THE WAY A CIVILIZATION DIES
Melanie Phillip's sobering analysis:

Certain conclusions are now inescapable. First, hatred of Israel and the irrationality associated with that hatred have now reached unprecedented proportions within Britain and the west. Second, with a few honourable exceptions the mainstream media are no longer to be believed in anything they transmit, either in words or pictures, about the Middle East. It is only the blogosphere which is now performing the most elementary disciplines of journalism: to aspire to objectivity, to separate facts from prejudices, to apply basic checks to claims being made by partisans to a conflict, and to be particularly wary of those with a proven track record of lying. Third, the mainstream media must now be regarded as active accessories to the war being waged against the free world and therefore as a fifth column in that world – an enemy within. Fourth, the impact of the lies and distortions transmitted by the mainstream media in inflaming the already pathological hatred of the west within the Arab and Muslim world is incalculable. Fifth, the mainstream media’s vilification, demonisation and delegitimisation of Israel, based on outright fabrications and malevolent distortions, is imperilling the very existence of the country that is the front line of defence of the free world. Sixth, that vilification is also imperilling the safety and well-being of Jewish communities around the world, subject now to the double victimisation of attack by Islamists and attack by non-Muslims for belonging to a Jewish people that refuses to submit passively to a second attempt at genocidal slaughter and instead fights to defend itself.

To date, as far as I can determine, not one mainstream editor or proprietor has acknowledged this corruption of the western media. The scale of this corruption now threatens to have a lethal impact on the course of human history. Hatred now drives not just the jihadists but their western dupes, too. Truth and freedom are indivisible. The deconstruction of the former inevitably presages the destruction of the latter. This is the way a civilisation dies.

Not with a bang, but a whimper.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 5:49 PM |

 
ALL THINGS APPEAR TO BE POSSIBLE FOR ALLAH
Talk about forced conversion to Islam! This is so laughably preposterous that I wonder how the comedy and high farce manage to elude muslims?

Pinocchio, Tom Sawyer and other characters have been converted to Islam in new versions of 100 classic stories on the Turkish school curriculum.

"Give me some bread, for Allah's sake," Pinocchio says to Geppetto, his maker, in a book stamped with the crest of the ministry of education.

"Thanks be to Allah," the puppet says later.

advertisementIn The Three Musketeers, D'Artagnan is told that he cannot visit Aramis. The reason would surprise the author, Alexandre Dumas.

An old woman explains: "He is surrounded by men of religion. He converted to Islam after his illness."

The Sanity Squad discusses the issue of forced conversion in its latest podcast, but amazingly we hadn't considered the ramification of forcing fictional characters to convert against their authors' wishes. How...reality-based.

Truly, all things appear to be possible when you're dealing with Allah--especially if you happen to reside in the realm of delusion and fantasy.

UPDATE: The Belmont Club has a post that is very relevant to this issue -- the process of altering the future by manipulating symbols in the present. Wretchard is discussing the forces political correctness and their willingness to distory reality to conform with their ideal--and isn't that precisely what is going on in the textbook alterations in Turkey? He quotes Jeff Jacoby:

You're a publisher of children's textbooks, and you have a problem. Your diversity guidelines -- quotas in all but name -- require you to include pictures of disabled children in your elementary and high school texts, but it isn't easy to find handicapped children who are willing and able to pose for a photographer. Kids confined to wheelchairs often suffer from afflictions that affect their appearance, such as cerebral palsy or muscular dystrophy. How can you meet your quota of disability images if you don't have disabled models who are suitably photogenic? Well, you can always do what Houghton Mifflin does. The well-known textbook publisher keeps a wheelchair on hand as a prop and hires able-bodied children from a modeling agency to pose in it. It keeps colorful pairs of crutches on hand, too -- in case a child model turns out to be the wrong size for the wheelchair

.

Only in Islam's case, it is not 'sacrificing truth on the altar of diversity', but simply sacrificing truth for the sake of Allah. Both "diversity" and "Allah" are the gods for whose sake truth must be denied and distorted.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 8:35 AM |

 
HOW PSYCHOLOGICAL DEFENSES WORK
I'm going to be extremely busy most of the day with patients and teaching; so I thought I'd share some of what I have lined up for my students: How Psychological Defense Mechanisms work.

George Vaillant in The Wisdom of the Ego summarizes the different ways that defense mechanisms might disguise an internal conflict. I will paraphrase his example:

Let us suppose that the underlying conflict (expressed as a conscious idea, feeling or behavior) is, "I hate my father." The following examples are how that specific feeling might be altered when different defense mechanisms are used by the person experiencing it:

DEFENSE / Conscious Representation of thoughts, feelings or behaviors

No defense - I hate my father

Psychotic Defenses
Denial - I was born without a father.

Immature Defenses
Projection - My father hates me.
Passive Aggression - I hate myself (or, a suicide attempt).
Acting Out - Gets into fights with authority figures
Fantasy - Daydreams about killing giants or monsters

Neurotic (Intermediate) Defenses
Dissociation - I tell my father jokes.
Displacement - I hate my father's dog.
Intellectualization - I disapprove of my father's behavior.
Repression - I don't know why I feel so upset and angry.
Reaction Formation - I love my father; or, I hate my father's enemies .

Mature Defenses
Suppression - I am angry at my father, but I won't tell him.
Sublimation - I beat my father at tennis.
Altruism - I comfort father-haters
Humor - I make fun of fathers with jokes that make others laugh!
(note that not all humor is mature, but when used appropriately it is one of the most effective coping skills. Sadistic humor, for example arises from projection and is immature)

Each one of the above defense mechanisms (except the "mature" ones) can, under the right circumstances, be taken to pathological extremes and result in a psychiatrically diagnosable condition.

For example, the use of projection ("My father hates me") if used persistently as a coping mechanism can lead to a paranoid personality disorder. Or, use of the passive aggression defense (I hate myself) can lead to dysthymia or depression. Repression might lead to an anxiety disorder.

There is a clinical correlate for each of the defenses listed above, and the expression of that clinical disorder is dependent on a variety of factors such as the age/developmental stage of the user; the genetic, biological or physiological vulnerabilities of the user; the environment of the user, etc.

Valliant observes:

It is noteworthy that the denials and self-deceptions that result from the deployment of mature defenses result in no diagnosis--not everyone who practices self-deception appears ill to others. The oyster, after all, deals with the irritation of a grain of sand by creating a pearl.

Many people seem to think that ALL stress is bad for you and must be eliminated from your life. But this position fails to understand the importance and necessity of stress in our lives.

Where once our stress response existed merely to protect us from extreme danger (and still does); today it is a key biological element that can promote and and encourage psychological growth and development and help us to learn mastery over ourselves and our environment.

So this is the good thing about stress. Stress and our response to it can help us to mature and expand our capabilities. Without stress, there is little motivation to change or improve either ourselves or our environment. Too little stress and we stagnate. Too much, and we are at risk of falling apart. But just the right amount of irritation can encourage us to create a pearl!

Perhaps the greatest stress an individual can feel comes when they must deal with the loss of a loved one. Sadly, such an occurrence is inevitable in the course of life, and how each person deals with the losses he or she experiences has a significant impact on the psychological defense mechanisms they will use.

Love--in fact, most interactions with other people--are not pain free. Frequently the pain involved in interpersonal relationships can be the impetus that helps us to psychologically assimilate others, a process integral to human development.

Vaillant again:

We, too, sometimes forget that, contrary to folklore and psychiatric myth, loss in itself does not cause psychopathology. We forget that healthy grief hurts but does not make us ill. Grief produces tears, not patienthood. It is never having anyone at all to love that cripples us. It is the inconstant people who stay in our lives who drive us mad, not the constant ones who die. It is failure to internalize those whom we have loved, not their loss, that impedes adult development.(emphasis mine)

I say this over and over, but it bears repeating: psychological defense mechanisms (which include some relatively primitive psychological responses like projection - the mechanism involved in most forms of racism, for example) are not diagnoses.

You might think of the immature and dysfunctional ones as a psychological process utilized by the self/psyche that is parallel to the physical experience of a fever.

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

It is likewise when the ego deploys a psychological defense (especially one that persists despite reality; or one that is severely dysfunctional and causes great problems in the person's life). We do not say that "fever" is a diagnosis. It is a symptom that, particularly when it persists, makes us take action.

It is important to remember that psychological defenses are, for the most part, unconsciously deployed--i.e., people don't say, "Oh, I feel threatened, I think I will displace my fear about what is threatening me onto someone I'm not really afraid of." Their self, in a creative attempt at protecting the individual from feeling a paralyzing fear, automatically does it for them as a temporary strategy to deal with the frightening situation. It is up to every individual to monitor his or her reactions to life and use the conscious mind to find successful, long-term, non-pathological strategies to cope.

A defense mechanism is a symptom that suggests our psychological self is trying to cope with a disturbing reality. If an individual has insight and self-awareness (the ability to objectively observe and be conscious of one's own thoughts, feelings, and behaviors and their meaning), then the defense mechanism can become a valuable tool with which to understand one's own fears and prejudices - just as a fever becomes the red flag that leads us to look for an underlying problem.

As I said in an earlier post:

We may not be able to help which defenses our egos deploy in every situation. Sometimes, when reality is threatening enough or our conflicts are intense enough, even the most mature individual may find him or herself using the more immature defenses like denial and projection. What matters is that we make a practice of examining our own behavior and appreciating the underlying issues and motivations that drive it. Or to put it another way, we reflect on those subtle factors that may be controlling our behavior outside our completely conscious awareness (and therefore our control) and make them fully conscious. This is called developing insight and self-awareness. It is probably the equivalent of the "holy grail" in psychiatric practice, and we psychiatrists are forever encouraging our patients to go on such quests of self-discovery.

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

Maladaptive psychological defenses that bring ourselves and others a great deal of unhappiness and misery, can evolve into mature and adaptive responses to the world that both enhance and protect our lives. Human beings are remarkable creatures. Sometimes their capacity for self-deception and delusion seems unlimited; and sometimes their incredible creativity and ingenuity in coping with all the trials and travails that life throws at them is worthy of appreciation and even awe.

- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 6:59 AM |

 
CARNIVAL OF EDUCATION AT THESPIS
The 82nd Edition of the Carnival of Education --Special Theatrical Edition-- is being hosted by Thespis Journal this week.

The Carnival features articles submitted from across the Edusphere. Check it out !
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 9:13 PM |

 
EMBARRASING THE TRUTH, DENYING REALITY, & APPEASING EVIL
From The Anchoress, discussing that "random, road rage incident" in San Francisco yesterday:

Can you imagine, if someone had (God forbid!) driven a car into 14 gay people, how quickly the press would have managed to cover the story? Can you imagine that Mayor Newsom would call it “road rage” and suggest that there really probably wasn’t a “hate crime” attached to the action?

What the hell is wrong with the press, what the hell is wrong with the leadership? Why are they so incapable of calling anti-semitism what it is, of calling a terrorist action what it is? Newsflash, folks, when someone decides to drive his car into people as they’re crossing the street, it’s the same as tossing a molotov cocktail at them, it’s the same as tossing a grenade. It is destructive, it kills people and terrifies communities, that is called t-e-r-r-o-r-i-s-m! Hey, guess what, fellas, we don’t need no stinking anthrax to kill and terrify…we can use our cars.

I swear, these people are tempting me to some vile language.

And then there's this from the world's #1 Holocaust denier; a person so completely obsessed with the Jews, one has to wonder if he may be denying his own Jewish ancestry (wouldn't that be interesting):

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has told German Chancellor Angela Merkel that the Holocaust may have been invented by the victorious Allied powers in World War II to embarrass Germany.

The remarks by the outspoken Iranian president, who has repeatedly questioned the veracity of the Holocaust, came in a letter sent to Merkel in July whose contents have not been disclosed until now, according to the news agency Mehr as reported by AFP.

"Is it not a reasonable possibility that some countries that had won the war made up this excuse to constantly embarrass the defeated people ... to bar their progress," Ahmadinejad said in the letter.

"The question is if these countries, especially Britain, felt responsible for the Holocaust survivors, why they did not settle them in their own countries?" it said.

The full text of the letter to the German Chancellor can be found here.

The Iranian Reich seems to be on a roll. This is the second in a series of important letters that Ahmadinejad has written to world leaders (the 18-page letter to President Bush can be found here); and the Iranian president has challenged Bush to a "debate" so that Iran can "voice its point of view on how to end world predicaments."

Ahmadinejad also had the incredible gall to even put conditions on the debate, insisting: "But the condition is that there can be no censorship, especially for the American nation." This, from a man whose own people live under a regime of oppression that crushes individual freedom and speech.

Reading the two letters reminds me of one of my dirty little jobs at NASA. Because I was the only psychiatrist civil servant, most of the "crazy" letters that came into the Agency, no matter at what level, eventually found their way down to me to answer. There were 300 page missives from people who claimed to describing that elusive Unified Field Theory (of life, the universe, and everything) and wanted NASA to immediately hire them; letters proposing recycling astronaut's urine as drinking water; and letters with even more bizarre recommendations and analyses for NASA scientists. There were letters demanding that NASA stop monitoring the author's brain; letters that accused NASA of being in a world-wide alien conspiracy to take over the Earth; and letters that you absolutely wouldn't believe even if I told you about them.

NASA officials insisted that every letter have an "official" response (good PR, you know), so the "official" shrink was delegated to reply.

In other words, I have some experience answering the deluded and paranoid; the grandiose and psychotic when they write desperate letters to important people in order to enhance their visibility and shore up their disintigrating self.

Fortunately, none of those letters to NASA that ended up on my desk for a response, were attempting to facilitate the end of the world; and if they did, none seemed to have the means with which to accomplish it. I took a lot of care with the letters I composed, trying to be unprovocative and simultaneously encourging the letter-writer to get some psychological help.

But what is going on these days in our press, and on the left; as well as in the mind of delusional fanatics like the Iranian president, cannot be dealt with by sweet and soothing diplomatic words.

Ahmadinejad displays for all to see an unbelievable degree of paranoia and delusion in his rambling letters to world leaders. It is clear that he wants to be taken as a serious thinker and allowed into the halls of world power. He even believes his ticket into that hall is his delusion, and that he can get enough people in the clueless west to agree with him--or else just shut up about it. When that happens, there will be nothing that prevents him from acting on his desire to "solve" what he perceives as the world's most significant problem--the Jews.

It is useless to point out to him that he is insane with hatred. It is useless to expect an sudden epiphany of insight and self-awareness will strike this maniac down on the road to Damascus (or Tehran).

But I don't think it is too much to expect that our own media and our own intellectual elites take a good, long look in the mirror and come to appreciate how, little by little, they are actively contributing to the Islamic fanatics' agenda.

To further extend The Anchoress' thoughts: what the hell is wrong with the political left that they want to close their eyes to this evil as it spreads over the world even darkening areas of our own country?

The stench of denial is pervasive and toxic.

The media, the left, the Democrats--and even some on the political right-- all continue to behave as craven apologists for this new Reich; even as the tendrils of its sick ideology extend out and lock onto the souls of weakest in our society. The morally and intellectually bankrupt elite of the left, whose rage knows no bounds when hapless Republicans utter imaginary slurs like "maccaca", are strangely silent and complicit when real evil rears its head and emits its foul breath.

Ahmadinejad's mere existence is an embarassment to truth; but the apologists, appeasers and enablers for the murdering death cult of Islamic totalitarianism surely must make truth weep.


- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 9:41 AM |

 
DEFENDING BUGS BUNNY
When I read Bill Kristol's editorial on "Bugs Bunny Democrats", the in the Weekly Standard recently, my initial response was that he wasn't being fair to old Bugs by comparing him to the gormless Democrats. So, it was interesting to see several other readers take him to task for this in the next issue:
"I MUST TAKE ISSUE with the characterization of the Euro-Democrats as "Bugs Bunny Democrats" in William Kristol's editorial ("The Bugs Bunny Democrats," Aug. 21 / Aug. 28). Although I realize Kristol's analogy is based on Bugs Bunny's diet, the carrots that the "European wing of the Democratic party" is so fond of offering are all the "EuroDems" have in common with the discerning and determined Bugs.

Bugs Bunny survives by outwitting his opponents. His probing catchphrase, "Eh, what's up, doc?" usually begins his exposition of their follies for all to see. He has demonstrated the willingness to eschew political correctness and directly confront his antagonists' intellectual failings. To Elmer Fudd's clueless, misdirected assertion that "Somethin's scwewy awound here," Bugs is quick to point out that it "could be you, doc."

Granted, Bugs Bunny does show patience with his antagonists, but only up to a point. Once the threat to his security becomes clear, he is willing to take action. He has been known to confront his tormentors with a definitive, "Of course you realize, 'DIS means war!" I doubt that any of the EuroDems have the grit to follow such an example.

Bugs Bunny's bravery is a matter of record. A member of the greatest generation, he took on World War II archvillains such as Herman Goering and even Adolf Hitler himself. In recognition of his fighting spirit, the U.S. Marine Corps awarded Bugs an honorary officer's commission.

Now, "Elmer Fudd Democrats" would certainly be an appropriate description. Perhaps even "Daffy Duck Democrats." But I think we can be sure that there is not a Bugs Bunny among them.

JOSEPH W.T. PUGH
Haddonfield, N.J.

and

WILLIAM KRISTOL brilliantly analyzes the naive pacifism of contemporary liberalism, which focuses on foreign policy carrots to the exclusion of sticks. But tying the carrot metaphor to Bugs Bunny is unfair. Bugs always frustrated and defeated those trying to destroy him. Just ask Elmer Fudd, Yosemite Sam, Giovanni Jones, Marvin the Martian, and others who experienced Bugs's unique, and hilarious, forms of payback. A little bit Brooklyn, a little bit Bronx (as Mel Blanc, who supplied the voice, once put it), Bugs embodied America's fighting spirit at its best. Our political leaders and foreign policy elites could learn a lot from him.

MATTHEW BERKE
Madison, N.J.

Both letter writers make excellent points. Bugs has long been a favorite cartoon character (I really like his, "What's up, Doc" line). He is cool and funny under pressure; and he makes his opponents look like complete idiots. You've got to admire that.

As one of the letter writers mentioned, Bugs was something of a war hero during WWII, pushing for War Bonds early in the war; and starring in a number of war-themed cartoons:

Several titles were designed to boost American morale by placing Bugs in wartime themes (such as airplane hijacks by mythical gremlins in "Falling Hare"(1943) and a few others had Bugs take on America's enemies, most notably the infamous "Bugs Bunny Nips the Nips", a now-rarely seen film with Bugs fighting the Japanese on a Pacific island.

It occurs to me that we could use Bugs these days to boost American morale here at home; and of course to mock the current crop of clueless Elmer Fudd's.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 6:51 AM |

 
THE SANITY SQUAD IS BACK (Whether You Like It Or Not!)
Usually it’s hard to get an opinion out of a therapist. But, The Sanity Squad featuring Neo, ShrinkWrapped, Siggy and I are never reluctant to comment on topical world and national events. Opinions? We've got em, along with some insight into the psychological dynamics behind the issues of the day. The podcasts are posted every Tuesday; and we guarantee you won’t ever have to talk about your mother—unless you want to!

And our fee is very reasonable--in fact, it's free.

This week the Sanity Squad takes an in depth look at the Islamic tradition of forced conversions; and Stockholm Syndrome: the Fox-Gaza variations.

Check it out. And check out all the previous podcasts here.

Comments and suggestions are welcome.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 10:01 PM |

 
PACIFISM'S MORAL PREENING
Quote of the day, from Thomas Sowell:

It is staggering that anyone could be so self-infatuated as to single out their own particular policy preferences as "anti-war." Anyone who is not a sadist or an idiot is anti-war. The only serious issue is how best to limit, deter or conclude war. But responsibility for confronting this issue is evaded by those preoccupied with the moral preening of being "anti-war."

In response to a Sowell column a few months ago, I wrote the following:

Many people have forgotten that one of the most well-known pacifists of all time--Gandhi--proposed that nothing should have been done about the holocaust or the Nazis. How many of his admirers have considered what the consequences would have been if the world had followed Gandhi's lead? How many millions more people would have died? How many today would live under the boot of the Nazi philosophy?

Antiwar protestors always make a point of questioning what war is good for? You have heard them chanting this query at almost every one of their peace marches. The truth is that no sane person wants war, but it may be the only possible response to evil. And in human history, there have been many evils far worse than war.

As Sowell mentions, there has been more attention paid to cease-fires; treaties; and prevention of war in the middle east than anywhere else on earth. The result has been the continued enabling and appeasement of an intolerable evil that thrives on hatred and that has grown strong and sure of its holy mission to kill.

If the peace movement really were a peace movement, its members would be denouncing the true threats to peace and trying their damndest to disarm and neutralize the likes of Al Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah etc. etc. Instead, they champion these groups, demand cease-fires with them (never acknowledging that there is no way to hold them to account when they break the ceasefire, as they inevitably do) and say little about their standard operational policies that deliberately target the innocent. But our brave peace activists march in solidarity with these foul groups; and proudly wear the latest "hate couture", thinking it shows how tolerant and compassionate and virtuous they are; not even appreciating that it serves instead to demonstrate the intellectual and moral bankruptcy of their pacifist ideology.

In today's world, where evil knows it can get away with practically any horror; that there will always be a large cadre of dupes who are willing to rationalize, excuse, or minimize any atrocity; the only thing pacifism is good for is to enable and support evil.

War is a always a terrible choice. No reasonable person could believe that it is benign or intrinsically "good" to wage war. Yet, it is sometimes a choice that reasonable people need to make simply because evil exists in the world and it cannot go unchecked--that is, not if you truly care about innocent human life.

Pacifists cannot deal with this simple truth. In reality, they don't care much about human suffering, misery or even death; let alone the legacy of evil in the world. Through a variety of psychological defenses, they have managed to deny, displace, distort, and project real evil away. There cannot be found even a trace of psychological insight among all those angry marchers who violently and adamantly demand peace at any price.

For the carefree members of the antiwar movement, the triumph of evil is unimportant when compared to their own narcissistic need to appear virtuous and good--their own moral preening.

Pacifism--what is it good for? It protects the user from having to make difficult moral choices in the real world; from having to deal with real human suffering in the here and now; and most importantly, from recognizing how meaningless their own lives are.

The track record of pacifism is horrendous. Not only do "peace movements" fail to bring peace; but by protecting, appeasing, and minimizing true evil, they ensure that war--when it inevitably comes--costs even more in terms of human suffering and lives.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 2:05 PM |

 
THE TOTALITARIAN NATURE OF ISLAM
This, from the Middle East Quarterly, is remarkable:

On October 22, 2005, the France 2 television talk show Tout le Monde en Parle aired an interview with writer Salman Rushdie and French actor and Islamist Sami Nacéri. Left on the cutting room floor was an ugly incident during taping when Nacéri accused Rushdie of debasing Islam. If an imam asked him to kill Rushdie, Nacéri went on, he would himself shoot the bullet into Rushdie's head. He then pantomimed firing a gun at Rushdie.

Philippe Val, editor of the French left-wing weekly Charlie Hebdo, described the omitted segment in the November 2 issue of the magazine. French reaction was minimal. While some journalists debated whether celebrities made appropriate commentators, there was little discussion of France 2's decision to delete the offending segment.

On February 28, 2006, in response to Nacéri's threat, France 2's censorship, and the decision of several newspapers not to publish cartoons depicting the Prophet Muhammad, twelve prominent Muslim and non-Muslim intellectuals issued a manifesto first published on the French website Proche-Orient.info. The translation, replicated below, was later published in the Danish daily Jyllands-Posten. The willingness of prominent thinkers, both Muslim and non-Muslim, to stand together suggests that intellectuals recognize the totalitarian nature of Islamism and are determined not to cede terms of the societal debates to Islamists.

Read on for the full statement, which begins: "After having overcome fascism, Nazism, and Stalinism, the world now faces a new totalitarian global threat: Islamism.

We, writers, journalists, intellectuals, call for resistance to religious totalitarianism and for the promotion of freedom, equal opportunity, and secular values for all."

As leading news organizations in the U.S. criticize the use of the term "Islamofascism" (hat tip: The Corner), it becomes clearer to anyone with a brain that the word precisely describes the threat of these religious fanatics.

The term has angered many in the Muslim world, who see it as tarring their entire religion -- and everyone who practices it -- as fascists. I think it's despicable," Middle East expert Juan Cole says.

"Linking Islam… with a pejorative term such as fascism is extremely unfair. In fact, it is a form of racism."

Quite frankly, I am sick to death of hearing about muslim rage and muslim anger, especially since those emotions seem to be primarily directed against reality itself. How about a little Muslim reason? How about Muslim behavioral control?

It is time to call a spade a spade; and to call these Islamic fanatics the totalitarian thugs they are. I'm glad to see some prominent Islamic intellectuals do so.

One can only hope that the clueless western media will overcome its fear and submission in time to do some good in this war.

UPDATE: The Anchoress sees the same kind of fascist totalitarianism in the liberal left. It explains a lot, of course.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 6:42 AM |

 
THE BACTERIA OF STUPIDITY
Perhaps I was too harsh in my last post about the lack of insight in Palestinian society. Read the following, uttered by a Hamas (!) official:

Dismissing Israel's responsibility for the growing state of anarchy and lawlessness in the Gaza Strip, Hamad said it was time for the Palestinians to embark on a soul-searching process to see where they erred.

"We're always afraid to talk about our mistakes," he added. "We're used to blaming our mistakes on others. What is the relationship between the chaos, anarchy, lawlessness, indiscriminate murders, theft of land, family rivalries, transgression on public lands and unorganized traffic and the occupation? We are still trapped by the mentality of conspiracy theories - one that has limited our capability to think."
[...]
"We have all been attacked by the bacteria of stupidity," he remarked. "We have lost our sense of direction and we don't know where we're headed."

Now, that is some serious, soul-searching honesty. I particularly liked the realization that, by blaming others (i.e., the Jews/Israel) for all their problems--wallowing in victimhood and glorifying violence-- they have failed to take responsibility for the rampant thuggery and chaos that reigns in their society.

Could this be the start of some healthy psychological process in the Palestinian people and their leaders? Might we come to see some therapeutic alterations in world view and the adoption of...reality?

OK, maybe that's hoping for too much. The Palestinians have been dysfunctional for a long time, and there is considerable interest in the entire Arab/Islamic world in keeping them that way for a host of reasons that have little to do with what actually might be best for the Palestinian society.

But it is a good sign; and it seems to me as a therapist, that public statements like this are a move in the right psychological direction. The "bacteria of stupidity" that has infected Gaza and Palestinian territories has shown to be extremely toxic and very resilient; and it has led to much unnecessary death and suffering. But it can possibly be cured-- if the Palestinians are finally resolved to take responsibility for their own future; and if they begin to value life more than they value death.

Or, to paraphrase Golda Meir: Peace will come when the Arabs love their children more than they hate Israel.

UPDATE: Two days after I wrote this, Tony Blankley writes:

Some people of a theological bent see the current mess as a sign of God's imminent apocalyptic plans for us. And they may well be right. I prefer, however, to look on the optimistic side and consider that there may just be a politically curable stupidity bacteria in the air. But it certainly seems like a pandemic.

He's quite critical of the west's (including the Bush Administration's)inept handling of the pandemic. Worth reading.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 4:16 PM |

 
THE PALESTINIANS' ONGOING STRUGGLE AGAINST REALITY
Over at One Cosmos, Bob and Petey use Monty Python's Life of Brian to demonstrate how life imitates art (or at least comedy when it comes to the Palestinians).

It’s like a bad Monty Python skit. Imagine the brilliant discussion that went into it, probably not dissimilar to the dozen or so leftist revolutionaries in Life of Brian who spend the movie plotting how they are going to overthrow the Roman empire. In one scene, in the interest of diversity, they debate whether a man should be able to call himself Loretta and have babies:

LORETTA: It's every man's right to have babies if he wants them.

REG: But... you can't have babies.

LORETTA: Don't you oppress me.

REG: I'm not oppressing you, Stan. You haven't got a womb! -- Where's the fetus going to gestate?! You going to keep it in a box?!

LORETTA: [crying]

JUDITH: Here! I-- I've got an idea. Suppose you agree that he can't actually have babies, not having a womb, which is nobody's fault, not even the Romans', but that he can have the right to have babies.

FRANCIS: Good idea, Judith. We shall fight the oppressors for your right to have babies, brother. Sister. Sorry.

REG: What's the point?

FRANCIS: What?

REG: What's the point of fighting for his right to have babies when he can't have babies?!

FRANCIS: It is symbolic of our struggle against oppression.

REG: Symbolic of his struggle against reality.

****

PALESTINIAN #1: Let’s kidnap some infidel journalists and force them to convert to Islam on video!

PALESTINIAN #2: Why? What's the point?

PALESTINIAN #1: Huh?

PALESTINIAN #2: Oh, I get it. This is brilliant, Hassan. Just brilliant. Once they convert, the journalists can hold themselves hostage, so they can negotiate with themselves for their own release and leave us out of it. Maybe while they're at it they can hold a knife to their own throats unless the infidels vote for Ned Lamont.

PALESTINIAN #1: It is symbolic of our struggle against the Zionist occupation!

PALESTINIAN #2: Yeah, right. Symbolic of your struggle against reality is more like it.

The only problem I find with Bob's analysis is that the existence of "PALESTINIAN #2" is purely hypothetical. Palestinian society doesn't seem to encourage the development of individuals who are able to appreciate any aspect of irony or humor; nor do Palestinians exhibit on any degree of self-reflection or insight.

In fact, they are poster children, symbolic of pretty much the entire muslim world in this regard.

Fortunately, Bob has enough insight and humor for the entire Islamic ummah, and is willing to share.

UPDATE: It seems that most of the psychbloggers are on a roll:

neo-neocon has a post on Hezbollah; SC&A have a lovely piece that discusses his grandparents, war, and change--and the essentials that don't change from generation to generation. And, ShrinkWrapped has some important insights about information and the information war.

If you are up for so much wisdom on a Monday morning, check them out!
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 10:02 AM |

 
AND I GUESS THAT'S WHY THEY ALL HATE THE JEWS
A great quote from Shelby Steele, writing about how western guilt blinds us to the nature of Islamic extremism :

All this follows the familiar pattern of a very old vice: anti-Semitism. The anti-Semite is always drawn to the hatred of Jews by his own unacknowledged inadequacy. As Sartre says in his great essay on the subject, the anti-Semite "is a man who is afraid. Not of Jews of course, but of himself."

It is worth your time to read his entire essay.

Yesterday, the Baron, who foolishly eggs me on in these sorts of things, challenged me to come up with new words to an old Elton John song. The result seems particularly appropriate to what Steele wrote.

AND I GUESS THAT'S WHY THEY ALL HATE THE JEWS

Don't wish it away,
Just endure in the face of adversity;
Between you and me I could honestly say
All their foes have a certain perversity

And while Jews create,
Make the best of the demons inside,
It won't be too long till success
Stabs at heart of sick Arab pride

And I guess that's why they all hate the Jews;
Blame them for their failures; and kill them for news
Blow up their children, bask in confusion
Believe that their strengths are just an illusion--
And I guess that's why they all hate the Jews

Just look at the states
That surround Israel on the map.
Drowning in spite and self-victimization
Their life is all crap.

Then screaming in rage
That the problem is not in themselves--
They simply hate Jews
More than they love life itself.

And I guess that's why they all hate the Jews;
Blame them for their failures; and kill them for news
Blow up their children, bask in confusion
Believe that their strengths are just an illusion--
And I guess that's why they all hate the Jews


- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 6:55 AM |

 
HMMMM....
Interesting. "Compliant and Subservient" are the words I might have used to describe Jimmy Carter. "Weak", "Passive-Aggressive" and "Piously Malevolent" also come to mind.

They are definitely not the words that I would use to describe Tony Blair.

My psychiatric radar is tingling.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 9:43 PM |

 
FORCED CONVERSION TO ISLAM: Identification With the Islamic Aggressor
I am very glad that Steve Centanni and Olaf Wiig were released and I wish them well in recovering from their ordeal (Malkin has details). But, must we all be subjected once again to psychologically traumatized people saying things under duress as if it means something other than the fact that their kidnappers are barbaric thugs?

I completely agree with Cliff May at The Corner.

I wrote about this the last time these Islamic soul murderers released a hostage. I think it is worth reprinting most of that post, because it discusses the psychological phenomenon that is at play in cases like this: Identification with the aggressor.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But it is after the trauma--after the rescue--that the hardest and most painful part of coping psychologically will present itself. And to survive psychologically will require quite a bit of insight, self-awareness, and honesty; and even possibly the experience of some shame and/or guilt. And most of all, using one's rational faculty to help understand all that has transpired both externally and internally. In this way, one may permit one's self to tap into the terrible feelings of fear and humiliation and to deal with them --instead of repressing them, and letting them deal with you and thus, unconsciously control you and distort the reality of what happened to you.

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

Yes, they were. As respectful and courteous as anyone could be when they are threatening to cut off your head or kill you if you don't accept their religion.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 10:25 AM |

 
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. And you might read this before submitting an entry.

Thanks for all the submissions. I try to use as many as possible! SO MANY INSANITIES! SO LITTLE TIME!!!

1. "A lace handkerchief fluttered in the face of reality" --what a perfect description.

2. It's only for peaceful purposes! And our response would certainly be, too! Meanwhile, the Kofi cuts out the middleman to negotiate a deal.

3. Reality imposes a death penalty ...but then again, there are perks to even the worse criminal behavior.

4. You don't understand! It's always Israel's fault. When human rights organizations learn to love human rights more than they hate the US and Israel, then they will be useful.

5. A scholarly course on how the media legitimized an anti-Israeli hoax. Read it and learn. All your fakes are belong to us?

6. Further evidence of Bin Laden's evil. If you needed it.

7. Getting back to hard-hitting journalism at the Times.

8. You gotta love Christopher Hitchens.

9. Coming Soon! To a blog near you! This guy is everywhere! (hat tip: Instapundit)

10. Fausta is fried and ShrinkWrapped is toasted.

11. Explaining things to slow-learning liberals. Meanwhile the Marines set the media straight.

12. It's always about him. I wonder if he's planning to go hunting with Joe anytime soon?

13. Avoid poverty by finishing high school, getting a job and postponing marriage and child-bearing until at least 21? What a ridiculous concept!

14. "Allahu Akbar-It's The New Sieg Heil!" And other counter-jihad slogans! But for some Germans, Bush=Hitler

15. All we are saying is give Pluto a chance! A fierce backlash has erupted !

16. The icecap may not be the only thing shrinking in the Arctic; and this is bad news for global warming fanatics.

17. Of hens and primates --and human bondage?

18. Numa nuts? And Gangster Raccoons.

19. Wicked, a musical starring Hilary, Ned, Jack, and Ray

20. Declare victory and get out--in Connecticut! Lamont gets some campaign help from aliens. Real aliens.

21. TV's worse Bosses ; and, are women their own worse bosses?

22. Stupid health tricks...for arthritis. (Don't do this at home!)

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 @ 7:31 AM |

 
GETTING TO THE 'ROOT' OF ROOT CAUSES
ShrinkWrapped is exactly right about the root cause of the use of "root causes":

When "root causes" were wedded to the Marxist dialectic of oppressors and oppressed, any action taken by the less advantaged could be, and often has been, fully excused by those who are prone to this disorder of their thinking.

This use of the unconscious, "root causes", in this way is a perversion of Freud's ideas. He presented the goal of treatment to be increasing the understanding of the patient of their own unconscious motivations and processes so they could take more responsibility for their behavior, not as a way to avoid feeling responsible for what they do. Further, he recognized that there are always multiple determinants for any behavior and any particular manifest behavior can never be reduced to a single "root cause".

Whether we are talking about shoplifters or terrorists, the idea that their responsibility is lessened because their behavior has "root causes" serves primarily to weaken the ability of civilized people to ensure minimal standards of appropriate behavior.

Read the entire post.

The appropriation of Freud by the left to justify its marxist victimhood scam has always irritated me. Think about it.

When marxists began to realize that their ideology was completely unsatisfactory in creating wealth; or promoting human happiness, they turned their frustration toward the hapless proletariat, who, instead of rising up against their capitalistic oppressors, were busily all trying to be capitalists themselves and improve their standard of living pursuing their own happiness.

This betrayal of the perfect ideology had to be explained away, and these psychological giants seized on the idea of Freud's concept of the unconscious to identify what they thought was the "pathology" in this turn of events.

Capitalism, they concluded, was causing a redirection of psychological energy--which might otherwise be used to bring about that elusive revolution for the marxist utopia--toward creating wealth and creature comforts. These things were very bad, because all the brutal conflict and competition of the capitalistic society is masked by the contentment the poor, deluded "Joe Sixpack" has achieved. From Stephen Hicks (163-4), here is a description of life as the marxists see it in a capitalistic society:

Consider Joe Sixpack. Joe works as a low-level technician for a television-manufacturing company,, part of a huge telecommunications conglomerate. Whether he has ajob tomorrow depends on Wall Street speculators and the decisions of a corporate headquarters in another state. But Joe does not realize that: he simply goes to work each morning with slight sense of distaste, pulls the levers and pushes the buttons as he is told to do by the machine and the boss, mass-producing televisions until it is time to go home. On the way home he picks up a six-pack of beer--another mass-market product of capitalist commodification--and after supper with the family he plops down in front of the television, feeling the narcotic effect of the beer kicking in while the sit-coms and commercials tell him that life is great and who could ask for more. Tomorrow is another day.

Well, what is wrong with this gloomy analysis? I'm sure you have heard a variant of it somewhere in your educational pursuits. Modern man is "alienated" from the environment; he is in existential despair about the meaning of life, blah blah blah--and it is all capitalism's fault! This scenario perfectly explained to the revolutionaries in training why:

...capitalism in the 1950s and 1960s seemed to be peaceful, tolerant, and progressive--when, as every good socialist knew, it could not really be--and for why the workers were so disappointingly un-revolutionary. Capitalism does not merely oppress the masses existentially, it also represses them psychologically.

Frequent visitors to this blog might recall that I have written quite a bit about psychological defense mechanisms (and here, for example) which operate unconsciously for the most part; and that they exist in a spectrum from immature to mature. What is described above is not a process of psychological repression (a neurotic, lower level psychological defense), but a process of sublimation, one of the most mature defenses. And, it is not capitalism that is "causing" the use of this psychological defense, but life itself. And, it is capitalism and the capitalist system that offer a healthy channel for the redirection of negative psychic energy into something positive for both the individual and the group at large.

Something, I might add, that marxism, socialism and all its malignant variants completely fail to do. In fact, what they encourage are the use of unhealthy defenses (acting out, reaction formation, denial, projection, displacement to name a few) which, because such defenses are suboptimal and even self-defeating in the long-run, do nothing to improve the lot of either the society at large, or the individual unlucky enough to be living in it.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So, if you want to get down to "root" causes: in the end, each individual is ultimately responsible for dealing with reality and for his or her own life. Understanding and gaining control over one's own unconscious motivations and processes in order to be able to take more responsibility for one's behavior--and not as a way to avoid feeling responsible for what they do--is one of the most important aspects of individual maturation and growth.

And, I might add, for the advance of civilization.

UPDATE: Gagdad Bob has an excellent post that extends and illuminates some of the points that ShrinkWrapped and I make. In particular, Bob shows the interplay between truth, free will, and human nature:

What largely defines man is his free will, which implies both intelligence and objectivity, for if we aren’t free, then we cannot really possess either truth or goodness. Animals cannot leave the closed system of cause and effect, whereas human beings clearly can. In our vertical aspect, we can see a range of potential choices before us, whereas the animal is simply spurred by the demands of instinct.

Thus, to call free will into question is to make us less than human, which is why humanism is always subhumanism. The most subhuman places on earth are specifically those places where free will was and is denied or atrophied: in communist countries, in the Islamic world, and in urban areas where free will has been eroded by 40 years of leftist brainwashing and social engineering. In the latter case, you might say that poverty does indeed cause crime--the impoverished metaphysic of the left.

Liberty in itself is an aspect of divinity in which we may either participate or not participate. This is a truth that our founders found to be be self-evident, and we can be sure that, in their wildest nightmares, they did not anticipate an illiberal counterrevolution from the left that actually denied the entire basis of the American ideal.

Read it all, of course.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 8:23 AM |

 
THE TRIUMPH OF DIPLOMACY IN THE POSTMODERN WORLD
Here. Don't pretend that you didn't expect this. The world has no intention of stopping Iran from getting nuclear weapons.

But by all means, let the farce continue. After all, the failure of diplomacy can actually be viewed as a triumph in a postmodern world.

Personally, I think the time is coming for some unilateral misbehavior. And I'm not talking about Iran.

UPDATE: Also see neo-neocon's post, "'Unsatisfactory' is diplomatspeak for bad, bad, bad"
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 9:50 PM |

 
IF ONLY...
Jonah Goldberg makes the following observation:

Ned Lamont’s primary victory against Joe Lieberman in Connecticut supposedly represented the triumph of the antiwar, anti-Bush “netroots” within the Democratic party. Alas, our troop presence in Iraq is increasing; it appears Lieberman, running as an independent, will trounce Lamont; and President Bush is having his best week in the polls in six months (which is not quite the same thing as saying he’s doing well in the polls).

So have the Lamonters and other victims of so-called BDS — Bush Derangement Syndrome — been routed? Not quite. Because BDS sufferers have a related secondary affliction: WMDS. This refers not to the unfound weapons of mass destruction but to Wal-Mart Derangement Syndrome. And the Democratic Party is ministering to these patients with reckless abandon.

The New York Times reported recently that the Democrats have, en masse, declared their party to be the enemy of the mega-box store.

Now, if only we could transform and sublimate all the Democrats' intense negative psychic energy into a force for Good...



See Eric Allie's cartoons here

UPDATE: Ace puts his finger on exactly why the Democrats (and the left) are completely irrelevant in today's world.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 2:49 PM |

 
LISTENING TO THE MUSIC AND TUNING PIANOS
It has been a busy week for me professionally--one of those weeks, in fact, that occasionally make me wonder why I ever went into psychiatry to begin with. Usually when that thought pops into my head (and it does with some regularity) it is my red flag indicating I need a vacation or something, because I'm feeling a little burned out.

Many people have the mistaken impression that psychiatry is an "easy" medical specialty; and I suppose it is if you don't really care very much about the people you are seeing. Or, if you can't be bothered to really listen and take in what they are trying to tell you.

And that's the hard part. To do it right often means letting go to some degree of the internal boundaries we each set up that protect us and separate us from other people; opening yourself to another's pain in a way that makes you feel it yourself. And then sharing whatever strength you have to offer to help them deal with it.

The art of therapy is to become the other person, but not to lose yourself in the process; to immerse yourself in someone else's pain, but hold onto the objectivity and knowledge that can bring you both out of the wilderness whole.

I find the process extremely exhausting at times.

It would be very seductive to think of this profession as a simple matter of correcting altered or abnormal brain chemistry, because to some extent that is just what it is. And, as a biochemist, I have no problem with appreciating the physiological basis of behavior. But there is no question in my own mind that something more is going on; and that this added layer of complexity is completely compatible with the biochemistry, but at the same time is orthogonal to it.

One of my biochemistry professors in college passed on to me a powerful metaphor related to this that I have appreciated almost daily in my professional life. He and I were discussing my interest in how the brain works and the concept of consciousness; and whether it would be better for me to go to medical school or to apply to study graduate biochemistry.

Think of the brain as a beautiful, elegant, and melodious grand piano, he told me. Now imagine that someone had taken an axe to that lovely piano, chopping it into millions of tiny little pieces. Biochemisty, he said, is picking up one of those millions of pieces and attempting to appreciate the sound of the music that could be played on the piano. Imagine Beethoven's 9th Symphony or a Rachmaninoff piano concerto being predicted--or understood and appreciated--merely from the study of dopamine and norepinephrine pathways!

His point, I think, was that biochemistry, while it is one path to understanding, cannot begin to describe the vastly complex and intricate music of the human brain; and that it seems inconceivable that anyone could imagine all that the human mind is capable of from just a study of the interaction the small molecules within. At some point, the level of complexity reaches a certain threshold that makes it surpass the mere sum of its microscopic parts.

Music lover that I was, I decided to go to apply to medical school and eventually wound up in psychiatry (with a detour to get a graduate degree in biochemistry along the way as it happens).

About a year ago there was an article in the NY Times that said psychiatrists are beginning to believe in the reality of evil. Somehow, I was reminded of that professor's anecdote.

For a long time now, behavioral scientists have been somewhat overly giddy with the many practical successes in medicine and psychiatry directly attributable to understanding a few of the pieces of the chopped up piano. But however much they know and understand, they are no closer to really understanding either the human capacity to create beauty or its capacity to do evil.

Outside the ivory tower, though--here in the real world--we are able to feel awe listening to the chords of a symphony composed by a fellow human being; and likewise, we are also able to feel a parallel revulsion at the all too frequent evidence of human evil.

Psychiatry is the branch of medicine dealing with the diagnosis and treatment of mental disorders. We are the piano repairmen of the medical world. We willingly use the science of the biochemists who create the drugs; but we should never forget that we are dealing with more than a conglomeration of chemicals and electrical circuits.

Good and evil exist within all humans--the capacity to create life and the capacity to desstroy it. I don't think that antidepressants would have helped Hitler appreciate the Jews; nor would placing Saddam on antipsychotics have helped the Iraqi people. And, even if medications might have helped, neither of the two psychopaths-- nor thousands like them through history-- would have agreed to treatment.

There are some things that medication cannot fix. Some pianos that cannot be tuned--maybe because there is a crack in the baseboard; or the materials used in construction were warped; or even that those same materials were irreversibly changed by exposure to malignant environmental factors.

Any piano repairman will also tell you that some pianos start out as lemons (just as some cars) and cannot produce the same sounds as their peers. Some are so broken that even after repair they are not much more than junk.

It is possible we will never adequately be able to explain fully every aspect of human brain function--expecially what leads to good or evil--by resorting only to an appreciation of the chemicals and the electrical circuits. But maybe we don't have to in order to enjoy and appreciate the music.

Maybe it is just good enough to nurture the good and fight the evil, whenever we observe either in ourselves or in others.

[Note parts of this post were published earlier]
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 7:55 AM |

 
HOW TO KILL A WESTERNER
MEMRI has the details as provided by the Al-Hesbah website.

On August 4, 2006, the Al-Hesbah website published instructions on "How to Kill a Crusader in the Arabian Peninsula." The document was signed by Amer Al-Najdi, and dated June 15, 2006.
Al-Najdi instructs his readers in some possible ways to kill a Westerner, from choosing the victim through following him through the stage of the actual killing.

Nice. Read on for cookbook-like details. I'm sure it will be an enlightening experience. Reminds me of an old Twilight Zone episode, but less ambiguous in its title.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 1:44 PM |

 
THE AYATOLLAHS' ANSWER
From the WSJ today:

Two months ago the U.N. Security Council offered Iran a choice: Stop enriching uranium in violation of its treaty agreements, and the world would negotiate better diplomatic and commercial relations. Keep enriching the fuel for nuclear weapons, however, and face isolation and sanctions. Tehran's rulers have now given their answer: They won't stop enriching uranium, but they're happy to keep talking about it.

Yesterday, the Bush Administration said it is still studying the Iranian proposal but that the reply "falls short of the conditions set by the Security Council." You can say that again. After three years of Iranian stonewalling since their nuclear deception was discovered, the June resolution was deliberately written to make an end to enrichment a first-order obligation.

The carrots are supposed to follow, not precede, Iran's promise not to take further steps toward becoming a nuclear power. Iran's reply looks like a calculated attempt to conquer the Security Council by dividing its members with the promise that more talk might some day, down the road, in return for who knows what, lead Iran to stop going nuclear.

Does this happen to remind you of anything? The same game currently being played by Iran with the international community reminds me of Peanuts. Think of Lucy as Ahmadinejad and the hapless Charlie Brown as the U.N. (thanks to M.B.!)



But Charlie Brown, dupe that he is, believes her every time she promises that next time it will be different. So, he keeps going back for more only to discover that the same thing happens yet again!

I always felt sorry for poor Charlie Brown. He was, after all, a kid; and kids have a hard time learning this sort of thing.

Still, the supposed adults of the west should know better.

The obvious next diplomatic step is to show Iran that the world meant what it said by following through with the toughest achievable sanctions. A myth has developed in some circles that there are "no good options" available to pressure Iran, but that's more excuse than analysis. Iran's mullahs are unpopular at home and their citizens will notice if they are declared a global pariah state. Sanctions on travel by Iran's government officials, diplomats and sports teams may be largely symbolic, but such symbolism will not be missed on the Persian street.

But Lucy is persuasive in her maliciousness; and I have doubts that Charlie Brown will ever grow up or learn from his experiences. We shall see.

UPDATE: VDH has some thoughts on the learning curve: "Relearning Lessons in the War on Terror".
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 8:26 AM |

 
Judging Saddam
While awaiting a verdict in the first trial, a second trial of Saddam Hussein is underway in Baghdad, this time for genocide

The second trial of ousted Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein opened Monday in Baghdad on charges of genocide for a violent campaign against minority Kurds nearly two decades ago.

A defiant Saddam refused to state his name or enter a plea to the charges. The chief judge entered a plea of not guilty for him.

Saddam and his six co-defendants are charged in connection with Operation Anfal, an Iraqi military campaign that prosecutors said killed more than 180,000 Kurds in 1987 and 1988. The slaughter began after Kurds were accused of aiding Iran during the Iran-Iraq war in the 1980s.

Among Saddam's co-defendants is Ali Hassan al-Majid, who became known as "Chemical Ali" for allegedly ordering poison gas attacks against the Kurds.

Though the news coverage of this trial has been very limited, I listened to some of the testimony of Kurdish survivors of the chemical attacks describing the carnage; and watched Saddam's angry, defiant, and completely unrepentant face as he dismissed their testimony.

I wondered, not for the first time, how anyone could possibly support or admire this truly evil man, so obviously sociopathic, narcissistic and malignant?

Then I remembered this article by Fred Siegel from last year:

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

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

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

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

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

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

When professors at our institutes of higher learning, disguised as "academics", spend their time asking foolish questions like, "Who are we to judge Saddam Hussein?"; and engaging in kneejerk anti-American political activism--rather than in the pursuit of knowledge; it is hardly surprising that policymakers look elsewhere for a source of useful ideas. The academic role has been taken over by think tanks, which...well, think., as opposed to just emoting and spewing slogans. For the most part, the universities have become irrelevant except for the elites they cater to.

This transformation of our "intellectual" centers of knowledge into vast emotional swamps of multicultural victimhood, offended by any idea that they don't like is a disaster in the making if unchecked. Because they influence the minds of the young, and their legacy is a generation of adults who have abandoned critical thinking, reason, truth, and reality.

Like the radical professors discussed in the article, a large segment of our society is no longer bothered by pesky ideas, which might actually have to be defended by reason and logic. No, they rely almost totally these days on the primacy of their feelings, which they proudly point out need no defense, since they are honest feelings. We see it daily in the pronouncements of the left, and their political arm that used to be the Democratic party.

From their perspective as the purveyors of the virtue of eternal victimhood, academics can readily identify with poor Saddam, who is, after all, just another helpless victim of U.S. imperialism and unbridled aggression. Who are we to judge him, they ask blandly? Their underlying assumption, of course, is that we are the true evil; that Bush is worse than Saddam--or Hitler, or Bin Laden; that America is responsible for terror; not the terrorists, who are the ultimate victims in all this.

But we need not be perfect to see, understand, and judge evil. Indeed, as a moral society, we must make the critical distinction between striving for the good and making mistakes versus deliberately encouraging and enabling evil. This moral relativism abandons our anchor in the real world, and leaves us adrift in a profound and pervasive nihilism.

Running through the moral relativism of a question like "Who are we to judge Saddam"--like a river of denial and projection-- is a lack of insight and self-awareness so incredible and so blindingly transparent that it is almost awe-inspiring in its magnitude. The kind of mindless emoting that passes for deep thought in academia and the enforcement of intellectual "purity"--even as they celebrate "diversity"--on the part of large numbers of the "intellectual elite" is a Totalitarian's Dream! Their slogans and banners are the stuff of dictator's fantasies. For these professors and their minions, the mindset of Orwell's 1984 is a deliberate lifestyle choice.

Saddam must love these guys! If he were to go free and be absolved of his crimes against humanity, I can visualize many of our ivy league institutions aggressively competing to offer him some important academic position.

These are our brave new intellectuals. Is it any wonder tyrants like Saddam and Fidel--and now Hugo--are their heroes? Viva la revolucion!
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 7:03 AM |

 
THE SANITY SQUAD, YET AGAIN !
We're back, and this time we tackle the polls, personal responsibility, and apocalypse maybe.

If you are up for a dose of sanity today, go check out Siggy, neo-neocon, ShrinkWrapped and me opining about...well, just about everything.

It's possible we're finally getting the hang of these podcast thingies.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 2:21 PM |

 
CHILDREN AND OUR SALVATION
Fausta has an excellent post up (quoting all my favorite shrinks) about Children and Salvation. She notes:

There's the acceptance in the Western World, in the name of multiculturalism and who knows what else, of societies that indulge into what for most of us is inherently revolting, aberrant degeneracy: the weaponization of children. Children suicide bombers, children witnessing public acts of unspeakable barbarity, children used as shields during gun battles, and the corpses of handicapped children (link in French) used as (warning: graphic images) death porn in a propaganda war.

Go read it. Children are indeed our salvation, for they represent the continuity of life...

The batter swings and the summer flies
As I look into my angel's eyes
A song plays on while the moon is high
over me
Something comes over me

I guess we're big and I guess we're small
If you think about it man you know we got it all
Cause we're all we got on this bouncing ball
And I love you free
I love you freely
-Five For Fighting, The Riddle
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 12:48 PM |

 
"WE COME TO SLAUGHTER"
Finally there is some news of the kidnapped Fox journalists, Steve Centanni and Olaf Wiig. They are being held by a brand spanking new terrorist group (at least one never heard of before) called The Holy Jihad Brigades. Here is the ransom note that came with a video of the two kidnapped men:

"This is a statement directed to the infidels in general, without discrimination of their georgraphical location. This is an invitation to enter into the religion of God before a day comes when being an infidel will not do you any good. The victory of God's soldiers can only be achieved by God's help. Nobody can frighten us about our enemy and what it possesses. In the name of God and taught Adam the names. If they throw us in fire it would be cool and safe on us. And if they throw us in water then the whale would pick us up and take us to land. If they want to cut us up, God will save us by sending a sacrifice and deliver us to safety.

No nation can be defeated without the will of God. Quoting Mohammed: 'Do not be sad for God is with us.'

Therefore lords of infidelity and masters of darkness and injustice believe in God and you will be safe or else wait for your turn because we come to slaughter. And every soul will reap what it has done.

You have angered us and we are not the kind that is angered. We are subdued, but rather the fountains of Islam and faith spring up in us.

We now tell you this is the chance we give you. God knows how often this kind of chance can be repeated.

In exchange for the release of the Muslim prisoners, males and females in the prisons of America, with our prisoners.

Release our prisoners and we will do the same. This applies to all without exception. And every Muslim is more cherished and more generous that a 1,000 Bushes. But this is a tradeoff of equals.

We will grant you 72 hours, that starts as of noon today during which you can look into this and if you carry out our condition we will carry out our promise, or else wait and we will wait with you and it will be in God's hands. And God's order is higher than any other and most people do not know. 'Those who have been injust will find out the consequences.'

The time you have starts as of noon Wednesday the 29th of Rajab (the Islamic month) of the year 1447 (Muslim year) which is the 23rd of August 2006.

Our thanks to God, the most gracious." (emphasis mine)

"We Come To Slaughter"--could there be a more appropriate slogan for these sick psychopaths who kill in the name of God; and who cloak their desire for endless death and blood in sacred terms, thus profaning all of life and all that is living?

In a fundamental way, these fanatics have so little of real life in them, they may as well be dead. You can almost hear the flies buzzing around the remnants of their putrid souls.

They may be the new thugs in town, but they have the same message of unrelenting hatred with its pathological glorification of death and destruction.

I will say a prayer for Mr. Centanni, Mr. Wigg and their families; and hope that they come out of this safe and sound. But I am not Christian enough to be willing to say anything remotely prayer-like for the sick souls of their captors.

May they drown horribly in the stinking, bottomless pit of their own hatred; and may they reap ten times what they have sown. Amen.

UPDATE: Frank J thinks these guys flunked basic terrorism classes. Undoubtedly, but I think they are also seriously undermedicated.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 11:40 AM |

 
THE DIFFERENCE



Sorry, couldn't help myself AJ Strata has the latest on the race.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 7:02 AM |

 
MIDNIGHT AT THE OASIS
It's midnight at the oasis and once again, that elusive 12th Imam has not shown up for the appointed apocalypse. But in keeping with the spiritual mindset of the occasion, the leaders of Iran have rejected demands to halt their nuclear efforts. OTOH, they appear to be ready to begin "serious talks".

Does anyone else find this ridiculously contradictory discourse familiar? In essence we are being treated to left's precious postmodern rhetoric, translated into Farsi.

Perhaps the left, wallowing in a cesspool of denial and fantasy, believe the Iranians really are "serious", and they should be given another chance by the international community before it takes the draconian step of imposing sanctions that are unlikely to have any effect anyway.

Well, I certainly wouldn't be surprised. When it comes to delusion, the Iranian leaders and the lunatic left have quite a bit in common.


The Baron suggests that I mock Ahmadinejad-- and I hear and obey!

(with apologies to Maria Muldaur)


Midnight at the oasis
Send your camel to bed
The mullah's smiling faces
Must be a little red.

They awaited an imam
12th in line by Allah
But he slipped off to a sand dune, last June
And won't be back, inshallah

Come on, Islam is our friend
We can bow and surrender
Up until the world ends
Till the world ends

The mullahs have the answer
There's no need to think
Mahmoud's their belly dancer, prancer
Can't you smell the stink?

I know your Daddy's that imam
Who's been hiding in a well
With fifty girls to attend him, they all send him
Deeper into hell

Mahmoud's got his halo, honey
Glowing round his head
And he won't need no virgins, no no
When he's finally pronounced dead.

Come on, Islam is our friend
We can bow and surrender
Up until the world ends
Till the world ends

Midnight at the oasis
Send your camel to bed
The mullah's smiling faces
Must be a little red.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 7:23 PM |

 
THEY SHALL NOT PASS
Thomas Sowell, one of my favorite writers, has a sobering analysis of the world situation today:

Fanatics filled with hate cannot be either deterred or bought off, whether Hezbollah, Hamas or the government of Iran.

The endlessly futile efforts to bring peace to the Middle East with concessions fundamentally misconceive what forces are at work.

Hate and humiliation are key forces that cannot be bought off by "trading land for peace," by a "Palestinian homeland" or by other such concessions that might have worked in other times and places.

Humiliation and hate go together. Why humiliation? Because a once-proud, dynamic culture in the forefront of world civilizations, and still carrying a message of their own superiority to "infidels" today, is painfully visible to the whole world as a poverty-stricken and backward region, lagging far behind in virtually every field of human endeavor.

There is no way that they can catch up in a hundred years, even if the rest of the world stands still. And they are not going to wait a hundred years to vent their resentments and frustrations at the humiliating position in which they find themselves.

Israel's very existence as a modern, prosperous western nation in their midst is a daily slap across the face. Nothing is easier for demagogues than to blame Israel, the United States, or western civilization in general for their own lagging position.

Hitler was able to rouse similar resentments and fanaticism in Germany under conditions not nearly as dire as those in most Middle East countries today. The proof of similar demagogic success in the Middle East is all around.

What kind of people provide a market for videotaped beheadings of innocent hostages? What kind of people would throw an old man in a wheelchair off a cruise liner into the sea, simply because he was Jewish? What kind of people would fly planes into buildings to vent their hate at the cost of their own lives?

These are the kinds of people we are talking about getting nuclear weapons....

I don't know about you, but it is quite a revelation to hear my worse thoughts and fears reflected in the words of a man whose intellect and insight I consistently admire. While in some sense this is validating for me, there is no question that his assessment is terrifying.

I think, how did it all come to this? How many times over the last 30 years or more have we in the west had the chance to make different choices and change history; or deflect it from the course it is now on? How many times have we bowed and berated ourselves for their hatred, and placated and appeased the true evil for a brief illusion of peace and for promises that they never intended to keep?

Why did we sit by and do nothing as this evil that lies like a malignant shadow across the face of the world slowly spread?

And how much longer are we going to dignify their insane fanatacism and hatred with useless attempts at reasoning with them; only to discover that we have instead simply made them more resolute and bold about their murderous intentions?

And, when we have finally reached Sowell's point of no return; when we finally turn and face the evil that has been stalking us, who will stand on that narrow bridge that separates us from the abyss and shout out to it, "YOU SHALL NOT PASS!"?

As I commented in an earlier post:

For me the choice is clear. I will follow whoever is willing to unflinching face the league [of extraordinary murders] and fight it, however ineptly; because the alternative plan proposed by the Democrats as they run back across that bridge into the 20th century, holds only an absolute certainty of defeat.

Rather than return to the false promises of safety, peace, brotherhood and utopia that are all jumbled together in the bubble of Democratic denial, I choose to face the reality of Islamofascism and the hatred that motivates it, just as an earlier generation faced the genocidal and fanatical reality of national socialism.

Only this time around in history, I am hoping the bubble of denial can be burst sooner, rather than later; for the sake of the millions of lives that will be forfeit to the rabid barbarity of this generation's league of extrordinary murderers.

Like Sowell, I fear for our children and our children's children. Because, even if they live through the coming wars, they will bear the brunt of our past and present inaction and indecision.

Go back to the shadow. YOU SHALL NOT PASS!

UPDATE: Are we in a brave new world?
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 3:30 PM |

 
HIMSELF HONESTLY
Sometime back I wrote a piece about why I like George Bush in spite of all the unrelenting criticism, hysteria and hatred that is thrown his way on a regular basis.
The truth is that what I find compelling about Bush are his obviously ordinary human qualities. He strikes me as a very REAL person--not a slick "persona" created by an ad agency; or a "celebrity" onto whom we project our own fantasies.

Of course, no politician/celebrity these days can exist without cultivating that carefully crafted persona, but nevertheless, all my instincts about people tell me that Bush is real; that he is honest; and that he always tries to do what he thinks is right.

This post at The Corner about sums it up:

[...]recall the presidents this country has known (and will know) who were obsessed with their own popularity. Think of the many times Bill Clinton allowed polling data and political advisers to shape military strategy. Imagine how horrifying it would be right now to have a John Kerry or Al Gore as president — no clear statements of policy, military decisions transparently shaped by "how it's going to look", a White House that smells to high heaven of vacillation, weakness, and even corruption. Imagine all of this for a second — and then consider the President's response:

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you. Look, Presidents care about whether people support their policies. I don't mean to say, I don't care. Of course, I care.... On the other hand, Ken, I don't think you've ever heard me say — and you've now been covering me for quite a while, 12 years — I don't think I've — 12 years? Yes. I don't think you've ever heard me say, gosh, I'd better change positions because the polls say this or that. I've been here long enough to understand you cannot make good decisions if you're trying to chase a poll. And so the second part of your question is, look, I'm going to do what I think is right, and if people don't like me for it, that's just the way it is.

Bush has virtually never in his political career made a decision that he didn't think was the right thing to do and the right way to do it. Conservatives who are piling on the anti-Bush bandwagon should consider that this trait—which makes the Bush family historically great—is a historical rarity to be treasured....

But it was not so long ago that Americans could only wish for a president who was obviously trustworthy, upstanding, and principled. And the day is not far off when we will think ourselves lucky to have seen this President defend the honor and integrity of his office—and the American people—for eight years. The times are difficult, and nobody could have gotten through the last five years without making mistakes. But in that station to which God called him, George W. Bush has been himself honestly, and thank God for that.

Yes, thank God that we have a president that will not chase the polls; nor does he desire popularity above all else. Bush is a rarity in politics, and one that I sincerely treasure for all his faults.

UPDATE: The Anchoress calls the New Yorker "petty" for sneering at Bush's summer reading. Personally, I think "a bunch of effete intellectual snobs" comes closer to the mark, but I'm a lot less kind than she is.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 6:44 AM |

 
THE MIND OF THE PSYCHOPATH
If you want some insight into the mind of a psychopath, then check out this video from JihadWatch.

If you want to have good relations with the Iranian people in the future, you should acknowledge the right and the might of the Iranian people, and you should bow and surrender to the might of the Iranian people. If you do not accept this, the Iranian people will force you to bow and surrender.

A typical psychopath is defined, according to Robert Hare an expert in the field of criminal psychopathy, as an "intraspecies predator who uses charm, manipulation, intimidation, and violence to control others and to satisfy their own selfish needs."

The following personality traits lie at the core of the psychopath's narcissistic/histrionic personality and are correlated with what is known as aggressive narcissism, or narcissism that is highly extroverted and charismatic.

Glibness/superficial charm
Grandiose sense of self-worth
Pathological lying
Conning/manipulative
Lack of remorse or guilt
Shallow affect
Callous/lack of empathy
Failure to accept responsibility for own actions

The presence of these traits may be predictive of the liklihood of violent behavior.

In Ahmadinejad's case the socially deviant or criminal aspects of his psychopathy are directed, for the most part, toward anyone over whom he is unable to exert complete control.

It will be interesting to see what this narcissistic and psychopathic individual has to say to the world tomorrow. Most likely the threat is merely another one of the mind games he likes to play in order to establish his superior intellect.

I have seen the same kind of clever and smug manipulative behavior in most of the murderers that I have evaluated psychiatrically over the years.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 5:53 PM |

 
THE COVERT WAR AND THE INTELLECTUAL GARBAGE THAT POWERS IT
Michael Barone today at RealClearPolitics has this to say in his very insightful column:

Our covert enemies are harder to identify, for they live in large numbers within our midst. And in terms of intentions, they are not enemies in the sense that they consciously wish to destroy our society. On the contrary, they enjoy our freedoms and often call for their expansion. But they have also been working, over many years, to undermine faith in our society and confidence in its goodness. These covert enemies are those among our elites who have promoted the ideas labeled as multiculturalism, moral relativism and (the term is Professor Samuel Huntington's) transnationalism.

At the center of their thinking is a notion of moral relativism. No idea is morally superior to another. Hitler had his way, we have ours -- who's to say who is right? No ideas should be "privileged," especially those that have been the guiding forces in the development and improvement of Western civilization. Rich white men have imposed their ideas because of their wealth and through the use of force. Rich white nations imposed their rule on benighted people of color around the world. For this sin of imperialism they must forever be regarded as morally stained and presumptively wrong. Our covert enemies go quickly from the notion that all societies are morally equal to the notion that all societies are morally equal except ours, which is worse.

Barone is speaking, of course, about the postmodern philosophical ideas that have permeated all aspects and levels of western culture. Looking back, it is hard to know when this nonsense became so egregious, but I first began to notice it in the early 90's; and when my daughter started school, I became mildly concerned because it already seemed to be established and entrenched in the elementary school curriculum.

In order to have achieved that coup, these ideas must have been around for at least a generation; and absorbed by key people who would later be in positions of educational, artistic and political power and able to multiply the vector of its transmission and inculcation into a new generation.

Ideas are a powerful force in the world. Those who doubt that statement have never studied philosophy and the history of ideas.

Bad ideas are like a potent stench that try as you might with perfumes and deodorizers, you cannot eliminate until you finally break down and take out the trash. Of course, humans can function somewhat with the pervasive smell; but the only reason they survive when bad ideas are driving their actions is because the idea(s) are never applied consistently. If they were to apply the ideas consistently, then they would simply be overcome from the toxic fumes.

To the extent that such intellectual garbage is applied in the real world, there is usually a 1:1 correspondence to the degree that human life is impaired.

I have written about this many times (see here, here, here, here, here and here, for example) because I think it is essential that postmodern garbage not only be fought in the present, by exposing their stench for all to smell; but by long-term strategies to bring reason and reality back into the education of our young people, who are losing the ability to think critically.

If you can convince children that objective reality is an illusion; that A does not equal A; that black is white; and that good is bad; if you can make them accept that everything is subjective and relative; then you own them. They will believe any drivel. Through the appropriate manipulation of language, everything can be distorted, without the messy need to resort to facts, logic, or reason.

Without a rational metaphysics--or worldview--that explains the nature of existence and reality; and without an epistemology that says our minds are able to acquire knowledge of that reality; then it is easy to enforce conformity, totalitarian thinking, and political passivity.

Ethics, or the study of how man should behave in the world--or, what is good and what is evil--is totally dependent on both metaphysics and epistemology, because it is impossible to make choices withoug knowledge; just as it is impossible to have knowledge without a reality that can be known by our minds.

What matters in the postmodernist's convoluted thinking is not truth or falsity--only the effectiveness of the language used. Lies, distortions, ad hominem attacks; attempts to silence opposing views--all are strategies that are perfectly satisfactory if they achieve the desired effect. Ideas and reason must make way for reification of feelings; and freedom is replaced by thought control.

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

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

And finally, if you want to understand why that which is truly evil --embracing death, slavery, and nihilism--is now presented and even trumpeted as the "good"; then you would do well to understand the psychology and ideology of the covert enemies of America--and of civilization.

Because only then will you be able to take out the garbage.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 9:05 AM |

 
DEFINITELY A DISPROPORTIONATE RESPONSE
Cox and Forkum have the right of it.


- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 7:01 AM |

 
COMMON SENSE AND ORDINARY PEOPLE
I found this information fascinating (hat tip: Rand Simberg):

The fringe mentality which now dominates the Democratic Party may not realize it yet, but America is coming to grips with the reality of the threat posed by radical Islamo-fascists. Proof came from a poll conducted for Investor's Business Daily last week and is being buttressed by several movies and television presentations in advance of the upcoming fifth anniversary of the Sept.11 terror attacks.

The Investors Business Daily poll found: A majority of Americans, 51 percent, believe that "militant Islamism is no less a threat in the 21st century than Nazism, fascism and communism were in the 20th century," 63 percent are "very concerned" about the desire of Islamo-fascists to establish a worldwide Muslim rule, and 58 percent doubt that diplomacy or negotiation will work in dealing with Islamic fascists.

And Americans are now most aware of the Iranian role in promoting fascism: 58 percent in the poll think Iran is now the "main promoter of Islamic fascism in the Middle East," and 76 percent believe Iran must be prevented from obtaining nuclear weapons "at any cost."

And, in this context of American's waking up to the threat that Iran and Islamic fascism, Charles Johnson at Little Green Footballs thinks that many are finally starting to realize that they cannot trust their governments to protect them from these religious terrorists. He cites this news story of a passenger mutiny while boarding an airliner. The flight remained on the ground due to the demands of passengers who were not comfortable with two strangely dressed Arab men boarding.

Ed Morrissey observes the phenomenon and calls it "market-based profiling":

These incidents have started to spike in the wake of the successful exposure of a massive plot in the UK against the airlines. British travelers have decided, ironically, that the government has not done enough to screen for terrorists and have lost confidence in air service as a result. This will lead to dramatic market reactions; either people will stop flying, or they will take security into their own hands. The perceived lack of security will make it harder for Muslims to travel (the British reference to "Asians" usually means Pakistanis or Arabs).

...Common sense dictates that people will act in their perceived self-interest in any case, and that means people will remain highly suspicious of Arabic men traveling together -- and more so when they act strangely. In Malanga, the two wore heavy clothing despite the heat and kept checking their watches. That was enough to make them unwilling to risk a flight with the two men, and they applied the pressure necessary for the airline to eject the two.

Is that fair? Hardly. However, the unwillingness of the governments in both the UK and the US to provide systems of screening that instill confidence in the flying public has led to these incidents. They will continue and increase while screening systems insist on playing political correctness games instead of focusing on real threats as the Israelis have done for decades. (Emphasis mine)

What's most interesting to me is the observation that, not only are citizens in the west waking up to the reality of the threat, but that they are clearly beginning to realize that their governments' desire to protect them from harm is not quite as strong as their governments' desire to follow the dictates of political correctness and multicultural foolishness.

It is this political insanity that prevents the enemy from specifically being named; interferes with focusing resources on the specific problem; diffuses and invalidates most of the preventive measures; and encourages the happy multiculti talk that permeates the halls of political and media power.

Those who should be dedicated to protecting us, instead seem more dedicated to being perceived as "fair" and "tolerant". It does not take a genius to figure out that neither of these qualities could be applied to the religious fanatics who blow themselves up in crowded markets; fly planes into buildings; and crow about the number of people they have murdered for their god.

Most people--even many who identify themselves as Democrats--would much rather remain alive than perish in a terrorist attack, secure in the knowledge they are morally superior beings, infinitely more fair and tolerant than the enemy. This may be a peculiar attitude for the antiwar left to appreciate, since they appear to value this kind of suicidally narcissistic idiocy above all else.

Thomas Paine, the author of Common Sense wrote in that pamphlet a direct statement to the misguided pacifists and antiwar activists of his own era:

Our plan is peace for ever. We are tired of contention with Britain, and can see no real end to it but in a final separation. We act consistently, because for the sake of introducing an endless and uninterrupted peace, do we bear the evils and burdens of the present day. We are endeavoring, and will steadily continue to endeavor, to separate and dissolve a connexion which hath already filled our land with blood; and which, while the name of it remains, will be the fatal cause of future mischiefs to both countries.
We fight neither for revenge nor conquest; neither from pride nor passion; we are not insulting the world with our fleets and armies, nor ravaging the globe for plunder. Beneath the shade of our own vines are we attacked; in our own houses, and on our own lands, is the violence committed against us. We view our enemies in the character of Highwaymen and Housebreakers, and having no defence for ourselves in the civil law, are obliged to punish them by the military one, and apply the sword, in the very case, where you have before now, applied the halter—Perhaps we feel for the ruined and insulted sufferers in all and every part of the continent, with a degree of tenderness which hath not yet made it's way into some of your bosoms.

Rather than understand that the entire purpose of any sane government is the protection of its own citizens, today's motley crew of pacifist leftists seem hellbent on ensuring that the government's priorties during a war are focused instead on protecting those who wish to kill us.

That is why I think that in the end, the takeover of the Democratic Party by this strain of thinking is doomed to failure. No matter how condescendingly the left treats the average person on the street, when it comes to common sense--particularly about life and death issues--the average American, indeed the average human being, has always had an abundance.

When rudimentary common sense awakens, tied as it is to the instinct of self-preservation, then we will begin to see more instances of ordinary people taking responsibility for their own lives in the vacuum created by the PC left, and acting as they see fit to decrease their vulnerability to the threat .

And when that happens, the political fate of the Democrats will be sealed; as will the fate of all of Islam's many apologist groups. What those groups now disparagingly call "islamophobia" will suddenly become simple, ordinary common sense--in the same way that sensible people are "phobic" about being infected with the plague or other deadly diseases.

Political correctness simply won't fly under those circumstances.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 5:01 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. And you might read this before submitting an entry.

Thanks for all the submissions. I try to use as many as possible! SO MANY INSANITIES! SO LITTLE TIME!!!

1. Subterranean Palindromic Blues... Dylan eat your heart out!

2. And, the nominees for BEST MUSLIM PARENTS OF THE YEAR are.... They probably let their kids watch TerrorTubby in Hezbo-Laa-Laa Land. But they would be offended at something like this. Go figure.

3. Who is there left to bravely speak truth to power???

4. Open the webpage and close your eyes, and you will get a big surprise... Mahmoud's Mad Libs! And the plus is, Mike Wallace thinks he's a great guy! So drop in and curse Israel whenever you feel the need.

5. Running away from reality is a business? Oh! He must mean Dems are into amusement parks.

6. Is it better to be paid when you are NOT working? If so, then just post this, and you could be out of a job...

7. Yawn. Now, it would really be news if the headline read, "Young Muslims Calm and Reasonable Attitudes take Root".

8. Bias in reporting the news. No, really? They parse their words very carefully. The media have little "nuance"--it's only the numbers that count. Except possibly in this case where it is simply racial profiling.

9. Wow. They want a right to . . . exist?! Dude, they must have issues. It probably goes back to, like, their parents or something. And, speaking of issues... as Freud would say, "Jackpot!".

10. And while we're ummmm doing the phallic symbol thing: Freud, meet Pricasso, the penile artist.

11. (a) Unclear on the concept. ( b) Confused and disoriented about the concept. (c) A little bizarre about the concept. (d) Completely psychotic and delusional. ( e) Beyond psychosis and into realms where no human mind has gone before.

12. It's OK to call someone this . If he were macaca, then it would obviously be a gratuitous, racist insult.

13. Hey, here's somebody who really cares what Hollywood people think!

14. It must have been their invasion of Iraq, or maybe their opposition to the Kyoto Protocol that led to this.

15. Islamonerfherders? But are they scruffy-looking? That's the important part.

16. The perfect gift for that liberal in your life!

17. Did you know that wealth causes suffering?? And speaking of suffering, this guy talks you to death!

18. They're just tired of having their good name dragged through the mud.

19. The incredible, errr...multi-talented breast implant. Now it can save your life.

20. They might not have much news there, but what they got is entertaining. And that goes for the Intergalactic Roundtable extravaganza!

21. Kids rejoice! Who needs vegetables?

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 @ 6:55 AM |

 
MISSION CONTROL

One of the most exciting and fun parts of being a NASA flight surgeon was working in Mission Control at the Surgeon's Console during space missions. While doing this, I would occasionally allow myself--when things were slow-- the luxury of fantasizing that I was on the bridge of the Starship Enterprise, my mission to explore new worlds and...well, you know the rest.

There are exceptions, of course, but most space missions are "routine" (if that word can ever be used in the context of space) compared to the all the disasters and catastrophes that the flight controllers train for. If you think about this, you will realize that if all the controllers did was work on the "routine" missions, they would hardly develop the competency to deal with the unexpected and possibly life-threatening situations that crop up from time to time in the always dangerous space environment.

Prior to every mission flown there are months and months of simulations in Mission Control that all the flight controllers participate in. And believe me when I say that during these simulations, everything goes wrong. Things go wrong that each control area might reasonably expect could go wrong; and things go south in ways that no one would ever expect.

Once you get into it, the simulations become almost eerily as real as an actual mission. The flight data is presented in the same way; the crew interact with the flight controllers in the same way, etc. etc. In fact, as I think back on some of the Shuttle missions that I supported as the surgeon during my time at NASA, I realize that it could be very easy to get confused about what happened on the real mission and what happened during some of the simulations! Because, both experiences felt real.

That's how cleverly the sims are constructed; and how carefully they prepare the flight controllers who support flight operations for real space missions.

Once, for a space medicine conference, I put together a Mars Mission medical simulation using an operational control room at a Challenger Center. The flight controllers were doctors from various specialties who were working with a Mars "crew" who followed a carefully constructed script. Several crew members had been injured in an accident out on the planet surface and the crew at the Mars base station had to go rescue them. The rescue was made urgent by simulating signs of an imminent major solar flare. All personnel had to reach the safety of the radiation protection areas before being exposed to a potentially lethal dose of radiation.

Things were going along smoothly and the novice flight surgeons had assisted the crew in stabilizing the injured and were ready to transport them back to base (we even simulated the time differential that would occur in communications between the red planet and earth). Then something completely unexpected occurred. The Commander (CDR) of the crew, one of the injured, began to act very strangely and unpredictably.

It took quite a while for mission control team to realize that something very bad was going down--not only for the CDR, but for the entire crew who were now trying to deal with the irrationality of the CDR who was interfering with the rescue effort.

As one of the SIMSUPs (simulation supervisors), I watched as everyone in the control room began to go into panic mode. The controllers began to argue with each other over what was happening and what to do. People yelled. The person who was the "Flight Director" for the simulation tried to get everyone calmed down so that they could deal with the problem. But, it was too late. The CDR was now out of control and endangering the other members of the crew because of her irrational behavior.

We came to the end of the simulation, and everyone looked around ruefully, recognizing that they had not identified the problem and the mission had failed because the crew was exposed to lethal doses of the radiation. We all adjourned to a nearby conference room and spent the next several hours debriefing and discussing all aspects of what had happened, and (with the magic of simulation) were able to bring the Mars "crew"(completely unscathed) into the control room to participate and offer their critique.

In the end, the sim participants all agreed that it had been a very realistic exercise. They had actually experienced to some degree quite a variety of emotions during the simulation that might have occurred if there had been a real medical emergency at a Mars Base.

Even the crew (who had not been told the content of each other's scripts) were amazed at how stongly they reacted to the sudden change in behavior of the CDR, who had become increasingly irrational and belligerent. As it turned out, even though everyone participating were physicians, they all had failed to consider that the CDR's behavior was the result of a very small leak in her spacesuit, acquired during the accident, that was slowly causing her to be anoxic--a possibility they should have anticipated, but had not been considered because everyone had become extremely angry and annoyed at the CDR's strange behavior-- instead of appreciating it as a symptom of her recently sustained injuries.

This story is my segue into discussing one of the least appreciated, but most mature, psychological defenses. It happens to be one that I am particularly fond of (it appeals to the obsessive side of my nature) and it is known as anticipation.

Anticipation is defined as the realistic planning for future discomfort, and it involves something more than simply making long to-do lists, or even obsessive and careful planning for some event in the future. In particular, it necessitates both thinking and feeling about the affective components of potentially stressful or threatening future events.

In a way, anticipation is a psychological strategy that spreads out anxiety or other distressing emotions (e.g., fear, anger) over time. The advantage of this approach is that, like a psychological immunization, the process slowly allows the individual to accommodate to what otherwise might be an emotionally or physically overwhelming, or impossible-to-handle situation.

George Vaillant in his book The Wisdom of the Ego (page 71-2) has this to say about the psychological defense of anticipation:

Anticipations involves realistic and affect-laden planning for future discomfort....[of] all the mature defenses, anticipation rearranges outer and inner reality the least. Rather than use self-deception, anticipation spreads anxiety out over time. It involves self-inoculation of taking one's affective pain in small, anticipatory doses. Anticipating that he might be assasinated, King Mithridates VI became a legend by taking small doses of poison every day to build up his tolerance and protect himself from dying of poison. In the words of the psychoanalyst Heinz Hartmann, one of the pioneers of ego psychology, "The familiar function of anticipating the future, orienting our actions according to it and correctly relating means and ends to each other...is an ego function and, surely an adaptation process of the highest significance."
[...]
Anticipation is different from isolation and intellectualization in that it does more than just the busywork of cognitive planning and making lists...Anticipation is different from fantasy in that the subject experiences modest affective distress during realistic worrying rather than the autistically bland daydreams of disasters and/or wish-fulfillment.

Finally, it is important to distinguish the dissociation that leads to the "laid back" behavior of the cockeyed optimists and Pollyannas from the capacity to remain calm under stress that results from anticipation.

It is fair to say that most aviation and space cowboys survive in their chosen profession because they are able to accurately as well as affectively anticipate potential threats, without underestimating or downplaying them. They know all too well that the space is an extremely unforgiving sort of environment. It does not suffer fools gladly; nor does it cut those in psychological denial any slack.

The purpose of all the hours of realistic simulation is literally to develop mission control--or rather, to facilitate the development of behaviors and psychological responses that will bring about a successful mission. The Mars Medical Simulation described above--which attempted to anticipate a few of the many potentially serious medical problems that might confront a space crew and medical controllers in a very challenging environment, was successful precisely because it forced them to acknowledge how their feelings might interfere with doing their job in a particularly stressful and dangerous situation.

In the world outside of space, or aviation, or other stressful or risky professions, anticipation is not used nearly often enough to learn to cope. The truth is that most people don't much like to think about situations that might cause or result in emotional distress at all, let alone plan in any way for it. And that is the major reason why anticipation is a psychological defense that frequently requires a social structure or network that supports it and encourages it. When such a network is present, it can facilitate anticipation, preparing individuals to face any number of future realities and develop strategies to cope effectively, no matter how challenging, dangerous, or frightening it may be.

Or, the social structure can encourage people generally NOT to think about such things; to put off, displace, project, and use any number of other less mature or less effective psychological defenses to deal with threats. Totalitarian societies are particularly good at this in order to manage people's emotions and behaviors and keep them focused externally. That is one way to consolidate power and control in such regimes. But even in democratic and free societies, there is a tendency to look away from reality and redirect one's focus on the less-threatening, more comfortable and the safe.

Denial, in comparison to anticipation, is much less complicated and easier to encourage since the avoidance of pain or distress is human nature. Denial is simply a negative: an erasure of unpleasant facts or emotions in order not to feel the anxiety or fear they might generate. As a very temporary strategy is may be useful, but as a means of coping with life or death situations, it can be lethal for both individuals and societies who engage in it.

When a situation is expected to be emotionally positive, or even neutral, then it is easy to anticipate and plan (e.g., vacations or housecleaning). But when highly emotionally charged and frightening events need to be confronted--like death or war--it takes a great deal of maturity to be willing to turn toward the fear and manage one's feelings appropriately so that the threat can be defused.

Reality exists independenly of our thoughts and feelings. Anticipating some of the emotions and practicing or rehearsing how we might cope with what life throws at us gives us a powerful emotional and behavioral skill that can help us manage future threats to our well-being without either overhyping or minimizing them.

Overhyping the threat leads to the very anxiety and paralysis one is trying to avoid to begin with; but minimizing it leads to denial--with an initial seductive calm, followed inevitably by the unstoppable rush of reality.

Optimal mission "control" depends on negotiating a path between the two extremes.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 7:45 PM |

 
SOCCER MADNESS
Q. What do you suppose people who spend from 6 am until 6 pm watching soccer do in the evening for fun?

A. They go to a professional soccer game!

It is a good thing I love soccer or I might think this was a little bit mad. Especially since it's 6 am and hot and very very humid (i.e., its raining).

I'm sure nothing of importance will occur in the world (i.e. of more importance than watching my daughter play soccer anyway) while I am on soccermom dawn patrol!

More later.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 5:49 AM |

 
ACTIVE LISTENING vs WORTHLESS DIPLOMATIC WRANGLING
Caroline Glick in the Jerusalem Post on just one of the coming wars that Israel and the west will have to cope with:

In the not so distant future, we will find ourselves at war with Iran. Today, the choice of whether we fight that war in our own time, and before Iran gets nuclear weapons is in our hands. If we hesitate, if we and the rest of the free world waste precious time with worthless diplomatic wrangling with the ayatollahs, war will come to us, but on the enemy's terms. And we will have only ourselves to blame.

You know, when I have a patient who tells me repeatedly that he is homicidal; and that he has the means to act on his homicidal fantasies; and that he intends to act on his homicidal fantasies--I usually don't just keep asking him if he is really serious.

I take him at his word. I take him very seriously. That is part of my job, and when I have evidence of either suicidal or homicidal intent, I must act.

Let me be perfectly clear: I don't like this responsibility. I don't like it at all.

However, I accept that it is one of the social control functions that psychiatrists are expected to perform by society at large. And I try to do my best--because I have it within my (admittedly limited) power to prevent it from happening. In my career, I have not always been successful at preventing a suicide or a homicide, but I always err on the side of caution when innocent life is at stake. I suppose it is grandiose, arrogant, and a lot of other things that I don't particularly admire.

But the bottom line is that if I did nothing, when I could have done something to try and prevent the tragedy-- I could not live with myself.

Taking action is even more imperative if there is a psychotic/delusional component; e.g., let's say that the homicidal individual believes that he is a special messenger of God who is destined to bring about the apocalypse and the return of some holy guy who disappeared hundreds of years earlier.

It would be tantamount to malpractice if I did nothing; or, if I simply made the homicidal person "promise" that he won't do anything stupid. Someone who is delusional to begin with is unlikely to be bothered by breaking a "promise" he thinks he needs to make in order to achieve his ends (and additionally wants to keep me from hospitalizing him).

When it comes to making the hard decisions to act and prevent homicidal countries, led by homicidal maniac leaders, from committing genocide, Glick has the right of it. All you have to do is listen to what the mullahs are saying. All you have to do is listen to what Ahmadinejad and the leaders of all the various Islamic fanatic cults are saying--repeatedly, clearly, concisely, calmly, and consciously.

They mean it. They have intent to do what they say. And all the wishful thinking and talking about "peace" and "brotherhood" and "common values" blah blah blah are denial disguised as diplomacy.



(Cartoon by Eric Allie)
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 8:50 PM |

 
SOCCER ROAD TRIP !

We'll be heading out this afternoon for yet another soccer tournament--this time in Ohio. The bad news is that it's supposed to rain all weekend. Oh joy.

But I'm bringing my trusty blogging computer so there is likely to be some posting later tonight!

Meanwhile, take a look at some of the fine blogs on my sidebar to stay occupied. Or, if you haven't caught the latest Sanity Squad podcast, give a listen. We'll be recording another show on Monday, so if you have ideas and suggestions for topics, email them to neo-neocon, ShrinkWrapped, Siggy or me.

I understand that not everyone has a beautiful and talented daughter (who lives and breathes soccer) to spend time with!
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 2:44 PM |

 
OUCH ***Updated***
Gerard Baker lays into President Bush with no holds barred.

Without disagreeing too much with Baker, I think its important to keep in mind several things:

First, we have not had an attack on this country since 9/11. That is the bottom line, and I think it counts for something.

Second, historical forces have been set in motion that may take decades to work through. Bush never said it would be quick and easy. In fact, he repeatedly has emphasized the opposite and taken pains to say how difficult it would be. If we, the American people, are not prepared to sacrifice the necessary blood, sweat and tears to win this war and accomplish a democratic transformation in the middle east, then whatever leadership we have in the White House will be inadequate for the task.

Bush did not create the problem. It was here for decades before him; and it will be here when he leaves office. The American public is in crisis because it cannot decide if it wants to deal yet with the problem. That powerful ambivalence is what has been holding Bush back, and it will sap the will and limit the options of any elected leader who replaces him. Bush at least has the moral courage and the vision to understand what must be done, and I give him credit for that. If he lacks the will--well, who can blame him? In that, apparently he is no different from the majority of Americans right now.

Bush would do well to consider Baker's critique carefully. But then, so would about 60% of the American people. The world is indeed a scary place when America is weak and lacks self-confidence. Bush may not be much, but I beleive the alternatives availble would only make things much scarier.

Finally, in the immortal words of the great Yogi Berra, "It ain't over till it's over."

UPDATE: SC&A have further thoughts on Baker's piece.

UPDATE II: Victor Davis Hanson believes all is not lost:

In an amorphous war of self-induced Western restraint, like the present one, truth and moral clarity are as important as military force. This past month, the world of the fascist jihadist and those who tolerate him was once again on display for civilization to fathom. Even the most timid and prone to appeasement in the West are beginning to see that it is becoming a question of “the Islamists or us.”

In this eleventh hour, that is a sort of progress after all.

I would agree.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 7:52 AM |

 
MY VERY EDUCATED MOTHER JUST SERVED US NINE TWELVE PIZZAS
GALACTIC UPDATE! The Hitchikers Guide to the Solar System will have to be revised!

Did you know that there are now 12 planets? Sort of.

Dymphna has instantly grasped the serious problem that arises from this earth-shattering change: we are going to have to update our mnemonic for remembering the names of the planets!

Meanwhile, on the outer edges of the social system, several new psychotic states have been identified orbiting erratically. They appear to be only loosely connected to the gravitational field generated by Reason; and experts anticipate they may soon slip into deep space and disappear forever. Most experts in this area agree that this could have a positive impact on restoring the balance of the Force {of Reason, anyway).

All very educated mothers think this would be a very good thing.


- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 7:14 PM |

 
THE LIMITATIONS OF CIVILIZATION
Nasrallah speaks about the "historic Hezbollah victory". (hat tip: PowerLine)

MEMRI's latest is a transcript of Hezbollah Secretary-General Hassan Nasrallah with his deep thoughts on why the disarmament of Hezbollah should not be discussed now. The transcript is derived from a speech delivered by Nasrallah that aired on Al-Manar TV yesterday. From PowerLine.



The people of Lebanon celebrate their "victory" with fireworks and praise for Hezbollah, though a closer look at would suggest that this cartoon has the right of it:



And, Rich Lowery notes that, "like a good neighbor, Hezbollah is there!" At least if you can imagine a "good neighbor" deliberately starting the fire that burned down the house that they then rebuild.

Yet, in the last several days, I have heard interview after interview on TV of Lebanese--including one with the President of Lebanon--who do not see the devastation as Hezbollah's fault for initiating the war, nor as a reason to think that Hezbollah lost. Cause and effect; logic and reason; reality and truth--all would seem to be useless weapons in the battle for "hearts and minds" in this conflict.

If that seems strange, consider this sobering discussion from Wretchard about will and committment (which should be read in its entirety]:

None of the weapons in the IDF arsenal could level this disparity in will. Alexander Solzhenitsyn, in a speech before the Harvard class of 1978 explained how weapons simply became "burdens" to those who lacked a belief worth fighting for. Authentic belief brought commitment; but relativism could only aspire to fashion.
[...]
The matchless power of inherited Cold War weapons was more than overcome by withering of the very mental attitudes which made them effective. Mark Steyn argued that as a result the West's power shrank in direct proportion to the effectiveness of weaponry because the laws of political correctness always diminished the will to use them faster than their increase in destructiveness. "We live in an age of inversely proportional deterrence: The more militarily powerful a civilized nation is, the less its enemies have to fear the full force of that power ever being unleashed. They know America and other Western powers fight under the most stringent self-imposed etiquette. Overwhelming force is one thing; overwhelming force behaving underwhelmingly as a matter of policy is quite another. ... The U.S. military is the best-equipped and best-trained in the world. But it's not enough, it never has been, and it never will be."

Finally, consider that it has been five years since 9/11 and that yesterday, for the first time some truly startling and compelling material has been released from that horrible day (particularly this); which for various reasons (perhaps the term "good breeding" covers it) were never made public.

Personally, I would have thought that the images and voices only now being heard by most Americans should have already been seared into our minds if we expected to take this war seriously. None of them have been staged, faked, or manipulated in any way, after all; and perhaps they would have served as a constant reminder of the sickness we are fighting; and why we have been risking the lives of our troops in the middle east. It has always annoyed me that the Democrats and the left cry "foul" whenever images of 9/11 are used for that purpose. Why should we worry about "hearts and minds" anywhere else in the world, when we so assiduously avoid disturbing our own hearts and minds?

Somehow--to me anyway, all the above seemingly disparate points come together to form a very unpleasant truth about the limitations of civilized behavior.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 7:09 AM |

 
FESTIVAL OF THE ENVIROCOMMIEMUSLIMS
You can't make this stuff up, and Tim Blair has all the details.

I would never dream of admitting impediment to the marriage of true minds; so, if any of you are interested in understanding how predictable and natural it was for this unholy alliance to joyfully come together, feel free to check out these posts: here , here , here and here.



Here's to solidarity, comrades!
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 7:20 PM |

 
THE UNCORRUPTED MIND
Quote of the day:

Two things that the uncorrupted mind cannot not know: that the world is intelligible and man is free.
-Robert Godwin, One Cosmos


To discover how to corrupt a mind go here and watch the video. Or watch any of these videos. They will make you weep with outrage.


UPDATE: There are voices crying out in the wilderness that is Islam. But they are soft and hard to hear above the din of insanity.

UPDATE II: ShrinkWrapped has some related remarks as the 2nd anniversary of Beslan approaches.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 1:10 PM |

 
DENIAL, DEMOCRATS, AND THE LEAGUE OF EXTRAORDINARY MURDERERS
Johah Goldberg is worth quoting at length this morning:

The depth of Western denial can be measured in the staleness of the "debate" over terrorism, which is dominated by those who've convinced themselves that President Bush is the central cause of the war on terror because somehow it's "his" war. This is like blaming the rooster for the sunrise. Those whom Bush now calls Islamic fascists have been killing Americans for decades. Al-Qaeda declared war on America when Bush was still in Texas. On the other side of the debate are Republicans who've taken the bait and gotten bogged down in a largely partisan argument about "supporting the president."

Whatever the merits of the charge that Iraq is a "distraction" from the war on terror, the reality is that arguments about Bush are a larger distraction from the war on terror. For much of the past five years, Democrats not in the Joe Lieberman wing of the party — which is to say the Democratic Party, minus one — have repeatedly pointed to Osama bin Laden's ability to elude capture (as opposed to, say, his inability to once again murder thousands on American soil) as proof that Bush's anti-terror efforts have been a failure. It would surely be nice to see bin Laden's head on a pike, but this is childishly partisan.

When U.S. forces killed Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, bin Laden's "prince" in Iraq, Democrats presented Zarqawi's demise as good but trivial news. Rep. Alcee Hastings, D-Fla. — who might (shudder) take over the House Intelligence Committee should the GOP lose the Congress — explained, "It won't stop the insurgency. I have found if you liken it to the drug lords, for example, as soon as you imprison one, kill one, another takes his place."

Why shouldn't this same logic apply to bin Laden and the global Islamic insurgency? Does anyone believe that this polyglot army of jihadist murderers will disband and become TV repairmen the moment bin Laden is dead? This is as naive as believing that U.S. withdrawal from Iraq wouldn't be scored as another jihadist victory. Not only have Hezbollah, Hamas and the rest of the League of Extraordinary Murderers never taken marching orders from bin Laden, but like all jihadist groups they always view such withdrawals as an invitation to even more brazen terrorism.

No matter how much the Democrats and the left blame Bush for the reality of terrorism, the threat is not going to magically disappear when Bush--or the Republicans, for that matter--are no longer in control. There is a small, vindictive part of me that almost--almost--wishes that the Democrats succeed in winning the White House in the next national election; because then they would be dramatically forced to actually do something besides whine and wail. In other words, maybe they would be forced to face reality for a change.

But this is mere wishful fantasy on my part. Having had considerable power over the last 50 years or so, didn't make them particularly realistic as far as I can tell. As a psychiatrist, I am perfectly aware of the deeply entrenched nature of denial, and the sometimes psychotic machinations that some go through to maintain it at all costs. Very often, the immature psychological defenses that protect a person from recognizing the truth only get stronger and more inflexible...until they final burst into little pieces and the individual either finds a way to cope; or falls under the wheels of all the accumulated consequences now speeding toward him.

When Bush is out of the picture, it is much more likely that the Democrats will continue to blame him for as long as they can get away with it; then conveniently switch tactics and find a new scapegoat--say, Israel and its evil policies--to blame, so they can cling tighter to the denial. I don't believe for a moment that the bubble of Democratic denial and displacement will be penetrated by even the reality of an even more devastating attack than 9/11--more likely it will simply enlarge to encompass any reality too unpleasant for them to face.

Only witness how the most recent successful prevention of such an attack is spun, if you don't believe me. Or, how the fact that we have gone five years without another 9/11 is casually and quickly dismissed out of hand.

In the face of such unrelenting denial, what can rational people do? It's deceptively easy to get sucked into that bubble of denial--almost like the addict's anticipated bliss on entering an opium den.

But sedation and getting lost in fantasy will not make the league of extraordinary murderers go away. It only makes it easier for them to kill you.

For me the choice is clear. I will follow whoever is willing to unflinching face the league and fight it, however ineptly; because the alternative plan proposed by the Democrats as they run back across that bridge into the 20th century, holds only an absolute certainty of defeat.

Rather than return to the false promises of safety, peace, brotherhood and utopia that are all jumbled together in the bubble of Democratic denial, I choose to face the reality of Islamofascism and the hatred that motivates it, just as an earlier generation faced the genocidal and fanatical reality of national socialism.

Only this time around in history, I am hoping the bubble of denial can be burst sooner, rather than later; for the sake of the millions of lives that will be forfeit to the rabid barbarity of this generation's league of extrordinary murderers.

Oh, and by the way, I think the only strategy to burst that Democratic bubble of denial is for the Democrats to lose elections. Lots of elections. Because that appears to be the only reality they are capable of understanding.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 7:50 AM |

 
THE SANITY SQUAD STRIKES AGAIN !
The second podcast of The Sanity Squad is now posted at Pajamas Media Politics Central!

Go take a listen to neo-neocon, ShrinkWrapped, Siggy and myself solve the problems of life, the universe and everything.

Well, mostly anyway. This show has Hezbollah on the couch.

Our first podcast is here if you're interested.

Comments, suggestions, ideas welcome (as long as you're polite).
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 6:43 PM |

 
EVERYDAY DELUSIONS OF A SHAME CULTURE
For anyone who desires real peace in the middle east, it must be extremely disheartening to see thugs like Ahmadinejad, Nasrallah and Assad assert that they have achieved a great victory over Israel with regard to the current UN-brokered ceasefire. On TV, the scene abruptly shifts to the explosion of joyous fireworks over Beirut that proclaim an historic victory for Islam as women and children dance in the streets; when days before we were shown by the same media the pathos of dead children's bodies pulled from wrecked buildings; and the suffering of horribly victimized Lebanese, defeated and dispirited by the vicious bombs of the Israelis.

Let us put aside for the moment a discussion of whether the claims of victory have merit, since I believe it is far too early to be able to assess what may yet happen in Lebanon and how the situation will unfold. The ultimate victor and loser remains to be seen and a case could be made at this moment for either outcome.

Instead, let us consider how a shame culture--like the Islamic states and terror groups involved in this conflict--deal with success and failure.

For a typical shame culture the most important issue--indeed the issue that trumps truth or reality every time--is what people believe.

What others believe to be true has a far more powerful impact on behavior than what any particular individual believes; since the desire to preserve honor and avoid shame to the exclusion of all else, is one of the primary foundations of the culture. This need to avoid shame motivates the individuals in the culture to engage in wrong-doing as long as no-one knows about it, or knows he is involved.

It also motivates them to do whatever is necessary to give the impression that honor has been preserved.

As long as others in the culture believe that honor has been preserved, then neither the individual or the group have to experience either guilt or shame. It is not surprising therefore, that a great deal of effort and planning goes into making sure that others are convinced of your innocence (even if you are guilty); your victimization (even if you are the oppressor); and your victory (even if you are the loser).

Since shame cultures work best within a collectivist/totalitarian framework, it is often fairly easy to manipulate appearances in order to avoid shame and claim honor has been preserved. When you control the media and/or the social structure; have unlimited money and sophisticated tools for the development and dissemination of propaganda, then it is even easier.

It is an absolute cake-walk if you also happen to have a bunch of useful idiots managing the media of the enemy you hope to shame and give the appearance of defeating.

Remember, in this kind of culture, nothing is more important than making sure you do not experience feelings of humiliation and shame.

We see hints of the profound reservoir of shame that already exists within the culture in Nasrallah's references to humiliating defeats in both the near and distant past of Islam's history; and his insistence that this time, they have achieved an "historic victory". It is this reservoir that is the psychological motivation that drives the continual denial, delusion, paranoia and projection of the culture, and which keep it mired in a medieval time-warp.

In a true shame culture, the goal is not necessarily to win a war, particularly since maintaining conflict with the traditional enemy--i.e., the "Jew"--is part of what is perceived as an "honorable" way of life, and should never really end. The primary goal of Hezbollah (and Hamas)is very simple: to impose shame on Israel.

As long as they do that, then they have "won" by their standards. Faking photographs to demostrate the evil of their enemy; hiding among women and children to force the enemy to kill those same women and children; transforming every loss of personnel into a condemnation of Israel for attacking "innocents"--all these tactics serve the purpose of shaming the enemy and inducing guilt.

Thus, by these standards, the new barbarians of the Islamic world, know they cannot lose in any conflict with the west--no matter what the reality is.

By these standards, all that is required for them to proclaim victory is to avoid shame and make their enemy feel it instead.

By these standards, they will ALWAYS--always-- be psychologically empowered, encouraged; and reinforced in their delusions of grandeur--not to mention in their violent, aggressive and barbaric behavior-- by any compassionate or concerned humanitarianism on the part of their despised enemies; by any cessation of conflict before they are utterly and complete defeated; or by any attempts on the part of the west to negotiate a real and lasting peace.

Such are the everyday delusions of a shame culture.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 5:11 PM |

 
PODHORETZ ON THE BUSH DOCTRINE
I have quite a bit of work to do today, but I will leave you with this link to Norman Podhoretz' latest article in Commentary, which is an absolute must read. Podhoretz discusses the commonly expressed belief that the Bush Doctrine (otherwise known as "cowboy diplomacy")is dead. It is a compelling piece that I will freely admit coincides with my own assessment of Bush's character.

Here is one excerpt about Iraq:

I must confess to being puzzled by the amazing spread of the idea that the Bush Doctrine has indeed failed the test of Iraq. After all, Iraq has been liberated from one of the worst tyrants in the Middle East; three elections have been held; a decent constitution has been written; a government is in place; and previously unimaginable liberties are being enjoyed. By what bizarre calculus does all this add up to failure? And by what even stranger logic is failure to be read into the fact that the forces opposed to democratization are fighting back with all their might?

Surely what makes more sense is the opposite interpretation of the terrible violence being perpetrated by the terrorists of the so-called “insurgency”: that it is in itself a tribute to the enormous strides that have been made in democratizing the country. If this murderous collection of diehard Sunni Baathists and vengeful Shiite militias, together with their allies inside the government, agreed that democratization had already failed, would they be waging so desperate a campaign to defeat it? And if democratization in Iraq posed no threat to the other despotisms in the region, would those regimes be sending jihadists and material support to the “insurgency” there?

If I may use a phrase from Podhoretz, if there were a "saner political climate" at the moment in this country, there might be some reasonable discussion about all the issues he raises in this excellent piece. But the political climate remains completely insane, and there is very little reason--or goodwill for that matter--to be found on either side of the political spectrum.

There is doom and gloom; bitter resentment; outright hatred of Bush and his policies; and a stunning lack of alternate ideas on the part of those who are most critical, and most steeped in the hatred and resentment.

The good news from my perspective is that Podhoretz believes--and has documented it extensively--that the Bush Doctrine--with its shining moral clarity in a world wallowing in a mist of relativity and surrealism--is alive and well.

If he is correct, the next two years will be very interesting.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 6:49 AM |

 
NIGHTMARES


As William Shatner in a well-known Twilight Zone episode once demonstrated, you are not paranoid if they really are out to get you.

Of course, he suffered horribly for that insight and for acting on it....
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 6:44 AM |

 
"WE HAVE MOVED INTO A TIME BEYOND HUMAN WISDOM"
This discussion at Blackfive breaks my heart, but it is the truth and we must face exactly this reality or we will not survive (hat tip: pugmak)

You are not going to like this.

On the demonstrable virtues of not caring if children die, on hardening your mind for war, and other things we can no longer avoid discussing.

Beware that you are ready before you pass this seal.

Let us begin with a debate between a peaceful, gentle soul, and me. The topic could be Israel's war, or ours in Iraq, or -- if they have the heart for it -- the one to come.

You must read on. This is the clearest explanation I have ever read of why I hate and despise these islamofascist monsters so much. They have deliberately brought civilization to this "time beyond human wisdom."

They have forced a deadly paralysis upon western civilization. Sometimes it seems to me that we have been attacked and stabbed in the heart by Tolkien's Shelob; and bound and wrapped in her web, we wait, unmoving and barely conscious, to be eaten at her whim.

I touched on this issue here when I said this:

The cost of this war will be more than all the lives lost; it will also be for the humanity and civilization we must temporarily abandon to win. I love to read fantasies as much as anyone, but in the real world, the good and virtuous whose cause is just do not always win.

When we are finally cornered and must allow our own barbarism to surface to combat theirs head to head, then we must be prepared to live with the consequences, including the agonizing guilt that will ensue--or everything we hold dear, everything we aspire to become, will forever perish from this earth.

I've said it before, but this reality is what I hate and despise most about these Islamic fanatics--who do not let reason or life interfere with their jihad; who abide by no treaties, follow no rules, and scorn the very values upon which western civilization is founded. We could have lived with them they did not insist that we must become what they are or die. But they have defined the groundrules (or the non-rules) of this conflict; and eventually, we will have to meet them at their level--or they will win. We should hold tight to the thought that it is they who have set the playing field.

Blackfive concludes his moving post with this:

"It cannot be," I must say. "Love should always rise, above war and fear and death. Love should always be first, and not last, in our hearts. It should never be that love brings wrong, and disdain brings right.

"And yet," I say, "It is. I have shown you that it is. That means we have moved into a time beyond human wisdom. We can no longer know the right. It is beyond us.

"We can only do," I must warn her, and you. "We can only do, and pray, that when we are done we may be forgiven."

And that we may in time be able to forgive ourselves.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 4:02 PM |

 
SOME ISSUES FOR TODAY'S WOMEN'S MOVEMENT TO PONDER
...and they are highlighted in this article from the Times of London about the women's antiwar movement:

The peace movement lost a foe in Reagan but has gone on to find new friends in today’s Stop the War movement. Women pushing their children in buggies bearing the familiar symbol of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament marched last weekend alongside banners proclaiming “We are all Hezbollah now” and Muslim extremists chanting “Oh Jew, the army of Muhammad will return.”

For Linda Grant, the novelist, who says that “feminism” is the one “ism” she has not given up on, it was a shocking sight: “What you’re seeing is an alliance of what used to be the far left with various Muslim groups and that poses real problems. Saturday’s march was not a peace march in the way that the Ban the Bomb marches were. Seeing young and old white women holding Hezbollah placards showed that it’s a very different anti-war movement to Greenham. Part of it feels the wrong side is winning.”

As a supporter of the peace movement in the 1980s, I could never have imagined that many of the same crowd I hung out with then would today be standing shoulder-to-shoulder with militantly anti-feminist Islamic fundamentalist groups, whose views on women make western patriarchy look like a Greenham peace picnic. Nor would I have predicted that today’s feminists would be so indulgent towards Iran, a theocratic nation where it is an act of resistance to show an inch or two of female hair beneath the veil and whose president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, is not joking about his murderous intentions towards Israel and the Jews.

On the defining issue of our times, the rise of Islamic extremism, what is left of the sisterhood has almost nothing to say. Instead of “I am woman, hear me roar”, there is a loud silence, punctuated only by remonstrations against Tony Blair and George Bush — “the world’s number one terrorist” as the marchers would have it.

The author concludes that today's women's movement is "missing in action"; but I think she is being kind for old time's sake. The real problem with modern feminists is that they really are all Hezbollah now--as well as Hamas and Al Qaeda--in every important way.

Today's feminists face a fundamental contradiction between what they say they stand for, and how they actually behave. The women's movement bought into the fundamental premises that motivate the terrorists a long time ago when they adopted the marxist worldview and embraced the victim role; infusing the movement with postmodern rhetoric and politics to further their agenda. And so, they must either acknowledge their symbiosis with terrorism and accept the reality that they have no major philosophical differences with terrorists; or alternatively, deal with the contradictions of the dead-end ideology that underlies both movements.

One could justifiably wonder why some feminists--at least the ones who actually bother to think for themselves, instead of blindly following their blatantly socialist leaders-- may be coming to this realization after all these years?

Better late than never, I suppose. Developing psychological insight and awareness of one's own motivations and biases is an important aspect of maturing and taking responsibility for one's own life.

I wrote in this earlier post on the intellectual and moral bankruptcy of today's left:

...the Feminist Movement of today is a bizarre parody of the women's movement that once supported and encouraged women like me back in the 70's. Like the mother I mentioned above, this group has now become outraged that I and others like me have excelled and dared to have my own ideas about how things should be in the world. Dared to disagree with them. Dared to grow up and live my own life.

Feminists today are not happy campers. In fact, as women advanced and made real progress and became less discriminated against; broke those glass ceilings etc., the feminists that once cheered them on became more and more shrill and irritable. Women’s success and achievement of equality of opportunity meant that the feminist movement itself was becoming irrelevant! That is when the rhetoric began to change. That is when the IDEA of freedom transformed into the IDEOLOGY of victimhood.

Where once they wanted to erase the real barriers that prevented women from being all they could be; now, the feminists demanded that reality itself must bow to their demands. They insist that real biological or physiological differences between women and men don’t exist and that to address these differences is blatant sexism. They have basically identified reality itself as one of the key “oppressors” of women.

To demonstrate their growing estrangement from reality, the American public was subjected to the ridiculous image of a feminist academic actually swooning at the mere mention of the possibility that such biological differences might play a role in women’s lives. You can't make such self-parody up.

Now I ask you. Haven't these women become totally irrelevant? And not only are they irrelevant, but they stand in the way of any real research, understanding, and progress that in the long-run might advance the cause of all women.

To the leaders of today's socialist, anti-war, anti-American, anti-freedom, anti-capitalist, anti-Israeli and truly anti-human feminists, I have only this to say:

You now stand voluntarily on the side of monsters who not only oppose any progess for women rights, but who believe firmly that women are no better than dogs and animals; and are only good for breeding. They and their brothers have deliberately subjugated, oppressed, and humiliated women, stripping them of individuality and rights, just to enhance their own inadequate and pathetic masculinity. If ever there was need of a women's movement, it is to combat this kind of evil in the world.

Instead, you have effectively transformed yourself into a terrorism cheerleading squad, supporting a sick, sexist, racist and morally bankrupt medieval culture.

If you are truly opposed to the victimization and brutalization of women around the world--and in particular under the brutality of Islamic fundamentalism--then you must be willing to confront and correct all those flawed premises that are motivating your betrayal of all that you once said you stood for.

Personally, I don't think you have either the intellectual or moral courage to do it.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 3:02 PM |

 
AHMADINEJAD AND THE PARANOID STYLE
One of the hallmarks of the paranoid, and paranoia in general, is the ability to fixate (or obsess) on one particular point to the exclusion of all other reality and to select that point as the "evidence" of their predetermined delusion.

The paranoid is actually quite perceptive--rigidly so; and they focus their attention only on those details that give support and credence to their beliefs.

David Shapiro, in his book Neurotic Styles comments on the Paranoid style:

In the paranoid person, even more sharply and severely than the obsessive compulsive, every aspect and component of normal autonomous functioning appears in rigid, distorted, and, in general hypertrophied form....[The]paranoid person's attention is so purposefully and narrowly directed as to amount, not merely to rigidity, but to a fixed bias.

Normal people are able to see things in context; processing information appropriately and connecting dots that should be connected. Thus their conclusions and their judgement are more reliable and unbiased. The paranoid's pre-existing bias distorts his judgement and makes him unable to place facts or events in any kind of appropriate context. Dots are connected, it is true, but the only connection that exists between them is the false premises that created them.

Paranoia and projection come in all sorts of neurotic and psychotic flavors.

There is a scene in the movie A Beautiful Mind, where the mathematical genius John Nash has wallpapered his office walls with literally thousands of pages from newspapers, magazines, and other sources purportedly to demonstrate linkages. The room is total chaos; a giant complex spider-web of insane conspiracy, that accurately reflects the disorder and confusion in his mind. But he has kept most of this locked away from the view of others. To others, he appears complex, persuasive, sure of himself and often brilliant. It is not until his collegues enter his office and find the disordered nest of all his insane connections do they understand the extent of his illness.

It is always stunning to me that logical processes are usually preserved even in the most extreme cases of paranoia. And when you understand the faulty premise on which the logic is based, it makes a certain kind of wierd, distorted sense. And, it almost always feeds the ravenous grandiosity of the paranoid person.

They are always the focal point of the conspiracy. They are special; a very important person, specially selected by the FBI, aliens--or whoever--to victimize. This knowledge is both frightening and exhilarating at the same time to the paranoid. He is victimized and becomes the innocent object of the devious and despicable actions of the "other" because he is special in some way.

And, indeed he is, since the origin of the negative or hostile emotions/behaviors seemingly directed at him are deeply buried within his own mind.

The paranoid has an explanation for even the most bizarre connection (e.g., "I am hearing voices in my head saying strange things. Why would that happen? Wait! The other day I noticed a man following me. The FBI follows special people with special knowledge and wants information from them. I am special. The man following me must be from the FBI. The FBI has all sorts of special technology. Thus, the FBI must have implant a microelectrode in my brain to try to control me and get the information they want from me. etc. etc.")

I actually had a patient with this particular delusion who brought in thousands of pages he had written documenting every single look that strangers gave him; convinced that all strange people were from the FBI, assigned to keep tabs on his every coming and going. The circle of people involved in this conspiracy kept growing; the plot kept widening and widening becoming more and more complicated; sucking in everyone he came in contact with.

This spreading circle of conspiracy was absolutely necessary to account for the obvious discrepancies and increasingly apparent distortions that people would notice in his explanations. Every question that threatened his complex conspiracy, eventually caused an expansion of the circle of paranoia. Eventually, all the connections and rationalizations become to complicated and bizarre to maintain.

It is next to impossible to break through the paranoid's near-impenetrable wall of complicated logic and connections that surround the basic psychological conflict driving him.

Take the patient who was convinced that the reason he could not successfuly have intimate relationships with others was because he had some microscopic flea-like creatures on his skin that would jump from him to any person he was with and take them over. He could tell this was happening because people, when "infected" by the creatures would begin to scratch themselves--and then they would not be friendly with him anymore; and would stop wanting to socialize with him.

What made this case so fascinating was the fact that the person in question was a Ph.D. microbiologist! In fact, his credentials were extremely impressive and he was highly regarded for his work. He was in his 40's, never married, and with no children or even close friends.

Dr. "Smith" earnestly told me that he had tried to study these creatures; and had even gone to the extreme of taking skin samples from himself and looking under the electron microscope for them--without any luck, of course. But his conclusion from his failure to see them with the most powerful microscope available, was not that they didn't exist; but that the electron microscope must have been altered by the creatures so that they could avoid detection and make him look foolish if he tried to explain to anyone what was going on. The creatures' obvious ability to avoid detection by the microscope had then led him to the further deduction that they must be a species of creature completely alien to this planet and very intelligent.

I naiively asked him why the creatures had selected him to be their focal point on the planet. And I remember his look of complete disgust at my obvious ignorance. "They are taunting me!" he exclaimed. "They know I am all that stands between them and taking over the earth." His look clearly said that I was an idiot if I couldn't appreciate that simple fact.

Unselfconsciously, while thinking about how to deal with the situation, I scratched my head. "See!" he shouted triumphantly, instantly noticing what I had done. "See! I had hoped that an intelligent person like you would be able to understand. But they have also infected you and so now you will not believe anything I say!"

Game, set, and match to the paranoid microbiologist.

I felt it was deja vu all over again with Dr. Smith when I watched the Mike Wallace interview with President Ahmadinejad. Particularly this exchange (emphasis mine):

"Very clearly, I will tell you that I fully oppose the behavior of the British and the Americans," Ahmadinejad tells Wallace. "They are providing state-of-the-art military hardware to the Zionists. And they are throwing their full support behind Israel. We believe that this threatens the future of all peoples, including the American and European peoples. So we are asking why the American government is blindly supporting this murderous regime."

Wallace tried to ask him about Hezbollah's use of missiles, rockets furnished by Iran, but he wanted to talk about Israel's attacks with American bombs.

"The laser-guided bombs that have been given to the Zionists and they're targeting the shelter of defenseless children and women," the president said.

"Who supports Hezbollah?" Wallace asked. "Who has given Hezbollah hundreds of millions of dollars for years? Who has given Hezbollah Iranian-made missiles and rockets that is making — that are making all kinds …" he continued as he was interrupted.

"Are you the representative of the Zionist regime? Or a journalist?" Ahmadinejad asked Wallace.

"I'm a journalist. I am a journalist," Wallace replied.

"This is not journalism, sir. Hezbollah is a popular organization in Lebanon, and they are defending their land," the president said. "They are defending their own houses. And, according to the charter of the United Nations, every person has the right to defend his house.

Note several things:
- the implication that simply by asking the question, Wallace must be an agent of the "Zionest regime".
- the complete inattention to the fact that it was Hezbollah--not Israel-- that started the conflict and that it was Israel--not Hezbollah--who were defending their own house.

Interestingly, in talking about the interview, Wallace said of Ahmadinejad:

"He's an impressive fellow, this guy. He really is. He's obviously smart as hell."

Wallace said he was surprised to find that the Iranian president was still a college professor who taught a graduate-level course.

"You'll find him an interesting man," he said. "I expected more of a firebrand. I don't think he has the slightest doubt about how he feels ... about the American administration and the Zionist state. He comes across as more rational than I had expected."

The complete interview can be found here.

Remember, the delusion and the complicated conspiracy serve a purpose. In order to find out the purpose, you must identify the basic premises of the paranoid. The basic premise of the Microbiologist was that there must be somthing that was preventing him from having normal relationships with people; and, whatever that something was, it was external to him and had nothing whatsoever to do with his own thoughts, feelings or behavior.

In describing that "something" Dr. Smith created an intelligent, alien species that was deliberately mocking him as it used him to take over the world. Notice how this goes beyond mere projection into psychotic (i.e., completely out of touch with reality) delusion. This delusion also had the benefit of highlighting what a special and important person he was--after all, this alien species has selected him for their nefarious plot and he was all that stood between the earth and their diabolical (and rather vague) plans for humanity.

Ahmadinejad has also concluded that "something" prevents him as an individual from achieving his desires; "something" stands in the way of his religion being perceived as the great benefit to mankind it obviously is.

We all know what that "something" is, don't we? He wants to wipe it off the map if he can.

His brilliant mind has all the "facts" it needs to conclude that both his personal and his religion's problems will be solved when the Zionist regime is finally dealt with.

While not bizarre and psychotic like Dr. Smith, President Ahmadinejad is nevertheless delusional and exhibits the classic hallmarks of the paranoid style. His basic premises are faulty; he looks outside of himself and his religion to identify the source of all problems; and this psychological tactic prevents him from ever having to take any responsibility for his actions or his abject failure as a human being.

Of course, he has lots of company in using this particular psychological strategy--particularly in the middle east, where anti-semitism is the air that everyone breaths to make themselves feel less flawed and inadequate.

Projection and paranoia are two of the most primitive psychological defenses. Projection, or attributing one's own unacknowledged feelings to others; includes severe prejudice, severe jealousy, hypervigilance to external danger, and "injustice collecting". Most young children use projection as a defense mechanism, and it is considered normal for a child.

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

Ahmadinejad and Dr. Smith both come across as fascinating, intelligent, impressive and rational. They are also perfect examples of the paranoid style in action.

UPDATE: SC&A have a great post up with quotes from yet another Islamic "leader" who excells in the paranoid style. And then in another post, the three shrinks go on to quote Gagdad Bob (from One Cosmos) in the next post: "...the enemies of Israel are steeped in lies." You could also say that they are wallowing in paranoia and projection--which inevitably lead to distortions and endless lies.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 8:15 AM |

 
THREE LIL DOGGIES FROM TEXAS
Ace has the story (hat tip: Larwyn); and it got me to singin' this sad ole cowboy song of my youth:

As I was out walkin' one mornin' for pleasure, I spied three Jihadis a-plannin' their death.
Their faces were masked, their cell phones a-jinglin'; and as they blew up they all screamed with one breath:

[Chorus:]
Whoopee ta-qiy-ya, go to hell, infidels. It's always your fault and none of my own.
Whoopee ta-qiy-ya, go to hell, infidels. You know I'll have virgins in allah's new home.

It's early in the spring when they round up these doggies. They mark 'em and brand 'em and send 'em to die.
They brainwash the minds with their pissant religion. And inspire the dumb ones to blow up sky high.

[Chorus]
Whoopee ta-qiy-ya, go to hell, infidels. It's always your fault and none of my own.
Whoopee ta-qiy-ya, go to hell, infidels. You know I'll have virgins in allah's new home.

And if they believe that they're goin' to heaven, they're dumber than dirt or as bright as an ant.
And as for the virgins what good would it do 'em? They don't have the balls to deflower a plant.

[Chorus]
Whoopee ta-qiy-ya, go to hell, infidels. It's always your fault and none of my own.
Whoopee ta-qiy-ya, go to hell, infidels. You know I'll have virgins in allah's new home.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 5:03 PM |

 
A MODEST PREDICTION OF DISASTER ***Updated***
Do you know what happens when bad behavior is reinforced and rewarded? Imagine how it would be if your child did something terrible at school--say threaten other children, or a teacher; and your response was to give him money and praise for what he did. And, imagine further, what might happen if you then badmouthed the school authorities for having the audacity criticize him?

Go ahead and just guess how this influences the child's future behavior. You know the kid has intent to do some harm, and you pretend that he is harmless; or reasonable; or simply just needs reinforcement of his self-esteem and some unconditional love.

Now, let's imagine that the child is not exactly a child; but is a childish adult, filled with hatred and resentment of his own inadequacies; and who blames everybody (except himself) for his sorry state. Let's say he has stated clearly and repeatedly that he is going to kill the principal of the school and everyone else; and he is actively pursuing the means to achieve this end.

"How did this happen?" everyone (especially the parents) will cry when the child/adult in question succeeds in acting out his narcissistic and rageful fantasies.

The UN resolution is nothing but a piece of paper that makes everyone involved feel good; but which will have almost no effect in restraining the child/children in question. And, in fact, it will have the opposite effect of encourageing even more acting out and bad behavior. Just as the foolish parent above, who is primarily worried about the self-esteem and feelings of the out-of-control child; rather than trying to restrain his behavior for his own good and the good of everyone else, feels good that he is a loving parent by accepting and rewarding the bad behavior.
It is an unmitigated disaster--not just for Israel, but for all of the West. It will do nothing but embolden and encourage Hezbollah, Al-Qaeda, Hamas, Iran and all the other terrorist organizations--whether they are actual states or presently stateless-- into believing that they can do whatever the hell they want and not have to suffer any significant consequences (the deaths of innocents are not consequences they happen to care about, in case you hadn't noticed).
Hezbollah says they will abide by the ceasefire, and I would say that if you believe this for one moment, then you are so far down the road to denial, that it is unlikely you will find your way back in time for the final denouement. When has any terrorist group abided by a ceasefire?

I'm sure it makes the terminally clueless (hat tip: LGF) happy that "peace in our time" has been reached. O happy day, indeed.

The people who "don't get it" are the la-la left who pretend they are "progressive", but always anxiously stepping back when confronted with reality. The Bush administration has made a huge error in trying to placate these morons who wouldn't have the guts to stand up and fight against the Islamofascists even if the fanatics find a way to nuke us (which they will eventually).

Well, why should they fight? They are on the same side as the enemy, and are after the same thing.

Thus, my modest prediction based on psychological and behavioral analysis of the situation: No good (and certainly no "peace") will come of the UN-mediated ceasefire/peace plan.

On the contrary, strap yourselves in for a wild and terrifying ride because the operators of the carnival of terror and their carny, flim-flam backers now have reason to believe they can win the whole shebang.

UPDATE: And so it begins. The ink is not even dry. And who's gonna make 'em?

UPDATE II: A sobering piece of analysis. I hope it is not correct, but I fear that it is.

UPDATE III: From MEMRI today: "Hizbullah's Victory in Lebanon Opens Door For Third Intifada". Do you begin to get my point?

UPDATE IV: Is something bigger going on? Jeff Goldstein is entertaining some alternative theories:

What I hadn’t counted on, however, was Nasrallah’s refusal to stop fighting long enough to get resupplied. Because now should he not, Israel will have international cover—and it will be a solid cover, as the US and Israel both capitulated to a much softer agreement than they came out for initially.

Which puts Israel (and the US) in the driver’s seat so long as the gamble pays off and Hizballah interprets the cease fire as a sign of weakness, and if—and this is the important bit—1) Olmert really isn’t the dithering feckless appeasenik he’s being portrayed as, or 2) the Israeli government is about to topple.

As Geezer points out, however, the unanimous multi-party vote—along with other signals (the confusion at Stratfor, Bush’s steady commitment to the fight against terrorism despite enormous political pressures; the fact that the cease fire agreement makes no sense for Israel, and would quite obviously weaken it)—suggests that something bigger is afoot here.

At least, that’s the conclusion I’m leaning toward now.

Which means that this Caroline Glick pieceis wrong—as was this piece by the (perhaps not terribly reliable) Israeli Insider, and this piece by Haaretz.

Or perhaps Israel is running its own disinformation campaign—giving off the appearance of a crisis of leadership while behind the scenes there are serious plans in place to take the next major step in the war on terror.

Is it wishful thinking?

Is it? I certainly want to believe it. I guess we'll see soon enough.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 11:14 AM |

 
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.

**APOLOGIES TO SOME WHO SENT POSTS IN THIS WEEK! One of my computers at home crashed, and all the submissions saved on that computer were lost.**

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. And you might read this before submitting an entry.

Thanks for all the submissions. I try to use as many as possible! SO MANY INSANITIES! SO LITTLE TIME!!!

1. Well, somebody imagined it. And these are serious times indeed.

2. A taxonomy of fraud. More fauxtography. Hmmm. This one may have been photoshopped. And maybe this one.

3. This may be a bit shallow, but it appeals to me! :-)

4. Some just want to help the helpless and oppressed.

5. Breaking up a terrorist plot is such a bother. A nightmare, really. But, always look on the bright side of life

6. Hezbollah, stealing ideas from the evil Jews!!! Now, who is surprised at this result? Hometown Hezbollah?

7. But there's no anti-Israeli bias. Is there?

8. The UN performs its usual "magic." Group hug anyone? A really good point to consider, though. No matter. This will definitely lead to "Peace In Our Time"! Hooray.

9. Islamo-fascist is too understated. It should be Islamo-Nazi. Let's see how CAIR deals with that one. Meanwhile they could help answer this: why do Muslims hate airplanes so much?

10. Weak? Weak? After a 40 day fast she should be dead, but maybe she's going for a Christ in the desert thing.

11. A monumental act of narcissism? Or just the "idiot of the week"?

12. Suffering from an Oedipus Complex?

13. Most. Horrifying. EBay. Auction. Ever

14. Please don't interfere....he's the only communist dictator we've got left to idolize!

15. This is definitely an example of when "war" is the answer.

16. And this is what happens when you fail to diaper your goats. Goats are so free and unselfconscious in their sexuality, aren't they?

17. I forgot what this one was about.

18. Now I suppose the feminists will complain about this state of affairs. And that gang-rape is so common in politics? But perhaps not.

19. "Two fabulously glamorous fags ripping the show they L-O-V-E to watch." Great site.

20. Lawyers in love? I think not.

21. Do you think this guy is one of those Ringwraiths out of Mordor?

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 @ 5:30 AM |

 
THE SURREAL RULES OF MODERN WARFARE
Victor Davis Hanson discusses the absurdity that postmodern thinking has made of the rules of modern warfare. Rule #1:

Any death — enemy or friendly, accidental or deliberate, civilian or soldier — favors the terrorists. The Islamists have no claim on morality; Westerners do and show it hourly. So, in a strange way, images of the dead and dying are attributed only to our failing. If ours are killed, it is because those in power were not careful (inadequate body armor, unarmored humvees, etc), most likely due to some supposed conspiracy (Halliburton profiteering, blood for oil, wars for Israel , etc.). When Muslim enemies are killed, whether by intent or accidentally, the whole arsenal of Western postmodern thought comes into play. For the United States to have such power over life and death, the enemy appears to the world as weak, sympathetic, and victimized; we as strong and oppressive. Terrorists are still “constructed” as “the other” and thus are seen as suffering — doctored photos or not — through the grim prism of Western colonialism, racism, and imperialism.

In short, it is not just that Western public opinion won’t tolerate many losses; it won’t tolerate for very long killing the enemy either — unless the belligerents are something akin to the white, Christian Europeans of Milosevic’s Serbia, who, fortunately for NATO war planners in the Balkans, could not seek refuge behind any politically correct paradigm and so were bombed with impunity. Remember, multiculturalism always trumps fascism: the worst homophobe, the intolerant theocrat, and the woman-hating bigot is always sympathetic if he wears some third-world garb, mouths anti-Americanism, and looks most un-European. To win these wars, our soldiers must not die or kill.

Rule #2 comes about because of the marxist template that modern journalism uses to filter all news from the war (i.e., the "Oppressor"/"Oppressed" meme, in which the U.S. is always by definition the "Oppressor");

Rule #3 ensures that the opposition to the war always be considered more moral than the waging of the war (see reasons 1 and 2 above) and besides, since we are the oppressors in every conflict, we deserve to lose. Thus the opposition in our own country is not about differences in how to win the war; it is about supporting the enemy and rooting for him instead of us.

You must read the entire list of the new rules to appreciate how insane it all has become. Those who are familiar with postmodern rhetoric and the impact it has had on our society, particularly in the last 20 years or so, will hardly be astonished. The surreal aspect to these rule comes about because postmodern thought uses the technique of "Contradictory Discourses" as a fundamental political strategy:

In postmodern discourse, truth is rejected explicitly and consisteny can be a rare phenomenon. Consider the following pairs of claims.
- On the one hand, all truth is relative; on the other hand, postmodernism tells it like it really is.
- On the one hand, all cultures are equally deserving of respect; on the other, Western culture is uniquely destructive and bad.
- Values are subjective--but sexism and racism are really evil
- Technology is bad and destructive--and it is unfair that some people have more technology than others.
- Tolerance is good and dominance is bad--but when postmodernists come to power, political correctness follows.
There is a common pattern here: Subjectivism and relativism in one breath, dogmatic absolutism in the next.

You can see the contradictory quality of the new rules in all their surrealistic glory:

-Wars must be won by soldiers who should not die; and who must not kill
-US (and Israeli) soldiers are alternately helpless victims of the oppressive capitalistic society of America/Israel; and oppressive savages indiscriminantly killing helpless women and children
-The enemy can brutally and indiscriminantly kill 100's, even 1000's of innocent Americans/Israelis, but they are justified in doing so because of our oppression; while American/Israeli forces who use special caution and effort to spare innocents in their attacks on the enemy are guilty of heinous war crimes.

Etc. Etc.

Even as we were winning the Cold War at the end of the last century (or thought we were), the entire philosophical basis of totalitarian oppression had already thoroughly infiltrated our society via postmodernism.

This postmodern assault has been out in the open for some time now. It is being used by the new 21st century totalitarians to undermine:
- Objective reality
- Reason and the rational debate of ideas
- Individual freedom and freedom of thought and speech
- Progress and capitalism

The political and rhetorical strategies include:
- The distortion of language and meaning to undermine the individual's perception of reality;
- The use of direct or threatened physical violence to suppress speech and individual freedom;
- Politically "correct" thought control and cultural relativism to undermine reason and rational debate;
- The promotion of environmental hysteria to undermine progress, industrialization and capitalism

These activities represent the most serious assault on reality, reason, and individual freedom since the devastation wreaked by communism and socialism in the last century. I discuss in this post how the goals of socialism/communism and Islamofascism have come to be blended together (symbolized of course by the affection and cooperation between tyrants like Venezuela's Chavez and Iran's Ahmadinejad; or the connections between Hezbollah and Havana. In that post, I wrote:

Multiculturalism and political correctness are two of the fundamental pseudo-intellectual, quasi-religious tenets-- along with a third: radical environmentalism--that have been widely disseminated by intellectuals unable to abandon socialism even after its crushing failures in the 20th century. These tenets have been slowly, but relentlessly absorbed at all levels of Western culture in the last decade or so--but primarily since the end of the Cold War.

All three have been incorporated into most K-12 curricula and all other learning environments. They have been at the forefront of attempts by leading academics and academic institutions to rewrite most of history and undo thousands of years of Western cultural advancement. And further, as the culture has been completely saturated with this toxic brew, any attempt to question the tenets' validity or to contest their value is met with hysterical accusations of racism, sexism, homophobia, Islamophobia, imperialism, bigotry, or--worse of all --intolerance or insensitivity.

It just so happens, that these tenets represent three of the four pillars that are the foundation of an evolving epistemological, ethical and political strategy that the socialist remnants in the world have developed and are using to prevent their ideology from entering the dustbin of history.

And, what is most interesting is that, even as they encourage and enable Islam with the first three pillars; the Islamofascists are aiding and abetting them by using the fourth pillar- Terrorism. We can think of the four pillars as the reason for both the socialist revival (particularly in the western hemisphere recently) and the rapid advancement of the Islamic Jihad.

In fact, Islam is the new Marx according to this interesting article:

The similarities of communism and Islam are considerable. Both are egalitarian and advocate radical economic change. They both demand a domination of the public space and share a dogmatic, ideological view of the world.

Political Islam is also supplying the social services in a collective context that communism promised, and the status of groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah depends on this. Their facilities are often described by locals as superior to those provided by the ruling governments.

Islam also promises to deliver the poor masses from oppression, but there is a difference: instead of the working class rising up against the bourgeoisie, the uprising to be encouraged is by hapless, impoverished Muslims against their oppressive Western masters or puppet Arab leaders. And like communism, Islam believes the collective must be preserved at the expense of the individual. We are social beings first, individuals second.

Like communism, Islamism promises a better life for the poor, oppressed and alienated. It is cloaked in God, but its essence is strongly secular. Unless the West fights the war of ideas at this level, offering a competing vision of morality as well as economics and technology, the lure of Islamic extremism will continue to flourish.

And this will especially be the case as television shows the Western class oppressors dropping bombs on the Muslim proletariat.

I started out this post by talking about the surreal rules of modern warfare; but it seems to me this is only one major symptom of how postmodern illness and how its political thought and rhetoric have breathed new life into the dead-end doctrines of socialism and communism; and which has resulted in an alliance between those of the totalitarian left and right.

Historically, they have been on opposite sides; each fighting for supremacy. But today, both sides of the totalitarian political spectrum have come together and are united in their desire to destroy reason, logic, freedom and all of western civilization while they are at it. That is how they hope to gain ultimate and complete power over others.

And, make no mistake. Whether it is called a religious caliphate or a socialist uptopia, it is all about enslavement and control of the many by the few.

As long as we play by their specially designed postmodern--and hence, irrational, anti-western, anti-freedom-- rules; and accept the underlying premise that all the values of the west are inherently oppressive and evil; then it will impossible for us to win any battle of this war.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 8:50 PM |

 
CARPE DIEM AND ALL THAT
Soccer season is upon us, and we are off to a weekend tournament in Saginaw! Perhaps there will be some blogging of substance later this evening....? In the meantime, scroll down or have a look at some of the terrific blogs on my sidebar.

Or, even better--You can enjoy the day! Carpe diem and all that. Everyone (even psychiatrists) needs a break from all the insanity occasionally! Have a great day!
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 7:36 AM |

 
FREEDOM NEVER CRIES
The Anchoress links to an article by an Englishman who decides that American's are sincere in their passion for Freedom:

The idea has somehow gained currency in Britain that America is an essentially peaceful nation. Quite how this notion took root, I do not know. Perhaps we were unduly impressed by the protesters against the Vietnam war.

It is an idea that cannot survive a visit to the National Museum of American History in Washington, where one is informed that the "price of freedom" is over and over again paid in blood.

The Americans' tactics in Iraq, and their sanction for Israel's tactics in Lebanon, have given rise to astonishment and anger in Europe. It may well be that those tactics are counter-productive, and that the Americans and Israelis need to take a different approach to these ventures if they are ever to have any hope of winning hearts and minds.

But when the Americans speak of freedom, we should not imagine, in our cynical and worldly-wise way, that they are merely using that word as a cloak for realpolitik. They are not above realpolitik, but they also mean what they say.

These formidable people think freedom is so valuable that it is worth dying for.

Yes. We do. But freedom is so integral a part of our lives; so like the air we breath or the sun on our faces; we can also take it for granted and think that it will always be there.

My daughter played me a song from a new album she downloaded yesterday that made me think of exactly that. It also made me consider that one of the greatest freedoms we have is...taking freedom for granted. In a truly free society like ours, we don't even have to think about it much. We can enjoy it like a child who never worries about tomorrow and lives totally in the moment. Freedom won't cry because we are ignoring her, after all. Freedom won't leave us; it is we who will thoughtlessly and carelessly wander away from her-- if we don't consciously consider and appreciate all she gives us. (Listen to part of the song here)

Freedom Never Cries
by Five For Fighting

I took a flag to a pawn shop
For a broken guitar
I took a flag to a pawn shop
How much is that guitar?
I took a flag to a pawn shop
I got me that guitar
What’s a flag in a pawn shop to me?

Saw a man on the TV
In a mask with a gun
A man on the TV
He had a ten year old son
I saw a man on the TV
His son had a gun
He says that he’s coming for me

Chorus
I never loved the soldier
Until there was a war
or thought about tomorrow
‘til my baby hit the floor
I only talk to God
When somebody’s about to die
I never cherished freedom

Freedom never cries

I wrote a song for a dead man
To settle my soul
A song for a dead man
And now I’ll never grow old
I wrote a song for a dead man
Now I’m hollowed in the cold
What’s a song to a dead man to me?

I never loved the soldier
Until there was a war
or thought about tomorrow
‘til my baby hit the floor
I only talk to God
When somebody’s about to die
I never cherished freedom

Freedom never cries

You can cry for her
Die for her
Lay down your life for her
Kiss and wave goodbye to her
Anything at all

You can cry for her
Die for her
Make up your mind to her
Anything at all

There’s a baby on the doorstep
Wailing away
There’s a baby on the doorstep
Longing for the day
There’s a baby on the doorstep
Who’d give his life to take
A flag to a pawn shop
A flag to a pawn shop
May he forget why he is crying
Someday

To your scattered iPods go--and download the song. I think you'll like it.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 7:30 AM |

 
BUSTED !
Life imitates sports?


- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 7:07 AM |

 
IT DOESN'T TAKE A ROCKET SCIENTIST PSYCHIATRIST...
...to notice this process. The analysis is one that any reasonable person can figure out for him or herself:

THERE’S A familiar ritual each time an operation to thwart a putative terrorist incident dominates the news. After the public’s initial expressions of relief and shuddering contemplation of what might have been, a rising chorus of sceptics takes over, with a string of questions and hypotheses.
Was it really a serious terrorist plot, or only a bunch of misguided, alienated Muslim kids larking about with a chemistry set and a mobile phone?
[...]
The scepticism is then embellished by the conspiracy-as-diversion theory. How convenient, cluck the doubters, with rolled eyes and theatrical sarcasm, just as the Government’s got some new bonfire of civil liberties planned; or just as President Bush’s poll numbers are collapsing; or just as Israel is stepping up its ground attacks in southern Lebanon.
[...]
In this internally pure worldview, the consistent theme is denial— denial of the reality of the mortal threat we face, denial of the reasons we face it. The villain for these people is not the jihadist, with his agenda of destroying our very way of life. It is, as it has always been, that malign continuum of institutions of our own authority that begins with the aggressive police officer and goes all the way up via the credulous media and craven officials to No 10 and the White House.

At the risk of getting repetitious, the denial and displacement are becoming so obvious that even a Democrat should be able to see them.

I guess they will only open their eyes when they achieve their primary purpose for existing: getting back control of the oval office.

And at this point, I'm beyond questioning their patriotism--I'm questioning their intelligence.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 10:19 AM |

 
DEMOCRATS SEIZE ON A SUCCESS IN THE GWOT AS ANOTHER EXCUSE TO BASH BUSH
Shocking, isn't it? But let us go over several items.

First, here here is a completely unbalanced, obnoxious bit of snarky anti-Bush sentiment disguised as "news":

US President George W. Bush seized on a foiled London airline bomb plot to hammer unnamed critics he accused of having all but forgotten the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.

Weighed down by the unpopular war in Iraq, Bush and his aides have tried to shift the national political debate from that conflict to the broader and more popular global war on terrorism ahead of November 7 congressional elections.

The London conspiracy is "a stark reminder that this nation is at war with Islamic fascists who will use any means to destroy those of us who love freedom, to hurt our nation," the president said on a day trip to Wisconsin.

This report is being discussed on the lefty blogs with the usual paranoia and smug self-righteousness of those in complete denial about 9/11 and the current war on terror.

More than anything--more than taking the Islamic fanatics seriously even when captured in the act of planning major attacks--they are afraid that any success anywhere in the war on terror reflects well on Bush (otherwise known as the "real" enemy of civilization). AND THEY CANNOT ALLOW THAT TO HAPPEN, CAN THEY?

Meanwhile, consistent with their convoluted and tortured manner of "thinking" (feeling, actually) the following words spoken by an important Democratic Party leader were most certainly NOT uttered for anything as hypocritical as "political gain", and simply reflect the Democrat's amazing willingness speaking truth to power--even if it hurts their cause:

"This latest plot demonstrates the need for the Bush administration and the Congress to change course in Iraq and ensure that we are taking all the steps necessary to protect Americans at home and across the world.”

DR. SANITY'S ROUGH TRANSLATION OF MR. REID'S OBVIOUSLY NON-POLITICAL STATEMENT: "Let us by all means necessary protect American at home and across the world, but NOT by aggressively interrogating terrorists captured while attacking the US; NOT by listening in on the conversations of terrorists plotting against the US; NOT by using all the intelligence at our disposal; NOT by fostering democracy; NOT by supporting Israel; NOT by trying to decrease dependence on foreign oil and encouraging exploration and drilling in the US; NOT by going it alone but by forging an international consensus; NOT by forging an international consensus, but by going it alone; NOT by anybody dying--especially American soldiers; NOT by actually doing anything at all, but only by talking about doing something."
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 8:06 AM |

 
CAIRing TOO MUCH
Yesterday, the President used the term "Islamic fascist" to describe the enemy that we are fighting. He has started doing this with some regularity lately; a development which I am glad to see sinc the word "terrorist" is too vague, and the "war on terror" too vapid for my taste.

Nevertheless, with a predictable quality reminiscent of Freud's repetition compulsion, the Islamic facists apologist group known as CAIR condemned the terminology and came out with its latest variations on its ongoing theme of Islamic victimhood and oppression--not, as a reasonable person might think, the victimhood and oppression caused by Islamic jihadists; but rather the victimhood and oppression suffered by same:

"We believe this is an ill-advised term and we believe that it is counter-productive to associate Islam or Muslims with fascism," said Nihad Awad, executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations advocacy group.

"We ought to take advantage of these incidents to make sure that we do not start a religious war against Islam and Muslims," he told a news conference in Washington.

"We urge him (Bush) and we urge other public officials to restrain themselves."

Quite honestly, it would make much more sense if they exhorted the fanatics of their own religion to "restrain themselves"; or even if they could summon up the intellectual and moral courage to admit that Islam and muslims have "started up a religious war" against everyone else.

I'm afraid their CAIRing attitude is beginning to really grate on me as they so obviously try to bamboozle the MSM, who uncritically present their perspective since it [coincidentally, I'm sure] happens to fit into their "bush-is-bad-America-brought this-on-itself-get-rid-of-bush-republicans-and-this nightmare-will-all-go-away" template.

CAIR has consistently and with malice aforethought twisted every act of Islamic violence, cruelty and barbarism into an indictment of America and the West. Their professional propagandists play the victimhood card--as well as, or even better than, an Al Sharpton or Cynthia McKinney--in every news release, press conference, and public statement. And, of course, they manage to shirk all responsibility for what is being done in their religion's name, thus eroding any credibility they might have in the discussion of how to deal with the problem.

Nor have they done anything to further the cause of the many decent, moderate muslims in the U.S. or elsewhere.

If there is a growing Islamophobia in this country and the world, groups like CAIR have done their best to fuel it. As we say in psychiatry, you aren't paranoid if they really are out to get you. And the Islamic fascists/jihadist/terrorists have made it perfectly clear through their words and actions that they ARE out to get us.

There was an ongoing discussion of exactly this issue at The Corner yesterday (see here, here

Katherine Lopez has this to say to them today:

You complain about George W. Bush's use of a perfectly legitimate term you don't like on the day news of a massive terror plot breaks, so I get e-mails like this one (and I have an inbox full of them this evening/morning):

There's no difference between CAIR and "Islamic Fascists." NONE! CAIR totally sympathizes with and embraces them. It's time to let go of the myths of "moderate muslims" or "moderate Arabs." They don't exist. There's no difference between Sunnis, Shia, Shiites or whatever. They ALL want to kill us.

I cannot help but think that if anyone is fueling anti-Muslim bigotry right about now, it is a group like CAIR who is doing it by raising the wrong fears and condemning the wrong people. George Bush, Rick Santorum, etc. help Muslims by defining our enemy as Islamofascists. You ought to take that ball and roll with it, moderate Muslims (you're out there, I've met you, I know it) — you need to make clear terrorists do not speak for you and your religion and groups who only serve to confuse things and stoke anger by misdirected outrage don't represent you. I don't speak Arabic and read the Koran so I can't do it. You who do, you might want to speak louder — we could all use your voice.

If you want to hear the voice of moderate Islam, then I urge you to read Eteraz's latest post on British Muslims.

I don't always agree with Ali, but his is a voice of reason that needs to be heard in a discussion between people of goodwill on both sides.

The truth is that CAIR has failed to demonstrate either reason or goodwill; nor have they demonstrated common sense or any degree of credibility at all since their organization has come into the public spotlight since 9/11.

They are just another propaganda mouthpiece for the jihad.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 7:33 AM |

 
DR. SANITY WILL BE WIDEAWAKE !
****BUMPED TO TOP****

Dr. Sanity will be live on WideAwakes Internet Radio tonight. The broadcast will begin at 10 PM Eastern and go until whenever! GM of GM's Corner will be the host. Call-ins to the show are welcome.

Click on the button below to listen to WideAwakes Radio:


Be sure to tune in!

10 PM Eastern
9 PM Central
8 PM Mounatain
7 PM Pacific

Call-in number is 1-888-407-1776
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 9:10 PM |

 
FOR WHOM THE BELL TOLLS
Victor Davis Hanson says it is not for Israel, but the West, as he discusses the "depressing pattern" of Western responses and media reports of the Israel/Hezbollah conflict:

Still, when this is all over, we should not worry about the survival of Israel. For weeks, pundits have been lecturing how canny and adept Hezbollah has proved -- and how a clumsy Israel could only respond by destroying Lebanon's infrastructure. Yet, when the dust settles, the world will learn that Lebanon outside Hezbollah's domain is not destroyed. And, one hopes, those who have suffered in the Hezbollah-controlled south will reexamine their support for a terrorist organization that has brought them -- and itself -- to near ruin.

Instead far more worrisome is the moral crisis in the West itself. If so many of its politicians, intellectuals and media will not or cannot fathom moral differences in this war, they will hardly be able to see them anywhere else.

Read his entire piece, because, when you add it all up, it is an extremely depressing pattern of psychological denial and displacement.

In light of today's news of the British disruption of a massive terror plot , I fear the "depressing pattern" will degenerate into hysterical delusion.

Anything to avoid a really unpleasant reality.

To quote Allah at Hot Air, who captures the essence of those desperately battling to keep the obvious from awareness:

Al Qaeda, do you think, or our new friends the Shiites?
Or maybe the Presbyterians

UPDATE: Wretchard also captures the alternate universe.

UPDATE II: Oh wait! It's all Bush's fault. And yet more lunacy from the left.
Honestly, could these guys voluntarily turn themselves in to get some intensive therapy before they kill us all with their denial, displacement, and delusional thinking? Pretty please?

UPDATE III: The Huff Po thinks blame falls directly on Dick Cheney.

That tolling bell is getting LOUDER...

UPDATE IV: And if you are up for a spot of humor about the whole thing, there's always the thoughtful and reality-based community at the Democratic Underground --as seen through Ace's eyes.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 8:12 AM |

 
KNOWING OUR PLACE IN OUR RELATIONSHIP WITH GODWIN
Sigmund, Carl & Alfred have been interviewing Gagdad Bob of One Cosmos on their couch over the last few weeks. This is the Bob who describes himself as "an extreme seeker and off-road spiritual aspirant who has spent no less than one lifetime looking for the damn key to the world enigma."

It is really quite a joy to read anything and everything that Bob writes on his blog. If you haven't checked out his book, I suggest you do. Some time back, I reviewed his book and said:

The book simply envelops the reader in its breathtaking grandiosity. It takes you through a roller coaster ride of intellect and spirit as it explores all--and I mean ALL-- of creation. Like everything Dr. Godwin writes on his blogsite it is filled with incredible insights, creative punning; and extraordinary fusions of Eastern and Western thought. After two chapters I had to temporarily stop because I was afraid that it would burn a hole in my brain if I didn't give it a rest. It reminded me somewhat of my intense yearning to regularly eat jalapeno peppers, which I'm sure says something profound about my personality which I won't go into right now. In fact, I continue to eat them quite regularly; and even though their burning spiciness makes my mouth feel like it is on fire; I am addicted to them. Nevertheless, I must not eat too many all at once; and frequently give my palate a rest in-between peppers. One Cosmos Under God, is a lot like eating jalapenos. It must be savored over a longer period of time, with breaks to cleanse one's mental palate and allow all the fiery goodness to fully digest.

The spiciness is probably the same reason why the three shrinks at SC&A have extended the interview over multiple posts and several weeks! Check them all out and enjoy the spiciness! (Most recent post is listed first)

Gagdad Bob - No Patience for Patients?

Blazing Character

"Give It To Me One More Time"

Knowing Our Place in Our Relationship With God

Giving, Recieving and Bailing

Reluctant Therapist, Reluctant Student and Journey Back To Self

Gagdad Bob on Sacrifices of All Kinds

The Mundane and the Mystical

On The Couch With Gagdad Bob: From Breadcrumbs to Heaven
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 7:39 AM |

 
WHEN KARL MET SIGMUND
Many have observed that the fields of psychology seems to attract those on the political left. As far as I can tell, there is no really good explanations about why this should be, but I have a theory.

It is a theory that goes back to when Marx met Freud--not literally, but intellectually. For Marx's followers, it was love at first sight. But for poor Sigmund, the relationship was toxic--at once popularizing his thoughts among the intelligentsia, but at the same time distorting them out of all recognition.

Let me explain.

We will have to go back to the first half of the 20th century to understand how and why this all came about.

In the 30's and 40's it became increasingly clear to Marxists that something was fundamentally wrong with the master's economic hypotheses. Like the followers of Jesus, they had been waiting so long for the expected collapse of capitalism, and had been so encouraged by the Great Depression, they expected that it wouldn't be long now.

But like a bad dream, capitalism rebounded stronger than ever.

Why, they asked themselves, are the proletariat not rising up in rebellion against the oppressive forces of capitalism?

By the 50's, capitalism was actually flourishing, and so too were Marx's "oppressed proletariat". Far from rising up against their "oppressors", they were buying into the capitalist system and the "American Dream". The sharp differences between the classes was eroding, and more and more of those in poverty were finding their way into the middle class and gaining hope for themselves and their children.

Not only that, the proletariat astonishingly seemed relatively happy and content!

Happy and content people do not generally initiate violent revolutions nor rise up against their oppressors--particularly when they don't feel oppressed, but feel empowered.

And, furthermore, much to the puzzlement and subsequent rage of the intellectuals, in those places in the world where socialist and communist theory had triumphed, wealth was disappearing; initiative was in decline; and the human misery index was climbing.

The "great experiment" in the Soviet Union was failing abysmally; and in 1956, when Soviet tanks rolled into Hungary and violently crushed all dissent, it was obvious to anyone with half a brain that the socialist utopias were not all they were cracked up to be. Even today, many on the left cannot bring themselves to admit that the application of Marx to the real world had only succeeded in bringing about abject poverty, misery, death, and slogans. Many many slogans.

Instead of creating a utopia for the proletariat, Marx and his theories only generated the conditions for societal suicide.

One might have hoped that the resultant rage and frustration of the intellectuals who mastermined the whole thing could have been directed inward, resulting in a suicide pact that would have eliminated them from history.

History was not so fortunate.

Instead, it was about this time that Karl's descendents met Sigmund. In searching around for explanations for the sad failures of Marxism, Freud's theories of the unconscious seemed like a lifeline--a potential explanation of why everything had gone wrong.

Instead of blaming the theory, they blamed human nature.

Instead of understanding how capitalism worked with human nature, instead of against it, they claimed that capitalism had psychologically repressed the proletariat!

If only they could tap into that instinctual energy, then they could have control over the proletariat and bring about the desired political and economic result.

So it was that the relationship was initiated. As Stephen Hicks notes (pg 167-8):

...Marcuse concluded [that] capitalism's repression of human nature may be socialism's salvation. Capitalism's rational technocracy suppresses human nature to the point that it bursts out in irrationalisms--in violence, criminality, racism, and all of societies other pathologies. But by encouraging those irrationalisms the new revolutionaries can destroy the system. So the first task of the revolutionary is to seek out those idividuals and energies on the margins of society; the outcast, the disorderly, and the forbidden--anyone and anything that capitalism's power structure has not yet succeeded in commodifying and dominating totally. All such marginalized and outcast elements will be "irrational," "immoral," and even "criminal," especially by capitalist definitiion, but that is precisely what the revolutionary needs. Any such outcast element could "break through the false consciousness [and] provide the Archimedian point for a larger emancipation."

As I noted in this post, Freud argued that human instincts are indeed out of sync with modern civilization; that aggression and other instinctual needs were once absolutely necessary for survival in a dangerous world, but that today these archaic impulses impede our ability to live happily in the present day and age.

He posited that the same aggression that was once directed towards survival, in the modern era is frequently turned inward, to the self, rather than outward toward the environment, and causes the psychological phenomenon of depression. In psychiatry we refer to this as "aggression turned inward".

But the mistake the Marxists made in marrying their theory with Freud was in thinking that somehow this fundmental aspect of human nature was only present under capitalism. If they thought for a moment, they might have realized that violence, racism, criminality and all the other pathologies of society, are actually pathologies of the individual--independent of the society.

Individual human nature must be taken into account when one evaluates the usefulness and consequences of certain economic and political systems that are advocated in the world today. Humans are clearly well-suited to some things and not to others.

But there are some social, economic, and political systems that like to indulge in biological fantasy and place human beings on a Procrustean bed to try to adjust human nature to their theories. The more out of touch with reality are the biological fantasies , the more the society tends toward catastrophy, human misery, and death. The worse of those societies are engaged in constant war/jihad and domination over others. You can identify them by the accumulation of wealth in the leaders as the followers become more and more impoverished.

The left somehow continues to believe that capitalism is what brings these things to pass, despite all historical evidence to the contrary. The truth is that, among social, political and economic systems, democratic capitalism is probably the one and only system that is most compatible with human nature.

Although portrayed as encouraging the "survival of the fittest", capitalism simultaneously encourages cooperation for mutually beneficial trade as well as competition. Instead of encouraging war and dominance; capitalism encourages trust and human cooperation; as well as alliances to maximize productivity and wealth creation. Far from concentrating wealth in the hands of a few, capitalism makes it possible for anyone to accumulate wealth (contrast for example the number of people who earn over $100,000 a year in the U.S., with those do in Cuba. The only really wealthy person there is Fidel Castro and his cronies.

But the Marxists of the mid 20th century were correct in a way, when they started their love affair with Sigmund. Freud's theories do indeed explain why capitalism is successful in the real world and marxist theory is not.

Capitalism allows the basic nature of man to creatively express itself by mastering the physical world. The instinctual energy Freud spoke of is directed away from the destructive pursuit of power over other people and sublimated toward acts of creation, which further both the individual's life and all of civilization.

The Marxist intellectuals big mistake was in not recognizing the difference between repression and suppression. And in not understanding the way psychological defense mechanisms work.

They correctly noticed that the instinctual energy of the proletariat was being harnessed both for the individual's good as well as the society under capitalism; and yet were unable to appreciate the fact that unless you accept the reality of human nature and give it the freedom to transform all its most negative aspects into something positive for the individual and the culture/society, then you end up crushing all human initiative, creativity, and productivity.

Societies can either encourage the development of healthy, mature psychological defenses with which to cope with reality; or they can encourage the development and expression of the worse aspects of human nature--i.e., those which result in violence, racism, criminality and all the other pathologies. Either way, social, political and economic systems can only encourage certain human traits that result in civilized behavior; or, they can encourage those that are barbaric and antisocial. Human nature is the same, though, no matter what type of society or political system it finds itself in.

Simply put, totalitarian systems--whether from the left or the right (and that includes Marxism in any of its incarnations, whether religious or secular)-- actively promote the most negative, primitive, and immature aspects of human nature. In fact, they give a societal/institutional blessing to such behavior; and thrive on the resulting projection, paranoia, distortion, and denial of reality.

So the relationship between Marx and Freud has not really accomplished what the left's intellectuals wanted. Instead of diagnosing the pathology of capitalism, real understanding of Freud's psychological theories actually exposes the inadequacies and fatal flaws of Marxist theory.

Because nowhere is there more violence, naked aggression, envy, greed, oppression, racism, injustice, slavery, poverty, and misery than in the shining examples of socialism and communism in today's world.

So, getting back to my theory of why psychology seems to attract so many on the left. It relies on the fact that many of those who pursue advanced education are, by the time they reach college, pretty much already immersed and completely brainwashed by the ubiquitous Marxism that infuses almost all aspects of K-12 education. And modern Marxism relies heavily on the popularized and distorted tenets of Freudian thought for its continued existence.

Therefore they tend to be already invested in the psychological holy trinity: the deification of victimhood; the supremacy of feelings over reason, and the glorification of self-esteem over self-control; and are predisposed to think of a career in psychology as the heroic pursuit of "social justice" for the poor, unhappy and oppressed masses.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 1:02 PM |

 
A VIRAL ANTIDOTE ?
Peter Wehner in the Opinion Journal today:

Recent elections in the Middle East discredit the Bush administration's efforts to promote democracy in that region, according to a line of argument. On "Meet the Press," Tim Russert summarized the criticism this way: "You have free elections in Iraq, and the head of the parliament calls us butchers. You have free elections in Palestine, and Hamas wins. You have elections in Lebanon, and Hezbollah wins 10, 12 seats in the parliament and two cabinet seats. Free elections are no guarantee of democracy."
[...]
It's worth examining these arguments with care. It is not as if Hamas replaced the Palestinian version of the Federalist Party. Hamas defeated Fatah, which was a corrupt and brutal regime under Yasser Arafat--himself a father of the modern terrorist movement. Mahmoud Abbas is a very different man and committed to peace, but he has been unable to fundamentally reform Fatah. The Palestinian people voted against Fatah in part because of Arafat's despotism.
[...]
Hezbollah is powerful not because of the number of its parliamentary seats (14 out of 128); it is so because it is an armed, brutal militia that exists in a weak state and a fledgling democracy. Beyond that, Hamas, Hezbollah and the Muslim Brotherhood were not the creation of free elections
[...]
Elections are not the problem; rather, they reveal what problems exist and remind us what tyranny in the Middle East has wrought. Liberty is the antidote to the virus, not the virus itself.

No, the virus itself is Islamic totalitarianism; and the disease was well entrenched in the body long before the application of U.S. interferon. Like most virulent viruses, this disease is extremely hard to get rid of. Liberty, the political body's own immunity, takes time to work before its medicine can succeed.

As in the worse forms of medical managed care--where the patient is rousted from the hospital bed after a pre-set number of days, because the insurance powers that be have decreed he must be cured by then, and sent out no matter what his physical state-- we have an impatient, wholly counterproductive (at least to the health of the patient) and unrealistic oversight of the healing process going on in the Middle East..

The transformation of that part of the world into an area of peace, freedom and progress is not a magical utopian dream devised by some stupid neocons, but a critical attempt to counter the very real toxic spread of a virulent religion that has the potential to destroy the entire world through its fanatic ideology. An instantaneous cure is too much to hope for; and will take a great deal of patient and careful nursing in the decades to come.

The patient and the doctor are both trapped in the ICU. And there is every possibility that the patient will die despite the best efforts of the medical team. The problem is, that the organism infecting this particular patient has every intention of either spreading the disease to the entire world, or taking the entire world down with him when he goes.

All I can say is that we better hope that liberty is the antidote; and that it was introduced into the system early enough to save the patient; because if it isn't....
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 8:03 AM |

 
FINAL DESTINATION
Considering the fact that no less a personage than Bernard Lewis is wondering if Iran has something big in store for August 22 of this year--the date it has (coincidentally?) set to respond to the International community regarding its pursuit of nuclear weapons:

What is the significance of Aug. 22? This year, Aug. 22 corresponds, in the Islamic calendar, to the 27th day of the month of Rajab of the year 1427. This, by tradition, is the night when many Muslims commemorate the night flight of the prophet Muhammad on the winged horse Buraq, first to "the farthest mosque," usually identified with Jerusalem, and then to heaven and back (c.f., Koran XVII.1). This might well be deemed an appropriate date for the apocalyptic ending of Israel and if necessary of the world. It is far from certain that Mr. Ahmadinejad plans any such cataclysmic events precisely for Aug. 22. But it would be wise to bear the possibility in mind.

A passage from the Ayatollah Khomeini, quoted in an 11th-grade Iranian schoolbook, is revealing. "I am decisively announcing to the whole world that if the world-devourers [i.e., the infidel powers] wish to stand against our religion, we will stand against their whole world and will not cease until the annihilation of all them. Either we all become free, or we will go to the greater freedom which is martyrdom. Either we shake one another's hands in joy at the victory of Islam in the world, or all of us will turn to eternal life and martyrdom. In both cases, victory and success are ours."

In this context, mutual assured destruction, the deterrent that worked so well during the Cold War, would have no meaning. At the end of time, there will be general destruction anyway. What will matter will be the final destination of the dead--hell for the infidels, and heaven for the believers. For people with this mindset, MAD is not a constraint; it is an inducement.

Read it all. Meanwhile, in the context of Lewis' analysis, incidents like this take on an even more sinister and deeply concerning aspect.

Is Ahmadinejad channeling Lord "In the long run we are all dead" Keynes? I guess we will know in a few short weeks.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 7:21 AM |

 
TO NASRALLAH, TO MAKE MUCH OF TIME...
...Because the Virgins Won't Make Much of Him...

(by Robertahmed Herricknejad)

Gather Katyushas while ye may,
As Iran is still a-buying
Hezbollah's petty victories to-day
To-morrow will be dying.

Your days are numbered, yes it's true,
But all that matters is death to the Jew
Your rhetoric alone is a killing spree
Your brain is a veritable WMD.

The bloodthirsty blessings of Allah
Be upon your endeavors as well
As quick as ye say 'inshallah',
Your soul shall bask in hell.

So be not coy, but use your time,
And while ye may, be martyred;
Your death I'm sure will be sublime
No peace deal will be bartered.


If interested, you might read this analysis about why Israel is winning the war--though you wouldn't imagine that from what you hear in the MSM and from the pundits right now.

I am not a military strategist, but it seems to me that Israel is not actually releasing to the media all their intentions and tactics (shocking, I know). In fact, while Hezbollah leaders like Nasrallah; Iranian bigmouths like Ahmadinejad are being blunt and direct about what they are going to do and how much damage they are going to inflict; Israeli leaders have been relatively quiet. This could mean one of two things. Israel is weak (the take that the MSM has on the situation), or that Israel simply is not yet ready to divulge its strength. I think the latter is more likely.

Hezbollah, meanwhile, is apparently counting on a political victory via the UN, but I predict that is not going to happen this time. The next week or so will be absolutely key.

I freely admit this is speculation on my part. But Hezbollah and their puppet masters are exhibiting the usual bluster and sickness of soul that characterizes the overconfident; while Israel and the Israelis seem to be quietly and grimly determined. I think they have had enough of Hezbollah and this time will do what it takes to prevail--whether the international community likes it or not.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 7:14 PM |

 
THE UN SHOW
Would you like to possibly waste some of the precious moments of your life? Go here to watch the UN Security Council do its stuff. The Israeli Ambassador is doing a great job, as is our own mustachioed Ambassador.

But it's like watching a bad reality-TV show. I wonder how it will end? No, I don't really. I think I know how it will end.

"The choice quite simply is between those who build...and those who destroy." - Israeli Ambassador

UPDATE: The debate is over now. The Lebanese Ambassador managed to make a moving speech about what is going on in his country without once mentioning the word "Hezbollah." The Israeli Ambassador noticed and called him on it. But it wasn't only the Lebanese Ambassador who did this. The Qatar Ambassador only talked about Israel's occupation of Lebanon in years past. He even said that Israel was to blame for all the problems because their behavior toward the Palestinians. But he did hope there would be peace.

Noone but the Israeli Ambassador discussed much how peace could suddenly break out in the region without first dealing with Hezbollah and their masters.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 4:04 PM |

 
THE SANITY SQUAD DEBUTS !
The Doctors Are In! ***Bumped to Top***

"In the interest of better mental health in government, not to mention in the media, Pajamas Media POLITICSCENTRAL brings you a new podcast series of psychological pros putting the pols on the couch … “THE SANITY SQUAD” … with host Neo-neocon and panelists, Dr. Sanity, Shrinkwrapped, and Siggy."

That's the intro to our podcast series called "The Sanity Squad". You can download or listen to the first installment here.

The four of us are going to be doing this once a week for a while. In our first podcast, we discuss a number of timely topics, including how we all got hooked on blogging, psychology, psychiatry, mental health, world events, and politics.

Anyone who would like to submit a question for the next show, should simply email me (or ShrinkWrapped, Neo and Siggy) and we'll be happy to pontificate! Get your question submitted before noon on Wednesdays.

Feedback welcome in the comments!

P.S. Before anyone asks, the name was determined by Pajamas Media management. We had nothing to do with it! Also, FYI, the couch in the podcast photo at the link is the couch that Sigmund Freud used in his practice in Vienna.

UPDATE: I'm going to be busy this morning, so I'm bumping this to the top to encourage you all to take a listen. At least The Anchoress likes us! Siggy, meanwhile has gone all grandiose on us and thinks we are an alliance of superheroes! We'll put him back on his meds tomorrow--after they let us out of this strange room with the soft walls they have us working in at Pajamas.

UPDATE II: Anyone interested in investing in this project, should contact me. Immediately. Now. Have your Mastercard/Visa/AE account number ready.

BTW, don't bother to mention it to the others.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 7:15 AM |

 
THE ONLY THING YOU HAVE TO FEAR IS NO SENSE OF HUMOR
Greg Gutfield is over at the Huff Post, where he joyously lists quite a number of things that the liberal left greatly fears. It's a tour de force! Excerpts:

Fear of a loss of individual liberty in response to the war on terror.
Fear that the paranoia over terrorism will erode everything this country was founded on.
Fear that liberals haven't degraded the education system enough so most people still know that Abraham Lincoln and FDR suspended many liberties to deal with similar crises

Fear of Mel Gibson
Fear that your angry denunciations of Mel Gibson will not detract attention from the rampant anti-semitism found at the Huffington Post.
Fear that Ari Emmanuel's "brave" attack on Mel Gibson said more about Emmanuel's opportunism than any sincere belief.
Fear that Emmanuel's client Michael Moore might be a bigger anti-Semite than Gibson.

Fear of George Bu$H
Fear that Bu$h is to blame for everything
Fear that Bu$h isn't to blame for everything
Fear that if you continue to blame everything on Bu$h, you won't actually figure out who really is to blame for your problems
Fear that your spelling of Bu$h reflects your intellectual prowess, in a nutshell.
And for that, you still blame Bu$h
And your parent$

Fear of Walmart
Fear of people who shop at Walmart
Fear that you might actually save money if you shopped at Walmart
Fear that Walmart has done more to help the poor than any social program ever created by our government.
[...]
Fear of mean people
Fear of judgmental people
Fear of appearing narrow-minded
Fear of intolerance
Fear that with your tirades against SUVs, Wal-Mart, meat, cigarettes, guns, whisky, and organized religion, you are the judgmental, intolerant one.
[...]
fear of a police state unless of course it actually is a police state, like, Venezuela

Fear of Hugo Chavez dying
Fear of Castro Dying
Fear of Communism dying

Fear of Israel and their determined desire to blow up terrorists
No fear of Hezbollah and their pleasure in blowing up citizens

There's much much more, so you should go over and take a look, even if it's at the Huffington Post. The only thing you have to fear is not being able to laugh out loud. Or not having a sense of humor.

Even the comments are hilariously revealing (and passionate, of course, if not terribly tolerant). Typical:

The only thing we truely fear are puppets such as yourself who are continually led to the voting booths, like cows to slaughter, by non-issues such as gay rights and abortion, and continually vote in incompetant thieves that erode moral values and society more than gay rights and abortion do!

I can't exactly pinpoint when it was that the left lost its sense of humor. It is entirely possible they never had one to begin with. In particular, they have never been able to be in the least bit self-deprecating or willing to mock themselves.(See here for a discussion of Humor vs. Displacement and if you are really interested in the topic, you might also read this previous post on humor in the muslim world)

What they seem to consider humorous are things like this and the examples in this post--which don't transform their anger into something humorous as much as it exposes for all to see the uncontrollable rage that continually radiates from them.

When they ban Gutfield--and they will eventually--it will be because he comes much too close for comfort in making them aware of it.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 3:50 PM |

 
YA THINK ?
Reuters said today:

[that] it would apply "tighter editing procedure for images of the Middle East conflict to ensure that no photograph from the region would be transmitted to subscribers without review by the most senior editor on the Reuters Global Pictures Desk."

"Reuters terminated its relationship with Hajj on Sunday... An immediate enquiry began into Hajj’s other work," the statement said.

Hajj had provided Reuters with several images from the Lebanese village of Qana, many of which have also been suspected of being staged.

Ya think?

This rather tepid statement comes after a first picture was found to be doctored (more here, here, here, here)

The useful idiots of the MSM seem to have achieved yet another milestone on their [psycho]path to perdition. Someday they will have to decide what side they are on. Until then, they can continue to pretend that all they need is a "tighter editing procedure".

Some simple common sense and a bit of moral clarity would be extremely helpful too.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 12:01 PM |

 
JOE LIEBERMAN'S SIN
Martin Peretz notes, as he discusses the return of the "peace" Democrats of the 70's:

Mr. McGovern's trouncing by Richard Nixon, a reprobate president if we ever had one, augured the recessional--if not quite the collapse--of such Democratic politics, which insisted our enemy in the Cold War was not the Soviets but us.

It was then that people like Joe Lieberman emerged, muscular on defense, assertive in foreign policy, genuinely liberal on social and economic matters, but not doctrinaire on regulatory issues. He had marched for civil rights and is committed to an equal opportunity agenda with equal opportunity results. He has qualms about affirmative action. But who, in his hearts of hearts, does not? He is appalled by the abysmal standards of our popular culture and our public discourse. Who really loves our popular culture--or, at least, which parent? He is thoroughly a Democrat. But Mr. Lieberman believes that, in an age of communal and global stress, one would do well to speak with the president (even, on rare occasion, speak well of him) and compromise with him on urgent matters of practical law.

Peretz is correct, and history is rhyming as today's Democratic Party once again takes up the mantle of "peace", passionately convinced that the real enemy is not the Islamic fanatics who attacked us on 9/11, but America--particularly under Bush.

Thwarted in their constant attempts to find a way to impeach the President; and not satisfied with simply and constantly undermining American foreign policy during war, the Democrats, egged on by their lunatic left, seem to have lately focused the animosity and bile overflowing from their BDS on an object once removed from Bush and the Republicans--but somewhat easier to impeach.

In addition, it's probably also convenient that he happens to be Jewish. That way they can also symbolically get in a hit on those dreaded neocons, as well as Israel.

Lieberman, once the party's candidate for vice president because of his staunch support of national defense, has sinned. Though his fault, through his fault; through his most grievous fault.

And, his sins--in word and deed-- are unforgivable.

It boils down to this:

No, Lieberman's sin is of a different order. Lieberman stands condemned today because he didn't recant. He didn't say he was wrong. He didn't turn on his former allies and condemn them. He didn't claim to be the victim of a hoax. He didn't try to pretend that he never supported the war in the first place. He didn't claim to be led into support for the war by a group of writers and intellectuals whom he can now denounce. He didn't go through a public show of agonizing and phony soul-baring and apologizing in the hopes of resuscitating his reputation, as have some noted "public intellectuals."

These have been the chosen tactics of self-preservation ever since events in Iraq started to go badly and the war became unpopular. Prominent intellectuals, both liberal and conservative, have turned on their friends and allies in an effort to avoid opprobrium for a war they publicly supported. Journalists have turned on their fellow journalists in an effort to make them scapegoats for the whole profession. Politicians have twisted themselves into pretzels to explain away their support for the war or, better still, to blame someone else for persuading them to support it.

Al Gore, the one-time Clinton administration hawk, airbrushed that history from his record. He turned on all those with whom he once agreed about Iraq and about many other foreign policy questions. And for this astonishing reversal he has been applauded by his fellow Democrats and may even get the party's nomination.

Apparently, amazingly, dispiritingly, it all works. At least in the short run, dishonesty pays. Dissembling pays. Forgetting your past writings and statements pays. Condemning those with whom you once agreed pays. Phony self-flagellation followed by self-righteous self-congratulation pays. The only thing that doesn't pay is honesty. If Joe Lieberman loses, it will not be because he supported the war or even because he still supports it. It will be because he refused to choose one of the many dishonorable paths open to him to salvage his political career.

Many people mistakenly assume that I am a hard-core Republican; but except for Ronald Reagan and GWBush, I have been pretty uninterested in political races. When I was growing up, my family was in fact, pure, straight party ticket Democrat and true blue.

The truth is that since I reached adulthood, I have almost always wasted my votes on Libertarians--in local and national politics; because I believed both political parties were basically corrupt and useless ,and that there was not much of a difference between them.

I have no illusions about the Republicans, I can assure you. For the most part, they are as hypocritical, opportunistic, and unprincipled a bunch as you will ever find. But, even as I contemplate the perfidy of many Republicans, I cannot fail to notice that the Democrats en masse have totally gone off the deep end of the political pool. And the stakes for America and the rest of the world are far too high to waste a vote on their nonsense.

I never doubted for a moment that the US would win the Cold War against communism. But that old defeated enemy has taken form again and allied itself with an even a deadlier and more brutal threat to peace and freedom.

No matter how ridiculous, hypocritical and obnoxious the Republicans are, the Democrats have them trumped and doubled down.

While it is always amusing to watch how much lower the 21st century Democratic Party can sink in its quest to regain power, the root cause of their behavior has been summed up by Victor Davis Hanson :

Our present generation too is on the brink of moral insanity. That has never been more evident than in the last three weeks, as the West has proven utterly unable to distinguish between an attacked democracy that seeks to strike back at terrorist combatants, and terrorist aggressors who seek to kill civilians.

It is now nearly five years since jihadists from the Arab world left a crater in Manhattan and ignited the Pentagon. Apart from the frontline in Iraq , the United States and NATO have troops battling the Islamic fascists in Afghanistan . European police scramble daily to avoid another London or Madrid train bombing. The French, Dutch, and Danish governments are worried that a sizable number of Muslim immigrants inside their countries are not assimilating, and, more worrisome, are starting to demand that their hosts alter their liberal values to accommodate radical Islam. It is apparently not safe for Australians in Bali, and a Jew alone in any Arab nation would have to be discreet — and perhaps now in France or Sweden as well. Canadians’ past opposition to the Iraq war, and their empathy for the Palestinians, earned no reprieve, if we can believe that Islamists were caught plotting to behead their prime minister. Russians have been blown up by Muslim Chechnyans from Moscow to Beslan. India is routinely attacked by Islamic terrorists. An elected Lebanese minister must keep in mind that a Hezbollah or Syrian terrorist — not an Israeli bomb — might kill him if he utters a wrong word. The only mystery here in the United States is which target the jihadists want to destroy first: the Holland Tunnel in New York or the Sears Tower in Chicago .
[...]
In short, if we wish to learn what was going on in Europe in 1938, just look around.

If we wish to understand what is happening in the Democratic Party, we need look no further than Hanson's analysis. The Democrats have been infected by a virulent strain of the same bug that was going around in 1938. It first infected the socialists and communists --but sadly, it didn't kill them, it just made them the most opportunistic carriers of the disease. Joe Lieberman is just one casualty of that illness.

"Moral insanity" as Hanson terms the process, seems to be a relatively permanent disorder of the soul, which, due to the ideological purity of the infecting agent causes the sufferer to become detached from reality; and to re-attach to a delusional or distorted reproduction of the real world consistent with the ideology.

Moral insanity results when the malignant narcissism of an individual or group causes them to be so attached to the "ideal" that they are no longer capable of seeing other people as distinct individuals with needs and desires of their own, but only see them as fodder or pawns for the ultimate expression of their precious IDEAL.

This type of insanity is frequently found in the throngs of mindlessly malignant "do-gooders" -- peace activists and the like; who are so immersed in the morass of moral equivalence and political correctness that they are completely blind to the difference between good and evil. In fact, they have become so morally naiive and numbed by their ideology that they regularly confuse the one for the other. See here and here for example.

In this rarified state of living in the fantasy world of their "ideal", appearance and symbol are more important than actually reality--how they feel is more important than the consequences of what they do. Hence, if they deeply, passionately believe they are supporting "peace", then it is irrelevant (to them) that their behavior in reality encourages, enables, and supports those whose goal is war and death.

The end stage of the disease is characterized by the eruption of this kind of psychotic thinking. Frankly, by the time this symptom appears, there is not much that can be done to save the individual or group, as they have wholly, irreversibly committed themselves to the delusion.

The prodromal aura for the end stage is the ruthless elimination and purging of any individual who questions the delusion.

Joe Lieberman is actually morally sane, and that's why he no longer has a place in today's Democratic Party.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 7:39 AM |

 
YEP, DEADER THAN A DOORNAIL
....except in the minds of the usual leftist dead-enders and their hangers-on.


- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 2:01 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. And you might read this before submitting an entry.

Thanks for all the submissions. I try to use as many as possible! SO MANY INSANITIES! SO LITTLE TIME!!!

1. happy happy joy joy. It's a small world after all.

2. OK, now they're faking photos. What next? Faking news stories for their political agenda...oh, wait. UPDATE: Reuters admits it. And now, the Israelis have gone too far (Reuters exclusive?)!

3. Nasrallah insists, "You Qana do more for me!" But no matter who dies, however, he's happy.

4. I'm inclined to think that the real blowhard is a certain university professor (and no, this time i'ts not me!).

5. Iran awards the Dummy ..er..Dhimmi of the Year to a deserving person! And I didn't even realize they were going together!

6. Simply amazing that Israel has only managed to hit civilians you know--poor babies and innocent farmers--and never hits any Hezbollah in this war? Geez, talk about Israeli incompetence! Because we know that Hezbollah always tells the truth.

7. Yes, we should. Particularly when it is insane.

8. Midterm election assessment--Democrats might be a little overconfident, perhaps? (read all the way to the end!)

9. Filed under "Dumb Democrat Moves". Hamshered ? But, he knows nothing! Meanwhile, a desperate Lieberman finally decides to take the hard left's position on the war.

10. Hypocrisy? The Democrats? Surely not. Everyone knows that its only Republicans who commit that sin.

11. Congress is defined as the place where seniority overrides common sense.

12. This isn't a hate crime.... THIS IS A HATE CRIME.

13. The next Secretary General of the UN?

14. A mystery for the ages.

15. Taking the "hunger" out of "hunger strike". Very compassionate.

16. Propaganda 101.

17. Why it's so hard to work with the French. But, flip-flopping is a French perogative!

18. The FBI takes studmuffins seriously.

19. Speculation on what caused Castro's intestinal bleeding... Viva la revolucion!. Some see it as a similar situation to here....

20. A journey of self-discovery.

21. Collateral damage in the war on drugs.

22. Women (dolls?) to avoid.

23. Movie review: Harrison Ford and the amazing powers of hair plugs!

24. Immigration needs some healthy debate!

25. Wanking in the rain?

26. Carter's little pill will get you going.

27. Blechhhh.

28. The nutty professor--a remake of an old classic.

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 @ 8:12 AM |

 
MALIGNANT NARCISSIST'S CLUB !
WOW! ShrinkWrapped, Gagdad Bob and I have made the big time (I think--I'm not sure who Wolcott is, actually)! But we've put his nose out of joint, that's for sure!

Apparently he is upset that we dared to point out the pervasive malignant narcissism and paranoia of today's left in American politics (something that Richard Hofstadter correctly pointed out about the right in the 50's). Wolcott, it seems, doesn't quite grasp the difference between malignant narcissism and the regular ordinary type.

Politicians on both sides of the political spectrum certainly have an excess of irritating narcissistic traits--it's practically required in order to succeed in the popularity contest of American politics these days. The malignant variety, however, is very, very special.

And, in the dangerous days of this 21st century, the left side of the political spectrum seems to have set up an exclusive Malignant Narcissist's Club where only the lunatics need apply.

Republicans are unavailable to become members of this secret society because the left employs them in a subservient role as objects of the left's many and varied paranoid fantasies. I'm sure you've noticed the ones about 9/11 being a plot of Bush and Cheney? And how Republicans during Katrina planned to commit genocide against the Blacks and the poor? And how Republicans oppress homosexuals and women? And how Bush is more evil than Bin Laden? And how all those [Jewish] neocons are planning world domination? And how Bush is going to implement a [Christian] theocracy....and so on and so on ad infinitum. [Wolcott can add his favorite paranoid fantasy here].

Those cute little paranoid delusions represent something more than simple narcissism, I'm afraid. They are the psychotic imaginings of a political party and its adherents unable to cope with the fact that they are no longer in the majority in this country (at least not so's they can actually win elections--oh, I forgot. They haven't been able to win elections because of a Republican conspiracy).

But I have to admit, Wolcott's column made me laugh. And I needed a good laugh. To quote Jonah Goldberg (who took Wolcott to task here) I am simply devastated by his criticism.

And, may I just add how honored I am to be denounced in the company of that terrible quack, ShrinkWrapped, and Gagdad Bob (even if he studied under Milton Jung instead of James Wolcott).

UPDATE: Sigmund, Carl & Alfred chime in. Whewww. I'm glad the trio are on my side!
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 5:52 PM |

 
ESCHATALOGICAL EXPECTATIONS AND CHRISTIANITY DERANGEMENT SYNDROME
Very interesting article:

For those who do not spend their days pulling imaginary bugs out of their eye sockets, "Christianist'' is a relatively new term that roughly refers to a virulent strain of right-wing political Christianity that, supposedly, parallels Islamist lunacy.

Although both groups may be "true believers,'' those who try to connect the dots of Christian belief, specifically evangelical Christianity, to Islamism seem willing to overlook the fact that Islamists praise Allah and fly airplanes into buildings while Christianists praise Jesus and pass the mustard.

And though both groups of people may use scripture to shape their approach to the public square, Islamist interpretation of doctrine permits religious expression through suicide-murder, beheadings, public stonings (preferably of women) and Jew-hating, while Christianist doctrine deals in such wimpy notions as forgiveness, tolerance, redemption and cheek-turning. Weirdos.

At least part of what's behind the anti-Christianist movement, of course, is dislike of Bush, who happens to be a born-again Christian, combined with angry opposition to the war in Iraq, as well as contempt for the anti-intellectualism of some on the Christian right -- a perfect storm of secular disgust.

What's missing, however, is a basic understanding of reality: the fact that those who preach an End Times scenario also voted for Bush does not necessarily mean that they have Bush's ear.

Read it all. I have discussed this issue before, but it would not hurt to revisit it now. In that prior article, I suggested that a frequently co-occurring pathology with Bush Derangement Syndrome (BDS) is "Christianity Derangement Syndrome".

It turns out that this co-occurring disorder's etiology is much the same as BDS in that it is a carefully developed delusional system that serves the function of protecting those who believe in it from having to deal with reality.

A definition of Christianophobia or Christianity Derangement Syndrome (CDS), could be formulated thusly:

"The excacerbation of acute and severe paranoia about the imminent imposition of a Christian theocracy in the U.S.; in an individual already suffering from Bush Derangement Syndrome as a reaction to the very existence of (1) the Christian religion; (2) the practitioners of Christianity; and (3) symbols of Christianity anywhere within the culture; while simultaneously completely ignoring and dismissing any threat from the religious fanatics of Islam who repeatedly and clearly have stated that their goal is the imposition of a world-wide Islamic theocracy (or "Caliphate")."

So, as a result of this interesting disorder, here we are in a war with Islamic fundamentalism, and many on the left seem to think that the U.S. is at risk in having a Christian theocracy imposed and that the Bushitler is more dangerous than Bin Laden.

During the 2004 Presidential campaign, one of my friends was so pre-occupied by this issue, she literally could not understand why I would vote for Bush, since it was clear to her that he intended to usher in a religious state.

Since that time, I can't help but have noticed that all the women of my acquaintance are now wearing nun habits; that holy communion is being forced down the throats of unrepentant leftists; and that there has been a dramatic decline in sexually explicit material everywhere as the purveyors of same have been rounded up and summarily executed by the religious police.

Why, last week I (a professed, unrepentant agnostic) was forced to enter a church to obtain sustenance (they were having a bake sale).

You may be asking youself, "What in heaven's name are these people so frightened of?" How do we make sense of symptoms of paranoia so bizarre? So....displaced....from the real threat?

The President has repeatedly reassured people about his personal faith; and quite frankly, his practice of religion is not different in any respect from previous presidents. At a news conference last year, he said:

I think faith is a personal issue. And I take great strength from my faith. But I don't condemn somebody in the political process because they may not agree with me on religion.

The great thing about America is that you should be allowed to worship any way you want. And if you chose not to worship, you're equally as patriotic as somebody who does worship. And if you choose to worship, you're equally American if you're a Christian, a Jew, a Muslim.

And that's the wonderful thing about our country and that's the way it should be.

But this kind of thing does not reassure them. Bush is now in the 6th year of his Presidency. When is this supposed theocratic state going to be imposed?

What we have seen is a dramatic rise in Christianophobia on the left. It is my observation that it is not so much the religion per se that people are afraid of; but the simple fact that our country itself was founded on Judeo-Christian values and that those values quite naturally have infused the intellectual life and symbolism of America for over 200 years now.

It seems to me that there is a concerted effort to eliminate these values and the symbols of these values wherever they might be found within the culture (e.g., in government logos and such) in an attempt to replace them with different values and symbols. While the stated objective of the replacement is to be "inclusive" and make the U.S. a "multicultural" society (which it always has been without their help), the upshot is a careful substitution of a particular secular set of values for a value system which has its origins in traditional religion

The hysteria generated by the left on this issue is quite unbelievable--that is, if you don't recognize the simple fact that leftist intellectual thought has itself become a religion--with high priests and holy beliefs that must not under any circumstances be questioned; because non-believers are made apostate and persecuted by the true believers.

Thus, the first explanation of CDS resides in the political fact that the intellectual leaders of the left wish to replace the dominant religion of this country with their own secular religion (not too dissimilar to how the Soviet Union tried to ban traditional religion and impose their own secular version of belief--communism--on the population). Along these lines, they clearly wish to impose, not a theocracy, but a simple autocracry, that will be headed by their belief system (which is unable to tolerate the existence of any other).

There is also an important psychological factor at play. The political wing of the left's ideology has taken this point in history to make its stand because events have come together at the millennium to create an confluence of emotional factors.

At the end of the 20th century, it was apparent that both leftist and rightist totalitarian forces had been soundly beaten by on the battlefield of reality. Sadly, neither was out for the duration, and what we have seen since that time is a alliance between leftist intellectual thought (via postmodern philosophical attempts to compensate for the reality of their intellectual defeat) and the rightist religious fascism of Islam as it is practiced in most of the world.

Islam wherever it exists is trying to impose a theocracy. What the leaders of Hamas, Al Qaeda, Iran and others say explicitly, openly, and repeatedly, doesn't ever seem to register on the intellectual leadership of the left. If you doubt the message, then listen to this video of an interview with three reformed Arab terrorists, which is quite chilling. Read archived accounts of what Imams and religious leaders in Islam are saying about Jews and Christians over at MEMRI. Browse a few of the english-speaking sites for jihad on the internet.

The intellectual leadership of the left consciously know all this, but have allied themselves with this particular theocracy anyway. In their arrogance, they do not feel threatened by Islam, because Islam has shown itself to be compatible with their ideology of totalitarianism and social tyranny. They believe that when they and Islam get rid of their mutual enemies--freedom, capitalism, and individuality--they will be able to handle the the religious details and come out on top.

In the meantime, the psychological displacement and denial that they actively encourage works to their advantage in the general population, who became genuinely and realistically fearful of Islam and its adherents after 9/11.

Displacement is a psychological defense mechanism where there is a separation of emotion from its real object and then redirection of the intense emotion toward something less threatening.

When was the last time you heard of a Christian fundamentalist nation? When was the last time that Christianity killed non-believers and tortured those who ran afoul of the religious laws?

If you answered, "the middle ages"--you are correct.

Why just last year, there was a peaceful transition of power in the only Christian theocracy in the world--the Vatican. Not a single person was killed or tortured as the new Pope was elected and installed.

But, as we all know, there is a religion-- now, today-- that encourages its adherents to kill non-believers. That relegates women to second class citizenship and makes their sexuality a sin punishable by death. There is a religion where homosexuality is not tolerated and individual thought is suppressed.

There is a religion practiced today that rules as a totalitarian theocracy in a number of countries; and its religious leaders regularly give permission to its beleivers to kill Americans, Christians, and Jews. Devoted believers of this religion piloted airplanes into American buildings, killing thousands. They would do it again if they get the chance. Devoted believers in this religion behead people who disagree with them and can be convinced to blow themselves up in order to kill people they don't like.

Between Christianity and the religion described above, which do you suppose is the real threat to America and its citizens? The one that advocates peaceful solutions to problems? Or the one that advocates jihad and death to America?

The left and their political front, the Democrats, would have you believe that because some Christians disapprove of abortion or homosexuality on moral grounds; or that they are vocal in their objection to the state-sanctioned murder of innocents that this is a sign of the impending theocracy. Thus, instead of rational argument and disagreement, the left has chosen to IMPOSE their particular beliefs on each of these topics by passing laws--exactly what they accuse the religious right in this country of trying to do. This psychological technique is called projection; and the political technique of imposing one set of beliefs--religious or not-- on another group by law is known as tyranny. Neither side is correct in trying to impose their particular religion across the nation. But, as the city of San Francisco continually reminds us, local populations may vote to be as ridiculous and amoral as they choose over whatever issues they desire. They simply have to stick within the general guidelines of the Constitution of the U.S. and their particular state.

However comforting it is to believe that Christianity is the religion that poses a threat to freedom and democracy, the real world eventually intrudes on such fantasies. While these clever people "bravely" confront the straw man religion they have set up as the enemy, the real danger slips in unnoticed and without hindrance. Doesn't it strike you as somewhat bizarre that we are exhorted to be "sensitive" to the grossly oppressive beliefs of Islam (e.g. in the case of the rather innocent and childlike Danish cartoons); yet, it is considered avantgard and progressive--and an issue of "freedom of speech" to display pornographic images of Christ or dung-laden images of his mother?

When do you suppose the "secular humanists" and Leftists will organize a conference to discuss the threat that Islam poses to their political freedoms? Don't hold your breath. They actually share the same politics with those who explicitly desire to impose a religious theocracy.

Once again, denial, projection and displacement are at work. They brought us the phenomenon of Bush Derangement Syndrome; and have simultaneously caused a co-occurring disorder: Christianophobia, or Christianity Derangement Syndrome, or antichristianism--call it what you will.

From a psychological perspective, the inherent denial, projection and displacement of antichristianism of the left is no different in theory than the antisemitism that the Jews have had to cope with centuries as the official scapegoats of the world.

In case you have not achieved the expected level of paranoia about how dangerous Bush is; and how imminent is the imposition in America of a Christian Theocracy; then it is clear that you are not making the necessary "connections" that the left sees so clearly in its version of reality. So, let me spell out their message for you:

BUSH is more evil than BIN LADEN, AHMADINEJAD, NASRALLAH etc. etc.

and

CHRISTIANITY is more of a threat to civilization than ISLAM

Now think--just for a moment--about the interesting mental and psychological contortions necessary to actually convince yourself that these two propositions are true.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 8:35 AM |

 
THANKS
Thanks to all my readers for their condolences and kind wishes. I am doing well.

But, posting will be light because I'm taking off most of the day. With only a few weekends left until school starts, I have promised to take a few giggly teenagers shopping.

It has been my observation that when the going gets tough, the tough go shopping--and that this is often an effective coping skill!

Of course, in its extreme manic form it isn't, so I'll be careful not to get carried away.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 8:31 AM |

 
EVEN COWGIRLS GET THE BLUES
...and today the death of an old friend has me down and more than usually introspective. In fact, it started me thinking about one of my favorite passages in the Father Brown mysteries of G.K.Chesterton, where he is cajoled into revealing the mysterious secret of his success in solving so many murder cases:

Father Brown groaned. He put his head on his hands and remained a moment, as if full of a silent convulsion of thought. Then he lifted his head and said in a dull voice:
"Very well. I must tell the secret."
His eyes rolled darkly over the whole darling scene, from the red eyes of the little stove to the stark expanse of the ancient wall, over which were standing out, more and more brightly, the strong stars of the south.
"The secret is," he said: and then stopped as if unable to go on. Then he began again and said:
"You see, it was I who killed all those people."
"What?"epeated the other, in a small voice out of a vast silence.
"You see, I had murdered them all myself," explained Father Brown patiently. "So, of course, I knew how it was done."
"Grandison Chance had risen to his great height like a man lifted to the ceiling by a sort of slow explosion. Staring down at the other he repeated his incredulous question.
"I had planned out each of the crimes very carefully," went on Father Brown. "I had thought out exactly how a thing like that could be done, and in what style or state of mind a man could really do it. And when I was quite sure that I felt exactly like the murderer myself, of course I knew whe he was."

I used to quote this passage to psychiatric residents when I taught them about transference and countertransference and insight. Father Brown's insight was a profound revelation to me when I first read it about 30 years ago or so. It explained so much to me about why I was so at home in psychiatry (I had originally planned on becoming a surgeon) and was even considered a good one by my colleagues. I actually had never thought much about it when I was younger; and was simply glad that I was able to connect to the most disordered people. I especially have an affinity with what is now called the "Cluster B" personalities--the hysterics, narcissists, borderlines, and sociopaths. Father Brown made me understand why.

Like Father Brown, I had very little difficulty in making myself feel exactly like they felt. Their pathology was my own. Their motives and disordered thinking were not mysterious to me at all, but were mirrored in my own psyche.

As the good Father was fully aware, we are all capable of committing murders and any other atrocity because of the simple fact that we are human ourselves; and as I have come to be aware over the years, the inner darkness and chaos that swallows up many of my patients, exists within me also.

You cannot be a good psychiatrist unless you are willing to acknowledge this fundamental truth and use it in a constructive way in your relationships with those who come to you for help.

It is a most humbling revelation. When I first experienced it, it was merely an intellectual insight. A few months later, when my best friend and a fellow doctor committed suicide and her mother blamed me for not noticing her depression--it hit me hard, as if I had been sucker-punched.

I have done many good things in my life, I think; but I have also been guilty of bad--even horrible behavior; been deliberately malicious and destructive; and responsible for innumerable stupid and petty evils.

The best I can say in my own defense is that I think I am a better person for all of it. I have fewer illusions about myself certainly, and as I have accepted more and more responsibility for my own behavior, I have been able to forgive myself for the imperfection--and humanity?-- of my emotions.

Like Father Brown, I do my best work when I am fully able to grasp what is going on inside of my patients. The only thing that often separates me from them is that, by acknowledgin my crazier feelings-- and even accepting them as part of myself-- has given me the ability to control the most damaging consequences of their expression.

So what does all this self-reflection and musing have to do with the death of a friend?

Today, when I got the call from a mutual friend, I almost didn't believe it. But then, it really felt like it must be true. My friend John committed suicide, finally succumbing to the inner demons he was unable to control. I have not seen him in years, but once we shared with each other those demons; laughed about them, minimized them and thought we had locked them away forever from having any influence over us.

His death has made me go down into the dark cellar of my own soul, where I have been confronting those distressing spirits of my self; checking the locks that keep them under control for the most part; and shoring up the walls of the various compartments that I placed them in.

I have been talking today with a new occupant down there; a demon with John's angelic face. Eventually, after he and I finish our discussion, I will leave him in the darkness and ascend once more into the light.

Bear with me.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 4:44 PM |

 
MY HEROES HAVE ALWAYS BEEN COWBOYS
I grew up with cowboys. Not in real life, of course, but on the TV screen. My earliest heroes were those rough, tough shoot-em-up guys whose goal was justice and who seemed oblivious to their own tragic fate as they pursued that justice with single-minded efficiency. Today's essay by Victor Davis Hanson reminds me of why I loved The Lone Ranger, Will Kane of High Noon and all the others:

Instead, the cowboy more often evokes marshal Will Kane of High Noon. When given the choice of riding out of Hadleyville for a much deserved retirement with his newlywed wife, the tired Gary Cooper instead turns back to face the Miller gang alone. Although his prospects of survival are slim, Kane won’t run or abandon his town that, in fact, would rather appease such killers. In that sense, for some it is not such a bad thing for cowboy Bush to confront regional bullies like Saddam Hussein, the Taliban, Kim Jong Il, or Mahmoud Ahmadinejad — even if the Europeans, like the townspeople of Hadleyville, delude themselves that the Millers of our world would leave them alone if their stubborn self-appointed protector would just ride away. The recent unprovoked attacks by Hamas, Hezbollah, and the verbiage from Iran and Syria should disabuse any of that naiveté.
[...]
That Greek tragic theme — Sophocles’ dramas Ajax and Philoctetes center on the flawed hero that we both shun and need — is a Western constant. In the Magnificent Seven, the outcast hired guns ride into save a Mexican village from bandits. Then after the bloodletting, the surviving Yul Brenner and Steve McQueen depart knowing that they are not to enjoy the tranquility and order that they have alone been able to impart to others only through their gunplay.

The truth is that we live in a global Hadleyville that has deluded itself that international communications, cell phones, or the Internet — like the onset of the 19th-century railroad and telegraph — equate to civilization. In fact, they are all only a thin flashy veneer atop a still wild and savage world in which outlaw regimes like North Korea , Saddam’s Iraq , or Iran push until stopped. After all, the present-day United Nations can protect nations and dispense justice about as well as the territorial marshal a three-day-ride away or the corrupt bought sheriff of a cattle baron’s town. And a Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Mullah Omar, or Saddam Hussein listens to international warnings about as much as Liberty Valance paid heed to the bumbling coward of a sheriff, Link Appleyard.
[...]
So privately most appreciate an American Tom Doniphon, Shane or Will Kane who from time to time will appear out of nowhere to stand up to a Saddam, Taliban, or Kim Jung Il — or the recent crop of bullies in Lebanon, Syria, and Iran. The latter all may think that an exasperated lame duck George Bush, suffering from international rebuke and low approval ratings, has dropped his flashy cowboy veneer. Perhaps and probably for the better — but they should still beware: if the now brooding Bush really is a cowboy, then he may deal with a few more rogues before he leaves — caring not at all for our present approval but only for his own code and our future safety when he is gone.

The cowboy hero of my youth was a simple man who minded his own business and valued his freedom. It would take a lot to stir him up, but once aroused, he was unstoppable. His talk might be drawling or lazy, but not his principles; and the violence which was always there under the surface of his placidity could be called on to defend and protect that which he valued. Then he would ride out into the sunset; his job done, his duty fulfilled.

He never turned away from what had to be done; and he never cared much for nuance or appeasement. He always understood and accepted the consequences of his actions, not caring if he was liked or loved; but doing what he thought was right, no matter what the cost.

Today the American cowboy lives on in spirit in many aspects of our society. But if anything, there is even more contempt and anger heaped on him by our modern, cynical, and metrosexual society; who long ago stopped valuing the heroic and sees no need for cowboys in the new age.

Today, any hint of unsophisticated cowboy heroics or clear talk of right and wrong, good and evil are met with scorn by the spoiled elites of the world, who perceive the modern cowboy as an unwanted anachronism and a genuine liability--his mere existence a frightening threat to the fantasy world of love and peace they have created in their minds.

Still, it is lucky for us that our modern cowboys in the law and military continue to do what all real cowboys were born to do.

Zane Gray and many other western authors understood that the only thing standing between civilization and the outlaws who preyed on the innocent were those few cowboys who held to the code of the west. Civilization might hate and despise them for the violence of their methods--but civilization most certainly could not survive without their moral clarity and protection.

Mamas, don't let your babies grow up to be cowboys
Don't let 'em pick guitars and drive them old trucks
Make 'em be doctors and lawyers and such
Mamas, don't let your babies grow up to be cowboys
'Cause they'll never stay home and they're always alone
Even with someone they love

Cowboys ain't easy to love and they're harder to hold
They'd rather give you a song than diamonds or gold
Lonestar belt buckles and old faded Levis
And each night begins a new day
If you don't understand him, and he don't die young
He'll probably just ride away

[chorus]
Mamas, don't let your babies grow up to be cowboys
Don't let 'em pick guitars or drive them old trucks
Make 'em be doctors and lawyers and such
Mamas, don't let your babies grow up to be cowboys
'Cause they'll never stay home and they're always alone
Even with someone they love

Cowboys like smoky old pool rooms and clear mountain mornings
Little warm puppies and children and girls of the night
Them that don't know him won't like him and them that do
Sometimes won't know how to take him
He ain't wrong, he's just different but his pride won't let him
Do things to make you think he's right
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 7:56 AM |

 
THEY HAVE A SECRET !
Fausta has a roundup of Castro Death news. Particularly interesting is her translation of this, from the official organ of Cuba's dictatorship:

"I can not make up good news because it wouldn't be ethical, and if the news was bad, the only one to benefit is the enemy. Specifically, in Cuba, because of the evil empire's plans, the state of my health becomes a state secret that can not be constantly divulged; and the compatriots should understand that. I can't go into the vicious cycle of health parameters that change constantly throughout the day.

I can say that it's a stable situation, but a real evolution in the state of health needs the passage of time.

The most I can say is that the situation will remain stable for many days, before one can give a verdict."

Fausta correctly notes that beneath the typically convoluted language is the information that there is no good news, and that what news there is won't be revealed for a while.

Q. So, what could that "state secret" possibly be? A. He's dead.

Otherwise, why would it be such a super-duper secret?

Speculation is welcome in the comments!

I must say this is all very intriguing; much like the secrecy that surrounded Arafat's last days--or that surrounds the demise of all tyrants as their most serious suck-ups vie for position and dominance in the despot food chain.

UPDATE: Surgical speculation: "My guess - Castro has widely metastatic colon cancer and will be dead in the next several weeks without ever regaining control of the country."

UPDATE II: Further speculation along the lines of my last sentence in the post:

...the events to date in Cuba strongly suggest that a fierce internal struggle is now going on and that Raul's absence from the airwaves is ample evidence that he is definitely not in control and cannot muster even a temporary consensus.

- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 7:54 PM |

 
OVERWHELMED AND UNDERSTAFFED
Sorry for the light blogging today. Thursday is always my busiest day and today was a humdinger. Just got home and found over 200 emails in my in box....I'll get to them eventually and when I've relaxed a bit, I might even post again this evening!

I'm just a bit overwhelmed at the moment and a bit understaffed!

Later....
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 5:18 PM |

 
A CASE OF PREMATURE EVACUATION ?
Why do you suppose this man is supporting a cease-fire? Well, he answers my quesion without guile:

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Thursday the solution to the Middle East crisis was to destroy Israel, Iranian state media reported.

In a speech during an emergency meeting of Muslim leaders in Malaysia, Ahmadinejad also called for an immediate cease-fire to end the fighting between Israel and the Iranian-back group Hezbollah. "Although the main solution is for the elimination of the Zionist regime, at this stage an immediate cease-fire must be implemented," Ahmadinejad said, according to state-run television in a report posted on its Web site.

The Islamic world's biggest bloc on Thursday demanded that the United Nations implement an immediate cease-fire in Lebanon and investigate what it called flagrant human rights violations by Israel. (Emphasis mine)

Got it? He wants a cease-fire now because he and his other thugs are not quite ready to completely destroy Israel right now. So he's begging the world, please please get a ceasefire in place so as not to erode all their careful planning.

I think we can assume from this that the Israelis--despite some of the doom and gloom recently going around the MSM and blogsphere--are doing some serious damage to Hezbollah.

Nasrallah and his boys had a serious case of premature evacuation -- they certainly intended to "wipe Israel off the map" but they began the process a little too early with the seeds given them by Iran.

A ceasefire at this stage of the game would be truly idiotic if we are serious about the war on terror. I hope President Bush keeps saying all the right diplomatic words as he takes his time and allows our Israeli allies take this first step in the west's confrontation with the Islamic fanatics in Tehran. Because that's what this is all about.

Perhaps--just perhaps--Israel's actions have surprised Ahmadinejad and upset the timing of his grand apocolyptic scheme. Whatever. Through Israel's refusal to be intimidated at this point in history, the initiative in this world war has now been siezed by the west; and while the fanatics may be fighting back, they are definitely on the ropes. A ceasefire will just give them an opportunity to reset the play more to their liking.

UPDATE: The "civilian" myth bites the dust. And, those of you who think this is something you can certainly imagine the UN doing, raise your hands.

UPDATE II: This captures the essence of calls for a ceasefire:


UPDATE III: SC&A have some thoughts on useless ceasefires, and somewhat cynically note that the middle east in its current state is the poster child of UN intervention.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 7:40 AM |

 
DRAGGING ITSELF INTO THE 21st CENTURY ?
This seems like very good news (hat tip: SC&A):

Pakistan is expected to propose amending Islamic rape laws that currently place an almost impossible burden of proof on women and expose victims to adultery charges, officials said.

The move would end years of outrage by rights groups who say that President Pervez Musharraf has failed to tackle widespread discrimination against women in this Islamic republic.

The cabinet of Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz met Wednesday and was due to discuss draft legislation that would change the 27-year-old laws, an official at the ministry for women's development said.

Pakistan is slowly dragging itself (as some elements kick and scream) into the 21sst century. I see this as a major advance for their society, because as I have written before, women are the key to changing Islam and neutralizing the more toxic elements of the medieval religion:

...the treatment of women under Islam is not only the key to understanding the pathology of the culture, but also the key to developing an antidote to its most poisonous and toxic elements.

- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 12:32 PM |

 
EVERY CHILD'S FOR JIHAD
Even as the body count drops in the Qana incident and questions arise as to whether or not the entire episode was staged by Hezbollah --in yet another propaganda triumph for the cowardly, murdering Islamic terrorists-- it seems that world opinion depends soley on the crude manipulation of the MSM and is completely cut off from truth or reality.

This scenario brings out all the doomsayers, who, anguished by guilt, are unable to see how their own decency is deliberately and cynically being used against them. Since when should we believe anything that chronic liars tell us?

This all makes me very upset and angry. And when I get upset and angry, I begin to sing--or at least rearrange the words from classic oldies in a perverted semblance of song:

EVERY CHILD'S FOR JIHAD

(stolen from the wonderful Monty Python song "Every Sperm Is Sacred")

BRAVE MUSLIM WARRIORS:
There are Jews in the world.
There are Buddhists.
There are Hindus and Mormons, and then
There are Catholics that worship the Pope in Rome, but
We've never been one of them.

We are Islamic fanatics,
And have been since before we were born,
And those who prepare future martyrs:
Snatch your soul as soon as you're warm.

You see

We can't win with weapons or valor.
We're really not good in a fight.
But we surely know propaganda
And each child's death makes our future bright!

Because

Every child's for jihad.
Every child can die.
When you're sacrificed for Allah,
It makes the infidels cry.

CHILDREN:
Every child's expendable.
Every child's a shield.
Every child's untimely demise,
Is the most potent weapon we wield.

MUSLIM GIRL:
While infidels practice restraint
For the good of Allah we breed.
Every child we make is a soldier of god
And that's how jihad will succeed

Every baby's expendable.
Every baby's a shield.
Every baby's untimely demise,
Is the most potent weapon we wield.

IMAM:
Hindu, Taoist, Mormon,
Love their children much more than we do,
But Allah loves those who worship death,
And our children can help kill the Jew.

BRAVE MUSLIM WARRIORS:
Every child's expendable.
Every child's a shield.
Every child's untimely demise,
Is the most potent weapon we wield

IMAM:
Every child's for jihad.
Every child can die.
When you're sacrificed for Allah,
It makes the infidels cry.

CHILDREN:
Every child is useful.
Every child can die.
For the glory of dear Allah
We'll never question why.

NASRALLAH:
Let the infidel spill their tears
For our children, we don't mind.
Allah smites them down with guilt for us--
And we win when they are kind.

EVERYONE:
Every child's expendable.
Every child's a shield.
Every child's untimely demise,
Is the most potent weapon we wield.

Every child's expendable.
Every child's a shield.
Every child's untimely demise,
Is the most potent weapon we wield.

UPDATE: Vanderleun is more poetic and beautifully stark about the weaponization of children.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 7:17 AM |

 
GUILT, SHAME, AND THE ISRAELI -HEZBOLLAH CONFLICT
ShrinkWrapped today offers an excellent discussion of how guilt and shame play into the recent mideast conflict between Israel and Hezbollah. It references a post of mine "Shame, the Arab Psyche and Islam", which has this table:



Here is an excerpt, but you should click on over and read it all:

Notice as well that a fundamental difference between Guilt and Shame is the significance of the response to the views of the Community. In a person and culture with healthy Guilt, the primary motivator for the individual is internal; it does not matter to an individual whether or not the external culture recognizes them as guilty, it is their knowledge of their own guilt or innocence that matters. In a Shame culture, actual Guilt is immaterial; it is only being seen as guilty that matters. The Shame culture values appearance over reality, while the Guilt culture values reality over appearance.

[This is a tremendous over-simplification since there is no such thing as a pure culture of guilt or shame, but as a general framework for understanding culture, the concepts are quite useful.]

Judeo-Christian culture recognizes that all healthy adults have some measure of guilt. We feel guilt over things we have done and things we have not done; over our thoughts and impulses, as well as our actions. Some believe we are born with original sin, others that it is an inherent aspect of healthy psychological experience. All would accept that people who lack the capacity to experience guilt are outliers, Sociopaths and Malignant Narcissists.

Consider the Global War on terror, more properly, the global war on Islamic Totalitarianism, from the perspective of the current Israel-Hezbollah theater:

In a Shame culture, any atrocity is acceptable if the societal arbiters offer their blessing. Islam, in the hands of the neo-nazi Iranian mullahs, al Qaeda, Hezbollah, and the Palestinian haters, condones the most egregious atrocities, including the use of human shields; during the Iraq-Iran war the Mullahs used children as human mine sweepers...

It is important to keep what ShrinkWrapped wrote today; and my previous post on the subject in mind when assessing the current situation in the Middle East, as well as Arab and Western world reactions.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 10:49 AM |

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

It all goes back to my mother (who was quite a talented musician) telling me I had no musical talent when I was 10 years old. I simply refused to believe her assessment--despite all evidence to the contrary. Years and years of therapy later, I still suffer from the [usually harmless] delusion that I am musical and artistic. These parodies demonstrate otherwise, I'm sorry to say.
All the songs were deliberately and shamelessly ripped off for political purposes. I have them roughly listed in chronological order, with the more recent ones first.

Greener Acres (Green Acres theme song)
Rocket Boys (Rocket Man by Elton John)
Call Them UNreliable (Call Me Irresponsible by Frank Sinatra)
Barbie and Ken In An Islam World (Barbie Girl by Aqua)
Send in More Clowns (Send in the Clowns)
A Prayer For Castro (Now I Lay Me Down To Sleep)
A Few Of My Least Favorite Things (My Favorite Things from The Sound of Music)
The Jihad Must Go On ( Love Song from The Titanic)
It Ain't Necessarily So (Gershwin)
The Democrat's Better Review The Situation (I'm Reviewing the Situation from Oliver!)
The Iranian Circle Game (The Circle Game -Joni Mitchell)
Little Leftists (Little Boxes - Pete Seeger)
Another Day (It's Just Another Day - The Beatles)
It's Hard Out There For A Wimp (It's Hard Out There For A Pimp)
My Yale (My Band by Eminem)
Hotel Caliphornia (Hotel California)
They're The Democrats! (I'm A Lumberjack)
Addicted to Oil (Addicted to Love)
I Get A Kick From Free Speech ( I Get No Kick from Champagne)
Springtime for Lefties in America (Springtime for Hitler in Germany)
Sittin' On The Dock of Dubai - (Sittin' On The Dock of The Bay by Otis Redding)
John Kerry - The Lyin' King - "I Just Can't Wait To Be King" (from Disney's The Lion King)
"Not Getting Better (Ever)" (It's Getting Better by The Beatles)
Christmas Wars: A Ceremony of Carols
The New Democratic Theme Song: "I Moan and Whine" (I Walk the Line by Johnny Cash)
"The Name of Plame Makes Everyone Insane" (The Rain in Spain from My Fair Lady)
"Wouldn't It Be Loverly - A Psychiatrist's Lament" (also from My Fair Lady)
"Don't Let It Be" (Let it Be by The Beatles)
"Slogans and Dust" (Diamonds and Rust by Joan Baez)
"The Pirates of the UN"-including "I Am the Very Model of A Secretary General" and "Kofi Annan, Will You Please Go NOW!" (The former is from Gilbert & Sullivan's I am the very model of a modern major general; the latter from Dr. Seuss -Marvin K. Mooney, will you please go NOW!)
"Ask Your Imam" (Stand By Your Man by Tammy Wynette)
"West Bank Story" (Gee, Officer Krupke from West Side Story)
"Blowing in the Sand" (Blowing in the Wind by Peter, Paul and Mary)
"A Prayer For Zarqawi" (Now I Lay Me Down To Sleep)
"Imagine That!" (Imagine by John Lennon)
"Goodbye, Kofi Annan" (Goodbye Yellow Brick Road by Elton John)
"Three Little Lefty Blogs" (Three Little Maids from The Mikado by G&S)
Juan Cole- "I'm on the Faculty" (I'm a Lumberjack by Monty Python)
50 Ways to Force Regime Change (50 Ways to Leave Your Lover by Paul Simon)
The Great UN Pretender (The Great Pretender by Buck Ram)
American Pie - The Democrat Version (American Pie by Don McLean)
Come Back When You Grow Up Girl (Maureen Dowd) (from the song of the same name by Bobby Vee)
Delicious Blasphemy (The Taliban Rag) (The Vatican Rag by Tom Lehrer)


POEM RIP-OFFS

Oh Frabjous Day (Jabberwocky - Lewis Carroll)

The Love Song of J. Alfred Kerry (The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock - T.S. Eliot)

Democracy in a Cartoon (Auguries of Innocence - William Blake)

To A Marxist Dying Old (To An Athlete Dying Young by A.E. Houseman)
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 7:30 AM |

 
CASTRO DEATH WATCH?
Babalu has the story. Keep scrolling down, and keep those fingers crossed. Michelle shows them dancin' in the streets of Miami.

This time maybe it's true.

UPDATE: More at Fausta's Blog
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 7:21 AM |