.

When there is a physiological component, I also from time to time, prescribe medication so that their nervous system can optimally cope with the real world. This levels the playing field, so to speak; but even when medication is prescribed, only by looking at all the factors that come into play in an individual life--Biological, psychological, and social--am I able to help individuals change the course of their life. It is rarely only a "chemical imbalance" (although sometimes it is). The example I use with my medical students is the following:

A woman who comes to see me is profoundly depressed and suicidal because her husband beats her and her marriage is hell. She meets all the diagnostic criteria for a major depressive disorder, and it is clear that the prescription of an antidepressant might be very helpful. In fact, that is what the woman wants.

However, even if I prescribe the medication, I must gently point out to her that no amount of medication for her is going to change her husband's behavior. Only by changing her own behavior can she change things in her marriage-- e.g., she can leave him; she can demand that he get help; she can suggest conjoint counseling--whatever. Or, she can accept that he will continue to behave a certain way (beating her) and accept that. But the medicine will not magically make any of these things happen. All it will do is give her the physiological strength to cope better. She can accept this reality. Or, she might use denial and continue to believe that medication for her will change her husband's behavior. She might use fantasy to pretend that when her "illness" is cured, her husband will realize what a wonderful person she is and stop beating her up; she might use hypochondriasis, developing migraine headaches or other more serious symptoms that keep her away from her husband; she could be passive-aggressive, buying her spouse his favorite alcoholic drink that is the frequent disinhibitor that leads to him hitting her; she might use displacement and blame her husband's employer --who doesn't appreciate him--for her husband's aggressive behavior toward herself.

If she listens to what I am telling her, she might use anticipation and begin to plan to leave the situation at home an go someplace else. She might then find she has a knack for helping women who have abusive husbands and train to be a counselor (altruism); or find that she has acting ability and play the lead in a local production of "Cat on A Hot Tin Roof" (sublimation).

In fact she could use ANY of the many psychological defenses to help her cope with her problem.

Psychological defense mechanisms give people the psycholgoical strength to cope with the vissictitudes of an ever-changing and often unpredictable reality. Some defenses are more useful than others for that purpose and one of the goals of mature adult functioning is to abandon the immature and problematic strategies that can only ultimately make things worse and which provide little pleasure in their life.

Probably the best description of defenses that I have ever read comes from George Vaillant, in his book The Wisdon of the Ego: (pg. 17 - 18)

1. Defenses reflect creative synthesis. The mind creates a perception that was not there before and that did not come just from external reality. In this regard, defensive behavior resembles art.
2. Defenses are relatively unconscious and their deployment is relatively involuntary.
3. Defenses distort inner and/or outer reality.
4. Defenses distort the relationship between affect and idea and between subject and object.
5. Defenses are more often healthy than pathological.
6. Defenses often appear odd or startling to everyone but the user.
7. Over time defenses often mature and allow the mentally "ill" to evolve into the mentally well.

Let me offer a concrete illustration of a defense--a photograph of a rainbow, if you will, obtained through my metaphorical telescope, the Study of Adult Development. I was interviewing an internist who had participated in the study for thirty years. He told me with vividness and enthusiasm, about his hobby: growing tissue cultures in his basement. He then told me with still more enthusiasm that the cells for one of these tissue cultures had been taken from a lesion on his mother's leg. He described his interest in tissue cultures as if it were the most ordinary pursuit in the world. But I have yet to describe his hobby to an audience without an uneasy ripple of laughter sweeping the room. Audiences have found the fact that this doctor was growing his mother's cells in his basement, as a child might raise flowers, extraordinary, even pathological. In short, the doctor saw his own behavior as normal; outsiders saw it as odd and, as we so often view other people's religion, politics, and dreams, possibly improper. Thus their laughter.

But anyone can have an unusual hobby. What mad this internist's avocation particularly noteworthy was that near the end of the interview he revealed to me--in the most matter of fact way--that his mother had died only three weeks earlier. Knowing that he had been very fond of her, I asked him how he had coped with her death. He said that, since he was a physician, he had spent his time comforting his father. On a conscious level, this man had rationalized --and he was good at rationalizing--that he had borne the grief o flosing his mother by caring for another person. Put differently, by his self-report he had used altruism as a coping strategy. Had I been interested only in conscious coping strategies, I too might have classified his means of mastering his mother's death as altruism. Instead, Ilocated his source of solace by makinig a connection of which he himself was probably unaware. I deduced that the knowledge that somehow his mother was still alive and living in his basement might be providing a secret source of comfort. Certainly he had described his scientific hobby to me with an enthusiasm and a warmth usually allotted to people and to art. Certainly, he had described the loss of his mother by death with the blandness usually allotted to leaves dropping off a tree inautumn--or to tissue cultures.

In short, defenses are creative, healthy, comforting, coping, and yet often strike observers as downright peculiar. But that is why defenses--like immune mechanisms--serve adaptation. That is why defenses integrate experience by providing a variety of filters for pain and mechanisms for self-deception. Defenses creatively rearrange
the sources of conflict so that they become manageable.

We may not be able to help which defenses our egos deploy in every situation. Sometimes, when reality is threatening enough or our conflicts are intense enough, even the most mature individual may find him or herself using the more immature defenses like denial and projection. What matters is that we make a practice of examining our own behavior and appreciating the underlying issues and motivations that drive it. Or to put it another way, we reflect on those subtle factors that may be controlling our behavior outside our completely conscious awareness (and therefore our control) and make them fully conscious. This is called developing insight and self-awareness. It is probably the equivalent of the "holy grail" in psychiatric practice, and we psychiatrists are forever encouraging our patients to go on such quests of self-discovery.

By making the unconscious conscious, we gain control over our lives and are able to make choices and attack problems based on a clear view of reality. Yes, we may make the wrong choice, or screw up in dealing with the problem even so; we may even discover some unpleasant truths about ourself. But when our psychological defenses are distorting or obscuring reality to begin with, we are far more likely to ignore a problem or pretend that it doesn't exist and then suffer even more serious consequences.

Maladaptive psychological defenses that bring ourselves and others a great deal of unhappiness and misery, can evolve into mature and adaptive responses to the world that both enhance and protect our lives. Human beings are remarkable creatures. Sometimes their capacity for self-deception and delusion seems unlimited; and sometimes their incredible creativity and ingenuity in coping with all the trials and travails that life throws at them is worthy of appreciation and even awe.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 5:37 PM |

 
WYSIWYG
From Wretchard in the comments of this post regarding the Kyoto conference in Montreal:

Many of President Bush's policies are not particularly brilliant. Many of them are obvious responses that any ordinary person could come up with. The real mystery is not 'why is President Bush so clever' but rather why are apparently clever and well educated people, like the 'Win Without War' and the 'Kytoto Protcol' people so dumb? When you observe President Bush you see what you expect: a normal man muddling along. But when you see the other set you are confronted the almost an unaccountable spectacle of dumbing down.

Many have accused me of idealizing President Bush, and while it is true that since 9/11, I admire him quite a bit, I hardly idealize him. On the contrary, what I find compelling about him are his obviously ordinary human qualities. He strikes me as a very REAL person--not a slick "persona" created by an ad agency; or a "celebrity" onto whom we project our own fantasies.

Bush does not pretending to be intellectually superior and can easily make fun of himself. Nor does it seem to matter much to him that everyone doesn't totally adore him. He tackles hard problems head on (which most politicians lack the courage to do) and perseveres in trying to fix them. He indeed "muddles along", misspeaks, and even screws up from time to time; but he presses on and actually gets things done.

That is what matters most to me.

He has achieved far more in the 5 years of his presidency (which still has 3 years to go) than either his father or Bill Clinton did in 12 years.

I'm sure that drives the Bush Haters crazy.

UPDATE: And this story just makes my day -- and proves my point!
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 10:17 AM |

 
A Profound Misanalysis

Sheesh. This is about as amazing an example of denial on the part of those who refuse to recognize the threat of Islamofascism as I could have imagined.

Zbigniew Brzezinski states, "The "Islamic" jihad is, at best, a fragmented and limited movement that hardly resonates in most of the world."

One wonders what world Brzezinski inhabits these days.

Cori Dauber comments:

This is a misanalysis so profound one hardly knows where to begin. The list of books I could send one to is so long I hardly know where to start.
But if this is what passes for deep thinking from the opposition, I am profoundly depressed right now.

She's not the only one.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 10:10 PM |

 
TERRORISTS FOR TROOP WITHDRAWAL
Besides being a protestor social club and a dedicated group that supports acting out behavior in support of every totalitarian dictator and nation on earth, International ANSWER would likely be proud to include a new member in its elite corps: "Terrorists For Troop Withdrawal".



Oh, BTW, ANSWER stands for "Act Now to Support Wackiness and Eschew Reason" (at least I'm pretty sure it does....)
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 9:13 PM |

 
SUPERSTARDOM COVERING SUPERPATHOLOGY?
AJ Strata has an interesting interview up with someone who was once chief of security for Michael Jackson's Never Land Ranch. AJ notes after the interview:

Michael was dealing with an interesting pool of children. Those most in need, those coming from the most desperate families, those with many built in handicaps for dealing with a dominant super star with Class A legal council. The environment that led these children to be in such dire straits is the same which would be available to impugn any of their claims of wrong doing. And a majority would more than likely be open to a financial settlement. This is a recipe for trouble. A picture I am not convinced came out clearly in the trial.

I never recall seeing evidence that it was clear to security at all times how often children slept with Michael over the years. Was it once a month (12 a year), once a week (52 a year) or twice a week (104 a year). This is important information to know, in my opinion. I am not sure why this was not addressed?

Considering the attention that Jackson's recent trial generated, it is clear that he still represents in the mind of the public a figure of great interest. We watch in morbid fascination as "superstars" like Jackson live their lives; engage in foibles and debacles; and make mistakes that come with living large. In general, celebrity status, rather than diminishing the flaws in the people who attain it; seems to magnify them and create innovative options for their expression.

This is partly due to the risk of "acquired narcissism" that is inherent in celebrity. But save your pity for the poor individual who brings his or her own serious psychological defects to the realm of superstardom.

Jackson's bizarre transformation from wholesomecute kid star to exceedingly weird adult was on the world stage, exposed for all to see.

His eccentric behavior related to children--whether completely innocent and arising from a sad, but hardly puzzling desire to remain a perpetual child as he ages badly; or whether originating from a sick sexual pathology combined with predatory machinations--is clearly socially and psychologically suspect.

Take into account his public hypochondriasis and excessively histrionic behavior (even beyond what one might ordinarily find in a subculture that actively encourages that sort of thing), and even a random observer (let alone a psychiatrist looking on)--begins to wonder if there is not some serious psychopathology lurking behind all the trappings of fame and fortune.

It certainly wouldn't be the first time that wealth and privilege have covered up serious character pathology. But even in a culture that seemingly goes to extraordinary--one might say ridiculous--lengths to shield children from any hint of inappropriate sexuality-- but at the same time seems also to encourage it; Jackson's superstardom and accompanying wealth will not protect him forever--particularly if the worse that is suspected happens to be true.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 9:11 PM |

 
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! This has been a week of rare idiocy (as always!). Calling all bloggers! Be sure to send in your entries to the Carnival, which will be posted every Sunday. Entries need to be in by 8 pm ET on Saturday to make their way into the list that week. Only one post entry weekly per blogger, please. Thanks for all the submissions. I will use as many as possible!
SO MANY INSANITIES! SO LITTLE TIME!
***NEW*** Feel free to add your own insanities in Trackbacks to this post!

1. Don't these guys have anything better to do?

2. A handy-dandy reference for the clueless. PLUS, Sun Tzu for beginners!

3. No good deed goes unpunished.

4. In case you were wondering what to get Maureen Dowd for Christmas. And just to show that I'm fair and balanced, go here to discover the ultimate present for a 9 year old boy!

5. Criswell Ethan predicts

6. Here's something you don't see everyday--a nurse with a gun!

7. OK, I admit it--I really despise this hypocrite. It is gratifying to know that even the Left doesn't like him anymore.... Now, if he will just STFU and go away, both sides of the political spectrum would be happy.

8. The fastest way to get the next available human...

9. Meet Sylvia, one of the 72 Virgins. Meet Chahrazad Belayni, currently fighting for her life after being set on fire for refusing a marriage proposal.

10. But, if they sit next to women, who knows what might happen? And it would even be worse if they sit next to other men! Men are just mindless animals, I guess.

11. The absolutely positively best reason to vote Republican in 2006. Folks, this is very scary.

12. Making a tidy little profit off of a soldier's death...isn't that nice? And here we have what she and her ilk really think of people in the U.S. Military. They are positively desperate for us to fail in Iraq.

13. And, while we're at it, this is what the Democratic Party thinks of the military (a projection, perhaps?). But according to knowledgeable military sources the Dem's perspective is simply "unmitigated crap." That's a kinder, gentler way of putting it than I would. But to be completely fair, once must admit that they would eventually try to connect the dots.

14. Frogs are the future of antibiotics? Isn't life amazing? (hat tip: Transterrestrial Musings)

15. It all comes down to who you are willing to believe. Professors or Cubans? The terrorists or the US military?

16.. God forbid that anyone should try to discredit communism!

17. No, really! This is a true story! And so is this extremely ironic one.

18. More evidence that Freud was right about phallic symbols....

19. Some speech is freer than others. Just try to put an "X" over Pelosi's face, for example--you'd never hear the end of it.

20. Live by the bomb, die by the bomb.

21. Text message Cliff Notes? Ken Burns' new documentary? What is the literary world coming to?

22. What the DNC talking points would look like if made into a zombie movie . (hat tip: Dr. Helen)

23. "Sounds of the Season"? And the pagans are protesting! But, as this blogger suggests, don't mess with God Almighty!

24. Instapundit makes his "kidnapped worker" policy absolutely clear. Personally, I'd rather work for him.

25. A case of mistaken identity.

26. Hey! Why can't I be nominated for one? Medicine, perhaps. Or peace. Or maybe physics (you don't have to know anything about physics, right?)

27. This meeting must have been sponsored by the UN.


***************************************

If you would like to Join the insanity, and add the Carnival of the Insanities button to your sidebar (clicking on it will always take you to the latest update of the Carnival), click on the button below to obtain the html code:


- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 9:20 AM |

 
A Paranoid's Dream
Remember the scene in A Beautiful Mind when the friends of John Nash go into his office at work where he has been presumably working on complicated cryptographic theories? What they discover is a unbelievably jumbled disarray of thousands of articles on every square millimeter of the wall with arrows, theoretical connections and equation. It is a scene that makes the audience realize that Nash has been slowly transitioning from reality, into a world of nightmarish, bizarre, and paranoid connections of psychotic proportions.

That is exactly what the Wilson-Plame fiasco has degenerated into. It is a bottomless well of conjecture verging on projection and fantasy that no longer has any meaning or purpose (if it ever did). The more information we are given; and the more it is analyzed and dissected; the less any of it seems to makes sense.

It has evolved into a conspiracy theorist's fantasy and a paranoid's dream.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 12:12 AM |

 
THE RANT
My article "In Denial" is the lead editorial at The Rant this weekend. Go and give this ezine a look if you haven't already!
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 3:50 PM |

 
OVER THE RIVER AND THROUGH THE WOODS
Today we are going to go all those Christmas things that I look forward to each year. We'll be heading out to a nearby farm over the river and through the woods to cut down our Christmas tree ; then set it up and decorate it. We'll also be putting up all the Christmas decorations outside the house.

It is pretty cold (in the low 30's) and there is about 1-2 inches of snow on the ground. But I've got gallons of hot chocolate ready!

The Boo also has a soccer game later in the afternoon (indoor, of course).

Have a great day! Back blogging tonight.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 3:02 PM |

 
THE COUNCIL HAS SPOKEN !
This week's winners in the Watcher's Council are now posted at the Watcher of Weasels. Every week the Council nominates posts from the blogs of the Council members, and posts from around the blogsphere. The Council then votes to select the "Best" of all these posts. I'm proud to have been selected two weeks in a row for the honor of Best Council Post! Congratulations to all the other winners.

BEST COUNCIL POSTS:

First Place

Guns, Germs, and Moonbats Right Wing Nut House

Second Place

Discussing Withdrawal From Iraq The Glittering Eye

BEST NON-COUNCIL POSTS:

First Place

The New York Times on Iraq, 1993-2005 American Future

Second Place

From the Law Offices of Dewey, Cheatam and Howe Varifrank

Don't forget to check out all the winners at the Watcher's Site! Great weekend reading.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 11:40 AM |

 
GOOD NEWS MAKES THEM DESPAIR
Brian Wesbury in the WSJ today comments:

During a quarter century of analyzing and forecasting the economy, I have never seen anything like this. No matter what happens, no matter what data are released, no matter which way markets move, a pall of pessimism hangs over the economy.

It is amazing. Everything is negative. When bond yields rise, it is considered bad for the housing market and the consumer. But if bond yields fall and the yield curve narrows toward inversion, that is bad too, because an inverted yield curve could signal a recession.

If housing data weaken, as they did on Monday when existing home sales fell, well that is a sign of a bursting housing bubble. If housing data strengthen, as they did on Tuesday when new home sales rose, that is negative because the Fed may raise rates further. If foreigners buy our bonds, we are not saving for ourselves. If foreigners do not buy our bonds, interest rates could rise. If wages go up, inflation is coming. If wages go down, the economy is in trouble.

This onslaught of negative thinking is clearly having an impact. During the 2004 presidential campaign, when attacks on the economy were in full force, 36% of Americans thought we were in recession. One year later, even though unemployment has fallen from 5.5% to 5%, and real GDP has expanded by 3.7%, the number who think a recession is underway has climbed to 43%.

This is a real conundrum. It is true, bad things have happened. Katrina wiped out a major city and many people are still displaced. GM has announced massive layoffs. Underfunded pension plans are being handed off to the government. Oil, gasoline and natural gas prices have soared. Despite it all, the U.S. economy continues to flourish.

Read it all.

Meanwhile, Bizzyblog dissects this economic conundrum, and demonstrates why public opinion polls should be taken with a grain of salt. Just because a lot of people believe something is true, doesn't mean it is.

Why all this pessimism? Well, while pessimists often consider the glass half empty quite naturally; much of the economic and political pessimism in this country has to do with denial; and much of it has to do with the fact that any good news means that Bush's policies are working well--which, by definition, makes the Left and the MSM despair.

For people with insight, depression or despair can be a motivating force for them to change their life; or their way of thinking; or even their basic premises about the world. But from what we have seen of the Left and the MSM in the last five years, Bush successes and their own sour reaction to it only stimulate them to pump out even more from their propaganda mills. They are getting increasingly desperate as they opine increasingly delusional rants (hat tip: SC & A).

Wretchard at the Belmont Club discusses the "battle of the narrative" that is going on right now concerning Iraq--but he might just as well be talking about the narrative of the economic reality which the Left is determined to distort also.

Blackfive says that the results of fighting on the ground are foregone: what remains is the 'battle of the narrative'. But how do you win a 'battle of the narrative' except with words? Ironically the sheer success of the US Armed Forces in keeping the civilian population from a direct experience of war ensures they will only learn about it through vicarious means: network news, the major newspapers and magazines. Movies. And in that department the OPFOR has Blue radically outnumbered. Any rational observer calculating the correlation of words would have to say that in that battle, Blackfive's narrative hasn't got a snowball's chance in hell. The side with the most power over words has determined that Iraq is a defeat. And yet ...
The problem with using words to trump reality is that it wagers everything on a monumental bluff.

The economic situation by all indicators is excellent. The Iraq War and reconstruction in Iraq is going well (I can hear the outrage that will be precipitated by my saying that--nevertheless it is true); and unless the despair being artificially manufactured and promoted causes us to commit political suicide-- our strategic initiatives in both Iraq and Afghanistan will be successful.

I used to think that the Left was stuck in the 90's, but now I realize they are actually stuck in 1984 or a similar Orwellian reality.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 7:29 PM |

 
CHRISTMAS WARS (A Ceremony of Carols)
REAL CHRISTMAS
I'm dreaming of a real Christmas
Just like the ones I used to know
Where we say the greeting,
at every meeting
And thumb our noses at Newdow.

I'm dreaming of a real Christmas
Not just a PC holiday
May your days be red and not blue
And may someone stop the ACLU
Play Music


CHRISTMAS WARS
Dashing through the courts
On a PC holiday
O'er the legal torts
Listening to lawyers bray
Lawsuits all around
Making spirits sink
What fun it is to sue and fuss and
Drive us all to drink

Oh, Christmas wars, Christmas wars
PC all the way
Oh, what fun it is to trash
A Christian holiday
Christmas wars, Christmas wars
PC all the way
Oh, what fun it is to trash
A Christian holiday

A day or two ago
I thought I'd go and shop
But when I reached the stores
My jaw it nearly dropped
Because of lawsuit fears
And not wanting to offend
Christ was gone from Christmas
When will this madness end?

Oh, Christmas wars, Christmas wars
PC all the way
Oh, what fun it is to trash
A Christian holiday
Christmas wars, Christmas wars
PC all the way
Oh, what fun it is to trash
A Christian holiday
Play Music

LET US SUE!
Oh the weather outside is frightful,
And making mischief is delightful,
And since we've nothing to do,
Let us sue! Let us sue! Let us sue!

This Christmas thing's not diverse enough,
And besides we are perverse enough
To impose our own point of view,
Let us sue! Let us sue! Let us sue!

When we finally get our way,
How we'll love all that secular bliss !
And you know at the end of the day,
That Christmas won't even be missed!

As our civilization's dying,
And religious folk are cying,
It's "Happy Holidays" to you,
Or we'll sue! Yes we'll sue! We will sue!


[NOTE: The Ceremony of Carols was inspired by this post here.
This was a production of stop/ The ACLU Blogburst. If you would like to join us, please email Jay at Jay@stoptheaclu.com or Gribbit at GribbitR@gmail.com. You will be added to our mailing list and blogroll. Over 115 blogs already onboard].
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 12:41 PM |

 
THE CHAMPIONS OF THE OPPRESSED STRIKE AGAIN
A really excellent post by Jeff Goldstein at Protein Wisdom about identity politics, which starts out:

An obvious problem with the grievance aspect of identity politics is that the grievance needs to be perpetually maintained in order to justify the identity aspect of the politics. And in an era of academic specialization wherein just about every individual identity group has its own set of researchers and theoretical champions—as well as a widely accepted generic narrative of grievance—the observation that continued relevance (which translates into political power) is contingent upon the nursing and care of the grievance is something that too often goes unexamined by a society that, at base, really does wish to understand and fix the problems and frustrations expressed by individual identity groups.

He then goes on to expose the power plays that have ensued as these grievance-based promoters against anyone who offers a different perspective. Rather than being able to argue their perspective, they simple define away the problem. If you don't agree with them, you are "anti-feminist" or "anti-black".

I have touched on this same issue in several of my own posts (here and here, for example), but Jeff really makes it clear what is going on here.

Feminism, however, is embroiled in its own internal struggle between second wave (gender feminists) and equity feminists like Young, who are hostile to the academic feminism that has established itself as the “official” feminist narrative after years of insinuating itself into academic, social, and public policy discourse. And so what we are really seeing here is an attempt by gender feminists to control the feminist label and excommunicate those who refuse to adhere to a particular narrative and a particular political strategy for the women’s movement.

This is probably the best description I have seen. Early in my blogging career, I made a comment on a site (I won't link to it) that had a post up making fun of Laura Bush because she was in Afghanistan to support the women there. I said that I thought that it was strange for women who called themselves "feminists" to be deriding Laura Bush with such obvious enthusiasm, and claiming that her husband was an oppressor of women; particularly when his actions had just freed millions of women in Afghanistan.

As a result of this fairly innocuous (but admitedly confrontational) comment, my blog was besieged with angry lefties, including the author of the mentioned post, calling me "hateful" and "anti-woman" and other names which I won't bother to print here. Of course, on the thread where I commented, they never once addressed the points I made, but began immediately to make comments to the effect of "how dare she (me) think of herself as a feminist!" when I clearly supported Bush; and "how naive" I was in imagining that those poor deluded Afghani women were really free. There interpretation of events in Afghanistan was that the only thing that had happened of significance was that the U.S. had simply exposed Afghani women to an even more toxic form of American-style discrimination; and that they would be sorry soon enough that they had traded the Taliban for the blatant sexism of Bush and the evil Republicans.

Of course, this was completely insane BS--not to mention rather delusional-- on their part.

These women who refer to themselves as "feminists" today are actually in a desperate battle to control the feminist "label" and to remain relevant to the discussion of women's rights--even though they clearly abandoned that objective long ago. They spend most of their time just as Goldstein demonstrates, maintaining their own narrow and politically motivated definition of "feminism" and seeking to "excommunicate" anyone who questions their "woman as eternal victim" premise.

Their objective now is maintaining women's victimhood, so they can eternally be the champions of the oppressed.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 11:55 AM |

 
THE BARON IS ON THE CASE
The Baron at the Gates of Vienna continues his excellent investigative report on Jamaat ul-Fuqra, or as he calls it, Jamat ul-Everywhere.

Three isolated, reclusive rural African-American Islamic establishments in the hinterlands of Virginia. Two of them associated with Muslims of the Americas, and one with the Nation of Islam. Both connected to Islamic proselytizing in the prisons. Both groups involved, directly or indirectly, with the fraudulent acquisition of public funds. Both involved with the education and training of young people according to the tenets of the Koran.

The Baron's series on this shadowy Islamic group in rural Virginia is a must-read.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 7:03 PM |

 
POLITICAL FAITH HEALING
A soldier, currently serving in Baghdad, thinks that Americans should listen to President Bush and says:

However, when you discover you have cancer the treatment is always the same - attack it at the source. You don’t wait for it to spread. And when is the last time you heard a doctor putting a limited timetable on cancer therapy? I can picture it in my mind. “Mr. Smith, we have seen some progress with your tumor. It’s shrinking. But we need to move on now. The timetable for treating you has passed. Good luck.”

That approach has the same effect in Medicine that it has in Politics. It's no good appeasing a tumor; and if you enable it by encouraging its growth....well, you can imagine the consequences.

That is why I wouldn't recommend Drs. Kerry, Reid, Pelosi -- or anyone trained at the Democratic Party School of International Medicine. Their alternative medical strategy when treating a potentially lethal disease--instead of aggressive or radical therapy--is wishing; hoping for the best; and/or pretending that a miracle will happen and that everything will magically turn out all right.

It represents a form of political faith healing.

UPDATE: The Anchoress links to a remarkably similar analogy!
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 3:00 PM |