TO A MARXIST DYING OLD
(Shamelessly plagiarized from the poem "To an Athlete Dying Young" by A. E. Housman)

That time in the sixties you made your point
And celebrated with a joint;
Protesters stood cheering by,
And everyone of them was high.

To-day, you dwell within that past,
Desperate that your theories last,
But sadly, they have been debunked,
And Marx himself has been depunked.

Smart man, to slip into a haze
Where always is the dialectic praised,
And all your dreams might come to be
Untouched by life's reality.

Eyes that glittered with fanatic passion
Cannot forever be in fashion,
And slogans chanted from those marches
Have given way to Golden Arches

Once you weren't just antiwar
You understood what you were for,
But then the shit, it hit the fan--
The cause had died before the man

And after all the echoes faded,
The deaths and miseries paraded,
The consequences of your cause
Its inhumane and fatal flaws

You choose to close your eyes instead,
It's not your fault they all are dead!
You'll find another cult as good--
Potentially in victimhood.

And when you finally face your death,
So close to breathing your last breath;
Consider all the pain and strife
Your ideals caused in real life.

UPDATE: Life imitates art. [OK, something akin to art]
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 3:46 PM |

 
MEDIA DISCLOSURE AND EVALUATION ?
One of the jobs I had in academia in the not too distant past was that of Assistant Dean of Continuing Medical Education. As such, I was responsible for organizing programs for medical professionals that provided formal CME credits that were necessary for re-licensure.

In order to be certified as a "Category 1" CME program, certain standards have to be met in the presentation; the most important of which is that it be "free of commercial bias". This usually means that the speaker is not supposed to include his personal biases about one particular drug or another; and was responsible for presenting objective data and a neutral evaluation of that data.

Speakers know this in advance, and are also expected to disclose all the financial connections they have with various drug companies (including speaking for them; getting research money from them, etc.). This sort of thing used to be done on the "honor" system, but it was found that too much bias was seeping into medical education; and those lecturers getting large amounts of money from drug companies where under pressure to promote that company's educational agenda.

One of the ways compliance to these standards is measured is through an evaluation form filled out by the audience after each presentation. The evaluation specifically asks if any commercial bias was detected in the talk.

I have to say that the system works pretty well. When a presentation is billed as a "CME" lecture, then these criteria go into effect. Everyone understands that a non-CME lecture or conference does not have this kind of minimal oversight regarding bias or the promotion of certain drugs or pharmaceutical company agendas. and therefore, takes that information into account when evaluating how useful the presentation or conference is.

WHY CAN'T THIS BE DONE WITH NEWS REPORTING?

I propose that every news article published in the formal print media; every story reported on news TV and on newsmedia internet sites, have an evaluation form attached to them which asks the reader about detection of personal bias in the reporting. There should also be a "Disclosure" section in every newspaper and on every news show that openly lists financial donations or ties of any kind to political parties or identified partisan groups.

This should be the standard operating procedure for news organizations; and should be recognized as being absolutely essential to any claims of honest, fair, and unbiased journalism.

While not perfect, this process works for medical professionals and it keeps the information presented to them reasonably unbiased--or at least makes them aware of possible biases that they can take into account in assessing the information presented to them.

The "honor system" in journalism of full disclosure is not working very well these days. I don't see why a similar process couldn't work for anyone who expects to be taken as a professional in journalism.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 9:52 AM |

 
The Blatantly Contradictory Media
Debra Burlingame captures the inconsistency, and change of goalposts in the media's criticism of the Bush Administration on national security:

Meanwhile, the media, mouthing phrases like "Article II authority," "separation of powers" and "right to privacy," are presenting the issues as if politics have nothing to do with what is driving the subject matter and its coverage. They want us to forget four years of relentless "connect-the-dots" reporting about the missed chances that "could have prevented 9/11." They have discounted the relevance of references to the two 9/11 hijackers who lived in San Diego. But not too long ago, the media itself reported that phone records revealed that five or six of the hijackers made extensive calls overseas.

NBC News aired an "exclusive" story in 2004 that dramatically recounted how al-Hazmi and al-Mihdhar, the San Diego terrorists who would later hijack American Airlines flight 77 and fly it into the Pentagon, received more than a dozen calls from an al Qaeda "switchboard" inside Yemen where al-Mihdhar's brother-in-law lived. The house received calls from Osama Bin Laden and relayed them to operatives around the world. Senior correspondent Lisa Myers told the shocking story of how, "The NSA had the actual phone number in the United States that the switchboard was calling, but didn't deploy that equipment, fearing it would be accused of domestic spying." Back then, the NBC script didn't describe it as "spying on Americans." Instead, it was called one of the "missed opportunities that could have saved 3,000 lives."

She has lots to say about Congress also, and you should read the entire piece. But I want to focus for a minute on the MSM aspect of it.

How can we possibly forget the constant harping by the media on how little George W. Bush did in the first eight months of his administration to prevent 9/11 by "connecting the dots"? Even as they complained about Bush's lack of attention to terrorism, the same media gave Clinton a completely free pass regarding his actions in the previous 8 years. Nevertheless, when they finished beating that dead horse--having squeezed every possible bit of partisan whining out of it--they then proceeded to switch tactics and take the opposite approach, as Burlingame suggests; complaining about everything this President has done since that time to try to connect any dots at all.

This behavior, disguised by code words like "free speech" and "privacy", with the continual insinuations by all the serious media talking heads, that Bush is destroying our civil liberties and intent on establishing a police state-- borders on the schizophrenic rantings of the completely delusional (except that I wouldn't want to insult the mentally ill who, on the whole, are far more reasonable in most cases).

I realize this is just another case of media hypocrisy and partisanship--so what else is new? But this kind of contradictory discourse is something I have talked about before and it must be exposed for what it is: a fundamental distortion of the truth to make it conform to whatever the feelings du jour happen to be; and those feelings are almost always related to their rage at George W. Bush.

Their reporting--particularly on this issue-- demonstrates how truth is manipulated and distorted by their unacknowledged ideological biases; and any consistency found in their positions from one moment to the next is... purely accidental (and likely just as opportunistic).

They insist that all truth is relative anyway; so by applying their own standards, why should anyone bother to listen to them?

They are, of course, hoping you won't notice the blatant contradictions.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 9:41 AM |

 
The Left Hate Hate Hate the Democrats Now
The unbridled rage of the left is unleashed....on hapless Democrats. The Corner reads DailyKos, so you can protect yourself from the rabid piranha who lurk in that cesspool.

Perhaps an anger management course is in order? Or maybe they should just...moveon?
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 9:44 PM |

 
Who Would Know?
Going into tomorrow's State of the Union speech, this seems like good news for Bush:

Sunday January 29, 2006--Forty-nine percent (49%) of American adults approve of the way George W. Bush is performing his role as President. Fifty percent (50%) disapprove.

It is not clear whether this uptick in Job Approval over the past three days is a lasting change or merely statistical noise.

The President earns approval from 81% of Republicans, 23% of Democrats, and 40% of those not affiliated with either major political party.

And you can count on this information not being bruited about in the MSM either. In fact, just a few days ago CNN was happily spouting this lttle tidbit of news.

In spite of the good news, the more I read them, the more the polls seem to adopt the personality of John "I was against it before I was for it" Kerry.

Based on the information given in most news reports about a particular poll, a reasonable person is not able to assess the scientific validity of the poll (i.e., the specific questions asked and exactly who was asked) by determining if there was bias in the question or the sample--unless they took quite a bit of time researching such things (such as this blogger) or reading this kind of research.

As someone who has developed and studied the results of questionaires and understand the limitations of this type of research, I have no illusions about either the reliability or validity of such [quasi]scientific types of endeavors. Among other factors, what people say and what they will do are often two separate and distinct things. Sometimes the research question about "performance" or "effectiveness" washes out and all you get is a bad measure of "popularity". Sometimes the research question of "popularity" can be washed out and all you get is a measure of the person's mood at the particular time you asked your question.

Aside from the scientific questions about a poll, I have continuing and deeply-held scepticism about the usefulness of political polls or questionnaires--except of course for the partisan purposes of both parties. The only polls that actually have demonstrable meaning in the real world are the ones taken by casting a ballot in a real world election.

And, one more thing I need to say. I find it contemptible to make policy decisions or determine actions that are based solely on maintaining a day-to-day popularity (as reflected in political polls) or approval rating. Don't tell me that this is how politics works. I understand that. It doesn't change that it represents extremely pathological behavior and speaks volumes about the fundamental narcissism and lack of integrity inherent in many people who go into politics on both sides of the political spectrum.

In my mind (and I have no illusions about how important my opinions are) this is the exact opposite of how politics should work. Whichever candidate wins the election--the one I supported or the one I opposed--I expect that he will do his job. This almost daily reciting of "approval ratings" seems to come from a abnormal need for constant reassurance, with all the false stroking and petting of self-esteem that is seen in elementary schools these days. Any candidate who needs to surround themselves in those illusions should make a living in Hollywood, not in Washington D.C.

Nevertheless, having said all of the above, if the blogshere did not report on polls that show Bush in a positive light, who would?
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 1:17 PM |

 
Back Later
The Boo has the day off school, and we are going to go do some shopping and have some fun together. I'll be back blogging later this afternoon or evening. Scroll down and visit for a while if you haven't been here before; or check out some of the fine blogs on the blogrolls in my sidebar.

Have a great day! Back later.

UPDATE: The Boo (like most teens, I guess) prefers to sleep in late on days off, so I am informed that will go shopping later. So, don't be surprised if you see a few new posts pop up as I do my morning reading.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 11:30 AM |

 
The Party of Nothing
It will be amusing to watch how much lower the Democratic Party of the United States can sink in its quest to regain power. Especially as this person cavorts joyfully with totalitarian dictators; and ponders a run for the U.S. senate.

What next, Democrats? A Kerry photo-op with Zarqawi? Honorary membership in your party offered by Boxer to Bin Laden or Ahmadinejad? How about a friendly dinner whipped up by Dean to smooth things out with Kim Jung Il?

Let me cut to the chase. The Democratic Party has lost whatever anchor it once had in the real world and is blowin' in the wind. It has become the party of nothing; led by vapid nothings, who stand for nothing.

As evidence take the vague and distorted concept of "absolute moral authority"--a concept derived entirely from endless whining and perpetual victimhood. This is their highest ideal.

Without a doubt, Cindy Sheehan is the perfect spokesperson for the Democratic Party of the 21st century.

UPDATE: Scott Ott also sees her (and Hugo) as the spokespersons for the Democrats.

UPDATE II: SEND IN THE TROLLS! This post got linked by Salon.com. Expect to hear from a lot of angry people who are unable to tolerate any criticism of their irrational behavior since 9/11. They are under the impression that mindlessly destroying one's country for the sake of political power; enabling and encouraging the goals of the terrorist enemy who has vowed to destroy us; and expressing their visceral hatred of Bush in the process is somehow patriotic. Too bad I don't happen to agree. I suggest that they go fight the war on global warming they think is so important (preferably on the frontlines in Antarctica), since they are so completely useless in fighting terrorism. Godspeed.

UPDATE III: Well, just like the last time I was linked to by the compassionate liberal left, I will have to close my comment section on this thread. They are such nice people.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 11:28 AM

 
COULD WE PLEASE STOP THE HYSTERICS ?
Here is the sensational headline by Reuters:

Army Forces 50,000 Soldiers into extended active duty.

This is the response at The Officer's Club:

For god's sake, knock it off Reuters. The army "forces" soldiers to do things all the time, the more appropriate term for it is "orders." That's what the military is, that's what they do. That's why service is a sacrifice, and that's why soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines are so special to the American people.

During the World War II years, soldiers deployed and -in many cases- didn't see home for two to three years. Reuters is acting like extended deployments are some new phenomena invented by the evil Bush administration.

Could we please PLEASE just stop the hysterics?

Just once I would like to see a MSM piece about the military that knows what it is talking about; where the journalist propagandist didn't try to disguise his/her own opinions about the military as a "news" article.

Gee, I bet that al qaeda has troop rotations that are much more humane and sensitive than ours.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 1:18 AM |

 
Perfect Paranoia
I recently completed a two-part series on the Paranoia of the Left (Part I and Part II) and then happened to run accross the following political cartoon, which I think exemplifies that paranoid mindset:

Why in the world would anyone think that the President and Vice President of the United States of America would be in a conspiracy with Islamofascists who openly state their intention of destroying both our country and our way of life? To what purpose? What could possibly be gained?

Don't expect a rational response to such questions. Questions like that only elicit further complicated conspiracy theories that are constructed around all of the shibboleths of the left--anti-capitalism; multilateralism; multiculturalism; poverty; victims of US imperialism; anti-Americanism etc. etc. If you put all the conspiracy theories together you will find a concatenation of bizarre and often contradictory components that should make any reasonably intelligent person roll on the floor with hoots of laughter.

Not only are such a beliefs perfect examples of the depths of insanity to which the liberal left has sunk; but the various theories of Bush's evil possess all the hallmarks of the intense political paranoia that highlights almost all of the left's behavior since 9/11.

When they aren't outright denying the reality of 9/11; they are downplaying its significance; and snidely suggesting that it is not a big deal historically speaking; and that the war on terror shouldn't even be on the priority list of things to do (see here). There has not been a single action by this administration on the war on terror and Islamofascism that has not been deliberately undermined and actively opposed, spun, and exploited for political gain on their part.

The Democrats and their liberal left members maintain that it is Bush and his supporters that are playing fast and loose with politics; and that they are using fear to manipulate America so that they can establish a fascist/theocratic state.

What do these lunatics imagine that they are doing when they describe an NSA program that targets international terrorists communications into the U.S. by referring to it as "domestic spying"? What do these clueless people imagine they are doing by constantly harping on the ridiculous comparisons of Bush to Hitler; or of Iraq to Vietnam? Of modern Christianity to religious fanaticism of Islam? All of these examples are excellent demonstrations of using fear to manipulate the public.

It is impossible for them to believe that anyone in politics would not play the game to maximize their hold on power (since that is what they would do if they were in power); and might actually take action because it is the right thing to do; or that it might be important for national security or in the national interest of America. What a concept!

All their rationalizations and rhetoric represent a classic case of projection, pure and simple. What is obvious to anyone who botheres to think about it, is that it has consistently been the liberal left who have been the appeasers and enablers and who have encouraged, aided and abetted the murderous activities of the Islamofascists--not Bush or Cheney, contrary to the depiction in the cartoon above.

In order to justify in their own minds the treasonous contempt they have toward their own country, they must constantly accuse the Republican in the White House--who is the recipient of the left's unadulterated hatred-- of behavior for which they themselves are guilty.

Indeed, it is the perfect paranoid moment.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 10:08 PM |

 
A Kick in the Teeth
My friend and fellow mental health blogger has just been diagnosed with lung cancer. Please go on over an lend some support to GM Roper at GM's Corner.

As GM says, this kind of diagnosis is a "kick in the teeth." Life can certainly do that to a person. We never expect that it will be ourselves or someone we care about that gets kicked....

I know that if this can be licked, then GM will be the one to do it -- and not just overcome it; but overcome it with grace, wit and courage.

My thoughts and prayers are with you, GM.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 3:26 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!).

Send your entries for next week's carnival to Dr. Sanity by 8 pm ET on Saturday for Sunday's Carnival. Only one post entry weekly per blogger, please. Thanks for all the submissions. I try to use as many as possible!
SO MANY INSANITIES! SO LITTLE TIME!

1. Hamas And Fatah Exchange Ideas About Responsible Governance, With Occasional Automatic Weapon Gunfire.

2. And speaking of people unclear on the concept of democracy.... Would you want this man to know your address? Or this woman to babysit your kids?

3. Sure, let's respect their decision and let's also let them live with the consequences.

4. Somehow, I don't think Marx had this in mind when he spoke of the proletariat rising to overthow their oppressors.

5. A perfect example of [unbelievable] rationalization (not to mention complete stupidity and poor judgment). No wonder this poor woman can't get dates.

6. Some advice on what songs not to download. And here's a handy little tool to find out the unidentified song that's stuck in your head!

7. Some serious yodeling? A good example of generally making a fool of yourself. Here's some advice on the best ways to make a complete fool of yourself in the blogsphere.

8. There are things that can challenge even the strongest friendship. And speaking of friendship, some of this guy's best friends are white chocolate.

9. Perhaps a countersuit is in order? Especially when you see these (CAUTION! Very Graphic).

10. This just doesn't make sense. But then, there is considerable evidence that government isn't big on making sense.

11. Who cares about a little distortion; or a little bias; or a lot ? I mean, it's true if they feel it's true, right?

12. It's in the Koran. Maybe so. But this is why we will ultimately win....

13. I'm sure this study has a lot of truth; but sometimes it is a lack of brain activity ( or here) that affects political bias.

14. The calculus of revenge.

15. Resolved: that lefties are witless relativism-shackled PC bores. Tim Blair argues for the affirmative. Anyone care to take the negative?

16. A new Axis of Evil ? Or just a Axis of Evil Enablers?

17. Ahhhhh. The ACLU ! How would we ever get along without them?

18. The design team was high on tequila !

19. A million little satires. And here's one.

20. Doesn't this sound like something from Jules Verne?

21. Hippocratic pablum.

22. Two examples of Iranian Insanity: compassion & love . And Pakistani paranoia as Pakistanis struggle against a marathon.

23. Like Crack, but legal and socially acceptable?

24. We interrupt this Rovian mind ray to bring you a moment of Democratic sanity..... not!

25. Oh no...I'm sure he can go much much lower.

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 "Word of Blog" below the button to obtain the html code:





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

 
DENIAL, UNBELIEVABLE DENIAL
New York Times indulges in psychotic denial. Cori Dauber analyzes this astonishing piece of psychopathology. What next? Shall we trash Pearl Harbor and the overreaction that occurred in response?

Unbelievable.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 10:54 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. This week includes some incredible writing!

BEST COUNCIL POSTS:

First Place

Chaos or Community Done With Mirrors

Second Place

Ronald Reagan -- A Personal Recollection Dr. Sanity


BEST NON-COUNCIL POSTS:

First Place

Just a Second -- It’s Not That Dark Yet (And We Have a Really Big Flashlight) Winds of Change

Second Place (A two-way tie!)

Malaysia and the Pact of Omar Maobi

The Coming of the Bomb The Belmont Club

Be sure to check out all the winners at the Watcher's site. The posts that are nominated and voted on are always excellent and worth your time.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 9:05 PM |

 
20 YEARS AFTER CHALLENGER - The Dream Is Alive
NOTE: The essay that follows this brief introduction was originally posted on January 28, 2005. Today, on the 20th anniversary of the Challenger disaster, I decided to repost it. Twenty years after this tragedy, not much has changed at NASA; nor are we much closer to achieving the dreams of human space exploration that once drew me into the space program. The Shuttle fleet is decaying and some are calling it a "deathtrap" (hat tip: Solomon2). It may be -- I wouldn't want to be driving a 20 year old vehicle in the unforgiving highways of space either--but truly, the Shuttle Program has always been a dead end for human space exploration; destined to remain forever chained in low-earth orbit. One wonders why the astronaut who now calls it a "deathtrap" didn't make his concerns known while he was part of NASA -- and then, after you wonder for a while, the answer immediately comes to mind and explains so much.

NASA has evolved into a culture that does not tolerate criticism well. It is a place where being a "team player" means shutting up and doing what you are told, or else you will be marginalized and your career finished. That is not the sort of place where innovation --or safety-- thrive.

I still believe that space exploration and colonization is the destiny of humanity and that one day our decendants will fly from star to star the way we drive from city to city. I no longer imagine them flying in NASA spacecraft, however. The astronauts of Challenger and Columbia are some of the pioneers that slowly but surely bring us closer to that dream. To all of them I say, the dream is alive and well...but that NASA stopped dreaming a while back and is now just semi-comatose. We will make it into outer space to explore strange, new worlds; to seek out new civilizations and go where noone has gone before--but it will be through the courage of private citizens whose boldness is not limited by a risk-adverse and earth-bound government bureaucracy. I personally look to them to bring the future.

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

CHALLENGER: A FLIGHT SURGEON REMEMBERS

On January 28, 1986, I was at Cape Canaveral in Florida. As a NASA Flight Surgeon, I had been assigned as the Crew Surgeon for Mission 51-L (noone really wanted the job since many disapproved of having a civilian--the teacher in space--fly on a space mission). The crew had trained together for over a year, and I had come to know them all very well in the course of the training and medical preparation. I had been at the Cape for over a week and the launch had been scrubbed several times for a variety of reasons. I had been staying in a cheap motel in Cocoa Beach as we waited for weather to permit the launch attempt.

One of the memories of have of that time is a CBS Evening News broadcast with Dan Rather on January 27th, who in a snide voice wondered if NASA would ever be able to launch a space mission on time? He then proceeded to go down a long list of Shuttle missions that had been delayed. I remember being annoyed at the time because of the unspoken expectation by Mr. Rather that launching a complex space vehicle like the Shuttle was a simple thing.

We had scrubbed several times at the last minute, but everyone was fairly certain that we would get a "go for launch" on January 28th, since that was President Reagan's State of the Union address, and he intended to mention the teacher-in-space, Christa McAuliffe. The Agency would not want to disappoint the President.

When I woke up the morning of the 28th, it took me only a few minutes to begin thinking that the launch would again be postponed. It was 19 degrees outside. This was unusually cold for Cocoa Beach, even in January, and I had not even brought a sweater with me. In the 15+ minute drive to Launch Control, I continually shivered from the cold, because there was no heat in the car I had rented either. I wore just a cotton pantsuit with a very light jacket.

In Launch Control, there was a great deal of buzz about the temperature. The countdown was proceeding, but there had been ice spotted on the external tank, and crews were sent out to check it out. All of us there (I was at the Surgeon's console, which monitored crew health, and directed emergency medical operations in the case of a catastrophic event on the launchpad, or for an RTLS (return to launch site) abort. We joked and talked among ourselves, commenting on the crew talking (we were one of the few consoles that monitored the crew chitchat in the Shuttle before launch).

Much to all of our surprise, after a delay, the countdown was resumed. It had been decided that it was safe to proceed. I remember that we were surprised because no Shuttle had launched in such cold weather before, but we all assumed that had been thoroughly discussed at a higher level. We were privy only to the comments that were in the LCC (Launch Control Center). The Management Team had met outside the LCC. The countdown proceeded and Challenger was launched. As soon as it lifted off the pad, control of the mission was transferred to the MCC in Houston. It was at this point that most of the LCC team could relax and turn around to watch the Shuttle ascend. There were large windows in the roof which gave us a prime view of the entire ascent, from about 3 miles away. I watched with my usual awe, that humans had been able to contain such energy and put it to use in escaping the planet.

My awe was short-lived as we noticed an anomoly. Something seemed to have gone wrong with the SRBs (solid rocket boosters) and they detached from the ET (external tank) too soon. There seemed to be a big explosion, but none of us were certain what might have happened. I swung into action, because it seemed that we must be in an RTLS situation. I made a few commands to my emergency team, who were outside in ambulances, as I continued to watch the growing cloud of the explosion, waiting for the Challenger to appear from behind it heading back to the landing site, not far away. I waited and waited. The orbiter did not appear. I felt a momentary confusion, and then I think all the blood must have rushed out of my head as I realized what it meant. I knew they must have been killed. All of them. I had to hold onto the console for support. All I could think of was oh my God, oh my God.

The Launch Director cooly called for a lockdown. Noone was to leave the room until all information on at all consoles was safely secured. It was then that I was able to gather myself together again, as I realized that if the crew was gone, my responsibility was to take care of their families. I went to the Launch Director and asked to be allowed to leave, because the families were in Crew Quarters, about several miles down the road. After some discussion, the doors were unlocked and I was permitted out. I ran to my car and started down the road, but everyone on the highway had stopped and the road was blocked. People were milling around, still not accepting what they had just seen with their own eyes.

I was desperate to get to the families and do something useful. I wasn't sure what, but I felt they might need me there. I drove my car on the center divider and the grass between the lanes, and made my way through the crowds who had stopped to watch the launch. It took me some 20 minutes to get to Crew Quarters.

The next 12 hours were something of a blur. I had read about mass hysteria in textbooks, but that description was far too mild for what I found when I reached the place the crew called home prior to a launch. All the members of the immediate and extended family were there. Women were screaming; babies crying. People thronged around me, wanting to know if the crew had parachuted to safety. I was stunned that they had not yet grasped what had happened. One family member was certain that a rescue plane would find the crew in the ocean somewhere. Several people fainted. I needed help to medically manage the 30 or more family members who were there, but George Abbey, the dictatorial head of Flight Crew Ops would not permit me to call in any other doctor. He was in full damage control mode, and wouldn't permit any TVs or radios to be turned on either. Certainly, no phone calls. I needed to hospitalize one person, who had become disoriented and confused. Abbey said no. I said that I couldn't accept that, and did it anyway (that moment, I realized much later, ended my chances of becoming an astronaut myself--a dream I'd had most of my life). Abbey didn't want anyone to leave and head back to Houston (where everyone lived; and where their entire support was) until after Vice President Bush arrived. The Vice President arrived at about 8:00pm that night. By then I was exhausted and could hardly stand up. I barely remember being introduced to Bush and shaking his hand.

The closest I came to crying was when I heard the wife of the Shuttle Commander (Dick Scobee) say in a quavering voice to Bush that her husband would not have wanted space exploration to be halted because of what had happened that day. I realized that beyond the grieving was a fear that we all had at the time that this would hurt NASA.

After Bush left, most of the families were hustled onto NASA planes to go back to Houston. I had to remain, however, because person I had hospitalized at the nearby Air Force hospital would not be able to fly back until the next day, and I was to go with that family. By then, reinforcements had arrived as other astronauts had flown to the Cape from Houston. When the families left, I gratefully collapsed into bed at Crew Quarters. I flew home the next day with my patient and their family. On the afternoon of the 29th, I finally made it to my own home where my husband--who was waiting for me-- handed me about 100 phone messages from just about everyone I knew. When he took me in his arms, I finally started to cry and didn't stop for several hours.

For the next 5 years, I was unable to talk about what happened that day without becoming completely choked up and a blubbering idiot. I still get tears in my eyes as I remember it and the memorial service where I met President Reagan and his wife.

I watched NASA cope with this disaster using a combination of denial and intellectualization/rationalization. In the months that followed, I began to realize that the Agency I had idealized for so long as being one of the best and most competent, was actually corrupt and primarily concerned with covering its own mistakes. They were an Agency caught up in hubris, who believed in their own press far too much. Instead of making the changes in the culture that had led to this catastrophe, they were only concerned with making sure everyone thought they had made the changes. The appearance was more important than the reality. I had been a general flight surgeon before, and now, for the first time, I began to look at NASA with a psychiatrist's eyes. And what I saw disturbed me greatly. Especially in the way they handled the fact that the crew had NOT died immediately in the explosion as we all had thought, but were alive for some time as they fell into the ocean. (ED. NOTE: See this recent article on The 7 myths about the Challenger shuttle disaster from 1/26/06) I watched as they tried to hide that fact from the public and the families. I also watched as they carried out the motions of changing, but from the inside I saw no changes in attitude or behavior.

It has been 19 years since that cold morning changed me forever. When Columbia disintegrated on reentry, killing all the crew in 2003, many of my old friends called me to tell me that I had predicted that NASA would have another preventable tragedy. I would like to think that we learned something from the space missions we have lost--Apollo 1, Challenger, and Columbia -- but I fear that NASA has learned little. I refer you to Jim Oberg, an MSNBC space analyst and close friend, who has this to say today about all three disasters:

Spaceflight has its own inherent hazards, and if not respected, any of many factors can kill people. Recognizing this, engineers install backup hardware and escape systems and build in allowances for uncertainties -- all in an attempt to keep such external hazards at bay.

The debris from the disasters remained safely hidden away, comfortably out of sight and -- as experience would show -- tragically out of mind.
But the internal hazards -- what investigation boards have called the "flawed safety culture" -- have proven much more insidious. This is the realm of convenient assumptions, of complacency, of willfulness, of use of statistical superstitions, of a false familiarity with an unblinking foe. It is a culture made possible by an all-too-human aversion to facing unpleasantness.
It has become easy to look away from these horrible space disasters -- and I never call them "accidents," a term that relieves the people involved on the ground of ultimate responsibility.

NASA prefers to literally bury the wreckage in underground concrete crypts, to shove the investigation reports onto another bookshelf, and to allocate one day per year to honoring the dead while ignoring what killed them the other 364 days.

(ED. NOTE: read the entire piece - it remains relevant today).

I remember the Challenger and her crew frequently and with love. They are a part of me now. All of them represent the best within the American spirit, and always will. Since that day in 1986, I have come to see NASA as one of the greatest impediments to the Dream of space exploration; but I have never given up the Dream itself. Nor have I forgotten any of the pioneers who have died in the service of that Dream. Some day we humans will leave this small planet and joyfully play in all the corners of the cosmos.

I eagerly look forward to it.



UPDATE: The astronaut quoted in the introduction, Mike Mullane, now states that he did not say what the Guardian quoted him as saying; nor did he ever speak to the Guardian. I certainly don't dispute his denial. But I stand by my statement that, while the Shuttle many or may not be a "deathtrap", it is most certainly a "deadend" for space exploration.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 3:39 AM |

 
THE INTELLECTUAL AND MORAL BANKRUPTCY OF THE LEFT -- Further Examples
Victor Davis Hanson does it for me here. His primary targets are John Kerry and Hillary Clinton and their recent criticisms of Bush policies:

Senator John Kerry has recently opined, “Why hasn't Osama Bin Laden been captured or killed, and how will he be destroyed before he next appears on tape to spread his disgusting message?”

Then the senator argued that bin Laden lives “because Donald Rumsfeld's Pentagon didn't use American troops to do the job and instead outsourced the job of killing the world's #1 terrorist to Afghan warlords, this cold blooded killer got away.”

About the same time, Senator Clinton intoned of Iran, “I believe we lost critical time in dealing with Iran because the White House chose to downplay the threats and to outsource the negotiations. I don't believe you face threats like Iran or North Korea by outsourcing it to others and standing on the sidelines.”

This liberal saberrattling is born of an understandable desire to restore their lost credibility on national security, but they have failed to notice two problems with their newfound approach.

First, if the United States did seek to engage mostly indigenous Afghan troops or Pakistani soldiers, or if we did allow Britain, France, and Germany to run negotiations with Iran, then such “outsourcing” might be better described as “multilateralism.”

Such joint efforts are precisely what Democrat stalwarts like Kerry and Clinton prefer to the old “going it alone,” “unilateralism,” and “alienating our allies,” when the United States largely handles problems itself.

Later in the article, VDH points out:

For real appeasement and outsourcing, look at her husband and current adviser. Bill Clinton praised Iranian “democracy” at Davos in 2005. He compared it favorably to American and Israeli-style voting, urged us to defer to the European negotiations, and apologized to the murderous theocrats for the shah, for Saddam, for CIA plots in 1953, and for anything else he could think of. They were not impressed. And so we still had an Iranian nuclear program begin on his watch.

Read it all. I pointed out Hillary's moral bankruptcy on this particular issue here.

If we consider all of the current empty rhetoric and aggressive pandering displayed by both Kerry and Clinton, it seems to me that the two of them are not only bankrupt in the intellectual and moral department; they are deep into deficit spending.

Related posts:

The Intellectual and Moral Bankruptcy of the Left

Profiles in Intellectual and Moral Bankruptcy
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 9:46 PM |

 
GUESS WHAT, PROFESSOR COLE?
Juan Cole asks snidely, "How do you like your democracy now, Mr. Bush?" in his latest post.

Well, he didn't ask me, but I'm going to answer anyhow.

I like it just fine, herr Professor.

Guess what? I understand that you live in some ivory tower somewhere, Professor, but I choose to live in the real world. That means, among other things that things do not go perfectly all the time; nor do they go the way I (or Mr. Bush) might happen to want them to go.

I don't get into a snit about it like some, because I recognize that simple truth.

Democracy never promises perfection. Democracy has never promised anything--except choice. NEWSFLASH. People make bad choices. They make bad choices all the time. They don't even (gasp!) act in what is obviously their best interest an awful lot of the time. This is frequently referred to as "human nature".

Welcome to reality. There is no "stunning contradiction or hypocrisy" involved here--except perhaps on your part. The decades-long self-brainwashing of the Palestinian people is hardly likely to evaporate instantaneously. They will cling to their role as Islamic victim poster children for a quite a while, I suspect. They're comfortable in this role because it explains their pathetic situation.They are comfortable in this role because people like you have encouraged them in this role and have nodded knowingly as they blame the Jews; or the Americans; or just about anyone--rather than take responsibility for their own plight. It was people like you who supported Yasser Arafat and his brand of thugs for all these years.

So the Palestinians voted for a bunch of murderous thugs in their first free election in decades. Their choice was between two groups of them, in fact--one marginally less suicidal and homicidal than the other. What did you expect?

That's the way it goes sometimes. You give people a chance to make their lives better and they make the worse possible decisions. That's usually because they haven't ever had to take responsibility for the consequences of their choices. They have been shielded and buffered by well-meaning morons, who protect them from those consequences and who encourage them in their psychological projection and denial of reality by doing so.

The people of Germany voted rather enthusiastically for Adolph Hitler, you might recall. Look where that got them and the rest of the world for that matter. It was a big mess.

There was a chance--an ever so small one--that given a free choice, the Palestinians might do somthing to change their situation. They didn't. In fact, they have made their situation likely a lot worse.

Let me tell you about change. Change is very very difficult for people. You try being a psychiatrist sometime, Professor, and you will understand that.

Every day I deal with women who remain in abusive relationships; men who are addicted to substances and refuse to stop taking them, even when they are slowly being killed by them; people who persist in following a course of action that is self-destructive and harmful--usually not only to them, but to those who care about them. Sometimes it takes quite a while for them to turn the situation around, and the first step is usually after a major disaster, when they realize they have noone to blame for their situation but themselves. This is quite a painful experience--as insight usually is; but it can lead to positive change. And it is a process that will never happen if they are being told they aren't responsible for their actions. That it isn't their fault that they behave the way they do. That they are right to blame others for their actions, poor dears.

All of these patients want--no, they often DEMAND--that the psychiatrist make everything better. What they don't understand is that it takes hard work on their part to change things in their life. They want a magic pill. They are stuck with the reality that I don't possess one to give them.

Democracy isn't a magic pill. Bush never said it was a magic pill. He never promised them--or Iraq-- a rose garden. He simply saw democracy as providing the necessary gardening tools and the seeds to begin to plant one.

The Palestinians have always wanted a magic pill. They want to walk in the rose garden of a Palestinian state with all the benefits and perks already available. They will discover, like all those before have, that noone can give them that. Not Hamas, not Bush; and not even you, Professor. Especially not if their real goal is not to improve their own lot, but to destroy Israel.

But you know what? They have taken a first step in discovering that truth by making a helluva bad choice for their future. It will not make them happy and it might very well make them even more miserable than they are now. The world keeps offering the Palestinian choices that they very regularly screw up.

So, what else is new? Like some of my patients they will either develop some insight and begin taking personal responsibility from all of this, or they will suffer. Sadly, so will others. This is not much different than it has been over the last half a century for them, is it? Or over the last millenia or two in human history for that matter.

But there is a chance; a small one still; that they might wake up and make a different choice or take a different path. They can do that in a democracy. Perhaps not immediately. Perhaps not as quickly as you or I would like. But the potential is finally there for them to make a choice that has a better chance of leading to peace and prosperity.

I firmly believe as a psychiatrist who tries to help people change, that they could choose wisely. I firmly believe the same as a mother who watches a child grow to adulthood. I firmly believe it , as a human being who has free will.

Democracy is only an opportunity. What is the alternative, after all? The only alternative to individual liberty is enslavement to the collective. And the latter leads to even greater destruction and chaos because it doesn't recognize either the real world or human nature and distorts both.

At least it should be completely clear now to all the pro-Palestinian apologizers and enablers, that they are set on self-destruction and are not at this time particularly interested in peace. Nor have they had much motivation to alter their course when there have always been people like you who cheered their self-destructiveness on; or who were ready to blame Israel for their misery instead of holding them to account for their own behavior.

Even now, Professor, you appear to be holding President Bush responsible for their behavior; and for their lack of appropriate institutions to support democracy. By doing so, you let them off the hook and thus you continue to enable and encourage them in their poor choices. The U.S. has poured millions of dollars into the Palestinian cesspool which could have helped develop those institutions to support democracy; instead they only enriched the coffers of people like Arafat and built bombs.

When the Palestinians actually want a rule of law, or stable institutions, or basic economic security for the population; or checks and balances that forestall a tyranny of the majority - then perhaps they will do something to make that happen.

You say that in their "frustration" with the policies of Israel and the U.S., the Palestinians have "swung to the far right." I say that people like you have consistently rewared and praised the Palestinians for their technique of placing blame on the Jews and the Americans for their own situation. I say that it is YOUR behavior and people like you who have given the Palestinians every reason to believe that their grievances are sacrocanct and that their victimhood is absolute and gives them some special moral superiority no matter what they do.

You are like the spouse of an alcoholic. You complain bitterly about your loved one's drinking and the behavior that results from it, but you still go out and buy them the liquor and encourage them to drink it. Then you turn around and blame your psychiatrist because the antidepressant she gives you doesn't seem to be working; and your husband still beats you and things are still going poorly in your life.

Give me a break, Mr. Cole. Personally, I blame YOU and the rest of the enablers on the left (and some on the right) who have given the Palestinians every reason to believe there will never be any consequences for their behavior.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 1:13 PM |

 
I Have Been Remiss
I have been remiss recently in my linking to others in the blogsphere, primarily because I have been working on several major posts and preoccupied with some issues at home.

So let me get right to it!

Neo-neocon has a wonderful post up that is the latest in her "The Mind is a Difficult Thing To Change" series. If you haven't already read about her journey from the left, then you should--just to understand that she represents the kind of thinking liberal who is open to new ideas outside the ideological box.

The Gates of Vienna and Sigmund, Carl & Alfred have so many good posts, that I can't decide among them, so just scroll down at each site!

The Anchoress notes that some polls are easier to find than others.

Kobayashi Maru deals with Iran; and Jay at Stop the ACLU describes the heroic efforts of the ACLU to enable a boy to wear skirts to school. What would we do without the ACLU?

ShrinkWrapped has two provocative posts - "The Paradox of Liberalism in Wartime" and "Liberalism, Dependency and Adulthood".

Check them out, if you haven't already!

UPDATE: AJ Strata has a fantastic wrap-up of the NSA surveillance controversy. Thanks for putting it all together AJ.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 12:47 PM |

 
THE POLITICAL PARANOIA OF THE LEFT - Part II
Part I can be found here.

I will begin this second part of the discussion by quoting Richard Hofstadter again, from his essay "The Paranoid Style in American Politics":

What distinguishes the paranoid style is not, then, the absence of verifiable facts (though it is occasionally true that in his extravagaant passion for facts the paranoid occasionally manufactures them), but rather the curious leap in imagination that is always made at some critical point in the recital of events....

The plausability the paranoid style for those who find it plausible lies, in good measure, in this appearance of the more careful, conscientious and seemingly coherent application to detail, the laborious accumulation of what can be taken as convincing evidence for the most fantastic conclusions, the careful preparation for the big lep from the undeniable to the unbelievable.

The singular thing about all this laborious work is that the passion for factual evidence does not, as in most intellectual exchanges have the effect of putting the paranoid spokesman into effective two-way communication with the world outside his group--least of all with those who doubt his views. He has little real hope that his evidence will convince a hostile world. His effort to amass it has rather the quality of a defensive act which shuts off his receptive apparatus and protects him from haavaing to attend to disturbing considerations that do not fortify his ideas. He has all the evidence he needs; he is not a receiver, he is a transmitter.

What is missing from the paranoid style is not facts, but sensible judgment. And how can judgments be made--let alone be sensible--when the postmodern constraints on thinking (discussed here and here) demand moral relativity and decree that all truth is subjective anyway. Postmodernism practically celebrates paranoia, projection, denial and distortion as undeniable and fundamental truth.

Paranoid symptoms and the paranoid style may arise from biological or emotional (psychological) causes.

In my line of work I see many people who have an underlying physiological abnormality in the brain that predisposes them to develop psychotic symptoms, including paranoia. Some of the psychiatric disorders where paranoia can be seen include from schizophrenia, psychotic depression, mania and substance abuse. Paranoia may also be a symptom of medical disorders, and the list of them is quite long, but includes almost all medical problems that may affect the brain (e.g. infectious, neoplastic endocrine, nutritional etc.).

One patient I remember vividly was a young man in his 30's who came to the emergency room with careful documentation (literally hundreds of pages) of his fluid intake and urine output; (with careful descriptions of the color and consistency of the urine as well as several recent samples) for the last 3 years. This compilation of data was offered to me as the "proof" that someone had been slowly poisoning him. Recently, he had begun to realize, he told me, that the persons behind this were likely from some planet astronomers had not yet discovered.

Most of the medical and psychiatric disorders that lead to paranoia involve a disruption of normal brain physiology, which then leads to misperceptions and distorted thinking processes. In such cases, paranoia develops as the broken brain tries to make sense of a world that one's senses are saying has gone mad. In other words, the brain tries to use its rational faculty to develop a coherent explanation of the false or distorted perceptions that are brought about by the abnormal physiology.

I am not suggesting that all people who use projection or paranoia have a medical or psychiatric illness. Most non-clinical instances of paranoia stop abruptly at the point where the totally bizarre begins. The patient above had wandered into the bizarre with his inclusion of aliens into the paranoid mix and he suffered from a pathological disorder. The particular content of the paranoia--even in clinical disorders--may take on some of the psychological issues with which the individual is dealing at the time. For example, one high-functioning PhD level microbiologist that I treated in the past believed that there were "sub"microscopic organisms on his skin that jumped from him to other people and where the reason why he could not get andy dates with women.

One of the daunting aspects of political paranoia is that it is not entirely out of the realm of the possible; it is just unbelievable in its breathtaking scope to most reasonable people. In order to believe it, a person would have to accept some pretty far-fetched underlying assumptions - many of them fairly contradictory.

It simply boggles the mind to contemplate all the conspiracy theories constructed about George W. Bush and/or Karl Rove's evil genius. They are blamed even for the sad foolishness of some Democrats' behaviors. Recall, as just one example, the proposed theory that Karl Rove was the originator of the "fake but accurate" Dan Rather/Mary Mapes memo. The idea of this theory was that Rove did it to make Democrats look foolish since it was so obviously a forgery; and that they were "entrapped" into believing it to be real. Except, of course, that the same people who say that piece of nonsense are also unwilling to admit that the forgery is fake and believe there is some "underlying truth" to its contents. Go figure. But as Hofstadter has said, this is the hallmark of the paranoid style.

Science has shown that many purely psychological factors can also have a dramatic effect on brain physiology and alter perceptions.

Many conversion disorders (such as this classic case of hysteria I discussed in an earlier post) have no objective medical pathology, but are brought about by a traumatic psychological event in a person's life. Sometimes non-psychiatric physicians speak of of such symptoms in a belittling manner, calling them "all in your head" or "supratentorial" (suggesting that the person is making them up). But the truth is that psychological factors and how we react to the world have an enormous impact on our brain.

That is, after all, on of the main functions of the brain -- to perceive and respond to the external environment. When that environment or the real world overwhelms us psychologically, sometimes even a normal brain can malfunction. And sometime an otherwise normal brain may be used to filter out the unacceptable or the reality that overloads it.

All of the psychological defenses--including paranoia, denial, distortion and projection -- undoubtedly have a biological basis. We are only now just coming to understand some of the physiology that may be involved; and it is hardly surprising that it is the same physiology that underlies the analogous medical conditions. (See here, for example).

Clearly some people are more prone to develop extreme paranoid ideas that are completely out of the realm of possibility than others, but the only difference between paranoia from a medical or psychiatric etiology and paranoia from a psychological (or political) etiology is how one treats it.

In the former case, the underlying medical or psychiatric problem is diagnosed and treated. Most often, the paranoia will diminish, though not always as it is a very difficult symptom to entirely remove.

In the latter case, one must also treat the underlying problem, but in this case, it is not medication or other physical treatments that will do the job. The treatment for political paranoia is insight and self-awareness.

As recently as yesterday, some new studies were reported on that demonstrated how political bias affects brain activity. The key word is "bias". Or, to put it another way, deeply held political beliefs effect brain activity and can interfere with both judgment and perception. Most certainly, this is not unique to either Democratic or Republican brains.

All human brains have the potential to be biased, prejudiced, irrational, and, with reference to our topic--paranoid. The only psychological prerequisite to slip into this kind of deluded thinking is a perceived threat to one's sense of self; or any of the ideas or relationships one's sense of self is based on.

When faced with some extremely unpleasant aspect of reality, the individual mind immediately take steps to preserve its integrity. A common example of this is the situation where someone is told of a loved one's unexpected death. Such traumatic information cannot be processed instantaneously as it puts a person's whole world out of frame. It is too sudden to be fully digested.

So, the first and most normal response is the reflexive response to such news: "NO! That can't be true!" (denial) ; or even the more paranoid response: "No! You're lying to me! Why would you lie to me!"

Again, we are all capable of having paranoid ideas at times because paranoia is the extreme of the human mind's attempts to find connections; assign meanings; and develop rational explanations for events, thoughts and/or feelings.

In other words, the tendency to mistake coincidences for causes; or to blame other people rather than one's self for one's circumstances is a universal trait; but it is hardly a psychologically healthy one.

Here is the way that paranoia and projection work:

-You consider yourself a "peaceful" and non-violent person. Yet you feel violently angry at someone or some situation. This does not fit in with your image of yourself. With projection, you deny your own rage and insist that it is the other person who is going to attack you or has angry feelings towards you. PSYCHOLOGICAL RESULT: you don't have to acknowledge your own angry feelings which are unacceptable to you; and instead can attribute them to someone else.

-You are a successful person. But deep down you feel unworthy of your success or guilty of your talent or wealth. Instead of acknowledging this and trying to understand and deal with the origins of such painful self-recrimination (did you cheat others to obtain your wealth? Are you faking talent? Have poor self-esteem?); you begin to think that others are criticizing you and trying to impede your success. Or, alternately you engage in self-defeating or self-destructive behavior that you blame on someone else. Or, you take the position that wealth is evil or all talent is undeserved and extol mediocrity or poverty as morally superior in order to compensate for your guilt. PSYCHOLOGICAL RESULT: you don't have to deal with the reason behind your guilt and unworthiness; and can attribute such critical attacks on you to someone else or denouncing others with talent and wealth makes you feel worthy. For examples of this you can pretty much pick all of the Hollywood elite or many successful businessmen (George Soros comes to mind).

-You are an unsuccessful person or feel a failure in life. You have some shame and/or humiliation about your situation. Instead of dealing with what you are doing that makes you unsuccessful, you attribute your lack of success to the actions of some individual or group who is acting against you. PSYCHOLOGICAL RESULT: you don't have to take responsibility for your situation or acknowledge that your own actions brought you to it. It is not your fault, but someone else's. This is the mechanism behind most racist, sexist, homophobic and/or antisemitic behavior the world over. Islam, in particular, seems to specialize in this type of thinking about the Jews onto whom they project all their own inadequacies.

There is a reason that human beings experience suspicion, distrust and hyper- vigilance. That reason is because there is REAL danger in the world. Our ancestors in the caves knew this to be true. They lived with continual danger just to survive every minute of every day. Being able to logically "connect the dots" and extract meaning from the evidence of one's senses is a necessity for survival. Those who did not have this psychological capacity surely died out long ago.

The tools of the paranoid individual and the paranoid style that one can see dramatised in much political discourse these days are denial, distortion, and projection. These psychological defenses are almost always pathological when used by an adult to cope with the real world.

Those individuals who use these three primitive psychological defenses rearrange external reality (so that actual reality may be avoided); for an observer, the users of these mechanisms frequently appear crazy or insane. These are known as the "psychotic" defenses, common in overt psychosis, in dreams, and throughout childhood.

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

Distortion is a gross reshaping of external reality to meet internal needs. The ongoing and bizarre accusations against the evil genius Karl Rove are typical of the distortion of the paranoid style. The most recent example is the accusation by the denizens of the Democratic Underground that the Osama tape was masterminded by Rove to justify the President's authorization of the NSA to intercept terrorist communications.

In a free society, it is reasonable to raise concerns about the trade-offs during a war of increased security and decreased freedom in some areas; and how far is it appropriate or necessary to go--balancing risks and benefits. But the paranoid left will not allow a rational discussion of this issue and insist that free speech is being taken away and that the President is mad with power. It is more to the point to say that they are mad with impotence.

It is my observation that most of the liberal left are so obsessed with controlling the speech of those who disagree with them (they refer to such speech as "hate" speech and generally accuse you of being "hate-filled"); that they are unable to recognize, let alone take responsibility for the hatred and anger that they are experiencing. Attributing their own feeling to others is much more acceptable since it allows them to continue to believe that they are champions of free speech; calm and rational ("reality-based"); when the greatest threats to free speech originate in their own policies which they demand be forced onto others; and the greatest threat to peace is in their own unacknowledged rage.

Granted that the conservative right--especially sometimes the religious right--suffer from the same paranoid style at times and can be equally obnoxious with wanting to force their policies and beliefs onto others. That this is so, does not take the liberal left off the hook for their unbelievably childish and incredibly foolish paranoid attempts to manipulate political rhetoric in a time of war; in a manner that enables our enemies to exploit exposed faultlines in American politics--and to do it solely for their own personal political gain.

When you try to engage them in discussion, the paranoid person will simply emote and vent his rage because he feels dispossessed, impotent and irrelevant. Two-way communication is impossible, as Hofstadter notes. Eventually, the paranoid will develop a conspiracy theory to explain away their feelings of rage and impotence and seek to punish the person or group they blame for their situation. You can see this in almost every thread at the Democratic Underground if you are so inclined to read them. You can see it in the inflammatory and over-the-top rhetoric about Judge Alito, an able and mainstream conservative jurist; whose detractors paint "end-of-the-world" scenarios if he were to be confirmed to the Supreme Court. "Women will die" and children will be sexually abused; you will lose all your personal liberties; and we will return to the days of the caveman; and so on.

It is easy to see how all these psychological manipulations work together to keep a person or a group insulated from reality. We witness such behavior all around us these days. It has a mindless quality that is indifferent to the societal damage that it wreaks.

The actual numbers of those on the liberal left who have fully embraced the paranoid style is actually relatively low. The damage they do; the deaths they must certainly take responsibility for are totally out of proportion to the actual size. Yet they have leveraged their power in the media and academic institutions well, and have come to dominate almost all of the programs of the liberal left.

So, what is the solution to this dilemma posed by the liberal left's paranoid style? They behave the way they do because they believe (falsely, I think) that it will gain them back their position of power and influence.

When--and if--the paranoid style fails to bring them back to the hall of political power in Washington and elsewhere, the left will have a motivation to change--just as the conservative right managed to look at itself in the 70's and 80's and curtail the paranoia that threatened to keep them powerless and keep the valuable ideas they had to contribute to American society out of the mainstream.

If the conservative right were able to develop a sense of insight and terminate the paranoid streak that ran through all its thinking in the 50's and 60's; then so too can the liberal left.

What is so dangerous at this particular time in history, is that the left seems to be escalating their paranoia instead of containing it. The entire world is in th midst of a potentially deadly crisis, brought on by a dangerous and lethal strain of Islamism that the paranoid liberal left refuses to acknowledge. They are only able to see the conservative right as the enemies they have to deal with, and are blind to the real danger.

This is worse than delusional. This is potentially life-threatening for American society. It must stop.

To regain health--both political and psychological--the liberal left must begin to take responsibility for their thoughts, feelings, rhetoric and behaviors that are enabling and appeasing Islamofascist murderers. Even if this is a painful process for the left (or a financially painful process), they must change their mindless opposition to everything that the conservative right proposes --especially in the area of national security. They must exert control over inappropriate behaviors that derives from their anger and resentment at having lost the last two elections to someone they despise. They do not have to love George Bush or Republicans, but they have to grow up and work with them for the sake of America. If they have alternatives that are consistent with national security and national interests, let them propose them instead of simply saying NO to everything that is proposed. Even if they hate the direction things are going, it was only a little over a year ago that the American people--the one's they say they serve--voted to go in Bush's direction. There is a job to get done, and they must do it together with their political opponents for the good of us all.

Paranoia, projection, denial and distortion are banished though the development of insight and self awareness. When these defense mechanisms are being used, some inner reality is distorting outer reality. It is the inner reality that has to be understood before a person can have control over their bias, prejudices and histrionic and rageful tendencies; which are the major stumbling blocks to a full grasp of reality. Only be taking down such impediments will the liberal left and the conservative right--working together-- optimally deal with dangerous world of the 21st century.

The conservative right wing of American politics may once have been the predominant users of the paranoid style in the 60's. But what we see today clearly demonstrates the severe paranoia of the liberal left wing as they try to come to grips with their own growing irrelevancy and confining worldview that keeps them anchored in the past and deeply afraid of the future.

Today, conservatives are actually more representative of true "progressive" thought; and will continue to be as long as the rhetoric and behavior of the liberal left is mired in the paranoid style.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 5:59 PM |

 
HEAR THEM WHINE
Mike Adams responds to an angry feminist and takes a look at today's women's movement in a series of funny columns (Part I is here) that highlight some of the reasons he isn't able to take them seriously anymore:

American feminists generally do not become feminists because of some well-defined political goal. For example, in your email you enumerate several important political objectives. You want to vote. You want to be free to hold elective office. You want rape to be illegal. You want to be able to work. You don’t want to be forced to get and stay pregnant at all times. You want genital mutilation (of females) to be illegal.

I have an important newsflash, Daisy: You have already achieved all six of these political objectives. But, nonetheless, you continue to rant. And you continue to live in the past. That makes it difficult to take you seriously.

Amen, brother. Part II can be found here.

You know, it occurs to me that American women today need feminism like...oh, I don't know...like a fish needs a bicycle, perhaps?

Sometime in the mid to late-20th century, the women's movement became trapped in amber, and they stopped roaring. Today their petty grievances have the shrill character of mere petulant whining.

Get a real life, girls.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 10:43 AM |

 
Which Sports Car Are You ?
(hat tip: Dr. Helen)

I'm a Porsche 911!

You have a classic style, but you're up-to-date with the latest technology. You're ambitious, competitive, and you love to win. Performance, precision, and prestige - you're one of the elite,and you know it.

Take the Which Sports Car Are You? quiz.

My daughter was a Ferrari (which made her very happy because she just put together one of those massive Lego models of a bright red Ferrari!)

- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 7:12 PM |

 
THE POLITICAL PARANOIA OF THE LEFT - Part I
Part II can be found here.

Richard Hofstadter, in his well-known essay on the paranoid style in American politics--first delivered as a lecture at Oxford in November, 1963-- presented numerous examples which clearly demonstrated that the conservative right wing of the political spectrum were the dominant users of the paranoid style. From the John Birch Society; to Joseph McCarthy; to the conspiracy theories related to fluoridation of water and other irrationally held beliefs of the time; the conservative right engaged in frankly paranoid thinking.

But Hofstadter noted even then, that conservatives and the right could not claim exclusive title to the paranoid style. In fact, American history was littered with examples of both sides utilizing the paranoid style in order to cope with painful truths about errors in ideology; and the consequent loss of political power and influence.

I submit that at this point in history it is now the liberal left that has willingly passed through the world of reality and entered the twilight realm of paranoia. They made this transition in order to hold onto some cherished beliefs that they were convinced had become unchangeable historical "facts"; "facts" that had been and still are essential to their very identity as a political party; but which hide essential flaws in their thinking.

In the 60's the liberal left and the Democratic Party became the champions of civil rights --a cause with which they were NOT historically associated, actually; but events of the time conspired to make them the standard-bearers of racial equality--an unaddressed social issue in this country that plagued and highlighted some of the hypocrisy in its high-minded and lofty values from the very beginning. It was definitely time to make the American promise that so clearly burned in the minds of the Founding Fathers real for all Americans.

Championing this cause was so successful for the Democrats as a political party, that they quite naturally took up the causes of other identified "victim" groups (women, the disabled; homosexuals, etc.); successfully leveraging their heroic stand on civil rights as proof of their concern for the oppressed and "the little guy".

Along the way, the Democrats picked up a few holy mantras ("Roe v Wade" and the whole abortion rights movement ; "Make Love Not War" and the entire antiwar crowd; etc.) and, about this time, they became very seriously infected with the Marxist virus that had already spread throughout Europe, despite being the cause of human misery as well as millions of deaths around the world.

Hence, the liberal left failed to notice that the American people rose to the challenge of equal rights and that society changed under the irrefutable logic of human freedom and equal opportunity for all. The promise of liberty was, after all, the founding principle of our nation.

But Democrats and the liberal left could only be threatened by the succes of their attempt to change American society. Blacks; women; and even Gays were making incredible progress in assimilation into society -- and could now move on to say and think what they pleased. They might even choose to become Republican; or disagree with some entitlement program; or challenge directly the ideology beneath the Democratic Party and the left ! Horrors!

Thus it is not so hard to understand that those who once championed the oppressed and encouraged them to be free and partake of all aspects of American society; now have become the most potent enablers of the victimhood cults that sprang up in each of these groups.

As I have pointed out elsewhere, those whose identity is tied-up inextricably with being the champions the oppressed, must be sure to maintain an oppressed class--constantly seeking new victims to heroically stand for; otherwise what or who will they champion?

Most Americans who are not indoctrinated into the Marxist worldview and obsessed with victimhood can clearly see the real progress of Blacks and women--indeed all minority groups-- in all aspects of society. They can appreciate individuals from those groups who forged into previously restricted areas and broke barrier after barrier, even if they are not Democrats or subscribers to leftist theories.

Not only did the liberal left exhibit almost complete blindness and fail to celebrate its greatest success , but they became more and more strident in their demands and denunciations of American society as a whole. This entire process coincided with their increasing irrelevance and loss of political power. In response, the left is trying to change the playing field to insure that they remain relevant by switching from demands for "equal opportunity" to an insistance on "equal outcome". Since it is impossible to achieve the latter--except in a totalitarian society, where everyone is made equally miserable; or in death itself--the left hopes to achieve new power and influence over a neverending victim class that they will have created through their policies. The paranoid style conveniently defends those policies and effortlessly maintains their defective worldview.

Of course, calling someone "paranoid", or insinuating that they have a "paranoid style" is definitely pejorative. Being paranoid has, as Hofstadter notes, "a greater affinity for bad causes than good ones." This is primaril because the paranoid--even when their cause has some merit--is actually trying to delude himself about some inner reality at the expense of, or detriment to, the cause. Their motivation is no longer about the cause anymore; it is about protecting themselves from an unpleasant reality that is making them question their foundations.

Any who oppose the "equality of outcome" logic are descibed as "racist". Those who disagree with them are "trying to shut down free speech" (watch and see whose behavior actually physically attempts to silence others). Those who point out the errors in their thinking are "evil". American society--arguably the freest and most tolerant in the world--becomes the source of all oppression and evil. This growing attitude condensed itself into an insane and irrational hatred for one man who came to symbolize their worst fear -- that their image of themselves was no longer true, but had become a well-loved and cultivated delusion. I mean, if GW Bush could be elected President (not once, but TWICE); and be considered the liberator of literally millions of people--what were they? Chopped liver?

Let me use an example that Hofstadter uses in his essay:

Again it is common knowledge that the movement against the fluoridation of municipal water supplies has been catnip for cranks of all kinds, especially for those who have obsessive fear of poisoning. It is conceivable that at some time scientists may turn up conclusive evidence that this practice is, on balance, harmful; and such a discovery would prove the antifluoridationists quite right on the substance of their position. But it could hardly, at the same time, validate the contentions of those among them who, in characteristic paranoid fashion have charged that fluoridation was an attempt to advance socialism under the guise of public health or to rot out the brains of the community by introducing chemicals in the water supply in order to make people more vulnerable to socialist or communist schemes.

A distorted style is, then, a possible signal that may alert us to a distorted judgment, just as in art an ugly style is a cue to fundamental defects of taste. What interests me here is the possibility of using political rhetoric to get a political pathology. One of the most impressive facts about the paranoid style, in this connection, is that it represents an old and recurrent mode of expression in our public life which has frequently been linked with movements of suspicious discontent and whose content remains much the same even when it is adopted by men of distinctly different purposes.

In the example of fluoridation, which was a major focus of paranoia in the 50's and 60's; science never confirmed that it was harmful and it is still used today all over the country. Nevertheless, it was not unreasonable to bring up concerns about the long-term safety of a public program that would impact almost every citizen in the country.

What was inappropriate and irrational, as well as an extreme example of "connecting the dots" to regain political power, was the use of the relevant scientific question as a basis for developing a rather bizarre conspiracy theory that connected it with another realistic concern at the time--the rise of communism and its easy acceptance and penetration into American culture.

In this case, "connecting the dots" was not the product of a rational thought process, but of a paranoia on the right; who in their political impotence came to emotionally conflate two important concerns with some degree of merit into one conspiracy theory that was totally off the wall. In the end, it completely discredited them in the minds of reasonable people.

The bizarre conspiracy theories that condensed around fluoridation are not dissimilar to the ones we hear over and over again concerning President Bush and his rationale for the war in Iraq and the war on terror in general.

Even if, hypothetically, every single justification for the war would be eventually proven not to have any basis ( and this is already demonstrably impossible); it would still not validate the absurd claims on the part of the left who, in characteristic paranoid fashion, have come up with all sorts of conspiracy theories and paranoid fantasies that connect dots in a much more irrational and delusional manner than what they accuse the President of doing.

The President simply acted on facts that were accepted at the time (even by the people now accusing him of lying); and responded appropriately to a real threat that had materialized on his watch and resulted in the murder of 3000 American citizens. The paranoia of the left can be seen in their attempts to undermine his actions by resorting to ridiculous connections that simply don't compute-- just as fluoridation being a plot of the communists didn't resonate with reality; neither does Michael Moore's fictional documentary, Fahrenheit 9/11, make the paranoid case for some underlying conspiracy.

While there is merit in debating how best to go about achieving our objectives in the war in Iraq and the GWOT; believing that terrorism is a conspiracy cooked up by Bush and Co. to consolidate power and institute (take your pick) a fascist state; a theocracy; or both; is simply a paranoid fantasy that consoles those of the liberal left who cannot cope with their loss of power and influence.

The hallmark of the paranoid individual and the paranoid style is constant anticipation or expectation of either attack or personal betrayal. Paranoia finds causal connections everywhere and in everything; for them, nothing is coincidental. They can develop complicated conspiracies about innocuous behaviors and seemingly irrelevant events. Their paranoia makes them constantly on guard, searching for hidden motives and meanings in everyone else's behavior. (Just go check out the Democratic Underground, where these fantasies on every action or inaction on the part of the Bush administration are immediately converted into conspiracies and plots). The tragic death of a reporter -- Bush et al had him killed because he knew too much. Osama's most recent tape -- a Rovian plot to show how frightened we should be. And so on.

Paranoia can be conceptualized as "rationality in the service of the irrational." Once fixed on a particular idea or explanation -- no matter how bizarre or irrational; the paranoid person looks for evidence to validate their prejudices. It is almost impossible to change their minds. Their entire concept of themselves is tied up with the paranoid idea or conspiracy. If it did not exist, or was proven to be untrue or false-- then they would need to question their underlying assumptions and ideas--and those are what usually form the foundation of who they believe themselves to be.

For example, a belief that one is important enough to be the subject of a determined (and often vague) FBI or CIA plot may be frightening, but is likely to be vastly superior to accepting that you have a severe and lifelong psychiatric disorder.

It is far easier to disregard reality; and/or to simply incorporate the person who tries to disabuse you of your idea or conspiracy into the complex paranoid fantasy itself, rather than deal with the trauma of a disintegrating self.

When setbacks occur, or when something goes wrong in the life of the paranoid, they will prefer to believe that another person or group is to blame, rather than accept any personal responsibility.

In Part II, I will discuss how paranoia can originate from both biological and psychological causes; and how the current political paranoia and rhetoric of the left have profound implications for our society. It has led to severe breaks in the social fabric that bind us together as a nation. I hope that these can, with time, be mended. But the worse effect of this paranoid style is that it seriously impedes those who express it from being able to appropriately face and respond to reality.

Thus, those who adopt the paranoid style in their rhetoric and their behavior not only are unable to help the rest of us deal with the very real threats we face in the 21st century; they actively undermine our efforts and enable our enemies.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 3:05 PM |

 
PLAYING AROUND
Sorry, I've had a lot to attend to today and haven't been able to post much. I also don't have anything too profound to say about some of the recent news items bouncing around in the blogsphere. I could post some vivid emotional exclamations of disgust about some of more ridiculous (for heaven's sake, what numbskull thinks a hurricane isn't dangerous?) and outrageous (more military-bashing from a complete ignoramus); but frankly my dear, I don't give a damn about the rabid left today. However, there are several items I would really like to write about here and here, but don't seem to have the energy just yet.

This latter response is usually is my emotional red flag telling me I'm feeling a little burned out about the insane world of American politics.

Check back tomorrow. I'm gonna play tonight.

Consider this an open thread (hey, if the big guys can do it all the time, then little ol' me should be able to!). Have fun yourself.

UPDATE: I will be back blogging this afternoon. I need to take a sick kid to the doctor among some other things. See you then.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 10:01 PM |

 
OSAMA, THE BLACK KNIGHT...
...of Monty Python and the Holy Grail fame. Who knew?


- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 3:49 PM |

 
NO GOING BACK
Neo-neocon has posted many times about her own journey of the mind from liberal to neocon and has become interested in the entire psychological process of the political "changer":

It seems to go like this: an idealistic and intelligent person, who reads a lot and thinks a lot, falls in with leftist beliefs, usually as a university student. But this person never abandons his/her ability to think critically. At some later point the evidence starts challenging his/her worldview.

Because that worldview is so deeply held, the first challenges are successfully resisted. Then, growing experiences add to the doubt, and the pressure builds to the point where it just can't be denied. The person then makes tentative statements to that effect: initially, perhaps, just among friends; ultimately, in public.

The angry and dismissive reaction on the part of former colleagues and friends is always--always--a surprise; one might even say, a shock. And this experience takes on a life of its own by underlining all the previous doubts. If those colleagues can't even listen to the questions and doubts of a former friend and fellow-traveler, how open-minded can they be? The essentially closed nature of such a belief system--the heretofore discussed "circle dance"--becomes clear to the changer-in-the-making. And, once that line has been crossed, there does not appear to be any turning back.

No, indeed. How can you keep them down on the commune after they've seen the truth?
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 10:36 AM |

 
Viva La Revolucion !
Apparently, Cuba is falling apart (no surprise for me). The question on everyone's mind is whether it will collapse before or after its aging revolutionaly leader/dictator does:

Mr. Castro recently went public about Cuban corruption so massive that it could destroy his so-called revolution. And going to the extremes that he did to save his 47-year-old stranglehold, his dictatorship looks like it's ready for the hospice, morphine drip, crematorium and dustbin of history.

Reading from his scripted speech in November, Castro asked, "Do you believe that this revolutionary socialist process can fall apart, or not? This revolution can destroy itself. We can destroy ourselves, and it would be our fault," according to the People's Weekly World Newspaper.

Can't hang this on Uncle Sam.

Maybe Hugo will bail them out like the old Soviet Union used to do. Who knows? Who cares? The demise of this tropical communist paradise will be exactly like the end of all the other. The dustbin of history eagerly awaits the detritis from Castro's little revolutionary hell-hole.

Workers of the world, rise up! You have nothing to lose but those oppressive marxist thugs who promised you everything, but have sucked away all your liberty, your wealth, and your pride. Get rid of the oppressors who have brought you only poverty and misery and give capitalism, freedom, and democracy a try.

I think you'll like it.

Viva La Revolucion!
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 1:02 AM |

 
A COLLECTION OF DR. SANITY'S SONG PARODIES
For your enjoyment convenience, I have decided to put all of my song parodies into one giant post. Some of the parodies are good and some are quite awful, but all of them arguably demonstrate a side of myself that is...well, pretty weird; and almost certainly indicative of some kind of personality abnormality!

It all goes back to my mother (who was quite a talented musician) telling me I had no musical talent when I was 10 years old. I simply refused to believe her assessment--despite all evidence to the contrary. Years and years of therapy later, I still suffer from the [usually harmless] delusion that I am musical and artistic. These parodies demonstrate otherwise, I'm sorry to say.

All the songs were deliberately and shamelessly ripped off for political purposes. I have them listed in chronological order, with the most recent first.

John Kerry - The Lyin' King - "I Just Can't Wait To Be King" (from Disney's The Lion King)

"Not Getting Better (Ever)" (It's Getting Better by The Beatles)

Christmas Wars: A Ceremony of Carols

The New Democratic Theme Song: "I Moan and Whine" (I Walk the Line by Johnny Cash)

"The Name of Plame Makes Everyone Insane" (The Rain in Spain from My Fair Lady)

"Wouldn't It Be Loverly - A Psychiatrist's Lament" (also from My Fair Lady)

"Don't Let It Be" (Let it Be by The Beatles)

"Slogans and Dust" (Diamonds and Rust by Joan Baez)

"The Pirates of the UN"-including "I Am the Very Model of A Secretary General" and "Kofi Annan, Will You Please Go NOW!" (The former is from Gilbert & Sullivan's I am the very model of a modern major general; the latter from Dr. Seuss -Marvin K. Mooney, will you please go NOW!)

"Ask Your Imam" (Stand By Your Man by Tammy Wynette)

"West Bank Story" (Gee, Officer Krupke from West Side Story)

"Blowing in the Sand" (Blowing in the Wind by Peter, Paul and Mary)

"A Prayer For Zarqawi" (Now I Lay Me Down To Sleep)

"Imagine That!" (Imagine by John Lennon)

"Goodbye, Kofi Annan" (Goodbye Yellow Brick Road by Elton John)

"Three Little Lefty Blogs" (Three Little Maids from The Mikado by G&S)

Juan Cole- "I'm on the Faculty" (I'm a Lumberjack by Monty Python)

50 Ways to Force Regime Change (50 Ways to Leave Your Lover by Paul Simon)

The Great UN Pretender (The Great Pretender by Buck Ram)

American Pie - The Democrat Version (American Pie by Don McLean)

Come Back When You Grow Up Girl (Maureen Dowd) (from the song of the same name by Bobby Vee)

Delicious Blasphemy (The Taliban Rag) (The Vatican Rag by Tom Lehrer)
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 5:57 PM |

 
CONDI DECLARES WAR
This seems good, considering the way that career bureaucrats have been standing in the way of any change at the dysfunctional State Department:

In a speech at Georgetown University's School of Foreign Service, where students are deformed into diplomats, Condi cancelled the tea party. Her message was revolutionary and essential. As a result, she may go down in history as the SecState most hated by Foggy Bottom bureaucrats.

Here's what "Killjoy Condi" had to say:

* Diplomats can no longer build careers by hiding behind desks in comfy capitals. They'll have to accept dangerous assignments and serve in hardship posts; develop regional expertise in at least two areas; and speak at least two relevant foreign languages (French waiters need not apply). That ain't going to make Rice popular with diplos accustomed to rotating between Rome and Northwest D.C. on their way to ambassadorships. Yet, it's vital if we're going to convert our failed, 19th-century- model State Department into a useful tool for the 21st century.

* Ouch! Condi really put Paris and Berlin in their places — pointedly noting that "we have nearly the same number of State Department personnel in Germany, a country of 82 million people, that we have in India, a country of 1 billion people." Cancel that order for the big schnitzel, Mr. Ambassador. You're going to be eating some development vindaloo. (Delicious, too, that la Rice smacked down Old Europe just as Jacques Chirac threatened to hurl nukes at terrorists to prove that France remains relevant.)

Read it all. Maybe when Condi is done at State, she can swing over and help whip the CIA into shape too.

In other news on the Condi front, Shelby Steele has a blistering takedown of Hillary, who is very afraid of Rice, and hence has started to pander to the Black vote:

When political pandering goes awry, it calls you a name. On an emotional level, many blacks will hear Hillary's remark as follows: "I say Republicans run the House like a plantation because I am speaking to Negroes--the wretched of the earth, a slave people--who will surely know all about plantations." Is this a tin ear or a Freudian slip, blacks will wonder? Does she really see us as she projects us--as a people so backward that our support can be won with a simple plantation reference, and the implication that Republicans are racist? Quite possibly so, since no apology has been forthcoming.

Steele contends that blacks should consider this simple fact:

[...]because Republicans cannot easily pander to black grievance, they have no need to value blacks only for their sense of grievance. Unlike Democrats, they can celebrate what is positive and constructive in minority life without losing power. The dilemma for Democrats, liberals and the civil rights establishment is that they become redundant and lose power the instant blacks move beyond grievance and begin to succeed by dint of their own hard work. So they persecute such blacks, attack their credibility as blacks, just as they pander to blacks who define their political relationship to America through grievance. Republicans are generally freer of the political bigotry by which the left either panders to or persecutes black Americans.

No one on the current political scene better embodies this Republican advantage than the current secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice. The archetype that Ms. Rice represents is "overcoming" rather than grievance.

Steele calls it "valuing blacks only for their sense of grievance." I have phrased it differently in previous posts as actively being invested in promoting the victimhood of blacks (as well as other groups).

The nurturing of black victimhood grievances requires that blacks remain helpless victims so that the Democrats (the party of the "oppressed") can continue to be their champions. It explains why Democrats (and the Left in general) are actively hostile to successful blacks like Rice, Powell, and Thomas and have no problem whatsoever in demeaning and insulting them.

For the Left, every successful black person who does not buy into their victimhood cult is a serious threat.

Condi is definitely a serious threat to Hillary and to every Democrat with his or her sights on the White House-- especially if blacks open their eyes and realize which party really symbolizes "the plantation."

UPDATE: Gates of Vienna has more on the subject of Hillary's pandering.

Imagine Dr. Rice using “the plantation” metaphor in a speech. Won’t compute, will it? No grievances, just accomplishments. Thus, if Dr. Rice wanted to serve her party, but didn’t want to run for office, all she would need to do is dog Hillary on the campaign trail. She is the anti-Hillary, and there is no worse fate for a politician than to have his or her antithesis following along behind her.

But I think it is the other way around--Hillary is really the "anti-Rice". Dr. Rice has something positive to offer this country and she is the original--not the derivative.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 11:38 AM |

 
Trouble in Paradise?
Seems he's not as popular at home as you might think considering he's a darling of the lunatic left and is taking the Venezuelan people toward one of those communist "paradises" --i.e., like Cuba

Meanwhile, Lech Walesa, a former resident of a communist "paradise" discussed freedom with some Cuban dissidents.

Mr. Castro and Mr. Chavez are not happy dictators campers.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 11:01 AM |

 
Flying High
The Strata-Sphere has a number of stories related to the NSA surveillance issue. AJ Strata has been all over this from the beginning and has done some great work in analyzing the available information. Just keep scrolling down!

Also, Camp Katrina , a great milblog has added a cool new daily feature to help you find all the news you need about our military saving lives here and around the world.

The new 2006 Weapons Cache Databank, updated daily, now gives you the ability to check out a current list of every bomb and gun our military takes out of terrorist hands. You can check out the databank here.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 10:25 AM |

 
Deborah Howell, Welcome to OUR World
Pity poor ombudsman Howell of the Washington Post. In posting a column that took Republicans to task for the Abramoff scandal, she dared to mention that Democrats also received money from the cursed lobbyist. The result?

Nothing in my 50-year career prepared me for the thousands of flaming e-mails I got last week over my last column, e-mails so abusive and many so obscene that part of The Post's Web site was shut down.

Well, Ms. Howell, welcome to OUR world.

As a blogger on the right side of the political spectrum, I have been receiving obscene email and comments from your side on a daily basis for more than a year -- ever since I started blogging in fact.

You think you got hate? Try reading my email inbox for a week or two. I am accused of the most disgusting behavior; called the most unprintable names; and impugned with motives that are far more likely to originate with my detractors who wouldn't understand the concept of "projection" if it fell on them like a 16-ton weight.

This, Ms. Howell, is the "reality-based" community. Their reality, sadly, is often the gutter.

This is the community that whines most about "free speech" and accuses everyone who disagrees with them of limiting their rights--as they actively seek to shut you up. They will now use you as the example they have been searching for to demonstrate the "conservative" bias of the media--simply because you dared to suggest that they are not perfect.

You have crossed the line, Ms. Howell, and you will never be allowed to go back. If you want to check on the reality of what I say, you could easily ask Condi Rice, Colin Powell or Tammy Bruce. They crossed the line when they "betrayed" their race and/or gender by daring to have thoughts of their own and disagreeing with the Democratic Party and the Left's victimhood cult.

Most of the authors of the email missives that I receive are hardly capable of coherent thought, let alone an appreciation of reality. They seem to feel that a good argument without the swearing and ad hominem attacks-- is insufficiently caring and compassionate. Often they want to demonstrate their caring and compassion by wishing me dead. This is their idea of what it means to rationally argue their case.

You see, Ms. Howell, you went too far. You hurt their feelings. That is unforgivable.

If you haven't noticed, Ms. Howell, this does not happen much when you point out the inconsistencies or hypocrisies of the Right. Of course, there are despicable people on both sides of the political spectrum who do not feel that they should have to resort to reason and logic to justify their "arguments". Who simply direct all the vitriol and vomit within whenever you question their ideology. But I think you will find that, on the whole and compared with the Left, the Right is a paragon of virtue in this area.

At least we have not completely abandoned reality and truth; and we don't suffer from the symptoms of some new form of PTSD when someone disagrees with us--or even dislikes us. But then again, we aren't the ones festering with a hatred so profound and fundamental that it sickens the soul and distorts all thought.

Have a nice day! And, oh yes. I am eagerly anticipating their rational and well-articulated response to this post.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 2:06 PM |

 
JOHN KERRY - The Lyin' King
In view of the ramifications of this (KJL wonders if it is a joke; Alexandra thinks it's a travesty); but it is just that young Simba Kerry ("I was in Vietnam, you know") is soooo eager to grow up and be king that he has become even more thoughtless and self-absorbed than he was before. John Kerry, The Lyin' King....

I Just Can't Wait To Be King

-as sung by John F. Kerry

I'm gonna be a nuanced king, so noone need beware!

(Who's ever seen a king of beasts
Who's so obsessed with hair? )

I'm gonna be the mane event;
I bring true elegance!
I'm brushing up on looking down...
I'd love to live in France !

(If only he would go ahead and really take that chance!)

Oh, I just can't wait to be king!

Moveon saying, " do this! "
Swift Boat Vets saying, "not there!"
Teresa saying, "stop that!"
Soros saying, "see here!"
Free to flip and flop around all day
Free to finally do it all my way!

(I think it's time you finally signed
That SF-180 form)

Kings are not just mortal men--
We're to the manor born!

(If this is where the Demorats are headed
Count me out
Out of patience; out of sanity,
They make me want to shout!
This candidate flys with the leftmost wing)

Oh, I just can't wait to be king!

Everybody turn left
Aren't I such a great sight!
Everywhere you look I'm--
Standing in the spotlight!

(Not yet. )

(Let every moonbat hit the brakes and stop,
And watch him as he claws up to the top;
It's gonna be King Kerry's finest flop! )

Oh, I just can't wait to be king!

Oh, I just can't wait to be king!

Oh, I just can't wait

(But we sure can!)

To be king!
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 11:20 AM |

 
CARNIVAL OF THE INSANITIES
Time for the weekly insanity udate, where the insane, the bizarre, the ridiculous, and the completely absurd are highlighted for all to see! This has been a week of rare idiocy (as always!).

Send your entries for next week's carnival to Dr. Sanity by 8 pm ET on Saturday for Sunday's Carnival. Only one post entry weekly per blogger, please. Thanks for all the submissions. I try to use as many as possible!
SO MANY INSANITIES! SO LITTLE TIME!

1. Sick with envy; and approaching the absolute bottom.

2. Did you know that Global Warming is Racist?

3. Pink with shame? Probably not.

5. Another Rove conspiracy!

6. I knew it was just a matter of time from this to this...!

7. And you thought Howard Dean was a wacko !

8. An Italian artist with the soul of a murdering jihadist beheads Fallaci. How...artistic. (hat tip: Free Thoughts)

9. So, the NY Times can keep a secret when it's really really important, I guess. But their basic philosophy is, "It's Not My Fault!" --about this. I could do an entire Carnival on the insanity of the NY Times.

10. Top 11 Upcoming Selections for the Oprah Book Club. I especially liked #6. Also, the Top 10 Blogger Lies. I'm in big trouble.

11. Introducing the Osama Book Club ! It has already caught on with the lunatic left. All he need is for Hollywood to give him a weekly TV show. He's already the AP's favorite dissident.

12. LEGAL NEWS: Uh-oh. A novel defense approach. This lawyer should consider a career change; and who needs a defense attorney with judges like this?

13. TWOSOMES: They are both simply Mad. Mutt and Jeff.

14. As the song says, if you have a talent for causing people pain, be a dentist!

15. I bet they didn't think about the consequences of their decision to improve the environment.
16. The fat police are coming to a neighborhood near you.

17. A little piece of heaven.

18. Guess who thinks the confirmation process has become too political? ROFL.

19. How sad for them.

20. You can get up now. Priceless

21. Have you ever thought of what the soundtrack for your life would be?

22. I declare a FATWA on NATWA !

23. What could possibly go wrong?

24. Captain Kirk passed one.

25. The great beer tsunami....

26. One man's freedom of speech is another man's libel. And so it goes.

27. Between a Reich and a hard place! (hat tip: Instapundit)

28. Responding to these insanities would be an "act of madness." True. But exposing them is height of psychological health.

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 "Word of Blog" below the button to obtain the html code:

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

 
ASSISTED POLITICAL SUICIDE
Drs. Gore, Dean and Clinton are on the case.


- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 12:15 AM |

 
HONOR KILLINGS AND SUICIDE BOMBINGS - ISLAM, ARABS, AND SHAME
SC&A have pointed out to me this article from Frontpagemag.com about the rise in Palestinian "honor" killings. It interestingly links the building of the Israeli "wall" to prevent suicide bombers from entering Israeli land, as the event that may be associated with this increase in violence against Palestinian women:

When Israel began erecting a separation barrier in late 2003 to protect its citizens from the seemingly endless procession of suicide bombers, Palestinian society responded by redirecting its destructive urges inward. All revolutions are said ultimately to turn upon themselves and devour their own children. And, when suicide bombing became an increasingly difficult means of enhancing family prestige, Palestinians shifted the focus onto their female offspring to restore the balance.

Suicide bombings in Israel had developed into a bloody and lucrative industry for Palestinians who carried out 39 attacks in 2002. But, since Israel began constructing its anti-terrorist fence, the Palestinian human-bomb industry has been reduced to bankruptcy by producing only 11 attacks in more than two years.

Honor killing, on the other hand – which has always been an integral aspect of Palestinian life – began gathering momentum. With horrifying zest, weapon-wielding fathers, brothers, uncles and sometimes mothers, hunt down their daughters and sisters and commit shocking acts of violence for real and imagined immoral transgressions.

The Arab motivation for murdering their own daughters flows from the same cultural wellspring that produces suicide bombers. The defensive form of honor, called ird, is consumed with female sexual purity and manifests itself in the murder of its own to restore family honor, whereas the offensive manifestation, sharaf, requires positive actions implemented to heighten social status and increase family honor. As Palestinian society retreats from its failure to infiltrate the daily life of Israeli citizens with death and destruction, it compensates by killing its own and depositing ird in its honor bank.

Honor killings of women are all too common in Arab culture in general (not just the Palestinians); and importantly, this behavior is not dissuaded by the tenets of Islam. If anything, Islam today encourages and validates the Arab male's fundamental belief in the inferiority of women--primarily as a method of proving their own masculinity and rescuing them from the crisis of personal and cultural humiliation they find themselves in at this point in history.

I discuss shame, the Arab psyche and Islam in some detail here.

In Arab/Islamic culture, women are one of the primary instruments of achieving honor. Hence the bizarre and distorted attitude that the culture has toward women and the exaggerated means by which "honor" must be maintained. So strong is the cultural pressure, even some women buy into the delusion (as eloquently demonstrated by Dymphna in this post).

Part of the psychology of this complicity on the part of women (you hear about mothers encouraging the deaths of their own daughters; or even killing them themselves) are the dynamics inherent with identification with the aggressor.

Additionally, women may actively encourage their children to become suicide bombers and act out violently against the Jews in order to protect themselves from becoming the focus of that same violent aggression. This is not dissimilar from the reason some mothers consciously and unconsciously avoid noticing incest in the family; because--as bad as incest is for the children-- one consequence is that it keeps her from having to deal with sexual attentions from her spouse.

David Gutman states in an excellent piece from August, 2005 (also from Frontpagemag.com):

the Arab world has stunted the female half of its brain pool, while the men acquire instant self-esteem not by real accomplishment, but by the mere fact of being men, rather than women. No wonder, then, that the Arab nations feel irrationally threatened by the very existence of Israel. Like America, the Jews have brought the reality of the liberated woman into the very heart of the Middle East, into dar al-Islam itself. Big Satan and Little Satan: the champions of Muslim women.

From a psychological perspective the freedom and empowerment of women in Islamic society are absolutely critical for ultimately winning the war on terror and halting the increasingly virulent aspects of both Arab and Islamic culture. It is the women who have the key to this, because they are the one's responsible for the earliest environmental influences on children--influences that will impact the child throughout his or her life. If the culture has little respect for women and regularly demonizes, debases or humiliates them, that will have a profound generational impact.

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

Women whose own aggressive impulses have been savagely constrained by society and who have few options to sublimate those impulses, are at grave risk of encouraging aggressive and violent "acting out" on the part of their children on their behalf-- especially the male child who must be seriously conflicted about his love for and identification with a lowly-regarded woman.In other words, such women will hardly prevent inappropriate aggression in their offspring, when such aggression vicariously meets their own needs.

And the male children will have to assert their separation and distance from the debased female that is their mother, as aggressively and violently as possible.

This is one important reason why encouraging women's rights around the world--and particularly in the Islamic world-- should be one of the highest priority items in US Foreign Policy.

The residue of the Women's Movement of this country could be at the forefront of promoting international freedom and justice for women by loudly and clearly denouncing the abuse of women under Islam and within Arab culture. Instead they are usually running around academia whining and swooning about their so-called "oppression" by people like Larry Summers and carrying on with silly little demonstrations against the one man who is actually doing something for women in that part of the world.

Meanwhile, the UN appeasement of the degradation and murder of women in the Arab/Muslim world continues unabated. Why should they intervene when the UN's own "peacekeeping" troops have participated in the same barbarities. Anyone who thinks that the UN is a force for good in this world, better think again.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 5:17 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. This week includes some incredible writing!

BEST COUNCIL POSTS:

First Place

Options on Iran II The Glittering Eye

Second Place

NY Times Confesses Truth About NSA Leak The Strata-Sphere

BEST NON-COUNCIL POSTS:

First Place

NY Times Tipped Terrorists? (UPDATED) The Anchoress

Second Place

Bloggers: The Pamphleteers of Today Liberty and Culture

Be sure to check out all the winners at the Watcher's site. It makes for great weekend reading.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 12:40 PM |

 
RONALD REAGAN - A Personal Recollection
Today marks the 25th anniversay of Ronald Reagan's being sworn in as the 40th President of the U.S. (GM's Corner has more).

I vividly recall the day I met President Reagan almost exactly 20 years ago. It was one of the saddest days of my life. I was at the Johnson Space Center memorial service for the Challenger astronauts on the Friday after the Challenger accident. The President had come to JSC to honor the fallen crew and to heal the nation.

As the crew surgeon for that mission, I accompanied the families of the crew to a private meeting with President and Mrs. Reagan before he spoke to the large crowd of employees and officials. I felt a little out of place at this private meeting, so I tried to stay off to the side as, one by one, Reagan greeted all the immediate family members and talked with them.

Much to my surprise, after he visited with them for a while, he walked over to where I was standing. Apparently he had asked who I was, because he addressed me as "Doctor" and held out his hand, saying, "It must be especially hard for you today to have lost those who looked up to you as their doctor and who put their trust in you." He said it very quietly and his sincerity and genuine concern for what I was experiencing resulted in bringing tears to my eyes. Until that moment, I had managed to keep it all together and not show my feelings in public.

The next thing I knew, the President of the United States had put his hand on my shoulder and was comforting me; telling me that he understood my loss and that he knew I had been trying to be strong and take care of all the family members of the crew; but that he could see I was suffering too.

I had voted for Reagan in both the '79 and '84 elections (it was the first time I had voted Republican instead of Libertarian), but it wasn't until that moment that I truly understood the personal power of the man; his genuine warmth and the depth of his concern for someone he didn't even know. He instinctively seemed to understand that I had deliberately put aside my personal feelings about the tragedy because I had the awesome responsibility of taking care of all the crew family members (who were also my patients).

It crossed my mind even then, that he was telling me how much he identified with my situation and the responsibilities of my job. He had an entire nation to take care of, but it didn't mean he didn't personlly mourn for those who had died. It could be that I read too much into what he said, but I don't think so. He could have ignored me since I was standing off to the side from all the family members. But he went out of his way to find out who I was and then chose to come over to me.

I remember telling him in a choked voice how much his understanding meant to me and he looked at me with those clear, direct eyes of his and said, "You will be able to handle it. I know you will."

It seemed that I stared into those eyes for a long time (but it was probably only seconds) and then he turned away and signaled to the others that it was time to start the memorial service.

I actually got to stand on the platform while he spoke. This had been the spot prearranged for me to be so I would be able to observe the families in the front row and be ready to respond if they needed me. I couldn't have been more than ten feet or so away from the President during his remarks.

I never spoke to President Reagan again, but at the end of the ceremony; after the missing man formation of T-38's had flown overhead, I accidently caught his eye, and he winked at me.

I will always remember his kindness and strength.



Stop the ACLU has a Reagan tribute, with lots of bloggers linking. Check it out.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 12:45 AM |

 
KILL THE HEROES
A fascinating post at One Cosmos discussing "Pornographic Liberalism and The Last Men". Here is a brief excerpt:

Hibbs notes that these Last Men are not the courageous rebels of their narcissistic imaginations, but "timid, enervated, self-enclosed, and self-satisfied," conforming with "the dictates of common opinion.'' Fourteen billion years of cosmic evolution, and what has it wrought: New York Times Man, so hidebound and parochial in his views, and yet, like a child, so confident of his superiority!

These Last Men hate to be reminded that there is something higher or deeper, something transcending their own little self-generated meanings. They are all sheep and no shepherd. And they don't believe in wolves at all. They hate the notion that history is incomplete, that there are real enemies, and that there are real heroes--superior men like President Bush who will name and kill the enemy so that the Last Men may sleep soundly in their beds. They believe that there is nothing to be afraid of but the hero!

In a way they are right, for the hero is a painful reminder of their own existential cowardice. The society of the Last Man "is adept at satisfying nearly all desires for pleasure, but it cannot satiate, indeed it positively frustrates, the will to excel, to prove oneself superior to others." They are afflicted with spiritual envy, the Satanic Eucharist of secular fundamentalism. Kill the hero is their motto. The victim is God is their creed.

Gagdad Bob has captured the essence of the soul disease that sickens modern "progressives" and infects the art and literature they produce. The key symptoms are characterized by:

-existential cowardice
-malignant narcissism
-spiritual envy
-paralyzed will
-exaggerated self-esteem
-insatiable sense of entitlement
-glorification of emotion
-deification of victimhood

The overarching theme that brings together all of the above symptoms is the pervasive nihilism that masquerades as art and culture these days and which I discussed in a previous post today.

Read the entire post.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 5:19 PM |

 
Shocking Unsurprising News
Why am I not surprised at this news? I'll bet their self-esteem is really high, though; and they all appreciate diversity !
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 2:51 PM |

 
THE CULTURAL ELITE - DEDICATED TO DARKNESS
These days, Hollywood seems to be sending out a message. Gerard Baker notes:

SAM GOLDWYN had the only really sensible opinion on the idea of the film industry as a purveyor of political propaganda. “If I want to send a message I’ll use Western Union,” he said.
But Hollywood, once again, has ignored Goldwyn’s strictures. The message from this week’s Golden Globe awards could not have been clearer if it had been written on 18in cue cards delivered door to door across America by Warren Beatty and Annette Bening. It was a plea to a nation firmly on the road to conservative perdition to change course, to embrace alternative lifestyles, foreigners, non-believers and outlandish theories about the motives of US companies.

The Globes honoured, in approximate order of reverence, Brokeback Mountain, a film about a couple of cowboys who discover that there’s a lot more you can do with chaps than put them over your jeans; The Constant Gardener, an adaptation of a John le Carré novel about evil drug companies that kill innocent Africans and the honest campaigners who try to expose them; Syriana, a film so complex it defies synopsis, but you’ll get the gist if I tell you it’s about American oil companies, the CIA and Middle Eastern politics; and Transamerica, a movie that sounds like a drama about life at one of America’s prominent life insurance companies but turns out to be a paean to the life of the transgendered.

Now we also hear that the assassin who tried to kill Pope John Paul has just signed an $8 million Hollywood film deal (via LGF)

Munich, Syriana, Transamerica, Brokeback Mountain, The Constant Gardner, A Million Little Pieces, etc. etc.

Once upon a time, I thought that movies, literature and art had the goal of entertaining people through the selective recreation of reality, and could inspire and motivate us to a greater appreciation and experience of life. Really great art stands on its own, without any agenda (to paraphrase Sigmund, Carl and Alfred). What we have exemplified in the selections above that are chosen to be honored by various groups is not great art, but art appropriated for the purpose of advocating and disseminating a political agenda. This is what the Soviet Union used to do with all the statues and posters and paintings and "art" that depicted the beefy proletariat workers with their "new" consciousness, standing around proudly to attest to the wondrous glory of Soviet life.

It didn't really convince anyone even then-- except the propaganda experts who created it.

Likewise, the intellectual heirs of the Soviet propaganda experts who now live in "Hollywood"; along with all the rest of the artistic and intellectual elite of the West, have developed a creative alternative to the old Soviet realism style-- which despite its fundamental propaganda style, at least tried to project something positive ("real but fake" you could say).

The agenda of the new propagandists' art is not to "glorify" anything, or at least not to depict anything positively. On the contrary, the current crop of elites seek to destroy and deconstruct the underlying values of the West, for which they feel a profound contempt. The ideology that drives them has failed to create the socialist utopia they yearn for; so now in their despair and spite, their art has evolved to capture and expose the anti-life, anti-beauty, anti-reason, and generally anti-human threads of their souls.

Sometime ago, I wrote about this tendency of the cultural elite of the West to be dedicated to the darkness of the human soul.

Dr. Martin Seligman a well-known researcher in behavior, in an article titled "Misreporting Science in the New York Times: Against Happiness" notes that in the choice of articles on psychology it chooses to print, and in the ones it ignores, the NY Times (one of the advertisers for the new elite) is making a concerted effort to consistently display life as full of "unmitigated tragedy, violence, and meaninglessness." He mentions several well-written books that have never been reviewed by the NY Times Book Review, and some articles on recent research on happiness that never made it to press:

What do these books and stories have in common? They are good news. They suggest that virtue, well-being, nobility, happiness, and meaning are all within the realm of human possibility, and that life is not just unmitigated tragedy, violence, and meaninglessness. And they are based on solid, painstaking science involving hundreds of thousands of subjects, hundreds of refereed articles, and scores of doctoral dissertations from the most reputable universities in the world.

But take a shoddily researched and truly lightweight account that can be run as “Against Happiness,” and it leads.

Yes, there are professional pessimists. Yes, there are nattering nabobs of negativism. There are media dedicated to the dividends of darkness that both reflect a cultural bias toward despair and simultaneously shape it. They are enormously influential, and if you wonder why our young people are in the midst of an epidemic of depression and meaninglessness in the presence of unprecedented wealth, education, and opportunity, you might start with what they read in the New York Times.

Indeed, you might. And then you could go on to explore most of the recent literature, art, and film that promoted by the Times and other media outlets which are dedicated to the "darkness" to which Dr. Seligman refers.

It is something I am very familiar with, and why I turned to science fiction and fantasy, where there are still moral universes to get lost in. It is why books and films like Harry Potter and Narnia have achieved phenomenal success and why Lord of the Rings were so profoundly successful. They were bright, glittering stars in the midst of a cultural black hole that was sucking all the joy, hope and love from life.

Do you think I am exaggerating? Take a look at the books the NY Times considers worthwhile. They are filled with despairing and hopeless people. Often, their characters aren't even likable. But they supposedly deal with very profound and important issues and are considered "serious" and "literary". I used to try to read some of them, but I found I couldn't ever finish them. They made me sick and gave me nightmares (and I'm not talking about Stephen King novels either). I finally found a pardigm I could live with: If it was recommended by the NY Times and considered an "important" work, I avoided it the same way I try to avoid death.

I finally abandoned reading the NY Times Review of Books entirely after they decided to EXCLUDE the most popular book of the latter part of the 20th century in the Best Seller List and banish it to the Children's Book List. I am referring, of course, to J.K. Rowling's Harry Potter series, which is sneered at by the true literary establishment. As was Tolkien's Lord of the Rings 40 years ago. As is science fiction and mystery (unless it conforms to the "darkness" criteria, I've noticed). And, as for romance novels (and believe it or not, there are truly excellent novels in this genre, that are comparable to the works of Austen, Bronte and others) the anti-intellectual stigma attached to reading such novels says all you need to know about the attitude of the true literary establishment, as exemplified by the NY Times.

Don't get me wrong. One of my majors in college long ago was English Literature. I don't believe that all books need to have happy sappy endings. On the contrary, if books are to teach us about life and all the important issues that involves, it is often necessary to face unpleasantness and pain. Truly wonderful art helps you to do that, while simultaneously rejoicing in the human spirit.

Shall we discuss many of the so-called "artsy" movies? Especially the ones that open in special theaters (if it appeals to the "masses" it must be insipid)? Almost all of them are life-hating, pathetic romps dedicated to the twin themes of despair and hopelessness. Or catering to the darkness within men's souls--if not actively celebrating it. Few and far between are the ones that even explore the light and the goodness of those souls. After being told over and over again that happiness is impossible in this world; that those who pursue it are simple and shallow; and that , as C3PO in "Star Wars"--a wonderful robotic symbol of this mindset--says, "misery and suffering is our lot in life" --is it really any wonder that my profession is overwhelmed by the unhappiness of our fellow humans?

Those who buy into the doom and gloom agenda are so profoundly caught up in their own narcissistic feelings that they can't even tolerate having a political candidate they supported lose an election without suffering post-traumatic stress. I had a patient once who became suicidal because her son had to have surgery and she felt life had no meaning or purpose...and then I found out that her 30 year old son was scheduled for bunion surgery, and I'm afraid I lost all sympathy for her plight.

Truly, there aren't enough antidepressants in the universe to reverse the onslaught of depression and malaise that is aimed at our minds from sun up to sun set that would have us believe that everything is a disaster. Like Denethor, the doomed Warden of Gondor, who has spent years listening to Sauron tell him how hopeless it is to oppose him (in the movie Return of the King); the media --and all those who listen to the Sauron's of today-- would like us to pour oil on the funeral pyre and just light it--because we can't win against evil; we can't win against chaos; we can't win against darkness. We are doomed. Doomed!

Phooey.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 2:07 PM |

 
Back Later
I have a few things to attend to this morning. Back blogging later....
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 11:21 AM |

 
THE SHRILL OPPORTUNISM OF HILLARY CLINTON
Hillary Clinton in a speech addressing the National Security Challenges of Our Time: Fighting Terror and the Spread of Weapons of Mass Destruction at the Brookings Institute; February 25, 2004

Now, an Administration that has celebrated freedom of action over collective action in Iraq, is scrambling for friends and institutions to bail us out. The go-it-alone instinct of this Administration has now demonstrably failed. Our experience in Iraq demonstrates that power, not harnessed to a sense of international legitimacy, is a flawed strategy. The question is whether the Administration's about-face in Iraq signifies a deeper re-evaluation of their attitudes toward the world. That is, has the Administration come to understand that the 50-year bipartisan consensus supporting multilateralism was not an excuse for weakness, but an exercise of strength?
The answer to this question is critical to understanding whether the Administration's foreign policy is undergoing a shift, brought on by our experience in Iraq that views our allies and the international community as partners in the War on Terror. For a failure to learn the lessons from our policy failure in Iraq will be disastrous in the War on Terror.

So, this morning, I'd like to talk about the dangers of pursuing a policy of unilateralism and the need for allies in every aspect of our security. Critical to fighting this new 21st century war is a fundamental re-orientation away from a unilateral posture to a multilateral strategy that strengthens all who participate.

Hillary Clinton at Princeton University, on January 18, 2006

"I believe that we lost critical time in dealing with Iran because the White House chose to downplay the threats and to outsource the negotiations," Ms. Clinton said, according to a transcript of the speech published by The Daily Princetonian. "I don't believe you face threats like Iran or North Korea by outsourcing it to others and standing on the sidelines."

- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 10:14 PM |

 
DESPERATE OSAMA APPEALS TO THE WEAK-MINDED
Is anyone surprised that Osama has picked up the main talking points of the Left and their MSM media outlets? He, too, seems as obsessed with American polls as those on the Left are to justify their positions.

Meanwhile, apparently aware that when the enemy of the U.S. parrots all their important Bush-hating memes, it is not a good thing--what do you suppose the first response of the lunatic Left is?

That's right! The Osama tape is all part of a plot by Bush to get the Patriot Act passed etc. etc. and so on toward infinite paranoia and delusion.

Walid Phares has some interesting thoughts on the Bin Laden audiotape.

The release of this tape so soon after the apparently successful U.S. attack in Pakistan that took out some high value Al Qaeda targets, can only mean one thing from a psychological perspective. Bin Laden knows his side is losing and is desperate to hide that fundamental truth from his followers and from his Western enablers.

He also knows that only by quickly and aggressively motivating his jihad base with more of the usual grandiose and psychotic rhetoric can he hold together his crumbling jihad.

One final thing that Osama understands is that as long as he has the clueless but very useful idiots of the Left--including those within the Democratic Party-- on his side and constantly working toward his goals; he still has fair chance to manipulate the U.S. into defeating itself.

Personally, I still tend to think that Osama himself is dead. But whether he is dead or alive, Al Qaeda's PSYOPS --like the Star War's "force"-- can have a strong influence on the weak-minded.

UPDATE: Neil Cavuto on FoxNews just reported that the stock market closed UP today even after Bin Laden's tape was released. Apparently the market hasn't been fooled by Bin Laden's talk of "truce" and don't see any reason to take what he says seriously.

UPDATE II: Apparently al-Jazeera did not translate Bin Laden correctly. According to MEMRI, Osama did not offer us a truce, he offered only to abide by one if WE offered a truce to him. Dream on.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 6:46 PM |

 
HILARY'S PLANTATION
I beg to disagree with Laura Bush--there is a "plantation" in Congress and certain people have managed to stray off of it.

Barack Obama, sadly, is still a prisoner in this stifling and intellectually repressive environment.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 10:05 AM |

 
IT'S GENERATING POWER ALL RIGHT

- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 10:04 AM |

 
THE ONCE AND FUTURE VICTIMS
Via Transterrestrial Musings, I came across this future release from the Bleurters News Service, courtesy of Atlanta Rofters:

The D.C. Islamic Eternal Justice Endeavor against War and Stereotyping (DIEJEWS) yesterday issued a strongly worded statement condemning a rising backlash against Muslims following next month's nuclear bombing of Tel Aviv, Israel by Iran. The press release warned against an increase in anti-Muslim discrimination, hate crimes, and government harassment following the destruction of the unofficial Israeli capital city next month, as announced by the Iranian government.

"We call on all Americans of goodwill to hold fast to our traditional American values of tolerance and diversity," the statement said in part. "No justification is possible for the heightened tensions and increased suspicions against innocent Muslims following next month's tragic events.

Someday the victimhood scam being run by CAIR and all the other apologists for Islam will be recognized even by the dimmist (dhimmist?) bulbs in the American lamp--i.e., most of the Left who thrive on the cult of victimhood and who believe in the holy myth of the "return of the 12th victim".

When the 12th victim returns, the once and future victims of the world will throw off the shackles of their eternal oppression and, through jihad, bring about the longed-for Marxist revolution of the proletariat and install a glorious socialist caliphate.

Or something like that....
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 8:10 PM |

 
Touch and Go !

It's time for Dr. Sanity to practice a few touch and go's around the mental health blogsphere--or "psychosphere" if you prefer! Here are some of the things my fellow mental health professionals are blogging about:

Sigmund, Carl and Alfred goes to a meeting at the university and discovers a brief and rare moment of reality on campus. This, in turn cause him to reflect on 9/11 and other thoughts.

Spy vs. Spy and Monday morning quarterbacking are Neo's topics at neo-neocon; while Dr. Helen is looking for a few good men to stand up and talk about the postive aspects of marriage amidst all the current male reluctance to marry.

Religious tolerance and the tolerance of religion are taken on by ShrinkWrapped. Over at Shrinkette's blog, she discusses the Oregon suicide assistance law by telling a story of her own experience with the Hemlock Society.....

Assistant Village Idiot is currently concerned with building better brains.

GM reminds John Kerry about his pledge one year ago to release all his military records. Kerry has released them all right, just not to the public.

Gagdad Bob at One Cosmos goes inside "patient zero in the pandemic of Bush Derangement Syndrome" and conducts a fantasy analysis.

Be sure to check out all the fine psychological insight available at these blogs!

UPDATE: I am alerted to a new psychblog called psych pundit, who sent a long a post on the treatment of Obsessive Compulsive Disorder (OCD).
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 2:05 PM |

 
INFINITE COMPLACENCY
Please read The Belmont Club post, "The Coming of the Bomb", where Wretchard quotes H.G. Wells about how complacent men could be in the presence of unseen but growing danger. He then goes on to say:

With a few changes Wells' paragraph could describe the mixture of smug amusement with which the Western intellectual elite watched the growing number of Wahabist mosques, the photography of landmarks, the application for flying lessons and the attendance at courses of nuclear physics by students from older worlds. They laughed, for nothing could threaten the dominion of Western Man, supreme in his socialized state at the End of History. Even after September 11 the only question for many was how soon history would return to normal after a temporary inconvenience. Little did they imagine that the expansion of the European Union, the Kyoto Agreements and Reproductive Rights -- all the preoccupations of their unshakable world -- might be the least of humanity's concerns in the coming years.

It continues to amaze me--as it has done for the last four years--how the intellectual and artistic elite in this country continue to soldier on with their "make love not war" and "Bush=Hitler" platitudes; remaining in complete denial about the threat to the U.S. and the civilized world from Islamofascism.

Intellectual lightweights in the political elite division like Al Gore and Hilary Clinton will use any and all excuses -- even a national holiday -- to score points against the fantasy "enemy", while the real threat continues to hover off their radar. Meanwhile, their European counterparts pat themselves on the back for a job well-done when they have done nothing. As Krauthammer says, "It makes you want to weep."

I imagine this must have been what it was like for Cassandra in Argos, cursed to be able to see the future clearly, but have no one believe her. I imagine this is what it was like for those few people prior to WWII who saw the appeasement of Germany for what it was and warned of the consequences of allowing Hitler to do what he said clearly he would do.

These days, it seems to me, it hardly takes a seer or a rocket scientist--or a psychiatrist--to foretell the misery and death that await the world in the next decade if decisive and proactive steps are not taken right now.

We will never know the moment it became too late to do something until after it has passed. Infinite complacency will gradually become grand disillusionment and eventually hopeless regret.

Tears, idle tears, I know not what they mean,
Tears from the depth of some divine despair
Rise in the heart, and gather to the eyes,
In looking on the happy Autumn-fields,
And thinking of the days that are no more.

Fresh as the first beam glittering on a sail,
That brings our friends up from the underworld,
Sad as the last which reddens over one
That sinks with all we love below the verge;
So sad, so fresh, the days that are no more.

Ah, sad and strange as in dark summer dawns
The earliest pipe of half-awakened birds
To dying ears, when unto dying eyes
The casement slowly grows a glimmering square;
So sad, so strange, the days that are no more.

Dear as remembered kisses after death,
And sweet as those by hopeless fancy feigned
On lips that are for others; deep as love,
Deep as first love, and wild with all regret;
O Death in Life, the days that are no more.

- A.Tennyson

UPDATE: ShrinkWrapped also reflects on Cassanda and the Trojan Horse.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 10:27 AM |

 
AL GORE AND THE RATIONAL ROLE OF EMOTION
Hannah Arendt once said, " Fear is an emotion indispensable for survival." Contrast that with what ex-Vice President and all-around bitter human being Al Gore said in a speech yesterday:

Fear drives out reason. Fear suppresses the politics of discourse and opens the door to the politics of destruction.

Gore uses "fear" as if it were a dirty word, when in fact, fear is a perfectly normal emotion that we are (thankfully) hardwired to experience.

In previous posts, I have explained how destructive it is to rely solely on one's emotions as a strategy for living one's life. But is equally irrational to completely ignore feelings and pretend that you don't feel what you do. In other words, fear may be an extremely rational response to a dangerous situation.

Emotion can be an important source of information about reality; or at least, an important source of information about one's internal reality --which sometimes has to be understood, challenged and compared with the external world to ascertain whether what is being felt is a valid guide for action.

Animals do not have an intervening rational process between emotion and action. When they feel fear, they react. Humans, when necessary--i.e., when in imminent danger--will react the same way as animals because we share a similar physiology. But humans are (hopefully) able to understand and appreciate fear in a way that other species cannot. We possess a rational faculty that when used correctly can expand and refine (or consider and discard when appropriate) the information emotions give us about potential threats. Thus, humans are able to deliberately plan and anticipate for future threats--a flexibility not available to most animal species, except where it is already programmed.

But in order to do that, we must still be able to experience fear and listen carefully to what our fear is telling us about reality.

The person without fear tends to achieve death far more quickly than a person who understands what he is feeling; why he is feeling it; and acts on the feeling, when appropriate and necessary.

Now, it is true that fear may indeed drive out reason. But that occurs when fear replaces reason, instead of augmenting or enhancing it. The normal course of events--for humans anyway-- is that a person experiences the fear and then determines (sometime very very quickly) what the best response to the emotion is. Again, thankfully, through a series of reflexes, we are programmed to jump out of the way of attacking rhinos without much reason or intervening thought.

The less imminently threatening scenarios where fear is likely to "drive out" reason is exactly when our psychological defenses distort an unpleasant reality and make us inclined to pretend that something dangerous isn't really so. In other words, when fear goes underground and is covered up, the blissfully ignorant are merely waiting patiently for the slow-moving rhino to strike.

I'm sure Mr. Gore envisions fear making everyone run around in circles like chickens (or donkeys) with their heads cut off; but in that case, fear has been replaced by hysteria--an emotional overreaction to events (although it is hard to overreact when your head is cut off).

We all feel the emotion of fear. And it is good that we do so. Fear and all our other emotions are the software "shortcuts" that encourage our mind and body to act. An emotionally mature individual tries to understand his or her fear--i.e., he or she uses the rational faculty and reason-- because in doing so, one may determine the appropriate course of action for countering a perceived threat to youself or your loved ones.

Pretending that you aren't afraid; displacing or minimizing your fear; ignoring the slow-moving rhino heading in your direction or other dangerous realities; are hardly effective strategies to deal with the many threatening things in the world today.

In an earlier post, I discussed the defense mechanism of denial:

Denial can be thought of as a complex psychological process where there may be some conscious knowledge or awareness of events in the world, but somehow one fails to feel their emotional impact or see their logical consequences.

Denial is an attempt to reject unacceptable feelings, needs, thoughts, wishes--or even a painful external reality that alters the perception of ourselves. This psychological defense mechanism protects us temporarily from:

-Knowledge (things we don’t want to know)
-Insight or awareness that threatens our self-esteem; or our mental or physical health; or our security (things we don't want to think about)
-Unacceptable feelings (things we don’t want to feel)

Think of it this way. Every one of us has at one point or another in our lives had to face an unpleasant reality or painful truth and at the very least probably desperately wished it would go away.

This is psychotic denial; completely out of touch with reality. A similar defense mechanism of dissociation -- or, neurotic denial as it is sometimes called-- allows us to replace painful ideas and affects with more pleasant ones that are not disturbing. (e.g., "Ahmadinejad is a reasonable person. Surely he does not want to destroy Israel!")

With this defense, our consciousness is dissociated from our self. This defense is notable because it is one of the only psychological defenses that can be voluntarily and consciously deployed.

There are many ways to alter our consciousness and to separate it from reality--through drugs, alcohol, meditation, self-hypnosis, lying to ourselves; acting etc. etc. We can pretend to be happy, when we are not. We can pretend to not be afraid, when we really are. The opportunities are endless.

So are the potential destructive consequences.

Both psychotic and neurotic denial are methods of eliminating unwanted feelings, thoughts or knowledge. In the case of the fear that Al Gore would prefer we not feel; these defenses represent the methods being used to deny the current reality of the world. It is remarkably sane and rational to be afraid of the insane and irrational psychopaths who are out there and who are planning to indiscriminantly kill as many Americans as possible. Being afraid of them is the first step. Logically deciding what to do with that fear is the second.

Let me be clear. If you pretend that the various Islamofascist threats including Iran's goals obtaining nuclear weapons and of wiping the US and Israel off the map are nothing to be afraid of, then it is doubtful that you will be able to take evasive action from the charging rhino--no matter how slowly it narrows the gap between you and its horns.

The proper role of emotion is to be an "early warning system" that alerts us that something good or something bad is on the way. We ignore our feelings at our peril; and alternately, if we rely only on them as a method of determining reality, we are equally screwed.

But, when emotions are used in concert with reason, we are able to optimally deal with the real world.

Contrary to what Gore suggests; fear does not lead to the "politics of destruction"; rather, it is an essential emotion and absolutely necessary for survival.

Only the very foolish and the very dead do not experience fear.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 7:50 PM |

 
Selective Amnesia
Gateway Pundit says that Al Gore is trying to ignore his past. I would tend to agree.

Bill Clinton and Al Gore are both suffering from selective amnesia, which seems to be an infectious disease among Democrats, these days (It runs in families, too since Bill passed it on to Hilary).

Whatever you do, please please don't look at the constitutional record of Bill Clinton and Al Gore -- unless that is, you want to understand the kind of disgusting hypocrisy and opportunism their administration represented.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 10:22 AM |

 
The Democrats vs. Alito
This morning, Thomas Sowell has a commentary at RealClearPolitics that discussses what he refers to as the "Senate Condemnation Hearings". Here are a few excerpts, but read the entire piece:

First, there were those long-winded preambles to "questions" for the judge. Then there were the Mickey Mouse maneuvers and insinuations, spiced here and there with outright lies.
The ridiculousness of the charges was classically illustrated by Senator Joseph Biden's claim that Alito had been part of a group that was trying to keep minorities and women out of Princeton. Apparently wanting everyone to meet the same admissions standards is considered to be the same as being against minorities and women. [...]

At the same level of farce was a loud and insistent demand by Senator Ted Kennedy that the Senate Judiciary Committee vote to issue a subpoena for certain records -- even though those records were readily available without a subpoena. In fact, the records in question had already been received by the committee.
The biggest hypocrisy was asking Judge Alito questions that everyone knew in advance no judicial nominee could -- or should -- answer, and then complaining afterwards on nationwide television that he was not "forthcoming" or "responsive."
[...]
The biggest hypocrisy was asking Judge Alito questions that everyone knew in advance no judicial nominee could -- or should -- answer, and then complaining afterwards on nationwide television that he was not "forthcoming" or "responsive."

None of these ploys had anything to do with determining Judge Alito's qualifications to be on the Supreme Court. At most there were attempts to provoke him to anger with insulting questions, in hopes of providing an excuse for Democrats to vote against him and for the weaker Republicans to be afraid to support him.

But Judge Alito remained unruffled and dignified.



Which is, of course, more than any of the senators who opposed him managed to do.

"Senate condemnation hearings" is sadly an accurate description of what actually went happened in the senate last week.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 10:11 AM |

 
IDENTIFICATION WITH THE AGGRESSOR
Many parents are familiar with a wide variety of children's games in which the children pretend to be wild animals or or even imaginary viscious creatures. Maurice Sendak's famous children's book, Where the Wild Things Are is a perfect example of such games. This kind of play by children psychologically allows them to do several emotional tasks at once.

First, the play allows them an expression of instinctual energy in a setting that is generally not particularly destructive or dangerous. With parents benignly watching over the play, children can literally get away with "monstrous acts" and if they are too rambunctious, they are easily controlled (as Max's mother does in the book).

Second, and just as important, the child through this play can transform their own intense anxiety about being attacked by "monsters" into an identification with the monster. In children's games, this is a pleasurable experience, and helps to lessen the normal kinds of fears and anxieties that are a part of childhood.

Thus we can see the origins of what has become known as the "Stockholm Syndrome" or Anna Freud's concept of "identification with the aggressor."

By taking on some characteristic of a thing which causes extreme anxiety, a child is using that identification (or introjection as it is sometimes called) as a means of reducing his or her anxiety by morphing from the passive role to the active role. With psychological identification, instead of being the object of a threat, you become the one making the threat.

In children this is considered a normal part of the development of the "superego" as children learn to master their anxiety. In fact, this capability of identification with another is essential for normal psychological development and when it is not brought about by excessively traumatic events in a child's life (i.e.,during the safety of play) the child can develop normally. The healthy result of this process is an introjection and assimilation of others leading to normal human relationships and empathy and understanding of other people.

When the process short circuits for any reason (i.e., abuse, trauma etc.) then more primitive alternatives come into play, including projection and full-blown paranoia. ShrinkWrapped has more on this phenomenon from an earlier post.

Roger Simon links to a site that quotes a recently released hostage in Iraq:

"I was treated very respectfully and courteously apart from the fact that I was detained against my will and threatened with beheading," Sands told The Associated Press on Saturday. "I was not beaten, starved or treated badly."

This was said of the people who threatened to behead the hostage in question.

In fact, it is not too uncommon for some people in such a hostage situation, particularly where their lives are at stake, to fully and completely identify with the side that is threatening them.

I was just watching an episode of Firefly (interestingly titled "Bushwacked") where the sole survivor of a Reaver attack is rescued by the crew, but he has been the witness to such horrors that he literally transforms himself into a Reaver in order to cope with the trauma. Reavers are what is left of a human being when all civilizing mental processes are stripped from their minds; only the primitive and animalistic part of the human remains. Thus they are capable of any atrocity.

If you have been reading some of my posts on psychological defense mechanisms (here ), you will realize that "identification with the aggressor" also involves the use of a particularly primitive defense called "projection", where one's own unacceptable feelings or behaviors are placed on another individual or group. Thus it is not at all uncommon for those who are sadistically traumatized to become sadistic themselves and carry on the trauma and to project their feelings of helplessness and trauma onto others as they create more victims. This mechanism explains why some abused children go on to become abusers themselves when they are adults. It also explains why someone of Jewish heritage would admire a Hitler and hide their ancestry; or why people in general might find themselves hanging around with and even imitating people who despise them or even might want to kill them.

Identification with the aggressor is only considered normal when it is innocuous --as in children's play.

When it occurs in adults in real life situations, it can literally transform those who unconsciously use it into the very monsters they fear the most, as they cope with their severe anxiety and dread.

I do not contend that coping in a healthy manner to traumatic circumstances is an easy thing to do. In fact, maintaining psychological health under those circumstances may be very difficult. One must do what one must to survive and get out of the deadly situation. Personally, I would say anything (even lying, if necessary) and do anything--right up to the point where it would betray my own fundamental values, without which I am not myself anyway) in order to survive.

But it is after the trauma--after the rescue--that the hardest and most painful part of coping psychologically will present itself. And to survive psychologically will require not a little insight, self-awareness, and honesty; possibly shame and/or guilt; and most of all, using one's rational faculty to help understand all that has transpired both externally and internally. In this way, one may permit one's self to tap into the terrible feelings of fear and humiliation and to deal with them --instead of repressing them, and letting them deal with you and thus, unconsciously control you and distort the reality of what happened to you.

An example of this is the case of the hostage above, who clearly dealt with his fear by identifying with his captors and projecting some of his own normality onto them-- as in, "they were so respectful and courteous to me"....

Yes, they were. As respectful and courteous as anyone could be when they are threatening to cut off your head.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 10:09 PM |

 
WIPING ISRAEL OFF THE MAP
The UN takes Ahmadinejad literally.

US Ambassador to the UN John Bolton sent a letter to Sec.-Gen. Kofi Annan complaining that a map that omitted Israel was hung at an annual UN meeting.

In the letter, written on January 3, and revealed on The New York Sun on Friday, Bolton wrote: "It was entirely inappropriate for this map to be used. It can be misconstrued to suggest that the United Nations tacitly supports the abolition of the state of Israel."

"Given that we now have a world leader pursuing nuclear weapons who is calling for the state of Israel to be 'wiped off the map,' the issue has even greater salience," he stressed.

Its amazing how you can always count on the UN to do the wrong thing, isn't it?
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 4:46 PM |

 
WANT OF WILL
Regarding the Iran crisis, Wretchard has this to say:

The most interesting thing about the structure of the standoff between the West and Iran is that what chiefly prevents a regime change in Teheran is not the want of means, but the want of will. The ayatollah's fundamental defense lies in the well-founded belief that the United States has expended too much political capital in deposing Saddam to undertake another regime change operation in Teheran. Safety for the ayatollahs does not consist in the assurance that there aren't enough US ground, air and naval units to smash their regime, but in the calculation that no American President would chance it after three years of political pillorying for OIF.

But he goes on to suggest that in the deadly game we play with Iran, our best ally might in fact be the craziness of Ahmadinejad, whose bellicose and aggressively arrogant behavior may push that will in the direction to enforce a regime change. (Read it all for some excellent analysis). If Ahmadinejad simply smiled and went quietly about his nuclear business, the appeasers of the West would remain fat and happy ("hear no evil, see no evil" is their motto, after all).

But the current President of Iran can be counted on to respond to even the most minimal provocation in an outrageous and probably psychotic manner.

The West's appeasement; want of will; confusion about its own values; --these are the weapons that all the Islamofascist leaders have chosen to use against us--using the smug, cloying politically correct arguments of those who feel righteously and morally superior to disarm criticism (observe Cindy Sheehan and those who idolize her for her behavior for an example of this strategy as it is used by today's Left).

A punch here; a jab there; will make the facade of moral superiority slip; and the rage and delusion will be obvious to all reasonable people--if it isn't already.

Let us hope that among the 50 percent or so of our population who have been gleefully indulging in the intellectual and moral relativism that has permitted the insanity of Iran to marinate over the last 30 years or so; that there is still some small resevoir of reason and objectivity that will eventually awaken them to the world's mortal peril.

In too many of the life-or-death situations that I have dealt with as a physician, "want of will" has led inevitably to loss of life.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 12:36 PM |

 
WHAT REALLY MATTERS
Andrew Stuttaford at The Corner the other day:

The story of those Danish cartoons of the prophet Mohammed continues to rumble on, and as it does, it provides a fascinating example of the mess in which Europe now finds itself. Some recent developments include (1) the decision by the Danish public prosecutor not to take the matter any further, (2) the news that various Danish Muslim organizations are complaining about the cartoon to the European Court of Human Rights and (3) a trip from Denmark by various Muslim intellectuals and activists to Muslim countries to explain what has going on.

The Brussels Journal has more details, but two quotes stand out.

The first is from Carsten Juste, the editor of Jyllands-Posten. He’s refusing to apologize:

“We will not apologise, because we live in Denmark under Danish law, and we have freedom of speech in this country. If we apologised, we would betray the generations who have fought for this right, and the moderate Muslims who are democratically minded.”

The second is from the Danish prime minister:
“I am speechless that those people, whom we have given the right to live in Denmark and where they freely have chosen to stay, are now touring Arab countries and inciting antipathy towards Denmark and the Danish people.”

Keep an eye on this story. It matters.

For those who don't remember the issue, the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten is facing escalating accusations that it deliberately provoked and insulted Muslims by publishing twelve cartoons featuring the prophet Mohammed. (Two are reproduced here and all of them can be found here--judge for yourself how offensive they are -- and whether they or any art that might be offensive to someone-- deserve death threats to the artists and the newspapers who published them. )

The newspaper urged cartoonists to send in drawings of the prophet, after an author complained that nobody dared to illustrate his book on Mohammed. The author claimed that illustrators feared that extremist Muslims would find it sacrilegious to break the Islamic ban on depicting Mohammed. Twelve illustrators heeded the newspaper’s call, and sent in cartoons of the prophet, which were then published in the newspaper. A firestorm of outrage then followed, as documented here and here. Also, recently a new cartoon "outrage" occurred in Norway.

As Stuttaford notes, this has now been taken up by the European Court of Human Rights. Europe has been soaking in the multicultural muck for sometime now, and it will be interesting to see how they reconcile that politically correct dogma with the human right we refer to as "freedom of speech."

Most of the elite academic institutions in our own country have resolved such issues by ruthlessly suppressing free speech if it happens to "offend" anyone who is a member of an accepted victim class (in which Islam has resided since 9/11). If you are not a member of one of those classes, your feelings about the situation count for nothing (for example, if you are male, caucasian, straight, conservative, and/or Christian). Another special rule in applying the PC formula is that the feelings of a member of any of the identified victim groups, who no longer thinks of himself or herself as a victim, and thinks outside the multicultural/PC box --also does not count in the PC scheme of things.

Keep these special rules in mind the next time you hear or read about the supposed assault on freedom--especially freedom of speech--here in this country. And tomorrow as the Left uses the excuse of the MLK holiday to continue its assault on the Bush administration who they regard as the greatest threat to civiliztion and freedom along with so-called "Christian fundamentalism", you might also do well to contemplate what is happening all over Europe.

It should be obvious to even the most lazy intellect that the real threat to freedom of speech resides somewhere else.

As Denmark and the rest of Europe are finally coming to realize.

UPDATE: Betsy has an example of how the Left deals with "free speech" that they don't happen agree with. If they could, they would impose their own brand of secular fundamentalism on their opponents in this. Isn't it time we all stood up to this kind of intimidation in the U.S. and in the world from both religious and secular fundamentalists? Does the concept of "free and open debate of ideas" refer to only those ideas that you agree with or that don't offend anyone?
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 11:04 PM |

 
BELIEVE IT
In my career as a psychiatrist I have encountered many psychotic individuals with religious delusions. One study suggests that those patients with religious delusions are suffering from a particularly virulent form of schizophrenia, where the potential for self-harm or harm to others is significantly increased. The study concluded that "religious delusions are commonly found in schizophrenia and that by comparison with other patients who have schizophrenia, those patients with religious delusions appear to be more severely ill."

Such delusions may even occur in people who were never religious prior to their illness. And in the sickest individuals, they may be combined with delusions of grandeur, where the person believes they are some figure of religious and historical import. I, myself, have personally met Jesus Christ (several times), St. Theresa, the Pope, Lucifer, and a variety of other assorted religious icons.

At least, that was what they told me at the time.

Those raised in a predominantly Christian culture had delusions of a Christian nature. But I have also seen Hindus, Buddhists, and American Indians with religious delusions that took on the form of their own culture's predominant religion. Interestingly, the one person I saw who had been a committed atheist prior to becoming psychotic, thought he was the "Devil" and the "King of Evil" when his brain strayed from reality.

Which brings me to Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad latest rantings. An earlier article about Ahmadinejad explained:

As Iran rushes towards confrontation with the world over its nuclear programme, the question uppermost in the mind of western leaders is "What is moving its President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to such recklessness?"

Its most remarkable manifestation came with Mr Ahmadinejad's international debut, his speech to the United Nations.
[...]
World leaders had expected a conciliatory proposal to defuse the nuclear crisis after Teheran had restarted another part of its nuclear programme in August.

Instead, they heard the president speak in apocalyptic terms of Iran struggling against an evil West that sought to promote "state terrorism", impose "the logic of the dark ages" and divide the world into "light and dark countries".

The speech ended with the messianic appeal to God to "hasten the emergence of your last repository, the Promised One, that perfect and pure human being, the one that will fill this world with justice and peace".

In a video distributed by an Iranian web site in November, Mr Ahmadinejad described how one of his Iranian colleagues had claimed to have seen a glow of light around the president as he began his speech to the UN.

"I felt it myself too," Mr Ahmadinejad recounts. "I felt that all of a sudden the atmosphere changed there. And for 27-28 minutes all the leaders did not blink…It's not an exaggeration, because I was looking.

"They were astonished, as if a hand held them there and made them sit. It had opened their eyes and ears for the message of the Islamic Republic."

Western officials said the real reason for any open-eyed stares from delegates was that "they couldn't believe what they were hearing from Ahmadinejad". (Emphasis mine)
Their sneaking suspicion is that Iran's president actually relishes a clash with the West in the conviction that it would rekindle the spirit of the Islamic revolution and - who knows - speed up the arrival of the Hidden Imam.

The prospect of such a man obtaining nuclear weapons is more than worrying. Any reasonable person on the face of the earth should be scared stiff at the potential destruction that such a person could wreak on the entire world.

Hitler at least did not have a nuclear bomb. And look at the worldwide devastation and death he orchestrated. The Gates of Vienna has already discussed Ahmadinejad's Kampf, for those interested in historical parallels.

If you are interested in the religious background of the Shia 12th Imam, this site gives a good summary. Another summary can be found here. One key point:

Most of Iranian history can only be understood in relationship to the Doctrine of Return and the prophecies associated with it. For instance, during the Iranian Revolution, several Iranians believed that Ayatullah Ruhollah Khumayni, the spiritual and theoretical head of the Revolution, was the Hidden Imam returned to the world of humanity. While Khumayni never admitted this, he never denied it either. In many ways, the Revolutionaries believed that they were engineering or inaugurating the beginning of the reign of justice in the world, just as the radical Protestant English who settled America believed that they were inaugurating the one thousand year rule of saints that would precede the end of the world. Contemporary Iranian politics can in no way be divorced from the fundamental religious tenets of Shi'a Islam.

Several points. Ahmadinejad was a key player during the Iranian Revolution back in the Jimmy Carter presidency-- so his delusion is fairly fixed. Some have even suggested that he thinks he is the 12th Imam. Certainly his religious ecstasy during the UN speech has given him reason to believe that he may be the vessel in which the Imam returns to rule.

A second point that apologists have repeatedly raised is that both the Christian and Jewish faiths have apocalyptic messages and their own psychotic believers who wish to hasten the end-times.

Charles Krauthammer has commented appropriately on that:

So a Holocaust-denying, virulently anti-Semitic, aspiring genocidist, on the verge of acquiring weapons of the apocalypse, believes that the end is not only near but nearer than the next American presidential election. (Pity the Democrats. They cannot catch a break.) This kind of man would have, to put it gently, less inhibition about starting Armageddon than a normal person. Indeed, with millennial bliss pending, he would have positive incentive to, as they say in Jewish eschatology, hasten the end.

To be sure, there are such madmen among the other monotheisms. The Temple Mount Faithful in Israel would like the al-Aqsa mosque on Jerusalem's Temple Mount destroyed to make way for the third Jewish Temple and the messianic era. The difference with Iran, however, is that there are all of about 50 of these nuts in Israel, and none of them is president.

Again, the point to remember is that those who might believe in the imminence of Armageddon to the point of religious delusion in the respective Christian or Jewish faiths do not have nuclear weapons with which to facilitate their psychotic visions.

It is also worth pointing out that the Christian faithful conceive of a coming battle between good and evil in an abstract sense, with the forces of good lining up against their opposite numbers on the dark side. Ahmadinejad takes the same concept and makes it frighteningly concrete (as psychotic patients are wont to do). We are left in no doubt about exactly who Ahmadinejad considers evil and who must be "wiped off the map" in the coming apocalyptic confrontation.

The schizophrenic patients I have seen with religious delusions were often the hardest to treat and least responsive to medication. Most of them had such severely impaired thinking processes that they could hardly function on a day-to-day basis; let alone would they have been able to rise to a position of influence or power in any culture. But there were a few who were notable for their single-minded and persistent incorporation of everything they came in contact with into their delusional system; and who had only contempt for anyone who didn't subscribe to their psychotic ideas. These latter patients exhibited a psychopathically clever and manipulative intelligence that was completely immune to any insight into their illness. These patients' were chillingly and frighteningly serious about their delusion, and to them you were nothing.

Ahmadinejad can conclude all he wants that the West is living in the "dark ages" (*note to Ahmadinejad: if the West is living in the dark ages, then you, sir, reside in the stone age) because they are reluctant to agree to his desire to possess nuclear weapons, but all you have to do is listen to what the man is saying to comprehend the enormous danger he represents to humanity with his mind consumed with dark and apocalyptic visions; and his hands controlling a nuclear button.

And if you think you can't believe what you are hearing... think again. Believe it.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 5:39 PM |

 
CARNIVAL OF THE INSANITIES EXTRAVAGANZA
***SPECIAL Scroll down for a "Carnival within the Carnival!" SPECIAL***

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!). This week we include a special mini-CARNIVAL OF THE ALITO CONFIRMATION INSANITIES!
Send your entries for next week's carnival to Dr. Sanity by 8 pm ET on Saturday for Sunday's Carnival. Only one post entry weekly per blogger, please. Thanks for all the submissions. I try to use as many as possible!
SO MANY INSANITIES! SO LITTLE TIME!

1. Porcine fluorescence. Can glow-in-the-dark humans be next? And, who knew that chicken wings were so dangerous??

2. Founding Fathers suicidal? Don't count on it.

3. Joker's wild. The MSM expresses its deeply-held belief about the character of the President.

4. What a bunch of sweethearts.

5. Senator Tookie? OK, that was mean.

6. Oh dear lord. What did the American people do to deserve this? C3PO for President --again?

7. BET announces more awards .

8. Fair and balanced cat news. It's about time.

9. Parentus Interruptus (hat tip: SC&A)

10. Fake, but accurate: a final exam for a journalism class!

11. No Naked Sex.

12. What will he feel next? Inquiring minds want to know.

13. By Williams Tennessee, I presume? (hat tip: Instapundit)

14. Yet another gaping security hole.

15. Best Blonde Joke EVER. You'll eventually get it.

16. Maybe it should be the HCLU?

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

Carnival of The Alito Confirmation Insanities (mini-version)

1. At least Alito has an open mind. More than you can say for some.

2. A senator who has become a parody of himself .

3. Senators' vs. Normal people's learning curve is 8667 : 1 (or thereabouts)

4. Achilles had a heel, and Biden has a mouth...coincidence? I don't think so. Or... the Senate hearings could consider scrapping Senator Biden....? Some think he is doomed.

5. She exhibited one of the few truly reasonable reactions to the whole affair, it seems to me. .

6. Mrs. Alito, Swift Boat Veterans, and Leftist conspiracty theories. Some people might alternately conclude that there might have been a "conspiracy" to assassinate the character of a honest and decent human being who happens to be a conservative.

7. The true compassion of the Left - only their emotions are worthy of respect.

8. Separated at birth?

9. Compare and contrast. Ok, that was really mean.

10. The hearings in haiku ! Much more interesting!!

11. Don't forget the pie fight!

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 "Word of Blog" below the button to obtain the html code:

- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 12:03 PM |

 
THEY FEEL IT IS TRUE, THEREFORE IT IS - Part XX
It appears that there is a new genre of writing called "creative non-fiction" (also here and here). This is simply one of many new irrationally innovative strategies we see in many fields that have developed in order for a person to get their agenda across without having to rely on old-fashioned concepts like truth, facts, external objective reality, or reason.

Sometime back I wrote about the paranoid ranting of a particular congressman and commented:

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

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

Neo-neocon also discussed this "feeling" versus "thinking" problem that the Left seems to be suffering from:

But I think this coming-up-with-ideas thing is going to be difficult for liberals. They seem to have reached a point--and I hope I'm wrong about this--where they are more interested in feeling than thinking (like some clients I've known). Now, feelings are all very well and good, and we certainly need to have them, but nowadays it seems as though many liberals feel that, if their hearts are in the right place, that should be enough. Many (and I number among them some of my very best friends) feel the right is full of heartless Scrooges, so it's not all that necessary to counter the ideas on the right, it's just necessary to call people on the right nasty names (which isn't to say that there aren't some heartless Scrooges on the right--but it's a mistake to think they predominate).

A paucity of ideas, combined with a rigid fundamentalist belief in one's religion ideology and an obsession with what you feel; what you need; what you want are the hallmarks of not only the new creative non-fiction genre, but also of current political discourse. ME, ME, ME; it's all about ME!

You see, these days, all one has to do is be passionate about one's cause. It is the passion--the emotion--that gives what you write or say validity; not the truth or falsehood of the tenets of your cause.

This is not to say that feelings are not an extremely important part of one's life--they are. But they are not an accurate barometer of truth or falsehood. They measure only the internal state of the individual experiencing them. I discuss emotions and reality in this earlier post, where I said:

A person's visceral response to another individual is usually based on mostly unconscious factors that are in play in the responder's life. To make an assessment of the gut feeling's appropriateness, the contents of the unconscious must be explored and brought to the conscious level and considered. Those unconscious internal conflicts can easily mask the inappropriate aspects of the feelings, making them worthless as a means of understanding the external world.

Taking this kind of action as a method of checking and understanding one's own feelings is a process called "insight" or "self-awareness". Some people do this quite naturally and honestly. Some learn in therapy or when they are in crisis. But if insight is absent then one's feelings have the potential to do great harm --both to one's self and to others.

Some unconscious factors, or psychological defenses, that can make one's feelings untrustworthy are: 1) the person you are responding to has become symbolic of someone else in your life (displacement, fantasy, or perhaps distortion); 2) focusing on one particular aspect of a person, you ignore other, more objective data that are available to you about the person (denial); 3) you place your own unacceptable feelings onto the other person--e.g.,I'm not an angry person, -- he's an angry person! (projection or full-blown paranoia).

The truth is that there are countless ways that unconscious processes within ourselves can distort our responses to others and to reality itself.

Growing up and attaining maturity requires that we take a moment to consider such factors playing a role in our emotions before we act on those emotions. If we come to know ourselves and understand our own weaknesses, vulnerabilities, limitations and secrets; then our emotional responses to people or to the world can be very valuable tools to help interpret the world. But they are only tools, and if not used wisely, they can do more harm than good. Feelings cannot be used in a court of law--for good reason. And they are not ultimate truth in the court of reality, either.

Without realizing it, the Left--by shifting every argument to the playing field of the emotions-- has embraced the malignant narcissism so characteristic of our times.

Why do I say that? Because when you talk about your emotions and how you feel about the facts--instead of the facts themselves, the topic of your conversation is only about you.

"Those evil Republicans make me feel so angry because they hate poor people!" Sadly, this irrational statement happens to be "true" to a lot of individuals. And, who can argue with them? Because if you argue with them you are going up against an indisputable assertion. After all, only they know what they "feel". They have just told you what they "feel". What they "feel" is what they "feel". And you can't dispute that, can you? They can always respond no matter how often you ask them for documentation and/or evidence that the statement is true by saying, "It's just what I feel anyway."

They also say this when you provide them with documentation and/or evidence that the statement is false.

You may notice that you never can quite get around to a real discussion of the issues and the facts of a matter because of this emotionalism, or--as I often prefer to call it--their hysteria (definition: behavior exhibiting overwhelming or unmanageable fear or emotional excess). Long ago, it used to be thought that hysteria occurred only in women (hence the derivation of the word); but it is now fully appreciated that the emotional excess and over-the-top expression of feelings is a hallmark of 21st century political discourse.

I have not yet read James Frey's runaway best-selling book A Million Little Pieces; but since he has admitted lying about his experiences as a alcoholic, drug addict, and criminal; it seems safe to say that this is simply yet another person to take advantage of the cult of professional victimhood; and who has been lionized and idolized by the narcissistic crowd that reveres feelings and emotional excess above everything else in life.

In this example, both the author and his readers have achieved the much-desired nirvana--which is a belief in, and reverence for, the "fake, but accurate" meme (as seen in the Rathergate affair and followed-up with ongoing success by Mary Mapes in her new book).

"Fake but accurate" simply and concisely reflects the essential hallowness of the narcissist who espouses it; and has nothing relevant or even true to say about the real world.

UPDATE: BTW, I don't have a problem with anyone writing anything they want. But trying to pass off your fiction as non-fiction seems somewhat intellectually and morally fraudulent; not to mention completely self-serving. Most autobiographies are, of course, fairly self-serving--but generally such authors exaggerate their importance or achievements in order to try to make the reader love them all the more. That is plenty narcissistic, but what can you say about an author whose goal is to make himself completely unlovable and grossly exaggerates his misdeeds in order to achieve the same result? And what do you say about the audience? De gustabus non est disputandum.

UPDATE II: Bill Adams at Idler Yet has some interesting thoughts on the subject.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 4:53 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. This week includes some incredible writing!


BEST COUNCIL POSTS:

First Place

Perspectives on Foreign Command of U.S. Forces The Glittering Eye

Second Place

Misogyny Day New Sisyphus


BEST NON-COUNCIL POSTS:

First Place

Patterico’s Los Angeles Dog Trainer Year in Review 2005 Patterico's Pontifications

Second Place

We Love the Troops; But It's a Tough Love (#144) -- UPDATED Protein Wisdom

Be sure to check out all the winners at the Watcher's site. Great weekend reading!
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 12:35 PM |

 
SOCCER MADNESS
WHAT SADISTIC INSANE MANIAC SCHEDULED A KID'S SOCCER GAME AT 6:00 AM ON A SATURDAY MORNING ??!!

If I find out, I intend to recommend hospitalization for that sick individual, possibly somewhere in Siberia for a long, long painful time. At the very least, he or she is getting a red card.

Back later.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 7:42 AM |

 
ZAWAHIRI DEAD?
Gateway Pundit has the details. Let's hope.

So, if Bin Laden is really dead; and Zawahiri too--things are definitely looking up in the GWOT.

Sheesh, I go away for a few hours, and look what happens.

UPDATE: Looking like they may not have got him, which I'm sure is making a lot of scumbags in this country breathe a sigh of relief. Wouldn't want Bush to look good or anything when he is the real terrorist and all. We'll see....
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 7:04 AM |

 
IS IT WAR THEN?
One by one, the dominoes that are the Middle East are being played by Islamofascism. The Taliban made the first play and they have been swept from power. Saddam almost got away with the second move, but now he, too, is contained and his evil minimzed. And, just as he was locked up, yet another player began to make his move.

Iran, under the leadership of the Mullahs and President Ahmadinejad are now poised to enter the game, thinking that they now have an advantage.

And that advantage is nuclear.

Victor Davis Hanson lays out the reality of the Iranian problem:

Its theocracy poses a danger to civilization even greater than a nuclear North Korea for a variety of peculiar circumstances. Iran is free of a patron like China that might in theory exert moderate influence or even insist on occasional restraint. North Korea, for an increasingly wealthy and capitalist China, is as much a headache and an economic liability as a socialist comrade.

In contrast, Iran is a cash cow for Russia (and China) and apparently a source of opportunistic delight in its tweaking of the West. Iranian petro-wealth has probably already earned Tehran at least one, and probably two, favorable votes at the Security Council.

Of course, Tehran’s oil revenues allow it access to weapons markets, and overt blackmail, both of which are impossible for a starving North Korea. And Iran’s nuclear facilities are located at the heart of the world’s petroleum reserves, where even the semblance of instability can drive up global oil prices, costing the importing world billions in revenues.

No one is flocking to Communism, much less Pyongyang’s unrepentant, ossified Stalinist brand. Islamic radicalism, on the other hand, has declared war on Western society and tens of thousands of jihdadists, whether Shiia or Sunnis, count on Iran for money, sanctuary, and support. Al Qaeda members travel the country that is the spiritual godhead of Hezbollah, and a donor of arms and money to radical Palestinian terrorists.

North Korea can threaten Taiwan, Japan, South Korea, and the western United States, and so poses a real danger. But the opportunities for havoc are even richer for a nuclear Iran. With nukes and an earned reputation for madness, it can dictate to the surrounding Arab world the proper policy of petroleum exportation; it can shakedown Europeans whose capitals are in easy missile range; it can take out Israel with a nuke or two; or it can bully the nascent democracies of the Middle East while targeting tens of thousands of US soldiers based from Afghanistan to the Persian Gulf.

And Iran can threaten to do all this under the aegis of a crazed Islamist regime more eager for the paradise of the next world than for the material present so dear to the affluent and decadent West. If Iran can play brinkmanship now on just the promise of nuclear weapons, imagine its roguery to come when it is replete with them.

Hanson goes on to outline four strategies for dealing with it, which unfortunately range from bad to worse.

Whatever way you think about it, the situation with Iran has brought the world to the brink of another war. The situation cannot be ignored; and yet,no matter how it is dealt with, it must inevitably lead to very unpleasant consequences in the world.

I have no great hopes for the UN Security Council and multilateral action. The world is far too dependent on the "alpha male" nations in the community to take care of these kind of problems so that the rest of them don't have to dirty their hands; and can stand back and haughtily criticize any and all outcomes.

Even within the U.S. the idea of a bipartisan concensus to give the Iranian leaders a clear and unified message seems unlikely given the Democrats obseesion to return to power and their belief (false, I think) that the only way to do this is to oppose anything that George Bush would like to do--regardless of the national interest.

The international community mucked around with sanctions on a blowhard like Saddam for over a decade--and what did it get them? If we thought Saddam was a lying, immoral thug with delusions of grandeur and WMDs to act on them; we can multiply that assessment by a factor of ten when dealing with a Saddam-like clone whose delusions are even more extreme and with a religious foundation to boot. And this fanatic's desire for WMD's is not in question (yet, anyway; after he is thwarted, who knows what some people will convince themselves was the case?). Ahmadinejad can't be deterred because it is his earnest desire to die gloriously and go to his maker-- and he doesn't care who he takes with him. Saddam didn't mind killing others, but he always planned to save his own neck; and I'm sure he always intended that he would come out of any confrontation alive and triumphant.

Is it to be war then?

If so, then I would suggest that, when economic sanctions fail to have an impact, and before we take the step of destroying the disseminated nuclear facilities, the primary targets of military action should be Ahmadinejad and the Mullahs themselves. This could be called "aggressive regime change,"

As long as they are in charge of decision-making in Iran, they will almost certainly not bend to any international sanctions or reprimands; nor are they likely to alter their planned course of action. This is their jihad and they are as serious about it as any suicide bomber. From their point of view, better that the whole world go up in flames than they disobey what they imagine their god wants them to do.

There is always the hope that the desires of the Iranian people do not march in lock-step with those of their irrational leaders, and that once the religious psychopaths are out of the picture, self-preservation--if not reason--will reassert itself.

Americans should reflect carefully on Hanson's stark conclusion:

...the public must be warned that dealing with a nuclear Iran is not a matter of a good versus a bad choice, but between a very bad one now and something far, far worse to come.

- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 3:34 PM |

 
NEW YORK TIMES: A PROFILE IN HYPOCRISY
Over at The American Thinker we have more evidence that the agenda-driven NY Times is not being honest with the American people:

The controversy following revelations that U.S. intelligence agencies have monitored suspected terrorist related communications since 9/11 reflects a severe case of selective amnesia by the New York Times and other media opponents of President Bush. They certainly didn’t show the same outrage when a much more invasive and indiscriminate domestic surveillance program came to light during the Clinton administration in the 1990’s. At that time, the Times called the surveillance “a necessity.”

“If you made a phone call today or sent an e-mail to a friend, there’s a good chance what you said or wrote was captured and screened by the country’s largest intelligence agency.” (Steve Kroft, CBS’ 60 Minutes)

Those words were aired on February 27, 2000 to describe the National Security Agency and an electronic surveillance program called Echelon whose mission, according to Kroft,

“is to eavesdrop on enemies of the state: foreign countries, terrorist groups and drug cartels. But in the process, Echelon’s computers capture virtually every electronic conversation around the world.”

Echelon was, or is (its existence has been under-reported in the American media), an electronic eavesdropping program conducted by the United States and a few select allies such as the United Kingdom.

Tellingly, the existence of the program was confirmed not by the New York Times or the Washington Post or by any other American media outlet – these were the Clinton years, after all, and the American media generally treats Democrat administrations far more gently than Republican administrations – but by an Australian government official in a statement made to an Australian television news show.

The Times actually defended the existence of Echelon when it reported on the program following the Australians’ revelations.

“Few dispute the necessity of a system like Echelon to apprehend foreign spies, drug traffickers and terrorists….”

And the Times article quoted an N.S.A. official in assuring readers

“...that all Agency activities are conducted in accordance with the highest constitutional, legal and ethical standards.”

Of course, that was on May 27, 1999 and Bill Clinton, not George W. Bush, was president.

The essential point for the Times is clearly the last sentence above. When a Democrat president does it, it is essential for national security. When a Republican does it, it represents the imminent implementation of a police state.

Just so you remember, glance at my sidebar for a moment, at the video graphic of 9/11 that is playing there. That was in 2001. It is now 2006. Few people after 9/11 thought that we would be spared another series of attacks--and yet we were.

Why do you suppose that is? Are we simply lucky? Many Democrats and their lunatic fringe would say that the threat was deliberately exaggerated. If it weren't for the fact that terrorist attacks have been happening all over the world at an increasing rate--in Europe, in Asia, in the Middle East, in Russia.

But not in the U.S.

Does any reasonable person doubt for even one millisecond that if the Islamofascist thugs and their seemingly endless supply of human fodder could have attacked us in these last four years that they would have?

As I am forever telling my patients, actions have consequences. The actions that the Bush Administration took after 9/11 to secure the safety of Americans have had at least one indisputable outcome.

We are beginning to get an idea of the potential consequences of the NY Times' ill-considered and agenda-driven flaunting of national security:

Federal agents have launched an investigation into a surge in the purchase of large quantities of disposable cell phones by individuals from the Middle East and Pakistan, ABC News has learned.

The phones — which do not require purchasers to sign a contract or have a credit card — have many legitimate uses, and are popular with people who have bad credit or for use as emergency phones tucked away in glove compartments or tackle boxes. But since they can be difficult or impossible to track, law enforcement officials say the phones are widely used by criminal gangs and terrorists. ... "There's very little audit trail assigned to this phone. One can walk in, purchase it in cash, you don't have to put down a credit card, buy any amount of minutes to it, and you don't, frankly, know who bought this," said Jack Cloonan, a former FBI official who is now an ABC News consultant.

Law enforcement officials say the phones were used to detonate the bombs terrorists used in the Madrid train attacks in March 2004. The FBI is closely monitoring the potentially dangerous development, which came to light following recent large-quantity purchases in California and Texas, officials confirmed.

In one New Year's Eve transaction at a Target store in Hemet, Calif., 150 disposable tracfones were purchased. Suspicious store employees notified police, who called in the FBI, law enforcement sources said. In an earlier incident, at a Wal-mart store in Midland, Texas, on December 18, six individuals attempted to buy about 60 of the phones until store clerks became suspicious and notified the police. A Wal-mart spokesperson confirmed the incident.

RELIAPUNDIT: ALL of these large sales came RIGHT AFTER the NYTIMES NSA leak (12/15/05).

The New York Times has become the ultimate profile in hypocrisy and spite. And they have deluded themselves into thinking they are championing liberty, even as they cheerlead for its enemies.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 11:22 AM |

 
VENEZUELA, A CUBAN PARADISE
Hugo Chavez admires Fidel Castro, and now, thanks to Chavez' economic policies, Venezuela is on its way to being another Cuban paradise!

I'll bet the Venezuelans are very happy. Chavez, of course, will blame Bush.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 10:53 AM |

 
ONE MAN KEPT HIS NERVE
In discussing the story of the Marsh Arabs in Iraq, The Anchoress expresses clearly what I think will be Bush's legacy:

This story, in the end, is the story of how one man standing alone in the face of unprecedented world-wide opposition, in the face of organized “marches” throughout the world and condemnation from global “diplomatic” entities, in the face of journalistic distortion such as has not been seen in our lifetimes, did something no one else had the physical, spiritual and political nerve to do. Even when things did not go perfectly, even when intelligence by the “experts” was revealed to be in error, even when the open scorn of the opposition devolved into outright hate, overriding their sensibilitie, one man stood, and kept his nerve. Had that one man backed down, none of this would have happened. It is an astonishing story.

I cannot imagine how anyone who is thinking clearly, who is not mad with hate, could wish this endeavor anything but success. What sort of heart will walk away from this, stomping the feet in dismay? What sort of spirit can see this and shriek? And how sad for those who pray for failure.

I have said it before, and I'll say it again here; the psychological resiliance of George W. Bush simply astonishes me. I know of very few people--myself included--who would not have been broken and defeated when confronted with an unrelenting onslaught of emnity of such incalculable proportions--and it began even before his election in 2000.

That he has continued to persevere in his goals of protecting American and bringing freedom and democracy to the Middle East is truly remarkable.

And then there are the cute little sadistic patriots like the author of this precious screed.

What planet has Holzman been living on for the last 6 years? Planet Ann Arbor has had "Impeach Bush" signs in the yards for the last four years or so. I know because I drive by dozens every day.

Holzman must be channeling Dennis the Peasant (not the blogger, but the character of Monty Python fame) as she insinuates that she and others of her venomous species have been "oppressed" and only able to "whisper" such matters of serious import to the nation during the reign of the evil BushHitler.

That's right, folks, it has been a "whisper" so loud and cacophanous; so angy and bitter; so incessant and whining--that its simply a wonder that anyone could possibly have heard it until very recently!

Only someone mad with hate could possibly be delusional enough to imagine that the hatred that oozes from every pore of their being--and which has been focused like a laser beam on the one man who did what noone else had the physical, moral and political courage to do--has gone unnoticed.

Yet sadly, what has gone unnoticed by Holzman and others is the incredible magnitude of the good that has been accomplished by the object of their mindless rage.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 7:19 PM |

 
INTOLERABLE EVIL
I consider myself a fairly tolerant person on the whole; but I will NEVER tolerate this disgusting abuse of women and justice disguised as some sort of pathetic religion. If this is Islam, then Islam, its prophet, and its god are completely despicable and unworthy even of human contempt. (hat tip: LGF)

Those who apologize for this sadistic cult need to take a long, hard look at what is done in their religion's name on a daily basis all around the world. Far from being a "religion of peace", it represents an evil so alien and perverse that it surpasses almost all historical precedent.

The madmen who rule Iran and their ilk are fond of going around saying that Israel should be wiped off the face of the earth; but truly, it is their own psychopathic religion that is a bloody stain on all of humanity.

Their behavior cannot be tolerated by any decent human being.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 6:24 PM |

 
See You Later, Alligator
I have an exceptionally busy day today and have to do soccer duty in addition. I won't get back to blogging until later this afternoon.

Until then, check out some of the blogs on the blogroll. Did you know that Sigmund, Carl and Alfred were given a mention in a NY Times article? Talk about making the big time! And The Anchoress always has a new insight; as does ShrinkWrapped and neo-neocon and the Gates of Vienna.

Also, don't forget the Watcher's Counci nominees at the Watcher of Weasel's site. There are some fabulous posts in both the Council and non-Council categories.

See you later!
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 10:50 AM |

 
BOMBSHELL !
Well, sort of.... from The Corner:

We are reliably told that the crackerjack Kennedy staff has dug up another damning episode in Sam Alioto's background. It seems that a boy in his Cub Scout den, who was particularly close to young Sam, declared "Girls are stinky" on more than one occasion - in earshot of Sam at least once. It seems that Sam still attended the offending boy's birthday party and Senator Kennedy will insist on a subpoena to get a copy of the invitation list if that's what it takes to get to the bottom of this association.

FULL DISCLOSURE: I was a member of the Boy Scouts when I was 15 years old. The troop specialized in recruiting boys who wanted to be doctors. This was, to say the least, somewhat shocking since I am female and it was in the mid 1960's. I have always had a soft heart for the Boy Scouts for allowing me to be a member back then when Women's Lib was in its mere infancy. However, there were a few boys who did think my being part of the troop was "stinky". I don't remember if Sam was a member or not....
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 9:52 AM |

 
Something Special
I hate to put too much credence in this article (hat tip: Ace), but if true all sorts of interesting and relatively lethal scenarios just pop into mind....

North Korean leader Kim Jong II has disappeared in China. His luxurious special train which reportedly crossed the border into China Tuesday morning at Dandong was nowhere to be found Wednesday.

'We really would like to know where he is, but we simply don't have a clue,' said a South Korean military attache, who added he felt he was left in the lurch by his own intelligence services.

Although the train was seen travelling in the direction of Beijing by officials at two railway stations, Kim did not show up in the Chinese capital, sparking a torrent of speculation.

Last time the dear leader was in China there apparently was a major attempt on his life. If we are lucky, this is breaking news that a more recent one was more successful.

Gee, the possibility of dear leader's demise; combined with this homicidal maniac's purported death --- all in the same week!

I am hoping that something special has happened to both of these wonderful human beings to bring them closer to their respective gods.

UPDATE: The Astute Blogger is all over this mystery. Go check out his site!
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 1:35 AM |

 
HISTORY'S VERDICT - to be announced
The other day I opined about how history might treat George W. Bush in a piece called, "But He Wasn't Supposed To Be Great !" Some of the more reasonable people on the Left have already treaded on heresy by wondering if Bush has been right all along.

For a left liberal like me, it is not easy to commit heresy. After all, we are meant to be open-minded free thinkers, unshackled by taboos. Nevertheless there is one thought so heretical, merely to utter it would ensure instant excommunication. I hesitate even to pose it as a question. But here goes. What if George W Bush was to prove to be one of the great American presidents?

At first blush, it seems a nonsensical proposition. As I write, Bush's poll ratings have plunged to the Nixonian depths; one of his top officials, “Scooter” Libby has been indicted on perjury charges, while his closest counsel, Karl Rove, remains under investigation; Bush has botched a Supreme Court nomination; he stands accused of ballooning the federal deficit; images of the dead floating in the streets of a flooded, Katrina-hit New Orleans still linger in the American imagination; and, gravest of all, the death toll of US personnel killed in Iraq is in excess of 2,000. The Bush presidency, even some Republicans predict, will be remembered only as a disaster.

And yet history has a funny habit of messing with presidencies. Ronald Reagan was dismissed as a joke by plenty of Europeans and Brits in the 1980s, yet he is revered in the United States as one of the great occupants of the highest office

You see, history is strange like that. It doesn't consider things like subjective polls of popularity. In fact, some of our greatest presidents -- like Lincoln or Reagan-- faced considerable controversy during their tenure and, even with a lack of popularity and declining polls, somehow managed to do the right thing and make a positive and historical difference in the world.

Bush's presidency is not yet over, and certainly much can happen; so it is far too soon to put it under historical microscopes. And yet, there is so much that he has already done to advance freedom and democracy around the world, I have few doubts about his legacy.
Not so, William Jefferson Clinton. His presidency is over and done with; and regardless of the spin that is still swirling around him; regardless if his spouse manages to become chief executive in the future; history is already shining a very bright light on him, and it isn't making him look very good.

Here is what Larry Schweikert at the History News Network, and a historian has to this to say:

Clinton, however, had no such lofty ideals in his self-made scandal. He brought sex into the arena by first lying to the public during the campaign over Jennifer Flowers; then again by attempting to hush Paula Jones in her civil suit; then finally by giving false testimony to a Grand Jury. In the process, he managed to become the only president ever to be disbarred by allowing his attorney to submit a false statement to a federal judge. (There must be a standing joke here to the effect that if you aren’t moral enough to be a lawyer...) Clinton’s Lewinsky scandal was also worthy of historians’ treatment because it possibly marked the demise of the “mainstream media” as a journalistic monolith. The key stories were broken by Matt Drudge on his Internet site, and indeed, the mainstream media sought to contain the story that would damage the Democratic Party. Talk radio, the Internet, and Fox News all took center stage for bringing new information to the attention of the public. Teachers might examine the rise of these “alternative” news sources with the rapid and steady decline of the circulation of so-called mainstream papers and the incredible drop in viewership of the “Big Three” nightly news shows.

In light of the revelations by the 9/11 Commission that Clinton, with almost wanton disregard for the evidence, dismissed warnings about al-Qaeda, Osama bin Laden, and terrorism; that he turned down three offers by the Sudanese government to hand over bin Laden; and that his Justice Department, courtesy of Jamie Gorelick, erected “the wall” between the CIA and the FBI that later had to be torn down after the horror of 9/11, the central question that many students will have about the Clinton impeachment is, “Why was lying under oath all that the prosecutors could indict Clinton for?” It will take good teaching, indeed, to explain why laundering campaign money through sources of a hostile Chinese government, or why insisting on a law enforcement model of pursuing terrorists as opposed to a wartime model, were not themselves impeachable offenses. When these issues are addressed in detail, it might well be concluded that, in fact, the Clinton years not only “included” impeachment, but that the impeachment of William Jefferson Clinton was, in the big picture, the most important thing that occurred in his two terms.

History, of course, is that branch of knowledge that records and analyzes past events. It must necessarily take a long-range perspective; and it will care little that Bill Clinton was charismatic and popular during his tenure in office.

But it will care that his shennanigans deflected the US from attending to the rumblings that led to 9/11; and that, much like Nero, he diddled while our homeland was set up to be burned.

I think it is an historical verdict that seems almost inevitable--in spite of all nostalgia on the part of the Left who yearn for the Clinton era as an age of wonder and peace.

Or, to put it more accurately in light of the events of the world today, they yearn for a return to a time of ignorance and bliss.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 3:40 PM |

 
PLEASE LET IT END SOON

Seems like I was not the only one with this idea.

After two days of watching the Alito hearings, Lord hear my prayer:

Please let it end soon.

"Advise and Consent" has through the process of judicial activism been creatively interpreted to mean "Bloviate and Obstruct".

- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 11:18 AM |

 
A CAMPAIGN FOR DE-CIVILIZATION
This is an extremely interesting article (which I linked to in this week's Carnival of the Insanities and meant to write about sooner!) where Roger Kimball, author of the book The Rape of the Masters: How Political Correctness Sabotages Art, discusses some of the nuances of the art criticism of Professor Michael Fried, a well-known academic art historian. The discussion centers on Fried's critique of Gustave Courbet and Kimball's masterful description of that critique. Here is one small portion:

But ask yourself this: what would Courbet have to say if someone told him his painting strove to "eliminate the distinction" between the sexes? Or that it was concerned with "the metaphorics of phallicism, menstrual bleeding," etc.? The scattering of grain in The Wheat Sifters (1853-1854), Professor Fried tells us, "can also be seen as a downpour of menstrual blood--not red but warm-hued and sticky-seeming, flooding outward from the sifter's rose-draped thighs."

Unfortunately for this interpretation, Courbet clearly, indeed cleverly, painted grain, not blood. It is one of the triumphs of that painting that he is able to make his pigment seem so light and airy; pace Professor Fried, it impresses the viewer not as something that floods outward from the sifter's thighs but that floats down from the sifting pan she holds out before her. Look and see.

Here as everywhere Professor Fried operates with a formidable criticus apparatus. It is hard not to be impressed by his bibliography. Almost a quarter of the book is given over to notes: long, arcane notes, notes that wander and digress, notes that include lengthy passages from Hegel and Marx and Walter Benjamin in German, Jacques Lacan in French. Professor Fried has read a lot, and he doesn't let you forget it. But what happened to Courbet?

Many of you will know the children's books "Where's Waldo?" Reading what Professor Fried has to say about Courbet, I sometimes feel that he has given us a textual version of that game: "Where's Gustave?" Courbet is there, but you really have to look. (Here is where PowerPoint came into its own.)

It is amusing to contemplate what Courbet would have thought of Professor Fried's interpretation of his work.

This is indeed all very amusing, and I, too, have sat and listened to a number of art museum docents propagate the same kind of academic foolishness that Professor Fried is taken to task for. Read the whole article which is just delightful.

The problem --or rather, the reality is--that art is a critical part of life and through it one can can become aware of all the potential of what life can be. It is a way for humans to bring real, concrete meaning to abstract concept. As a selective recreation of reality, art uniquely captures and presents an idea or emotion in a way that can be grasped and understood by an observer. It provides, in other words, a "sense of life" --an instinctual fuel--that can inspire and motivate the perceiver--or, it can have the opposite effect.

That art criticism--along with almost all other academic humanities departments-- has been taken over by the postmodernists should suprise noone.

But it should concern them.

If you wonder why our nation seems so divided and why there is so much animosity and emotional hysteria directed against traditional values and ideas upon which this country was founded, you need look no further than the pervasise and unrelenting trickle down of postmodern theories and thinking in education, art, politics and all the social areas of life. Even science has not been immune from the nihilism and anti-reason and anti-reality agenda of the postmodernists.

If you want to understand why nothing seems to make sense; why language is abused and words don't seem to have the same definitions anymore and can sometimes even mean the opposite of what they used to; why contradictory discourses and distortion of truth; and ad hominem attacks and a distinct reluctance to face reality are all a part of the "reality-based" community--you need look no further than postmodernism.

Postmodern thinking has been embraced wholeheartedly by a segment of the population that is desperately trying to explain the enormous failures of socialism and communism in both theory and practice. It represents an angry and resentful cri de coeur with fist raised against the universe, for daring to impose reality on them. They have developed an entirely new strategy. Instead of speaking "truth to power" they speak "nonsense to power" in an effort to deconstruct and trivialize both the truth and anyone who dares to seek it.

One thing that deeply offends me is their appropriation of the popularized understanding of some of Freud's ideas as a justification for their insanity. Let me illustrate.

Kimball goes on to note much later in the essay:

Consider the prominence of outlandish sexual themes in so much contemporary critical work. In one sense, it is simply part fallout from the toxic legacy of Freudianism. But the important thing is to realize the extent which the sex card is deployed as a weapon by these academics. You can't read two pages of this stuff without being told about how the work in question "challenges" or "transgresses" traditional moral norms. The real enemy is the received social and moral sensibility out of which the work emerged and in which it has its original meaning. Thus it is that the shocking sex stuff is always part and parcel of an effort to "destabilize" the hegemony of "white patriarchal capitalist" society, etc.

Indeed, a useful study might be made of the way in which the normalization of previously tabooed sexual attitudes and behaviors has been at the forefront of cultural radicalism since the 1960s. Sex is merely the first bridgehead, the easiest point of entry, for an ideology dedicated to revolutionary social change.

It is in this sense that much of what travels under the banner of sexual liberation is really part of a campaign for de-civilization.

What Kimball perceives as "toxic legacy of Freudianism" is not really what he supposes. What has been appropriated by the postmondernists is the pop-psychology translation of Freud, who was first and foremost a scientist in his approach to the mind. Freud believed that his ideas and theories which were based on observable behavior would eventually be validated by science. Simply because some of his followers behave as if Freud were the psychological Mohammed and that everything he had to say was the word of god, is no reason to reject all of the groundbreaking thinking that made Freud the historical figure he is.

Freud himself said, "Sometimes a cigar really is a cigar," after all. He was the product of a sexually-repressed Victorian society and he was merely observing some of the psychological pathology of a society that ruthlessly repressed all aspects of sex. But Freud never promoted sexual exhibitionism or sexual "outlandishness" in the name of psychological health.

The specifics of his theories of sexual repression had considerable applicablility to the society he observed as well as our own. The generalities of his theory --i.e., the techniques and his ideas on the basic concepts on the structure of the mind--remain applicable today.

But Freud was latched onto in order to explain why socialism had failed to lure the proletariat from the comforts of capitalism. Marxists, waiting for that glorious day when the people would rise up in justified revolution against their oppressors, looked around until they found a psychological theory that could potentially bolster Marx's economic logic and predictions of history.

The psycholgical theories of Freud seemed to the Marxists to explain why these "Joe Sixpacks" had not followed the Marxist blueprint- they were repressed:

Joe Sixpack is a product. He is a constructed part of an oppressive and dysfunctional competitive system--but one that is overlain with the veneer of peace and comfort. He is unaware of oppression, unaware that he is a cog in an artificial technoloigical system--unaware becuase the fruits of capitalism that he roduced and thinks he enjoys consuming are sapping his vital instincts and making him physically and psychologically inert [ed. note - and unable to fulfill his Marxist role of rising up against Capitalism).

Thus Marcuse had an explanation for the new generation of revolutionaries-in-training for why capitalism in the 1950s and early 1960s seemed to be peaceful, tolerant and progressive--when, as every good socialist knew, it could not really be--and for why the workers were so disapointingly un-revolutionally. Capitalism does not merely oppress the masses existentially -- it represses them psychologically.

Well, Freud can't be held responsible for a total misunderstanding and misapplication of his theories. Someone is repressed possibly, but I would beg to differ about whom and why.

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

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

Please note that Freud did not say it was probably unresolvable for only those living in a capitalist society. Or, that it was unresolvable only for the proletariat. He said it was and is a fact of the human condition, and a problem that the human species has to deal with no matter what the economic or political system they find themselves living under.

Those systems that take into account the basic human nature that underlies Freud's hyposthesis, however, are more likely to be successful for both the individuals within it, as well as for the group as a whole.

Joe Sixpack has to deal with civilization with the same biological hardware that the postmodern elite possess. Of necessity, these elites don't consider themselves prone to the same psychological problems as the "proletariat" they hope to rule someday. That is why they are so often in denial about their own real motives and why their psychology betrays them.

These are the people screaming they are for "peace!" as they beat up those who support the military. These are the people that demand some abstract concept of "free speech"-- except when they are busy passing laws to ban it if it hurts someone's feelings. These are people who support oppressed minorities, but only as long as they remain oppressed--if they succeed and break from the party line, they have betrayed their minority group. And so on, and so on.

To say that these people have a handle on Freudian psychology--or any kind of psychology for that matter-- is like saying that the primitive savages in remote parts of the world have a handle on quantum mechanics.

From an earlier post on a related issue, I said:

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

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

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

In other words, the system espoused by Marx and his intellectual heirs failed precisely because it was not consistent with human nature. Freud was exactly right that unless human nature could be accommodated and accepted in society and those instinctual impulses were able to find healthy and socially appropriate outlets that benefited the individual and the society as a whole, the result would be depression and despair.

Nowhere is there more despair and human misery today than in those societies that continue to disdain human freedom while embracing any variant of Marx.

As Kimball suggests, the postmodernist heirs of Kant and Marx are not really engaged on a campaign for civilization--rather they are waging a campaign for de-civilization.

In art history, art criticism, philosophy, ethics, politics--indeed, in all the humanities-- the postmodernist socialist apologist merely retreats to a satisfying narcissistic nihilism (nyah nyah, if we aren't right about this then you can't be either) that enables them to delude themselves as to why they have been so wrong in just about every area of inquiry for the last 50 years or more.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 6:24 PM |

 
SHRINKWRAPPED ON THE COUCH
ShrinkWrapped is on the couch over at Sigmund,Carl & Alfred's place. Go and read this fascinating blogger's innermost thoughts as he is grilled to perfection by the psychiatric threesome (or, by someone with multiple personalities!).
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 9:35 AM |

 
VIDEO OF QUATTROCCHI
Free Thoughts has an exclusive:

The Video of Fabrizio Quattrocchi minutes before being executed by the Islamo-fascist terrorists in Iraq. You can hear him, in Italian, saying "Vi faccio vedere come muore un italiano. Mi posso levare questo.." ( I am gonna show you how an Italian dies . May I take out this kefyiah?) See the video here ( It's only a part of the video whose distribution has been authorized by an Italian court ). Al Jazeera had refused to air it, because of the heroism shown by Quattrocchi till the last minutes of his life. Now the civilized people can see and hear his words. Feel free to post it or let other people know

This is the kind of thing that our own MSM doesn't want us to see (though this portion is not at all gory, demonstrating as it does the quiet heroism of someone who knows he is about to be murdered)--along with the images that I have in my sidebar of 9/11. They think nothing of printing or airing over and over again the images of Abu Ghraib in which a few deviant military personnel who have already been subjected to American justice are featured; but a video that shows the atrocities of the enemy we face is deemed too disturbing for our sensitive souls.

It is disturbing to know that only actions that portray the U.S. in a negative light are newsworthy.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 9:15 PM |

 
Congressionally-Sanctioned Torture
I have been listening to the bloviating opening statements from the senators in the Alito confirmation. Before I completely succumbed to a stupor so profound that I feared for my life, I happened to notice the comments of Kate O'Beirne at The Corner . She was being somewhat tongue-in-cheek, I suspect:

Any one else notice that Senators who loudly claim to be opposed to torture are making Judge Alito sit through 10 minute speeches by the Judiciary Committee's 18 members? Of course it could be that they are way ahead of me. When the opening ordeal doesn't cause Judge Alito to confess that he plans to bring his right-wing, outside the mainstream ideological agenda to the Court it will be evidence that torture doesn't work. Clever.

But, after reading that, a lightbulb went on in my senatorially-battered brain. Here is the perfect solution to the torture debate!

There are so many horrible practices that these same senators are opposed to exposing captured enemy combatants to--things like playing Barney programs over and over again (shudder)-- and these senators are to be commended for not wanting to use methods of that degree of horribleness which might be excessively humiliating and/or strip human dignity from enemies who show captured non-combatants mercy and goodness. Clearly, our Democratic senators superior intellect and compassion should be deferred to on these important issues.

My tongue is not in my cheek, but is sticking staight out in their general direction.

So, I suggest that as one of the primary torture techniques adopted by the CIA and US military forces, we subject high value detainees--at Guantanamo or any of those purported "secret" (or not-so-secret) sites-- to unlimited pontificating by the likes of Teddy Kennedy and Joe Biden et al. Their bloviating would be gently and compassionately lethal and completely Democratically- sanctioned torture, imbued with the highest quality of political correctness.

I submit that it would be extremely effective, as well. After just a few brief hours, I am willing to do almost anything to shut them up. I even turned off my TV set.

We can take this one step further, too, I think. Since we are aware of the disdain for formal religion that most of these people have, why not provide all detainees with copies of the congressional record that they can read instead; as well as continuously playing tapes and dvds of these philosophical nitwits heavyweights, instead of providing the detainees with Korans? The Democrats' secular religion with abortion rituals is a good ideological substitute for the Koran and equally contradictory and non-sensical.

That way, if the detainees don't die of boredom, there may actually be a good chance that they could convert to the Democrat religion-- or, possibly vice versa.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 6:21 PM |

 
MICHAEL LEDEEN : BIN LADEN DEAD?
Regime Change Iran is reporting via Michael Ledeen, that Osama Bin Laden died three weeks ago and was buried in Iran.

This makes some sense, as it coincides with Ahmadinejad's increasing defiance of the West,and he probably likens himself to the next big honcho to wage holy jihad.

We can always hope that it is true. I have thought Bin Laden was dead or too sick to make much difference for quite a while. But, sad to say, the crop of 21st century Middle Eastern tyrants is still a bumper one.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 12:26 PM |

 
Taking On Radical Professors
The Alumni of my alma mater have decided to take on the radical professors. Good for them.

I usually routinely donate to UCLA every year. Last year, however, I did not for some of the reasons articulated at the site above. I am concerned that it is not much better at most other academic institutions either.

As easy as it is to lampoon academic clowns like Ward Churchill, they are all too common these days in our universities. And they are absolutely ruthless about their agenda and in bringing young minds to their causes. While our nation fights for freedom and democracy, these third-rate teachers and second-rate human beings are engaging in intellectual harassment at institutions that once were beacons of intellectual freedom and a realm where ideas were discussed and debated--not forced down the throats of students.

Hiding behind the old concept of "academic freedom", these professors have created a multicultural, politically correct utopia where their crack-brained ideas are worshipped and revered and never questioned. Any who question them are automatically labeled as "racist" or "sexist" or "zionist". Instead of research, they perform indoctrination rituals.

It is far past time that we begin to take back the academy and restore it as a center of learning and debate, rather than a quasi-religious temple of PC.

As a former Bruin, I found myself half-hoping that UCLA's crosstown arch-rival USC might actually win in the Rose Bowl! Not because USC is likely any less politically correct, but because the idea of a a headline like: BUSH WINS ROSE BOWL FOR USC appealed to my sense of humor (after all, he gets blamed for everything anyway). But I came to my senses just in time to root for Texas.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 11:42 AM |

 
Trade-Offs
John at PowerLine goes into some detail about why FISA's "72 Hour rule" is hardly a great way to conduct surveillance in the war on terror and concludes:

It's possible, no doubt, that in some cases the 72-hour "emergency" provision may work as intended. But, given what we know about the time it has historically taken to get FISA applications prepared and approved, it is obvious that there will be instances--unacceptable instances--where reliance on it will lead to a failed investigation. No wonder that President Bush was unwilling to put all of his eggs in that frail basket.

Here is a list of what a federal official must do in FISA's case for an emergency order:

Simple? Not exactly. FISA applications are detailed and require considerable time to prepare. Here are the requirements:

(a) Submission by Federal officer; approval of Attorney General; contents
Each application for an order approving electronic surveillance under this subchapter shall be made by a Federal officer in writing upon oath or affirmation to a judge having jurisdiction under section 1803 of this title. Each application shall require the approval of the Attorney General based upon his finding that it satisfies the criteria and requirements of such application as set forth in this subchapter. It shall include—
(1) the identity of the Federal officer making the application;
(2) the authority conferred on the Attorney General by the President of the United States and the approval of the Attorney General to make the application;
(3) the identity, if known, or a description of the target of the electronic surveillance;
(4) a statement of the facts and circumstances relied upon by the applicant to justify his belief that—
(A) the target of the electronic surveillance is a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power; and
(B) each of the facilities or places at which the electronic surveillance is directed is being used, or is about to be used, by a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power;
(5) a statement of the proposed minimization procedures;
(6) a detailed description of the nature of the information sought and the type of communications or activities to be subjected to the surveillance;
(7) a certification or certifications by the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs or an executive branch official or officials designated by the President from among those executive officers employed in the area of national security or defense and appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate—
(A) that the certifying official deems the information sought to be foreign intelligence information;
(B) that a significant purpose of the surveillance is to obtain foreign intelligence information;
(C) that such information cannot reasonably be obtained by normal investigative techniques;
(D) that designates the type of foreign intelligence information being sought according to the categories described in section 1801 (e) of this title; and
(E) including a statement of the basis for the certification that—
(i) the information sought is the type of foreign intelligence information designated; and
(ii) such information cannot reasonably be obtained by normal investigative techniques;
(8) a statement of the means by which the surveillance will be effected and a statement whether physical entry is required to effect the surveillance;
(9) a statement of the facts concerning all previous applications that have been made to any judge under this subchapter involving any of the persons, facilities, or places specified in the application, and the action taken on each previous application;
(10) a statement of the period of time for which the electronic surveillance is required to be maintained, and if the nature of the intelligence gathering is such that the approval of the use of electronic surveillance under this subchapter should not automatically terminate when the described type of information has first been obtained, a description of facts supporting the belief that additional information of the same type will be obtained thereafter; and
(11) whenever more than one electronic, mechanical or other surveillance device is to be used with respect to a particular proposed electronic surveillance, the coverage of the devices involved and what minimization procedures apply to information acquired by each device.

Remember, this is for an emergency order.

What most people don't understand is the sheer complexity of government rules, regulations and paperwork that get in the way of any possibility of a timely outcome--not only in this case, but in almost anything the government is involved in.

This was dramatically brought home to me as I was reading about the West Virginia mining tragedy yesterday. It is now known that the trapped miners were alive for at least 10 or more hours after the explosion that trapped them. Rescue workers did not get to them until 41 hours later. When asked to explain why it took so long, one official said that they were trying to follow the reams of state and federal government regulations about mine rescues which are in place to protect rescuers; and which prohibit going into the mine when it isn't completely safe. (I tried searching for that article today, but all the stories are now truncated and don't include this quote).

I'm sure these regulations on how to perform "safe" rescues are well-meaning and have the best interests of the rescuers at heart. They were probably a response to a mining disaster in the past where some aggressive rescuers--trying to reach trapped miners in a timely fashion--were themselves killed. They probably wanted to prevent such a thing from happening again.

Yet, one can't help but suspect that rescue work of necessity requires risk and that the risk will never be completely zero for those in the business. The closer it approaches zero as you follow all the rules and regulations, the higher the chances that the people who are to be rescued won't be reached in time.

I'm just saying that there is a trade-off. The reams of government regulations and paperwork in almost every area of life; every business; and every risk-taking venture certainly gives credence to the phrase "damned if you do, and damned if you don't."
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 11:16 AM |

 
ACTING ON "SOFT" INTELLIGENCE
I guess you can think of the following reflections as a kind of professional parable. Sometimes all you have to go on is "soft" intelligence in making life or death decisions.

As a psychiatrist, I am often called on by society's laws to make a decision if a person is "suicidal or homicidal"-- either of which indicates that hospitalization is in order. How does one make that judgement? Especially when many patients with mental illness are not particularly cooperative and deny that they have any problem to begin with.

Well, it is an extremely difficult task and a great responsibillity. I happen to think that everyone is ultimately responsible for their own behavior; but I am also aware that I am in a position to intervene to save someone's life--at least in the short term. So I take the responsibility very seriously.

Sometimes people TELL me that they are having feelings of wanting to kill themselves; and they tell me the details of how they'd go about it. Occasionally, some patients will confide in me their desire to kill a specific person. This kind of honesty and self-awareness makes my job a bit easier. But most of the time I have to act on "soft intelligence".

What do I mean by that? Well, most of the time I have to take many little things into consideration:

-How honest do I think a person is being with me in regard to their feelings and intent?
-How honest have they been with me and/or others in the past?
-Do they have a history of ACTING on suicidal or homicidal feelings in the past? (one of the most significant predictors of future actions are past actions)
-Are they trying to manipulate me (either (1) they WANT to be hospitalized and have no real intent to harm themselves or others; or( 2) they DON'T WANT to be hospitalized because they have real intent to harm themselves or others. I look especially hard at those who I think might be "shining me on"
-Do they have the means to actually hurt themselves (e.g., if they have a plan to shoot themselves or someone else--do they actually have a gun at home? or access to a gun?
-How seriously do their family and friends take the possibility of their suicidality or homicidality?
-How impulsive are they now? How impulsive have they been in the past?

The above list does not include all the considerations and factors that come into play in my assessment, but they are some of the primary ones. A particular person might not meet ALL the criteria above; and each case is different, depending on the situation. I see many people who are what we call "chronically suicidal"--meaning that they express suicidal ideation all the time. When do you hospitalize them, and when do you not?

The truth of all these situations is actually quite painful, and it is that if a person really wants to kill themselves, they will succeed eventually. I have hospitalized suicidal individuals who when they were finally discharged because they were doing so well, went out and committed suicide successfully.

I have hospitalized people involuntarily who convinced a judge that they were not suicidal or homicidal. The judge released them, and they killed themselves or someone else.

But, I have also known many people for whom an intervention--even an involuntary hospitalization -- resulted in their abandoning for good their suicidal or homicidal plans.

Since people's lives are at stake, I try to err on the side of caution in most cases. The potential consequences are very high, and earlier in my career, I was a bit overwhelmed by the responsibility. I will admit that in the last 30 years, I have made mistakes. Sometimes I hospitalized someone against their will who really had no intention of hurting themselves or someone else. My judgement was incorrect about their homicidality or suicidality. The worse consequence of that situation was that the patient hated me and refused to ever see me again.

OK, I can live with that.

But it has also went the other way once. I remember when I didn't hospitalize a patient of mine, because she didn't have the past history of trying to kill herself; had never been suicidal before; and was seemingly cooperative in therapy. In addition, she didn't seem severely depressed any of the times I saw her; and she was always willing to contract with me for safety. I was an intern at the time and somewhat inexperienced. I was uncertain what to do, but finally decided to believe the person when she said she didn't really have any "plan" to kill herself--and I really couldn't see that she had any real intent.

But to my horror, that person not only killed herself the next day, but she killed her best friend --another patient of mine.

If I had acted two lives would have been saved. Perhaps I could have only delayed what happened if I had acted when I had the chance. I don't know. I will never know.

A person--even a psychiatrist--can only in the end be responsible for their own actions--not for others'. Since that time I have studied all that there is to know about predicting suicide. I have tried to hone that "instinct" that makes a person aware that someone is not telling the truth. I think I am pretty good at it, and I have come to trust my instinct in these situations. Now, if I have any doubt; if I find myself not quite convinced that a person will be safe, then I go with the doubt.

Because I am completely sure only of this: If I have the opportunity to do something to save a life, then I must do it.

I cannot know the future and I cannot know how someone will behave in the future. But I can use all available information I have at that one point in time; and my own professional skills and experience to the best of my ability to assess each situation individually. I can balance and weigh the hard and soft evidence--and sometimes it is only the soft evidence that I have to work with; balance and weigh the risks and benefits; and make the best decision possible at that moment.

And if I am to make a mistake in the future; I want it always to be on the side of saving lives.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 6:52 PM |

 
PURE AS THE DRIVEN SNOW
A campaign to discredit pro-US writers and analysts? It sure looks that way:

The theme here, if you haven't already picked up on it, is that two major papers have used recent news reports about U.S. military information operations to try to discredit a pro-U.S. analyst and a pro-U.S. blogger. Both Rubin and Roggio write from a standpoint that is generally supportive of the U.S. mission in Iraq, and the NY Times and the Washington Post have attempted to portray their writings as untrustworthy and potentially motivated by financial considerations.

Of course, the Washington Post and the NY Times are definitely not motivated by financial considerations, are they?

Nor are they motivated by ideology--they are pure and ideology-free as the driven snow.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 12:43 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. Just another example of postmodernists doing what they do best -- distorting truth and rewriting history; Speaking psychobabble in art circles. For the postmodern Leftist, perception trumps reality -- They feel, therefore they are....out of touch with reality.

2. Wikipedia strikes again!

3. The Ipod is evolving so fast, it's hard to keep up with the latest model.

4. Arguably the "King" of the Chickenhawks.

5. Thank goodness they wouldn't let him!

6. Law enforcement updates- The Burkha Squad! And here is the Pumpkin Roll Patrol.

7. The World Is Controlled By Jewish Cabal of Satan-Worshipping, Blood-Drinking, Shapeshifting Reptillian Space Aliens; and dear god, one of them is thinking about running for President! But, the UN will protect us!

7. Porn on demand? Just what we need. With salad.

8. Methinks Teddy's been sneaking a few drinks behind the backs of his handlers. Or else he inhabits an alternate universe. Wait! Maybe both statements are true! But he's slipping, he didn't even make the Top 20 this year!

9. More like - Horror TV.

10. The FAA has put a lot of time and effort into regulating a segment of the economy that consists of exactly one company. Do they know something we don't? (hat tip: Instapundit)

11. Strange stories with a money theme! And here's some insanity from the IRS! (What's unusual about that, you may well ask?

12. You've been pwned and now you're feaf !

13. A Divine Retribution Guide (hat tip: Beautiful Atrocities)

14. Only the names have been changed to protect the innocent mindless opposition.

15. So, what gender is Barbie? a) Boy b) Girl c) I don't know.

16. Farrakhan honors multiply!

17. Glee? There is no glee. That is why you fail - AJ Yoda

18. Don't get medical insurance from this company!

19. Spielberg wasn't thinking of this meaning obviously.

20. Remember that moonbat you purchased? Now you have to take care of it.

21. At the Brokebacabana... with apologies to Barry Manilow (now why didn't I think of this??)

22. Teaching Halliburton a thing or two!


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 @ 10:50 AM |

 
GET THE WORD OUT

Just go read Stephen Hayes article. It has already disappeared from Memeorandum, but there is a related article by William Kristol. This information is too important to ignore, but the Left and the MSM will try anyway.

Email it and share it with all those people you know who continue to insist that Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with terror.

As the cartoon suggests, things might have been a little different in WWII if such people had been listened to then.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 6:07 PM |

 
BUT HE WASN'T SUPPOSED TO BE GREAT !
Out of the mouths of...teenagers:

Having refreshed our memories, Buster confided his theory to me, inspired by both his teacher’s sense of wonder in reading about the Bush environmental initiatives, and the memory of Stewart’s admission: “I think,” he said, “they hate Bush so much, because they saw that he had greatness in him, and he wasn’t supposed to be great. He was supposed to be, at best, slightly worse than his father.”

Read what led to this astounding (and right on) observation by The Anchoress' young son.

Someone said once that envy is "that passion which views with malignant dislike the superiority of those who are really entitled to all the superiority they possess." (I think it was Kant).

The Left simply cannot cope with the envy and resentment they feel towards the fact that historical circumstance and Bush's own personality have combined to thrust him into greatness. As The Anchoress put it:

If this were to keep up, he was actually going to have a LEGACY. A real one, and - if his ideas were successful -a staggering one.

It is indeed the case that Bush's actions have made a significant and positive difference for millions of people in the world--just as Reagan's did. And Reagan elicited much of the same hatred from the Left.

In most cases of envy, the envious find a moral complaint with which to justify their malignant feelings toward their opponent. In psychological studies that I have read, feelings of envy were often correlated with complaints of injustice-- and were thought to be rationalizations of the rancor that was being experienced.

How sad that these people are eating themselves up inside because someone who "wasn't supposed to be great" has really changed the course of human history, and pointed it in the direction of Freedom and Democracy.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 11:47 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 incredible writing!


BEST COUNCIL POSTS:

First Place

Let Me Tell You Something, President Bush Gates of Vienna (DON'T MISS THIS ONE!)

Second Place

How MSNBC's Craig Crawford Saved My Day Right Wing Nut House

BEST NON-COUNCIL POSTS:

First Place

To Speak or Not To Speak: Coming Out As a Neocon Neo-neocon

Second Place

Helpful New Year's Resolutions for the Left Cavalier's Guardian WatchBlog

Be sure to check out all the other winners at the Watcher's site. They represent some of the best of the blogsphere this week!
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 11:20 AM |

 
INFORMATION THAT WILL MAKE SOME HEADS EXPLODE
After they are finished weeping, screaming and kicking small animals; I can't wait to see what spin the Left puts on this revelation:

THE FORMER IRAQI REGIME OF Saddam Hussein trained thousands of radical Islamic terrorists from the region at camps in Iraq over the four years immediately preceding the U.S. invasion, according to documents and photographs recovered by the U.S. military in postwar Iraq. The existence and character of these documents has been confirmed to THE WEEKLY STANDARD by eleven U.S. government officials.

The secret training took place primarily at three camps--in Samarra, Ramadi, and Salman Pak--and was directed by elite Iraqi military units. Interviews by U.S. government interrogators with Iraqi regime officials and military leaders corroborate the documentary evidence. Many of the fighters were drawn from terrorist groups in northern Africa with close ties to al Qaeda, chief among them Algeria's GSPC and the Sudanese Islamic Army. Some 2,000 terrorists were trained at these Iraqi camps each year from 1999 to 2002, putting the total number at or above 8,000. Intelligence officials believe that some of these terrorists returned to Iraq and are responsible for attacks against Americans and Iraqis. According to three officials with knowledge of the intelligence on Iraqi training camps, White House and National Security Council officials were briefed on these findings in May 2005; senior Defense Department officials subsequently received the same briefing.

The photographs and documents on Iraqi training camps come from a collection of some 2 million "exploitable items" captured in postwar Iraq and Afghanistan. They include handwritten notes, typed documents, audiotapes, videotapes, compact discs, floppy discs, and computer hard drives. Taken together, this collection could give U.S.
intelligence officials and policymakers an inside look at the activities of the former Iraqi regime in the months and years before the Iraq war.

The discovery of the information on jihadist training camps in Iraq would seem to have two major consequences: It exposes the flawed assumptions of the experts and U.S. intelligence officials who told us for years that a secularist like Saddam Hussein would never work with Islamic radicals, any more than such jihadists would work with an infidel like the Iraqi dictator. It also reminds us that valuable information remains buried in the mountain of documents recovered in Afghanistan and Iraq over the past four years.

My goodness. This will make some heads explode as they try to reconcile the information with deeply held (nearly religious) beliefs about how inappropriate the Iraq War was and how evil Bush is.

Expect to see all sorts of bizarre responses from Democrats and their lunatic fringe. Since they will never stoop to re-evaluating their fundamental premises, it simply means their conspiracy theories about the Bush Adminitration are about to become more complex and unbelievable as they are adapted to fit the new information. I predict it will not set them back one iota in their pursuit of extreme irrationality. Paranoia, after all, is merely rationality in the service of the irrational.

As we say in the Psychiatric business --this new data will simply be incorporated into their paranoid delusional system.

UPDATE: Let's keep track, shall we? Here's one response from our own resident troll on this thread:

Weak. Very weak. I'll keep my head until I see some f.a.c.t.s.

Apparently all of Haye's documentation and its verification by 11 intelligence sources aren't enough to overcome DENIAL.

I note that so far (10:00 EST 1/7/06) NOT A SINGLE LEFTY BLOG HAS COMMENTED ON THIS STORY. Cconservative blogs commenting are:
Right Wing Nut House, Elephants in Academia, Power Line, Ed Driscoll.com, Ace of Spades HQ, Michelle Malkin, Betsy's Page, AMERICAN FUTURE, Common Sense and Wonder and Gateway Pundit

I also note that there are no reports in the MSM as yet, but I will wait for those since they respond in about 1-3 days after the blogsphere.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 1:36 AM |

 
THE ETERNAL VICTIMHOOD OF THE LEFTIST MIND
Taking the "equality of outcome" and "all cultures are equally good" politically correct insanity to its logical extreme, some gay rights groups in Britain are attacking a gay magazine for daring to call Islam a "barmy religion" because of their homophobic practices and persecution of gays.

Jeff at Beautiful Atrocities has written those groups a friendly, brotherly letter in a post, "I Lost My Head over Islam" --and he's a little upset:

While you queens have been frauleining about gay marriage, homos under barmy Islam have been crushed, hung, stoned, & beheaded. I notice that 60% of British Muslims want Shariah law. Have you seen their birthrate compared to non-Muslim Brits? Maybe GLHA should start running more timely articles like Scaffold-Proof Hair Mousse & Fabulous Accessories from Neck to Toe!

Go and read it all, because Jeff is absolutely at his sarcastic and witty best on thisbizarrely suicidal behavior by those who presumably support gay rights.

And while you are at it, check out New Sisyphus , who has a fascinating post about how a mass murderer in 1989 was turned into a parable about Western man's horrific violence against women, by the ideologues of the time; when, in fact, the killer turns out to be a poster boy depicting the pervasive misogyny of Islam.

These two examples will quite naturally make a reasonable person wonder what in the world could possibly possess the gay rights and women's movements to vociferously defend a religion that behaves in such a...barbaric medieval... fashion towards the members of their respective groups.

If you have enough intelligence to ask such a question, then it follows that you haven't yet been totally indoctrinated by our marvelous educational system into the Marxist political view of the world; where there exist only two real classes of people: "Oppressors" and "The Oppressed"--the latter commonly referred to as that holy of holies, a "victim."

In this worldview--which happens to conveniently trump logic, reason, and even basic human self-preservation--Islam the Religion has been granted a "You Are A Victim of Western Oppression" card, and they get an eternal victimhood free pass on all atrocities they commit--which are likely to be Bush's fault in any case.

For questions on this, you may consult this handy guide which will make things clear.

Just two examples of the eternal victimhood of the Leftist mind.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 10:36 PM |

 
UH-OH
Just yesterday I said:

With Sharon out of the current picture, the Iranians must be chortling with glee and hoping that their way is clear to proceed--without even having to worry about Israel's response. Look for a lot of new posturing and an escalation of their psychopathic behavior .

Now, RegimeChange Iran has this report.

We are living out the scene in Kramer vs. Kramer between Dad, Billy, and Chocolate Chip Ice Cream.

Only "Dad" isn't there to intervene right now.... And "Billy's" ice cream is radioactive.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 3:32 PM |

 
THE 2005 WOW AWARDS
I have been a member of the Watcher's Council for about a year now, and I enjoy it very much. Today the Watcher emailed me congratulations about winning 2nd Place in the WOW (Watcher of Weasels) Awards!
Looking back at the Watcher's Council weekly voting results for all of 2005, the Watcher has kept a running tally of votes for each blog that won or tied for first place on any given week.

The top three vote-getters on the Watcher's Council are:

32 1/3 votes: Right Wing Nut House
27 2/3 votes: Dr. Sanity
25 2/3 votes: Gates of Vienna

The top vote-getters in the Non-Council posts are:

10 2/3 votes: Winds of Change
9 2/3 votes: Varifrank
7 2/3 votes: New Sisyphus

I am extremely pleased at the honor of winning 2nd place among all these fine blogs. Kudos and congratulations are certainly also due to Rick Moran at RightwingNuthouse and Dymphna at Gates of Vienna.

As hard as it is to get votes when you are a member of the Council--since all the members have outstanding blogs-- it is much harder to accumulate points in the non-Council category, since nominations for that award come in from all over the blogsphere. That is a testimonial to the outstanding quality of the top three blogs listed in non-Council group!

Congratulations to all the vigilant watchers of weasels--on the Council and off ! And a Happy New Year!
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 11:56 AM |

 
ANTICIPATION
Here is an example of just one of the many people in denial about terrorism. Glenn Greenwald claims that "fear of terrorism" has been "inflamed and exploited" by the Bush Administration for the purpose of gaining power:

Bush opponents must finally overcome the one weapon which has protected George Bush again and again: fear. Fear of terrorism is what the Administration has successfully inflamed and exploited for four years in order to justify its most extreme and even illegal actions undertaken in the name of fighting terrorism.

Let's discuss this from a psychiatric and psychological perspective since these are the terms used in the quote above.

This blogger is essentially arguing that-- instead of using a healthy and appropriate psychological defense called anticipation against terrorism and the Islamofascists (who most certainly want to kill us and destroy our society)--we should instead switch to a psychotic one, denial; and maintain that the only thing we have to fear is...President Bush. The latter is a defense mechanism called displacement that I have already discussed in an earlier post.

In fact, there is a strong element of paranoia here too. And a noticeable touch of hysteria--though he thinks he can use it to describe normal people justifiably afraid of irrational fanatics not amenable to reason. The implication is that the only purpose such "fears" (judged "inappropriate" by Greenwald's) are being manipulated must be to "justify illegal actions."

The basic tenor of his fear is easy to deduce: while we are fighting this illusory enemy, Bushitler has been amassing power and will soon set himself up as a dictator and destroy our freedom. I will let you decide who we have to fear more--the President of the United States or the religious fanatics of Islam who want to obtain a nuclear weapon? Who do we have to fear more: those who are trying to prevent another 9/11 or those who would like nothing better than to do something even worse in our country?

Anticipation is the realistic anticipation of or planning for future discomfort. This defense mechanism includes goal-directed and even overly careful planning or worrying--depending on the situation. Anticipating realistic events such as death or illness or separation and loss; and then consciously utilizing personal insight and self awareness to mitigate the worse effects, if possible is the height of maturity and healthy psychological functioning.

Let me quote George Vaillant (page 71):

Anticipation involves realistic and affect-laden planning for future discomfort. [...] of all the mature defenses, anticipation rearranges outer and inner reality the least. Rather than use self-deception, anticipation spreads anxiety out over time. It involves the self-inoculation of taking one's affective pain in small, anticipatory doses....In the worlds of the psychoanalyst Heinz Hartmann, one of the pioneers of ego psychology, "The familiar function of anticipating the future, orienting our actions according to it and correctly relating means and ends to each other...is an ego function and, surely, an adaption process of the highest significance."
[...]
Most of us, like Scarlet O'Hara would prefer to "think about it tomorrow." Making a list of worries before embarking on a trip seems like a reasonable cognitive coping strategy. But nobody likes to worry; thus we "forget" to act on such advice. We would never miss planes or forget to floss our teeth if we had consciously pondered the unpleasant consequences in advance. Moreover, it is far easier to plan voluntarily for neutral events like plane trips and tooth decay than for affect-laden events like funerals and the real costs of war.

Anticipation, and the appropriate and realistic worry that an attack like 9/11--or even worse, are psychological factors that are protecting us as I write this post. President Bush and his administration by their actions have given the American people 4 years without an attack on the homeland (not that he will get any credit for it; and not that the Left will credit the Patriot Act or even the increased surveillance of the NSA; or the actions of the military in Afghanistan or Iraq). To the Left, our safety is all a big mysterious and magical state of being independent of any actions to ensure it. Or, as Greenwald and his clueless ilk prefer to imagine: we have been safe because of "fear-mongering" and that the threat/risk is overblown.

Of course it is. Until another 9/11 happens. Or until something worse occurs. Then they will be all over Bush and Company for lying to us about the threat.

Here is what he said about dealing with terrorism:

What must be emphasized is that one can protect against the threat of terrorism with courage, calm and resolve – the attributes which have always defined our nation as it has confronted other threats. Hysteria and fear-mongering are the opposite of strength. The strong remain rational and unafraid.

Excuse me? What does he think we have been doing? The courage, calm and resolve of both our President and our military forces has been inspiring. it is people like Greenwald and his friends who lack "resolve."

He talks about "hysteria and fear-mongering." What is it except hysteria and fear-mongering that motivates people to believe that the President of the United States intends to eliminate our most precious civil liberties and establish a fascist state? What is it except hysteria that can only focus on the daily death counts from Iraq, and not on the context of what our soldiers are dying for? What is it except hysteria that concludes the death of 3000 innocent Americans at the hands of religious fanatics in ONE DAY is nothing to be concerned about; but the death of 2500 professional soldiers in FOUR YEARS is enough to cut and run?

I would also like to point out to Mr. Greenwald, that the strong are rational and appropriately afraid. Because if they are not afraid, they will die. If they do not take steps to protect themselves, they will die. If they ignore for too long the threats amassing to kill them, even the strong will die.

I am not arguing that there should be a carte blanche given to the executive branch of government. But even the Founding Fathers understood that during a war is no time to be arguing like children about who gets to do what. The Constitution allows the president to assume powers and responsibilities that he otherwise would not even want. It is truly hysteria and fear-mongering that motivates Greenwald and people like him. Their hatred of Bush and Republicans knows no reason and it is impossible to convince them that we are not going to become a fascist state under George Bush--just as it was impossible to convince them that the fascist state run by Saddam represented a serious threat to the world.

I'm sure Greenwald trembles in his bed at night, waiting for the Bush Gestapo to come and take him away. I say this because, underneath all the posturing about civil rights and such, paranoid people are actually very fearful people who are desperately avoiding dealing with their fear; as are people in denial of reality.

Those of us who prefer to be proactive and anticipate for future attacks are the ones who are dealing directly with our fears.

UPDATE: Sigmund, Carl & Alfred have some important words to say; and I urge you to check out this important post by ShrinkWrapped: "Do We Now Return To The Garden of The Finzi-Continis?" The answer the elites of the Left (including Mr. Greenwald) would give to that question is a resounding "YES!" You know what I think.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 11:49 PM |

 
TAKE US OUT OF HERE, MR. SCOTT !
Could this be realistic?

EVERY year, the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics awards prizes for the best papers presented at its annual conference. Last year's winner in the nuclear and future flight category went to a paper calling for experimental tests of an astonishing new type of engine. According to the paper, this hyperdrive motor would propel a craft through another dimension at enormous speeds. It could leave Earth at lunchtime and get to the moon in time for dinner. There's just one catch: the idea relies on an obscure and largely unrecognised kind of physics. Can they possibly be serious?

The AIAA is certainly not embarrassed. What's more, the US military has begun to cast its eyes over the hyperdrive concept, and a space propulsion researcher at the US Department of Energy's Sandia National Laboratories has said he would be interested in putting the idea to the test. And despite the bafflement of most physicists at the theory that supposedly underpins it, Pavlos Mikellides, an aerospace engineer at the Arizona State University in Tempe who reviewed the winning paper, stands by the committee's choice. "Even though such features have been explored before, this particular approach is quite unique," he says.

Unique it certainly is. If the experiment gets the go-ahead and works, it could reveal new interactions between the fundamental forces of nature that would change the future of space travel. Forget spending six months or more holed up in a rocket on the way to Mars, a round trip on the hyperdrive could take as little as 5 hours. All our worries about astronauts' muscles wasting away or their DNA being irreparably damaged by cosmic radiation would disappear overnight. What's more the device would put travel to the stars within reach for the first time. But can the hyperdrive really get off the ground?

Wow! I am not a physicist, but if the AIAA is intrigued, then this idea must have some merit worth considering. Its implications are rather astonishing to contemplate for the future of humanity and the exploration of the universe.

Read the entire article and don't get too excited just yet....
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 9:52 PM |

 
DIPLOMATIC DEAD END
Kenneth Timmerman in FrontpageMagazine (hat tip: OBloodyHell) on Ariel Sharon's serious stroke marking the likely starting point of an upcoming nuclear showdown that will pit Israel and the free world against the Islamic Republic of Iran:

Unilateral Israeli action, without provocation from Iran, could unleash a diplomatic, economic and military backlash such as the Jewish state had never witnessed since 1948, Sharon argued. After meeting with President Bush at his Texas ranch last April, Sharon made a strategic decision – against the advice of his own generals and intelligence staff – to place his bets on U.S.-backed nuclear negotiations with Iran led by the European Union.

Almost no one really believed those negotiations would succeed. The Europeans expressed mounting exasperation as Tehran broke its promises repeatedly, closing nuclear sites to inspectors and resuming banned nuclear processing.

Faced with the impatience of his own military, Sharon’s reasoning was simple. Every other option was worse.

On Dec. 5, Israel’s military chief of staff, Lt. Gen. Dan Halutz, told foreign journalists in Tel Aviv that he believed diplomacy had reached a dead end.

“The fact that the Iranians are successful time after time in getting away from international pressure ... encourages them to continue their nuclear project,” Gen. Halutz said. “I believe that the political means that are used by the Europeans and the U.S. to convince the Iranians to stop the project will not succeed.”

When asked by one reporter how far Israel was ready to go to stop Iran’s nuclear projects, Halutz quipped, “2000 kilometers.” That’s the equivalent of 1,250 miles, the distance by air between Israel and Iran’s main nuclear and missile sites.

One doesn’t need secret intelligence information or an inside source in Tehran to decrypt the intentions of Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and the Revolutionary Guards commanders who surround him. Over the past three months he has gone out of his way to tell the world, in one forum after another, that his regime intends to “wipe Israel from the map” and “destroy America.”

The consequences of doing nothing are far more unthinkable than any prophylactic action could be. The State Department calling Ahmadinejad "hateful" for expressing joy at Sharon's imminent death is simply not going to result in any change in behavior--by either Ahmadinejad or the Mullahs. Words simply do not mean anything to them, which is why they say anything and do whatever they want in defiance of the international community.

Not that the international community has been very tough on them. The lessons of WWII appeasement appear not to have been well-learned, and once again the world is in the process of kissing up to a monster.

With Sharon out of the current picture, the Iranians must be chortling with glee and hoping that their way is clear to proceed--without even having to worry about Israel's response. Look for a lot of new posturing and an escalation of their psychopathic behavior .

I think they are mistaken about Israel's will to deal with the issue now that diplomacy has reached a dead end -- even if the international community is not so willing.

I am hoping they are also woefully misunderestimating the U.S.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 9:28 PM |

 
INSANITY OVERLOAD !
There is so much insanity going on today that I hardly know which way to blog. One psychiatrist cannot possibly keep track of it all--a battalion of them is needed.

Here are just a few on the international front:

"Sharon's Illness is a Gift of God" ; and what, pray tell, was Arafat's illness? And speaking of "gifts of God", I wonder if that is how the Egyptians are feeling about their new neighbors who are not Israel's problem any more?

Captain Ed discusses the enormity of Palestinian gratitude. But what could one expect when Palestinians encourage mothers to be sociopaths and all-around pathetic human beings?

And how about this "Miracle on Trentaquattro Street"? It must be a modern Italian remake of the old classic.

And on the home front:

The Anchoress has a good handle on the emotionalism and hysteria of a media that continues to let the public down. Personally, I don't care anymore and just wish they would run out of gas is some lonely, deserted part of the universe.

Meanwhile, Lefty blogs are absolutely aghast that Bush has dared (dared!!) to make some recess appointments! Why it is simply unbelievable that the President would do such a thing when no other presidents in history have ever.....nevermind.

And last--but not least-- the BLAME BUSH FOR EVERYTHING crowd is now gearing up to blame him for the Sego mining tragedy. Just as they blamed him for Katrina; and the Tsunami deaths; and ...well...EVERYTHING since the beginning of time (except, of course, for a roaring economy; increased freedom in the world; or for protecting the homeland for the last four years--those are all someone else's doing).

It is still the morning, but I think I'm gonna go have a drink. I hear that you can have a healthier and happier life with some free drinks. Oh wait...that's only true for homeless alcoholics.

Soon, science will "prove" that all addicts feel better with free distribution of their drug of choice! Soon it will become the government's responsibility through our taxes to provide it to them. I can't wait for the first FFDC (Free Federal Drink Center) to open in my neighborhood.

Then we have the latest on the scandal front--except that it has to do with Clinton (i.e., a Democrat) so don't expect much exposure in the MSM. I'll bet it won't even make the NYT since it is only a mere $700,000. I mentioned another instance of this particular derangement yesterday.

Let me balance some of the above insanity with a quote from Rep. Jane Harmon, ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, (from Power Line ) - not that a voice of reason will have any impact on the level of craziness and distortion surrounding the issue:

As the Ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, I have been briefed since 2003 on a highly classified NSA foreign collection program that targeted Al Qaeda. I believe the program is essential to US national security and that its disclosure has damaged critical intelligence capabilities.

And for the rest of the day's insanity forecast: more distortionscloudy with occasional hysteriarain and thunder.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 2:20 PM |

 
PROGRESSIVE PERSONALITY DISORDER
One Cosmos has delineated a new personality disorder that fits into the category of "Cluster B" personality types, along with Narcissistic, Histrionic, Borderline, and Antisocial Personality Disorders.

Progressive Personality Disorder. Very appropriate. Gagdad Bob lists the criteria for diagnosis--go and check them out.

Ann Arbor must be one of several central holding places for people with this disorder.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 11:44 AM |

 
YES WE HAVE NO URANIUM
(Sung to the tune of "Yes We Have No Bananas" )

There's a fruitcake in Iran
It has a lot of nuts;
He's a very crazy man
No if's, or and's, or but's.
When you ask him anything, his answer's just the same.
He's obsessed with all the Jews; it's always them he blames
He'll tell you:

"Yes, we have no uranium
So we will bomb Israel today!
We've rockets, and nukes
remote-controlled by kooks,
And soon we will blow them away.
I'm an old fashioned anti-semite--
The Nazis were exactly right--
And yes, we have no uranium,
But don't listen to anything I say!"

Allah speaks direct to him and Mahmoud said today,
"I'm going on a jihad--and I'm leaving right away.
What Hitler did in World War II--that was fun, I bet!"
Then Europe asked him to come clean or else they'd be upset.
All the mullahs said:

"Yes, we have no uranium
So we will bomb Israel today!
We've rockets, and nukes
remote-controlled by kooks,
And soon we will blow them away.
We like this old fashioned anti-semite--
Hitler was exactly right--
And yes, we have no uranium,
But don't listen to anything we say!"
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 11:34 AM |

 
MOTHERS OF ALL HYPOCRISY
So, where are all the "whistleblowers" when you need them? Or do you only qualify as a "whistleblower" when top secret national security information is leaked to the press?

For that matter, where are the "leakers", who somehow seem to know the details of even the most sensitive documents and are willing to pass that information to a fair and balanced media who only have our best interests at heart? Isn't the information in the Cisneros investigation sensitive enough for them?

Betsy wonders:

Presumably, the reason why we investigate scandals is to punish the malefactors and adjust laws that had loopholes. Also, to provide enough oversight to put future malefactors on notice. So, that's why it is so frustrating to hear that the Democrats are trying to cover up the report of this decade-old investigation because of rumors that it will unveil evidence that the Clinton administration was siccing the IRS on their political opponents. Don't we deserve to know whether or not this was happening?

The Democrats think this is information the public doesn't need to know; but that classified information about a program to monitor communications to and from our enemies during a time of war is. A very convenient attitude for the Democrats and for the NY Times --particularly those now crowing about the Abramoff scandal; and those who are enraged at the so-called "abuse" of Presidential power -- but only when the President happens to be a Republican.

Because for the Democrats--the mothers of all hypocrisy--the issue is as simple as this cartoon from Cox and Forkum:


- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 6:07 PM |

 
FIRE AND ICE

I've recently added a great new blog to my blogroll named Fire and Ice. The blog belongs to Michael Fay, the artist in residence for the United States Marine Corps.

Fay is currently deployed in Iraq creating a body of artwork reflecting the experience of the Marines engaged in the War on Terrorism.

To the left is a drawing of one of Fay's fellow Marines, Lance Cpl Nicholas Ciccone in Afghanistan; and here is Fay's description of the drawing:

"The weather has turned markedly cooler. It has been cold at night, but that night cold has eloped to the day and an even colder cousin has moved into her vacated bedroom. Marines are digging deep into their seabags to find parkas, gloves and scarves in the hopes of taking the edge off the chilly air. This change in the weather has me recalling the time spent in Kandahar, Afghanistan in early January of 2002 at the outset of this war. Now that was CCCCOLDDDD. You awoke in the morning to find the water bottle you left next to your head the night before frozen half solid. Having to struggle out of your triple layered sleeping system at zero-dark- thirty into the icy air to make an urgent head call was a dreaded occurence. Here's a drawing I did of a Marine at Kandahar. He and his platoon, from 3rd Battalion of the 6th Marine Regiment, had just returned from a 12 hour patrol that had been transformed by events into a grueling 9 day sparring match with the Taliban over a giant weapons cache'. Like ghostly apparitions walking off the pages of Gustave Dore's illustrated version of Dante's Divine Comedy, these exhausted young men stumbled in from a walk along the border between Purgatory and Hell. (Drawing appeared like this in the Winter 2005 issue of American Artist Drawing Quarterly.)"

As you can see, this is a very talented artist. Check out his blog and see for yourself.

- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 2:04 PM |

 
TOUCH AND GO !
Dr. Sanity is going to do a few "touch and go's around the mental health blogsphere (which I sometimes call the "psychosphere"!) this morning! It gives me a chance to see what my fellow mental health professionals are up to and what they are blogging about.

So, let's take off!

If you are are female and want to get away with murder, just head to Canada--so says Dr. Helen as she takes a hard look at Canada's attitude toward female criminals.

GM's Corner takes on the Herculean task of Diagnosing the Left and then has to deal with some angry and upset trolls.

The Assistant Village Idiot has been reading some books about the future and suspects that the masters of these new universes will have Asperger's Syndrome. This would not be good.

The MSM and the blogsphere are the topics of ShrinkWrapped's latest post as he critiques some not so subtle anti-blogging editorializing by the NY Times.

Shrinkette ponders the two faces of medicine; while Sigmund, Carl and Alfred yell out in unison, "It's the terror, Stupid!"

Finally, Neo at neo-neocon considers the road not taken; and Gagdad Bob at One Cosmos takes on the Moral Dementia of Deepak Chopra ( a major task!).

If I have left you out, feel free to let me know and the next time I go out and do a few touch and go's in the psychosphere, I'll be sure to include you!
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 10:24 AM |

 
THE NSA PROGRAM LEAK IN THREE ACTS




A BALANCING ACT...

















A CLASSLESS ACT...








A TERRORIST ACT.

- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 10:02 PM |

 
WHY WE HAVE BEEN SAFE
Charles Krauthammer on Fox News Sunday (quoted by Rich Lowry at The Corner) about all the "scandals" involving the war on terror:

There's a great irony here. Everybody has been asking of themselves for the last four years why haven't we had a second attack, which everybody expected within weeks or months, certainly years. It didn't happen.

And we knew about the external story. The war in Afghanistan obviously had an effect on Al Qaida. The war in Iraq has diverted terrorists and jihadists into Iraq as opposed to attacking America.

But what we've heard over the last six months with these revelations, these so-called scandals, of the secret prisons where high-level Al Qaida have been held, the coercive interrogation which is under attack in the McCain amendment, and now the NSA eavesdropping -- we have the untold story which the administration could not tell. It knew why we had been protected.

All these defensive measures of gathering intelligence -- we were always weak on human intelligence, and that's why we had 9/11. And we don't have good spies inside Al Qaida. But we had a means, technological, in the NSA eavesdropping, and also other means in capturing these terrorists, of getting information.

It's worked. It's held us safe. And that's why I think in the end the president's going to win the whole argument on presidential power.

Think about this for a while. Think about the lust for political power that has no bounds and doesn't care about your family's safety--only about satisfying their own egos; and venting their hatred for a president doing his job.

Can you possibly imagine the hysteria and rage if we had been attacked in this country again? Do you think that the calls for impeachment would have been blocked because President Bush had so much respect for Congress and the Democrats, that he basically decided to do nothing to upset them for the last four years?

No. Like you, I imagine that such calls would be just as loud and just as hysterical and completely unwarranted (pun intended). There is no sating the lust and hatred in these people. Nothing Bush does is right. Nothing he doesn't do is right. Everything and everyone connected to him is considered evil.

I cannot escape making a diagnosis any longer. I have tried to give the Democratic Party and most of the Left the benefit of the doubt. But you see, the entire world revolves around their feelings; their outrage; their agenda. This is a Narcissistic Personality Disorder with both antisocial and suicidal elements.

As far as they are concerned, America can go to hell if they are not in control. In fact they desperately desire that it do so.

At the beginning of 2006, with the U.S. economy booming along; Iraq on the verge of a magnificent democratic breakthrough in unifying its disparate elements; the world a much more free and democratic place; no attacks on the U.S. homeland since 9/11--what we have exposed in its most naked and essential form in the Democrats and the Left in this country, is an unparalleled nihilism and mindless destructiveness that cares only for political power.

One person alone can take credit for the economy, Iraq and the spread of freedom and democracy; and instead of receiving credit or even a grudging thanks, the animosity and rage just continues to pile up in these very very mentally disturbed people.

Give it a break, will you? Go put your heads in some ice water and cool down. Think what you are doing. If you know what you are doing and don't care, then you can go to hell. And if you haven't thought about the consequences of your behavior and speech, then STFU.

If you can't give it a rest, then go live somewhere else--preferably where your brand of shar'ia and intolerance is perfectably acceptable. Because I won't tolerate the intolerable anymore. Because I love this country too much to see it destroyed. Because it is YOU who are set on its destruction, not the President; not Republicans; not the average American. America's freedom is indeed under attack--just not from the President of the U.S. or his administration. And the people within this country who are attacking it have perfected a form of self-delusion that is rampant in narcissistic personalities.

Stop lying to yourselves that you are patriots. You don't know the meaning of the word.

Stop pretending that you care about people. Your actions are causing hope in our enemy and death to people in our military services; and if there is an attack in the next year then I along with millions of Americans will lay the responsibility at YOUR door.

Stop acting like you believe in "multiculturalism". You hate this culture and would do anything in your power to destroy it.

Stop saying you support the poor and oppressed. You care for neither and do nothing to relieve their suffering--only to make yourselves feel superior and compassionate.

Stop mouthing the words of love and compassion. You have neither. You are filled with hate and vitriol, and you spare no effort to demonstrate it daily.

Cease your prattling about "free speech" when you only believe that YOUR speech is free and trumps anyone else's. Or that YOUR "fundamental rights" are more important than anyone else's.

Paul at Power Line had a recent post where he quoted Irving Kristol:

Response to my "Forever Young" post has been quite favorable, but several readers have suggested that I'm too dismissive of the danger posed by those who have neither learned nor forgotten anything since 1974, and their disciples. The criticism reminds me of this quotation from Irving Kristol that appeared in Roger Kimball's recent piece, "After the Suicide of the West":

[S]ector after sector of American life has been ruthlessly corrupted by the liberal ethos. It is an ethos that aims simultaneously at political and social collectivism on the one hand, and moral anarchy on the other. It cannot win, but it can make us all losers.

I take the point. It's difficult to defeat those who are out to destroy us when an influential political and cultural bloc sees those Americans who stand against political and social collectivsim and moral anarchy as the greatest threat to our country.

Those of us who stand against political and social collectivism and moral anarchy would do well to realize that we will never be able to win by being "nice". We have tried to negotiate; we have bent over backwards to understand and be tolerant. We have even tried to be politically correct and respect all cultures. Some of those cultures still want to kill us.

Some people in our own culture don't care if they do and hope for the worse.

Being nice and conciliatory does not work against the narcissistic nihilism we are facing both at home and with the Islamofascist thugs. This type tactic backfires badly. This tactic give the narcissists and the enemy --including the one here at home--ammunition to deconstruct the truth and distort the reality.

And deconstructing the truth and distorting reality is what they do best.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 6:41 PM |

 
Hi Ho, Hi Ho
Well, after two weeks of [relative] decadence--including sleeping late and staying up late and watching far too much football--today I must return to work.

Meanwhile, scroll down for some recent posts and links. You also can't go wrong checking out the blogs in my blogroll.

I just checked the news and its the same old stuff we've been hearing lately, and I've got nothing new to say this morning.

Thomas Sowell's column caught my eye, and you might check it out.

More blogging later this afternoon if I'm not too bogged (blogged?) down.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 10:09 AM |