WORTH WATCHING
Some straight talk from Fred Thompson at the end of 2007... worth watching because he assumes you, the voting public, are capable of thinking about ideas. What a concept!


- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 6:17 AM |

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

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

**NOTE: I am now getting many more submissions than I can possibly include in the weekly Carnival. Please don't be offended if your submission is not used (oh, okay, be as offended as you like) as it only means that for a variety of reasons I wasn't able to fit it into the "flow" as I put together each Carnival.

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


1. The "Not Insane" To Do List--everyone needs one for the New Year

2. A terrifying video from a previously unknown terror group! Nevertheless, Western civilization seems doomed.

3. Somehow I wouldn't feel safe with their kind of "protection". Having failed with every other proposal, perhaps raw sex will help Mideast Peace? Or is legal defeatism all there is?

4. Progress in Iraq...gays hardest hit. A grim milestone in Iraq you won't hear about. Someone should give a clue to the guy in the cave...cause he's too busy reading the NY Times to know what's really going on.

5. The 800 lb gorilla at the Holiday dinner!

6. Meanwhile, Iran is well and truly pwned!

7. A comic extravaganza. For real comic relief, go here and follow instructions.

8. Levels of stupid. This is definitely weapons-grade stupid.

9. Don't ask and she won't tell....

10. Hillary's Christmas promises...a way of storing up virtue in heaven? Yes...the only sensible way is to spend other people's money! Otherwise known as Tax, Tax, Tax! Well, it all depends on what your definition of "creative" is, doesn't it?


11. Don't be optimistic about it; it's not fashionable. Damn capitalism.

12. Are you man enough for this? Fathers should weep. He's man enough for PETA.

13. How about a bottomless male to lure the female perverts? A Tit Offensive?

14. When the Anglo-Saxons are thoroughly disoriented and freaked out, then the fingerlickin’ begins!

15. Sehr traurig, indeed.

16. Why not combine curling and skeleton for the next Winter Olympics?

17. Personally I think it is the lunacy induced by crowds.

18. You've got plenty to be thankful for....so have a


A HAPPY & PROSPEROUS NEW YEAR TO ALL MY READERS !

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

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



- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 8:41 AM |

 
IN THE REALM OF EMOTION: Planet Hysteria
Victor Davis Hanson takes a year-end look at the Iraq war:

Views on the war in Iraq now transcend reasonable discussion. The war rests in the realm of emotion, warped by the hysteria of partisan bickering.

The result is that we have forgotten why we invaded Iraq in long-ago 2003. We cannot agree why we had problems after the stunning removal of Saddam Hussein. And we are not sure either whether we are winning — or why we even should....

Some of the critical points made by Hanson (and you should read the whole piece):

"We invaded because, "after September 11, and the realization that state-sponsored terrorists from the Middle East had the desire to destroy the United States and the capability to do it great harm, the decade-long containment of Saddam Hussein, in light also of his serial violations of both armistice and U.N. accords, was considered inadequate. Few disagreed."

"So both houses of Congress, backed by an overwhelming majority of the American people, authorized the use of military force to remove Saddam Hussein, at the vigorous request of the President."

About WMD:"... when such weapons were not found in Iraq, and the insurgency imperiled the brilliant three-week victory, the case for the war, in the eyes of many, collapsed. It did so on both moral and practical grounds. For some reason, no one cared that the other twenty-some Congressional causes were still as valid as when they had been first approved in October 2002."

"The debate, since 2003, has hinged on our own culpability, and postfacto, on our reasons for going into Iraq in the first place. It has focused almost solely on American lapses, not recognition of either the capability, or zeal, or brutality of the enemy."

"So we stayed, and we learned, and we persevered. Classical arguments for victory prevailed, despite being caricatured and deemed simplistic: whatever transient emotional, financial, and moral advantages were to be had by fleeing Iraq, they would all be overshadowed by the eventual human and financial costs of our utter defeat."

"There is no longer serious doubt that by any fair measure the situation in Iraq has radically improved by the end of 2007."

The entire last six years have been lived in the realm of hysterical partisan bickering. The Republicans are certainly not blameless in this; but I have to say that my contempt for the Democrats and their lunatic base is at an all-time high. Just when you think they cannot be more ridiculous and insane, they go to great lengths to prove you wrong.

What planet do these people live on?


NOTE: I will have the New Year's Carnival up tomorrow, then be off until Wednesday morning. Happy New Year!
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 9:36 AM |

 
THERE ARE NO HOLIDAYS FROM HISTORY
...or rather, from reality:

The past three months have seen an odd turn in the presidential primary process in both parties — a turn away from the key issues confronting the United States and toward emotional and social vapor. The success of the surge in Iraq, coupled with the bizarre “we’re safe” reading of the National Intelligence Estimate on Iran, drained some of the passion from the anti-war fervor in the Democratic primary electorate and from the hawkish fervor of the Republican primary electorate....

The horrifying assassination of Benazir Bhutto in Pakistan this morning comes only one week before the Iowa caucuses and 12 days before New Hampshire. It is a sobering and frightening reminder of the challenges and threats and dangers posed to the United States by radical Islam, the nature of the struggle being waged against the effort to extend democratic freedoms in the Muslim world, and the awful possibility of a nuclear Pakistan overrun by Islamofascists. This is what the next president will be compelled by circumstance to spend a plurality of his or her time on. This is what really matters, not the cross Mike Huckabee lit up behind his head in his Christmas ad.

American politics would dearly love to take a holiday from history, just as it did in the 1990s. But our enemies are not going to allow us to do so.

The question becomes, how much more psychological denial can the various segments of our society indulge in? How much longer can they blind themselves to the sobering reality that threatens us and which has been obvious since 2001?

There is plenty of psychological denial to go around these days, and it exists at varying levels and different degrees of severity. I'm sure you've heard the many perpetual whiners of the left complain loudly about how hyped the Islamist threat is and how it is distracting us from the "real" enemy,Bush, who stands in the way of leftist truth, social justice and the progressive marxist agenda.

As an example, consider this run of the mill, ideological hack from the lefty blogsphere, who isjust one of the many leftists in denial about terrorism-- Glenn Greenwald routinely claims that "fear of terrorism" has been "inflamed and exploited" by the Bush Administration for the purpose of gaining power:

Bush opponents must finally overcome the one weapon which has protected George Bush again and again: fear. Fear of terrorism is what the Administration has successfully inflamed and exploited for four years in order to justify its most extreme and even illegal actions undertaken in the name of fighting terrorism.

Let's discuss this from a psychiatric and psychological perspective since these are the terms used in the quote above.

This great leftist intellect is essentially arguing that--instead of facing the undeniable reality of Islamic fanaticism that clearly and unambiguously state their intentions to kill or enlave us--we should first close our eyes and pretend it doesn't exist; and then simply chant repeatedly the soothing and calming leftist mantra the only thing to fear, the only threat to this country and the world is...President Bush. Everything bad that happens in the world is because he either did something or he did nothing--take your pick. Even Bhutto's assassination can be blamed on him.

As I have written many times, this clever psychological maneuver is a common defense mechanism caled displacement . Just yesterday I was called out for daring to use the term "BDS" for a very specific, ongoing and pervasive psychological displacement utilized by a vast majority of the political left, by "Tbogg", one of a group of shallow and juvenile leftist bloggers who think its clever to accuse me of penis envy, since that's the only area of Freudian psychology they are familiar with; having picked up the term in their youth, one supposes, because the word "penis" aroused a few of their sluggish synapses for a brief time.

Just for the record, there are quite a number penises I not only do not envy, but for which I feel complete contempt.

Returning to the excellent example of denial and displacement that Greenwald provides for this discussion, there is almost always a strong element of paranoia that is present; as well as a noticeable touch of projection and frequent hysteria--though he believes he is being "logical" and "rational" (and don't forget "progressive"!) ; and that such rhetoric can be used to describe relatively normal people justifiably afraid of irrational fanatics not amenable to reason. The implication is that the only purpose such "fears" (deemed "inappropriate" by Greenwald) are being manipulated must be to "justify illegal actions."

The basic tenor of Greenwald's fear of Bush is easy to deduce: while we are fighting this illusory enemy, The Bushitler and his even more evil sidekick Cheney, have been amassing power and will soon set themselves up as a dictators and destroy our freedom as they amass oil weath. I will let you decide who we have to fear more--the President of the United States or the religious fanatics of Islam who want to obtain nuclear weapons and have issued a religious fatwa justifying using them? Who do we have to fear more: those who are trying to prevent another 9/11,... or those who would like nothing better than to do something even worse in our country? Who do we have to fear more: George W. Bush, who will without much fuss (or even regret, I imagine) pass the incredible power of the American Presidency to whomever is chosen by the laws of this land in 2008,... or those who routinely contest elections via suicide bombs and mass killings? As Cliff May points out, "Why bother with opeds, TV commercials, high-priced campaign strategists, spin doctors and pollsters when with one suicide bomber you can eliminate your opponent entirely?"

In any event, as pleasant as the fantasy is, we cannot take a vacation from history; nor---if we value our lives and our freedoms-- can we close our eyes and take a holiday from the reality that exists, whether we want it to or not.


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

 
THE LOGIC OF TERROR
Much is being written and said about Benazir Bhutto's assasination and the mythology and reality of her life. I think the most important issue that needs to be remembered by the West comes from Cliff May at The Corner:

Pakistan Lessons

Bhutto's murder points to a lesson we (the Foreign Policy Establishment in particular) has been slow to learn:

This is not some extraordinary event. This is not the work of some lone madman. This is how militant Islamists contest elections – not just in Pakistan but also in Lebanon and Gaza and wherever they they get a foothold.

Why bother with opeds, TV commercials, high-priced campaign strategists, spin doctors and pollsters when with one suicide bomber you can eliminate your opponent entirely?

Hard to argue with the logic.

You begin to understand why concepts such as freedom or democracy have very little meaning to the primitive barbarians we are fighting around the globe.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 12:58 PM |

 
IOWA, FIDDLING ON THE ROOF
The holidays are over and, sadly, it's back to politics as usual.

You might say every Iowan is a "fiddler on the roof" trying to pick out a pleasant, simple presidential tune that the rest of the country will be able to sing along, without falling off and breaking their collective neck. It isn't easy. You may ask 'Why do they insist on being the first state to vote in the presidential primaries if it's so dangerous?' Well, they think it makes them special and gives them political clout. So, how do they keep their balance? That I can tell you in two words: they don't!

They think that, like the proverbial matchmaker, they will find America the perfect match....

IOWA, IOWA PICK ME A PREZ

AMERICAN LEFT:
Well somebody else should pick the candidates,
Ordinary Americans can't decide these things themselves.

AMERICAN RIGHT:
They might choose someone wonderful----
Someone qualified----

AMERICAN LEFT:
And sensitive----

AMERICAN RIGHT:
And honest---

LEFT AND RIGHT:
Iowa, Iowa,
Pick me a prez,
Watch his behavior,
Ignore what he says
Iowa, Iowa
Look at them all,
And then simply make your call!

Iowa, Iowa,
Next year we'll vote,
On your nominee,
Who will it be?
Pick me a candidate I can adore,
There's nothing that I want more.

For us righties:
Make him a Reagan!

For Lefties:
A Hugo Chavez!

[For me, well,
I'd like the former;
A clown won't make a good prez.]

Iowa, Iowa,
Pick us a prez,
Watch her behavior,
Ignore what she says....

Day after day we read all the blogs
So find us a prince
In these frogs.

IOWA SPEAKS:

Leftists, Dear Leftists,
Have I got a pick for you!
She's female and young!
All right, she's 62.
But she's a nice girl, a good wife, true?
True.

I promise you'll be happy,
And even if you're not,
There's more to life than pursuing happiness---
Don't ask me what.

Dear Neocons, I found him!
You're lucky that I did!
He's handsome, he's glib,
And only rarely tells a fib.
But he's a nice man, a saintly man, right?
Right.

You heard he's got religion.
You're just not sure which one,
But he stands for family values (you hope)
When all is said and done.

Did you think you'd find a prince?
When you kissed a frog or two?
This is politics, not fantasy
You'll have to make do!

LEFT AND RIGHT:
Iowa, Iowa,
You're just the first
There's still lots of time,
So please, do your worst.

Until this minute,
We hid all our fears,
But we could get stuck for four years!

ME:
Dear Iowans,
Make sure he/she's real
Remember,
You must live with the deal...
This whole big endless campaign
Is getting insane
And completely surreal!

Iowa, Iowa,
Give them all a defeat;
I'm in no rush;
I'm getting cold feet.
The truth is never a sin
And among all these losers
Someone's sure to win....!

So,
Please go away
And leave me alone
Pick me no prez
There's not much of Reagan
And too much Chavez;
They all make me nervous
I can't hide my dread,
No matter what he--or she--says.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 7:24 AM |

 
LIFE'S JUST A BITCH FOR THE LEFT
Consider the results of the latest Gallup Poll.

On the one hand, Hillary nudged out Oprah for "Most Admired Woman". On the other hand, President Bush is still the "Most Admired Man".

Most BDS sufferers will probably suffer a debilitating relapse when they read the above; and probably be unable to get any relief from their incapacitating symptoms from the fact that Bill Clinton came in a very close second (knowing Bill, it's even likely he would have come in 2nd in the first category--if only his name had been on the list of choices--and likewise for "Most Admired Black Person").

In fact, our 42nd President comes to mind frequently these days.



[More Cartoons by Gary McCoy]
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 1:42 PM |

 
FALLING POLITICAL STARS AND THE BIGGEST IRAQ MYTH
John Hood praises Michael O'Hanlon (the person who dismayed fellow Dems by suggesting that the surge might be working), who he says makes a valiant effort to save the Democrats from themselves. So, what is O'Hanlon's argument?

Without a Democratic takeover of the Congress in 2006, there is little chance that President Bush would have acknowledged his Iraq policy to be failing and that Gen. David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker would have been accorded the resources and the policy latitude needed to radically improve the situation on the ground.

Democrats were not the authors of the surge and in fact generally opposed it. But without their pressure, it probably never would have happened.

You would think that this idea--taking credit for Bush's turnaround in policy--would be a tactic jumped on ravenously by the Dems; but then, you might also think that an American political party would be invested in America winning the war in Iraq.

But that's just not the case. The Democrats--and in particular, their leftist base--are more concerned with their hatred of George Bush and they will never, ever admit that any policy promoted by him and his administration could possibly be working. Instead, they have all hitched their political wagon to a precipitously falling star and remain, even now, heavily emotionally invested in failure in Iraq.

And, as I noted the other day, they are also proactively invested in failure to halt nuclear arms development in Iran.

As a case in point let's look at Professor Juan Cole's "Top 10 Myths About Iraq", as Cole seems to be one of the most invested in insuring that the U.S. lose in Iraq and the war on terror.

10. Myth: The US public no longer sees Iraq as a central issue in the 2008 presidential campaign.

Cole cites this as a myth, and, indeed it is. The US public has always seen Iraq as a central issue in the 2008 campaign. It is the Democrats who now would like to make it a non-issue, and they are aided and abetted by the compliant MSM who have literally taken Iraq off the front pages since the war tilted in America's favor.

9. Myth: There have been steps toward religious and political reconciliation in Iraq in 2007.

Cole Check out this article. And consider this reality. If sunnis and shia don't get along (as they haven't for a few millenia) then what does Cole imagine is the cause? He tells us in #8:

8. Myth: The US troop surge stopped the civil war that had been raging between Sunni Arabs and Shiites in the Iraqi capital of Baghdad

In Cole's "informed" view the violence between the sects has surged with troop escalation. IT'S AMERICA'S FAULT THAT SUNNIS AND SHIA DON'T GET ALONG! Not Al Qaeda fueling the violence. Not Iran. Not their insane religious beliefs. I'm glad we've got Cole to make sure we understand these things.

7. Myth: Iran was supplying explosively formed projectiles (a deadly form of roadside bomb) to Salafi Jihadi (radical Sunni) guerrilla groups in Iraq.

Let's be clear, says Professor Cole. IRAN IS INNOCENT OF THE US CHARGES! THERE IS NO EVIDENCE! Cole ignores (or perhaps it is the usual hysterical blindness he suffers from?) this or this? We should ignore the Generals on the ground in Iraq who presented us with evidence in favor of Honest Juan who believes they are lying sacks of shit compared to the divinely innocent Iranian President?

6. Myth: The US overthrow of the Baath regime and military occupation of Iraq has helped liberate Iraqi women.

Iraqi women--indeed, any woman under the yoke of Islam in the Middle East--will hardly be free until their religion stops going backwards and decides to join the rest of modern civilization. If Cole is arguing that women had a great old time under Saddam and it was the US invasion/occupation that now has made things worse for them, then he should consider this:

Under the pretext of fighting prostitution, units of "Fedayeen Saddam," the paramilitary organization led by Uday Hussein, Saddam's eldest son, have beheaded in public more than 200 women throughout the country, dumping their severed heads at their families' doorsteps. Many families have been required to display the victim's head on their outside fences for several days. These barbaric acts were carried out in the total absence of any proper judicial procedures and many of the victims were not engaged in prostitution, but were targeted for political reasons. For example, Najat Mohammad Haydar, an obstetrician in Baghdad, was beheaded after criticizing the corruption within health services. (Amnesty International Report, Iraq: Systematic Torture of Political Prisoners, August 2001; Iraqi Women's League in Damascus, Syria)

There is a long way to go to "liberate" Iraqi women...and the first step was to get rid of Saddam. The fact that the West is burdened by the moral relativity of todays feminists and their male cheerleaders (like Cole) who righteously condemn the US for the plight of women under Islam, yet fail to notice that it is Islam's practitioners who enslave women and make "women's rights" a mockery.

5. Myth: Some progress has been made by the Iraqi government in meeting the "benchmarks" worked out with the Bush administration.

This report summarizes the achievement and shortfalls as they relate to the "benchmarks"--Carl Levin (who Cole quotes) to the contrary. A "benchmark" is a standard by which progress may be measured or judged; and in this case, the Iraqi government has been found wanting. This is a universally acknowledged truth--acknowledged by all, except apparently Cole who believes it is a "myth" to think that ANY progress has been make if ALL benchmarks have not been met. Typical utopian/leftist idiocy.

4. Myth: The Sunni Arab "Awakening Councils," who are on the US payroll, are reconciling with the Shiite government of PM Nuri al-Maliki even as they take on al-Qaeda remnants

Cole cites some interviews with tribal leaders who intend to polish off their other Islamic rivals after they get rid of Al Qaeda. So, Juan, what else do you expect of thugs--especially religious ones? The fact that the U.S. has found a way to make them temporarily stop fighting each other and fight the real enemy is rather miraculous. If only a way could be found to make the political left (and people like Cole) stop fighting America and start fighting Al Qaeda, then I might be more upset by the driving ambition of the Iraqi thugs.

3. Myth: The Iraqi north is relatively quiet and a site of economic growth.

Cole is clearly annoyed by "the other Iraq" campaign (see here). He says that Kurdistan is a "minefield". Well, yes, so is Britain. So is the U.S. border. So is Europe, the Middle East, Africa etc. etc., for that matter. So is ANYWHERE where there are unresolved issues. Again with the desperate need for perfection from the likes of Professor Cole. Peace isn't good enough for him. It has to be utopia, with no chance of anything going wrong or upsetting the tranquility ever.

2. Myth: Iraq has been "calm" in fall of 2007 and the Iraqi public, despite some grumbling, is not eager for the US to depart.

Fact: Iraq has been calm in the fall of 2007 any way you measure it and that is because of the "surge" which Cole shows nothing but scorn . That is why the news in Iraq has dropped off the radar of the MSM (see #1), since good news like that does not serve the purpose of bashing the Bush Administration. No matter how much the left is in love with the latest "polls" --whether they be in the US or Iraq--we are in a larger war on terror, and Iraq is a major front on that war. Why not look at the larger picture, Cole? Frankly, IMHO, the US should plan on having a presence in Iraq for several decades (just as we stayed in Europe and in Japan after WWII) because the threat of radical Islam is not going to magically vanish away because the Juan Coles of the world pretend it doesn't exist.

1. Myth: The reduction in violence in Iraq is mostly because of the escalation in the number of US troops, or "surge."

Gee, how the left hate this "myth" (which means it is a reality they can't stomach). Why? Because it gives credibility to the real enemy they are fighting and against whom they have deployed all their vast intellectual resources (e.g., the useless idiot professors like Cole). And that enemy is: George W. Bush.

As Charles Krauthammer recently noted in a column:

There will, of course, be the Harry Reids and those on the far left who will deny inconvenient reality. Reid will continue to call the surge a failure, as he has since even before it began. And the left will continue to portray Gen. David Petraeus as an unscrupulous commander quite prepared to send his troops into a hopeless battle in order to advance his political ambitions (although exactly how that works is not clear).

But the serious voices will prevail.

Krauthammer goes on to provide some inconvenient reality for those sadly lacking in that commodity. The surge is, indeed, working. But it cannot work forever and will have to be replaced by other strategies that achieve our ultimate goal--a democratic Iraq. Clearly, the Iraqi government and its people will have to step up and take on more and more of the burden for accomplishing that goal, but only if that is their goal, too. Meanwhile, the US muddles along the best it can; making mistakes, learning from them and making progress.

In reality, the biggest myth of all is why anyone intelligent would take the Harry Reids or a Juan Coles seriously?

UPDATE:


[More Cartoons by Michael Ramirez]
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 9:13 AM |

 
WE WISH THEM A MERRY CHRISTMAS
I'm not at all sure yet who I support for President, but I like this ad and can't think of a better sentiment to express this Holiday.



Thank you for your service to our country and for making the sacrifice to protect me and my family. May you soon be reunited with your loved ones. My family and I wish you a very Merry Christmas!
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 7:34 PM |

 
CARNIVAL OF THE CHRISTMAS INSANITIES - Special Edition !
Time for the Annual Christmas/Holiday Insanity Collection, where all the bizarre, the ridiculous, and the completely absurd aspects of the Holidays are highlighted for all to see! The most bizarre insanities can always be found in politics, of course, and this has been and will be a week of rare idiocy (as always!). So, if you want to remain sane, the best thing is to poke some fun at the more egregious absurdities.

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

**NOTE: I am now getting many more submissions than I can possibly include in the weekly Carnival. Please don't be offended if your submission is not used (oh, okay, be as offended as you like) as it only means that for a variety of reasons I wasn't able to fit it into the "flow" as I put together each Carnival.

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

1. Christmas, 2007 in Bethlehem. For those who don't believe: Yes, Virginia, there is a terror war.

2. They make it their business never to forget.

3. Making fun of yourself at Christmas is off limits! It's the psychiatrists who have to deal with all the fruitcakes.... Like the Anthropogenic Global Warming Killjoys.

4. The Kyrgyzis get points for trying. Trying really really hard.

5. Ahmed and the Chipmunks? Jingle Bells, Infidels...Sharia all the way. It's closing in on "White Christmas!"

6. 2007 Holiday reading list for kids! A final visit from Saint Nick--an oldie but goodie! The real top 10 news stories of 2007.

7. For the religious narcissist: when the gift of yourself is all that's necessary.

8. The best part of the Holiday Season is the banning? A plea for "Merry Christmas"!

9. Happy Hannukah Chanukah! (Belated!) Chanukah as pollutant?

10. The 12 [Crazy] Days of Christmas!

11. Ebenezer Reid? Warm and gooey for the Holidays: The Eggnog factor, perhaps?

12. It's so much fun to give other people's money away! Ponies for everyone! What the cards should say....A very Hillary Christmas to you!

13. What! Christmas is political? Or, at least, politically correct...

14. Santa Claus is not inclusive enough; and he's too fat. Plus he don't talk proper He's just a fatty-headed ho-ho-ho! Or, maybe he's Satan.

15. BoxBux Sux as Stix Hix Nix Xmas Flix...ummmmm right.

16. Move Christmas to June??

17. Bad Santa's.

18. God is your co-pilot.

19. Relatively normal religious conversion (at least there are no death threats because of it!); relatively insane one.

20. Relatively normal Holiday recipe.....relatively insane one. Completely insane.

21. All I want for Christmas is to Free Mark Steyn; less postmodern whine for some peace divine...all I want for Christmas is to Free Mark Steyn...So I can wish you Merry Christmas!



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

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


- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 7:17 AM |

 
CHRISTMAS HOLIDAY

I will be pretty much taking off from blogging until after Christmas.

A ***Special Christmas Edition*** of the Carnival of the Insanities will be posted this Sunday morning; and I should be back later in the week.

I wish you and yours a very Joyous Christmas!


- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 6:56 AM |

 
"WE WILL NEVER RECOGNIZE... REALITY"
From a recent news article:

The Palestinian prime minister, Ismail Haniyeh, today said his Hamas-led government will never recognise Israel and will continue to fight for the liberation of Jerusalem.

"We will never recognise the usurper Zionist government and will continue our jihad-like movement until the liberation of Jerusalem," Mr Haniyeh told thousands of Friday prayer worshippers at Tehran University in Iran....

Mr Haniyeh, who is on his first foreign visit since his Hamas-led government took office in March after a surprise election victory, called Iran, a long-time ally of Hamas, the Palestinians' "strategic depth".

"They (Israelis) assume the Palestinian nation is alone. This is an illusion ... We have a strategic depth in the Islamic Republic of Iran. This country (Iran) is our powerful, dynamic and stable depth," he said.

Mr Haniyeh is in Iran for talks with Iranian leaders, including President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who has called for Israel to be "wiped off the map".

The fantasy that the Annapolis talks have "launched" some sort of peace process in the Middle East between Israel and the Palestinians is just that, a fantasy.

The truth of that conflict is somewhat different than many would like to pretend.

Gagdad Bob once wisely pointed out at One Cosmos that:

If truth exists, it seems that it is something that we would want to align ourselves with, no? For truth is what works, isn't it?

Not necessarily. With psychoanalysis, Freud articulated an entire system of thought that essentially comes down to a means for investigating the many ways in which human beings lie to themselves. Thus, in a sense, these lies "work" -- i.e., they have a function -- or they wouldn't have been erected in the first place.

For example, one routinely sees adults who were abused or neglected as children by their parents. This is the truth. But this truth doesn't "work" for an infant, because it would make living intolerably painful -- impossible, really. Therefore, in order to go on living, the child erects the lie, "my parents love me. There is something wrong with me." Interestingly, on some level, one must know the truth in order to erect the lie. Psychoanalytic therapy, in its broadest sense, is simply a search for truth....

Therapists more than many, appreciate the fact that people engage in all sorts of self-deception all the time. Psychiatry and psychotherapy is essentially a search for the truth; which is sometimes hidden beneath layers and layers of self-deception and cleverly deployed psychological defenses that protect and insulate the individual from confronting something painful and devastating to their world.

It is for this reason that psychotherapy can take a great deal of courage on the part of the patient; and a great deal of persistant probing on the part of the therapist. Simply put, psychological health and the ability to function optimally in life absolutely depends on being able to recognize reality effectively deal with it. Self-deception is fundamentally dysfunctional, and over the long-term potentially lethal.

Psychological defense mechanisms are unconscious strategies that are automatically enlisted by the psyche when reality threatens to overwhelm the individual. When an immature defense is put up to block the pain--such as denial or projection-- it may be extremely effective in the short-term, but it sets in motion a cascade of psychological consequences that inevitably result in long-term misery for the individual. An analogy would be the clinical use of methadone--itself a highly and extremely addictive opiate, but with less painful and agonizing withdrawal symptoms--to help a person detox from heroin. The individual however, becomes addicted to the methadone and it must then be maintained for life.

In the example above that Bob uses, the child is able to retain his love for the abusive parent, but instead concludes that something is wrong with him. This incorrect conclusion, born of faulty psychological logic, will impact his life in all areas: relationships, work and will impede any chances he has to achieve success, personal fulfillment and happiness, or genuine intimacy.

It is not my intention to suggest that the only way to cope with stress is to use psychological defenses. On the contrary, there are many factors that come into play, such as the individual's temperment and inborn biological/physiological protections; the presence or absence of social or environmental supports, hope and faith and even luck or serendipity may play a role in helping someone get through difficult times.

In fact, all these factors--biological, social, cultural, religious--all interact together and, in times of stress, have a considerable impact on which psychological defense is ultimately erected to protect the individual.

And it is all these factors that come into play when trying to understand why a supposedly mature person uses immature psychological defenses.

If a person experiences an overwhelming number of environmental insults without sufficient biological resiliency, he will fail; if he has enough of the protective environmental factors (e.g., love, health, education) he is relatively invincible to the vissictitudes of life. If he or she is born with normal resilience, but the culture is severely pathological and thus the environment is not conducive to the development of psychological maturity, then the individual will go down with the culture, unless he is able to escape from its influence.

Let us for the moment say that all biological factors being equal (and, of course, they are not) then the primary determinants will be the degree to which those environmental factors control the life and activities of the person.

While it is true that even healthy people may transiently use the immature psychological defenses, they do so only as a temporary measure; until they psychologically prepare themselves to deal with the threat. An example is the reflexive denial when suddenly hearing about a loved one's death. The mind is simply not able to handle the catastrophe immediately and it uses simple denial to briefly cope with an unacceptable truth.

But within a brief time, reality will set in; and, if the confluence of factors in their life has led them to psychological maturity, the ego is able to handle the painful reality--they will suffer, they will grieve, they will grow; and then they are able to move on.

This process does not happen in some cultures or societies.

Environmental and cultural factors can encourge individuals to deploy mature defenses; or they may encourage the deployment of the immature and primitive defenses. The immature defenses are infectious. They can spread like an epidemic through a population--particularly if they are culturally or religiously sanctioned. This is because they offer the simplest and most gratifying explanation for an individual's or a society's problems ("It's all the Jews fault!", "If it weren't for those Blacks!", "Republicans hate the poor!" and so on).

From The Wisdom of the Ego:

The capacity to use social supports involves the ability to metabolize, as it were, other people once they are found. This capacity is inextricably bound to potential for psychosocial maturation....

In order to treat the experience of being loved as if it were a gift and neither a danger nor a right, we need the ego capacity of being able to absorb those who love us. If we marry someone much richer than ourselves, shall we feel grateful or envious? If our tennis partner always beats us, doues our game improve or does our self-esteem plummet? If our father is in some was a disaster, are we determined to avenge ourselves by becoming really good fathers, or do we do unto other as was done to us?
[...]
...the process of metabolizing social supports is far more subtle. We can teach people ideas. We can teach someone to view a glass as half full rather than half empty; we can teach people to have positive attributions. But how to teach people to treat an onrush of love as a gift and not a threat is a more daunting task, one that requires grace or at least consummate skill.

Ego maturity, and the ability to deploy the healthier, more mature defenses comes about as a result of one's experience with the problems of life and the increasing ability to tolerate paradox. Vaillant recounts this brief story, which is very telling:

...a College man who was both a model for mature defenses and a distinguished career diplomat to the Arab world told me that he was on his way to address a B'nai B'rith group. I asked him what he planned to say about the dilemma of Palestine. He replied that he would quote the wise man who observed, "When in a conflict both parties have the moral right on their side, that is the meaning of tragedy." A paradox. Yet Eugene O'Neill suggested that the tragic alone has that significant beauty which is truth. A second paradox. But where does the capacity to tolerate such paradox come from?"

Let us look for a moment at the tragedy that is the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. One side of that conflict has attempted to come to terms with this paradox multiple times; and has acknowledged that there is moral right on both sides of the conflict. That side has repeatedly and earnestly tried to make peace by giving the other side what it says it wants. That side is Israel, who has given the Palestinians everything they need to create their own state and to make a life for themselves and their people.

It is the completely dysfunctional Palestinians, whose envy and hate (societally, culturally and religiously inflamed) have led them to repeatedly refuse the gift given freely by the Israelis. Instead, they cling to their denial of the reality of Israel; they resort to a barbaric and primitive paranoia and projection blaming the Israelis and the Jews for their own squandering of billions of dollars, their own choice to spend that money on weapons and arms instead of schools and institutions that might make the future brighter. Indeed, the homicidal and suicidal rage encouraged by the culture is the only behavioral choice that allows them as a culture to keep their distorted grasp of reality intact.

The social, cultural and religious supports for the individual Palestinians have abjectly failed them and cannot facilitate emotional maturity. And the external social/environmental supports (such as they are) for the entire culture continue to enable the culture's dysfunctional behavior by never permitting them to suffer the consequences of their actions (the enabling by the intellectuals of the West); and by maliciously using their plight for the purpose of oppressing and controlling other middle east populations (their so-called "brothers" and fellow Muslims of the Islamic world).

Thus, the Palestinians are trapped forever in the grip of an immature, barbaric, and primitive cultural ego; their plight cynically manipulated by their "friends" and fellow muslims; and their dysfunctional behavior rewarded monetarily and excused by the "superior" intellectuals of the West. Homicide and suicide are the lifestyle of choice. [Note: that is why it is especially sickening that the enabling selfless psychopaths in the West, who see themselves as "antiwar" and "peace" activists have chosen to use the headscarf of the Palestinian people as some sort of a fashionable peace symbol. It is indeed a symbol, but not of what they imagine.]

Here is an interesting reality:

Dershowitz recounts a telling incident at the University of California, Irvine which is a "hotbed" of anti-Israeli agitation:

He [Dershowitz ] spoke to a large crowd, and first asked those who considered themselves pro-Israel to raise their hands. About 250 hands were raised. He then asked them if they would accept a Palestinian state, side by side, living in peace with Israel. Every hand went up.

Then he asked how many considered themselves pro-Palestinian. About 150 hands were raised. Finally, he asked this group whether they would accept a Jewish state of Israel, living side by side in peace with a new Palestinian state. Not a single hand went up.

In the sick and pathological environment of the dysfunctional Palestinians-- carefully cultured by their fellow Muslims and nurtured by their admirers and supporters in the West--Palestinian children have practically no chance whatsoever of growing up to achieve any degree of emotional or psychological maturity. The environment is far too toxic to support ego maturation. And when they are physically mature, they will pass the psychological toxicity onto their own offspring. Hence, generation after generation will miss the opportunity to break out of the cycle of violence and death to make a better life for themselves and their children.

This is what happens when the environment encourages the development of seriously immature psychological defenses.

Meanwhile, the Israelis quietly go on; growing economically, building universities and engaging in civilized behavior, using their psychological and spiritual wisdom as a motivation to keep trying. Surrounded by those who want only to exterminate them, the Israelis have, time and again, refrained for the most part, from giving back what they are receiving. As a society, culture, and a religion, they have achieved a degree of maturity and wisdom that allows them to be dispassionate as well as compassionate, and not indulge in the kind of mass hysteria and dysfunction that is seen daily in their fanatical enemies. As a people they keep on trying and hoping for a breakthrough; because fundamentally, they want to bring about a better life for their children--a simple goal that Jews have always and in all places desired.

SC&A touched on these issues here and here and rightly points out:

Now, let’s think about that for a minute. Does anyone seriously believe that there are any Jews, anywhere, that are fixated (read: obsessed) on the Arab world? Does anyone really believe that the vast majority of Jews wake up every morning and ask themselves, ‘What can I do to screw an Arab today?’

Does anyone really believe that Jews- like everybody else- put aside concern for their family, jobs, community and whatever needs they might have, just so they might focus on undermining the Arabs and Arab world?

What could Jews- or anyone else, for that matter, anywhere, do to Arabs what their own dysfunctional political and ‘religious’ leadership haven’t already done to insure the failure of Arab society? As it is, according to the UN Human Development report, the Arab world already has just about the lowest levels of education in the world, save for sub Saharan Africa

Further, when it comes to those who encourage and enable Palestinian dysfunction:

A rational and civilized person would see the situation for what it is. A desperate bigot would will rationalize and attempt to divert attention away from the obvious- because in acknowledging obvious realities, they have to acknowledge their own failures. To a bigot or anyone with with clear psychopathies, that is intolerable. To see that the emperor they worship has no clothes is for them, catastrophic, because they cannot tolerate the truths that expose them. For example, supposedly ‘liberal’ and ‘progressive’ ideologies are ferociously adamant in their support of the Palestinian and Arab causes, notwithstanding the openly misogynistic, anti gay and racist ideologies they espouse. They cannot repudiate those agendas, because to do so would be to admit that their supposed ‘liberal’ and ‘progressive’ ideologies are a facade. Their primary interests lie in their own gratification and self aggrandizement. Violence against gays, women and minorities is acceptable as long as it takes place far away. The moment someone speaks in away they don’t like, they work themselves into a frenzy. To attack an unknown in a faraway place is acceptable- to attack their ideas is to unleash an irrational and even violent fury.

What do the Palestinians want? They encourage their children to blow themselves up and die so that the adults can maintain their "honor" and continue on the path of destruction and death. This is not behavior compatible with either individual or cultural health. In fact, it is a culture that is inexorably pursuing suicide with a breathtaking single-mindedness.

In order to grow psychologically and develop the ego strength to live in a civilized world, the children of Palestine requre a different environment. If some Pied Piper could lead them away from the broken and severely impaired adults; or if someone called those adults to account for the irrational, culturally sanctined malignant narcissism that is cloaked in religious sanctimony--then there might one day be a resolution to the tragedy and a future for today's Palestinian children.

A healthy environment--one that encourages healthy relationships between men and women; and between all individuals--is essential so that children can learn to deal appropriately with loss, sorrow and all the unbearable unfairness of life that characterizes the human condition. In such environments, the individual thrives, matures, and gains the wisdom necessary to change what is able to be changed. In such environments, there is no need to encourage denial, paranoia or projection, because the resultant psychological maturity permits access to the mature emotional defenses that give meaning and bring satisfaction to life.

Each of the mature defenses which help the mature adult resolve the ambiguities and paradoxes of his or her life, has an inherent paradox associated with it (see the Table below).

Civilized societies and cultures encourage and support the individual in the pursuit of his or her own life, happiness and psychological growth. These societies do not lay claim to an individual's life for the glory of the state; and in turn all members of the societey benefit as the culture's productivity, wealth and benevolence increases.

In other words, paradoxically, those political, economic, cultural and religious factors that encourage what is best for the individual's growth and maturity, are exactly what encourage the positive evolution and maturation of societies and cultures.

Psychological maturity makes all the difference in the world between war and peace. Mature psychological defenses enable creative solutions to conflicts in ways that are positive for both the individual and society. They also permit the use of force for self-defense when necessary, without all the useless hand-wringing and vapid moralizing about "peace" and "brotherhood" --which is essentially a manifestation of psychological denial and represents an aggressive attempt to avoid dealing with reality.

The immature defenses--such as denial, projection, paranoia--are not amenable to reason; and those who use them cannot be negotiated with. On the contrary, the use of such defenses by any nation or a culture or group inexorably whittles away at civilized behavior, eventually causing the individuals within the culture to abandon it completely. When a culture reaches that psychological dead-end, it has no future because the suicidal/homicidal rage will cause it to implode.

Any peace process that depends on rationality or a desire for peace on the part of the Palestinian and wider Islamic culture of the Middle East is likewise doomed to implode. Hamas will never recognize Israel, nor will they bother to recognize reality, truth, reason, or peace. Until they do, their death worship will continue unabated, aided and abetted by the denialists of the West.


- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 7:57 AM |

 
OH LORD, WON'T YOU BUY ME A MERCEDES BENZ
The Iranians have found a creative use for their Mercedes trucks.


[Photo by Amir Hesami nejad at Irannews.info]

I'll bet Mercedes doesn't really care for the free advertising it gets in this photo, however. Do you suppose there will be an outraged leftist surge to boycott corporate evil? Probably not. There's never been any call to boycott computers (or cell phones for that matter) used by terrorists and their apologists.

Or, radio contests either.

Meanwhile, in a related story:

Report: Germany Expelled Iranian Diplomat Over Fuel Enrichment

Germany expelled an Iranian diplomat in July after he tried to purchase equipment for his country's controversial nuclear program, a German news magazine reported on Saturday, Dec. 15.

The report, which the German weekly Der Spiegel released in advance of its publication on Monday, said the man was ordered to leave the country in July, but the case had not been disclosed until now.

The German Foreign Ministry declined to comment on the report.

UPDATE: Will wonders never cease?
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 3:34 PM |

 
STATE OF DELUSION
In this article we have a perfect example of how the "reality-based" among us have managed to project their own perverse dark side onto the innocent...

A word to anybody planning on visiting Oldham in northern England. All persons in municipal parks are assumed to be perverts, just to be on the safe side:

A COUPLE were banned from taking photographs of their baby daughter on a swing by a park warden who declared it `inappropriate.'

Steve Brook and partner Mandy Smith were having a family day out with 11-month-old Rebecca when the council worker swooped.

"It beggars belief," said Steve, 35. "The fact that a mummy and daddy can't take a picture of their own daughter is ridiculous... I asked him why and he said it was illegal to take pictures of children in the park. I explained it was my own daughter but he still said it wasn't allowed."

A council official said: "We are committed to ensuring that all our parks are safe and welcoming places for all visitors. To ensure this happens staff are instructed to be observant and aware of the activities of park users and consider whether they are appropriate."

...even as they cheerfully exonerate and protect the guilty, and make sure the guilty are not judged-- or made to feel excluded in any way.

As Steyn notes, it's a sign of the times--or, rather a state of the delusion of the times--that in trying to be so "safe and welcoming for all" we have slipped the fragile bonds of reality and common sense, all for the sake of political correctness and deluding ourselves about wonders of inclusiveness and diversity.

We are all perverts now.

Except, of course, for the real perverts of our times, who are given a free pass-- as this article demonstrates:

It's the episode of Little Mosque on the Prairie that I missed. The one where the father is so angry with his teenage daughter for not wearing the hijab that he strangles her to death. Perhaps it will be in the special features section of the DVD version, released just in time for the holiday that used to be known as Christmas, but not any longer because the word might hurt someone's feelings.

Not that we know why, or even if Muhammad Parvez killed his 16-year-old daughter Aqsa last week in Mississauga, Ont. But we do know that he has been charged with the crime and that friends told reporters there had been terrible arguments about Aqsa's refusal to wear Islamic head covering and that she wanted a different path from that of her family.

Most Canadian Muslim leaders immediately condemned what had happened but it didn't take very long for the usual suspects to explain on radio and television that the tragedy had nothing to do with the Muslim faith and that all religions contain extremism. Islam, we were told, is a religion of peace.

Which is probably just what the owner of a Christian bookstore in Gaza thought three months ago as he was murdered and his shop firebombed. Or Danny Pearl, shortly before the American journalist had his head cut off by Islamic terrorists -- who, naturally, filmed the whole thing and made sure their chants from the Koran were loud and clear.

Or the wretched gang-rape victim in Saudi Arabia sentenced to 200 lashes for daring to be in a car at the time of the crime with a man to whom she was not married or related. Or the women stoned to death for adultery. Or the Iranian men hanged because they were homosexual.

And so on, and so on, and so on...in case after nauseating case.

In this sorry state of delusion, the only real discussion amounts to, who is more perverted? The misogynistic and sadistic Islamists? Or their politically correct leftist enablers?

Or, as someone has said in a related context, "Something this unprecedented goes beyond religious toleration."

Very true. Beyond tolerance--religious or otherwise--and straight to self-delusion.

UPDATE: Join Siggy, ShrinkWrapped, Neo, and me on our latest podcast as we discuss the religious murder of Aqsa Parvez by her father--and its psychological ramifications.

Click below to listen:

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

 
THE SANITY SQUAD, LIVE TONITE !
Tonight's topics will include the recent murder of a teen age girl in Canada by her religious Father, who was upset because she wouldn't wear a hijab; and the reaction of Islamic groups to her killing. If there's time, we'll switch topics to the national political scene and talk about Lieberman's endorsement of McCain, Huckabee's rise and Hillary's descent.

Join Siggy, ShrinkWrapped, Neo, and me for some psychological and political analysis that's sure to be provocative and, hopefully, annoying.

Click below to listen live at 8 PM tonight:


CALL-IN Number during show is (646) 716-9116
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 1:42 PM |

 
GOOD COMMUNISTS AND BAD CHRISTIANS
David Freddoso make a very good point in a post at The Corner about godless ideologies and Europe:

Communism and National Socialism (both of which are godless, or at least an explicit rejection of Christianity) wholeheartedly embraced the notion that violence, murder, and the deliberate degradation of human dignity (genocide, abolition of property rights and of the human family) are legitimate means to acheiving their ends. Nothing can be further from a Christian worldview than the assertion that "the end justifies the means." The Communists and Nazis directly responsible for murdering more than 100 million people in the 20th Century were being strictly obedient to their ideologies — they were good Communists and Nazis, embracing the notion that human life can be treated as valueless if such treatment advances the proper ends.

We have been passing through an age of secular utopianism, in which some thinkers decided that it is acceptable to sacrifice individuals for what they perceive to be the common good. Their followers have done the rest.

I never meant to assert that Europe was all happy ponies before it lost its faith. In earlier centuries, kings and princes — and yes, popes — abused Christianity for political ends with horrible consequences (note that they are viewed as bad Christians).

Freddoso and others at The Corner were discussing a recent op-ed piece by Charles Krauthammer, "An Overdose of Public Piety", in which he discusses two arguments about the role of religion in politics:

The first, which conservatives are winning, is defending the legitimacy of religion in the public square. The second, which conservatives are bound to lose, is proclaiming the privileged status of religion in political life.

A certain kind of liberal argues that having a religious underpinning for any public policy is disqualifying because it is an imposition of religion on others. Thus, if your opposition to embryonic stem cell research comes from a religious belief in the ensoulment of life at conception, you're somehow violating the separation of church and state by making other people bend to your religion.

This is absurd. Abolitionism, civil rights, temperance, opposition to the death penalty -- a host of policies, even political movements, have been rooted for many people in religious teaching or interpretation. It's ridiculous to say that therefore abolitionism, civil rights, etc., constitute an imposition of religion on others.

Imposing religion means the mandating of religious practice. It does not mean the mandating of social policy that some people may have come to support for religious reasons.

But a certain kind of conservative is not content to argue that a religious underpinning for a policy is not disqualifying. He insists that it is uniquely qualifying, indeed that it confers some special status.

Let us build on this argument for a moment. Whatever you may think of religion, the Judeo-Christian tradition has, for millenia, provided and continues to provide to those who believe in God a moral compass--an ethical foundation that is now rooted in a committment to a rational metaphysics and epistemology that states that reality exists and human beings are able to percive it.

The philosophical premises that deconstruct that tradition are only a few centuries old, but already they have managed to generate more human misery, suffering, and death from the various utopian ideologies which they unleashed than in all the centuries that preceeded. It can be argued and has been, that this catastrophe is a direct result of the "death of God" in human affairs.

You see, "good" communists, as Freddoso argues, not only don't believe in a god, they have also abandoned the rational metaphysics and epistemology that is required for an ethics that prioritizes human life as basis for what is good. In an existence where objective reality doesn't exist; and where the human mind is disconnected from it, anything goes. This is postmodernism at its finest and in its ultimate manifestation. And it is from the darkness of that manifestation that communism, socialism and fascism --and their 21st century iterations: radical Islam and radical environmentalism (see here for a more complete discussion of this)-- have erupted into history, all of them variations on the same totalitarian theme in the the postmodern philosophical songbook.

"Good" communists, socialists, and fascists thrive in an environment of oppression, death, and human misery. Indeed, that is the medium in which they grow best and consciously or unconsciously, they facilitate and nurture such a medium.

The radical Islamists, far from being an example of a "good" religion are the living, breathing examples of everything that "bad" religion could possibly be--in essence, they are an "anti-religion" religion in the same way that radical environmentalism has become the left's bad secular religion. The epidemic of "religiously" motivated murder has been taken to new extremes by the fanatics of Islam, who regularly make us aware of their lack of a good ethical Ideal (see "Union With An Evil God").

And, Mark Steyn ( "The earth is your fuhrer") demonstrates the logical extreme of today's enviromental-fascists, whose ethical "Ideal" is the indifferent physical planet whom they worship as Gaia/God in much the same way their primitive ancestors worshipped the sun or moon--they are even now planning the sacrifices necessary to placate the whim of those destructive gods:

Here's one for Jonah's Liberal Fascism files. Bigshot eco-panjandrum lays down the law:

Hillman, senior fellow emeritus at the Policy Studies Institute, says carbon rationing is the only way to ensure that the world avoids the worst effects of climate change. And he says that the problems caused by burning fossil fuels are so serious that governments might have to implement rationing against the will of the people.

"When the chips are down I think democracy is a less important goal than is the protection of the planet from the death of life, the end of life on it," he says. "This has got to be imposed on people whether they like it or not." (emphasis Steyn)

When religion is rooted in human freedom, as it is in the Judeo-Christian tradition, then it is able to enhance human life and give meaning and purpose to that life. When it is perverted and used for secular political ends--by either the political left or right who want to impose or mandate some social policy or another on others, then it inevitably leads to oppression and cheapens or devalues human life.

Even on his best day, a "good" communist, socialist, fascist etc. will never be any better than a really "bad" Christian.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 6:57 AM |

 
HILLARY'S NEXT MOVE ?
In light of Hillary's precipitous drop in the polls lately, it is clear that this drug is her only hope and needs to be disseminated immediately!


- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 3:27 PM |

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

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

**NOTE: I am now getting many more submissions than I can possibly include in the weekly Carnival. Please don't be offended if your submission is not used (oh, okay, be as offended as you like) as it only means that for a variety of reasons I wasn't able to fit it into the "flow" as I put together each Carnival.

***Submissions with a holiday theme may be saved for the Christmas/Holiday Carnival!**

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

1. A National Intelligence Estimate you won't see! Oh dear! Goodbye, cruel world.... Hoodwinked!

2. The mullahs are punked; Hamas is its usual paranoid psychotic self; and the CIC makes excuses for a murderer and blames the victim. All in a day's work for the religion of peace! But then they can always count on the Dhimmicrats.

3. Which reminds me...what's the big deal about this? We've already got lots of grown men and women who are unafraid of [Islamic] predators. This would be a much more practical mutation!

4. Conventionally ignorant? Poof! The vanishing war. Meanwhile, in Michigan they line up to take jobs in....Iraq.

5. The Pope lashes out at religious fundamentalists ! And there are some icy roadblocks that impede true belief.

6. Twas the week before Chanukah...and in Turtle Bay... they won't wipe Israel off the map, but these children may...

7. Ix-nay on the Ihad-Jay

8. Black like him?

9.Facebook? No. THIS is my preferred social network!

10. Immanuel Kant for President?. And running against Nietzche?

11. You call those insane taxes? These are insane taxes! Tax babies to save the planet.

12. Hugo turns back the clock on progress. Cuckoo! Cuckoo!

13. Victimhood poker world series! One of the many protected poor little contestants. But you can win the hand life deals you without having/being a straight! Vagino-Americans and Phallo-Americans...at least it's upfront.

14. A mild case of Ebola? It's like a mild case of envirofanaticism.

15. There's certainly no joy in Mudville....Maybe the solution is to force everyone to take steroids?

16. Saliva control is a must.

17. Sooner or later they're gonna get ya.

18. Blogs R Sisu!

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

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




- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 6:02 AM |

 
A CHRISTMAS STORY


[More Cartoons by Eric Allie ]



[More Cartoons by Michael Ramirez]

A word of warning to the Democrats: "You'll shoot your eye out, kid!"
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 7:34 AM |

 
WORKERS OF THE WORLD UNITE !
The dustbin of history eagerly awaits the apparatchiks from Hugo's little revolutionary Cuban-wannabe hell-hole:

A video of a Gucci- and Louis Vuitton-clad politician attacking capitalism then struggling to explain how his luxurious clothes square with his socialist beliefs has become an instant YouTube hit in Venezuela.

Venezuelan Interior Minister Pedro Carreno was momentarily at a loss for words when a journalist interrupted his speech and asked if it was not contradictory to criticize capitalism while wearing Gucci shoes and a tie made by Parisian luxury goods maker Louis Vuitton.

"I don't, uh ... I ... of course," stammered Carreno on Tuesday before regaining his composure. "It's not contradictory because I would like Venezuela to produce all this so I could buy stuff produced here instead of 95 percent of what we consume being imported."

Workers of the world, unite! Rise up! You have nothing to lose but those oppressive marxist thugs who promise you everything, but only manage to suck away all your liberty, your wealth, and your pride. Get rid of all the stupid and hypocritical oppressors who are working so hard to bring you poverty and misery even as they line their own pockets and live the high life.

Viva La Revolucion!
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 7:00 AM |

 
THE MYTHS THAT FUEL THE LEFT'S ONGOING DENIAL OF REALITY
The end of the year is upon us, and I think it is time once again to look at the "Top 10 Myths of the Iraq War" that were compiled by Strategy Page in January of this year. I've just listed them, so go to the link for a discussion of each myth:

1-No Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD).
2-The 2003 Invasion was Illegal.
3-Sanctions were working.
4-Overthrowing Saddam Only Helped Iran.
5-The Invasion Was a Failure.
6-The Invasion Helped Al Qaeda.
7-Iraq Is In A State of Civil War.
8-Iraqis Were Better Off Under Saddam.
9-The Iraq War Caused Islamic Terrorism to Increase in Europe.
10- The War in Iraq is Lost.

The fact that Iraq has sort of dropped off the radar of both the MSM and the Democrats should tell you how fast both are retreating from their original talking points. They know that promoting defeat at this point in time is a losing stance for them in 2008--except of course, for the lunatic fringe of their base. Meanwhile, Bush's poll numbers seem to be rising, much to Democrat's dismay...and their own Congressional approval rating hovers near record lows.

The Democrats and the left live (and die) by polls. Popularity means everything to them. Other people's opinions are the foundation of all their "principled" stands on issues--so watch for a significant shift in their principles in the days to come.

But let's not deceive ourselves. Such a shift would not indicate any real alteration of their unbelievable self-induced blindness and utter refusal to acknowledge the realities of Islamic fanaticism and the war on terror. To do that would require a fundamental re-assessment of their socialist/leftist/PC ideology itself.

Anna Freud once wrote that the ego of a child in denial "refuses to become aware of some disagreeable reality.... It turns its back on it, and in imagination reverses the unwelcome facts."

The essence of psychologica denial is a refusal to look at or acknowledge reality.

Fortunately, reality exists outside of one's head and is objective and verifiable. It is not altered by whim, desire, lies or myth. This is not to say that people might not believe ideas that do not conform to reality--in fact, they do so all the time. Just like Anna's description of the child's ego, the ego of an otherwise normal adult may also resort to childish, immature and primitive mechanisms when it feels threatened.

You would think it would be a simple matter to be "in touch" with reality. But it isn't. It requires a great deal of cognitive effort--i.e., thinking--and often that effort must assert itself over powerful emotions that draw the person away from the real world to a place more comfortable and unchallenging to their inner reality.

So, how does a rational person determine what is true and what is delusion? How do you decide if something is a myth or is real?

In the case of the Strategy Page list above, people of the left will assert that it is those of us who don't subscribe to those assertions who are in living in the land of psychological denial. As I already mentioned (and it can't be repeated too often these days) reality objectively exists outside of any one person's or group's beliefs.

Psychological denial and the avoidance of an unpleasant reality are certainly not confined to one side of the political spectrum or the other. But what I find endlessly fascinating is how the political left has created and fully integrated specific ideological tools that facilitate ongoing psychological denial.

It reminds me of all the paranoid patients I have observed over the years, who effortlessly are able to dismiss or explain away those facts that don't fit in with their carefully constructed conspiracy theories. If you get too assertive in pointing out those uncomfortable facts, you find yourself in no time fully integrated into the theory. For the paranoid, the case is closed and the argument is finished.

The political left has been utilizing the same psychological strategies inherent in the paranoid style since the end of the cold war and the 20th century. The rise of politically correct speech and the dogma of multiculturalism; the insistence on cultural diversity while enforcing a profound homogeneity of ideas and lack of intellectual diversity in academia; as well as the distortions and rationalizations that are currently the hallmark of intellectual debate within our institutions of higher learning and politics-- have all combined to dissuade those on the political left from pursuing a course of intellectual honesty and/or emotional insight.

This is what makes it so frustrating to debate or argue with today's typical postmodern leftist. Some are willing to engage in discussion, but you can always count on their complete dismissal of any fact that does not conform to their ideological perspective. No matter how many times you debunk their position (e.g., no matter how many times evidence of Saddam's WMD's are found and documented; that evidence has been either ignored or poo-pooed using a variety of rationalizations--and the goalposts are then changed to ensure the safety of the denial).

When it suits their purposes (i.e., when they are losing the argument), they will resort to the claim that reality and truth are merely subjective constructs anyway, and that any evidence you present is only someone's "opinion" and that their opinions are as good as anyone else's.

Such a position should logically disqualify their position to begin with, but of course, it doesn't.

Generally they use this as their argument of last resort--when they cannot bring any facts or logic to support their position. After a brief escape into the relativism noted above, they will then usually proceed directly to the usual ad hominem attacks. Q.E.D.

The essential problem of the left in acknowledging the truth about Saddam's WMD's or any of their other myths about the Iraq war, is that these myths have become inextricably entwined and inseparable from their most sacred ideological beliefs. These are the myths that are the cornerstone of their faith in the evil of George Bush, Republicans and, of course, America itself.

To acknowledge even the slightest possibility that these keystones of their religious political faith are warped would threaten their entire ideology--and thus, their image of themselves. They need to see themselves as caring and compassionate; always standing for peace and brotherhood--and oh, and by the way, you were aware that they are a reality-based community, weren't you? They need to make sure you understand that at the outset.

And how could you possibly forget for a moment that they are loving, caring, compassionate and committed to truth, social justice and reality? They remind you regularly that's what they heroicallys stand for and how they think of themselves. They obsessively and repeatedly make sure you understand how loving and good they--always in contrast to the members of the political right who are always described as "hate-filled" (the right "hate" blacks; "hate" hispanics, "hate" women, "hate" gays, "hate" the poor etc. etc.). Academics of the left are desperate to "prove" these assertions and give them a scientific seal of approval (see here, for a discussion about one example of this tendency).

By itself, this rather compulsive behavior on their part should give any thinking person pause, because it is not typically the behavior of a people who are entirely comfortable with who they are. Rather, from a psychological perspective, their behavior and the almost desperate need they exhibit to prove both you and to themselves that they ARE more caring, more sensitive, and more reality-based, suggests that they are trying to hide quite the opposite reality from themselves.

As I have written before, at the center of all psychological denial is a hidden agenda. That agenda is usually not completely conscious--meaning that the denier has not thought through the issues surrounding his denial; and may not even be aware of what his motivation is in asserting something is true when it isn't; or false when it isn't.

The hidden agenda or underlying motivation behind the denial is very frequently related to the potential adverse consequences that could ensue if the denial were eliminated and reality acknowledged. And this is where unnacceptable feelings, needs, and thoughts come in. The denier (or part of him) has made an unconscious decision that awareness of certain feelings, needs, or thoughts is more threatening to his sense of self than the act of denial.

Thus, any person genuinely trying to determine which side of an argument conforms to reality and truth, needs to assess the personal, i.e., the psychological, stakes or conflicts of interest (as those stakes are sometimes referred to) for both sides of the argument.

Of course, both sides in this argument have a conflicts of interest because this is politics and both sides want to win. So, it is entirely possible that both sides are deluding themselves and in denial.

In that case, a rational observer would either wash his hands of both sides; or, accept the reality that one side or the other is going to be in power and go with the side that is at least closest to reality.

When it comes to deciding between Democrats and Republicans; the political left or the neocons; I'm going to have to go with the only partially deluded Republicans and the neocons all the way.

They at least have not completely abandoned the real world for the bubble of self-delusion. They have not regularly retreated into moral relativism and the nihilism of postmodern rhetoric to justify their denial and delusion. They have not embraced national defeat and humiliation as a path to power and control over others. They do not constantly whine, scream, and behave like immature children when they don't get their way (at least not a a matter of course). They do not say one thing and then do another, at least not with the frequency and enthusiasm of the Democrats and the left. They at least put forth new ideas and plans to deal with the situation in Iraq and in the real world in general; the Democrats and the left apparently aren't capable of generating an idea or plan and simply want to retreat and capitulate. The Republicans and neocons have a demonstrated capacity to adapt to reality, and then to change tactics to produce a desired outcome (consider the "surge" in Iraq). The Democrats and the left use the same tired old tactics over and over and can't even acknowledge that things in Iraq have improved dramatically.

George Bush wants to see America win the war in Iraq; John Kerry can only heap scorn on America and Americans as he panders to the likes of Khatami and other despots. George Bush is trying to prevent America from being attacked again by Islamic terrorists as we were on 9/11; the Democrats and the left pretend that 9/11 never happened or that it was even historically important (just like Pearl Harbor was not historically important considering that fewer people died on December 7, 1941 than did on September 11, 2001); don't want to acknowledge that we are in a war at all; but yet fervently believe at the same time that we are to blame for bringing 9/11 on ourselves.

For more than 6 years now, America has had to listen to the Democrats' and the left's constant carping; we have had to withstand their contempt for American values and our military had to bear the brunt of their incoherent rage and careless enabling of the enemy we fight. We have listened to the endless repetition of their mantras and slogans; the unrivaled self-righteousness of their superior intellects; and seen firsthand the intensity of the hatred that motivates them.

In all that time there have been very very few able to summon up an iota of insight; or a moment of self-reflection about the consequences of their own rhetoric or behavior.

Don't dare question their patriotism, they scream. But look at their behavior. Listen to John Kerry , for example (he was, after all their last nominee for POTUS) and then tell me that his behavior is patriotic; that he is not just treasonous scum, out to advance the wonderfulness of John Kerry at the expense of his own country (I seem to recall he did exactly the same thing a number of years ago, too).

One of the most serious psychological challenges that any human being must face is to face reality, particularly when the consequences of confronting truth are personally unpleasant and very painful. That is exactly what psychological denial seeks to avoid doing.

For the Democrats and their increasingly histrionic leftist base, denial--not America-- has been their country of residence since September 11, 2001. Generally, it has been a safe and happy place for them to be; because as long as they can hate and vilify George Bush, Dick Cheney, Condi Rice and all those evil Republicans and Lieberman Democrats out there; and as long as they can pretend that the objects of their hate are the real cause of any problem; then they don't have to deal with the external reality of Islamofascist terror, or face the truth about their own unacknowledged and pathological internal reality. They can continue to cling to the holy, neo socialist faith, newly risen from the ashes of the 20th century; and delude themselves into thinking that they are wonderful, caring, loving and reality-based people.

Interestingly, Andrew Klavan in the LA Times touched on this as it relates to those brave and fearless Hollywood types:

I RECENTLY attended "FBI 101," a G-man seminar for Hollywood writers....
But if they're hoping that their seminar will win them props from filmmakers in general — a picture or two celebrating their courageous work in the war on terror — I suspect they are going to be disappointed. In the history of our time as told by the movies, the war on terror largely does not exist.

Which is passing strange, you know. Because the war on terror is the history of our time. The outcome of our battle against the demographic, political and military upsurge of a hateful theology and its oppressive political vision will determine the fate of freedom in this century.

Television — more populist, hungrier for content and less dependent on foreign audiences — reflects this fact with shows such as "24" and "The Unit." But at the movies, all we're getting is home-front angst and the occasional "Syriana," in which "moderate" Islam is thwarted by evil American interests. But the notion that this war is about our moral failings is comfort fantasy, pure and simple. It soothes us with the false idea that, if we but mend ourselves, the scary people will leave us alone.

The real world is both darker than that and lighted brighter in places by surprising fires of nobility. It's darker because our enemies were not created by the peccadilloes of free people and will not melt away before a moral perfection that we, in any case, can never achieve.

Klavan comments, "...we can't bring ourselves to fictionalize the larger idea: Islamo-fascism is an evil and American liberty a good." But somehow today's Democrats and the political left has no difficulty in fictionalizing the reverse.

Let's face it, the myths that fuel the left's denial are designed to make sure that they--not America--come out the winners; and that they never have to say they are sorry for enabling the enemies of America and for helping them to kill their fellow Americans.

When the time comes that they finally figure out that their present opportunistic position pandering to their lunatic base which denounces America and hopes for its defeat is not going to work to help them gain the power they seek, they will simply pretend they never said or believed such things and somehow distort their unbelievable narcissism and deliberate treason into unconditional virtues.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 7:44 AM |

 
SYMPATHY FOR THE DEVIL
Michael Ledeen at The Corner is starting to feel sorry for the poor schmucks who wrote the NIE:

This embarrassingly crafted bit of fluff has failed to pass muster in London, Paris, Berlin and Jerusalem, and in much of Washington and New York. Most of us thought this would put an end to any aggressive policy toward Tehran, but life is full of surprises and if anything the call for tougher sanctions is stronger today than it seemed last week.

He then gets to the heart of the issue for those who enthusiastically embraced the report and are determined to believe in the good intentions of Iran; i.e., compared to the evil, irrational and lying BushHitlerCheney entity, the Iranian Mullahs represent the essence of civilized, peaceful, and virtuous behavior.


The delusional abyss wherein this kind of leftist logic simmers and marinates is the part of the leftist mind that simply is unable to cope with a dangerous and frightening reality. In that dark void of the mind, BUSH=HITLER, BUSH IS WORSE THAN BIN LADEN; BUSH IS THE WORLD'S WORSE TERRORIST, AMERICA IS HUMANITY'S #1 ENEMY etc. etc. etc. because it is just too scary to contemplate the real danger that faces civilization. The logic that proceeds from the delusional premises, however, is impeccable: get rid of Bush/Cheney/America and the danger will vanish in a puff of magical smoke!

In psychiatry this phenomenon is called psychological displacement and you can read more about it here, here, and here.

Like deer paralyzed with fear in the headlights of an oncoming train, people exhibiting this particular form of psychological denial are immobilized and frozen, focusing on trivialities and blithely unconcerned about the lethal danger that is speeding toward them. But they feel completely safe --for the moment anyway.

This reality and the consequences that go along with ignoring it are, of course, why displacement is considered neurotic and not a particularly healthy--or smart-- way for adults to cope with the world.



UPDATE: Is W chuckling? I hope so.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 7:09 AM |

 
READ IT AND WEEP
This news must just drive the left crazy (or crazier, depending):

Recent polls placing President Bush’s approval numbers near 30 percent miss an important distinction: The policies and positions the president has advocated since 2001 have led to significant results in recent days. In short, the presidency of George W. Bush is surging, rather than waning, with little more than one year remaining in his term.

From domestic policies that have kept the economy strong, to the war on terror--President Bush is well on his way to leaving an overall successful legacy, much to the horror of his fanatical detractors.

I predict an epidemic of Post-Bush Stress Disorder (PBSD) breaking out sometime in the next 10 years when history looks back favorably on the Bush era. Lefties need to read the article and then allow themselves to weep so the healing can begin.

Then they can schedule an appointment with me to get some antipsychotic or antidepressant medication to help with their troublesome symptoms. Or, just intensive therapy to cope with reality!
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 6:50 AM |

 
NO SECRET STOCKPILES?
Personally, I think that Iran already has a nuke that they picked up on the open market. But hey, maybe they're just a bunch of shame-avoidant braggarts? Wouldn't it be really funny ** if we bet our lives and country's future on the latter, when the reality was the former scenario?



**life's a bitch and then you die...

UPDATE: From the testimony of David Wurmser, Ph.D. [Dick Cheney's former Middle East advisor] to the U.S. House of Representatives,Hearing before the Committee on Foreign Affairs: “After Annapolis: Next Steps in the Middle East Peace Process” 12/5/07:

As far as the region goes, now is the time to confront Iran decisively, not descend into sideshows. This might be able to be achieved without military force, but to ignore that option and take it off the table only emboldens the regime and makes it more likely that in the long run this will be resolved by war.

Iran is entering a particularly dangerous phase of its existence, one which will lead to even further war and escalation with us either through proxy or even directly. The longer we dally on side issues and fail to confront that regime, the more dangerous this problem becomes and the more Iran will transform this conflict into a civilizational struggle.

And as far as the Palestinian issue goes, before we plunge headlong into another process grounded on the same foundations as previously failed processes, we should step back and engage in a zero-based analysis of our real interests, of our experience and of our first principles. We now have 20, indeed 80 years of experience in peacemaking (if we include Britain’s pre-1948 attempts to reconcile its commitment to Zionism with its relations with the Arab world). And arguably, we have not advanced much toward peace – other than perhaps the most stable and brief period between 1982 and 1989, which was not an era of peacemaking.

- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 3:06 PM |

 
GUNS, IRAN, AND THE SANITY SQUAD
In a thoughtful post yesterday on gun control, ShrinkWrapped, the host of last night's Sanity Squad podcast wrote:
After 9/11 every man, woman, and child in America became a suspect. As one writer noted when discussing the TSA and airport security, the Israelis look for terrorists, we look for weapons. The vapidness of the process is revealed every time an elderly grandparent takes off his or her shoes.

Our approach to guns is to treat everyone as a murderer who must be kept from possessing a gun. This alleviates the responsibility for identifying actual murderers but is also leaves our population peculiarly vulnerable to the worst among us.

It is long past time when we began to educate ourselves that guns are not the problem, it is evil people with guns who most endanger us.

In the podcast, The Squad begins a discussion that analyzes the Colorado Springs shooting incident and the psychological implications of gun control; and then meanders quite logically to Iran and the way the political left have jumped on the NIE to limit the options that the US has to deal Iranian nuclear ambitions.

Join Siggy, ShrinkWrapped, Neo, and me for some psychological and political analysis of guns, Iran, utopian dreams and fantasies, human nature, and the reality of good and evil.

Click below to listen:

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

 
BANKRUPT PHILOSOPHY EXPOSED, BUT MALIGNANT LEADER SOLDIERS ON
The totally bankrupt ideology espoused by Hugo Chavez (and admired by his Hollywood fan club) was, sooner or later, bound to lose its ongoing struggle against the forces of reality. "21st Century Socialism" never had much of a chance of bringing anything but devastation to the Venezuelan populace, who were smart enough to realize what they'd gotten themselves into before it was too late. And, maybe they also provided a wake-up call to the rest of the region, hypnotized by the empty promises of totalitarian utopias and the malignant narcissists who advocate them. Specifically:

In defeat, Mr Chávez said that he would try again for the constitutional reform. But if he does, he will probably lose again. For something fundamental has changed in Venezuela....

The ramifications of Mr Chávez's defeat go far wider than Venezuela. He has always proclaimed the Bolivarian revolution to be continent-wide. Because it is such a personal project, its life is now finite: absent constitutional change, Mr Chávez must leave office by 2013. Economic pressures at home mean that his bounteous foreign aid—including cheap oil for Cuba—may be trimmed before then. That gives extra urgency to the efforts of Cuba's acting president, Raúl Castro, to launch economic reforms against the apparent opposition of his elder brother, Fidel. In Bolivia, Evo Morales, a socialist of Andean-Indian descent who is Mr Chávez's closest disciple, faces mounting opposition to his efforts to impose a new constitution that would cement his power. In Ecuador another self-proclaimed 21st-century socialist, Rafael Correa, is rapidly putting some distance between his ideas and Mr Chávez's.

Although in some ways they threaten democracy, the likes of Mr Chávez and Mr Morales may well have ended up broadening it, since they represent groups who have previously felt excluded. Their mistake lies in clinging to an old-fashioned socialism, involving the centralisation of political power and state control of the economy. Most Venezuelans—and most Latin Americans—clearly have no enthusiasm for this. It was not so much Mr Chávez who was defeated in the referendum, as his bankrupt philosophy. That is good news for Latin America, and especially for its poor.

Chavez can still do great harm since he will remain in power until 2013; and, with his sort of malignant personality, it is very likely he will. But it has become clear that his touted "21st Century Socialism" is just the same, tired, old 20th century Marxist bull, proven to be toxic to human society. It was already well on its way to poisoning all of Venezuela, and we can expect continued societal deterioration, increased poverty, and endless misery in that part of the world for a while. Whether this one democratic vote can really stop the sociopathic forces of socialist opporession remains to be seen.

The bankrupt philosophy has been exposed and defeated, but the malignant leader soldiers on and won't go down without a fight.

But he has been wounded, and because of that, there is some hope for Venezuela.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 11:08 AM |

 
FRANKLY STUPID
For those of you who are not aware of the CIC's (Canadian Islamic Congress) lawsuit against Mark Steyn, read here, here, here, here, and here. I first wrote about it here.

Since the attacks by CIC began, Steyn has had to deal with a bunch of moronic leftists who willingly aid and abet this travesty directed against free speech. The latest frankly stupid attack is summarized here:

Jim Henley has his say on my present legal woes:

The excerpt from Mark Steyn’s America Alone that ran in Maclean’s last year is far more blatantly racist than I figured it would be when I began reading it. I knew Steyn was a bigot, with a 1920s obsession with demographic decline. (Cf. Tom Buchanan in Gatsby, who can’t stop talking about Rise of the Colored Empires, “by this man Goddard.”) But I imagined Steyn was more adroit in his use of code words and deniability feints. No! “Just look at the development within Europe, where the number of Muslims is expanding like mosquitoes” is merely the most spectacular example of - not code words. I’m not completely shocked that Steyn would write with such frank bigotry, or that Regnery would publish it. I’m somewhat surprised that an establishment organ like Maclean’s would run it.

Nor am I surprised actual existing Muslim Canadians would take offense at the article. The article can’t touch me, an Anglo American, in the same way it can hit the emotions of a Canadian Muslim - it can’t feel as personal to me as it can to them... Mark Steyn is a racist douchebag in addition to being a ridiculous figure...

Etc. The words that so offend him are, indeed "frank bigotry". However, if you read my racist diatribe, you'll see the bigotry is not mine but Mullah Krekar's:

"We're the ones who will change you," the Norwegian imam Mullah Krekar told the Oslo newspaper Dagbladet in 2006. "Just look at the development within Europe, where the number of Muslims is expanding like mosquitoes. Every Western woman in the EU is producing an average of 1.4 children. Every Muslim woman in the same countries is producing 3.5 children." As he summed it up: "Our way of thinking will prove more powerful than yours."

Hello, Mr Henley? Anybody home in there? Those are quotation marks, because they're someone else's words - not the blatant racism of the racist douchebag Steyn but of a prominent Scandinavian imam. It's tempting to say to Jim Henley, "Douchebag, douche thyself", and leave it at that.

Henley, like so many other proponents of politically correct thought is so eager to suck up to his new masters that he apparently will look for any excuse to denounce people they don't like, like Steyn.

It is astonishing how oblivious the typical leftist is to the implications of his ideology--to the inevitable consequences of the political correctness and multicultural relativism he has enshrined and embraced; and how resilient and contemptuous he is to any rational critique.

This becomes understandable when you begin to realize how amazingly self-righteous and superior Henley and the high priests of PC consider themselves, as they "heroically" defend the downtrodden of the world. Insight, reason and truth--even reality-- simply pale next to the shining brightness of their loving souls. And what is mere human freedom compared to their feeling good about themselves?

Idiots.

What they defend and now stand for is nothing less than oppression and the destruction of liberty. We must congratulate them, however, on their faux saintliness. It goes well with the faux intellect.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 7:11 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.

***Submissions with a holiday theme may be saved for the Christmas/Holiday Carnival!**

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

1. Eternal archetypes of the soul!

2. More Mohammed mADness! Some advertising destined to endure! Rushing to be offended?

3. Heads will explode. Do they mean that Democrats can be perverts too? Double standard alert!Of course, he wasn't an "EX" aide until after the event.... very sophomoric.

4. Is it peace yet? Annapolis, The Musical Follies! He came for peace, he left with love... For some, did it seem like "old times"? Uh-oh...busted!

5. Putting a brave face on defeat...uhhh yeah. Actually, he got PWN3D.

6. Far out, man! Somehow this seems appropriate. Desperately seeking to prove that there's nothing good about the good news. Do you realize that the Iraq War is two times more popular than congress? Here's one of the big reasons why! Can you spell catastrophe?

7. Helen the Hutt? They just never, ever stop fucking with people, do they? Nothing is beneath her dignity.

8. But they support the troops (at least when pressured by outraged citizens).

9. Global Warming causes EVERYTHING! Who knew? And...it makes some people very very rich. If you want to save the planet, then stay together! Or, file papers with the EPA....

10. The American people probably do have more intelligence than the intelligence professionals, sadly. Amazingly, statistics never ever lie....

11. Smashing the sinister plots of the Imperialist bellicose forces ! Sounds a lot like their moonbat allies in the U.S. ! Eerie. But, a sentence with the words "Daily Kos" and "Insanity" seems redundant somehow. Discussing the fine points of killing people for religious reasons.

12. Turkish delight. You can count on feminists to give it a pass because it's too "tricky".

13. Secret agent gal. Only a true satirist or a complete idiot would go after a campaign opponent for his academic record...in kindergarden!

14. A tale of woe...bad judgment , and really really bad mothering. This isn't the way to be a good parent either. Push present...baby bauble? Give that woman a Tiffany necklace!

15. Texas stands alone!

16. Ms. Legal Person answers your holiday questions. He's dedicated to reuniting lost money with...someone, preferably himself.

17. As we ready ourselves for the holiday season.... food myths debunked.

18. Perhaps a bit unclear on the concept? Perhaps NASA should hire a Ptolemist, though...

19. Do you muse, ponder, reflect, or brood when you blog? I do it all!

***************************************
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 @ 8:07 AM |

 
ON THE SAND vs IN THE SAND
I'm on the Carolina coast and it's a lovely day at the beach...I'll be out on the water, boating and enjoying myself At some point, my head may on the sand enjoying the sun; but there are some people whose heads are psychologically in the sand...and that can have some dire consequences....


- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 8:45 AM |

 
"TRICKY" ? WESTERN FEMINISTS ARE TRULY PATHETIC

See here. I'm truly embarassed that they share the same gender with me.

For a full discussion of their intellectual and moral bankruptcy, you can check out this earlier post or this one.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 4:48 PM |

 
DIAGNOSIS & TREATMENT OF "TEDDY BEAR SYNDROME"
Teddy Bear Syndrome - the tendency of many Muslims to judge Westerners and those who do not adhere to Islam as "blasphemous" when they exercise freedom of speech, freedom of thought, freedom of choice, and freedom of religion; and to react in an intolerant, inappropriate and violent rage, demanding death or some other extreme punishment for the accused.

The etiology of this syndrome is related to a severe insecurity and inferiority complex; combined with the malignant narcissism of Islam as a religion and as a political ideology (primarily due to its failure to evolve from its medieval and primitive origins); all of which frequently results in the facilitation of the darkest and most barbaric aspects of human nature, rather than the most sublime.

The pathophysiology of the disorder is directly connected to a geological quirk of nature that has resulted in delusions of grandeur and relevance for the mostly primitive Arab tribes responsible for promulgating the religion. Mutations of the original disorder are equally lethal.

It is excacerbated by the concomitant pathology of Western multiculturalism and political correctness.

Victor Davis Hanson, who coined the term, makes some excellent points about it:

Watch out if Westerners somewhere are judged blasphemous to Islam when they draw a cartoon, write a novel, make a movie or discuss history.

In their furious reaction, thin-skinned Muslims may issue death threats. And they expect apologies. Sometimes the offense -- like the reporting of a Koran flushed down the toilet at Guantanamo Bay -- turns out to be false but still causes riots and murdering thousands of miles away.

Likewise, the reaction to this madness is now stereotyped. Often apologies -- not condemnation -- follow from contrite Westerners. To prevent a recurrence, Western writers, filmmakers, teachers and religious figures quietly edit their work and restrict their speech -- but only when Islam is involved.

So-called moderate Muslims, often residing in Western countries, will usually say they deplore such extremism on the part of radicals. Then they claim such intolerance is simply not typical of Islam. Or that the embarrassing story has been reported in exaggerated fashion by those prejudiced against Muslims.

Few, though, ever explain why it is that Muslims -- not Hindus, Christians, Buddhists or atheists -- are in the global news threatening to kill someone over a toy or a cartoon or an opera.

Finally, the uproar dies down -- only to break out again in a new place over a new grievance.

And the treatment for this pathological religious/political disorder?

What would stop this unhealthy teddy bear syndrome?

-- Weaning ourselves off imported oil and therefore the need to appease those who have it.

-- Politely informing Muslims that Westerners believe the norms of free speech and expression are to be uniformly applied. No one religion or region gets a special pass.

-- Supporting human rights abroad and offering some constitutional alternative in the Middle East to theocracy and dictatorship that both encourage Islamic radicalism.

-- And remaining militarily strong.

Remember that the fanatic waving his age-old sword in the Khartoum street over a teddy bear shows the same dangerous derangement as the nut in Tehran who may one day want his hand on the Bomb.

I think it is important to emphasize, that left untreated, Teddy Bear Syndrome only escalates and is extremely lethal and destructive to all human life. "Apologies" only excacerbate the symptomology and encourage the escalation of pathology.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 7:35 AM |

 
"MATURE" SOCIALISM AND SOCIETAL DECAY
If at first you don't succeed, try, try again. Especially if you are a defiant Hugo Chavez and determined to have your way. Venezuelans will get plenty of opportunities to vote for the "correct" outcome (i.e., if Chavez has anything to say about it. He'll just keep making them vote until they get it right left:

"Did I make a mistake in choosing the strategic moment to present [the proposal for sweeping Constitutional changes]?" Mr. Chávez asked on state television Monday. "It could be. We still aren't mature enough to adopt an openly socialist project."

But Chávez's acceptance of the results has strengthened his democratic credentials, and analysts say he'll use that to push his socialist "revolution" just as fervently as he has been.

"It is striking how quickly and shrewdly Chávez turned the defeat to his political advantage, claiming the high road and retaking the initiative," says Michael Shifter, the vice president for policy at the Inter-American Dialogue, a Washington think tank. "He remains determined and resolute in pursuing his revolution, but the vote means he will encounter growing resistance, not only at home but throughout the region. The loss reveals seeds of decay that are likely to intensify over the next year or so."

Maturity? Socialism indicates maturity? ROFLMAO! From a psychological perspective, promoting envy as the most elevated moral position is actually, rather...infantile, to say the least, and appeals to the worst aspects of human nature. If we learned anything at all from the lovely socialist "paradises" of the 20th century, it is that "mature" socialism is just another way describing societal decay and dissolution, a hell on earth--so much so, that people willingly will risk their lives to try to get out.

To show how "mature" he is, Chavez has already ushered in some typical progressive changes in the Venezuelan economy that have had the effect of flushing the economy down the toilet. But it is such a caring and compassionate toilet, and I'm sure many Venezuelans are more than happy to live with Chavez' shit.



(see more of Eric Allie's cartoons here)
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 5:46 PM |

 
MULTICULTURALISM CORROLARY?
If all cultures are equal, except for Western culture which is uniquely evil; then clearly all religions are equally fanatic and violent, except for Christianity which is exceptionally barbaric.

UPDATE: Wretchard has an important post up that you will have to read. Here's an excerpt:

The story is interesting because it advances two conjectures. First the native Western liberal intellectual elite is going betray every principle it espouses to a) bash America; b) keep itself "safe". As I have often said, the War on Terror has been a tragedy for the Left in a way that it has never been for conservatives. The second conjecture is that the real opposition to Islamic theocracy will come from Muslims, ex-Muslims and Christians from the Third World or Westerners who have somehow avoided drinking the fatal elixir of political correctness.

You'll have to read it to find out who is defending freedom. Hint: it s not the left. :)



[more cartoons by Eric Allie, here]

I am traveling today and won't be back to my computer until this evening. Consider this an open thread!
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 7:05 AM |

 
IMMODERATE AND IRRATIONAL: The Two Aspects of Iran
Terrence Jeffrey argues persuasively at Townhall.com that although the new NIE assumes that Iran behaves rationally, there are actually two players in the Iranian leadership that must be taken into consideration.

The first is President Ahmadinejad:

A Congressional Research Service report published in August referenced reports that contend "Ahmadinejad believes his mission is to prepare for the return of the 12th 'Hidden' Imam, whose return from occultation would, according to Twelver Shiite doctrine, be accompanied by the establishment of Islam as the global religion."

"I have a connection to God," Ahmadinejad said at a Tehran mosque last October. He added that President Bush "also receives inspiration -- but from Satan."

All this inevitably suggests a chain of thought: A leader who believes it is his job to usher in an Apocalyptic age, where Israel is destroyed and Islam becomes the global religion, cannot be deterred from constructing, or using, a nuclear weapon. Therefore, an Ahmadinejad-led Iran must be pre-empted from obtaining one.

This chain of thought draws us toward another pre-emptive Middle Eastern war and counsels that we risk all the horrendous unintended consequences that could flow from such a war.

But is Ahmadinejad really Iran's decider? If he had personally driven Iran's nuclear-weapons policy, the NIE released this week would make no sense.

It is clear from every piece of evidence at our disposal that Ahmadinejad is a fanatic's fanatic who will not deter his vision because of a few million piddly human deaths or worldwide destruction. He is completely irrational and would like nothing better than to usher in the apocalypse for his beloved 12th imam.

Then there are the Iranian mullahs who may be religious, but are not stupid. They use Ahmadinejad to jab at the West and draw blood, then pull him back. Their goal is power, and they realize that you can't have power if you are dead. Ahmadinejad may think he calls the shots, but the mullahs, however immoderate and provocative are the ones with real power.

The question is, how far will the mullahs let the madman go? Would they let him "wipe Israel off the map", if they thought the world, i.e., the U.S., would do nothing? I think they would, simply because if they could get away with it, then it would completely consolidate their power as the real "leaders" of Islam--the ones who elimated the hated Jewish State, the poisonous thorn in the side of the Islamic world.

As Jeffrey states:

The intelligence community assumes a certain long-term stability among Iran's real deciders. "This Estimate does assume that the strategic goals and basic structure of Iran's senior leadership and government will remain similar to those that have endured since the death of Ayatollah Khomeini in 1989," says the NIE.

President Bush seems to agree. "The NIE talks about how a carrot-and-stick approach can work," said Bush at his Tuesday press conference. "And it was working until Ahmadinejad came in. And our hope is that the Iranians will get diplomacy back on track."

Bush's bet is simply this: The ayatollahs may be immoderate, but they are not irrational.

It is too bad that the release of the NIE at this point in time, and the subsequent irrational braying by the leftist pundits and politicians now gives the immoderate mullahs reason to believe that they would have a green light to do whatever they want; and if Bush tried to stop them it would only unleash the usual leftist hysteria that is always directed at the U.S. and not at the malignant behavior of the followers of Islam.

Ahhhh. Displacement is such a useful psychological process to cultivate in one's enemy....immoderate they may be, but the mullahs are also very clever, and will most certainly use the left's hysteria to advance their own dreams of power.

UPDATE: And, speaking of psychological displacement, Bush bashing is so much fun!
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 10:55 AM |

 
CHECK OUT THE LATEST SANITY SQUAD PODCAST
The always controversial Sanity Squad has a new podcast up at BlogTalkRadio. The fab four discuss the recent votes in Russia and Venezuela. We offer up some pretty interesting thoughts and ideas on Vladimir Putin, Hugo Chavez and what distinguishes those strongmen and their respective nations.

Siggy notes:
Democracy is a curious animal. Recent votes in Venezuela and Russia proved just that.

In Russia, a strong man leader was elected because he campaigned as a reform minded democrat who was determined to bolster the economy. Vladimir Putin’s only election challenge came from former Communists.

In Venezuela, a strong man leader was rebuffed because he was determined to deprive people of their democratic rights and to establish a socialist regime- with himself at the helm, of course.

One leader is reasserting his nation’s power. The other leader is a buffoon, a laughingstock who embarrassed his nation and democratic principles.

Join Siggy, ShrinkWrapped, Neo, and me for some psychological and political analysis of Hugo's and Vladimir's recent encounters with democracy.

Click on the link below to listen:

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

 
YIKES !
This is what we've come to expect of reporters for the NYT.

I concur with Noah Pollack. Yikes.

Let's take a look at what this Hedges guy has to say in the article Pollack refers to. It's actually quite stunning:

Let us hope sanity prevails. But sanity is a rare commodity in a White House that has twisted Trotsky's concept of permanent revolution into a policy of permanent war with nefarious aims--to intimidate and destroy all those classified as foreign opponents, to create permanent instability and fear and to strip citizens of their constitutional rights.

A war with Iran is doomed. It will be no more successful than the Israeli airstrikes on Lebanon in 2006, which failed to break Hezbollah and united most Lebanese behind that militant group.

I think he's particularly clever by using the allusion to Trotsky, of all people in his exaggeratedly emotional rant. I also think its clever to try to portray Iran as an opponent, instead of an enemy; and attribute to the U.S. the fact that this region of the world in unstable. Not to mention the thousands of US citizens who have apparently been "stripped" of their constituional rights.

After all that, we come to the money quote: A war with Iran is doomed.

Geez. I guess the sane thing to do is to surrender to the mullahs before we engage them at all; which sounds like something Jimmy Carter would say.

This is what Hedges, a New York Times reporter for 15 years, and its Middle East bureau chief in the 1990's thinks.

So, it is fortunate for the US that Iran isn't really planning to make a nuclear bomb, isn't it? Of course, that optimism assumes they don't already have one, courtesy of regimes like the communist paradise of North Korea.... It could just another great intelligence scam, as suggested by Michael Ledeen; or, Norman Podhoretz entertains a darker suspicion:

...that the intelligence community, which has for some years now been leaking material calculated to undermine George W. Bush, is doing it again. This time the purpose is to head off the possibility that the President may order air strikes on the Iranian nuclear installations. As the intelligence community must know, if he were to do so, it would be as a last resort, only after it had become undeniable that neither negotiations nor sanctions could prevent Iran from getting the bomb, and only after being convinced that it was very close to succeeding. How better, then, to stop Bush in his tracks than by telling him and the world that such pressures have already been effective and that keeping them up could well bring about “a halt to Iran’s entire nuclear weapons program”—especially if the negotiations and sanctions were combined with a goodly dose of appeasement or, in the NIE’s own euphemistic formulation, “with opportunities for Iran to achieve its security, prestige, and goals for regional influence in other ways.”

Accusations of paranoia, warmongering and waging a "war on knowledge" (somebody needs to explain to the nincompoops on that side of the political spectrum that "intelligence" of the sort we are talking about has less to do with actual knowledge than it has to do with "connecting the dots" in the dark, and blindfolded...which is exactly what they claimed we didn't do prior to 9/11--but, hey, consistency isn't one of their strong points). This isn't college, dudes.

Why, one wonders, does the NIE only have credibility when it supports the ostrich-like agenda of the political left, where psychological denial is so very comforting?

I expect I will still be alive--though perhaps not for long-- when the west finally gets objective, incontrovertable data on Iran's nuclear intentions. Even now, I suspect the left is preparing the necessary talking points and apologetic rhetoric for that fateful day--in the same way they continue to defend Saddam Hussein who developed and used WMD's against his own people without much thought or conscience and most certainly had ongoing plans for their use against other enemies of his regime.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 3:02 PM |

 
A FUNDAMENTAL TRUTH ABOUT MIDDLE EAST 'PEACE' TALKS

- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 7:33 AM |

 
BEHEAD THE ENEMIES OF STEYN ! NO JOKE INTENDED
Good point:

Sometimes you can be too inclusive:

Kes Gray, a former advertising executive, first decided on his gesture of cross-cultural solidarity after meeting Muslims in Egypt.

The character, Mohammed the Mole, appeared in Who’s Poorly Too, an illustrated children’s book, which also included Dipak Dalmatian and Pedro Penguin, in an effort to be “inclusive”.

This weekend Gray said he had decided to postpone a reprint and rename the character Morgan the Mole...

Incidentally, some readers have been kind enough to inquire about how I intend to respond to the "human rights" complaint against me by the Canadian Islamic Congress. In an ecumenical spirit, I thought I might send a machete-wielding mob round to chant "Behead the enemies of Steyn!"

Such is the nature of the assymetrical war we wage on terrorists. An entire nation can clamor, screech and wildly scream for the death of a woman who dares--dares!--to name a Teddy Bear Mohammed and civilized society shakes its head in bemusement and horror and then makes jokes about it. Generally humor is a very good and healthy thing; as well as an excellent and mature way of coping.

But you probably shouldn't joke around too much when someone with a scimitar is actively trying to hack off your head. It's ok to cope with the horrible waste of it all when you defend yourself and do unto him etc., with whatever black humor is necessary to get you through the experience.

If you think the Islamic reactions to benign incidents seem to be escalating and become more and more absurd, you are correct. The reason for this is a psychological one and it is quite simple, really. If you want to get people to behave responsibly you must first have an expectation that they will; you cannot be opposed to murder and then let them get away with it.

The first moment when the west failed to stand up to the insanity being promulgated by the adherents of Islam and instead appeased it, was when all of western civilization extended a carte blanche to the barbarians to do whatever they wanted, fully aware that they would be able to away with it.

The first time Muslims who practice the "real" Islam (at least they keep telling us it exists) failed to confront the fantatics in their midst, and instead let them take over the indoctrination and politization of their children, was when so-called "tolerant" Islam was thrown out with the dirty bathwater.

Shiraz Maher writes:

I spent 14 years in the Middle East, so I’m quite accustomed to Arab culture and its easily offended sensibilities. But the decision to arrest and jail the English school teacher Gillian Gibbons is so far removed from even the remotest sense of logic, I wondered if the date on my Arabic calendar was April 1.

Sadly, this was no joke. The truth is, as we’re beginning to realise, we’re locked into a battle for hearts and minds at the core of which lies a battle for the essence of Islam itself. And we can’t expect anyone to fight this on our behalf.

A few weeks ago Rod Liddle participated in a debate about whether Islam is good for London. His message, in a nutshell: I don’t have a problem with Muslims, I have a problem with Islam. I don’t share his views, though many do – and I can see how they’ve got there.

We’re at the point where the naming of a cuddly toy by children has become a international incident with the Foreign Office summoning foreign emissaries to Whitehall....

“I consider myself to be tolerant of all faiths, but reading of this situation, my tolerance of Islam is sorely tested,” said one primary school teacher.

And it’s hard to blame her. In recent years any perceived insult to Islam has resulted in mass global protest, the ransacking of embassies, burning of effigies, boycotts and deaths. Muslim groups have been at pains to explain that events in Sudan are “not Islamic”, and will, no doubt, later complain that the media “demonised” Muslims.

A report by the Muslim Council of Britain, paid for by London’s mayor, into media attitudes towards Islam alleges this happens in 90% of news reports “in a typical week”.

I agree that Gibbons’s fate has more to do with realpolitik than religion, but why do we expect people automatically to appreciate the difference between Islam and Islamism?

...For almost two decades we’ve allowed the message of political Islam to breed unchallenged within the British Muslim community, preaching separation and confrontation. The blame for that must rest solely with Muslims and, as a former member of the intemperate Hizb ut-Tahrir, I’m willing to accept more than my share.

Our indifference has allowed Islamism to become the dominant political discourse among young British Muslims.

And when people associate Islam with the kind of barbarism we see around the world, it's not because Muslims have stayed quiet for too long – but because we’ve failed to challenge and defeat the ideology which promotes it.

Is it any wonder that the Islam and Islamism increasingly seem to be synonymous? If anything, they are converging to a point of indistinguishability at a fast clip.

That there are decent, moral and civilized Muslims goes without question but they have been silenced by fear. Siggy, in a post titled, "Why I Hate Islam" talked about a friend:

My friend believes in God, without equivocation, and my friend is outraged at the yoke that must be borne by true Muslim believers because of the disintegration of Islam. The shame of many- but not all, who go to mosques to pray, cannot be measured. My friend describes an unwritten code and language decent Muslims share, so that they might find each other. They are too frightened to speak freely and they are too frightened to stand up to the bullies that have taken over the mosques and Islamic schools.

What ShrinkWrapped has to say is relevant here:

The important point from my work is that rage avoided is rage that can only grow; rage that is confronted and dealt with can be understood, channeled, and contained.

We do neither the Muslim world nor the West any favors by behaving as if their rage is so terrifying that we must avoid it at all costs. If we do not vocally address and confront the rage and its derivatives, we will one day, once again be forced to confront its violent fruition.

Read all of Maher's piece and the other links, of course; and consider: when an entire nation is willing to resort to the kind of barbarism we in the west have allowed to go on in the killing fields of Sudan--doing nothing; when the kind of insanity we in the west have repeatedly appeased in Gaza and the West Bank is facilitated and encouraged by useless "peace" conference after "peace" conference--then little matters like cartoons, Teddy bears, and free speech itself, are obvioulsy small potatoes.

Wretchard has this to say in a post about the "kinder, gentler sharia" that is evolving in Nigeria, which he calls "The Ecology of Tolerance":

The transformation of hard-line Islamic regimes into softer ones in places as diverse as Anbar province and Nigeria suggests that if the world wants to see a more "moderate" Islam, it is far more effective to support those who take a principled stand against it's excesses than to pander to it's most extremist elements. Ironically, the West's disgusting groveling during the Danish cartoon riots and on many subsequent occasions may have done nothing to attract the "moderates" in Islam. Those moderates would have been far better empowered if Western leaders had told the radical theocrats to shove their demands, lashes, cutting knives and fatwas where the sun don't shine.

As I wrote in a previous post, the strategy of these 21st century barbarians is to use the tolerance and goodwill of the west for the very purpose of destroying civilization and implementing intolerance and ill will (i.e., sharia) in its place.

So, I say without any humor intended, behead the enemies of Steyn. Wipe them off the map of civilization; and stop agonizing over hurting their feelings or doing something they won't like us for.

They already don't like us. And they like us less each time we show them our weaknesses.

Death or submission is what they have in store for us; They been saying it clearly and unambiguously for several decades now.

They don't need to think we're wonderful. When they respect us and understand that we mean what we say when we say, "Enough!", they may actually learn that tolerance is in their best interest.

It is not in our best interest to hear no evil, see no evil and speak no evil.


- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 6:32 AM |

 
TROUBLE POSTING
The Carnival is shorter than usual because my ISP has been down. We're in the middle of a winter storm here. So I apologize if some of the late entries into the COTI were not included!
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 7:15 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. Countdown to tyranny. Today's the day they walk the psycho-path. A conspiracy to make him paranoid, indeed!

2. The religion of tolerance...and peace, of course. A slur? What about the power of a name brand ! Foxes and chickens.

3. Give that woman a raise! Journalism 101.

4. I believe this is true like I believe that Democrats are smarter! Birds Got to Fly, Fish Got to Swim...and Bill Clinton's got to lie. Thin gruel.

5. Two hours of humiliation. More plants. How does your garden grow.... Just ordinary people. Where the next debate should be hosted.

6. Still premature even at that age? It was 60 years ago today.... There's got to be a morning after....

7. Just blame it on the Americans. 8. The most famous person in the world?

8. Love...and tedium. My family needs me!

9. I have not yet begun to give up! It was completely misunderstood Oh, dear...he's made surrender more difficult !

10. ....War movies defeated. Defining away victory. Panties are the key to peace? Give up and we'll consider it a deal!

11. Things that cause cancer. Have a nice life.

12. The quest for robotic monkey parity.....Got gas?

13. Costco for the gourmand??

14. Back in paris....La marche de l'empereur !

***************************************
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 @ 7:01 AM |

 
WHO KNOWS WHICH WAY THE WIND BLOWS ?
Victor Davis Hanson has it exactly right:

Since bad news alone is news from Iraq, there is now very little about the war on our front pages or the evening network lead-ins.

But as House Majority Whip James Clyburn (D., S.C.) presciently warned last July, such good news could present a “problem” for antiwar Democrats. And now it has.

They invested in the failure of the surge, having successfully tapped into widespread public unhappiness over the absence of prior clear-cut victory. Some change in their position is now on the horizon and it won’t be the first time Democrats have had to adjust en masse....

As always happens in war, the pulse of the battlefield had changed again. By September 2007 things suddenly had become as good as they had suddenly gone bad in early 2006 with the destruction of the mosque in Samara. Yet, if the public — once angry over the bad news from Iraq — had forgiven the Democrats their initial flip-flops and forgotten those 2002 war speeches, they may well not be so kind this third time around. Voters will blame those who don’t bring them victory, but they will not support those who will defeat....

When the perception of Iraq changed unexpectedly from an unpopular quagmire to a brilliant recovery, replete with real heroes, the Democrats, like deer in the headlights, were caught frozen. After all, who wants to see next October attack-ad clips of an Iraqi politician praising the United States, or a quiet walk through smiling crowds in Ramadi juxtaposed with Senators declaring our defeat and slurring the savior of Iraq?

So what to do?

At first, silence followed for much of the autumn. No more pronouncements of defeat from Harry Reid; no more ads alleging treason; no more John Murthas thundering about war criminals in our ranks; no more orations from Sen. Durbin about our troops being Nazi-like; no more quips from Sen. Kennedy that we were the new Baathists at Abu Ghraib.

But where does all this leave us since one cannot remain entirely mum about one of the most transformative events in recent American history? If Iraq stays quiet, then the Democrats will have to make yet a third adjustment, either suggesting that a victory is still not worth the cost in blood and treasure (e.g., ‘how many children went uninsured while we wasted a trillion dollars?’), or that they are due credit for the turn-around (e.g., ‘our pressure got the necessary changes from the administration’). Ignoring or denying the good news is simply not a sustainable strategy.

It gets worse, since the Democrats are not quite sure of the permanence of the upswing from Iraq. Why make that third flip just yet, and give up a Watergate or Iran-Contra-like gift, especially when a sudden spike in violence might start the entire ying and yang all over again?

The Democrats are in a very real bind--one that they never in their wildest imaginings would come about. They have heavily invested in failure in Iraq and catered to the anti-American and lunatic fringes of the left while doing so. Suddenly, things don't look so good, i.e., they don't look bad anymore in Iraq. Even John Murtha has reluctantly admitted that "the surge is working"--though he had to quickly backtrack when fellow-Dems became hysterical at this rare moment of clarity on his part.

But such is the political oportunism of today's Democratic leadership. They believe in nothing (except power for its own sake); they stand for nothing; and having decided to live by the polls and, as Hanson points out, "mortgage lasting principle to transient popularity, then you become enslaved by them as well."

Look for them to do a triple backflip Kerry maneuver: They were for the war, then against it, and soon will be for it yet again. The intellectual and moral featherweights of the Democratic Party always seem to know which way the wind blows....

ADDENDUM (not entirely unrelated):
Oh, and while we're on the subject of hell freezing over (i.e., Murtha saying the surge is working); perhaps a snowball does have a window of opportunity in hell? (other cartoons by David Horsey here)




Well, maybe not:



(other cartoons by Eric Allie here)
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 7:31 AM |