Wednesday, October 31, 2007
FASCISM BY ANY OTHER NAME...
Dennis Praeger writes about "The Left and the Term 'Islamo-fascism'":
The term has angered many in the Muslim world, who see it as branding their entire religion -- and everyone who practices it -- as fascists.
"I think it's despicable," Middle East expert Juan Cole said. "Linking Islam… with a pejorative term such as fascism is extremely unfair. In fact, it is a form of racism."
Racist is, of course, a non-pejoritive term used to describe anyone who happens to disagree with Professor Cole and his ilk.
I suggest my readers check the definition of 'racism'; but last time I looked, a religion was not synonymous with a race. Further, not connecting Islam with the likes of Bin Laden, Zawahiri, Ahmadinejad--and the Mullahs, and all the other jihadist thugs out there is a form of idiocy--not to mention it would probably offend their delicate sensibilities (and Cole wouldn't want to do that!). They see themselves and their millions of followers as the true believers of the religion.
Not linking the political aspirations of these Islamic fanatics to fascism is clearly a form of psychological denial.
Which brings me back to some fundamental questions that must be answered if Western Civilization is to prevail over the Islamic barbarians at the gate.
The questions are:
Why has the political left abandoned all pretense of the liberal tradition?
Why is it that they say one thing and do the opposite?
Why have they been able to delude themselves into thinking that they are "reality-based" and "progressive"?
Why have they struggled so fiercely and angrily to impede and undermine this country's ability to fight Islamofascism, while at the same time enabling the terrorists and their plotting?
For all these questions, there is one unifying answer: Postmodernism.
Reality, truth, reason, consistency, integrity and almost all the values of the Enlightenment that I discussed in this post have been abandoned--cheaply surrendered--by the intellectual elites of Western Civilization. (also discussed here , here and here for the interested)
Victor Davis Hanson once made this observation aabout the Europeans:
And his comments are descriptive of the political left, as well. They believe in nothing.
In fact, they have finally reached the natural endpoint of the postmodern intellectual journey they began early in the last century, and arrived at the core nihilism that animates their entire belief system.
Once reason has been rejected reason and reality set aside as a basis for human actions, all that is left are the intense feelings that are the twinkling stars of the postmodern emotional universe.
Is it any wonder that the same people who aggressively champion gay rights one minute, will--when it is expedient--"throw gay men under the bus to score political points"?
Why should we expect the left to behave reasonably? Reason plays no part in their ideology or thought, such as it is. Forgetting about the many Democrats who are as corrupt as any Republican they happen to be demonizing at the moment ( excellently documented by SC&A, by the way) is not simply a benign lapse on the part of the left; it is a perfectly acceptable tactic in a conflict where the only goal is power at any price. Truth be damned.
Or just consider this popular smear tactic at ThinkProgress Delusionally, used to discredit Norman Podhoretz. Someone should probably mention to these progressive champions of truth and logic that making an historical analogy is not the same thing as an ad hominem attack.
Only people without a lick of insight, self-awareness, honesty, or even a rudimentary sense of humor could ignore the rampant Bush=Hitler meme that dominates their side of the political spectrum and put forth a criticism of Podhoretz in such a self-righteous and ridiculous post.
The breathtaking hypocrisy simply boggles the mind; but it is all part and parcel of the postmodern rhetoric of the leftist nothings.
Postmodernism is nothing more than intellectual nihilism dressed up in academic robes. If someone ever wrote a history of psychological denial, the philosophy of postmodernism, which burst on the human scene about half a century ago, would undoubtedly have a special place.
The use of postmodern rhetoric is usually a desperate attempt on the part of the person in denial when he recognizes that logic, reason, and reality actually argue against his beliefs or purposes. This strategy can often take the form of redefining or distorting language and ideas so that they conform to ones pre-existing attitudes and emotions.
EXAMPLE: "Everything is relative anyway."
EXAMPLE: "Objective truth does not exist"
EXAMPLE: "Truth is relative and my feelings are just as important as your facts."
EXAMPLE: "My reality is just as significant as yours"
EXAMPLE: "Reality is an illusion."
In the end, they all serve to facilitate today's left in their unwillingness to confront the evil that threatens civilization in the world today. They would like you to believe that the only evil confronting the world is George Bush and have no problem equating George Bush and conservatives with fascism. But connecting Islam with fascism? That's really, really offensive. And mean. And racist.
It is, however, somewhat more in touch with reality than they would like to believe (psychological displacement is a form of denial, don't forget)
As Praeger points out, "It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists."
Students at most universities are almost brainwashed into being leftist -- and the way they are taught to disagree with their political opponents is by using ad hominem attacks. Conservatives are described over and over as mean-spirited, war-loving, greedy, bigoted, racist, xenophobic, Islamophobic, homophobic, sexist, intolerant and oblivious to human suffering.As leading news organizations in the U.S. criticize the use of the term "Islamofascism" it becomes clearer to anyone with a brain that the word precisely describes the threat of these religious fanatics.
Such ad hominem labels are the left's primary rhetorical weapons. So when leftist students are actually confronted with even one articulate conservative, many enter a world of cognitive dissonance. That is one reason why universities rarely invite conservatives to speak: they might change some students' minds.
Regarding the term "Islamo-Fascism," most students heard the arguments I presented for the legitimacy of the term for the first time in their lives. Very briefly summarized, these arguments were:
First, the term is not anti-Muslim. One may object to the term on factual grounds, i.e., one may claim that there are no fascistic behaviors among people acting in the name of Islam -- but such a claim is a denial of the obvious.
So once one acknowledges the obvious, that there is fascistic behavior among a core of Muslims -- specifically, a cult of violence and the wanton use of physical force to impose an ideology on others -- the term "Islamo-Fascism" is entirely appropriate.
Second, the question then arises as to whether that term is anti-Muslim in that it besmirches the name of Islam and attempts to describe all Muslims as fascist. This objection, too, has a clear response.
The term no more implies all Muslims or Islam is fascistic than the term "German fascism" implied all Germans were fascists or "Italian fascism" or "Japanese fascism" implied that all Italians or all Japanese were fascists....
Third, given the horrors being perpetrated by some Muslims in the name of Islam -- from the genocide currently being practiced by the Islamic Republic of Sudan, to the mass murders of innocents in Iraq, Israel, America, Britain, Bali, Thailand, the Philippines and elsewhere -- what term is more accurate than "Islamo-Fascism"? "Islamic totalitarianism"? "Jihadists"? "Bad Muslims"?
The left's organized crusade against Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week was simply the latest shame in the long and shameful history of the left's inability to confront those engaged in great evil -- like the left's ferocious opposition during the Cold War to labeling communism as "totalitarian" or "evil" and its nearly universal condemnation of President Ronald Reagan's description of the Soviet Union as an "evil empire."
The term has angered many in the Muslim world, who see it as branding their entire religion -- and everyone who practices it -- as fascists.
"I think it's despicable," Middle East expert Juan Cole said. "Linking Islam… with a pejorative term such as fascism is extremely unfair. In fact, it is a form of racism."
Racist is, of course, a non-pejoritive term used to describe anyone who happens to disagree with Professor Cole and his ilk.
I suggest my readers check the definition of 'racism'; but last time I looked, a religion was not synonymous with a race. Further, not connecting Islam with the likes of Bin Laden, Zawahiri, Ahmadinejad--and the Mullahs, and all the other jihadist thugs out there is a form of idiocy--not to mention it would probably offend their delicate sensibilities (and Cole wouldn't want to do that!). They see themselves and their millions of followers as the true believers of the religion.
Not linking the political aspirations of these Islamic fanatics to fascism is clearly a form of psychological denial.
Which brings me back to some fundamental questions that must be answered if Western Civilization is to prevail over the Islamic barbarians at the gate.
The questions are:
For all these questions, there is one unifying answer: Postmodernism.
Reality, truth, reason, consistency, integrity and almost all the values of the Enlightenment that I discussed in this post have been abandoned--cheaply surrendered--by the intellectual elites of Western Civilization. (also discussed here , here and here for the interested)
Victor Davis Hanson once made this observation aabout the Europeans:
Europe boldly produces films about assassinating an American president, and routinely disparages the Church that gave the world the Sermon of the Mount, but it simply won’t stand up for an artist, a well-meaning Pope, or a ranting filmmaker when the mob closes in. The Europe that believes in everything turns out to believe in nothing.
And his comments are descriptive of the political left, as well. They believe in nothing.
In fact, they have finally reached the natural endpoint of the postmodern intellectual journey they began early in the last century, and arrived at the core nihilism that animates their entire belief system.
Once reason has been rejected reason and reality set aside as a basis for human actions, all that is left are the intense feelings that are the twinkling stars of the postmodern emotional universe.
Is it any wonder that the same people who aggressively champion gay rights one minute, will--when it is expedient--"throw gay men under the bus to score political points"?
Why should we expect the left to behave reasonably? Reason plays no part in their ideology or thought, such as it is. Forgetting about the many Democrats who are as corrupt as any Republican they happen to be demonizing at the moment ( excellently documented by SC&A, by the way) is not simply a benign lapse on the part of the left; it is a perfectly acceptable tactic in a conflict where the only goal is power at any price. Truth be damned.
Or just consider this popular smear tactic at Think
Only people without a lick of insight, self-awareness, honesty, or even a rudimentary sense of humor could ignore the rampant Bush=Hitler meme that dominates their side of the political spectrum and put forth a criticism of Podhoretz in such a self-righteous and ridiculous post.
The breathtaking hypocrisy simply boggles the mind; but it is all part and parcel of the postmodern rhetoric of the leftist nothings.
Postmodernism is nothing more than intellectual nihilism dressed up in academic robes. If someone ever wrote a history of psychological denial, the philosophy of postmodernism, which burst on the human scene about half a century ago, would undoubtedly have a special place.
The use of postmodern rhetoric is usually a desperate attempt on the part of the person in denial when he recognizes that logic, reason, and reality actually argue against his beliefs or purposes. This strategy can often take the form of redefining or distorting language and ideas so that they conform to ones pre-existing attitudes and emotions.
EXAMPLE: "Everything is relative anyway."
EXAMPLE: "Objective truth does not exist"
EXAMPLE: "Truth is relative and my feelings are just as important as your facts."
EXAMPLE: "My reality is just as significant as yours"
EXAMPLE: "Reality is an illusion."
In the end, they all serve to facilitate today's left in their unwillingness to confront the evil that threatens civilization in the world today. They would like you to believe that the only evil confronting the world is George Bush and have no problem equating George Bush and conservatives with fascism. But connecting Islam with fascism? That's really, really offensive. And mean. And racist.
It is, however, somewhat more in touch with reality than they would like to believe (psychological displacement is a form of denial, don't forget)
As Praeger points out, "It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists."
Tuesday, October 30, 2007
ON THE COUCH
SC&A will be interviewing me on BlogTalkRadio during his "ON THE COUCH" session. Click HERE to listen, or call in live at (347) 215-7863
CARNIVALE !
The Carnival of Latin America & the Caribbean makes its inagural flight at Fausta's Blog. Go check it out!
HELPING THE WORLD OUT OF ITS MISERY
Alvaro Vargas Llosa wonders if global capitalism makes the poor even poorer, or is it in fact rescuing millions of people out of their misery?
Read it all.
There are many groups today who claim to stand against the "evil" of globalization. "Anti-globalization" is a term most commonly used to describe the political stance of people and groups who oppose so-called "neoliberal" policies of globalization. Generally, these groups consider themselves proponents of something referred to as "social justice" and are anti-large-multi-national corporations, anti-trade agreements, anti-capitalism, and anti-war (that last is thrown in for good measure to show how they associate trade with war and injustice; when the reality is that there is an inverse association--but why should facts get in the way of their fundamentally Luddite worldview?). Without the slightest bit of evidence, except for the marxist ideology which they consciously or unconsciously embrace, they assert that globalization and capitalism damage democracy, the environment, labor , and third world societies.
As Llosa observes, nothing could be further from the truth. But, such groups are not interested in the truth.
Marxism, which was supposed to bring economic prosperity, brought misery instead, and lost the competition with capitalism very badly. This required a hasty revision of the Marxist ethical standad, which originally said that wealth was a good thing and was being taken away from the masses by the evil capitalists. "Stick with us, kiddos," the communist/socialist revolutionaries claimed (see Hugo Chavez for the most recent itiration of this scam), "and you too will become prosperous and happy beyond your wildest imaginings!"
Well, clearly they made a serious miscalculation.
You see, even Karl Marx believed that wealth was a good thing. He was only delusional in thinking that socialism would be able to deliver the goods more efficiently and "fairly" than capitalism. Reality proved him terribly and catastrophically incorrect.
It is said that the only way to make a small fortune as a Marxist is to start with a large one--and this truth has been proven repeated all over the world where Marxist ideas have been applied to national economies.
Thus, Marx's decendents have been faced with a terrible ethical dilemma. Their ideology of choice is complete crap and is unable to deliver any of the material goods it promises--so what to do? Simple! You make one tiny little ethical change, and instead of touting that wealth is good, you convince people that wealth--and everything that is necessary to create it--is bad!
An even more subtle approach is to insist that wealth and prosperity is directly correlated to unhappiness.
All these global luddites, along with their medievalist and jihadi brothers have one thing in common. They despise capitalism and are all deeply resentful of the modern era because despite all the material things available to make life easier and more enjoyable, they aren't happy!
But, guess what? Happiness is not related to the number of things one possesses. It has more to do with the power and energy that actually creates the wealth and technology--the free expression of that creative impulse that lies within every human. It has to do with taking responsibility for your own individual life and striving for the best that is within yourself.
This is the real opportunity that capitalism on a global scale brings--not the general wealth and better living conditions--those are just the by-product of unleashing the inner creative spirit and pursuing one's individual happiness; and by doing so, raising the general happiness.
Many of these anti-globalism elites mistakenly believe power over others is what will make them happy, and so they attempt to control and shackle that creative power--the best that is within others.
Their idea of "social justice" is intimately tied to making themselves feel good and establishing their own caliphate of the do-gooders, where happiness is mandated for all in equal measure. But they approach happiness from the wrong direction.
The "happiness gurus", and all those in the "self esteem" promotion business fail to understand what it is that eliminates misery--either on an individual or societal level.
Robert Samuelson writes:
Read it all. As Samuelson notes, the old adage, "Money can't buy happiness" is appropriate here. What is forgotten, however, is that money, free trade or the "increased flow of capital, goods, services and ideas" that Llosa talks about, makes everyone better off.
Over and over again we seem to be required to watch the spectacle of the wealthiest, most privileged, and yet seemingly most miserable people in the world, go on in tiresome detail how evil everything is that made their wealth and privilege possible. Many of these elites from across the globe have no problem using the same technology they hate to spread their ideological messages of anti-capitalism, anti-technology, anti-progress, and, of course, anti-Americanism (the symbol of all the previous).
What is most distressing is the desire on the part of the anti-globalists to oppose the very thing that will ease human misery; while their underlying socialist ideology encourages them to legislate or mandate happiness. This is more than just an illusion; it is a frank utopian delusion.
And, it is at the heart of why about half the population of this country isn't happy.
Happiness is not related to power over others; rather it is intimately connected to learning to have power over one's self in order to harness the capabilities within and become the best person you can be, or as Samuelson notes, "Happiness depends heavily on individual character and national culture."
And that last says it all. A culture that promotes victimhood and the entitlement mentality; and which fosters class consciousness and envy is going to be stuck in a hopeless "happiness quagmire." There are actually people who believe that they can not only "redistribute wealth", but that in doing so they will be "redistributing happiness".
But these do-gooder dictator wannabees can't have it both ways (and, of course, they do want it both ways; no matter how perverse the contradiction). They can't simultaneously morally condemn the materialism of capitalism and then at the same time redistribute the wealth it produces. So, instead they claim that they are trying to minimize human misery and promote social justice by opposing the very policies that are most likely to put the world out of its physical misery and give each person a fighting chance to tap into the potential within.
Global capitalism can't guarantee happiness; or an end to evil in the world. All it does is provide the conditions that enable the pursuit of happiness. It is the freedom to pursue that which one thinks will make one happy that, slowly but surely, decreases the level of misery in the world.
Without human freedom there can be no wealth created; because wealth is the product of the unfettered human mind. If the do-gooders really wanted to help poor of the world out of their misery, they would stand aside and let the market do what it does best.
Ever since the Industrial Revolution, poverty has been significantly reduced throughout the world. Two hundred years ago, the average income per person worldwide was the equivalent of less than $2 a day; the figure is $17 today. This fact is relevant to the current discussion on globalization because, even though the information technology revolution, biotechnology, the emergence of new world players and outsourcing may give us the impression that we are in the midst of something entirely new, we are simply witnessing a new phase in the process of innovation that is the market economy -- and this began a few hundred years ago...
The fact that 20 percent of the world's population is extremely poor should not make us forget that millions of lives have improved dramatically in the last three decades. Illiteracy has dropped from 44 percent to 18 percent, and only three countries out of a total of 102 included in the U.N.'s Human Development Index have seen their socioeconomic conditions deteriorate. China's economy used to represent one-26th of the average economy of the countries that comprise the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development; today it represents one-sixth.
These are not arcane facts. They are widely available and easy to understand. Publications such as Indur Goklany's "The Improving State of the World," David Dollar and Aart Kraay's report on the global economy, and Francois Bourguignon and Christian Morrisson's "Inequality Among World Citizens" -- to mention but three among many recent studies -- provide overwhelming evidence that the world is better off thanks to the increased flow of capital, goods, services and ideas.
All of which falls on the face of those who predict that in the next few years we will see a massive concentration of wealth among a few winners who will leave millions of losers behind. While it is probably true that the gap between low-skilled workers and those who are better educated will mean that different people will be impacted in very different ways by the continuing evolution of the global economy, the reality is that even those on the bottom rungs stand to benefit from the worldwide embrace of globalization.
Read it all.
There are many groups today who claim to stand against the "evil" of globalization. "Anti-globalization" is a term most commonly used to describe the political stance of people and groups who oppose so-called "neoliberal" policies of globalization. Generally, these groups consider themselves proponents of something referred to as "social justice" and are anti-large-multi-national corporations, anti-trade agreements, anti-capitalism, and anti-war (that last is thrown in for good measure to show how they associate trade with war and injustice; when the reality is that there is an inverse association--but why should facts get in the way of their fundamentally Luddite worldview?). Without the slightest bit of evidence, except for the marxist ideology which they consciously or unconsciously embrace, they assert that globalization and capitalism damage democracy, the environment, labor , and third world societies.
As Llosa observes, nothing could be further from the truth. But, such groups are not interested in the truth.
Marxism, which was supposed to bring economic prosperity, brought misery instead, and lost the competition with capitalism very badly. This required a hasty revision of the Marxist ethical standad, which originally said that wealth was a good thing and was being taken away from the masses by the evil capitalists. "Stick with us, kiddos," the communist/socialist revolutionaries claimed (see Hugo Chavez for the most recent itiration of this scam), "and you too will become prosperous and happy beyond your wildest imaginings!"
Well, clearly they made a serious miscalculation.
You see, even Karl Marx believed that wealth was a good thing. He was only delusional in thinking that socialism would be able to deliver the goods more efficiently and "fairly" than capitalism. Reality proved him terribly and catastrophically incorrect.
It is said that the only way to make a small fortune as a Marxist is to start with a large one--and this truth has been proven repeated all over the world where Marxist ideas have been applied to national economies.
Thus, Marx's decendents have been faced with a terrible ethical dilemma. Their ideology of choice is complete crap and is unable to deliver any of the material goods it promises--so what to do? Simple! You make one tiny little ethical change, and instead of touting that wealth is good, you convince people that wealth--and everything that is necessary to create it--is bad!
An even more subtle approach is to insist that wealth and prosperity is directly correlated to unhappiness.
All these global luddites, along with their medievalist and jihadi brothers have one thing in common. They despise capitalism and are all deeply resentful of the modern era because despite all the material things available to make life easier and more enjoyable, they aren't happy!
But, guess what? Happiness is not related to the number of things one possesses. It has more to do with the power and energy that actually creates the wealth and technology--the free expression of that creative impulse that lies within every human. It has to do with taking responsibility for your own individual life and striving for the best that is within yourself.
This is the real opportunity that capitalism on a global scale brings--not the general wealth and better living conditions--those are just the by-product of unleashing the inner creative spirit and pursuing one's individual happiness; and by doing so, raising the general happiness.
Many of these anti-globalism elites mistakenly believe power over others is what will make them happy, and so they attempt to control and shackle that creative power--the best that is within others.
Their idea of "social justice" is intimately tied to making themselves feel good and establishing their own caliphate of the do-gooders, where happiness is mandated for all in equal measure. But they approach happiness from the wrong direction.
The "happiness gurus", and all those in the "self esteem" promotion business fail to understand what it is that eliminates misery--either on an individual or societal level.
Robert Samuelson writes:
In 1974, economist Richard Easterlin pointed out that beyond a certain point -- presumably when people's basic needs for food, shelter, public order and work are met -- greater wealth does not generate more national happiness. The America of 2007 is far richer than the America of 1977. Life expectancy is 78 years, up from 74 years. Our homes are bigger and crammed with more paraphernalia (microwave ovens, personal computers, flat-panel TVs). But happiness is stuck....
The psychology of prosperity -- striving, taking risks -- feeds on ambition and insecurity. Our system often seems an insane rat race. But over time, it has created huge gains in material well-being. Air conditioning may not have made people in the South and elsewhere happier.
But it surely has made them more comfortable....
The popularity of happiness research suggests that economists and other social scientists think they can devise public policies to elevate the nation's feel-good quotient. This is an illusion. Happiness depends heavily on individual character and national culture. Some people will complain no matter how great their fortune; others will smile through the worst of times. In international comparisons, the United States ranks lower in happiness than some smaller nations (Denmark, Ireland, Sweden) but much higher than many large countries with paternalistic welfare states (France, Germany, Italy). Governments can provide health care. But they cannot outlaw despair or mandate euphoria.
Read it all. As Samuelson notes, the old adage, "Money can't buy happiness" is appropriate here. What is forgotten, however, is that money, free trade or the "increased flow of capital, goods, services and ideas" that Llosa talks about, makes everyone better off.
Over and over again we seem to be required to watch the spectacle of the wealthiest, most privileged, and yet seemingly most miserable people in the world, go on in tiresome detail how evil everything is that made their wealth and privilege possible. Many of these elites from across the globe have no problem using the same technology they hate to spread their ideological messages of anti-capitalism, anti-technology, anti-progress, and, of course, anti-Americanism (the symbol of all the previous).What is most distressing is the desire on the part of the anti-globalists to oppose the very thing that will ease human misery; while their underlying socialist ideology encourages them to legislate or mandate happiness. This is more than just an illusion; it is a frank utopian delusion.
And, it is at the heart of why about half the population of this country isn't happy.
Happiness is not related to power over others; rather it is intimately connected to learning to have power over one's self in order to harness the capabilities within and become the best person you can be, or as Samuelson notes, "Happiness depends heavily on individual character and national culture."
And that last says it all. A culture that promotes victimhood and the entitlement mentality; and which fosters class consciousness and envy is going to be stuck in a hopeless "happiness quagmire." There are actually people who believe that they can not only "redistribute wealth", but that in doing so they will be "redistributing happiness".
But these do-gooder dictator wannabees can't have it both ways (and, of course, they do want it both ways; no matter how perverse the contradiction). They can't simultaneously morally condemn the materialism of capitalism and then at the same time redistribute the wealth it produces. So, instead they claim that they are trying to minimize human misery and promote social justice by opposing the very policies that are most likely to put the world out of its physical misery and give each person a fighting chance to tap into the potential within.
Global capitalism can't guarantee happiness; or an end to evil in the world. All it does is provide the conditions that enable the pursuit of happiness. It is the freedom to pursue that which one thinks will make one happy that, slowly but surely, decreases the level of misery in the world.
Without human freedom there can be no wealth created; because wealth is the product of the unfettered human mind. If the do-gooders really wanted to help poor of the world out of their misery, they would stand aside and let the market do what it does best.
Monday, October 29, 2007
JOIN THE ENTIRE SANITY SQUAD TONITE
UPDATE: Tonight's podcast has been archived and you can listen by clicking on the button below. There were some technical glitches that made our live listeners not able to hear the podcast after about 12 minutes; but the entire podcast (plus some out-takes in the last 2 minutes) is available at the link.
Siggy, Neo, ShrinkWrapped and I will be on live tonite at 8 PM Eastern on BlogTalkRadio. Topics will include Political Narcissism (there's a lot of that going around) and perhaps some psychological commentary on Mark Steyn's column from yesterday, War Like Life Is Not A Movie.
Click on the button below to listen live beginning at 8 PM tonite, and feel free to call in to talk to any or all of us at (646)716-9116:
Listen every Monday evening at 8 PM. Our archived shows can be found here. Do you have some ideas you want us to discuss? Then leave a comment!
BUT SERIOUSLY, FOLKS
The "Chief UN nuclear watchdog Mohamed ElBaradei" :
Oh, please.
Is there any sane person today who could possibly take any statements by this person seriously anymore? Oh wait , the blog Think Delusionally does! Why am I not surprised? Elbaradei is a god to the left.
ElBaradei's job is supposedly to prevent countries like Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons, not to facilitate or cover for them in their quest with bogus statements like the above. By any reasonable standard, he's done a pretty piss-poor job of the former, and exceled at the latter.
Apparently "watchdogs" at the UN do exactly that: watch; while countries like Iran and Syria etc. (you know, all those nice countries in the Middle East who want nuclear energy for "peaceful" purposes) throw him and his fellow UN "watchdogs" in the international community a few raw steaks to keep them occupied.
But he did win a Nobel Peace Prize...which, these days, is at least as good as staying at a Holiday Inn Express!
But, seriously, folks....
Israel Matzov has more:
"Stuff"?? Feel free to begin laughing hysterically at any moment---at least, if you think nuclear weapons in the hands of the fanatics of the Middle East is a hilarious proposition.
I humbly suggest that ElBaradei and all the enablers and appeasers of the progressive left stop thinking delusionally, and get a minimal grip on reality.
And just to make sure you realize that I am in touch with reality... that last statement above is only my attempt to find some humor in the situation.
UPDATE: Others have a slightly different perspective than ElBaradei and the left: "Surgical air strike against Syria might have averted nuclear war" (or here and here):
Seriously.
...accused Israel of taking "the law into their own hands" with a raid on Syria, and demanded more information about what was hit.
Neither Israel nor the United States has furnished "any evidence at all" to prove that the Syrian site bombed last month was a secret nuclear facility, the director of the International Atomic Energy Agency told CNN.
"That, to me, is very distressful because we have a system; if countries have information that the country is working on a nuclear-related program, they should come to us. We have the authority to go out and investigate," he said.
"But to bomb first and then ask questions later, I think it undermines the system and it doesn't lead to any solution to any suspicion, because we are the eyes and ears of the international community."
Oh, please.
Is there any sane person today who could possibly take any statements by this person seriously anymore? Oh wait , the blog Think Delusionally does! Why am I not surprised? Elbaradei is a god to the left.
ElBaradei's job is supposedly to prevent countries like Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons, not to facilitate or cover for them in their quest with bogus statements like the above. By any reasonable standard, he's done a pretty piss-poor job of the former, and exceled at the latter.
Apparently "watchdogs" at the UN do exactly that: watch; while countries like Iran and Syria etc. (you know, all those nice countries in the Middle East who want nuclear energy for "peaceful" purposes) throw him and his fellow UN "watchdogs" in the international community a few raw steaks to keep them occupied.
But he did win a Nobel Peace Prize...which, these days, is at least as good as staying at a Holiday Inn Express!
But, seriously, folks....
Israel Matzov has more:
Israel bombed first and asked questions later because of the Iran experience where despite years of evidence as to what is going on, the IAEA and the international community have done nothing to stop the mullahs.ElBaradei said he had been told by Syria that the site was a military facility and "has nothing to do with nuclear...."
And of course ElBaradei believes everything he's told (by an Arab or Muslim country anyway) - every single solitary word.
Meanwhile, DEBKA is telling a very different story:The following sequence of events unfolds from the garnered documents:
Damascus and Pyongyang settled between them that the nuclear transaction would be masked as a joint venture to build a cement factory in northern Syria; meanwhile, North Korea would sell Syria cement for its development projects.
According to DEBKAfile’s sources, North Korean freighters, which began putting in at Syria’s Latakia and Tartus ports in January 2007, unloaded cargoes of cement in which nuclear reactor components and materials were concealed.
The North Korean traffic at these ports and the Durham wheat transaction attracted the attention of US and Israeli secret services.
During the next eight months – up until the Israeli attack on Syria’s North Korean installation - wheat prices shot up on international markets. Indeed the price of Durham wheat doubled. Had this been a normal commercial transaction, Syria would have claimed additional North Korean goods in compensation. In fact, when import-export officials in Damascus, who knew nothing of the nuclear reactor tradeoff, pointed Assad’s office to the price fluctuations on the wheat market, they were told that the contracts signed by the president in person must go through without changes.
When later, the Syrian wheat crop fell short of expectations, Syrian officials were again told to fill the North Korean orders in full.
On Sept. 3, the North Korean “cement ship” Al Hamed docked at Tartus. The freight it unloaded was trucked directly to the “cement factory” at Al Tibnah in the Syrian Desert, east of the Euphrates River. The Israeli attack took place three days later.
Last Tuesday, Oct. 23, the Syrian ambassador to Washington Imad Mustapha was invited to address the prestigious Institute on Religion and Public Policy. In answer to a question, he acknowledged, “Syria gives North Korea wheat, oil and other products.”
He declined to disclose what Syria got in return. When pressed on this point, Mustapha said in exasperation: “Stuff. We get stuff.”
"Stuff"?? Feel free to begin laughing hysterically at any moment---at least, if you think nuclear weapons in the hands of the fanatics of the Middle East is a hilarious proposition.
I humbly suggest that ElBaradei and all the enablers and appeasers of the progressive left stop thinking delusionally, and get a minimal grip on reality.
And just to make sure you realize that I am in touch with reality... that last statement above is only my attempt to find some humor in the situation.
UPDATE: Others have a slightly different perspective than ElBaradei and the left: "Surgical air strike against Syria might have averted nuclear war" (or here and here):
But the second picture of the same site, which was taken some six weeks after the Israeli attack, provides some powerful indications that this could indeed have been the target of the operation.
The building has simply disappeared. It has been razed to the ground and all traces of the facility, except for the pumping station, have been removed. The site is criss-crossed with caterpillar tracks from heavy earth-movers.
There is every indication that the Syrian authorities have moved swiftly and dramatically to remove all evidence of what was there.
Still there is nothing conclusive, but the evidence is slowly adding up. We still do not know for certain what the Israelis hit. We do not know how successful their attack was. And if this was some kind of nuclear installation we do not know how advanced it was or where the technology and know-how came from.
But all the evidence does point to one fact. The Syrian authorities, whatever their denials, certainly have some explaining to do.(emphasis mine)
Seriously.
Sunday, October 28, 2007
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.
**NOTE: I am now getting many more submissions than I can possibly include in the weekly Carnival. Please don't be offended if your submission is not used (oh, okay, be as offended as you like) as it only means that for a variety of reasons I wasn't able to fit it into the "flow" as I put together each Carnival.
REMEMBER, THERE ARE SO MANY INSANITIES AND SO LITTLE TIME!!!
Oh yeah..a surefire way to end the war on terror...can you support it? Here are the rules: they get to kill with impunity and you get to keep on giving them electricity! Obviously, Israel must have lost the coin-flip.
An abject apology :) Gee, does this mean we're winning? The useful idiots don't care...BRING THEM HOME NOW! First it's the gravediggers, now it's the poor taxi drivers--both brand new victimhood constituencies for the Dems, I guess.
Perfect delusional paranoia...perfect schadenfreude. Perfect psychosis. Come on now, we all know whose fault everything is!
Incomprehensible foreign policy? How could that be? EXCLUSIVE! An advance copy of TNR's next cover!
Marxist Lennonist? It's a moral relativism sort of thing--a double-reverse chicken dove thing, in fact.
Getting to the bottom of the Roswell incident while Cheney spies on Kucinich from UFO! How dare they? There are limits to how much insanity even this guy will take. Boo!
He meant Osama....Or did he mean Obama? Ok, maybe he wouldn't....
The video John Edwards doesn't want you to see! Peter Paul and Hillary--sort of a catchy name for a song and dance group, isn't it?
No noose is good noose.
What the...? Introducing the "Playzombie Centerfold"! And a new kind of TV Star!\. Whatever you do, don't bring this girl home to meet your mother!
Bullschip! Axis of Evil Cookbook? I made an Axis of Evil Fruitcake once. Suck up to a tyrant for fun and profit! But who has the best butts? Buttvertising?
Hear no evil, see no evil, and speak no evil....? Oh, perhaps it was a gift ?
In baseball, there's always hope! The other red socks.
Great taste, more filling? Why the government should control our lives. Someone should list the most common 15 white lies told by politicians....but maybe those wouldn't be so innocent or harmless?
Do bosses really nead their own national holiday? Don't let the ummm...monkeys...grind you down.
Dark matter in space, astronaut poop, and the wonderfulness of science!
Well, I'm certainly glad I won't live to see this! I mean we have trouble predicting the weather, but predicting something like this is a piece of cake.
***************************************
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:
Saturday, October 27, 2007
THE MARRIAGE OF PARANOID MINDS
International Committee of 'Truth-Seekers'? Yeah, right.
They seek the truth with the same diligence and dedication that OJ seeks his wife's real murderer; or Jimmy Carter, who never met a dictator he didn't like, supports real democracy and freedom in the world.
Wretchard has an amazing account of yet another courageous 'truth-seeker'; and while I was reading his post, it struck me how incredibly in sync the Islamofascists and the useful idiots of the left are.... To paraphrase the Bard, far be it from to admit impediments to the marriage of paranoid minds.
The specific delusion might be different, but both are in the throes of a psychotic process.
They seek the truth with the same diligence and dedication that OJ seeks his wife's real murderer; or Jimmy Carter, who never met a dictator he didn't like, supports real democracy and freedom in the world.
Wretchard has an amazing account of yet another courageous 'truth-seeker'; and while I was reading his post, it struck me how incredibly in sync the Islamofascists and the useful idiots of the left are.... To paraphrase the Bard, far be it from to admit impediments to the marriage of paranoid minds.
The specific delusion might be different, but both are in the throes of a psychotic process.
ET TU, LAURA ?
Sorry, I don't see this as respect for another culture. I see it basically the same way Michael Goldfarb does:When, earlier this week, I saw the pictures of the first lady sitting on a pink couch bracketed by, well, you couldn’t quite tell what they were, because they're wearing head-to-toe burqas, I thought she was making a powerful statement. Americans don't force their women to wear those ridiculous outfits, and by all rights they shouldn’t be forced to do so just because they are visiting a Muslim country. We live in a free country--if Muslims (or anyone else trying to go incognito) want to wear those things over here, that’s their prerogative. By the same token, any American woman wishing to brazenly flash a little ankle is also free to do so.
Most Americans traveling the Middle East have little recourse but to don the black sheets, but the first lady certainly does. She can dress as she likes....
And what will happen if Hillary wins the White House in 2008? Will she be expected to don the burqa on her trips to Saudi? One would hope not. Sitting presidents don't take fashion commands from foreign dignitaries, and neither should first ladies. Where are the feminists when we actually need them? (emphasis mine)
The feminists? LOL That's a joke, surely? They've been AWOL for a long, long time now. And they are far too culturally sensitive to want to offend the poor victimized misogynists of the Middle East.
I'm really disappointed in Laura Bush.
Friday, October 26, 2007
PSYCHOLOGICAL DISPLACEMENT IN ACTION !
In today's SANITY SQUAD PODCAST on defense mechanisms (go here to listen) one of the points of discussion was the use of psychological displacement by today's political left. Here is a perfect example of displacement in action (and, the cartoon itself demonstrates a mature defense, humor) :
LISTEN LIVE TO THE SANITY SQUAD TODAY !
UPDATE: You can now listen to the archived show on Politics and Psychological Defense Mechanisms by clicking on the button below:
Siggy and I talk about some creative ways of coping with reality that are used by individuals and groups. These creative manipulations of reality are known as "psychological defenses", and they can be adaptive or maladaptive; mature or immature--for both the individuals and groups using them. And, everybody uses them.
Does this have political implications? You bet it does!
The show starts at 10:30 AM EST. Click on the button below to listen live, and feel free to call in to ask questions or join the chat. We're still testing out the BlogTalkRadio medium and welcome live callers with questions for either of us!
CALL IN NUMBER IS: (646) 716-9116
Starting next Monday, the entire Sanity Squad fab four, including Neo and Shrink will debut regularly on Monday nights at 8 pm.
Also, if you haven't checked out the new program "ON THE COUCH with Siggy" at BlogTalkRadio, you can go here to listen to the debut podcast that has Siggy interviewing Fausta of Fausta's Blog .
Siggy and I talk about some creative ways of coping with reality that are used by individuals and groups. These creative manipulations of reality are known as "psychological defenses", and they can be adaptive or maladaptive; mature or immature--for both the individuals and groups using them. And, everybody uses them.
Does this have political implications? You bet it does!
The show starts at 10:30 AM EST. Click on the button below to listen live, and feel free to call in to ask questions or join the chat. We're still testing out the BlogTalkRadio medium and welcome live callers with questions for either of us!
CALL IN NUMBER IS: (646) 716-9116
Starting next Monday, the entire Sanity Squad fab four, including Neo and Shrink will debut regularly on Monday nights at 8 pm.
Also, if you haven't checked out the new program "ON THE COUCH with Siggy" at BlogTalkRadio, you can go here to listen to the debut podcast that has Siggy interviewing Fausta of Fausta's Blog .
Thursday, October 25, 2007
KILL THE MESSENGER
I notice that LA Times writer Rosa Brooks has a teaser in the op-ed pages where she makes the following statement (hat tip: The Corner):
I don't link to the actual op-ed piece simply because when you click on the link it isn't actually there. I wonder if perhaps Brooks was hallucinating that she wrote it?
It's entirely possible. People in denial are psychologically and physiologically primed for significant cognitive dysfunction.
Let's take a look at the remarks about Iran that Bush uttered which has Ms Brooks all upset. They were in an October 17 Press Conference in answer to questions by Brett Baer of FoxNews:
Now, I make my living assessing the mental state of the people I see. Nothing in the above statement by the President is the least bit out of touch with reality. In fact, Brooks might consider the possibility that the President of the U.S. could possibly know more about what's going on in Iran (and with Putin) than Rosa Brooks does.
The President lays out his points in the usual forthright and direct manner that characterizes his personality, and which is so incredibly annoying to the dissemblers and manipulators of Washington.
Let me put it bluntly. President Bush, when he says that, if Iran gets a nuclear weapon, the world is in danger of having World War III, is so much in touch with a really really uncomfortable reality that it is actually rather frightening to any sane person. If you haven't come to the same conclusion, then I would suggest you reconsider your own relationship to reality.
Frightened people can cope with their fear in a number of ways. They can simply deny that the reality exists (Iran only wants nuclear energy for 'peaceful purposes'); they can minimize or distort the reality (So what if Iran gets a nuclear weapon? We can learn to live with it) etc. etc. The creative ways that people use to alter the truth in order to make themselves feel less anxiety or discomfort is often rather astonishing; and believe me, I have probably seen them all over the last 25 years of clinical practice.
But one particular psychological technique has become a mainstay these days, particularly on the political left, and it is a variation on the "kill the messenger" theme.
I see this theme all the time in practice when I confront (sometimes delicately, sometimes not) some issue that a patient doesn't want to deal with. Their response is swift and frequently highly emotional. Usually they become angry or enraged at me and proceed to "fire" me from their care entirely. In the back of their minds is the hope that maybe the next doctor will allow them to continue to abuse drugs; or let them get away with behavior that is personally or societally destructive, without any comment.
Whatever. That is ok by me. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make them drink --to use a proverb commonly brought out in the psychiatric evaluation.
In the case of President Bush, it is his very straightforwardness and lack of guile, that make him an easy target for those who want the message deleted, ignored, distorted, or unspoken.
'Kill the messenger' is a form of psychological displacement.
As a psychiatrist, I can't help but notice that there's an unbelievable amount of psychological displacement being used right now (see here and here for more discussion) to cope with the painful realities of our day.
Displacement is one of the primary psychological maneuvers that covers-up or disguises blatant self-deception and self-delusion. It is, for example, behind most of the more vicious attacks on President Bush for anything he does; and for anything he doesn't do. He is behind every evil like some modern-day Moriarity, a criminal and godlike genius who is simultaneously a moron and incompetent. We are not talking about a mere dislike of the President; nor is this simply "politics as usual". Rather, it is an unreasoning and implacable, visceral hatred of George W. Bush for the sin of existing. This hatred is so intense that it is stunning to any rational observer; and its manifestations have been made into a 'diagnosis' of "Bush Derangement Syndrome".
Clinically, the symptoms of this syndrome are as disabling and as dysfunctional as any other post-traumatic stress disorder.
Displacement is the separation of an emotion from its real object and its redirection toward someone or something that is less offensive or threatening in order to avoid having to deal directly with what is frightening or threatening. It is a very useful type of psychological denial which distorts and obscures reality.
You suspect that this type of denial is at work when an individual expresses an emotion toward someone or something (e.g., anger or fear) that is way out of proportion to the reality of the situation. Ordinary dislike is transformed into a visceral, implacable hatred; anxiety morphs into hysteria; and ordinary frustration at being thwarted in one's desires becomes rabid, impassioned rage.
A simple, straightforward statement of facts is interpreted as 'psychotic' and 'fearmongering'. Never mind that one should be afraid. Very afraid.
The purpose of displacement is to avoid having to cope with an unpalatable reality in order to maintain a belief, a world view, or even one's sense of self. By using displacement, an individual is able to still experience his or her anger or fear; but since it is now directed at a less threatening target than the real one, the individual is able to feel much less anxious and safer.
Thus, the individual can delude themselves into thinking they are doing something about what threatens them, when in reality, they are blind to it ("fiddling while Rome burns" so to speak). Conveniently, the individual using displacement (or any other form of denial) does not have to take responsibility for the consequences of his/her emotion, and can also externalize any blame or consequence on the object of their emotional displacement.
They simultaneously feel safe AND virtuous, even though neither emotion is justified--at least, not for long. Every problem is easily explained away and the solution becomes oh so simple. In this case, GET RID OF BUSH ("straitjacket" him) and IRAN ISN'T A PROBLEM ANYMORE
Wonderful! Amazing! Delusional!
Let's review:
For those who may have forgotten or never known, let me remind you that Iranian clerics have already issued a fatwa approving the use of nuclear weapons against the enemies of Islam.
Of course, we are told by the left that, "Iran is only seeking peace!" and that the U.S. is by far the greater threat (see the Cox and Forkum cartoon at the end of this post). "Hand's Off Iran", they chant at their peace marches.
If they really cared about peace, it might be more useful for them to march in Tehran rather than exhorting Americans to straitjacket Bush. Somehow, I can't see them doing anything of the sort , when they live in the same utopian fantasyland as the jihadists they tacitly enable.
Here are the words of one of Iran's "moderates" on the subject of nuclear weapons:
Think about that, then call to mind the recent British-Iran hostage crisis and the Brit's pathetic response to Iran's provocative, outrageous, and uncivilized behavior. Victor Davis Hanson commented in an aptly named piece written at that time, "A Taste of Things To Come":
Think about that for a moment.
If the leaders of the free world cannot respond appropriately and decisively to any direct act of war against the West on the part of Iran--no matter how egregious-- then the behavior of Iran's leaders is not likely to change.
On the contrary, their constantly provocative behavior will very likely escalate and become even more malignant, inching closer and closer to their real objective. They can count on the self-absorbed pacifists of the left obscuring the moral landscape sufficiently to clear a path for Iran to initiate the next holocaust.
The mullahs have been watching the West's tepid responses to their escalating and arrogant behavior with great interest. They observe the useful idiots of the left in America and Europe allying themselves with the Islamofascist agenda. Both of these observations have led them certainly to conclude that they can get away with practically any behavior now.
The fatwa and all the repeated unambiguous and deliberate warnings made by both extremists like Ahmadinejad and so-called moderates like Rafsanjani, demonstrate that Iran has now placed all their religious ducks in a row in order to be able to use nuclear weapons against "the enemies of Islam" (guess who?) without the necessity of experiencing any shame.
In fact, in their bizarro religious and cultural world, the shameful weakness displayed by all the major nations of the West, has brought Iran great honor in that world (see how a shame culture works here).
When you observe the arrogant, smirking demeanor of the psychopath-in-chief Ahmadinejad (who , all evidence does indicate should be in a straitjacket), as he calculatedly baits the West with same postmodern rhetoric emanating from the "peace, brotherhood, and social justice" leftists and Democrats--even as he hosts holocaust denial conferences and has contests to see who can come up with the best anti-semitic cartoons--you can reasonably conclude that this sort of cynical manipulation of the useful idiots of the left is simply the preliminary act to set the secular stage for removing Israel and the Jews.
Is there anyone naive enough to think that these homicidal fanatics would hesitate for one second to use a nuclear weapon against Israel--even if it meant millions Iranians would be also destroyed in a counterattack? From their warped perspective, the involuntary martyrdom of a few million muslims in Iran is a small price to pay to finish the job that the much-admired Hitler began in the last century.
From their perspective, Hitler. whose "struggle" against the Jews was unfortunately cut off before achieving final solution, was limited by not having the efficient technology available today. Iran does not intend to make that mistake.
What a grand gesture for the muslims of the world to witness and emulate! Iran strapping on the nuclear suicide bomb around its entire population to gloriously rid Islam of the Jewish menace.
Note that the rhetoric has escalated and the defiance against the international community has moved from words to actual behavior that includes killing Americans and taking British soldiers hostage. Further escalation is unavoidable now that the Iranians are completely sure that any action on their part will only be met by appeasement and endless negotiation.
In other words, the West has accepted Iran's sociopathic and uncivilized behavior and will do nothing to stop them.
From a psychological perspective, the increasingly amused and smug Iranian response to efforts of appeasement and negotiation has always been completely predictable. Bullies will always push the envelope of bad behavior when they think they can get away with it; and if they think that you are weak.
And they are getting away with it, aren't they?
It is easy to understand Ahmadinejad's smug, arrogant attitude; as well as his supreme confidence in Islam's superiority. He is convinced that he is the instrument of Allah's will, and this is only reinforced when he witnesses the pathetic appeasement and fear emanating from the infidels he means to destroy.
It's no use saying that such behavior on his part doesn't make sense and is irrational and suicidal. As I have suggested before, just think of Ahmadinejad and his puppet-masters as the ultimate, high-tech suicide bomber who has wrapped that nuclear bomb belt securely around his entire country.
Ron Rosenbaum bleakly concludes in the post linked earlier:
So, I ask you. Is President Bush "psychotic" because he has chosen to face this reality head on? Or, is this just another example of the same psychological displacement that motivates BDS and allows so many people in this country to avoid dealing with an unpleasant and rather frightening reality
If WWIII (or IV, depending on your perspective) can be prevented, then the first reality that must be faced is that IRAN is the threat to world peace...not the U.S. or it President.
UPDATE: The link to Brooks' article now appears to be fixed. Go read it and judge for yourself the level of dysfunction exhibited. Go here to evaluate the level of complete denial we are dealing with in Ms. Brooks.
Straitjacket Bush
Rosa Brooks: The president's warmongering remarks on the Iranian threat suggest he is psychotic. Really.
I don't link to the actual op-ed piece simply because when you click on the link it isn't actually there. I wonder if perhaps Brooks was hallucinating that she wrote it?
It's entirely possible. People in denial are psychologically and physiologically primed for significant cognitive dysfunction.
Let's take a look at the remarks about Iran that Bush uttered which has Ms Brooks all upset. They were in an October 17 Press Conference in answer to questions by Brett Baer of FoxNews:
Q Mr. President, I'd like to follow on Mr. -- on President Putin's visit to Tehran. It's not about the image of President Putin and President Ahmadinejad, but about the words that Vladimir Putin said there. He issued a stern warning against potential U.S. military action -- U.S. military action against Tehran --
THE PRESIDENT: Did he say U.S.?
Q Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Oh, he did?
Q He said -- well, at least the quote said that -- and he also said, "He sees no evidence to suggest Iran wants to build a nuclear bomb." Were you disappointed with that message? And does that indicate possibly that international pressure is not as great as you once thought against Iran abandoning its nuclear program?
THE PRESIDENT: I -- as I said, I look forward to -- if those are, in fact, his comments, I look forward to having him clarify those, because when I visited with him, he understands that it's in the world's interest to make sure that Iran does not have the capacity to make a nuclear weapon. And that's why, on -- in the first round at the U.N., he joined us, and second round, we joined together to send a message. I mean, if he wasn't concerned about it, Bret, then why did we have such good progress at the United Nations in round one and round two?
And so I will visit with him about it. I have not yet been briefed yet by Condi or Bob Gates about, you know, their visit with Vladimir Putin.
Q But you definitively believe Iran wants to build a nuclear weapon?
THE PRESIDENT: I think so long -- until they suspend and/or make it clear that they -- that their statements aren't real, yeah, I believe they want to have the capacity, the knowledge, in order to make a nuclear weapon. And I know it's in the world's interest to prevent them from doing so. I believe that the Iranian -- if Iran had a nuclear weapon, it would be a dangerous threat to world peace.
But this -- we got a leader in Iran who has announced that he wants to destroy Israel. So I've told people that if you're interested in avoiding World War III, it seems like you ought to be interested in preventing them from have the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon. I take the threat of Iran with a nuclear weapon very seriously. And we'll continue to work with all nations about the seriousness of this threat. Plus we'll continue working the financial measures that we're in the process of doing. In other words, I think -- the whole strategy is, is that at some point in time, leaders or responsible folks inside of Iran may get tired of isolation and say, this isn't worth it. And to me, it's worth the effort to keep the pressure on this government.
And secondly, it's important for the Iranian people to know we harbor no resentment to them. We're disappointed in the Iranian government's actions, as should they be. Inflation is way too high; isolation is causing economic pain. This is a country that has got a much better future, people have got a much better -- should have better hope inside Iran than this current government is providing them.
So it's -- look, it's a complex issue, no question about it. But my intent is to continue to rally the world to send a focused signal to the Iranian government that we will continue to work to isolate you, in the hopes that at some point in time, somebody else shows up and says it's not worth the isolation.
Now, I make my living assessing the mental state of the people I see. Nothing in the above statement by the President is the least bit out of touch with reality. In fact, Brooks might consider the possibility that the President of the U.S. could possibly know more about what's going on in Iran (and with Putin) than Rosa Brooks does.
The President lays out his points in the usual forthright and direct manner that characterizes his personality, and which is so incredibly annoying to the dissemblers and manipulators of Washington.
Let me put it bluntly. President Bush, when he says that, if Iran gets a nuclear weapon, the world is in danger of having World War III, is so much in touch with a really really uncomfortable reality that it is actually rather frightening to any sane person. If you haven't come to the same conclusion, then I would suggest you reconsider your own relationship to reality.
Frightened people can cope with their fear in a number of ways. They can simply deny that the reality exists (Iran only wants nuclear energy for 'peaceful purposes'); they can minimize or distort the reality (So what if Iran gets a nuclear weapon? We can learn to live with it) etc. etc. The creative ways that people use to alter the truth in order to make themselves feel less anxiety or discomfort is often rather astonishing; and believe me, I have probably seen them all over the last 25 years of clinical practice.
But one particular psychological technique has become a mainstay these days, particularly on the political left, and it is a variation on the "kill the messenger" theme.
I see this theme all the time in practice when I confront (sometimes delicately, sometimes not) some issue that a patient doesn't want to deal with. Their response is swift and frequently highly emotional. Usually they become angry or enraged at me and proceed to "fire" me from their care entirely. In the back of their minds is the hope that maybe the next doctor will allow them to continue to abuse drugs; or let them get away with behavior that is personally or societally destructive, without any comment.
Whatever. That is ok by me. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make them drink --to use a proverb commonly brought out in the psychiatric evaluation.
In the case of President Bush, it is his very straightforwardness and lack of guile, that make him an easy target for those who want the message deleted, ignored, distorted, or unspoken.
'Kill the messenger' is a form of psychological displacement.
As a psychiatrist, I can't help but notice that there's an unbelievable amount of psychological displacement being used right now (see here and here for more discussion) to cope with the painful realities of our day.
Displacement is one of the primary psychological maneuvers that covers-up or disguises blatant self-deception and self-delusion. It is, for example, behind most of the more vicious attacks on President Bush for anything he does; and for anything he doesn't do. He is behind every evil like some modern-day Moriarity, a criminal and godlike genius who is simultaneously a moron and incompetent. We are not talking about a mere dislike of the President; nor is this simply "politics as usual". Rather, it is an unreasoning and implacable, visceral hatred of George W. Bush for the sin of existing. This hatred is so intense that it is stunning to any rational observer; and its manifestations have been made into a 'diagnosis' of "Bush Derangement Syndrome".
Clinically, the symptoms of this syndrome are as disabling and as dysfunctional as any other post-traumatic stress disorder.
Displacement is the separation of an emotion from its real object and its redirection toward someone or something that is less offensive or threatening in order to avoid having to deal directly with what is frightening or threatening. It is a very useful type of psychological denial which distorts and obscures reality.
You suspect that this type of denial is at work when an individual expresses an emotion toward someone or something (e.g., anger or fear) that is way out of proportion to the reality of the situation. Ordinary dislike is transformed into a visceral, implacable hatred; anxiety morphs into hysteria; and ordinary frustration at being thwarted in one's desires becomes rabid, impassioned rage.
A simple, straightforward statement of facts is interpreted as 'psychotic' and 'fearmongering'. Never mind that one should be afraid. Very afraid.
The purpose of displacement is to avoid having to cope with an unpalatable reality in order to maintain a belief, a world view, or even one's sense of self. By using displacement, an individual is able to still experience his or her anger or fear; but since it is now directed at a less threatening target than the real one, the individual is able to feel much less anxious and safer.
Thus, the individual can delude themselves into thinking they are doing something about what threatens them, when in reality, they are blind to it ("fiddling while Rome burns" so to speak). Conveniently, the individual using displacement (or any other form of denial) does not have to take responsibility for the consequences of his/her emotion, and can also externalize any blame or consequence on the object of their emotional displacement.
They simultaneously feel safe AND virtuous, even though neither emotion is justified--at least, not for long. Every problem is easily explained away and the solution becomes oh so simple. In this case, GET RID OF BUSH ("straitjacket" him) and IRAN ISN'T A PROBLEM ANYMORE
Wonderful! Amazing! Delusional!
Let's review:
For those who may have forgotten or never known, let me remind you that Iranian clerics have already issued a fatwa approving the use of nuclear weapons against the enemies of Islam.
Of course, we are told by the left that, "Iran is only seeking peace!" and that the U.S. is by far the greater threat (see the Cox and Forkum cartoon at the end of this post). "Hand's Off Iran", they chant at their peace marches.
If they really cared about peace, it might be more useful for them to march in Tehran rather than exhorting Americans to straitjacket Bush. Somehow, I can't see them doing anything of the sort , when they live in the same utopian fantasyland as the jihadists they tacitly enable.
Here are the words of one of Iran's "moderates" on the subject of nuclear weapons:
“If one day the world of Islam comes to possess the weapons currently in Israel’s possession [meaning nuclear weapons]—on that day this method of global arrogance would come to a dead end. This…is because the use of a nuclear bomb in Israel will leave nothing on the ground, whereas it will only damage the world of Islam.”
Think about that, then call to mind the recent British-Iran hostage crisis and the Brit's pathetic response to Iran's provocative, outrageous, and uncivilized behavior. Victor Davis Hanson commented in an aptly named piece written at that time, "A Taste of Things To Come":
What is disturbing about the Iranian piracy is that it establishes a warning of what we can come to expect when Iran is nuclear, and how organizations like the UN, the EU, and NATO will react. If a few Iranian terrorists in boats can paralyze an entire nation and the above agencies, think what a half-dozen Iranian nukes will do.
Think about that for a moment.
If the leaders of the free world cannot respond appropriately and decisively to any direct act of war against the West on the part of Iran--no matter how egregious-- then the behavior of Iran's leaders is not likely to change.
On the contrary, their constantly provocative behavior will very likely escalate and become even more malignant, inching closer and closer to their real objective. They can count on the self-absorbed pacifists of the left obscuring the moral landscape sufficiently to clear a path for Iran to initiate the next holocaust.
The mullahs have been watching the West's tepid responses to their escalating and arrogant behavior with great interest. They observe the useful idiots of the left in America and Europe allying themselves with the Islamofascist agenda. Both of these observations have led them certainly to conclude that they can get away with practically any behavior now.
The fatwa and all the repeated unambiguous and deliberate warnings made by both extremists like Ahmadinejad and so-called moderates like Rafsanjani, demonstrate that Iran has now placed all their religious ducks in a row in order to be able to use nuclear weapons against "the enemies of Islam" (guess who?) without the necessity of experiencing any shame.
In fact, in their bizarro religious and cultural world, the shameful weakness displayed by all the major nations of the West, has brought Iran great honor in that world (see how a shame culture works here).
When you observe the arrogant, smirking demeanor of the psychopath-in-chief Ahmadinejad (who , all evidence does indicate should be in a straitjacket), as he calculatedly baits the West with same postmodern rhetoric emanating from the "peace, brotherhood, and social justice" leftists and Democrats--even as he hosts holocaust denial conferences and has contests to see who can come up with the best anti-semitic cartoons--you can reasonably conclude that this sort of cynical manipulation of the useful idiots of the left is simply the preliminary act to set the secular stage for removing Israel and the Jews.
Is there anyone naive enough to think that these homicidal fanatics would hesitate for one second to use a nuclear weapon against Israel--even if it meant millions Iranians would be also destroyed in a counterattack? From their warped perspective, the involuntary martyrdom of a few million muslims in Iran is a small price to pay to finish the job that the much-admired Hitler began in the last century.
From their perspective, Hitler. whose "struggle" against the Jews was unfortunately cut off before achieving final solution, was limited by not having the efficient technology available today. Iran does not intend to make that mistake.
What a grand gesture for the muslims of the world to witness and emulate! Iran strapping on the nuclear suicide bomb around its entire population to gloriously rid Islam of the Jewish menace.
Note that the rhetoric has escalated and the defiance against the international community has moved from words to actual behavior that includes killing Americans and taking British soldiers hostage. Further escalation is unavoidable now that the Iranians are completely sure that any action on their part will only be met by appeasement and endless negotiation.
In other words, the West has accepted Iran's sociopathic and uncivilized behavior and will do nothing to stop them.
From a psychological perspective, the increasingly amused and smug Iranian response to efforts of appeasement and negotiation has always been completely predictable. Bullies will always push the envelope of bad behavior when they think they can get away with it; and if they think that you are weak.
And they are getting away with it, aren't they?
It is easy to understand Ahmadinejad's smug, arrogant attitude; as well as his supreme confidence in Islam's superiority. He is convinced that he is the instrument of Allah's will, and this is only reinforced when he witnesses the pathetic appeasement and fear emanating from the infidels he means to destroy.
It's no use saying that such behavior on his part doesn't make sense and is irrational and suicidal. As I have suggested before, just think of Ahmadinejad and his puppet-masters as the ultimate, high-tech suicide bomber who has wrapped that nuclear bomb belt securely around his entire country.
Ron Rosenbaum bleakly concludes in the post linked earlier:
There is no deterrent to suicidal martyrdom, involuntary mass martrydom. No deterrent that depends on belief in the value of life by genocidal murderers on a “martyrdom mission”. Then asks, Is there a solution to this problem aside from pre-emptive strikes which will likely be catastrophic for both sides and probably only postpone a second Holocaust? Are there any deterrrents that will stop Ahmadinejad and his ilk from carrying out their genocidal designs?
So, I ask you. Is President Bush "psychotic" because he has chosen to face this reality head on? Or, is this just another example of the same psychological displacement that motivates BDS and allows so many people in this country to avoid dealing with an unpleasant and rather frightening reality
If WWIII (or IV, depending on your perspective) can be prevented, then the first reality that must be faced is that IRAN is the threat to world peace...not the U.S. or it President.
UPDATE: The link to Brooks' article now appears to be fixed. Go read it and judge for yourself the level of dysfunction exhibited. Go here to evaluate the level of complete denial we are dealing with in Ms. Brooks.
THEY JUST CLOSE THEIR EYES
The folks at Stop Hillary Now wonder if the voters care about her fundraising scandals. (See here, for more information).
Its a very good question.
Let me put forth a very deep psychological explanation to the tune of "Smoke Gets In Your Eyes":
YOU JUST CLOSE YOUR EYES
We asked them how they knew
Hillary was true?
And they of course replied,
Feelings cannot be denied...
We said someday you'll find,
The Democrats are blind;
Oh, when your brain's on pause
Because you have a cause,
You just close your eyes!
But they booed; and were so awfully rude
To think we'd doubt their sense;
The MSM won't speak, denial is what they seek
Hillary can do no wrong...
We will never understand;
When she's caught with cash in hand,
They'll still smile and say,
"What a lovely day!
Please just go away...."
Denial is never asking why--
When you want to cry,
It's reality you deny,
So they just close their eyes.
Its a very good question.
Let me put forth a very deep psychological explanation to the tune of "Smoke Gets In Your Eyes":
YOU JUST CLOSE YOUR EYES
We asked them how they knew
Hillary was true?
And they of course replied,
Feelings cannot be denied...
We said someday you'll find,
The Democrats are blind;
Oh, when your brain's on pause
Because you have a cause,
You just close your eyes!
But they booed; and were so awfully rude
To think we'd doubt their sense;
The MSM won't speak, denial is what they seek
Hillary can do no wrong...
We will never understand;
When she's caught with cash in hand,
They'll still smile and say,
"What a lovely day!
Please just go away...."
Denial is never asking why--
When you want to cry,
It's reality you deny,
So they just close their eyes.
Wednesday, October 24, 2007
THE LEFT'S Savage Secret
Never ones to miss an opportunity to dress up as drama queens, leading leftists are once again racheting up their rhetoric and swooning over the evils of George W. Bush--blaming him (and "his" war) for the horrific fires in Southern California.
Think I am kidding? Check out here, here, and here if you have trouble believing it.
None of their rhetoric has, or will have, anything remotely to do with reality; but hey! The left feels strongly and passionately about something, therefore, it becomes real for them.
We are living in a police state! Bush is Hitler! Christians are trying to impose a theocracy on America. We are being persecuted! Blah blah victims blah oppression blah fascist blah blah blah! And so on and so forth.
I have written multiple times about the narcissistic histrionics and exaggerated emotionalism of today's left (see here and here, for example). We saw a lot of this sort of hysterical emoting during Hurricane Katrina, where the left was determined to transform a natural disaster into an indictment of their hated political opponents on charges of racism, insensitivity, and even "genocide".
Remember the 1984 movie Romancing the Stone, a romantic comedy from 1984? In the opening sequence, a dramatization of Joan Wilder's book The Savage Secret, an evil cowboy named Grogan (Ted White) storms in on a sexy damsel in distress named Angelina (Kymberly Herrin). Angelina, about to be raped by Grogan, tells the audience that he killed her father, raped and murdered her sister, burned down her ranch, shot her dog and stole her Bible. She then kills him and, pursued by Grogan's brothers is rescued by her one true love. They ride off into the sunset, stage left.
This is a typical romance novel plot--exaggerated for dramatic effect, shallow but enthralling at the same time--and it introduces the comedic tone of the entire movie.
I was reminded of its excesses yesterday, and by the similarities of that particular scene from the movie and the left's neverending comedic script about another "evil" cowboy, who "killed" their presidential candidate; "raped and murdered" women's rights", burned down southern California (and flooded New Orleans); "shot" their donkey, and stole the high moral ground right out from under their feet.
They will ride off into the sunset when their beloved "Jesse" wins the White House, symbolically slaying all those awful cowboys who took it away from them.
That's what the political left has become folks. A lough-out-loud, bodice-ripping farce of a movement, whose scriptwriters seem to always get carried away by the emotion and drama of the moment.
Which brings me to hysteria.
Hysteria is a concept characterized by a wide variety of physical and mental symptoms that result from dissociating one's cognitive functioning from one's emotion and/or behavior. The psychological defense that makes this happen is known as dissociation.
For the hysteric emotions are primary and are not subject to an objective reality.
When we speak of someone becoming "hysterical" or "histrionic", we are talking about behavior that exhibits overwhelming or unmanageable emotional excess.
Welcome to the wonderful world of feelings, nothing more than feelings (cue music), where there really is nothing more than feelings at play.
This is a world where there is no objective reality or truth; a world where, if you believe something is true, then it is. In other words, it is a world where something can be considered "fake but accurate" or where captured enemy combatants in the middle of a war are considered in a "gulag"; or, where a "religion of peace" beheads people; is so terrified of women's sexuality they must "liberate" them by forcing them to wear sacks over their bodies; and which promotes blowing yourself up in a crowd as a devout religious act.
A variety of altered states of consciousness may result from the dissociative process. In one dissociated or hysterical state, sleep-walking (sonambulism), the person appears to be out of contact with his environment, is seemingly unresponsive to external stimuli, and in many cases appears to be living out a vivid, hallucinated drama.
Drama of any sort suits the hysteric's modus operandi extremely well. The drama is designed to mask the fact that the individual is in psychological denial; and, as I have noted previously,
at the center of all psychological denial is a hidden agenda. That agenda is usually not completely conscious--meaning that the denier has not thought through the issues surrounding his denial; and may not even be aware of what his motivation is in asserting something is true when it isn't; or false when it isn't....
And that is their Savage Secret.
UPDATE: Of course we all know who's fault global warming is; and that it would have been dealt with swiftly and firmly if Gore were president.
Think I am kidding? Check out here, here, and here if you have trouble believing it.
None of their rhetoric has, or will have, anything remotely to do with reality; but hey! The left feels strongly and passionately about something, therefore, it becomes real for them.
We are living in a police state! Bush is Hitler! Christians are trying to impose a theocracy on America. We are being persecuted! Blah blah victims blah oppression blah fascist blah blah blah! And so on and so forth.
I have written multiple times about the narcissistic histrionics and exaggerated emotionalism of today's left (see here and here, for example). We saw a lot of this sort of hysterical emoting during Hurricane Katrina, where the left was determined to transform a natural disaster into an indictment of their hated political opponents on charges of racism, insensitivity, and even "genocide".
Remember the 1984 movie Romancing the Stone, a romantic comedy from 1984? In the opening sequence, a dramatization of Joan Wilder's book The Savage Secret, an evil cowboy named Grogan (Ted White) storms in on a sexy damsel in distress named Angelina (Kymberly Herrin). Angelina, about to be raped by Grogan, tells the audience that he killed her father, raped and murdered her sister, burned down her ranch, shot her dog and stole her Bible. She then kills him and, pursued by Grogan's brothers is rescued by her one true love. They ride off into the sunset, stage left.This is a typical romance novel plot--exaggerated for dramatic effect, shallow but enthralling at the same time--and it introduces the comedic tone of the entire movie.
I was reminded of its excesses yesterday, and by the similarities of that particular scene from the movie and the left's neverending comedic script about another "evil" cowboy, who "killed" their presidential candidate; "raped and murdered" women's rights", burned down southern California (and flooded New Orleans); "shot" their donkey, and stole the high moral ground right out from under their feet.
They will ride off into the sunset when their beloved "Jesse" wins the White House, symbolically slaying all those awful cowboys who took it away from them.
That's what the political left has become folks. A lough-out-loud, bodice-ripping farce of a movement, whose scriptwriters seem to always get carried away by the emotion and drama of the moment.
Which brings me to hysteria.
Hysteria is a concept characterized by a wide variety of physical and mental symptoms that result from dissociating one's cognitive functioning from one's emotion and/or behavior. The psychological defense that makes this happen is known as dissociation.
For the hysteric emotions are primary and are not subject to an objective reality.
When we speak of someone becoming "hysterical" or "histrionic", we are talking about behavior that exhibits overwhelming or unmanageable emotional excess.
Welcome to the wonderful world of feelings, nothing more than feelings (cue music), where there really is nothing more than feelings at play.
This is a world where there is no objective reality or truth; a world where, if you believe something is true, then it is. In other words, it is a world where something can be considered "fake but accurate" or where captured enemy combatants in the middle of a war are considered in a "gulag"; or, where a "religion of peace" beheads people; is so terrified of women's sexuality they must "liberate" them by forcing them to wear sacks over their bodies; and which promotes blowing yourself up in a crowd as a devout religious act.
A variety of altered states of consciousness may result from the dissociative process. In one dissociated or hysterical state, sleep-walking (sonambulism), the person appears to be out of contact with his environment, is seemingly unresponsive to external stimuli, and in many cases appears to be living out a vivid, hallucinated drama.
Drama of any sort suits the hysteric's modus operandi extremely well. The drama is designed to mask the fact that the individual is in psychological denial; and, as I have noted previously,
at the center of all psychological denial is a hidden agenda. That agenda is usually not completely conscious--meaning that the denier has not thought through the issues surrounding his denial; and may not even be aware of what his motivation is in asserting something is true when it isn't; or false when it isn't....
And that is their Savage Secret.
UPDATE: Of course we all know who's fault global warming is; and that it would have been dealt with swiftly and firmly if Gore were president.
Tuesday, October 23, 2007
HOLY SMOKES, BATMAN
(Ok, I know that Batman is DC comics and not Marvel Comics, but somehow it's appropriate).
Just watch this trailer for HILLARY UNCENSORED--BANNED BY THE MEDIA. It is 14 minutes long, and on its own should be enough to totally sink the Clinton machine.
You might begin to wonder why this story has not been headline news on every major MSM outlet. Oh, wait....
Just watch this trailer for HILLARY UNCENSORED--BANNED BY THE MEDIA. It is 14 minutes long, and on its own should be enough to totally sink the Clinton machine.
You might begin to wonder why this story has not been headline news on every major MSM outlet. Oh, wait....
DUMMYCRATS, DHIMMICRATS, DEMOCRATS
One of the definitions of the word dummy is "a large puppet usually having movable features (as mouth and arms) manipulated by a ventriloquist". Of course, it also is a word that means "a stupid person".
Per Robert Spencer, Dhimmitude is the status that Islamic law (i.e., Sharia) mandates for non-Muslims, primarily Jews and Christians. Dhimmis, “protected” or “guilty” people, are free to practice their religion in a Sharia regime, but are made subject to a number of humiliating regulations designed to enforce the Qur'an's command that they "feel themselves subdued" (Sura 9:29). This denial of equality of rights and dignity remains part of the Sharia, and, as such, are part of the legal superstructure that global jihadists are laboring through violence to restore everywhere in the Islamic world, and wish ultimately to impose on the entire human race
Both sets of definitions apply to today's Democratic leadership when it comes to their foreign policy positions regarding the war on terror.
Here is an extremely interesting bit of writing by Tariq Alhomayed, the editor of Asharq Alawsat, an international Arabic daily newspaper, who catalogs Iran's many efforts to destablize the region and accumulate power to itself. In "Washington and Tehran: Negotiating Over What?", Alhomayed says:
The list he makes is rather impressive. Iran has
Occupied the United Arab Emirates’ (UAE) islands in the Arabian Gulf
tearing Beirut in half, while seeking to restore Syrian occupation over it, under Iranian guardianship
Tehran occupies the heart of Iraq and its peripheries and is undertaking unbelievable actions through its men operating within the regime.
the financial backbone of Hamas and now speaks on behalf of the Palestinian cause
fuelling public opinion in Iran and steering it towards hostility with the US. Today, it is this same Arab Street card that the Iranians exploit to recruit suicide bombers and sympathizers.
interferes in all the Arab world’s elections by pumping huge sums of money with the purpose of imposing a different reality than the existing one; the most prominent example of which is the Bahraini elections.
embraces some of Al Qaeda’s leadership and
is disrupting relations between Pakistan and Afghanistan
is instigating and managing sectarian conflicts in the Arab world, which results in giving conflicts in the region a religious cover. This, in turn, has caused the region to drown in a sea of spilled blood
seeks to acquire nuclear weapons, while preparing to wholly devour Iraq with the aid of one of its tools: Syria.
Alhomayed concludes with a blistering denunciation of the Democratic leadership in the U.S. who is sending the wrong--in fact, the worst possible, message to Tehran:
TheDummycrats Dhimmicrats Democrats are sending a strong message of appeasement that only encourages the brutal forces that stand against human freedom and wish to enslave mankind. These barbarians intend to herd humanity back to the "idyllic" days of the middle ages and toward another holocaust and world war to achieve their apocalyptic vision.
The Democratic Party of FDR and JFK would have understood this reality; but the party of Pelosi, Reid, Clinton, Obama et al, are oblivious.
Dummies or Dhimmis? Or both? You decide.
That is why they cannot and should not gain the White House in 2008.
Per Robert Spencer, Dhimmitude is the status that Islamic law (i.e., Sharia) mandates for non-Muslims, primarily Jews and Christians. Dhimmis, “protected” or “guilty” people, are free to practice their religion in a Sharia regime, but are made subject to a number of humiliating regulations designed to enforce the Qur'an's command that they "feel themselves subdued" (Sura 9:29). This denial of equality of rights and dignity remains part of the Sharia, and, as such, are part of the legal superstructure that global jihadists are laboring through violence to restore everywhere in the Islamic world, and wish ultimately to impose on the entire human race
Both sets of definitions apply to today's Democratic leadership when it comes to their foreign policy positions regarding the war on terror.
Here is an extremely interesting bit of writing by Tariq Alhomayed, the editor of Asharq Alawsat, an international Arabic daily newspaper, who catalogs Iran's many efforts to destablize the region and accumulate power to itself. In "Washington and Tehran: Negotiating Over What?", Alhomayed says:
US Democratic candidates, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, have expressed their intention to engage in “unconditional negotiations” with Iran, should either of them attain the presidency. The question is: Negotiate over what?
Are the conflicts in the Middle East a result of a crisis in Washington-Tehran relations; or rather, does it revolve around Iran’s expansion ambitions and its interference in the internal affairs of Arab states for over 20 years?
Is the Washington-Tehran crisis a result of the absence of dialogue, or is it by reason of Iran’s aspirations to destabilize the region?
The list he makes is rather impressive. Iran has
Alhomayed concludes with a blistering denunciation of the Democratic leadership in the U.S. who is sending the wrong--in fact, the worst possible, message to Tehran:
The strange thing is that at a time when international efforts are being made to establish an international coalition against Iran’s pursuit for nuclear weapons, the Democrats are waving the carrot before Tehran. As such, Iran will surely interpret the message as an invitation to consolidate position on the ground and in the region until the Democrats reach power, after which it can negotiate with Washington from a position of power.
The
The Democratic Party of FDR and JFK would have understood this reality; but the party of Pelosi, Reid, Clinton, Obama et al, are oblivious.
Dummies or Dhimmis? Or both? You decide.
That is why they cannot and should not gain the White House in 2008.
Monday, October 22, 2007
DON'T FORGET
Check out the Sanity Squad Podcast at BlogTalkRadio. Click on the player on the sidebar for the latest podcast! You can also look to see the list of upcoming Sanity Squad podcasts and listen live or phone in to interact with the Squad!
UNDER A GLASS DOME
Michael Yon:
Read on. Very illuminating.
Vanderleun has taken the measure of these pathetic little postmodern purveyors of hopelessness and doom, and gets it exactly right (hat tip: Larwyn):
Go read the entire piece, it is perfect. And extremely appropriate to describe the people who want to make sure we all live under a glass dome; and that any good news never makes it through.
Let's face it. The MSM, Democrats and their leftist base will never ever--under any circumstances and no matter what the actual facts are--say anything positive about the situation in Iraq. They prefer to live under the glass dome.
WE'LL NEVER ADMIT IT'S GETTING BETTER (Reprise)
It's fun to get mad at the Prez
And trash everything that he says
He's holding us down, making us frown
We'd rather love Hugo Chavez!
We'll never admit it's getting better
Here at home or in Iraq
We'll never admit it's getting better
'Til we get the White House back.
We used to be happy, you see
But now we're the knights who say NIE
Iraq got to vote
But we really hope
That no one pretends they are free.
We'll never admit it's getting better
We stand for nothing and have no plan
We simply hate to admit it's getting better
And we hate that we lost and that now he's the boss
And we'll thwart him as much as we can.
We'll never admit it's getting better
Here at home or in Iraq
We'll never admit it's getting better
'Til we get the White House back.
All describe the bizarro-world contrast between what most Americans seem to think is happening in Iraq versus what is really happening in Iraq. Knowing this disconnect exists and experiencing it directly are two separate matters. It’s like the difference between holding the remote control during the telecast of a volcanic eruption on some distant island (and then flipping the channel), versus running for survival from a wretch of molten lava that just engulfed your car.
I was at home in the United States just one day before the magnitude hit me like vertigo: America seems to be under a glass dome which allows few hard facts from the field to filter in unless they are attached to a string of false assumptions. Considering that my trip home coincided with General Petraeus’ testimony before the US Congress, when media interest in the war was (I’m told) unusually concentrated, it’s a wonder my eardrums didn’t burst on the trip back to Iraq. In places like Singapore, Indonesia, and Britain people hardly seemed to notice that success is being achieved in Iraq, while in the United States, Britney was competing for airtime with O.J. in one of the saddest sideshows on Earth.
No thinking person would look at last year’s weather reports to judge whether it will rain today, yet we do something similar with Iraq news. The situation in Iraq has drastically changed, but the inertia of bad news leaves many convinced that the mission has failed beyond recovery, that all Iraqis are engaged in sectarian
Read on. Very illuminating.
Vanderleun has taken the measure of these pathetic little postmodern purveyors of hopelessness and doom, and gets it exactly right (hat tip: Larwyn):
Four years in. An inch of time. Four years in and the foolish and credulous among us yearn to get out. Their feelings require it. The power of their Holy Gospel of "Imagine" compels them. Their overflowing pools of compassion for the enslavers of women, the killers of homosexuals, the beheaders of reporters, and the incinerators of men and women working quietly at their desks, rise and flood their minds until their eyes flow with crocodile tears while their mouths emit slogans made of cardboard. They believe the world is run on wishes and that they will always have three more.
Like savages shambling about some campfire where all there is to eat are a few singed tubers, they paint their faces with the tatterdemalion symbols of a summer long sent down to riot with the worms. They clasp hands and sing songs whose lyrics are ash. "We shall... over... come." Overcome what, overcome who? Overcome their own nation? Is that their dream? It is the lifelong dream of those that lead them, that much is certain.
Four years in and we see these old rotting rituals trotted out in the streets like some pagan procession of idols and shibboleths, like some furred and feathered fetish shaken against the sky by hunkering witch-doctors, to hold back the dark, to frighten off the evil spirits and graven images that trouble the sleep of the dreamers.
Four years into the most gentle war ever fought, a war fought on the cheap at every level, a war fought to avoid civilian harm rather than maximize it. Picnic on the grass at Shiloh. Walk the Western Front. Speak to the smoke of Dresden. Kneel down and peek into the ovens of Auschwitz. Sit on the stones near ground zero at Hiroshima and converse with the shadows singed into the wall. Listen to those ghost whisperers of war.
Four years in and the people of the Perfect World ramble through the avenues of Washington, stamping their feet and holding their breath, having their tantrums, and telling all who cannot avoid listening that "War is bad for children and other living things." They have flowers painted on their cheeks. For emphasis. Just in case you thought that war was good for children and other living things.
There were children and other living things on the planes that flew into the towers.
Go read the entire piece, it is perfect. And extremely appropriate to describe the people who want to make sure we all live under a glass dome; and that any good news never makes it through.
Let's face it. The MSM, Democrats and their leftist base will never ever--under any circumstances and no matter what the actual facts are--say anything positive about the situation in Iraq. They prefer to live under the glass dome.
WE'LL NEVER ADMIT IT'S GETTING BETTER (Reprise)
It's fun to get mad at the Prez
And trash everything that he says
He's holding us down, making us frown
We'd rather love Hugo Chavez!
We'll never admit it's getting better
Here at home or in Iraq
We'll never admit it's getting better
'Til we get the White House back.
We used to be happy, you see
But now we're the knights who say NIE
Iraq got to vote
But we really hope
That no one pretends they are free.
We'll never admit it's getting better
We stand for nothing and have no plan
We simply hate to admit it's getting better
And we hate that we lost and that now he's the boss
And we'll thwart him as much as we can.
We'll never admit it's getting better
Here at home or in Iraq
We'll never admit it's getting better
'Til we get the White House back.
THE REAL WAR ON CHILDREN: Jihadi Kids vs Metrosexual Kids
Mark Steyn has a column that addresses the recent SCHIP controversy and the remarks of Democratic Rep. Pete Stark:
Pelosi and the Democrats go on and on blah blah blah about "the children", even as they continue to propose more and more entitlements/Ponzi schemes that will leave it to "the children" (when they are grown-up, of course) to figure out how they are going to pay for it. Steyn rightly points out the imminent societal collapses that can be expected in European countries who have been playing this game much more earnestly than in the U.S.
Betsy has more on the fiscal aspect of Steyn's piece, which you should read in full.
From a wider perspective, though, what Steyn is talking about is the politicization of children; i.e., the use of children to advance a political or ideological agenda. This sort of child abuse is going on on a number of levels, both in Western culture and in Middle Eastern culture. Specifically, I want to focus on the hyper-sexualization of children in the West, and the concommitant hyper-"aggressivization" of children in the Arab/Islamic world.
A recent search of the headlines will give us plenty to ponder on the sexualization being waged in the West. Consider this. And this. and this. In Norway: this Or how about this?
What does any of the above represent, except an all-out assault on the sexual identity and genitalia of today's children. Oh, don't bother to tell me this is all done with the best of intentions...quite frankly, I'm rather sick of hearing that particular line.
Don't these do-gooders ever consider the long-term consequences of their actions? Or is it just enough for them to feel in the moment oh-so-good about what wonderful, modern, tolerant, progressive people they are? They will conveniently forget that it was their policies and their agenda when the sexual chickens come home to roost (imagine an entire society of Brittainys and Madonnas and their male equivalents).
Meanwhile their socialist counterparts in the Middle East really have perfected a way to accomplish what the Stark Raving Mad congressman from Maine insinuated (i.e., "President Bush wants to breed a generation of sickly uninsured children in order to send them to Iraq to stagger round the Sunni Triangle, weak and spindly and emaciated and rickets-stricken, to get their heads blown off)--with one little creative modification!
When they blow their little heads off, they will be dying to blow yours off, too. These jihadi kids don't draw guns and play as a means of discharging youthful aggressive impulses on the road to civilized behavior; they shoot them for real, at real human targets and are rewarded according to how much they are able to express the uncivilized cultural hatred that motivates the adults in their society. Instead of learning civilized behavior, they learn to project their hatred onto Jews and Christians. This is a violent video "game" in real life.
Do you imagine there is not a difference between fantasy play (which teaches a child how to control impulses and tame his or her inner monsters in the safety of fantasy) and participating in real-life violence, brutality or sex (which gives tacit permission and actively encourages the child to become his or her inner monsters) ?
If you are unable to distinguish the difference, then you must be a member of the so-called "reality-based" community who seem to specialize in utopian fantasies where human aggression has been magically eliminated from the species, and we all "make love, not war" in some utopian meadow of the not-too-distant future.
Good luck with that.
Instead of channeling human aggression and sexuality into societally productive avenues that benefit both individuals and cultures in which they live, we are witness to the spectacle of the political left gleefully encouraging and supporting dysfunctional sexuality that reeks of entitlement, irresponsibility, and perversity. Their moral counterparts in the "religion of peace", channel it directly into hatred and religious fanatacism.
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. On the immature end we have psychotic denial and ordinary denial (which children engage in frequently). As they mature, ordinary denial will morph into psychological repression (a neurotic, lower level psychological defense) and with maturity, the individual may evolve into using a process of sublimation, one of the most mature defenses, to manage any inappropriate sexual or aggressive impulses.
Contrary to the usual marxist propaganda, it is not capitalism that is encourages the use of immature psychological defenses, but life itself. But, 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. In order to maintain the fiction that their problems are caused externally, a group or country or culture needs to indoctrinate children at the earliest age possible in order to make sure that their cognitive faculties are short-circuited and won't question the ideology or dogma.
A "healthy" country, like a healthy individual will utilize mature defenses to cope with their aggressive and/or sexual impulses. They are not afraid of their aggressive impulses because those impulses are reigned in by reason and not indulged in lightly. They are able to find pleasure and satisfaction in their sexual impusles, not by indiscriminantly indulging in every pleasurable urge or whim, but by harnessing that sexuality to values that promote true intimacy and happiness.
Healthy societies do not encourage either sexual or aggressive (i.e. violent) acting out in their children. On the contrary, healthy societies encourge responsible sexual behavior and appropriate and realistic compromise and accommodation of others.
Sex and aggression are very closely connected. According to Freudian theory, all behavior can be thought of as motivated by a desire to feel pleasure. That motivation is organized and directed by two instincts: sexuality (Eros), and aggression (Thanatos). Freudian psychology in its earliest incarnations was almost obsesively preoccupied with sex. This is because Freud himself lived in a puritanical Victorian-era society and was reacting against the extreme prudishness of the age. The psychological symptoms Freud saw in his practice and described so brilliantly were to be expected in a society that ruthlessly repressed sex.
One does not need to wonder what kind of symptoms are to be expected in a society that, instead of repressing it, glorifies it and indoctrinates its children into sexual pleasures without concomitantly teaching them about personal responsibility or that there are real world consequences to one's behavior (something that can only be learned with maturity).
In my profession, we have been dealing with these "counterFreudian" symptoms since the "sexual revolution" peaked in the middle of the last century. Nothing like a little Utopian Marxism-gone-berserk to really alienate people from themselves, destroy interpersonal relationships and produce a society that joyfully celebrates sex without personal intimacy for the glorification of the state.
Here in the West, we have glorified one instinct (sex) while ruthlessly suppressing the other (aggression)
Meanwhile, children on the other side of the world are indoctinated into violence without benefit of conscience, as their religion and culture ruthless suppress sex and glorify aggression and violence in the name of god.
Jihadi Kids vs Metrosexual Kids. Both are very similar psychic processes that pervert two natural human instincts and channel them them into mindless human actions, unconnected with human reason or compassion. Both have become deliberately politicized and foisted on children in order to advance a utopian ideology and agenda.
Now that is a real war on children.
On Thursday, Congress attempted to override President Bush's veto of the SCHIP expansion. SCHIP? Isn't that something to do with health care for children? Absolutely. And here is Bay Area Democratic Rep. Pete Stark addressing the issue with his customary forensic incisiveness:
"The Republicans are worried that they can't pay for insuring an additional 10 million children. They sure don't care about finding $200 billion to fight the illegal war in Iraq. Where are you going to get that money? Are you going to tell us lies like you're telling us today? Is that how you're going to fund the war? You don't have money to fund the war on children, but you're going to spend it to blow up innocent people? If he can get enough kids to grow old enough for you to send to Iraq to get their heads blown off for the president's amusement."
I'm not sure I follow the argument here: President Bush wants to breed a generation of sickly uninsured children in order to send them to Iraq to stagger round the Sunni Triangle, weak and spindly and emaciated and rickets-stricken, to get their heads blown off? Is that the gist of it? No matter, Congressman Stark hit all the buzz words – "children," "illegal war," "$200 billion," "lies," etc. – and these days they're pretty much like modular furniture: You can say 'em in any order, and you'll still get a cheer from the crowd.
Congressman Stark is unlikely ever to be confused with Gen. Stark, who gave New Hampshire its stirring motto, "Live free or die!" In the congressman's case, the choice appears to be: "Live free on government health care or die in Bush's illegal war!" Nevertheless, in amongst the autopilot hooey the Stark raving madman did use an interesting expression: "the war on children."
One assumes he means some illegal Republican Party "war on children." Last Thursday, Nancy Pelosi, as is the fashion, used the phrase "the children" like some twitchy verbal tic, a kind of Democrat Tourette's syndrome: "This is a discussion about America's children … We could establish ourselves as the children's Congress … Come forward on behalf of the children ... I tried to do that when I was sworn in as speaker surrounded by children. It was a spontaneous moment, but it was one that was clear in its message: we are gaveling this House to order on behalf of the children."
Pelosi and the Democrats go on and on blah blah blah about "the children", even as they continue to propose more and more entitlements/Ponzi schemes that will leave it to "the children" (when they are grown-up, of course) to figure out how they are going to pay for it. Steyn rightly points out the imminent societal collapses that can be expected in European countries who have been playing this game much more earnestly than in the U.S.
Betsy has more on the fiscal aspect of Steyn's piece, which you should read in full.
From a wider perspective, though, what Steyn is talking about is the politicization of children; i.e., the use of children to advance a political or ideological agenda. This sort of child abuse is going on on a number of levels, both in Western culture and in Middle Eastern culture. Specifically, I want to focus on the hyper-sexualization of children in the West, and the concommitant hyper-"aggressivization" of children in the Arab/Islamic world.
A recent search of the headlines will give us plenty to ponder on the sexualization being waged in the West. Consider this. And this. and this. In Norway: this Or how about this?
What does any of the above represent, except an all-out assault on the sexual identity and genitalia of today's children. Oh, don't bother to tell me this is all done with the best of intentions...quite frankly, I'm rather sick of hearing that particular line.
Don't these do-gooders ever consider the long-term consequences of their actions? Or is it just enough for them to feel in the moment oh-so-good about what wonderful, modern, tolerant, progressive people they are? They will conveniently forget that it was their policies and their agenda when the sexual chickens come home to roost (imagine an entire society of Brittainys and Madonnas and their male equivalents).
Meanwhile their socialist counterparts in the Middle East really have perfected a way to accomplish what the Stark Raving Mad congressman from Maine insinuated (i.e., "President Bush wants to breed a generation of sickly uninsured children in order to send them to Iraq to stagger round the Sunni Triangle, weak and spindly and emaciated and rickets-stricken, to get their heads blown off)--with one little creative modification!
When they blow their little heads off, they will be dying to blow yours off, too. These jihadi kids don't draw guns and play as a means of discharging youthful aggressive impulses on the road to civilized behavior; they shoot them for real, at real human targets and are rewarded according to how much they are able to express the uncivilized cultural hatred that motivates the adults in their society. Instead of learning civilized behavior, they learn to project their hatred onto Jews and Christians. This is a violent video "game" in real life.
Do you imagine there is not a difference between fantasy play (which teaches a child how to control impulses and tame his or her inner monsters in the safety of fantasy) and participating in real-life violence, brutality or sex (which gives tacit permission and actively encourages the child to become his or her inner monsters) ?
If you are unable to distinguish the difference, then you must be a member of the so-called "reality-based" community who seem to specialize in utopian fantasies where human aggression has been magically eliminated from the species, and we all "make love, not war" in some utopian meadow of the not-too-distant future.
Good luck with that.
Instead of channeling human aggression and sexuality into societally productive avenues that benefit both individuals and cultures in which they live, we are witness to the spectacle of the political left gleefully encouraging and supporting dysfunctional sexuality that reeks of entitlement, irresponsibility, and perversity. Their moral counterparts in the "religion of peace", channel it directly into hatred and religious fanatacism.
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. On the immature end we have psychotic denial and ordinary denial (which children engage in frequently). As they mature, ordinary denial will morph into psychological repression (a neurotic, lower level psychological defense) and with maturity, the individual may evolve into using a process of sublimation, one of the most mature defenses, to manage any inappropriate sexual or aggressive impulses.
Contrary to the usual marxist propaganda, it is not capitalism that is encourages the use of immature psychological defenses, but life itself. But, 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. In order to maintain the fiction that their problems are caused externally, a group or country or culture needs to indoctrinate children at the earliest age possible in order to make sure that their cognitive faculties are short-circuited and won't question the ideology or dogma.
A "healthy" country, like a healthy individual will utilize mature defenses to cope with their aggressive and/or sexual impulses. They are not afraid of their aggressive impulses because those impulses are reigned in by reason and not indulged in lightly. They are able to find pleasure and satisfaction in their sexual impusles, not by indiscriminantly indulging in every pleasurable urge or whim, but by harnessing that sexuality to values that promote true intimacy and happiness.
Healthy societies do not encourage either sexual or aggressive (i.e. violent) acting out in their children. On the contrary, healthy societies encourge responsible sexual behavior and appropriate and realistic compromise and accommodation of others.
Sex and aggression are very closely connected. According to Freudian theory, all behavior can be thought of as motivated by a desire to feel pleasure. That motivation is organized and directed by two instincts: sexuality (Eros), and aggression (Thanatos). Freudian psychology in its earliest incarnations was almost obsesively preoccupied with sex. This is because Freud himself lived in a puritanical Victorian-era society and was reacting against the extreme prudishness of the age. The psychological symptoms Freud saw in his practice and described so brilliantly were to be expected in a society that ruthlessly repressed sex.
One does not need to wonder what kind of symptoms are to be expected in a society that, instead of repressing it, glorifies it and indoctrinates its children into sexual pleasures without concomitantly teaching them about personal responsibility or that there are real world consequences to one's behavior (something that can only be learned with maturity).
In my profession, we have been dealing with these "counterFreudian" symptoms since the "sexual revolution" peaked in the middle of the last century. Nothing like a little Utopian Marxism-gone-berserk to really alienate people from themselves, destroy interpersonal relationships and produce a society that joyfully celebrates sex without personal intimacy for the glorification of the state.
Here in the West, we have glorified one instinct (sex) while ruthlessly suppressing the other (aggression)
Meanwhile, children on the other side of the world are indoctinated into violence without benefit of conscience, as their religion and culture ruthless suppress sex and glorify aggression and violence in the name of god.
Jihadi Kids vs Metrosexual Kids. Both are very similar psychic processes that pervert two natural human instincts and channel them them into mindless human actions, unconnected with human reason or compassion. Both have become deliberately politicized and foisted on children in order to advance a utopian ideology and agenda.
Now that is a real war on children.
Sunday, October 21, 2007
THE SANITY SQUAD IS BACK !
...And we are on BlogTalkRadio !In our first podcast at BTR, Siggy and I discuss the political and psychological evolution of neoconservatism. Neo and Shrink were unable to join us, but will return next week.
For future scheduled podcasts you can go here and even subscribe to the RSS feed; as well as listen to archived podcasts.
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.
**NOTE: I am now getting many more submissions than I can possibly include in the weekly Carnival. Please don't be offended if your submission is not used (oh, okay, be as offended as you like) as it only means that for a variety of reasons I wasn't able to fit it into the "flow" as I put together each Carnival.
REMEMBER, THERE ARE SO MANY INSANITIES AND SO LITTLE TIME!!!
1. The insanity of Hitler's legacy continues...
2. A headline worthy of Scrappleface. Alas, poor Yorick!
3. Art imitates life? Or more money than taste?
4. File this under the heading, Too Little, Too Late. No wonder they call it the Holy Land. The Pope as human torch.
5. Clinging to their delusions to the last. Whatever will they do when Bush is out of office? There's always GDS...but copycat Krugman is off-base-- no one's ever compared Gore to Hitler; or even said that he's worse than OBL etc. etc. Only that he's a very useful idiot, a braggart, and a loser. Now is that deranged...or simply perceptive?
6. Now this is BDS of the really deranged variety; and this ; and even a rebuke doesn't change what she really believes.
7. Speaking of delusional. Speaking of deranged. Speaking of useful idiots.
8. Be careful what you wish for!
9. Heh Heh Heh. The ball is in your court, Harry. Rush, The Reid Slayer! Talk is definitely cheap, so here's the ultimate global warming challenge...
10. Required testing for a job at the NY Times. Qualifications for an academic position in today's market.... Do they have education envy? I'm not surprised--check this out.
11. The Al Franken of Asia? Except that Al Franken isn't funny (or heroic).
12. Move East Jerusalem to Miami? What a great solution! Well, this is shocking news.... And here is a fantastic solution for another longstanding problem.
13. Vlad
A'Jad? Definitely a bad date! Iran is not anyone's friend...not even its own. Remember, boys, soya is not your friend either and don't work for this company if you're an alpha male!14. Never underestimate the therapeutic efficacy of cash.
15. You can black out from hunger several times while reading the article and not miss a thing! When more is not enough, you can take this pill--invented in NoKo, probably !
16. There's talking down to women and then there's talking down to women.... There's child abuse, then there's Palestinian child abuse.
17. Your first amendment rights begin (and apparently, end) here. Different cultures, different ways to protest medical care!
18. Ask your doctor if getting off your ass is right for you! Lose weight by reading sensational novels! Or, by eating crap; or squirrel pancakes!
***************************************
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:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)