Some straight talk from Fred Thompson at the end of 2007... worth watching because he assumes you, the voting public, are capable of thinking about ideas. What a concept!
Monday, December 31, 2007
Sunday, December 30, 2007
CARNIVAL OF THE INSANITIES - HAPPY NEW YEAR !
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 "Not Insane" To Do List--everyone needs one for the New Year
2. A terrifying video from a previously unknown terror group! Nevertheless, Western civilization seems doomed.
3. Somehow I wouldn't feel safe with their kind of "protection". Having failed with every other proposal, perhaps raw sex will help Mideast Peace? Or is legal defeatism all there is?
4. Progress in Iraq...gays hardest hit. A grim milestone in Iraq you won't hear about. Someone should give a clue to the guy in the cave...cause he's too busy reading the NY Times to know what's really going on.
5. The 800 lb gorilla at the Holiday dinner!
6. Meanwhile, Iran is well and truly pwned!
7. A comic extravaganza. For real comic relief, go here and follow instructions.
8. Levels of stupid. This is definitely weapons-grade stupid.
9. Don't ask and she won't tell....
10. Hillary's Christmas promises...a way of storing up virtue in heaven? Yes...the only sensible way is to spend other people's money! Otherwise known as Tax, Tax, Tax! Well, it all depends on what your definition of "creative" is, doesn't it?
11. Don't be optimistic about it; it's not fashionable. Damn capitalism.
12. Are you man enough for this? Fathers should weep. He's man enough for PETA.
13. How about a bottomless male to lure the female perverts? A Tit Offensive?
14. When the Anglo-Saxons are thoroughly disoriented and freaked out, then the fingerlickin’ begins!
15. Sehr traurig, indeed.
16. Why not combine curling and skeleton for the next Winter Olympics?
17. Personally I think it is the lunacy induced by crowds.
18. You've got plenty to be thankful for....so have a
A HAPPY & PROSPEROUS NEW YEAR TO ALL MY READERS !
***************************************
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, December 29, 2007
IN THE REALM OF EMOTION: Planet Hysteria
Victor Davis Hanson takes a year-end look at the Iraq war:
Some of the critical points made by Hanson (and you should read the whole piece):
"We invaded because, "after September 11, and the realization that state-sponsored terrorists from the Middle East had the desire to destroy the United States and the capability to do it great harm, the decade-long containment of Saddam Hussein, in light also of his serial violations of both armistice and U.N. accords, was considered inadequate. Few disagreed."
"So both houses of Congress, backed by an overwhelming majority of the American people, authorized the use of military force to remove Saddam Hussein, at the vigorous request of the President."
About WMD:"... when such weapons were not found in Iraq, and the insurgency imperiled the brilliant three-week victory, the case for the war, in the eyes of many, collapsed. It did so on both moral and practical grounds. For some reason, no one cared that the other twenty-some Congressional causes were still as valid as when they had been first approved in October 2002."
"The debate, since 2003, has hinged on our own culpability, and postfacto, on our reasons for going into Iraq in the first place. It has focused almost solely on American lapses, not recognition of either the capability, or zeal, or brutality of the enemy."
"So we stayed, and we learned, and we persevered. Classical arguments for victory prevailed, despite being caricatured and deemed simplistic: whatever transient emotional, financial, and moral advantages were to be had by fleeing Iraq, they would all be overshadowed by the eventual human and financial costs of our utter defeat."
"There is no longer serious doubt that by any fair measure the situation in Iraq has radically improved by the end of 2007."
The entire last six years have been lived in the realm of hysterical partisan bickering. The Republicans are certainly not blameless in this; but I have to say that my contempt for the Democrats and their lunatic base is at an all-time high. Just when you think they cannot be more ridiculous and insane, they go to great lengths to prove you wrong.
What planet do these people live on?
NOTE: I will have the New Year's Carnival up tomorrow, then be off until Wednesday morning. Happy New Year!
Views on the war in Iraq now transcend reasonable discussion. The war rests in the realm of emotion, warped by the hysteria of partisan bickering.
The result is that we have forgotten why we invaded Iraq in long-ago 2003. We cannot agree why we had problems after the stunning removal of Saddam Hussein. And we are not sure either whether we are winning — or why we even should....
Some of the critical points made by Hanson (and you should read the whole piece):
The entire last six years have been lived in the realm of hysterical partisan bickering. The Republicans are certainly not blameless in this; but I have to say that my contempt for the Democrats and their lunatic base is at an all-time high. Just when you think they cannot be more ridiculous and insane, they go to great lengths to prove you wrong.
What planet do these people live on?
NOTE: I will have the New Year's Carnival up tomorrow, then be off until Wednesday morning. Happy New Year!
Friday, December 28, 2007
THERE ARE NO HOLIDAYS FROM HISTORY
...or rather, from reality:
The question becomes, how much more psychological denial can the various segments of our society indulge in? How much longer can they blind themselves to the sobering reality that threatens us and which has been obvious since 2001?
There is plenty of psychological denial to go around these days, and it exists at varying levels and different degrees of severity. I'm sure you've heard the many perpetual whiners of the left complain loudly about how hyped the Islamist threat is and how it is distracting us from the "real" enemy,Bush, who stands in the way of leftist truth, social justice and the progressive marxist agenda.
As an example, consider this run of the mill, ideological hack from the lefty blogsphere, who isjust one of the many leftists in denial about terrorism-- Glenn Greenwald routinely claims that "fear of terrorism" has been "inflamed and exploited" by the Bush Administration for the purpose of gaining power:
Let's discuss this from a psychiatric and psychological perspective since these are the terms used in the quote above.
This great leftist intellect is essentially arguing that--instead of facing the undeniable reality of Islamic fanaticism that clearly and unambiguously state their intentions to kill or enlave us--we should first close our eyes and pretend it doesn't exist; and then simply chant repeatedly the soothing and calming leftist mantra the only thing to fear, the only threat to this country and the world is...President Bush. Everything bad that happens in the world is because he either did something or he did nothing--take your pick. Even Bhutto's assassination can be blamed on him.
As I have written many times, this clever psychological maneuver is a common defense mechanism caled displacement . Just yesterday I was called out for daring to use the term "BDS" for a very specific, ongoing and pervasive psychological displacement utilized by a vast majority of the political left, by "Tbogg", one of a group of shallow and juvenile leftist bloggers who think its clever to accuse me of penis envy, since that's the only area of Freudian psychology they are familiar with; having picked up the term in their youth, one supposes, because the word "penis" aroused a few of their sluggish synapses for a brief time.
Just for the record, there are quite a number penises I not only do not envy, but for which I feel complete contempt.
Returning to the excellent example of denial and displacement that Greenwald provides for this discussion, there is almost always a strong element of paranoia that is present; as well as a noticeable touch of projection and frequent hysteria--though he believes he is being "logical" and "rational" (and don't forget "progressive"!) ; and that such rhetoric can be used to describe relatively normal people justifiably afraid of irrational fanatics not amenable to reason. The implication is that the only purpose such "fears" (deemed "inappropriate" by Greenwald) are being manipulated must be to "justify illegal actions."
The basic tenor of Greenwald's fear of Bush is easy to deduce: while we are fighting this illusory enemy, The Bushitler and his even more evil sidekick Cheney, have been amassing power and will soon set themselves up as a dictators and destroy our freedom as they amass oil weath. I will let you decide who we have to fear more--the President of the United States or the religious fanatics of Islam who want to obtain nuclear weapons and have issued a religious fatwa justifying using them? Who do we have to fear more: those who are trying to prevent another 9/11,... or those who would like nothing better than to do something even worse in our country? Who do we have to fear more: George W. Bush, who will without much fuss (or even regret, I imagine) pass the incredible power of the American Presidency to whomever is chosen by the laws of this land in 2008,... or those who routinely contest elections via suicide bombs and mass killings? As Cliff May points out, "Why bother with opeds, TV commercials, high-priced campaign strategists, spin doctors and pollsters when with one suicide bomber you can eliminate your opponent entirely?"
In any event, as pleasant as the fantasy is, we cannot take a vacation from history; nor---if we value our lives and our freedoms-- can we close our eyes and take a holiday from the reality that exists, whether we want it to or not.
The past three months have seen an odd turn in the presidential primary process in both parties — a turn away from the key issues confronting the United States and toward emotional and social vapor. The success of the surge in Iraq, coupled with the bizarre “we’re safe” reading of the National Intelligence Estimate on Iran, drained some of the passion from the anti-war fervor in the Democratic primary electorate and from the hawkish fervor of the Republican primary electorate....
The horrifying assassination of Benazir Bhutto in Pakistan this morning comes only one week before the Iowa caucuses and 12 days before New Hampshire. It is a sobering and frightening reminder of the challenges and threats and dangers posed to the United States by radical Islam, the nature of the struggle being waged against the effort to extend democratic freedoms in the Muslim world, and the awful possibility of a nuclear Pakistan overrun by Islamofascists. This is what the next president will be compelled by circumstance to spend a plurality of his or her time on. This is what really matters, not the cross Mike Huckabee lit up behind his head in his Christmas ad.
American politics would dearly love to take a holiday from history, just as it did in the 1990s. But our enemies are not going to allow us to do so.
The question becomes, how much more psychological denial can the various segments of our society indulge in? How much longer can they blind themselves to the sobering reality that threatens us and which has been obvious since 2001?
There is plenty of psychological denial to go around these days, and it exists at varying levels and different degrees of severity. I'm sure you've heard the many perpetual whiners of the left complain loudly about how hyped the Islamist threat is and how it is distracting us from the "real" enemy,Bush, who stands in the way of leftist truth, social justice and the progressive marxist agenda.
As an example, consider this run of the mill, ideological hack from the lefty blogsphere, who isjust one of the many leftists in denial about terrorism-- Glenn Greenwald routinely claims that "fear of terrorism" has been "inflamed and exploited" by the Bush Administration for the purpose of gaining power:
Bush opponents must finally overcome the one weapon which has protected George Bush again and again: fear. Fear of terrorism is what the Administration has successfully inflamed and exploited for four years in order to justify its most extreme and even illegal actions undertaken in the name of fighting terrorism.
Let's discuss this from a psychiatric and psychological perspective since these are the terms used in the quote above.
This great leftist intellect is essentially arguing that--instead of facing the undeniable reality of Islamic fanaticism that clearly and unambiguously state their intentions to kill or enlave us--we should first close our eyes and pretend it doesn't exist; and then simply chant repeatedly the soothing and calming leftist mantra the only thing to fear, the only threat to this country and the world is...President Bush. Everything bad that happens in the world is because he either did something or he did nothing--take your pick. Even Bhutto's assassination can be blamed on him.
As I have written many times, this clever psychological maneuver is a common defense mechanism caled displacement . Just yesterday I was called out for daring to use the term "BDS" for a very specific, ongoing and pervasive psychological displacement utilized by a vast majority of the political left, by "Tbogg", one of a group of shallow and juvenile leftist bloggers who think its clever to accuse me of penis envy, since that's the only area of Freudian psychology they are familiar with; having picked up the term in their youth, one supposes, because the word "penis" aroused a few of their sluggish synapses for a brief time.
Just for the record, there are quite a number penises I not only do not envy, but for which I feel complete contempt.
Returning to the excellent example of denial and displacement that Greenwald provides for this discussion, there is almost always a strong element of paranoia that is present; as well as a noticeable touch of projection and frequent hysteria--though he believes he is being "logical" and "rational" (and don't forget "progressive"!) ; and that such rhetoric can be used to describe relatively normal people justifiably afraid of irrational fanatics not amenable to reason. The implication is that the only purpose such "fears" (deemed "inappropriate" by Greenwald) are being manipulated must be to "justify illegal actions."
The basic tenor of Greenwald's fear of Bush is easy to deduce: while we are fighting this illusory enemy, The Bushitler and his even more evil sidekick Cheney, have been amassing power and will soon set themselves up as a dictators and destroy our freedom as they amass oil weath. I will let you decide who we have to fear more--the President of the United States or the religious fanatics of Islam who want to obtain nuclear weapons and have issued a religious fatwa justifying using them? Who do we have to fear more: those who are trying to prevent another 9/11,... or those who would like nothing better than to do something even worse in our country? Who do we have to fear more: George W. Bush, who will without much fuss (or even regret, I imagine) pass the incredible power of the American Presidency to whomever is chosen by the laws of this land in 2008,... or those who routinely contest elections via suicide bombs and mass killings? As Cliff May points out, "Why bother with opeds, TV commercials, high-priced campaign strategists, spin doctors and pollsters when with one suicide bomber you can eliminate your opponent entirely?"
In any event, as pleasant as the fantasy is, we cannot take a vacation from history; nor---if we value our lives and our freedoms-- can we close our eyes and take a holiday from the reality that exists, whether we want it to or not.
Thursday, December 27, 2007
THE LOGIC OF TERROR
Much is being written and said about Benazir Bhutto's assasination and the mythology and reality of her life. I think the most important issue that needs to be remembered by the West comes from Cliff May at The Corner:
You begin to understand why concepts such as freedom or democracy have very little meaning to the primitive barbarians we are fighting around the globe.
Pakistan Lessons
Bhutto's murder points to a lesson we (the Foreign Policy Establishment in particular) has been slow to learn:
This is not some extraordinary event. This is not the work of some lone madman. This is how militant Islamists contest elections – not just in Pakistan but also in Lebanon and Gaza and wherever they they get a foothold.
Why bother with opeds, TV commercials, high-priced campaign strategists, spin doctors and pollsters when with one suicide bomber you can eliminate your opponent entirely?
Hard to argue with the logic.
You begin to understand why concepts such as freedom or democracy have very little meaning to the primitive barbarians we are fighting around the globe.
IOWA, FIDDLING ON THE ROOF
The holidays are over and, sadly, it's back to politics as usual.
You might say every Iowan is a "fiddler on the roof" trying to pick out a pleasant, simple presidential tune that the rest of the country will be able to sing along, without falling off and breaking their collective neck. It isn't easy. You may ask 'Why do they insist on being the first state to vote in the presidential primaries if it's so dangerous?' Well, they think it makes them special and gives them political clout. So, how do they keep their balance? That I can tell you in two words: they don't!
They think that, like the proverbial matchmaker, they will find America the perfect match....
IOWA, IOWA PICK ME A PREZ
AMERICAN LEFT:
Well somebody else should pick the candidates,
Ordinary Americans can't decide these things themselves.
AMERICAN RIGHT:
They might choose someone wonderful----
Someone qualified----
AMERICAN LEFT:
And sensitive----
AMERICAN RIGHT:
And honest---
LEFT AND RIGHT:
Iowa, Iowa,
Pick me a prez,
Watch his behavior,
Ignore what he says
Iowa, Iowa
Look at them all,
And then simply make your call!
Iowa, Iowa,
Next year we'll vote,
On your nominee,
Who will it be?
Pick me a candidate I can adore,
There's nothing that I want more.
For us righties:
Make him a Reagan!
For Lefties:
A Hugo Chavez!
[For me, well,
I'd like the former;
A clown won't make a good prez.]
Iowa, Iowa,
Pick us a prez,
Watch her behavior,
Ignore what she says....
Day after day we read all the blogs
So find us a prince
In these frogs.
IOWA SPEAKS:
Leftists, Dear Leftists,
Have I got a pick for you!
She's female and young!
All right, she's 62.
But she's a nice girl, a good wife, true?
True.
I promise you'll be happy,
And even if you're not,
There's more to life than pursuing happiness---
Don't ask me what.
Dear Neocons, I found him!
You're lucky that I did!
He's handsome, he's glib,
And only rarely tells a fib.
But he's a nice man, a saintly man, right?
Right.
You heard he's got religion.
You're just not sure which one,
But he stands for family values (you hope)
When all is said and done.
Did you think you'd find a prince?
When you kissed a frog or two?
This is politics, not fantasy
You'll have to make do!
LEFT AND RIGHT:
Iowa, Iowa,
You're just the first
There's still lots of time,
So please, do your worst.
Until this minute,
We hid all our fears,
But we could get stuck for four years!
ME:
Dear Iowans,
Make sure he/she's real
Remember,
You must live with the deal...
This whole big endless campaign
Is getting insane
And completely surreal!
Iowa, Iowa,
Give them all a defeat;
I'm in no rush;
I'm getting cold feet.
The truth is never a sin
And among all these losers
Someone's sure to win....!
So,
Please go away
And leave me alone
Pick me no prez
There's not much of Reagan
And too much Chavez;
They all make me nervous
I can't hide my dread,
No matter what he--or she--says.
You might say every Iowan is a "fiddler on the roof" trying to pick out a pleasant, simple presidential tune that the rest of the country will be able to sing along, without falling off and breaking their collective neck. It isn't easy. You may ask 'Why do they insist on being the first state to vote in the presidential primaries if it's so dangerous?' Well, they think it makes them special and gives them political clout. So, how do they keep their balance? That I can tell you in two words: they don't!
They think that, like the proverbial matchmaker, they will find America the perfect match....
IOWA, IOWA PICK ME A PREZ
AMERICAN LEFT:
Well somebody else should pick the candidates,
Ordinary Americans can't decide these things themselves.
AMERICAN RIGHT:
They might choose someone wonderful----
Someone qualified----
AMERICAN LEFT:
And sensitive----
AMERICAN RIGHT:
And honest---
LEFT AND RIGHT:
Iowa, Iowa,
Pick me a prez,
Watch his behavior,
Ignore what he says
Iowa, Iowa
Look at them all,
And then simply make your call!
Iowa, Iowa,
Next year we'll vote,
On your nominee,
Who will it be?
Pick me a candidate I can adore,
There's nothing that I want more.
For us righties:
Make him a Reagan!
For Lefties:
A Hugo Chavez!
[For me, well,
I'd like the former;
A clown won't make a good prez.]
Iowa, Iowa,
Pick us a prez,
Watch her behavior,
Ignore what she says....
Day after day we read all the blogs
So find us a prince
In these frogs.
IOWA SPEAKS:
Leftists, Dear Leftists,
Have I got a pick for you!
She's female and young!
All right, she's 62.
But she's a nice girl, a good wife, true?
True.
I promise you'll be happy,
And even if you're not,
There's more to life than pursuing happiness---
Don't ask me what.
Dear Neocons, I found him!
You're lucky that I did!
He's handsome, he's glib,
And only rarely tells a fib.
But he's a nice man, a saintly man, right?
Right.
You heard he's got religion.
You're just not sure which one,
But he stands for family values (you hope)
When all is said and done.
Did you think you'd find a prince?
When you kissed a frog or two?
This is politics, not fantasy
You'll have to make do!
LEFT AND RIGHT:
Iowa, Iowa,
You're just the first
There's still lots of time,
So please, do your worst.
Until this minute,
We hid all our fears,
But we could get stuck for four years!
ME:
Dear Iowans,
Make sure he/she's real
Remember,
You must live with the deal...
This whole big endless campaign
Is getting insane
And completely surreal!
Iowa, Iowa,
Give them all a defeat;
I'm in no rush;
I'm getting cold feet.
The truth is never a sin
And among all these losers
Someone's sure to win....!
So,
Please go away
And leave me alone
Pick me no prez
There's not much of Reagan
And too much Chavez;
They all make me nervous
I can't hide my dread,
No matter what he--or she--says.
Wednesday, December 26, 2007
LIFE'S JUST A BITCH FOR THE LEFT
Consider the results of the latest Gallup Poll.
On the one hand, Hillary nudged out Oprah for "Most Admired Woman". On the other hand, President Bush is still the "Most Admired Man".
Most BDS sufferers will probably suffer a debilitating relapse when they read the above; and probably be unable to get any relief from their incapacitating symptoms from the fact that Bill Clinton came in a very close second (knowing Bill, it's even likely he would have come in 2nd in the first category--if only his name had been on the list of choices--and likewise for "Most Admired Black Person").
In fact, our 42nd President comes to mind frequently these days.
[More Cartoons by Gary McCoy]
On the one hand, Hillary nudged out Oprah for "Most Admired Woman". On the other hand, President Bush is still the "Most Admired Man".
Most BDS sufferers will probably suffer a debilitating relapse when they read the above; and probably be unable to get any relief from their incapacitating symptoms from the fact that Bill Clinton came in a very close second (knowing Bill, it's even likely he would have come in 2nd in the first category--if only his name had been on the list of choices--and likewise for "Most Admired Black Person").
In fact, our 42nd President comes to mind frequently these days.
[More Cartoons by Gary McCoy]
FALLING POLITICAL STARS AND THE BIGGEST IRAQ MYTH
John Hood praises Michael O'Hanlon (the person who dismayed fellow Dems by suggesting that the surge might be working), who he says makes a valiant effort to save the Democrats from themselves. So, what is O'Hanlon's argument?
But that's just not the case. The Democrats--and in particular, their leftist base--are more concerned with their hatred of George Bush and they will never, ever admit that any policy promoted by him and his administration could possibly be working. Instead, they have all hitched their political wagon to a precipitously falling star and remain, even now, heavily emotionally invested in failure in Iraq.
And, as I noted the other day, they are also proactively invested in failure to halt nuclear arms development in Iran.
As a case in point let's look at Professor Juan Cole's "Top 10 Myths About Iraq", as Cole seems to be one of the most invested in insuring that the U.S. lose in Iraq and the war on terror.
10. Myth: The US public no longer sees Iraq as a central issue in the 2008 presidential campaign.
Cole cites this as a myth, and, indeed it is. The US public has always seen Iraq as a central issue in the 2008 campaign. It is the Democrats who now would like to make it a non-issue, and they are aided and abetted by the compliant MSM who have literally taken Iraq off the front pages since the war tilted in America's favor.
9. Myth: There have been steps toward religious and political reconciliation in Iraq in 2007.
Cole Check out this article. And consider this reality. If sunnis and shia don't get along (as they haven't for a few millenia) then what does Cole imagine is the cause? He tells us in #8:
8. Myth: The US troop surge stopped the civil war that had been raging between Sunni Arabs and Shiites in the Iraqi capital of Baghdad
In Cole's "informed" view the violence between the sects has surged with troop escalation. IT'S AMERICA'S FAULT THAT SUNNIS AND SHIA DON'T GET ALONG! Not Al Qaeda fueling the violence. Not Iran. Not their insane religious beliefs. I'm glad we've got Cole to make sure we understand these things.
7. Myth: Iran was supplying explosively formed projectiles (a deadly form of roadside bomb) to Salafi Jihadi (radical Sunni) guerrilla groups in Iraq.
Let's be clear, says Professor Cole. IRAN IS INNOCENT OF THE US CHARGES! THERE IS NO EVIDENCE! Cole ignores (or perhaps it is the usual hysterical blindness he suffers from?) this or this? We should ignore the Generals on the ground in Iraq who presented us with evidence in favor of Honest Juan who believes they are lying sacks of shit compared to the divinely innocent Iranian President?
6. Myth: The US overthrow of the Baath regime and military occupation of Iraq has helped liberate Iraqi women.
Iraqi women--indeed, any woman under the yoke of Islam in the Middle East--will hardly be free until their religion stops going backwards and decides to join the rest of modern civilization. If Cole is arguing that women had a great old time under Saddam and it was the US invasion/occupation that now has made things worse for them, then he should consider this:
There is a long way to go to "liberate" Iraqi women...and the first step was to get rid of Saddam. The fact that the West is burdened by the moral relativity of todays feminists and their male cheerleaders (like Cole) who righteously condemn the US for the plight of women under Islam, yet fail to notice that it is Islam's practitioners who enslave women and make "women's rights" a mockery.
5. Myth: Some progress has been made by the Iraqi government in meeting the "benchmarks" worked out with the Bush administration.
This report summarizes the achievement and shortfalls as they relate to the "benchmarks"--Carl Levin (who Cole quotes) to the contrary. A "benchmark" is a standard by which progress may be measured or judged; and in this case, the Iraqi government has been found wanting. This is a universally acknowledged truth--acknowledged by all, except apparently Cole who believes it is a "myth" to think that ANY progress has been make if ALL benchmarks have not been met. Typical utopian/leftist idiocy.
4. Myth: The Sunni Arab "Awakening Councils," who are on the US payroll, are reconciling with the Shiite government of PM Nuri al-Maliki even as they take on al-Qaeda remnants
Cole cites some interviews with tribal leaders who intend to polish off their other Islamic rivals after they get rid of Al Qaeda. So, Juan, what else do you expect of thugs--especially religious ones? The fact that the U.S. has found a way to make them temporarily stop fighting each other and fight the real enemy is rather miraculous. If only a way could be found to make the political left (and people like Cole) stop fighting America and start fighting Al Qaeda, then I might be more upset by the driving ambition of the Iraqi thugs.
3. Myth: The Iraqi north is relatively quiet and a site of economic growth.
Cole is clearly annoyed by "the other Iraq" campaign (see here). He says that Kurdistan is a "minefield". Well, yes, so is Britain. So is the U.S. border. So is Europe, the Middle East, Africa etc. etc., for that matter. So is ANYWHERE where there are unresolved issues. Again with the desperate need for perfection from the likes of Professor Cole. Peace isn't good enough for him. It has to be utopia, with no chance of anything going wrong or upsetting the tranquility ever.
2. Myth: Iraq has been "calm" in fall of 2007 and the Iraqi public, despite some grumbling, is not eager for the US to depart.
Fact: Iraq has been calm in the fall of 2007 any way you measure it and that is because of the "surge" which Cole shows nothing but scorn . That is why the news in Iraq has dropped off the radar of the MSM (see #1), since good news like that does not serve the purpose of bashing the Bush Administration. No matter how much the left is in love with the latest "polls" --whether they be in the US or Iraq--we are in a larger war on terror, and Iraq is a major front on that war. Why not look at the larger picture, Cole? Frankly, IMHO, the US should plan on having a presence in Iraq for several decades (just as we stayed in Europe and in Japan after WWII) because the threat of radical Islam is not going to magically vanish away because the Juan Coles of the world pretend it doesn't exist.
1. Myth: The reduction in violence in Iraq is mostly because of the escalation in the number of US troops, or "surge."
Gee, how the left hate this "myth" (which means it is a reality they can't stomach). Why? Because it gives credibility to the real enemy they are fighting and against whom they have deployed all their vast intellectual resources (e.g., the useless idiot professors like Cole). And that enemy is: George W. Bush.
As Charles Krauthammer recently noted in a column:
Krauthammer goes on to provide some inconvenient reality for those sadly lacking in that commodity. The surge is, indeed, working. But it cannot work forever and will have to be replaced by other strategies that achieve our ultimate goal--a democratic Iraq. Clearly, the Iraqi government and its people will have to step up and take on more and more of the burden for accomplishing that goal, but only if that is their goal, too. Meanwhile, the US muddles along the best it can; making mistakes, learning from them and making progress.
In reality, the biggest myth of all is why anyone intelligent would take the Harry Reids or a Juan Coles seriously?
UPDATE:
[More Cartoons by Michael Ramirez]
Without a Democratic takeover of the Congress in 2006, there is little chance that President Bush would have acknowledged his Iraq policy to be failing and that Gen. David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker would have been accorded the resources and the policy latitude needed to radically improve the situation on the ground.You would think that this idea--taking credit for Bush's turnaround in policy--would be a tactic jumped on ravenously by the Dems; but then, you might also think that an American political party would be invested in America winning the war in Iraq.
Democrats were not the authors of the surge and in fact generally opposed it. But without their pressure, it probably never would have happened.
But that's just not the case. The Democrats--and in particular, their leftist base--are more concerned with their hatred of George Bush and they will never, ever admit that any policy promoted by him and his administration could possibly be working. Instead, they have all hitched their political wagon to a precipitously falling star and remain, even now, heavily emotionally invested in failure in Iraq.
And, as I noted the other day, they are also proactively invested in failure to halt nuclear arms development in Iran.
As a case in point let's look at Professor Juan Cole's "Top 10 Myths About Iraq", as Cole seems to be one of the most invested in insuring that the U.S. lose in Iraq and the war on terror.
10. Myth: The US public no longer sees Iraq as a central issue in the 2008 presidential campaign.
Cole cites this as a myth, and, indeed it is. The US public has always seen Iraq as a central issue in the 2008 campaign. It is the Democrats who now would like to make it a non-issue, and they are aided and abetted by the compliant MSM who have literally taken Iraq off the front pages since the war tilted in America's favor.
9. Myth: There have been steps toward religious and political reconciliation in Iraq in 2007.
Cole Check out this article. And consider this reality. If sunnis and shia don't get along (as they haven't for a few millenia) then what does Cole imagine is the cause? He tells us in #8:
8. Myth: The US troop surge stopped the civil war that had been raging between Sunni Arabs and Shiites in the Iraqi capital of Baghdad
In Cole's "informed" view the violence between the sects has surged with troop escalation. IT'S AMERICA'S FAULT THAT SUNNIS AND SHIA DON'T GET ALONG! Not Al Qaeda fueling the violence. Not Iran. Not their insane religious beliefs. I'm glad we've got Cole to make sure we understand these things.
7. Myth: Iran was supplying explosively formed projectiles (a deadly form of roadside bomb) to Salafi Jihadi (radical Sunni) guerrilla groups in Iraq.
Let's be clear, says Professor Cole. IRAN IS INNOCENT OF THE US CHARGES! THERE IS NO EVIDENCE! Cole ignores (or perhaps it is the usual hysterical blindness he suffers from?) this or this? We should ignore the Generals on the ground in Iraq who presented us with evidence in favor of Honest Juan who believes they are lying sacks of shit compared to the divinely innocent Iranian President?
6. Myth: The US overthrow of the Baath regime and military occupation of Iraq has helped liberate Iraqi women.
Iraqi women--indeed, any woman under the yoke of Islam in the Middle East--will hardly be free until their religion stops going backwards and decides to join the rest of modern civilization. If Cole is arguing that women had a great old time under Saddam and it was the US invasion/occupation that now has made things worse for them, then he should consider this:
Under the pretext of fighting prostitution, units of "Fedayeen Saddam," the paramilitary organization led by Uday Hussein, Saddam's eldest son, have beheaded in public more than 200 women throughout the country, dumping their severed heads at their families' doorsteps. Many families have been required to display the victim's head on their outside fences for several days. These barbaric acts were carried out in the total absence of any proper judicial procedures and many of the victims were not engaged in prostitution, but were targeted for political reasons. For example, Najat Mohammad Haydar, an obstetrician in Baghdad, was beheaded after criticizing the corruption within health services. (Amnesty International Report, Iraq: Systematic Torture of Political Prisoners, August 2001; Iraqi Women's League in Damascus, Syria)
There is a long way to go to "liberate" Iraqi women...and the first step was to get rid of Saddam. The fact that the West is burdened by the moral relativity of todays feminists and their male cheerleaders (like Cole) who righteously condemn the US for the plight of women under Islam, yet fail to notice that it is Islam's practitioners who enslave women and make "women's rights" a mockery.
5. Myth: Some progress has been made by the Iraqi government in meeting the "benchmarks" worked out with the Bush administration.
This report summarizes the achievement and shortfalls as they relate to the "benchmarks"--Carl Levin (who Cole quotes) to the contrary. A "benchmark" is a standard by which progress may be measured or judged; and in this case, the Iraqi government has been found wanting. This is a universally acknowledged truth--acknowledged by all, except apparently Cole who believes it is a "myth" to think that ANY progress has been make if ALL benchmarks have not been met. Typical utopian/leftist idiocy.
4. Myth: The Sunni Arab "Awakening Councils," who are on the US payroll, are reconciling with the Shiite government of PM Nuri al-Maliki even as they take on al-Qaeda remnants
Cole cites some interviews with tribal leaders who intend to polish off their other Islamic rivals after they get rid of Al Qaeda. So, Juan, what else do you expect of thugs--especially religious ones? The fact that the U.S. has found a way to make them temporarily stop fighting each other and fight the real enemy is rather miraculous. If only a way could be found to make the political left (and people like Cole) stop fighting America and start fighting Al Qaeda, then I might be more upset by the driving ambition of the Iraqi thugs.
3. Myth: The Iraqi north is relatively quiet and a site of economic growth.
Cole is clearly annoyed by "the other Iraq" campaign (see here). He says that Kurdistan is a "minefield". Well, yes, so is Britain. So is the U.S. border. So is Europe, the Middle East, Africa etc. etc., for that matter. So is ANYWHERE where there are unresolved issues. Again with the desperate need for perfection from the likes of Professor Cole. Peace isn't good enough for him. It has to be utopia, with no chance of anything going wrong or upsetting the tranquility ever.
2. Myth: Iraq has been "calm" in fall of 2007 and the Iraqi public, despite some grumbling, is not eager for the US to depart.
Fact: Iraq has been calm in the fall of 2007 any way you measure it and that is because of the "surge" which Cole shows nothing but scorn . That is why the news in Iraq has dropped off the radar of the MSM (see #1), since good news like that does not serve the purpose of bashing the Bush Administration. No matter how much the left is in love with the latest "polls" --whether they be in the US or Iraq--we are in a larger war on terror, and Iraq is a major front on that war. Why not look at the larger picture, Cole? Frankly, IMHO, the US should plan on having a presence in Iraq for several decades (just as we stayed in Europe and in Japan after WWII) because the threat of radical Islam is not going to magically vanish away because the Juan Coles of the world pretend it doesn't exist.
1. Myth: The reduction in violence in Iraq is mostly because of the escalation in the number of US troops, or "surge."
Gee, how the left hate this "myth" (which means it is a reality they can't stomach). Why? Because it gives credibility to the real enemy they are fighting and against whom they have deployed all their vast intellectual resources (e.g., the useless idiot professors like Cole). And that enemy is: George W. Bush.
As Charles Krauthammer recently noted in a column:
There will, of course, be the Harry Reids and those on the far left who will deny inconvenient reality. Reid will continue to call the surge a failure, as he has since even before it began. And the left will continue to portray Gen. David Petraeus as an unscrupulous commander quite prepared to send his troops into a hopeless battle in order to advance his political ambitions (although exactly how that works is not clear).
But the serious voices will prevail.
Krauthammer goes on to provide some inconvenient reality for those sadly lacking in that commodity. The surge is, indeed, working. But it cannot work forever and will have to be replaced by other strategies that achieve our ultimate goal--a democratic Iraq. Clearly, the Iraqi government and its people will have to step up and take on more and more of the burden for accomplishing that goal, but only if that is their goal, too. Meanwhile, the US muddles along the best it can; making mistakes, learning from them and making progress.
In reality, the biggest myth of all is why anyone intelligent would take the Harry Reids or a Juan Coles seriously?
UPDATE:
[More Cartoons by Michael Ramirez]
Monday, December 24, 2007
WE WISH THEM A MERRY CHRISTMAS
I'm not at all sure yet who I support for President, but I like this ad and can't think of a better sentiment to express this Holiday.
Thank you for your service to our country and for making the sacrifice to protect me and my family. May you soon be reunited with your loved ones. My family and I wish you a very Merry Christmas!
Thank you for your service to our country and for making the sacrifice to protect me and my family. May you soon be reunited with your loved ones. My family and I wish you a very Merry Christmas!
Sunday, December 23, 2007
CARNIVAL OF THE CHRISTMAS INSANITIES - Special Edition !
Time for the Annual Christmas/Holiday Insanity Collection, where all the bizarre, the ridiculous, and the completely absurd aspects of the Holidays are highlighted for all to see! The most bizarre insanities can always be found in politics, of course, and this has been and will be 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. Christmas, 2007 in Bethlehem. For those who don't believe: Yes, Virginia, there is a terror war.
2. They make it their business never to forget.
3. Making fun of yourself at Christmas is off limits! It's the psychiatrists who have to deal with all the fruitcakes.... Like the Anthropogenic Global Warming Killjoys.
4. The Kyrgyzis get points for trying. Trying really really hard.
5. Ahmed and the Chipmunks? Jingle Bells, Infidels...Sharia all the way. It's closing in on "White Christmas!"
6. 2007 Holiday reading list for kids! A final visit from Saint Nick--an oldie but goodie! The real top 10 news stories of 2007.
7. For the religious narcissist: when the gift of yourself is all that's necessary.
8. The best part of the Holiday Season is the banning?
A plea for "Merry Christmas"!9. Happy
10. The 12 [Crazy] Days of Christmas!
11. Ebenezer Reid? Warm and gooey for the Holidays: The Eggnog factor, perhaps?
12. It's so much fun to give other people's money away! Ponies for everyone! What the cards should say....A very Hillary Christmas to you!
13. What! Christmas is political? Or, at least, politically correct...
14. Santa Claus is not inclusive enough; and he's too fat. Plus he don't talk proper He's just a fatty-headed ho-ho-ho! Or, maybe he's Satan.
15. BoxBux Sux as Stix Hix Nix Xmas Flix...ummmmm right.
16. Move Christmas to June??
17. Bad Santa's.
18. God is your co-pilot.
19. Relatively normal religious conversion (at least there are no death threats because of it!); relatively insane one.
20. Relatively normal Holiday recipe.....relatively insane one. Completely insane.
21. All I want for Christmas is to Free Mark Steyn; less postmodern whine for some peace divine...all I want for Christmas is to Free Mark Steyn...So I can wish you Merry Christmas!
***************************************
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:
Friday, December 21, 2007
CHRISTMAS HOLIDAY
I will be pretty much taking off from blogging until after Christmas.
A ***Special Christmas Edition*** of the Carnival of the Insanities will be posted this Sunday morning; and I should be back later in the week.
I wish you and yours a very Joyous Christmas!
Wednesday, December 19, 2007
"WE WILL NEVER RECOGNIZE... REALITY"
From a recent news article:
The fantasy that the Annapolis talks have "launched" some sort of peace process in the Middle East between Israel and the Palestinians is just that, a fantasy.
The truth of that conflict is somewhat different than many would like to pretend.
Gagdad Bob once wisely pointed out at One Cosmos that:
It is for this reason that psychotherapy can take a great deal of courage on the part of the patient; and a great deal of persistant probing on the part of the therapist. Simply put, psychological health and the ability to function optimally in life absolutely depends on being able to recognize reality effectively deal with it. Self-deception is fundamentally dysfunctional, and over the long-term potentially lethal.
Psychological defense mechanisms are unconscious strategies that are automatically enlisted by the psyche when reality threatens to overwhelm the individual. When an immature defense is put up to block the pain--such as denial or projection-- it may be extremely effective in the short-term, but it sets in motion a cascade of psychological consequences that inevitably result in long-term misery for the individual. An analogy would be the clinical use of methadone--itself a highly and extremely addictive opiate, but with less painful and agonizing withdrawal symptoms--to help a person detox from heroin. The individual however, becomes addicted to the methadone and it must then be maintained for life.
In the example above that Bob uses, the child is able to retain his love for the abusive parent, but instead concludes that something is wrong with him. This incorrect conclusion, born of faulty psychological logic, will impact his life in all areas: relationships, work and will impede any chances he has to achieve success, personal fulfillment and happiness, or genuine intimacy.
It is not my intention to suggest that the only way to cope with stress is to use psychological defenses. On the contrary, there are many factors that come into play, such as the individual's temperment and inborn biological/physiological protections; the presence or absence of social or environmental supports, hope and faith and even luck or serendipity may play a role in helping someone get through difficult times.
In fact, all these factors--biological, social, cultural, religious--all interact together and, in times of stress, have a considerable impact on which psychological defense is ultimately erected to protect the individual.
And it is all these factors that come into play when trying to understand why a supposedly mature person uses immature psychological defenses.
If a person experiences an overwhelming number of environmental insults without sufficient biological resiliency, he will fail; if he has enough of the protective environmental factors (e.g., love, health, education) he is relatively invincible to the vissictitudes of life. If he or she is born with normal resilience, but the culture is severely pathological and thus the environment is not conducive to the development of psychological maturity, then the individual will go down with the culture, unless he is able to escape from its influence.
Let us for the moment say that all biological factors being equal (and, of course, they are not) then the primary determinants will be the degree to which those environmental factors control the life and activities of the person.
While it is true that even healthy people may transiently use the immature psychological defenses, they do so only as a temporary measure; until they psychologically prepare themselves to deal with the threat. An example is the reflexive denial when suddenly hearing about a loved one's death. The mind is simply not able to handle the catastrophe immediately and it uses simple denial to briefly cope with an unacceptable truth.
But within a brief time, reality will set in; and, if the confluence of factors in their life has led them to psychological maturity, the ego is able to handle the painful reality--they will suffer, they will grieve, they will grow; and then they are able to move on.
This process does not happen in some cultures or societies.
Environmental and cultural factors can encourge individuals to deploy mature defenses; or they may encourage the deployment of the immature and primitive defenses. The immature defenses are infectious. They can spread like an epidemic through a population--particularly if they are culturally or religiously sanctioned. This is because they offer the simplest and most gratifying explanation for an individual's or a society's problems ("It's all the Jews fault!", "If it weren't for those Blacks!", "Republicans hate the poor!" and so on).
From The Wisdom of the Ego:
Ego maturity, and the ability to deploy the healthier, more mature defenses comes about as a result of one's experience with the problems of life and the increasing ability to tolerate paradox. Vaillant recounts this brief story, which is very telling:
Let us look for a moment at the tragedy that is the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. One side of that conflict has attempted to come to terms with this paradox multiple times; and has acknowledged that there is moral right on both sides of the conflict. That side has repeatedly and earnestly tried to make peace by giving the other side what it says it wants. That side is Israel, who has given the Palestinians everything they need to create their own state and to make a life for themselves and their people.
It is the completely dysfunctional Palestinians, whose envy and hate (societally, culturally and religiously inflamed) have led them to repeatedly refuse the gift given freely by the Israelis. Instead, they cling to their denial of the reality of Israel; they resort to a barbaric and primitive paranoia and projection blaming the Israelis and the Jews for their own squandering of billions of dollars, their own choice to spend that money on weapons and arms instead of schools and institutions that might make the future brighter. Indeed, the homicidal and suicidal rage encouraged by the culture is the only behavioral choice that allows them as a culture to keep their distorted grasp of reality intact.
The social, cultural and religious supports for the individual Palestinians have abjectly failed them and cannot facilitate emotional maturity. And the external social/environmental supports (such as they are) for the entire culture continue to enable the culture's dysfunctional behavior by never permitting them to suffer the consequences of their actions (the enabling by the intellectuals of the West); and by maliciously using their plight for the purpose of oppressing and controlling other middle east populations (their so-called "brothers" and fellow Muslims of the Islamic world).
Thus, the Palestinians are trapped forever in the grip of an immature, barbaric, and primitive cultural ego; their plight cynically manipulated by their "friends" and fellow muslims; and their dysfunctional behavior rewarded monetarily and excused by the "superior" intellectuals of the West. Homicide and suicide are the lifestyle of choice. [Note: that is why it is especially sickening that the enabling selfless psychopaths in the West, who see themselves as "antiwar" and "peace" activists have chosen to use the headscarf of the Palestinian people as some sort of a fashionable peace symbol. It is indeed a symbol, but not of what they imagine.]
Here is an interesting reality:
In the sick and pathological environment of the dysfunctional Palestinians-- carefully cultured by their fellow Muslims and nurtured by their admirers and supporters in the West--Palestinian children have practically no chance whatsoever of growing up to achieve any degree of emotional or psychological maturity. The environment is far too toxic to support ego maturation. And when they are physically mature, they will pass the psychological toxicity onto their own offspring. Hence, generation after generation will miss the opportunity to break out of the cycle of violence and death to make a better life for themselves and their children.
This is what happens when the environment encourages the development of seriously immature psychological defenses.
Meanwhile, the Israelis quietly go on; growing economically, building universities and engaging in civilized behavior, using their psychological and spiritual wisdom as a motivation to keep trying. Surrounded by those who want only to exterminate them, the Israelis have, time and again, refrained for the most part, from giving back what they are receiving. As a society, culture, and a religion, they have achieved a degree of maturity and wisdom that allows them to be dispassionate as well as compassionate, and not indulge in the kind of mass hysteria and dysfunction that is seen daily in their fanatical enemies. As a people they keep on trying and hoping for a breakthrough; because fundamentally, they want to bring about a better life for their children--a simple goal that Jews have always and in all places desired.
SC&A touched on these issues here and here and rightly points out:
Further, when it comes to those who encourage and enable Palestinian dysfunction:
What do the Palestinians want? They encourage their children to blow themselves up and die so that the adults can maintain their "honor" and continue on the path of destruction and death. This is not behavior compatible with either individual or cultural health. In fact, it is a culture that is inexorably pursuing suicide with a breathtaking single-mindedness.
In order to grow psychologically and develop the ego strength to live in a civilized world, the children of Palestine requre a different environment. If some Pied Piper could lead them away from the broken and severely impaired adults; or if someone called those adults to account for the irrational, culturally sanctined malignant narcissism that is cloaked in religious sanctimony--then there might one day be a resolution to the tragedy and a future for today's Palestinian children.
A healthy environment--one that encourages healthy relationships between men and women; and between all individuals--is essential so that children can learn to deal appropriately with loss, sorrow and all the unbearable unfairness of life that characterizes the human condition. In such environments, the individual thrives, matures, and gains the wisdom necessary to change what is able to be changed. In such environments, there is no need to encourage denial, paranoia or projection, because the resultant psychological maturity permits access to the mature emotional defenses that give meaning and bring satisfaction to life.
Each of the mature defenses which help the mature adult resolve the ambiguities and paradoxes of his or her life, has an inherent paradox associated with it (see the Table below).
Civilized societies and cultures encourage and support the individual in the pursuit of his or her own life, happiness and psychological growth. These societies do not lay claim to an individual's life for the glory of the state; and in turn all members of the societey benefit as the culture's productivity, wealth and benevolence increases.
In other words, paradoxically, those political, economic, cultural and religious factors that encourage what is best for the individual's growth and maturity, are exactly what encourage the positive evolution and maturation of societies and cultures.
Psychological maturity makes all the difference in the world between war and peace. Mature psychological defenses enable creative solutions to conflicts in ways that are positive for both the individual and society. They also permit the use of force for self-defense when necessary, without all the useless hand-wringing and vapid moralizing about "peace" and "brotherhood" --which is essentially a manifestation of psychological denial and represents an aggressive attempt to avoid dealing with reality.
The immature defenses--such as denial, projection, paranoia--are not amenable to reason; and those who use them cannot be negotiated with. On the contrary, the use of such defenses by any nation or a culture or group inexorably whittles away at civilized behavior, eventually causing the individuals within the culture to abandon it completely. When a culture reaches that psychological dead-end, it has no future because the suicidal/homicidal rage will cause it to implode.
Any peace process that depends on rationality or a desire for peace on the part of the Palestinian and wider Islamic culture of the Middle East is likewise doomed to implode. Hamas will never recognize Israel, nor will they bother to recognize reality, truth, reason, or peace. Until they do, their death worship will continue unabated, aided and abetted by the denialists of the West.
The Palestinian prime minister, Ismail Haniyeh, today said his Hamas-led government will never recognise Israel and will continue to fight for the liberation of Jerusalem.
"We will never recognise the usurper Zionist government and will continue our jihad-like movement until the liberation of Jerusalem," Mr Haniyeh told thousands of Friday prayer worshippers at Tehran University in Iran....
Mr Haniyeh, who is on his first foreign visit since his Hamas-led government took office in March after a surprise election victory, called Iran, a long-time ally of Hamas, the Palestinians' "strategic depth".
"They (Israelis) assume the Palestinian nation is alone. This is an illusion ... We have a strategic depth in the Islamic Republic of Iran. This country (Iran) is our powerful, dynamic and stable depth," he said.
Mr Haniyeh is in Iran for talks with Iranian leaders, including President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who has called for Israel to be "wiped off the map".
The fantasy that the Annapolis talks have "launched" some sort of peace process in the Middle East between Israel and the Palestinians is just that, a fantasy.
The truth of that conflict is somewhat different than many would like to pretend.
Gagdad Bob once wisely pointed out at One Cosmos that:
If truth exists, it seems that it is something that we would want to align ourselves with, no? For truth is what works, isn't it?Therapists more than many, appreciate the fact that people engage in all sorts of self-deception all the time. Psychiatry and psychotherapy is essentially a search for the truth; which is sometimes hidden beneath layers and layers of self-deception and cleverly deployed psychological defenses that protect and insulate the individual from confronting something painful and devastating to their world.
Not necessarily. With psychoanalysis, Freud articulated an entire system of thought that essentially comes down to a means for investigating the many ways in which human beings lie to themselves. Thus, in a sense, these lies "work" -- i.e., they have a function -- or they wouldn't have been erected in the first place.
For example, one routinely sees adults who were abused or neglected as children by their parents. This is the truth. But this truth doesn't "work" for an infant, because it would make living intolerably painful -- impossible, really. Therefore, in order to go on living, the child erects the lie, "my parents love me. There is something wrong with me." Interestingly, on some level, one must know the truth in order to erect the lie. Psychoanalytic therapy, in its broadest sense, is simply a search for truth....
It is for this reason that psychotherapy can take a great deal of courage on the part of the patient; and a great deal of persistant probing on the part of the therapist. Simply put, psychological health and the ability to function optimally in life absolutely depends on being able to recognize reality effectively deal with it. Self-deception is fundamentally dysfunctional, and over the long-term potentially lethal.
Psychological defense mechanisms are unconscious strategies that are automatically enlisted by the psyche when reality threatens to overwhelm the individual. When an immature defense is put up to block the pain--such as denial or projection-- it may be extremely effective in the short-term, but it sets in motion a cascade of psychological consequences that inevitably result in long-term misery for the individual. An analogy would be the clinical use of methadone--itself a highly and extremely addictive opiate, but with less painful and agonizing withdrawal symptoms--to help a person detox from heroin. The individual however, becomes addicted to the methadone and it must then be maintained for life.
In the example above that Bob uses, the child is able to retain his love for the abusive parent, but instead concludes that something is wrong with him. This incorrect conclusion, born of faulty psychological logic, will impact his life in all areas: relationships, work and will impede any chances he has to achieve success, personal fulfillment and happiness, or genuine intimacy.
It is not my intention to suggest that the only way to cope with stress is to use psychological defenses. On the contrary, there are many factors that come into play, such as the individual's temperment and inborn biological/physiological protections; the presence or absence of social or environmental supports, hope and faith and even luck or serendipity may play a role in helping someone get through difficult times.
In fact, all these factors--biological, social, cultural, religious--all interact together and, in times of stress, have a considerable impact on which psychological defense is ultimately erected to protect the individual.
And it is all these factors that come into play when trying to understand why a supposedly mature person uses immature psychological defenses.
If a person experiences an overwhelming number of environmental insults without sufficient biological resiliency, he will fail; if he has enough of the protective environmental factors (e.g., love, health, education) he is relatively invincible to the vissictitudes of life. If he or she is born with normal resilience, but the culture is severely pathological and thus the environment is not conducive to the development of psychological maturity, then the individual will go down with the culture, unless he is able to escape from its influence.
Let us for the moment say that all biological factors being equal (and, of course, they are not) then the primary determinants will be the degree to which those environmental factors control the life and activities of the person.
While it is true that even healthy people may transiently use the immature psychological defenses, they do so only as a temporary measure; until they psychologically prepare themselves to deal with the threat. An example is the reflexive denial when suddenly hearing about a loved one's death. The mind is simply not able to handle the catastrophe immediately and it uses simple denial to briefly cope with an unacceptable truth.
But within a brief time, reality will set in; and, if the confluence of factors in their life has led them to psychological maturity, the ego is able to handle the painful reality--they will suffer, they will grieve, they will grow; and then they are able to move on.
This process does not happen in some cultures or societies.
Environmental and cultural factors can encourge individuals to deploy mature defenses; or they may encourage the deployment of the immature and primitive defenses. The immature defenses are infectious. They can spread like an epidemic through a population--particularly if they are culturally or religiously sanctioned. This is because they offer the simplest and most gratifying explanation for an individual's or a society's problems ("It's all the Jews fault!", "If it weren't for those Blacks!", "Republicans hate the poor!" and so on).
From The Wisdom of the Ego:
The capacity to use social supports involves the ability to metabolize, as it were, other people once they are found. This capacity is inextricably bound to potential for psychosocial maturation....
In order to treat the experience of being loved as if it were a gift and neither a danger nor a right, we need the ego capacity of being able to absorb those who love us. If we marry someone much richer than ourselves, shall we feel grateful or envious? If our tennis partner always beats us, doues our game improve or does our self-esteem plummet? If our father is in some was a disaster, are we determined to avenge ourselves by becoming really good fathers, or do we do unto other as was done to us?
[...]
...the process of metabolizing social supports is far more subtle. We can teach people ideas. We can teach someone to view a glass as half full rather than half empty; we can teach people to have positive attributions. But how to teach people to treat an onrush of love as a gift and not a threat is a more daunting task, one that requires grace or at least consummate skill.
Ego maturity, and the ability to deploy the healthier, more mature defenses comes about as a result of one's experience with the problems of life and the increasing ability to tolerate paradox. Vaillant recounts this brief story, which is very telling:
...a College man who was both a model for mature defenses and a distinguished career diplomat to the Arab world told me that he was on his way to address a B'nai B'rith group. I asked him what he planned to say about the dilemma of Palestine. He replied that he would quote the wise man who observed, "When in a conflict both parties have the moral right on their side, that is the meaning of tragedy." A paradox. Yet Eugene O'Neill suggested that the tragic alone has that significant beauty which is truth. A second paradox. But where does the capacity to tolerate such paradox come from?"
Let us look for a moment at the tragedy that is the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. One side of that conflict has attempted to come to terms with this paradox multiple times; and has acknowledged that there is moral right on both sides of the conflict. That side has repeatedly and earnestly tried to make peace by giving the other side what it says it wants. That side is Israel, who has given the Palestinians everything they need to create their own state and to make a life for themselves and their people.
It is the completely dysfunctional Palestinians, whose envy and hate (societally, culturally and religiously inflamed) have led them to repeatedly refuse the gift given freely by the Israelis. Instead, they cling to their denial of the reality of Israel; they resort to a barbaric and primitive paranoia and projection blaming the Israelis and the Jews for their own squandering of billions of dollars, their own choice to spend that money on weapons and arms instead of schools and institutions that might make the future brighter. Indeed, the homicidal and suicidal rage encouraged by the culture is the only behavioral choice that allows them as a culture to keep their distorted grasp of reality intact.
The social, cultural and religious supports for the individual Palestinians have abjectly failed them and cannot facilitate emotional maturity. And the external social/environmental supports (such as they are) for the entire culture continue to enable the culture's dysfunctional behavior by never permitting them to suffer the consequences of their actions (the enabling by the intellectuals of the West); and by maliciously using their plight for the purpose of oppressing and controlling other middle east populations (their so-called "brothers" and fellow Muslims of the Islamic world).
Thus, the Palestinians are trapped forever in the grip of an immature, barbaric, and primitive cultural ego; their plight cynically manipulated by their "friends" and fellow muslims; and their dysfunctional behavior rewarded monetarily and excused by the "superior" intellectuals of the West. Homicide and suicide are the lifestyle of choice. [Note: that is why it is especially sickening that the enabling selfless psychopaths in the West, who see themselves as "antiwar" and "peace" activists have chosen to use the headscarf of the Palestinian people as some sort of a fashionable peace symbol. It is indeed a symbol, but not of what they imagine.]
Here is an interesting reality:
Dershowitz recounts a telling incident at the University of California, Irvine which is a "hotbed" of anti-Israeli agitation:He [Dershowitz ] spoke to a large crowd, and first asked those who considered themselves pro-Israel to raise their hands. About 250 hands were raised. He then asked them if they would accept a Palestinian state, side by side, living in peace with Israel. Every hand went up.
Then he asked how many considered themselves pro-Palestinian. About 150 hands were raised. Finally, he asked this group whether they would accept a Jewish state of Israel, living side by side in peace with a new Palestinian state. Not a single hand went up.
In the sick and pathological environment of the dysfunctional Palestinians-- carefully cultured by their fellow Muslims and nurtured by their admirers and supporters in the West--Palestinian children have practically no chance whatsoever of growing up to achieve any degree of emotional or psychological maturity. The environment is far too toxic to support ego maturation. And when they are physically mature, they will pass the psychological toxicity onto their own offspring. Hence, generation after generation will miss the opportunity to break out of the cycle of violence and death to make a better life for themselves and their children.This is what happens when the environment encourages the development of seriously immature psychological defenses.
Meanwhile, the Israelis quietly go on; growing economically, building universities and engaging in civilized behavior, using their psychological and spiritual wisdom as a motivation to keep trying. Surrounded by those who want only to exterminate them, the Israelis have, time and again, refrained for the most part, from giving back what they are receiving. As a society, culture, and a religion, they have achieved a degree of maturity and wisdom that allows them to be dispassionate as well as compassionate, and not indulge in the kind of mass hysteria and dysfunction that is seen daily in their fanatical enemies. As a people they keep on trying and hoping for a breakthrough; because fundamentally, they want to bring about a better life for their children--a simple goal that Jews have always and in all places desired.
SC&A touched on these issues here and here and rightly points out:
Now, let’s think about that for a minute. Does anyone seriously believe that there are any Jews, anywhere, that are fixated (read: obsessed) on the Arab world? Does anyone really believe that the vast majority of Jews wake up every morning and ask themselves, ‘What can I do to screw an Arab today?’
Does anyone really believe that Jews- like everybody else- put aside concern for their family, jobs, community and whatever needs they might have, just so they might focus on undermining the Arabs and Arab world?
What could Jews- or anyone else, for that matter, anywhere, do to Arabs what their own dysfunctional political and ‘religious’ leadership haven’t already done to insure the failure of Arab society? As it is, according to the UN Human Development report, the Arab world already has just about the lowest levels of education in the world, save for sub Saharan Africa
Further, when it comes to those who encourage and enable Palestinian dysfunction:
A rational and civilized person would see the situation for what it is. A desperate bigot would will rationalize and attempt to divert attention away from the obvious- because in acknowledging obvious realities, they have to acknowledge their own failures. To a bigot or anyone with with clear psychopathies, that is intolerable. To see that the emperor they worship has no clothes is for them, catastrophic, because they cannot tolerate the truths that expose them. For example, supposedly ‘liberal’ and ‘progressive’ ideologies are ferociously adamant in their support of the Palestinian and Arab causes, notwithstanding the openly misogynistic, anti gay and racist ideologies they espouse. They cannot repudiate those agendas, because to do so would be to admit that their supposed ‘liberal’ and ‘progressive’ ideologies are a facade. Their primary interests lie in their own gratification and self aggrandizement. Violence against gays, women and minorities is acceptable as long as it takes place far away. The moment someone speaks in away they don’t like, they work themselves into a frenzy. To attack an unknown in a faraway place is acceptable- to attack their ideas is to unleash an irrational and even violent fury.
What do the Palestinians want? They encourage their children to blow themselves up and die so that the adults can maintain their "honor" and continue on the path of destruction and death. This is not behavior compatible with either individual or cultural health. In fact, it is a culture that is inexorably pursuing suicide with a breathtaking single-mindedness.
In order to grow psychologically and develop the ego strength to live in a civilized world, the children of Palestine requre a different environment. If some Pied Piper could lead them away from the broken and severely impaired adults; or if someone called those adults to account for the irrational, culturally sanctined malignant narcissism that is cloaked in religious sanctimony--then there might one day be a resolution to the tragedy and a future for today's Palestinian children.
A healthy environment--one that encourages healthy relationships between men and women; and between all individuals--is essential so that children can learn to deal appropriately with loss, sorrow and all the unbearable unfairness of life that characterizes the human condition. In such environments, the individual thrives, matures, and gains the wisdom necessary to change what is able to be changed. In such environments, there is no need to encourage denial, paranoia or projection, because the resultant psychological maturity permits access to the mature emotional defenses that give meaning and bring satisfaction to life.
Each of the mature defenses which help the mature adult resolve the ambiguities and paradoxes of his or her life, has an inherent paradox associated with it (see the Table below).
Civilized societies and cultures encourage and support the individual in the pursuit of his or her own life, happiness and psychological growth. These societies do not lay claim to an individual's life for the glory of the state; and in turn all members of the societey benefit as the culture's productivity, wealth and benevolence increases.
In other words, paradoxically, those political, economic, cultural and religious factors that encourage what is best for the individual's growth and maturity, are exactly what encourage the positive evolution and maturation of societies and cultures.
Psychological maturity makes all the difference in the world between war and peace. Mature psychological defenses enable creative solutions to conflicts in ways that are positive for both the individual and society. They also permit the use of force for self-defense when necessary, without all the useless hand-wringing and vapid moralizing about "peace" and "brotherhood" --which is essentially a manifestation of psychological denial and represents an aggressive attempt to avoid dealing with reality.
The immature defenses--such as denial, projection, paranoia--are not amenable to reason; and those who use them cannot be negotiated with. On the contrary, the use of such defenses by any nation or a culture or group inexorably whittles away at civilized behavior, eventually causing the individuals within the culture to abandon it completely. When a culture reaches that psychological dead-end, it has no future because the suicidal/homicidal rage will cause it to implode.
Any peace process that depends on rationality or a desire for peace on the part of the Palestinian and wider Islamic culture of the Middle East is likewise doomed to implode. Hamas will never recognize Israel, nor will they bother to recognize reality, truth, reason, or peace. Until they do, their death worship will continue unabated, aided and abetted by the denialists of the West.
Tuesday, December 18, 2007
OH LORD, WON'T YOU BUY ME A MERCEDES BENZ
The Iranians have found a creative use for their Mercedes trucks.
[Photo by Amir Hesami nejad at Irannews.info]
I'll bet Mercedes doesn't really care for the free advertising it gets in this photo, however. Do you suppose there will be an outraged leftist surge to boycott corporate evil? Probably not. There's never been any call to boycott computers (or cell phones for that matter) used by terrorists and their apologists.
Or, radio contests either.
Meanwhile, in a related story:
UPDATE: Will wonders never cease?
[Photo by Amir Hesami nejad at Irannews.info]
I'll bet Mercedes doesn't really care for the free advertising it gets in this photo, however. Do you suppose there will be an outraged leftist surge to boycott corporate evil? Probably not. There's never been any call to boycott computers (or cell phones for that matter) used by terrorists and their apologists.
Or, radio contests either.
Meanwhile, in a related story:
Report: Germany Expelled Iranian Diplomat Over Fuel Enrichment
Germany expelled an Iranian diplomat in July after he tried to purchase equipment for his country's controversial nuclear program, a German news magazine reported on Saturday, Dec. 15.
The report, which the German weekly Der Spiegel released in advance of its publication on Monday, said the man was ordered to leave the country in July, but the case had not been disclosed until now.
The German Foreign Ministry declined to comment on the report.
UPDATE: Will wonders never cease?
STATE OF DELUSION
In this article we have a perfect example of how the "reality-based" among us have managed to project their own perverse dark side onto the innocent...
...even as they cheerfully exonerate and protect the guilty, and make sure the guilty are not judged-- or made to feel excluded in any way.
As Steyn notes, it's a sign of the times--or, rather a state of the delusion of the times--that in trying to be so "safe and welcoming for all" we have slipped the fragile bonds of reality and common sense, all for the sake of political correctness and deluding ourselves about wonders of inclusiveness and diversity.
We are all perverts now.
Except, of course, for the real perverts of our times, who are given a free pass-- as this article demonstrates:
And so on, and so on, and so on...in case after nauseating case.
In this sorry state of delusion, the only real discussion amounts to, who is more perverted? The misogynistic and sadistic Islamists? Or their politically correct leftist enablers?
Or, as someone has said in a related context, "Something this unprecedented goes beyond religious toleration."
Very true. Beyond tolerance--religious or otherwise--and straight to self-delusion.
UPDATE: Join Siggy, ShrinkWrapped, Neo, and me on our latest podcast as we discuss the religious murder of Aqsa Parvez by her father--and its psychological ramifications.
Click below to listen:
A word to anybody planning on visiting Oldham in northern England. All persons in municipal parks are assumed to be perverts, just to be on the safe side:A COUPLE were banned from taking photographs of their baby daughter on a swing by a park warden who declared it `inappropriate.'
Steve Brook and partner Mandy Smith were having a family day out with 11-month-old Rebecca when the council worker swooped.
"It beggars belief," said Steve, 35. "The fact that a mummy and daddy can't take a picture of their own daughter is ridiculous... I asked him why and he said it was illegal to take pictures of children in the park. I explained it was my own daughter but he still said it wasn't allowed."
A council official said: "We are committed to ensuring that all our parks are safe and welcoming places for all visitors. To ensure this happens staff are instructed to be observant and aware of the activities of park users and consider whether they are appropriate."
...even as they cheerfully exonerate and protect the guilty, and make sure the guilty are not judged-- or made to feel excluded in any way.
As Steyn notes, it's a sign of the times--or, rather a state of the delusion of the times--that in trying to be so "safe and welcoming for all" we have slipped the fragile bonds of reality and common sense, all for the sake of political correctness and deluding ourselves about wonders of inclusiveness and diversity.
We are all perverts now.
Except, of course, for the real perverts of our times, who are given a free pass-- as this article demonstrates:
It's the episode of Little Mosque on the Prairie that I missed. The one where the father is so angry with his teenage daughter for not wearing the hijab that he strangles her to death. Perhaps it will be in the special features section of the DVD version, released just in time for the holiday that used to be known as Christmas, but not any longer because the word might hurt someone's feelings.
Not that we know why, or even if Muhammad Parvez killed his 16-year-old daughter Aqsa last week in Mississauga, Ont. But we do know that he has been charged with the crime and that friends told reporters there had been terrible arguments about Aqsa's refusal to wear Islamic head covering and that she wanted a different path from that of her family.
Most Canadian Muslim leaders immediately condemned what had happened but it didn't take very long for the usual suspects to explain on radio and television that the tragedy had nothing to do with the Muslim faith and that all religions contain extremism. Islam, we were told, is a religion of peace.
Which is probably just what the owner of a Christian bookstore in Gaza thought three months ago as he was murdered and his shop firebombed. Or Danny Pearl, shortly before the American journalist had his head cut off by Islamic terrorists -- who, naturally, filmed the whole thing and made sure their chants from the Koran were loud and clear.
Or the wretched gang-rape victim in Saudi Arabia sentenced to 200 lashes for daring to be in a car at the time of the crime with a man to whom she was not married or related. Or the women stoned to death for adultery. Or the Iranian men hanged because they were homosexual.
And so on, and so on, and so on...in case after nauseating case.
In this sorry state of delusion, the only real discussion amounts to, who is more perverted? The misogynistic and sadistic Islamists? Or their politically correct leftist enablers?
Or, as someone has said in a related context, "Something this unprecedented goes beyond religious toleration."
Very true. Beyond tolerance--religious or otherwise--and straight to self-delusion.
UPDATE: Join Siggy, ShrinkWrapped, Neo, and me on our latest podcast as we discuss the religious murder of Aqsa Parvez by her father--and its psychological ramifications.
Click below to listen:
Monday, December 17, 2007
THE SANITY SQUAD, LIVE TONITE !
Tonight's topics will include the recent murder of a teen age girl in Canada by her religious Father, who was upset because she wouldn't wear a hijab; and the reaction of Islamic groups to her killing. If there's time, we'll switch topics to the national political scene and talk about Lieberman's endorsement of McCain, Huckabee's rise and Hillary's descent.Join Siggy, ShrinkWrapped, Neo, and me for some psychological and political analysis that's sure to be provocative and, hopefully, annoying.
Click below to listen live at 8 PM tonight:
CALL-IN Number during show is (646) 716-9116
GOOD COMMUNISTS AND BAD CHRISTIANS
David Freddoso make a very good point in a post at The Corner about godless ideologies and Europe:
Freddoso and others at The Corner were discussing a recent op-ed piece by Charles Krauthammer, "An Overdose of Public Piety", in which he discusses two arguments about the role of religion in politics:
Let us build on this argument for a moment. Whatever you may think of religion, the Judeo-Christian tradition has, for millenia, provided and continues to provide to those who believe in God a moral compass--an ethical foundation that is now rooted in a committment to a rational metaphysics and epistemology that states that reality exists and human beings are able to percive it.
The philosophical premises that deconstruct that tradition are only a few centuries old, but already they have managed to generate more human misery, suffering, and death from the various utopian ideologies which they unleashed than in all the centuries that preceeded. It can be argued and has been, that this catastrophe is a direct result of the "death of God" in human affairs.
You see, "good" communists, as Freddoso argues, not only don't believe in a god, they have also abandoned the rational metaphysics and epistemology that is required for an ethics that prioritizes human life as basis for what is good. In an existence where objective reality doesn't exist; and where the human mind is disconnected from it, anything goes. This is postmodernism at its finest and in its ultimate manifestation. And it is from the darkness of that manifestation that communism, socialism and fascism --and their 21st century iterations: radical Islam and radical environmentalism (see here for a more complete discussion of this)-- have erupted into history, all of them variations on the same totalitarian theme in the the postmodern philosophical songbook.
"Good" communists, socialists, and fascists thrive in an environment of oppression, death, and human misery. Indeed, that is the medium in which they grow best and consciously or unconsciously, they facilitate and nurture such a medium.
The radical Islamists, far from being an example of a "good" religion are the living, breathing examples of everything that "bad" religion could possibly be--in essence, they are an "anti-religion" religion in the same way that radical environmentalism has become the left's bad secular religion. The epidemic of "religiously" motivated murder has been taken to new extremes by the fanatics of Islam, who regularly make us aware of their lack of a good ethical Ideal (see "Union With An Evil God").
And, Mark Steyn ( "The earth is your fuhrer") demonstrates the logical extreme of today's enviromental-fascists, whose ethical "Ideal" is the indifferent physical planet whom they worship as Gaia/God in much the same way their primitive ancestors worshipped the sun or moon--they are even now planning the sacrifices necessary to placate the whim of those destructive gods:
When religion is rooted in human freedom, as it is in the Judeo-Christian tradition, then it is able to enhance human life and give meaning and purpose to that life. When it is perverted and used for secular political ends--by either the political left or right who want to impose or mandate some social policy or another on others, then it inevitably leads to oppression and cheapens or devalues human life.
Even on his best day, a "good" communist, socialist, fascist etc. will never be any better than a really "bad" Christian.
Communism and National Socialism (both of which are godless, or at least an explicit rejection of Christianity) wholeheartedly embraced the notion that violence, murder, and the deliberate degradation of human dignity (genocide, abolition of property rights and of the human family) are legitimate means to acheiving their ends. Nothing can be further from a Christian worldview than the assertion that "the end justifies the means." The Communists and Nazis directly responsible for murdering more than 100 million people in the 20th Century were being strictly obedient to their ideologies — they were good Communists and Nazis, embracing the notion that human life can be treated as valueless if such treatment advances the proper ends.
We have been passing through an age of secular utopianism, in which some thinkers decided that it is acceptable to sacrifice individuals for what they perceive to be the common good. Their followers have done the rest.
I never meant to assert that Europe was all happy ponies before it lost its faith. In earlier centuries, kings and princes — and yes, popes — abused Christianity for political ends with horrible consequences (note that they are viewed as bad Christians).
Freddoso and others at The Corner were discussing a recent op-ed piece by Charles Krauthammer, "An Overdose of Public Piety", in which he discusses two arguments about the role of religion in politics:
The first, which conservatives are winning, is defending the legitimacy of religion in the public square. The second, which conservatives are bound to lose, is proclaiming the privileged status of religion in political life.
A certain kind of liberal argues that having a religious underpinning for any public policy is disqualifying because it is an imposition of religion on others. Thus, if your opposition to embryonic stem cell research comes from a religious belief in the ensoulment of life at conception, you're somehow violating the separation of church and state by making other people bend to your religion.
This is absurd. Abolitionism, civil rights, temperance, opposition to the death penalty -- a host of policies, even political movements, have been rooted for many people in religious teaching or interpretation. It's ridiculous to say that therefore abolitionism, civil rights, etc., constitute an imposition of religion on others.
Imposing religion means the mandating of religious practice. It does not mean the mandating of social policy that some people may have come to support for religious reasons.
But a certain kind of conservative is not content to argue that a religious underpinning for a policy is not disqualifying. He insists that it is uniquely qualifying, indeed that it confers some special status.
Let us build on this argument for a moment. Whatever you may think of religion, the Judeo-Christian tradition has, for millenia, provided and continues to provide to those who believe in God a moral compass--an ethical foundation that is now rooted in a committment to a rational metaphysics and epistemology that states that reality exists and human beings are able to percive it.
The philosophical premises that deconstruct that tradition are only a few centuries old, but already they have managed to generate more human misery, suffering, and death from the various utopian ideologies which they unleashed than in all the centuries that preceeded. It can be argued and has been, that this catastrophe is a direct result of the "death of God" in human affairs.
You see, "good" communists, as Freddoso argues, not only don't believe in a god, they have also abandoned the rational metaphysics and epistemology that is required for an ethics that prioritizes human life as basis for what is good. In an existence where objective reality doesn't exist; and where the human mind is disconnected from it, anything goes. This is postmodernism at its finest and in its ultimate manifestation. And it is from the darkness of that manifestation that communism, socialism and fascism --and their 21st century iterations: radical Islam and radical environmentalism (see here for a more complete discussion of this)-- have erupted into history, all of them variations on the same totalitarian theme in the the postmodern philosophical songbook.
"Good" communists, socialists, and fascists thrive in an environment of oppression, death, and human misery. Indeed, that is the medium in which they grow best and consciously or unconsciously, they facilitate and nurture such a medium.
The radical Islamists, far from being an example of a "good" religion are the living, breathing examples of everything that "bad" religion could possibly be--in essence, they are an "anti-religion" religion in the same way that radical environmentalism has become the left's bad secular religion. The epidemic of "religiously" motivated murder has been taken to new extremes by the fanatics of Islam, who regularly make us aware of their lack of a good ethical Ideal (see "Union With An Evil God").
And, Mark Steyn ( "The earth is your fuhrer") demonstrates the logical extreme of today's enviromental-fascists, whose ethical "Ideal" is the indifferent physical planet whom they worship as Gaia/God in much the same way their primitive ancestors worshipped the sun or moon--they are even now planning the sacrifices necessary to placate the whim of those destructive gods:
Here's one for Jonah's Liberal Fascism files. Bigshot eco-panjandrum lays down the law:Hillman, senior fellow emeritus at the Policy Studies Institute, says carbon rationing is the only way to ensure that the world avoids the worst effects of climate change. And he says that the problems caused by burning fossil fuels are so serious that governments might have to implement rationing against the will of the people.
"When the chips are down I think democracy is a less important goal than is the protection of the planet from the death of life, the end of life on it," he says. "This has got to be imposed on people whether they like it or not." (emphasis Steyn)
When religion is rooted in human freedom, as it is in the Judeo-Christian tradition, then it is able to enhance human life and give meaning and purpose to that life. When it is perverted and used for secular political ends--by either the political left or right who want to impose or mandate some social policy or another on others, then it inevitably leads to oppression and cheapens or devalues human life.
Even on his best day, a "good" communist, socialist, fascist etc. will never be any better than a really "bad" Christian.
Sunday, December 16, 2007
HILLARY'S NEXT MOVE ?
In light of Hillary's precipitous drop in the polls lately, it is clear that this drug is her only hope and needs to be disseminated immediately!
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.
***Submissions with a holiday theme may be saved for the Christmas/Holiday Carnival!**
REMEMBER, THERE ARE SO MANY INSANITIES AND SO LITTLE TIME!!!
1. A National Intelligence Estimate you won't see! Oh dear! Goodbye, cruel world.... Hoodwinked!
2. The mullahs are punked; Hamas is its usual paranoid psychotic self; and the CIC makes excuses for a murderer and blames the victim. All in a day's work for the religion of peace! But then they can always count on the Dhimmicrats.
3. Which reminds me...what's the big deal about this? We've already got lots of grown men and women who are unafraid of [Islamic] predators. This would be a much more practical mutation!
4. Conventionally ignorant? Poof! The vanishing war. Meanwhile, in Michigan they line up to take jobs in....Iraq.
5. The Pope lashes out at religious fundamentalists ! And there are some icy roadblocks that impede true belief.
6. Twas the week before Chanukah...and in Turtle Bay... they won't wipe Israel off the map, but these children may...
7. Ix-nay on the Ihad-Jay
8. Black like him?
9.Facebook? No. THIS is my preferred social network!
10. Immanuel Kant for President?. And running against Nietzche?
11. You call those insane taxes? These are insane taxes! Tax babies to save the planet.
12. Hugo turns back the clock on progress. Cuckoo! Cuckoo!
13. Victimhood poker world series! One of the many protected poor little contestants. But you can win the hand life deals you without having/being a straight! Vagino-Americans and Phallo-Americans...at least it's upfront.
14. A mild case of Ebola? It's like a mild case of envirofanaticism.
15. There's certainly no joy in Mudville....Maybe the solution is to force everyone to take steroids?
16. Saliva control is a must.
17. Sooner or later they're gonna get ya.
18. Blogs R Sisu!
***************************************
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, December 15, 2007
A CHRISTMAS STORY
[More Cartoons by Eric Allie ]
[More Cartoons by Michael Ramirez]
A word of warning to the Democrats: "You'll shoot your eye out, kid!"
Friday, December 14, 2007
WORKERS OF THE WORLD UNITE !
The dustbin of history eagerly awaits the apparatchiks from Hugo's little revolutionary Cuban-wannabe hell-hole:
Workers of the world, unite! Rise up! You have nothing to lose but those oppressive marxist thugs who promise you everything, but only manage to suck away all your liberty, your wealth, and your pride. Get rid of all the stupid and hypocritical oppressors who are working so hard to bring you poverty and misery even as they line their own pockets and live the high life.
Viva La Revolucion!
A video of a Gucci- and Louis Vuitton-clad politician attacking capitalism then struggling to explain how his luxurious clothes square with his socialist beliefs has become an instant YouTube hit in Venezuela.
Venezuelan Interior Minister Pedro Carreno was momentarily at a loss for words when a journalist interrupted his speech and asked if it was not contradictory to criticize capitalism while wearing Gucci shoes and a tie made by Parisian luxury goods maker Louis Vuitton.
"I don't, uh ... I ... of course," stammered Carreno on Tuesday before regaining his composure. "It's not contradictory because I would like Venezuela to produce all this so I could buy stuff produced here instead of 95 percent of what we consume being imported."
Workers of the world, unite! Rise up! You have nothing to lose but those oppressive marxist thugs who promise you everything, but only manage to suck away all your liberty, your wealth, and your pride. Get rid of all the stupid and hypocritical oppressors who are working so hard to bring you poverty and misery even as they line their own pockets and live the high life.
Viva La Revolucion!
Thursday, December 13, 2007
THE MYTHS THAT FUEL THE LEFT'S ONGOING DENIAL OF REALITY
The end of the year is upon us, and I think it is time once again to look at the "Top 10 Myths of the Iraq War" that were compiled by Strategy Page in January of this year. I've just listed them, so go to the link for a discussion of each myth:
1-No Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD).
2-The 2003 Invasion was Illegal.
3-Sanctions were working.
4-Overthrowing Saddam Only Helped Iran.
5-The Invasion Was a Failure.
6-The Invasion Helped Al Qaeda.
7-Iraq Is In A State of Civil War.
8-Iraqis Were Better Off Under Saddam.
9-The Iraq War Caused Islamic Terrorism to Increase in Europe.
10- The War in Iraq is Lost.
The fact that Iraq has sort of dropped off the radar of both the MSM and the Democrats should tell you how fast both are retreating from their original talking points. They know that promoting defeat at this point in time is a losing stance for them in 2008--except of course, for the lunatic fringe of their base. Meanwhile, Bush's poll numbers seem to be rising, much to Democrat's dismay...and their own Congressional approval rating hovers near record lows.
The Democrats and the left live (and die) by polls. Popularity means everything to them. Other people's opinions are the foundation of all their "principled" stands on issues--so watch for a significant shift in their principles in the days to come.
But let's not deceive ourselves. Such a shift would not indicate any real alteration of their unbelievable self-induced blindness and utter refusal to acknowledge the realities of Islamic fanaticism and the war on terror. To do that would require a fundamental re-assessment of their socialist/leftist/PC ideology itself.
Anna Freud once wrote that the ego of a child in denial "refuses to become aware of some disagreeable reality.... It turns its back on it, and in imagination reverses the unwelcome facts."
The essence of psychologica denial is a refusal to look at or acknowledge reality.
Fortunately, reality exists outside of one's head and is objective and verifiable. It is not altered by whim, desire, lies or myth. This is not to say that people might not believe ideas that do not conform to reality--in fact, they do so all the time. Just like Anna's description of the child's ego, the ego of an otherwise normal adult may also resort to childish, immature and primitive mechanisms when it feels threatened.
You would think it would be a simple matter to be "in touch" with reality. But it isn't. It requires a great deal of cognitive effort--i.e., thinking--and often that effort must assert itself over powerful emotions that draw the person away from the real world to a place more comfortable and unchallenging to their inner reality.
So, how does a rational person determine what is true and what is delusion? How do you decide if something is a myth or is real?
In the case of the Strategy Page list above, people of the left will assert that it is those of us who don't subscribe to those assertions who are in living in the land of psychological denial. As I already mentioned (and it can't be repeated too often these days) reality objectively exists outside of any one person's or group's beliefs.
Psychological denial and the avoidance of an unpleasant reality are certainly not confined to one side of the political spectrum or the other. But what I find endlessly fascinating is how the political left has created and fully integrated specific ideological tools that facilitate ongoing psychological denial.
It reminds me of all the paranoid patients I have observed over the years, who effortlessly are able to dismiss or explain away those facts that don't fit in with their carefully constructed conspiracy theories. If you get too assertive in pointing out those uncomfortable facts, you find yourself in no time fully integrated into the theory. For the paranoid, the case is closed and the argument is finished.
The political left has been utilizing the same psychological strategies inherent in the paranoid style since the end of the cold war and the 20th century. The rise of politically correct speech and the dogma of multiculturalism; the insistence on cultural diversity while enforcing a profound homogeneity of ideas and lack of intellectual diversity in academia; as well as the distortions and rationalizations that are currently the hallmark of intellectual debate within our institutions of higher learning and politics-- have all combined to dissuade those on the political left from pursuing a course of intellectual honesty and/or emotional insight.
This is what makes it so frustrating to debate or argue with today's typical postmodern leftist. Some are willing to engage in discussion, but you can always count on their complete dismissal of any fact that does not conform to their ideological perspective. No matter how many times you debunk their position (e.g., no matter how many times evidence of Saddam's WMD's are found and documented; that evidence has been either ignored or poo-pooed using a variety of rationalizations--and the goalposts are then changed to ensure the safety of the denial).
When it suits their purposes (i.e., when they are losing the argument), they will resort to the claim that reality and truth are merely subjective constructs anyway, and that any evidence you present is only someone's "opinion" and that their opinions are as good as anyone else's.
Such a position should logically disqualify their position to begin with, but of course, it doesn't.
Generally they use this as their argument of last resort--when they cannot bring any facts or logic to support their position. After a brief escape into the relativism noted above, they will then usually proceed directly to the usual ad hominem attacks. Q.E.D.
The essential problem of the left in acknowledging the truth about Saddam's WMD's or any of their other myths about the Iraq war, is that these myths have become inextricably entwined and inseparable from their most sacred ideological beliefs. These are the myths that are the cornerstone of their faith in the evil of George Bush, Republicans and, of course, America itself.
To acknowledge even the slightest possibility that these keystones of their religious political faith are warped would threaten their entire ideology--and thus, their image of themselves. They need to see themselves as caring and compassionate; always standing for peace and brotherhood--and oh, and by the way, you were aware that they are a reality-based community, weren't you? They need to make sure you understand that at the outset.
And how could you possibly forget for a moment that they are loving, caring, compassionate and committed to truth, social justice and reality? They remind you regularly that's what they heroicallys stand for and how they think of themselves. They obsessively and repeatedly make sure you understand how loving and good they--always in contrast to the members of the political right who are always described as "hate-filled" (the right "hate" blacks; "hate" hispanics, "hate" women, "hate" gays, "hate" the poor etc. etc.). Academics of the left are desperate to "prove" these assertions and give them a scientific seal of approval (see here, for a discussion about one example of this tendency).
By itself, this rather compulsive behavior on their part should give any thinking person pause, because it is not typically the behavior of a people who are entirely comfortable with who they are. Rather, from a psychological perspective, their behavior and the almost desperate need they exhibit to prove both you and to themselves that they ARE more caring, more sensitive, and more reality-based, suggests that they are trying to hide quite the opposite reality from themselves.
As I have written before, 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.
The hidden agenda or underlying motivation behind the denial is very frequently related to the potential adverse consequences that could ensue if the denial were eliminated and reality acknowledged. And this is where unnacceptable feelings, needs, and thoughts come in. The denier (or part of him) has made an unconscious decision that awareness of certain feelings, needs, or thoughts is more threatening to his sense of self than the act of denial.
Thus, any person genuinely trying to determine which side of an argument conforms to reality and truth, needs to assess the personal, i.e., the psychological, stakes or conflicts of interest (as those stakes are sometimes referred to) for both sides of the argument.
Of course, both sides in this argument have a conflicts of interest because this is politics and both sides want to win. So, it is entirely possible that both sides are deluding themselves and in denial.
In that case, a rational observer would either wash his hands of both sides; or, accept the reality that one side or the other is going to be in power and go with the side that is at least closest to reality.
When it comes to deciding between Democrats and Republicans; the political left or the neocons; I'm going to have to go with the only partially deluded Republicans and the neocons all the way.
They at least have not completely abandoned the real world for the bubble of self-delusion. They have not regularly retreated into moral relativism and the nihilism of postmodern rhetoric to justify their denial and delusion. They have not embraced national defeat and humiliation as a path to power and control over others. They do not constantly whine, scream, and behave like immature children when they don't get their way (at least not a a matter of course). They do not say one thing and then do another, at least not with the frequency and enthusiasm of the Democrats and the left. They at least put forth new ideas and plans to deal with the situation in Iraq and in the real world in general; the Democrats and the left apparently aren't capable of generating an idea or plan and simply want to retreat and capitulate. The Republicans and neocons have a demonstrated capacity to adapt to reality, and then to change tactics to produce a desired outcome (consider the "surge" in Iraq). The Democrats and the left use the same tired old tactics over and over and can't even acknowledge that things in Iraq have improved dramatically.
George Bush wants to see America win the war in Iraq; John Kerry can only heap scorn on America and Americans as he panders to the likes of Khatami and other despots. George Bush is trying to prevent America from being attacked again by Islamic terrorists as we were on 9/11; the Democrats and the left pretend that 9/11 never happened or that it was even historically important (just like Pearl Harbor was not historically important considering that fewer people died on December 7, 1941 than did on September 11, 2001); don't want to acknowledge that we are in a war at all; but yet fervently believe at the same time that we are to blame for bringing 9/11 on ourselves.
For more than 6 years now, America has had to listen to the Democrats' and the left's constant carping; we have had to withstand their contempt for American values and our military had to bear the brunt of their incoherent rage and careless enabling of the enemy we fight. We have listened to the endless repetition of their mantras and slogans; the unrivaled self-righteousness of their superior intellects; and seen firsthand the intensity of the hatred that motivates them.
In all that time there have been very very few able to summon up an iota of insight; or a moment of self-reflection about the consequences of their own rhetoric or behavior.
Don't dare question their patriotism, they scream. But look at their behavior. Listen to John Kerry , for example (he was, after all their last nominee for POTUS) and then tell me that his behavior is patriotic; that he is not just treasonous scum, out to advance the wonderfulness of John Kerry at the expense of his own country (I seem to recall he did exactly the same thing a number of years ago, too).
One of the most serious psychological challenges that any human being must face is to face reality, particularly when the consequences of confronting truth are personally unpleasant and very painful. That is exactly what psychological denial seeks to avoid doing.
For the Democrats and their increasingly histrionic leftist base, denial--not America-- has been their country of residence since September 11, 2001. Generally, it has been a safe and happy place for them to be; because as long as they can hate and vilify George Bush, Dick Cheney, Condi Rice and all those evil Republicans and Lieberman Democrats out there; and as long as they can pretend that the objects of their hate are the real cause of any problem; then they don't have to deal with the external reality of Islamofascist terror, or face the truth about their own unacknowledged and pathological internal reality. They can continue to cling to the holy, neo socialist faith, newly risen from the ashes of the 20th century; and delude themselves into thinking that they are wonderful, caring, loving and reality-based people.
Interestingly, Andrew Klavan in the LA Times touched on this as it relates to those brave and fearless Hollywood types:
Klavan comments, "...we can't bring ourselves to fictionalize the larger idea: Islamo-fascism is an evil and American liberty a good." But somehow today's Democrats and the political left has no difficulty in fictionalizing the reverse.
Let's face it, the myths that fuel the left's denial are designed to make sure that they--not America--come out the winners; and that they never have to say they are sorry for enabling the enemies of America and for helping them to kill their fellow Americans.
When the time comes that they finally figure out that their present opportunistic position pandering to their lunatic base which denounces America and hopes for its defeat is not going to work to help them gain the power they seek, they will simply pretend they never said or believed such things and somehow distort their unbelievable narcissism and deliberate treason into unconditional virtues.
1-No Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD).
2-The 2003 Invasion was Illegal.
3-Sanctions were working.
4-Overthrowing Saddam Only Helped Iran.
5-The Invasion Was a Failure.
6-The Invasion Helped Al Qaeda.
7-Iraq Is In A State of Civil War.
8-Iraqis Were Better Off Under Saddam.
9-The Iraq War Caused Islamic Terrorism to Increase in Europe.
10- The War in Iraq is Lost.
The fact that Iraq has sort of dropped off the radar of both the MSM and the Democrats should tell you how fast both are retreating from their original talking points. They know that promoting defeat at this point in time is a losing stance for them in 2008--except of course, for the lunatic fringe of their base. Meanwhile, Bush's poll numbers seem to be rising, much to Democrat's dismay...and their own Congressional approval rating hovers near record lows.
The Democrats and the left live (and die) by polls. Popularity means everything to them. Other people's opinions are the foundation of all their "principled" stands on issues--so watch for a significant shift in their principles in the days to come.
But let's not deceive ourselves. Such a shift would not indicate any real alteration of their unbelievable self-induced blindness and utter refusal to acknowledge the realities of Islamic fanaticism and the war on terror. To do that would require a fundamental re-assessment of their socialist/leftist/PC ideology itself.
Anna Freud once wrote that the ego of a child in denial "refuses to become aware of some disagreeable reality.... It turns its back on it, and in imagination reverses the unwelcome facts."
The essence of psychologica denial is a refusal to look at or acknowledge reality.
Fortunately, reality exists outside of one's head and is objective and verifiable. It is not altered by whim, desire, lies or myth. This is not to say that people might not believe ideas that do not conform to reality--in fact, they do so all the time. Just like Anna's description of the child's ego, the ego of an otherwise normal adult may also resort to childish, immature and primitive mechanisms when it feels threatened.
You would think it would be a simple matter to be "in touch" with reality. But it isn't. It requires a great deal of cognitive effort--i.e., thinking--and often that effort must assert itself over powerful emotions that draw the person away from the real world to a place more comfortable and unchallenging to their inner reality.
So, how does a rational person determine what is true and what is delusion? How do you decide if something is a myth or is real?
In the case of the Strategy Page list above, people of the left will assert that it is those of us who don't subscribe to those assertions who are in living in the land of psychological denial. As I already mentioned (and it can't be repeated too often these days) reality objectively exists outside of any one person's or group's beliefs.
Psychological denial and the avoidance of an unpleasant reality are certainly not confined to one side of the political spectrum or the other. But what I find endlessly fascinating is how the political left has created and fully integrated specific ideological tools that facilitate ongoing psychological denial.
It reminds me of all the paranoid patients I have observed over the years, who effortlessly are able to dismiss or explain away those facts that don't fit in with their carefully constructed conspiracy theories. If you get too assertive in pointing out those uncomfortable facts, you find yourself in no time fully integrated into the theory. For the paranoid, the case is closed and the argument is finished.
The political left has been utilizing the same psychological strategies inherent in the paranoid style since the end of the cold war and the 20th century. The rise of politically correct speech and the dogma of multiculturalism; the insistence on cultural diversity while enforcing a profound homogeneity of ideas and lack of intellectual diversity in academia; as well as the distortions and rationalizations that are currently the hallmark of intellectual debate within our institutions of higher learning and politics-- have all combined to dissuade those on the political left from pursuing a course of intellectual honesty and/or emotional insight.
This is what makes it so frustrating to debate or argue with today's typical postmodern leftist. Some are willing to engage in discussion, but you can always count on their complete dismissal of any fact that does not conform to their ideological perspective. No matter how many times you debunk their position (e.g., no matter how many times evidence of Saddam's WMD's are found and documented; that evidence has been either ignored or poo-pooed using a variety of rationalizations--and the goalposts are then changed to ensure the safety of the denial).
When it suits their purposes (i.e., when they are losing the argument), they will resort to the claim that reality and truth are merely subjective constructs anyway, and that any evidence you present is only someone's "opinion" and that their opinions are as good as anyone else's.
Such a position should logically disqualify their position to begin with, but of course, it doesn't.
Generally they use this as their argument of last resort--when they cannot bring any facts or logic to support their position. After a brief escape into the relativism noted above, they will then usually proceed directly to the usual ad hominem attacks. Q.E.D.
The essential problem of the left in acknowledging the truth about Saddam's WMD's or any of their other myths about the Iraq war, is that these myths have become inextricably entwined and inseparable from their most sacred ideological beliefs. These are the myths that are the cornerstone of their faith in the evil of George Bush, Republicans and, of course, America itself.
To acknowledge even the slightest possibility that these keystones of their religious political faith are warped would threaten their entire ideology--and thus, their image of themselves. They need to see themselves as caring and compassionate; always standing for peace and brotherhood--and oh, and by the way, you were aware that they are a reality-based community, weren't you? They need to make sure you understand that at the outset.
And how could you possibly forget for a moment that they are loving, caring, compassionate and committed to truth, social justice and reality? They remind you regularly that's what they heroicallys stand for and how they think of themselves. They obsessively and repeatedly make sure you understand how loving and good they--always in contrast to the members of the political right who are always described as "hate-filled" (the right "hate" blacks; "hate" hispanics, "hate" women, "hate" gays, "hate" the poor etc. etc.). Academics of the left are desperate to "prove" these assertions and give them a scientific seal of approval (see here, for a discussion about one example of this tendency).
By itself, this rather compulsive behavior on their part should give any thinking person pause, because it is not typically the behavior of a people who are entirely comfortable with who they are. Rather, from a psychological perspective, their behavior and the almost desperate need they exhibit to prove both you and to themselves that they ARE more caring, more sensitive, and more reality-based, suggests that they are trying to hide quite the opposite reality from themselves.
As I have written before, 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.
The hidden agenda or underlying motivation behind the denial is very frequently related to the potential adverse consequences that could ensue if the denial were eliminated and reality acknowledged. And this is where unnacceptable feelings, needs, and thoughts come in. The denier (or part of him) has made an unconscious decision that awareness of certain feelings, needs, or thoughts is more threatening to his sense of self than the act of denial.
Thus, any person genuinely trying to determine which side of an argument conforms to reality and truth, needs to assess the personal, i.e., the psychological, stakes or conflicts of interest (as those stakes are sometimes referred to) for both sides of the argument.
Of course, both sides in this argument have a conflicts of interest because this is politics and both sides want to win. So, it is entirely possible that both sides are deluding themselves and in denial.
In that case, a rational observer would either wash his hands of both sides; or, accept the reality that one side or the other is going to be in power and go with the side that is at least closest to reality.
When it comes to deciding between Democrats and Republicans; the political left or the neocons; I'm going to have to go with the only partially deluded Republicans and the neocons all the way.
They at least have not completely abandoned the real world for the bubble of self-delusion. They have not regularly retreated into moral relativism and the nihilism of postmodern rhetoric to justify their denial and delusion. They have not embraced national defeat and humiliation as a path to power and control over others. They do not constantly whine, scream, and behave like immature children when they don't get their way (at least not a a matter of course). They do not say one thing and then do another, at least not with the frequency and enthusiasm of the Democrats and the left. They at least put forth new ideas and plans to deal with the situation in Iraq and in the real world in general; the Democrats and the left apparently aren't capable of generating an idea or plan and simply want to retreat and capitulate. The Republicans and neocons have a demonstrated capacity to adapt to reality, and then to change tactics to produce a desired outcome (consider the "surge" in Iraq). The Democrats and the left use the same tired old tactics over and over and can't even acknowledge that things in Iraq have improved dramatically.
George Bush wants to see America win the war in Iraq; John Kerry can only heap scorn on America and Americans as he panders to the likes of Khatami and other despots. George Bush is trying to prevent America from being attacked again by Islamic terrorists as we were on 9/11; the Democrats and the left pretend that 9/11 never happened or that it was even historically important (just like Pearl Harbor was not historically important considering that fewer people died on December 7, 1941 than did on September 11, 2001); don't want to acknowledge that we are in a war at all; but yet fervently believe at the same time that we are to blame for bringing 9/11 on ourselves.
For more than 6 years now, America has had to listen to the Democrats' and the left's constant carping; we have had to withstand their contempt for American values and our military had to bear the brunt of their incoherent rage and careless enabling of the enemy we fight. We have listened to the endless repetition of their mantras and slogans; the unrivaled self-righteousness of their superior intellects; and seen firsthand the intensity of the hatred that motivates them.
In all that time there have been very very few able to summon up an iota of insight; or a moment of self-reflection about the consequences of their own rhetoric or behavior.
Don't dare question their patriotism, they scream. But look at their behavior. Listen to John Kerry , for example (he was, after all their last nominee for POTUS) and then tell me that his behavior is patriotic; that he is not just treasonous scum, out to advance the wonderfulness of John Kerry at the expense of his own country (I seem to recall he did exactly the same thing a number of years ago, too).
One of the most serious psychological challenges that any human being must face is to face reality, particularly when the consequences of confronting truth are personally unpleasant and very painful. That is exactly what psychological denial seeks to avoid doing.
For the Democrats and their increasingly histrionic leftist base, denial--not America-- has been their country of residence since September 11, 2001. Generally, it has been a safe and happy place for them to be; because as long as they can hate and vilify George Bush, Dick Cheney, Condi Rice and all those evil Republicans and Lieberman Democrats out there; and as long as they can pretend that the objects of their hate are the real cause of any problem; then they don't have to deal with the external reality of Islamofascist terror, or face the truth about their own unacknowledged and pathological internal reality. They can continue to cling to the holy, neo socialist faith, newly risen from the ashes of the 20th century; and delude themselves into thinking that they are wonderful, caring, loving and reality-based people.
Interestingly, Andrew Klavan in the LA Times touched on this as it relates to those brave and fearless Hollywood types:
I RECENTLY attended "FBI 101," a G-man seminar for Hollywood writers....
But if they're hoping that their seminar will win them props from filmmakers in general — a picture or two celebrating their courageous work in the war on terror — I suspect they are going to be disappointed. In the history of our time as told by the movies, the war on terror largely does not exist.
Which is passing strange, you know. Because the war on terror is the history of our time. The outcome of our battle against the demographic, political and military upsurge of a hateful theology and its oppressive political vision will determine the fate of freedom in this century.
Television — more populist, hungrier for content and less dependent on foreign audiences — reflects this fact with shows such as "24" and "The Unit." But at the movies, all we're getting is home-front angst and the occasional "Syriana," in which "moderate" Islam is thwarted by evil American interests. But the notion that this war is about our moral failings is comfort fantasy, pure and simple. It soothes us with the false idea that, if we but mend ourselves, the scary people will leave us alone.
The real world is both darker than that and lighted brighter in places by surprising fires of nobility. It's darker because our enemies were not created by the peccadilloes of free people and will not melt away before a moral perfection that we, in any case, can never achieve.
Klavan comments, "...we can't bring ourselves to fictionalize the larger idea: Islamo-fascism is an evil and American liberty a good." But somehow today's Democrats and the political left has no difficulty in fictionalizing the reverse.
Let's face it, the myths that fuel the left's denial are designed to make sure that they--not America--come out the winners; and that they never have to say they are sorry for enabling the enemies of America and for helping them to kill their fellow Americans.
When the time comes that they finally figure out that their present opportunistic position pandering to their lunatic base which denounces America and hopes for its defeat is not going to work to help them gain the power they seek, they will simply pretend they never said or believed such things and somehow distort their unbelievable narcissism and deliberate treason into unconditional virtues.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)