"I AM A MOSLEM WOMAN"

From the Saudi Arabian Women's Rights blog (hat tip:FrontPageMag.com):

Islam believes and promotes only one relationship between male and female and that is the relation of lust: "If a man and a woman are alone in one place, the third person present is the devil". Prophet Mohammed.

I am not allowed to swim, ski, ride a bike, dance, learn to play musical instruments, practice gymnastics, or any other sport. I am not even permitted to watch men play sports, either in the stadium and/or on television.

I am not permitted to participate in Olympic games. From age 7, I am segregated from all males in and out of my extended family. My father, grandfather, uncles, brothers or my male cousins are not allowed to be present at any ceremonies for my accomplishments. They will not be allowed to participate in my birthday parties.

I have to study under female teachers and professors. However, since women of prior generations were not allowed to go to school, there are not that many qualified women teachers and professors. Male professors must teach me from behind a wall.

I am to be treated by female doctors. Go to female dentists. And if there are none, then I have to go without or I must be examined through some sort of divider.

My worth is based on the Islamic Laws of Retribution, 24th edition, December 1982, as half of a man. It doesn't matter who I am, how educated I am, and what earning potential I may have in my life. My worth is half of a man, any man.

I am a Moslem woman. I have no face. I have no identity.

Meanwhile the "women's movent"--which claims to be about "bringing equality for all women" keeps sinking to new levels of complete irrelevancy and idiocy by squawking in its usual hysterical manner about ridiculous issues like these; while they chant silly slogans : "Condi, Condi, Condi Rice—your policies suck but your shoes are nice!"

NOW, whose policies suck?

Related Posts:

The Intellectual and Moral Bankruptcy of Today's Left.

The "Girlie Women" of Today's Feninist Movement

International Women's Day in Iran

The Unveiled Woman

Where Have All The Mothers Gone?

No Relation To Reality Indeed
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 4:53 PM |

 
***EXCLUSIVE*** NEW TRANSLATION OF BIN LADEN AUDIO***The Jihad Must Go On
The world is abuzz with the release of yet another Bin Laden audiotape [what's the matter, Ossamy? Can't bear to have your picture taken? Too old? Too sick? Too dead?]in which he hails Zarqawi as an animal (a "lion" to be specific):

In the message, bin Laden demands President Bush hand over the body of al-Zarqawi to his family and effusively praises the Jordanian-born militant, often in rhyming couplets. His voice sounded breathy and fatigued at times.

***DR. SANITY HAS OBTAINED AN EXCLUSIVE TRANSLATION of the audiotape and for the benefit of her audience reproduces the translation and meter. Shockingly, on the tape Bin Laden pays tribute to his dear former lieutenant in Iraq; and in his frail, quavering voice, laden with emotion, sings farewell to the Prince of Al Qaeda. (Experts suspect that OBL has studied audio tapes of Celine Dion, but that is mere speculation)

LOVE SONG FROM THE JIHAD
(as sung by Sheik Osama Bin Laden upon the death of Abu Musab Al Zarqawi)

Every night in my cave
I see you. I feel you.
Cause the hate you inspired will go on!

Far across the distance
And spaces between us
You are slain but jihad must go on.

Near, far, wherever you are
I believe that jihad must go on
Too bad, the dammed infidel's glad,
And that makes me so sad,
But I'm sure that jihad goes on and on

Death only touches us one time;
But hate lasts for a lifetime.
And continues to kill when we're gone

Now you've waved bye bye
gone to the great caliphate in the sky

You were the best, my dear lion;
You are gone and I'm cryin'--
But your hate is so sure to go on.

Near, far, wherever you are
I believe that the jihad goes on
You will never, get to sever
Michael Moore's head-- not while you're dead:
But your hate will go on and on!

There is some hate that will never abate....

You're dead, and now I dread,
That I won't have much longer to go on.
Al Qaeda mourns you; what will we do?
You're an ex-terrorist
But your hate will go on and on....(silent sobbing noted in the background)
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 9:55 AM |

 
ALL IN THE MIND
The psychblogger carnival is now up at Indian Cowboy's blog! Go check out All in the Mind III with the latest offerings from the psychosphere.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 9:38 AM |

 
What Do You Want To Bet?
If this is true, the world should be completely outraged and the Palestinians should lose all international aid or support.

But what do you want to bet that the world's outrage will be directed against Israel? What do you want to bet that the Palestinians will be playing up the victim card? What do you want to bet that any condemnation of the Palestinians will gloss over their behavior and focus on Israel's response? What do you want to bet that the UN will support the Palestinians? What do you want to bet that Jimmy Carter will denounce Israel and hint that it is all America's fault? What do you want to bet that the rest of the lunatic left will do the same?

What do you want to bet?
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 10:58 AM |

 
GETTING DOWN WITH THE SICKNESS
Norm Geras writing about the wanton murder of civilians in Iraq, asks an excellent question:
(hat tip: Instapundit)

Let me make it clear that my point in drawing attention to the reports with which I began is not to draw attention away from any atrocities that have been committed in Iraq by US soldiers. At Haditha and elsewhere, if there have been transgressions of the laws of war by American personnel, then they should be investigated and prosecuted. What is breathtaking about Younge's piece, however, is the structure of justifying advocacy it contains. He talks of the wanton murder of civilians in order to delegitimize the US occupation, while passing over the fact that, almost daily, wanton murder is being committed by forces opposed to the occupation, and as a way of defeating not only the occupation itself but also political arrangements democratically voted for by the Iraqi people. It's just as if this weren't happening or else had no troubling moral implications in Younge's head. No, on the other side of things, there is just 'resistance' - almost like a natural phenomenon, beyond right and wrong, good or evil. How come it doesn't occur to him that if 'the wanton murder of civilians' - week in and week out - is part of the resistance to occupation, then there is 'clearly something wrong' with this so-called resistance? And how come he doesn't then go on to ask what it would mean if this so-called resistance were to enjoy the triumph of bringing about a coalition withdrawal? How come there isn't a two-sided assessment of the aforesaid 'mission', informed by all those wanton murders with which I began? It seems that wanton murder in Iraq doesn't show up on Younge's radar unless it's Americans who are responsible for it.

There is a psychological blindness suffered by most of the left these days. This is an hysterical blindness, whose underlying motivation is obscured by the passionate and emotional appeals of those suffering from it.

Something very troubling is going on inside their psyches--something that they wish to avoid seeing at all costs; because if it were to come into thier mental focus; and if their brains were to process it--it would turn their world upside down.

Many of them truly believe they are looking at reality -- that's why they seriously refer to themselves as the "reality-based community". This is the same sort of phenomenon as the famous "I am not a crook" type of statement. If you have to keep asserting something like that, it is often the case that you probably are a crook. Likewise, if you have to keep mentioning that you are "reality-based", it becomes more and more certain that --whatever you may be, reality has little to do with it.

Instead of reality, the left is looking at is a figment of their imagination; an expression of their deepest desires; a deep, dark secret that must be kept from their own awareness.

Let us take a moment to assess all the information we have about their psychological sickness. By looking at the outlines, we can make a reasonable guess about the underlying motivation that energizes their blindness--and determine what it is they do not want to face in reality:

--They are willing to condemn American soldiers--before an investigation; without sufficient evidence; and automatically assuming the worse.

--They use several isolated incidents; and a handful of individuals and generalize the motives of a few to the entire military;

--They refuse to acknowledge that the military aggressively pursues wrongdoing on the part of individual soldiers and holds them accountable.

--This general condemnation of the military is --for them--simply more evidence showing how evil America is; proof that America has betrayed the values they claim to desire to uphold.

--They willfully ignore--or worse, are not interested in the continual attacks, suicide bombing and ruthless murders of thousands of Iraqi men, women and children by the terrorists.

--To the extent that they acknowledge such attacks at all, they use them as additional evidence of the evil of America (the old children's lament, "But Sammy made me do it!" seems to apply).

--They completely ignore the fact that numerous milestones have been achieved by the Iraqi people; elections have been held; democratic institutions are being developed; and in general, all the good that Americans have done.

--At best they will only grant that the actions of the US and the terrorist are morally equivalent; at worse, they grant the terrorists the moral high ground and are willing to believe anything one of them says about us; but distrust and automatically disbelieve anything President Bush or his adminsitrations; as well as the US military has to say.

I would be remiss as a psychiatrist if I did not ask the exact same question that Norm Geras has. Why are they focusing on supposed American atrocities and indifferent to the terrorists' ongoing legacy of atrocities? Why are they so sure that America is the real evil in the world--and dismissive of the Islamofascist threat? Why is it that all their anger and rage is directed at America--and they have no emotion left over to expend on the pervasive evil that is evident to anyone with eyes open?

How is it even remotely possible that John Murtha could consider--let alone publicly claim--that the US is the biggest threat to world peace? A sentiment echoed by much of the left, and which reverberates in the passages that Geras quotes in his blog.

The events of the 21st century have come as a rude psychological shock to the left. They, like all of us, have been stunned by the terrible events that have transpired; brought about by the medieval remnants of a religion that is anti-civilization, anti-Western, anti-American, anti-Israeli; and fundamentally anti-human. The barbarism of the fanatics of this religion is almost unacceptable to the modern mind, and has caused most of the West to stumble in response, held back by their own decency. It has caused a re-evaluation of many tenets of western civilization and a paradigm shift of enormous proportions as the West struggles to respond to the never-before conceptualized danger.

For the left, the events of the early 21st century have been especially traumatic; coming as they did just as the world was about to bury the useless leftist ideology once and for all. It was to be "the end of history" after all. But the Islamofascists have given the left breathing room and a chance to salvage their own quasi-religious beliefs about socialism and utopia.

But there was only one problem. Their real motives had to be hidden. As much as they admire the Hugo Chavez' of the world; to blatantly express his views is to unmask the left's agenda, and most of the the serious intellects of the left realized this. Thus, they deliberately wrapped themselves in the cloak of the "patriot" or the "internationalist" in order to keep that agenda hidden.

But for most of the regular minions on the left, reality was a bit overwhelming, and the psyche in such extreme cases wautomatically will take steps to protect the sense of self and the dearly held world-view when it threatens to shatter. Psychological blindness is a small price to pay--at least at first--to hold everything together, and to continue to believe that your beliefs represent the good.

The psychological blindness allow them to ignore the real evil -- those who perpetrated 9/11, 7/7; and who daily blow themselves up for the glory of an insatiably ruthless god, glorified by human sacrifice. The blindness results in their being sublimely indifferent to the reality around them; but permits them to focus on events and incidents that are relatively trivial in comparison. Their world is falling apart; their ideology has failed repeatedly in the real world; but all they can do is close their eyes to it and focus ("displace") their anger onto a convenient target whose very existence reminds them of the failures.

The blindness and their displaced anger together inexorably point to one fundamental psychological truth. They identify with the terrorists. The left deeply feels the terrorists pain--and shares their anger and rage. After all, both have the same enemy.

The horrible truth they cannot acknowledge when they look at themselves in the mirror is that they see the terrorists as their allies in a last, desperate battle to save their ideology. And they cannot and will not acknowledge the consequences of that. So the blindness becomes deeper, darker. The sickness worse.

The demon has been awakened, but they don't want to see it in themselves.

Looking at my own reflection
When suddenly it changes
Violently it changes
Oh no, There is no turning back now
You've woken up the demon ... in me

Get up, come on get down with the sickness
Get up, come on get down with the sickness
Get up, come on get down with the sickness
Open up your hate, and let it flow into me
Get up, come on get down with the sickness
You mother get up
Come on get down with the sickness
You fucker get up
Come on get down with the sickness
Madness is the gift, that has been given to me

I can see inside you, the sickness is rising
Don't try to deny what you feel
(Will you give in to me?)
It seems that all that was good has died
And is decaying in me
(Will you give in to me?)

Looking at my own reflection
When suddenly it changes
Violently it changes
Oh no, There is no turning back now
You've woken up the demon ... in me

Get up, come on get down with the sickness
Get up, come on get down with the sickness
Get up, come on get down with the sickness
Open up your hate, and let it flow into me
Get up, come on get down with the sickness
You mother get up
Come on get down with the sickness
You fucker get up
Come on get down with the sickness
Madness is the gift, that has been given to me

I can see inside you, the sickness is rising
Don't try to deny what you feel
(Will you give in to me?)
It seems that all that was good has died
And is decaying in me
(Will you give in to me?)
-Get Down With The Sickness from Dawn of the Dead
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 10:11 AM |

 
Academic Justice
Awwwww. It couldn't happen to a nicer university...except maybe Yale.

Another act of justice in academia also occurred this week: The University of Colorado plans to fire Ward Churchill after two committees found significant evidence of research misconduct and "repeated and deliberate" infractions of scholarship rules. He will of course, sue; and enter into the poor victim role with great enthusiasm.

You might even say for both of these situations, that the chickens have come home to roost.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 9:36 AM |

 
OSAMA-RAMA
I've been tied up in meetings most of the day and have several things to finish up, so I thought I bring you a collection of Osama cartoons (the next best thing to Mohammed cartoons!)










UPDATE: The Anchoress points me to a new blog by (ahem) "Zarqawi's Mother" ! In light of the fact that FoxNews just announced that Osama is coming out with a video honoring his ex-lieutenant, I propose a blog called "Osama's Mama" to help us understand the psychopathic religious wonderboy.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 6:05 PM |

 
SAY IT AIN'T SO, JO
I'm certain most of you don't care (and probably neither does she), but I will never forgive her if she does this. I haven't waited around all these years for that kind of ending.

I remember back in 1981 or so, when I was addicted to a cheesy BBC sci-fi series, Blake's 7. I looked forward to each episode as these courageous freedom fighters battled against impossible odds in a totalitarian universe. Then, incredibly, in the final show of the series, all the heroes were gunned down by the evil galactic federation. The camera panned all the dead bodies and....fade out. End of story.

Apparently, the series ran out of money and inspiration. So everyone was killed off. Nice going, guys. I was outraged then, and thinking about it now, I'm still outraged.

I can't say exactly why this sort of thing bothers me so much. It is probably because I look to art in all its incarnations to inspire me and give me the emotional fuel to carry on through all the trials, tribulations and setbacks of life. I stated my thoughts on the subject in this post:

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

I certainly don't need art to remind me that sometimes things are hopeless or that there is a price to pay in life. In my profession I am reminded of that most every day. I don't need art to selectively recreate death, despair, and the triumph of evil.

Of course there is always a price that the hero must pay to vanquish evil. But if the price is his own death, then what kind of hope or chance is there for the rest of us who are trying to stand up to the darkness? The only way such a sacrifice can be meaningful--in fiction anyway--is if the hero's death is moral; and the flame of his life inspires the heroic in others.

In a post titled "Dedicated to Darkness" where I explore some of these issues, I wrote:

And then you could go on to explore the literature of the last 20+ years; the movies and culture that are dedicated to the "darkness" to which Dr. Seligman refers. I am very very familiar with it. It is why I turned to science fiction and fantasy, where there are still moral universes to get lost in. It is why books like Harry Potter have achieved phenomenal success and why Lord of the Rings was so profoundly successful. They were bright, glittering stars in the midst of a cultural black hole that was sucking all the joy, hope and love from life.

Call me a romantic, but in fiction I desperately need for Good to triumph over Evil. I know it doesn't always happen in the real world--but that is precisely why I need it in a fictional one -- a place where virtue, well-being, nobility, happiness, and meaning are all within the realm of human possibility, and where life is not just unmitigated tragedy, violence, and meaninglessness.

Without art's emotional fuel to sustain the vision of the Good, how would we ever be able to carry on?

Please, Jo--don't give into the darkness.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 9:46 AM |

 
BREAKING***Israel Ground Troops Have Entered Gaza
***UPDATES BELOW***

FOX NEWS is just reporting that Iraeli troops have enter Gaza --some 3000 strong--in the southern Gaza strip near where the kidnapping of the Israeli soldier occurred.

As you think about this, you might want to check out ShrinkWrapped's post today about "The Dance of Escalation and Reaction."

Will these abductions be the trigger for real war? If history is any guide, probably not; yet if it doesn't serve as the trigger, the logic of the Arab paranoid conspiracy dictates that they will need to escalate until they finally receive the all-out attack they so richly desire.

Wretchard also has some thoughts:

It's fascinating to watch this process unfold, which is neither war, which Halkin understands, nor "peace" as pacifists would understand it. So perhaps the "fence" isn't the national border as we would like to imagine it as either, but a kind of village palisade. Maybe the best end state we can hope for is a kind of chronic, but fairly low level violence of the sort that tribes which sporadically raided each other once understood.

Of course, the obvious "escalation" for the insane Palestinians-- who would rather kill Jews than try to establish a civil society in Gaza-- is this.

Whoopee. This should be fun.

UPDATE: So I was correct.

A spokesman for gunmen in the Gaza Strip said they had fired a rocket tipped with a chemical warhead at Israel early on Thursday.

The Israeli army had no immediate comment on the claim by the spokesman from the al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, an armed wing of Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas's Fatah movement.

The group had recently claimed to possess about 20 biological warheads for the makeshift rockets commonly fired from Gaza at Israeli towns. This was the first time the group had claimed firing such a rocket.

Make no mistake--if any of these Islamic fanatics have the capability--biological, chemical or nuclear--do you have any doubts that they will use it?
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 10:32 PM |

 
IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST
Over at The Belmont Club , Wretchard invites a comparison between Bill Keller's letter justifying his decision to expose classified programs in the GWOT; and his newspaper's decision NOT to print the Mohammed cartoons.

Keller's decision about the former:

The question we start with as journalists is not "why publish?" but "why would we withhold information of significance?" We have sometimes done so, holding stories or editing out details that could serve those hostile to the U.S. But we need a compelling reason to do so.

The decision on not to publish the Mohammed cartoons:

New York Times editor Bill Keller said that he and his staff concluded after a "long and vigorous debate" that publishing the cartoon would be "perceived as a particularly deliberate insult" by Muslims. "Like any decision to withhold elements of a story, this was neither easy nor entirely satisfying, but it feels like the right thing to do."

Thus we can conclude that--from the perspective of the NY Times editorial staff-- protecting the feelings of Muslims is far more "compelling" than protecting the lives of Americans.

It's definitely in the public interest to know that.


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

 
TOO OFFENSIVE ?
In going through my sitemeter referrals yesterday, I discovered this link to a BBC Asia forum that was supposedly discussing my post Shame, the Arab Psyche and Islam. Most of the responses seem to have little to do with the post, actually; and then I came to #13:

This posting has been temporarily hidden, because a member of our Moderation Team has referred it to the Hosts for a decision as to whether it contravenes the House rules in some way. We will do everything we can to ensure that a decision is made as quickly as possible.

You can read the "House Rules" for yourself; as well as the post of mine that was (sort of) being discussed. Since the results of the deliberations of the "Moderation Team" are emailed to the people in the thread, I have no way of knowing for sure what the outcome was.

However, the thread abruptly ends after the original poster asks people to respond to the question, "Do you think, Islam and such Arab culture has become interwined, thus entered the pyche of fundamentalist muslims? Thus treating females as SECOND class citizens?"

Apparently, you are not allowed to ask such questions. It's too offensive.

I wonder if the BBC is now issuing fatwas?
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 10:01 AM |

 
SUNSHINE PATRIOTS
Thomas Smith, Jr. in Townhall.com:

So I receive a phone call from a reporter at ABC News. They are working on a story about Haditha, and the reporter’s comments to me go something along the lines of; “I am particularly interested in your recent pieces on Haditha in which you say that in order to understand what happened, we must first understand the men involved, the dynamics of the system in which they operate, and the realities of ground combat.”
The reporter’s referencing of my own comments are somewhat paraphrased, but his following questions are clearly etched in my mind verbatim:

“Don’t you think the killings at Haditha [November 19, 2005] are the result of a wrong war and a failed policy?” he asks. “Much like the tragedy of My Lai [the killings of unarmed civilians by U.S. soldiers in the village of My Lai, Vietnam in 1968] was the result of a wrong war and a failed policy?”

I was taken aback for about as long as it takes to silently mouth the words, “This is going to be too easy.” After all, it’s one thing to read and listen to politicized versions of news stories spun by the various national news organizations. But to actually experience the machine as it begins to process what they plan to feed the masses is quite another.

I like that phrase, what they plan to feed the masses.

Much has been written today about the rationalizations of Bill Keller of the NY Times, trying to justify his newspaper's release of classified information during a time of war.

I particularly liked these two responses highlighted by Instapundit, Michael Barone asks: "Why does the Times print stories that put America more at risk of attack? They say that these surveillance programs are subject to abuse, but give no reason to believe that this concern is anything but theoretical." and Tom Maguire asks: "Tell me again whether there are any checks at all on this 'power that has been given us.' Where is the accountability at the Times - can We the People un-elect Bill Keller? . . . Or, if there is no accountability, is that really how we want to run our democracy? Don't We the People have the right to decide that some national security secrets need to be kept secret? Or can any bureaucrat with an agenda overrule his elected superiors? Let me re-phrase that - can any bureaucrat with an agenda with which the Times is comfortable overrule his elected superiors on national security issues?"

But the completely self-absorbed Keller can only pat himself on the back for his skepticism of the government's motives, and claims to need a "compelling" reason not to publish national security secrets.

Some of the reporting in The Times and elsewhere prior to the war in Iraq was criticized for not being skeptical enough of the Administration's claims about the Iraqi threat. The question we start with as journalists is not "why publish?" but "why would we withhold information of significance?" We have sometimes done so, holding stories or editing out details that could serve those hostile to the U.S. But we need a compelling reason to do so.

Protecting American citizens from another attack is not a compelling enough reason for him apparently.

Last night I was watching a series on the American Revolution on the History Channel. The show was detailing the abysmal failures of General George Washington during the first year of combat. So poor was the morale, that there were plots to actually wrest away the leadership of the continental army from Washington.

What caught my attention in this episode, however, was the impact of one particular person during the gloomy and hopeless time for American independence. A young journalist and pamphleteer who was in the Army under Washington decided that what the colonies needed more than anything, was inspiration. Thomas Paine had already come to some fame as the author of Common Sense , a pamphlet published in January 1776, and whose ringing defense of liberty united the young nation and inspired the leaders to stand up to the British.

With Washington in full retreat, Paine hastened back to Philadelphia--which was already being evacuated in expectation of occupation by the British--and published The Crisis, which was rapidly disseminated through the colonies. Washington himself was so moved by Paine's words, that just before he crossed the Delaware in a surprise attack on the British-- the boldest move he made in the war--he had the stirring words read aloud to his troops.

From The Crisis, December 23, 1776:

THESE are the times that try men's souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands by it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph. What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly: it is dearness only that gives every thing its value. Heaven knows how to put a proper price upon its goods; and it would be strange indeed if so celestial an article as FREEDOM should not be highly rated. Britain, with an army to enforce her tyranny, has declared that she has a right (not only to TAX) but "to BIND us in ALL CASES WHATSOEVER" and if being bound in that manner, is not slavery, then is there not such a thing as slavery upon earth. Even the expression is impious; for so unlimited a power can belong only to God.

But, before the line of irrecoverable separation be drawn between us, let us reason the matter together: Your conduct is an invitation to the enemy, yet not one in a thousand of you has heart enough to join him. Howe is as much deceived by you as the American cause is injured by you. He expects you will all take up arms, and flock to his standard, with muskets on your shoulders. Your opinions are of no use to him, unless you support him personally, for 'tis soldiers, and not Tories, that he wants.

I once felt all that kind of anger, which a man ought to feel, against the mean principles that are held by the Tories: a noted one, who kept a tavern at Amboy, was standing at his door, with as pretty a child in his hand, about eight or nine years old, as I ever saw, and after speaking his mind as freely as he thought was prudent, finished with this unfatherly expression, "Well! give me peace in my day." Not a man lives on the continent but fully believes that a separation must some time or other finally take place, and a generous parent should have said, "If there must be trouble, let it be in my day, that my child may have peace;" and this single reflection, well applied, is sufficient to awaken every man to duty. Not a place upon earth might be so happy as America. Her situation is remote from all the wrangling world, and she has nothing to do but to trade with them. A man can distinguish himself between temper and principle, and I am as confident, as I am that God governs the world, that America will never be happy till she gets clear of foreign dominion. Wars, without ceasing, will break out till that period arrives, and the continent must in the end be conqueror; for though the flame of liberty may sometimes cease to shine, the coal can never expire.

Offhand, I can't think of any of our sunshine patriot journalists today whose writings would do much to inspire America's troops. Endanger them; outrage them; or undermine them perhaps...but hardly inspire.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 9:15 PM |

 
TAKING MADMEN SERIOUSLY
In my profession, I have learned the hard way over the years that you need to take what people say seriously. It is true that people say many foolish things, and it's always a difficult task to determine not only what they mean by what they say; but also what their real intent might be. I take my responsibilities as a psychiatrist seriously, and I try to protect people from harming themselves and others to the best of my ability.

I try to err (and I do make mistakes) on the side of caution, because we are talking life and death here. Ultimately, I realize that I cannot protect everyone or prevent a determined person from killing either himself or other people. All individuals must take responsibility for their own behavior; but I do the best that I can.

Over the years, I have been both condemned and blessed by people when I intervened to prevent something bad from happening.

I have learned to take even the most psychotic and delusional people very seriously--perhaps even more seriously than a normal person; because when someone is out of touch with reality they tend to be more unpredictable, and their behavior even more irrational than usual. This is particularly true when the subject of wanting to kill others or kill themselves comes up. Just because someone is insane, it does not make them harmless.

That is why I read with interest Ralph Peters column this morning about the recent arrests of terrorist wannabes in Miami:

The feds aren't perfect. Only God is. But in our War on Terror the greatest proof of success is a negative - the absence of attacks. And since the horrors of 9/11 (so soon forgotten by so many), al Qaeda and its surrogates have not been able to stage a single strike on American soil. And it isn't because they haven't wanted to hurt us.

The viciousness which those on the left aim at honest - and underpaid - federal employees was on evidence again this weekend. After the Thursday bust of the al Qaeda wannabes down in Liberty City, it took less than 48 hours for the critics to mobilize. By Saturday, we were being told that those arrested weren't a serious threat, that they'd been entrapped, that they're just misguided youths who need a hug.
The entrapment charge won't hold up. If there's one thing the FBI understands, it's how to build a case. But the left will nonetheless champion murderous thugs again ("Free Mumia!"). We'll hear ad nauseum that the Miami Lice were incompetent, that they had no weapons or money, that it was all talk.

Now consider how Timothy McVeigh, Terry Nichols & Co. would have come across had they been popped for conspiracy three or four months before the Oklahoma City bombing - namely, as nuts with delusions of grandeur. Jobless and living on the edge of poverty, McVeigh and Nichols would've seemed pathetic, not deadly. Losers. Like the perps in Miami.

It only took a pile of cheap fertilizer, an old vehicle and one committed killer to bring down the Murrow Federal Building, kill 168 people and shatter thousands of lives. And it wouldn't have taken very much for those half-baked fanatics in Miami to kill hundreds, if not thousands.

Then we would've heard endless shrieks of "Intelligence failure!" The Pelosi-Dean-Kerry Surrendercrats would've damned the Bush administration as asleep at the wheel and incompetent. And the elite media would've expressed outrage that no undercover programs were in place to detect terrorists before they struck.

Those who minimize the arrest of these "nuts with delusions of grandeur" are themselves not operating with a full deck. Weapons (particularly WMD) in the hands of "nuts" are far more dangerous and more likely to be used than in the hands of someone without the disordered, paranoid and delusional thinking.

Since 9/11 we have been--quite rightly-- taking the madmen of the world seriously. That is why we have had no further attacks yet on American soil. Those who want to pretend--for political and ideological reasons--that the fact we have had no further attacks in our country has nothing whatsoever to do with the actions of the evil Bushitler fascist administration, will go on belittlening and undermining everything that adminstration is trying to do to keep us safe.

Sometimes the insane behavior of the Democrats and the left in general makes you wonder who the real madmen are.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 4:54 PM |

 
FANTASY ENVIRONMENTALISM - Breathing New Life Into The Socialist Agenda
In this post I argued that multiculturalism, postmodern politically correct thought, and radical environmentalism were three of the four major strategies used by socialism's deadenders to keep their failed 20th century ideology alive.

In case you doubt the anti-capitalist agenda of todays radical left environmentalists, here's a recent cartoon that sums it up for you:



As you can see, the gist of the cartoon is that global warming is being deliberately caused by all about those money-grubbing capitalists.

This conveniently forgets the environmental disasters that socialist and communist paradises in the world have presided over in the last 50 years or so.

The basic issue for these radical environmentalists is not to end global warming--it is to discredit capitalism and to use global warming and other environmental concerns as a justification to impose their ideological and political agenda. They haven't a clue how to really counter the natural cooling and warming trends of the planet--but if they blame it on human beings, then the solution is to control people.

Global warming is a scientific issue. I can be convinced that the earth is getting warmer, but it will take more than slogans and hysteria to convince me that the warming is something other than a natural cycle in our planet's history that may have some repercussions on human life.

If the radical environmentalists really wanted to "do something" about global warming, then they would be calling for funding projects that explore countermeasures and methods to adapt to it. What we see instead is the same kind of religious fanaticism and holy fervor that the left so despises in the fundamental right. But what they really want is power over people.

Theirs is basically a totalitarian agenda in which they, the "elites", will dictate how people should live on this earth.

For some time there has been a struggle between the totalitarians of the right and the totalitarians of the left to dominate. All the major conflicts of the last century occurred when one or the other tried to take control over the world.

The Marxist left always based its claim for socialist leadership on "scientific principles" --including technology--which they assert "proves" that socialism works; except of course, that it didn't. Which is why the left has adopted the "new and improved" doctrine of radical environmentalism (which asserts that technology is evil and destructive),insisting that human society and progress are "destroying" the earth. Of course, they cleverly invoke "science" as a justification for their beliefs--a strategy that is identical to that adopted by the creationists in their "Intelligent Design" arguments (which, of course, the left has complete contempt for).

Neither represents real science.

Over at Gates of Vienna, the Baron notes:

Now, implicit in these statements is the fact that it must have been even warmer before that. Sometime previously, the Earth was warmer than it is now. Can you believe it? How did civilization survive such a catastrophe? Was that what put Atlantis under the waves — ancient global warming?

What do you think caused it? Was it those coal-fired generating plants the Romans built all over the Empire? Or maybe the SUVs that Jesus and His disciples tooled around the desert in?

What this all goes to show is that the world has been colder than it is now, and it has also been warmer — presumably considerably warmer at times. Regardless of the effects of atmospheric carbon dioxide, there are natural, cyclical fluctuations in global climate that far exceed any changes in temperature that have occurred since the Industrial Revolution.

It’s too early to identify the effects that the human activity has on global temperatures; serious and reliable data have only been available for a micro-instant in climatological terms. The apocalyptic stampede by the cognoscenti to embrace Kyoto and destroy the world’s economy is one of the more foolhardy ideas to come down the pike.

But the elites are certain that Global Warming is Truth; all else is Heresy.

The "elites" have never abandoned their dreams of imposing a socialist paradise, and one of their basic strategies is to undermine capitalism by using the talking points of their "environmental religion".

I suspect that they truly believe that if humans would abandon capitalism and technology; go back to the cave and live the "simple life", then their ideology would finally work in the real world and their dreams of a religious caliphate international socialist paradise would finally be realized.

Perhaps that is why they have willingly joined forces with radical Islam, which suffers from the same inabilty to bring peace (unless you count death as the ultimate "peace") and prosperity to their adherents; and has the same fantasy.

Fantasy environmentalism -- bringing new life into the socialist agenda, and coming soon to a theater near you!
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 11:49 AM |

 
THE LEFT'S THEORY OF RELATIVITY
***UPDATED*** Scroll Down!

For a group that wholeheartedly subscribes to moral relativity and subjective ethics, you've got to wonder about the left and their constant search for some kind of "moral authority" to justify their beliefs. After all, if morality is relative; if truth is subjective and there is no objective "good" or "bad"; then why bother?

Let us look at their tactics to try to understand the underlying psychological motivations in this obvious contradiction.

Cindy Sheehan is an "absolute moral authority" on the Iraq war because her son was killed in Iraq. To the leftists, it doesn't matter that there are hundreds--even thousands--of parents who happen to believe the opposite. The only opinion that matters and conveys authority is one that they agree with.

The Jersey Girls' view of the Iraq war has "absolute moral authority" since they had loved ones who died on 9/11. That there are others whose loved ones died that day is immaterial. Only the Jersey Girls have absolute moral authority and their motives are always completely pure--as Ann Coulter discovered when she dared to criticize them. No relativity of opinion there.

This article discusses the frequent leftist accusation of being a "chickenhawk" if you support the war but have not been a veteran; or have not lost a loved one or sent your own "children" off to fight in the war. John Murtha is one who makes this accusation. He has the proper moral authority, because he fought in Vietnam. So does John Kerry. The other 25% of the Congress who served in the military have no such authority (because they disagree with Murtha and Kerry perhaps?); and the opinions of the vast majority of the grown-ups who are actually doing the fighting for the American public are unimportant.

In all three of these cases, the persons in question have become the left's vocal "moral authority" because they happen to agree with the left's beliefs about the Iraq war and are anti-Bush, anti-Republican, and anti-American.

What these three examples (and there are many more) have in common is both a breathtaking subjectivism and relativism in one breath; and ideological absolutism in the next.

This is as good a demonstration as any of the inherent philosophical and psychological contradictions that the postmodern left exploits in order to achieve political power. They are perfectly aware that their positions don't make any sense and can be refuted by anyone with basic knowledge of logic and logical fallacies; but their goal is to maintain the psychological denial necessary to believe in the left's ideology. Interpreting this defense and exposing it is essential to countering that ideology.

Stephen Hicks asks this important question (page 184):

The pattern therefore raises the question of which side of the contradiction is deepest for postmodernism. Is it that psotmodernists really are committed to relativism, but occasionally lapse into absolutism? Or are the absolutist commitments deepest and the relativism a rhetorical cover?

The possibility that the relativism is primary can be ruled out with some thought. If the modern leftist truly embraced relativism, then you would not see the uniformity of their politics. Hicks again:

If subjectivity and relativism were primary, then postmodernists would be adopting political positions across the spectrum, and that simply is not happeniing.

Indeed. Thus we must conclude that the moral relativism that characterizes the left's equation of terrorism with America; deliberate targeting of innocents with herculean efforts to spare innocent life; Bush with Hitler; Iraq with Vietnam; etc. etc. are simple rhetorical devices being used to manipulate and forward their socialist / totalitarian agenda.

The truth is that the postmodern leftists don't need to believe anything that they say. In fact, they can easily ignore evidence that contradicts their arguments; never acknowledge that their arguments (or more precisely, their beliefs) have been debunked and; and ultimately they can simply redefine words or resort to word games (the various meanings of "is" for example); or move the goalposts (those aren't the WMD's we were looking for) when convenient.

The word games and much of the use of anger and rage that are characteristic of much of their style can be a matter--not of using words to state things that they think are true--but rather of using words as weapons against and enemy that they still hope to destroy.

The value of people like Cindy Sheehan, John Murtha, the Jersey Girls et al; and incidents like Abu Ghraib and other leftist shibboleths-- is that they can be thrown out by the MSM to the population at large to "get your opponent off your back and get some breathing space."

If your opponent accepts that the debate is a matter of opinion or semantics, then your losing the argument does not matter: nobody is right or wrong. But if your opponent does not accept that everything is a matter of opinion, then his attention is diverted away from the subject matter at hand--namely politics--and into epistemology. For now he has to show why everything is not merely semantics, and that will take him awhile.

We see this done cyclically. No issue is every resolved. When the left realizes it is in a losing position, it simply backs off until it is opportune to revive the argument. And then they start back at the same points which were countered and try again, this time with more passion and outrage.

This theory of relativity works very well for them. We haven't heard from Cindy for a while, but we will. Soon Murtha will disappear from the MSM headlines and news shows as Haditha ebbs in the public consciousness--but both will return when another milestone in the Iraq war is met and surpassed or when something unquestionably positive happens--as we witnessed when Zarqawi was finally dispatched from this space-time continuum.

You might want to remember all this when the cycle of gloom, doom and quagmire starts up again. Those who take the time to counter the left's relativistic and out of context arguments will never get the exposure that the original article receives.

It's just a matter of opinion or semantics anyway. Right?

UPDATE: And, speaking of word games, did you know you can get away with treason these days? All you have to do is redefine "treason" to mean "patriotism".

Meanwhile, Diana West has this to say about WWII:

The question is, did bombing Dresden to defeat Hitler or dropping two nuclear bombs to force Japan to stop fighting make the Allies into barbarians?
I think most people would still say of course not and argue that such destructive measures were necessary to save civilization itself — and certainly thousands of mainly American and Allied lives. But if this argument continues to carry the day, it's because we still view that historic period from its own perspective. We view it from a perspective in which Allied lives — our fathers, husbands, brothers and sons — counted for more than Axis lives, even those of women and children.
How quaint. That is, this is not at all how we think anymore. If we still valued our own men more than the enemy and the "civilians" they hide among — and now I'm talking about the war in Iraq — our tactics would be totally different, and, not incidentally, infinitely more successful. We would drop bombs on city blocks, for example, and not waste men in dangerous house-to-house searches. We would destroy enemy sanctuaries in Syria and Iran and not disarm "insurgents" at perilous checkpoints in hostile Iraqi strongholds.
In the 21st century, however, there is something that our society values more than our own lives — and more than the survival of civilization itself. That something may be described as the kind of moral superiority that comes from a good wallow in Abu Ghraib, Haditha, CIA interrogations or Guantanamo Bay. Morally superior people — Western elites — never "humiliate" prisoners, never kill civilians, never torture or incarcerate jihadists. Indeed, they would like to kill, I mean, prosecute, or at least tie the hands of, anyone who does. This, of course, only enhances their own moral superiority. But it doesn't win wars. And it won't save civilization.

No, it won't. But the simultaneously morally relative and morally superior left doesn't seem to care much about that minor detail.

UPDATE II: Assistant Village Idiot takes on an angry psychiatrist suffering from BDS, whose postmodern rhetoric isn't just postmodern...it is right out of elementary school.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 4:45 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. Well, one person's Fitzmas wish might actually come true!

2. "It has the potential to end civilization" - is he talking about global warming or his political ambitions? Inquiring minds want to know.

3. NEWS FROM THE DOGGIE FRONT: An inspirational two-legged animal (hat tip: neo-neocon); An ex-chihuahua used as a club; and Why some dogs attack their owners!

4. If you are sick of seeing the face of a certain communist murderer everywhere you go, click here.

5. Bullshit, or just another lefty blog run by crazy, wild-eyed radicals? Just a way to change the focus? Speak Truth to Power, deliver BS to everyone else.

6. This link contains mildly offensive language. Given the subject matter, the author of the article is sorry that it does not contain highly offensive language.

7. This seems like standard operating procedure for the UN.

8. Meanwhile the NY Times says that extra-extra-marital sex is good for you--and they have therapists to back them up. Sigh.

9. All those aspiring to become faculty members at elite east coast universities, take note. The requirements have changed.

10. Follow the money. You're more likely to get some in a lawsuit if you do.

11. Exactly what is the attraction that the MSM has for totalitarian thugs? Identification with the aggressor?

12. Zarqawi was on welfare? The poor guy.

13. What if you held a Gitmo protest--and nobody came? Maybe it should have been a nude protest?

14. Don't you just hate it when this happens? Or, perhaps more likely in a normal person's experience, when something like this happens?

15. Allah is apparently not a soccer fan. It's just a "colonial crusader s.cheme"--or perhaps it has too much political symbolism? You'd think the jihadists would appreciate the dhimmer aspects.

16. Freedom of speech, R.I.P.

17. An abuse of power? But, who is it exactly that is abusing their power?

18. Profiles in courage? So, how much courage does it take to make fun of someone's butt? It reminds me of how 14 year old girls insult each other. Here's a message from the future House Majority Leader himself.

19. Wow! Celebrities are naiive! Who would have guessed?

20. The pitiful end of an unhappy life.

21. The ziti flowed like wine!

22. Ideologues never have any doubt.

23. Oh, this is so culturally insensitive! Personally, I hate the stuff too.

24. More crushing of artistic expression?

25. Hey Ya! Charlie Brown style!


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:



- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 11:12 AM |

 
PURE, UNADULTERATED... MATURITY
StrategyPage delineates several key reasons why WMD finds in Iraq have been kept secret by the U.S. government, when they could have used the finds to counter political and partisan attacks that have endured since the beginning of the Iraq war:

The U.S. government has taken a beating for supposed failures to find weapons of mass destruction in the press, and from political opponents. There have been some discoveries that have made the news, most notably an incident in May, 2004, when terrorists used a 155-millimeter shell loaded with sarin in an IED. The shell detonated, exposing two soldiers to sarin nerve gas (both of whom survived and recovered). It is this attack that provides one explanation as to why many of the finds have been classified.

If the United States were to have announced WMD finds right away, it could have told terrorists (including those from al-Qaeda) where to look to locate chemical weapons. This would have placed troops at risk – for a marginal gain in public relations. A successful al-Qaeda chemical attack would have been a huge boost for their propaganda efforts as well, enabling them to get recruits and support (many people want to back a winner), and it would have caused a decline in American morale in Iraq and on the home front.

The other problem is that immediate disclosure could have exposed informants. Protecting informants who provide the location of caches is vital. Not only do dead informants tell no tales, their deaths silence other potential informants – because they want to keep on living.

In the bitter, rage-filled and extremely partisan political environment that America has endured since the 2000 election, it must seem strange to some (particularly on the sinister side of the political divide) that there are actually some national objectives--particularly in wartime--that could transcend the seemingly endless and infinitely petty desire to bash and undermine political opponents.

Yet, here we have an instance of such behavior. In psychiatric terms, what we are dealing with is...pure unadulterated emotional maturity ; and I have to say that it is both refreshing and reassuring to know that there are some adults in charge, who put the national interest above partisan politics.

In contrast, in the last few days we have also been witness to the immature, infantile, and incredibly narcissistic behavior of:

1) certain Democrats willing to sacrifice the national interest (as well as personal integrity) if it can put them in a better position for the 2008 presidential race;

and

2) certain media outlets who appear to think of themselves as a fourth branch of government who arrogantly assume they know what is best for the country and, coincidentally because they think (incorrectly, I suspect) that it will improve their bottom line.

The infantile children in our midst demand that this war be fought 1) with no American casualties; 2) with no negative political consequences; 3) with no setbacks; 4) with no hurting the enemy; 5) with no collateral damage; 6) with no ability to gather intelligence; 7) with no ability to deceive the enemy as to our intent; and 8) with no mess or fuss.

If the above criteria cannot be met, then they just don't want to play--no matter how strategically critical it may be to the national interests of the U.S.; or even how emboldened such defeatism makes the vicious and brutal enemy with whom we are engaged.

They just don't care about all that; they don't like it when things are difficult or take an attention span that goes beyond their politcal capabilities. They want to puck up their toys and get out now. Now. NOW!

Like any other typical immature, irrational, and demanding child--unable to come to grips with an unpleasant reality--they put their hands over their ears and shout loudly so they don't have to hear what they don't want to hear (even if it is good!). Then they pat each other on the back and congratulate themselves; absolutely certain that their self-absorbed whining and foot stomping somehow indicates that they are real grown-ups.

Meanwhile, the REAL grown-ups continue to make the sacrifices on the battlefield; the REAl grown-ups ignore the blatherings of the no-nothing press; the cut-and-run Democrats; and the we-hate-America left; the REAL grown-ups manage to put aside the partisanship and need to make short-term points; and do what needs to be done for the long-term good of this country.

The REAL grown-ups work toward victory over the enemy that wants to destroy our way of life.

Sometimes you just have to bite the bullet; make the hard choices; and do what is right--rather than what is easy or popular.

At least, if you are a REAL grown-up you do.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 6:44 PM |

 
GET OUT OF THE HOUSE !
It's a beautiful summer morning and looks like it will be a gorgeous day! What in heaven's name are you doing reading blogs on a day like today!

Go out and enjoy it!

I'll be posting later.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 11:46 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

The Iraqi Insurgency Has No Central Command The Glittering Eye

Second Place

Children in Danger From the UN Gates of Vienna

BEST NON-COUNCIL POSTS:

First Place

The Jihadi Network's Fatal Flaw The American Thinker

Second Place

Srebrenica, Kosovo, Unknown New Sisyphus

Be sure to check out all the winners at the Watcher's site. Great weekend reading.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 11:40 AM |

 
DESIRE NO SHACKLE
In November of last year, I highlighted on Dr. Sanity some photos from Amir Normandi. Normandi is Iranian-American photographer based in Chicago. In October 2005 his photography exhibit that was titled "No Veil Is Required" was shut down by Muslim students and faculty members at Harper College, in suburban Chicago.

It is an appalling situation when an institution of higher learning--presumably committed to encouraging free inquiry, free debate and free speech --engages in censorship because one group or another complains that they are offended. But this is exactly what it has come to in the politically correct halls of academia.

On the PC Victimhood Heirarchy, the absolute worse offense seems to be hurting muslim feelings. As the highest ranking victim group, their feelings always trump other religious groups' feelings.

We see liberal institution after institution in this country fearful of taking a stand for free speech and free thought--especially when Islam is involved. Normandi's art is only one example of the abject self-imposed censorship implemented in Western societies in an effort to appease. The most notorious example of such censorship came from the Mohammed cartoon controversy, when many media outlets refused to reprint some harmless cartoons depicting Mohammed, simply because it might offend muslims.

There is another reason why colleges like Harper and others, as well as MSM outlets routinely yield to the most outrageous demands of these muslim groups.

Remember the chess scene from Star Wars where R2D2 and Chewbacca are playing?

THREEPIO: He made a fair move. Screaming about it won't help you.
HAN: (interrupting) Let him have it. It's not wise to upset a Wookiee.
THREEPIO: But sir, nobody worries about upsetting a droid.
HAN: That's 'cause droids don't pull people's arms out of their socket
when they lose. Wookiees are known to do that.
THREEPIO: I see your point, sir. I suggest a new strategy, Artoo. Let
the Wookiee win.

Well, when it comes to dealing with muslim groups, the new strategy of our brave universities and media is to always let Islam win. (and, btw, I don't mean to insult fictional Wookies by the comparison).

Because, when one is dealing with muslim groups these days, there is always the unspoken threat of unleashing the mindless violence and butchery that has become the international hallmark of the extremists in their sad religion. The widespread rage at the Mohammed cartoons in the muslim world reminds us not only how backward and barbaric are the underpinnings of the "religion of peace" as it is practiced in many parts of the world, but also how willing many muslims and etremist groups are to back up their particular opinions by killing any who disagree with them.

I have written many times on the oppression of women under Islam (here, here, here, and here for example). The institutional misogyny that encourages the subjugation and humilition of women in the Islamic world (and even encourages and enables the murder of women as a means of regaining male or family "honor") is a byproduct of a culture that is terrified of female sexuality. The males have no other way to obtain power except by subjugating women under the guise of "protecting" them.

From a symposium about "The Unveiled Woman":

In Muslim society the male is dominant and almighty since he is made after God, when women have been created as a necessary evil to tempt males. In other words, the female body is the closest thing to the Devil, something which has to be dominated as a proof a faith.

As I have suggested before, the religious police in those societies are obsessed with sex; and therefore see threatening sexuality everywhere; yet they insist that Western society is the one obsessed with sex. I beg to differ.

At any rate, Normandi was kind enough to honor me with an exclusive preview of several photos from the next exhibit set for fall, 2006, titled "Desire No Shackle".


What I like most about Normandi's photos is explicitly powerful sexuality in the women that breaks through the societal restrictions. This must truly be extremely frightening to many of the pathologically inadequate men of Islam.

Enjoy.

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

 
THE BURDEN OF TODAY'S SOLDIER
The latest cartoon from Cox and Forkum:


- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 7:19 PM |

 
TOO HEROIC ****UPDATED****
In a piece posted at RealClearPolitics this morning, Jack Kelly talks about the one clear similarity between Iraq and Vietnam--the fact that the enemy in both conflicts, despairing of victory on the battlefield, sought to win with a propaganda campaign. In the course of this discussion, Kelly relates this tidbit:

A disturbing anecdote from Col. McMaster illustrates why. His 3rd ACR broke the insurgents' hold of the city of Tal Afar last September in an operation which generated these effusive words of praise from the town's mayor:

"To the lion hearts who liberated our city from the grasp of terrorists who were beheading men, women and children in the streets...(you are) not only courageous men and women, but avenging angels sent by The God Himself to fight the evil of terrorism."

Time magazine had a reporter and a photographer embedded with the 3rd ACR. When the battle was over, they filed a lengthy story and nearly 100 photographs.

"When the issue came out, the guts had been edited out of the reporter's story and none of the photographs he submitted were used," said the admiral, quoting Col. McMaster. "When the reporter questioned why his story was eviscerated, his editors...responded that the story and pictures were 'too heroic.'"

Kelly correctly notes the similarity in the national media's willingness to be the enemy's propaganda dupes; but there is another role the media is playing that is equally, if not more frightening. The media is not only mindlessly spewing forth the anti-American enemy propaganda, it is doing the enemy's spying for them, by reporting the details of yet another classified national security program. Stephen Spruiell at MediaBlog:

According to the NYT's own reporting, the program is legal. The program is helping us catch terrorists. The administration has briefed the appropriate members of Congress. The program has built-in safeguards to prevent abuse. And yet, with nothing more than a vague appeal to the "public interest" (which apparently is not outweighed in this case by the public's interest in apprehending terrorists), the NYT disregards all that and publishes intimate, classified details about the program. Keller and his team really do believe they are above the law. When it comes to national security, it isn't the government that should decide when secrecy is essential to a program's effectiveness. It is the New York Times.

National security be damned. There are Pulitzers to be won.

From these two articles, we begin to get an idea of what Time and the NY Times really considers "heroic". And, what a surprise, what comes across very clearly is that the only heroism in this conflict is their own behavior, speaking the cliched "truth to power", standing up for the fundamental principles of a free press and the public's right to know the truth. Having identified their real enemy--the Bush Administration--they willingly aid and abet the terrorists, whose side they are clearly on.

National security be damned. They have their own war to win. And they won't cut and run or redeply their forces until their mission is accomplished and Bush is defeated. Anything that furthers that specific goal, by their definition, is truly heroic.



UPDATE: Andy McCarthy on the media's "war against the war":

Yet again, the New York Times was presented with a simple choice: help protect American national security or help al Qaeda.

Yet again, it sided with al Qaeda. Once again, members of the American intelligence community had a simple choice: remain faithful to their oath — the solemn promise the nation requires before entrusting them with the secrets on which our safety depends — or violate that oath and place themselves and their subjective notions of propriety above the law.

Once again, honor was cast aside.

UPDATE II:Jeff Goldstein - "Just keep telling yourself: It’s because they care about YOUR CIVIL LIBERTIES!"

Scott Ott - "New York Times Secretly Sifting CIA Data"

UPDATE III: Michael Ledeen:

These people are not acting like journalists at all. They are acting as a fourth branch of government, co-equal with the others. They arrogate to themselves the power to classify and declassify, to protect or reveal secrets and sources, as they see fit. Which is to say, according to their political ambitions.

And, you know what? They haven't even been elected! How it must irk them that Bush was.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 10:43 AM |

 
Free Associations
I've been busy most of the day, so here are a few free associations:

Stefania has moved! Her invaluable blog that keeps up with the freedom movements from all around the world-- Free Thoughts --can now be found here.

The bloggers at Maggie's Farm are on a roll. Just keep scrolling down.

Chester speculates on the possible reasons why we are just now hearing about the 500 sarin and mustard gas chemical artillery rounds. Read it and learn. Also, I found this piece at StrategyPage quite interesting.

Meanwhile, ShrinkWrapped wonders if the lack of reporting on the WMD story " is an example of unconscious Confirmation Bias or a conscious decision to not report certain news that would inevitably bring into question some of the unquestioned assumptions of the left, recently repeated here, that "Bush lied" about Iraq's WMD."

The Anchoress notes the media's full court press on global warming; and The Corner notices that in spite of the headline, the NAS report actually debunks the famous "hockey stick" graph--on which much of the environmental fearmongering relies.

Last but not least, this article if for those who still haven't figured out the Islamist agenda.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 10:42 PM |

 
SANCTION OF THE VICTIM
Wretchard, in commenting on one of his own posts regarding torture has this to say:

It's amazing how many countries you find right under the surface participating in this War on Terror thing. European countries, African countries, Arab countries, Asian countries.

Some time ago there was an allegation that there were Secret Prisons in Europe. Maybe there were prisons but they were probably not very secret to the governments of those countries, though they've denied they ever existed. So this is the way it probably works. Everybody gets to spit in the USA's face in public, then with their left hand they secretly hand poor Uncle Sam some change. Or like the 19th century streetwalkers all the gents would see in the shadows and refuse to recognize in broad day. The deal is keep us safe and if we spit in your face, you'll understand old chap. Appearances and all. Torture is illegal, but if you must save us, we know you'll do the "right" thing.

I think I'll go get a beer. This line of reasoning is making me feel bad.

I always thought Ayn Rand perfectly described the kind of behavior that Wretchard is talking about. She called it the "sanction of the victim" and at its root is the insanely self-destructive shame at our own economic success; a willing acceptance of guilt for all the world's problems; and tolerating the abuse, even as we take responsibility for making things right.

Repeatedly over the years (but especially more recently), the world has said to America, "We will give you the honor and privilege of fixing our problems for us; and in return, we get to spit in your face; denounce you as immoral; and generally denigrate your culture, your leaders, and your people."

The UN's perverse anti-Americanism is well documented. No other country gives more to this organization than the U.S.; and no other country is on the receiving end of its absurd and childish criticisms more.

When it comes to taking the risks and absorbing the costs--financial and human-- for almost any project, the United States is automatically expected to shoulder the financial responsibilities; stop the megalomaniacal madmen; and protect everyone else.

And what do they get in return? Public scorn and derision.

Rand correctly saw that when need (or victimhood), replaces ability as the highest of societal values ("from each according to his ability, to each according to his need"), it creates a society in which the needs of some place a moral claim on the lives of others.

For too long, the world has staked a moral claim on America--the most productive, most free country on the face of the planet. This moral claim has shackled the benevolent American spirit--repeatedly exploiting its goodwill and the generous heart of its people; while deliberately undermining and denegrating that spirit; reveling in America's setbacks and failures; yet always demanding more. Nothing we do is ever good enough, smart enough, perfect enough--or, even enough for the looters of the world.

The world's leading intellectuals concur that we are flawed and obviously the source of all evil in the world (could you fix Darfur next? How about North Korea and Iran--can't you do something about them before it's too late?)

As the rest of the world vies for victimhood status so that their "need" can bind them to us, the people of the U.S. fail to see that the only real victims in this manipulative power game known as "anti-Americanism--is...America.

Only by withdrawing the "sanction of the victim," --i.e., refusing to be manipulated in this manner--refusing to give aid where there is scorn and not even grudging gratitude; refusing to shoulder the burden of all as they beat us upon the back and tell us to go faster, do it better, and jump higher; refusing to pay their debts; fix their problems; or protect them from their own, deliberate, suicidal behavior--only then will the looters and the parasites be forced to recognize reality.

Every time I see our country accept the premises of the insane political correctness promulgated by the political left--a doctrine that claims that, while all cultures and countries are equal; you, America, are uniquely bad and evil and must be punished for your sins. Every time I witness the hysteria mounted when America falls short of its own ideals--and then willingly and honorably acknowledges the fact and takes steps to correct it; every time I witness the granting of moral equivalence between America and the barbaric terrorists who get a free pass from the international community and the MSM for their behavior (being a terrorist means never having to say you're sorry as far as the left is concerned)-- I am appalled.

Is there no decency, no honor left in the Democratic party anymore? Has most of the world gone completely insane? Is the suicidal appeasement of evil and the denigration of good now the norm? And what will happen to the world if America is finally beaten down and just...shrugs...when the next international crisis arises.

God help us all.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 10:17 AM |

 
ACE Democrats
Giving Aid and Comfort to the Enemy. Retired Lt. Gen. Tom McInerney is interviewed by Jed Babbin at Radioblogger.

UPDATE: Joseph Loconte writes:

Compare this to Churchill’s governing philosophy during a season of intense political strife. As Martin Gilbert recounts in his gem of a book, Winston Churchill’s War Leadership, the new prime minister resolved to forget the past. Even those associated with the disastrous policy of appeasement toward Hitler found a place in Churchill’s administration: The achievement of national unity against the enemy was all important. “Of this I am quite sure,” he said, “that if we open a quarrel between the past and the present, we shall find that we have lost the future.”

Democrats insist on keeping open this quarrel between past and present, and their posturing has deepened the nation’s political divisions. The Bush administration has begun meeting regularly with high-profile critics, such as former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright. Yet Bush has failed to recruit a single, respected Democratic leader to help prosecute the war. (There are, to be sure, pitifully few to choose from.) What might the debate over Iraq be like today, however, if the president had named Democratic Senator Joseph Lieberman to replace Donald Rumsfeld as secretary of Defense during his second term?

Perhaps the most insidious domestic enemy that confronted Churchill in wartime was the spirit of defeatism. There was lots of it in the early days of the war, when Britain stood alone against the Nazi juggernaut. There were proposals to sue for peace with Hitler, fears of a successful German invasion of England, and military blunders that cost thousands of British lives. Churchill never lost heart. “The prime minister expects all His Majesty’s Servants in high places to set an example of steadiness and resolution,” he said. “They should check and rebuke expressions of loose and ill-digested opinion in their circles.”

The loose and ill-digested opinions about the Iraq war could fill volumes. No matter what the sign of progress in the country — fair elections, a liberal constitution, a representative government — some detractors seem seized by an almost pathological gloom.

Read it all.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 1:03 AM |

 
SOUNDS OF SILENCE
Jeff Emmanuel seems surprised that so-called "human rights" groups are strangely silent about the brutal killings of two kidnapped American soldiers--as they have been silent about all the other atrocities committed by the terrorists in Iraq.

I am not at all surprised.

Judith Apt Klinghoffer wonders how it is that the champions of the Third World underdogs show so much interest in the death of two American soldiers but so little interest in the fate of Basra's elderly victims?

Indeed, it would be accurate to say that both MSM and the Human Rights community is involved in a major struggle to convince the world of the essential moral equivalence between democracies and terrorist organizations(tyrannies are presented as morally superior put upon "moderates.") They do so by focusing on the imagined or real transgressions of democracies and by covering up the purposeful viciousness of the terrorists.

She goes on further to say:

Furthermore, despite repeated proof of terrorists media manipulation, MSM reports their charges without the same caveats it routinely attaches to Israeli, British or American reports. Indeed, they take advantage of the careful pronouncement "we are investigating" democratic officials are forced to make to run with unproven charges. By the time the results of the investigation are revealed the damage is not only done but findings which fail to substantiate the early charges are either ignored, dismissed as cover ups or relegated to the back corner of page 25.

Convincing the world of the moral equivalence between democracies and terrorists is just one of the aims of the international elite represented by MSM and the self appointed Human Rights community. Persuading the international community that the war on terror is unwinnable is another. Note how elegantly the BBC achieves its dual aims by placing the bombing of the Basra old age home in the context of coalition forces ineffectiveness rather than in the context of terrorist depravity

These human rights groups are not particularly interested in human rights unless it happens to further their ideological agenda. The MSM has a parallel--if not identical--ideological agenda.

Michelle Malkin notes that at least one human rights group --Amnesty International-- has condemned the atrocities against the American soldiers. Wretchard, however, is far from impressed.

New Sisyphus reminds us that this is not the first time:

...Early on in the Afghan Campaign--you remember that one, the one that was an illegal war of mass punishment, doomed to failure due to the harsh Afghan winter, the one that would cause no less than 200,000 civilian casualties and set off a horrific famine, the one that was foretold would tie us down for years just as the Soviets were, the self-same war that the self-same critics now praise as a model of a "good" war they could support, unlike, sadly, the Iraq War--an American soldier was caught on a mountainside by a rush of Taliban fighters. A circling American helicopter filming the battle caught the moment.

Just prior to realizing that he was without escape, the American soldier turned to face the onrushing mob of Taliban and raised his hands. He was grabbed by the head and forced to his knees and a man with a knife cut his torso open from side to side. The American soldier, in full uniform, fighting in a declared war, having just surrendered, was executed on camera.

There were no thundering editorials in the New York Times decrying this violation of the most basic of the rules of war, nor sophisticated leaders in the Guardian worrying aloud what this latest violation of international human rights bode for the future of humanity.

This is how the world works: American soldiers are supposed to be brutally executed as a matter of course. A simple prisoner of war camp where men such as that that executed our soldier are treated to Muslim chaplains, three halal meals a day, an exercise yard and calls to prayer, however, is clearly illegal and a matter of grave international concern.

The pirated tape of the execution is available for download at any number of Muslim websites or, if you lack Internet access, as a video or DVD at any number of Muslim bazaars from Indonesia to London. Act now and we'll throw in the beheading of the Jew spy Daniel Pearl for half-price. No need to hide such things. They are sold openly. Actually, not very far from the Guardian's offices, which doesn't strike me as entirely coincidental. After all, speaking truth to power in the form of George W. Bush won't get you killed. Printing a cartoon or saying the wrong thing, however....

Just remember, that these human rights groups and the MSM are really talking without speaking. Their message is coming through loud and clear to some of us, but many are still hearing without listening.

And in the naked light I saw
Ten thousand people, maybe more
People talking without speaking
People hearing without listening
People writing songs that voices never share
And no one dared
Disturb the sound of silence

This cacophonous silence must end; and we must stand up to all the enablers in the MSM and on the political left who continue to encourage and support these sadistic barbarians.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 9:36 PM |

 
SHOOT IT DOWN
Shoot it down...and then bomb the site where it was launched.

It will be a twofer.

Remember, Iran will be watching how we handle North Korea very very carefully.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 6:50 PM |

 
DRIVING BACK
We'll be driving back to Ann Arbor from Traverse City today. More later!
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 12:42 PM |

 
THE DEMOCRAT'S MAGIC SCHOOL BUS
You have to read this article to understand how hapless the Democrats are when it comes to the big issues like Iraq and the war on terror. It's sad, but they just can't seem to find their position on Iraq (i.e, agree on what position will get them the most votes).

But, that is the problem with operating on the basis of opportunism, instead of having any fundamental principles to guide you. As far as I can tell, the only principle guiding these kids is "we hate Bush, so vote for us." The party of nothing, has nothing to offer in these dangerous times--only antiwar platitudes and self-serving behavior.

Once again we see the absolute lack of integrity, honesty, and the unending opportunism of Democrats who are currently more interested in regaining power than they are in protecting and defending the U.S.

There are very real issues--both nationally and internationally-- that require the goodwill and common sense efforts of both Democrats and Republicans. Disagreements are expected and spirited debate has always been an important part of our heritage. Republicans are certainly no saints; but the Democrat's behavior regarding the Iraq war and the War on Terror in general, simply cannot be justified; and demonstrate neither goodwill nor common sense.

This is symptomatic of the PC cancer eating at the soul of the left--and it reveals a fundamental anti-Americanism; so irrational; and so distorted by Bush hatred that it is willing to sacrifice America and all it stands for to the barbarians we are fighting.

American citizens possess a lot of common sense when it comes right down to it. They may not like the situation in Iraq or the world--or even think that Bush is not handling these issues particularly well. Yet, anyone with common sense would look at the alternative(s) offered by the Democrats, and then vote for the Republican.

The Magic School Bus's Miss Frizzle would say to the childish Democrats: "Take chances, make mistakes, get messy!"

In other words, think outside your ideological box--and grow up and do what's right--even if it's not popular.


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

 
THE STRUGGLE TO MAKE EVERYONE THINK WE'RE SWELL
If you want to understand the psychological consequences of political correctness and how they distract, impede, and prevent us from being able to defeat Islamofascism, then you should read Diane West's latest column, "It's An Islamic Jihad, Stupid":

This mindset may explain why the United States exhausts itself trying to disclaim a connection between Islam and jihad, opening Islamic centers on U.S. military bases (most recently at Quantico at the behest of a Wahhabi-educated cleric). Thus, as Paul Sperry writes at frontpagemag.com, "facilitating the study of the holy texts the enemy uses, heretically or not, as their manual of war"; treating those same holy texts reverentially by military order at Guantanamo Bay; and even sending in the Marines to donate prayer rugs to an Iraqi mosque.

Such tactics suggest we no longer seek a military triumph over Islamic jihad -- if we ever did. Had we prosecuted such a war, it would be over by now. The president would have directed the military to eradicate, freeze or neutralize jihadi threats where they exist, from Iran to Syria, from Gaza to Fallujah. Concurrently, we would have closed our own borders as a post-Sept. 11 security precaution, and implemented an immigration policy designed to avoid repeating the European example of Islamization through massive Muslim immigration or, as some are calling it, "reverse colonization."

But no. Such a war on terror long ago gave way to the Struggle to Make Everyone Think We're Swell. In this no-win fight, we must watch what we say -- as when the government "distances" itself from an official's frank characterization of three suicides at Guantanamo Bay as a jihadi "PR stunt." And we must watch what we do -- as when we repeatedly send our military on dangerous house-to-house missions with restrictive rules of engagement rather than using air power. In a war in which an interrogation could save a city, we rewrite our interrogation rules to make sure that it won't. "If this debate were limited to what's best for interrogation purposes, the decision (about whether to soften interrogation techniques) would be pretty easy," a senior Defense Department official told The New York Times. "But then you have to look at what we lose diplomatically.'"

The enemy has no need to waste their time on psyops directed against us--they can always count on those who run the MSM and Democratic Party stars like Murtha and Kerry to spread their message of doom and gloom and hopelessness.

The facts of the matter are unimportant. Failure is the only option the Democratic stars can envision that will improve their politial capital.

A politically correct cancer has been slowly eating away at our society for several decades now, and the left side of the patient is already paralyzed and dysfunctional because of it.

Let us either wage a real war and fight to win; or come slinking home, tail between our legs, and abandon all we stand for--just as Democrats desperately desire. If they really cared for the troops; if they really understood the motivation of those who enlist and reenlist to server their country; if they really wanted to support them--they would do everything in their power to WIN--not surrender. Our military is not made up of poor helpless, drafted children, who must be protected by Democrats from being put in harm's way; or from any risk when they defend our country. Their service is THEIR CHOICE. And by and large, they are the best professionals in the world and excellent at what they do. Let them do it. Let them take the risks (which they are well aware of) and honor them for their courage and sacrifice. They do not deserve the shame and dishonor heaped upon them by Sheehan and other disgruntled family members--who always seem to be spotlighted by 21st century "Tokyo Rose" news media.

Let us treat the enemy as the enemy--not as our dear friends and colleagues who should enjoy the benefits and perks of our free society-- and accord them only the rights and priveleges due within the absolute letter of the law--and not one iota more. If they desire the protection of the Geneva Convention, then let the enemy sign the treaty. Otherwise, no quarter. We owe them nothing--especially not Korans and certainly no respect for their beliefs.

Let us stop being suicidally politically correct; let us call a spade a spade; a terrorist, a jihadist; let us, in other words, fight a goddamn war, and stop pussyfooting around trying to please those who will never be pleased; and who both secretly (and not so secretly) desire our failure anyway.

Think we will hear any outrage expressed about this? No, the defeatists and all the don't-question-their-patriotism patriots will just use it as yet another justification to surrender. How quaint.

This is not a game of make-believe and their partisan maneuvering--which enables and encourages the enemy--is as deadly as a dozen IED attacks.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 6:49 PM |

 
DELUSIONS DIE HARD
But...but...but...WE'RE LOSING!! It's a quagmire! It's Vietnam! (It Has to Be).

UPDATE: Here's the reality.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 1:08 PM |

 
FAR FAR OUT
Truthout uses the "fake but accurate" defense. This defense, combined with "getting too far out in front of the news cycle" excuse makes them just the sort of news organization where a bunch of far out pathetic liars and con artists can feel comfortable.

Indeed, they have gone where no postmodern anti-truth-seeking, agenda-driven news organization has ever gone before--reporting news stories before they even happen, and then courageously questioning reality itself when it doesn't conform to their fiction.

One can only be amazed at the incredible appropriateness of their organization's chosen name.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 11:02 AM |

 
A FEW OF MY LEAST FAVORITE THINGS
Bombs on Zarqawi and al Qaeda hideouts
Nancy Pelosi in one of her big pouts
Loud angry leftists with Che on their frock
These are a few of the things that I mock

Democrat leaders who froth and who blather
MSM marxists and Mapes and Dan Rather
Moonbats who fly like those monkeys with wings
These are a few of my least favorite things

Murtha and Kerry and Gore in his green dress
Postmodern delusions make me ill, I confess
Moveon's George Soros who pulls the left's strings
These are a few of my least favorite things

When what's real bites
When the truth stings
When I'm feeling sad
I simply remember my least favorite things
'Cause nothing is quite...as bad!

Sheesh! Everyone's a songwriter now! (hat tip: OBH) And they're all better than me!
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 10:50 AM |

 
SOME WORTHWHILE BITS
The family has been traveling all day and we are now in beautiful Traverse City in the northern part of the lower Michigan penninsula. I have a talk to give here tomorrow, so we decided to take a few days off and enjoy the beach.

Blogging will be a bit lighter than usual, but I will be posting if I find something worthwhile. For example, here are a few links that seemed very interesting to me:

- The economy is still going gangbusters, though the MSM and Democrats would rather be boiled in oil that to acknowledge that fact:

More than two years ago, when President Bush announced his aim to cut the federal budget deficit in half by 2009, many critics guffawed. They called the goal an impossibility, a naïve and futile effort that would be undermined by the fat-cat Republican tax cuts.
[...}
In that AP article, Sen. Kent Conrad, the top Democrat on the Senate Budget Committee, was quoted deriding Bush’s plan: “It’s like so much with this administration in respect to fiscal matters, it’s all spin, all the time.” Former Congressional Budget Office director Robert Reischauer called the proposal “fanciful.” To Democrats, the AP reported, Bush’s goal was simply “laughable.”

But the critics are no longer laughing. Driven by a surging national economy, tax revenues are increasing and the deficit is rapidly shrinking. The president’s deficit-reduction plan looks like it will not only succeed, but will do so years ahead of schedule.

-The Party of Retreat and Defeat is at it again:

As the fall elections approach, the Democrats have formally unveiled their platform for the war in Iraq: snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

At the very moment that documents captured from the Zarqawi death site indicate that Al Qaeda feels it is losing its war against the Iraqi future and has become so desperate that its only hope to prevail is by embroiling the U.S. in war with Iran; at the very moment Iraq’s democratically elected government is establishing itself as a functioning regime, and its increasingly capable military becomes more successfully engaged against the insurgents —at this critical moment for the future of Iraq and the Middle East, more than three quarters of the House Democrats have voted against a resolution to “complete the mission.”

For the first time in American history, a major political party wants America to run from a war we are winning.

Of course, they can are unable to see this fundamental truth, probably because they read the NY Times and other MSM news sources on a regular basis. John Murtha even cites Somalia as an example of a "good" US intervention (no, I am not making this up). The man has not simply "jumped the shark", he's fallen into the looney bin (right next to the shark tank).

-Did we need any further proof that Al Gore is a complete ass? Perhaps not, but I find this tidbit of information shines a spotlight on his character. And the view is not a pleasant one.

-Shadi Hamid wants muslims to "stop saying crazy things." Good luck with that. He might want to seriously consider the possibility that it is now far beyond the point where the sane and sensible muslims (i.e., those who are willing to live in peace with their neighbors as they quietly practice their religion) can rein in the insanity that has taken hold of their religion. As I noted in the previous post, the mass delusion and paranoia that afflicts Islam is spreading.

-Fausta notes how little it takes these days to get a faculty position at a major American university. I suspect that Yale is already positioning itself to offer Ahmadinejad a key professorship as soon as he steps down in Iran (I understand that he's just too busy to accept one now, as he's intent on bringing about the apocolypse first--but his resume looks good).

- Last but not least, Bill Whittle of Eject, Eject, Eject has some excerpts up of his new book An American Civilization--soon to be released.

That should keep you all busy for a while!
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 8:07 PM |

 
MASS DELUSIONS
Do you want to know what happens when an entire country embraces a psychotic and paranoid delusional system? You get comments from their leaders like these:

-'Historically, there are many accusations against the Jews. For example, it was said that they were the source for such deadly disease as the plague and typhus. This is because the Jews are very filthy people. For a time people also said that they poisoned water wells belonging to Christians and thus killed them,' Ramin said.

-'When the Islamic Revolution of Iran succeeded and attracted many people around the world, including Christians, the AIDS epidemic came about, and fear again overtook the world. After the September 11 attacks, the deadly epidermic broke out, which was destroyed when the U.S. invaded Afghanistan. On the eve of the invasion of Iran, SARS (Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome) illness broke out, but disappeared after the invasion,' he said."

-'Nobody Asks How a Bird That had the Flu Could Fly From Australia to Siberia'

-Ramin also claimed that the spread of bird flu was a conspiracy plot cause[d] by the failure of America, Israel and Britain in the Middle East.

-And repeating the president’s claims about the Holocaust, he presented four theories that are presented in its support.

"The first is that in order to deny the Germans the ability to increase their power, 'the British and Americans present them as a human-burning nation.' The second theory is that the Americans and the British have cocked up this story with the Zionists, so as to create the state of Israel in the middle of the Islamic world and thus control the Islamic world on the Holocaust pretext, and getting rid of the Jews from Europe. The third hypothesis relates to the traditional animosity between Christians and the Jews. 'The U.S., Britain with the cooperation of France, Russia and Germany, and because of their Christian leanings and its animosity with the Jews, launched the idea of the Holocaust after the Second World War to scare off the Jews and sent them to what is now Israel in order to get rid of them in Europe and America,' he said. He further said that the movement that created Israel is in fact against the Jews. The fourth theory relates to covering up the crimes of the U.S. and Britain. He claimed that Britain had killed some 100 million red Indians in the last 300 years and the U.S. had leveled Hiroshima, which he said were the real Holocausts."

-Claiming that the Holocaust was the principal reason why Palestine was occupied while Israel was the main cause of crises and catastrophe in the Middle East. 'So long as Israel exists in the region there will never be peace and security in the Middle East,' he said adding, 'So the resolution of the Holocaust issue will end in the destruction of Israel.'

In this last statement you begin to see why the Iranian leadership has been insisting that the Holocaust never happened. In their deluded minds, denying the Holocaust means they will have eradicated any justification for creating the state of Israel.

The logic of the paranoid is clear. The Jews are "filthy"; they are behind most of the plots of history; they are responsible for AIDS, SARS, Bird Flu--just as they were responsible for the Plague and typhus. Americans and the British cooked up the idea of the Holocaust as a way to get rid of the Jews in Europe and foist them on the poor innocent people of the middle east. The Jews (with the help of America and Britain) are responsible for everything that is bad in the world, but specifically what is bad in the middle east.

All these accusations are made with a straight face and a firm, unshakeable belief. The people who believe these things are not joking. Humor is not one of the prominent aspects of paranoia. The person who said all these ridiculous things is perfectly serious. As is the audience who believed him.

If, as you read this guy's speech at the link above you start to have the niggling sense that the man is going into all sorts of mental contortions and gymnastics to explain, but that his explanations don't make any sense at all---well, welcome to the world of the paranoid. No explanation is too bizarre or too complicated-- if it supports your fundamental premise.

And that fundamental premise shines through loud and clear from the collection of societal delusions vomited out by the Iranian spokesman.

And, it takes no great leap to understand that if someone actually believed the fundamental premise--that the Jews are behind all the problems of the world-- then what follows is perfectly logical from the paranoid's perspective. In fact, you will feel completely justified in doing almost anything to get rid of the "problem" as you have described it.

Even wiping them off the map.

I have seen the same perversely resolute determination in many paranoid patients over the years, as they gird their loins to confront the boogeman behind their most frightening delusions. One patient in particular stands out in my mind. This individual became convinced that his psychiatrist--a colleague of mine--was the root cause of his failure in life. Of course in his mind it was a lot more complicated than that. He had traced her influence in his life back to his birth (when the psychiatrist would have been only 5 years old) and constructed a theory with her at the center to explain every setback he'd had over the years. He regaled everyone he met with the details of that theory. One evening, he waited at the door to her office; and when she left to go home, he shot her dead.

As he explained to the police afterwards, why should anyone be upset at his actions? He had finally taken action to solve the problems in his life, and in doing so he had solved the world's problems and should be considered a hero! He was duly found guilty of premeditated murder.

Now, take this kind of individual paranoia and imagine a nation of paranoids, all who share the same delusion. Everyone is familiar with the concept of "mass hysteria", a condition in which a large group of people exhibit the same state of violent mental agitation. The countries of the middle east suffer from mass delusions.

And Israel and the Jews are at the heart of their delusional system. If Israel didn't exist, the paranoid residents of the middle east would have to invent it--otherwise how could they possibly explain their own economic, political, and social backwardness without experiencing overwhelming shame?

It must be a conspiracy.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 10:33 AM |

 
A NATION GROWS IN IRAQ
Despite the violence; despite the unrelenting negativity of the MSM; despite the "cut and run" Democratic chickenchickens -- something is growing in the Iraqi desert.... (hat tip: JAJ)



From Prickly City.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 5:02 PM |

 
REPENT YE SINNERS !
Throughout human history there have always been shamans and other elite high priests or priestesses in every primitive culture. Their job has been remarkably consistent down through the ages--to provide a religion du jour explanation for events in the real world which the primitive mind could not comprehend. Usually that explanation, even in modern times is a variant of the following: "You have sinned and brought these evils upon yourself! God/Allah/Other is very displeased! Repent, or you will die/the world will end/bad things will happen."

This kind of explanation is actually fairly comforting to many, because it assumes that you have within your control the ability to prevent all sorts of horrible things from happening --like devastating natural disasters;weather-related phenomena; and many other assorted "acts of god".

Now, there is no question that human behavior has an impact on events in the real world. The problem with the religious fanatic is that this explanation focuses primarily on the "sins" the believer, and on satisfying that believer's need for redemption and salvation; rather than on the use of human reason and logic to solve the problem.

Most savvy and well-trained representatives of the religion are are able to insure that their believers understand that the cause of any disaster that has befallen the people is directly associated with their own imperfections and lack of true faith in the respective religion. Therefore, the solution to such crises is always to have more faith; more love; more perfection; and, of course, even more dedication to the words of the prophetic shaman or witch doctor.

This strategy works on several levels for the shaman; just as it works for the larger population:
- It provides a readily understandable cause for the disaster and
- It suggests a specific behavior change on their part can prevent future disasters
- It gives people a sense of control over uncontrollable forces
- It intrinsically explains all future disasters (the victims lacked faith)
- It conveys enormous power to the priest/priestess/shaman

On the downside, it doesn't usually generate any useful strategies that will have significant impact in the real world.

We see the shamans and priests at their work today; whenever someone claims that a tsunami or a hurricane or earthquake that takes a terrible toll on human life is actually a divine judgment or punishment for the sins of the victims.

True believers in any religious cult are susceptible to this sort of psychological manipulation; and it usually energizes the survivors and puts them more in thrall to the dictates of the all-knowing shaman.

True believers in non-religious cults are just as susceptible--if not more so because they have real faith that their religion is based on science. What usually goes unnoticed is the fact that reason, logic and science can just as easily be brought into the service of the irrational. In psychiatry, we see this phenomenon all the time; and it is known as paranoia.

As an example, look at today's typical leftist environmental fanatic. For them, it is always mankind's sins that have brought the curse upon him. Repent your evil ways, and you/the environment/the earth will all be saved!

Such movements can gain momentum under the guidance of a really talented shaman, intent on consolidating power, even as they disguise themselves as selfless, doomsaying prophets.

Cox and Forkum have identified for us one of the most recent witch doctors, practicing his voodoo on the gullible masses.


- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 1:28 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. Feline Fuehrers. And a deck of cards made up of "furr-eners"

2. Jedi breakfast.

3. The left's next t-shirt icon---Che doesn't do it for them anymore. And Castro weighs in against...barbarity! HAHAHA

4. Are Republican's destroying the solar system? Here's a reality check for a certain ex-Presidential candidate. I expect he won't pay much attention. He thinks he's Yoda.

5. Canada is provoking the terrorists? How? They actually have the audacity to prevent them from carrying out their murderous plans! That's crap (artistically speaking, of course) !

6. The MSM and Al Qaeda agree: It's just a flesh wound !

7. Zarqawi's formative years....And the Z-man's successor: It ain't me babe!

8. Channeling the inner moonbat. And Face 2 Face with one!

9. Bigger boobs on Broadway are not a virtue! Now who could have guessed that?

10. It's all in the name! Or, how to start a charitable organization.

11. Voting against victory. Exposed! This means that 93 out of 100 senators are obviously "out of the mainstream". Mr. "cut and run" cuts and runs again.

12. Essential (and welcome!) nutritional news!

13. CheChe's sob story. Everything you wanted to know about The Angry Left. Tears of shame? Or a brilliant parody?

14. Reactions to the Fitzmas that never was.

15. What would we do without international think tanks?

16. 70 year old woman in unlawful seclusion with a male. Now, which culture is it that has sex on the brain?

17. The Madden Curse?

18. When you can't say something nice...you might be a pollster!

19. Hurricane hype: Alberto's devastation ! Bloggers get the real scoop!

20. Building a bridge to the 20th century.


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:




- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 9:57 AM |

 
Wicked Blogging
We're going to see Wicked today in downtown Detroit. Blogging will be light until later this evening. Have a great day!
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 10:31 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

Spinning Their Way to Defeat in November Right Wing Nut House

Second Place (a two-way tie!)

Outer Darkness Gates of Vienna

Hix Nix Chix Done With Mirrors

BEST NON-COUNCIL POSTS:

First Place

One Liberal’s Argument for Still Staying in Iraq A Newer World

Second Place

Malloch Brown's Message to America The Belmont Club

Be sure to check out all the winners at the Watcher's site. Great weekend reading.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 9:57 AM |

 
ALL BECAUSE OF ZARQAWI'S ADDRESS BOOK
Here is some interesting information from StrategyPage that should definitely annoy those who are desperate to maintain the fiction that the death of al-Zarqawi has little or no impact on the Iraq war or on the overall war on terror:

Al Qaeda in Iraq has been virtually wiped out by the loss of an address book. The death of al Qaeda leader Abu Musab al Zarqawi was not as important as the capture of his address book and other planning documents in the wake of the June 7th bombing. U.S. troops are trained to quickly search for names and addresses when they stage a raid, pass that data on to a special intelligence cell, which then quickly sorts out which of the addresses should be raided immediately, before the enemy there can be warned that their identity has been compromised. More information is obtained in those raids, and that generates more raids. So far, the June 7th strike has led to over 500 more raids. There have been so many raids, that there are not enough U.S. troops to handle it, and over 30 percent of the raids have been carried by Iraqi troops or police, with no U.S. involvement. Nearly a thousand terrorist suspects have been killed or captured. The amount of information captured has overwhelmed intelligence organizations in Iraq, and more translators and analysts are assisting, via satellite link, from the United States and other locations.

Future Al-Qaeda Enabler Nursery Rhyme:

For want of a safe safehouse, Zarqawi was lost
For want of Zarqawi, the addres book was lost
For want of the address book, more safehouses were lost,
For want of a safehouse, al Qaeda was lost.
For want of al Qaeda, the jihad was lost.
For want of a jihad the caliphate was lost.
And all because of Zarqawi's address book!
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 5:21 PM |

 
THE COMFORTS OF PARANOIA
Michael Barone comments on the non-indictment of Karl Rove, and it is worth quoting at some length:

It is hard in retrospect to understand why the left put so much psychic energy into the notion that Mr. Rove would be indicted.
[...]
In all this a key role was played by the press. Cries went up early for the appointment of a special prosecutor: Patrick Fitzgerald would be another Archibald Cox or Leon Jaworski. Eager to bring down another Republican administration, the editorialists of the New York Times evidently failed to realize that the case could not be pursued without asking reporters to reveal the names of sources who had been promised confidentiality. America's newsrooms are populated largely by liberals who regard the Vietnam and Watergate stories as the great achievements of their profession. The peak of their ambition is to achieve the fame and wealth of great reporters like David Halberstam and Bob Woodward. But this time it was not Republican administration officials who went to prison. It was Judith Miller, then of the New York Times itself.

Interestingly, Bob Woodward himself contradicted Mr. Fitzgerald's statement, made the day that he announced the one indictment he has obtained, of former vice presidential chief of staff Scooter Libby, that Mr. Libby was the first to disclose Ms. Plame's name to a reporter. The press reaction was to turn on Mr. Woodward, who has been covering this administration as a new story rather than as a reprise of Vietnam and Watergate.

Historians may regard it as a curious thing that the left and the press have been so determined to fit current events into templates based on events that occurred 30 to 40 years ago. The people who effectively framed the issues raised by Vietnam and Watergate did something like the opposite; they insisted that Vietnam was not a reprise of World War II or Korea and that Watergate was something different from the operations J. Edgar Hoover conducted for Franklin Roosevelt or John Kennedy. Journalists in the 1940s, '50s and early '60s tended to believe they had a duty to buttress Americans' faith in their leaders and their government. Journalists since Vietnam and Watergate have tended to believe that they have a duty to undermine such faith, especially when the wrong party is in office.

That belief has its perils for journalism, as the Fitzgerald investigation has shown. The peril that the press may find itself in the hot seat, but even more the peril that it will get the story wrong. The visible slavering over the prospect of a Rove indictment is just another item in the list of reasons why the credibility of the "mainstream media" has been plunging. There's also a peril for the political left. Vietnam and Watergate were arguably triumphs for honest reporting. But they were also defeats for America--and for millions of freedom-loving people in the world. They ushered in an era when the political opposition and much of the press have sought not just to defeat administrations but to delegitimize them. The pursuit of Karl Rove by the left and the press has been just the latest episode in the attempted criminalization of political differences. Is there any hope that it might turn out to be the last?

It is worth recalling that during Vietnam, the media; academics, intellectuals, many public figures, entertainers, and the antiwar protesters of the time consistently and stubbornly refused to see Communism for what it really was. They steadfastly ignored the millions of deaths in the Soviet Union and elsewhere and instead focused their attention on the United States as the center of all evil in the world.

Today we have the very same people and their intellectual descendents consistently and adamantly refusing to acknowledge Islam and the Jihadis for what they are. Again, this group are extremely adept at ignoring a barbaric ideology that promotes enslavement and death; while actively undermining the premier international symbol of freedom and the sanctity of an individual's life.

With tedious and infinitely repetitive talking points, they again subscribe to the comforting notion that the US is the cause of the mayhem and butchery and ignore the real butchers.

In other words, the MSM's Vietnam "template" is actually nothing more than that primitive and immature psychological defense mechanism known as DENIAL.

In two major wars, the Left has consistently perceived America as the threat to the world, and ignored to the point of complete hysterical blindness the real oppressors of human freedom and dignity. During Vietnam they deluded themselves into thinking that Communism was benign (some even believed it to be superior to a free society) as long as you didn't provoke it.

And now they prefer the same delusion about Iraq and the homicide bombers of the religion of peace.

They were wrong then, and they are wrong now.

After 9/11, Bush faced a terribly unpleasant truth. He understood that if America ignored or minimized the reality of that day, we could easily maintain the false sense of security that characterized the previous decade--even as the very real and deadly threat coalesced and took substantial form. We could ignore it--or we could confront it decisively now.

Many in this country would prefer to pretend that 9/11 didn't really happen. Or to pretend that the U.S. caused the attacks; or that if Bush hadn't been the President, the attacks would never have happened. All these fantasies have one thing in common. They deny the reality for the purpose of maintaining a sense of control over events whose implications are horrendous.

For some, it is so much better to believe in the fantasy of control because then the solution would be simple: get rid of Bush and it will all go away--just like a bad dream!

In their denial and subsequent paranoia, they are ready to embrace the fantasy that somehow Christianity or Judeo-Christian values are the real threat. Witness all those who claim that Bush is imminently going to impose a Christian theocracy here; the complete hysteria over Christian "symbols" and the denial of a Judeo-Christian heritage. This is the same kind of psychological displacement that can be seen in the phenomenon of Bush Derangement Syndrome. If Bush is the cause of all the evil in the world, these same people see Christianity (or Judaism--any religion but Islam) as the greatest threat to the utopia in their mind.

The intellectual "Vietnamizing" of every event in Iraq and the failure to see Iraq's importance in the War on Terror and consequently for the long-term security of America, completely denies the Islamofascist threat to civilization.

In a world where the Democratic Party leadership was anchored to reality, the debate with Republicans would be how to fight the war on terror better; and the American public would not be constantly subjected to the constant whining--by Kerry and others of his gormless ilk-- about how we shouldn't have gone to Iraq in the first place. Or the increasingly petulant demands to simply cut and run because everything is not going perfectly.

The proponents of doom and gloom in the reality-based community insist that it is Bush who is in denial (or people like me), even as they twist and turn every major victory in the war into more evidence in their own minds that we are losing. Instead of national rejoicing at the death of one of the enemy's leaders; as we recommit ourselves to the fight, we instead witness the spectacle of Democrats pushing for surrender.

My patience with this kind of political denial, and the concomitant paranoid delusional system promulgated by the left, ended on 9/11. Their political insanity has become a threat that no rational person can afford to ignore because they put not only themselves in danger, but everyone else in this country.

In a previous post on the subject of denial, I mentioned a rather remarkable patient with a relatively rare neurological diagnosis. This patient had suffered a stroke and one of his symptoms was that he did not acknowledge that the entire left side of his body was physically a part of him. It was an astonishing conversation our team had with him. "Is this your arm," the neurologist would ask him, pointing to the patient's left arm. "No, it's not mine," would be the reply. The neurologist would then take the man's arm and show him how it was connected with the rest of his body. The man would watch this, then shake his head and emphatically tell us, "No! I see that it is connected. Someone must have connected it when I wasn't looking. But it isn't my arm."

The evidence that it was his arm was before him. In this patient's case, the physical damage to his brain prevented him from being able to be convinced that his own arm belonged to him.

This clinical case parallels the present psychological denial of the left; as they are increasingly unconvinced by attempts to point out the obvious. They may not have suffered any real physical damage to their brains, but they suffer from a self-inflicted brain disorder that is the result of a complete ideological hardening of the arteries.

For the left, Fitzgerald's always imminent indictment of Karl Rove--Bush's "brain" --was the ultimate "proof" that in fact their elaborate system of denial and distortion about Iraq and the War on Terror was "reality-based". Their not-so-hidden message is: "SEE!! WE ARE THE REAL PATRIOTS! IT IS BUSH / THE REPUBLICANS WHO ARE THE TRAITORS UNDERMINING OUR COUNTRY!!!"

Or, to put it another way, "No, that isn't my arm--it must be yours!"

They see that the arm is actually connected to them--but someone must have connected it when they weren't looking. It is not theirs. It must be Bush's. They remain the real patriots, defending the nation from the evil BushRovian's outing of Valerie Plame. Outing Plame is seen as an incredible moral outrage; outing the NSA surveillance program required courage and was necessary for truth and justice and the American way.

The "reality-based" community continues to enjoy wallowing in this sort of psychological denial because they have developed a foolproof method to prevent any insight or self-awareness. Even as, one by one, the the holy foundations of their denial are toppled by reality, they simply adapt their intricate and increasingly complex delusional system to accommodate any inconvenient truth--distorting that truth until it is unrecognizable and fits into their ideological template.

The paranoia of the left is thus effortlessly self-reinforcing and infinitely comforting to true believers.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 11:26 AM |

 
COULD THEY SHOW A LITTLE RESTRAINT?
Every mental health professional is aware of the phenomenon of "copycat suicides" that occur after a well-publicized suicide--particularly among more impressionable young people. It's hard to imagine, but the idea of going down in a blaze of glory spectacular enough to make the evening news is attractive and romantic to some.

That's why this news is hardly shocking.

In many real-life situations where there is a fear of copycat suicides, the local media will voluntarily suppress any stories that might trigger the copycats. I know this because I have worked with reporters and editors about this very thing. When lives are at stake, the media used to be reasonable and not want to romaticize or overly dramatize these kinds of tragedies. In such cases, the news outlets don't generally want to benefit circulation at the expense of human life - a worthy and honorable position.

Yet, that is exactly what they are doing in this war, whether they admit it to themselves or not.

Perhaps now that there is objective data to show them, it will be possible for them to exercise a little restraint; and even if they report on a particular terrorist attack and give the details of it, they might actually refrain from blatantly showing their admiration for the terrorists and/or editorializing about how hopeless it is to fight against such tactics.

Maybe.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 6:18 PM |

 
AL QAEDA STRATEGIC PLANNING
Speaking of a "treasure trove"of documents, here we have some significant concerns identified by Al Qaeda corporate strategic planners in Iraq; and it outlines the strategy they planned to use in order to counter their worsening position there (hat tip: The Corner):

However, here in Iraq, time is now beginning to be of service to the American forces and harmful to the resistance for the following reasons:

1. By allowing the American forces to form the forces of the National Guard, to reinforce them and enable them to undertake military operations against the resistance.

2. By undertaking massive arrest operations, invading regions that have an impact on the resistance, and hence causing the resistance to lose many of its elements.

3. By undertaking a media campaign against the resistance resulting in weakening its influence inside the country and presenting its work as harmful to the population rather than being beneficial to the population.

4. By tightening the resistance's financial outlets, restricting its moral options and by confiscating its ammunition and weapons.

5. By creating a big division among the ranks of the resistance and jeopardizing its attack operations, it has weakened its influence and internal support of its elements, thus resulting in a decline of the resistance's assaults.

6. By allowing an increase in the number of countries and elements supporting the occupation or at least allowing to become neutral in their stand toward us in contrast to their previous stand or refusal of the occupation.

7. By taking advantage of the resistance's mistakes and magnifying them in order to misinform.

Based on the above points, it became necessary that these matters should be treated one by one:

1. To improve the image of the resistance in society, increase the number of supporters who are refusing occupation and show the clash of interest between society and the occupation and its collaborators. To use the media for spreading an effective and creative image of the resistance.

2. To assist some of the people of the resistance to infiltrate the ranks of the National Guard in order to spy on them for the purpose of weakening the ranks of the National Guard when necessary, and to be able to use their modern weapons.

3. To reorganize for recruiting new elements for the resistance.

4. To establish centers and factories to produce and manufacture and improve on weapons and to produce new ones.

5. To unify the ranks of the resistance, to prevent controversies and prejudice and to adhere to piety and follow the leadership.

6. To create division and strife between American and other countries and among the elements disagreeing with it.

7. To avoid mistakes that will blemish the image of the resistance and show it as the enemy of the nation. (emphasis mine)

Time apparently, is on the side of the Americans. This translated document would seem to support the "stay the course" position--particularly now with the momentum generated by Zarqawi's death--rather than the "cut and run" contingent.

You can easily see in the highlighted sentences how the international MSM and our very own surrender puppies in the Democratic Party fit neatly into the enemies strategic plan.

They must be very proud. John Kerry, who has some experience in dealing with the enemy should arrange to meet them somewhere to cut a deal. John Murtha should accompany Kerry to make sure that we surrender with a smile on our face.

***And, to those commenters who think I am being too hard on some of those poor Democrats who pander to the lunatic base of their party--quite frankly, I don't think it is possible to be too hard on treasonous scum who are prepared to give up our national interests to an enemy whose stated goal is our destruction. Disagree all you want with Bush or Rumsfeld and any particular strategy/tactic in the GWOT; but if you have no alternative plan other than to blame America for the muslim fanatics who want to forcibly spread their faith or die trying; or if you aren't even capable of realizing that we are at war with an implacable enemy--then you are beyond reason.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 5:39 PM |

 
SO WHERE'S THE SPECIAL PROSECUTOR WHEN YOU NEED HIM?
John Eastman's prepared remarks to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence on May 26, 2006 (and you should read the entire piece):

Over the past six months, we have witnessed the publication of several pieces of classified information that appear to be extraordinarily sensitive, and extremely important tactical components of our ongoing effort to protect American citizens and property from additional terrorist attacks: The New York Times revelation last December of the NSA program conducting surveillance on Al Qaeda communications into or out of the United States, which the Times itself characterized as our "most closely guarded secret"; the USA Today disclosure earlier this month that several telephone companies were turning over databases of information about numbers called--so-called pen registers; and the Washington Post's story that some terrorists captured by U.S. forces were being held by the CIA in undisclosed locations in allied countries.

No one contests that in each instance, classified information was illegally provided to these media outlets and then subsequently published by them. And to my knowledge, no one seriously contends that the individuals who leaked the information are not subject to prosecution for violating the Espionage Act (or even subject to prosecution for treason if it could be proved that their intent in leaking the classified information was to undermine our war effort and thereby give aid and comfort to the enemy). Even those who would seek to bestow on the leaker the protected status of "whistle-blower" surely will acknowledge that the whistle-blower statute requires that the allegedly illegal activities be reported internally, through a certain specified administrative route, rather than shouted to the world from the front pages of our nation's major newspapers.
Otherwise, the whistle-blower statute would permit every government employee to be a classified information law unto himself, determining what should or should not be secret. The devastating consequences to our national security, and also to individual privacy, of such a flawed interpretation should be manifest. The question you are considering today is not the potential criminal liability of the leaker, of course, but of those in the institutional media who publish the classified information provided by the leaker.

That poses interesting constitutional questions if we assume, as I shall do, that classified information was leaked and subsequently published, and that the leaker himself, should his identity become known, is subject to criminal prosecution under the Espionage Act, among other things, for that illegal disclosure. Earlier this month, Bill Keller, Executive Editor of the New York Times, published an important letter to the editors of The Wall Street Journal challenging the notion "that when presidents declare that secrecy is in the national interest, reporters should take that at face value." Implicit in his rejection of that proposition is the view that reporters generally, and perhaps the editors of the New York Times in particular, are free to ignore the laws regarding publication of classified information when, in their view, the benefit to the public from gaining access to the information would outweigh any harm that might flow from its disclosure.

Eastman is the Henry Salvatori Professor of Law and Community Service at Chapman University School of Law; and is the director of the Claremont Institute Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence.

Now that the special prosecutor in the Plame case has stopped futzing around with Karl Rove and leading the delusional left further down the paranoid path --and there are even rumors that the lame case he has put together against Scooter Libby may be falling apart--is it perhaps too much to ask that someone take the investigative lead in a case that has far more serious repercussions for this country; and which has already done lasting damage to our national intelligence gathering in a time of war?

Or, will the usual suspects (i.e., the MSM and their leftist enablers) continue to pretend that when people with their particular ideological bent leak classified information it's obviously a courageous and proper thing to do?

And, I guess how you answer that question depends entirely upon who you consider to be the real enemy our nation faces in this century.

I suggest a little reality-testing.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 4:16 PM |

 
THEY'D SURRENDER
I'd say this captures the basic Democratic Party message when it comes to Iraq and the War on Terror...

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

 
GRADUATION DAY
It's unbelievable to me, but tonight my daughter graduates from middle school and is thus officially in high school. I am proud, amazed, ecstatic; and very, very depressed.

My little Boo is growing up.

I'll be contemplating the implications of this for most of the evening with the help of a good bottle of 15-year old single malt. I'm not much of a drinker usually, but somehow today it just seems appropriate....
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 8:18 PM |

 
FOUR -FIFTHS DOWN THE MENTAL PATH TO APPEASEMENT
Tony Blankley draws a parallel with the 1930's to analyze the current situation with Iraq and concludes thusly:

Just so, Gen. McCaffrey, representing the overwhelming view of government officials and major media in the West, first states the obvious: Iran will get the bomb. Then he ends with: So let's just do diplomacy.

In fact, Western leaders are resigned to Iran getting the bomb. The diplomacy is understood to be as pointless as getting Hitler to honor a disarmament treaty. But "leaders" have to be seen to be doing something -- even if they know it is futile.

This defeatist attitude exists largely because with the Iraq war as bad precedent -- just as WWI was a bad precedent for another war in 1933 -- military action has been placed, as an emotional response to unpleasantness, out of the question by a weary Western elite.

That is where we are today: about four-fifths down the mental path to appeasement. As unpleasant as dealing with Iran today is, it will be incomparably nastier in a few years when they have the bomb operational. Where are the cold-eyed realists when we need them?

For the most part, I agree with Blankley. I, too, am starting to wonder if the one cold-eyed realist--who seemed willing tackle the job and to face down the evil in our time--is going to even be able to respond to Iran in any way other than appeasement.

For the last 4+ years of his administration, President Bush has been bombarded with criticism and contradictory (and hysterical) demands (Work with the international community/Why are you working with the international community?); attacked at every level--both personal and political; and damned vociferously and bitterly whenever he does something or, alternatively, when he does nothing. During all those years, he has been in a "no-win" situation with regard to the media and the opposition party with its lunatic left. They have consistently and with malice aforethought deliberately chipped away at any possibility for further decisive confrontation with the evil of our times; and interestingly, in doing so have managed to deflect responsibility for even that treason onto Bush.

Both neo-neocon and Tigerhawk have both remarked that the forces of appeasement and anti-Americanism have been around for quite a while. They sought to prevent the US entry into WWII; and once in, never ceased undermining American efforts; or harping on the war's immorality. These forces gained their first "victory" in Vietnam; and the taste of that victory has gone a long way to emboldening them--in the Cold War; and now in the War on Terror. They appear to be willing to stop at nothing to ensure American defeat.

But this time, they have a little something extra going for them that they did not have before.

I suspect that even after a contentious 2000 election, Bush never imagined for one moment that he would be so completely abandoned by the opposition party during one of the greatest challenges ever imposed by historical forces upon the United States and liberty.

Why should he? Until the last 15 years or so, the underlying insanity of the left has been relatively dormant as they have quietly readied themselves under the cover of a Democrat president and the "end of history"; they patiently waited to make their next move in the international chessboard, wallowing in their victimhood--promoting it, even. Having slowly and almost effortlessly inserted the doctrines of political correctness and multiculturalism --two of the most obvious postmodern talking points of the left--into all aspects of the wider culture and its media, they awaited the perfect moment to unleash the awesome destructive power of their fully-armed and operational "death star" at America and its fundamental values.

They hoped that the perfect moment would be the election of Al Gore at the turn of the millennium; and when Bush upset their plans, and their ideological agenda was deflected, just as it seemed within reach-- their rage knew no bounds.

9/11 gave them an unexpected political opportunity to use the "death star" power after all; and use it they are, as they take aim and attempt to destroy one American icon after another; and in so doing to irreversibly undermine the history and values of this country -- all with the seemingly innocuous firepower of political correctness, multiculturalism, and leftist environmentalism.

Under attack from within, America creeps closer and closer to full, and unadulterated appeasement of the forces intent on destroying it.

Four-fifths? I would say nine-tenths.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 2:54 PM |

 
Back Later
I have a number of work-related errands to run this morning. Back blogging in the early afternoon.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 10:56 AM |

 
Media Swarm
From Cox and Forkum


And from the MRC (hat tip: OBH) :

If the Haditha allegations are true, it is certainly a major story deserving widespread attention. But so much coverage -- so far in advance of any authoritative account of what happened -- makes journalists seem eager to spread a story that portrays the U.S. military as bad guys. The networks' heavy coverage of Haditha stands in contrast to their pattern of overlooking the stories of most of America's top military heroes in the war on terror....(emphasis mine)

Maybe they thought we wouldn't notice?
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 12:55 AM |

 
GARSHDARNITALL
The left's hopes and dreams are shattered.

And a new psychiatric syndrome is born:

F itzgerald's U nresolved K arlrovian non- I ndictment T rauma

I wish them a speedy recovery.

UPDATE: Treatment recommendation here.

UPDATE II: It occurs to me on further reflection, that this disorder might well be a variant of Road Rove Rage....

UPDATE III: I could go on like this for a long time, but I better stop because I don't want to hurt anyone's feelings.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 2:30 PM |

 
NOT THINKING MEANS NEVER HAVING TO SAY YOU'RE SORRY
It is always mildly amusing to see the foundations of leftist thought exposed (I say "mildly", because it is also somewhat frightening); but here is one of the key components of their epistemology condensed into a pithy sentence or two by a commenter yesterday on this thread:

YOU, Dr. Insanity are the one who is paranoid and delusional. The polls prove that we are the ones who are in touch with reality.

The Anchoress noted with interest yesterday that the polls, never worth looking at before, have seemed to lately disappeared. Except that she spoke too soon. This morning we have two new polls that supposedly have something to do with reality:

1. From CBS: POLL: ZARQAWI DEATH HAS LITTLE IMPACT

2. From CNN: POLL: MOST THINK IRAQ WAR A MISTAKE

How comforting those two polls must be for Mr or Ms Anonymous comment! They soothe any disconnect his cognitive abillities might possibly experience when compared to his emotional being.

Epistemology is the branch of philosophy that studies of what is meant by "knowledge". In other words, it asks: What does it mean to "know" something as opposed to merely having an opinion?

This issue has been at the core of Western philosophy since before Socrates, since--until it has been answered--all other questions become unsolvable. Mr. Anonymous seems to believe that the way to "know" something is to poll a bunch of people and see what they think. Majority rules obviously. If a majority think something is true, then it must be true!

This is, to say the least, taking democracy to the most irrational extreme. It may come as a surprise to Mr. or Ms. Anonymous and friends, but reality doesn't depend on a vote. Oh, you can try to pretend that it does, but reality has a way of coming back to sting you every time you ignore it.

Apparently, for some, not only is epistemology dependent on the polls, but ethics are too. It is no great stretch to conclude that Mr. Anonymous (and most of the left, for that matter) have come to the postmodern conclusion that as long as many people believe something is bad, then it must be bad. For them there is no objective right or wrong, independent of their own or others opinions; there is no objective reality; independent of their belief or ideology.

Reality is relative. Knowledge is relative. Morality is relative. Except....except....that their particular beliefs and/or ideology are absolute. If the polls go against those belief or ideology--the polls are then ignored.

It's a very convenient way of looking at the world, designed in fact, to never ever have to say you are sorry for being wrong or immoral.

Even if you happen to be both.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 1:48 PM |

 
THEY'D BE EVEN MORE DIVERSE IF THEY INCLUDED THE SANE
Tim Blair comments on the YearlyKos lovefest in Las Vegas.

Just go read it, and don't be sipping any liquid when you do.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 7:59 PM |

 
BOZO THE CLOWN NAMED ZARQAWI SUCCESSOR
Well, they might just as well have named a clown we know as opposd to one we don't.

Either way, I predict a short, unhappy life for the poor bozo.

UPDATE: - Send In More Clowns

Isn't it rich?
Weren't they a pair?
Z-man at last underground,
Oz in a cave somewhere.
Send in more clowns.

Isn't it bliss?
Don't you approve?
One who is perfectly dead,
One who can't move.
Where are the clowns?
Send in more clowns.

Just when he's sure he wouldn't be found,
His network had already unwound,
Bombs were released with the usual flair,
The trajectory sure...
And Z-man was there!

Don't you love farce?
Then listen my dear.
Osama is happy Z's gone,
To those virgins somewhere.
Yes, they sure are clowns
Quick, send in more clowns.
Like al-Muhajir.

Isn't it rich?
Isn't it queer,
The timing was perfect, you see
To end Z's career...
And where are the clowns?
They have lots more clowns--
So don't shed a tear.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 4:58 PM |

 
SADDAM AND AL QAEDA
FoxNews has a fascinating article up that discusses a newly released document that provides evidence that in 1999 the Taliban welcomed "Islamic relations with Iraq" to mediate among the Taliban, the Northern Alliance and Russia, and that the Taliban invited Iraqi officials to Afghanistan:

Two captured documents — this notebook and the West Point document — seem to provide evidence of the same link between Maulana Fazlur Rahman and the Saddam regime, one captured in Iraq, the other in Afghanistan. The document captured in Afghanistan was used in a Combating Terrorism Center at West Point study about Al Qaeda indicating high confidence in its authenticity. The fact that two private communications captured in different countries with different authors make the same point is a good indicator that each is genuine. It thus lends creditability to the notebook that also indicates an Usama bin Laden associate was scheduled to visit Iraq.

Why would the Taliban and/or Al Qaeda turn to secular Saddam for help? Many commentators have stated that collusion between the two was impossible because of diametric religious and political beliefs. But if you examine the historical context of this document, a clear picture of a desperate Taliban comes through.

This meeting appears to have taken place a few weeks after Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf took over the Pakistani government in a coup that threatened to remove Pakistan's key support for the Taliban. Russia and Iran were supporting the Northern Alliance at war with the Taliban in Afghanistan. At this time it also was widely reported in Pakistan that US forces were about to attack Afghanistan to get Usama. The U.N. and even Arab conferences were making clear their grievances with the Taliban. This is a time when the Taliban and its associates (like both Fazlurs) in the North West Frontier province of Pakistan had few friends.

This series of threats may have spurred the Taliban to seek out Saddam, a mutual enemy of the U.S. and friend of the Russians, if a prior relationship between Saddam and the Taliban did not already exist. Thus, it seems Maulana Fazlur Rahman is a lynch-pin of the relationship between the Saddam regime, the Taliban and Al Qaeda.

Read the entire article for a lot more details.

Are the sacred memes of the left are slowly but surely unraveling?
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 3:25 PM |

 
EXIT STAGE LEFT
Michael Barone this morning on why the Democrats just can't seem to win elections:

It comes down to this: A substantial part of the Democratic Party, some of its politicians and many of its loudest supporters do not want America to succeed in Iraq. So vitriolic and all-consuming is their hatred for George W. Bush that they skip right over the worthy goals we have been, with some considerable success, seeking there -- a democratic government, with guaranteed liberties for all, a vibrant free economy, respect for women -- and call this a war for oil, or for Halliburton.

Successes are discounted, setbacks are trumpeted, the level of American casualties is treated as if it were comparable to those in Vietnam or World War II. Allegations of American misdeeds are repeated over and over; the work of reconstruction and aid of American military personnel and civilians is ignored.

In all this they have been aided and abetted by large elements of the press. The struggle in Iraq has been portrayed as a story of endless and increasing violence. Stories of success and heroism tend to go unreported. Reporters in Iraq deserve respect for their courage -- this has been an unusually deadly war for journalists, largely because they have been targeted by the terrorists. But unfortunately they and the Bush administration have not done a good job of letting us know that last pertinent fact.

We are in an asymmetrical struggle with vicious enemies who slaughter civilians and bystanders and journalists without any regard for the laws of war. But too often we and our enemies are portrayed as moral equivalents. One or two instances of American misconduct are found equal in the balance to a consistent and premeditated campaign of barbarism.

All of this does not go unnoticed by America's voters.

What's interesting to me is how, after each successive loss, they convince themselves that it was actually a win. Even today, they comfort themselves with the notion that the 2000 and 2004 election was somehow "stolen" from them.

The word "stolen" is very revealing of their mindset. Elections are "stolen" from them because they believe that actually own the presidency or the congress or the senate.

Their most recent loss in San Diego is also celebrated by the losers as some sort of win in their minds (presumably because the winner didn't win by as much as he was supposed to).

I once asked a paranoid patient of mine why he imagined that he kept getting hospitalized regularly. This was a patient who was constantly accusing others of attempting to hurt him; and whose behavior was so outrageous in public, that the police regularly had to bring him to the psychiatric emergency room for evaluation. There he would invariably be placed on an involuntary committment as a danger to himself and others. Needless to say, he never took his medicines after the committment ended, and the entire cycle would start up all over again.

He responded to my question by asserting that there was obviously a conspiracy involved (the details of which were amazingly specific) ; and that the people in this conspiracy were clearly trying to silence him and keep him from taking his "proper place in society." He was willing to discuss this with me--even though I was part of that conspiracy--as he showed me his pages of notes about the various connections within that conspiracy.

So, what is your "proper place in society?" I asked.

I should be a full professor by now, replied the individual (who dropped out of college about 25 years earlier) ; I should be wealthy--possibly even the dean of a well-known university. I should have an expensive car and a beautiful home....

The litany went on for some time; as he cataloged, one by one, all the perks that should have been his--if only the conspiracy against him could be exposed.

I think this patient has a lot in common with today's Democrats; and his grandiosity and unwillingness to take responsibility for his plight, is particularly resonant with its extreme left wing.

Neither have a clue as to how to actually achieve their dreams of social glory. They just assume whatever they desire should be automatically conferred upon them without any ideas, plans, or efforts on their part. And when their sense of entitlement is frustrated, it must be because there are evil and powerful people who are keeping them from what rightly belongs to them.

Since they do not believe that anything in their own behavior or view of the world could possibly be the cause of their lack of success, they will simply externalize the blame and responsibility onto whoever/whatever is convenient. Then they console themselves with a constantly expanding and convoluted paranoid fantasy that allows them to keep their inflated self-esteem and sense of superiority. In this delusional fantasy world, they star as the hero; bravely speaking "truth to power"; and always being brought down by the All Powerful Man.

Their delusional tale of woe and oppression is then wildly cheered by the anyone in the audience who buys into the same fantasy; and they all exit stage left.

Someone asked in the comment thread to this post:

I'd like to know, just how long can a person or a society maintain this sort of artificial world? Years? Decades? Can a group keep it up for generations, passing the delusion on to offspring? Because I keep expecting that at some point there is going to be a tremendous crackup, and I wonder when it might be coming, and what it will look like when it does?

To answer that question, you have to understand that paranoia and its precursor projection, are psychological defenses. They are primitive and immature defenses, but they are often fairly successful (at least temporarily) at protecting those who use them from having to face an unpleasant truth or reality.

But one side effect of using the less healthy defenses is that one's perception of reality gets more and more distorted; which invariably puts you at high risk for the consequences that come from ignoring/distorting reality. As an example, think of what happens to the deer caught in the headlights of a reality they cannot process.

Patients like the one I described above can often run afoul of the law. I see them in jails as well as mental hospitals. At the extreme, their behavior can lead to homicide when they are angry; or suicide when they are in despair.

When we talk about a large group within a society that requires conspiracy theories to maintain their belief system/ideology, then their anger and despair will eventually have serious consequences for the entire society.

The timescale is extremely variable, depending on the reality that is being ignored or distorted; but the consequences remain the same if there is no intervention that brings them to their senses.

UPDATE: Case in point.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 11:19 AM |

 
NOT ANCHORED TO REALITY
In his article today, "The Left Promotes Assertions That Turn Out To Be False" , John Leo discovers a fundamental fact about the left's postmodern rhetoric: it is aggressive rehtoric in the absence of cognition.

But bitter surmise isn't proof. And according to a long and detailed analysis on Salon.com -- no hotbed of Republican thought -- the evidence Kennedy cites isn't new, and his argument is filled with distortions and the deliberate omission of key data.

Why would Kennedy damage his credibility this way? This may not be breaking news, but if an assertion reflects a widely shared emotion, it can make great headway in this culture without any need to prove its truth. We have been through this many times. The 2000 election was allegedly stolen, though no credible investigation backed up the claim, not even the one by the Civil Rights Commission, which was then firmly in Democratic hands.

The Katrina theory that blacks died because of racism wasn't true, but it fit both the emotions and the beliefs of the political and media establishments. The Duke rape case also unfolded along the lines of conventional liberal beliefs about privileged whites and allegedly dumb jocks. The leadership at Duke should be ashamed. As the facts emerge, ever so slowly, it is becoming apparent that the prosecutor should be disciplined for his shocking behavior.

Assertion doesn't always beat facts, but it happens a lot.

Indeed it happens far too much. Let us take such an assertion promoted by the left that is currently making the rounds, and observe how it is quickly becoming an undisputed fact --without the necessity of demonstrating any evidence, rational argument, or even the slightest suspension of judgement until those facts are in.

The allegations of a massacre of innocents by Marines in Haditha are now being discussed on the left as if no reasonable person could believe the accusations false.

Juan Cole, for example, in parading some newly surfaced accusations against the US-- specifically that Zarqawi was beaten by Americans before his ignomonious death-- makes this statement:

This story is implausible, but may gain purchase in the Arab world after the Haditha massacre and the news that Guantanamo prisoners were found hanged. (emphasis mine)

There you have it. Just automatically inserted into a sentence as a matter of "fact". And even worse, the "massacre" (not even alleged) is cited to explain why people might naturally think of Zarqawi as just another "victim" of the US; and because of Haditha, all and any outrageous accusations made against Americans would be automatically believed.

Well, he should know.

Do you begin to understand why we keep hearing the same assertions over and over again by the left--long after they have been conclusively disproved or the distortions and errors "regretted"? They have fully and completely swallowed and metabolized the lies they have propagated, and no amount of evidence--even their own contrary assertions, previous statements, and counter-rhetorical ploys--is capable of making them see what is true anymore.

Truth is only a matter of what is felt; language does not connect to reality; and cognition is irrelevant. In the artificial world the left is busy creating, only their feelings are real.

It is important to realize that this rhetorical strategy that Leo excellently exposes in his editorial is being used to drive the left's politics, which are characterized by an incredible disregard for truth or even consistency in argument.

For example, it has in abeen repeatedly asserted in the most sneering and sarcastic manner, that since the US has been unable to capture or kill either OBL or Zarqawi, it somehow "proves" that Iraq is a quagmire and the US cannot possibly win. Now, listen to left. With one voice practically, they now claim that killing Zarqawi means nothing; that his role was overinflated by the US to begin with etc. etc.

Like the frankly paranoid individual, the death of Zarqawi is interpreted only in a manner that can best foward and give them reason to continue to believe their own delusions. Here are a few of the most common ones:
-Zarqawi never really existed to begin with, the US just made him up as a foil to delude Americans
-the timing of the death is obviously intended to redirect attention away from the Haditha "massacre"
-Killing Zarqawi will only make things worse in Iraq
-America is evil for killing Zarqawi in the manner they did (either it was "illegal", proof of American terrorism, or further evidence of how sick our society is

I could go on, but I find these attitudes disturbingly perverted. And I deal every day with people who are fast and loose with the truth and have little association with the real world.

Most reasonable people can appreciate the fact that the war on terror is not over because one important terrorist is dead; and yet still be able to see the killing of that particular thug as a major victory in that war.

What we see in the current Haditha meme that they have taken in as absollute truth is yet another of their delusions being carefully nurtured. Haditha merely confirms their belief that anyone in the US military is a savage oppressor.

If the Marines are cleared of wrongdoing in Haditha, it will not matter to them. They can feed their delusions a thousand different ways (e.g., "cover-up", "the military is lying" etc. etc.). Truth is irrelevant. The rhetoric will stay the same since it is not anchored to reality to begin with.

And, assertions that turn out to be false can merely be recycled later on when things die down to obtain additional political mileage from them.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 6:04 PM |

 
CARNIVAL OF THE INSANITIES ***Zarqawi Death Extravaganza***
Time for the weekly insanity update, where the insane, the bizarre, the ridiculous, and the completely absurd are highlighted for all to see!

***This week the Carnival's focus is on the innumerable insanities that sprouted up all over the blogsphere in response to the well-earned, richly deserved death of Al Qaeda's own Prince of Operations -- Musab al-Zarqawi.

It was actually this obnoxious op-ed piece that inspired me to dedicate this week's Carnival to exhibiting some some completely unrestrained JOY and intolerant mocking to celebrate the occasion. While it is certainly an example of "gung-ho" coverage, with an excess of "marked enthusiasm, verging on inappropriate glee"; what the hey! It's passionate, and the left certainly should be able to appreciate that!

If you sent in a link on a different subject, I will try to use them in the next Carnival.

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. A dramatic comedown. I'd say so.

2. The press suspect "foul" play . I think it was clearly a "strike". He's out anyway.

3. Wow, it really is all about the oil !!

4. Iraqi "minutemen" have lost a dear leader.

5. Reaction of the confused and always compassionate: ""I woke up this morning and learned my country had dropped a bomb on someone's head...."

6. Reaction of fellow thugs and psychopaths.

7. Sports announcers give a play by play !

8. A victim of Bush tax cuts?

9. "You think I didn't see this martyrdom goatshit coming?" Guest blogger commentary.

10. The exclusive interview!

11. Rumors of his death were pretty accurate as it turns out!

12. Rest in Pig. Rot in Hell. Whichever.

13. His death is sorta good, but, but, but, but, but, but....

14. It's a win win win win situation !

15. Some question the timing. I think it was perfect.

16. Satan and Zarqawi sittin' in a tree....

17. Forget Zarqawi, here's the really BIG news.

18. Personally, I think it would be unethical not to celebrate.

19. If there is a terrorist heaven....

20. Trouble in Paradise ! Virgins? What virgins?

21. Praise the Lord, pass the ammunition, and lob over the porn …

22. Zarqawi - dumber than dirt dust?

23. Smoked and Eliminated.

24. This is THE END (a remix)

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:


- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 10:01 AM |

 
SOCCER CAN BE HEAVEN OR HELL, ACTUALLY
Well, this clinches it. If it's up to an Islamic cleric, I'm going to hell.

But, if they don't play soccer (or baseball, for that matter) in heaven, why would anyone want to take up residence there?

If you aren't watching the FIFA World Cup games (the first US game is on Monday) you are really missing something great. Trinidad-Tobago in its first ever World Cup game were heavily favored to lose bigtime to Sweden. But they didn't, they tied 0-0; and the goalkeeper was the star of the game.

Did I mention that the Boo is an outstanding goalkeeper? It's the same position I played when I was in college and semi-pro during med school.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 5:18 PM |

 
AGENDA-DRIVEN NEWS "REGRETS" ERRORS IN REPORTING ABOUT HADITHA
This is extremely disturbing: even worse than the Rathergate debacle or the other trumped-up charges by leftist liars in the service of their anti-Bush, anti-American, anti-military; anti-capitalistic agenda. Here is the link to Sweetness and Light, who is looking into this, and who posts a series of corrections now being run by Time Magazine about the original story.

It seems they got a few of their facts wrong, and "regret the error(s)". I'll bet they do. It makes any reasonable person wonder about the veracity of the original story's claims.

In other words, is this just another "fake, but accurate" media event, designed to manipulate people into the "correct" mindset about the U.S. military? We all know that the left wants us to believe that our military are no better--and even much worse-- than the terrorists we fight.

I have witheld judgement about Haditha while all the facts were investigated, because in this country we hold people innocent until proven guilty; and NOT innocent until accused. I will withold final judgement about this; but my psychiatric instincts are tingling--primarily because the same kind of projection and paranoia that motivated the principals in the TANG memo case; in the Plame case; and in the dozens of other hyperbolic and histrionic news articles since; could very well be behind this one.

They all have the same underlying goal: to undermine America.

There is no question that the more despicable members of the left would willingly lie, distort, and manipulate to further their totalitarian agenda. We have seen this kind of manipulation by the press in their coverage of the Palestinians, who are regularly given a pass by the gullible leftist newsmedia when they stage the news; and whose suicide bombings that deliberately murder innocents are given moral equivalence to Israel's targeting of specific terrorists.

Let's face the truth. By and large, the News media desperately want Bush to fail; they want the military to fail-- in Iraq and everywhere; and they desperately want America to be brought to its knees.

And, when I talk about projection and paranoia--here is perfect example of how the left dismisses anything (even the implications of the "regrettable" Time errors) in their rush to assuming the worse.

The kerning of Haditha

Wow. These people are desperate.
The sum and substance of this thumbnail sketch on the Haditha claims is that it follows so closely the template for the TANG and Plame stories. Take a reporter with an anti-Administration agenda, an interested group (think of the Mashhadanis as the VIPS in the Plame case or Burkett and Lucy Ramirez in the TANG case) and a story too good to be checked and circumstances where the people attacked are limited in what they can quickly respond to and you get a story which smells to me like it will soon be unraveled.

Of course, they fail to mention that Bush did skip out on his TANG obligation regardless of the memo, an indictment was handed down against Scooter Libby and soon to be others, and the Pentagon does seem to believe Marines went wild at Haditha.

For the Right Wing, every scandal has a grassy knoll conspiracy theory.

Two points: first, this is the usual leftist BS regarding the TANG issue; still claiming the "fake, but accurate" meme and insisting that Bush skipped out on his ANG service, despite the fact that this has been disproved repeatedly. The author also conveniently "forgets" that the Libby indictment is NOT for outing madame Plame; and he seems to mysteriously "know" that indictments will soon be coming down against others. Apparently, not only does this blogger have inside information about Fitzgerald's case; he has inside information about what the Pentagon happens to believe--even as they are carefully investigating the Haditha allegations.! Truly amazing!

Second, this blogger is aware of all the same information that I am about Haditha, yet he is willing to not only assume the worse about the US and its military forces; he actually glories in the possibility. How else could one interpret his automatic assumption of guilt on the part of the Marines in Haditha; and his flippant remarks about their alleged behavior?

I suppose I can be accused of being willing to wait until all the facts are in (again, this is called "presuming innocence until proven guilty" in our society). I am hardly "desperate" to see the Marines exonerated; but a great case can be made that Tbogg--and others like him--are desperate to see the Marines convicted (even before the facts are out) because it will "prove" to them that their beliefs --about Bush, the military, and America--are justified.

The only thing I am "desperate" for in Haditha is justice. Justice for the victims who were killed, and justice for the Marines who are accused. If any Marines are found guilty of committing atrocities, then I will be among the loudest demanding their punishment.

Because, you see, I believe in the American values of truth and justice; and in the fundamental morality of our military personnel and their mission; and I will always stand against those who willfully debase those values--whether they are individuals within the military who behave unconscionably; or whether they are "somewhat popular" bloggers who allow their BDS overcome any good sense they might possess.

UPDATE: AJ Strata uncovers more details as the Time Haditha story unravels;
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 12:05 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

Abolish the "N" Word ShrinkWrapped

Second Place (a three-way tie!)

A Word About Courage Right Wing Nut House

The Influence of Immigrants on American Political Thought The Glittering Eye

There Is Something About the Danes Gates of Vienna

BEST NON-COUNCIL POSTS:

First Place

Why Does the Unhinged Left So Hate Jeff Goldstein? Ace of Spades HQ

Second Place

Selected Quotes Do Not a Reasoned Argument Make Villainous Company

Be sure to check out all the winners at the Watcher's Site! Great weekend reading.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 12:02 PM |

 
BREAKING NEWS !
Well, sort of.... The inimitible Scott Ott is on the story:

DEMOCRATS VOW TO FIGHT ON AFTER ZARQAWI LOSS

(2006-06-09) — As Blackberry devices and cell phones on Capitol Hill hummed with news of the death of terrorist leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi yesterday, Congressional Democrats vowed that despite the loss they would fight on in “the war on the war on terror.”

"The war on the war on terror." That is so perfect.

Read it all because it is extremely funny; and sadly for this country, it is also a direct hit on the "patriotic" Democrats--whose definition of patriotism is reflexly opportunistic and mostly dedicated to tearing down this country for personal advantage.

I have to admit that Democrats are not the only party that is guilty of this behavior; but they have the distinction of being the only party that is determined to lose any war the U.S. is involved in, particularly if they are not the majority party.

Many seem completely incapable of appreciating this simple fact:

What matters at least as much as the killing of al-Qaeda top terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi in Iraq is that we, in America, appreciate it for the important battlefield victory it truly is.

Dubbed "the prince of al-Qaeda" by Osama bin Laden, Zarqawi was the apparently invincible face of a campaign of hideous carnage in Iraq - a barrage of kidnappings, shootings, bombings, assassinations and beheadings. He had carried this bloodshed over into his native Jordan and threatened to expand well beyond.

Part of the battle against such enemies is simply to reduce them in the public imagination to mortal scale. It was a smart move when the U.S. military a few weeks ago released video footage ridiculing Zarqawi as a pudgy thug who did not know how to handle a gun. It is a much greater leap that, thanks to a combination of Iraqi intelligence and U.S. military forces, he has now been killed, along with seven of his aides, in an air strike Wednesday on a house where they were hiding north of Baghdad.

But that's the modern Democrat for you--always willing to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory ("the Murtha Option").

UPDATE: More truth satire over at Instapunk (hat tip: Ray)
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 1:04 PM |

 
GETTING MILEAGE FROM DOOM & GLOOM
I was thinking the other day about the fact that Americans seem to assume that their energy should always be cheap--that they are, in fact, entitled to cheap energy. The precipitating factor that started this line of thinking--an article on AOL, that asks, "Who Do You Blame?" for the high oil prices; and also that suggests that gasoline prices are going to jump this summer (what else is new?).

The choices on who to blame are listed in the following order:
-The Bush administration
-Gas stations
-Congress
-Oil companies
-No one
-Other

I notice that "Yourself" isn't one of the choices. Nor, for that matter is "The Iraq War", "The Oil Cartels", "The Lack of Oil Refining Capability in the US" etc. etc.

Somehow, the outrage about oil prices just seems to me to be completely overblown.

Why do I say that? Because, if gas is so dang important to a person--such that their entire lifestyle depends on it--then shouldn't they be willing to pay whatever is necessary to be able to get it? I mean, if you can't cut back and decrease your driving and gasoline is ABSOLUTELY ESSENTIAL for your work or whatever, then it should take a priority position in your budget, don't you think? Over, say cigarettes? Or, those fashion jeans you just bought for $185? Or the tennis club membership?

Of course, you don't have to like paying high prices, and it would be nice if the prices were lower--but, nevertheless, each person must gauge how important the issue is for them and their particular lifestyle. And if they aren't willing to cut back when the price is high, then they don't have much to complain about (hah!).

In the course of a day, I happen to see numerous houses where I live--all of which are completely out of my price range. My husband and I bought a modest house (which I like very much) that fits in with our budget. If we hadn't moved to Ann Arbor, we would still be in Texas where housing prices are about one third the price here; but my husband wanted the job he was offered here, so we bit the bullet; adjusted our budget; and every month now, a higher percentage of our income goes to pay the mortgage on the house. The driving distance to work was a big factor in our decision, I must say.

That was our choice.

The cars we drive are also our choice. The distance we drive to work each day is another.

Interestingly, life is filled with choices like this. If we had a variable rate mortgage and the interest rate suddenly went up, we'd have to find a way to pay it--or we'd change our lifestyle and move to a cheaper house. Or, if we couldn't afford the gas or air conditioning bill on the house.

You generally don't find daily news articles whipping up hysteria about the prices of housing (occasionally, but not daily). Most people seem to understand that there are certain financial consequences that are attendant on owning a house.

But somehow when it comes to owning a car, people expect that the energy to drive that car should be inexpensive and always affordable so that they don't have to adapt or change any aspect of their lifestyle. The market, it seems, should adapt to solely to their personal desires and wishes.

They are often aided and abetted in this sense of entitlement by the MSM; as well as pandering politicians at all levels and on both sides of the political spectrum, who hope to get extra political milage from fueling the sense of entitlement. Big Oil is always to blame; or the greedy gas station owners; or the failure of government to regulate these things. And don't forget the evil US auto manufacturers who keep making big cars with low gas milage (because those are what people like to buy perhaps?).

All in all, there is a lot more mileage derived from doom and gloom and the histrionic blame game (if only we could harness that energy!) than from confronting the inconvenient truth that there are always going to be consequences from the choices we make in life.

As adults, we tend to buffer the bad choices that little children often make; hoping that as they grow and mature, they will have started making good choices and have the character to take responsibility for the bad ones.

Unfortunately, many adults seem to think that their own bad choices should be buffered, and that this is the proper role of government. One of the ways the government does this is to regulate prices and other aspects of the free market, and thus, artificially separate the consumer from the consequences of his or her behavior. Like a bad parent, the government is always there to bail you out, no matter what kind of trouble you get yourself into. To them you will always be the five-year-old child who makes bad decisions and needs their help.

Some people seem to feel this is a good thing.

The free market provides people with what they want -- and are willing to spend money on. It is each individual's responsibility to decide what they need--and can afford--and act accordingly.

For some strange reason, the free market doesn't automatically adapt to everyone's wishful thinking, childish fantasies, or grandiose sense of entitlement; it tends to responds to actual human behavior in the real world.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 10:52 AM |

 
WHERE HAVE ALL THE INVESTIGATIVE REPORTERS GONE ?
Captain Ed posted an important piece the other day that may have got lost in the news about Zarqawi's death (hat tip: The Anchoress). This news complements that about Zarqawi, and should be plastered all over the MSM (but is not).

Joseph Shahda has translated another key text from the archives of captured documents left untranslated by the Pentagon. In this case, Shahda appears to have struck gold: the memo describes not only the disposal of chemical-weapon materials but also where Iraq buried them. The memo dated September 15, 2002, comes from the General Relations group from one of Saddam's military/intelligence organizations, and describes in detail where the chemicals were hidden from UN inspectors (via Power Line)

These documents have generated little or no interest in the MSM. Investigative journalists have no enthusiasm for stories that don't fit their template of Iraq; and have the potential of putting their real enemy (i.e., Bush) in any sort of positive light.

Where have all the investigative reporters gone? {Long time passing?) Except for Claudia Rossett who stayed (and continues to stay) on the UN Oil-for-Food Scandal like white on rice; most of them are curiously uninterested in the kinds of issues that would seem to be very important to a large section of the country.

I'm still waiting for the intrepid reporter who will investigate the entire issue of John Kerry's discharge from the military (you probably don't realize that he never publicly released all his records--particularly those that might explain some curious discrepancies in the timeline of his discharge). Meanwhile, however, there is no shortage of MSM reporter coverage for the likes of Mary Mapes delusional claims about the TANG Memo.

Certain stories never seem to die; while others never see the light of day. Go figure.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 10:16 AM |

 
F.U. VERY MUCH
Wretchard at The Belmont Club helpfully interprets Malloch Brown's remarks the other day at at a conference sponsored by the Security and Peace Initiative, a joint initiative of the Center for American Progress and The Century Foundation.

Just keep scrolling down. I think the list of speakers at this conference is extremely interesting, particularly the last one (#7). I'm looking forward to the PDF file of his remarks.

Meanwhile, the NY Sun wonders if Brown's comments represent an historical turning point for the U.N. I most certainly hope so.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 8:04 PM |

 
REACTION ON ZARQAWI'S DEMISE FROM THE REALITY-BASED COMMUNITY
Daily Kos-Who cares?(*Note - this is not a direct quote, so I have added the following, which is, as an update) : "Where is Osama? Where are the batillions of trained Ira)qis? Doesn't matter, we got this guy, right? We wrote a 25 million check as a reward, and get a new headline to bump off Haditha."

Democrats.com - Bring the troops home.

AMERICAblog: "He's been demonized (clearly he was a bad guy) as the central figure in the problems over there so it will be interesting to see the actual impact of his death."

the talking dog - "What a week this has been for the GOP AMERICA! Today's spectacular news is that terrorist leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi has been killed in an airstrike north of Baghdad. This was "confirmed" by the Iraqi government, but actual confirmation appears on the Islamist web-site of his "organization", "Al-Qaeda in Iraq". In short, it might actually be true. There is no doubt that this will be the greatest day in the long march toward winning the key battle in Iraq in the global war against swarthy-people's extremism since the fall of Saddam, or the toppling of his statue, or the deaths of Qusay and Uday, or the capture of Saddam, or the battle of Fallujah, or the first election, or the second election, or the naming of al-Maliki.
This comes on top of the defeat of insurgent California school board member Francine Busby in the global struggle taking place in California's 50th Congressional district.
Take that, you dirty jihadists! You've been SERVED! "

The Carpetbagger Report - "One relevant angle to this story, however, that has not been emphasized (or even mentioned) by most news outlets today is that Zarqawi could have been taken out years ago, but Bush decided not to strike."

Democrat Taylor Marsh - "This is a psychological lift, but reality remains terribly grim in Iraq. Al-Zarqawi's killing doesn't dent the insurgency reality."

From an open thread at Eschaton this morning- Al Zarqawi just got blown up. Well I hope they were able to save his pistol. Bush will want that.
That way he can play with it and the Saddam pistol and pretend he's 'Yosemite Sam'!

From a comment thread at Think Progress: "Later today the Bush trolls will flood onto the TP threads calling us all traitors, while they praise Dubya Dunce Decider as a decisive hero in winning the war in Iraq > yep bullcrap!

Democratic Underground - "Don't worry, he's not dead. In a few months, Shrub will wake up in his bed, go into his bathroom, open the shower door and there al-Zarqawi will be. It will all have been a dream."

UPDATE: Here's more:

TAPPED - "TURNING POINT! TURNING POINT! Look, it's great that Zarqawi's dead, and it's certainly too bad the Bush administration chose not to kill him when they had the chance years ago, preferring to keep him alive since it was useful to bolstering the set of deceptions they used to launch a war in which tens of thousands of innocent people have been killed, but let's not kid ourselves here. Zarqawi's importance to the tactical situation in Iraq has always been overstated, and I doubt he has any significance at all to the strategic situation."

Juan Cole - "There is no evidence of operational links between his Salafi Jihadis in Iraq and the real al-Qaeda; it was just a sort of branding that suited everyone, including the US. Official US spokesmen have all along over-estimated his importance. Leaders are significant and not always easily replaced. But Zarqawi has in my view has been less important than local Iraqi leaders and groups. I don't expect the guerrilla war to subside any time soon."

Shakespeare's Sister - "So, while it's no doubt good news that Zarqawi is no more, it's worth remembering that Bush wasn't willing to hit this known al-Qaeda terrorist in a known location based on air-tight intelligence before the war even began.” Indeed.

That’s the way it is with the Bush administration. Every good deed has a shit-streaked lining."

left i on the news - "Zarqawi is dead...in an airstrike on a "terrorist safe house." And the obvious question (obvious to me, but your chances of hearing it in the corporate media are nil) is, "Even if this is true (and I assume it is), how many innocent Iraqis died in the many airstrikes on other alleged "safe houses" in previous attempts to kill Zarqawi (or his associates)?" Attempts like this one (20 dead). Or this one (40 dead). Or this one (11 dead). Or this one (40 dead). And those are just four that happened to be reported and that I wrote about."

Booman Tribute - "Zarqawi's death will have more value for President Bush and his supporters, than it will for anyone else. That's my view of this "event" as of this morning anyway. A major propaganda victory on the home front, but, as with Saddam's capture, not much else. But who knows, this time I might be proven wrong. I'd certainly like to be."

Firedoglake (Taylor Marsh, again) - "During the news conference, General George Casey said al-Zarqawi’s death would not end the insurgency. That’s for sure. It’s pathetic that Casey has to remind everyone that this doesn’t solve our challenges in Iraq, considering how far gone the country is at this point. But with Bush and the administration feeding progress propaganda to us at every turn it’s a point that must be made.

Now we’ll get to see the truth about Murtha’s case regarding insurgents vs al Qaeda types in Iraq. The reality is that it’s going to take a lot more than killing al-Zarqawi to change reality on the ground in Iraq.

Good riddance to al-Zarqawi, especially what he did to Nick Berg. But his death comes so late in Bush’s preemptive war games it’s hard to appreciate it at all."

UPDATE II: Yet more:

From Michael Berg, father of Nick Berg (via STOPtheACLU)- "I have no sense of relief, just sadness that another human being had to die...As the poet John Donne said, any man’s death diminishes me. It doesn’t bring my son back, and this will just bring a new cycle of revenge killings”

John Kerry - Some Democrats renewed pressure on Bush to bring U.S. troops home by the end of the year. "Our troops have done their job in Iraq," said Massachusetts Democratic Sen. John Kerry.

UPDATE III: From another prominent Democrat:

Pete Stark, D (CA) - "This is just to cover Bush's [rear] so he doesn't have to answer for Iraqi civilians being killed by the U.S. military and his own sagging poll numbers. Iraq is still a mess -- get out."



- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 12:19 PM |

 
ZARQAWI DEAD ! ***Updated****
Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi has been killed.

This is a good day for the forces of peace and freedom.

Michelle has the updates.



UPDATE: Kos: Who cares?

UPDATE II: (7:35 am EST) President Bush this morning- "Zarqawi has met his end and this violent man will never murder again...America can be enormously proud of its military forces...The difficult and neceassay mission in Iraq continues...Zarqawi's death is a major victory in the GWOT."

UPDATE III: CentCom press release:

“Ladies and Gentlemen, Coalition Forces killed al-Qaida terrorist leader Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi and one of his key lieutenants, spiritual advisor Sheik Abd-Al-Rahman, yesterday, June 7, at 6:15 p.m. in an air strike against an identified, isolated safe house.
“Tips and intelligence from Iraqi senior leaders from his network led forces to al-Zarqawi and some of his associates who were conducting a meeting approximately eight kilometers north of Baqubah when the air strike was launched.
“Iraqi police were first on the scene after the air strike, and elements of Multi-National Division North, arrived shortly thereafter. Coalition Forces were able to identify al-Zarqawi by fingerprint verification, facial recognition and known scars.
Al-Zarqawi and al-Qaida in Iraq have conducted terrorist activities against the Iraqi people for years in attempts to undermine the Iraqi national government and Coalition efforts to rebuild and stabilize Iraq. He is known to be responsible for the deaths of thousands of Iraqis. Al-Zarqawi’s death is a significant blow to al-Qaida and another step toward defeating terrorism in Iraq.
“Although the designated leader of al-Qaida in Iraq is now dead, the terrorist organization still poses a threat as its members will continue to try to terrorize the Iraqi people and destabilize their government as it moves toward stability and prosperity. Iraqi forces, supported by the Coalition, will continue to hunt terrorists that threaten the Iraqi people until terrorism is eradicated in Iraq.”

UPDATE IV: More good news from Iraq.

UPDATE V: One wonders if a certain President of Iran is considering his own mortality??

UPDATE VI: Al Qaeda spin (per Fox News): Zarqawi's death is "joyous news" because he is now in paradise. (I'll post a link when available). My spin: I'll bet he didn't expect "paradise" to be so hot.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 9:38 AM |

 
FINALLY, RACISM !
James Lileks roots around inside the inchoate and confused thoughts of enlightened world citizens trying to process the Canadian terror arrests--so that an overworked psychiatrist like myself doesn't have to:

Wait a minute: The "terrorists" were Canadian? You can understand someone blowing up trains in Spain and London. They sent troops to an illegal war cooked up by neocons who want to kill brown people for Exxon and Jesus, or something. You can understand, reluctantly, blowing up teens in an Israeli pizza parlor, because the Jews took the West Bank from the sovereign, ancient nation of Palestine. (How can a liberal socialist country behave so poorly? The world is full of mysteries.) But Canada? Isn't Michael Moore from Canada? You can get medical marijuana from married gay doctors in Canada, and no one has guns. You console yourself: Maybe they were really planning to attack the U.S.

You realize the suspects were all Muslim, and you dread the inevitable pogroms. Haven't been any yet, but any day now. You read that a mosque was vandalized in Toronto after the arrest, and you feel a certain grim relief. Finally, racism! Banners. If you're going to have a march, you'll need banners.

Read it all! I'm just humbly grateful that someone else took on the dirty job this time!
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 12:29 AM |

 
PSYCHOLOGICAL ADAPTATION
Throughout my psychiatric career, the primary focus of my research has been on psychological adaptation to extreme environments.

That is why this article intrigued me. In it, Iain Murray considers the question, can we live with global warming?

Yet there are policies that can be adopted by national and regional governments that will have beneficial effects. The precursor to adaptation is resiliency, which gives a society the capacity to adapt. Characteristics of a resilient society include a strong economy, the rule of law, high trust (lack of corruption, confidence in institutions etc) and a lack of regulatory barriers to innovation. A resilient society recognizes that the ingenuity of its citizens is, in Julian Simon's words, its "ultimate resource," not the presence of abundant natural resources, the leadership of a certain class or the teachings of a dead philosopher. The guarantees the citizenry needs to exercise its brilliance constitute the institutions of liberty.

Thus, in the US, where the other institutions are already strong, we can strengthen our adaptive capacity by increasing our freedom to innovate in response to threats such as climate change, whatever its cause. There are many regulatory barriers to innovation in general, and in sectors like energy and transportation in particular.

This may be the first time I have seen a reasonable assessment of how to deal with global warming--if we are truly entering a time of significant climate change--that does not approach the subject with a Gore-like hysteria that wishes to use the issue to forward a draconian ideological agenda. The doom and gloom alarmists on this issue are quick to assign blame and to predict the worst possible outcomes--particularly, it is important to note--if their agenda is not immediately adopted.

The anti-capitalistic, anti-American, anti-human preoccupation is clear; and, as I noted in this post, the entire issue of protecting and defending the earth's environment has been stolen by the political left and is one of the four pillars of modern socialism's strategy to regain their prominence in intellectual and political circles ( following, it is interesting to note, the utterly abysmal record of transgression against the earth, prominent in every socialist and communist dictatorship).

These 20th century socialist failures and the remnants of them that persist into the 21st century (as well as several brand-spanking new variations of the theme currently in South America) have never been able to create wealth for their own people with their flawed ideology. Hence, they claim the "morally superior" highground by stating that all wealth is bad. They therefore appropriate it (since they cannot create it), as well as the techonology that drives it and proceed to drive their economies into the toilet.

Things like economies and environments must be left in the hands of the elite to manage for the good of the people and the planet. For, without this type of management by superior people like Al Gore say; who knows what evils will befall the earth?. In fact, from the leftist environmentalist's perspective, it is all that bad technology and all that wealth--as well as the humans who benefit from it--who are the ones destroying the earth and who must be controlled..

But Al and friends can fix that if they are in power. At least, so they claim.

What Murray suggests in contrast to this recurring leftist vision of a totally controlled economy (for the good of the planet) is to let loose the entrepreneurial spirt--and create more wealth, not less:

...a richer-but-warmer world provided greater benefits than a poorer-but-colder world. The benefits of wealth more than offset the costs or warming, while the climatic benefits of a colder world were more than offset by the costs of starving the world of energy to keep it cold. For example, if nothing is done to reduce temperatures, increasing wealth will drive down the population at risk from water shortage by up to 57 percent. The adaptive approach banks these benefits.

This is of course exactly the opposite of what the ideologues and environmental purists want to do. They see the solution to the problem as CONTROL and MORE CONTROL. That is because their ideology has constricted their vision and limited the capacity of their minds to adapt and consider alternative strategies to deal with the problem. Even if the most draconian of the solutions proposed by the left were to be implemented immediately, there is little or no evidence that they would have any impact at all on climate change. But such measures would undoubtedly negatively impact all of humanity--particularly the poorest and most miserable of this earth.

Those same people, in fact, who the left claims to champion so regularly.

Whatever is causing global warming--and I am not at all convinced that human agency has much of a role--the solution lies in the human ability to psychologically and physically adapt to whatever nature throws at us; and to continue to create wealth and develop technologies that move all of humanity forward.

The anti-human environmentalism of the left, if implemented, will only succeed in leading humans back to the cave.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 11:34 PM |

 
THIS IS ONE OF THOSE MORNINGS...
Some mornings it doesn't seem like there is anything positive on the horizon. This is one of those mornings. I have wall-to-wall doctor appointments all morning; several major work projects to complete by Friday that I've been putting off; and little or no interest in most of the day's political hysteria and machinations.

So, I am taking most of the day off from blogging today. This evening, I anticipate some quiet time where I will be able to peruse the blogsphere and think about some things; and likely put up a post or two.

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

 
BATMAN, EAT YOUR HEART OUT !
I really really want one of these things.


- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 10:34 PM |

 
GET RID OF AFFIRMATIVE ACTION
With regard to this news , ShrinkWrapped has a particularly excellent (all his posts are) piece up today called "Abolish the "N" Word" , in which he clearly delineates the psychodynamics of Black rappers devaluing themselves and all aspects of Black culture; and the parallel unconscious racism of the left which persistently promotes the ongoing victimhood status of Blacks. Nowhere is this more evident, it seems to me, than in the Affirmative Action programs that emphasize victimhood and inferiority. Read it all.

ShrinkWrapped asks,

What happened to the Black community between the Harlem Renaissance and the advent of N.W.A?[note: the hip hop group "Niggaz With Attitude"] Part of what happened was the growth and development of an entire bureaucracy devoted to the ongoing victim status of the American Black. There is no question that on an individual basis many poor Black Americans became materially better off with the Great Society programs, but what they lost was so much more significant. Victims have no dignity and no agency; they are helpless and weak, like children. Worse, the toxic combination of anti-male radical feminism that began to seep into the culture and the growth of the nanny state, had horrendous consequences for the poor Black community; their men were devalued (after all, they were seen as incapable of supporting a family without assistance) and unnecessary. Since a young woman could raise a child (financially) without any input from "her baby's father" (in a locution that has become all too popular), the father's importance in the life of the child was diminished. Boys growing up without fathers have no fully human, three dimensional, role models for becoming men; as a result they have adopted a caricature of manhood which depends on demanding and coercing "respect". The results, stuck at the level of a Shame Culture, have been all too apparent in the destruction of the poor Black family.

People like Bill Cosby, Thomas Sowell and other prominent Blacks within the larger Black community have been trying to get the message out that the time has come for the Black community to stop playing into these victimhood schemes promulgated by the political left--who have a need to feel "virtuous" by championing the "poor, helpless, oppressed" Blacks--and to take back both their culture and responsibility for their own success.

While once the rationale for programs like Affirmative Action seemed reasonable to most people; by now it should be evident that whatever it hoped to accomplish in the beginning, it has since evolved into an ever-growing bureaucracy whose main purpose is to maintain the moral authority of the political left.

Blacks have been stripped of all individuality and reduced to mere members of an oppressed race. And they are also stripped of any individual accountability for either success or failure in life. If they are failures-- it is ascribed to the societal racism and justification that more Affirmative Action is needed; if they are successful-- it is ascribed to the effects of Affirmative Action.

Either result ends up being profoundly destructive to the individual Black person.

Of course, God help them if they succeed without the programs of the left; or if they denouce the programs of the left; or if they join the right. Blacks are not permitted to have individual identity under the strict guidelines of the political left. If they deviate from their script, they are immediately denounced as traitors to their race.

I agree with ShrinkWrapped. Let's get rid of Affirmative Action.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 5:35 PM |

 
Into The Void
I've been having troubles with Blogger all day and several posts have gone into the void. It seems to be up now, but you never can tell.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 5:34 PM |

 
CONNECTING THE DOTS VS PARANOIA
Connecting the dots

Paranoia

If you want to understand the nature of today's news media, you should know that the NY Times afforded the latter group a "respectful hearing" and referred to them as "skeptics and scientists."

And this discusses how the media consciously witholds or downplays pertinent information that might help the public connect the dots.

In other words, the MSM would seem to be eagerly-- and almost affectionately-- promoting paranoid conspiracy theories about the Bush Administration and 9/11 (page 1 of the Times Metro section); while simultaneously downplaying and distorting ("a broad strata of society") the Islamist connection.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 9:40 AM |

 
ALL OR NOTHING; YES OR NO
Theordore Dalrymple discusses whether the quest for a moderate Islam may be futile. Here is an excerpt:

In his new book, Islamic Imperialism: A History, Professor Efraim Karsh does not mince words about Mohammed’s early and (to all those who do not accept the divinity of his inspiration) unscrupulous resort to robbery and violence, or about Islam’s militaristic aspects, or about the link between Islamic tradition and the current wave of fundamentalist violence in the world. The originality of Karsh’s interpretation is its underlying assumption that Islam was, from the very beginning, a pretext for personal and dynastic political ambition, from the razzias against the Meccan caravans and the expulsion of Jewish tribes from Medina, to the siege of Vienna a millennium later in 1529, and Hamas today.
[...]
The urge to domination is nearly a constant of human history. The specific (and baleful) contribution of Islam is that, by attributing sovereignty solely to God, and by pretending in a philosophically primitive way that God’s will is knowable independently of human interpretation, and therefore of human interest and desire—in short by allowing nothing to human as against divine nature—it tries to abolish politics. All compromises become mere truces; there is no virtue in compromise in itself. Thus Islam is inherently an unsettling and dangerous factor in world politics, independently of the actual conduct of many Muslims.

I put the question a little differently in this post: Is Islam compatible with a free society? Yes or No?

Time is not on Islam's side, however. Leaders like the Mullahs and Ahmadinejad in Iran and Hamas in Gaza are acting in ways that will facilitate a confrontation. They foolishly believe that the West will back down--if not because of a belief in the superiority of Islam; then from doubts about the superiority of Western values and from a reluctance to act decisively and ruthlessly.

The psychopathic elements in Islam believe this is our fundamental weakness; but they are wrong. This is actually our fundamental strength. President Bush has bet that Islam can be changed if it is infused with some democratic opportunities and freed from some of the political and religious tyranny that has dominated the Middle East. If such a democratizing process had been started--and carried through-- a decade or two earlier, well who knows how much the situation might have changed by now?

And, contrary to the infantile imaginings of the antiwar and so-called "peace" movements, Bush's strategy--as flawed as it might be-- actually represents the Best Possible Hope For Peace.

It is a strategy that faces the grim reality of Islamic contradictions and historical brutality; yet has enough optimism and goodwill in it to be genuinely worth the price we are paying. If it works, millions of deaths might be prevented. And if the peace crowd really cares about peace, then they would do well to reconsider their own antics.

Because, if the left succeeds in its determination to undermine American policy as it is now formulated; or if the extremists succeed in eliminating any voices for moderation and tolerance; then there will be only one strategic option open.

We have been inching toward "NO" as the answer to the question for quite a while now.

Whether it is appreciated or not, these last few years in Afghanistan and Iraq have indeed been our "Golden Hour" --the short time we have to deal with and defuse the threat that is represented by the radical elements of Islam.

So much of the last three years has been wasted and frittered away by the left with their constant carping about and undermining of Bush's strategic ploy. The continual appeasement, encouragement and cover given to those who would destroy us without mercy, has markedly diluted what we might have accomplished up to now with our aggressive pursuit of the YES Strategy.

As Dalrymple suggests, it may come down to all or nothing for Islam.

The "Golden Hour" has but a few minutes of history left. As the clock ticks down to answering NO to that fundamental strategic question posed by the west; as muslims grapple with modernization--and therefore abandonment of fanatical, utopian, imperialistic dreams of a caliphate; and as the two creep closer and closer to the ultimate confrontation; there will be no deus ex machina --and no pointless protest march with clever placards--that will be able to save the millions of lives lost in the ensuing conflagration.

All the usual leftist nutjobs are already preparing to blame Bush/America if the worse happens. But the saner elements of society will recognize the truth-- that Bush has chosen a strategy and done everything possible to change the course of history.

That the strategy was implemented too far along in the process to be able to wholly succeed; or that the enemy is even more "all or nothing" in its desire to embrace death and destruction than western sensibilities could have possibly predicted-- are two "inconvenient truths" that must be faced.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 4:12 PM |

 
MENTAL CONSTIPATION
Mental constipation can be defined as a blockage of solid ideological conviction through which reality is completely unable to pass.

We are seeing evidence of this affliction everywhere.

A case in point is the way the MSM is carefully tiptoeing around the fact that all those arrested in the Canada terror plots are...you know...muslims? As Andy McCarthy notes,

Muslims? Plotting Terrorism? You Don't Say ...

Well, no, you most certainly don't say. Not if you're the New York Times and not if your one of its serial imitators in the MSM.

Why don't they say? Because they are victims of mental constipation that has plugged the rational thought processes lest something "insensitive" come out.

Or, how about this nice little piece of impacted crap from Oliver Willis ("like kryptonite to rationality"):

Glenn Reynolds, furthering the agenda of the hard-right yet again, takes pleasure in linking to this bit of “detective work” by Dan Riehl. According to Reynolds and Riehl, media coverage of possible bad acts by the American military is not receiving the same amount of coverage as a terrorist bust in Canada. Proving… well, what exactly? Here’s a guess - the New York Giants get a lot more coverage in America than the Toronto Maple Leafs. The right would like to tactily approve what apparently went down in Haditha by bullying the press into to not covering it - but the fact of the matter is - we don’t make any headway by pulling the same tired “not as bad as Saddam/Al Qaeda/Pol Pot” sliding scale of justice. That’s really not how America works nor is it in the spirit with which our nation was founded. “Be better” is the creed America should continue to stand by… even when the President is a Republican.(emphasis mine)

Now, where do you suppose he got the silly idea that human beings who happen to be American aren't just as capable of committing atrocities as human beings who happen to be any other nationality, race, religion etc? Where did he get the idea that somehow "justice" has been obstructed by America, when the entire affair is under investigation?

What separates America from the barbarians we are fighting is precisely that we believe in the rule of law and that such behavior when it occurs is vile--whether done by a few soldiers wearing American uniforms; or religious fanatics carrying a Koran. The Haditha issue is simply one more example of human depravity in the world. But clearly, it is not depravity sanctioned or encouraged by the American military; the American President; or the American public (either right or left) contrary to the imaginings of the constipated Willis.

Yet there is a depravity that is sanctioned and encouraged by many middle eastern governments and groups--belonging to one religion in particular; but the reality of this simple fact is not able to get through the mass of sensitive, compassionate, anti-American socialist crap that is solidly impacted within the caverns of a mind like Willis'. It is automatically all America's fault to the mentally constipated.

Not only is American justice better than Saddam/Al Qaeda/Pol Pot etc. etc. --it is light years superior to those regimes. Why? Because American values at every level clearly do not support what might have gone down in Haditha. Justice will be done--for both the victims and the accused. And we as Americans [should] consider them innocent until proven guilty.

That, my dear Willis, is how America works and is the spirit with which our nation was founded.

The assumption of "innocent until accused"; or "automatically guilty if American" is a standard by-product of mental constipation--the rather pungent gas, if you will, that is involuntarily and continually emitted by individuals suffering from the disorder.

The slaughter of innocents is NOT --and never has been--sanctioned as a matter of US policy , no matter how hard the mentally blocked left tries to convice themselves it is. It is that mental constipation again. The blockage keeps the hard left from being able to have a normal bowel movement rational thought about America (yet they always give the enemy the benefit of the doubt) because it might interfere with their anit-American; anti-Bush; anti-military anal retentive ideology.

Now, one of my jobs as a psychiatrist is to dig out and bore into the site of the impaction in order to try to clear up the mental plumbing. Only by doing this dirty, and often thankless job, can the rush of reality and truth through the system be restored. But this sort of ideological blockage frequently causes the ego of the sufferer to bloat with self-righteous virtue; while creating the stink of paranoia to issue forth from the mouth; and the massive obstruction frequently re-forms quickly in a sort of self-perpetuating chronic affliction.

It is the old GIGO phenomenon. The left needs to work on changing its unhealthy diet of old, smelly garbage ideas; and begin to metabolize the high fiber of reality if they want to prevent recurrence.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 10:26 AM |

 
IN DENIAL, Part XXIV
Ace has the roundup of lefty reaction to the massive terror roundup in Canada.

Why is anyone surprised that they have nothing to say?

Just the other day, I dissected out the incredible denial of one of those moonbat hangouts when they flatly stated that the whole point of the war on terror was to "sieze power and steal money"; and that the Bushies were "whipping up national fear and paranoia to a constant boil."

Further, this ass went on boldly to exclaim, "Take your terror and shove it!"

Now, wouldn't you like to have someone like that--a card-carrying member of the "reality-based" community--in charge of your homeland security?

When the people of the reality-biased community get back in control of things,we can all rest assured that Al Qaeda will finally be able to sleep peacefully in their caves at night.

UPDATE: Here's a fundamental difference between the left and the right position on the war on terror:
The left thinks it is unseemly that the right is "whooping it up" because a group of terrorists is caught in Canada before they could act on their terror plans. Meanwhile, the right kind of thinks it is unseemly that the left is overjoyed because Marines might have killed innocent civilians in Iraq.

I'll leave it for you to decide which of these positions is morally repulsive.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 12:53 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. Talk about a WMD! Some will blame Bush, of course.

2. A carbon-intensive lifestyle

3. Why she doesn't put flowers on soldiers' graves.

4. A rescue operation for the birds.

5. Whatever is against our national interests = good policy (per the left, of course)

6. Thinking outside the box in Homeland Security?

7. This is the result when muslims are called on to be "reasonable"?

8. Great moments in Islamic marital bliss. The family that bombed together gets entombed together? This practice gives new depth to the idea of "enabling" terror.

9. The "seven-year itch jihad"? and the "naked city"

10. Married to the..errr...mob? Marriage on the rocks ; and moderate hypocrisy in marriage said to be the best policy.

11. The wonderful world of party drugs; and the wonderful world of antiwar protests !

12. You can be Christian for many years and not know this!

13. How to convert to Judaism contrasted with conversion to Islam.

14. Based on real Hobbit killings?

15. The once and future mush-brain. King Arthur he ain't.

16. Oh joy. Politically correct comic books. And, is Superman a gay icon or a just a clueless father?

17. This is good news for kids...even if some don't like it. Ah well, God gameth and God taketh away.

18. Perhaps there should be a political party for poor, victimized rapists and murderers too? Society doesn't understand them either. Using the "right to privacy" to justify criminal behavior?

19. Alien (really alien) news analysis.

20. When it comes right down to it, whose space is it really?

21. Isn't this sweet?

22. So, these six librarians go into a restaurant....

23. She has a genius for making the trite even more banal.

24. "Oh, meltdown. It's one of those annoying buzzwords. We prefer to call it an unrequested fission surplus."

25. The peppers of insanity! Wouldn't you like to be a pepper, too?

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:




- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 10:59 AM |

 
OH FRABJOUS DAY FOR THE LEFT
`Twas leftoid, and the slimey toves
Did whine and wongle 'bout the war:
Out scrooching were the antiroves,
And the noam chomskies outroar.

"Beware the moonbat left, my son!
They hate the free and strong U.S.
Beware pelosi birds, and shun
The frumious BDS!"

Still, he took his freedom sword in hand:
Long time the brutish foe he fought--
Not all are pure despite demand,
Yet justice will be always sought.

For justice seeks both truth and good,
While moonbat left likes to inflame,
They shiffled through the kerried wood,
And murthad as they played their game.

One, two! One, two! And through and through
The MSM goes snicker-snack!
They want him dead, and with his head
Get their agenda back on track.

"Now this could be the next Mai Lai!
For we don't care who we destroy!
O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!"
They chortled in their joy.

`Twas leftoid, and the slimey toves
Did whine and wongle 'bout the war:
Out scrooching were the antiroves,
And the noam chomskies outroar.


(apologies to Lewis Carroll)
*****************************************




UPDATE: (also updated here) Here's a fundamental difference between the left and the right position on the war on terror:
The left thinks it is unseemly that the right is "whooping it up" because a group of terrorists is caught in Canada before they could act on their terror plans.

Meanwhile, the right kind of thinks it is unseemly that the left is overjoyed because Marines might have killed innocent civilians in Iraq. (Don Surber takes down the NY Times here)

I'll leave it for you to decide which of these positions is morally repulsive.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 11:48 PM |

 
METAMEDIA
It occurs to me after reading this analysis, that what is needed is a completely separate media whose major task is to cover the MSM in the same manner in which the MSM covers events.

This "metamedia" would thus be tasked with exposing the [linguistic, factual, etc. ]atrocities continually committed by the members of the MSM in their recklessly biased and prejudicial pursuit of news. Reporters of the metamedia would hound the major outlets wherever they deploy; film them obtaining and/or setting up the news; mingling with and dealing with the enemy in Iraq and elsewhere.

Not only that, but the MSM would be analyzed on a daily basis in the op-ed pieces of the metamedia--their real motivations uncovered; their conflicts of interest; their ties to...well, whatever makes a good story.

I am not talking about an "alternative" media (e.g., Pajamas or Hot Air); in the metamedia, the MSM and their activities in the pursuit of news would be the only news 24/7.

Of course, we already have some of the infrastructure and talented personnel for this metamedia within the blogsphere (e.g., Cori Dauber, who performs an invaluable service already). But it needs to be organized into newspapers and 24 hour TV and radio programs. Think of the possibilities....

Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? The metamedia!

UPDATE: Unbelievable.

UPDATE II: Guess which leaders are described today by the Washington Post as "energetic, "caring", and "prominent"?
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 12:25 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

Who Do You Trust With Your Constitution? New World Man

Second Place

The Pope at Auschwitz Joshuapundit

BEST NON-COUNCIL POSTS:

First Place

"Guest Workers" Are Destroying the US MaxedOutMama

Second Place

The "L" Word American Future

Be sure to check out all the winners at the Watcher's Site! Great weekend reading.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 10:00 AM |

 
DOOM, GLOOM, BLAH BLAH BLAH
The unbelievably negative hype of the amazing US economy continues. Stephen Spruiell calls it "madness":

So just to recap: Unemployment falls. GDP races ahead by 5.3 percent ("some measures") — the fastest growth in 2 1/2 years. Yet the New York Times surveys this landscape and declares, "The sky is falling! Look out!"
[...]
It is likely that the economy will not repeat last quarter's astonishing growth — how long can 5.3 percent expansion be sustained? But looking at the press coverage of today's jobs report, one would be forgiven for thinking that by August, the most difficult decision facing average Americans will be whether to eat Whiskas and Friskies. We're at near-full employment. Is this a problem of unrealistic expectations, or is there some other agenda driving this relentlessly downbeat coverage?

As I noted some months ago, the American public is being subjected to command hallucinations, and these MSM voices keep repeating doom, gloom, blah, blah, blah.

Yes, it is definitely insane AND there definitely is an agenda that is behind those relentlessly negative voices...

Can you figure out what the agenda is?
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 12:11 AM |

 
A CULTURE OF NARCISSISM ?
Jennifer Biddison asks, does Congress itself breed a "culture of corruption"? (hat tip: Betsy)

No one is 100% blameless in Washington, D.C, no matter how much integrity or faith they start out with. Even our congressional heroes have regrets about how they’ve handled situations in the past. So let’s cut out the silly self-righteousness and self-centeredness, prosecute members of both parties who break the law, and get back to debating the issues that the American people really care about.

There is a disorder referred to as "Acquired Situational Narcissism" induced in adulthood by celebrity, wealth, and fame. This disorder seems to "victimize" many of our elected officials; as well as the wealthy, Hollywood or other "super" stars, renowned authors,and other authority figures. The symptoms are the development of grandiose fantasies, inability to empathize with "ordinary" people; and the inevitable narcissistic rage in reaction to a slight--either real or imagined-- of any kind.

...the celebrity's life is abnormal. The adulation is often justified and plentiful, the feedback biased and filtered, the criticism muted and belated, social control either lacking or excessive and vitriolic. Such vicissitudinal existence is not conducive to mental health even in the most balanced person.

If you take someone with a few narcissistic traits to begin with (and what politician doesn't have them?), and put them in a situation where they are adored, worshipped, and make to think (by the adoring and worshipping staff) that they are the center of the universe; and that words from their mouth are the font of all wisdom and knowledge--you would get something similar to the grandstanding meatheads we see every day on our TV screens; who are convinced that the rules that apply to others don't apply to them. That they are "special" and therefore protected from the consequences of their behavior.

If they had any humility or integrity when first elected, it soon evaporates under the conditions of neverending privilege and adoring media exposure. The "dedicated public servant" persona subtly begins to shift from concern about their constituents and their country; to concern about enriching themselves and doing whatever is necessary to get re-elected. This psychological shift in perspective-- more than any other rationale that can be made--convinces me that congressional term limits are an absolute necessity.

It also convinces me that the only people generally worthy of being elected officials are those who would never under any conditions seek, or aspire to public office. Such individuals would be relatively immune from the almost inevitable descent into narcissistic indulgence.

Corruption is defined as an "impairment of integrity, virtue, or moral principle". I'd say that defines the narcissistic culture of congress pretty well.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 4:54 PM |

 
MORE HYSTERIA
As I was saying in the previous post, the "adults" who make up most of the Democratic Party leadership and their lunatic leftist base, are completely unfit to manage reality because they are too busy having hissy fits that everything isn't perfect.




Meanwhile, Ace absolutely nails the psychology of the left as he discusses why they revile Jeff Goldstein so much (and BTW, you should definitely read the entire post):

Leftism, and liberalism, and progressivism, and etc-ism. are not merely simple politics for most of these people. Their politics to them are a core part of their identity, and, more importantly, a central support propping up their egos. They are enlightened because they believe these things; someone who does not believe these things, and yet who, superficially at least, appears to be about as smart as they might be, represents a threat to their egos. The foundation upon which a crucial structure of their sense of self-worth is undermined if they discover that there may be people who can pass as normal and intelligent and yet do not believe as they do.

If one is smart, then one believes in progressivism.

If one believes in progressivism, then one is smart.

Those are the two assumptions that prop up their sense of self worth, and they are refuted by examples of smart people who don't believe in progressivism.

And because there is a great deal of personal psychological investment in progressivism, they react intemperately to rejections of it. It's not merely a tax cut that's being debated; it's they're very sense of importance that's being attacked. It's not merely gay marriage which is being argued against; it's their value as human beings that is being uncouthly denigrated.

[...]Because there is so much ego involved in the self-definition as progressive, the need for intellectual conformity becomes stultifying.

The truth is that reality itself -- when it is imperfect and/or doesn't conform to their preconceived ideas -- is a slap in the face to this crowd. How dare Jeff Goldstein, a university professor who should know better, think differently from us? How dare bad things happen in a war? How dare the military, including every single individual within it, not be perfect like us?

In fact, (if I may digress from their hatred of Jeff, who doesn't conform to their positive stereotype of the intellectual; to the US servicemen and women who do conform to their negative stereotype of the "warmonger") they long ago dismissed the military and anyone in it as semi-literate, oafish, tools of oppression; whose only purpose is to kill innocents and advance the evil objectives of America (particularly when a Republican is President). Military action is never good enough, fast enough, tidy enough, perfect enough for them.

They are so threatened on such a fundamental level at the idea that the US military could still be a force for good--despite incidents like Abu Ghraib or even Haditha (and we still do not know all the facts about the latter, but justice will be done)--that their reactions to any problem are overblown, histrionic, and completely irrational.

Let me quote from a recent commenter on this post at my blog:

As usual, you are full of shit. Our troops are murderers and our nation is the source of most of the problems of the world. We steal from the poor and give to the rich. I hate America and everything she stands for. If it were up to me, I'd see all its citizens living under sharia. It's what they deserve.

That's all they know, and all they need to know. Aren't they clever?

UPDATE: Scott Ott has some breaking news: Congressman Murtha is going to be offering "core values training" to the insurgents.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 10:57 AM |

 
THE PSYCHOLOGICALLY DISABLED DEMOCRATS
Here is an interesting psychological analysis of the Democratic Party from an insider who asks what do you do when the entire party needs therapy?

But at least the GOP is engaged in a war over real policy choices. It is an emotional debate, often a hysterical and ill-informed one, but it is a fight among adults who know what they believe in and who have the guts to battle for it. By contrast the Democrats, ostensibly the party poised to exploit this GOP civil war, don't seem to remember what it is like to behave as adults. They resemble nothing so much as ill-adjusted adolescents, afraid of their own shadows, much less the presidency. What are they afraid of? Themselves, essentially: their past, their own left, the populist rhetoric of their leaders (Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Howard Dean, Al Gore), the left-wing loony stigma represented by “Fahrenheit 9/11” filmmaker Michael Moore (every Dem’s favorite bugaboo). Above all they fear seeming and looking soft. They are all afflicted with varying degrees of megalophobia, a fear of assuming power. Even Dr. Melfi of “The Sopranos” wouldn’t take this case.

This psychological disability has been long in the making, of course. When it comes to national security, it has been eating at the heart of the Democratic Party since its biggest debacle, Vietnam, which destroyed the Dems' prideful self-image formed during World War II and the cold-war containment consensus. But never has this Democratic dysfunction been so apparent as now, the moment when the Dems should be striding confidently into the limelight to seize control of the national agenda. And none are more pathetically afflicted than those who purport to be the “new” Democrats, the “strong” ones, the ones who want to “resurrect” the gloried intestinal fortitude and moral fiber of FDR, Harry Truman and JFK. (emphasis mine)

Well, I'm sorry, but I don't concur with the diagnosis; nor the descriptions of the symptoms.

The Democrats are not "adolescents afraid of their own shadow"--they are adolescents who whine and sulk when they don't get their own way. They are not afraid of "seeming and looking soft"--they actually are soft when it comes to defending this country--and they are deathly afraid of taking a stand on any principle because it might cost them votes from their lunatic extremist base. They aren'e megalophobic--they are megalomanic, outraged just like any other megalomaniac at the idea that their precious power has been usurped by the evil interloping Republicans; and determined at all costs to regain it-- no matter how much they hurt this country in the process.

They seem incapable of generating any ideas or alternative strategies on their own; so the best they can do is to tear down those who do. Anyone who becomes suspect of behaving in a mature fashion by dealing with the real world, is automatically purged from their ranks and vilified.

I have said it before, and it bears repeating: the Democratic party and its leftist base have devolved into the party that represents nothing and stands for nothing.

It is no wonder that they have been unable to gain any traction in public support despite seemingly widespread unhappiness and discontent (mostly promulgated, highlighted and incessantly emphasized by their Party) about the present state of affairs in theis country.

Anything good that happens or that is achieved is automatically downplayed, distorted and undermined for fear that the evil Republicans might get credit. Many of the most desperate whose all-consuming goal is to climb the ladder of political power, flirt with-- at best the most outrageous, and at worse the frankly treasonous accusations and deliberate distortions --simply to gain attention and pander to the worse elements in society. This party has willingly incorporated the most extreme and lunatic paranoid fantasies and made them mainstream; and those who voice them are given heroic status.

While exposing an unbelievable psychological naivete, combined with the appropriately politically correct philosophy that encourages "self esteeem" even when the individual has done notheing to earn it; the author of this article suggests that the only thing wrong with the Democrats is that their self-esteem is low; and all they have to do is to "believe" in themselves and they can regain power.

This may work for todlers in kindergarden (actually, it doesn't work long for them either), but it leaves a lot to be desired when applied to supposedly mature adults who are expected to make decisions and lead this country in perilous times.

No, the symptoms of the psychologically disabled Democrats derive from a serious disorder of narcissism. They are focused only on reacquistion of their power; on self-aggrandizement, with concomitant denigration of their enemies--the Republicans. God knows that the Republicans are no saints, but they at least are trying to deal with reality, and the enemies that want to destroy this Republic; they at least are willing to argue ideas and stand up for principles.

The hysterically blind Democrats see no enemy beyond their political opponents. They see no country or Republic worth fighting for if they are not in charge. They abandon principle and what is right in pursuit of ultimate power--and then like delusional individuals everywhere, they project their own inadequacies on the object of their hatred.

Let us not be wishy-washy about the diagnosis: the Democratic Party is rampant with malignant narcissism; burdened with individuals of overweening arrogance and consumed with hatred and rage. This animosity toward their political rivals has colored almost all their activities in the last 6 years and blinded them to anything important. They are suffering from severe paranoia; delusions, and depressive symptoms brought on by believeing the bellicosity of their own rehtoric.

The author concludes with this tidbit:

Democrats must first have the courage to strip bare the GOP’s failures. They must believe they're every bit as good on national security as their rivals. This courage is frankly not in evidence.

While it is true that their courage is not in evidence; even more importantly, the assertion that they are "every bit as good on national security as their rivals" is, without making too much fuss about it, unbelievable and completely ludicrous. It is precisely because of this fantastical ability to delude themselves that their real problem is that they are "too virtuous", "too nice, "reality-based" and "not as mean as those horrible Republicans"-- that they have failed to convince the (laughing) American public that they could do any better than the Republicans; and have gone a long way to convincing them of exactly the opposite.

The Democrats need to do more than "believe" in themselves and wish very very hard with their fingers crossed that they could be as good as Republians on this issue. They actually have to do something to demonstrate it in the real world.

That requires that they cease their delusional thinking and psychotic hatred of the opposition. It requires maturity, rational behavior, and actual ideas that address the realities of the post-9/11 world in a constructive manner (instead of believing the kind of pervasive silliness fisked in this post). It requires putting the country ahead of the Party; and most importantly, it requires dumping the lunatic fringe that has infiltrated and whose ideas pervert everything they once stood for.

Until that time they will remain emotionally immature, psycholgoically disabled, and politically paranoid. And for very good reasons.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 12:06 AM |

 
ALL IN THE MIND - The First Psychbloggers' Carnival
ALL IN THE MIND -The very first psychbloggers' Carnival, is now posted at OK, So I'm Not Really A Cowboy ! Indianblogger, who manages the site, hopes to make this a regular feature for the psychosphere and is even organizing a TTLB community. Go and check it out. He's a medical student with time on his hands!

My regular feature "Touch and Go" will go on hiatus, because I am hoping that the psychosphere will jump at the chance to have its own carnival, highlighting all the mental health experts now blogging; as well as psychological and psychiatric issues in general.

If you'd like to submit to the next All in the Mind Carnival, go here for instructions.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 2:18 PM |

 
IMAGINE -- IT ISN'T HARD TO DO...
I've got a busy day today and will be out of the loop until late this afternoon, but be sure to check out Gagdad Bob's collection of The Greatest Liberal Rock Songs over at One Cosmos.

On a more serious (but related note) ShrinkWrapped has started a series on "How To Lose World War IV". Imagine it. It isn't hard to do unfortunately.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 10:10 AM |

 
TEXAS TWO STEP
Good Great move.

The Iranians could never possibly agree to the pre-condition without believing that they would be losing face--and hence experience shame.

This will infuriate Ahmadinejad. Particularly since a woman has shamed them.

Michael Ledeen wrote about the Ahmadinejad Der Spiegel interview yesterday, and noted this:

The use of “humiliation” tells us a lot about the way the mullahs think about the world; they look at international events as a matter of domination or humiliation, and he hammers away at this theme: “Saying that we should accept the world as it is would mean that...the German people would be humiliated for another 1.000 years. Do you think that is the correct logic?”

Ledeen is right on target. The "logic" of shame cultures is far from rational, but it has its own set of internal rules. As I commented in an earlier piece about Shame and the Arab Psyche:

...one of the ways that those who fear shame protect their fragile self is to subjugate those who he perceives as weaker. By doing so, he can rationalize that he is superior to the subjugated individual. In fact, this is the only way he can maximize his honor.

Ahmadinejad's next step in this dance will be to do something that will bring him back his honor and eliminate the shame. It will not be something nice, like contributing to the Indonesian relief effort, either. He will have to do something to counter the humiliation of being outmaneuvered by Condi Rice.

Anyone in the world who is not yet convinced of the sick irrationality and mental instability of the leaders of this regime, will likely be witness to a demonstration on the part of Ahamdinejad that will remove all doubt.

But that has been part of the Bush Administration's strategy in dealing with Iran--give them enough rope and Ahmadinejad will surely hang himself; and the international community will eventually realize exactly what kind of insanity they are dealing with.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 10:08 AM |