SCUM AND VILLAINY
An interview in the Jerusalem Post with Natan Scharansky, who discusses where President Bush went wrong:

Many politicians and institutions that should be promoting democracy and freedom are cynically reluctant to do it, because Bush raised the agenda," Sharansky went on. "That's why I give Bush an "A" for raising the idea, a "C" for implementation and I give his opponents, who abandoned the idea, an "F," because they are attacking Bush not for inconsistency in implementing the agenda but for raising it. Their approach denies the people of the Middle East the ability to live in freedom."

Sharansky called Bush "a lonely dissident for democracy in the White House" because of his lack of support. But he cited three cases where Bush could have and should have been more consistent in his insistence on democratization: the Palestinians, Egypt and Saudi Arabia.

Sharansky, whose book, The Case for Democracy: The Power of Freedom to Overcome Tyranny and Terror, is the author who inspired Bush to push for democracy and freedom in the Middle East.

Sharansky is exactly correct on several points. President Bush continues to be demonized for even raising the idea of spreading democracy and freedom in the world. To the extent that such behavior has been fueled by useless "utopian" fantasies, it has failed; that is, anyone who expected "perfect" freedom or "perfect" democracy to instantly bloom in that Middle Eastern desert, is high on idiocy. Neither Freedom, nor Democracy are perfect; nor will they ever be. Leave it to the utopian leftists to think that everything and everyone must be perfect to exist in their perfect and unreal world.

I sincerely doubt that anyone would be able to get much above a "C" in today's postmodern (i.e., insane) world, where a simple (i.e., not particularly nuanced) and fundamentally good person like Bush--who means what he says and is himself honestly--is more frightening to the political left than a tyrant or a murderer. Even Republicans and conservatives tend to misunderestimate the man and want to hold him to ideological points that he in good conscience is unable to support.

But an "A" in conception and a "C" in execution are both passing and perfectly acceptable.

I wrote:

[Bush] has had a lot to deal with over the course of his presidency and, to say the least not everything has been handled with extreme competence. But we are a nation at war and I expect major mistakes will be made. Most of the emotionalism of the left and the media has focused on issues that frankly are trivial or irrelevant to me as a voter. I could care less about their rage toward Gonzales; I think Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame should go to jail for their self-aggrandizing and utterly deceitful behavior. They are just two pitiful clowns who history will erase from serious concern. I could go on about the manufactured "scandals" but you catch my drift.

No, if there is one thing I have to take issue with the President for, it is that he has chosen to "rise above it all" and not aggressively defend himself against all the deliberate falsehoods and malicious attacks that have come his way. As one of my friends has put it, "The man has a Christian martyr complex!"

I suppose he figures that history will ultimately judge him well (I think it will for all the missteps); or perhaps he feels that it is enough to help this country change course and go on the offensive against Islamofascism. Contrary to what meatheads like John Edwards think, the war on terror is quite a bit more than a bumper sticker.

Bush's strategy has always been to introduce the seed of democracy and individualism into the sick collectivism of Middle Eastern politics. In that, I believe he has succeeded and receives a "passing" grade.

As for Bush's opponents, to paraphrase Obi-wan Kenobi, you will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy, than those who have failed abjectly to stand up for Freedom and Democracy in the world today and who dare criticize Bush for even trying.


- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 11:24 AM |

 
NO MORE DR NICE GUY
Hard to believe, I realize, but I have been tagged with a "NICE Award" by Nan at American Daughter:

The Nice Matters Blog Award is for ladies who:

...are nice people; good blog friends and those who inspire good feelings and inspiration. Also, for those who are a positive influence on our blogging world. Once you've been awarded please pass it on to 7 others who you feel are deserving of this award. have not only great blogs, but also who have more to them, there is caring, friendship and inspiration too.

I want to thank American Daughter for the honor she passes on to me--though I'm not sure I deserve it.

Here are the definitions of "nice" found at m-w.com:

Main Entry: nice
Pronunciation: 'nIs
Function: adjective
Inflected Form(s): nic·er; nic·est
Etymology: Middle English, foolish, wanton, from Anglo-French, silly, simple, from Latin nescius ignorant, from nescire not to know -- more at NESCIENCE
1 obsolete a : WANTON, DISSOLUTE b : COY, RETICENT
2 a : showing fastidious or finicky tastes : PARTICULAR : exacting in requirements or standards : PUNCTILIOUS
3 : possessing, marked by, or demanding great or excessive precision and delicacy
4 obsolete : TRIVIAL
5 a : PLEASING, AGREEABLE : well-executed : APPROPRIATE, FITTING
6 a : socially acceptable : WELL-BRED : VIRTUOUS, RESPECTABLE
7 : POLITE, KIND

After looking at all the meanings attributed to "nice", maybe I'm more deserving of the award than I thought!

As you can see, some of the definitions of "nice" are not...well, nice (see #1 or #4 as well as the origin of the word itself), but as descriptors, they certainly fit some female bloggers I am familiar with, and whose names I will not mention because I will try to live up to the #7 definition of the word.

As far as lady bloggers who are described by #6 ("WELL-BRED, VIRTUOUS, RESPECTABLE), I really couldn't say for sure, though I suspect those terms characterize several!

I considered passing the award on to Siggy, who fits definition #2, but he is not a lady; and is, in fact, three dead shrinks and not one of them remotely female (well, maybe Carl).

So, here are my nominations for the POLITE, KIND, PLEASING and AGREEABLE aspects of "nice", as well as the PRECISE and DELICATE meanings. These are gals who are, in my book, really nice in all the most positive connotations of the word; AND they are also tough, intrepid, and inspirational at the same time!

Neo at Neo-neocon

Fausta at Fausta's Blog

The Anchoress at The Anchoress

Dymphna at Gates of Vienna

Maxed Out Mama at Maxed-Out Mama

Betsy at Betsy's Page

Dr. Helen at Dr. Helen

I have done my duty by niceness, and now I will revert back to my regularly scheduled personality style!
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 7:39 AM |

 
DREAM TICKET
Reuters reports that:

Ailing Cuban leader Fidel Castro is tipping Democratic candidates Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama to team up and win the U.S. presidential election.

Clinton leads Obama in the race to be the Democratic nominee for the November 2008 election, and Castro said they would make a winning combination.

"The word today is that an apparently unbeatable ticket could be Hillary for president and Obama as her running mate," he wrote in an editorial column on U.S. presidents published on Tuesday by Cuba's Communist Party newspaper, Granma.

Fidel Castro's dream ticket? Aren't they special....


- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 8:49 PM |

 
A GENERATION DESTROYED BY THE MADNESS OF POSTMODERNISM
This exchange, from an interview by John Leo of Victor Davis Hanson posted at Hanson's site, got me thinking:

Leo: You argue that a college class today on World War II "might emphasize Japanese internment, Rosie the Riveter and the horror of Hiroshima, not Guadacanal and Midway." How can we overcome the obsession with race, class and gender in studying military history?

Hanson: I'm afraid an entire generation must pass first. Those who came of age in the university in the 1960s and 1970s — now department chairmen, deans, senior theses advisors, scholarly associations' presidents, etc — wanted this revolution of easy arm-chair therapeutic moralizing and self-appointed censure of perceive contemporary sins, got it, turned off the students, forfeited hard-won standards, and lost their public readership — and now must suffer the consequences of irrelevancy for a generation. It is not an accident that a David McCullough or John Keegan or Martin Gilbert now writes outside the campus. Vibrant military history has gone on despite, or perhaps even because of the failure of the academia.

Sadly, Hanson is talkin' 'bout my generation. I know firsthand how all that nonsense from the 60's and 70's has totally screwed up academia, because I have had to function in that environment for most of my career.

And the dysfunction is not confined to the field of Military history, but extends to virtually all subject areas in academia. My own field has certainly not been immune to the postmodern perversion; and some might argue that it was actually psychiatry and psychology which unleashed the "therapeutic psychobabble" that has become the predominant vehicle of postmodern rhetoric, with its emphasis on self-esteem, feelings, multiculturalism, political correctness, and the eternal entitlement of endless victimhood.

In the postmodern world, reason, truth and reality are mere subjective constructs and nothing is absolute; what happened in the past is to be interpreted only by the standards of the moment; and morality is also relative, except when you are a member of an approved victimhood group and are automatically granted absolute moral authority (except in certain cases, apparently).

As I noted in a previous post:

One of the wondrous aspects of postmodern rhetoric, where reality and truth are only relative, is that anybody's "reality" is as good as anybody else's. For the dedicated postmodernist, polls and opinion are the final arbiters of truth; and the results of a poll or two, constructed along ideological lines to fit a particular template, is all you need to confirm your reality. Reality is a matter of opinion (simply ignore any polls that don't agree with your reality, of course).

This type of micraculous rhetoric can even determine today, what history will say many tomorrows from now. With enough repetition and passion, "history" can be set in stone in the temporal present! Extremely convenient for anyone who wants to avoid confronting their own contradictions in the present.

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

Stephen Hicks asks this important question (page 184):

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

The possibility that the relativism is primary can be ruled out with some thought. If the modern leftist truly embraced relativism, then you would not see the uniformity of their politics or their reactions to events in the world. Instead, you would be able to observe an infinite number of postmodern leftist opinions and beliefs from all over the political spectrum. And, have you? Or, have you noticed that their opinions march completely in lockstep with their political ideology?

I must conclude from that observation that the moral relativism they preach so relentlessly as part of their multicultural drivel; and which equates the unceasing and institutional barbarity of terror groups like Al Qaeda (see here) with U.S. troops in Iraq; equates the deliberate targeting of innocents with herculean efforts to spare innocent life; equates Bush with Hitler; Iraq with Vietnam; etc. etc. are simple rhetorical devices that are being used to manipulate and advance their fundamentally socialist / totalitarian agenda.

That is why they can easily ignore any evidence that contradicts their arguments; never acknowledge that their arguments (or more precisely, their beliefs) have been debunked; instead, they simply redefine words or resort to word games (the various meanings of "is" for example); or move the goalposts (those aren't the WMD's we were looking for) when convenient.

At any rate, it occurs to me that perhaps I am wasting my time fighting so relentlessly against all this postmodern psychobabble. Most of the people on the left are not going to experience an epiphany and see the light of reason (a few may); nor are they about to abandon their dysfunctional and warped perpective of the world, because it is far too convenient and pleasurable to imagine their feelings are the center of the universe. For the committed leftist, slavery and death are not too high a price to pay just to be able to feel good and virtuous about themselves.

But perhaps, as Hanson suggests, all it will take is a generation or so to sweep out all the intellectual garbage that now clutters our campuses, warps our political discourse, and undermines Western Civilization. Maybe--just maybe--the postmodernists are a merely a transient evolutionary diversion (sort of like the Dodo) that arose out of the decaying remnants of failed 20th century socialist utopians; and which will quite naturally and deservedly become extinct after their nihilistic antics take them out of history and into the annals of comedy.

That is, if the Mohammedan angels don't take them-- and the rest of us-- out of history first.

Makes you want to Howl with exasperation doesn't it?

I saw the best minds of my generation destroyed by madness, starving hysterical naked,
dragging themselves through the negro streets at dawn looking for an angry fix,
angelheaded hipsters burning for the ancient heavenly connection to the starry dynamo in the machinery of night,
who poverty and tatters and hollow-eyed and high sat up smoking in the supernatural darkness of cold-water flats
floating across the tops of cities contemplating jazz,
who bared their brains to Heaven under the El and saw Mohammedan angels staggering on tene- ment roofs
illuminated,
who passed through universities with radiant cool eyes hallucinating Arkansas and Blake-light tragedy among the
scholars of war,
who were expelled from the academies for crazy & publishing obscene odes on the windows of the skull,
who cowered in unshaven rooms in underwear, burn- ing their money in wastebaskets and listening to the Terror
through the wall....

-Allen Ginsberg
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 8:13 AM |

 
YOU'RE GONNA MISS HIM WHEN HE'S GONE
David Warren writing in the Ottowa Citizen recently, suggested that the world is going to miss George W. Bush when he leaves office:

Like al-Qaeda in Iraq, and the many other adversaries America and the West must continue to face, the Russians are looking forward to the time after George Bush leaves office. It is assumed that the American electorate has by now tired of playing policeman to the world, and that the next president will be a liberal Democrat, eager to make unilateral concessions, slash military budgets to fund social programs, and cut-and-run from foreign battlefields.

They may well be right...

America is demonized as the "cowboy," going it alone; and Western politicians, especially on the left, score easy points by smugly playing to their domestic anti-American galleries. The lethal enemies of the West cannot help but notice this dynamic, and from car bombings in Iraq, to the rhetoric of Russian and Chinese military commanders, they exploit it to drive further wedges between the U.S. and her allies...

We are caught in a trap. The very success of the Bush strategy, in preventing another major terror strike on the U.S., in confronting and arresting the progress of Islamist terrorism in the Middle East and elsewhere, and also in consolidating the post-Cold War European gains of NATO and the European Union, contributes to an illusion of security in a world that has seldom been such a dangerous place. People forget what alliances require.

Now wouldn't that be something.

YOU'RE GONNA MISS ME WHEN I'M GONE
(GWB singing with Brooks and Dunn)

I'm still hurtin' from the last time
The polls made fun of how I talk;
I can't find much to believe in
You even hate the way I walk
Heaven knows I'm tryin'
To get this war done and won;
Go ahead and diss me--
'Cause you're gonna miss me when I'm gone

Not much chance we're gonna make it
If I'm the only one who's tryin'
You know I'm running out of vetoes
The West is running out of time
Someday, Dems are gonna wake up
And wonder what went wrong
Go ahead and diss me--
'Cause you're gonna miss me when I'm gone

The EU's good at going through the motions
But all we get are alibis
And I get this empty feeling
Are they the best we got for allies?
I don't see them doin' their part here,
They don't know what's going on;
Go ahead and diss me--
'Cause they're gonna miss me when I'm gone

Go ahead and diss me--
'Cause you're gonna miss me when I'm gone

Go ahead and diss me--
'Cause you're gonna miss me when I'm gone
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 1:45 PM |

 
STUFFING VIETNAM DOWN THE THROATS OF THE LEFT
Personally I rather liked that Bush used their own rhetoric against them the other day, and challenged their unwillingness to admit what the consequences of pulling out of Vietnam really were for this country....They didn't like it, did they? As far as I'm concerned, that means he hit a bullseye.



Victor Davis Hanson notices some of the insanity that has ensued since Bush stuffed Vietnam back down the left's throats:

In all the hysteria over the Bush Vietnam evocation, people are losing their sanity. Now those in Vietnam are being dragged out and quoted by the mainstream media to prove Bush’s lunacy. But what are subjects of a police state supposed to say — “I wish our present Communist dictatorship had lost”? Do we think Cubans routinely give widely publicized interviews criticizing their Castroites — and live?

And then there is the “they weren’t that bad” strain of criticism, as if we are supposed to have forgotten that well before the partition hundreds of thousands fled the north to escape Communism, that Ho’s collectivization efforts, as was true anywhere in the Communist world where such confiscations took place, killed thousands, or that during Tet hundreds, maybe even thousands, were taken out and shot in Hue by Communist thugs. No need to mention the boat people, the reeducation camps, and Cambodia.

The problem with talking about Vietnam is the paradox that all seem to wish to forget — reminiscent to Thucydides’s remark that an ill-thought out thing like Syracuse could have nevertheless worked had the Athenians not torn each apart at home.

So few want to admit that something that was a clear-cut disaster from 1963-68, got better with Vietnamization and counterinsurgency between 1969-73, was largely stabilized and viable by 1974-5, and then completely undercut by Congressional military cutbacks, and refusal to fund promised arms. So Vietnam, like the expedition to Sicily, was a blunder that could have nevertheless — with a little more resolve — finally still been saved and followed the evolutionary path of a South Korea.

Note the recent quotes from Pakistani and Syrian strongmen to the effect that the U.S. abandons its friends. These are not right-wing talking points, but candid assessments by selfish, calculating dictators about the world as they saw it. Their referents, like bin Laden’s, are mostly Vietnam.

Candid assessments by the narcissistic and calculating political left are never forthcoming unless their ideology can benefit from such analysis. To them, getting the US out of Vietnam was a great (personal) victory. It doesn't matter to them that they unleashed the killing fields and enabled tyranny for generations. They were and are completely virtuous in their desire to end war, no matter what the cost to others.

All they were saying then and now is to give peace--and oppression, and hate, and evil--a chance! And who could argue with that sentiment?

UPDATE: Robert Tracinski has some related thoughts this morning on Bush's invocation of Vietnam:

This certainly has caught the left by surprise, since the history of the Vietnam War is territory they thought they owned and controlled, which is why they have attempted to fit every conflict since 1975 into the Vietnam template. An editorial cartoon published early during the invasion of Iraq aptly depicted the Washington press corps as unruly children in the backseat of the family car, pestering the driver with the question, "Is it Vietnam yet? Is it Vietnam yet?" They assumed that if Iraq was Vietnam--if it fit into their Vietnam story line about dishonest leaders starting a war of imperialist aggression that was doomed by incompetent leadership and tainted by American "war crimes"--then it was guaranteed to be a humiliating defeat for their political adversaries....

Whatever the failures of American strategy in Vietnam, there is no doubt that the anti-war left pushed for American failure and accomplished it by persistent and vigorous legislation. And that is the crucial issue. If the architects of the Vietnam War in the Johnson administration can be criticized (as Moyar does) for not doing enough to win the war, the later anti-war left actively pursued American defeat and humiliation as their goal. They didn't merely want us to withdraw; they wanted us to lose, and they did whatever was necessary to make sure that happened.

So instead of being a story of the failure of imperialist, war-mongering Republicans, the Vietnam War was the story of two separate failures by Democrats.

Read it all.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 6:50 AM |

 
ANTICIPATION vs DENIAL
This interview with Retired Vice Admiral John Scott Redd, head of the National Counterterrorism Center is a sobering assessment by a mature individual:

Q: Earlier this summer, there was talk that people were picking up chatter that reminded them of the summer before 9/11. The Germans basically said this is like pre-9/11. They said, “We are very worried.” What do you make of this?We have very strong indicators that Al Qaeda is planning to attack the West and is likely to [try to] attack, and we are pretty sure about that. We know some of the precursors from—

Attack Europe?
Well, they would like to come West, and they would like to come as far West as they can. What we don’t know is…if it’s going to be Mark Hosenball, and he’s coming in on Flight 727 out of Karachi, he’s stopping in Frankfurt, and he’s coming on through with his European Union passport, and he’s coming into New York, and he’s going to do something. I mean, we don’t have that kind of tactical detail. What we do have, though, is a couple of threads that indicate, you know, some very tactical stuff, and that's what—you know, that’s what you’re seeing bits and pieces of, and I really can’t go much more into it.

But this did not affect our threat level. We didn’t change our code.
We’re pretty high-threat right now. Until you know something that is going to make a difference, you know, you don’t necessarily change the threat level. What that does is really stir a lot of people up and get them ticked off, but it probably doesn’t accomplish very much.

And you don’t as of today see any particular reduction in that threat?It’s still there. It’s very serious, you know, and we’re watching it. We’re learning more all the time, but it’s still a very serious threat.

Last thing: Are we winning or losing the war on terrorism? This is a long war. People say, “What is this like?” I say it’s like the cold war in only two respects. Number one, there is a strong ideological content to it. Number two, it is going to be a long war. I’ll be dead before this one is over. We will probably lose a battle or two along the way. We have to prepare for that. Statistically, you can’t bat 1.000 forever, but we haven’t been hit for six years, [which is] no accident.

I will tell you this: We are better prepared today for the war on terror than at any time in our history. We have done an incredible amount of things since 9/11, across the board. Intelligence is better. They are sharing it better. We are taking the terrorists down. We are working with the allies very carefully. We are doing the strategic operational planning, going after every element in the terrorist life cycle. So we have come a long way. But these guys are smart. They are determined. They are patient. So over time we are going to lose a battle or two. We are going to get hit again, you know, but you’ve got to have the stick-to-itiveness or persistence to outlast it.

Now, compare the Admiral's assessent with this one from your run of the mill ideological hack from the lefty blogsphere, who isjust one of the many people in denial about terrorism. Glenn Greenwald 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 blogger is essentially arguing that-- instead of using a healthy and appropriate psychological defense called anticipation against terrorism and the Islamofascists (who most certainly want to kill us and destroy our society)--we should instead switch to a psychotic one, denial; and maintain that the only thing we have to fear is...President Bush. The latter is a defense mechanism called displacement that I have already discussed in an earlier post.

In fact, there is a strong element of paranoia here too. And a noticeable touch of both projection (ask yourself who is really desperate about getting and keeping power) and hysteria--though he thinks he can use it to describe normal people justifiably afraid of irrational fanatics not amenable to reason. The implication is that the only purpose such "fears" (deemed "inappropriate" by Greenwald's) are being manipulated must be to "justify illegal actions."

The basic tenor of his fear is easy to deduce: while we are fighting this illusory enemy, Bushitler has been amassing power and will soon set himself up as a dictator and destroy our freedom. 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?

Anticipation is the realistic anticipation of or planning for future discomfort. This defense mechanism includes goal-directed and even overly careful planning or worrying--depending on the situation. Anticipating realistic events such as death or illness or separation and loss; and then consciously utilizing personal insight and self awareness to mitigate the worse effects, if possible is the height of maturity and healthy psychological functioning.

Let me quote George Vaillant (page 71):

Anticipation involves realistic and affect-laden planning for future discomfort. [...] of all the mature defenses, anticipation rearranges outer and inner reality the least. Rather than use self-deception, anticipation spreads anxiety out over time. It involves the self-inoculation of taking one's affective pain in small, anticipatory doses....In the worlds of the psychoanalyst Heinz Hartmann, one of the pioneers of ego psychology, "The familiar function of anticipating the future, orienting our actions according to it and correctly relating means and ends to each other...is an ego function and, surely, an adaption process of the highest significance."
[...]
Most of us, like Scarlet O'Hara would prefer to "think about it tomorrow." Making a list of worries before embarking on a trip seems like a reasonable cognitive coping strategy. But nobody likes to worry; thus we "forget" to act on such advice. We would never miss planes or forget to floss our teeth if we had consciously pondered the unpleasant consequences in advance. Moreover, it is far easier to plan voluntarily for neutral events like plane trips and tooth decay than for affect-laden events like funerals and the real costs of war.

Anticipation, and the appropriate and realistic worry that an attack like 9/11--or even worse-- are the psychological factors that are protecting us, even as I write this post. President Bush and his administration by their actions have given the American people 6 years without an attack on the homeland (not that he will get any credit for it; and not that the left will credit the Patriot Act or even the increased surveillance of the NSA; or the actions of the military in Afghanistan or Iraq). To the political left, our safety is all a big mysterious and magical state of being independent of any actions to ensure it.

Or, as Greenwald and his clueless ilk prefer to imagine: we have been safe because of "fear-mongering" and that the threat/risk is overblown.

Of course it is. Until another 9/11 happens. Or until something worse occurs. Then they will be all over Bush and Company for lying to us about the threat and screaming, "WHY DIDN'T YOU PROTECT US?" like the little children they are.

Here is what Greenwals said about dealing with terrorism:

What must be emphasized is that one can protect against the threat of
terrorism with courage, calm and resolve – the attributes which have always
defined our nation as it has confronted other threats. Hysteria and fear-mongering are the opposite of strength. The strong remain rational and unafraid.

Excuse me? What does he think we have been doing? The courage, calm and resolve of both our President and our military forces has been inspiring. it is people like Greenwald and his friends who lack "resolve."

He talks about "hysteria and fear-mongering." What is it except hysteria and fear-mongering that motivates people to believe that the President of the United States intends to eliminate our most precious civil liberties and establish a fascist state? What is it except hysteria that can only focus on the daily death counts from Iraq, and not on the context of what our soldiers are dying for? What is it except hysteria that concludes the death of 3000 innocent Americans at the hands of religious fanatics in ONE DAY is nothing to be concerned about; but the death of 2500 professional soldiers in FOUR YEARS is enough to cut and run?

I would also like to point out to Mr. Greenwald, that the strong are rational and appropriately afraid. Because if they are not afraid, they will die. If they do not take steps to protect themselves, they will die. If they ignore for too long the threats amassing to kill them, even the strong will die.

I am not arguing that there should be a carte blanche given to the executive branch of government. But even the Founding Fathers understood that during a war is no time to be arguing like children about who gets to do what. The Constitution allows the president to assume powers and responsibilities that he otherwise would not even want. It is truly hysteria and fear-mongering that motivates Greenwald and people like him. Their hatred of Bush and Republicans knows no reason and it is impossible to convince them that we are not going to become a fascist state under George Bush--just as it was impossible to convince them that the fascist state run by Saddam represented a serious threat to the world.

I'm sure Greenwald trembles in his bed at night, waiting for the Bush Gestapo to come and take him away. I say this because, underneath all the posturing about civil rights and such, paranoid people are actually very fearful people who are desperately avoiding dealing with their fear; as are people in denial of reality.

Those of us who prefer to be proactive and anticipate for future attacks are the ones who are dealing directly--and appropriately-- with our fears.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 9:48 AM |

 
NOT WHOLLY IRRATIONAL--OR, THE RATIONAL ROLE OF FEAR IN HUMAN EXPERIENCE
Theodore Dalrymple writes in National Review about complacency and Islamism, and this paragraph caught my eye:
"The problem for the complacent, however, is that not only have a small number of Moslem fanatics already blown themselves up, unlike the Chinese, Jews, Poles, and Hindus, but they seem to have received widespread understanding, to say no more, from their coreligionists. It is no consolation to the worried that 90 percent, 95 percent, or even 99 percent of Moslems do not support terrorism. In Britain, that still leaves 200,000, 100,000, or 20,000 who do support terrorism, if only intellectually. There may be more rejoicing in heaven over one repentant sinner than over 99 just men, but in the security services and the population at large there is more concern over 20,000 supporters of terrorism than over 1,980,000 peaceful men. This is not wholly irrational."

Anyone who by now has not realized that Islam has given carte blanche to the fanatics in its midst is either completely out of touch with reality, or living on another planet

Muslims in Europe claim they are justified in rejecting Western society for a variety of reasons:
(1) oppression;
(2) poverty;
(3) the Iraq War; and/or
(4) the institutionally "racist" culture of the West, which "forces" Muslims to accept the values of the countries they choose to imigrate to. Interestingly, Muslims seem to expect that those countries should be forced to abandon their own traditions and adopt Muslim values.

Lately, of course, we have been witness to numerous charges of "islamophobia", thrown out by orgainzations such as CAIR quite regularly as the "victimhood" card is played even for avowed religious fanatics who act in Islam's name.

Actually, I think I have a healthy, rational fear of a religion which has millions of adherents aggressively seeking my submission or death.

For most of my life, it seemed reasonable to ignore Islam, and I liked it that way.

If I had thought about Islam at all (and I didn't) it is likely that I would have been completely turned off to it; as opposed to being indifferent to it. Once, while I might suffer mild disgust when stories of the extremism of some of its believers would make headlines; frankly, I never understood enough about the religion to place the responsibility for such behavior onto the teachings of its priests or leaders.

After 9/11 and becoming aware of organizations like Al Qaeda; ideologies like Wahhabism and its spread; and suddenly recognizing the Palestinian issue for the red herring it was, I could no longer permit myself to be ignorant of the core "Muslim values" they exemplified.

In an ideal world, I shouldn't even have to say it, but Islam has forced me to explicitly and loudly state that I absolutely, thoroughly and unequivocally reject Islam as it is currently practiced. What follows is not an exhaustive list, but let me touch on some of the highlights that form the basis of my rejection:

1. If we are going to talk about oppression, shall I begin with the ubiquitous institutionalized oppression and humiliation of women in Muslim society? Detractors claim that the Quran does not foster this attitude, but witness the devaluation of women; the sexual fear of women; the incarceration of women; the infantilization of women; the social marginalization of women, etc. etc.

2. The overt and institutionalized anti-semitism in Islam, that is frankly paranoid and of psychotic proportions.

3. The assumption of the victim role while actively victimizing other religious groups. This is the entire psychological manipulation involved in the cries of "Islamophobia !"

4. The hypocritical call for tolerance, while promoting intolerance and bigotry among its own adherents.

5. The glorification of death rather than life.

6. The fostering of mindless obedience and punishment of independent thinking.

7. The poverty of ideas and rational thought among its leaders.

8. The inability to condemn unequivocally the barbaric acts done in the name of Islam.

9. The fact that Islamists would force their religion on me, if they could.

As I said, the list is not exhaustive. There are many more reasons why I have come to my intense rejection of this particular religion. As stated in a previous post::

I DON'T CARE ABOUT ISLAM except insofar that people of that faith want to destroy me, my family, my country and my way of life. For more than 50 years of my life, Islam and I got along famously. I completely ignored it; and praise be to Allah, it completely ignored me.

After September 11th, I could continue to live in a state of denial and ignorance about the fact that Islam had come to represent values that are incompatible with human life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Or, I could face reality and recognize Islam as a serious threat to all I hold dear and value in the world.

No; a rational, healthy fear of Islam and its aggressive desire to subjugate the entire human race under the yoke of its god by any and all means (including using freedom and democracy to facilitate its totalitarian policital agenda) is perfectly appropriate and continually justified by the fanatical behavior of millions of Muslims everywhere on the planet.

This is not Islamophobia; this is common sense.

Hannah Arendt once said, " Fear is an emotion indispensable for survival." So, let's review the rational role of emotions like fear; which, as Dalrymple suggests is "not wholly irrational" at all.

These days, "fear" is often used as if it were a dirty word; when in fact, fear is a perfectly normal emotion that we are (thankfully) hardwired to experience. One notable aspect of fear, as opposed to terror, is that the fear mobilizes the person experiencing it (physiologically to fight or run away from that which is threatening), while terror immobilizes.

In other posts, I have explained how destructive it is to rely solely on one's emotions as a strategy for living one's life. But is equally irrational to completely ignore feelings and pretend that you don't feel what you do.

In other words, fear may be an extremely rational response to a dangerous situation that threatens the survival of the individual.

Emotion can be an important source of information about reality; or at least, an important source of information about one's internal reality --which sometimes has to be understood, challenged and compared with the external world to ascertain whether what is being felt is a valid guide for action.

Animals do not have an intervening rational process between emotion and action. When they feel fear, they react.

Humans, when necessary--i.e., when in imminent danger--will react the same way as animals because we share a similar physiology. But humans are (hopefully) able to understand and appreciate fear in a way that other species cannot: we possess a rational faculty that when used correctly can expand and refine (or consider and discard when appropriate) the information emotions give us about potential threats. Thus, humans are able to deliberately plan and anticipate for future threats--a flexibility not available to most animal species, except where it is already programmed.

But in order to do that, we must still be able to experience fear and listen carefully to what our fear is telling us about reality.

The person without fear tends to achieve death far more quickly than a person who understands what he is feeling; why he is feeling it; and acts on the feeling, when appropriate and necessary.

Now, it is true that fear may indeed drive out reason. But that occurs when fear replaces reason, instead of augmenting or enhancing it. The normal course of events--for humans anyway-- is that a person experiences the fear and then determines (sometime very very quickly) what the best response to the emotion is. Again, thankfully, through a series of reflexes, we are programmed to jump out of the way of attacking rhinos without much reason or intervening thought.

The less imminently threatening scenarios where fear is likely to "drive out" reason is exactly when our psychological defenses distort an unpleasant reality and make us inclined to pretend that something dangerous isn't really so. In other words, when fear goes underground and is covered up, the blissfully ignorant are merely waiting patiently for the slow-moving rhino to strike.

One common response to to Islamic fanatacism and terror activity is to completely ignore or discount the fear that it can generate in any reasonable person, and pretend that it is perfectly normal and understandable--even appropropriate and reasonable!-- for Islam to demand our submission and constant sensitivity to their beliefs , without any corresponding sensitivity on their part to anyone else's beliefs.

That response is called psychological denial in my business; and the sheer number of strategies our psyches can use to deny reality is amazing.

Two of the healthiest psychological responses used to cope with fear include anticipation and humor (see this link again, and then think about the Danish cartoon fiasco).

We all feel the emotion of fear. And it is good that we do so. Fear and all our other emotions are the software "shortcuts" that encourage our mind and body to act. An emotionally mature individual tries to understand his or her fear--i.e., he or she uses the rational faculty and reason-- because in doing so, one may determine the appropriate course of action for countering a perceived threat to youself or your loved ones.

Pretending that you aren't afraid; displacing or minimizing your fear; ignoring the slow-moving rhino heading in your direction or other dangerous realities; are hardly effective strategies to deal with the many threatening things in the world today.

In an earlier post, I discussed the defense mechanism of denial:

Denial can be thought of as a complex psychological process where there may be some conscious knowledge or awareness of events in the world, but somehow one fails to feel their emotional impact or see their logical consequences.

Denial is an attempt to reject unacceptable feelings, needs, thoughts, wishes--or even a painful external reality that alters the perception of ourselves. This psychological defense mechanism protects us temporarily from:

-Knowledge (things we don’t want to know)
-Insight or awareness that threatens our self-esteem; or our mental or physical health; or our security (things we don't want to think about)
-Unacceptable feelings (things we don’t want to feel)

Think of it this way. Every one of us has at one point or another in our lives had to face an unpleasant reality or painful truth and at the very least probably desperately wished it would go away.

This is psychotic denial; completely out of touch with reality. A similar defense mechanism of dissociation -- or, neurotic denial as it is sometimes called-- allows us to replace painful ideas and affects with more pleasant ones that are not disturbing. (e.g., "Oh, isn't it nice that those people are chanting Allah Ackbar in the cabin of my flight?" or Ahmadinejad is a reasonable person. Surely he does not want to destroy Israel!")

With this defense, our consciousness is dissociated from our self. This defense is notable because it is one of the only psychological defenses that can be voluntarily and consciously deployed.

There are many ways to alter our consciousness and to separate it from reality--through drugs, alcohol, meditation, self-hypnosis, lying to ourselves; acting etc. etc. We can pretend to be happy, when we are not. We can pretend to not be afraid, when we really are. The opportunities are endless.

So are the potential destructive consequences.

Both psychotic and neurotic denial are methods of eliminating unwanted feelings, thoughts or knowledge. It is remarkably sane and rational to be afraid of the many insane and irrational Islamic psychopaths who are out there and who are planning to indiscriminantly kill as many Americans as possible. Being afraid of them is the first step. Rationally deciding how to productively manage that fear is the second.

Let me be clear. If you pretend that the many and daily Islamofascist threats both here and around the world up to and including Iran's goals of obtaining nuclear weapons and of wiping the US and Israel off the map--are nothing to be afraid of and have nothing to do with Islam, then it is doubtful that you will be able to take evasive action from that charging rhino--no matter how slowly it narrows the gap between you and its horns.

The proper role of emotion is to be an "early warning system" that alerts us that something good or something bad is on the way. We ignore our feelings at our peril; and alternately, if we rely only on them as a method of determining reality, we are equally screwed.

But, when emotions are used in concert with reason, we are able to optimally deal with the real world.

Contrary to what CAIR repeatedly suggests as it tries to brand all such incidents as "Islamophobic", the emotion of fear is not synonymous with prejudice or stereotyping; nor does "succumbing" to it necessarily involve irrational, histrionic, or some sort of overreaction to reality. Rather, fear is always an essential emotion that must be appropriately listened to by a rational mind because it is absolutely necessary for survival.

Only the very foolish and the very dead do not experience fear.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 10:58 AM |

 
NOT-SO-SUBTLE SIGNS
The MSM's take on an old saying: if you can't say anything bad about Iraq...don't say anything at all.


- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 7:10 AM |

 
CARNIVAL OF THE INSANITIES
Time for the weekly insanity update, where the insane, the bizarre, the ridiculous, and the completely absurd are highlighted for all to see! This has been a week of rare idiocy (as always!). So, if you want to remain sane, the best thing is to poke some fun at the more egregious absurdities.

Send all entries for next week's carnival to Dr. Sanity by 8 pm ET on Saturday for Sunday's Carnival. Only one post entry weekly per blogger, please. And you might read this before submitting an entry.

**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. Alas... there is no cure for the common cold!
Nor is there any cure for common stupidity. The wages of postmodernism is insanity.

2. I know...why don't we call God--Bob? Or Bubba maybe? Or, Kenny Rogers? Maybe they were separated at birth?

3. Ahmydinnerjacket is beside himself!

4. Gynophobia and pornography....great combo. All washed up?

5. The definitive expose on religious killers! And, for some killers even death is too light a sentence.

6. Heresy! We wanna recreate 68! They say the darndest things, don't they? E.g, leaving Vietnam had no negative repercussions; none at all. It's all about the power of anti-Americanism.

7. But what about the bike paths and nature trails? More important than infrastructure.

8. Calling out the global warming alarmists. Remember, you can't spell "environmentalist" without the "mental"....Will they hold a grudge ?

9. "Vote for the Ass, Get $10 Gas" and other great bumper sticker slogans for the DSCC! Let's help them refocus their message, if not their energy.

10. "It is not enough to have the right opinions. You must have them at the right time, and you must express them in a way that reflects people's desire to feel good about themselves."

11. Transcending reality, one neuron at a time. You wonder, what is wrong with those people? The new voice of the Democratic party? Or just the same old voices?

12. Cleavage, sex and the easily manipulated. There must me some way we can improve on this figure...

13. Policies that result in non-compliance. It's all part of what your typical totalitarian government thinks it can handle. Ergo Hugo's twilight time zone policies! If they think they can control reality and truth, then surely time is a piece of cake!... Leave it to the "reality-based" leftists to come up with this sort of insanity.

14. Yes, but is it intelligent life? And does it have any earning potential? Why quit one rat race to run in another? It's good to know that money's not evil after all !

15. Bulletproof backpacks?? The latest in paranoia gear. But then, what do you expect with parents of this caliber? Time to cut the cord?

16. Ummmm. Ok. Video games make the human race better. But, doesn't it depend on the particular humans playing them?

17. Man's best friend, or competitive athlete?

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

If you would like to Join the insanity, and add the Carnival of the Insanities button to your sidebar (clicking on it will always take you to the latest update of the Carnival), click on "Word of Blog" below the button to obtain the html code:

- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 8:12 AM |

 
A WELL-DESERVED FISKING

"...the inevitable wages of a quarter-century of elite postmodern thought."

Couldn't have said it better myself.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 9:55 PM |

 
FIDEL, R.I.P. ?
UPDATE: Bumped to 8/25 -- Perhaps Fidel has gone to visit Osama in his gravecave? This from Fausta at Pajamas Media:

Throughout the past year the world has been treated to a series of videos and photos showing the ailing Castro wearing a jogging suit while entertaining visiting dignitaries, most prominently his disciple Hugo Chavez. Chavez, who is providing Cuba 80,000 barrels of oil daily, always returns from these trips exulting about how well Fidel is recovering.

After each of these, the Cuban government’s newspaper, Granma, repeats the same carefully crafted message the Cuban people have been hearing for nearly fifty years: to continue the struggle, to strive for the impossible. The US is “a decaying empire that threatens us all”. It also reminds Cubans that they too, should endure their sorrows – sorrows inflicted by Castro’s own dictatorship – without complaint. The bottom line of the message is, Nothing is ever going to change.

But the reality is that things will change, and will change rapidly immediately following the news of the death. Everything, from large-scale civil upheaval from a people long-oppressed by a cruel government, to a large number of exiled Cubans seeking to reunite with their relatives by bringing them to the USA, to a total collapse of Cuban society, can not be dismissed as a possibility.

The existing Cuban power structure will collapse.

When Castro dies, will the Cuban government release the information at the time of the death? That is very unlikely. Even with all the behind-the-scenes preparations that may or may not have taken place over the past twelve months, there will be a delay because those in power will try to hold on to power for as long as they possibly can.

So the question is, for how long will the news of Castro’s death be delayed?

-------------------------

Breaking at the Babalu Blog.... scroll there for updates. We've been down this road before, but hope springs eternal and we can always pray:

A PRAYER FOR CASTRO

Now as I lay down to sleep,
I pray the Lord your soul to keep;
And if He keeps it very well,
It's sure to find its way to hell.

I pray you'll get what you deserve;
I pray its not what you desire;
Do you think you'll keep your nerve,
As you approach eternal fire?

And if you don't, it's no surprise--
A tyrant never lives his lies.
May all the souls that you oppressed,
Ensure you lack eternal rest.

As I close my eyes tonight,
To contemplate eternal night;
I'd pray for you, I really would,
If only I could see some good.

May God have mercy on your soul;
May all who suffered at your hand
Be waiting there to greet you
As you pass by that Promised Land

May they show you justice,
Of the type that you have shown;
And with your caring and compassion,
May you reap exactly what you've sown.

Now you face the setting sun,
And approach your final sleep;
I know that when you're dead and gone
The free will cheer--and none shall weep.

And Hugo's set to take your place--
Another thug, another face.
He's eager now for you to die
Then he'll be champion of the left's Big Lie.

UPDATE: Ahhh well. Someday.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 8:17 AM |

 
CULTURAL RELATIVISM, UNDIFFERENTIATED MEDIOCRITY AND TYRANNY
From Gary Wolf at American Thinker (hat tip: One Cosmos)

Contemporary Western society is tumbling further and further into the abyss of undifferentiated mediocrity. Much of the blame is due to the ideology of Diversity, which exploits a nihilistic, anti-rational strain in our culture...

... if the advocates of Diversity had their way, there would be no rational mind, no God, no regularity, no tradition, no schools of thought. From the vantage point of Diversity, it is crucial that these obstacles be swept away. They cause the individual to focus on behavior, not on outcomes. His world is filled with restrictions, maxims, and standards. This means that he is free to make history....

It is ironic that Diversity, which could develop only in an environment imbued with reason, is contributing to its death. The ideologues believe they can redesign society, starting with its smallest detail. One failure after another, even the totalitarian upheavals of the twentieth century, have done nothing to dampen their zeal.

The pattern is all too familiar: A boisterous campaign to control social behavior -- "Diversity in the Workplace," for example -- as the fixers of social injustice squeeze the population into conformity with their perfectly designed rational panacea. But rationality itself cannot flourish and grow without a free and open interchange of ideas. By imposing what seems to be a rational solution, they create the conditions under which reason and intellect wither away....

I am not saying that certain aspects of equality cannot be desirable, but rather that they tend to be temporal in their usefulness. This becomes more apparent when we consider that equality involves trade-offs. The greater the equality, the greater the mediocrity, and the lesser the inventiveness.

Think about what multiculturalism preaches with all its high-minded rhetoric. Then WATCH WHAT IT BRINGS ABOUT in real life. That is the distinction between focusing simply on behavior --or rhetoric, or intent--versus the consequences or outcome of behavior.

It is in the tribal and entitlement behavior that you begin to see the toxicity of this dogma; as well as the essential oppressive nature of the politically correct dictums that the religion of multiculturalism demands of us.

Having given up any objective standard by which to mediate the vastly different perspectives and world views that each disparate group brings to the table; having encouraged the cannibal and looter cultures to imagine they are as worthwhile as the producer and creator cultures; having abandoned reason altogether in favor of expressing some feel-good platitudes about a supposedly essential "need to belong" to one's race, tribe, religion or group first and foremost; the outcome is what Stephen Hicks refers to as "group balkinization" --with all its inevitable and inescapable disunity, disharmony and conflict.

One wonders how anyone could expect a different outcome?

Why, in other words, would universal brotherhood--or even peaceful coexistence for that matter--result from a dogma that is antithetical to the concept of the universalism of human experience that is the bedrock of civilization; and instead glorifies cultural and tribal differences, no matter how insane or irrational, violent or destructive the cultural practices or beliefs that bring about those differences are?

Multiculturalism with its emphasis on Diversity teaches that what is truly important above all else is belonging to one's sexual, racial, ethnic, or religious identity, and not that one also belongs to the family of humankind. If the former is held superior, then "social withdrawal" from community and a pervasive distrust of other groups follows quite naturally.

The only "universal" that is shared under such circumstances is a committment to disharmony and, lurking beneath the overt moral relativism, is a grandiose sense of entitlement from each group as it jockeys for postion in the victimhood food chain.

Wolf's conclusion? Diversity is nothing if not egalitarianism stretched to the bursting point...which amounts to political, intellectual and moral tyranny:

So, many times in politics, programs that originate with the "best of intentions" end up doing exactly the opposite of what was intended. Yet, the political left is so ideologically committed to the utopian ideal of egalitarianism which, in the real world simply makes everyone equally poor and miserable (except for the lucky elites who control the social system) that they reflexly keep pouring money into programs that can be shown to actively harm the people they are meant to help; and reinforce the stereotypes they are meant to end.

The politically correct left heaps scorn on business, capitalism, free trade, and globalization; and instead glorify and praise the most primitive and barbaric of cultures and cultural practices. As Bob suggests, they come for the egalitarianism, but stay for the bestiality and tyranny they unleash with their "progressive" ways.

If they really cared about helping the poor; if they really cared about social "justice"--then they would shut the hell up and get out of the way of those evil, greedy capitalistic bastards, who, while pursuing their own selfish, profit-making agendas, in the long run effortlessly manage to increase the standard of living and improve the lives of everyone around them.

Multiculturalism, Diversity and Political Correctness are the holy trinity of the modern "progressive"; but in the real world those lovely leftist platitudes translate into cultural relativism, undifferentiated mediocrity and tyranny.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 8:17 AM |

 
LOGIC OF THE DEFEATISTS

T
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 7:25 PM |

 
PROGRESS IS NOT THEIR MOST IMPORTANT PRODUCT
Thomas Sowell writes the that political left have an "investment in failure":

It is not just in Iraq that the political left has an investment in failure. Domestically as well as internationally, the left has long had a vested interest in poverty and social malaise.

The old advertising slogan, "Progress is our most important product," has never applied to the left. Whether it is successful black schools in the United States or Third World countries where millions of people have been rising out of poverty in recent years, the left has shown little interest.

Progress in general seems to hold little interest for people who call themselves "progressives." What arouses them are denunciations of social failures and accusations of wrong-doing.

One wonders what they would do in heaven.

We are in no danger of producing heaven on earth but there have been some remarkable developments in some Third World countries within the past generation that have allowed many very poor people to rise to a standard of living that was never within their reach before.

The August 18th issue of the distinguished British magazine "The Economist" reveals the economic progress in Brazil, Argentina, and other Latin American nations that has given a better life to millions of their poorest citizens.

Some of the economic policies that have led to these results are discussed in "The Economist" but it is doubtful that members of the political left will stampede there to find out what those policies were.

Go on! Take a wild stab at whether those policies involved allowing the "selfish" free market to operate; or whether they represented the latest in "selfless" tyranny.

Sowell goes on to note:

Despite whatever the left may say, or even believe, about their concern for the poor, their actual behavior shows their interest in the poor to be greatest when the poor can be used as a focus of the left's denunciations of society.

When the poor stop being poor, they lose the attention of the left. What actions on the part of the poor, or what changes in the economy, have led to drastic reductions in poverty seldom arouse much curiosity, much less celebration.

In "The Moral and Intellectual Bankruptcy of Today's Left", I wrote:

What we have witnessed over the 30- 45 years since the Left ascended to dominate political thought in the mid 20th century, is its rapid and unprecedented decline into wholesale intellectual and moral bankruptcy. The noble values and ideals they once stood for have been abandoned; and almost as if a surreal cosmic joke was being played on them, they have—without even noticing!-- embraced the exact opposite of what they once stood for.

Where once they stood for freedom; they now enable dictatorships and apologize for tyrants. Where once they sought to bring justice to the world; they now defend horrific acts of mass murder and enslavement. Where once they rightly demanded equal opportunity, they have embraced all kinds of racial quotas and discriminatory practices and demand equality of outcome. Where once they sought to empower the weak; they are now instrumental in maintaining and expanding their victimhood.

After all, how can you be a “champion of the oppressed” unless you maintain and nurture an oppressed class that will always require your services to help them?

This rather obvious fact, of course, goes a long way to explaining the rather peculiar attitude that the Left has toward any members of its various victim groups who actually escape victimhood and become successful, achieving and independently thinking adults! The previously altruistic and idealistic worldview is now merely a narcissistic one—and a malignantly narcissistic one at that—wholly preoccupied with the possession and retention of power for an elite few.

What was once a concern that equal opportunity be afforded to all members of our society has run amok and is now a shrill, insistent demand that all outcomes be exactly equal... or else.

Intellectual and moral bankruptcy results from deliberately ignoring the actual consequences of one's beliefs in the real world, and being more concerned with the self-righteousness of one's cause and feeling good about one's self.

And that is why the political left is regressive, rather than progressive. As for "reality-based"....the only time they see reality is when they look in their rear view mirror to watch it recede away from them.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 7:21 AM |

 
IN THE PRESENCE OF EVIL
This story today which is actually about something that happened some months back, is a grim reminder of the kind of depravity and sadism that motivates the creatures we are fighting in Iraq, Afghanistan and around the world in this war on terror/Islamic fanaticism.

I am reminded of something written by New Sisyphus (now retired) in this post, which captures the contempt and anger I feel about the great, holy Islamic warrior-cowards. Those great human beings who douse children with gas and set them on fire; who shoot helpless women and children; cut off the heads of people whose hands are tied behind their back; and murder wounded crash survivors -- and then keep a videotape record of their glorious deeds.

The nature of our enemy could not be made any clearer. From Beslan, to Manhattan, to the field in which the helicopter’s passengers met their doom, one theme is constant: the absolute cowardly and craven nature of the Islamic Fascists themselves.

Say what you will about the old fashioned German variety; at least they knew how to fight and fight bravely. These new fascists cannot kill anything that isn’t rendered helpless or unaware first. And, when they are fought head to head they more often than not fall to their knees and beg for forgiveness. Or commit suicide, which, despite what you’ve read at Daily Kos is not a sign of bravery but yet the ultimate in cowardice.

For some years now we have witnessed atrocity after atrocity committed in the name of some supposedly "great" god. Some of the acts are random; some are planned to the last detail to maximize destruction, death and terror. All are deliberate and conscious acts of pure evil.

Eventually, there comes a point when the stunned outrage, repugnance and utter disgust that such behavior generates in a civilized person, has to evolve into something beyond mere outrage.

I am a psychiatrist and I couldn't do the work I do unless I really cared about people and believed the best of them. The only time in my career where I regularly encountered individuals that I could not connect with was during a several year stint working in a county jail. Not all the people there were bad--many were just plain stupid. But fairly regularly I would meet up with the ones who --well, to put it bluntly--raised the hair on the back of my neck and sent shivers down my spine.

Practicing psychiatry as long as I have, I no longer try to talk myself out of this kind of negative response to someone. No, I have learned over the years to trust my instincts in such matters. When I feel this way, I know I am in the presence of something bad. I usually then search for something to connect to in the people who stimulate that reaction--some elemental living thread that makes me feel that I am talking to someone who is also a member of the human species. I try to feel sympathy, even if my normal empathic response eludes me.

Likewise, I have forced myself to watch the beheading videos and other assorted visual evidence that the cowardly Islamic fanatics so narcissisticly make of their despicable actions. Only someone truly evil could even possibly imagine that such technological reproductions of their depravity could be seen by anyone with human DNA without feeling utter revulsion and contempt toward the perpetrators. I have tried to find something in their behavior that I could understand on any level. But these new fascists have taken me one emotional step further than even the serial killers I have interviewed.

In addition to the feelings I mention above, I have felt a growing coldness and an increasing sense of grim determination that this evil must be stopped before it engulfs the world. I believe it was when I watched the al-Jazeera video (that may have even been faked or staged) of an injured American pilot from a helicopter that was shot down, being brutally murdered, after asking help to stand; his body riddled with bullets, while the brave soldiers of Allah the magnificent mindlessly shouted (off-camera) "Allah Akbar"--I finally understood. I had understood on an intellectual level for some time, but the psychiatrist in me had still been searching for something-- anything--that would make it possible for these monsters to be able to live in a human world.

Those who commit such acts are vermin. They feed off of death and destruction. They glory in nothing but death. Once perhaps, when they were children they were human. But they long ago abandoned all humanity for their particular utopian delusion. Now they teach innocent children to hate as they steal their souls from them. They are nothing more than subhuman troglodytes; remnants of a medieval culture that should have died a thousand years ago. The complete, total and irrevocable extermination of this kind of evil and its adherents MUST be the goal of anyone who is civilized.

I don't advocate torturing them or even humiliating them (well, maybe humiliating them).I don't advocate even hating them. It isn't a worthwhile expenditure of emotional energy. Just kill them without any great fuss or angst. And send them and their ideology to whatever hell awaits such pathetic and deformed souls. We owe it to whatever is great and good in the human spirit to do no less. And it is no more than what such creatures deserve.

When you are in the presence of true evil, you have only one real choice. You must face it coldly, ruthlessly and with unswerving determination and loyalty to Life.

Because in every way that matters, this is a battle between civilization and barbarism; between Life and Death.

UPDATE: Hot Air has more on the original story of the 5-year old lit on fire by jihadis.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 8:25 PM |

 
OFF THE RECORD
From Ed Morrissey writes about Hillary's "2 Million Little Secrets:

The Clinton Presidential Library holds an estimated two million documents relating to Hillary Clinton's activities as First Lady -- a record on which she has explicitly based her campaign for the presidency. She has a page dedicated to it on her campaign web site. Her mantra, "strength and experience", rests on her tenure in the White House.
So why won't the Clinton library open these records to the public? The Los Angeles Times reports that the presidential library won't release them until after the 2008 election.

This is not the first time that information about Hillary which might have negative political repercussions has been suppressed.

Clearly, someone (gee, I wonder who?) believes that the public consumption of all this information would not be helpful to the one or both of the Clintons' political ambitions....
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 7:09 AM |

 
WHAT WE HAVE HERE IS A FAILURE TO COMMUNICATE THINK
Victor Davis Hanson states in an excellent essay titled "Why Study War" (in City Journal):

Indeed, by ignoring history, the modern age is free to interpret war as a failure of communication, of diplomacy, of talking—as if aggressors don’t know exactly what they’re doing. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, frustrated by the Bush administration’s intransigence in the War on Terror, flew to Syria, hoping to persuade President Assad to stop funding terror in the Middle East. She assumed that Assad’s belligerence resulted from our aloofness and arrogance rather than from his dictatorship’s interest in destroying democracy in Lebanon and Iraq, before such contagious freedom might in fact destroy him. For a therapeutically inclined generation raised on Oprah and Dr. Phil—and not on the letters of William Tecumseh Sherman and William Shirer’s Berlin Diary—problems between states, like those in our personal lives, should be argued about by equally civilized and peaceful rivals, and so solved without resorting to violence.

Yet it’s hard to find many wars that result from miscommunication. Far more often they break out because of malevolent intent and the absence of deterrence. Margaret Atwood also wrote in her poem: “Wars happen because the ones who start them / think they can win.” Hitler did; so did Mussolini and Tojo—and their assumptions were logical, given the relative disarmament of the Western democracies at the time. Bin Laden attacked on September 11 not because there was a dearth of American diplomats willing to dialogue with him in the Hindu Kush. Instead, he recognized that a series of Islamic terrorist assaults against U.S. interests over two decades had met with no meaningful reprisals, and concluded that decadent Westerners would never fight, whatever the provocation—or that, if we did, we would withdraw as we had from Mogadishu.

Pelosi's attempt to resolve and the over-reliance in general on this idea that miscommunication is the root cause of all disagreements, is behind much of the diplomatic insanity (i.e., lunatic appeasement) that runs through the Democratic Party these days. It is an almost shocking degree of naivete about people. In fact, it is also shockingly self-centered (i.e., narcissistic) because it assumes that your behavior is the primary determinant of other people's (e.g., "...Assad’s belligerence resulted from our aloofness and arrogance rather than from his dictatorship’s interest in destroying democracy in Lebanon and Iraq, before such contagious freedom might in fact destroy him) ; and that other people do not have thoughts, feelings, or motivations separate from or distinct from one's self.

This is just one more example of the therapeutic psychobabble that has become the default mode of our culture.


How did this psychobabble--developed in the name of healing and compassion, but which really evolved into a culturally-sanctioned embrace of a dysfunctional perception of reality--come to be so prevalent that is the "root cause" of the naive and counterproductive foreign policy actions advocated (primarily) by Democrats?


Well, I'm afraid that my profession must take much of the blame for this particular insanity, as it has negligently and happily reinforced the primacy of feelings and emotions over reason and cognition.


"I feel, therefore I am. I feel strongly therefore I am the center of the universe!"


The "therapeutically inclined" generation that Hanson speaks of has taken the dictum of psychiatry and psychology to heart. Their needs and feelings have become--for them, at least--the center of the universe. Armed with an over-inflated self-esteem; a bucketfull of wishful thinking; and a feel-good "root cause" explanation for any evil, these rather infantile, postmodern "do-gooders" are filled with utopian fervor, but lack even the tiniest amount of psychological insight into their own motivations whatsoever.

For years now, pop psychology and its gurus have plastered their "psychiatry lite" messages all over magazines like Self, People Magazine, and Popular Narcissism (OK, the last is not a real magazine, but I'm surprised that someone hasn't proudly published something similar).

All these pervasive "self-help" guides have percolated through K-12 educational curricula; and been scarfed up enthusiastically by the cultural elite of Hollywood and the intellectual elite of academia. The holy trinity of the emotionally sensitive in our midst can be summarized by the hysterical hyping of supposedly "scientific" psychology, includes

(1) (unearned) self-esteem (increasing your self-worth without actually having to achieve anything) - this one fits perfectly into the postmodern creed that dictates that your random thoughts, feelings and opinions are just as good as anyone else's; and that there is no objective reality or truth which can distinguish one set from another;

(2) (unrealistic) hope (achieving your goals without any real effort) - utopia and perfection are possible; simply rid the world of all those "bad" aspects of human nature; and

(3) (undeserved) victimhood (it's not your fault that you haven't achieved anything or made any effort) - there are endless moral benefits to being considered "oppressed" This is in part because many on the political left have an intense narcissistic need to see themselves as "champions of the oppressed", hence the constant need to find and maintain an oppressed class of people to champion. But it also dovetails nicely into the the Marxist dialectic that underlies that ideology. The world is divided up into two groups, you see: the oppressors (i.e., white, male,heterosexual, Republican, Americans or Israelis) and the oppressed (everyone else).The political left proudly stands in solidarity with the oppressed victims of the world; and it is worth noting that their stance is particularly ego-gratifying if those they champion are undeserving victims

The popular notion that nurturing a kid's self-esteem ought to be the highest goal of our educational system has resulted in the creation of little narcissistic monsters who believe their needs and feelings are the center of the universe (many of these highly self-esteemed creatures are now lefty bloggers or make up the core of the antiwar left who parade around nude for peace and exhibit other bizarre behaviors regularly). One consequence of this essential narcissistic approach to the world is the inabililty to understand that other people have needs and desires that are distinct--and sometimes even diametrically opposed--to your own! We are the world, after all! Everyone is beautiful in their own way! All cultures are special and should be valued! All we are saying is give peace a chance! etc. etc.

If the 19th century was the age of hysteria (and basically, Freud was responding to the excessive sexual repression present in that century); then the 20th was definitely the age of narcissism. In the 21st century, that narcissism seems to be morphing into an even more malignant sociopathy that pervades society and impacts almost all our social, political, and educational institutions.

Our cultural focus on enhancing "self-esteem" has resulted in the near-worship of emotions and feelings at the expense of reason and thought; on emphasizing "root causes" and victimhood, instead of demanding that behavior be civilized and that individuals exert self-discipline and self-control--no matter what they are "feeling"; on emphasizing the importance of what is said and intentions (they mean well) , rather than how one actually behaves or the consequences of that behavior.

This is where Pelosi's foreign policy assumptions fit in. What we have is not a failure to communicate; no, what we have is a failure to use cognition and reason; a failure to have ego boundaries; and a strongly held belief that if you just wish for something very very hard, you can make it so because you are so special (i.e., magical thinking).

The work of psychologists Roy Baumeister and Martin Seligman suggests that often, high self-worth of the (unearned variety anyway) is actually a marker for negative behavior, as found in sociopaths and drug kingpins.

Everywhere and at all levels of society we see the people who have inhaled this "psychology-lite" philosophy. They are identified by alternately acting out their narcissistically empowered superiority -- demanding to be noticed, admired and loved (by you); and playing the narcissistically empowered victim -- demanding their inalienable rights and priveleges (at your expense).

I suppose hyping self-esteem, hope, and victimhood seemed like a good idea at the time and the faithful who believe in the trinity mean well. But hasn't it become clear how foolish and deceptive it such irrationality is, as well as how ineffective and counterproductive?


And maybe, just maybe--though it will offend terminally offend the sensibilities of the therapeutically-inclined generation--it is time to end the influence of pop psychology in public policy.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 1:43 PM |

 
THE BALLAD OF KARL CHRISTIAN ROVE
Howard Kurtz in the Washington Post:

From the moment he leaked word of his departure to the Wall Street Journal editorial page, Karl Rove has been lionized and vilified by the media hordes.

He is either a political giant, shrewdly plotting a series of victories during the Bush presidency, or a nation-wrecker, sowing the seeds of division to boost the GOP. The nicknames -- "Bush's Brain," "The Architect" -- match the portrayal of an important historical figure.

But what if journalists are part of an unspoken conspiracy to inflate Rove's importance -- not for ideological reasons but because it makes for a better narrative? What if they are the architects, using well-placed aides to build a stage for inside-dope stories involving Rove and his colleagues?

Well, whatever you think of Mr. Rove, there is no question that he is a legend in his own time....

THE BALLAD OF KARL CHRISTIAN ROVE

(sung to the tune of "Davy Crockett")

Born on a Christmas Day in '51,
Studied politics because it was fun;
He plotted and schemed till Republicans won.
Became Bush's Brain in 1991 .

Karl, Karl C. Rove, kingmaker extraordinaire.

He was single-handedly the Architect,
Though the Dems were whipped, he got no respect.
And as he was handling this tricky chore,
Made himself a legend, forevermore.

Karl, C. Rove the man the Dems all fear.

He never went to Congress to serve a spell,
But his evil plots made their life a living hell.
He took over Washington, I heard tell,
And stuffed Joe and Valerie in the Liberty Bell.

Karl, Karl C. Rove, a devil and a demon, they swear!

When he at last resigned, his politickin' done,
The left went right crazy (and that's no pun!)
So he packed up his gear, and Dick Cheney's gun--
Just to be sure they wouldn't press him none.

Karl, Karl C. Rove, political pioneer!
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 7:43 AM |

 
INSIGHT vs SELF DELUSION
A committed leftist recounts the shock and dismay he felt after 9/11, which eventually led him to question his world view. The piece is at The Guardian, and titled "The Day Reality Hit Home". Here is an excerpt:

A midlife crisis did indeed ensue after 9/11. In truth it had been brewing for some time. It wasn't my midlife crisis, however, but that of Western culture at large. No matter what other aims may have motivated this singular act of terrorism, it was beyond question that it was planned as a symbolic, as well as a lethal, attack on 'the West', whether the target was militarism (the Pentagon), capitalism (the WTC), or cosmopolitanism (the heterogeneity of the victims). The problem was many in the West were not sure that it was worthy of defence. For some time in the post-Soviet era, as America established its position as the sole superpower, a West-based movement had been growing that rejected the spread of free-market capitalism and the Western values that underpinned the global market. Known as anti-globalisation, it drew attention to the poverty and deprivation that was such a common feature of life in the Third World. But it also posed some stark existential questions about the Western way of life. 'What was the point?' the anti-globalisers seemed to be asking, all we do is buy stuff, turn everywhere into a market, and force McDonald's and Starbucks down other people's throats. Our culture is nothing but consumption. As the anti-globalist writer Naomi Klein argued a few weeks after 11 September: 'Part of the disorientation many Americans now face has to do with the inflated and oversimplified place consumerism plays in the American narrative. To buy is to be. To buy is to love. To buy is to vote.'

Drinking in the devastation, numbed and intoxicated by the scale of what had taken place, I struggled, like everyone else, to make sense of it all. And in my case, as with many people from the liberal-left side of the political spectrum, that job was made more difficult by the fact that the United States was the victim. From where I came from, the United States was always the culprit. There was Vietnam, Chile and the dreadful support for repressive and often debauched regimes right across Latin America, Africa and Asia. I was a veteran of CND anti-cruise missile marches in the 1980s. I had gone to Nicaragua to defend the Sandinista cause against American imperialism. America was the bad guy, right? America was always the bad guy.

Clearly some basic moral calculations needed to be performed. Which vision of the world represented more closely my own liberal outlook? The cosmopolitan city of New York, a multi-racial city of opportunity, a town where anyone on earth could arrive and thrive, exuberant, cultured, diverse, a place I had visited and loved for its liberty and energy and excitement? Or the people who attacked it, those arid minds who wanted to remove women from sight, kill homosexuals, banish music, destroy art, the demolishers of the Bamiyan Buddhas who aimed to terrorise everyone they could into submission to the will of their vengeful God? It was, as they say, a no-brainer, or should have been.

But was there not also an obligation to ask if this heinous crime was more complex than it first appeared? That was the progressive instinct: don't be fooled by the mass media, which we all knew was a propaganda industry, look behind the scenes, examine the bigger picture, think about the context, study history. And so if you wanted to consider yourself a member of the thinking classes, it was not enough to recoil in horror, you also had to take into account America's own score sheet in matters of cold blood. 'It's terrible,' was the often heard formulation, 'but....' Did I think there was a but? And if there was a but, could it be any kind of justification for what had taken place? And if it wasn't a justification, what was the point of the but? Was it there to show one's even-handedness and sense of fair play? Or purely for decoration? I knew right from the first second where my emotional sympathies were located but what was my intellectual position?

What helped guide me to the answer was the alternative analysis, the 'It's terrible, but' in which the 'It's terrible' was the decorative part of the equation. A number of commentaries that articulated this response quickly began to appear in different newspapers. Perhaps the most indignant came, with impressive alacrity, on 13 September in my daily newspaper, the voice of liberal Britain, the Guardian. 'Nearly two days after the horrific suicide attacks on civilian workers in New York and Washington,' wrote Seumas Milne, 'it has become painfully clear that most Americans simply don't get it... Shock, rage and grief there has been aplenty. But any glimmer of recognition of why people might have been driven to carry out such atrocities, sacrificing their own lives in the process - or why the United States is hated with such bitterness, not only in Arab and Muslim countries, but across the developing world - seems almost entirely absent.'

Insight can often be a painful process. Unlike the use of the immature or primitive psychological defenses, which are all highly contagious socially--the development of psychological insight is necessarirly an individual journey that is at best uncomfortable and, at worse, painful or even devastating.

If that is so, you might ask, why would anyone want to undertake the journey?

The short answer is that optimum psychological and physical health, as well as one's ability to function effectively in the world, require a person to be in touch with reality. All sorts of temporary compromises can be made with reali ty, but in the end, the piper will have to be paid. And, in the long-term, the cost of ignoring or distorting reality could very well be prohibitive.

While the use of immature or psychotic defenses (e.g., denial, projection, paranoia) or the neurotic psychological defenses (e.g. displacement) represent a somewhat creative attempt to compromise with an unpleasant or unpalatable reality, they are only able to grant a temporary reprieve from the consequences of reality. The use of these defenses almost never serve the individual's interests in the long run, as they can seriously disrupt interpersonal relationships and the ability to work productively. Since such immature psychological defenses are "contagious" (in the sense that they can be conveniently used by entire groups and societies to distort, manipulate, and avoid reality) , they can also wreak havoc on a grand scale.

Under stress, and threatened with psychological trauma or the disruption of cherished beliefs, even basically healthy adults may retreat to dysfunctional and immature defenses to cope. For the most part, such a retreat is an automatic and unconscious process.

As long as it remains unconscious, the individual is not able to get beyond it and effectively deal with the threatening reality. The defense stands between him and the real world, protecting the psyche from any awareness. While stress and crisis can induce regression to more primitive psychological functioning, it also may also provide a stimulus for intellectual and emotional growth, and offer a person the opportunity to make new connections, question old beliefs, or understand the the hidden motivations and dynamics within that explain why the individual cannot face the truth.

Specifically, unconscious processes can be made conscious through the development of insight; and thus alter the self-destructive path that an individual or a group may be on.

In a comment about a comment [posted at Protein Wisdom] we catch a glimpse of how powerful the forces of self-delusion are; and how, when a true-believer is faced with having to question some dearly-held assumptions by a compellingly written piece like the one linked to at the beginning of this post, they will retreat even further into denial, delusion, and paranoia:

Comment by happyfeet on 8/19 @ 10:01 am #

I’m stealing this from Jules Crittendon’s comments here:
# tinknorati Says:
August 18th, 2007 at 1:07 pm

I think this new meme — “Democrats are trying to find a way to get in on the smashing success of the war in Iraq” — may be my favorite crazy Bush-cultist meme ever. To believe this, you have to forget that we’ve been hearing these same claims of “progress” for years, and the people who claim that there is no such thing as “progress” in Iraq are always right. (Yes, I’m linking to The Evil Sock Puppet. Therefore all the direct quotes in that article are like totally inaccurate.)

I know why the Bush administration goes for this stuff; if Bush admitted that Al-Qaeda is a minor factor in Iraq, that conditions on the ground are no better than they’ve ever been, and that the only way for Iraq to get better is if we leave (and that the longer we wait to leave, the worse the bloodbath will be when we do leave), he’d have to admit that he failed. Bush would rather see America defeated — since the only real “defeat” is remaining in Iraq — than admit he was wrong; I understand that.

And I understand Crittenden’s enthusiasm for American defeat and American death; if we leave Iraq, we’ll be safer and more secure, but fewer Muslims will be shot on a daily basis, and anyone who’s read Jules on a regular basis knows that he would rather see America defeated than see one more Muslim survive than necessary.

But most importantly, the right has always been at war with liberals and Democrats. So the idea of keeping troops in Iraq, forcing Democrats to spend most of their time trying to find a way to stop the war (since this is in America’s national security interest, and the Democrats are the national security party) is OK with them; it’s a defeat for America to keep all these troops in Iraq, but that’s the point: defeating America — or the half of America that doesn’t agree with Bush — is the goal of the right. So while Crittenden and Bush know we can’t “win” in Iraq, staying in Iraq is a way to “win” against the evil Dhimmicrats. The fact that it’s in America’s national security interest to leave is irrelevant when you have declared war on America, which is what Bush and his cultists have done.

Remember, more dead Americans are totally worth it if it bums out Democrats.

It’s striking how crafted that comment is, but what I want to highlight is the bit about how “the right has always been at war with liberals and Democrats.” It’s a formulation that completely elides Al Qaeda and September 11 and the idea that there are forces actively working to thwart the establishment of a non-totalitarian Iraq, and I think Anthony’s piece suffers a bit in not better illustrating the contortions the left endorses in its desperation to protect the pre-9/11 narrative. Anthony’s relatively benign sketch of the liberal pathology, limited here to a look at Guardian columnist’s Seumas Milne’s initial reaction to 9/11, may help explain how the Guardian found his narrative appealing. I wonder but that the Guardian doesn’t see Anthony as an object lesson that illustrates how September 11 did indeed have the power to break liberals whose commitment to the narrative was… insufficient. Don’t let this happen to you. Gird thyself!

Indeed. Gird thyself. More contortions and further compromise with reality will be necessary!
Many paths can be taken to reach self-delusion, i.e., a denial of reality. Each individual will embrace the psychological denial--through projection, paranoia, displacement or any one of a number of strategies-- for their own personal reasons; even when the delusion or distortion of reality is a shared one (e.g., the striking phenomenon called "Bush Derangement Syndrome"; or any number of bizarre conspiracy theories about 9/11).

But there is only one path that leads to insight and self-awareness and it is through the individual's distortions and lies; straight to the heart of his or her most cherished beliefs about himself and the world. If he can look at those beliefs and face himself and his own motivations squarely and honestly; and then reconcile them to the painful reality and truth he observes in the outside world; he is surely on that one path that leads to personal growth and self-discovery.
OTOH, if he never is willing to look in the mirror or question his beliefs; if he believes himself to be both intellectually and morally superior and that it is unnecessary to question his own motivations; then he is on one of the many paths that will take him to the wonderful world of denial.

Insight is an amazing thing. The power or act of seeing into a situation and apprehending the inner nature or motivation of one's self--especially the why--can be extremely liberating; or, it can be extremely painful--sometimes both. But, only when a person becomes aware of the his own hidden agenda and his inner motivations can he begin to gain control over them and correct any dysfunctional behavior that they generate.

Insight for the person quoted in "happyfeet's" comment is likely to be somewhat devastating. Someday (one can only hope anyway) he is going to look in that mirror and see a repulsive, angry, hypocrite staring back; someone who has betrayed almost every "liberal" principle he claims he stands for.

Typically, the insight gained from self-analysis is able to free a person from a life of bitterness, unhappiness and unearned guilt (see here, for example).

But there are situations where achieving insight and understanding the motives behind one's behavior (as well as what one can and cannot control) can generate deserved guilt and shame. Experiencing such unpleasant emotions can be productive and initiate a change in behavior for the good. While it is painful to acknowledge horrible truths about one's self--but truths nonetheless-- such understanding essential for personal growth and normal personality development.

In the link above regarding "The Mirror of Insight", I wrote:

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

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

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

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

Read the piece from The Guardian; then read the comments quoted by "happyfeet" again. You will easily be able to determine which writer is in touch with reality; which writer examines his own feelings and motivations thoughfully and seriously; versus simply spewing out talking points--without real thought or cognition--in a narrative the individual has never bothered to question. See if you can tell whose writing is genuine; whose struggle to come to terms with reality is compelling; and whose is a smug, self-righteous rant by someone who clearly thinks he possesses both a superior intellect and superior moral virtue.

One writer is on the path to insight and self-awareness; the other is running very fast in the opposite direction-- toward the transient comfort of denial and delusion.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 6:28 AM |

 
CARNIVAL OF THE INSANITIES
Time for the weekly insanity update, where the insane, the bizarre, the ridiculous, and the completely absurd are highlighted for all to see! This has been a week of rare idiocy (as always!). So, if you want to remain sane, the best thing is to poke some fun at the more egregious absurdities.

Send all entries for next week's carnival to Dr. Sanity by 8 pm ET on Saturday for Sunday's Carnival. Only one post entry weekly per blogger, please. And you might read this before submitting an entry.

**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. You could be a pirate! Or, you could be a she-devil; or a saucy minx, for that matter! Or even a caveman....but there's always a reason to party!

2. Yeah, right. And Che Guevara deserves the Humanitarian Award. Meanwhile, Hugo discovers the secret to "happiness"! He goes for the gusto. Hey! At least he's not the boss of me!

3. She's got 2 million little secrets. And he's got a $218 trillion mobile phone bill.

4. Interesting how some things can get published, and some things can't...

5. Two good reasons not to trust Wikipedia on anything.

6. Between poor defenseless old ladies with big bullets, it's really hard to trust any journalists or news agencies these days.... Uh oh! It happened here, too!

7. Jones'n on earmarks. Living on fried virtue. Or, perhaps they get their self-esteem from seafood?

8. Somehow, Iran always finds a clever way to protest its innocence. Terrorist? Moi??

9. So, will they be sued for their blatant islamophobia? You can count on these guys always leaping to CAIR's defense!

10. Does the whole neocon /rethuglican thing got you down? Just ask Islamic Rage Boy!

11. He will make the world safe for white underwear! There's just no end to the amazing things this deity can do.

12. A win-win for Israel. But this is a really big no-win....

13. This is appeasement. So is this. Also called "unidirectional multiculturalism". And then there's this, which is definitely NOT appeasement.

14. Valuable eggs. Extremely valuable eggs.

15. Man-Beard experimentation...

16. Slouching can cause your head to explode? Good to know.

17. Now's the time to apply for this job. I'll bet they don't require a Powerpoint presentation !

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

If you would like to Join the insanity, and add the Carnival of the Insanities button to your sidebar (clicking on it will always take you to the latest update of the Carnival), click on "Word of Blog" below the button to obtain the html code:






- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 7:46 AM |

 
A SERIOUS CASE OF WESTOPHOBIA
Nowadays, organizations like CAIR descend on anyone who has the temerity to say anything even remotely negative about Islam, solemnly pronouncing such behavior as Islamophobic.

So, how come this sort of thing--which is actually much more pervasive in the Islamic world than any bad attitude toward Islam is in the West-- is never labeled as being westophobic or americaphobic?

A phobia is defined as... “an exaggerated usually inexplicable and illogical fear of a particular object, class of objects, or situation."

And, as I discussed in this post, fear of the fanatics of Islam is far from irrational:

...being afraid of "the religion of peace" after the innumerable acts of violence, terror and depravity committed in the name of Allah is not exaggerated; not inexplicable; and most certainly not illogical.

What the OIC is exhibiting is a sort of meta-Islamophobia--an Islamophobicphobia, to be precise; or, as I would define it, " an exaggerated, usually inexplicable and illogical fear of mere criticism of Islam, as well as a pathological reluctance to hold it to account for the actions and behavior of its followers."

There is much written both in the Middle East and in the West about the proposition that Islam is "under siege" and that hatred of Islam is a rising concern. This has been repeated frequently particularly since the global war on terror (which actually is a global war on Islamic fanatiacism). Those who decry this reality are not only reluctant to admit that the wave of terror and irrational hatred sweeping the world is specifically associated with the religion of Islam; they simultaneously blame the victims of the terror and the objects of the irrational hatred as the one's responsible for its existence. Islam is given a free pass and the shouts of "God is Great" that precede the latest atrocity apparently have nothing to do with what is written in the Koran.

It is getting harder and harder to keep a straight face as the knee-jerk denial and sanctimonious utterings of organizations like CAIR and the OIC fill the news media on a daily basis.

Islamophobia? Anyone who by now has not realized that Islam has given carte blanche to the fanatics in its midst is either completely out of touch with reality, or living on another planet (e.g., planet Hollywood, or planet Marx).

And yet, their own phobia about the West, America, and Israel,which has gone far beyond anything a civilized person could say was reasonable, is completely paranoid and psychotic.

As with all paranoia and projection, you can easily figure out the hidden psychological agenda that is behind an accusation that "U.S. Civilization Feeds on Human Blood".

Read this; consider the daily spectacles we see of Islam's 'best and brightest' blowing themselves to smithereens; or persecuting/beheading infidels wherever they find them; or oppressing 50% of their own muslim population--that is, when they aren't killing each other for imperceptible (to anyone else) "deviations" in Islamic thought.

Then ask yourself which civilization is actively feeding on human blood, and at the same time sees itself as holy, virtuous, and pure?

The Islam practiced or encouraged todayby many of the world's muslims is not so much a religion as it is a cult of death worshippers. At least being a Christian or a Jew is not fundamentally incompatible with life, freedom, dignity, and compassion for one's fellow human beings.

But then, projection, paranoia, and psychological denial all are nurtured by the worse aspects of human nature and are behind most of the horrifically bloody episodes that punctuate human history.

Any fear the West may be developing toward Islam and the fanatics who would like to force it down the throats of everyone--or else, is hardly inexplicable; and--so far at least--our response to their brutality has been incredibly restrained , bordering on outright appeasement because we still believe that they can be reasoned with.

But reason is useless when phobia morphs into a paranoid psychosis; and the murderous/bloody behavior will only escalate--along with the bizarre and unreal rhetoric-- as attempts to disguise one's own true nature and motivations become more and more desperate.

UPDATE: John R. Thompson has this to say:

Throughout most of the Muslim world, in madrassas and mosques, in the press and on television, with hardly a voice countering the calumnies, the United States is charged, tried and convicted as the world’s modern leader in genocide aimed at Muslims. President Bush, supported by his accomplice Israel, supposedly leads this Muslim massacre.

America is berated for heinous crimes, minimizing whatever may have been done by the regimes of Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Pol Pot, Saddam Hussein and, currently, Sudanese President and Field Marshal Omar al-Bashir.

This propaganda campaign seeks to distract the world’s attention from the real murderers, the true ethnic and religious cleansers. For the truth is, the perpetrators to an overwhelming degree are the Muslims themselves.

Simultaneously, the accusations are calculated to inflame the credulous Arab/Muslim street, in order to justify murderous Muslim terrorism, to recruit gullible suicide bombers and to attract covert support from Saudi Arabia, once a stalwart U.S. ally.

Definitely worth a read.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 10:14 AM |

 
HYSTERIA
Russ Smith in the NY Sun:

One of the more absurd complaints leveled against President Bush during his tumultuous tenure in office is that, in combating terrorism, he's eviscerated the Constitution. This hysteria is not confined to critics in the blogosphere or strident left-wing magazines such as the Nation but is found, as well, in mass-market newspapers and magazines. A citizen who reads, in a vacuum, editorials and oped columnists in the New York Times, say, might believe that since September 11 America, led by the Bush administration, has become a police state.

The latest round of hyperbolic arguments offered by anti-administration partisans concerns the acquiescence of Congress to put off for six months any revisions to Mr. Bush's allowance of wiretapping of telephone calls that are suspected to contain discussion of possible terrorism.

Newsweek's Jonathan Alter, writing in that magazine's current issue, claims that Mr. Bush has "betrayed his oath to defend the Constitution," and what's worse, from his point of view, is that Democrats were too politically frightened to oppose him.

Read on.

Just what I was saying the other day. See? It doesn't even take a psychiatrist to notice the hysteria and exaggerated emotionalism that emanates from the left these days.

Anyone whose cognitive faculty is not completely shut down and who spends any time observing the behavior of the left can see the same thing.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 3:35 PM |

 
FRIDAY MORNING CARTOONS

THIS TACTIC BEGINS TO GET OLD:



THE DEMOCRATS' DILEMMA:




BUT EVEN AS THEY SOUND THE CALL FOR RETREAT:



THEY PREPARE FOR THE ONLY WAR THAT MATTERS TO THEM:


- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 7:59 AM |

 
KILLING FOR CONGRESS
Ralph Peters has the right of it:

TWO days ago, al Qaeda det onated four massive truck bombs in three Iraqi vil lages, killing at least 250 civilians (perhaps as many as 500) and wounding many more. The bombings were a sign of al Qaeda's frustration, desperation and fear.

The victims were ethnic Kurd Yazidis, members of a minor sect with pre-Islamic roots. Muslim extremists condemn them (wrongly) as devil worshippers. The Yazidis live on the fringes of society.

That's one of the two reasons al Qaeda targeted those settlements: The terrorist leaders realize now that the carnage they wrought on fellow Muslims backfired, turning once-sympathetic Sunni Arabs against them. The fanatics calculated that Iraqis wouldn't care much about the Yazidis.

As far as the Thieves of Baghdad (also known as Iraq's government) go, the terrorists were right. Iraqi minorities, including Christians, have been classified as fair game by Muslim butchers. Mainstream Iraqis simply look away.

But the second reason for those dramatic bombings was that al Qaeda needs to portray Iraq as a continuing failure of U.S. policy. Those dead and maimed Yazidis were just props: The intended audience was Congress.

Harry "the war is lost" Reid and the Democrats eager for defeat should be immensely proud...at least someone finds their negativism and surrender mentality encouraging.

From a purely psychological perspective, they have not been your typical run-of-the-mill type of cold war useful idiots; they have taken useful idiocy to the next level and become both cheerleaders and pimps for Al Qaeda murderers. The lofty ideals they tend to espouse with such regularity pale next to their desire to recover their lost power and glory; and live once again in the White House.

As Peter's suggests, Al Qaeda recognizes that "slaughtering the innocent [is] their only remaining hope of pulling off a come-from-way-behind win"; and that this maneuver is designed to convince "your senator and your congressman or -woman that it's politically expedient to hand a default victory to a defeated al Qaeda."

Sigmund, Carl & Alfred today have a thought-provoking post on good versus evil, and make the comment:

That we inspire good in ourselves, families and communities, serves to inspire those that are destined to do great things that may benefit all of us. By appealing to our higher selves, we pass on good with ease. By nature, we want to be good. The growth of democracy and freedoms prove that. Of course, there will be the fools for whom it is a calling to do more than to point out our flaws and failures along the road of progress. They offer nothing but contempt for those who see freedom as the highest form of man’s elevation. They too, will be forgotten.

The evil that the Democrats are doing and have done at the behest of their leftist base is repugnant. That they do it without even even the slightest appreciation of the number of innocent deaths they have enabled terrorists to take; and without a shred of shame at all the blood that stains their self-serving and narcissistic motives, is thoroughly and utterly contemptible.

Siggy goes on to note that:

Great societies and cultures are always measured by what they build, not by what they destroy. Great religions are measure by how many lives are saved in God’s name, not by how many are taken in God’s name. Great nations are measured by how many people are elevated to freedom and not by how many are enslaved and deprived of freedom.

The lives of each one of our military personnel is precious; that they have chosen to bring freedom to those enslaved and hope to those without it is what makes our country great. Those who have died doing so are treasured and honored for their gift.

They will be remembered, long after the apologists and enablers of the evil that killed them are forgotten. Their sacrifice will endure, long after the crocodile tears and sham concern of all those caring leftist "patriots" who "support the troops" have dried up as they find even more ways to undermine America and move on in their quest for a neo-marxist utopian nirvana.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 4:28 PM |

 
YOU ARE WHAT YOU EAT !
And now for something completely different...I am swamped with work today and must finish several things. Leave it to The Anchoress to find a quiz asking "What kind of sandwich are you?"--clearly something everyone should know about themselves!

My results:

You Are a Club Sandwich

You are have a big personality. It's hard for anyone to ignore you! You dream big. You think big. And you eat big. Some people consider you high maintenance, but you just know what you want... and when you want it. Your best friend: The Tuna Fish Sandwich Your mortal enemy: The Peanut Butter and Jelly Sandwich

More blogging later.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 7:24 AM |

 
SCIENTIFIC PROGRESS GOES BOINK !
...and not just in the cartoon world of Calvin and Hobbes! There is a fascinating interview of Turkish-American physicist Taner Edis at Salon regarding the state of science under Islam.

Except for a few questions from the interviewer, which highlight his own ideological agenda (example: "Didn't Western colonialism also contribute to the decline of science in the Islamic world? Colonial rule often marginalized Muslims and dismissed the value of Islamic culture. In Indonesia, the Dutch even closed Islamic institutions and banned Muslims from universities until 1952."), it is a worthwhile read if you want to understand the effect Islamic religious thought has had on scientific inquiry in the Muslim world, and why science in Islamic countries lags so far behind the West.

The article begins:

In October, Malaysia's first astronaut will join a Russian crew and blast off into space. The news of a Muslim astronaut was cause for celebration in the Islamic world, but then certain questions started popping up. How will he face Mecca during his five daily prayers while his space ship is whizzing around the Earth? How can he hold the prayer position in zero gravity? Such concerns may sound absurd to us, but the Malaysian space chief is taking them quite seriously. A team of Muslim scholars and scientists has spent more than a year drawing up an Islamic code of conduct for space travel.

This story illustrates the obstacles that face scientists in Muslim countries.

Indeed. This is the sort of thing that happens when science is forced to operate under the thumb of religion. Taner Edis, the author of An Illusion of Harmony: Science and Religion in Islam offers a unique perspective on all this, and you should read it all.

Meanwhile,here is an example of Islamic "science" :

"TOPIC: Islamic Science: Neil Armstrong Proved Mecca is the Center of the World
The following are excerpts from an interview with Dr. Abd Al-Baset Al-Sayyed of the Egyptian National Research Center. Al-Majd TV aired this interview on January 16, 2005

Dr. 'Abd Al-Baset Sayyid: The centrality [of Mecca] has been proven scientifically. How? When they traveled to outer space and took pictures of the earth, they saw that it is a dark, hanging sphere. The man said, "Earth is a dark hanging sphere – who hung it?"

Interviewer: Who said that?

Dr. 'Abd Al-Baset Sayyid: [Neil] Armstrong. Armstrong was basically trying to say: Allah is the one who hung it. They discovered that Earth emits radiation, and they wrote about this on the web. They left the item there for 21 days, and then they made it disappear.

Interviewer: Why did they make it disappear?

Dr. 'Abd Al-Baset Sayyid: There was intent there…

Interviewer: So it may be said that this suppression of information was significant.

Dr. 'Abd Al-Baset Sayyid: It was very significant, since…the Ka'ba [in Mecca]… They said it emits radiation. This radiation is short-wave.

When they discovered this radiation, they started to zoom in, and they found that it emanates from Mecca – and, to be precise, from the Ka'ba.

Interviewer: My God!!

Dr. 'Abd Al-Baset Sayyid: It was said…

Interviewer: Does this radiation have an effect?

Dr. 'Abd Al-Baset Sayyid: They found that this radiation is infinite. When they reached Mars and began to take pictures, they found that the radiation continues beyond. They said that the wavelength known to us… or rather the shortness of the wavelength known to us… This radiation had a special characteristic: It is infinite, and I believe that the reason is that this radiation connects the [earthly] Ka'ba with the celestial Ka'ba.

Imagine that you are the North Pole and I am the South Pole – in the middle there's what is called the magnetic equilibrium zone. If you place a compass there, the needle won't move.

Interviewer: You mean that the pull is equal from both sides?

Dr. 'Abd Al-Baset Sayyid: Yes, and that's why it's called zero-magnetism zone, since the magnetic force has no effect there. That's why if someone travels to Mecca or lives there, he lives longer, is healthier, and is less affected by Earth's gravity. That's why when you circle the Ka'ba, you get charged with energy.

Interviewer: Allah be praised.

Dr. 'Abd Al-Baset Sayyid: Yes, this is a fact.

This is a scientific fact…

Interviewer: Because you are distant from…

Dr. 'Abd Al-Baset Sayyid: Earth's magnetic fields have no effect on you in this case.

There's a study that proves that the black basalt rocks in Mecca are the oldest rocks in the world. This is the truth.

Interviewer: The oldest rocks? Yes. Has this been proved scientifically?

Dr. 'Abd Al-Baset Sayyid: It's been scientifically proven, and the study has been published.

Interviewer: They took basalt rocks from Mecca…

Dr. 'Abd Al-Baset Sayyid: …Basalt rocks from Mecca, and investigated the places where they were formed.

In the British Museum there are three pieces of the black stone [from the Ka'ba] …and they said that this rock didn't come from our solar system. "

And some Muslims wonder why they don't receive more Nobel Prizes?

Or, let's consider for a moment how psychiatry would be practiced among today's Palestinians. Gagdad Bob in a post from last year, imagines how Palestinian psychiatry would work:

Imagine a Palestinian going to a Palestinian psychiatrist and free associating. “You know, I’ve been having these weird thoughts.... I don’t think that Jews are responsible for all my problems.... In fact, I’m starting to think that they’re an admirable people, and that we should be imitating them instead of murdering them.... Let’s be honest, Doc, Arabs have contributed nothing to the world, but just by being in proximity to Israel we were the most prosperous Arab ecomomy, but we stupidly destroyed all of that with the meaningless intifada. We actually cheered when those planes went into the Twin Towers, but now I’m starting to have second thoughts, Doc. Am I crazy?”

“Yes. Not just crazy but evil. As a way of curing you, I am recommending that you be hung by your ankles from the nearest lamp post and be disemboweled by an angry mob.”

Do you think this is far-fetched, and that he is exaggerating? Let me reiterate what Bob points out earlier in the same post: "...science, properly understood, can only exist in a free society."

Remember glorious Soviet Psychiatry, which I wrote about here?

Truthfully, I think that Bob is being way too restrained about how "Palestinian" psychiatry--or any psychological science in the backwaters of the Middle East-- would warp and distort science.

Don't get me wrong. There are some very unscientific activities that go on even in free societies; but it is only in collectivist/totalitarian societies that the very basic principles of science are manipulated to conform to the ideology of the state. [And before the trolls start shouting "STEM CELL RESEARCH" at the top of their itty bitty lungs, may I point out that in that case, the government simply refuses to fund the research; which is something quite different from banning it; or persecuting /jailing the researcher for going against a particular ideological/religious doctrine.]

Anyone can distort science and the scientific method; but it takes a fanatical totalitarian state controlled by either a secular or religious ideology that mandates how others should behave in all areas, to successfully mount an all-out assault on truth, reason, and reality in order to ensure that none of those three inconvenient concepts have a negative impact on their delusions.

In a free society, at least one has the ability to counter any science whose goal is not knowledge or even truth, but to support a political ideology. Omar of Iraq the Model gives us a perfect of how bad science can be used to support an ideological agenda, which you may or may not remember from 2004. The authors of that purportedly "scientific" study clearly stated in interviews at the time, that they released their work at that time, so that it would have an impact on US mid-term elections.

The Lancet, which used to be a reputable medical journal, seems determined to publish this sort of political fluff to advance their editors' political agenda. Sadly, this is getting all too common, even in the West. But at least the Lancet does not force its readers to believe everything it says; nor does it have a contingent of religious policemen whose job is to ensure ideological conformity...yet.



UPDATE: Gagdad Bob has more thoughts on the subject in a post titled, "Apes of God and Science":

Science is the exact opposite of a topdown enterprise: all of the hundreds and thousands of little discoveries that made space flight possible could only have been made by hundreds and thousands of scientists freely investigating reality -- pure and unfettered curiosity about the way the world works. People argue that science emerged in the Islamic world, but that is my whole point. It emerged once upon a time, but was then snuffed out by the religious authorities. In the meantime, they have gone from A to C, but will not tolerate the kind of society that allows B -- truly free scientific research -- to take place. They merely steal third base from us, but think they have hit a triple.

As they say, read it all.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 8:00 AM |

 
IT AIN'T OVER YET, FOLKS
Orson Welles once noted, “If you want a happy ending, that depends, of course, on where you stop your story."

Obviously the same is true if you want a bad or tragic ending. That is why Democrats like Harry Reid are so desperate to stop the Iraq story RIGHT NOW and are pre-emptively trying to make sure it is stamped "failure" in advance:

A Harry Reid press release today: "Subject: REID: SIX MONTHS INTO SURGE, IRAQIS NO CLOSER TO POLITICAL SOLUTION."
“Over the past six months, despite President Bush’s unfounded claims of success, 565 Americans have been killed in Iraq while taxpayers have spent $60 billion. After the Administration’s September 15 report, we hope the President and Congressional Republicans will finally work with us to provide a real, overdue change of course in Iraq.”

So it takes Victor Davis Hanson to remind us of what Yogi Berra in his amazing wisdom once quipped: It ain't over till it's over:

If Iraq can be stabilized, then the enormity of that achievement will eventually be appreciated and dwarf all else (taking out the worst regime in the Middle East and fostering a consensual society in its place, while defeating on its home ground the worst radical Islam has to offer). The Democrats seem to have ceased blaming each other for voting for Iraq, and demanding time lines of immediate withdrawal, but now are shifting in order to have a fallback position of “Well, they finally listened to me in Iraq and so things settled down” should Gen. Petraeus’ report convince even some of them of real progress.

The responsibility of governance is not the same thing as easy op-ed criticism, and the nation is learning just that as it listens to our would-be future presidents—whether Obama’s apparent Pakistan invasion option, or Hillary’s pandering with pseudo-accent to African-Americans, or the obsessions of Mrs. Edwards with Obama, or her husband’s continual embarrassment of living high in one nation, while lecturing others about the needs of the other.

I say all this remembering that friends used to tell me that in March 1991 George Bush would win by a landslide in 1992, and in 1987 Ronald Reagan would either be impeached or resign, or that after 9/11 and the despicable pardons, Bill Clinton would be ranked among our very worst presidents.

The point is that few know exactly how the country and the world will look by November 2008, but it may very well be that the U.S. will enjoy a position of strength and respect abroad and security at home — and someone still in office in late 2008 will get a great deal of credit for that.

Read the whole thing.

You can easily imagine the mass suicides on the political left that would occur if public perception of the situation in Iraq turned around and President Bush's policies were given credit (as they should be given credit for not having any terrorist attacks on U.S. soil to date since 9/11--but they ignore that reality). After the op-ed piece by O'Hanlon and Pollack; and now this incredibly dispiriting article (for the left, that is) by the usually pessimistic Der Spiegal.

As a psychiatrist, however, I'm not overly concerned about the left's suicide potential (ask me after November, 2008 about their homicidal potential), because in point of fact, their psychological denial is so shored up and solid that I don't believe for an instant that they would ever admit that things were getting better--not in Iraq, not at home, and not anywhere in the world --as long as George Bush or ANY Republican were President.

And, since the left has chosen John Lennon's Imagine as the theme song for their future utopia, I think it only fitting that I use Lennon and McCartney's Getting Better as my parody template . Something the Democrats and left will never--under any circumstances and no matter what the actual facts are--will say about the situation in Iraq.

WE'LL NEVER ADMIT IT'S GETTING BETTER

It's fun to get mad at the Prez
And trash everything that he says
He's holding us down, making us frown
We'd rather love Hugo Chavez!

We'll never admit it's getting better
Here at home or in Iraq
We'll never admit it's getting better
'Til we get the White House back.

We used to be happy, you see
But now we're the knights who say NIE
Iraq got to vote
But we really hope
That no one pretends they are free.

We'll never admit it's getting better
We stand for nothing and have no plan
We simply hate to admit it's getting better
And we hate that we lost and that now he's the boss
And we'll thwart him as much as we can.

We'll never admit it's getting better
Here at home or in Iraq
We'll never admit it's getting better
'Til we get the White House back.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 3:53 PM |

 
HOW POSTMODERN "LOGIC" MANAGES TO "WIN" ALL ARGUMENTS


Substitute almost any talking point of today's political left for "Manmade Global Warming Debate". and you their tried and true recipe for "winning" debates: ignore reality, truth, and reason.

It turns out that postmodern philosophy and rhetoric are simply perfect for this purpose (see here, here, here, here, here and here, for example) and can be mobilized rapidly whenever there is the slightest possibility that a glimpse of the real world might break through the barrier of perpetual psychological denial.

Those who live in the wonderful world of denial go through their daily lives secure in the knowledge that their self-image is protected against any information, feelings, or awareness that might make them have to change their world view. Nothing--and I mean NOTHING--not facts, not observable behavior; not the use of reason or logic; or their own senses will make an individual in denial re-evaluate that world view. All events will simply be reinterpreted to fit into the belief system of that world--no matter how ridiculous, how distorted, or how psychotic that reinterpretation appears to others. Consistency, common sense, reality, and objective truth are unimportant and are easily discarded--as long as the world view remains intact.

This is one of the wondrous aspects of postmodern rhetoric, where reality and truth are only relative, is that anybody's "reality" is as good as anybody else's. For the dedicated postmodernist, polls and opinion are the final arbiters of truth; and the results of a poll or two, constructed along ideological lines to fit a particular template, is all you need to confirm your reality.

Reality is a matter of opinion (simply ignore any polls that don't agree with your reality, of course). This type of useful rhetoric can even determine today, what history will say many tomorrows from now. With enough repetition and passion, "history" can be set in stone in the temporal present!

Extremely convenient for anyone who wants to avoid confronting their own contradictions in the present.

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

Postmodernism accomplishes this Herculean anti-intellectual, counter-rationale feat with aplomb, using a technique known as "contradictory discourses"; something Stephen Hicks wrote about in Explaining Postmodernism. In this excellent and well-reasoned book, Hicks discusses a leftist strategy which he describes as "using contradictory discourses as political strategy". (page 184)

Using contradictory discourses as a political strategy

In postmodern discourse, truth is rejected explicitly and consisteny can be a rare phenomenon. Consider the following pairs of claims.

- On the one hand, all truth is relative; on the other hand, postmodernism tells it like it really is.
- On the one hand, all cultures are equally deserving of respect; on the other, Western culture is uniquely destructive and bad.
- Values are subjective--but sexism and racism are really evil
- Technology is bad and destructive--and it is unfair that some people have more technology than others.
- Tolerance is good and dominance is bad--but when postmodernists come to power, political correctness follows.

There is a common pattern here: Subjectivism and relativism in one breath, dogmatic absolutism in the next.

In other words--don't waste your time looking for any sense in the contradictory statements; illogical demands and confusing rhetoric of the postmodernists; their goal is to distance themselves from any unpleasant reality by returning to a simple, childlike state where their wishes and feelings are all that matter. Truth and reason can be easily cast aside whenever they don't fit in with the emotion du jour.

For example:






They are patriotic and support the military.








They have a plan to win by giving up.





The opening cartoon demonstrates nicely how this sort of "logic" manages to "win" all debates. We are reminded repeatedly that the political left see themselves as a "reality-based" community; dedicated to science (as opposed to faith) and champions of free speech and unfettered intellectual inquiry... and yet, their behavior suggests that the man-made global warming "debate" is not so much a debate as it is an article of deeply-held faith and religious conviction.

Before the most recent global warming industry was popular, there were the imminent global catastrophes of pollution, overpopulation, universal famine, nuclear winter, and ozone depletion and just a short decade or so ago there was the global cooling scare. None of the predicted environmental catastrophes arrived on schedule. Some have suggested that the current obsession with global warming has actually adapted elements of almost all the previous environmental crazes and escalated the dire prediction beyond all reason or rational discourse.

The entire purpose of the contradictory discourse technique is actually to shut down any argument or debate. This rhetorical ploy is guaranteed to drive the opposition crazy as they try to deal with the ensuing flip-flops (how many of you remember that just before the debate on global warming was all the rage, the same leftist experts were touting imminent global cooling?). They can be FOR something and at the same time AGAINST it, thus covering all the bases.

I'm sure you can see how this would be a particularly useful strategy in today's politics. It enables you to be simultaneously for everything and nothing at the same time!

Not surprisingly, promising everything and delivering nothing captures the essence of postmodern leftist intellectual thought in all its neo-marxist/fascist, nihilistic and irrational glory.


- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 7:31 AM |

 
HEY PEOPLE, CAN WE JUST LISTEN FOR A MOMENT ? ***Updated***
In the news:

More than 70,000 members of a hardline Muslim group held a rally in Indonesia that heard calls for a caliphate -- or Islamic rule -- to govern the world.

And then there is this first-person narrative from inside the Islamist movement:

I was neither eastern, nor western; I was a Muslim, a part of the global ummah, where identity is defined through the fraternity of faith.

Islamists insist this identity is not racist because Islam welcomes people of all colours, ethnicities and backgrounds. That was true, but our world view was still horribly bipolar. We didn’t distinguish on the basis of colour, but on creed. The world was simply divided into believers and nonbelievers.

Recently Caroline Glick wrote in the Jerusalem Post about just one of the coming wars that Israel and the west will have to cope with:

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

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

I take him at his word. I take him very seriously because lives are at stake.

That is part of my job, and when I have evidence of either suicidal or homicidal intent, I must act.

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

However, I accept that it is one of the "social control functions" that psychiatrists are expected to perform by society at large. And I try to do my best--because I have it within my (admittedly limited) power to prevent something bad from happening.

In my career, I have not always been successful at preventing a suicide or a homicide, but I always err on the side of caution when innocent life is at stake. I suppose it is grandiose, arrogant, and a lot of other things that I don't particularly admire.

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

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

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

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

All you have to do is listen to the 70,000 attendees at the rally quoted above. (70,000 !!!)
They intend to force us to submit to their religion.

They mean it. They have intent to do what they say. They have demonstrated repeatedly over the last decade and more that they have the means to make it happen; and that there is no aspect of civilized behavior they are not willing to suspend; no level of murderous rage and homicide/suicidal behavior that is closed to them. They fervently believe that their god gives them permission to force us to submit to them or to kill us-- in his name.

And all the wishful thinking and talking about "peace" and "brotherhood" and "common values" blah blah blah are pure, unadulterated psychological denial on the part of the intended victim.




(Cartoon by Eric Allie)

UPDATE: Welcome trolls from Salon! Your comments demonstrate the pervasive psychological denial (primarily on the left side of the political spectrum) so much more effectively than anything I could possibly post. Keep on keepin' on! You all are simply a treasure for a teaching psychiatrist!

BTW, what number of people "peacefully" demonstrating for the imposition of sharia law on the world would frighten you big, strong virile masculine leftists? Clearly, violent and rather large protests against some stupid cartoons won't do it. How about a few hundred thousand demonstrating against the U.S. and chanting anti-American slogans? Or, a A few million who openly support killing innocents in the name of Islam? You've got to wonder if any evidence at all is able to break through the barrier of psychological denial and make the left get off their intellectual asses and actually take a look at the reality out there?

A little non-PC humor from Mark Steyn seems appropriate at this point:

Come fry with me

JPod, just to put Ames in the big geopolitical perspective:

Number of Iowans who participated in alleged first key vote toward choosing the leader of the world's superpower: 14,203

Number of Indonesians who turned up to demand the imposition of Islamic law worldwide at a routine rinky-dink nickel'n'dime rally generating virtually zero press coverage: 70-80,000

And I don't think they got free fried Oreos.

Imam to Tommy Thompson organizer: "My fourth wife went to a sharia rally in Indonesia."

Tommy Thompson organizer: "Jakarta?"

Imam: "No. Unlike your supporters, she had to provide her own transportation."

- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 7:31 AM |

 
CARNIVAL OF THE INSANITIES
Time for the weekly insanity update, where the insane, the bizarre, the ridiculous, and the completely absurd are highlighted for all to see! This has been a week of rare idiocy (as always!). So, if you want to remain sane, the best thing is to poke some fun at the more egregious absurdities.

Send all entries for next week's carnival to Dr. Sanity by 8 pm ET on Saturday for Sunday's Carnival. Only one post entry weekly per blogger, please. And you might read this before submitting an entry.

**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. For whom the death bell tolls....But it was a Zionist plot, wasn't it???

2. Meanwhile in the US, The sun also rises as the left gets all its ducks in a row to be able to blame BushHitler if the US suffers another terrorist attack. Their plan? Just continue to obstruct , blame and whine.

3. If I were a terrorist Ya ha deedle deedle, bubba bubba deedle deedle dum...all day long I'd biddy biddy bum and no one would expose me at all. OTOH, those with literary ambitions will say anything...but not about terrorists.

4. Merely killing two dozen Taliban isn't going to help us win the war against Al Qaeda !

5. Tehranosaurus rex. Monkey charades.

6. PC no-no . That darn Y2K bug! Didn't Algore predict bad things would happen at the millennium? Dang, look at all the trouble it caused. Oh no, not the UN !!

7. Google bungle. Hoist by their own petard, indeed. Fox News...they care; they really care!

8. Signs of the times? Another sign?

9. ohhhhhh. That French health care!

10. Oh no, the dreaded ‘70s self-esteem famine! Which inexorably led to a glut of these in our own day. For some people IT'S NEVER EVER ENOUGH !!! ....case in point: celebrity adoption bingo.

11. Look who's trashing the Constitution now.

12. Sorta female, sorta black and sorta gay.... don't forget the sorta treasonous....Did Hillary start a trend?

13. B*RRy B*NDS

14. For their next act they will make an old man disappear!

15. Market meltdown? Long after the Euro has disappeared and the Yen forgotten....

16. They want to unionize us? Oh boy I can't wait.

17. Postmodern fact-checking perhaps; but it's just something else that doesn't pass the smell test.

18. Unconditional surrender...to the patriarchy? Really, no one needs to encourage this behavior...

19. After a week of computer problems and random acts of Windows, I can appreciate this tragic story.

20. But really, there's no need for this post.

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

If you would like to Join the insanity, and add the Carnival of the Insanities button to your sidebar (clicking on it will always take you to the latest update of the Carnival), click on "Word of Blog" below the button to obtain the html code:


- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 7:55 AM |

 
ANOTHER SOCCER SEASON HAS BEGUN !
It's mid-August and that means that the soccer season has begun in earnest. My daughter who is a rather proficient goalkeeper (following in my own footsteps, I am pleased to say) is playing this weekend in a tournament in Saginaw. So here I am in the scorching August sun cheering her team on.

More blogging tomorrow!
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 11:17 AM |

 
MORE EMAIL
See if you can detect the pathology in the email below:

From: badron023@aol.com (feel free to email back!)

You're a low life traitor to the American people, get your sorry azz over to Iraq and fight for your little drunken POS brain dead appointed moron squatting in my White house. Are you enjoying the price of gas, that has driven up the price of everything? We will have you Rep scum bags out of power soon! so enjoy your last year in my White house! Soon we will have an elected President living there! you 29% ers have done all the damage they can possibly do to this Nation! but the party is over for you fkn chit stain traitors!

When you think about it, isn't it remarkable that one short hysterical rant like the one above could manage to include all the immature and primitive psychological defenses I have been talking about?

PROJECTION: "You're a low life traitor to the American people..."

PARANOIA: "Are you enjoying the price of gas" (obvious reference to the "War for Oil" conspiracy theory); and both the "appointed" crack and the "Soon we will have an elected President living there." statement are obvious references to the "stolen election" conspiracy theory.

FANTASY: "We will have you Rep scum bags out of power soon!" At this stage, it would appear that this statement is mere wishful thinking; but it sounds almost desperate, doesn't it? Notice the "29%" reference? It is essential that badron023 makes sure you know that he/she/it is IN THE MAJORITY. This is a comforting notion/illusion, because in the empty brains of the morally and intellectually bankrupt, there is no objective right or wrong. Being in the majority is just another way of playing some bizarre trump card to make your opinion "win".

I can't overemphasize this aspect of the lunatic left enough; and you may have noticed their obsession with polls (as long as the polls go along with their ideology, of course). For all their BS about "championing" the poor, the downtroden blah blah blah; in the end, all that is meaningful to them is that they are in the majority so that they can impose their will on you. For them, MIGHT MAKES RIGHT and they will decide what to think, believe, and feel based on what others think, believe and/or feel.

Basically, as I have stated in previous posts, people like badron023 stand for nothing and have no principles except achieving power for themselves and their ideology. They determine what is "right" by how many people feel it is right. This is why in every argument to "prove" that their position is the only possible one, they will cite polls and public opinion rather than objective reality. Any polls they don't like will be simply be supressed or ignored (to preserve the fantasy that their opinion must be the correct one).

DELUSION/ENTITLEMENT/MALIGNANT NARCISSISM: Let's not forget that this person undoubtedly thinks of itself as a real American patriot, speaking truth to power ("your little drunken POS brain dead appointed moron squatting in my White house"). Note the reference to "my" White house, as if the White House belongs only to his/her ilk--implying that if he/she and his/her friends are not living in it, it was somehow illegitimately taken from them because it belongs to them!

Finally, as a card-carrying member of the compassionate, loving, and non-violent political left--who always support peace, love, brotherhood and justice--you may come away with the non-PC impression that the author is actually not a very nice person at all!

What gives this aspect of badron023's personality away? Call me psychic, but his/her obvious dedication to the basic "principles" of today's left, comes through in phrases such as "get your sorry azz" and "little drunken POS brain dead appointed moron" and "fkn chit stain traitors" .

The deliberate abuse of spelling and grammar is a dead giveaway that badron023 is a product of the primarily self-esteem-enhancing K-12 curriculum of today's public education, which encourages the notion that just because you have some opionion or feeling that something is true (even if you can't articulate it in any rational or coherent manner); that your opinion or feeling will always trump objective reality because the only reality that matters is how good you feel about yourself.

Like all the denialists of the left, these little adolescent drama kings and queens intend to twist, manipulate and distort reality and truth to fit their agenda.

And I, for one, do not intend to let them get away with it--at least on this blog.

In the great scheme of things, what I say about them doesn't matter much. Logic dictates that both of us cannot be correct in our diametrically opposed assessments of what is real and what is not; about what is true and what is false. We may, in fact, both be wrong.

I am content to let the final arbiter be reality, itself.

Because, sooner or later, objective reality must be faced--it cannot be avoided indefinitely, after all; unless one side or the other is willing to enter end-stage DENIAL--and prefers to die rather than face the truth.

Too many lives and everything that is precious in the world hang in the balance of which side is more consistent with the real verus consistent with fantasy. One side of this argument really does stand for human freedom, justice, civilization and peace; and is not simply "mouthing the words" to make themselves feel good and virtuous, even as their overt behavior enables and encourages the opposite.

And when reality finally confronts one or the other of us, I fear that there will be hell to pay.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 9:07 AM |

 
TNR = The "New" Reality
...sometimes referred to as fantasy. Is it any wonder that "more than half of Americans say US news organizations are politically biased, inaccurate, and don't care about the people they report on"?


- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 6:41 PM |

 
DEMOCRATIC PARTY THEME SONG
I am traveling today to give a speech, and so no further blogging until this evening. I will leave you with this "oldie but goodie" that remains relevant :

THEY WALK THE PARTY LINE

(sung to the tune of "I Walk The Line"; with deep apologies to Johnny Cash)

I keep a close watch on those polls of mine
They're really helpful since I lack a spine
It seems to me surrendering's just fine
So when its time, I moan and whine

I find it very, very easy to change views
And when I do its always makes the News
It really is a very simple ruse
So when its time, I moan and whine

As sure as right is wrong and good is bad
Appeasing terrorism makes me glad
Because I sure don't want to make them mad
So when its time, I moan and whine

There's no way for me to stay on just one side
There are no principles to which I can subscribe
I simply float along on every tide
And when its time, I moan and whine

I keep a close watch on those polls of mine
They're really helpful since I lack a spine
It seems to me surrendering's just fine
So when its time, I moan and whine


- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 8:17 AM |

 
ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF LEFTIST HATE...AND POOR GRAMMAR
In my email yesterday:

You know nothing of psychology that u use deceitfully to seve your greed for power, or politics with your red neck vulgarity and superficial understanding of others.You will remain all your life a third rate fascist pig riddled with shame at being such a masculine woman with guilty penis envy, and taking it out on the poor and helpless in this world.
Nothing surprises more than a jewish person who has learned nothing from the holocaust,which means most american jews and all of so called israel, with nothing but hatred in their hearts towards those who cannot defend themselves.You are as cowardly as the nazis.
You are additionally repulsive physically, get some surgery bitch !

This lovely sentiment was from "philipdabague@hotmail.com" with the following address details:

Return-Path:
Received: from rly-yc03.mail.aol.com (rly-yc03.mail.aol.com [172.18.205.146]) by air-yc04.mail.aol.com (v118.4) with ESMTP id MAILINYC43-1c546bb33aa2c6; Thu, 09 Aug 2007 11:33:43 -0400
Received: from bay0-omc2-s2.bay0.hotmail.com (bay0-omc2-s2.bay0.hotmail.com [65.54.246.138]) by rly-yc03.mail.aol.com (v118.4) with ESMTP id MAILRELAYINYC33-1c546bb33aa2c6; Thu, 09 Aug 2007 11:32:58 -0400
Received: from hotmail.com ([65.54.168.76]) by bay0-omc2-s2.bay0.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.2668);
Thu, 9 Aug 2007 08:31:48 -0700
Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft

It is probably not a real email address; and likely comes from the cowardly but very demented brain of some pathetic loser like "Buzz Kill", whose lack of grammatical skills is only exceeded by his lack of intelligence and class.

Anyone who knows about these things is free to try to track down where he's posting from so I can send the feared BushHitler gestapo police after him.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 8:11 AM |

 
NOBODY CAIRS
The ever alert Andrew McCarthy at The Corner makes a wry observation:

Had They Been Two White Kids, No One Would Have Cared ... about, y'know, those Pipe Bombs

But, alas, they were Muslims so everybody cares. Or, better yet, CAIRs.

Yes, that execrable organization and it's official Sami al-Arian-pom-pom-wavin' spokesman, Ahmed Bedier, are at it again.

First, Bedier pronounced, before anything approaching an investigation could have been done, that the two Egyptian Muslims who were arrested over the weekend in South Carolina, were totally innocent: Just a couple of "really naive kids" (ages 21 and 26) who happened to have some "fireworks" in their car as they made their way on one of those crazy college kid field trips ... one that just happened to take them by Goose Creek where the the U.S. Naval Weapons Station is located, many miles from Tampa, where they attend the University of South Florida's School of Engineering.

And, here, well, let's just say we end up with one of those you-just-can't-make-it-up coincidences: That happens be the same USF School of Engineering that served as home base for former Professor Sami al-Arian while he was laboring for Palestinian Islamic Jihad. And, whaddya know, Al-Arian's case was the last time we were hearing so regularly from Bedier. By the end, in spring 2006, he was boldly pronouncing that Sami would stick to his guns. He would not under any circumstances plead guilty to any terrorism offenses because there was "no conspiracy to support terrorism." That turned out to be right before al-Arian pled guilty to conspiracy to provide services to a designated terrorist organization

Read on to see how CAIR has really got the leftist PC BS down extraordinarily well. Using the tried and true strategy of accusing anyone who disagrees with you as either a racist; a sexist; or a homophobe, CAIR seems to think that arresting people carrying around pipe bombs is an exercise in Islamophobia.

The formula is simple and relies on the same old, same old banal Marxist rhetoric and the accompanying slogans that are trotted out in every circumstance and situation. They are the courageous champions of “X”, and when anyone disagrees with them, they must be motivated by hatred against “X.”

No one can argue against such insane logic. They are for "peace" and if you point out to them that their actions facilitate war and enable evil, then you are by definition a fascist; they are for equality; and if you suggest that their actions result in discrimination that only institutionalizes racism, then you are clearly a racist; they are for gender equality and if you mention that there are real differences between men and women, documented by science, then you must be sexist pig.

In CAIR's case, as McCarthy notes, they are completely absolutely and totally against terrorism--except if a Muslim is involved, in which case Islamophobic profiling had to be involved.

I guess it is irrelevant to CAIR that out of thousands of acts of terrorism committed in the world since 9/11 (with thousands of people killed by those acts)that the vast majority were instigated, planned and carried out by followers of their religion?

Whatever Islam is, it is not a religion of peace.

And while CAIR would have you believe that the solution to the problem is for Americans to become more and more knowledgable, understanding, and tolerant of Islam; actually, the reverse is true. It is Islam and its adherents who repeatedly demonstrate bigoted and intolerant behavior.

I won't even begin to discuss the cultural and institutional acceptance of violence and hate that are on display almost everywhere Islam is practiced. Go on over to MEMRI and take a look at some of the TV programming for children in the Middle East; or catch a translated radio program from that part of the world occasionally. You will not be particularly impressed at the level of tolerance and acceptance that Islamic societies show toward non-Muslims.

It is the Jihadis and suicide bombers of Islam that need to learn tolerance and not their victims. It is the cynical and duplicitous leaders of CAIR that are the true bigots; and who, by their actions always and everywhere are laying the groundwork for the Caliphate. They have just cleverly picked up the tricks of the revolution trade from their sympathetic comrades on the political left.

Isn't it about time that we stopped caring about what CAIR thinks? Why anyone even takes them seriously is beyond the comprehension of a civilized person.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 6:14 PM |

 
THE DENIALISTS
In a post titled "In Defense of Psychological Defenses", I wrote:

I frequently use psychiatric and psychological concepts to describe behavior in this blog, and because of that, many people accuse me of labeling anyone who disagrees with me politically as having a mental illness.

This is not true; and it suggests that most of these critics know little about psychiatry, psychiatric diagnoses, or psychological defenses.

While I do believe that some of the people I describe might indeed have a mental illness; and that some are, in fact, perfectly healthy but simply malevolent or evil; it is simply not the case that by exposing certain psychological defense mechanisms that explain their behavior, I am giving the political opposition a medical/psychiatric diagnosis. Nevertheless, if a particular diagnosis fits, I am perfectly content to let them wear it.

In discussing psychological defense mechanisms, what I am trying to do is understand how and why people behave in the way that they do. Describing psychological defenses is not the same thing as "making a diagnosis" for one very simple reason. All humans utilize psychological defenses, all the time. Both Democrat and Republican; Left and Right. Good and Bad.

Psychological defenses are involuntary, regulatory coping processes.

By themselves, defenses are not evidence of "illness". When used, they may appear to be "sick," evil, or even irrational, but basically, they reflect a creative adaptation to the world.

Many people have "creatively adapted"--in some cases, extremely creatively-- to the realities of a post-9/11 world. Denial of reality has become so much a part of their day to day life, that it seems simply amazing to an observer like myself that such individuals, groups, and even nations continue to be unaware of what is actually happening in the world today.

Unfortunately, their unwillingness to face the reality of the rise of Islamofascism and the barbarism it has unleashed around the world has had the consequence of facilitating that barbarism and even encouraging it.

I think of such people as beyond mere psychological denial...they are denialists, those who proudly and defiantly wear the multicultural and PC blinders of the psychologically obtuse. Usually they refer to themselves as "progresssive" and "reality-based"; which just goes to show how creative and imaginitive they actually are.

And, of course, even the most insightful and self-aware among us (which I most certainly do not claim for myself) are vulnerable to lapsing into a state of denial when we are too stressed; or simply when we are too lazy and don't want to examine our own motivations and inner conflicts too clearly.

This seems like a good day to link to a series of essays that I wrote on Strategies for Dealing with Denial.

Part I: The Many Faces of Denial
Part II: Logical Fallacies and Rhetorical Ploys Used in Denial
Part III

Here is a particularly relevant portion of Part III of that series:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Unfortunately, denialists don't even hear the music.

UPDATE: Siggy has some thoughts that are particularly relevant to yesterday's discussion.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 7:43 AM |

 
CLARIFICATION
Larissa Alexandrovna whose post I used as a typical example of the emotional hysteria of many on the political left (see here) is now threatening to "report" me for unethical behavior to the Michigan State Medical Board. Here is a comment I wrote on her site, which has yet to appear on the site (I'm sure she's in a quandary about whether to allow the comment to actually appear on her site--the "police state" side of her mentality warring with the "I'm for free speech" side):

Funny isn't it, that you are trying to bring the police state you are theoretically so opposed to, down on me for writing my opinion of vapid and shallow thinkers like yourself? Using my psychiatric skills (as I do often to make observations about the world) I would suggest that the whole "police state" fearmongering that you are doing (rather hysterically, I might add) appears to be a clear psychological projection (look it up). You are a fraud. You wouldn't mind a police state at all as long as you and your friends were in charge. Your threats towards me and those of your commenters demonstrate a obvious desire to silence anyone who dares to have an opinion differing from your own. I would also suggest you hone your reading skills since the post in question merely uses your confused and convoluted rhetoric ("It's official, we are in a police state..."!!!!) as an example of the kind that is often found on your side of the political spectrum.

If ever a police state does comes to this country, we will surely thank people like yourself who are so clueless about their own inner motivations and demostrate a profound hypocrisy when it comes to what freedom is really all about. When you ban me as your ilk always do, then I will post this comment on my own blog to once again highlight and illustrate the moral and intellectual bankruptcy of people like yourself. Have a nice day.

This is the same woman who thinks 9/11 may have been an inside job (go to the "about me" feature on her blog). It doesn't take a psychiatrist to figure that she left sanity in the rear view mirror back in 2001.

I hope this clarifies my position, Larissa. Both as an American and as a professional woman.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 6:01 PM |

 
WARS DON'T STAND STILL
Do you wonder what will happen if public perception starts to turn around about Iraq? According to Michael Barone, it is starting to do just that. Citing the recent op-ed in the NY Times by O'Hanlon and Pollack, he says:

Their bottom line: "There is enough good happening on the battlefields of Iraq today that Congress should plan on sustaining the effort at least into 2008."

That's not what almost all their fellow Democrats in Congress want to hear. Freshman Rep. Nancy Boyda of Kansas, who unseated Republican Jim Ryun last fall, bolted from a hearing room when retired Gen. Jack Keane described positive developments in Iraq. When she came back, she explained: "But let me first just say that the description of Iraq as in some way or another that it's a place that I might take the family for a vacation -- things are going so well -- those kinds of comments will in fact show up in the media and further divide this country, instead of saying, here's the reality of the problem. And people, we have to come together and deal with the reality of this issue."

But reality can change -- and in war it often does. For George W. Bush and his leading advisers, the reality of Iraq in June 2003 was that we had won a major military victory and that any postwar messiness was not a big problem. We'd put a proconsul in for a year, set up elections and install an Iraqi government, train Iraqi soldiers and police, and restrict our troops to a light footprint. But that reality changed, into full-fledged sectarian warfare, after al-Qaida bombed the Shiite mosque in Samarra in February 2006.

Bush and his military commanders acted as if that reality hadn't changed, until the voters weighed in last November. Then, Bush made changes, installing new commanders and ordering a surge -- an increase in troops, and a more forward strategy of confronting and cleaning out al-Qaida terrorists. And the reality apparently has once again changed....

Wars don't stand still. In June 1942, the House of Commons debated a resolution of no confidence in Winston Churchill's government. Four months later came the war-changing victory at El Alamein.

Politicians are often trapped in amber...stuck in their own ideological quagmire... but Barone is absolutely correct: wars don't stand still. The only way to make them seem to be doing so is to manage public perception by adjusting your rhetoric and selectively reporting what is happening in order to make it seem like nothing new is happening.

What will the Democrats and the left do, having lived by the polls for years by citing them as the absolute moral authority on every issue, if the polls start to go against them?

We have a hint of the kind of behavior to expect here.

I predict that polls that the left deem "counterintuitive" (i.e., the results don't fit in with their template) will be actively supressed or minimized. On some level they understand that wars don't stand still, and they simply can't bear the thought of victory being snatched from the jaws of their defeatist rhetoric. That's why they are so desperate to ensure that defeat be officially declared now, no matter what the reality on the ground may be.

It's all about manipulating the perception of reality, while being completely indifferent to actual reality.

When playing games like that, it is always important to leave a little wiggle room to be able to argue that they actually supported victory all along (just in case) --that's why there is such a huge gap between the Democrat's rhetoric as they pander to the left; and their actual actions when they vote.

They want to be able to have their ideological cake (i.e., support from the anti-American left) and eat it too.

Any disparity between military success in Iraq and political success will give them as much room to wiggle as they desire; and the goalposts will be moved as needed to ensure that the public perceives a complete U.S. defeat, no matter what actually happens on the ground.

That's their narrative and they're stickin' to it.


- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 7:27 AM |

 
BEAUCHAMP AT THE BAT
The Outlook was quite brilliant for The New Republic rag:
The polls were in their favor, and the public will had sagged.
But when Bush didn't falter, as Petraeus led the surge,
A sickly silence fell upon those moonbats on the verge.

A straggling few got up and wailed deep despair. The rest
Clung to that hope which springs eternal in the human breast;
They thought, if only one more Abu Ghraib could be brought to light--
They'd put up even money, that we'd lose all will to fight.

So upon that stricken multitude grim melancholy sat,
For there seemed but little chance that they could count on that.
Then from a thousand leftist throats there rose a lusty yell;
The New Republic had a piece that claim the war was hell!

There was ease in Beauchamp's manner as he stepped into his place;
There was pride in his raw expose, and a smile on TNR's face.
And when, responding to the cheers, he staunchly stood by his claims,
No leftist in the crowd could doubt they'd near-achieved their aims.

A million eyes were on him as he told his tragic story;
The defeatists all applauded as he defamed his Unit's glory.
And as commanders searched to see if Beauchamp's tales were true,
They nonetheless were heralded; and those with doubts were few.

From TNR editors there came a muffled roar,
"How can you even doubt us?" they all cried, "We verified as before!"
"He's just a courageous soldier with great moral authority!"
And its likely they'd a-sainted him; but that was not to be.

"Fraud!" cried his comrades, and the echo answered fraud;
But one scornful look from Beauchamp and the leftist crowd was awed.
John Murtha's face grew stern and cold, and they saw his muscles strain,
And they knew that Beauchamp had found support in the weakest links again.

Now the sneer is gone from TNR, though the left's still filled with hate;
Their lofty goal of surrendering will surely have to wait.
Because right now the truth is out, and and they have to let it go,
Because too many people realize, and too many people know....

Oh, somewhere in this favored land the sun is shining bright;
The band is playing somewhere, and somewhere hearts are light,
And somewhere men are laughing, and somewhere children shout;
But there is no joy in Moonbat land- mighty Beauchamp has struck out.

UPDATE: It seems he probably was suffering from Pre-Traumatic Stress Disorder!
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 9:24 AM |

 
IT'S OFFICIAL, THE LEFT IS COMPLETELY HYSTERICAL
This histrionic post demonstrates exactly why it is impossible to engage members of the political and increasingly lunatic left in any sort of rational discussion about national security. It's like trying to dicuss responsibility with a self-indulgent and overly dramatic adolescent girl.

The angry teenager who just hates it when she doesn't get her way, is particularly enraged when Mommy (usually on her side) goes along with Daddy; and we see that same dynamic rather frequently these days, as the narcissistic left raises the decibel level of their pouts and whines whenever their will is thwarted.

None of the rhetoric has anything remotely to do with reality; but all that is necessary for the left is to feel intensely that something is so, and for them it is.

We are living in a police state! Bush is Hitler! Christians are trying to impose a theocracy on America. We are being persecuted! Blah blah victims blah oppression blah fascist blah blah blah! And so on and so forth.

Which brings me to hysteria.

Hysteria is a concept characterized by a wide variety of physical and mental symptoms that result from dissociating one's cognitive functioning from one's emotion and/or behavior. The psychological defense that makes this happen is known as dissociation.

For the hysteric emotions are primary and are not subject to an objective reality.

When we speak of someone becoming "hysterical" or "histrionic", we are talking about behavior that exhibits overwhelming or unmanageable emotional excess.

Welcome to the wonderful world of feelings, nothing more than feelings (cue music), where there really is nothing more than feelings at play.

This is a world where there is no objective reality or truth; a world where, if you believe something is true, then it is. In other words, it is a world where something can be considered "fake but accurate" or where captured enemy combatants in the middle of a war are considered in a "gulag"; or, where a "religion of peace" beheads people; is so terrified of women's sexuality they must "liberate" them by forcing them to wear sacks over their bodies; and which promotes blowing yourself up in a crowd as a devout religious act.

A variety of altered states of consciousness may result from the dissociative process. In one dissociated or hysterical state, sleep-walking (sonambulism), the person appears to be out of contact with his environment, is seemingly unresponsive to external stimuli, and in many cases appears to be living out a vivid, hallucinated drama.

That particular emotional state essentially describes today's political left as they sonambulate through the events taking place in the world.

Mass hysteria occurs when large groups of people engage in psychological dissociation; and political mass hysteria is the appropriate name when all the emotional excitability and excess happen to serve a political function or ideological agenda. Most of political theater is histrionic--appealing to the emotions (usually the baser ones -- like envy, greed, fear etc.)

Drama of any sort suits the hysteric's modus operandi extremely well. The drama is designed to mask the fact that the individual is in psychological denial; and, as I have 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.

Take for example, the ongoing horror imagined by the left (since 2000) that America is imminently going to be turned into a Christian theocracy! Think about that. Here we are in a war with Islamic fundamentalism; where Islam on a daily basis tells the rest of the world that they intend to make everyone convert to their religion or die; and that an Islamic theocracy is their goal-- and many on the left seem to think that the U.S. is at risk in having a Christian theocracy imposed on them any day now. For them, Bushitler is more dangerous than Bin Laden and that the former represents the REAL terrorism in the world. (see here and here for more explanation of this phenomenon).

Aaaaaaaany minute now.....wait for it......just wait....Are we a Christian theocracy yet? Oh wait, I forgot, we're a police state now. Because Congress passed FISA.

Engaging in "self-delusion" is the act of deceiving one's self about some aspect of reality. Self-delusion is probably the most critical cognitive skill a skilled hysteric must cultivate.

We humans have quite a number of psychological strategies with which we are able to deceive ourselves about the external world. This has been recently taken to new heights by a certain segment of the population since 9/11; who, rather than face the reality that we are at war, instead continue to pretend that there is no danger from radical Islam--except, of course, for the danger that Bush has placed us in by confronting it. These are the same people who shrieked that the "dots were not connected" prior to 9/11 (when they aren't insisting that it wasn't all a plot to take power implemented by the Bush/Cheney fascists). It's very hard to keep up with all the conspiracy theories and convoluted and twisted logic that is used to hide reality from their consciousness.

To face the truth of what is happening in the world would require some very precious assumptions in their ideology to be questioned. So they dance around it. Denial takes many forms:

- by using psychological projection some very violent and angry people are able to convince themselves that they are paragons of peace and harmony. This is not much different from the delusional projection used by certain religious fanatics who behead innocent people are able to convince themselves that by doing so, they are pure and holy, while" infidels" like Jews are monsters who "eat babies" and decend from "pigs and monkeys".

- by using displacement, some people are able to convince themselves that there is a devious plan to imminently replace our secular government with a Christian theocracy; while they are singularly unconcerned about religious fanatics actively waging war on the U.S. and the rest of the world trying to institute an Islamic theoracy.

- by using fantasy some people are able to convince themselves that these particular religious fanatics are reasonable and sensible people, amenable to negotiation.

- by using denial some people are able to convince themselves that there is no such thing as Islamofascism and that the war on terror is just a political ploy by an administration they don't like to accumulate power.

- by using repression some people would like to eliminate all personal thoughts about 9/11 and wipe it from our collective consciousness.

When dealing with well-defended people like this, one of the refrains commonly heard when you point out their defense to them, is that it is not they who are in denial about reality--it is you! It is not they who are projecting, it is you! It is not they who fail to see the danger, it is you!

You think you are living in a democracy but you are wrong, the members of this "reality-based" community say, we are really living in a police state!

You just haven't noticed it yet.

For them, such assertions are simply a matter of opinion--infused with strong feelings, of course--and their opinion is just as good as yours, thank you very much.

But let's examine that interesting perspective (usually conveyed with a sneer, as in: "That's just your opinion.")

Probably the first prerequisite for accusing someone of engaging in self-delusion is that one must accept that there is an objective reality, external and independent to one's self; one's beliefs or one's emotions or feelings. Without such a fundamental epistomological foundation, it is completely meaningless to accuse anyone of self-delusion, althought postmodern intellectuals do it all the time.

As they wallow in their preferred form of social subjectivism, it is perfectly "reasonable" (if that is the word) from their perspective to impute delusion to others--even if every time they do so, they effectively demonstrate the invalidity of their own philosophy. That is why it is so amusing to observe their appropriation of the term "reality-based community" -- when they don't believe in any reality except for their own emotions!

It gets excessively wearisome to constantly point out to them that there is a world that exists outside their heads and outside their emotions; and that the entire purpose of reason --which they reject in favor of feelings --is about understanding that world. And that just because they feel a certain way doesn't mean that it has anything to do with reality.

Their social subjectivism posits that our minds are disconnected from reality to begin with. How then is it possible for them to accuse anyone of "self-delusion"? One simply has a differing POV that is by their definition as real and true as anyone else's.

Thus our adolescent drama queen linked to above can say with absolute sincerity and passion, "It's official, we are a police state..." and not have to produce one iota of evidence to prove that statement.

But she just feels it in her bones. She and her friends must be trembling in fear behind locked doors, waiting for the Bush/Cheny Gestapo to drag them away for imminent torture (remember Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo!) for daring to speak their infidel thoughts. Individual freedom has been crushed with the passage of FISA ! And this horrific event, in which they were betrayed by Mommy, is symbolic of their ongoing and ceaseless struggle against the fascist dictatorship of the BushHitler.

Yeah, right. Symbolic of the left's struggle against reality is more like it.

But they'll keep holding on...to their self-delusions anyway.

Holding back the years,
Thinking of the fear I've had for so long.
When somebody hears,
Listen to the fear that's gone.
Strangled by the wishes of pater,
Hoping for the arm of mater,
Get to me sooner or later,
I'll keep holding on...
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 7:17 AM |

 
CARNIVAL OF THE INSANITIES
Time for the weekly insanity update, where the insane, the bizarre, the ridiculous, and the completely absurd are highlighted for all to see! This has been a week of rare idiocy (as always!). So, if you want to remain sane, the best thing is to poke some fun at the more egregious absurdities.

Send all entries for next week's carnival to Dr. Sanity by 8 pm ET on Saturday for Sunday's Carnival. Only one post entry weekly per blogger, please. And you might read this before submitting an entry.

**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. It really really helps if the post is funny or ironic in some way that I am able to understand!

REMEMBER, THERE ARE SO MANY INSANITIES AND SO LITTLE TIME!!!

1. Full of it? Or is he really Macho Man in disguise?

2. Stop blaming the full moon! You know who's REALLY to blame for everything. You can't even read a movie review without the requisite PC level of Bush bashing these days.

3. Damn George Bush and the shortsighted, unconstitutional torture shop he was running from Austin, Texas as Governor of Texas...oh, wait. OK then damn his deliberate lies and mishandling of this unlawful war!

4. Destroy wealth, build a better world...? Socialista! Centuries of dignity and a starving population. Wonderful. Isn't communism grand?

5. Thug, dictator, and useful idiot. All the usual ingredients of a people's paradise. More on the thug... When you're young, this is paradise indeed.

6. Justice in the world of Shar'ia. Praise Allah and pass the ammunikes! The shoe fetish still plagues the poor guy.

7. A flush to judgement?

8. A flaming Mo with bacon on the side is the only way to respond. Or maybe a tasteless musical comedy? Sounds like something I'd write.

9. How propaganda is spread like a virus. Oh, this is rich. What more do you need to know?

10. Deja vu all over again. And then there's this interesting bit of history to consider.

11. Democrats cheat? Has Hell frozen over? Meltdown? It seems pretty clear why "progressives" don't get the military vote, doesn't it? Things like this, for example.

12. Gagdad Boob... Man at work. ...Congresswoman irked.

13. Just another "Do-Gooder", . Believe it or not, paranoia is not confined to the left! They just hapen to excell at it because they engage in it more consistently these days.

14. Oversexed pidgeons are handily dealt with, and next in line are the Hollywood rabbits. Bugs better watch out. Meanwhile, there's the CAT OF DEATH....!

15. Funny or offensive? Why can't humor be both? This stuff is just a typical chain letter updated for the blogging community.

16. Greetings!

17. Jittery joggers jinx cancer juggernaut.

18. Yes, they are definitely the "center"....of most of the insanity going around these days.

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

If you would like to Join the insanity, and add the Carnival of the Insanities button to your sidebar (clicking on it will always take you to the latest update of the Carnival), click on "Word of Blog" below the button to obtain the html code:




- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 8:01 AM |

 
TRAVERSE CITY
Blogging has been light because I am up in Traverse City enjoying a few days at the incredible beach here. Sunsets are lovely; the weather is perfect; shopping is exceptional (think every flavor of fudge imaginable) and I am going to take today off and just enjoy life with my daughter.

The Carnival will be up tomorrow as usual; and if I get really bored getting a tan or watching the sunset, I might post something later today.

Below are some pictures of the area:




- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 8:37 AM |

 
THE COMPANY THEY KEEP
After all, they know who their REAL enemy is...


- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 9:12 PM |

 
CUT THESE COWBOYS SOME SLACK
Charles Krauthammer rises in defense of drunken astronauts:

Someone’s gotta do it. No one’s gonna do it. So I’ll do it. Your Honor, I rise in defense of drunken astronauts.

You’ve all heard the reports, delivered in scandalized tones on the evening news or as guaranteed punch lines for the late-night comics, that at least two astronauts had alcohol in their systems before flights. A stern and sober NASA has assured an anxious nation that this matter, uncovered by a NASA-commissioned study, will be thoroughly looked into and appropriately dealt with.

To which I say: Come off it. I know NASA has to get grim and do the responsible thing, but as counsel for the defense — the (BEG ITAL)only(END ITAL) counsel for the defense, as far as I can tell — I place before the jury the following considerations:

Have you ever been to the shuttle launch pad? Have you ever seen that beautiful and preposterous thing the astronauts ride? Imagine it’s you sitting on top of a 12-story winged tube bolted to a gigantic canister filled with 2 million liters of liquid oxygen and liquid hydrogen. Then picture your own buddies — the “closeout crew” — who met you at the pad, fastened your emergency chute, strapped you into your launch seat, sealed the hatch and waved smiling to you through the window. Having left you lashed to what is the largest bomb on planet Earth, they then proceed 200 feet down the elevator and drive not one, not two, but three miles away to watch as the button is pressed that lights the candle that ignites the fuel that blows you into space.

Three miles! That’s how far they calculate they must be to be beyond the radius of incineration should anything go awry on the launch pad on which, I remind you, these insanely brave people are sitting. Would you not want to be a bit soused? Would you be all aflutter if you discovered that a couple of astronauts — out of dozens — were mildly so? I dare say that if the standards of today’s fussy flight surgeons had been applied to pilots showing up for morning duty in the Battle of Britain, the signs in Piccadilly would today be in German.

Cut these cowboys some slack.

Personally, I place considerable blame on NASA management,whose decision-making process seems to be in the hands of a bunch of intoxicated bureaucrats. They are the ones who have encouraged and enabled--nay DEMANDED--that the public image of astronauts as some sort of superhuman models of perfection is inviolate.

I have said it before, and I will say it again. Astronauts as a group are, in many ways, exceptional people; but in the end, they are only human after all-- be they cowboys or cowgirls or whatever.

Isn't it time that NASA stopped encouraging and depending on the celebrity of these hard-working professionals? They have a job to do and those who do it well should be rewarded as in any job; while those who slack off, behave inappropriately, or just aren't up to the performance level of their peers need to get the boot. The "all astronauts are equally wonderful and superior human beings" crap just can't cut it anymore--not after Lisa Nowack. The secret that NASA has been so afraid of all these years is finally out and in full public view.

Astronauts are human and are subject to the same human failings as anyone else. And if NASA management continues to ignore this reality, they are going to experience a lot more embarassment and have a lot more explaining to do in the future.

Recognizing that astronauts are real human beings --with all the same inherent psychological flaws and vulnerabilities; fears and imperfections as all other human beings, and yet they choose to do the extraordinary things they do in spite of that--is precisely what makes them real heroes, and not the artificial/plastic, 2-dimensional beings that NASA publicity makes them out to be.

The latest round of debacles would be positive if they would bring NASA management back down to Earth.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 7:33 AM |

 
SHOCKED !
Deborah Saunders is shocked that the NY Times would behave this way:

When a New York Times poll found that the number of Americans who think it was right for the United States to go to war in Iraq rose from 35 percent in May to percent 42 percent in mid-July, rather than promptly report the new poll findings, the paper conducted another poll. As the Times' Janet Elder wrote Sunday, the increased support for the decision to go to war was "counterintuitive" and because it "could not be easily explained, the paper went back and did another poll on the very same subject."

Read it all.

Of course to a simple person like myself, it is "counterintuitive" that the editors at the NY Times would be so desperate to have people believe that the US did something wrong in going into Iraq and toppling Saddam the Butcher.

Saunders is absolutely correct when she suggests that it is likely that most of the criticisms of the Bush administration's policies (especially those engaged in by the Democrats and the lunatic left) are designed more to "hurt Bush than to win the war".

The antiwar crowd and their media whores are very worried, you see. What will happen to them and their cause, if "the unthinkable" happens? That is to say, if things start to improve in Iraq.

Imagine how frightening it must have been back in March to learn that Iraqis are "optimistic"; and that they "don't believe their country is in the middle of a "civil war".

With things going fairly well to date regarding the surge (as much as they can in any war); and with some of their own people even beginning to recognize that fact, the leftist template for Iraq is in danger of being cracked wide open.

Even Barack "I never voted for the war" Obama, is getting his ducks in a row to prove that he isn't your typical Democratic/leftist antiwar wimp on matters military and that he is a strong supporter of military force--just not anywhere Bush would be likely to use it.

Both the opposition to the Iraq war and its supporters are completely invested in their respective narratives; with the political left invested in a narrative of defeat; while Bush and his allies are invested in a narrative of success.

Think about that carefully for a moment.

A significant portion of our population is completely invested in making sure that America suffers a significant military defeat at the hands of an enemy who is acceptable to do things like this; and this.

Oh yeah, how could I forget. The compassionate left and the Democrats are adamantly against this war (and all wars, of course), "for the sake of the children." If they are ever to be found in favor of a war, it is always for a any war (TBD) we are not actually fighting (e.g., think of Obama's rhetoric regarding invading Pakistan or the Dems outrage that Iraq has left us militarily unprepared to confront North Korea or Iran). These wars are the wars that Bush should be waging.

Except of course, if he did invade Pakistan or North Korea or Iran, they would be outraged at his unilaterality and his imperialism. Waivers are automatically granted to any Democrat (except Lieberman who is beyond the pale and a warmonger).

Mouthing the usual platitudes and frolicing semi-naked in the streets for the sake of "peace"; or engaging in pious--and meaningless-- posturing during Congressional debates makes all of them feel so darn good about themselves and what great (and tough!) guys and gals they are, though. But such behavior does very little in the real world; nor does it solve any real problems except to augment their already excessive and undeserved self-esteem.

It's hard to ask them to give up their narrative of defeat when so much of their precious self-esteem is utterly dependent on it. Even the facts don't phase them (see here and here for example).

How long can they ignore reality? Wretchard notes in a post about Keith Ellison's awakening after a visit to Iraq:

In any fight against terrorism, it is not enough for ordinary people to inwardly realize that terrorists are bad people. They know that already because the first goal of terrorism is to impress on the public mind -- and politicians -- that it is absolutely, positively, irremediably and mercilessly bad. That's why it's called terrorism, because it terrorizes. And the consequence of terror is that the average man praises it publicly or risks a visit from its representatives in the dead of night far from the protection of Amnesty International, far from the tender attentions of the International Criminal Court. Far from all the instruments of protection we are told to rely on. As long as terrorism is feared a large percentage of the public, many politicians and not a few media outlets will unendingly praise it. Many of the Ramadi sheiks must have secretly harbored reservations about whether al-Qaeda was fit representative of Islam before now. What made them blurt out their doubts now? Confidence that US and Iraqi forces in the neighborhood Joint Security Station down the street will drop ordnance down on al-Qaeda's sorry head if it shows up again, that's what.

To hear the left tell it, America is bad. Really really bad. Bush is worse than Bin Laden. Bush is a dictator. Civil rights are being trampled. No, even worse; people as we speak are being rounded up and herded into jail cells where they will rot forever, if they aren't taken out an summarily executed by the Gestapo administration. The U.S. is imperialistic and warmongering; and our enemies are peaceful, loving people. Christians are trying to take over control of the U.S. to impose a theocracy. Muslims fanatics are poor persecuted and misunderstood people whose religion is being constantly defamed by evil western values.

In their warped reality, real patriotism is the act of exposing all this rottenness under the surface of decadent American life; as you enable and apologize for dictators and tyrants around the world, praising them for their progressive policies and concern for their people. Real patriotism consists of defaming the actions of the U.S. military whenever possible; and hamstringing American foreign policy to ensure defeat by any group of politically correct thugs who taunt and disparage American values.

Is it really any wonder that the official propaganda outlet of the left is stunned that the American people's support for Bush and Iraq could be swinging the other way? After all their hard work to make Iraq seem like a hopeless quagmire run by a group of incompetents?

Personally, I'm shocked that anyone would think the left would behave otherwise.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 2:00 PM |

 
A GOOD QUESTION
Eric Allie asks a very good question:




Don't expect an answer from the parasites who seek to destroy wealth by confiscating it and/or punishing its creators; but here is a good discussion of the phenomenon (hat tip: Classical Values):

The difference between these methods of gaining wealth — between, say, competing to build a better restaurant and competing to get to the treasure first (rent seeking) — is that the first one creates wealth, or better-offness, for the world. Customers are made happy, and restaurants gradually get better. Fighting over who gets the treasure isn’t like that. The treasure doesn’t get bigger as a result. In a sense it gets smaller because wealth is eaten up in the effort to lay hold of it.

Think of this on a larger scale and you can see that the more a society spends on rent seeking — on quarrels over who gets what — the poorer it becomes. If that’s all that anyone did, everyone would starve in due course.

Apply the point to politics. To adapt the oversimple dichotomy to this arena: one can gain wealth in two ways — through the marketplace (by creating things people want) or through the political system (by lobbying for handouts or favored treatment). The latter is a type of rent seeking. Notice not only the temptation to try it but also that Politicians might like creating rents, because they encourage the attentions of the rent seekers known as interest groups.

Of course, what's interesting to me as a psychiatrist and observer of human behavior is the fact that political parasites use this strategy regularly to "selflessly" obtain wealth for others (supposedly for "good of all"-- but you notice they never suffer financially), and they ultimately bring no long-term benefit to society; while those individuals who work "selfishly" to create wealth and make a profit end up benefiting the entire society.

Just one more example of the kind of selfless narcissism that is so prevalent today.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 7:29 AM |

 
DEFEAT IS BEING OVERSOLD
Thomas Sowell thinks that it is time to "defeat the defeatists":

If victory in Iraq was oversold at the outset, there are now signs that defeat is likewise being oversold today.

One of the earliest signs of this was that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has said that he could not wait for General David Petraeus’s September report on conditions in Iraq but tried to get an immediate congressional mandate to pull the troops out.

Having waited for years, why could he not wait until September for the report by the general who is actually on the ground in Iraq every day? Why was it necessary for politicians in Washington to declare the troop surge a failure from 8,000 miles away?

The most obvious answer is that Senator Reid feared that the surge would turn out not to be a failure — and the Democrats had bet everything, including their chances in the 2008 elections, on an American defeat in Iraq.

As they say, read it all.

I believe that the Democrats are hedging their bets on Iraq at the moment and are acting out of their deepest convictions and moral principles.

Not that they actually have any convictions or morals, you see; but that is exactly and precisely the point. You can't act on convictions and morals you don't possess.

All politicians are guilty of trying to hedge their bets when they can get away with it, of course; both Democrat and Republican. But the rhetoric employed by the Dems since their defeat in 2000 has consistently depended on US failure and defeat because such rhetoric plays well to their leftist base. That base has bet their entire fascist-enabling ideology on America's defeat and humilitation.

The Democrat's dilemma is that they can't possibly win an election with only that base, so they have to pander to the patriotic Americans just enough not to alienate them completely.

Clearly, from their perspective, it would be best if America surrendered and admitted defeat, particularly while the hated BushHitler is in power. That would be the optimal outcome in Iraq. And, if that glorious event occurred, they could keep their lunatic anti-American, anti-Bush, base; and win over those disgusted that the Republicans and Bush managed to lose a war and sacrifice American lives for nothing.

But, oh dear. What if things turn around?? People will remember any definitive action they implemented to impede success.... People might be upset. THEIR POLLS WOULD SUFFER!!!

So, best to not actually do anything and just talk about doing something and see how things play out. They can alway claim they were just being patriotic (in some bizarre and psychotic sense of that word).

If they simultaneously committed to both the surrender rhetoric and clearly acted to ensure that a path was open to surrender and defeat-- and then that nincompoop Bush managed yet again to pull things out of the fire--they would be DOA in 2008.

They can't be bothered with doing or saying anything productive or coming up with any strategies to win a war their country is involved in, but they can be counted on to be genuinely concerned with winning back the White House in 2008. They can be counted on to continue their rhetoric of surrender and hopelessness.

If only the American people will just wake up and see what is really happening in Iraq AND what is really motivating the dysfunctional Democrats, who care more about their power than they do about this country ("dulce et decorum est pro Reid & Pelosi mori"?).

As Sowell says, it is time to defeat the defeatists. Soundly.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 2:38 PM |

 
STRIKINGLY UNBURDENED BY REALITY
I write a post on projection and paranoia, and, shazam! , suddenly there appears the most perfect example of projection I have had the pleasure of witnessing in my professional lifetime.

You simply have to shake your head in wonder and awe at the amount of self-delusion, hypocrisy, as well as the self-serving (and probably deliberate) tone of victimhood exhibited by the author.

Siggy has much more to say about Issa Khalaf's delusions of Palestinian grandeur and Jewish "psychosis":

The Closing of the Jewish Mind is spectacular example of Arab drivel that poses as ‘Arab intellectualism.’ Published in that beacon of Arab progressive thought, Egyptian government controlled Al Ahram, Oxford educated Issa Khalaf seriously expects his readers to believe that Jews and not Arabs, are burdened with psychosis. Seriously.

The Arab world has failed in every endeavor they have attempted, with the singular exception of Jew hatred. Indeed, if there were a Jew hatred Olympics, the Arab world would sweep the medals. Try this magnificent example of Khalaf’s bigotry on for size:

There is also that Jewish political tribalism, one whose roots extend deep into the past, whose fundamentalist holy men justify the taking of Arab life, the killing of Arab children, in juxtaposition to the superior sanctity of Jewish life and Jewish children.

(Talk about Khalaf’s hubris. It isn’t Jewish ‘tribalism’ that is threatening Christians. See this, this, this and this, for starters)....

and:

Incredibly, Khalaf goes on to note that

The Palestinians are strikingly unburdened by the pathologies of their oppressors, not least of all because they do not reciprocate their occupier’s widespread racism…Yet unlike their tormentors, they’ve not lost their humanity and essential decency, their acceptance of their enemy’s humanity, their cultural generosity of spirit and life, their respect for the sacredness of all life, their sanity. I can’t imagine that Palestinian soldiers would cruelly and coolly remain unmoved — devoid of an abiding sense of rescue — by a Jewish mother dying in her house as her children watched in fear and horror.

(What immediately comes to mind are the images of frenzied Palestinians, dancing with joy, holding the entrails of two Israelis after they were lynched and butchered.) WARNING: graphic images.

Read the entire takedown of Khalaf at SC&A. If Khalaf and the Palestinians are "strikingly unburdened" by anything, it is a committment to reality.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 7:04 AM |