Dr. Sanity: April 2006

Shining a psychological spotlight on a few of the insanities of life

Sunday, April 30, 2006

It's Just Another Day

It's deja vu all over again, as we recycle yet again into all the favorite leftist memes trumpeted by the media and acted out by the clueless. Eagerly awaiting Rove's iminent indictment because Fitzmas can come in May or June if they just believe; planning what to do and how fast to impeach when they are back in power; staging antiwar rallies for the morally impaired. But, of course, you can't question their patriotism, even if the enemy happens to agree with them--they'r all just speaking truth to power. There is, after all, no heroic deed that will go unspoiled by these wonderful people who know that we are all better off under their bright and shiny boots. They apparently can clearly see future (and can barely wait) but are utterly blind about anything in the present.

SC&A noticed the same thing and it's something that psychiatrists of their caliber should notice:

Mr Bush needs to be impeached. Mr Cheney shot his hunting companion as a 'warning. The war in Iraq was about oil and orchestrated by a 'certain,' hidden cabal. The bin Laden's and the Council on Foreign Relations are in cahoots. The Bush crime family family syndicate were in close contact with the Nazi's.

The events of 9/11 were orchestrated by the White House and 'certain' Jews. A plane never hit the Pentagon. Al Gore won the 2000 election, but was undermined by the secret Bush 'fixer,' James Baker. Secret plans to expand the war on terror abound. Civil rights in America will be suspended, shortly. We are moments away from the Bush White House annoucing their coup on America.

These are a few things espoused, believed and promoted by the far left. They are capable of recognizing and deciphering the conspiracies and events of our lifetime- unlike the rest of us.

Curiously, while the far left are adept at routing out the most hidden and buried of conspiracies, they seem unable to recognize the obvious. Their credibility is impugned with their inability to recognize what is out in the open, every day.

What Hamas, Iran's Almadinejad and Osama bin Laden say explicitly, doesn't ever seem to register.

Just another day.

ANOTHER DAY (Dedicated to SC&amp;A; with apologies to Paul McCartney)

Every day he hears the morning news and rolls his eyes,
Listening to the bias
As reporters try to justify their lies,
It’s just another day.
Swimming in denial,
Drowning in their hate,
Dipping in the cesspool of projection.
Ah, it’s just another day.

On the evening news where all the talking heads opine
He really tries to listen
But just simply cannot bear the whine,

It’s just another day. du du du du du
It’s just another day. du du du du du
Lt’s just another day.

Ay
So sad, so sad,
Sometimes he feels so sad.
Hamas and Bin Laden keep threatening to kill,
But the far left's content to sit still

And, blame; You know who they'll blame;
You know what they'll say,
It's the same crazed things each day,
So sad.
Sometimes he feels so sad.

As he posts again to try to counteract their jive,
They make it so damn easy
For evil to regroup and thrive,

It’s just another day. du du du du du
It’s just another day. du du du du du
It’s just another day.

Ay
So sad, so sad,
Sometimes he feels so sad.
Hamas and Bin Laden keep threatening to kill,
But the far left's content to sit still

And, blame; You know who they'll blame;
You know what they'll say,
It's the same crazed things each day,
So sad.
Sometimes he feels so sad.

Every day he hears the morning news and rolls his eyes,
Listening to the bias
As reporters try to justify their lies,
It’s just another day.
Swimming in denial,
Drowning in their hate,
Dipping in the cesspool of projection.
Ah, it’s just another day.
Ah, it’s just another day. du du du du du
It’s just another day. du du du du du
It’s just another day.

Sometimes I feel so sad. The blindness and self-delusion are epidemic.

- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 1:49 PM |

CARNIVAL OF THE INSANITIES

Heard the Word of Blog?

- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 11:25 AM |

Saturday, April 29, 2006

THE FEW, THE PROUD, THE FIGHTING KEEBEES !

Dr. Sanity has enlisted as a proud member of the 101st Fighting Keyboardists! Go over to Captain's Quarters and find out how you can join to fight evil with your keyboard!

Achieving military success in this war is necessary and I deeply honor those who have taken on this task. Let the lunatic left who are willing to sell out this country and all it stands for joke all they want about "chickenhawks" and such; but it is on the field of ideas that the war will ultimately be won or lost. The totalitarian leftists in this country have made common cause with the totalitarian Islamofascists on the right. Both seek to impose their tyranny on the world.

So, here's to the Fighting Keebees, who stand for TRUTH, JUSTICE, and the ultimate DEFEAT OF TYRANNY. [And, that includes all of you tyrants or tyrant wannabees out there in the blogsphere who are completely without a sense of humor; and/or who take those vapid and banal exhortations for "peace" so seriously you are unable to see that you represent the greatest threat to peace and freedom in the universe. All humorless and ideological cretins can just suck it up--because we mean you!]

We shall fight them on the op-ed pages, we shall fight in the worldwide web, we shall fight in the internet and in the blogs, we shall fight in the Democratic Underground; we shall never surrender!

- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 8:41 PM |

ZARQAWI & BIN LADEN - A New Comedy Team

Who's on third?

- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 11:01 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.

BEST COUNCIL POSTS:

First Place

Defend Dissent: Punish the Leakers Right Wing Nut House

Second Place (a two-way tie!)

Tired The Glittering Eye
Defining Terms: The Left ShrinkWrapped

BEST NON-COUNCIL POSTS:

First Place

The McCarthy File In From the Cold

Second Place

The Tragedy of George W. Bush The Belgravia Dispatch

Be sure to check out all the winners at the Watcher's Site! Great weekend reading.

- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 10:41 AM |

Friday, April 28, 2006

REPRESSION AND THE MIRROR OF INSIGHT

Freud is reported to have said that the very act of entering into civilized society entails the repression of various desires, impulses and feelings.

Biologically, the human species is hard-wired to experience certain feelings, impulses and desires, that during the rise of human civilization have been more and more controlled by the executive function of the higher cognitive levels of the brain. While the more primitive instincts still remain a part of our biology and can be accessed when needed for survival, most societal relationships--and civilization itself requires that control be exercised.to the forces in our nature that are affiliative and which encourage relationships and the rise of civilization. In fact, human biology and its limitations determine, to a great extent, the nature of our social interactions--even more than we may think.

In contrast to Freud's insight, Karl Marx believed that, ". . . the human essence is no abstraction inherent in each single individual. In its reality it is the ensemble of social relations;" and that a change in the "ensemble of social relations" can change "the human essence." Another way of saying this assertion is that social interactions have a significant role in determining biology.

From a Cato Institute Policy report, we have the perfect example of a Marxist attempt to "change the human essence", or, alter human biology:

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

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

Marx's theory of human nature, like Kim Jong Il's theory of pine needle tea, is a biological fantasy, and we have the corpses to prove it.

Having thus dispensed with the inverted reality of Marx's theories of human nature, we can move on to explore how it is that civilization--and human interactions-- are able to develop when our basic instinctual urges are hardly conducive to either.

If we are at the mercy of primitive instincts and destructive emotions bequeathed to us by our animal ancestors, how have we managed to, not only work our way up from the mud, but to the exploration of the stars?

Freud suggested that repression was the key, but that is an incomplete answer.

The complete answer lies in the awesome beauty, creativity, and functionality of all the psychological defense mechanisms available to humans, of which repression is only one of many available strategies. These mechanisms, for all that they also must be fundamentally biological themselves, are also presumably "hardwired" into our brains and come into play to protect our perceptions of self and reality (i.e., consciousness) from overwhelming psychological trauma that may threaten.

The most psychologically healthy of these strategies are those those that allow us to transform the primitive instinctual energy of even the most destructive emotions into works of art or entertainment that give pleasure to others (sublimation and humor); or behavior that is socially beneficial (altruism, anticipation, suppression). People who achieve optimal psychological health are those who have come to satisfactory terms with their neurobiology. They are people who have learned to accept their anger, rage and other potentially deadly emotions and, instead of destructively acting out, repressing, denying or projecting; have creatively expressed those feelings in a way that improves life both for themselves and for others.

As I have discussed in previous posts on denial, projection, and paranoia; these immature and sometimes psychotic psychological defense mechanisms represent a creative synthesis by the individuals who use them; but only temporarily reprieve that individual from the consequences of reality. These defenses almost never serve the individual's interests in the long run; nor are they beneficial for one's interpersonal relationships with others or society at large.

In between the psychological healthy and mature defenses, and the seriously immature defense mechanisms, are a group of very commonly used psychological defenses that most normal people employ at one time or another. These are the neurotic defenses, which can have short-term advantages in coping, but often cause significant long-term problems in one's relationships, work, and happiness for people who use them as their basic style of coping with the world.

One such neurotic defense that I have discussed at length in this blog is displacement, which is one of the defenses at the root of Bush Derangement Syndrome. Under stress, and threatened with psychological trauma or the disruption of cherished beliefs, even basically psychologically healthy adults may retreat to dysfunctional and immature defenses.

I would like to explore for a moment how unconscious processes can be made conscious through the development of insight; and thus alter the self-destructive path that an individual or a group may sometimes be on.

I once had a very successful female patient named Susan, who was in her late 30's and was rising rapidly in her career; but who felt dissatisfied and fairly unhappy, not only in her career, but also in her personal life. In spite of her demonstrable capabilites, she felt inadequate and like she didn't deserve her wealth or status. Sometimes she felt like she didn't even deserve to live. Susan came to see me because she couldn't understand why she felt the way she did, and --unlike most of my patients--she didn't want medication. "Why can't I just be happy?" she wanted to know; so we proceeded to talk about her life to see if we could discover what might be going on.

Some weeks later, in a casual comment, Susan mentioned that she had never liked her younger brother when she was growing up. I looked up from my notes, surprised, because she had never mentioned her brother before.

"I didn't know you had a brother," I said. "Oh," she commented lightly, "he died. That's why I don't bring him up much."

Obviously she wanted to drop the subject, but I persisted. The brother who died was two years younger than she was, and had died when he was 16.

"How sad for you and your family! That must have been terrible for you."

Susan shrugged. "It was a long time ago now," she said.

I considered whether I should pursue this further, since she clearly didn't want to talk about it. I asked her if it bothered her to talk about it.

"Not really."

"Could you tell me what happened to him?"

What followed was a dispassionate account of a family trip with the two parents in one car; and the patient and her brother in the other on their way to the family cabin in the mountains. The brother became tired, and went to the back seat to sleep. Susan, who was new to driving, misjudged a curve and went into it far too fast, causing her to lose control. The car slid off the road, and rolled over twice. My patient was uninjured because she had been wearing a seat belt. But her younger brother, sleeping in the back had been thrown from the car and died instantly.

I was stunned. This was serious stuff, and I knew it could be and probably was the origins of Susan's disabling guilt about her life. Yet the patient had never mentioned it in the weeks before as we had talked about her life, and seemed completely unaware that it could be linked to the very situation for which she had consulted me. Even now, while telling me the story, she sounded like a disinterested observer, rather than an intimate player in the drama she described.

"That must have been so awful for you," I said gently.

She smiled brightly at me. "Well, I guess I only did what every big sister really wants to do to an obnoxious brother!" Her laugh was rather forced.

"I suppose its natural for an older sister to feel very upset and angry with a rather trying younger brother--I have two of them, so I certainly know about that.... But I don't believe for a moment that you would truly want him dead or that you would deliberately kill him....it was just a horrible accident, wasn't it?"

She stared at me for a moment, then burst into tears, with great gulping sobs that went on for more than 15 minutes, as I tried to console her the best I could. Yes, the accident was her fault. She had made a mistake and it resulted in her brother's death. But she hadn't wanted him to die; and she hadn't deliberately gone off the road in order to make her childish and angry feelings toward him come true.

For years she had carried around the terrible burden of guilt about her brother's death, telling herself that she had killed him, feeling that her anger toward him made it deliberate. Her parents, grieving themselves, had never thought to absolve her of the accident.

As you might expect, her unhappiness with her life and her overwhelming feeling that she didn't have a right to live was tied to this traumatic incident in her life. What followed in the weeks after her revelation and sudden insight into her unresolved guilt and grief was the beginning of a cure for the inexplicable unhappiness she suffered in her life.

Her belief that she didn't deserve to live was tied up with her childish --and normal--sibling feelings about her brother. But what had sealed her fate was magical thinking--a belief that just because she had some negative feelings about him, those negative feelings had been responsible for the car accident. It was difficult for her to come to the realization that even if she had had uniformly positive and loving feelings toward her younger brother, the accident in which he was killed because she was an inexperienced driver would have still taken place.

With time, she moved from this dramatic insight, to accepting that, while she might have been a poor driver, she wasn't a murderer. And that also, if her brother had made other choices (e.g., used his seatbelt; waited for another hour to go to sleep; etc.)he too might have survived the accident. Some guilt was appropriate for her to deal with. But the life-destroying guilt she was experiencing was far more than she deserved.

Her insight actually gave her back her brother. Since the accident many years before, she had avoided thinking about him, and had psychologically banished all thoughts--both good and bad--about him from her life. For the first time in many years she could remember happy times with him, and finally appropriately mourn him.

Insight is a wonderful thing. The power or act of seeing into a situation and apprehending the inner nature or motivation of one's self--especially the why--can be extremely liberating, as it was for Susan. Only by being aware of these kind of hidden truths and inner motivations can a person gain control over them and correct the behavior that they generate.

But insight can also sometimes be devastating. Susan's insight freed her from a life of unhappiness and made her guilt over her brother's death much more bearable. But there are situations where achieving insight and understanding the motives behind one's behavior (as well as what one can and cannot control) can generate deserved guilt and shame. That is when such emotions can be productive and initiate a change in behavior for the good. While it is painful to acknowledge horrible truths--but truths nonetheless-- such understanding of one's self is essential for personal growth and normal personality development.

There is an inner courage required to look at one's self in the mirror of insight and truly know the person looking back. All of us are capable of the most horrible behavior; just as we are capable of finding ways to rationalize it and cover it up or blame others for it. Psychological health requires that we look into that mirror frequently and understand our own motivations and behaviors and not flinch in recognizing the truth about ourselves.

That is the only way we can begin the process of change that leads to solving problems and personal growth. Recognizing the problem by looking at ourselves in the mirror is the first hurdle that must be overcome. Admittedly, it is not the only hurdle; but without it individuals and societies go off careening off in all the wrong directions--directions that will never lead to the recognition or acceptance of reality, and so can never lead to effective solutions. In psychiatry we refer to this abiiity to look in the mirror and see what and who is reflected back at us truly as "insight". Ultimately, the development of self-awareness and psychological insight are the keys to solving most human dilemmas that lead to our own unhappiness and misery--both in individuals and societies.

It is likely that true evil never looks into that mirror; never questions their own motivations and always sinks to using the most immature and infantile coping mechanisms. That inability to acknowledge any degree of responsibility for their behavior; or to see clearly into their own souls--particularly on a societal level is responsible for much of the human misery, genocide, and brutal behavior we witness all around the world.

And that is the ultimate purpose of, and necessity for, Justice -- to impose insight on the blind; force awareness of the consequences of behavior; and to reflect reality for those who refuse to look in the mirror. Susan was not guilty of murdering her brother; yet she was punishing herself anyway for having had the kind of negative thoughts any normal person has about someone she is close to. Like most normal people, she had mixed feelings abaout him--loving and hating him simultaneously. In her case, she needed to look into that mirror to see the good--her love for him--which had been blocked out by her guilt at his death.

Gagdad Bob in discussing infantile omnipotences and its consequences when one is no longer an infant (i.e., when one is a member of the left), makes this cogent observation:

What sets humans apart from the animals is not just our ability to know reality, but our even more striking ability to not know it--to create patently erroneous systems of thought that we then inhabit, and which actually compromise our survival prospects. No lion ever entertained the idea that it might be healthier to live on grasses rather than flesh. Penguins don’t decide to live near the equator, where it isn’t so cold. But the UN thinks that lots of talks and meetings will make the threat of a nuclear Iran go away. Liberals really think that Saddam and his satanic spawn would never, ever, have obtained nukes.

Only human beings can hold ideas that are completely illogical and self-defeating.

We may not be able to help which defenses our egos deploy in every situation. Sometimes, when reality is threatening enough or our conflicts are intense enough, even the most mature individual may find him or herself using the more immature defenses like denial and projection. What matters is that we make a practice of examining our own behavior and appreciating the underlying issues and motivations that drive it. Or to put it another way, we reflect on those subtle factors that may be controlling our behavior outside our completely conscious awareness (and therefore our control) and make them fully conscious. This is looking into that mirror of the soul and when done honestly leads to insight and self-awareness. This process is the "holy grail" of psychotherapy; and we mental health professionals are forever encouraging our patients to go on such quests of self-discovery--even if they can sometimes lead to emotional pain.

Because, by making the unconscious conscious, we gain control over our lives and are able to make choices and attack problems based on a clear view of reality. Yes, we may make the wrong choice, or screw up in dealing with the problem even so; we may even discover some unpleasant truths about ourself. But when our psychological defenses are distorting or obscuring reality to begin with, we are far more likely to ignore a problem or pretend that it doesn't exist and then suffer even more serious consequences.

Even the most maladaptive and/or primitive psychological defenses that bring us and others a great deal of unhappiness and misery, through insight, can evolve into mature and adaptive responses to the world that both enhance and protect our lives.

Human beings are remarkable creatures. Sometimes their capacity for self-deception and delusion seems unlimited; and sometimes their incredible creativity and ingenuity in coping with all the trials and travails that life throws at them is worthy of appreciation and even awe.

UPDATE: If you want to see the primitive psychological defenses at work, follow this link to an interview with Robert Fisk--who is in so much denial (among other defenses) it is simply ludicrous. He manages--all on his own--to give himself a thorough fisking. (hat tip: Tim Blair and The Corner)

- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 10:50 AM |

Thursday, April 27, 2006

RADICAL ACCEPTANCE

Today I learned about an important psychological concept known as "RADICAL ACCEPTANCE". It is based on the idea that suffering is a combination of pain and the non-acceptance of reality.

Radical Acceptance is composed of three components:

(1) reality is what it is;

(2) everything has a cause;

(3) life can be worth living, even when there is pain

It occurs to me that radical acceptance has been exactly what is missing from the left and the Democrats for approximately the last 5+ years. To be precise:

(1) George W. Bush is the President of the U.S. and will continue to be the President of the U.S. until 2008.

(2) He was duly elected to that position in the 2000 and 2004 national election.

(3) In spite of this horrible and tragic truth, you need to let go of your hate and get a life. Simple dislike is perfectly psychologically healthy.

Just thought I'd pass on some of the important things I'm learning, since they might help some poor person suffering from BDS to transition to ordinary human pain.

It's the least I can do.

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

NARCISSISM AND SOCIETY

Because I'm stuck in a conference all day, I though I would recycle what I consideer to be one of my best posts on Narcissism. This is Part I in a Three-part series. Links to the other two parts are below.

[Part II is here; and Part III is here.]

For some years now, I have been thinking of way to reconcile my observations on human nature and psychology with my understanding of economic and political systems. Since I first studied it back in the 70's and 80's, I have thought that one particular psychological theory--Kohut's Psychology of the Self (as presented in his books and writings, particularly The Analysis of the Self and The Restoration of the Self )-- has some important implications for understanding why certain political systems are successful and compatible with human nature and why some are grossly incompatible with it.

So at the beginning of this essay I will make the following disclaimer: the basic ideas discussed about the Psychology of the Self belong to Heinz Kohut; and the political applications of his theories and concepts are my own thoughts. Don't blame Kohut for any errors or misstatements!

I also apologize in advance for the use of some esoteric psychiatric language. In general, I have mostly tried to explain the ideas as simply as possible (believe it or not!). My hope is that it can generate some discussion and debate.

What is Narcissism ?
I think we should start at the beginning. The term "narcissism" was coined by Sigmund Freud, who named the phenomenon after the Narcissus in Greek mythology. Narcissus was a handsome young man who rejected the desperate advances of the nymph Echo who loved him. As a punishment, the gods doomed him to fall in love with his own reflection in a pool of water. Unable to consummate his love, Narcissus pined away and changed into the flower that bears his name. (Incidentally, Echo also wasted away until she was just a whisper, barely heard).

The clinical syndrome of Narcissism (Narcissistic Personality Disorder) is described in The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders - Fourth Edition (DSM-IV) of the American Psychiatric Association as: "A pervasive pattern of grandiosity (in fantasy or behavior), need for admiration, and lack of empathy."

According to the DSM-IV, the disorder begins by early adulthood and is indicated by the subject exhibiting at least five of the following:
1. An exaggerated sense of self-importance
2. Preoccupation with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty, or
ideal love
3. Believes he is "special" and can only be understood by, or should associate with, other special or high-status people (or institutions)
4. Requires excessive admiration
5. Has a sense of entitlement
6. Selfishly takes advantage of others to achieve his own ends
7. Lacks empathy
8. Is often envious of others or believes that others are envious of him
9. Shows arrogant, haughty, patronizing, or contemptuous behaviors or attitudes

Everyone has some Narcissistic traits, and a certain amount of Narcissism is a necessary and healthy thing. What’s different about the personality disorder is that the symptoms are prominent and persistent over time and pervade every aspect of the person’s existence. It can be very disabling in extreme cases; and in others those who have this personality can make the people around them thoroughly miserable, since some narcissists can be manipulative, predatory and completely lacking in empathy. Narcissists are notoriously spiteful and vicious and usually alienate anyone close to them.

Why is Narcissism Important?

All over the world, on a daily basis we see the horrible results of Narcissistic behavior. Individuals and groups; religions and nations act out their Narcissistic rage at various insults--real and imagined-- and people suffer and die for the purpose of the grandiosity of the tyrant, or the glory of the religion. It has been said that the 20th century was the “century of the Narcissist”, but the 21st is well on its way to outdoing the horrors of the past as a seeming epidemic of malignant Narcissism caused by a crushing of human nature and the human spirit--all for the purpose of serving the self-aggrandizing vision of the few.

Tim Hall of the NY Press writes:

Narcissism is hot. In the wake of the dot-com implosion and recent business scandals, many are focusing their attention on what otherwise might have remained an obscure psychological disorder. Much of the New Economy bubble seems to have arisen from narcissism run amok: The grandiosity of crooked executives and their haughty contempt for business and accounting procedures; the relentless manipulation of (and by) investors, analysts, and employees; the utter lack of empathy for others; the complete and total denial of any wrongdoing when everything fell apart.

For many on the Left side of the political spectrum, it is axiomatic that Narcissism is inextricably linked to business, Capitalism, individualism, and the pursuit of profit. The Left has idealized certain social and political systems because they suppressed the individual and elevated the state, insisting that individuals had no right to exist for their own selves, but only to serve others.

Executives, such as The Rigases of Adelphia Corp; Samuel D. Waksal, the socialite founder of ImClone Systems; Dennis Kozlowski, of Tyco International; Scott D. Sullivan of WorldCom; and Ken Lay of Enron, typify the ugly Narcissist of the business world with his or her extreme grandiosity; selfishness of unbelievable proportions; and complete lack of empathy towards the people they cheated. While the majority of businessmen are ethical and honest individuals, only a few “bad apples” are needed to demonstrate the havoc that malignant Narcissism in the business sector can wreak.

But what is not generally or readily seen (either on the Left or Right) is the flip side of "selfish" or "grandiose" Narcissism-- and that is what I will call Narcissism rooted in idealism, rather than selfishness, or "idealistic" Narcissism. This second kind of Narcissism (the flip side of the coin, if you will) is less obvious to an observer, since it is disguised with a veneer of concern for others. But it is equally—if not more—destructive and causative of human suffering, death and misery. Both kinds of Narcissism are a plague on the world; and both are well-traveled avenues for limiting freedom and imposing tyranny. The "grandiose" Narcissism is the stimulus for individual tyrants, while the "idealistic" Narcissism leads to groups imposing their will on others. We will talk more of this in Part II.

First, I need to explain what healthy Narcissism is and how it develops. The political and economic implications follow after the foundation is set.

Healthy Narcissism and Kohut’s Psychology of the Self

This part of my discussion is based on the theories of Self Psychology by Heinz Kohut. Kohut was a psychoanalyst (he died in 1981) whose controversial theories had a considerable impact on psychiatry and psychoanalysis. He was an innovative thinker (and a rather opaque writer) who broke with Freud in some important areas. His ideas have influenced me tremendously, both in the way I approach patients and understand their concerns, as well as the way I treat them. Every day in my psychiatric practice I see the truth of his ideas in the interactions I have with my patients; and in the interactions of my patients in society-at-large.

Freud’s view of Narcissism can be summed up by saying that true psychic health requires a complete dissociation from the primary Narcissism inherent in the infant and child. The individual during his or her development tries to find and maintain a form of self love that is compatible with healthy relationships with other(this is called “object relations” in psychiatry).

The bottom line is that Freud considered Narcissism quite negatively. He saw it as only associated with severe pathology and considered it the antithesis of being able to achieve normal and healthy relationships.

Some have referred to Kohut’s Psychology of the Self as "psychoanalysis without original sin"—i.e., the “original sin” that Freud considered Narcissism. One of Kohut’s breaks with Freudian tradition is that he considered Narcissism affirmatively, as an essential part of the Self; and described how it develops in the healthy individual.

What is the “Self”? The “Self” can be thought of as a content of the mental apparatus; a structure within the mind that has continuity in time and a specific location. The “Self” is therefore analogous to how one represents other people within the mind. Some people mistake the “Self” with Freud’s concept of “Ego”, but “Ego” (along with “Id” and “Superego”) are agencies of the mind, rather than a specific content of it. “Identity” can be thought of as the Self’s socio-cultural position in the world.

A healthy Self has two fundamental and equally important parts:

1) Self-Esteem – or a sense that one has a right to Life and success; ambition; a healthy exhibitionism and comfort with one’s body. This part of the Self supplies the instinctual fuel for ambition and purpose; and for enjoyment of Life’s activities.

2) Ideals – a belief in something outside the “Self” that guides and gives meaning to one’s Life. Having ideals make developing one’s goals in Life possible. It is this part of the Self that also makes healthy interpersonal relationships possible.

The development of BOTH parts is essential to psychological health. When one part develops at the expense of the other—it has grave consequences for the individual and society.

The Diagram below summarizes the normal development of the Self; and as you can see, there are two equally important and parallel lines of development that have their origin in human biology and dependence of the infant on an adult for survival during the first years of life.

Image hosted by Photobucket.com

The infant is born with what is called “Primary Narcissism”. Mothers know that the newborn child is not able to differentiate between the Mother (referred to as “Other”) and himself (referred to as “Self”). For example, the Mother's breast is treated by the infant initially as a part of himself. Slowly over months and years, the child begins to differentiate himself from the Mother; and as he goes through normal biological development he becomes more and more independent and self-sufficient.

At some point, the Self and the Other--once "perfectly" merged--are now two distinct objects. This important process of separation-individuation is facilitated by the normal shortcomings(i.e. imperfections) in maternal care, which spur the child's development as an individual. For example: baby demands food, but mother is unavailable right now and doesn’t feed baby until her schedule permits (but doesn’t let him starve either!). Such natural and normal imperfections of empathy with the child are actually healthy. I won’t go into a full discussion of this, but suffice it to say that the Other must not be too perfect, nor too imperfect, as either extreme carried on for too long will interfere with the developing Self of the child.

It is because of the slow separation of Self from Other that the two developmental lines come into being. The first line Kohut refers to as the “Grandiose Self”(or idealized self image) and the second is referred to as the “Idealized Parent Image”. Both of these images represent psychological attempts to save the original experience of "perfection" by the infant when the Mother (Other) and the infant (Self) were “one”.

The “Grandiose Self” will develop over time (if not disrupted) into healthy Self-Esteem; and the” Idealized Parent Image” will eventually lead to the development of Ideals that give meaning to the individual’s life; and to healthy interpersonal relationships.

In Part II, I will discuss how-- when either or both of these two developmental lines are disrupted during the child's development (either through biology or environment)--they can seriously impact the individual, his/her family and even the wider society. It is my contention that these two developmental lines suggest a powerful reason why individuals may be attracted to one type of political system or another, and I will also discuss the implications of that.

- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 11:31 AM |

WASTED

I want to apologize to everyone for being so out of the loop this week! The conference I am at is actually an intensive training session that lasts all day--and, in addition to taking the training, I am the person in charge of the conference details and organization. Hence, I'm way behind in my blog reading and I have hundreds of unread email messages.

To top it all off, my daughter's spring soccer season started this evening and I had to rush from the conference to pick her up and take her 50 miles to her game. Frankly, I'm wasted! (The Boo informs me that is an "old-fashioned" term; nevertheless it is descriptive of my current emotional and physical state).

I've been checking in during our 15 minute breaks and lunchtime, but really have only had about an hour in the morning to get a few posts up. The conference will be over on Friday at 4pm and hopefully, things will get back to normal around here by the weekend!

Until then, I'll be posting lightly, so check out some of the blogs in my blogroll.

- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 12:20 AM |

Wednesday, April 26, 2006

SOCIALISTS GO APE

This is brilliant. In one creative and strategic move, the socialists have managed to come up with yet another special protected victim group that they can champion; and at the same time they have found a population on which they can practice their next social experiment! You might vaguely recall that the last big experiment managed by this group resulted in considerble death and misery for the species that was foolish enough to let them practice their variants of dialectical materialism upon. But that is soooo 20th century! And pre-postmodern.

In this brave new world, our new victim group will undoubtedly all be gently expected to register to vote as Socialists. In the U.S., they can join the Democratic Party which specializes in the downtrodden (marching in solidarity with the socialist fringe); and works very hard to keep the downtrodden down and trod upon so they'll continue to vote for Democrats. It is a symbiotic relationship.

And consider this: why settle for being multicultural when you could be multispecial (even the word evokes the fundamental rightness of the concept!)

As the press release notes:

"Today only members of the species Homo sapiens are considered part of the community of equals. The chimpanzee, the gorilla, and the orangutan are our species's closest relatives. They possess sufficient mental faculties and emotional life to justify their inclusion in the community of equals."

But since we know from experience that some are a bit more equal than others; the new members of our community of equals will welcome the benevolent overlords who have their best interests at heart and only want to make sure they get their fair share of the pie. They'll probably work real cheap at jobs no human would like to do For a preview, check out how useful the zombie dead are at the end of Shaun of the Dead. I think most of the zombies shared 100% DNA with humans!

Jeff Goldstein notes that we humans actually share even more of our DNA with mice; so in all fairness, maybe that species should be granted rights by the UN first.

Perhaps their love of cheese and mazes would qualify them in the community of equals? You could check out the details of their mental faculties and emotional life with Slartibartfast.

- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 6:42 PM |

SCAPEGOATS OF THE MODERN WORLD

Who is to blame for the terrorist attacks in Dahab? The Israelis, of course!

Retired General Salah al-Din Salim, an Egyptian researcher at the Strategic Studies Institute in Cairo, said that it could not be ruled out that the Israeli Mossad was involved in the terror attack in Dahab.

"The Mossad's ability to penetrate the Bedouins in Sinai is known," Salim said in an interview with al-Jazeera. (Roee Nahmias)

The Big Pharaoh blogging from Egypt reports that:(hat tip: The Belmont Club)

The poll above was posted on Egypt's number one web portal Masrawy.com. The question asks people whom they think was behind the bombings in Dahab yesterday. 48.9% of the respondents so far think that the Israeli Mossad was behind the terrorist attack. 4.2% believe it was Al-Qaeda and 21% think it was the work of internal terrorist groups.

The above poll is a clear indication of the trouble we as a nation are in. Up till now the vast majority among us and especially among our intelligentsia don't want to admit that we have a terrorist problem in our society, in our currently practiced religiosity. Up till now we don't want to look in the mirror and see what's wrong with us and with our culture. This is the reason why I don't see light at the end of tunnel anytime soon as far as our Arab/Islamic world is concerned.

The poll cited by him shows that almost half of all Egyptians believe that Israel's Mossad is behind the attacks. I heard one Egyptian official on TV ask plaintively, "Why would Muslims kill other Muslims?"

Why indeed. I suppose he believes that the carnage inflicted by Al Qaeda and Zarqawi in Iraq is also a clever Jewish plot to destabilize Iraq. The unwillingness of Islam to face it own brutality and uncontrollable murderous rage is merely the primitive denial of projection and paranoia. It allows them to continue their self-deception that Islam is a religion of peace and that they are victims of the rage and insidious plotting of nefarious forces.

The definition of a scapegoat is "one that bears th e blame for others; one that is the object of irrational hostility."

Scapegoats are common when the psychological defenses of denial and projection are being used. Projection, to quickly remind you, is the psychological process of attributing one's own unacknowledged or unacceptable feelings, thoughts and behaviors to others.

The Arab world has this defense mechanism down pat. One of the expressions of a shame culture is the rampant psychological projection and refusal to accept responsibility for the atrocities committed in the name of Islam. Not only are we regularly subjected to imams, religious leaders, and leaders of Muslim states stating even now that 9/11 or the London bombings were not committed by Muslims; they also regularly blame the Jews for such acts. In this way they can avoid the shame of taking responsibility for evil.

The Arabs and the Islamic world are certainly not the only ones who have a marked preference for scapegoating the Jews rather than take responsibility for their own actions, feelings and thoughts. It is, in fact, a worldwide phenomenon.

The Jews--as exemplified by Israel--are the favored scapegoats of the modern world.

- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 11:03 AM |

Tuesday, April 25, 2006

Mixed Messages

- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 9:44 PM |

THE TOXICITY OF SLOPPY THINKING

As I mentioned before, the recent 9th Circuit Court decision regarding Harper v. Poway Unified School Dist., represents one of the greatest threats to our individual liberty in quite a while. Eugene Volokh has some further thoughts on a judge who would willingly uphold the constitutionality of pro-Taliban speech, but considers criticism of homosexuality as unprotected by that same constitution:

I'll say it again: Under existing First Amendment precedents, there is a viewpoint-neutral First Amendment exception for disruptive speech in schools. Sometimes speech that's hostile based on race, religion, or sexual orientation -- as well as speech that offends people for a wide variety of other reasons -- might indeed lead to substantial disruption, and thus might be restricted.

But this is at least a facially viewpoint-neutral standard that potentially applies to speech on all perspectives, and doesn't categorically cast out certain student viewpoints from First Amendment protection. While the standard isn't without its problems, it is at least basically consistent with the First Amendment principle of "equality of status in the field of ideas." And there are quite plausible arguments that the government as K-12 educator should have still broader authority over speech in public schools (though this too would be a viewpoint-neutral First Amendment exception). What bothers me is the Ninth Circuit's newly minted viewpoint-based First Amendment exception, which singles out certain ideas for lack of constitutional protection.

This is the sort of sloppy thinking that we've come to expect from many of the politically correct, multicultural crowd. It is disconcerting to see that the cognitive style that encourages thinking of that sort is pervasive in our culture and even in the judiciary--a place that we depend on to be free from the changing passions of the culture and champions of reason.

Ah well. Yet another institution done in by the political rhetoric and absurd fallacies of postmodern thought.

We are slowly being poisoned by the toxic effect this philosophical mutation has on reason, reality, and individual freedom.

- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 10:47 AM |

GEORGE W. BUSH, DISSIDENT; JOHN F. KERRY, OPPORTUNIST

Natan Sharansky on George W. Bush, dissident:

There are two distinct marks of a dissident. First, dissidents are fired by ideas and stay true to them no matter the consequences. Second, they generally believe that betraying those ideas would constitute the greatest of moral failures. Give up, they say to themselves, and evil will triumph. Stand firm, and they can give hope to others and help change the world.

Political leaders make the rarest of dissidents. In a democracy, a leader's lifeline is the electorate's pulse. Failure to be in tune with public sentiment can cripple any administration and undermine any political agenda. Moreover, democratic leaders, for whom compromise is critical to effective governance, hardly ever see any issue in Manichaean terms. In their world, nearly everything is colored in shades of gray.

That is why President George W. Bush is such an exception. He is a man fired by a deep belief in the universal appeal of freedom, its transformative power, and its critical connection to international peace and stability. Even the fiercest critics of these ideas would surely admit that Mr. Bush has championed them both before and after his re-election, both when he was riding high in the polls and now that his popularity has plummeted, when criticism has come from longstanding opponents and from erstwhile supporters.

With a dogged determination that any dissident can appreciate, Mr. Bush, faced with overwhelming opposition, stands his ideological ground, motivated in large measure by what appears to be a refusal to countenance moral failure.

I myself have not been uncritical of Mr. Bush. Like my teacher, Andrei Sakharov, I agree with the president that promoting democracy is critical for international security. But I believe that too much focus has been placed on holding quick elections, while too little attention has been paid to help build free societies by protecting those freedoms--of conscience, speech, press, religion, etc.--that lie at democracy's core.

Those who persist in portraying Bush as some evil mastermind, the Bushitler etc. etc. etc. who is determined to undermine American democracy and freedom are so far gone with BDS and out of touch with reality that they have lost all perspective and judgment.

Bush certainly has many failings and is by no means perfect. But on the issues of freedom and democracy -- he is a light in the darkness and voice in the wilderness compared to most people who presently identify themselves as "progressives" and "liberals".

President Bush's domestic policies are not particularly brilliant and may even be simplistic and obvious. When you observe President Bush you see what you expect: a normal man muddling along.

Many have accused me of idealizing President Bush, and while it is true that since 9/11 I admire him quite a bit, I hardly idealize him. On the contrary, what I find compelling about him are his obviously ordinary human qualities. He strikes me as a very REAL person--not a slick "persona" created by an ad agency; or a "celebrity" onto whom we project our own fantasies.

Nor is he a professional opportunist (who was against the war before he was for it and then against it again)--i.e., someone who believes whatever is necessary to get votes.

Bush does not pretending to be intellectually superior and can easily make fun of himself. Nor does it seem to matter much to him that everyone doesn't totally adore him. He tackles hard problems head on (which most politicians lack the courage to do) and perseveres in trying to fix them. He indeed "muddles along", misspeaks, and even screws up from time to time; but he presses on and actually gets things done.

With Bush, WYSIWYG. With John Kerry what you see today has nothing to do with what you will see tomorrow. Some will say that shows Kerry is "flexible" and "nuanced". I suggest that it shows that Kerry has a moral compass that only points in one direction--toward John Kerry. Bush thinks for himself; Kerry thinks of himself.

Certainly, no one is obligated to love or admire any US President. People have a right to dislike anyone they choose, including the POTUS. But the hatred of this president goes far beyond anything we have ever seen or recorded. And why? Because he is real; because he takes a stand; and because he dares to believe in something as politically uncorrect as the universality of the human desire for freedom.

And that is what will give him a well-deserved place in human history.

I'm sure that drives the deranged Bush haters nuts.

- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 10:26 AM |

LIVING IN A GANGSTA'S PARADISE

Check out this article about Hugo Chavezland and what a gangster's paradise it has become. Here's an excerpt:

On April 11 2006, Mexican authorities seized 5.5 tonnes of high purity cocaine in Ciudad del Carmen's airport. On August 3 2005, Dutch tax authorities and the sea harbour police seized 4.6 tonnes of cocaine in Rotterdam, the largest ever haul in the Netherlands. On October 13 2005, Spanish police seized 3.5 tons of cocaine in a fishing boat bound for Spain. On September 16 2005, 691 kilograms of cocaine were seized in the Tuscan port of Livorno, Italy. On December 14 2004, 1.141 tonnes of cocaine were seized in two separate operations in Kenya, the largest ever seizure in Africa. On May 16 1999, a Saudi prince, Nayef bin Sultan bin Fawwaz Al-Shaalan, smuggled 1.993 tonnes of cocaine into Paris on his personal aircraft under diplomatic immunity.

Aside from these major drug hauls, in most cases the greatest ever made in each of the countries, countless individuals have been arrested in European and North American airports for attempting to smuggle drugs. It is by no means coincidence that all the aforementioned cargos, huge or modest, originated in Venezuela; neither is it the periodicity of the apprehensions, which are in an ever augmenting curve.

Venezuela, under Hugo Chavez's tenure, has become, for all intents and purposes, a gangster's paradise. Drug traffickers, wanted terrorists and criminals seem to be able to live quite comfy under the lenient watch of a Venezuelan administration that has characterized itself for being totally immersed in the destruction of the country's institutions and international agreements to which it once formed part.

This is the man beloved by Cindy Sheehan and the mindless minions of the left.

Since Hugo Chavez has become president in 1998, the toll of violent death from crime has been multiplied by three. Violent crime has become the number one cause of death for young men between 15 and 25 year old. The weekend roll of death reads more like the death toll of a civil war than what 'normal' crime would read. Caracas has become the most violent capital of the Americas. The government seems helpless, bereft of ideas, or, worse, welcoming such a disaster that distracts people from the other woes that we suffer at the hand of the regime.

Check out the link because it shows tens of thousands protesting the Chavez regime. Chavez is a thug. Is this any surprise to anyone except the left, who are deaf, dumb, and blind when it comes to tyranny? They're usually too busy planning their little marches against America and Capitalism; and for Peace and Harmony to bother getting upset by the likes of Saddam and Fidel and Hugo.

Confronting real tyrants takes real courage.

Publius Pundit has more, as does this site. (hat tip: Free Thoughts)

- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 9:30 AM |

Monday, April 24, 2006

CLOSE YOUR EYES

The Fjordman has a really impressive and extremely depressing piece up at the Gates of Vienna. In it, he discusses the ongoing devolution of Scandanavia into the leading edge of Eurabia:

This week, Olav Versto, political editor of the largest newspaper in Norway, VG, supported the decision to keep sending money to the Palestinian Hamas government. VG as a newspaper was created during the resistance to Nazi occupation during WW2. It is a sad day for this country and this continent when institutions that fought Nazi Germany end up appeasing the anti-democratic forces of our age. Darkness is descending upon Europe when Europeans are no longer safe in their own cities from harassment by Muslim immigrants, and the only thing our so-called leaders do about this is recommending a 500% increase in the number of Muslims by letting Turkey into the EU, giving more money to Islamic terrorists and working to silence “Islamophobia” by their own people. But remember, Eurabia is a conspiracy theory only American simpletons believe, and Fjordman is just a racist, right-wing nutcase. Our state-sponsored Leftist newspapers tell us so, so it must be true. Close your eyes and think of Arafat, and everything will be fine.

The essay must be read in its entirety to understand how western societies--such as those in Sweden and Norway-- are being destroyed from within as the multicultural and politcally correct mindset of the leadership has already let in the barbarians in the gate; and it is just a matter of time now until control is passed to their new overlords and jihadist masters.

It is a cautionary tale for those of us in America; particularly those who would like to close their eyes and pretend that it can't happen here.

But it can and is.

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

WE WILL EXTERMINATE YOU !

Does that sound familiar? With the most recent release of Osama Bin Laden's threats against America and the West, it finally came to me he and his Al Qaeda thugs remind me of! I don't know why I didn't make this connection sooner, since I am a big Dr. Who fan (going back twenty years or so).

The Daleks are a ruthless extraterrestrial race bent on universal conquest and domination, utterly without pity, compassion or remorse. Their most infamous battlecry is "EX-TER-MIN-ATE!", with each syllable individually screeched in a frantic electronic voice (to hear the battlecry of the daleks, click here and run your mouse over the picture of the dalek).

Except for the "extraterrestrial" part, I think it is an accurate description of jihadis in general. The daleks have a mutant core of living material from which all emotion toward others not of their race has been bred out. They are surrounded by a metallic casing (that looks like a salt or pepper shaker) containing all the various lethal devices that allow them to kill (In jihadi terms, that would be represented by the various injunction in the Qu'ran regarding jihad and infidels).

Bin Laden is the emporer dalek, sitting in his cave on life support.

Exterminate! Exterminate! Exterminate!

- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 7:02 PM |

BLOGGER TROUBLES AND WORK RESPONSIBILITIES

There has been a problem with Blogger most of the day and my post from early this morning is now just showing up.

I don't know if the problem is now fixed or if it will return. I will be in a conference all week from the wee hours of the morning until 5 pm each day. As I mentioned before, I will try to get a post up early each morning, and will be posting in the evenings.

If Blogger cooperates, I should still be able to post a few times a day and then things will be back to normal on Friday when the conference is over.

- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 6:39 PM |

TOUCH AND GO !

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

In "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Rationality", GM at GM's Corner starts out discussing aging and cognitive decline; and then segues into the irrationality of many politicians; takes on the MSM, and finally the rampant BDS infecting the left. Obviously a great post since he quotes both ShrinkWrapped and myself!

Meanwhile a short hop over brings us toShrinkWrapped's site where a discussion of drugs, sex, rock and roll, and suicidality is underway. An excerpt:

The idea that we can proceed through life as if we are forever young, sustained by our adolescent sense of omnipotence and invulnerability, represents a form of suicidality masquerading as grandiosity. An adolescent who sniffs Cocaine at 19 may be troubled, may be destined for much more trouble in his future, but still is likely to survive his experimentation intact and has the chance to mature and repudiate the false euphoria that the drug offers in return for genuine life enhancing accomplishments. The aging depressed baby boomer risks his body and mind in return for an illusion of youthful power, freedom, and fleeting euphoria. They have chosen to avoid dealing with maturation in favor of a regressive return to the simplicity of drug intoxication. It is terribly sad, harmful to themselves and to their loved ones, and almost always ends in tragedy.

neo-neocon has a terrific post up about the Euston Manifesto--which is one positive sign that some people on the left have not completely lost sight of their liberal--and pro-freedom-- origins.

The super-sized profits at McDonald's are the topic at Dr. Helen's; and she thinks that if you want to take care of your health, you better take some responsibility --whether at McDonald's or Tofu Heaven. This dovetails nicely into what Dr. Bliss at Maggie's Farm is blogging about, as she takes on two economists who claim they can solve the problem of human unhappiness! They wish! Isn't it interesting that many people seem to think that our health and our happiness can only be achieved by government control?

Assistant Village Idiot meanwhile uses something he learned about marital therapy to understand some bloggers' attitudes towards certain presidents in a post titled "Always and Never".

And now, can you guess where we've touched down by this quote?

So the question is, in being inexplicably conceived and burped out of the cosmic voidgin, has time written us a check that eternity cannot cash? Is no body allowed to cross the phoenix line, or may we purchase a luxury corps at pentecost? Is the rend redeemable on our mirromortal garment, or are we nilled to a blank?

That's right! We've arrived at One Cosmos, the home of Gagdad Bob and his alter ego Petey. Bob only takles the BIG issues of life, the universe and everything! But he does it in a joyful style and has a lot of ~~pun~~ fun doing it! On this visit he's writing about "Gresham's Other Law: Bad Monkeys Drive Out Good".

Sigmund, Carl & Alfred versus the environmentalists. It's no match. The three analysts simply overwhelm:

How deeply can one hate oneself? Can we hate ourselves to death?
If you look around the liberal blogosphere and what passes for liberal thought today, we are all going to die soon. Global warming, use of fossil fuels, and depletion of fresh water by humans, are but a few examples of how we are ruining everything, forever. James Howard Kunstler solemnly states that 'this is a much darker time than 1938, the eve of World War II.' Jared Diamond (we wrote about his book, Guns, Germs and Steel) has a new book out, Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Survive, in which he places us on the precipice of a total societal collapse. These writers and the media are bombarding us with doomsday scenarios. Oil depletion, global warming, bird flu, are the result of human selfishness, cruelty and moral depravity.

Read the whole piece! Shrinkette is blogging about medical marijuana and how all patients using it seem to attribute side-effects and other problems to something else! Interesting.

Also extremely interesting is a discussion at Not Really A Cowboy about how legless snakes might have evolved from lizards. Cool pictures.

Time to swing around and return to home base!

**NOTE: Blogging will be light-to-non-existant until later tonight; as I'm going to be in a conference all week from the wee hours of the morning until after five pm. I'm going to try to get a post up before I leave each morning (a tribute to my obsessivenss)--but I'm not guaranteeing anything!

- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 2:01 PM |

Sunday, April 23, 2006

A TRAP ?

By now you know about Bin Laden's latest audio propaganda masterpiece; which the news media everywhere gleefully reports has the cave-dweller "denouncing" the west and it's crusade against Islam. And, oh yeah, he's really really upset at the peacekeepers in Darfur and wants jihadis to go there and fight.

DARFUR?

According to Walid Phares atThe Counterterrorism Blog who summarizes the ten main points made in the audiotape; point number three is:

Sudan: The Bashir Government is failing in stopping the Crusader War in Sudan. The Crusaders (Britain) has pushed the southerners (Blacks) to separate. The US has armed them and is supporting them. And now, because of tribal tensions in Darfour, the Crusaders are planning on intervening there. We are calling on the Jihadists to fight them in Darfour and Southern Sudan.

Apparently, there was no mention made of Iraq. Tigerhawk goes on to suggest that Darfur is Bin Laden's little way of "changing the subject."

But, let's not underestimate the guy. He and Zawahiri have been capable of thinking long-range and strategically to achieve their objectives. Instead, let's consider the possibility that by bringing up Darfur, which has practically fallen off the radar of the West by all accounts, even as the slaughter continues there; Bin Laden had a purpose in mind.

Remember, Al Qaeda has a long relationship with Sudan. In 1991, after Bin Laden was expelled from Saudi Arabia, he established headquarters for al-Qaeda in Khartoum, Sudan. It was from here that he took his first actions against American interests; attacking military personnel in Somalia, followed by a number of other terrorist attacks.

In 1994 Sudan—under pressure from Saudi Arabia and the U.S.—expelled bin Laden, who moved his base of operations to Afghanistan under the Taliban.

Afghanistan is lost.

This latest audiotape suggests by its omission of Iraq (which was the centerpiece of Bin Laden's the war on the Crusader two and a half years ago) that the Al Qaeda leader now realizes that Iraq is also lost to him unless he wants to kill lots of fellow Muslims. (NOTE: I give Bin Laden more credit for facing the truth than I give the MSM and the left, who are completely unable to see this reality).

Does Bin Laden expect that Darfur is going to be the next battleground in his jihad against the infidel--or, is he actually hoping that it will? Is this tape, in fact, designed to lure the West to finally taking action in Darfur?

If so, why? What does Bin Laden know about Darfur that we don't; and that makes him think it would be more successful than Iraq has been?

In February, 2006, the UN requested the US:

...to contribute troops to a UN peacekeeping force in Sudan's western Darfur region. The US currently provides logistic support (mostly airlift) to the African Union peacekeeping and monitoring force in Darfur. The European Union, Russia, and to a limited extent China, can provide some airlift, but the US is the only nation with the capability to provide sustained, long-range logistical support to a large force in eastern Chad and western Sudan. By "large force" we mean at least 15,000 to 20,000 troops with supporting helicopters and light armored vehicles.

I don't know the status of that request. But I suspect that Bin Laden is desperate to engage Americans. His entire PR campaign has been losing ground because of Zarqawi's reckless attempts to disrupt Iraq. Zarqawi has certainly been able to kill lots of Muslims and destroy important mosques, but the American death toll has been in decline for some time and Bin Laden knows that if he doesn't kill Americans, then he is in danger of losing his public support--both in the Arab world, and from the anti-American left that supports him.

Is it possible that he has resources (e.g., chemical or biological weapons; and personnel) already established there that have been put into place over the last several years when attention has been focused elsewhere? Is that his ace in the hole with regard to Darfur?

Or, does he see that Darfur would be considered by tpical American sentiments to be a perfect place to intervene militarily as Iraq winds down--a place where we can act out our rescue fantasies and show the world the "do-gooder" qualities that Bin Laden and his ilk consider our weakness?

I'm just asking these questions because it seems psychologically interesting to me that Darfur is centerstage again (quite suddenly from our perspective) in Bin Laden's worldview. I guess what I'm asking is: would we be playing into Bin Laden's gameplan if we intervened in Darfur; i.e., is it a trap?

Austin Bay has more; as does Instapundit.

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

CARNIVAL OF THE INSANITIES

Time for the weekly insanity update, 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!). So, if you want to remain sane, the best thing is to poke some fun at the more egregious absurdities.

Send all 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. RX: Take these two music videos, and call me in the morning. They're both really infectious in a good way.

2. What an amazing coincidence! Mary McCarthy looks just like Scooter Libby in this AP Photo! Speaking of the MSM, here's a headline that was on the front-page in red, all-capital letters. No attribution. Just stated as fact. But they regret it, so it's ok. Why ask why? If it doesn't advance the cause of the left, it isn't likely to make headlines.

3. A new meaning for the phrase "stiff competition"! Why do smart companies make dumb decisions?

4. It's like yo Zarks where u at?

5. Faculty politics with the addition of AK-47s and IEDs? Uh oh.

6. Apparently Allah will be upset if jail toilets face Mecca. There's just no pleasing some gods.

7. Be wary of door-to-door doctors... Be wary of these terms

8. It's all Bush's fault! But on the other hand, 50,000 innocent Americans died under Clinton! Where's the outrage?

9. This is all caused by gas? Interesting. This is all caused by foam (and its in my old stomping ground at Ellington Field in the Clear Lake area of Houston)

10. All good economic news is really bad, you see.

11. Communist chic. PC insanity. A peek at the future.

12. Meet the new Press Secretary -- Mr. Stick Figure ! Or, maybe it's this guy ! And, while I'm doing introductions, prepare to welcome your new overlord.

13. No question about it--boys are EVIL ! It's their emotional wiring, I guess. Girls are perfect, I guess. And in this case, the emotional wiring is apparently even better than perfect -- those evil heteronormatives....

14. Which is worse: Tornados ? or Ninjas in the heartland ?

16. Generals who oppose Rumsfeld... And here is the only conclusion that can be logically drawn from the latest words out of the mouth Iran's deranged president. Meanwhile, here's a start on the PC list of saints and sinners in the world.

17. The world's unsexiest man? I think I'd go with John Kerry. At least the duck is funny. Kerry is also bad for your brain.

18. Politics is religion. And that kind of religion is good; but religion religion is bad. Does that answer your question? If you're confused, the subject of this report is always good for a laugh.

19. Do you just love America like he does? Or, like she does?

20. How could we forget this tragic anniversary?

21. Nathan Hale Mary Pass? Football rivalries , spys and a great pun.

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

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

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:

Heard the Word of Blog?

- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 10:44 AM |

Saturday, April 22, 2006

Conspiracy Theory Tidbit ***UPDATED***

Here's a tidbit I just discovered for any conspiracy theorists out there. This information just appeared today (and is listed as updated on 4/22/06)in the Wikipedia article on Sandy Berger:

Berged [sic] selected Mary O. McCarthy for a top intelligence position at the National Security Council in the Clinton administration. McCarthy was reportedly fired by the Central Intelligence Agency in April 2006 for leaking classified information to journalists.

For the record, I am not a conspiracy theorist. However there is a pattern slowly emerging with regard to the deliberate undermining of national intelligence and foreign policy since 9/11 that is striking.

I will have more to say about this in the next few weeks.

UPDATE: Mark Levin has some comments:

Well, as of this morning (Saturday) most of the big media don't care. They're fixated with the weather and gas prices — and anything else that will divert the public's attention from the stunning revelation that a Sandy Berger crony has apparently been leaking top-secret information from her high post at the CIA. The media will continue to downplay this story as they cover-up their own role in exposing our nation's secrets, including the supposed existence of CIA prisons in Europe. She'll be called a "whistleblower" and praised as some kind of patriot (a patriot, in the eyes of the media, is anybody who undermines this administration and the war effort by leaking national security secrets to them). They will downplay that McCarthy was a Clintonoid who somehow managed to land a top post at the CIA, ultimately winding up in the CIA's Inspector General's Office, from where she could monitor CIA internal investigations of, well, leaks, among other things.

The news spin, to the extent attention is being paid to this by the big media outlets, is that McCarthy's firing is unprecedented! Or it's Bush's fault! In one of the most absurd comments by any newsman anywhere, Newsbusters.org notes that Bob Schieffer of CBS Evening News asserted that “it is no secret that the current administration does not like its people hanging out with news reporters without permission” and he described the firing as “a first — a dubious first, to be sure.” Here. Is this guy for real?

Let us see if this gets anywhere near the coverage that la affaire Plame generated in the media. It is already being completely discounted and rationalized as nothing serious by the usual dim bulbs that spin left. (AJ Strata has a big round-up). These are the same guys who continue to hyperventilate about Plame.

Both discounting and rationalization are techniques used by those in denial; and which I discuss in my series on dealing with psychological denial.

UPDATE II: Varifrank--who appears to be seeing some of the same connections as I do is asking some excellent questions. Here's a sample but go read them all:

4. How many "dots" are not being "connected" because half of the CIA is sitting in its cubicles frothing at the mouth in hatred over the words "President Bush". How many people have died due to someone elses Bush Derangement Syndrome?

5. At what point does the actions of someone like McCarthy stop being a "Leak" and start being a form of "shadow government"?

6. Its supposed to be the "Central Intelligence Agency", not the "Central Policy Agency". We didnt elect you Dr. McCarthy, you are not "the decider"; its not your call.

7. If a person will violate their security oath for political revenge, what wont they do?

8. What strikes me as most interesting about this case is that it appears that Dr. McCarthy has close working relationships with many people in the "anti-Bush" community and the Democrat party. Is this just a leak, or part of an attempt at a soft "coup"?

UPDATE: III: Hmmmmmm. Does it begin to seem like pieces of a puzzle are falling into place...?

UPDATE IV: UPDATE IV: Ace asks if it might have been McCarthy who sent Wilson to Niger! Gee, I should have named this post: "Mary McCarthy: The Missing Link"....

- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 5:17 PM |

TALIBANI ELECTED

Good news from Iraq and for Iraq today:

Iraq's parliament elected incumbent President Jalal Talabani, a Kurd, for a second term on Saturday as politicians began putting together a national unity government after four months of political deadlock.

Talabani, who has spent most of his life fighting for the cause of the Kurds in northern Iraq, is the first non-Arab president of an Arab country.

"This is the new Iraq. The new Iraq is an Iraq for all," Talabani told the parliament in a brief acceptance speech.

"Iraqi unity is sacred for all, so we should all work to reinforce this national unity."

I hope this is represents the next step in the development of a new Iraq that promotes life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for all its people.

For much more, Omar at Iraq the Model has a play by play description of the Iraqi Parliament's activities today.

- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 2:54 PM |

ALLIED WITH THE TRUTH

Wretchard at The Belmont Club has an excellent round-up of reaction to the CIA firing of Mary McCarthy for leaking classified information to the press. He comments:

Here's the problem as I see it. The leaky and politicized intelligence system has made it difficult to judge the truth value of any proposition. Did the Plame affair damage national security? Did Ms. McCarthy's actions damage national security? Is there someone lying dead in a gutter because somebody talked? The answer to those questions about the intelligence agencies is going to be answered by the intelligence agencies themselves. And so we come full circle to the modern version of the Cretan Paradox: which asserts that when a Cretan says 'all Cretans are liars' all logical roads lead to a contradiction. How then to know the truth about the lies? When intelligence agencies -- and I use that word broadly to encompass the press, which is the civilian intelligence system -- are politicized, then even our knowledge about our knowledge becomes uncertain.

This statement circumspectly approaches what I think is one of the fundamental issues of our time. When our knowledge about what we know becomes corrupted; when reason and logic appear to be inapplicable; when all we are seemingly left with is our emotions or feelings to guide us to "truth"; then "truth" becomes whatever each person or group happens to believe--and thus is not "truth" at all.

Human nature being what it is, there is always a powerful temptation to block out the implications of logic and reason when those implications force you to confront something unpleasant about your own beliefs. Any evidence that threatens those beliefs will simply be erased from one's knowledge base in favor of continuing to cling to the belief system. Dostoevsky wrote once in a letter that, "If anyone had written to me that the truth was outside of Christ, I would rather remain with Christ than with the truth."

And he basically summarizes the fundamental position of many people committed to secular, as well as traditional belief systems. As more and more sophisticated epistemological strategies for attacking reason, logic, truth and reality, are developed on the political left; we all find ourselves in a never-ending spiral of distortions, lies, betrayals, and escalating emotions.

Gagdad Bob wrote something the other day that I think relates to this issue:

I remember studying the psychoanalyst Otto Kernberg in graduate school, who is an extraordinarily lucid and deep thinker. A woman in class commented that he seemed rather cold, harsh and judgmental in discussing psychopathology. The brilliant Dr. Panajian was somewhat taken aback. How can truth be anything but compassionate? Truth precedes the good. Compassion is "doing the truth."

No, this does not mean that you clobber the patient over the head with it, with “sadistic interpretations.” Nevertheless, one of the enduring lessons I learned from Dr. Panajian is that in therapy you must always ally yourself with the epistemophilic part of the patient that deeply wishes to know the truth. For we have a healthy and uncorrupted part of our soul that yearns for truth, but other nocturnal parts that wish to deny it because they live by night.

A "good" (not in the moral sense) patient is someone who is so hungry for truth that they are able to tolerate its catastrophic impact without taking it out on the messenger. For others, it may take years of spadework to allow the truth to seep in. For them, unvarnished truth is not compassionate. But neither is allowing the Lie to stand, so it's a delicate balance.

As a therapist, I often conceptualize what I do in exactly this way. I see myself as allied with the truth in general; and with the truth-seeking part of each patient in particular. Patients may indeed need validation of their feelings; but even more than that, they need to be able to objectively evaluate reality and see the truth--no matter what they may be feeling. In other words, showing empathy for a patient's plight and acknowledging their feelings about their situation may provide them with transient validation and be helpful in establishing a good short-term relatinship with them; but if you are not also "doing the truth",then you are not going to help their lives improve in the long-run.

Compassion is not sitting around, crying and hugging them as they avoid the truth; it is bringing them to that truth, and standing with them in all their pain as they confront it.

Sometimes all you can do is ally yourself with the truth, and make a committment to uncover it, no matter what unpleasantness it leads to.

There are some serious betrayals of all that this country stands for going on right now. The body politic is confused and hurt and does not know where to turn or who to believe. They are being manipulated by those they trusted to bring them the truth; and instead have brought them postmodern rhetoric and a never ending circle of paradoxical accusations and hysteria.

In order to return to psychological health, the lies and distortions that support and encourage these betrayals need to be confronted and exposed and a committment to reality and the truth reaffirmed.

- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 12:24 PM |

Friday, April 21, 2006

THE OTHER SHOE

This is very good news; and long overdue. The only thing better will be when the media side of this treasonous equation is also called to account. Including the editors/management at the relevant media outlet(s) who let it happen.

It is my understanding that the reporter connected to the information leaked by this specific fired CIA employee; and the person who won a Pulitzer Prize for the story is Dana Priest of The Washington Post.

I am waiting impatiently for the other shoe to drop.

- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 9:47 PM |

POP PSYCHOLOGY AND THE LAW

This recent decision by the 9th Circuit court seems to suggest that speech is not protected when it might potentially "destroy the self-esteem" of someone else. Eugene Volokh comments:

Harper's speech is constitutionally unprotected, the Ninth Circuit just ruled today, in an opinion written by Judge Reinhardt and joined by Judge Thomas; Judge Kozinski dissented. According to the majority, "derogatory and injurious remarks directed at students' minority status such as race, religion, and sexual orientation" -- which essentially means expressions of viewpoints that are hostile to certain races, religions, and sexual orientations -- are simply unprotected by the First Amendment in K-12 schools. Such speech, Judge Reinhardt said, violates "the rights of other students" by constituting a "verbal assault[] that may destroy the self-esteem of our most vulnerable teenagers and interfere with their educational development.".

This isn't limited to, say, threats, or even personalized insults aimed at individual student. Nor is there even a "severe or pervasive" requirement such as that requirement to make speech into "hostile environment harassment" (a theory that poses its own constitutional problems, but at least doesn't restrict individual statements).(Emphasis mine)

Once again, we are witness to freedom being sacrificed on the altar of political correctness. We are to assume that it is a protection of free speech for a certain group (of course, they must be a protected "victim" group to qualify) to march, protest and/or have their viewpoint expressed; but anyone who counters their viewpoint does not have their speech protected because it might hurt the victim group's feelings and damage their self-esteem.

This is not good for free speech. Those who today delight in such decisions simply because they assert that homophobia is "wrong" and must be squashed wherever it pops up, might have second thoughts when the authorities decide that their viewpoint on something is "wrong". For example, imagine the outrage if this T-shirt were banned at a school.

I happen to think that K-12 schools should have some limited rights to control students' behavior and even speech within the school in order to maintain some discipline. Students are not adults; and the courts have generally upheld some restrictions on their speech for this reason. Nevertheless, in the Harper case, it was the school itself that apparently permitted/encouraged the first political demonstration/statement for gay rights, that led to Harper's response. If the one position is ok with the school; then the other must be permitted--or so it seems to me.

Even worse, is the politically correct rationale--the "self-esteem" issue. In a previous post on this topic, I wrote:

For years now, pop psychology and its gurus have mesmerized the culture at large. All their self-help tenets have percolated through K-12 educational curricula; and been accepted wholeheartedly by the cultural elite of Hollywood and the intellectual elite of academia.

The triumvarate of contradictions that claims to be based on "scientific" psychology includes the hyping of (1) self-esteem (increasing your self-worth without having to achieve anything; (2) hope (achieving your goals without any real effort) and (3) victimhood (it's not your fault that you haven't achieved anything or made any effort).

In a previous post, "Self Esteem Is Not Necessarily Good For You" I stated:

The pop-psychology that promulgated the widespread belief that if you nurture kid's self-esteem neglected to mention that if the sense of self was already damaged, all you managed to do was to create a narcissistic monster...it was a waste of time and money--as this article reports. If the 19th century was the age of hysteria (and basically, Freud was responding to the excessive sexual repression present in that century); then the 20th was the age of narcissism. In this new century, that narcissism seems to be morphing into an even more malignant sociopathy that pervades society and impacts almost all our social, political, and educational institutions.

Our cultural focus on enhancing "self-esteem" has resulted in the near-worship of emotions and feelings at the expense of reason and thought; on emphasizing "root causes" and victimhood, instead of demanding that behavior be civilized and that individuals exert self-discipline and self-control--no matter what they are "feeling".

We see the people who have inhaled this "psychology-lite" everywhere around us, and in all levels of society. Particularly we can notice it in the elites of Hollywood and Academia; who alternate between acting out their narcissistically empowered superiority -- demanding to be noticed, admired and loved (by you); and playing the narcissistically empowered victim -- demanding their inalienable rights and priveleges (at your expense).

I suppose hyping self-esteem, hope, and victimhood seemed like a good idea at the time. But now that we can see how foolish and deceptive it is---and how ineffective and counterproductive--perhaps it is time to end the influence of pop psychology in public policy?

Or have I just asked an insensitive question that will generate a new group of victims composed of people who feel belittled and hopeless about all this?

You may think that the issue involved in the Harper case is confined to K-12. Think again. Just recently, we had the adult version outrageously displayed in all its glorious feel-good narcissism at Ohio State University where several individual faculty were upset at a librarian who recommended books they disagreed with and charged him with "sexual harassment. The OSU Mansfield faculty as a group then voted to launch a sexual harassment investigation because a librarian offered book suggestions in a committee whose purpose was to solicit such suggestions.

Do you begin to see what a society based on bruised feelings and deficits of self-esteem may lead to? I may seek legal redress myself, since the damage to my own self-esteem is incalculable when ~~morons~~ people who don't agree with me read books I don't like, while wearing nasty tee shirts that hurt my feelings.

This kind of politically correct nonsense is probably the greatest threat to our individual liberty that exists today. I am hardly a legal scholar, but politically correct pop psychology and feel-good pseudoscience seem to me to be dangerous foundations on which to base legal decisions about free speech.

The only comfort is in knowing that the 9th Circuit's Judge Reinhard--who authored the majority decision--has a record of having his opinions overturned by higher--and more sensible-- courts.

The law is reason, free from passion. -Aristotle

- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 5:03 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.

BEST COUNCIL POSTS:

First Place

Arrogant District Refuses To Protect White Students Rhymes With Right

Second Place

Hate Central The Sundries Shack

BEST NON-COUNCIL POSTS:

First Place

Do We Need Religion? Part Wolfgang Bruno

Second Place

Iran Extravaganza Post The Adventures of Chester

Be sure to check out all the winners at the Watcher's Site! Great weekend reading.

- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 4:07 PM |

TEST

This is a TEST.

Sorry, All--Blogger has been down and most of my posts have disappeared this morning. If this gets through, then I will have more later.

- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 12:09 PM |

TRUELY, MADLY

Absolutely insane. But what else can you expect from the United Nations and Kofi?

Time to update the old song:

I AM THE VERY MODEL OF A SECRETARY GENERAL

Kofi:
I am the very model of a Secretary-General,
I specialize in matters both nefarious and criminal,
I know the heads of every state, preferring those inimical
to all the freedom-loving institutions democratical;
I'm very well acquainted, too, with matters philosophical,
And letting Iran have their nukes is definitely practical;
The mullahs have some lovely plans that they've discussed with the EU
No matter now what happens next, we all can simply blame the Jew

ENTIRE UN:
No matter now what happens next, we all can simply blame the Jew!
No matter now what happens next, we all can simply blame the Jew!
No matter now what happens next, we all can simply blame the Jew!

KOFI:
I'm very good at making statements quite ridiculous;
And when it comes to Iran you can never be too credulous;
In short, in matters both nefarious and criminal,
I am the very model of a Secretary General.

ENTIRE UN:
In short, in matters both nefarious and criminal,
He is the very model of a Secretary General!

KOFI:
In fact, when I know what is meant by "integrity" and "honesty",
When I can mumble all my lies with obvious sincerity,
And keep the free world all locked up in its myopathy,
And when I know precisely what they mean by my "psychopathy";
When progress has been made in treating antisocial personality,
When I know more of leadership than Mahmoud knows reality--
In short, when I've a smattering of elementary common sense,
This Secretary General will figure out a strong defense.

ENTIRE UN:
This Secretary General will figure out a strong defense!
This Secretary General will figure out a strong defense!
This Secretary General will figure out a strong defense!

KOFI:
I stand up for dictatorships through slyness and duplicity,
And so I can support Iran by way of sheer complacency;
Because, in matters both nefarious and criminal,
I am the very model of a Secretary General!

ENTIRE UN:
But still, in matters both nefarious and criminal,
He is the very model of Secretary General!

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

Thursday, April 20, 2006

HOW TO MAKE PROBLEMS GO AWAY!

George Orwell could not be reached for comment.

Using the words in a few sentences:

On a fine September morning, several de-animating party crashers expressed their Holy Roller philosophy to the party's reluctant guests. They were only trying to establish the right of the United Nations to apply common sense and affirmative action around the world. Eventually the party crashers cut off debate so they could return to one of their favorite pastimes: pest control.

That doesn't sound to bad, does it? Proof positive that Islam is a religion of peace and the EU is run by a ~~bunch of morons~~ group of hyperspatial pandimensional beings, far superior to mere humans.

(hat tip: Betsy's Page)

- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 10:17 PM |

Captain Victimhood!

This cartoon just struck me as somehow appropriate these days. You can go here for a handy-dandy idiot's guide to victimhood -- in case you want to to brush up on your victimhood-seeking skills.

NOTE: I have been in clinic all day and just got home. Blogging has been light because I AM A VICTIM OF THE NEVERENDING DEMANDS OF MY JOB! Pity poor little old me and leave something in my tip jar.... (no pity allowed without accompanying tips!)

Anyway, I thought I'd try this approach to appeal to the lefty trolls who come here.

- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 8:36 PM |

WITH A WHACK OF HIS CLUB

Christopher Hitchens during an interview with Hugh Hewitt:

By the way, I can't say that I think that Mr. Bush at his worst is as bad as President Clinton was. That's eight years down the American drain right there. The first eight, those post-Cold War years, thrown away by a narcissist and a crook. For the nomination of worst ever president, I can't, I really, though I have many, many quarrels with President Bush, I cannot believe that people would say he was worse than Mr. Nixon or Mr. Carter, just to stay in modern times...or Kennedy.

He was responding to this article.

Hitchens also had something to say about presidential power since 9/11:

CH: I mean, there's no question. I'm really glad that it wasn't Al Gore who was in charge that day. He might have declared martial law, because look what Clinton and Gore did just after Oklahoma City, which was relatively a pin prick event. They passed a law that the ACLU says is the most repressive in American history, the Anti-Terrorism and Death Penalty Act, an absolutely beyond believable violation of civil liberties that didn't, in its provocation, didn't rise anywhere near 9/11.

HH: Now Wilentz also writes, "No previous president appears to have squandered the public's trust more than Bush has." Let's go back a little bit further to Lyndon Johnson.

CH: That's flat-out ludicrous.

HH: (laughing)

CH: I mean, he can't...do his ears hear what his voice is saying? I mean, he knows better even without turning over in bed. President Johnson was really not believed on anything after the Gulf of Tonkin resolution, and probably rightly not. President Nixon had to cop a plea which I seem to remember Justice Holmes regarded, ruled was an admission of guilt, rather than face impeachment after being caught lying, and using the apparatus of the State to lie. And if...by the way, Mr. Wilentz means, or Professor Wilentz means things like the Niger uranium as deception and credibility, well, he's got to go on the same rethink everyone's going to have undergo when they realize that claim originally was true.

Let me ask my readers if they think that Wilentz' article should be taken seriously? After all, here is an historian--supposedly reputable--who is assessing the history of the Bush Administration before his term of office is even over. And before there can be any historical perspective on the monumental changes Bush unleashed in American foreign policy; and specifically in the Middle East.

This seems to me just another attempt to manipulate "history" --or what people think is history--by distorting the present reality so that is conforms with your preset notions. It smacks of a desperate need to hold onto outdated ideas and policies that never worked to begin with; but which are looked at longingly because change is difficult to deal with.

All you need to do is keep in mind that many people like Wilentz said pretty much the same thing about Ronald Reagan while he was in office, then changed their tune within a few years when the consequences of his policies bore fruit internationally.

I'm willing to wait for history's judgment on Bush. He's not finished yet. But a lot of people are trying to do him in.

Remember the bit from Monty Python and the Holy Grail?
The Dead Collector: Bring out yer dead.
[a man puts a body on the cart]
Large Man with Dead Body: Here's one.
The Dead Collector: That'll be ninepence.
The Dead Body That Claims It Isn't: I'm not dead.
The Dead Collector: What?
Large Man with Dead Body: Nothing. There's your ninepence.
The Dead Body That Claims It Isn't: I'm not dead.
The Dead Collector: 'Ere, he says he's not dead.
Large Man with Dead Body: Yes he is.
The Dead Body That Claims It Isn't: I'm not.
The Dead Collector: He isn't.
Large Man with Dead Body: Well, he will be soon, he's very ill.
The Dead Body That Claims It Isn't: I'm getting better.
Large Man with Dead Body: No you're not, you'll be stone dead in a moment.
The Dead Collector: Well, I can't take him like that. It's against regulations.
The Dead Body That Claims It Isn't: I don't want to go on the cart.
Large Man with Dead Body: Oh, don't be such a baby.
The Dead Collector: I can't take him.
The Dead Body That Claims It Isn't: I feel fine.
Large Man with Dead Body: Oh, do me a favor.
The Dead Collector: I can't.
Large Man with Dead Body: Well, can you hang around for a couple of minutes? He won't be long.
The Dead Collector: I promised I'd be at the Robinsons'. They've lost nine today.
Large Man with Dead Body: Well, when's your next round?
The Dead Collector: Thursday.
The Dead Body That Claims It Isn't: I think I'll go for a walk.
Large Man with Dead Body: You're not fooling anyone, you know. Isn't there anything you could do?
The Dead Body That Claims It Isn't: I feel happy. I feel happy.
[the Dead Collector glances up and down the street furtively, then silences the Body with his a whack of his club]
Large Man with Dead Body: Ah, thank you very much.
The Dead Collector: Not at all. See you on Thursday.
Large Man with Dead Body: Right.

With a whack of his club, the noted historian makes a desperate attempt to silence uncomfortable reality.

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

Wednesday, April 19, 2006

A MOTHER'S NIGHTMARE

Tell me again why we shouldn't question the left's patriotism?:

Hand over heart, my son belted out the Pledge with gusto every morning and memorized and sang "The Star-Spangled Banner." I never stopped resisting the urge to sit down in silent protest during the Pledge. But I also never failed to get choked up when they sang "America the Beautiful."

Listening to their little voices, I felt guilty for being a non-believer. When I was 5 years old, in 1965, did I understand what my lefty parents were saying about the Kennedy assassination, Watts and dead-soldier counts? Who was I to deprive my son, or his eleven kindergarten chums, of their faith in a nation capable of combining "good with brotherhood?" In a 5-year-old's perfect world, perhaps such places should exist.

That November, at the school's annual Veterans Day program, the children performed the trucker anthem "God Bless the USA" (one of the memorable lines is "Ain't no doubt I love this la-aand, God bless the USA-ay!"), as their parents sang along. About a dozen local veterans -- ancient men who had served in World War II, and men on the cusp of old age who had served in Korea and Vietnam -- settled into folding chairs arranged beneath the flag. When the students were finished singing, the principal asked the veterans to stand and identify themselves. Watching from the audience, I wondered if anyone would speak of the disaster unfolding in Iraq (which was never a word of the week).

No one did. The men rose and stated name, rank and theater. Finally, a burly, gray-bearded Vietnam veteran rose and said what no one else dared. After identifying himself, he choked out, "Kids, I just hope to God none of you ever have to experience what we went through." Then he sat down, leaving a small pocket of shocked silence. No one applauded his effort at honesty. On the contrary, the hot gym air thickened with a tension that implicitly ostracized the man, and by extension -- because we agreed with him -- me and my husband.
[...}
In simple language, I told my son that our president had started a war with a country called Iraq. I said that we were bombing cities and destroying buildings. And I explained that families just like ours now had no money or food because their parents didn't have offices to go to anymore or bosses to pay them. "America did this?" my son asked, incredulous. "Yes, America," I answered. He paused, a long silent pause, then burst out: "But Mommy, I love America! I want to hug America!"

At the time of this mother's nightmare experience because her son was so brainwashed to actually love America, her son was five. years. old.

In case you don't remember, the author is the person who had announced that she "would be happy to give [Bill Clinton] a blowjob just to thank him for keeping abortion legal. I think American women should be lining up with their presidential kneepads on to show their gratitude for keeping the theocracy off our backs." (hat tip: The Corner)

You make the diagnosis. I'll wait until you finish throwing up.

One thing, though. This is the second story of personal anguish (the first one here) we have had to listen to this week. Such openness and obvious expectation of universal kudos and praise for courageously speaking such self-absorbed pap, surely indicates that the virulent disease that infects the left is reaching a critical point and the pus is now oozing out.

The prognosis remains guarded to poor.

UPDATE: MaxedOutMama (speaking on a slightly different, but relevant topic) is able to see what is "...fascist to its ugly, petty core." Heh. And they call themselves...progressives. (hat tip: SC&A)

- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 5:30 PM |

NEW DEMANDS FOR RESIGNATION !

At last! Some calls for resignations that I can agree with!

Aren't there any retired journalists who will speak out?

File this under: Humor is Good!

- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 3:14 PM |

LITTLE LEFTISTS

Malvina Reynolds, a folk songwriter (what an interesting name...hmmmm), reportedly looked up at a pastel-colored Daly City hill-side and said to her husband: "Bud, take the wheel. I feel a song coming on." The result was "Little Boxes". Pete Seeger later recorded it.

Somehow I imagine Serenity's Mal Reynolds looking down at this little blue planet today and maybe also feeling a song coming on--that is, if he sang, which he probably doesn't. But it might go something like this:

LITTLE LEFTISTS

Little leftists all in synergy,
Little leftists made of ticky-tacky,
Little leftists, little leftists,
Little leftists, all the same.
There's a green one and a pink one
And a red one and a rainbow one
And they're all made out of ticky-tacky
And they all look just the same.

And the young ones in the high schools
All go to the university,
And they all emerge as leftists,
Little leftists, all the same.
And there's feminists and professors,
And investigative journalists,
And they're all made out of ticky-tacky
And they all think just the same.

And they all quote from the same script,
And enjoy postmodern rhetoric,
And have children above average,
And the children start to think.
And the children have high self-esteem
And then go to the university,
And they all emerge as leftists
And they all act just the same.

And the boys all learn to hate themselves,
And they live with little feminists,
And marriage doesn't mean a thing
Little leftists, all the same.
There's a green one and a pink one
And a red one and a rainbow one
And they're all made out of ticky-tacky
And they all talk just the same.

- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 10:38 AM |

Tuesday, April 18, 2006

HOW TO WIN FRIENDS (AND ENEMIES) AND INFLUENCE PEOPLE

Well, this made my day!

Bloggers and internet pundits are exerting a "disproportionately large influence" on society, according to a report by a technology research company. Its study suggests that although "active" web users make up only a small proportion of Europe's online population, they are increasingly dominating public conversations and creating business trends.
[...}
"We're seeing this growing," said Julian Smith, an online advertising analyst with Jupiter Research and author of the report. "The strongest part of their influence is on the media: if something online suddenly becomes a story in the local press, then it matters."

Although unprompted contributors are generally younger and more vocal than the wider online population, they are increasingly important as opinion formers and trend-setters. Mr Smith says businesses, media organisations and advertisers reading blogs should be wary of making assumptions about their wider significance, but that their muscle cannot be ignored.

"They're not representative of the larger audience, but what they're saying does matter," he said. "It's a good straw poll - a snapshot of the verbal conversations going on that we can't measure."

"That's exactly right," said Glenn Reynolds, author of An Army of Davids, which explores the explosion in web punditry. "Bloggers and blog-readers are 'influentials' - the minority that pays attention to events outside of political and news cycles. They also tend on average to be better off, better educated and, more importantly, employed."

Apparently there are over 35 million (!) blogs out there. Of course, not everyone can be Glenn Reynolds....but it is nice to know that a person can make a difference.

So, if you want to win friends (and enemies) and influence people--join the army. An Army of Davids!

- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 8:26 PM |

WELCOME THE NEW OVERLORDS

Besides the usual fanatacism associated with religious lunacy, do you wonder why Ahmadinejad is so contemptuous of the U.S.; and so arrogantly sure that he has the upper hand and can win in any fight?

Well one reason might be the following: From 1980 - 1988 Iran was engaged in a brutal war with Iraq and during those eight years approximately 600,000 Iranians were killed. (The total death toll was about 1 million for both sides). That translates to approximately 211 Iranians killed per day; each and every day of the war for 8 years.

Hence, it took approximately 10 days in the Iran-Iraq war to achieve the death toll that America has accumulated over 3 years in Iraq.

I am not going to say the trite qualification that inevitably is sincerely uttered each time this statistic is brought up (you know- "Every death is a tragedy blah blah blah"). I am not going to say it, because it is insulting and demeans every single member of the U.S. military who volunteered to be at the front line of danger for this country.

EVERY DEATH EVERYWHERE FOR ANY REASON IS A TRAGEDY. And get this: EVERYONE IS GOING TO DIE SOMETIME.

Now, having said that, some deaths have more meaning than other deaths; just as some lives do.

By making the absolute death count the ONLY issue of importance, the left has given our enemies a very powerful weapon. Neo-neocon appropriately notes:

It's interesting that, as our desire and our ability to minimize civilian casualties increases, the enemy has become more and more wedded to exactly the opposite tactic: the deliberate murder, with malice aforethought, of civilians. And this is contemplated and executed not as unavoidable "collateral damage" in the pursuit of other targets, but as a purposeful strategy to strike terror into the heart of what they perceive to be our softened and excessively tender Western sensibilities. They realize that that is a very good way to reach us, perhaps the most economical and parsimonious of all.

What a paradox: our own desire to wage war that is more humane, and our incredible advances in war technology, have resulted in an enemy strategy aimed to counterbalance our advantages with exactly the opposite modus operandi. And in the meantime, our military planners are criticized for conducting a war that has any casualties at all, one which features the usual errors attendant in any war.

This demand for an unreasonable standard--the near-perfect execution of an inherently imperfect endeavor, war--seems to me to be linked to a similar desire for perfection in our everyday lives. It's easier than ever (although never quite easy) to leave a marriage if it doesn't fulfill our every need. We expect perfect health and extreme longevity as our birthright. And we try to arrange it so that our children never know want or fear (or that horror of horrors, a blow to their sacred self-esteem). (Emphasis mine)

That is the strategic advantage that Ahmadinejad thinks he has. He is willing sacrifice as many Iranians as it takes (and in his estimation, it shouldn't take too many) to make Americans feel it isn't worth it to fight.

Cindy Sheehan and her ilk believe that the fight against tyranny isn't worth a single life. Most of the lunatic left have taken the position that America has nothing worth fighting for anyway.

Since Vietnam, the American public has been bamboozled into thinking that every war is a quagmire; every military option wrong and immoral (especially if a Republican in office); and that if something does not work out perfectly right away, then it should be abandoned.

The Democratic party leaders would willingly surrender in a flash if the polls went against them.

All this is not to say that we should stop our efforts to minimize deaths and casualties and wage war as humanely as possible. But if we cannot even muster the strength of will to accept that war is not fundamentally a humane undertaking and that lives will be lost no matter how careful we are; and that the unexpected will happen no matter how obsessively we plan--then there is no war anywhere that we could possibly win.

We should simply plan on welcoming our new overlords. Ms. Sheehan and the rest would be perfect in executing that function, having already allied themselves in spirit with them.

Ahmadinejad and the mullahs have some really good reasons to expect that a confrontation with the U.S. can only bring victory for Iran and humiliation for the U.S.

UPDATE: At least one Democratic leader is willing to stand up for this country--Joe Lieberman. I wonder how long he'll be welcome in his party?

- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 7:26 PM |

HIGH ANXIETY II

Anxiety is a normal emotional and physiological response to feeling threatened. There are two fundamental ways to deal with anxiety.

-AVOIDING THE PERCEIVED THREAT

Anxiety is a very unpleasant sensation. It is well-known that avoiding fear-provoking situations or activities stops anxiety and brings considerable relief from the symptoms. In other words, by not facing your fear you feel better. Why make yourself more anxious? It seems very sensible to take steps to avoid a fearful situation--at least in the beginning.

In the short-term avoidance may give you a sense of control and a feeling that you have conquered your anxiety and eliminated the threat.

Your feelings about this are incorrect. The threat doesn't usually go away because you close your eyes. But, it is true that you do feel less threatened for a brief time.

-CONFRONTING/FACING THE PERCEIVED THREAT

On the other hand, confronting the threat may temporarily increase your anxiety and is very uncomfortable. Obviously it takes a great deal of personal courage to face what one does not want to face. The thing is that it is not the anxiety that can kill you--no matter how bad it feels. It is the threat that you are anxious about that finishes you off--not the anxiety or fear you have.

Thus, anxiety is actually an emotional red flag that tells you something is threatening and that you have to do something about it. By focusing on the anxiety instead of the actual threat it signals, you put yourself at greater risk.

So, what shall we do?

Avoid the threat, close our eyes and pretend that it doesn't exist, and focus on something else?

Or,

Acknowledge the threat and Deal with it?

You can probably guess my recommendation.

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

Monday, April 17, 2006

STRATEGIES FOR DEALING WITH DENIAL - Part III

In this final essay, I will discuss strategies for dealing with denial in one's self and in others. I apologize in advance for the length; but bear with me because I think this is an important topic.

Part I is here.
and Part II is here.

At the center of all psychological denial is a hidden agenda. That agenda is usually not completely conscious--meaning that the denier has not thought through the issues surrounding his denial; and may not even be aware of what his motivation is in asserting something is true when it isn't; or false when it isn't.

Denial need not be absolute and completely cut off from reality. Even among alcoholics and drug users there is a varying level of awareness of their problem. Some accept that they are in jail or sick because of their substance use, but yet are still not willing to do anything about it. Some may recognize some facts about their drinking (like that they get put in jail), but completely deny the impact of those facts on themselves or their families; or the future implications of continued drinking or drug use (e.g., that they are killing themselves and will die).

The hidden agenda or underlying motivation behind the denial is very frequently related to the potential adverse consequences that could ensue if the denial were eliminated and reality acknowledged. That is where the unnacceptable feelings, needs, and thoughts come in. The denier (or part of him) has made an unconscious decision that awareness of certain feelings, needs, or thoughts is more threatening to his sense of self than the act of denial.

As an example, consider a person who develops a chronic cough. He might rationalize to themselves that his cough is because of a lack of humidity in the air; or because he has a slight infection; and most certainly is not a result of his smoking habits. He could go see a doctor, but doesn't, telling himself he is fine. As the cough gets worse, he become even more creative in his thinking about it (or not thinking about it) and is "too busy" to see a doctor; or tend to minimize the symptom even as it worsens.

This strategy of ignoring the problem goes on for some time--maybe months. The person may next fail to notice that he is losing weight and looking a bit drawn-out. The rationalizations now even include benign explanations for the specks of blood that can be seen in the cough. Finally, after much resistance, a loved one firmly intervenes--or the person faces the truth, confronts the issue-- and schedules an appointment. After a few tests, lung cancer is diagnosed. The prognosis is very poor because the cancer has already progessed to advanced stages during the months of denial.

Why would such a person deny the symptom to begin with? Because by denying the symptom, the person can pretend that everything is normal. Early on, when the symptom is new or minor, this possiblity may even be true. But as the evidence accumulates that something is very wrong; the person has now entered a phase of magical thinking and/or fantasy where he effortlessly pretends to himself that everything is as he wishes it to be. Eventually, the individual may become totally psychologically invested in believing that nothing is wrong ("lalalalala I can't heaaaar you"), and reacts (or overreacts) with anger and rage toward anyone who questions his view of things.

The entire act of denial was initiated to begin with by the psyche for a good psychological reason-- to temporarilly supress awareness that something was wrong--while the person struggled with the effort to face that possibility.

That awareness was so frightening, that a temporary psychological bargain evolved into a binding contract that allows the person to suspend cognition and reason so that he is able to ignore any knowledge or evidence that alters his fantasy reality.

Unfortunately, if the person really does have a cancerous process going on within them, it is completely unaffected by the psychological bargain made by the psyche. There are certain rules that govern the progression of cancers and they will be in force, whether or not the person is aware of them or not. Hence, the denier has made a short-term pact to feel better at the expense of his long-term health. In the case of this type of cancer, he has chosen to enjoy a period of relative complacency and blissful ignorance at the cost of catching the cancer earlier when it might be more treatable. In the long-run his unconscious choice is a very bad one.

But the reality is that some people in denial prefer the lethal consequences of their denial as long as they don't have to question their own motivations, beliefs, and ideologies.

Those individuals, groups, or nations who live in the world of deep denial are practically untouchable by reality or rational argument. They go through their daily lives secure in the knowledge that their self-image is protected against any information, feelings, or awareness that might make them have to change their view of the world. Nothing--not facts, not observable behavior; not the use of reason, logic, or the evidence of their own senses will make them reevaluate that world view.

All events will simply be reinterpreted to fit into the belief system of that world--no matter how ridiculous, how distorted, hysterical or how psychotic that reinterpretation appears to others. Consistency, common sense, reality, and objective truth are unimportant and are easily discarded--as long as the world view remains intact. As discussed in Part II, there are countless strategies --rhetorical ploys and logical fallacies--that can be used to keep the truth at bay.

Identifying the underlying motivational factors are important to understand the phenomenon of denial; the reasons why denial is used; and the overally psychology of deniers--whether they are individuals, groups, or even entire nations. There are limitations to this kind of analysis, however; and it is that exposing a motivation or even a hidden agenda in denial is not the same thing as a rational argument or analysis of what the denier is saying or arguing.

In a therapeutic relationship (i.e. therapist /patient) theoretically, a person in denial and the therapist collaborate and work together to discover the underlying problem. Even when very motivated to change, it is often the case that the denier exhibits a great deal of resistance to the idea that he or she is in denial.

In real life (not a therapeutic or professional relationship) we all have to deal with people in denial, and getting a person to accept that he or she is in denial is even more problematic. Unless there is a serious crisis in the person's life, there is little or no incentive for a person to emerge from the comforting cocoon of denial and rationalization--particularly when the consequences of doing so are more threatening to the sense of self than remaining ignorant or oblivious to one's true motivations.

What the psychiatrist does when a patient uses any psychological defense to interfere with treatment is to interpret the defense.

In psychiatry, particularly in psychoanalysis, the psychological defenses --especially the immature ones such as denial and projection --often stand in the way of a person being able to understand the source of their dysfunction and to deal with reality. These unconscious mechanisms act to protect the individual from reality by distorting that reality.

That is why I sound like a broken record and talk about DENIAL, PROJECTION and PARANOIA (see here and here for example) over and over again. Each time I observe such defenses, I work to get those who are using them to be conscious of what they are doing. Only then can they change their behavior.

Ultimately, an individual must CHOOSE to deal with reality. Noone can make anyone face a terrible truth they wish to avoid. One of the purposes of this blog is to "shine a psychological spotlight" on the maladaptive responses to the realities of our world.

A crisis may stimulate self-analysis and make the person more open to reflection and insight; but waiting for a crisis to happen, especially when someone's denial threatens your own well-being, is frustrating and irritating, to say the least. Also, those who have to deal with people outside of a therapeutic alliance, have neither the patience or desire to wait for the hoped-for epiphany in the denier.

Sometimes a crisis occurs (e.g. the events of 9/11) that should shake everyone out of their complacency for all time--but sadly, even that horrible day was not enough to open the eyes of some.

We have discussed the many faces of denial; i.e., the different psychological mechanisms used to facilitate and maintain an avoidance of a painful truth or reality; and we have discussed some of the cognitive tricks that are used to pretend to the rest of the world that one's fantasy is reality. What are the consequences of denial--both the positive (and there must be positive ones) and the negative?

THE CONSEQUENCES OF DENIAL

Positive consequences of denial include:

• In the short-term, psychological denial can help a person maintain their sanity--which would be threatened by awareness of a painful truth or reality
• In the short-term, denial can help a person function day to day
• In the short-term, denial can prevent a person from having to acknowledge painful thoughts, feelings or behavior and help them maintain their worldview from unacceptable reality

In the short-term, defenses--even denial-- may be creative, healthy, comforting, and coping. While they may strike observers as downright peculiar, in the short-term, they may be adaptative. Denial is a way to integrate one's experience by providing a variety of filters for pain and mechanisms for self-deception. It creatively rearranges the sources of conflict so that it becomes manageable.

Some negative consequences of denial include:

• In the longer-term, denial requires continued compromises with reality to maintain the pretense that "Everything is fine!" or "If only X would happen, everything would be fine!" Eventually, delusional thinking, along with paranoia and the inevitable conspiracy theories begin to take the place of rational thought in those who deny reality for long periods of time.

• The denier must then place the blame for the unacceptable reality on someone else and that leads to increased conflict between deniers and non-deniers. Efforts to maintain their denial consumes them and will lead them to escalate their anger and rage as their denial becomes untenable and ever more obvious.

• The denier will begin distort language and logic to rationalize and justify their behavior. Eventually, cognitive strategies and rational argument will be abandoned altogether by the denier, because those strategies are not sustainable and are unable to convince others; at which point the person in denial will simply refer to his feelings or emotions as the sole justification.

• The denier will feel justified in acting out against those who threaten the peacefulness of their fantasy.

• Problem solving and decision making will deteriorate as the entire focus of energy becomes the maintenance of the denial. In place of rational alternatives, excessive emotionality in general; and specifically anger and rage escalate toward those who are "blamed" for the reality that does not conform to the denier's worldview.

• In the end, interactions with those in denial are characterized by the denier's frequent smugness; sense of superiority; arrogance; belittlement of alternative views; and undiluted hatred toward anyone or any idea that questions their worldview.

In order to deal with someone who refuses to acknowledge reality or truth, there several basic approaches.

GET YOUR OWN HOUSE IN ORDER!

First, when confronting denial in others, your own house must be in order. In other words, if you are to have any hope of convincing someone else that they have a problem, you must be able to honestly and objectively assess any personal issues you yourself are carrying around that could cause you to distort reality.

In psychiatry, we call this process insight and self-awareness.

What do you look for?
• Hidden motives for your own behavior or beliefs
• Hidden agendas or ideologies that underlie your own thinking; or any thing in your own life that might facilitate distortion of reality or truth.
• Know yourself! Everyone has vulnerabilities, sensitivities, biases etc. These are not contraindicators for confronting denial in others--you don't have to be perfect; just honest with yourself.

Considering all the different vulnerabilities, sensitivities, and biases all human beings have, it actually requires a considerable effort of will to remain in touch with reality.; as well as a continual and conscious effort at a committment to truth. This is fundamental to personal honesty and integrity. Obviously this is not easy, and we are all prone to those self-deceptions that spare us from unpleasant truths about ourselves.

One of my frequent commenters, "Oh Bloody Hell" left a quote from Isaac Asimov on the Part II thread which is particularly relevant here:

"What I'm doing, really, is to look at things as they are. It's what you must do. Forget your ideals, your theories, your notions as to what people OUGHT to do. Consider what they ARE doing. Once a person is oriented to face facts rather than delusions, problems tend to disappear. At the very least, they fall into their true perspective and become soluble."

So many people look at the world through glasses that filter unacceptable thoughts, feelings and reality; and hence they are only able to see what they want to see, instead of what is (and no, that does not depend on the meaning of the word "is").

Again, this does not require perfection--you don't even have to have "pure" motives--just conscious ones that help you to understand why you think and/or feel a certain way. Then you will be open to recognizing the truth and what is. Then you will have a choice in your actions.

If you are lucky, your scrutinized motives, beliefs, wishes, and desires will not seriously conflict with reality. But, if they do, then you must face the music.

Reality is completely indifferent to your feelings, wishes, or your unresolved issues.

DEALING WITH OTHERS IN DENIAL

Once you have applied some self-awareness and know your own limitations--or, as the philosoher Eastwood has said, "A man's gotta know his limitations."-- then you can begin to appreciate the magnitude of the task that lies ahead for someone who is chronically in denial about reality.

The second step in the process is to accept the fact that there are positive rewards for the person in denial (at least in the short-term), and that the psychological defense that you would like them to abandon is actually a creative strategy designed to help them keep their sanity and their sense of self and worldview intact.

You have two choices at this point. You can engage the denier in rational argument in the hopes of breaking through their denial; or you can work around them and let them suffer the consequences of their denial. The second strategy may be the best in some cases, but is obviously more difficult if your own fate is tied to theirs. Let's discuss engagement first.

Just because you wish to engage the denier in argument does not mean that you have to allow them to abuse you or threaten you (this has been an issue several times on this blog--while I want to engage people, I don't have to put up with their abuse). That means that the first principle of engagement is

• Limit Setting - you must make sure that the rules of engagement are followed and that what you are seeking is a rational discussion of issues; not a name-calling session where the person who screams the loudest or speaks with the most swear words considers himself the "winner".
Once the limits are set; be prepared for the person in denial to ignore them.

If you still want to engage, then the second principle is:

• Redirection - where you point out what the rules are again and only respond to the rational argument thatmight be buried in all the emotion. Gently (or at least as respectfully as you can--remember, it is your choice to engage them) point out to the person that they are avoiding the point by using such and such a rhetorical ploy or logical fallacy, etc. You can then challenge them to use a rational argument or present their premises and any evidence to support them. This is as close as you might get to "interpreting the defense". Either they will come back more appropriately and logically, or they'll ignore you; or they'll simply abandon the argument. Limit set and redirect as often as necessary.

If you can get the person back on the topic, and expressing his perspective honestly:

• Give constructive feedback (but not in a condescending tone). You can say something like, "that's a good point; let me see if I can counter it."

• Be ready then, to present your own rational perspective, with whatever evidence or facts you have available that might help them begin to question their own irrational beliefs; or even their own honesty.

• Be ready to point out the specific errors in logic; or fallacies and/or rhetorical ploys in their own arguments. Call them on it and ask for objective evidence from that that you would consider. Make sure you know what these fallacies and ploys are!

• Be willing to acknowledge when they have a point..

• Try as much as possible to engage them with what really exists--not what either of you would like to exist.

• Ask them for specific suggestions on how to deal with the problems you can both agree on. Be ready to give your own specific suggestions.

• When applicable, don't solve their problems for them; or shelter, protect or help them avoid the consequences of their denial --unless those consequences also impact you. If that is the case, understand that by letting them off the hook, you have encouraged them to think that their worldview is correct and yours is not.

• Have some standby information to direct them to that they can read on their own time that may help them to face the problem.

• Don't give into the temptation to call them names or to do unto them what they might be doing unto you…unless, of course, you are human; then in that case once in a while it might help your own mental health.

As you can see from the above list, it is quite difficult and time-consuming; as well as frustrating and endlessly repetitive to engage a person in denial.

Sometimes you may think you have put an issue to rest and successfully argued your point; only to discover that later the denier will bring up exactly the same slogans or mantras that you had previously and painstakingly countered!

That is why the level of denial is important to ascertain. Some people simply need to be nudged or reminded of certain facts--e.g., seeing a movie like United 93, which can bring back the reality of the events of 9/11 which may have slipped from conscious awareness simply from the everyday vissictitudes of living one's own life.

At the other end of the spectrum are those people, groups, and nations committed to the denial of reality the way others are committed to truth. Their entire sense of identity is dependent on a certain view of the world and they would rather die than relinquish that view.

If you want to continue with the challenge of engaging someone in denial, you must recognize that moments of epiphany and breakthroughs in insight are few and far between. In therapy, you can wait for months and even years for people to confront their own denial and understand the motivations that underlie their own unhappiness--but that is in therapy, where they presumably come to see you to get well and/or happier.

Unless the person you want to engage is a loved one, engaging a person in denial can be a thankless task. As I said in Part II, "You can lead a denier to reality, but you can't make him/her ~~drink~~ think."

As I said earlier, ultimately, an individual must CHOOSE to deal with reality. Neo-neocon has written about her own journey in her excellent series, "A Mind is a Difficult Thing To Change" which I highly recommend (click on the link and go down her right sidebar to access those posts).

Finally, what do you do if you conclude that you must find a way to ignore or work-around people in denial because you are at risk due to their behavior?

Let me return to my own major motivation for blogging: my observations of the psychological denial --particularly after 9/11--and increasingly psychopathological responses of the left (including many in the Democratic Party) to the war on terror. My hope when I started blogging was that I could offer a unique perspective on the problem and by "shining a psychological spotlight" on the dysfunctional behavior, I could help those with an open mind to to come to grips with the critical issues of our time--Radical Islam and the threat to western civilization.

I remain hopeful that there are many people out who can be motivated to do exactly that. I don't expect them to all think exactly the same as I do about the current situation in the world; nor do I expect them to agree with me on what to do. Surely, reasonable people can differ on these points and amicably work together to come up with optimal solutions.

But what I do expect is some fundamental agreement on what the reality is.

The left's current concensus view on terrorism, Iraq, Afghanistan, the war on terror and Freedom is flatly wrong and cannot be justified by the facts that are out there. Their rhetoric is designed to obfuscate and deny objective reality --which they don't even believe in to begin with (or, they believe in it until it become threatening then they seek refuge behind postmodern political rhetoric). The motivation for their continual Bush/Republican bashing is simple: Bush is the current symbol of their demise--the fly in their utopian ointment; the light shining in their darkness; or, to be more precise, the symbol of the end of their ideology.

How do I know this? Since Bush's election at the millennium, things have been going very badly for the left. As the real world presses in on them, their voices have become more shrill and hysterical; their rage is escalating out of control. No longer do most of them even bother to argue their points logically; they simply loudly denounce any idea or person who threatens their worldview; or deliberately and with the ruthless finesse of all tyrants and thugs, simply attempt to supress all dissenting opinions.

9/11 did not wake them up; rather it forced them to openly move toward what they have supported surreptitiously all along--the elimination of free speech in the name of political correctness and multiculturalism; a dictatorship where the pseudo-intellectual, politically correct priesthood rule; and complete control over the lives of others (for their own good, of course). Since their objectives dovetail nicely with those of the Islamic terrorists, they have made common cause with them and have not lost many opportunities to enable and encourage them, even as they denounce America and the principles of freedom and democracy.

They pretend their actions are motivated from love and peace and patriotism; but this is only how they rationalize it to themselves. Their self-deception and denial is simply stunning in its sweeping grandiosity and self-righteousness betrayal of the good.

Gerard Vanderleun has a post up about the eerie appropriateness of the recently discovered "Judas gospel". The money quote:

Treason, done with the kiss of "my personal freedom," proves that you do not really hate your country, you love it. You are, in the final analysis, your country's best friend. In these "new" old tales about Jesus we read that Judas betrayed the Son of God because Jesus told him to do it. Really? Or did his betrayal come, not from any request that may or may not have been made, but from humanity's persistant lust to sin freely and without even the thin penalty of remorse? Was this final treason done because this sin had been secretly blessed by God, or for the sheer dark thrill of asserting the self at the expense of life in the light?

"I betrayed my friend, because he gave me the freedom to do so. Feel my love for him."

"I betrayed my country because it gave me the freedom to do so. Feel my love for it."

Black is white. Hate is Love. Slavery is Freedom. Treason is Loyalty. That last phrase fits right in to the secular catechism, doesn't it? All it needs to become holy writ is an avatar, a solid historical personage with the power to turn darkness into light, lies into truth, and betrayal into something that was, in the final analysis, "all good."

Saint Judas, step right up to the Gates, ring that bell, and don your halo -- you the man.

Careful observation and analysis of behavior is what I do for a living. I am very good at it. My patients tend to get well for the most part. I am not always correct and I have a great tolerance for ambiguity and doubt. I can be convinced that I am incorrect because I accept my own humanity and its limitations. But if you want to convince me, you will have to give me some compelling argument that is rational and which conforms to what I observe in the real world. Calling me names and threatening me (try reading my email for a week) just will not do it; and, quite frankly, only confirms my premises.

If you can look in the mirror and truly know yourself, including all those hidden motives and agendas and unresolved issues in life which we all must grapple with; you can gain some control over your own life; make choices and attack problems based on a clear view of reality. Yes, people may still make the wrong choices, or screw up in dealing with the problems even when they are aware of their own unconscious conflicts. Human beings are not perfect.

But when denial distorts or obscures reality, we are far more likely to make the wrong choices and ignore the serious problems. Our energy becomes solely focused on maintaining and nurturing the denial as we get angrier and more out of touch with reality all the time.

As long as the left continues to live in the world of denial and play their rhetorical games and use their non-logic to justify the unjustifiable; to tolerate the intolerable; and support the unsupportable; then I will continue to blog and expose their motives and hidden agendas; and do everything I can to prevent them from regaining political power.

This means that no matter how badly I think of the current crop of Republicans--and I do think very badly of them--when the alternative is the Party of Denial, better known as the Democrats and the loud lunatic fringe that they cater to; then the Republicans are going to get my vote every time. Where once I had the luxury of voting for third party candidates (e.g. libertarian), the stakes are far too crucial now to waste my votes.

There is hope, however that the cocoon of denial may finally be breaking up. Those who are still rational on the left have come together around the "Euston Manifesto," which is a manifesto that, among other things says it stands for democracy; for human rights; and for freedom. It refuses to apologize for tyranny; and rejects the knee-jerk anti-Americanism that has become the hallmark of leftist politics. One can only ask, what took so long ?

At any rate, the Euston Manifesto may represent the left's first small steps back toward the real world.

- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 5:32 PM |

NEWS FOR PESSIMIST GENERALS

Here's an extensive round-up of good news from Iraq, in case you thought there wasn't any. I thought this mild chastisement was rather appropriate:

The struggle to form a unity government in Iraq continues, but signs of hope are emerging. One of the sticking points continues to be Prime Minister Ibrahim Jaafari, who has so far refused to resign; however, on Sunday the Iraqi Shia Alliance reported it was close to a deal to replace him.

For a little perspective, travel back to the States, to the U.S. Senate and watch the immigration debate in the Senate. We've been doing democracy for several centuries now, and we can't get 100 politicians to agree on one issue. Considering we're the pros, we could cut the Iraqis a little slack as they continue to get the feel of this democracy-project thing.

Besides the note above, there is a lot of news that you just won't get if you read the MSM, who are currently reporting joyously the comments of former generals who agree with the left's defeatist agenda.

Two other little tidbits:

-American vehicles are to be fitted with a new anti-RPG system called Trophy. The system creates a force field around a vehicle:
The Trophy active protection system creates a "force field" that literally surrounds the protected vehicle. An APS has three basic elements, including threat detection and tracking of approaching projectiles, the launching of and Interception of the projectiles.

Trophy's "force field" consists of a barrier of invisible energy fragments (perhaps light particles charged by lasers) can sense incoming threats by recognizing heat signatures. RPG rockets and guided missiles give off heat as they approach their targets. These charged fragments are designed to destroy any incoming threat with low collateral damage, minimizing injury to troops and citizenry.

-The State Department issued a report on Iraq's economy. Iraq's economy as nearly doubled in the last three years. GDP rose by 2.6% last year, and is expected to rise by more than ten percent in 2006.

Betcha didn't know either of those things. Read it all.

- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 10:52 AM |

Sunday, April 16, 2006

RETIRED GENERALS AND SMALL MINDS

Perspective is good:

Two more retired generals stepped forward on Thursday and called for Donald Rumsfeld to resign, increasing the faction of outspoken officers to six. Rumsfeld brushed off the criticism: "Out of thousands and thousands of admirals and generals, if every time two or three people disagreed we changed the secretary of defense of the United States, it would be like a merry-go-round." How many retired admirals and generals are there?

It's hard to get good numbers, but the Explainer estimates that about 4,700 general officers are enjoying their retirement in the United States right now. (For a detailed look at the data and the Explainer's calculations, click here.) That means the six former generals who stepped forward to criticize Rumsfeld make up about one-tenth of 1 percent of the total community.

Retired generals pipe up all the time. In March, five of them wrote a letter to the Supreme Court asking that Justice Scalia recuse himself from the Hamdan case. In January, nine generals and three admirals banded together as the "Retired Generals Against Torture" and sent an open letter to the Senate judiciary committee. During campaign season, retired generals issue small-group political endorsements.

An important consideration is brought up by Cori Dauber in this brouhaha about Rumsfeld:

I did notice that the Times was to be commended for a front page article that focused on an angle of the story that was being, it seemed to me, completely neglected by every other outlet, as near as I could tell: the idea of generals, retired or not, attacking a sitting SecDef, much less asking for his resignation, is deeply disturbing, and the simple fact that they're retired doesn't change things. Up until this article I've only seen this brought up in one buried quote from my colleague, Dick Kohn (pretty much the top expert in the country on civil-military relations) in one Post article.

Kohn's point?

Military experts expressed some concern about the new outspokenness of retired generals.

"I think it flatly is a bad thing," said Richard H. Kohn, a military historian at the University of North Carolina who writes frequently on civilian-military relations. He said he worries that it could undermine civilian control of the military, especially by making civilian leaders feel that that they need to be careful about what they say around officers, for fear of being denounced as soon as they retire.

"How can you prosecute a war if the military and civilians don't trust each other?" Kohn asked.

And consider this analysis by Wretchard at The Belmont Club, who, while putting the general's criticisms of Rumsfeld and the Iraq war into context, states:

The men who judge what works in their area of operations are the Commanders. Sometimes they will be wrong and sometimes get it right. The only demand one can make of command going up the line is to learn from their subordinates' experience and reflect it downward in changed guidance. The failure to adapt is the ultimate command failure. Stupidity was not sending men into the face of machine gun fire in August 1914 when that weapon was encountered in large numbers for the first time. What was stupid was to keep doing it even in the Somme in 1916. For that reason the New Republic's article, though slightly off-base puts its finger on the most disturbing aspect of the debate over the War. The press has made consistency in the prosecution of war a virtue; just as it has made the "failure" to live up to the initial plan the ultimate sin. In consequence so much of the debate consists of archaeology. What George Bush said to Tony Blair in Downing Street. What Joe Wilson heard in Darfur. Yet consistency in war is often not virtue but vice. The hobgoblin of small minds.

I don't care much one way or the other about Rumsfeld as SecDef. Personally, I rather like him, but that's only because his blunt style appeals to me. I can certainly understand why he stirs up extreme emotional responses. I happen to think that the prosecution of any war will involve many many mistakes--simply because no amount of pre-war planning can possibly consider all the variables or predict all the possible scenarios when human beings are involved. I think Rumsfeld has done a decent job simply because he has been willing to adapt to the unexpected and the unplanned contingencies. Ultimately he serves at the behest of the President, who will make the decision whether to replace him or not.

When it comes to predicting what people--or nations for that matter-- will do in any given circumstance, it is a best guess based on current, and almost always insufficient, knowledge. No one knows better than a psychiatrist that human beings are...unpredictable.

If things like wars and such are so predictable as the media like to pretend; and, if they are able to be perfectly planned and every contingency compensated for in advance; and then perfectly executed; then computers should be able to manage the whole affair. Computers don't make mistakes (unless they're programmed to), but they aren't very adaptable.

No one likes the unexpected; or the unplanned for; or for that matter, change of any sort--because all of those things are messy. Reality is messy, too.

Adaptability--not mindless consistency in living up to a pre-war plan--is the better virtue in a war. War--like reality-- is messy. And anyone doing the planning needs to understand that.

At least they do if they want to win.

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

Speaking of Denial...

--and I have been speaking about it quite a bit over the last week; here is Mark Steyn's take on the "tomorrow is another day" crowd who prefer to ignore the reality of Iran and nuclear weapons:

"Iran," he [Ahmadinejad] said, "has joined the group of countries which have nuclear technology" -- i.e., this is the dawning of the age of a scary us. "Our enemies cannot do a damned thing," he crowed, as an appreciative audience chanted "Death to America!"

The reaction of the international community was swift and ferocious. The White House said that Iran "was moving in the wrong direction." This may have been a reference to the dancers. A simple Radio City kickline would have been better. The British Foreign Office said it was "not helpful." This may have been a reference to the doves round the atom.

You know what's great fun to do if you're on, say, a flight from Chicago to New York and you're getting a little bored? Why not play being President Ahmadinejad? Stand up and yell in a loud voice, "I've got a bomb!" Next thing you know the air marshal will be telling people, "It's OK, folks. Nothing to worry about. He hasn't got a bomb." And then the second marshal would say, "And even if he did have a bomb it's highly unlikely he'd ever use it." And then you threaten to kill the two Jews in row 12 and the stewardess says, "Relax, everyone. That's just a harmless rhetorical flourish." And then a group of passengers in rows 4 to 7 point out, "Yes, but it's entirely reasonable of him to have a bomb given the threatening behavior of the marshals and the cabin crew."

That's how it goes with the Iranians. The more they claim they've gone nuclear, the more U.S. intelligence experts -- oops, where are my quote marks? -- the more U.S. intelligence "experts" insist no, no, it won't be for another 10 years yet. The more they conclusively demonstrate their non-compliance with the IAEA, the more the international community warns sternly that, if it were proved that Iran were in non-compliance, that could have very grave consequences. But, fortunately, no matter how thoroughly the Iranians non-comply it's never quite non-compliant enough to rise to the level of grave consequences. You can't blame Ahmadinejad for thinking "our enemies cannot do a damned thing."

It's not the world's job to prove that the Iranians are bluffing. The braggadocio itself is reason enough to act, and prolonged negotiations with a regime that openly admits it's negotiating just for the laughs only damages us further. The perfect summation of the Iranian approach to negotiations came in this gem of a sentence from the New York Times on July 13 last year:

"Iran will resume uranium enrichment if the European Union does not recognize its right to do so, two Iranian nuclear negotiators said in an interview published Thursday."

Got that? If we don't let Iran go nuclear, they'll go nuclear. That position might tax even the nuanced detecting skills of John Kerry.

Or the most clever strategies of people in denial.

UPDATE: More at Besty's Page, Gateway Pundit, and PowerLine. My own thoughts are here and here.

- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 12:42 PM |

CARNIVAL OF THE INSANITIES - Happy Easter Edition!

1. Look out! Killer Rabbit !!

2. Future headline: ElBaradei Appeals For More Time After Nuclear "Tragedy" How appropriate.

3. It's all Bush's fault! (As usual) Madness takes its toll

4. You will be punished if you shoot mischieviously! Tell that to the Iranians.

5. Perspective! Everyone needs it.

6. File under: In the PC world, "No good deed goes unpunished." Some things are just so...hurtful. And this one under: "Honesty is its own reward."

7. New regulations for immigrants? Or, should we simply send in Jack Bauer to solve the problem?

8. You think Iraq is a civil war? This is a civil war!

9. Technology gone bad.

10. Kyoto must have worked! (actually, this is the "confusing correlation with cause" fallacy, but it makes good press!)

11. When justice is both blind and stupid.

12. More about rotten employees.

And talk about disgruntled employees!

13. Psychoanalyst extraordinaire? So maybe I should take up acting?

14. EU channeling Orwell?

15. Watermelon Math doesn't add up.

16. The old media double standard. At least they won't have Delay to kick around anymore!

17. Actually, the Times is having difficulty recruiting and training the...facts. But that doesn't stop 'em at all. Or, as one blogger puts it, the Times must suck lemons. What they don't want you to know.

18. The Holy Sandwich of Antioch...If they were added this kind of pork, it could add even more to the value of the sandwich!

19. So, they decided to impeach Dean? Oh wait--just more BDS.

20. Unhinged and outraged. Mistaking bile and invective for ideas. (see #3). They could try a little rational argument instead....but noooooooo. Everything's always about them--and their feelings.

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

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

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:

Heard the Word of Blog?

- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 10:02 AM |

Saturday, April 15, 2006

A FEW QUICK NOTES

Blogger (@#%$*&) has been down for most of the day for me, and just came back a few minutes ago. However, blogging will be light anyway because I am working on the Carnival of the Insanities (which takes quite a bit of time to organize) and am finishing up Part III of the Strategies for Dealing With Denial (Part I , Part II). I am also trying to get ready for company for Easter Sunday!

My inbox is filled with people asking me to comment on this article, and I can certainly understand why. It is rare to have such a perfect example of severe and malignant narcissism written up in such detail outside the medical literature. I think the article speaks for itself. It is almost impossible to read what some of the people quoted in it have to say without being completely stunned by the self-absorbed, self-deluded rage expressed at the world for daring to be different from what it ought to be. These people have more in common with the arrogant imam I discussed here; who said with complete sincerity, " Reality is a mistake, we must rectify it."

How dare reality not conform to their feelings!

This is pure, unadulterated narcissistic rage. One quote is quite telling:

"Rage, rage against the Lying of the Right" is the subtitle of O'Connor's Web site.

"If I can't rant, I don't want to be part of your revolution" is how she signs her comments, in the place other people might write "Sincerely."

"I was not like this before," she says. "I was riddled with empathy for everyone suffering in the world. Classic bleeding-heart liberal."

Or, how about this gem:
"I feel like I'm being molested everytime I hear his voice," one person writes on the Daily Kos Web site while watching a Bush news conference.

At any rate, to say more would be a waste of time. The left uses the blogsphere as therapy, but they might be better off if they went to a professional to try and understand the hate inside--and what it means about them.

If you want to explore the issue of narcissism and society--discussing both the "rage" and "awe" variants--you can check out my previous series which is here.

Our lady of the riddled empathy is a perfect example of someone who likely for a very long time convinced herself into believing that she was a loving, tolerant, and compassionate person. Of course, she blames Bush because she's become a raving lunatic. I submit she was likely always what she is now; but her ideology helped her to hide it from the world under the mask of wanting to help people (for their own good, of course). When thwarted, the mask slips and the hidden tyrant rushes out.

Moving on to a more important topic, I think Chester's analysis of the Iranian situation is definitely worth a read. I especially liked the dicussion of how the Iranians feel they don't get no respect:

"Respect" is an abstract concept that needs to be made tangible if it is going to be part of a deal. So, like good negotiators, the Americans inevitably ask, "What do you mean by respect?" Typically, the Iranians cannot define what respect would be, but they are full of illustrations of disrespectful American behavior that would have to end for Iran to be willing to accept a Grand Bargain. For instance, the Iranians never fail to observe that saying that Iran was part of an "Axis of Evil" was disrespectful. The sanctions are disrespectful. Criticizing the (flagrantly rigged) February 2004 Majles elections for being flagrantly rigged was disrespectful. Any criticism of Iran's internal affairs, such as its kangaroo-court judicial procedures and its arrest of political dissidents on ridiculous charges, is disrespectful. A senator calling Iran the world's worst terrorist state is disrespectful. American newspapers writing articles about problems in the Iranian economy is disrespectful. The State Department stating that Iran supports terrorism rather than acknowledging that Iran is a victim of terrorism (both of which are true) is disrespectful. Claiming that Iran is harboring Al-Qaida personnel is disrespectful. I have personally heard every one of those statements made by Iranians in response to my question as to what "respect" means . . .

This strange attitude on their part about wanting to be respected is difficult for the Western mind to appreciate. In shame cultures (discussed here), respect is not something that necessarily has to be earned; what is important is the shame, and resultant loss of honor, if someone believes you don't deserve it. In such cultures having others believe that you are worthy of respect and honor is actually more important than actually being worthy of respect and honor.

Realistically, we have been at war with Iran since the Iran-Hostage Crisis that began in Carter's term and ended shortly after Reagan became president. We even have one of the hostage-takers from that time now as the president of Iran. He, at least, has no doubts that we are enemies; and probably hasn't for the last 25 years.

I will be posting the Carnival in the morning then taking a break until Easter festivities are over. Happy Easter to all who celebrate it!

- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 9:39 PM |

SANITY REQUIRED

- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 10:56 AM |

Friday, April 14, 2006

STRATEGIES FOR DEALING WITH DENIAL - Part II : Logical Fallacies and Rhetorical Ploys Used in Denial

This is the second of a three-part series on Strategies for dealing with denial. Part I -The Many Faces of Denial can be found here. Part III is here.

In this post I am going to discuss some of the techniques that those in denial use in order to maintain and facilitate their denial and to prevent any confrontation about it or their motivations. There are a number of logical fallacies and rhetorical ploys that frequently pop up when dealing with someone in denial. People in denial may believe they are engaging in substantive arguments and presenting their case, but when examined, the grounds they present are actually examples of pseudo-reasoning.

Although not precisely a fallacy or rhetorical ploy, physical coercion is another important technique that is used to defuse and/or disrupt rational argument or discussion. For the denier, coercion has the advantage of eliminating any possibiity they might have to confront their denial and what is driving it.

Understanding all of these techniques is essential for being able to deal with individuals in denial.

There is frequently a connection between the pseudo-reasoning technique employed to perpetuate denial, and the style of denial being used (as described in Part I). The list that follows is not exhaustive, and only includes some of what I consider the more important techniques being used. The table is only intended to be a preliminary guide. A brief discussion of each of the fallacies or rhetorical ploys referred to follows after table.

COMMON RHETORICAL PLOYS

From: Critical Thinking A Concise Guide (Bowell and Kemp):

Rhetoric is any verbal or written attempt to persuade someone to beieve, desire or do something that does not attempt to give good reasons for the belief, desire or action, but attempts ot motivate that belief, desire or action solely through the power of the words used.

The difference between fallacies and rhetorical ploys is understood most eaily as a difference in the function of the language being employed....politicians, advertisers and newspaper columnists tend to be experts when it come to using rhetorical ploys. Rhetorical ploys typically make a more or less direct appeal to feeling and emotion rather than to reason, which is the domin of argument. Fallacies, on the other hand, are simply defective attempts at arguments....They may fool us into thinking they are not defective, but they are still presented as attempts at argument. Of course, manny writers and speakers will use a mixture of rhetorical ploys, fallacies, and genuine arguments when attempting to persuade us of the truth of their claim.

Let us first consider some of the most common rhetorical ploys in use:

-Appeals to FEELINGS : this type of ploy is very common and the user tries to appeal to specific feelings or desires. For example, you may be enticed to believe what is said because of the passion with which it is said (rather than analyzing the content); or because it stimulates compassion, pity, guilt, fear or any number of other feelings.

Eliciting fear is also known as using "scare tactics", and should be distinguished from genuine warnings for which there is a good reason to act and/or experience the emotion.

Additionally, when one appeals to feelings; emphasis may be placed on the novelty of the idea; or popularity ("everyone thinks this!") or the sexiness or cuteness etc.; all of which can easily distract from a rational analysis of the idea or product.

-Direct attack is simply the unapologetic assertion that something is true or not true without any evidence presented.

-Buzzwords are the use of emotion-laden terms that subtly influence the listener but which offer no information about the truth of what is being said.

-Scare quotes are used to mock the opposition (I use them myself at times!) by calling into question a particular concept (e.g., terrorism vs "terrorism").

-Smokescreen is diverting attention from the topic of discussion by introducing a new topic.

-Equivocation is deliberately making ambiguous statements in order to mislead.

LOGICAL FALLACIES

-Formal fallacies can be found in almost any text on logic and include affirming the consequent (i.e., if P then Q; Q; therefore P) or denying the antecedent (i.e., if P then Q; not-P; therefore not-Q). As a group they are invalid arguments because of formal mistakes in reasoning.

-Substantive fallacies are fallacies that rely on an implied but not expressed general premise, but which are false when scrutinized. They include:
Majority belief - concluding that because a majority believe something it must be true. This category includes the excessive reliance on polls to be the arbiter of what is true or false and how one should behave.
Common practice - concluding that because everyone does a certain thing, you should do it too.
Ad hominem is responding to an argument by attacking your opponent rather than addressing the argument itself.
Appeal to an alleged authority - is problematic when the authority appealed to has no expertise in a particular field; or even if he does, there is no automatic guarantee that he is correct.
Perfectionist fallacy - where an idea or proposal is rejected because it cannot completely solve a particular problem.
Weak analogy -use of an unjustied or unsustainable analogy;
Causal fallacies are also very common and involve making assumptions that (1)because things are temporally related that there is a cause and effect (temporal fallacy); or (2) that because two things are correlated there is a causal relationship between them; (3) going from knowing a certain thing is true to believing that something else also must be true when there is no evidence to support the belief is called the Epistemic fallacy.

OTHER LOGICICAL FALLACIES AND DENIAL TECHNIQUES

The following techniques don't fit into the previous categories; or are a combination of one or more already mentioned. They include:

-Red Herrings are premises or ideas that are irrelevant to a particular conclusion but which are offered as evidence of the conclusion;

-Straw man is deliberately setting up a false target that is easier to defeat in argument;

-Begging the question is the situation where the truth of a conclusion is assumed by its premises;

-Selective use of evidence: in any analysis there is usually a large amount of evidence to consider; particularly when there is sufficient complexity involved, it is sometimes easy to pay attention only to evidence that supports the desired conclusions and not to evidence which contradicts it;

-Moving the goalposts is a common practice in denial and occurs when someone always demands more evidence than can currently be provided. If that evidence becomes available at a later date, the demand is then made for even more evidence ad infinitum;

-Argument by definition is changing the meaning of words or concepts so that they support your argument (e.g., "it depends on what the meaning of 'is' is."; and other distortions of language like using the opposite meaning of a word as in Orwell's Newspeak)

-Liar paradox is one of my personal favorites and is the use of paradoxical statements (e.g., "This statement is false" or "There is no objective truth") that are linguistically correct but internally inconsistent and cannot be demonstrated to be either true or false.

AGGRESSION AND PHYSICAL ATTACK

The most obvious technique in this category is the physical analog of the ad hominem attack. This clearly requires no thinking or logic manipulations at all. We see this in the physical attacks that are made by the left on whoever incurs their ire; or dares to spread ideas that deviate from their own script.

Isaac Asimov famously said that "violence is the last refuge of the incompetent." From a psychiatric perspective, I would amend the saying to: physical coercion is the last refuge of a person in denial.

Coercion is the historically tried and true method by which most totalitarian regimes perpetuate themselves. They must control the flow of information; ruthlessly suppress any ideas that delegitimize their ideology; eliminate any persons threatening to expose their weaknesses; and even physically prevent their own people from being able to freely leave the country where they might pick up alien ideas. All of these measures ensure that psychological denial and the underlying motives of those in control are never questioned or challenged. A tyrant is, from this perspective, the ultimate person in denial.

There are many deluded people who claim that this situation already exists in the U.S. under the BusHitler. I'm sure you have noticed the frequent round-ups and imprisonment of all those Hollywood stars; and courageous antiwar protesters whose opinions are being ruthlessly suppressed by the Bush Administration.

Nevertheless, the real physical suppression and aggressive attacks that are occurring instead of rational debate are not coming from either the government or conservatives for the most part.

Some of the most recent examples can be seen here and here. The latter story about the attempt by law schools to ban US military recruiters is particularly amusing in light of the law school's belief that not only should they be able to effectively prevent the military from recruiting on campus, but they should also continue to receive money (and protection from the military, I assume) from the organization that runs the military (i.e., the US government).

Further, there are numerous physical attempts to shut people up that also use the rhetorical ploy of appeal to feelings--in particular, an appeal to cuteness--when protesters throw pies in the faces of speakers they don't agree with; or the mindless--and loud-- chanting of cute slogans to drown out speakers with whom protesters disagree.

Not only do these individuals and groups not bother to argue their side of an issue, but they can't even bear to listen to someone who might stimulate them to consider alternative ideas or confront their own denial.

Jeff at Beautiful Atrocities suggests to me some other ways that today's political left have developed to control the flow of information. He mentions Amazon, where you can track swarms of those on the left panning new conservative books they've obviously never bothered to read. Jeff suggests that this occurs, "As though the very existence of material that challenges their worldview is a threat that must be extinguished (rather than letting people make up their mind)."

Exactly. The last thing a person in denial wants is the free flow of information about a topic that threatens the perfection and contentment of his denial.

Wikipedia is another forum where people deep in denial have painstakingly tried to rewrite history so that it conforms with their ideology. If you read about the Aztecs, for instance, you'll find that their mass human sacrifice was really no different from European warmongering.

Democrats have also stated their intention, should they get the opportunity, to reinstate the 'Fairness Doctrine' aka govt regulation of private radio stations, which would have the effect of forcing conservative talk radio stations to jettison half their content in favor of Air America type shows, regardless of whether anyone wants to listen to them.

How many times have you heard those from the left side of the political spectrum state that the FCC should shut down FOX for its "lies". At college campuses all over the country, every time a campus newspaper runs an editorial that goes against the ideology, all the papers are stolen by the ideological minions of the left. Military recruiters are run off campus by the threat of violence (either to them or any who would like to listen to them).

I won't even go into the entire issue of leftist mainstream media bias, which has been taken up in many other venues.

The pattern remains the same. To physically prevent people access to alternate
worldviews or information instead of persuasing them by rational argument of the truth of your own position.

None of these techniques (rhetorical ploys, logical fallacies, or physical control) are unique to one side of the political spectrum or the other certainly; but in today's political climate, most of the denial manifested--particularly since 9/11--is almost all on one side. Back in the 40's and 50's of the last century, the situation was reverse.

In Part III, I will discuss various strategies for dealing with your own psychological denial; as well as psychological denial in others. One commenter in the discussion thread for Part I said:

You have a solution? After only four years and seven months? But now we have to wait for it? Please hurry, early voting for the primaries starts tomorrow here in NC.

Well, I hate to disappoint. You can only lead a denier to reality, but you can't make him (or her) drink. That said, there are some useful strategies that may be helpful in dealing with the problem!

UPDATE: Anyone who would like to send a link to examples of any of the above techniques will have it listed here.
-SC&A found an example of coercion where a college librarian is being sued for sexual harrassment because he recommend several conservative books to a freshman.
-LLB sent me this article about a display on abortion being destroyed.
-Junior says that with latest news today about the Iranian president saying that Israel will be annihilated, this blogger is more worried about what Bush will do. (Displacement)

UPDATE II: At the Volokh Conspiracy, Eugene Volokh writes this about the SC&A referred article:

It's quite sad, I think, that these university professors are responding to offensive ideas not just by arguing against them, but by trying to coercively suppress them (apparently, according to the ADF's letter, with considerable support from their colleagues).

Yes, isn't it?

UPDATE III: Neo-neocon has a great post up on Critical Thinking. She agrees that it is...critical! Great minds think alike.

- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 7:37 PM |

TOLD YOU SO

In this post from a mere three days ago, I said the following:

[P.S. I predict that when the current cycle of lies plays out, the next thing up on their agenda will again be....KATRINA. Wait for it.]

I Told you so.

- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 2:46 PM |

THE COUNCIL HAS SPOKEN - And Dr. Sanity Wins !

This week's winners in the Watcher's Council are now posted at the Watcher of Weasels . 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, Dr. Sanity is humbled to have won First Place --especially considering the incredible writing in all the other posts!

BEST COUNCIL POSTS:

First Place

No Relation to Reality, Indeed Dr. Sanity

Second Place

The Death of 1,000 Cuts The Glittering Eye

BEST NON-COUNCIL POSTS:

First Place

April 2006 Message from Dan Dan Simmons (alternate link here - thanks OBH!)

Second Place

Saddam Targeted American Assets For Terrorism: Case Closed (Bumped)
Captain's Quarters

Be sure to check out all the winners at the Watcher's Site! Great weekend reading.

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

Palestinian Shame and Israeli Guilt

In this post I discussed the differences between shame cultures and guilt cultures. Here is a psychological analysis of the situation between Israel and Palestine that was presented by Dr. David Gutmann as part of a symposium at FrontPageMagazine.Com on "The Fall of Palestine". I quoted Gutmann in the post linked to above and think that his comments are exactly right. [The panel also included a Harvard psychiatrist, Dr. Kenneth Levin; and David Keyes, who assisted a former Israeli ambassador to the U.N. and specialized on terrorism at the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs.] (hat tip: SC&A)

In voting for Hamas, did the Palestinians opt for war and death, or for war and victory?

I contend that they always opt for victory, but because their grandiosity leads to overconfidence and under-preparation, they end up with defeat.

In '47 an d '48 the Palestinian leadership chose war instead of the state that the UN offered them in a partitioned Palestine. It was the wrong choice: it led to defeat and to the loss of the lands designated for their state. Nevertheless, their motives in going to war were murderous, not self-destructive: they had every reason to believe that they would win a war of extermination against a relative handful of under-armed Jews - the same "Children of Death" who had gone unresistingly to the gas chambers.

And the Palestinians came pretty close to realizing this Holocaustic vision: a large proportion of Israel's precious younger generation had to die in order to stop them.

Again, the Palestinians had good reason to be optimistic in the second round of their war against the Jews, when Arafat led them into the Al Aqsa Intifada. Then, Israeli society was split between rather ineffectual Hawks and Peace-At-Any-Price-Niks, and Israel's borders were terribly porous to suicide bombers who struck almost every day.

Meanwhile, the Jewish state was condemned - also on a daily basis - by the UN, the Brits and the Europeans. Worst of all, the IDF had recently and for the first time run away from an enemy force: it had bugged out of Southern Lebanon with Hezbollah right behind it, leaving weapons, intact military installations and unprotected Christian allies in its wake.

Given this background, the Barak/Clinton offer of East Jerusalem and almost all of the West Bank was not welcomed by Arafat as a token of Israeli generosity, but as evidence of terminal Israeli weakness: "The Jews are beaten, they are suing for peace. If Hezbollah could chase them out of Lebanon, then Allah willing my Fatah boys can chase them from all of Palestine."

It took the election of Sharon, Operation Defensive Shield, the PLO's crushing defeat at Jenin, and Arafat's house arrest in Ramallah to temporarily correct this grandiose, essentially paranoid delusion. But only for a short while: Islamic dreams of slaughtering a cowardly, effeminate enemy can be temporarily refuted by reality, but they die hard.

They flourish again when, in Arab eyes, the enemy reveals some shameful weakness.

Churchill once said, "The Hun is either at your feet or at your throat." Similarly with the Arabs; and I suggest that their oscillations between quiescence and ferocity are driven by the Shame/Honor dynamic that is central to Arab psyche and Arab society. Shame and loss of honor, while toxic to the Arab, cannot be metabolized within the Arab self. Instead, the stigma must be ejected, spat out from the self, and downloaded onto lesser beings: women, defeated enemy, infidels and especially Jews. Once the weakness that originated in the Arab is discovered in the Other, then - symbolically or literally - he must be killed.

The shamed enemy has come to represent some hated part of the Arab's persona, and Killing him is a substitute for suicide, for the killing of the self. This is the psychodrama that Zionist Jews and Arabs have been playing out in Palestine for almost a hundred years.

Most recently, having crushed the Second Intifada, Sharon trades Gaza, which is a liability, for the strategic West Bank settlements around Jerusalem that he intends to keep. These would be guarded behind the Security Wall - the barrier that will, in the absence of a negotiating partner, unilaterally define Israel's final boundaries. Sharon has drawn back the better to advance; but - particularly now that Sharon is comatose - Hamas spins Sharon's calculated disengagement into a great victory for their own gunmen: "the Jews are running away from us. This is only the beginning: we will make them drown in the sea."

In it's turn, the Palestinian street sees in Hamas, the "liberators" of Gaza, the agents of final victory over Israel, and votes them into power. As in 1947 and 2001, the Palestinians smell blood in the water, indulge their triumphalist fantasies, and again choose the fever-dream of total victory over peace and statehood. They are by now so seriously addicted to Judeo-cidal Dreams that, like true junkies, they will pay almost anything - statehood, peace, the future of their children, life under Sharia law - in order to feed their habit. And in this hectic scenario, Hamas is the more reliable pusher. Again, the fantasied goals are murderous, destructive towards others; it is the Palestinian willingness to pay an exorbitant price for them that is self-destructive.

Not all Palestinians share this genocidal syndrome. Some no doubt voted against Fatah's corruption, while others elected for Hamas' Welfare State (Hitler's wartime charity, Winter Hilfe, comes to mind). But for Hamas' True Believers, why is the addiction to blood-drenched fantasy so powerful? Why this overwhelming desire to see the Jews blown to pieces, terrified, and running? Again, we must refer to the dynamics of shame: I saw the Palestinians abandon their villages in 1947 without a fight, even before we of the Israeli Hagana had enough guns or men to make them run. Their resulting shame was compounded by their Arab "brothers" in Jordan, Lebanon, Syria and egypt, who contemptuously shoved the dishonoured Palestinians into squalid camps. There, refugee kids grew up hearing taunts like these: "You Palestinian whores who sold your land to the Jews, and then ran away!

To repeat, Shame/Honor societies cannot manage shame except by inflicting it back on the enemy who shamed them. Until that happens, the timeless sense of humiliation festers in the soul, and breeds Psychosis: Arab leaders still bristle at the word "Crusade," and demand the return of Seville and Andaluz (Andalusia), since 1490 the "occupied territories" of Spain.

So of course the Palestinians will always sabotage - as they did in 1947, 2000 and now in 2006 – a negotiated peace with Israel. For the Palestinians, the only acceptable negotiating partners are Jews who mirror the Palestinians of '47 and '48 : defeated Jews, SHAMED Jews whose terrified mobs run like lemmings to the sea. Good faith negotiations with a still powerful, still undefeated Israel means living forever with the shame of NAQBA , and giving up the wet-dream of a total, redemptive victory.

Thus far, the Palestinian addiction to such orgiastic visions has proven too strong to be broken. In some ways Israeli and American-Jewish peaceniks are even more pathological than the Palestinians: it is the former who exhibit motivated rather than incidental self-destructiveness.

If the Palestinians constitute a typical Shame/Honor culture, then by contrast, Jews - especially Peaceniks - constitute a Guilt culture. The Arabs worry about what has been done to them by way of insults and humiliations; the Jews worry about has been done to others by them, or in their name. History is a tale of blood, and statehood shoved the Jews back into history, into the middle of the battle, where the choices were to fight or die. The Israelis proved to be successful warriors, but many Jews - Israelis as well as Americans - have sickened of the killing, and are fashioning a separate peace. They have reached the point where they plead the enemy's cause against their own people, and ultimately against their own children. Currently, they are starting to spin HAMAS as the wardens of a benign welfare state – Mother Teresa with a suicide belt.

The Palestinians won't be Shame-free until they have defeated the Jews; the Peacenik Jews won't be guilt-free until they have helped them do it.

Read the entire symposium. It is interesting that excessive shame appears to stimulate in the Palestinian homicidal/genocidal rage; while in the peacenik Jews, excessive guilt leads to suicidal behavior. Homicide and suicide are often thought of in psychiatric terms as flip sides of the same coin--aggression turned either outward or inward.

I'm sure you don't need a psychiatrist to tell you that either extreme is seriously unhealthy.

- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 1:10 AM |

Thursday, April 13, 2006

A CAUSE WORTH SUPPORTING

This letter was in my email this morning, and I thought I'd pass it along because it seems like a cause worth supporting:

Dear friend:

When my husband and I heard that our son Forest was going to Iraq, we were concerned - like any parents would be whose son was going into harm's way.

But we knew that Forest believed in the mission. In fact, he signed up for active duty after the September 11, 2001 attacks because he wanted to defend our country from terrorists.

Tragically, Forest was killed on a volunteer mission - with Cindy Sheehan's son Casey - to set up a medical evacuation point for fellow soldiers wounded and trapped in an abandoned building.

I will never forget the day we received the news that Forest had given his life for his country.

Unlike Cindy Sheehan, however, my family determined that we would continue the fight against terror that our son gave his life for.

That is why we joined Families United for Our Troops and Their Mission.

As someone who has personally borne the costs of this war, we know the loss; we know the grief.

We just wish the media would give half as much attention to the accomplishments.

Please join my family in asking the national media to recognize Iraqi Liberation Week on April 9th through the 15th. Don't let them ignore this milestone!

All you have to do is go to FamiliesUnitedMission, sign the letter and forward it to your friends

Sincerely,

Diane Ibbotson
Gold Star Mother
Albion, Illinois

PS. - Learn more about Families United for Our Troops and Their Mission at FamiliesUnitedMission or read a Washington Times article about our effort to highlight Iraqi Liberation Day.

- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 9:37 PM |

Back Later

Sorry folks! Another really bad blogging day, since I have lots of committments at work and several lectures to present. Back later....

- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 10:43 AM |

Wednesday, April 12, 2006

STRATEGIES FOR DEALING WITH DENIAL - Part I: The Many Faces of Denial

As a psychiatrist commenting on the political situation in our world, I have written numerous times about the rampant psychological denial that has characterized the behavior of many people in the U.S. and around the world since September 11, 2001. This denial is one of the most significant factors that impede America's (and the world's) ability to respond appropriately and effectively to the threat that radical Islam poses to western civilization.

In recent days, this denial has been even more obvious. The release of a brief movie trailer for United 93 has stimulated some discussion and even resentment in some--just because it forces them to have to relive that awful day; and they would rather pretend that it never happened.

The Moussaoui trial is also opening up the painful wounds of 9/11 as we relive the horrors that the victims faced, and are reminded again what is at stake in the ongong war on terror.

Some people need to only to be gently nudged into remembering. It is natural and quite human to want to avoid unpleasant memories, so that one can go on an live one's life.

But denial is not just simple avoidence of unpleasant memories. It is not a natural method of coping for a mature adult (except possibly as a brief interlude to allow the psyche time to assimilate reality). Denial is a break from reality itself; and as such, it can have serious--even deadly consequences.

The pervasive denial of the reality of 9/11 and what it exposed is most evident in the political left; but it is certainly not confined to that side of the political spectrum. However, the left has many, ready-made ideological tools to facilitate psychological denial about terrorism and the treat of radical Islam; in large part because they have been utilizing the same denial strategy and tactics since the end of the cold war and the 20th century.

The rise of politically correct speech; the dogma of multiculturalism; the homogeneity of ideas and lack of intellectual diversity in academia; as well as the distortions and rationalizations that are currently the hallmark of intellectual debate within our institutions of higher learning and politics-- have all combined to accentuate the failure to assimilate and analyze the reality of the terrorist threat.

Two earlier posts summarize psychological denial in some detail:
IN DENIAL and IN DENIAL - The Bill Is In The Mail ***UPDATED***

Denial may be conceptualized as 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)

The unacceptable knowledge is that we are in the midst of a terrible global war that we neither wanted nor provoked; and that there are evil people who want to destroy our civilization and kill or enslave all of us.

The insight that threatens to overwhelm them is that all of their political correctness; all of their multicultural BS; in fact, all of the shibboleths and platitudes of the the left that have been the glue holding together the house of cards of their ideology since the end of the last century, are no longer capable of preventing the collapse and disintegration of that ideology. If they think about it long and hard enough, they might even begin to realize the horrible truth: that in order for their ideology to survive, they must bet--all or nothing--on a win by the Islamic fanatics who want to destroy us all (including them).

The unacceptable feelings are a combination of impotent rage and burning hatred that threaten a deluded self concept. For decades now, they have told themselves that they are peaceful, loving, compassionate and just; that they stand for freedom and the empowerment of the little guy-- and now they cannot avoid looking in the mirror to see what their delusions have wrought.

The only way to avoid being submerged by all this reality is to embrace the denial ever more tightly and descend deeper into delusion and paranoia.

We see that many people--particularly on the left-- are doing exactly all those things, rather than to face the truth; re-evaluate their premises and come to grips with an unpleasant reality that must be avoided at all costs. There are even those who have been willing to betray their own country and their fellow citizens for a few extra moments of supercilious self-righteousness and the ability to feel smug and superior. They appear to have no awareness of the extensive damage they are doing; the precedents they are setting; and the carnage they are enabling.

The thing about denial is that it requires a considerable amount of self-delusion to be able to maintain it; and the longer it is maintained, the more hysterical and desperate become the attempts to preserve it.

So, what is a rational person to do when faced with this kind of intractable denial on the part of their fellow citizens? How can one reach them? As one commenter stated, "If 9/11 doesn't shake them out of their complacency, then what will?"

That is what I hope to address in this three-part series.

In this first part I will address the many faces of psychological denial.

Part II will focus on psychological denial and the logical fallacies used by deniers to rationalize their denial.

Part III will discuss strategies for dealing with denial in one's self and in others.

There are a wide variety of ways that psychological denial can be expressed by a person who is unconsciously defending or protecting themselves from unwanted knowledge, thoughts, or feelings. What follows is a partial list of denial strategies. Human ingenuity being what it is, I couldn't possibly list all the possible strategies.

Simple Denial

The most obvious strategy is simple, or outright, denial. This is the basic technique of maintaining that something is true/not true despite all evidence to the contrary. It is usually encapsulated in slick slogans that can be mindlessly repeated until they take on the characteristics of some fundamental "truth". They are in fact, the kind of "big lie" that distorts reality and oozes its way into human consciousness effortlessly.

EXAMPLE: "Islam is a Religion of Peace."

EXAMPLE: "Bush Lied, People Died!"

Rationalization

This technique is characterized by making excuses or alibis for inapproriate behavior by creating "logical" explanations for what is basically illogical.

EXAMPLE: "Poverty is the 'root-cause' of Terrorism."

Minimizing or Discounting

In this type of denial, a person may actually admit to denial or acknowledge the problem; but his attitude is basically, "what's the big deal?"

EXAMPLE: "Why should we be concerned if Iran has nuclear weapons?"

EXAMPLE: "Europe has nothing to fear from its immigrant Muslim population"

Evasion and Displacement

In this strategy, the fundamental or essential issue is ignored by focusing on a "red herring" issue that may be quite similar to the real problem; but strikingly misses the real point.

EXAMPLE: "We should be worried about the imminent imposition of a Christian theocracy in the U.S."

EXAMPLE: "Bush is more of a threat than Bin Laden" (Better known as BDS)

"Affect Storm" or Exaggerated Emotional Responses

This is a hyperemotional response to anything that threatens the veneer of denial or that questions the motivations of the denier. It is described in detail by ShrinkWrapped in this post.

EXAMPLE: Take your pick among the usual ad hominem attacks leveled at anyone who has the audacity to disagree with the person in denial or to question his denial.

Aggression and Attack

This is the physical counterpart of the affect storm; and as the title suggests, it is physical aggression directed at anyone who threatens the continuation of denial.

EXAMPLE: Violent demonstrations, ostensibly for "peace"

Projection or Blaming

Denying responsibility for one's own behavior and projecting responsibility onto someone else. The behavior itself is not denied, but someone else is to "blame" for causing it--not the person who acted .

EXAMPLE: "The U.S. deserved (or, is to blame for) the events of 9/11" or, "The Jews (or Israel) were behind the attacks".

Intellectualization

This strategy is particularly fascinating because it is an attempt to use reason and logic to justify the denial and to support the rationalizations that underlie it. This will be more throroughly discussed in Part II; as will the next denial strategy.

Postmodern Rhetoric and Contradictory Discourses

In history of denial, the philosophy of postmodernism which burst on the human scene about half a century ago, is probably the most recently developed denial strategy. It is usually resorted to when "intellectualization" and "rationalization" fail to convince others that one is "reality-based". It is at that point in the discussion that reality (and truth) are then abandoned with alacrity for the typical rhetorical tactics of postmodernism.

I have discussed postmodern rhetoric and contradictory discourses here , here and here. But the best source for understanding the full implications of postmodernism , and which I highly recommend is Stephen Hicks' book.

It is important to reiterate that the use of postmodern rhetoric is usually a desperate attempt on the part of the denier when he recognizes that logic, reason, and reality actually argue against his beliefs or purposes. This strategy can often take the form of redefining or distorting language and ideas so that they conform to ones pre-existing attitudes and emotions.

EXAMPLE: "Everything is relative anyway."

EXAMPLE: "Objective truth does not exist"

EXAMPLE: "Truth is relative and my feelings are just as important as your facts."

EXAMPLE: "My reality is just as significant as yours"

EXAMPLE: "Reality is an illusion."

The many examples of this kind of rhetoric go on and on and we have all heard them thrown at us--usually at the end of an argument that someone has lost.

One of more humorous aspects of the widespread psychological denial since 9/11 is that those who are wallowing in the deepest sort of denial have taken to referring to themselves as "the reality-based community". They like to think of themselves as objective and scientific; devoted to truth and completely and totally in touch with reality. Sadly for them, however, it takes more than being anti-Christian to be "scientific"; more than devotion to their own secular ideology to be able to appreciate the "truth;" and more than shouting at each other in a reverberating echo chamber to be "in touch with reality".

In Part II, I will look at some of the logical fallacies that are regularly used by the members of this community in debate; as as an attempt to "prove" that they, and they alone are in possession of the "ultimate truth"--even as they simultaneously claim that truth is relative.

Understanding the pseudo-intellectual pose assumed by those in denial is necessary to understand how to most effectively deal with them.

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

IMPRESSIVE

I came across this article the other day and have been meaning to write about it. It tells of an incredible new breakthrough in medical technology that could revolutionize the way viruses are treated:

It is a prospect that terrifies bioweapons experts: Terrorists release smallpox into an American city, spreading sickness and panic. Because the disease is untreatable and vaccines no longer exist, first responders and other emergency personnel would be particularly vulnerable.
A new invention, however, may help to avert the worst of this worst-case scenario. Aethlon Medical, a small San Diego biotech company, is developing a portable device that removes viruses from blood. Known as the Hemopurifier, it filters not only smallpox but numerous other viruses, including Marburg and Ebola.

The Hemopurifier resembles a shrunken dialysis cartridge, the rolling-pin-size device that purifies the blood of patients whose kidneys have failed. Both use a filter to remove toxins from blood. But unlike traditional dialysis, the Hemo-purifier also includes plant-derived antibodies, such as cyanovirin, that bind to a variety of viruses and eliminates them from the bloodstream. The plant solution can be modified to weed out even genetically engineered germs.

Aethlon has built two versions of its device. One, a foot long and an inch wide, is designed for use in hospitals; the other, the size of a large pen, is meant for use in the field. Both types attach to a pump. But the portable version could work without one, using the patient’s heart as the engine to force blood through the filter....

Aethlon recently shipped several Hemopurifiers to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta for cell culture tests on human blood infected with Ebola. Meanwhile the company has already completed its own tests in animals. Though promising, the Hemopurifier still has a few big hurdles to clear, the biggest of which is successful testing in humans. Aethlon is wrapping up safety trials in India and hopes to begin clinical tests in the U.S. by the end of this year.

The implications of this go way beyond a countermeasure for bioterrorism--which is great in and of itself obviously--because it also could significantly impact the treatment of almost any viral disease--including HIV, Avian Flu and others.

Impressive. Most impressive.

- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 2:23 PM |

LIGHT BLOGGING TODAY

Blogging is going to be light until this evening because I have a number of doctor's appointments and will be running around most of the day. I will be getting my second knee joint injection of Synvisc (which I talked about here) among various other tests and exams.

This is what happens when you start to get old. I wouldn't recommend it, except that the alternative is far worse.

- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 1:25 PM |

Tuesday, April 11, 2006

OOPS

Patrick Fitzgerald made a mistake? He said something that wasn't true in his famous court filing? How embarassing for him.

- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 10:43 PM |

HIGH ANXIETY

I am not done writing about the ridiculous distortions (fixed delusions) that continue to run amok in the MSM and lefty blogs, as they once again recycle their litany of accusations about Bush. From the Investor's Business Daily:

Among the things that bothered us in this affair is that it's deemed first-rate, Pulitzer-worthy journalism when a major newspaper prints classified information that our enemies find useful, but when the commander-in-chief authorizes the release of declassified material to defend his administration's position it is treated as a betrayal of the public trust, if not an impeachable offense.

When the New York Times last December revealed that the National Security Agency listened in on communications between terrorist suspects abroad and U.S. residents, or when the Washington Post ran a story about the existence of CIA prisons where the worst terrorists were being held and interrogated, the information aided our enemies.

But House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid and other congressional Democrats had no problem with such unauthorized releases of classified information, even if they helped al-Qaida. The information, after all, could be used as ammunition for attacks on the president and his policies.

But they are shocked, shocked, that Bush would declassify information that proved Bush right and former Ambassador Joe Wilson was wrong on the issue of whether, as Bush asserted in his 2003 State of The Union address: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

Let's move on to the next sickening "scandal" that is designed to render America's fight against terrorists like Zarqawi completely impotent. Here is one intelligent response to it:

Is the US military allowed to have an information warfare strategy? Or is every effort we make to assist the Iraqis secure their country and win some hearts and minds to be exposed, ridiculed and countered by the media? I have stood on the tiny coral outcrop called Ie Shima where Ernie Pyle, the GIs best friend, died near the end of WWII. With him may have died the last time the press and the military felt like they were on the same team.

The press alternates between complaining the administration and the military aren't doing enough for the Iraqis, and complaining about everything they are doing. I think it would be self-evident that publicizing the depravity of a foreign terrorist who is responsible for many of the deaths of their countrymen, might help spur resistance to the insurgency.

Do you begin to wonder what side they are on? How much death and mayhem will such bias enable? And this is all, once again, the expression of desperation on the part of the left, because they are losing the battle of ideas; and they know that history is going to be very very hard on them.

Bob at One Cosmos had this to say about the etiology of the behavior we observe in today's "progressive" movement:

However, one far-sighted observation of the psychoanalyst W.R. Bion is that many modern human groups are every bit as primitive. While they might have a veneer of civilization, their more basic function is to structure existence and to allay anxiety. You see this, for example, in very obvious cases such as the NAACP or the ACLU.

Clearly, these groups once had an instrumental purpose, but now their only purpose is to provide a cognitive structure for the world of the people who belong to these groups, and to reinforce the structure through contact with like-minded people. It's not even a pleasant world. Rather, it is a dark, paranoid, and conspiratorial world.

And yet, the paranoid world of the far left is preferable to the ambiguity of the the real world. In fact, I shouldn't even say "ambiguity," for does anyone acquainted with reality think for a moment that Representative Cynthia McKinney is a victim of white racism? Or that President Bush is imposing a fascist theocracy?

Human beings have an amazing capacity to deny change and to live in the past.

Read it all.

Scratch a leftist who has to cope and adapt to a the reality that has rejected all of his fundamental premises, and you will find someone experiencing high anxiety--or even outright panic. That is because his world is crumbling all around him. All that he once believed was true has been shown to be a utopian fantasy. In response to this awful reality, the left has moved easily from what might have been "progressive" ideas to "retrogressive" ones; and abandoned whatever principles that once may have motivated them--all in order to hold onto an ideology whose horrorific legacy can be seen all over the world.

To hold onto this legacy, no lie is too absurd or far-fetched; no fantasy only their emotions represent truth; and reality is merely play-dough for their childish fantasies and utopian dreams. Interrupt today's leftist at his play, and you provoke the "affect storm" we conservative bloggers have all come to know if we are unfortunate enough to be linked to by any lefty blog or site:

A number of commenters tried to engage the "arguments" that the Angry Cadre had left, but to little avail. The problem is that the subject for most of the commenters is closed. Bush lied, the war has been mismanaged, there were no WMD, etc. All these tropes have been endlessly repeated by many in the media and many politicians and public figures, and are not up for discussion; they are accepted as revealed truths and no amount of evidence to the quandary will even evoke an acknowledgment that other interpretations of the data are plausible or likely. Which raises the question of why so many felt the need to make such comments. Certainly, the comments, many of which were overtly insulting and obnoxious, were not designed to convince. They were also clearly not designed to invite discussion. Almost none of the comments referred to the subject of the post, the inevitability of further conflict based on the hardening and devolution of images of the opposing sides. The conclusion I arrive at is that most of the negative comments represented a type of Affect Storm.

Affect Storms are triggered by intense anxiety, often over existential questions. The left (apologies to Raw Data for my shorthand; here I am including that 20% of the population that is overtly Communist, Socialist, Progressive, and Ultra-liberal; they are over-represented in Academia and the MSM, as well as certain precincts within the Democratic party) faces existential danger from several directions. They are overtly threatened by Islamic fascism, which hates almost everything they stand for, notwithstanding the uncomfortable alliance of convenience between some on the far left and the Islamists. The threat to Western Civilization, which supports them and nourishes so many on the left, even those who have the most animus toward it, is real and even when denied, is ever-present. Another threat is more subtle. There has been a trend away from the ideas that the Left has championed, and which have been on the ascendant in the West for over 30 years, and this is reflected in the increased challenge to the MSM opinion makers from the Internet (which is actually more economic than political) as well as the weakening of the baseline support for the Democratic party in a country that to many appearances has been becoming more "red."

Both ShrinkWrapped (whose entire post you also need to read) and Gagdad Bob are absolutely correct. At the bottom of all this is an existential anxiety that dominates the behavior of the left in general; and in many Democratic leaders.

It is this high anxiety that has stimulated much of the paranoia, the delusions, and--of course--the rampant denial that is so characteristic of today's progressive elites.

There is no middle ground for them to stand on; because they know that their ideology and everything they believe will live or die--depending on whether Bush is successfull in the Middle East and at home or not. Having no real ideas or alternatives with which to counter Bush's policies or the wave of freedom and democracy that has been unleased; they have resorted to the distortions and lies that are continually recycled. You see, they can still at least temporarily alter people's perceptions of reality.

That is why it is hilarious that they even have the gall to critique the military for using psychological operation to fight the enemies we face. They have rather different ideas about who the enemy really is.

And they are in a fight for their very existence.

[P.S. I predict that when the current cycle of lies plays out, the next thing up on their agenda will again be....KATRINA. Wait for it.]

- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 5:44 PM |

FIXED DELUSIONS

Two sources should put to rest any credibility given to Joe Wilson regarding the Niger-Uranium-Iraq story that was mentioned by President Bush in the lead-up to the Iraq War. They are Christopher Hitchens column, aptly subtitled: "Sorry everyone, but Iraq did go uranium shopping in Niger."

And Michael Ledeen's column today

Please read them both. Hitchen's column in particular had a detailed summary of the events regarding Niger and Iraq--events that have been so distorted by our own media that it is no wonder that Americans are confused.

Of course, it is too much to hope for that the left will finally cease to exploit that confusion. What seems to be the pattern is that the leftist media simply resurrect the old disproved arguments after waiting a suitable period of time to give the public a chance to forget. They couch the "new" allegations in brand new phrases (e.g., in 2003, the headlines were that Bush "released" some intelligence to counteract the lies of Joe Wilson and others; today they breathlessly inform us that Bush "leaked" that intelligence).

Ledeen:

Linzer and Gellman say, referring to the phony documents, that "the evidence Cheney and Libby selected to share with reporters had been disproved months before." And they add, in a triumphant tone reserved for the announcement of a knockout punch, that "the Bush administration and British Prime Minister Tony Blair maintained they had additional, secret evidence they could not disclose. In June, a British parliamentary inquiry concluded otherwise, delivering a scathing critique of Blair's role in promoting the story."

But Linzer and Gellman are wrong, indeed so clearly wrong that it takes one’s breath away. The British government did indeed have information about Iraqi efforts to purchase uranium in Africa, and it wasn’t connected to the forgeries. And the definitive British parliamentary inquiry — the Butler Commission Report of July, 2004 — not only did not deliver "a scathing critique," but totally endorsed the position of British intelligence.

If the truth matters to anyone anymore--and that seems to be a big issue in all this--then both of these columns are a must read. If you enjoy being manipulated by those whose only agenda appears to be to destroy Bush at any price, then go ahead and keep believing anything and everything promulgated by the left, the MSM, and Joe Wilson.

There are treatments available for fixed delusions. I have some appointments open later this week.

- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 11:01 AM |

MEXICO CAN BECOME THE 51st STATE

The other day while my daughter and I were watching the large demonstrations supporting illegal immigration, I jokingly said to her that the only solution I could see was to make Mexico the 51st state (and maybe 52nd too).

I guess I'm not the only one who considered that idea!

In fact, they're leaving Mexico because its corrupt and thuggish political culture stifles economic growth and opportunity. The people there are smart and hardworking, after all, and they tend to do just fine when they get here. They're leaving because being smart and hardworking is enough to get you ahead in the United States, but not in Mexico. And I suspect that if the Reconquista advocates somehow did get their way, and the Southwest United States became a new Northern Mexico, we'd soon have illegal immigrants crossing over into Kansas and Oklahoma for opportunity, because the Mexican political culture would have ruined things in Arizona and Texas just like it's already ruined them further south.

So maybe we've been thinking about this the wrong way. Instead of worrying about Mexicans invading America, maybe what we need is for the United States to annex Mexico.

Mexico has all the necessary ingredients to become a productive state. Due to the corruption Glenn talks about, its big problem is that it has never supported a middle class. There are the very poor and the very rich and not much in between. Those who are very poor are the ones who cross our border in the hopes of improving the lives of themselves and their families--hence the U.S. is doing all the work of creating Mexico's middle class. The only problem is that once here, it is hard to go back to what Mexico has to offer for those in the middle class.

As Glenn notes, the solution should be that we demand reform from the Mexican government. The corruption that perverts their political culture must cease, because that is what is driving people out of the country. It is in the benefit of the current political culture to encourage immigration--particularly illegal-- to the U.S. because it takes them off the hook to have to reform and improve the institutions and working climate for their own citizens.

The last thing we want is for Mexico to go the Hugo Chavez route. I suspect that if we had a border with Venezuela, the illegal immigrant problem would be ten times worse as people fled the policies being implemented by that "elected" dictator. There is already too much poverty to the south of us.

We should begin to structure our interactions with our closest neighbor to promote the changes that will bring more opportunities to Mexicans and improve the lot of the average Mexican. Mexican government officials seem to have no compunction at all about telling us how to structure our immigration policy and how we should be dealing with their citizens here illegally.

It is definitely time we returned the favor -- and demand some reciprocity; as well as both political and economic reform in our southern neighbor. Those three areas must be included in any comprehensive plan to deal with illegal immigration, because for once, they actually deal with the "root cause" of the problem we are facing.

When Mexico make the changes necessary to support their own people who want to better themselves and have normal lives--I predict that that they will quite naturally become a genuine "51st state".

Illegal immigrants are only people who are desperate for life and liberty; and to pursue their own happiness. With our help, there is no reason those things can't also be found south of the border.

- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 10:07 AM |

Monday, April 10, 2006

Not Bloody Likely

I have been out of the loop since mid-morning and returned home a short time ago and started reading to catch up on the news.

I think I'm going to stop now. I'm tired and there seems to be more insanity than the norm circulating in the air; or else I'm in some sort of time/space warp. Some of the headlines seem to be straight from 2003. Illegal immigrants are demanding that they be made citizens. I heard someone refer to people that people illegally in this country should return to their country of origin as "engaging in genocide" (!)--which, I think, just about sums up the tenor of this "debate".

Why is it that we can never have a reasonable discussion in this country about any issue?

Meanwhile, I saw Teddy Kennedy and others stars are busy pandering to the illegals so that they'll sign up to be good little Democrats. I guess that answers my question.

And, of course, there's lots more about Chirac doing what Chirac and the French do best. And Wilson doing what he does best (lying).

I have a terrible headache. I'm going to take two aspirin, go to bed early and maybe blog in the morning. It's possible that things will be a little less insane then.

Possible, but not bloody likely.

- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 11:57 PM |

Traveling !

I'm off to Lansing to give several talks this afternoon. In the meantime, check out some of the blogs on my sidebar; browse my earlier posts; or drop some money in the tip jar (or all three!) I'm taking my trusty blogging computer with me, of course, but realistically won't have much time to blog.

Back later tonight.

- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 11:57 AM |

FRENCH WHINE

France is economically and spiritually doomed.

French President Jacques Chirac has announced that the new youth employment law that sparked weeks of sometimes violent protests will be scrapped.
He said it would be replaced by other measures to tackle youth unemployment.

Millions of students and union members have taken to the streets over the last month in protest against the law, which made it easier to fire young workers.

Unions and student leaders said it was "a great victory" and were due to meet to decide if the protests should go on.

By all means, let the protests go on! Soon perhaps, France can achieve the perfect ~~dead-end society~~ socialist paradise where noone has to work at all; and the ~~whine~~ wine flows freely for all (except, of course, the Muslims who don't drink). But everyone can rest assured that those pesky economic realities can be changed by rioting in the streets.

But hey! They'll always have Paris!

- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 11:45 AM |

THE HUMAN AND ECONOMIC COSTS OF NOT GOING TO WAR IN IRAQ

An Iraqi speaks on the third anniversary of Saddam's toppling:

It may be that world opinion is pessimistic about Iraq, but millions of Iraqis are optimistic. They support the new Iraq, because there is one thing our enemies — al Qaida and the former henchmen of the old regime — have yet to understand: This new Iraq no longer depends only on a few individuals. This new Iraq is a mass movement, and the seeds of democracy are slowly starting to sprout. It may be that the present Iraqi politicians are not the right ones, but a new generation is coming which loves and understands democracy. It is this generation which is becoming more and more active — and more confident about taking on responsibility, demanding that the torch be passed. For, although our present political leaders did a lot of work in their 35 years of opposition, it is time to make room for those who are guided by the vision of a new Iraq.

Meanwhile, John Derbyshire at The Corner comments on the costs of NOT going to war in Iraq -- a proposition that the Economist has evaluated:

There's a very interesting piece in the current (4/8/06) issue of The Economist about the cost of the Iraq war. As well as costing the war itself, it menations a study that attempts to cost NOT going to war against Iraq.

"A war costing $410 billion-630 billion sounds pretty grim. But the three University of Chicago economists also evaluate a wide span of possible outcomes if America had chosen the alternative to war. Their analysis includes four pre-war scenarios for containment and a range of probabilities for various contingencies. These suggest that reining in Iraq and hoping for the best could reasonably have been expected to cost $250 billion-700 billion."

The whole thing is here, but only if you're a subscriber.

I am not a subscriber, so I have taken the liberty of quoting his entire post because I think it is important. Those who are making a big deal about the cost of the Iraq war fail to consider what the cost of containing Saddam would have been. I'm sure that many imagine it would have been cost-free.

Ali Al-Zahid was only four years old when he was imprisoned in Iraq after his father made critical statements against the Baath regime. Al-Zahid's optimism about the future of Iraq is a marker for estimating what the cost of not going to war in Iraq would have been in human terms.

Just as with the dollar cost of the war; those who would argue that liberating Iraq was not worth it in terms of the human costs, have not taken into account either the deaths that Saddam's regime would have claimed in these last three years; nor the enormous toll of human suffering--including the loss of hope and optimisml and the crushing of the human spirit that is the trademark of tyranny.

While the human costs of not liberating Iraq are harder to estimate than the financial ones; they are none the less real and tangible in people like Ali. Ultimately, those costs represent a long-term investment in the future of freedom, democracy, and peace for both Iraq and America.

Let us stick by our investment in Iraq through its ups and downs; and let its stock value--both economic and human--grow in the long term.

The potential for growth and a return on investment would never have been even remotely possible if we had continued with costly policy of simply "containing" Saddam and permitting his tyranny to flourish.

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

Sunday, April 09, 2006

REALLY COOL !

While I'm on the subject of what's hot and what's not -- this is really cool! (hat tip: Roger Simon)

- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 7:05 PM |

WHAT'S HOT; WHAT'S NOT; AND WHAT'S HEATING UP

Let's see what issues are "hot" right now in the MSM; and what issues are not.

Interestingly, here are some "leaked" documents that are getting very little press. Gee, I wonder why?

These damning documents that give some amazing insights in the pre-war Saddam regime, have bunkerbuster capability to detroy the deep caverns of denial that exist in today's left. You might think that would make them "hot". You couldn't be further from what makes an issue hot for the MSM. For example:

MYTH: "Saddam wasn't a threat to the U.S."

REALITY: The latest in a stream of eye-opening Iraqi documents shows Saddam Hussein's regime was planning suicide attacks on U.S. interests six months before 9-11. Why won't Washington get the word out?

Last month the Pentagon began releasing records captured during Operation Iraqi Freedom. Among the documents is a letter dated March 11, 2001, written by Abdel Magid Hammod Ali, one of Saddam's air force generals.

According to an unofficial translation, Page 6 of the letter asks for "the names of those who desire to volunteer for suicide mission to liberate Palestine and to strike American interests."

Assuming the document's accuracy, this shows that Saddam's regime was not only providing aid and support for terrorist organizations of other countries. It was also planning its own bombings directed at U.S. facilities and personnel.

MYTH: "Saddam didn't have WMD or plans to make them"

REALITY: Saddam, in a tape made in 2000, talks with Iraqi scientists about his plans to build a nuclear device. He discusses Iraq's plasma separation program — an advanced uranium-enrichment technique completely missed by U.N. inspectors.

MYTH: "Saddam had nothing to do with Al Qaeda"

REALITY: An Iraqi intelligence document, released just two weeks ago, describes a February 1995 meeting between Saddam's spies and Osama bin Laden. During that meeting, bin Laden offered to conduct "joint operations" with Iraq. Saddam subsequently ordered his aides to "develop the relationship" with the al-Qaida leader.

A fax, sent on June 6, 2001, shows conclusively that Saddam's government provided financial aid to Abu Sayyaf guerrillas in the Philippines. Abu Sayyaf is an al-Qaida offshoot co-founded by bin Laden's brother-in-law.

These "leaked" documents should be making the front pages of our MSM newspapers. They should be trumpeted from the talking heads of the 24 hour news shows. But they don't fit the Bush-hating agenda.

Instead, the hot news is yet another rehash in a series never-ending reprises of the Joe Wilson-Valerie Plame show. And as Rick Moran notes, even the truth about the original "16 Words" controversy, Niger, Uranium, and Iraq; has all become lost as the MSM works overtime to keep their agenda in people's faces:

Just for fun, let’s look at those dreaded 16 words one more time from the SOTU in 2003:

“The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.”

For the mentally challenged among you, let me sum up: 1) a document is passed to the British government from the French authenticating claims that Saddam was trying to buy uranium from Niger, 2) This is exactly what Bush said. 3) Joe Wilson is a scurvy liar.

Does this really matter?

Of course not – not in any way that counts. I suppose for the record, historians will have a good laugh at the lefties who twisted their panties into knots screaming that Bush lied about Saddam and Niger uranium. But in the current political climate where the impeachment drums are starting to beat louder and louder the closer we get to November, this will be lost in the shuffle and the lie will continue to be told. Or, as is the case when one of their strawmen is knocked down, the left will pretend they never mentioned it and move on to the next meme.

Don't worry, Rick. The groundwork is already being laid by the left for the next meme! Seymour Hersh has started that ball rolling!

In the days to weeks until the President decides what is best to be done about Iran, we will surely hear endless variants on Hersh's fantasies; and every cri du coeur from the left will genuinely, sincerely, and heartrendingly bemoan the heartless evil that resides in the Bush Administration; as the left gins up opposition to anything that Bush might do about the Iran crisis. Iran will be magically transformed into the next victim of the Bush regime. ANSWER will march in the streets! Ahmadinejad will be defended by Ramsey Clark; and John Kerry will believe he can yet again relive Vietnam by using it as a campaign issue for 2008.

So to review:
1. New evidence, that destroys the old memes that were thown about to discredit Bush and the decision to go to war in Iraq and remove Saddam, is completely ignored and the MSM pretends that it doesn't exist. Rating: NOT HOT.

2. The Wilson-Plame-Fitzgerald meme is now once again being thrust into the limelight as a transition strategy to discredit Bush and the decision to go to war in Iraq and remove Saddam. Rating: HOT

As the ground situation in Iraq becomes less violent (yes, the data show clearly that despite the continued "quagmire" and "civil war/sectarian violence" memes, that fewer Iraqis and fewer Americans are being killed) then the only option left will be to:
3. Work is now in progress on a new meme to descredit Bush and his [yet to be made] decision to stop Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons. Rating: HEATING UP

The above three points make crystal-clear the major reason America must not, under any circumstances, allow the political left and the Democrats to have any say whatsoever in determining our national security.

The left in this country is not at all interested in protecting and defending America from its enemies; it is interested solely in regaining political power. Repeatedly in the last 6 years they have had multiple opportunities to come up with alternate plans and ideas to protect and defend this country. They have done nothing but obstruct and whine. Carol Platt Liebau makes an excellent point:

Now is the time for all the second-guessing solons who have had such a field day criticizing Iraq to speak up. Should we just sit back and let Iran get the bomb? Are we willing to live in a world where Iran can blackmail the Middle East, and eventually the world?

If not, what do the Bush critics recommend? It's abundantly clear that no UN action is going to be forthcoming. And, in fairness, some say that Iran's nukes aren't as far along as other reports have indicated. So it's a little like the 1984 Reagan ad featuring the bear in the woods: Some believe the bear is tame, others that it is vicious. Some don't even see a bear. The ad concluded with "Since no one can really be sure who is right, isn't it smart to be as strong as the bear?"

Once again -- as with Iraq -- we're dealing with imperfect information. How about some of our foreign policy back seat drivers stepping forward now with their ideas, rather than waiting to criticize whatever decision the President makes?

Liebau's excellent post drives home why this opinion (or should I say "fantasy") is so ludicrous. To assert that the left is "winning the battle of ideas" is about as intellectually dishonest as you could possibly get. Not only that, but it is demonstrably delusional.

The Republican party and Bush et. al are far from perfect. The deficit has grown indeed, but the very people who are now whining about the deficit are the ones who are simply unable to face fiscal realities and expect every single one of their pet entitlements to continue growing. What they are upset with is military spending and spending on the war. If anything, the Republicans and Bush have been too sensitive to the entitlements at the risk of our national security interests.

But at least they give those interests a priority in their thinking. The left's priority is, and has always been, some bizarre utopian fantasy (link your hands together and sing, "I'd like to teach the world to sing in perfect harmony...") where everything is free and every country loves every other one. What they hate more than anything is anyone who is real enough to stand in the way of their totalitarian desires. Their "ideas", or rather, their fantasies--like their memes--are continually discredited by the real world.

In fact, they wouldn't recognize a real idea even if it came crashing into their living room on a nuclear weapon laden Iranian ballistic missile.

But then the new "hot" meme could be how Bush was responsible because he did nothing.

- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 6:40 PM |

CARNIVAL OF THE INSANITIES

Time for the weekly insanity update, 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!). So, if you want to remain sane, the best thing is to poke some fun at the more egregious absurdities.

Send all 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. I love this song! Lyrics here. [I want to make lawn signs that say "BUSH WAS RIGHT! " so I can put them up all over Ann Arbor].

2. All I can say is, "INCREDIBLE!" . Make sure your sound is on. (hat tip: SC&A)

3. In light of this data, Democrats may want to reconsider what they once said? But probably not.

4. How dare he psychoanalyze her! I'm the one who's qualified to call her a " nutcase."

5. The McKinney Circus. Some are defending Cynthia McKinney...hating the Republicans for their racial brutality! Then there's THE RACECARD.

6. I'll bet McKinney used one of these technological marvels! Meanwhile, outraged hairstylists march in protest! What she should have said.... if she only had a brain.

7. Harry Reid should have done a nexus search; and Clinton is not mortified.

8. A perfect example of how the news gets distorted by today's professionals.

9. If you can't beat 'em, join em? This is perhaps taking it to the extreme, but who can blame them?

1o. Bin Laden has a big mouth. It is times like these where you realize how important it would be to have unions in Al Qaeda. I'm sure someone's working the issue.

11. But...but..the Mohammed cartoons were too disturbing to publish! Obviously a multiculturally insensitive judge.

12. File this one under "I" for "ironic" or "H" for hypocritical.

13. The "average Joe" strikes back!

14. If you get a boo-boo, better call your lawyer!

15. Is Passover no longer a challenge? Maybe because Jews are taking over Christianity (at least according to the usual paranoid suspects)

16. Super excise him.

17. Just when you think people can't get any stupider, they suprise you.

18. Do- it-yourself, in-home Lasik Surgery! (see #17)

19. Science always has an explanation. Look who's on the Olympic team !

20. Maybe science doesn't really have all the answers....?

21. ...and maybe they do -- finally, a solution for Earth's population problem from the academic world! Next, they'll solve global warming for us. The big question: Is Yale better than a Madrassa? Inquiring minds want to know!

22. Mathematics is racist. Who knew?

23. Basically, their instinct is to blame Bush! It's all his fault! Censure him. And "kill" him-- in humor anyway.

24. Beware of really good deals on flat-screen TV's!

25. Makes you wonder why they bother to have disaster drills.

26. What a really really nice guy. No wonder he's the darling of the left.

26. It seems that CBS took this blogger's advice! But he was only joking!

27. And so it begins... the campaign to do nothing as Iran gets nuclear weapons.

28. At last! A candidate that even John Kerry will support in 08! (hat tip: American Digest and Larwyn)

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

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

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:

Heard the Word of Blog?

- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 11:15 AM |

Saturday, April 08, 2006

THE IRANIAN CIRCLE GAME

Nuts to Seymour Hersh (one of the reasons I don't subscribe to the New Yorker anymore); and apologies to Joni Mitchell ("The Circle Game"), who probably wouldn't like this song either.

THE IRANIAN CIRCLE GAME

Yesterday ElBaradei was wondering
If the IAEA had a clue;
Fearful 'cause the mullahs all were thundering
That Islam had to have a nuke or two.

Then Iran moved quickly through the seasons
As they played their game with the EU
Words, excuses, promises and reasons
As their deadly program grew and grew.

And the seasons they go round and round
And the lying mullahs go up and down,
We’re captive to taquiyya every day
We can’t believe a single thing they say
Their vows are lame...
So we go round and round and round
In their circle game.

Many years and options are all gone now:
Diplomacy has failed to slow them down.
Ahmadinejad
Waits for the 12th Imam now
And ElBaradei's become the UN clown.

And the seasons they go round and round
And the lying mullahs go up and down,
We’re captive to taquiyya every day:
We can’t believe a single thing they say
Their vows are lame...
So we go round and round and round
In their circle game.

The years went by and now they have their weapon,
And the Caliphate is close to
Coming true;
They will hardly care what countries they now step on
Before they finally wipe out every Jew.

And the seasons they go round and round
And the lying mullahs go up and down,
We’re captive to taquiyya every day:
We can’t believe a single thing they say
It's so insane...
So we'll just have to put a stop
to their circle game.

UPDATE: Welcome LGF and Michelle Malkin readers! If you want to hear Joni Mitchell's original song "The Circle Game" you can go here.

- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 11:25 PM |

DON'T QUESTION HIS...RELIGION

The headline in the New York Times reads:

"Kerry Sharply Criticizes Bush on Several Fronts"

After reading the article, here's how I would have framed the story:

"Kerry Cites Koran As Important Source In Developing his Social Conscience"

Why, you may ask, would you read an article about John Kerry, the man who would be king? Well, I'm always interested in Kerry's rantings because they are so fruitful from a psychiatric perspective.

At any rate, the information about the influence of the Koran actually comes up at the end of the article; and Kerry also cited the Bible and the Torah as critical in the development of his character. But the reference to the Koran strikes me as rather original and at the same time fundamental about the trademark Kerry style of pandering. Interestingly, I couldn't find the exact text of his remarks which apparently were made by telephone to a political conference organized by Al Sharpton.

Ann Althouse is similarly flummoxed by all this:

The Koran? Come on!

It's always so painful when Kerry tries to show there's something more to him than politician. He only seems to bo even more of a politician. Kerry laid on the Jesus because "the group" he was talking to was something organized by Rev. Al Sharpton. He then brought in the Torah and the Koran -- we can assume -- because seemed politically unwise to lean toward the Christian religion. But who believes that the Koran has influenced his social conscience? I can believe he reading the Old Testament affected how he thinks about the world, though his preference for the word "Torah" must stem from an urge to be inclusive. He wants to include the Muslims too, so he throws in the Koran. If he were really talking about sacred books that he's read, that had an impact on how he thinks about the world, it would be much more believable to cite Buddhist or Hindu texts, which those of us who were young in the 60s were wont to dip into.

Actually, I suspect the holy book that most influenced Senator Kerry is this one; or perhaps this one.

Seems like all this painting needs is a star of David and a cross somewhere included, and Kerry will have himself completely covered--but please don't question his...religion.

- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 3:17 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, as always, includes some incredible writing!

BEST COUNCIL POSTS:

First Place

Immigration Protests By High School Students Rhymes With Right

Second Place (A two-way tie!)

Aztlan and al-Andalus: Return to a Mythical Golden AgeGates of Vienna

Dreams and Myths: Hollywood and 9/11Right Wing Nut House

BEST NON-COUNCIL POSTS:

First Place

On the Return of HistoryAmerican Digest

Second Place

Creating the Online Infidel LibraryWolfgang Bruno

Be sure to check out all the amazing winners at the Watcher's Site! Great weekend reading.

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

Friday, April 07, 2006

ARISTOCRATIC ARROGANCE AND PIOUS SELF-RIGHTEOUSNESS

Does this sound familiar?

On New Year's Eve 2002, while I was a visiting professor at the U.S. Naval Academy at Annapolis, the superintendent - the distinguished three-star Vice Adm. Richard J. Naughton - tried to enter the academy without wearing the photo ID required of all military and civilian personnel.

Naturally expecting that the young Marine sentry on duty would recognize his all-important superintendent, Naughton boldly tried to pass. But instead, the Marine asked him to produce identification. Angry words and some sort of altercation ensued between the admiral and the enlisted man.

Later, Naughton claimed he couldn't "remember" whether he had "touched" the guard, but he did concede he "might" have done so.

After a lengthy, ultimately damming investigation, Naughton resigned - first from his post as academy superintendent and then subsequently from the Navy altogether. During the investigation, some skeptics at Annapolis had doubted whether Naughton would pay any price. But his exalted rank, along with his race and gender, won no exemption.

I mention the Naughton case to illustrate that such mix-ups at government checkpoints are not unusual - and that eventually public pressure catches up with aristocratic arrogance and even the powerful are held to account.

A few days ago I used the term "culture of narcissism" that seemed to describe the affect and behavior of many of our elitist Democrats (and for the record, I do believe that this kind of narcissism exists on both sides of the political spectrum--as does the "culture of corruption" for that matter) but for the moment, I intend to confine my remarks to several particularly malignantly narcissistic Democrats.

Cynthia McKinny is one; and I use Victor Davis Hanson's anecdote above to demonstrate her "aristocratic arrogance" and fundamental narcissistic style.

Let us turn for a moment to another great poobah of unrestrained narcissism; the pious and morally righteous ex-President Jimmy Carter; who provides yet another case demonstration of the those who claim genuine superiority over others. James Taranto in his "Best of the Web" for April 6 has this pertinent story as told by John Sugg:

Carter fittingly used a parable to illustrate how he'd like to see the political/religious debate unfold.

"I was teaching a Sunday school class two weeks ago," he recalls. "A girl, she was about 16 years old from Panama City [Fla.], asked me about the differences between Democrats and Republicans.

"I asked her, 'Are you for peace, or do you want more war?' Then I asked her, 'Do you favor government helping the rich, or should it seek to help the poorest members of society? Do you want to preserve the environment, or do you want to destroy it? Do you believe this nation should engage in torture, or should we condemn it? Do you think each child today should start life responsible for $28,000 in [federal government] debt, or do you think we should be fiscally responsible?'

"I told her that if she answered all of those questions, that she believed in peace, aiding the poor and weak, saving the environment, opposing torture . . . then I told her, 'You should be a Democrat.' "

Geez. I have met many 6 year olds with a clearer grasp of morality than this tired old man who never met a dictator that he couldn't support; and who appears to think that if someone disagrees with him, then they are clearly against peace; against the poor and weak; against the environment; and for torture!

Just as Cynthia McKinney and her sycophants believe that anyone who challenges her must be racist.

McKinney and Carter represent the two fundamental types of narcissists -- the "grandiose" narcissist, whose exaggerated sense of self-importance is dominant; and the "idealistic" narcissist, whose exaggerated self-righteous veneer of concern for others masks an underlying obsession with imposing their views on everyone else.

Both types of Narcissism are a plague on humanity; and both represent well-traveled avenues and justifications for limiting freedom and imposing tyranny. The "grandiose" narcissist shares the same psychology as any thug, bully, or tyrant; while the "idealistic" narcissist is the basic psychological fodder for the many groups (run by the grandiose types) who desire to impose their beliefs onto others.

Most narcissists go back and forth between the two basic types, since they are actually flip sides of the same psychological coin. Aristocratic arrogance and pious self-righteousness might appear to be opposites at first glance, but they both are hallmarks of individuals who are unhealthily obsessed with their own sad, little selves.

[For more on Narcissism and Society you can go here.]

- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 7:35 PM |

MEANWHILE, THE ECONOMY KEEPS ROLLING ALONG

At a dinner party the other night, I thought I had accidently stumbled through the looking glass into wonderland when one of the other guests began to grumble about the "horrible" economy. As is reflexive with Ann Arborites, they then all bemoaned the insensitive Bush administration which had destroyed the lives of millions of Americans because of Republican economic policies--which we all know cause poverty and despair.

Meanwhile, in the real world:

The US economy generated 211,000 jobs in March, surpassing analysts expectations and adding to confidence that economic growth has remained robust.

The consensus among economists had been for a more modest rise of around 195,000. However the good news was slightly offset by downward revisions to the previous two months data. Overall the average monthly job creation rate in the first quarter was 197,000 - comfortably above the 150,000 economists believe is necessary to absorb new workers entering the labour force.

The unemployment rate fell back to 4.7 per cent.

Somewhere, though, in the pleasant dreams and fantasies of progressives there remains the unshakeable conviction that economic life was idyllic under Clinton and that everything was better then. Data and facts to the contrary.

But everyone knows in their heart that George Bush and Republicans hate the poor; and that their evil policies are specifically designed to hurt poor people, the elderly, the disabled, Blacks, women, children, etc. [insert favorite victim group here].

And their feelings are all that matter.

UPDATE: Jayson at Polipundit has more data.

- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 2:25 PM |

QUIS CUSTODIET IPSOS CUSTODES ?

Yesterday afternoon I heard a talking head opine on the need for the U.S. to become as "adept" as Al Qaeda and terrorists in getting their message out in the news. Part of me agrees with that assessment; but I also am aware and can observe daily the reality of how the news--specifically regarding Iraq and the GWOT--is currently being reported by the major media outlets. These outlets have (in spite of bloggers and talk radio shows) almost a complete monopoly on what news reaches the majority of the American public.

It is simply not possible for U.S. government and military sources to get their message out because it does not conform to the leftist template that these news organizations use to interpret all events.

Let us look at the following example: When the U.S. military or U.S. government attempt to promote or place articles/video that show US operations in a positive light; or the enemies operations in a negative light in Iraqi or U.S.media, the MSM becomes hysterical about the fact that it is (gasp!) propaganda and demands that it be stopped.

When Al Qaeda does exactly the same thing (i.e., videotape their atrocities for public consumption), it is seamlessly incorporated into the video and audio streams of all the major MSM outlets. It is not considered propaganda, but breaking news.

Rantingprofs notes that terrorists are no longer even bothering to rely on the hit-or-miss method of posting their propaganda online; but are using the more focused distribution system of actually emailing reporters.

Next they will call press conferences for the sympathetic press corps.

I don't suppose you remember the woman who complained to President Bush in one of his recent Q&A sessions (I believe it was in Cleveland) that her recently returned military husband had brought back from Iraq DVD's containing dozens of positive stories about our soldiers and their activities--and that he couldn't get a single news outlet interested in airing it?

Let us take another example from yesterday. The so-called authorized "leak" of classified material by President Bush as disclosed by Libby. The headlines scream as if this "leak" were somehow significant (and following in goosestep are the lefty blogs, of course--who are not so much distinct from the MSM as they are completely dependent on them to know what to think). Byron York has perhaps the best take on the subject:

I confess to being a little baffled by the excitement over the revelation, in Patrick Fitzgerald's latest filing, that Vice President Dick Cheney told Lewis Libby that President Bush had authorized Libby to discuss some parts of the National Intelligence Estimate with reporters. First of all, it should be made clear -- as it has not been in some discussions -- that Fitzgerald does not say that Bush authorized Libby to say anything about Valerie Plame. As a matter of fact, on page 27, Fitzgerald writes that as late as September 2003, "the President was unaware of the role that the Vice President's Chief of Staff and National Security Adviser had in fact played in disclosing Ms. Wilson's CIA employment..."

As for leaking portions of the National Intelligence Estimate, yes, it was classified, although it would later be declassified. But it should be remembered that when the president decides to make something public, then it can be made public. In the Plame case, there has been much discussion of the unauthorized disclosure of classified information. Would anyone argue that this disclosure was unauthorized?

But the MSM does not let a little thing like the facts get in the way of manipulating public opinion. Read the entire post by York, which discusses how the President was said to be "fingered" by Libby (a nice neutral term used by criminal investigators, right?) as if somehow he had committed a criminal act.

I realize that I am on a tear abou this issue (see here and here for example). But I am completely and totally fed up with the biased, unprofessional, histrionic and deluded MSM, whose only desire appears to be to make Bush appear in a bad light no matter what. They provide no context; they use emotion-laden terms to make sure you know who is "good" and who is "bad" (and in their warped lexicon, Bush is bad and anyone opposing him must therefore be good); and, they appear to be determined to make sure that America never thinks for a moment that we are winning -- because that would be giving aid and comfort to the real enemy --President Bush.

The battle against terrorism has its military frontlines in Iraq, and our very competent military is certainly able to cope with the realities there. Not cope perfectly, perhaps--for what war has ever been fought perfectly? And, despite the imperfections, the miscalculations, the [historically low] fatalities etc.; and no matter what you read in the MSM, we have already won the military battle. Nevertheless, there are other important battles that must be fought-- both in Iraq and here in the homeland.

In Iraq, a fierce political battle is going on right now that will determine Iraq's future stability. While we have some power to influence this battle, ultimately it is in the hands of the Iraqis themselves.

Meanwhile, the war here is being waged on the front pages of the New York Times and on the broadcasts of TV news shows. In that battle to shape public perceptions about the war, reality and truth are being deliberately distorted and manipulated so that the political agenda of the MSM wins.

Blogs and the expertise they represent in various areas can only counter the misinformation to a small extent, simply because not enough people read them yet; and the MSM remains the primary source for news.

I have received quite a bit of email from people upset that I would dare to suggest that our free press has willingly and uncritically offered itself up as a propaganda outlet for the those with whom we are at war. The phrase "speaking truth to power" seems to come up a lot.

Which brings me back to the opening premise of this piece. It is simply not possible for the government or the military to get out its message when the "power" to disseminate information is exclusively in the hands of a few media outlets who have an agenda. They, as much as the government or the military must be continually and carefully scrutinized for honesty, integrity, and balance in their presentation of what is real and what is truth.

And, who is there to do that? They have always been the trusted guardians of truth and freedom in the past. But who is there to speak the truth to the seemingly unlimited and unchecked power they now possess to distort and manipulate that truth?

UPDATE: Cliff May notes on the "leak" story:

An important point frequently misrepresented in this debate: Those intelligence analysts that did not concur did not quite disagree either. That is, they were not saying, “No! Saddam has destroyed his WMD and has not been reconstituting his nuclear programs! We know that! We have proof!” Rather, they believed there was insufficient hard data on which to base a firm conclusion either way. And they were correct. Because the CIA had no good human intelligence (why that came about is another issue), analyses were based on speculation and conjecture. Unfortunately, policy makers often have to make consequential decisions based on such sketchy information.

In other words, there is no hint of a scandal here. There is not even any news here, except that we have now learned something that Libby testified. But the fact that Bush authorized the release of secrets is about as surprising as would be a headline saying: “Police Chief Authorized Arrests.”

The way the press is presenting this story is 100% distortion on their part in order to give the misleading impression that some illegal act was committed by the President.

UPDATE: By strange coincidence (or perhaps not!) The Anchoress addressed this issue about a week ago in a most excellent piece that shares the same title ("Quis Custodiet..."). Usually I read everything she writes, but apparently I missed this one! Be sure you don't.

UPDATE II: Tom McGuire has a comprehensive update on the new "scandal" in la affaire Plame, and claims that the Times is "hopelessly compromised". No, really?

And The Anchoress has a whole host of other links with similar points about how the MSM is misleading you.

You know, I am not a big fan of protest marches and such, but wouldn't it be very pleasant if people got outraged enough at being treated like morons by the MSM and conducted a massive demonstration in front of the offices of the Times and other bastions of the media? OK...nevermind. Just keep cancelling those subscriptions.

- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 12:46 PM |

Thursday, April 06, 2006

Pain-Free !

Today I went to my orthopedist and had the first injection of Synvisc into my left knee. Synvisc is hyaluronic acid--the same thing as joint fluid; and it works by being injected into the joint and lubricating the knee directly. It is not a pain medication. For almost two years I have had continual, sometimes incapacitating knee pain. This was the second specialist I have consulted. Both told me I needed to have total knee replacement surgery.

I tried hydrocortisone shots and they would work only partially and very briefly--and when the pain came back it would always be worse than previously. Anti-inflammatory medication had very modest effects and it was easy to see why. When I looked at my x-ray, it was clear that I basically had no joint space whatsoever in that knee. It was bone against bone and it looked awful.

It certainly felt awful. Osteoarthritis tends to run in my family, but the activities of my wild youth didn't help--all that jumping out of airplanes; baseball, soccer and rugby; etc., likely only accelerated the process. My daughter is of the opinion that my constant knee pain is what makes me so grouchy (moi??); although my grouchiness predates my knee problems, I'm sad to say!

My reluctance (read "fear") in having the surgery is related to the fact that I have had numerous surgeries (for various problems) in the last several years and always managed to have significant complications. Add that to the fact that I would have to take about 3 months off of work and you can see how unappealing the prospect seemed to me. It also doesn't help that I simply hate...hate the anesthesia and have all sorts of bad reactions and I don't want to have to take narcotic pain meds.

So the orthopedist suggested a trial of the Synvisc as a last resort before really seriously considering the surgery. He cautioned me that it doesn't work in everyone and that optimal benefits may not show up until after the 3 shots, each 1 week apart. The injection was practically painless, and only took a few minutes. Supposedly the results may last up to 6 months.

It is now four hours later and for the first time in 2 years, I am walking without a limp, and without any pain at all. The knee feels...completely normal--for the first time in a long time.

I am really hoping this lasts!

- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 10:09 PM |

SHOW YOUR COLORS !

It is "Take a Flag to Work Day" ! Since I'm working at home, I'll fly my colors here.

- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 2:32 PM |

WORKING ON THEIR CLICHES

The beginning of 2006 Major League Baseball Season this week made me realize where I had heard the new platform for national security trotted out by the Democrats recently in preparation for their 2006 season.

When it comes to issues of national security, apparently the Democrats are taking their cues from Crash's advice to Nuke in Bull Durham, and are working on their cliches for the "show":

CLICHE: "We gotta play 'em one day at a time."

DEMOCRATIC VERSION -- "Iraqi politicians should be told that they have until May 15 to put together an effective unity government or we will immediately withdraw our military." - Senator John Kerry

CLICHE: "I'm just happy to be here and hope I can help the ballclub."

DEMOCRATIC VERSION - "We killed the Patriot Act" - Senator Harry Reid

CLICHE: "I just wanta give it my best shot and, Good Lord willing, things'll work out."

DEMOCRATIC VERSION - "We are uniting behind a national security agenda that is tough and smart, an agenda that will provide the real security," [and ,the stars willing,] 2006 will be a year of 'significant transition' in Iraq." (Senators Reid and Pelosi)

(images lifted from Expose the Left on the left; and Michelle Malkin on the right)

- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 12:35 PM |

EVEN I DIDN'T KNOW THIS

How could anyone possibly be aware of these "Numbers" if they were depending on the MSM for their information?(hat tip: Belmont Club)

81, 76, 50, 49, 43, 25

What are these numbers? This week’s Powerball winners? A safe deposit combo? New numbers to torment those poor b*stards stranded on the island in Lost?

No, they’re the number of troops that have died in hostile actions in Iraq for each of the past six months. That last number represents the lowest level of troop deaths in a year, and second-lowest in two years.

But it must be that the insurgency is turning their assault on Iraqi military and police, who are increasingly taking up the slack, right?

215, 176, 193, 189, 158, 193 (and the three months before that were 304, 282, 233)

Okay, okay, so insurgents aren’t engaging us; they’re turning increasingly to car bombs then, right?

70, 70, 70, 68, 30, 30

Civilians then. They’re just garroting poor civilians.

527, 826, 532, 732, 950, 446 (upper bound, two months before that were 2489 and 1129).

Yesterday I said with a great deal of sarcasm that "...the MSM is still trying to lose the war for us....they are focused on the daily death toll and are intent in convincing the American public that we are in the middle of a military quagmire; and that our military is losing in Iraq." I was more right than I supposed.

Because even as they obsessively have focused on the Iraq daily death tolls-- screaming about quagmires and civil wars--they have completely failed to put even that news into any context.

It is not possible to ignore any longer their culpabillity in enabling the enemy and taking on the role of propaganda outlet for them; nor their ignorance and sheer, willful blindness about their own perverted agenda.

UPDATE: These days we have to look to unexpected sources if we want to see honesty and integrity in confronting the real issues of our world--something we once depended on our free press to do. But the editors and journalists of that press are too busy being "sensitive".

- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 10:18 AM |

Wednesday, April 05, 2006

Facing the Realites of A Post-9/11 World - Reprise

LGF links to this compelling piece by author Dan Simmons. A Time Traveler brings some disturbing information from the future....

Simmons' story relates to the message in this recent post of mine. I fervently hope that horrors of the kind imparted by the Time Traveler can be averted if enough people wake up to the threat today.

- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 10:28 PM |

ISN'T THIS INTERESTING ?

Do you wonder whatever became of Sandy Berger, who quietly disappeared off the radar screen after he pleaded guilty almost one year ago, of intentionally removing and destroying copies of a classified document about the Clinton administration's record on terrorism?

Well, here's the latest:

Republican U.S. Rep. Curt Weldon and his Democratic opponent, Joe Sestak, appear to be off to a lightning start in their race for campaign cash.

Sestak, trying to demonstrate that he's a serious contender to dislodge Weldon from a seat he has held for two decades, said yesterday that he had raised $420,000 in just under two months as a candidate.
[...]
Clinton national security adviser Sandy Berger helped host a Washington fund-raising event last week for Sestak. Weldon said Sestak should not have accepted aid from Berger because Berger pleaded guilty last year to removing classified documents from the National Archives.

Curt Weldon, as you may or may not remember is the person in Congress who has been trying to shed light on the Able Danger program from the Clinton years, which many people (including myself) suspect may have identified the 9/11 terrorists long before they actually acted.

That effort has run into many roadblocks. One of which may well be the disappearance of key national security documents in the pants and socks of Mr. Berger.

It is totally amazing to me how incurious the media are about this entire story, since they give lip service to trying to "connect the dots" of 9/11. Yet, somehow, if those "dots" don't lead to G.W. Bush and friends, the story is of no interest to them.

Yet, I find it extremely interesting. Especially in light of Berger's recent fund-raising activities of Sestak, who is running against Weldon.

Back many months ago, I speculated that Berger's bizarre behavior was connected to all this, in that the documents he conveniently "lost" might have illuminated some of those same "dots". See "A Motive For Berger's Bizarre Behavior?" and "Berger and Able Danger-Speculation, Part II.

One thing the felons and liars from the Clinton Administration and today's Democratic Party can always count on, however, is the remarkable--and pathological-- indifference of the press to that administration's culture of narcissism (to coin a phrase).

- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 4:46 PM |

DIFFICULT BUT NOT IMPOSSIBLE -- Except for the MSM

In a very important piece, Wretchard carefully analyzes the current political situation in Iraq, and concludes that it is all about the oil (but not in the way the left suggests):

So why not split directly into three independent countries? Why bother with forming a Unity Government and later a Federal government? The real force driving the formation of a Unity Government is not some desire to satisfy an American obsession with spreading democracy so much as the need to come to agreements over oil and security. All the ethnic groups in Iraq want to share in the oil revenues. The Sunni need a share in oil revenues of which they have none themselves; while the Kurds and Shi'a need to agree how to tranship and manage the oil resources in their areas. (The Council on Foreign Relations and the DLC describe the basic areas of dispute over how the oil resource will be managed and shared.) Without a negotiated settlement under a Unity Government, the Sunnis, Shi'ites and Kurds would have to fight for territory and oil resources. It is better to conclude a series of agreements to be administered by a Unity Government than escort every barrel of oil by force of arms to the market.

The Iraqis actually formulated a constitution in order to take this very fact into account; and that constitution basically limits the powers of a federal government, with considerable checks and balances-- precisely because of the lack of trust that each of the factions has for the other. The U.S. role in all this is to make the checks and balances stick amidst the distrust, while democratic institutions are slowly built for the country as a whole.

Wretchard also comments about the recent disillusion in some conservative circles about this entire process (notably Fukayama, Will, and Buckley) and he quotes extensively from an op-ed piece by David Ignatius, which argues that we should let the Iraqis bargain and not give up on the political process. In fact, while the violence we hear so much about every day is quite tragic, it is not the most important story out there -- except, of course, for the terrorists who would be overjoyed if it was the only story.

What is fascinating is that the Ignatius piece contains details about the political process--which arguably is the most important story in Iraq right now-- that we Americans do not see anywhere else in our media.

In an op-ed piece in the Washington Post!

Think about that.

Instead of our news media and its professional "journalists" giving us detailed news stories about the players in all this; about the political in-fighting and the issues that are taking so much time to resolve; we, the American public, have to read opinion pieces and analyses like Wretchard's to understand what is really going on in Iraq.

I am not the only one to notice this rather interesting fact.

For me this is yet another way that the MSM have let us down. Their excuse for their news-gathering limitation is that Iraq is "too dangerous" and that reporters are not able to get out and see for themselves what is going on.

Clearly, this is just a rationalization for their pathetic coverage of news from Iraq. Let's just ignore for a moment the fact that the negative stories grossly outnumber any positive stories and that we hear nothing about the courageous actions of our troops in this war. Let us just ignore the fact that "if it bleeds it ledes" and that we are certain to get the daily details about every death and explosion and kidnapping. Let us ignore all that, and you still have to wonder why the most important information and NEWS is not getting out of Iraq and into the newspapers, news shows and other MSM outlets.

What prevents all those intrepid journalists from obtaining information about and discussing the details of the political situation and what is going on in the negotiations--particularly in a way that frames the issues, conflicts, and challenges for America? How many of the Iraqis involved in the political process are you able to name off the top of your head? One? (maybe two, if you count Sadr). How many stories have you read about anything except the violence?

You see, the MSM is still trying to lose the military war for us. They haven't even basically picked up on the fact that the political war has been engaged and it is in those political chambers of the elected Iraqi government that the efforts to bring Democracy to Iraq will be determined.

The military battle is already won. Whether America and the Iraqis are successful in the political battle is yet to be determined. Wretchard concludes his analysis thusly:

In the end, George Will, Bill Buckley and Francis Fukuyama may well be right in saying that the peoples of Iraq have no desire to agree to anything but to hate one another. But they are not necessarily right. There is nothing in the situation that forbids the achievement of the vision described in the Iraqi constitution. There is nothing that guarantees it either. Success will depend, in my opinion at least, not upon grand political principles, but on the skill of the Americans and Iraqis who are striving for a political solution. Is it difficult? Yes. Is it impossible? No.

Difficult, but not impossible.

Meanwhile, it is clear that MSM journalists are unlikely to adopt this position as long as they are focused on the daily death toll and are intent in convincing the American public that we are in the middle of a military quagmire; and that our military is losing in Iraq.

Their committment to this Vietnam-era template keeps them--and most of the American public-- ignorant of the real story.

UPDATE: Michael Barone has further thoughts:

Surveys galore have shown that somewhere around 90 percent of the writers, editors and other personnel in the news media are Democrats and only about 10 percent are Republicans. We depend on the news media for information about government and politics, foreign affairs and war, public policy and demographic trends -- for a picture of the world around us. But the news comes from people 90 percent of whom are on one side of the political divide. Doesn't sound like an ideal situation.
Of course, a lot of people in the news business say it doesn't make any difference. I remember a conversation I had with a broadcast news executive many years ago.
"Doesn't the fact that 90 percent of your people are Democrats affect your work product?" I asked.
"Oh, no, no," he said. "Our people are professional. They have standards of objectivity and professionalism, so that their own views don't affect the news."
"So what you're saying," I said, "is that your work product would be identical if 90 percent of your people were Republicans."
He quickly replied, "No, then it would be biased."
I have been closely acquainted with newsroom cultures for more than 30 years, and I recognize the attitude. Only liberals can see the world clearly. Conservatives are prevented by their warped and ungenerous views from recognizing the world as it is.
The New York Times and The Washington Post have often hired as reporters writers who have worked on liberal publications like The New Republic, The Washington Monthly and The American Prospect -- and many of those writers have produced fine work. But they have never hired as reporters writers who have worked on conservative publications like National Review, The Weekly Standard and The American Spectator. News media executives like to brag about the diversity of their staffs, but there is precious little political diversity in most newsrooms.

Read it all.

- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 1:57 PM |

Tuesday, April 04, 2006

Cultural Tipping Point ?

I can't help thinking that this piece of counterculture protest is indicative of a tipping point in the ongoing political culture wars....

It also brought a smile to my face.

- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 10:26 PM |

WE DON'T NEED NO STINKIN' FACTS

Reading Thomas Sowell sometimes is like having a blast of cold air waking up your senses; crystallizing your thoughts--whether it is one of his books, or this column today that asks if facts are obsolete:

What is more frightening than any particular policy or ideology is the widespread habit of disregarding facts. Former House Majority Leader Dick Armey put it this way: "Demagoguery beats data."

People who urge us to rely on the United Nations, instead of acting "unilaterally," or who urge us to follow other countries in creating a government-run medical care system, often show not the slightest interest in getting facts about the actual track record of either the UN or government-run medical systems.

Those who believe in affirmative action likewise usually see no reason to find out what actually happens under such policies, as distinguished from what they wish, hope, or imagine happens.

The crusade for "a living wage" that will enable a worker to support a family proceeds without the slightest interest in finding out whether most people who are making low wages actually have any family to support -- much less seeking out the facts about what actually happens after the government sets wages.

People who have made up their minds and don't want to be confused by the facts are a danger to the whole society.

Witness the riots in France, where students there are basically demanding that the country's failed socialist not be abandoned, but be extended. Do they care that the policies they are protesting are designed to increase employment and improve working conditions? No. They don't care about the facts. If they feel something is true, they have been taught to believe therefore that it is true. Feelings trump facts.

Witness the demonstrations on immigration, which we find out are backed by our old friends A.N.S.W.E.R., the group Christopher Hitchens describes ANSWER as "the group run by the "Worker's World" party and fronted by Ramsey Clark, which openly supports Kim Jong-il, Fidel Castro, Slobodan Milosevic, and the "resistance" in Afghanistan and Iraq, with Clark himself finding extra time to volunteer as attorney for the génocidaires in Rwanda."

Ever since the 20th century revealed to anyone who bothered to look that both of these totalitarian systems had resulted only in bringing poverty, misery and death to any country that embraced them, we now have the dead-enders of that ideology making their last, desperate attempts to grab and/or keep their power.

Are the leaders of the pro-illegal immigration protests or the student protests in France interested in facts? Clearly not. They are only interested in promoting their ideology, and if they had to rely on facts to do that, then they would have nothing to support their fantasies.

Let's look at the two strategies that the leftist totalitarians have come up with in the last 40 years or so to respond to the complete and utter failure of their tyrannical systems in the real world.

The first strategy is the one leftist thinkers had to develop in order to account for the irrefutable fact that neither socialism nor communism had ever, in any place where they were implemented; been able to eradicate poverty. On the contrary, to the extent that socialist or communist policies were adopted by governments; one could find a decline in productivity; a decline in standard of living; and a general increase in poverty. Soon it became clear that far from eliminating poverty; these ideologies facilitated its development.

Hence the intellectual and ethical strategy was to switch from focusing on the elimination of poverty to the promotion of equality; specifically the concept that everyone was entitled to an equal share.

In France, the government has been desperate to decrease unemployment and increase productivity and shake off the stagnant economic growth the country has suffered from for years. This poverty effects all social groups in France, but it is perhaps the most destructive for the young, who have the largest unemployment and the bleakest future. Nevertheless, any threat of changing the status quo results in thse same young people clinging desperately to a system that doesn't work. They are unable to consider the facts of the situation; but even if they did, one wonders if facts would even matter.

They feel they should be entitled to jobs for life. They feel they should be entitled to a good life. They feel they should be entitled to these things and that they shouldn't have to do anything to make them happen. Some one else should make it happen. They feel it is their inalienable right and a job for life is their "fair share".

How will it happen with 20-40% unemployment? They don't know and they don't care. But they want it now.

The second strategy evolved from the Marxist ideal of "universal class consciousness". Sadly for Marx, this proved to be a unusable concept primarily because it turned out that in the real world, the proletariat--or "worker class"-- didn't want to rise up against their so-called "oppressors" as much as they wanted to be able to enjoy the same comforts and lifestyle of those "oppressors". In fact, as these workers came to enjoy the benefits of freedom and wealth, they sort of lost interest in Marx and drifted away. So much for class warfare.

Leftist thinkers discovered one way to counter this natural human desire to better one's self, is to further break down the larger group along ethnic, racial and/or gender lines. It is in these smaller groups that they efectively found a way to re-apply the old "oppressor-oppressed" dialectic with greater success. Is there a social group that has yet to achieve the same level of success as other groups? Then they are ripe for this kind of exploitation. Postmodern theories that address this Marxist failure lead to the multicultural formula that states that while all cultures are special and unique, western culture is uniquely bad and oppressive to all the others.

In this strategy, you can focus on not equality of opportunity -- but differences in equality of outcome. Does it matter that this alteration in one's focus leads to unbelievable, irrational, and insane results like this?

If Hispanics, or blacks, or Muslims, or Women as groups don't score exactly the same (or preferably better) on any test or criteria, then they must be victims of oppression!

They want the same grades; the same pay; the same rights whether they are citizens or not.

How will this happen when people are different and each has different capabilities, motivations and desires? They don't know and they don't care. Make them equal.

Finally, the overall strategy that makes these two strategies really viable in intellectual circles is to maintain exactly what Dr. Sowell is questioning--to maintain that facts are obsolete; that truth is relative; that emotions are superior to reason and logic. These "higher truths" don't need no stinkin' facts.

These postmodern political strategies were the life preservers thrown out by the left to rescue their drowning ideologies.

These strategies are now integrated into the k-12 curricula that those high school students in Los Angeles and other cities out protesting for illegal immigration, have been spoon-fed since kindergarden. Facts are irrelevant when they stongly believe they are doing right and good (that they might be useful idiots for what is wrong and evil does not even occur to them).

By the time they get to college, they have mindlessly repeated the socialist mantras and have had the ideology inculcated as deeply as any religious conviction. Thus they can come together Borg-like in the streets of France to protest any change in the status quo, yet somehow manage to think of themselves as "progressives."

They are not the only ones. Progressive" leftist intellectuals are scrambling all over the world, including the U.S., to find ways to further their anti-human ideologies. You can hear them claiming that the world needs more socialism -- not less. As Sowell suggests, the facts are obsolete and cannot compete with the "higher truth" these people know.

A "higher truth" that has led to millions of people dead; even more people living in abject misery and poverty; and the absurd people--bereft of reason; indifferent to facts--who are clamoring for even more socialism.

The left is so desperate to hang onto their ideology at all costs, that they have made alliance with even more ruthless enemies of civilization. The Islamic fanatics have only contempt for their weakness, but are willing to use them for a while to achieve their own unique brand of tyranny and death worship.

As I look around at the resurrection of this totalitarian monster in the U.S. and France; and its strategic alliance with the fanatics of Islam (since both wish to destroy western civilization as it currently stands)-- I feel a bit like Harry Potter in the Goblet of Fire as he helplessly watched Lord Voldemort be reborn.

Or, perhaps since others have also seen the parallels (here and here)it is more like what Mal Reynolds says in Serenity, after discovering an entire planet of death that resulted from the implementation of the same totalitarian principles:

Somebody has to speak for these people....Sure as I know anything, I know this, they will try again. Maybe on another world, maybe on this very ground swept clean. A year from now, they'll swing back to the belief...that they can make people...better.

And I do not hold to that.

Neither do I.

- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 6:04 PM |

TOUCH AND GO !

It is a cliche that the definition of neurotic person is someone who keeps doing the same thing, while expecting a different result. There is surely a good lesson in that expression. However, I often find it useful to think about things from the outside, in ... instead of inside, out. Especially with stubborn minds.

What do I mean? Erik Erikson famously said that "Psychotherapy begins where common sense ends." I like that. Despite being a psychoanalyst and thus by definition a happy diver into the human depths, I rarely take anyone deeper than is necessary. You don't want people to run out of air on the way down, or to get the bends on their way back.

ShrinkWrapped is discussing the media rehabilitation of John Walker Lindh and notes:

Alas, poor John was merely a misguided young man who turned to Islam and swore Jihad as a purely spiritual journey of self discovery. The business with para-military training, the meetings with Osama bin Laden, and his involvement in the prison uprising in which an American intelligence agent was killed were all simply cases of an idealistic young man finding himself in the wrong place at the wrong time. Lindh is thus presented as the victim of circumstances; he is not the agent of his own destiny but an unfortunate caught up in events over which he had no control. I do not begrudge Lindh's father making such arguments; I do find much to condemn in the media's uncritical conveyance of the assertions. Plan on seeing this motif played out in all the usual venues over the next months to years until, at some point, like Mumia Abu-Jamal, he will have made the transformation from a murderer into the victim of American oppression.

SC&A focus their undivided attention and psychological skills on the mullahs of Iran; and Assistant Village Idiot has a two part piece on Faux Logic, which you will want to read and think about:

This is another of my many favored soapboxes. Children do not begin to use logic on their own until age 13 at the very earliest, and even then spend years practicing it before they actually become proficient. Throughout their teen years, they are mostly using this Faux Logic, this practice logic.

Not my child, you say. My 15-year old reasons quite well, better than most adults, and has been reasoning since age 8 or earlier. They’re tricky like that, giving off the aura of reasoning well before there is much substance behind it. As to reasoning better than most adults, that is perhaps true, but irrelevant to the discussion.

GM is announcing that GM's Corner is moving! I think he is becoming a "munuvian". That's either a new blogging location or he's won that space trip I talked about in an earlier post!

Exploring darkness and light is the theme at One Cosmos:

It wasn't long ago that the world was a very, very dark place. I mean that both literally and figuratively. That is, before the invention of electricity, the night was pitch black except for perhaps a small center of candle or firelight. People were aware of the darkness as a real and present entity, in a way that we are not. Modern people rarely live in darkness except when they are asleep. As such, the only time they have access to the dream world--and night consciousness--is when they are unconscious.

How Gagdad Bob connects this to the Founding Fathers is amazing to behold! This man's mind is fascinating.

Dr. Helen has her latest podcast up with Virginia Postrel talking about her kidney donation. I've always been a big fan of Virginia's ever since she was the editor of Reason. You should go on over to the good doctor's site and check it out yourself.

Next we fly over to neo-neocon's place. She has a great article up about the Patty Hearst and Jill Carroll kidnappings; and confides:

In fact, as a very young child, perhaps ten years old or so, I actually purchased a book called The Rape of the Mind: the psychology of thought control, menticide, and brainwashing (yes indeed, I was a strange child; what can I say?). Aside from serving as fodder for many of my Cold War nightmares, it didn't give me what I was searching for: a foolproof method for resistance if I happened to end up in a prisoner of war camp. But in its detailed descriptions of the sort of pressure that could be brought to bear to make even the strongest of men crack, it gave me a lifelong appreciation of the power of coercion.

That same appreciation was operating in my reaction to what was arguably the most famous political kidnapping/coercion case of the twentieth century. I refer, of course, to the sage of Patty Hearst.

Not Really a Cowboy is busy opining about obesity and non-epidemics

Shrinkette and Psychpundit each appear to be taking a break from blogging. I can relate to that, but I hope to see them back soon!

Now I have to head back to the real world, where I must concentrate on a few projects at work! More blogging later.

- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 9:59 AM |

Monday, April 03, 2006

UNITED 93 and Facing The Reality Of A Post 9/11 World

After hearing about people objecting to the movie trailer for United 93, I immediately found the trailer online and watched it. I came away from it with exactly the same reaction reported on Bizzyblog, who suggests that opposition to the trailer was "contrived":

Those who claim “we are not ready for this yet” never will be.

I would agree with that assessment.

That is not to say that it was not an incredibly painful experience to watch even a few moments of a recreated account of events from that day.

A few seconds into the trailer, tears were streaming down my face. As the well-crafted scenes played out, I found myself feeling overwhelmed with emotion.

You should know that I tend to cry a lot at movies--so much so that my husband and daughter often tease me about how sensitive I am. I am rather a sentimental person and a good story always gets to me.

But this was different. What I felt was not just sadness or empathy with a particular character. What I experienced was overwhelming, gut-wrenching grief--a feeling that I have only felt several times before in my life.

Why, I asked myself, is the feeling still so intense four and a half years after the event? Why is the grief still so strong; as strong as it was on the day it happened and I sat transfixed before my television set for days reliving it over and over again.

To answer that question, I suggest considering an analogous situation. Let us suppose that a horrible murder has occurred in a large family. All the family members of the murder victim are shocked and grieved initially; but for some reason, before the grieving process has much of a chance to get underway, a sizable number of the extended family no longer want to talk about what happened and pretend that it didn't. Some feel the victim "had it coming" and that the murderers were justified in killing him. Some develop complicated conspiracy theories about the murder and in their paranoia implicate everyone-- except the actual perpetrators. Some want to honor the murderers instead of the victim.

In such a dysfunctional family, it would be extremely difficult to resolve one's grief.

Every day where I live, I encounter people like the pathological members of that family. People who are in denial about 9/11 and what it means; who are paranoid about the "conspiracy" they have come to believe is behind it; and who are generally unable to cope with, or acknowledge the reality of what happened on September 11, 2001.

They are the same people who scream bloody murder every time the topic is raised; every time the images are shown--as if by squelching all discussion about it, they can continue to pretend that it never really happened. They prefer to view the attacks and horrific deaths on that day as something that wouldn't have occurred if the hated BushHitler hadn't been in office. Intuitively they understand that if they give credence to its reality; and to the resultant war on terror, they would be supporting Bush.

They would rather hear no evil, see no evil and speak no evil (except of Bush) and remain in the premillennial darkness of the Clinton years--which is why they will nominate their hero's wife to run in 2008. It will never too late for them to go back to the 20th century on that bridge they started to build but which sadly for them led to some serious unpleasantness.

This idea of going back is so comforting; so soothing, they don't want to examine it too closely. And they don't want to be reminded of something that will destroy their illusion and devastate their hopes.

These people still live in a pre-9/11 universe. They have tried their damndest to prevent the rest of us from moving forward and dealing with the realities--and the grief--of the post-9/11 world. They are still, to this day, trying to drag us back over that bridge to the way it was before.

I don't care how painful it is to face the truth. I won't go back and pretend that 9/11 didn't happen and that my beloved country, which I love with my whole heart and soul, was not viciously and deliberately attacked by people whose greatest dream is its destruction.

If some can't cope with the truth after 5 years, then truth--and reality--is beyond them.

I intend to go see this movie; and I will deal as best I can with the pain, turmoil and raw emotions of that day. I owe it to all those who died. I owe it to myself. And, I owe it to my country.

UPDATE: Sorry, I meant to include this but forgot! View the trailer here.

- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 10:03 PM |

WIN A TRIP TO SPACE

(hat tip: Instapundit)

The details to enter are here.

More information here

Good Luck!

- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 5:18 PM |

TO THE INDIVIDUAL(S) WHO IS(ARE) POSTING DISGUSTING MATERIAL AND LINKS IN VARIOUS COMMENT SECTIONS ON THIS BLOG:

Your IP addresses have been reported to the internet provider service you are using.

If you continue this behavior, I will also report you to the police to track down.

If you continue to use other commenter names, I will make sure that you are found and identified.

You behavior indicates a serious character psychopathology. Get help or you will end up in jail.

- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 2:03 PM |

THE JOKE IS ON THE REST OF THE WORLD

Rantings of A Sandmonkey has compiled and translated Egyptian cartoons that were drawn in response to the Danish cartoons and there are some very interesting things that can be seen.

At least five of the Egyptian cartoons suggest that violence has been perpetrated against Islam. Several seem to seriously depict Islam as cutely "peaceful" (see below). In one cartoon, Islam is depicted as as a "dove" of peace; a the other, it is a "flower" being watered by an angel:

Several others depict the Danes as pigs and rats (with strong antisemitic themes). You should go to the link to appreciate all of them.

One thing they are not (except unintentionally) is funny. The anger and rage shine through quite clearly.

It is interesting to me how the cartoon artists seem to equate speech and drawing with the reality of violence. This is done quite naturally and self-evidently--at least to the artists. Yet there is something quite obvious missing, and that is that there is no appreciation whatsoever of how silly such symbols for Islam (such as a flower or a dove) seem to a world who has had to deal with Islam's unrelenting violence and barbarism for some years now--you know, things like beheadings? suicide bombings? mindless and violent riots? etc. etc. etc.

Any normal person would have to ask, is it possible that they could be so deluded?

In other words, there is a bizarre disconnect between their own feelings about Islam (they see it as a "dove" or a "flower") and Islam's actual behavior in the real world, as well as the way others in the world might see it.

This inexplicable naivete is a result of blatant denial; societal repression; and the ever-present projection of all unacceptable feelings onto primarily the Jews (but any outside group is actually acceptable; and they then become identified with the Jews).

What is most interesting is their conflation of actual violence with cartoons; and drawing implements with real weapons. In the West, we often say that "the pen is mightier than the sword"; but that is because our culture values non-violence as a method of dealing with conflict over violence. In a culture where independent thinking and any consideration of new ideas are frightening, and truly threaten to destroy the very foundations of their religion; it is no wonder that they are unable to distinguish between fantasy (what might be imagined in thoughts and ideas) and reality.

The healthier psychological defense mechanisms such as sublimation -- in art, for example; and humor are out of bounds because they require some insight and maturity. Altruism is extended only to bona fide members of their own culture and quickly withdrawn at the first sign of any deviancy from the cultural norm.

Healthy coping options in Muslim society are thus severely limited by the fact that as a culture, their growth has been stunted by the inflexible template of their religion.

This reminds me of the lack of humor about one's self that is so typical of young children. Most often, very young children are completely unable to appreciate the healthiest kind of humor simply because they are too immature and their egos too fragile to be able to enjoy self-deprecation and subtlety. They are unable to step outside themselves and objectively evaluate themselves or their behaviors. I discuss this issue and its applicablity to the Muslim world in this post.

The absence of any of the mature psychological defense mechanisms in the behavior of Muslims in response to the Danish cartoons; their inability to separate thoughts/feelings from actual behavior; and the childish lack of insight and self-awareness that blinds them to how ridiculously absurd their own blatantly violent behavior in response to perceived "violent" drawings actually is--all these things lead an outside observer to the conclusion that we are dealing with an child-like, immature and downright primitive society.

Except, of course, that these are adults and a hell of a lot more dangerous than a developing child. If their behavior wasn't so dangerous it would almost qualify as a joke or childish prank. But it isn't funny when an angry child is playing with a loaded gun.

Sadly, the joke is on the rest of the world.

- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 12:29 PM |

PROTECTING OUR BORDERS

From Cox and Forkum:

To order a copy of the April/May issue of Free Inquiry; or for links to the articles online, you may go here.

- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 11:03 AM |

Sunday, April 02, 2006

LET'S GET REAL

I absolutely love this headline from the Washington Post:

Attacking Iran May Trigger Terrorism
U.S. Experts Wary of Military Action Over Nuclear Program

I don't suppose it has ever occurred to the journalist (Dana Priest) that not attacking them will almost certainly trigger terrorism?

Or, alternatively, to consider that we have not been attacking Iran for years, and that our non- attacks still trigger terrorism? As noted by Cori Dauber, Hezbollah is likely a "wholly-owned subsidiary of Iran" and doesn't need a specific excuse to exercise its terror tactics.

Look, let's get real. No matter what we do or don't do; how nice we are or aren't- we will be the target of terror attacks. The ultimate, four-star, prime, most-sought-after, holy grail of targets for the contemporary politically correct terrorist.

Personally, I think that we would have suffered more terror attacks on US soil since 9/11, if Bush's strategy of keeping them occupied elsewhere were not working so well. There is no question in my mind that if they could attack us, they would.

And, not only that; but as soon as they can attack us, they will.

Anyone who thinks that these fanatics--in Iran or elsewhere-- are using the threat of terrorism as some kind of a deterrent; are engaging in wishful thinking by supposing that the enemy's motives are comparable to our own.

They don't want to deter us, they want to destroy us.

UPDATE: AJ Strata has some further thoughts on this topic that are worth reading.

- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 8:37 PM |

NO RELATION TO REALITY, INDEED

Unbelievable material from MEMRI (hat tip: LGF). Read/watch the entire interview, but here is the final bit:

Dr. Muhammad Wahdan: In 2001, the Center for Population Research at Al-Azahar University conducted research about the chastity of Egyptian girls and the unity of the Egyptian family. They took a representative sample of Egyptian society. The determined several factors for the chastity of Egyptian girls.

The first is the khifadh circumcision of the girls. The second factor is modesty, the third is the mother's monitoring of the daughter's behavior, and finally, the observance of prayer.
[...]
Interviewer: Is the girl asked whether she wants to be circumcised or not?
Dr. Muhammad Wahdan: No. We ask the doctor, who makes the decision.
Dr. Malika Zarrar: God help us.
Interviewer: So what about the girl's opinion?
Dr. Muhammad Wahdan: What do you mean?
Interviewer: What if she says: I don't want to be circumcised. What happens then?
Dr. Muhammad Wahdan: If a girl says she doesn't want it, she's free. No problem.
Interviewer: Is this what happens in reality?
Dr. Muhammad Wahdan: I have no relation to reality. I am talking about how things should be.
Interviewer: You are a religious sheik, from Al-Azahar University. You cannot say you have no relation to reality.
Dr. Muhammad Wahdan: Reality is a mistake, we must rectify it.
[...]
In Egypt we have four and a half million spinsters. The definition of a spinster is a woman who has reached 30, without ever receiving a marriage proposal. We have a spinster problem in the Arab world, and the last thing we want is for them to be sexually aroused. Circumcision of the girls who need it makes them chaste, dignified, and pure.

If there was ever in history a better example of the paranoid fear of female sexuality, I can't think of it. I don't pretend to be an expert on Islam, but it appears to me that much of Muslim culture (particularly in the Middle East) has evolved into a structure for the sole purpose of containing female sexuality. This containment has not only become a key aspect of the worship of their god; but it also is a key factor in individual personality development; as well as the main pollutant of all social interactions.

The men of Islam are obsessed with sex beyond even the wildest imaginings of the Western male's mind. And the obsession is far from healthy.

So frequently do we joke about men's preoccupation with sex and female body parts in the West, that we have failed to notice that the Muslim world is literally consumed by female sexuality and with their fear of it. It is ironic that both Muslim men and women are under the mistaken impression that Western society is oversexualized compared to them, when in fact, it is practically impossible to be more obsessed with sexual matters than they are in Muslim communities.

Consider for a moment a culture that would prefer to let young girls die in a burning building than to risk having them run out of said building not clothed in properly modest dress; and tell me that such a society is less preoccupied with matters of sex than we are in the West.

Enormous effort goes into veiling women, dressing women modestly, silencing women, covering women's bodies, punishing women, controlling women, reviling women, humiliating women, beating women, subjugating women, avoiding the dishonor of women, keeping women uneducated, policing women, infantilizing women--in short, dehumanizing women -- all under the guise of "protecting" and "honoring" them as they relegate them to animal-like status.

The women in this misogynistic Islam are brainwashed from birth into thinking that this cultural preoccupation somehow is necessary and that it "liberates" them in some bizarre manner.

Amazingly, this medieval culture has grasped the fundamentals of both Orwellian and postmodern rhetorical rationalizations, that are so prominent in certain intellectual quarters within our own culture! I have heard the canned rationalizations coming from their lips of muslim women myself; and they all claim that it frees them from having to be "sexual objects."

On the contrary, in Islamic society that is apparently the only role open to women. That, and breeders for the jihad.

This societal psychopathology poisons all interactions between the genders; takes up an incredible amount of time and effort in so-called "intellectual" circles and is the subject of religious edicts and innumerable rules and strictures on women's behavior and in the religious and social life; and causes the pseudoscientific rantings of arrogantly pathetic men (like the one above) who try to justify their misogyny so that they don't have to deal with the reality of their frightened and impotent masculinity.

Women become mere possessions-vessels/repositories of the impotent male's honor. That men and women could relate equally in every sphere of human endeavor is a concept that is so alien and so threatening; I suspect it is what partly drives the rage the males feel toward western culture in general.

Without the subjugated woman, the entire house of cards of Islam and Arab culture will come tumbling down.

I have said it before and I will say it again here: the treatment of women under Islam is not only the key to understanding the pathology of the culture, but also the key to developing an antidote to its most poisonous and toxic elements. Unveiling the women of Islam and eliminating their second-class status; empowering them in the oppressive Islamic countries where their individuality and self-expression has been crushed-- may cause a ripple effect that could eventually alter a family structure that currently encourages the development of generation after generation of dysfunctional and pathological men and women.

What seems most characteristic about the type of Islam practiced in the Middle East today (and being exported around the world) is that its attitude toward women most certainly has no relationship to reality. Reality is indeed a "mistake" in their eyes, and they fully intend to rectify it--no matter how many deaths and lives are sacrificed to their perverted religious ideology.

Psychiatrists generally refers to this state as "psychotic" and "delusional".

- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 3:25 PM |

CARNIVAL OF THE INSANITIES

Time for the weekly insanity update, 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!). So, if you want to remain sane, the best thing is to poke some fun at the more egregious absurdities.

Send all 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. Dangerous American values.... At least someone is glad they live here!

2. Borders says: if you want us to take your protests seriously, you must use the threat of violence--otherwise we'll pick on you. I think their attitude has something to do with this (call it "Google Appeasement Syndrome" or GAS). Is it "High Noon"? Some other thoughts on keeping our Borders safe.

3. Six degrees of irritation or simply insane?

4. 2006 DisHonor Awards! Seeing them all at once is humbling.

5. She's heading towards geekdom!

6. Galileo was wrong? And what's a "geocentric" writer, anyway?

7. Another round-up of insanities !

8. Unreported findings from the Berkeley "Whining" Study. And this analysis shows that humans are unable to manipulate God.

9. The end of history was fantasy, too. Not that it has hurt his career or anything.

10. "The extraordinary contibution of Islam over many centuries to learning, literature, art and science across the world." This is a joke, right? Or was the award given in the 10th century? Or posthumously?

11. Compare the reception of local government for these rallies to this one. I guess there are some limits to tolerance, huh? On the other hand, overreaction?

12. Would you like to be comforted by a secular Jesus? Less offensive, obviously! A surprising source of converts to Christianity--it serves them right.

13. Too bad you can't sell idiot mayors and other politicians on ebay.

14. The Pillage People and their neo-fascist jazz....

15. The new civil rights issue: felon disenfranchisement. Now they are uniting against evil Republicans!

16. A talented pet. A vision-impaired pet? A miraculous pet?

17. THE SEVEN MOST WELCOME, YET PROSPECTIVELY TERRIFYING, WORDS IN THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE! Click here to view. CAUTION!

18. Blogs with examples of: Paranoia? Narcissism? Hysteria? Delusionsl? Cognitive dissonance? And, Still crazy after all these years.

19. BFOQ's and Hooters!

20. "Noone should go around deleting themselves" is good advice. It's an existential no-no.

21. Dems are gonna gitcha! But this is not exactly what they had in mind! Not playing with a full deck?

22. Protect the homeland from raging grannies!

23. Porn Studies 101 . Profanity 101. While we're on the subject: A sign, but not a finger. Judge for yourself. He gave them five fingers!

24. Dihydrogen monoxide - the most deadly substance known to man.

25. Sick of sex? Or just confused?

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

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

If you would like to Join the insanity, and add the Carnival of the Insanities</