GIVE ME A 'MAN OUT OF TIME" ANY DAY
Reading this made me realize why I liked Fred Thompson as a Presidential candidate so much. All this hype we're hearing from both the Democrat and Republican candidates about how they are the "CANDIDATE OF CHANGE", is hilarious. They don't represent change at all. For all of them, even the saintly Obama, it is politics as usual.

When journalists and candidates, with their typically childlike enthusiasm, suddenly began gumming the word "change" after the Iowa caucuses, Thompson pointed out the obvious: "Change has been part of every election since the dawn of elections, if you weren't an incumbent." He noted how easy it was "to demagogue" the issue of federal spending by dwelling on relatively insignificant earmarks: "All these programs that we talk about in the news every day are a thimbleful in the ocean compared to the entitlement tsunami that's coming to hit us."

Views like these might have earned another candidate a reputation for "straight talk"--maybe even the title of "maverick." But Thompson was more subversive than that; he was an existential maverick, and his campaign was an implicit rebuke to the system in its entirety. He was a man out of his time. With its reduced metabolism and procedural modesty, his campaign still might have served as an illustration of what politics once was like and--if we have the audacity to hope--might be again.

You should read the whole thing to understand the kind of man Thompson is; the kind of man we don't have time for these days. It seems the American public can only respond to the phonies--both the obvious ones and the carefully crafted ones. We don't care. As long as they say everything we want to hear and suck up to us in the most ostentatious manner possible.

Consider this anecdote about FDT:

Fundraising events scheduled to last two or three hours often guttered out when the candidate departed after twenty minutes. High-end donors complained of being uncourted, unpampered, unloved--even unphoned. At one party in a private home last year, Thompson made the rounds of money-shakers, delivered brief remarks, and then slipped into a bedroom to watch a basketball game on TV by himself.

So that's what it's come to. We want to be 'courted', 'pampered' and 'loved' by the candidates. It's all about them convincing us that it's all about us.

Narcissists in Love. Not a smidgen of reality exists between the two lovers; only dreams, fantasies, ego-gratification and mutual pleasuring.

That's why our idealized relationships with politicians (I wish there was a way I could denote spitting out the word) never last. Neither are real in their expectations of each other and when the truth finally hits the fan....

I hate to be the one to break it to you, but normal people; psychologically healthy people aren't consumed by the need to have power over others; or the need to have everyone love them all the time. Normal people are often fairly boring, sometimes (gasp!) ordinary people who do what needs to be done without the whining, and even without all the perks and kudos. That's why I can really relate to Greenspan's proposed constitutional amendment: "Anyone willing to do what is required to become president of the United States is thereby barred from taking that office."

Please come back, Fred! I'll take a 'man out of this time' any day over the bunch of hypocritical and specious blowhards--male and female--we've got to choose from now.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 3:47 PM |

 
HOW SMART ARE THE DEMOCRATS ? NOT VERY
I have a really busy morning so no blogging until later.

In the meantime consider this cartoon from Chuck Asay, which summarizes the intellectual and moral bankruptcy of the Democrat party position--and all their Presidential candidates-- on some of the most significant issues of our time:



But gee, they mean well...just because their self-righteous and emotional posturing always seems to result in exactly the opposite outcome from what they say they intended--i.e., enabling our enemies, increasing our energy dependence, maintaining the poor and sick as perpetual victims of the evil capitalists--doesn't mean they aren't really swell guys and gals. Or, does it?

Either most of today's Democrats are incredibly stupid and genuinely clueless; or, they are malevolent beyond measure in their heart of hearts. Maybe both.

Feel free to debate these and any other hypotheses in the comments.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 6:51 AM |

 
THE PERVERTED LOGIC OF THE MULTICULTURALISTS
There is a really excellent article at Pajamas Media discussing the rise in Gay bashing in Europe, "First They Came for the Gays":

Not very long ago, Oslo was an icy Shangri-la of Scandinavian self-discipline, governability, and respect for the law. But in recent years, there have been grim changes, including a rise in gay-bashings. The summer of 2006 saw an unprecedented wave of them. The culprits, very disproportionately, are young Muslim men.

It’s not just Oslo, of course. The problem afflicts most of Western Europe....

The reason for the rise in gay bashings in Europe is clear – and it’s the same reason for the rise in rape. As the number of Muslims in Europe grows, and as the proportion of those Muslims who were born and bred in Europe also grows, many Muslim men are more inclined to see Europe as a part of the umma (or Muslim world), to believe that they have the right and duty to enforce sharia law in the cities where they live, and to recognize that any aggression on their part will likely go unpunished. Such men need not be actively religious in order to feel that they have carte blanche to assault openly gay men and non-submissive women, whose freedom to live their lives as they wish is among the most conspicuous symbols of the West’s defiance of holy law.

Multiculturalists can’t face all this. So it is that even when there are brutal gay-bashings, few journalists write about them; of those who do, few mention that the perpetrators are Muslims; and those who do mention it take the line that these perpetrators are lashing out in desperate response to their own oppression.

Very telling from my perspective is the discussion in the article about a "study" commissioned by the mayor of Amsterdam mayor:

Its purpose? To try to figure out what motives underlie the increase in attacks on gay men and lesbians by Dutch-Moroccan men in Amsterdam. “Some researchers,” wrote a reporter for UPI, “believe they [Muslim gay-bashers] lashed out at local gays after feeling stigmatized by Dutch society.” In other words, as the straight-talking Norwegian immigration expert Inger-Lise Lien put it sardonically when I showed her the article, “it’s the assailant who’s the real victim.”

I have already noted the "Battle of the Victim Groups" that is taking place in the Democratic Party between the two representatives from sanctioned and approved 'victim groups' of the political left--Blacks and Women. The stakes are high--because whoever "wins" can claim the coveted victimhood gold medal.

Of course, it goes without saying that their eternal victimhood would not end with winning, because the left requires even the winning group to remain steadfastly victimized no matter what--it's all about power. But, even so--or perhaps because of that-- the battle is fierce and very emotional. Succumbing to hysterical stereotype, the feminists have lashed out at the latest "betrayal".

Too bad the feminists have been in so much denial about the socialist "victimhood food chain". If they had been alert--if they knew their place, they might have noticed that there is a very specific heirarchy of victimhood, and that women have a lower "marxist oppression ratio" than blacks.

What does all this have to do with Muslims beating up gays in Europe? The same thing it has to do with Muslims raping uncovered women in Europe. Not only are gays lower on the scale than women; but, with the ascent of multicultural political correctness dogma on the left, Muslims have ascended to the highest level of the food chain.

In other words, because of multiculturalism, which trumps racism, sexism and homophobia, Muslims actually have carte blanche. to victimize the other groups with impunity. The political left will turn a blind eye to such matters and rationalize such behavior as simply a symptom of their extreme victimhood. And, by logical extension, an barbaric act against of NON-approved groups (i.e. white heterosexual males, Jews, Christians, Neocons/Republicans etc. etc. otherwise assumed to be 'the oppressor') is actively encouraged and sanctioned.

All this is part and parcel of the perverted logic multiculturalism, which itself is a symptom of the intellectual and moral bankruptcy of leftist ideology. Not only can't multiculturalists face this salient truth, but everyone on the left is in denial about it.

When today's feminists can work themselves up into an aboslute hysterical rage toward Ted Kennedy for his endorsement of Obama and refer to it as the "ultimate betrayal", then they have little room in their tiny little hearts and minds for women brutalized and 'gangraped' under Islam--let alone for the plight of gays.

Thus the left, having abandoned the moral and intellectual tools necessary to stand against even the worse atrocities of those they deem 'oppressed', will firmly close their eyes, refuse to take any responsibility, and continue down the [psycho]path of denial with their idealized terrorist chums.

Read the entire article at Pajamas.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 6:59 AM |

 
THE CONCLUSION WE DARE NOT FACE
Wretchard notices that:

There seems to be a bipartisan political consensus not to examine the subject of political Islam publicly. It is the most verboten of foreign policy subjects. But like other "open secrets", its exclusion from formal discussion doesn't banish it from public consciousness. It merely pushes it underground, like Barack Obama's middle name.

The key problem with subjecting the question of political Islam to debate is that every other conclusion except that of regarding it as a "religion of peace" implies consequences no one dares face. Concluding that Islam is a 'religion of war' would precipitate a revolution in diplomacy, energy policy and military strategy. It's a bottle of nitro nobody wants to shake; it's a can of worms nobody wants to open: not a Republican administration and most especially not a Democratic one.

Explosive questions such as this are as likely to be resolved by events as by debate. To a very great extent the West is genuinely hoping that Islam is a "religion of peace"; and I suspect many Muslims are too. Unfolding events will resolve the issue -- and perceptions -- one way or the other. Ten years from today we'll have a better understanding of the truth.

Wretchard refers to himself as an "agnostic" on the subject, willing to let events unfold so that the truth (as it usually does) will out. [Read it all].

Some time back, The Adventures of Chester took a long hard look at this very issue--which is really the key strategic issue of our times, if you will. Chester phrased it thusly: Is Islam compatible with a free society?

To say yes to our question, one assumes that there are aspects of being Muslim and faithful to Islam, that can coexist peacefully with liberty, tolerance, and equality. The strategy that follows is one of identifying the groups and sects within Islam that adhere to these notions of their religion, and then encouraging them, favoring them, propagating them, and splitting them off from the elements of Islamic practice that are all too incompatible with the portions of modernity that invigorate men's souls: free inquiry, free association, free commerce, free worship, or even the freedom to be left alone.

To answer no, one states that Islam itself is fundamentally irreconcilable with freedom. This leads to a wholly different set of tactical moves to isolate free societies from Islam. They might include:

-detention of Muslims, or an abrogation of certain of their rights;

-forced deportation of Muslims from free societies;

-rather than transformative invasions, punitive expeditions and punitive strikes;

-extreme racial profiling;

-limits on the practice and study of Islam in its entirety

And even some extreme measures if free societies find the above moves to be failing:
-forced conversion from Islam, or renunciation;

-colonization;

-extermination of Muslims wherever they are found.

These last are especially ghastly measures. But a society that thought Islam incompatible with freedom might in the long term slip towards them.

Chester points out that President Bush has been acting on the basis of a YES answer to the question and our entire strategy in the Middle East is contingent upon it. What is most astonishing about the essay is that the author unflichingly looks at the logical consequences that are inherent in answering NO to the question-- and finds them pretty frightening for any civilized person or nation.

It is no wonder that the "bipartisan political consensus" chooses to flinch for the time being. I wouldn't be surprised to discover that it is part of the unconscious appeal of a candidate like Barack Hussein Obama who--whether he likes it or not-- appeals on many levels to the hope that we can all get along.

Bush has consistently formulated our strategy in Iraq, Afghanistan and the larger war on terror based on YES. This is why he has been very circumspect in what he says about Islam and how he characterizes the war. This is why he never even mentioned the word "Islam" in his SOTU address and why he does things like dancing with the Saudis that enrage both conservative and leftist. His entire Presidency has aimed at preventing a "tipping point" beyond which people no longer believe that a moderate, reasonable Islam is possible.

It is maddening to those who believe that there is probably no such animal.

Post 9/11, the first hint of that was the insane reaction of the Muslim world to a bunch of inoffensive Danish cartoons. Repeatedly, the larger Muslim world--in Palestine, in Lebanon, in Iraq, in Iran, in Indonesia-- crosses that threshold where reasonable people can separate Islam from its growing number of fanatics; and many in the free world are finally digging a line in the sand, jutting out their chins, and more or less defiantly daring Muslims to cross it. This explains the inexplicably moderate response of the White House to many of Islamisms greatest obscenities in the last seven years. . Bush stubbornly believes that he must negotiate a path that will still answer YES to the strategic question.

I don't think Muslims around the world will like what they discover about the West if they decide to cross that threshold. They will not be safe behind the PC rhetoric and blustery resort to cries of "victimization" that have protected the extremists thus far in acting out their fantasies of worldwide domination.


It may eventually be the case that the West becomes convinced that Islam is unable to change and is completely incompatible with freedom. We are well on our way to that eventuality, sadly. Time and again there have been opportunities for the moderates in the religion to pull it back from its suicidal historical course.

Personally, I am not convinced that Islam can change, but I hope it can, given time.

Time is not on Islam's side, however. Leaders like the Mullahs and Ahmadinejad in Iran and Hamas in Gaza, Hezbollah in Lebanon; and the remnants of Al Qaeda and the Taliban all seem to desire catastrophic confrontation. They foolishly believe that the West will back down--if not because of a belief in the superiority of Islam; then from doubts about the superiority of Western values and from a reluctance to act decisively and ruthlessly.

The psychopathic elements in Islam believe this is our fundamental weakness; but they are wrong. This is actually our fundamental strength. President Bush has bet that Islam can be changed if it is infused with some democratic opportunities and freed from some of the political and religious tyranny that has dominated the Middle East. If such a democratizing process had been started--and carried through-- a decade or two earlier, well who knows how much the situation might have changed by now?

And, contrary to the infantile imaginings of the antiwar and so-called "peace" movements, Bush's strategy actually represents the BEST POSSIBLE HOPE FOR PEACE.

It is a strategy that faces the grim reality of Islamic contradictions and historical brutality; yet has enough optimism and goodwill in it to be genuinely worth the price we are paying. If it works, millions of deaths might be prevented. And if the peace crowd really cares about peace, then they would do well to reconsider their own antics.

Because, if the left succeeds in its determination to undermine American policy as it is now formulated; or if the extremists succeed in eliminating any voices for moderation and tolerance; then there will be only one strategic option open.

As events in the middle east unfold; as we witness the desperate suicide bombers and mindless hate that daily disrupts any kind of a normal life for Iraqis in Baghdad; as we witness the Frankenstein-like rise of the fanatical and murdering Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan--it is hard not to conclude that the answer to the strategic question is NO.

Islam itself seems more and more incompatible with Western values; even antithetical to them. But still, we could live with that if they were not hell-bent on converting us to their medieval religion or alternatively, killing all infidels who refuse their path. The Mullahs and Imans; the fanatics and barbarians; the petty despots and tyrannical kings of Islam around the world-- are all united in their evil vision for all of mankind--and no olive branch; no amount of appeasement; and no appeal to reason and good will seems capable of bringing them into the fold of humankind.
Andy McCarthy voiced many people's frustration when he wrote:

We've been told for some time now — against common sense and the weight of our own national experience — that the way to defeat international jihadism is to spread democracy.

So now the Lebanese democracy can't control Hezbollah (which has been freely elected and controls about a fifth of its legislature), while the Palestinian Authority IS Hamas (the Palestinian people having democratically put them in power).

How much do we figure that Israel is hoping democracy breaks out in Egypt, with the Muslim Brotherhood and Islamic Jihad waiting in the wings? All it needs right about now is yet another democratic neighbor.

Democracy has many enduring benefits, but it doesn't stop terrorists from operating — and in many ways, it makes life easier for them. When are we going to stop talking about it as a national security cure-all?

We have to kill al Qaeda, Hezbollah, Hamas and the rest. This is harder work than the administration's rhetoric is preparing the nation for. We are not going to democratize these savages into submission.

America continues to find homegrown terrorists on our own free soil. Some of these pathetic people have had the benefits of freedom and choice for their entire lives--but the poison of Islam is strong, and they are determined--along with their Islamic brothers--to destroy any free country that stands in the way of their vision.

They hate America because, where there is freedom, their oppressive beliefs can never be more than in the minority. When people are free to choose, and not killed for apostasy for not choosing Islam, they will be unable to force their beliefs on others. Until Islam itself comes to terms with that reality, it will only be just another thuggish totalitarian ideology. Just as socialism and communism were the 20th century's worse nightmare, so Islam is set to become the 21st century's.

After two world wars, humanity had pretty much rid itself of the bane of socialism and its more immature sibling communism. Only to see it rise up again, hanging on the coattails of Islam.

I hope I am wrong about all this, because many lives are in the balance. I am open to a debate about these issues. But, every day that passes seems to give more and more credibility to the NO answer.

Even the dhimmist bulb in the EU; the most deliberately and consciously delusional member of the international peace crowd cannot fail to see the lack of good will; the perverse determination to provoke war; and the genocidal glint in the eyes of Islam's brightest stars.

It is possible that the introduction of the seeds of democracy and freedom will make a difference in the years to come. There are some hopeful signs--in Iraq and Afghanistan, for example. Like Wretchard, I will wait and see.

Will it be enough? I don't know yet. But I will give President Bush full credit if it works out; and a great deal of credit even if it doesn't. Because his audacious vision was and is still the only one that may bring the hope of freedom and the promise of prosperity to a dysfunctional, barbaric and backward part of the world.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 10:09 AM |

 
THE SANITY SQUAD OBAMA-RAMA
Last night The Sanity Squad hosted an Obama-rama on BlogTalkRadio. Who is this guy that is being compared to JFK? Why are so many jumping on his bandwagon and accepting him as their personal savior. Saint Obama has already replaced Saint Bill in the pantheon of holy leftist icons...can the White House be far behind?

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:



- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 9:04 AM |

 
SANITY SQUAD LIVE TONIGHT AT 8 PM Eastern
Tonight's topics will be an Obama-fest as The Squad shine a psychological spotlight on the Obama-phenomena! Who is this guy, anyway? And why are so many jumping on his bandwagon and accepting him as their personal savior -- even the notorious Kennedy clan!

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 @ 2:57 PM |

 
THE IRANIAN MANHATTAN PROJECT PROCEDES ONWARD
Here is an interesting news item regarding Israel's analysis of Iran's nuclear capability:

Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak said, in an interview published Saturday, that Iran is "quite advanced" in its work on atomic weapons and may already be fashioning a nuclear warhead.

"We suspect they are probably already working on warheads for ground-to-ground missiles," Barak said in an interview with The Washington Post and Newsweek magazine.

He also suggested that Iranians "probably ... have another clandestine enrichment operation beyond the one in Natanz."

The remarks were in stark contrast the conclusion of a US National Intelligence Estimate released late last year that said Tehran had abandoned its quest for nuclear weapons as far back as 2003.

Barak sharply disagreed with this assessment.

"Our interpretation is that clearly the Iranians are aiming at nuclear capability," he said. "It's probably true that ... they may have slowed down the weapons group in 2003, because it was the height of American militarism."

But he said Israel now believed that Iranians "are quite advanced, much beyond the level of the Manhattan Project."

Call it the Tehran Project, if you will. And, doesn't this suggest that the Iranians have got all their religious ducks in a row to actually use nuclear weapons they already possess or anticipate possessing? NIE to the contrary.

That psychological interpretation dovetails with the arrogant, smirking demeanor that always accompanys the calculated baiting of the West by Ahmadinejad, the Iranian Psychopath-in-chief. Whether it is making suggestive remarks about the state of Israel and its future; or sending speedboats to harass American ships in the strait of Hormuz, Ahmadinejad always tries to appear to be a beacon of reason and nuanced diplomacy.

He reminds me a lot of many of the paranoid patients I have dealt with over the years.

All the behavior and rhetoric of the past year strongly suggest that the Iranians already have a nuclear weapons capability, or soon will; and that they certainly intend to use it at a moment of their own choosing.

Of course, they would want that moment to be a grand, heroic, Islamic gesture. They would need such a gesture to maximize their sense of Arab honor while simultaneously shaming their hated enemy, the Jews. They would need for the gesture to come at exactly at the moment when they can most appear to be the enlightened purveyors of "peace" and "brotherhood".

The hapless intellectual leaders of the West will continue to bend over backwards and even engage in desperate contortions to appease and mollify the sociopathic bullies of Islam; but that will only escalate their violent behavior and give them the rationale they need to press on, more self-righteously convinced that they are superior. This is the completely predictable psychological response to appeasement, solicitation, and compassionate understanding. It's simple really. Bullies will always push the envelope of bad behavior when they think they can get away with it.

And they are getting away with it, aren't they? Just check out the sense of relief and jubilation with which the recent NIE was received by almost everyone. Whew! We don't have to worry about Iran any more! Isn't that great?

But this is simply the transient sense of safety and security that psychological denial can bring. No rational person wants to believe that Iran could be so crazy and suicidal that they would really try to "wipe Israel off the map." The NIE was tremendously reassuring because it suggested that the religious fanatics of Iran are really motivated by rational considerations, just like us!

Well, yes. To a point. They clearly don't want something to happen that would interrupt or put a premature end to achieving their ultimate goal. And logically, rationally, they will do whatever they need to make sure of that.

Don't forget that reason and logic can--and frequently are--used to promote the most illogical, irrational and insane of objectives. In the end, reason and logic are only intellectual tools and their usefulness depends entirely on the reality and truth of the premises for which they are being used. If the premises or objectives for which they are being used are bogus; or if they are not what you think they are; or the opposite of what your own would be under the circumstances; then it hardly matters that the Mullahs and Ahmadinejad give the appearance of being reasonable fellows negotiating rationally with the West.

I can easily imagine Ahmadinejad rubbing his hands together like The Simpson's Mr. Burns, cackling, "Exxxxcellent!" as they promise one thing even as they do the opposite--which logically and rationally proves to them the superiority of Islam and the inevitability of Allah's will.

It's no use saying that by pursuing the development of a nuclear warhead they would use against Israel doesn't make any sense and would be completely irrational, not to mention downright suicidal.

They have repeatedly stated they think it would be worth the human price.

Just think of Ahmadinejad as the ultimate, high-tech suicide bomber who has wrapped that nuclear bomb belt securely around his entire country.

I have said before that I hope I am wrong in this assessment, but all my psychiatric instincts continue to tell me that this is a situation where we are facing imminent suicidal and homicidal behavior. And, the lives of millions are in the balance....



- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 6:50 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. Ch-ch-ch-ch-changes... It's a planetary emergency!

2. Oh, the moral equivalence! Their evil is larger than life! Clearly, the Palestinians are horribly oppressed. The question is, by whom? A list of 'approved' Gaza solutions.

3. Oh dear...worse than Gitmo?? The tragedy of a non-Muslim West?

4. Hugo the Benevolent. Hugo the bank robber.Hugo the food thief. Hugo the coke-head. What a guy! Things are going well in Venezuela, I see.

5. Multimillion $$$ Bush Bash. They should use some of that money for their own desperately needed psychotherapy. Don't let a little thing like bias confuse you to the 'higher' truth that Bush lied, people died.

6. First they came for Sambo, then they came for Piglet....next they'll come for these

7. ....which only goes to show--is it the diversity training that's ineffective? Or, is the need to force diversity down everyone's throat that's a wee bit insane? What a strange place we've come to.

8. Halal toast? The Top Nine new names of "Islamic Terrorist"--sure not to offend! Delicious pork-centric recipes...put that in your mouth and stuff it.

9. He had a dream. But, We're having a primary nightmare.

10. Going down with the [swift]boat...again.

11. Mutant super cockroaches from space! Hello, Darth Kitty! Killer dolphins? Alien monsters from the ID!

12. Is our children learning math ok? I'm inclined to agree with the School Adminsitrator's wife on this one.

13. Rejects in the kid publishing world...for now.

14. Are different textbooks for different sexes an example of Female Mental Mutilation? Just another form of female 'circumcision', I guess, to preserve their chastity and make sure they don't get too uppity. Remember, all cultures (except the West) are simply wonderful!

15. You've come a long way, baby. Hmmm. Sorta suggests a primal urge toward being dominated, doesn't it? Or, congenital insanity.

16. They're becoming more human every day!

17. PUT THIS ON IMMEDIATELY ! Socialized medicine at its absolute finest.


***************************************
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 @ 8:25 AM |

 
IRREVOCABLE TURNING POINTS
Jonathan Chait wonders if the political right has been right all along on...the Clintons:

Something strange happened the other day. All these different people -- friends, co-workers, relatives, people on a liberal e-mail list I read -- kept saying the same thing: They've suddenly developed a disdain for Bill and Hillary Clinton. Maybe this is just a coincidence, but I think we've reached an irrevocable turning point in liberal opinion of the Clintons.

The sentiment seems to be concentrated among Barack Obama supporters. Going into the campaign, most of us liked Hillary Clinton just fine, but the fact that tens of millions of Americans are seized with irrational loathing for her suggested that she might not be a good Democratic nominee. But now that loathing seems a lot less irrational. We're not frothing Clinton haters like ... well, name pretty much any conservative. We just really wish they'd go away.

Yes, well. It's simply amazing what a little insight can do for one's perspective. Chait and others don't like it when their own rhetorical style is turned back against them. They don't like it when the causes they have championed for two decades suddenly seem corrupt and rather empty.

They don't like it when they are forced to open their eyes and see reality.

As for me, I had one of those "irrevocable turning points" toward the entire neo-marxist ideology that has overcome the Democratic party, making it the one of the last surviving remnants of the cold war. It was during the Vietnam war that I first became painfully aware of the fact that the political left was both morally and intellectually bankrupt.

It would be really nice, now that their eyes are wide open on the Clintons--who once could do no wrong--that the Democrats take a good look around and see the devastation their leftist religion has wrought.

Take a long, hard look at your other Presidential candidates, please. It is impossible not to notice that, with few exceptions, pretty much everyone in power on the Democratic side of the aisle has sold their soul to what was once the lunatic fringe of your party, and is now the mainstream. You are now the multiculti PC Dhimmicrats; the party of perpetual victimhood; the racist and sexist party that long ago traded away its principles for power; i.e., you are the party of nothing.

Before you endow Obama with sainthood (the same way you did Bill) why not look at the mindless--and ultimately destructive--socialist drivel he is spouting. Before you are overcome by Edwards' perfect exterior beauty, listen to what he is actually saying and believes about this country.

Here's hoping for a few more 'irrevocable turning points' --turning points that only occur when people have the courage to carry out some honest and painful introspection into their own motivations and behaviors. Only then will you come to appreciate the envy; the sense of entitlement; and the plentiful narcissism that has always been there, ready, willing, and eager to be pandered to by the likes of the Clintons.

When all is said and done, St. Obama and the Pretty Boy do it ever so much better than Bill and Hill ever did, don't they?

UPDATE: Sullivan has a partial insight about the moral bankruptcy of today's feminists, which I have written about repeatedly (see here and here for example). I wonder why he is so shocked. It's only going to get worse until you scrap the whole victimhood/identity politics scam. I mean, how dare anyone (particularly a gay white male) criticize the girlie girls? Doesn't he know his place on the victimhood heirarchy? Next they will undoubtedly weep, or possibly swoon, at the horrible meanness of it all.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 9:45 AM |

 
THE LEAGUE OF BILLIONAIRE SOCIALIST LEADERS
Otherwise to be known as the League of Looters. Then there's the socialist looter-wannabes and looter-liteweights (the rest of the Democratic Party candidates).


- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 1:12 PM |

 
THE NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD
Excellent analysis at The Belmont Club about how the discredited ideas of socialism, communism, and marxism--instead of being defeated in the Cold War--have managed to ride the democratic process into power in a growing number of locales :

If Zimbabwe used the vote to reverse the domination of the whites by the blacks, in Latin America switch involved the rich and the poor. But one of the unfortunate legacies of the Cold War has been to resurrect in third world countries many of the Marxist nostrums that have been laughed into the grave in Eastern Europe, Russia or China. Five year plans may be largely dead in those countries, but they still roam like zombies in parts of Asia, Africa and Latin America. The archetype of this phenomenon is Zimbabwe. Majority rule brought Robert Mugabe, who in turn brought his vision of '30s socialism to power. Then the Night of the Living Dead began: those long buried policies roamed the earth again bringing starvation, misery and impoverishment in their wake.

The process of "Zimzombification" is now overtaking Venezuela. The Chavez government is now seizing food in order to stem shortages. "Venezuela's top food company has accused troops of illegally seizing more than 500 tonnes of food from its trucks as part of President Hugo Chavez's campaign to stem shortages. The leftist Chavez this week created a state food distributor and loosened some price controls, seeking to end months of shortages for staples like milk and eggs that have caused long lines and upset his supporters in the OPEC nation."

As anyone with the slightest knowledge of economics knows -- excepting Marxists, who by definition already know everything about economics -- Chavez's policies will guarantee even greater shortages, spur the growth of blackmarkets, recreate the breadlines, drive producers into idleness, and in general follow along the well-trodden path of Robert Mugabe.

The political consequence of this "Zimzombification" may be to create such desperation that the starving populations will turn once again to the old elitist juntas of the past, hoping that subsistence in subservience is better than starvation while in political power. The danger is that democracy will be discredited along with the Mugabes and Chavezes of this world. Thus the essential crisis confronting third world democracies is whether it can resolve the ideological debates of the Cold War, especially with respect to economic policy, within the framework of the electoral process.

Read it all.

A good question is WHY do such crackpot ideas and thuggish dictators like Chavez and Mugabe who use them to manipulate large populations, stimulate the imagination of any human being anywhere anymore? WHY is it that the world is regaled on a regular basis to these boring sequels to the political equivalent of "The Night of the Living Dead"; and WHY do people seem all too eager to turn themselves into the mindless zombie hordes that support such regimes?

Lee Harris once noted in a TCS article titled "Why Isn't Socialism Dead?":

It may well be that socialism isn't dead because socialism cannot die. As Sorel argued, the revolutionary myth may, like religion, continue to thrive in "the profounder regions of our mental life," in those realms unreachable by mere reason and argument, where even a hundred proofs of failure are insufficient to wean us from those primordial illusions that we so badly wish to be true. Who doesn't want to see the wicked and the arrogant put in their place? Who among the downtrodden and the dispossessed can fail to be stirred by the promise of a world in which all men are equal, and each has what he needs?

Here we have the problem facing those who, like Hernando de Soto, believe that capitalism is the only rational alternative left after the disastrous collapse of so many socialist experiments. Yes, capitalism is the only rational method of proceeding; but is the mere appeal to reason sufficient to make the mass of men and women, especially among the poor and the rejected, shut their ears to those who promise them the socialist apocalypse, especially when the men who are making these promises possess charisma and glamour, and are willing to stand up, in revolutionary defiance, to their oppressors?

The shrewd and realistic Florentine statesman and thinker, Guicciardini, once advised: "Never fight against religion...this concept has too much empire over the minds of men." And to the extent that socialism is a religion, then those who wish to fight it with mere reason and argument may well be in for a losing battle. Furthermore, as populism spreads, it is inevitable that the myth of socialism will gain in strength among the people who have the least cause to be happy with their place in the capitalist world-order, and who will naturally be overjoyed to put their faith in those who promise them a quick fix to their poverty and an end to their suffering.

It is discouraging to see the insanity continue through the efforts of the neo-marxist totalitarians like Hugo Chavez, Evo Morales, Robert Mugabe et al, rising on a tide of populist socialist-bullshit, even as Castro's failed paradise--which once was the last stronghold of these discredited ideas in the hemisphere-- waits expectantly for its dear leader's impending demise.

These newest embryonic nations of "misery and bloodshed" have only a limited time until they too, reach their anti-human potential. The question is WHY are we seeing this happening all over again, in another hemisphere; in another century?

To understand why this is happening, why socialism continues to live; and why we just can't kill this beast, we must return to the fundamentals of human nature.

In re-reading Harris' excellent analysis, it occurs to me that if socialism cannot die because its mythology is seared into the psyche of the individual; captialism, the bane of socialism (just as socialism is the bane of capitalism), also cannot perish for precisely the same reason--each one is the political expressions of one of the two fundamental developmental lines of the human psyche.
In an earlier series of posts on Narcissism (PART I , PART II , and PART III ) I argued, using primarily Heinz Kohut's concepts of the Self, that the development of a healthy, integrated, mature Self required the integration of two separate developmental lines.



At some point, the Self and the Other--once "perfectly" merged--are now two distinct objects. This important process of separation-individuation is facilitated by the normal shortcomings(i.e. imperfections) in maternal care, which spur the child's development as an individual. For example: baby demands food, but mother is unavailable right now and doesn’t feed baby until her schedule permits (but doesn’t let him starve either!). Such natural and normal imperfections of empathy with the child are actually healthy. I won’t go into a full discussion of this, but suffice it to say that the Other must not be too perfect, nor too imperfect, as either extreme carried on for too long will interfere with the developing Self of the child.

It is because of the slow separation of Self from Other--Child from Parent-- that the two developmental lines come into being. The first line Kohut refers to as the “Grandiose Self”(or idealized self image) and the second is referred to as the “Idealized Parent Image”. Both of these images represent psychological attempts to save the original experience of "perfection" by the infant when the Mother (Other) and the infant (Self) were “one”.

The “grandiose self” will develop over time (if not disrupted) into healthy Self-Esteem; and the” idealized other” (or idealized parent image) will eventually lead to the development of ideals that give meaning to the individual’s life; to empathy and healthy interpersonal relationships.

I also argued in that series that from these two emerging parts of the narcissistic self comes the predeliction for one type of social/political/economic system or another; and that, without the full integration of the two poles of narcissism into a fully cohesive self in the members of various groups, we see the excesses of both narcissistic rage and awe acted out on a grand political scale, sometimes alternating between the two sides of the dialectic.


The grandiose self prefers to live in those systems that maximize individual liberty and self expression i.e., "life, liberty, and the pursuit happiness." On it's extreme side (without any integration of the idealized self into its functioning) , it can lead to excessive ambition, narcissistic grandiosity, indifference to others, and what is commonly referred to as "narcissistic rage" when it is thwarted in its pursuit of satisfaction.

The idealized object/self, on the other hand, prefers the authoritarian society because it recaptures the primitive--and seemingly perfect-- union the infant once had with mother. Those social/political/economic systems that promise such a union (i.e., most religions, socialism, communism and all their totalitarian variants) are the systems that feel right.

In a narcissistically impaired society, groups can easily alternate between the two poles, just as individuals do.

On the idealized object's extreme side are the intense utopian urges that distinguish any cult; the submersion of individual identity and selfhood into the collective; and what I have referred to as the "narcissistic awe" one experiences in contemplating the pursuit of union, or utopia.

On their own, without the attenuating influence of the other side of the developmental line, either side is a distortion of human nature. Each side sees the other as the extreme expression of the opposite pole of the self, thus leading to the polarizing stereotypes with which political left and right attack each other.


The extreme left (idealized other) sees all members of the right as sociopaths out to get whatever they can from the world at the expense of others, while ignoring that side of themselves and glorifying the likes of a Hugo Chavez because he espoouses their utopian fantasies. OTOH, extreme right (grandiose self) sees all members of the left as the collective mob whose goal is to erase individuality and freedom, while ignoring the human need to believe in something outside themselves. But the truth is that at the exreme left AND the extreme right there is a striking convergence of grandiosity and totalitarianism.

The grandiose self, left to its own devices with minimal interference from or integration with its counterpart, the idealized object, becomes the prototype of the tyrant--cold, ruthless, and without pity for others. He goes his way wreaking havoc in the world, supressing other individuals to his will and disposing of them without a thought. When thwarted his narcissistic rage and aggression are sights to behold.

With parents and a society both encouraging individuality and social responsibility simultaneously in human development; extreme individuals of this type are generally recognized as sociopaths and held to account for their antisocial and destructive behavior in society at large.

The idealized object side of the self, left to its own devices with minimal interference from or integration with its own grandiose self, becomes the human fodder that acts out the will of the tyrant. Their overwheming desire for union with the perfect god, the perfect mother--i.e, the perfect "other"-- will inevitably lead them to revere the onminpotent grandiose self of others. They see only the "goodness" and perfection of the other; and they actively and single-mindedly pursue "union" with that other; often desiring to drag others with them toward that utopian ideal.

Parents and societies that deliberately try to suppress all individualistic tendencies (as is seen in most totalitarian societies) will encourage the development of a psyche that is ripe for takeover by a strong, grandiose dictator-thug.

It is important to note that the extreme, or "pure", state of either of these developmental lines does not exist in a real, living human being. We can discuss them in this sort of abstract manner; and tease out the implications of one side's development or the other; but both sides exist to some degree in every single human because every single human originates from the same biological starting point and grows within a mother's womb; and is initially helpless and completely dependent on that mother for its existence. (And, no. I am not going to go into some of the exceptions to this at this time--even though they pose some extremely interesting questions from a psychological development standpoint)

Rather, these two processes can be thought of as flip sides of the same coin. Extremes of one side or the other occur because of breakdowns in empathy between the child and the parent or the larger environment. If these breakdowns are not resolved by adulthood, then the adult will continue to act them out, and they will flip back and forth between the two poles of the dialectic.

On the one hand, when the will of the grandiose self is thwarted, the individual will experience narcissistic rage and act out various types of aggression. When the union with the "perfect" object is not perfect (since it never will be), they experience even greater narcissistic idealism/awe and redouble their efforts to submit to the will of Big Br(other). Often they simply alternately cycle between the two extremes.

Harris discusses the myths of socialism and bemoans the fact that capitalism has no myths to compete with the romance of the former. But both of these political ideals are played out on the ultimate battleground within the developing psyche.

The "revolutionary" myth of the idealized other side of the self involves submission of the individual to the collective, and may be stated as follows:

One day, I (we) will be reunited with, and submit to, the will of the perfect other; and when that happens, utopia will be achieved and I (we) will be whole.

The counterpart myth of the grandiose self involves aggression and may be stated as follows:

One day, I will achieve total power and dominance over the imperfect other; and when that happens, I will be whole.

Both myths originate from the primitive narcissism of the infant whose needs are too imperfectly met by the parents (and secondarily by the society those parents live in).

But both political myths are delusional; in that they attempt to compensate for defects in narcissistic development by going to one extreme or the other; and hence do not recognize that human nature requires both poles of the dialectic for optimal psychological health.

If you are with me so far, then the next thought in this logical sequence is apparant. For the purposes of this essay, I will refer to these two aspects or poles of Narcissisism as the Narcissistic Dialectic.

Somehow, a healthy individual must find a way to integrate these two opposing parts of the self into their psyche. In other words, they must achieve a true, dialectical synthesis.

In the Narcissism series referred to earlier I wrote:

We have seen that the development of a Cohesive Self is dependent on two separate, equal and parallel developmental lines that arise originally from the biological and psychological fusion of the Infant and Mother early in life. If each of these lines are not interrupted in their normal evolution the Infant will eventually become an Adult with both narcissistic poles adequately developed and be able to function in the world in a healthy way—both in his attitude toward his own physical and psychic self; and in his attitude toward other human beings.

In some ways, the rise of human civilization from the cave to the present day has resulted because of attempts through the Rule of Law and social controls to set limits on the unrestrained Grandiose Self. This is primarily due to the destructiveness of the Narcissistic Rage generally associated with that part of the Self.

Because of this, the Grandiose Self has received a bad reputation philosophically, morally, and politically. The natural development of Governments and Religions (which ultimately are an expression of the Idealized Parent Image/Omnipotent Other side of the Self)have all too often attempted to ruthlessly suppress the Grandiose Self--much to the detriment of the individual AND the success of the particular society or religion.

In fact, despite the obvious truth that governments, nations, and religions are in a much better position to wreak far more systemized misery and death on human populations, it is almost always the Grandiose Self that gets the blame. As Wretchard at The Belmont Club pointed out in a recent post, a review of the 20th century, for example, shows that all the "people's revolutions" supported by the Left and purportedly for the purpose of "freeing" large populations of people; resulted instead in enslaving them and increasing authoritarian rule.

I discuss all this further, as well as some of the important implications for both individuals and society at large, in a post "The Narcissistic Synthesis"

All over the world, on a daily basis we see the horrible and tragic consequences that occur when either of the dual aspects of human narcissism are given complete control over human destiny. Individuals and groups; religions and nations act out their narcissistic rage at various insults--real and imagined-- and people suffer and die for the purposes of the grandiosity of the tyrant, or the glory of the religion.

When not pursuing the objects of their narcissistic rage; the same rage-filled and aggressive individuals and groups easily submit to the will of Allah, God, the religion, the government, the collective, or the despot of the day, as they are filled with the desire for a reunification of the perfect other.

It has been said that the 20th century was the “century of the narcissist”, but the 21st is well on its way to outdoing the horrors of the past, as a seemingly never-ending epidemic of malignant narcissistic rage and idealism--both caused by a defect in narcissism and both in turn combining to crush the human spirit--all for the purpose of serving the self-aggrandizing vision of the few.

It was a big mistake to think that when the West was victorious in the cold war; and when all the defects and deadly outcomes of socialism and communism were exposed, that it was the end of the matter. Like a zombie brought to pseudo-life by some mysterious cosmic process, eating the flesh of the living, socialism never was completely dead. In the same way, no matter how many tomes are written to discredit religion or a belief in God, it will not make the fundamental psychological need of homo sapiens to yearn for the perfect "other."

But without the mitigating influence of the grandiose self, these utopian fantasies have a way of devolving into scenes from "The Night of the Living Dead."

The task of the Free World in the 21st century is not only to "resolve the ideological debates of the Cold War", it is undo the narcissistic psychopathology that continues to strangled human potential and freedom all over the planet.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 8:38 AM |

 
VICTIMHOOD 101: A SHORT COURSE ON HOW TO OBTAIN AND NURTURE IT IN TODAY'S WORLD
DEDICATION
The world's most celebrated victims have once again scored a PR coup and managed to get the major news services pimping for them. Of course, the UN Commission on Human Rights (otherwise known as the UN Israeli CRimes Against Palestinians --UNICRAP-- Committee ) has already sprung into action. One can only sit back in admiration and awe at the skill and talent--not to mention energy and resources it takes to pull off a victimhood scam of this magnatude!

Here are a people and a culture who have managed to remain pathetic refugees for literally decades as they bask in the warm glow and regard of their fellow Muslims, who would literally do anything for them--except grant them citizenship in their countries; or allow them to build the infrastructure for a functioning society (that would mean they'd have to leave those charming, sewage backed up refugee camps). No, as long as the Palestinians can promote their victimhood and oppression at the hands of the evil Jews, the Muslims in the Middle East will never have to enter the 20th century, let alone the 21st; and their medieval culture can remain untainted and forever backwards.

So, for all their continued efforts on behalf of promoting the benefits of eternal victimhood, I dedicate this brief course to the Palestinians; their loving brother Muslims; and all their helpful, enabling "friends"!


Chapter I: THE ADVANTAGES OF VICTIMHOOD
This brief guide is for those searching for an expedited pathway into the exalted status of Victimhood. Becoming a victim --as we all have learned from famous TV stars, prominent politicians; religions, races, and even nations--is an advantageous state of being in many ways, several of which are:

-You are not responsible for what happened to you
-You are always morally right
-You are not accountable to anyone for anything
-You are forever entitled to sympathy
-You are always justified in feeling moral indignation for being wronged
-You never have to be responsible again for anything

As you can see, these are some heavy-duty privileges; and they are not given to just anyone. This list is not exclusive. There are many benefits of Victimhood; and in our current society, new rewards are continuously being discovered! You, too, may be someone who blazes a new path for future victims!

The badge of victimhood must be "earned" (ha ha, just kidding!) by one of two methods: (1) Membership in a special "victim" class; or (2) having something bad actually happen to you. Method 1 is definitely is superior in every way since it eliminates the need for something bad to actually happen to you (as long as it once happened to someone like you--you are set); thus this method is preferable and automatically puts all sorts of celebrities and famous people on your side. They will not be concerned if you are a good person or a bad person; just as long as you meet the basic victimhood criteria.

You are probably tempted to ask what that basic criteria is for most famous people to support you? Here is a tip (keep it under your hat): most famous people--especially undeserving famous people (i.e., people who are famous not for any particular talent they have, but because they might have a good publicist, for example) have an intense need to feel that they are "champions of the oppressed." This relieves them of the pervasive feelings of guilt under which they must function. Hence, all you have to do is to convince them that you are "oppressed" by one of a number of usual "oppressors", and you are home free!

Here is a handy list of possible oppressors that can be used by almost anyone searching for victimhood status:

- caucasian, heterosexual males
- Republicans (either male or female)
- conservatives (either male or female)
- businessmen or women (commonly referred to as "little eichmanns")
- capitalists
- rich people
- Christians (particularly Republican or conservative)
- the U.S. Military (all services)
- Americans (as a general group)
- Israelis (Jews)

Note: This list is not exhaustive, but it is a good place to start if you are pursuig victimhood for fun and profit.

Chapter II: THE BADGE OF VICTIMHOOD

Victimhood is automatically conferred if you are a member of one or more of the following groups:

- An underrepresented race (whoever is in the minority--the majority are barred from victimhood)
- An underrepresented gender(males are prohibited from victimhood)
- An underrepresented sexual orientation (heterosexuals are not allowed to be victims)
- A nation without land (e.g., Palestinian)
- Any nation the U.S. has a disagreement with
- A religion stuck in the Middle Ages (e.g., Islam)
- A person in jail (your crime is immaterial, but the worse the crime, the better)

Other individuals or groups may petition for Victimhood if they meet the following criteria:

- The Liberal Media confers it on them
- You appear on talk shows and spill your guts about some distasteful event that happened to you
- You use drugs or alcohol but get into treatment after you get in trouble
- You find God after you get in trouble
- You are very sorry for your reprehensible behavior or actions and have a reputable person to blame for why you did it (President Bush is always a good choice, but any parental figure--even God-- will do)
- If you are a nation or religion, it is always safe to be a victim of the Jews
- If you are incompetent at your job and unable to get ahead it is generally due to someone else's behavior; or it might be due to Adult Attention Deficit Disorder-- either way works.
- If you haven't achieved your proper level of power in the world (even if you are a dictator, surprisingly) you could be a victim of American foreign policy
-If you have economic problems, it is likely you are a vicitm of Capitalism (remember, that socialism, communism, fascism, and other ideologies are completely off the hook since they proactively blame Capitalism for all the problems of the world)
-If you are addicted to ANYTHING, you are likely to be a victim!
-If your feelings are hurt by someone--either intentionally or unintentionally-- you are a victim (call our toll-free number above if you have any questions, but most Universities have special policies that cover you)
- If you can attract Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Ramsey Clark, or Bianca Jagger to your cause, you are, by definition, a victim! Case closed!

Having something bad actually happen to you is the second method of achieving Victimhood. However, as mentioned in Chapter 1; it is a much less direct method than the methods listed above and is not recommended.

Why, you might ask? Simple! Waiting around for something bad to actually happen to you is an extremely inefficient way of becoming a victim. After all, you cannot control when or where natural disasters occur. Statistically, other disastrous events (e.g., lightening striking; plane crashes; etc.) do not occur frequently enough to be reliable. And it is important to note that many people who suffer victimhood in this natural way will eventually get on with their lives! And that is the LAST THING YOU ACTUALLY WANT TO DO! Remember the most politically correct type of Victimhood is the kind you can inflict on yourself! Be professional! Our motto at WorldWide Victimhood, Inc. is "Take Control of Your Victimhood!".

IMPORTANT NOTICE: If you are lucky enought to already be a member of an approved victim group AND something bad happens to you (e.g., a hurricane or other natural disaster) well, that is, as we say in the biz, the best of all possible worlds (assuming, of course, that you survive the experience). Then you are a victim twice-over, and entitled to what we will refer to as the Platinum Club victimhood membership rewards. (Discussed in a Chapter yet to be written).

Chapter III : HOW TO EFFORTLESSLY MAINTAIN YOUR VICTIM STATUS

Here are a few helpful strategies to maintain your prized Victimhood status in spite of all efforts to placate, apologize to; help, or support you.

- Resist Resist Resist taking any responsibility for your own behavior. It can always be made to seem like someone else is at fault
- Have a ready list of other people, nations, religions, groups etc. to blame for your situation and do not accept help from those on your list
- Constantly demand your rights
- Use the medium of Television to tell your story as often as possible; however, any member of the media (print, TV, radio) is usually supportive of your goals and will work with you to best frame your victimhood to elicit optimal sympathy.
- Did I mention that you must NEVER take any responsibility for your own behavior? If I did, it is because it cannot be mentioned too often.
- Play up the victim's position of enhanced moral authority. Weep about your plight whenever possible. Do nothing to make things better.
- Become a spokesperson or a media darling for any of the groups who make up International A.N.S.W.E.R.
- Make commercials for Moveon.org; or at least let them use your story to explain how oppressive one of the oppressor groups listed in Chapter 1 are.

When using any of the above strategy, make sure you ACT like a victim--crying, whining, using anger effectively--all these can enhance other's perception of your Victimhood

NEVER take any steps to improve your situation--that way is the OPPOSITE of true, enlightened Victimhood.

Frequently going to see a psychiatrist or mental health professional can improve your Victimhood credentials (and you can apply the other strategies to resisting therapy to change); Other medical professionals are also useful in this regard, and a side benefit is that YOU CAN SUE THEM LATER if you don't like what they say; thus insuring further victimization!

Suicidal gestures are VERY helpful and can garner much sympathy. It is noteworthy that even large groups can use this strategy by encouraging suicidal behavior (or even homicidal behavior--which is counterintuitive, but fortunately often true!) on the part of the most vulnerable of their members (e.g., children or teens are good choices)

As you can see, there are many paths to Victimhood. Keep your head up and really look around for opportunities. One group in particular deserves special mention for their unfailing and extraordinary efforts at maintaining and feeding their Victimhood for decades. I am speaking of course, about the Palestinians.

The Palestinians are, without a doubt the Gold Medal Winners of the WorldWide Victimhood, Inc. Annual Awards. Clearly they represent extraordinarily creative efforts above and beyond the run-of-th-mill annals of victimhoodology.

We at WWV, Inc. encourage all of you potential victims out there to watch and learn from real professionals. They are out there--everywhere you are--and their example can be an inspiration to strive for failure and achieve nothing in Life but to make others pay for their sins against you.

************END EXCERPT******************

Additional information and tips on calculating the level of victimhood (called the "PC factor") for the victimhood-seeking individual can be found here. The "victimhood heirarcy" (or "victimhood food chain", if you will) can be found here.

DR. SANITY DISCLAIMER: To all those real victims out there, who are struggling to overcome diseases; recover from disasters and events; and move beyond those traumas that have temporarily and painfully interrupted your lives--I heartily salute you and in no way aim to denigrate your efforts. Taking responsibility for your life will empower you and enable you to grow beyond whatever you have experienced. May you always rise above what Life has presented to you and exceed all expectations--even your own.

@copyright World Wide Victimhood Industries, Inc.

[Note: the above is reprinted by permission from the Dr. Sanity archives!]
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 7:11 AM |

 
FAIRY TALES
With all the heated discussion about which Democratic Presidential candidate is going to work harder for change and which one can pander best to which group, there is at least one fairy tale on which they can both agree:



More Cartoons by Eric Allie here
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 6:07 PM |

 
SICK
Sorry...might post later.

Feel free to donate money at the Paypal or Amazon link on the sidebar. That might make me feel a little better.

Consider this an open thread to discuss the latest Soros-inspired nonsense. You've got to hand it to these dead-enders. They are persistent. Sort of like like the bacteria in an antibiotic-resistant infection.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 10:32 AM |

 
THE PRICE OF APPEASEMENT
While we are on the subject of the toxic and corrosive impact of the political left's bankrupt ideology on Western civilization (see the previous post) and the defense of freedom, Wretchard has a salient post up that discusses this development in NATO (sure to raise the hackles of the pseudo-pacifist political left). He notes:

No other recent political development has underlined the destructive effects of the Left's opposition to the War on Terror as much as this manifesto. To now stake the safety of the West upon pre-emptive nuclear attack rather than endure the constant sniping of the Left exposes the full bankruptcy of the "pacifist" position. This alternative may take the world to the brink of a catastrophe. One wonders whether any NATO majority will have sufficient confidence in their intelligence agencies to order a pre-emptive nuclear strike on the basis of a warning. In all probability they will not. What will likely happen is that the West will be left waiting for the descent of the first nuclear blow in order to generate the political capital to strike back, and then in the only way they can -- with atomic fires -- in place of the men who could not be mustered to defend it under the galling fire of their critics. Having refused to fight limited wars to preserve the peace, the West may now be left with threatening global catastrophe to preserve itself. The price of appeasement has always been high.

As is typical with the thoughtless, brainless and mindless posturing of the left--particularly it's lunatic antiwar wing--the situation is precarious for the proponents of liberty and democracy. Blind to everything but their own narcissism, in which they revel, the left will continue to blame the policies of the Bush Administration and completely fail to appreciate how they, themselves, have totally undermined the ability of the West to be able to defeat the threat that it faces. Their "constant sniping" has not only made usually reasonable people nervously ambivalent about even the worth of Western values; it has vastly emboldened the enemy and given them the audacity of hope that their anti-human policies may be able to prevail.

These fanatics know, that with the Democrats and their leftist base in charge in the U.S., they can easily wait us out and watch the last remnants of our resolve crumble to dust. The Islamofascist's singleness of purpose (and make no mistake, their purpose is enslavement to their ideology or death) will ultimately overcome our ambivalence and tepid responses to their atrocities. They are certain we will become too fatigued to deal with them, and thus they will win by default.

In this sense of superiority and single-mindedness, they aren't much different from their allies (whether they are conscious or unconscious about it) on the political left.

But, the left doesn't care about the fanatics that want to destroy us (Hey! After all, these jihadists represent the pure and perfect revolutionaries that the left has always dreamed of ! ) because they are far too wrapped up in their postmodern marxist narcissism and the histrionic nihilism that it engenders. As one of their own once said, "In the long-run, we're all dead."

And, while there is certainly truth to that rather useless and dead-end observation; I, for one, would prefer to die a free woman; knowing that my daughter has inherited a world where life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are the highest values and where "government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth."

As Wretchard says, the catastrophic consequences of the left's appeasement and the way they have tied the hands of those who would defend freedom and democracy, are almost too painful to contemplate.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 10:16 AM |

 
LET'S END THE COLD WAR AND GET RID OF MARXIST BS ONCE AND FOR ALL
This is exactly the sort of racist, sexist BS we've come to expect from the political left these days and which we discussed last night on The Sanity Squad podcast. It's no wonder people are getting fed up with this stuff, since the underlying assumption is that they can only vote on the basis of their skin color or ovaries. Brains are clearly optional for Democrats.

For those who haven't got a clue, this is both racist and sexist; and the Democrats are finally having to deal with the bitter fruit of "identity politics". Beneath the incessant appeals to the racist and sexist proclivities of the average human lies the stark nakedness of the victimhood ideology that has motivated the bankrupt left for decades.

We were mistaken in the 90's when we thought we had won the cold war against the communists.....The same Marxist dialectic crap is now being played out in the Democratic primary. Which "oppressed" group will triumph over the other oppressed groups and go on to be oppressed by the evil Republicans, I wonder? There exists a heirarchy that determines whose victimhood is more worthy (I refer to it as the "socialist food chain" here). Will it be Obama or Clinton? Or, perhaps the pandering Edwards, who, while the low man on the victimhood totempole, is trying to suck up to both groups at the same time.

Isn't it time we finally showed this ideological nonsense the door and slammed it shut? We have a chance to not only finally put an end to the kind of racial and gender discrimination that only divides us and keeps us in perpetual victimhood; we have the chance of truly renouncing the vile communist and socialist ideas that suck the freedom and dignity out of all of us.

In fact, we can drive a nail in communism's coffin once and for all by killing off this communism/socialism-lite being actively promulgated by the political left, hiding behind the skirts of the once proud Democrats. Reject the modern Democratic Party which has become the repository of the same old, tired cliches of the leftist/marxist manifesto. Reject identity politics... and vote with your brain.

WE CAN STILL WIN THE COLD WAR !
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 7:51 AM |

 
LIVE ! FROM THE U.S.! IT'S THE SANITY SQUAD !
Tonight's topics will include the treatment of American soldiers by the political left and right--victim, villain, or hero? Also we'll talk about the view of the military as it is portrayed in the MSM; and finally (can we help it?) we'll discuss the latest in the Presidential primary circus!

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 @ 5:25 PM |

 
I TAWT I TAW A PUDDY TAT !
Which cartoon character are you? (hat tip: Oh Bloody Hell)

My results:

You are Tweety.
You are cute, and everyone loves you.
You are a best friend that no one takes the chance of losing.
You never hurt feelings and seldom have your own feelings hurt.
Life is a breeze. You are witty, and calm most of the time.
Just keep clear of back stabbers, and you are worry-free.


Don't know how accurate that is [LOLOL!]; but that last part about back stabbers (i.e., certain puddy tats) is rather hard to accomplish!
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 10:09 AM |

 
SPINNING A PENNY
Piet Hein, whose works I admired quite a bit (but who is no longer in print--see here), once wrote the following 'grook':

A PSYCHOLOGICAL TIP

Whenever you're called on to make up your mind,
and you're hampered by not having any,
the best way to solve the dilemma, you'll find,
is simply by spinning a penny.
No -- not so that chance shall decide the affair
while you're passively standing there moping;
but the moment the penny is up in the air,
you suddenly know what you're hoping.

We have just finished spinning pennies in Iowa, New Hampshire, Michigan, Nevada, and South Carolina and I finally had a an epiphany, just as the poem suggests. I have been moping around trying to figure out if there's anyone I could support on the Republican side of the aisle, since, as usual, I find the Democratic candidates complete disasters. I have spent literally hours looking at each candidate's website and listening to various ads, etc--trying to cut through the jungle of inaccurate reporting and MSM (and candidate) 'spin'; and then, quite suddenly, after Michigan and North Carolina, I realized what I'm hoping:

Thompson and/or Guiliani.

Either one, or both, on a Republican ticket. I simply can't get into supporting either McCain or Romney with any degree of enthusiasm; and as for Huckabee, if I wanted a populist charlatan, I'd vote for Edwards, who's even better at that sort of thing.

Now, if only other conservatives follow Hein's psychological tip (or Roger Simon's, for that matter) we should all come to appreciate what we're hoping by Super Duper Tuesday.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 7:46 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. The new lepers? A f**king brilliant response to the Times' insanity.

2. Palestinians escalate; the UN springs into action. We already have a pretty good idea what they will do. HE had a rough day? Oy.

3. Islamic family values: a visit to the family self-mutilation store. Islamic cultural values....And then there are Islamic cars. Yes, I know; it's very culturally insensitive of me.

4. The problem is no candidate today even comes close to him. Though he's not Reagan by any stretch, Bush definitely rocks in the freedom and vision areas.

5. Let his people go?? Rather grandiose.The care and feeding of autocrats and tyrants . So, this explains why they are sooooo prosperous!

6. Proof that Siggy has class!

7. It's ok, they're liberals so they can get away with it. In fact, anything goes. Everything you need to know about the way she will reign. Los tres amigos! A year of spoofs!

8. Is black the new teflon? Or, is it the X-chromosome that is? But that's what happens when identity politics is the name of the game.

9. As long as the war on terror is a 'bumper sticker' then it's ok! In this campaign we won't have Unity08 to kick around anymore, that's for sure. Answer this question and you will know your candidate.

10. Our survey shows the worst polluters are....... Hah! 35 inconvenient truths

11. "Multiculturalism is Canada's gift to the world"???...so where can we find the gift return department? The problem can be left for tomorrow....or so the morons think. Wait till the joke police come for them. Now that will be really funny.

12. Little known facts about that monster of political incorrectness, Ezra Levant.

13. Pink ladies are soooooo blue these days. Now this is grossly sexist--and funny.

14. While we're at it, how about recognizing privacy in the back seat of a car, too?

15. Probably the worse military recruitment ad in history....

16. Stupid criminals...is there any other kind? Maybe they, too, can appeal to a kangaroo court? Because, they're just dirty rats...of unusual size.

17. Shouldn't they have seen this coming?

18. Hmmmm. The native Americans' revenge on those disease-ridden Europeans?

19. The meanest mom in the world...fabulous.

20. The "new" list of tired, old blogging cliches. Please. Don't. Stimulate. Us.

21. The cost of going bald.

***************************************
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 @ 7:40 AM |

 
INCORRIGIBLE REGIMES, FALSE HOPES, AND PSYCHOLOGICAL DENIAL
Norman Podhoretz makes the case for why military action against Iran should still be an option:

Whatever else one might say about the new NIE, one point can be made with “high confidence”: that by leading with the sensational news that Iran had suspended its nuclear-weapons program in 2003, its authors ensured that their entire document would be interpreted as meaning that there was no longer anything to worry about. Of course, being experienced bureaucrats, they took care to protect themselves from this very accusation. For example, after dropping their own bomb on the fear that Iran was hell-bent on getting the bomb, they immediately added “with moderate-to-high confidence that Tehran at a minimum is keeping open the option to develop nuclear weapons.” But as they must have expected, scarcely anyone paid attention to this caveat....

Since only an expert could grasp the significance of this cunning little masterpiece of incomprehensible jargon, the damage had been done by the time its dishonesty was exposed.

The first such exposure came from John Bolton, who before becoming our ambassador to the UN had served as Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security, with a special responsibility for preventing the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Donning this hat once again, Bolton charged that the dishonesty of the footnote lay most egregiously in the sharp distinction it drew between military and civilian programs. For, he said,

the enrichment of uranium, which all agree Iran is continuing, is critical to civilian and military uses [emphasis added]. Indeed, it has always been Iran’s “civilian” program that posed the main risk of a nuclear “breakout.”
[...]

Thus, as Lincy and Milhollin went on to write, the main point obfuscated by the footnote was that once Iran accumulated a stockpile of the kind of uranium fit for civilian use, it would “in a matter of months” be able “to convert that uranium . . . to weapons grade.”

...[T]he new NIE, which executed another 180-degree turn—this one, away from the judgment of the 2005 NIE concerning the ineffectiveness of international pressure. Flatly contradicting its “high confidence” in 2005 that Iran was forging ahead “despite its international obligations and international pressure,” the new NIE concluded that the nuclear-weapons program had been halted in 2003 “primarily in response to international pressure.” This indicated that “Tehran’s decisions are guided by a cost-benefit approach rather than a rush to a weapon irrespective of the political, economic, and military costs.”

Never mind that no international pressure to speak of was being exerted on Iran in 2003, and that at that point the mullahs were more likely acting out of fear that the Americans, having just invaded Iraq, might come after them next. Never mind, too, that religious and/or ideological passions, which the new NIE pointedly neglected to mention, have over and over again throughout history proved themselves a more powerful driving force than any “cost-benefit approach.” Blithely sweeping aside such considerations, the new NIE was confident that just as the carrot-and-stick approach had allegedly sufficed in the past, so it would suffice in the future to “prompt Tehran to extend the current halt to its nuclear-weapons program.”

The worldview implicit here has been described by Richelson (mainly with North Korea in mind) as the idea that “moral suasion and sustained bargaining are the proven mechanisms of nuclear restraint.” Such a worldview “may be ill-equipped,” he observes delicately,

to accept the idea that certain regimes are incorrigible and negotiate only as a stalling tactic until they have attained a nuclear capability against the United States and other nations that might act against their nuclear programs.

True, the new NIE did at least acknowledge that it would not be easy to induce Iran to extend the halt, “given the linkage many within the leadership probably see between nuclear-weapons development and Iran’s key national-security and foreign-policy objectives.” But it still put its money on a

combination of threats of intensified international scrutiny and pressures, along with opportunities for Iran to achieve its security, prestige, and goals for regional influence in other ways.

It was this pronouncement, and a few others like it, that gave Stephen Hadley “grounds for hope that the problem can be solved diplomatically.” But that it was a false hope was demonstrated by the NIE itself. For if Iran was pursuing nuclear weapons in order to achieve its “key national-security and foreign-policy objectives,” and if those objectives explicitly included (for a start) hegemony in the Middle East and the destruction of the state of Israel, what possible “opportunities” could Tehran be offered to achieve them “in other ways”?

Podhoretz realizes, after a debate with a junior colleague:

So little did any of this shake my opponent that I came away from our debate with the grim realization that the President’s continued insistence on the dangers posed by an Iranian bomb would more and more fall on deaf ears—ears that would soon be made even deafer by the new NIE’s assurance that Iran was no longer hell-bent on acquiring nuclear weapons after all. There might be two different ideas competing here—one, that we could live with an Iranian bomb; the other, that there would be no Iranian bomb to live with—but the widespread acceptance of either would not only preclude the military option but would sooner or later put an end even to the effort to stop the mullahs by nonmilitary means.

It is invaluable to read the entire piece, because Podhoretz lays forth with chilling accuracy the manner in which determined psychological denial and unwillingness to face reality--that regimes like Iran and North Korea don't play by the rules of civilized societies--directly lead to embracing false hopes that blithely put millions of lives at risk.

Psychological denial about the consequences of nuclear weapons in the hands of fanatical regimes which could ultimately lead to wholesale slaughter and destruction on a grand scale, is bad enough; but when that denial is also used to 'make nice' with those same incorrigible and psychpathic regimes, while pretending they are simply 'misunderstood', it surpasses even the usual level of psychopathology and willful blindness.

I don't know why I am surprised at the degree of denial that resulted after the release of both the 2003 and the 2005 NIE. I see this sort of thing on an individual basis all the time. But when you witness a delusion of such magnitude afflicting a vast number of people in a nation like the U.S., you hope against hope that grown-up people would exhibit more sense.

Sadly, though, such primitive psychological defenses are highly contagious; and susceptible ideologies are highly vulnerable to delusional thinking for their maintenance. Like mass hysteria, this sort of group phenomenon is a reflection of severe group anxiety and an attempt to cope with a sense of ideological inadequacy to effectively deal with a reality that is too frightening to contemplate.

In a post titled Insight vs Self-Delusion, I wrote:

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

But there is only one path that leads to insight and self-awareness and it is directly through the individual's distortions and lies; and straight to the heart of his or her most cherished beliefs about himself and the world. If he can look at those beliefs and face himself and his own motivations squarely and honestly; and then reconcile them to the painful reality and truth he observes in the outside world; he is surely on that one path that leads to personal growth and self-discovery.

OTOH, if he never is willing to look in the mirror or question his beliefs; if he believes himself to be both intellectually and morally superior and that it is unnecessary to question his own motivations; then he is on one of the many paths that will take him to the wonderful world of denial.

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

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

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

The only sensible thing to do after contemplating the two diametrically opposed NIE reports is to (1) realize the limitations of this sort of intelligence to begin with; and (2) conclude that our intelligence community needs a vast overhaul and 'de-politicalization' before it can be trusted in any of its assessments.

This should have been done after its failure to alert us to the possibility of 9/11; and if necessary, drastic steps should have been taken to fix the problem; because something clearly remains broken 6 years later. The 2005 report is practically useless as a measure of reality; and instead,seems only to be a barometer that measures the direction and intensity of current internal political winds.

In point of fact, it would be downright dangerous to rely on the wild swings of politicized 'intelligence' (deja vu all over again) that is closer to a manic-depressive cycle than it is to an intelligent "analysis" of the situation.

The NY Times the other day decried attempts to "tie the [future] President's hands". Of course, they didn't mean it like I am suggesting; but nevertheless, they are entirely correct. Any analysis that limits our options to deal with a potentially lethal, dynamic and unstable (not to mention ambiguous) situation should be identified for what it is: a failure.

Thw whole purpose of accumulating intelligence of this sort is to expand the options available to us, not limit them; and not to tie the hands of the very people whose job it is to protect this country from future 9/11's.

By emphasizing "false hopes" that Iran is motivated by common sense-- and not religious fanatacism; and by overly encouraging a pollyannaish, feel-good psychological denial, the recent celebration of the 2005 NIE in the media and by the left--precisely because it ties the hands of the President and the military-- has done great harm and placed all of us at risk from what are arguably the most incorrigible and deadly regimes in history.

Take a bracing dose of Norman Podhoretz, and call me in the morning.



UPDATE: To see a recent series of interviews with Podhoretz on this topic, go here; and, if you have not read his book, click on the link below.


- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 7:26 AM |

 
DEMOCRAT FAIRY TALES
Fairy tales can come true, they will happen to you
When you're Democrat!
But you must, you will find, be quite narrow of mind
When you're Democrat!

You can go to extremes with utopian schemes;
Then ignore when your dreams fall apart at the seams...
It's ok to be gay if you vote the right(left?) way
And you count as a fem only registered Dem ....

Dont you know it's a sin-- if you're Republican--
So be Democrat!
And it's really quite good to embrace victimhood
As a Democrat!

And if you should survive, then you must be deprived;
You can play--it's not hard--that old victimhood card!
You can deride combat,
And cavort as a moonbat--
If you're in good standing as a Democrat!

So please act like a dope; feel audacious hope
And then promise the moon, cuz if it doesn't come soon
It's due to the fact,
We can't win in Iraq;
And then you can surrender as a Democrat!


- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 8:06 AM |

 
DO AS WE SAY, NOT AS WE DO
Don't tie the next President's hands, because, you know, there's a good chance (s)he's gonna be Democrat. At least that's the NY Times thinks. I wonder why they don't seem to believe its a good idea--when they and the Democrats have been doing exactly that for the last 7 years?

Just wondering.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 1:26 PM |

 
BETRAYAL
My fellow Sanity Squad member, Neo-neocon, has a powerful post up that should stun you (it certainly stunned me, and I was never one of antiwar protesters during the Vietnam war, nor did I sympathize with them much). Neo's post explores the reality and circumstances surrounding two of the most famous photos from the Vietnam war. As it turns out, they do not represent what you think they do. But no one ever has ever made much of an effort to cut through the propaganda and understand either of them in context, or to explore their circumstances. Not then; and not for 30 years. But, as Neo discovered, the truth was always out there.

Neo recounts her reaction when she did a little research:

As I read the article about the photos, I felt a sense of disbelief. I wasn’t quite sure what I was reading was correct. Surely, if this information about both photos were true, I’d have heard about it before this. After all, thirty years had passed.

I spent the next few hours searching the subject online and found quite a bit more information, but no serious or credible refutation of the stories I’d just learned. The facts therein did not appear to be in much dispute. I read the original article again, and then again, in a tensely concentrated state.

Then the strangest feeling came over me. I don’t even have a word for it, although I usually can come up with words for emotions.

This was a new feeling. The best description I can come up with that is was a regret so intense it morphed seamlessly into guilt, as though I were responsible for something terrible, though I didn’t know exactly what. Regret and guilt, and also a rage that I’d been so stupid, that I’d let myself be duped or misled or kept ignorant about something so important, and that I’d remained ignorant all these years.

I sat in front of my computer and put my face down on the keyboard. I stayed in that position for a few minutes, energyless and drained. When I lifted my head I was surprised to find a few tears on my cheeks.

The experience was something akin to being married for thirty years, thinking your husband loving and faithful, and then by chance coming across evidence that he’d been living a double life all that time, with a wife and kids in another town. A sense of deep betrayal of a basic trust.

Photos are inherently emotional, and there’s no doubt that these were powerful photos, deserving of every prize they’d earned. If the point of publishing them had been to convey the idea that war entails violence and suffering, they succeeded admirably. And maybe this was what the photographers who took them were trying to say.

But that’s not a good enough message in and of itself. Killing is awful, yes. But not all killing is equally awful. And the press during the Vietnam War had been charged with the task of providing that all-important context.

Read it all.

Vietnam and Iraq. Two very different wars, but the media continue to have the same agenda.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 7:23 AM |

 
THE PERFECT GOP CANDIDATE !

I think Cliff May has found the solution!
It All Comes Clear

Après Michigan, isn’t it obvious what is needed? A Dr. Frankenstein to chop up and reassemble the Republican candidates. The GOP candidate 2.0 version would have

Mitt Romney’s executive experience and good looks
John McCain’s courage and integrity (and appeal to independents – without which there’s no chance for a win over either HRC or BHO in November)
Mike Huckabee’s silver tongue
Fred Thompson’s steady, folksy and sensible conservatism
Rudy Giuliani’s toughness

What about Ron Paul? Maybe he can be Dr. Frankenstein?


- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 1:51 PM |

 
THE DREAM THAT HAS BECOME A NIGHTMARE
Siggy just found this YouTube video that unequivocally demonstrates the complete and absolute moral bankruptcy of the United Nations--particularly the Council on "Human Rights" and the current president of that council, Ambassador Luis Alfonso de Alba of Mexico. Please watch the entire atrocity. It is from last year, but its never too late to appreciate how worthless the UN has become and how far it has deviated from the lovely intentions of its founders. Or, to put it another way, the "dream" that led to the founding of the UN has been perverted beyond imagining and is now only a nightmare.



Here is a transcript of the remarkable testimony of Hillel Neuer, Executive Director of UN Watch, who elicits the "Inadmissible" comment.


Mr. President,

Six decades ago, in the aftermath of the Nazi horrors, Eleanor Roosevelt, Réné Cassin and other eminent figures gathered here, on the banks of Lake Geneva, to reaffirm the principle of human dignity. They created the Commission on Human Rights. Today, we ask: What has become of their noble dream?

In this session we see the answer. Faced with compelling reports from around the world of torture, persecution, and violence against women, what has the Council pronounced, and what has it decided?

Nothing. Its response has been silence. Its response has been indifference. Its response has been criminal.

One might say, in Harry Truman’s words, that this has become a Do-Nothing, Good-for-Nothing Council.

But that would be inaccurate. This Council has, after all, done something.

It has enacted one resolution after another condemning one single state: Israel. In eight pronouncements—and there will be three more this session—Hamas and Hezbollah have been granted impunity. The entire rest of the world—millions upon millions of victims, in 191 countries—continue to go ignored.

So yes, this Council is doing something. And the Middle East dictators who orchestrate this campaign will tell you it is a very good thing. That they seek to protect human rights, Palestinian rights.

So too, the racist murderers and rapists of Darfur women tell us they care about the rights of Palestinian women; the occupiers of Tibet care about the occupied; and the butchers of Muslims in Chechnya care about Muslims.

But do these self-proclaimed defenders truly care about Palestinian rights?

Let us consider the past few months. More than 130 Palestinians were killed by Palestinian forces. This is three times the combined total that were the pretext for calling special sessions against Israel in July and November. Yet the champions of Palestinian rights—Ahmadinejad, Assad, Khaddafi, John Dugard—they say nothing. Little 3-year-old boy Salam Balousha and his two brothers were murdered in their car by Prime Minister Haniyeh’s troops. Why has this Council chosen silence?

Because Israel could not be blamed. Because, in truth, the despots who run this Council couldn’t care less about Palestinians, or about any human rights.

They seek to demonize Israeli democracy, to delegitimize the Jewish state, to scapegoat the Jewish people. They also seek something else: To distort and pervert the very language and idea of human rights.

You ask: What has become of the founders’ dream? Of Eleanor Roosevelt, of Rene Casssin, of John Humphrey, P.C. Chang, Charles Malik, who assembled here in Geneva sixty years ago? With terrible lies and moral inversion, it is being turned into a nightmare.

Thank you, Mr. President.



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

REPLY BY UN HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL PRESIDENT LUIS ALFONSO DE ALBA:

For the first time in this session I will not express thanks for that statement. I shall point out to the distinguished representative of the organization that just spoke, the distinguished representative of United Nations Watch, if you'd kindly listen to me. I am sorry that I'm not in a position to thank you for your statement. I should mention that I will not tolerate any similar statements in the Council. The way in which members of this Council were referred to, and indeed the way in which the council itself was referred to, all of this is inadmissible. In the memory of the persons that you referred to, founders of the Human Rights Commission, and for the good of human rights, I would urge you in any future statements to observe some minimum proper conduct and language. Otherwise, any statement you make in similar tones to those used today will be taken out of the records.


- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 7:21 AM |

 
AT A LOSS FOR WORDS
K-Lo at The Corner says he's a piece of work. Slublog wants you to "Guess That Candidate!" I am really at a loss for words (which is, I assure you, very unusual).

What has the Republican Party come to? With all the socialism-lite being bandied about here in Michigan; all the empty promises glibly being made--how are these guys any different from the feckless Democrats who got us into this economic mess to begin with?

Where is the candidate who will proudly stand up for the free market? Who will say that too much government is the problem and that the solution is to do away with government regulation that is stifling economic freedom in Michigan and elsewhere?

Are these ideas truly dead in the Republican Party?

I happen to be a mostly one-issue person (the war on terror), but do I have to hold my nose when I vote for the next Republican presidential candidate?

UPDATE: Siggy wonders if Michigan is Disneyland
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 10:00 AM |

 
THE SANITY SQUAD: Free the Canadian Hostages !
Free Speech is the topic tonight; and the recent Canadian assault on it using political correctness and multicultural tolerance to shut out dissent. Mark Steyn and Ezra Levant are just two hostages whose cases before the "Human Rights Commission" in Alberta may well signal the most significant attempts to wipe free speech off the Western map.

Join Siggy, ShrinkWrapped, Neo, and me for some spirited psychological and political analysis of the free speech fiasco in Canada.

Click below to listen:

- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 7:29 AM |

 
DON'T NEGOTIATE, FIGHT ON

GM Roper responds to Tim Blair's cancer diagnosis.

When it comes to cancer, negotiation and diplomacy aren't good options. You just fight on.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 7:28 AM |

 
"YOU MAY START YOUR INTERROGATION" **UPDATE: Listen Live to The Sanity Squad***
UPDATE: Tonight's Sanity Squad Podcast will discuss the attacks on freedom of speech in the name of multiculturalism and tolerance that are occurring in Canada right this moment. If you haven't yet read about Ezra Levant, check his web site here. You might also check out Free Mark Steyn.

Listen live tonight to Siggy, ShrinkWrapped, Neo, and me at 8PM
Click below:

CALL-IN Number during show is (646) 716-9116
-------------------------------------
Ladies and Gentlemen, THIS is what real courage is; it is what "speaking truth to power" should be about, but which in the hands of the politically correct leftoids has become a mockery of freedom. I am reprinting it in it's entirety without comment, because no comment is needed.

The following is excerpted from Ezra Levant's opening remarks to the Alberta Human Rights Commission Interrogation in Calgary on Jan. 11, 2008.

My name is Ezra Levant. Before this government interrogation begins, I will make a statement. When the Western Standard magazine printed the Danish cartoons of Mohammed two years ago, I was the publisher. It was the proudest moment of my public life. I would do it again today. In fact, I did do it again today. Though the Western Standard, sadly, no longer publishes a print edition, I posted the cartoons this morning on my website, ezralevant.com. I am here at this government interrogation under protest. It is my position that the government has no legal or moral authority to interrogate me or anyone else for publishing these words and pictures. That is a violation of my ancient and inalienable freedoms: freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and in this case, religious freedom and the separation of mosque and state. It is especially perverted that a bureaucracy calling itself the Alberta human rights commission would be the government agency violating my human rights. So I will now call those bureaucrats “the commission” or “the hrc”, since to call the commission a “human rights commission” is to destroy the meaning of those words.

I believe that this commission has no proper authority over me. The commission was meant as a low-level, quasi-judicial body to arbitrate squabbles about housing, employment and other matters, where a complainant felt that their race or sex was the reason they were discriminated against. The commission was meant to deal with deeds, not words or ideas. Now the commission, which is funded by a secular government, from the pockets of taxpayers of all backgrounds, is taking it upon itself to be an enforcer of the views of radical Islam. So much for the separation of mosque and state. I have read the past few years’ worth of decisions from this commission, and it is clear that it has become a dump for the junk that gets rejected from the real legal system. I read one case where a male hair salon student complained that he was called a “loser” by the girls in the class. The commission actually had a hearing about this. Another case was a kitchen manager with Hepatitis-C, who complained that it was against her rights to be fired. The commission actually agreed with her, and forced the restaurant to pay her $4,900. In other words, the commission is a joke – it’s the Alberta equivalent of a U.S. television pseudo-court like Judge Judy – except that Judge Judy actually was a judge, whereas none of the commission’ s panellists are judges, and some aren’t even lawyers. And, unlike the commission, Judge Judy believes in freedom of speech. It’s bad enough that this sick joke is being wreaked on hair salons and restaurants. But it’s even worse now that the commissions are attacking free speech. That’s my first point: the commissions have leapt out of the small cage they were confined to, and are now attacking our fundamental freedoms. As Alan Borovoy, Canada’s leading civil libertarian, a man who helped form these commissions in the 60’s and 70’s, wrote, in specific reference to our magazine, being a censor is, quote, “hardly the role we had envisioned for human rights commissions. There should be no question of the right to publish the impugned cartoons.” Unquote. Since the commission is so obviously out of control, he said quote “It would be best, therefore, to change the provisions of the Human Rights Act to remove any such ambiguities of interpretation.” Unquote.

The commission has no legal authority to act as censor. It is not in their statutory authority. They’re just making it up – even Alan Borovoy says so. But even if the commissions had some statutory fig leaf for their attempts at political and religious censorship, it would still be unlawful and unconstitutional. We have a heritage of free speech that we inherited from Great Britain that goes back to the year 1215 and the Magna Carta. We have a heritage of eight hundred years of British common law protection for speech, augmented by 250 years of common law in Canada.

That common law has been restated in various fundamental documents, especially since the Second World War. In 1948, the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, to which Canada is a party, declared that, quote: “Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.”

The 1960 Canadian Bill of Rights guaranteed, quote: 1. “ human rights and fundamental freedoms, namely, (c) freedom of religion; (d) freedom of speech; (e) freedom of assembly and association; and (f) freedom of the press. In 1982, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guaranteed, quote: 2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms: a) freedom of conscience and religion; b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;

Those were even called “fundamental freedoms” – to give them extra importance.

For a government bureaucrat to call any publisher or anyone else to an interrogation to be quizzed about his political or religious expression is a violation of 800 years of common law, a Universal Declaration of Rights, a Bill of Rights and a Charter of Rights. This commission is applying Saudi values, not Canadian values. It is also deeply procedurally one-sided and unjust. The complainant – in this case, a radical Muslim imam, who was trained at an officially anti-Semitic university in Saudi Arabia, and who has called for sharia law to govern Canada – doesn’t have to pay a penny; Alberta taxpayers pay for the prosecution of the complaint against me. The victims of the complaints, like the Western Standard, have to pay for their own lawyers from their own pockets. Even if we win, we lose – the process has become the punishment.

(At this point, I’d like to thank the magazine’s many donors who have given their own money to help us fight against the Saudi imam and his enablers in the Alberta government.)

It is procedurally unfair. Unlike real courts, there is no way to apply for a dismissal of nuisance lawsuits. Common law rules of evidence don’t apply. Rules of court don’t apply. It is a system that is part Kafka, and part Stalin. Even this interrogation today – at which I appear under duress – saw the commission tell me who I could or could not bring with me as my counsel and advisors.

I have no faith in this farcical commission. But I do have faith in the justice and good sense of my fellow Albertans and Canadians. I believe that
the better they understand this case, the more shocked they will be. I am here under your compulsion to answer the commission’s questions. But it is not I who am on trial: it is the freedom of all Canadians.

You may start your interrogation.

- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 1:13 PM |

 
WALK ON BY
Mark Steyn reminds of what the current buzzword "change" really means, and what has been its agent all along:

This past week's issue of the Economist has a heart-rending vignette from one of the most ruthlessly capitalist industries on the planet:

"In 2006 EMI, the world's fourth-biggest recorded-music company, invited some teenagers into its headquarters in London to talk to its top managers about their listening habits. At the end of the session the EMI bosses thanked them for their comments and told them to help themselves to a big pile of CDs sitting on a table. But none of the teens took any of the CDs, even though they were free."

"That was the moment we realized the game was completely up," an EMI exec told the magazine....

[I]t's capitalism that's the real "agent of change." Politicians, on the whole, prefer stasis, at least on everything for which they already have responsibility....

Perhaps even now John Edwards is rallying the crowd at the last CD mill in America's declining rap belt, comforting the 9-year-old coatless daughter of a laid-off mill worker who started there in 1904 making wax cylinders of the Columbia Male Quartet singing "Sweet Adeline," and later pressed million of 78's of Ukulele Ike singing "Who Takes Care of the Caretaker's Daughter While the Caretaker's Busy Taking Care?," and millions of 45's of the Swinging Blue Jeans singing "The Hippy Hippy Shake," and millions of CDs of Three 6 Mafia ]singing "Hit A Motherf-----," only to be cut down in his prime and thrown on the scrapheap because Americans have outsourced their record collection to the computer.

"I will never stop fighting for you," Edwards will be telling them. "No matter how they try to stop me. I feel the spirit of Al Jolson speaking through me. He's saying, climb upon my knee, Sonny Boy, though you're 53, Sonny Boy, I'll never stop condescending to you."

Read it all, of course. No one has to convince me that capitalism is a pretty wonderful thing. Poverty has a cure, and it is capitalism. Unlike socialism and communism, which breeds envy, resentment and class warfare; capitalism is good for the soul; and if world peace is your goal, you should be making trade, not war; and not mindlessly opposing globalization.

Steyn is absolutely correct when he asserts that politicians--on both sides of the aisle-- basically support stasis.

This is why I am not a Republican, who as a group are only mildly less anti-capitalistic than the blatantly socialist Democrats.

People on the left acuse me of being in thrall to President Bush, but that is far from the truth. I happen to like the man--still do--but I don't think he's much of a communicator; and I certainly don't think his administration has always made optimal decisions regarding the free market.

Operative word is, of course, free. As in the example above:

Oh, all right. One small comment. First, observe the contempt for liberty. When E. coli conservatives say self-regulation is preferable to government, they're even lying about that. Second, observe the contempt for small business. When a small company wants to - voluntarily! - hold its product to a higher standard, the government blocks it, in part because bigger companies have to be protected from the competition, in part because a theoretical threat to the bottom line (false positives) trumps protection against a deadly disease.

There's your conservatism, America: not extremism in defense of liberty. State socialism in defense of Mad Cow.

Protecting big companies from competition is not capitalism; nor does it help people get the best products and services. Yet, it is capitalism that will get the blame for the fact that the big guys are too lazy to compete or provide the best to their customers. The only reason they can get away with it in the market is because of government interference in the marketplace, specifically economic leveling.

As noted, if it were left to the free market, then the big guys would have to keep up with the innovative small guys and would lose out to them. But, when they can count on the government to protect their incompetence, laziness and bad business practices--everybody loses except them.

I stated in this post that there is a:

...pervasive intellectual trend in the West to continually bash capitalism, private property, business, and free trade; while simultaneously enjoying the benefits of all of them.

Our academics--even the kindergarden ones-- rail against business and private property. Our government constantly seeks to control them. Our youth are propagandized to death about its evils from pre-school through college....

One very harmful result of this sorry educational situation is that there are few people--even among those who stalwartly defend the free market, who understand and appreciate the essential morality of capitalism. Certainly our children, taught by ideological purists like the ones above who are leftover from the 20th century debacle of socialist/communist tyranny--never even have a chance to rationally consider any ideas not approved by their aggressively collectivist teachers, so intent at quashing those aspects of human nature they don't like....

the very foundation of capitalism is human freedom in its most classical, liberal tradition. And that frightens them to death.

Capitalism's incredible production of wealth is the economic side-effect that occurs when political freedom is present. It has been argued, and I agree, that both economic and political freedom are absolute prerequisites for moral behavior.

Perhaps that is why we see so much behavior that lacks any kind of integrity on both sides of the political spectrum. Neither side is as concerned with individual freedom, as much as they are with oppressive egalitarianism, entitlement and playing the appropriate victimhood card (in this case, it is "unfair" for one business to actually be better than another--or, just socialist egalitarianism disguised as some sort of policy to "level the playing field" for the less advantaged/highly privileged).

Conservatism has some essential principles that are summarized here; but the relevant one is this:

Seventh, conservatives are persuaded that freedom and property are closely linked. Separate property from private possession, and Leviathan becomes master of all. Upon the foundation of private property, great civilizations are built. The more widespread is the possession of private property, the more stable and productive is a commonwealth. Economic levelling, conservatives maintain, is not economic progress. Getting and spending are not the chief aims of human existence; but a sound economic basis for the person, the family, and the commonwealth is much to be desired.

Sir Henry Maine, in his Village Communities, puts strongly the case for private property, as distinguished from communal property: “Nobody is at liberty to attack several property and to say at the same time that he values civilization. The history of the two cannot be disentangled.” For the institution of several property—that is, private property—has been a powerful instrument for teaching men and women responsibility, for providing motives to integrity, for supporting general culture, for raising mankind above the level of mere drudgery, for affording leisure to think and freedom to act. To be able to retain the fruits of one’s labor; to be able to see one’s work made permanent; to be able to bequeath one’s property to one’s posterity; to be able to rise from the natural condition of grinding poverty to the security of enduring accomplishment; to have something that is really one’s own—these are advantages difficult to deny. The conservative acknowledges that the possession of property fixes certain duties upon the possessor; he accepts those moral and legal obligations cheerfully (emphasis mine).

The anti-capitalist mentality exhibited by both the Democrats and the Republicans these days is like Mad Cow disease itself-- a spongiform infection of the brain that inevitably leads to cognitive and functional deterioration and eventually to the stagnation and death of society itself.

If you see these agents of stasis walking down the street and asking for your vote, just walk on by.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 6:50 AM |

 
A NOTE ON THE COTI
This past week I received over 75 submissions for the Carnival of the Insanities . While I'm glad that so many are interested in the COTI, it has become increasingly unwieldy to manage...and unfortunately, that means increasingly difficult for readers to read, also.

So, in the future, I will be much more selective each week, and limit the number of links to 25 or so. Some of those links are ones I choose myself which fit into the running thread or theme of the Carnival. I'm telling you all this so no one gets offended when their link is not included. Or, alternatively, feel free to get offended, but it won't be my problem.

This is a good time for you to read the basic guidelines for the COTI, which are here.

Thank you for making the Carnival so popular!
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 6:40 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. Lies, damned lies, and statistics. Oh, and polls. U.S. history in brief for the politically correct.

2. A random sampling of freedom of speech in Canada. Yikes. Freedom of speech is "an American concept"?? Good grief.

3. Meanwhile, a random sampling of idiocy of another variety in academia. Predicting 10 of the last zero recessions... You've got to wonder why anyone listens to him anymore?

4. Uh-oh. Obama is really sunk now! And, I think he hurt John Edward's feelings. This can't help, either. Time for the spoofs!

5. As for his opponent-- buy one, get one free? Isn't voting against--or for--someone on the basis of race or sex...racist and sexist respectively? The crying game.... Or was it performance-enhancing drugs? You decide.

6. But hey! Maybe they're all secret agents working for C*H*A*N*G*E, that diabolical international organization that opposed the Turd Reich.

7. Did I say diabolical? I meant Dieboldical. It's always safe to blame those evil corporations! Or take it out on the Poles. Or blame global warming?

8. The pre-9/11 George Bush? Perhaps. What he should tell Mahmoud, but probably won't. Ignoring elephants? He comes to bury Ron Paul, not to praise him.

9. Artistic appeasement. Very courageous.

10. Just what we need...a joint overt operations unit!

11. Live longer with these New Year's resolutions! Or, just take two pills and call me in the morning. Learning Life's Lessons from...Desperate Housewives??

12. But he meant well. They mean well. It just gets all screwed up in implementation!

13. Hoist (killed, actually) on his own petard. Well-deserved. Another quirk of fate. Not deserved.

14. Power to the people small bloggers! And there are billions of small bloggers....

15. The deceased of Germany have overstayed their welcome!

16. Congratulations! You are the proud relative of a cuddly bag of rice! Are you an average guy?It's probably a mistake to write about your insanity-riddled family....

17, Finally together! What women want to know about men...and what men want to know about women.

18. Being able to propose without derailing your other financial goals - Priceless --no matter what your gender orientation!

19. Worry no more about how much bother it is to carry both your MP3 music player and your Taser gun!

20. Anything that smiles probably doesn't belong on the menu. A good rule. This is one spa I won't be going to.

***************************************
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 @ 8:11 AM |

 
HELL FREEZES OVER
Really!

BAGHDAD - After weathering nearly five years of war, Baghdad residents thought they'd pretty much seen it all. But Friday morning, as muezzins were calling the faithful to prayer, the people here awoke to something certifiably new.

For the first time in memory, snow fell across Baghdad.

Although the white flakes quickly dissolved into gray puddles, they brought an emotion rarely expressed in this desert capital snarled by army checkpoints, divided by concrete walls and ravaged by sectarian killings — delight.

You would think this would be a good time for Democrats to admit the Surge has worked; that we have turned a corner in Iraq; and that we have effectively routed Al Qaeda and to concentrate on winning in this war.... but you would be wrong:

Congress Daily reports on a recent conference call with Democratic Senator Ben Nelson and former Kerry campaign foreign policy adviser Rand Beers. The call focused on Nelson's effort to push for a change in mission for our troops in Iraq, and the failure of the surge to promote political reconciliation.

Yet while Nelson reportedly acknowledges that the surge has achieved 'key military objectives,' he is apparently still able to utter this phrase:

Noting that President Bush announced the surge initiative last January, Nelson said: "Here we are one year later and it's like Groundhog Day. Everything seems to be the same."

The comment demonstrates a stunning indifference to the extraordinary turnaround that has taken place in Iraq in the last year.

Facts, schmacts. What do they care if they aren't in the White House?

WE'LL NEVER ADMIT IT'S GETTING BETTER
The Official Theme Song of the Democratic Party (with apologies to the Beatles)

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

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

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

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

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

UPDATE: Jules Crittenden has more.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 8:29 AM |

 
COURAGEOUS FEMINISTS AND OTHER FAIRY TALES
Via Israpundit, this story is rather interesting (hat tip: Alex Bensky):

Ms. Magazine has long been in the forefront of the fight for equal rights and equal opportunities for women. Apparently that is not the case if the women happen to be Israeli.

The magazine has turned down an AJCongress advertisement that did nothing more controversial than call attention to the fact that women currently occupy three of the most significant positions of power in Israeli public life. The proposed ad (The Ad Ms. Didn't Want You To See: http://www.ajcongress.org/site/DocServer/Ms.pdf?docID=1961 ) included a text that merely said, "This is Israel," under photographs of President of the Supreme Court Dorit Beinish, Vice Prime Minister and Minister for Foreign Affairs Tzipi Livni and Knesset Speaker Dalia Itzik.

"What other conclusion can we reach," asked Richard Gordon, President of AJCongress, "except that the publishers − and if the publishers are right, a significant number of Ms. Magazine readers − are so hostile to Israel that they do not even want to see an ad that says something positive about Israel?"

When Director of AJCongress' Commission for Women's Empowerment Harriet Kurlander tried to place the ad, she was told that publishing the ad "will set off a firestorm" and that "there are very strong opinions" on the subject − the subject presumably being whether or not one can say anything positive about Israel. Ms. Magazine publisher Eleanor Smeal failed to respond to a signed-for certified letter with a copy of the ad as well as numerous calls by Mr. Gordon over a period of weeks.

A Ms. Magazine representative, Susie Gilligan, whom the Ms. Magazine masthead lists under the publisher's office, told Ms. Kurlander that the magazine "would love to have an ad from you on women's empowerment, or reproductive freedom, but not on this." Ms. Gilligan failed to elaborate what "this" is....

"This flagship publication of the American women's empowerment movement publishes ads that are controversial in the general culture but not so among its readership," Ms. Kurlander said. "Obviously, Ms. believes our ad would enflame a significant portion of their readers."

Of course, the "flagship" of women's empowerment has no problem accusing the Bush Administration of being "bent on rewarding big corporations and the rich, turning back the clock on women's rights and civil rights, and promoting a U.S. empire abroad." Such formidable courage is simply breathtaking.

Ms--like almost all the leftist feminists of today--would rather enshrine and perpetuate the eternal victimhood of women (they depend on it actually) than highlight anything so politically incorrect and demeaning as powerful women who don't happen to share their leftist politics. Frankly, Ms and today's feminists are just a joke, continuing to promulgate the same marxist fairy tales.

Don't look now, sisters, but your "flagship" is sinking like a stone.

UPDATE: Oh, by the way, I forgot to mention that, if it was the female vote that buoyed Hillary in New Hampshire, they better remember their place in the socialist food chain before they get too uppity:

Other behaviors of the unrepentantly socialist dictators suggest that, while there are many victim groups, some groups are far more important than others. As the example above shows, the culture or religion's status as "victimized" allows (nay, it demands)the suppression of the various uppity victim classes within it (e.g., Women or Gays) who try to rise above their rightful place in the utopia.

From the perspective of the socialist utopian, what matters more than Women's rights or Gay Righs are the rights of a designated culture. The dogma of multiculturalism trumps the dogma of women's superiority. This is probably because for the socialist utopian, might makes right and the needs of the many always outweigh the needs of the few--and the few better remember that fact, or else. In the socialist utopia, there is no room for individuality or personal preference; or tolerance for differences. You always must subsume yourself to the collective; and the bigger the collective, the more power victimization can be exploited.

For example, we know from experience that blacks, women and gays lose their cherished victim status if they dare to become Republicans; and, to a lesser extent, if they choose to be Christian (except for most Episcopalians, who have seen the secular light).

Being black trumps being a woman or gay (i.e., there is more "social justice" mileage to be squeezed out of the oppression of blacks, i.e., racism, than there is from the oppression of women (sexism) or even gays (homophobia). Just ask Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton.[Ed. note - or, Barack Obama, for that matter]

The oppression of Jews is completely ignored because of the animus the "enlightened" have toward Israel; and anti-semitism, which in past times would have had a ranking up close to the level of dark-skinned people (probably because those who founded the Jewish state were dedicated socialists--unfortunately, they soon realized that in real life, their ideology didn't work too well); but anti-semitism no longer is a compelling issue for the socialists. In fact, they are among its worse practitioners as socialism has spread throughout the Middle East.

- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 8:07 AM |

 
A NOT SO INEXPLICABLE ANGER
Glenn Reynolds notes that a "prophecy" uttered by Jonah Goldberg is already coming true. From an email he quotes:

Watched the NH returns with some friends last night, and something quite unexpected happened when the AP called it for Clinton -- inexplicable ANGER. I was surrounded by people in their early 30's, registered Democrats, receptive to the Clintons in the 90's, and I swear I thought someone was going to throw their wine glass at the tube during her 'victory' speech.

And that's just one primary! All is proceeding as Jonah has foreseen.

Actually, the anger that many on the left are currently directing at the Clintons post-New Hampshire, and that we on the right are observing with mixed astonishemnt and amusement--is in many ways, quite remarkable. Those of us from the conservative side of things have had a long tradition of dislike of the Clintons--husband and wife. Sometimes this dislike has become so intense and overpowering that it has clouded--or at least impeded rational judgments about either.

So it is particularly surprising to see the people who for years adored the happy couple; sanctified and righteously defended Bill, and beatified Hillary while holding her up as a model for all women, suddenly--and with so very little alteration in the essential behavior that either bill or Hill have displayed for the last 15 years--screaming with outrage at their former pets.

No wonder Hillary cried in public. She has been betrayed by the Democrats and the left in the same casual way her fickle husband has been betraying her throughout their marriage.

What's going on here?

In a post called "Denial,Repression, Lying and Forgetfulness" I wrote:

Denial, which is an immature defense is defined as an attempt to reject unacceptable feelings, needs, thoughts, wishes--or even a painful external reality that alters the perception of ourselves. This psychological defense mechanism protects us temporarily from:
-Knowledge (things we don’t want to know)
-Insight or awareness that threatens our self-esteem; or our mental or physical health; or our security (things we don't want to think about)
-Unacceptable feelings (things we don’t want to feel)

One type of denial is Repression , a neurotic defense characterized by a seemingly inexplicable naivete, memory lapse, or lack of awareness. Repression is often dismissed as an artifact of diminished attention by cognitive psychologists, but I find that it almost always reflects a rather creative method to resolve some inner conflict for the person who uses it. With repression, affect is out in the open, but the associated idea is out of the mind and unavailable to consider. Someone who has repressed some knowledge may be genuinely astonished that anyone would consider them to have deliberately ignored the issue.

The "forgetting of repression is different from ordinary forgetting in that there is often some sort of parallel symbolic behavior that goes along with it.

Most often repression is associated with histrionic traits. A typical example might be the doting and dutiful wife who remains blissfully unaware of the husband's constant philandering--although the evidence is obvious to everyone else; and she may not understand why she feels anger at her spouse. She may defend him passionately from his accusers, but the anger will find a way to express itself in various ways within their relationship....

Thus, we might conclude that Hillary's surprise in discovering that Bill was being paid by Dubai and the U.A. E., even as she was denouncing the port deal is an example of:

(a) PSYCHOLOGICAL DENIAL (suggesting she is out of touch with reality)
(b) PSYCHOLOGICAL REPRESSION (suggesting that she has neurotic conflicts)
(c) DELIBERATE LYING (suggesting that she is a liar)
(d) NORMAL FORGETFULNESS (suggesting that she is clueless and inattentive)

...[S]uffice it to say that neurotic defenses may be used by all sorts of intelligent people....

The left and the Democrats are now equally astounded to discover that the Clintons are the Clintons! And that they would use the usual Clinton tactics against them!

Just as Hillary had a neurotic and "forgetful" moment regarding the antics of her husband; what we are witnessing is a supremely neurotic moment on the part of the left, who willy-nilly have jumped the Clinton ship and climbed aboard the Obama "vessel of hope". They are astounded that the antics of the Clintons (which for years they have rationalized and excused) are being used against them. Their idealization the Clintons had worn thin and, just in the nick of time, along comes a younger, prettier face that can help them shore up those tired, old "progressive" ideas, and delude them into believing they actually are supporting something fresh and innovative.

I hate to tell them, but Obama is just another socialist hack. For sure, he's fresh and young and articulate. But his ideas are no fresher than Hillary's and quite a bit more rigid and uncompromising. Hillary and Bill never believed in anything but themselves. Obama comes across as selfless as Mother Theresa, promising to lead us to his utopian wonderland.

What we are witnessing is the neurosis and fickleness of the political left, who just a short time ago adored the Clintons and could bear nothing bad be said about their legacy in the White House.

Like the prototypically unfaithful spouse, they blithely abandon the imperfect, aging and increasingly more obviously flawed partner to take up with a person who can give them the illusion that their old ideas and their stagnant political party seem young again.

And, when confronted with the unpleasant reality of their traitorous and shallow thoughts, they react with surprising anger toward the former object of their love, who now stands squarely in the way of being able to attain the new, and more perfect, ideal object.

I wish them luck with their audaciously new-and-improved delusion hope.


- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 7:32 AM |

 
PRIMITIVE, BUT EFFECTIVE

- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 9:07 PM |

 
"WE SHOULD HAVE SUNK EVERY ONE OF THEM"
Ralph Peters is 100% correct:

EARLY Sunday morning, the US Navy lost its nerve and guaranteed that American sailors will die at Iranian hands in the future.

As three of our warships passed through the Straits of Hormuz, five small Iranian patrol craft rushed them. As the Revolutionary Guard boats neared our vessels, an Iranian officer broadcast a threat to our ships, claiming they'd soon explode.

The Iranians tossed boxes into the water. Mines? Just in case, our ships took evasive action.

The Iranians kept on coming, closing to a distance of 200 meters - about two football fields. Supposedly, our Navy was ready to open fire but didn't shoot because the Iranians turned away at the moment the order was given.

We should've sunk every one of them.

The Mullahs are religiously-sanctioned bullies. The President of Iran is a short, pathetic thug. What is the best way to deal with these grownup bullies and thugs?

They are already engaged in killing Americans and have been for quite some time. And they know that they have several layers of protection that make it safe for them to behave as they like. They have deduced on the basis of past responses to their provocative actions that there will be no consequences for such behavior--wither from those who are the direct recipients of that behavior; or from the international community at large.

In "Showdown at the U.K. Corral" I wrote:

Consider, if the leaders of the free world cannot respond appropriately and decisively to the latest Iranian hostage crisis (and you think they would remember the consequences of the last one--particularly on the so-called "legacy" of Jimmy Carter), then the crisis will only escalate. What Carter did (and didn't do) 25 years ago paved the way for 9/11 and the many crises we are dealing with today; what future horrors will the selfish and malignant pacifism of today's left pave the way for in the next decade?

The Mullahs are watching and have a great big Cheshire cat grin on their face. They almost certainly have concluded from the useless British and international response that they can get away with practically anything now.

The key behavioral factor in extinguishing undesirable behavior is never to reinforce the behavior you are trying to extinguish. This fact is essential to understand, particularly when dealing with bullies who hail from a shame-phobic culture. The desire to preserve honor and avoid shame to the exclusion of all else is one of the primary foundations of the culture, and it has the side-effect of giving the individual carte blanche to engage in wrong-doing when they believe they have the upper hand.

In fact, any and all attempts to placate or reason with them will only result in their behavior escalating. That is because they sense weakness; and your weakness presents them with the opportunity to maximize both their own honor (such as it is) and your shame.

Bullies and thugs will not suddenly develop respect for your profound desire for peace and your non-violent, even appeasing, intentions--no matter how sincerely you express them. On the contrary, they conclude that you are weak and that there will be no consequences if they continue to push you around.

Once again, Iran has confirmed their beliefthat they are dealing with a paper tiger when they take on the West.

Charles Krauthammer noted that multilateralism and turning to the "international community" to handle the bad guys in the world has been singularly ineffective:

The result is utterly predictable. Nothing has been done about the Iranian bomb. In fact, the only effective sanctions are those coming unilaterally out of the U.S. Treasury.

Remember the great return to multilateralism — the new emphasis on diplomacy and "working with the allies" — so widely heralded at the beginning of the second Bush administration? To general acclaim, the cowboys had been banished and the grown-ups brought back to town.

What exactly has the new multilateralism brought us? North Korea tested a nuclear device. Iran has accelerated its march to developing the bomb. The pro-Western government in Beirut hangs by a thread. The Darfur genocide continues unabated.

The capture and release of the 15 British hostages illustrate once again the fatuousness of the "international community" and its great institutions. You want your people back? Go to the EU and get stiffed. Go to the Security Council and get a statement that refuses even to "deplore" this act of piracy. (You settle for a humiliating expression of "grave concern"). Then turn to the despised Americans. They'll deal some cards and bail you out.

(***see cartoon below for more on the complex UN multitasking activities as they deal with evil in the world)

This pattern of positively reinforcing the negative behavior of our enemies as we simultaneously negatively reinforce every effort to confront and deal with that negative behavior indicates a psychological denial and delusion so profound that it is simply stunning in its pathology.

No matter how you look at it--either from a behavioral or a psychological perspective--it seems clear that things are only going to be going from bad to worse in the immediate future. And make no mistake about it, Iran will do something like this again. And the next time they will be interested in seeing how much further they can go with their antics--Can they kill an American or two without reprisal? How about kidnap some sailors right off the ship? They already know they can send explosives to Iraq and detain Americans without too much outrage or reprisals.

As Peters says at the beginning of his article, our tepid response to the Iranian attempt to humiliate our Navy has ensured that Iranian provocations will escalate.

********

- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 6:40 AM |

 
ORCHESTRATED CIRCUSES AND CLOWNS
The invaluable Thomas Sowell reminds us on this New Hampshire Primary day of some important realities concerning the candidates:

"With all the media attention to the various political rivalries in both parties, it is easy to lose sight of the fact that all of this is ultimately about choosing a President of the United States.

The question of what kind of President each candidate would make is infinitely more important than all the "horse race" handicapping that dominates the media.

By far the best presentation as a candidate, among all the candidates in both parties, is that of Barack Obama. But if he actually believes even half of the irresponsible nonsense he talks, he would be an utter disaster in the White House.

Among the Democrats, the choice between John Edwards and Barack Obama depends on whether you prefer glib demagoguery in its plain vanilla form or spiced with a little style and color.

The choice between both of them and Hillary Clinton depends on whether you prefer male or female demagoguery.

Among the Republicans, there are misgivings about the track record of each of the candidates, especially those who have shown what Thorstein Veblen once called "a versatility of convictions."

There are fewer reasons for misgivings about Fred Thompson's track record in the Senate but more reason to be concerned about what his unfocused and lackluster conduct of his campaign might portend for his performance in the White House.

When it comes to personal temperament, Governor Romney would rate the highest for his even keel, regardless of what events are swirling around him, with Rudolph Giuliani a close second.

Temperament is far more important for a President than for a candidate. A President has to be on an even keel 24/7, for four long years, despite crises that can break out anywhere in the world at any time.

John McCain trails the pack in the temperament department, with his volatile, arrogant, and abrasive know-it-all attitude. His track record in the Senate is full of the betrayals of Republican supporters that have been the party's biggest failing over the years and its Achilles heel politically.

I have more than a little familiarity with choosing the right stuff, and I can tell you that when it comes to temperament, Sowell is right on. Temperament is crucial in selecting a candidate in these troubled times who is able to make sound, rational decisions that will keep the country safe and, at the same time, hold true to our precious values and freedoms.

And, only by accident do we ever get a true picture of the candidate's real temperaments during this primary season. Their personas are all pre-packaged and wrapped to perfection. The rare moments when we see the real person shining through the glitz is often so brief that it can be hard to recognize. And, even those rare moments are frequently scripted to make us think we are seeing the real person beneath, when in fact, we are seeing exactly what they want us to see.

That's why a candidate's history is so important. Because the best predictor of future behavior/performance is past behavior/performance. We simply can't trust what we are being shown now during carefully arranged and cleverly manufactured circus events.

In observing the selection process, I can't help but feel we are going about it the wrong way. The likability factor seems to wash out every other factor. A pretty face or glib words lull people into false hope and mindless support for candidates that promise them the moon.

We seem to be pleading with the candidates, "Make it all go away! Tell us anything to make us believe that everything will be wonderful if we elect you!" And, of course, the candidates oblige willingly.

It won't be wonderful, folks. We are in for a long, hard trek over the next 8+ years. There won't be any magical solutions, and the "change" that everyone is clamoring for is going to be happening anyway-- no matter who is elected. But not, I think, in the way the word is being bandied about so relentlessly.

The issue isn't change, it is what kind of change and in what direction? It is, can we live with the changes that are coming whether we like them or not?

Frankly, we need a real leader, and not a slick, media-savvy, audacious rock star preacherman to take charge and lead us through the minefield of changes and challenges ahead....And I've yet to see one that I can trust to do the right thing even when it is difficult in the current herd of candidates. It's possible that whoever is elected will be tested by events and turn out to be the person we need...but I hate to leave it so much to chance and "glib demagoguery".


There's got to be a better way for democracies to choose candidates than these orchestrated primary circuses with all the glib, reality-defying acts and convoluted clown antics.

Ah well. Sometimes we have to do the best we can with the candidates we have; and not the candidates we wish we had.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 8:41 AM |

 
THE SANITY SQUAD MAKES NH PREDICTIONS !
Last night on our weekly podcast, The Sanity Squad made some predictions and provided some pscyhological and political analysis of the Democratic and Republican races for the Presidency. Take a listen to Siggy, ShrinkWrapped, Neo, and me as we analyze, interpret, and otherwise pontificate as shrinks tend to do!

Click below to listen:

- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 8:34 AM |

 
THE SANITY SQUAD DOES THE PRIMARIES
LIVE FROM SOMEWHRE IN PRIMARY COUNTRY! It's THE SANITY SQUAD! On both sides of the political aisle, strange things are happening...Hillary is down and possibly out of contention; and Huckabee and Obama seem to be soaring. What will happen next? Whose fortunes are rising and why. What's behind the strange political atmosphere that seems to be infecting the country...and does it matter?

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

Click below to listen live at 8 PM tonight:


CALL-IN Number during show is (646) 716-9116
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 3:22 PM |

 
HE'S GOT SUNSHINE ON A CLOUDY DAY

- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 6:28 AM |

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

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

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

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

1. It's all in your head, you know. There's trouble everywhere worldwide, but let's look on the brighter side!

2. Doesn't this person understand what he reveals about himself? Sheesh. The left is so clueless. Headlines tell us so much--and not necessarily about the story. In response to this idiocy, I must agree with the emailer. Hoist by their own petard, so to speak.

3. Who's afraid of the big, bad wolfBill.... Afraid? They're terrified. Check out the memo announcing the momentous occasion!

4. Chavez's only chance is to pay the cocaine-fueled revolutionary army through the nose (I intend the pun).... And, here's his way of dealing with the pesky problem of inflation: Simply deflate it and it will magically go away! What a comical genius that clown is. Can't sleep...clown will eat me!


5. Speaking of the paranoid delusions of the left, the guy described in this post should move to Ann Arbor. He'd fit right in. Or move to Britain where they have true leftoid freedom of speech. More "free speech"-- as defined by the politically correct. Do you have the sense that they are just a little unclear on the concept?

6. Oh nooooooo! The evil Israelis have killed Santa! Guess Mike's letter will be returned--and it was so politically correct, too! But, they have "crossed all the boundaries of a civilized nation" and their existence is a tragedy...or is it farce?

7. Definitely not coming up roses. Not the freshest flower in the bunch, is she? An earmarxist? Good one! Just something your average, run-of-the-mill marxist will do. Oh goody! Another victim group to champion. Are you a gingerist?

8. Give me hijab or give them death!--so sayeth the Patrick Henry of the Islamists. Islam says submit...or die.

9. The war on science: yet another reason to get the government out of schools...it leads to bogus science and data bombs. Uh-oh. The fat police won't like this David!

10. Thank you, Iowans! Maybe too far? Probably not. If Obama is a Rorschach Test, then Huckabee is a ____ (fill in the blank). Saintly Huckabee unveils all the dirt he won't use against his rivals. What a prince!

11. No more polls? Hah! Dream on.

12. Foolish mortals! Look upon her and despair.... Remeber the origin of our image of..errr....witches. Quietly heroic? If she were from the other political party they'd make fun of her intelligence, wouldn't they? You can pray, but don't move your lips.

13. Setting the global agenda? Just another celebrity endorsement? Pimp my Rolls!

14. Send in your proposals for making America a better place through televised humiliation and absurdity!

15. What men want to know about women.... Oh, good. Just in time for Valentine's Day. Boys need an arena....

16. Is it a coincidence that fingers fit in nostrils?

17. Putting your feet up? Priceless.

18. You've worked hard on your blog...you DESERVE comments!


***************************************
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 @ 8:40 AM |

 
THE PARANOID DELUSIONS OF THE LEFT
They are, of course, everywhere on the DU; but you need go no further than this bizarre article at The Huffington Post:

In 1968, when Kennedy was gaining momentum and piling up primary victories it looked as though he would win the presidential nomination. But before he could be safely ensconced inside "the bubble" of 24-hour federal protection he was assassinated. And his progressive challenge to the war in Vietnam and to poverty at home was stopped in its tracks.

In 2008, Obama is gaining momentum, and hopefully people inside his organization are cognizant of the fact that he constitutes a very real threat to the likes of Blackwater, Dyncorps, Halliburton, and the hundreds of other private companies currently profiteering from the Iraq occupation.

Having conveniently forgotten the motives behind Sirhan Sirhan's assassination of Kennedy in 1968 (Sirhan apparently believed he was betrayed when Kennedy supported Israel in the Six-Day War and was angry in general over the creation of the state of Israel at the expense of the Palestinians---not exactly a person of the political right, would you say?), Palermo seamlessly goes into a rather typical leftist anti-capitalist diatribe stating, "Under an Obama Administration Blackwater would no doubt be cut down to size along with Bush's other crony capitalist entities."

Ummmm. yeah.

The beginning of the 21st century will surely be looked back on as a golden age of paranoia. The headlines of today fairly ooze with the delusions and vast conspiracies dreamed of in the mind of the paranoid left.

If we go back a little we can find reams of material to document this process, but let's look at two others.

The first is an example of a series of bizarre conspiracy theories emanating from anxious leftist as they attempt to keep the holes in their ideology plugged; thus preventing any reality from washing over them or flooding their cognitive processes.

Every time a leak in that ideological dike appears, the paranoid brand chewing gum is brought out to stop it up. The TNG memos were a clever plot by Karl Rove. The Bush Administration was behind 9/11; Katrina was allowed to destroy New Orleans because Bush hates blacks. George Bush is about to impose a theocracy on the unsuspecting U.S. Pat Tillman was murdered because he wanted to meet with anti-war activist Norm Chomsky. The list of the paranoid delusions goes on and on and on.

Taken as a whole, they are evidence of an ongoing and determined refusal to face reality--because it is a reality that threatens the belief systm of a whole section of the American population. Without the delusions and conspiracies concocted by the always creative political left, their whole house of Marxist cards will come crumblin down.

Some have said that Unwillingness To Face Reality And Its Consequences is the most serious mental illness of our time; and that is most certainly true.

If scientists can say that obesity is "socially contagious", consider for a moment how a much more contagious psychological processes like paranoia and projection are. Indeed, this tendency to deny reality is at epidemic levels. In our own country, we must deal with an entire poltical party and half the nation in the grip of the illness.

But there are also other large groups and populations that suffer from mass paranoia and projection. Let us take the second example drawn from news headlines this week:

SUDAN: JEWS BEHIND DARFUR CONFLICT

Sudanese defense minister says '24 Jewish organizations fueling conflict in Darfur'

Sudan's defense minister, Abdel Rahim Mohamed Hussein, has accused "24 Jewish organizations" of "fueling the conflict in Darfur" last week in an interview with a Saudi newspaper.

Hussein was interviewed during an official state-visit to the Saudi kingdom last week.

A journalist from Saudi Arabia's Okaz newspaper asked Hussein: "Some people are talking about the penetration of Jewish organizations in Darfur and that there is no conflict there?"

"The Darfur issue is being fuelled by 24 Jewish organizations, who are making the largest amount of noise over the issue, and using the Holocaust in their campaigning," the Sudanese defense minister replied.

Hussein added that the Darfur conflict was driven by "friction between farmers and herders and shepherds. Among the biggest problems is that of water, which is used to exploit the differences and fuel the conflict."

"Are these Jewish groups supporting (the rebels) financially?," the interviewer from Okaz asked Hussein.

"Yes, they provide political and material support through their control over the media and across American and British circles," Hussein said, adding that Jewish groups were using "all means to fuel these conflicts."

The "Pat Tillman was deliberately murdered by the Bush Administration" and "The Jews are behind the genocide in Darfur" stories are both perfect examples demonstrating how the bacteria of paranoid stupidity is spread. The infecting agent is usually a true believer who cannot face some unpleasant aspect of reality (i.e. that always "unpleasant truth") that is starting to trickle out into the open. It must dammed up immediately. The paranoid gum is handy and easy to use--just chew it up and plaster it over the hole.

For the political left, the gum is a creative conspiracy theory that links the Bush Administration to anything bad in the world--in this case to discredit a celebrity military hero who died under tragic circumstances, but who died fighting for his country. Such a bizarre distortion of the cirucumstances of his death serves to undermine his bona fides as a real patriot while demonizing the entire Bush Administration and the war on terror. It is simply another manifestation of BDS.

The second story is a manifestation of the deep-rooted dysfunction of the religion of Islam, which has mired a good portion of the world in it medievalism. In order to rationalized its backwardness and the failure it has been societally and culturally, the Jews serve as the handy scapegoat on which they can blame all their own societal failures. To do otherwise would mean they would have to question some very basic assumptions about their fantasized superiority.

In making paranoid pronouncements, the paranoid person always takes himself or herself extremely seriously. Rarely do people like Palermo, or the 9/11 Troofer, the Pat Tillmaniac, or the Islamoparanoid present themselves to a mental health professionals seeking help; or even complaining about their psychological projections, no matter how bizarre or dysfunctional they may be. That is because for them, the paranoia and the accompanying projections explain away and rationalize so much about their failures as individuals and cultures.

The insane asylum we refer to as the Middle East and all its affiliates in Africa and Indonesia where Islamic delusion runs rampant, have a fully formed paranod fantasy that explains their lack of progress and their dysfunction in the real world. Likewise, the lunatic left also subscribes to their own special convoluted explantions of dysfunction and lack of power. In both cases, if the object of their projections did not exist, they would have to invent them because their world view cannot be held together without the gummy glue of the paranoid fantasies that connect all their dots. To them, the fact that Blackwaters and Halliburtons--or any successful capitalist business exists--is enough to explain their own dysfunction and lack of progress.

Funny, isn't it, how this characteristic and prevalent delusion of the political left perfectly parallels the paranoid delusions of the backward Islamic oountries of the Middle East and their attitude toward the "evil Jews."

If only Israel and the Jews could be "wiped off the map"; or, if only those evil capitalist companies could be "torn up into a thousand pieces and scatter[ed] to the wind" then Islam/Progressivism would be more successful.

Everything can be explained by this kind of paranoid logic. In fact, paranoia is really nothing more than the use of reason and logic in the service of the irrational and bizarre.

• Are you poor? Someone must have robbed you of what you are entitled to!
• Are you angry and experiencing hatred, but like to think of yourself as a loving, compassionate sort of person? Then the object of your hatred magically becomes the one who hates...you!
• Is your genius not universally recognized? You must have powerful enemies that prevent you from achieving the success you know should be yours.
• Have you made mistakes in your life? Someone has clearly tricked you into acting a certain way otherwise you wouldn't have.

Has you ideology continually and repeatedly failed in the real world and resulted in death and misery for all who implement it? Take heart! It is not your fault or your ideology's! Either it wasn't implemented virutously enough; or there were evil [Republican, Neocon, Male, White, Christian, Jewish] forces (choose one or more) that have been plotting against it!

The above mental gymnastics allow the paranoid person to externalize blame and avoid responsibility for his situation in life, as well as his own feelings. It is always someone else's fault and not his. It is always someone else who is experiencing the objectionable feelings, and he is always the victim of it.

In addition to externalizing blame for one's own pitiful situation in life, there is yet another advantage to paranoia and projection: very often, a creative distortion of reality can reliably pump up one's own self-esteem! You are the righteous; persecuting the true racists thus proving you, yourself, are incapable of any racist thoughts or emotions! Aren't you wonderful?

Sometimes, it pumps it that self-esteem up at the expense of a great deal of fear; but nevertheless, it is comforting to know that someone appreciates your genius or the threat you represent. Clearly if the CIA, FBI, aliens, Jews , POTUS, Republicans, Blackwater, Halliburton, Big Oil [--fill in your favorite bogeyman here--] are out to get you, you must be very special and unique indeed.

In short, paranoia and its baby brother projection organize and distort reality in a way that makes it palatable; and, at the same time help the user to avoid recognizing some unpleasant truths about himself. When practiced on a societal or cultural level, it accomplishes the same thing on a larger scale. All you have to do is eliminate the external problem and everything will be all right and you'll never have to question your beliefs--or say you are sorry-- again.

The con artist does this consciously and deliberately and understands the effectiveness of the psychological maneuver. Con artists come in all sorts of political stripes, of course, but in our day the great examples are pretty much exclusive to the political left, because the vast majority of the left's minions have such an intense need to appear virtuous. In fact, the appearance of virtue in themselves is much more important than any other reality.

Reality is always redrawn in order to pump up their own righteousness and virtue. Anyone who opposes their policies is automatically branded as racist, sexist, homophobic, islamophobic-- take your pick, depending on the circumstances.

Hell, anyone who offers ANY new ideas in these areas are automatically branded with one of the "isms".

In the example above where the Darfur Minister of Defense lays the blame for the genocide on the Jews, he is just drawing from a similar tradition that runs through the most dysfunctional threads of Islam. The Jews are responsible for the misery of the Palestinians (it is never the Palestinians own fault); the Jews ritually eat the blood of Muslim babies; plot to destroy Islam; and are guilty of all sorts of atrocities and convoluted plots to take over the world (reference the Protocols of the Elders of Zion).

It is useless to point out the truth to people in the grip of these kind of paranoid delusions. It is just so easy to attribute one's own cynical motives and unacceptable feelings to others, particularly when such attribution is culturally sanctioned.

It is inconceivable to paranoid persons that people actually exist who view the situation differently from them. It is inconceivable that they could be wrong about their perception of reality. Con men always think others are out to con them. In fact, most paranoids consider themselves the ONLY reality-based community, because they get to define what reality is and it is always what they happen to feel. And it is always about making sure they feel good and virtuous and self-righteous.

Paranoia and projection also provide a rationale and justification (to the paranoid, at least) for acting out against those who--from their perspective-- stand in the way of implementing their social programs; or will not submit to the will of their god (whoever and whatever it may be).

Oh, and by the way: DO NOT make the mistake of thinking that only psychiatric patients who have a serious mental illness utilize these defense mechanisms. Paranoia is a symptom of many mental illnesses; but both paranoia and projection are also physiological states of the brain that can be achieved by otherwise "normal" people under the proper circumstances. The distortion of reality that occurs with the use of these defenses is always done to serve inner psychological needs.

Paranoia and projection as psychological defenses used by otherwise normal people are not mental illnesses that can be "cured" by mass quantities of antipsychotic medication in the water supply. Instead, they represent a distortion of reality that occurs in order to meet the inner needs of a crumbling self (or a crumbling ideology, culture, or society) that cannot otherwise be psychologically sustained.

To those who are using such a defense, their behavior and rhetoric seem perfectly logical and internally consistent. It is, in fact, as impeccable as any reasoning can be--considering that it originates from distorted premises. Paranoia has been referred to as "the rational in the service of the irrational" for good reasons.

And, by that kind of "logic" it makes perfect sense to use the maximum force possible to destroy those who the paranoid believes are responsible for the evil: e.g., all those absurd conspiracies that are wholeheartedly supported by the left that claim Bush and Cheney downed the twin towers; and have those who oppose them murdered. All those absurd theories that the Israelis created a disease that is specific to Arab genes or that the fictional Protocols are behind the lack of Nobel Prizes for Muslims; or even that the genocide in Darfur is just another Jewish conspiracy. These kind of paranoid fantasies all comes from the same psychological source.

As long as they maintain those delusions, they do not have to deal with the sad state of their own culture; their own sick religion; or their pathetic ideological inadequacies.

Thank you, Mr. Palermo and The Huffington Post for pointing that out for us so clearly.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 10:41 AM |

 
THE REAL AUDACITY OF HOPE
From StrategyPage:

Where Have All The Dead Americans Gone?
U.S. forces suffered 107 casualties (dead and wounded) for the month of December in Iraq. Twelve months previously (December, 2006), there were 817. In between there was a bloody campaign, called "the surge," which caused most of the 6,801 casualties American troops suffered that year. In 2006 there were 7,221 casualties.

The U.S. always put a premium on keeping American casualties down. This led to tactics, equipment and weapons designed to get the job done, with the fewest American dead and wounded. As a result, the casualty rate in Iraq was less than half what it was in Vietnam. There was also an emphasis on keeping civilian casualties down. It was difficult for most Americans to realize this, given the media's fixation on real or imagined atrocities. In Iraq, over 90 percent of civilian casualties were inflicted by other Iraqis. The military encouraged the media to not cover the many procedures ("rules of engagement" or ROE) U.S. troops follow to avoid civilian losses. This was because the enemy would exploit those ROEs as much as possible.

In hindsight, U.S. troops will get credit for keeping their own casualties down to historically low levels (compared to any other 20th century conflict). Professional soldiers have already recognized this feat, and are studying American techniques intensively. Less well appreciated are the efforts the Americans made to keep civilian losses down. But foreign military experts are coming to appreciate that this aspect of the war paid long term benefits. Iraqis saw, day by day, the efforts by American troops to avoid hurting civilians. Initially, Iraqis saw that as an American weakness, but in the long run they recognized it as a sensibility rarely seen in the Middle East. This will have long term consequences for relations between the United States and Iraq.

All this, of course, means very little to the utopian peacebots of the antiwar movement who don't live in the real world anyway; as well as to the more adolescent and simplistic of the candidates running for President these days.

Bill Whittle has a thought-provoking analysis (in two parts) of "Forty Second Boyd" and how the U.S. Military has been transformed against fierce resistence on many levels to be more adaptable and effective in 21st century battlefields.

And, when the history books look back on this era, people like Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld---as well as General Petraeus-- will earn their share of the credit for the transformation. Whittle makes one excellent point at the end of this long, but rewarding article:

And as for the Surge, I am struck by one thought, and that is this: It seems clear now that we needed more troops in theater from Day One. But I think the spectacular success of the Surge is due less to the number of boots on the ground than it is to something far more important.

Looking back on the rise of the insurgency, it seems as if the average Iraqi did not know what to make of America. I suspect that many would have been far more supportive a long time ago, if it were not for the image of a helicopter atop a building in 1975 and a line of desperate people running for their lives. To work with Americans may have been what many wanted to do much, much sooner.

But…

When Michael Moore makes a hugely successful film praising Saddam’s paradise and calling these people who bomb women and children in marketplaces “freedom fighters,” and when an election turns and places into Congressional power a political party dedicated to reproducing that helicopter tableau as soon as possible... what would you do? Because if you guess wrong and the Americans leave, you will be taken out into the street in front of your family and have your head sawed off.

I think the Surge has had spectacular success not because of the additional troops so much as for the fact that when the media and the Democrats demanded we cut and run… we did not cut and run. We doubled down. When the calls for defeat and dishonor were at their loudest – sad to say a not unwarranted street rep we had made for ourselves – somehow, somehow we simply just hung on and gave them not a retreat but a charge.

Jesus Christ, but that must have gotten someone’s attention. Yes, the Surge is working. But I believe it is not a surge of boots that is doing the work so much as it is a surge of hope.

Ah yes. Let us call what Whittle is describing the real world version of the so-called "audacity of hope", a phrase which has been regularly overused by the usual leftist utopian hucksters to appeal to the fantasies and everyday delusions of the masses.

For hope to be meaningful, it must be reality-based (yet another term rather inappropriately appropriated by the delusional denizens of the left). "Reclaiming the American Dream" (the subtitle of Obama's book) is more than just mouthing the socialist platitudes and promising eternal peace and plenty. It means going back to promoting the fundamental values--life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness--which make those hopes possible, and which formed the basis for creating this wonderful country to begin with.

It means facing the real world and dealing with the threats that exist, not ignoring them and pandering to human proclivity for psychological denial of reality. It means facing the real enemies of life and freedom; not giving those enemies a free pass and pretending that imperfection in the forces of good is the only "evil" that matters (psychological displacement). It means more than the empty promises of politicians.

In short, sometimes it means choosing to do what is hard and sticking to it because it is right.

Or, another way of understanding the real audacity of hope is the conversation between Frodo and Sam at Osgiliath in "The Two Towers":

I can't do this Sam.";

"I know. It's all wrong. By rights we shouldn't even be here. But we are. It's like in the great stories, Mr. Frodo. The ones that really mattered. Full of darkness and danger, they were. And sometimes you didn't want to know the end. Because how could the end be happy? How could the world go back to the way it was when so much bad had happened? But in the end, it's only a passing thing, this shadow. Even darkness must pass. A new day will come. And when the sun shines it will shine out the clearer. Those were the stories that stayed with you. That meant something, even if you were too small to understand why. But I think, Mr. Frodo, I do understand. I know now. Folk in those stories had lots of chances of turning back, only they didn't. They kept going. Because they were holding on to something.";

"What are we holding on to Sam?";

"That there's some good in this world, Mr. Frodo... and it's worth fighting for."

The courageous men and women of our military services know what is worth fighting for; Forty Second Boyd knew what was worth fighting for; and, my audacious hope is that the American people will once again remember what is worth fighting for; and break out of the self-induced mental fog many have slipped into to avoid an unpleasant and frightening reality bearing down on them.

Because, it really matters.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 9:20 AM |

 
A BUNCH OF CARDS...PRETTY MUCH ALL JOKERS


Not to mention Edwards, who plays the "class warfare" card while using his Mastercard....



I have an idea. Why don't we pick our Presidents every 4 years via an American Idol type of show--where people who aspire to the office have to compete head to head every week and are voted off based on their performance. No commercials; no attack ads; just raw talent--at being able to communicate ideas and values of substance.

Somewhere in all the contestants jockeying for a vote, there's bound to be a Paul Potts--or someone you least expect--who turns out to be exceptionally well-qualified to lead the free world; a diamond in the rough, who is not just a polished joker who says what everyone expects, and promises what no one can deliver.

Because frankly, I'm sick of professional politicians.


Related: see "Iowa, Fiddling On The Roof"
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 6:57 AM |

 
A PRESCIENT PODCAST ?
On the November 26, 2007 podcast, The Sanity Squad interviewed Fatima Bhutto, who chatted with us about her country, it's current President, as well as her famous Aunt Benazir. If you haven't had a chance to listen to that podcast, you should check it out.

The following is excerpted from SC&A's site, where he discusses a recent article about the Bhutto dynasty in Pakistani politics. Siggy has posteda series of scathing articles on Benazir Bhutto (see here, here, here, here, here, and here). Below is the just most recent chapter in the ongoing Bhutto saga.

*********

Fausta links to the next chapter in the Bhutto soap opera:

The head of the Bhutto tribe, a founding member of the Pakistan Peoples Party, has rejected the appointment of Benazir Bhutto’s husband and son to lead the group and predicted that it will split the party.

Mumtaz Bhutto’s comments threaten to reopen the deep fissures in the family, Pakistan’s foremost political dynasty. The Bhuttos started to fall out after the 1979 execution of Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, the nation’s first elected prime minister who turned the Peoples Party into its most potent political force.

The article goes on to note that

Asif Ali Zardari, Benazir’s widower, was unrelated to the Bhuttos, while his son, Bilawal, carried the name Zardari until his mother was assassinated last week, when he took on Bhutto as his middle name.

“The party has come into existence on the name and the sweat and the blood of the Bhutto family,” said Mumtaz, 74, a long-time critic of Benazir who lives on a grand country estate in Mirpur Bhutto, the original family village in Sindh province. “Therefore, the leadership should either have gone to Sanam or Murtaza’s son or daughter.”

One contender might be Fatima Bhutto, daughter of Murtaza Bhutto. There are many who believe that Murtaza Bhutto was murdered on the orders Benazir Bhutto. That tragic event was one of the reasons Benazir Bhutto was forced from office before her term ended.

The Sanity Squad’s interview with Fatima Bhutto can be found here.

In light of Benazir Bhutto’s assassination and the subsequent political abyss upon which Pakistan teeters , the interview proved to be prescient. Listeners are offered some real insight into the political quagmire that is Pakistan. Given that nation’s nuclear capability, instability is a danger that cannot be overlooked.

After the Sanity Squad podcast, we wrote A Hero In The Making?, in which we took hard look at a potential political powerhouse. She answered troubling questions head on:

Ms Bhutto answered questions about the current state of affairs in Pakistan and what the future may hold. She discussed the the radical Islamists that have made inroads into Pakistani politics, the legacy of corruption that has plagued Pakistan for decades and the challenges that nation faces.

Ms Bhutto answered questions about the current state of affairs in Pakistan and what the future may hold. She discussed the the radical Islamists that have made inroads into Pakistani politics, the legacy of corruption that has plagued Pakistan for decades and the challenges that nation faces.

Ms Bhutto also addressed some tough questions about her support for Hugo Chavez (she sees the Venezuelan anti poverty and literacy programs as a model for Pakistan). She also recognizes the danger terror poses both inside and outside Pakistan’s borders.

Educated in the US and Great Britain, Fatima Bhutto is an eloquent and passionate advocate about the future of her native Pakistan. Whether or not she can transfer that passion into a plan that will lead her country into a democratic and economically state remains to be seen.

Of course, her ideas alone will not determine Pakistan’s future. That destiny will be determined by the Pakistanis themselves. They will have to recognize reject past failures and embrace real democratic values.

Again, check out The Sanity Squad Podcast to get some insight into the person who may well become the next visible Bhutto in Pakistani politics.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 7:24 PM |

 
IN 2008 YOU CAN LOSE THOSE EXTRA POUNDS & LIVE FOREVER !
Or not.

Here is a fascinating article from Jacob Sullum at Reason, reviewing two new books out about obesity (see the links at the bottom for the books). Here are three excerpts from this fascinating article:

Gina Kolata says losing weight is nearly impossible. Brian Wansink says it’s easy. But they don’t really contradict each other, because they’re talking about different kinds of weight loss.
Although their new books offer very different messages for dieters, Kolata and Wansink share a suspicion of collectivist responses to the “obesity epidemic.” Both writers are intensely interested in the question of why people weigh as much as they do, but they do not leap from research findings to policy prescriptions aimed at making us thinner by restricting our choices. At a time when almost every discussion of weight in America seems to end with a list of things the government should do about it, their restraint is commendable....

Kolata’s discussion of obesity research suggests that false hope is not limited to people trying to lose weight. Scientists too are perpetually reaching for a weight loss key that always seems just beyond their fingertips: the right diet, the right drug, the right hormone.

Kolata’s main explanation for the failure of these efforts is that people are genetically programmed for a certain weight range, which varies widely from one individual to another. Twin studies indicate that genetic differences account for something like 70 percent of variation in weight. “The body’s metabolism speeds up or slows down to keep weight within a narrow range” of “20 to 30 pounds,” Kolata writes. While losing 20 or 30 pounds would count as success for most Americans whom the government considers overweight, it would be just a start for the study subjects on whom Kolata focuses.

The idea of predetermined weight ranges is consistent with much everyday experience: People tend to return to a particular weight after gaining a few pounds from holiday overeating, for example, or after losing pounds during an illness. It also jibes with the complaints of people who say they easily gain weight while friends can eat whatever they want and stay thin....

Despite their differences in tone and focus, Kolata and Wansink are equally unenthusiastic about proposals by fat warriors such as Yale obesity expert Kelly Brownell to reshape Americans by reshaping our “food environment” through propaganda, censorship, taxes, and regulation. Kolata says there’s no reason to think the government knows how to make people thinner. She notes that even well-funded, intensive efforts aimed at slimming down captive audiences of schoolchildren have produced disappointing results, making proposals such as restricting cereal commercials, banning soda machines from schools, and distributing federally funded fruit to students look even lamer.

Wansink, for his part, says labeling and education don’t make much of a difference, and “we cannot legislate or tax people into eating Brussels sprouts.”

I was one of the few physicians way back when "Big Tobacco" was being vilified, to point out to my collegues that smoking was a choice made by individuals and that teaching those individuals that they were simply the victims of evil businessmen who wanted them to get lung cancer would be non-productive. But it has become clear that the tobacco insanity--i.e., telling people they are not responsible for the choices they make and blaming business-- has opened the door to further absurdities, such as big government-types telling us what and how much to eat; that we must exercise; we must do this, we must do that blah blah blah.

Can the goal of these do-gooders be any clearer that this quote from a recent Mark Steyn blog post:

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."

Think about the implications of that last sentence, and understand exactly what kind of society Hillman--and by extension, the fat police--are advocating.

Of course, I constantly encourage individuals to be responsible in their personal choices -- but I never forget that it is their choice, not mine.

Notwithstanding the fact that there certainly are some people with physiological and biological defects which result in severe, morbid obesity requiring serious and long-term medical intervention; most run-of-the-mill obesity and overweight is a matter of genetic programming combined with personal lifestyle choices. I have nothing against people who want to lose weight to look and feel better. Go for it!

The underlying societal problem, it seems to me, is not obesity, per se; it is that. as we as a society increasingly demand that government take over health care insurance (e.g., medicare, medicaid, etc.) and pay for health care, we have opened the door to justifications to intrude on our everyday personal choices--like what to eat.

This is by far a greater threat to our individual liberty than anything ever written in the Patriot Act but there is hardly a word spoken against this sort of obscene violation of our personal freedom, and it is promoted relentlessly by the political left.

In 2004, Ed Hudgens, wrote an excellent essay on this very subject, which I have kept in my files:

OBESE MEDICARE AND FATHEADED POLITICIANS

In the mid-1990s I used to argue against the war on tobacco as follows: Supposedly 400,000 individuals die each year because of smoking. (It's closer to 200,000; the government fakes the numbers, but that's another story.) Since governments pick up many of the health-care costs of people who are sick from smoking, governments claim the right to wage a war on tobacco. But nearly as many individuals allegedly die from bad diets and lack of exercise. By this logic, it will only be a matter of time before you're limited to two Big Macs per month, potato chips are kept behind the counter and not sold to anyone under 18, and there's a five-day waiting period to buy Twinkies so government bureaucrats can check your medical records.

My reductio ad absurbum is one step closer to surrealist reality, thanks to Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Tommy Thompson who has now defined obesity under Medicare as a "disease." Thompson is on a jihad against extra pounds and expanding waistlines in this country. This change in the Medicare rules undermines freedom on four fronts.

First, lots of Americans have unhealthy eating habits. But obesity is not a "disease"; it is the result of poor choices and habits over which individuals have control. Yes, some might be more prone to binge on chips, chocolate or other tasty treats, but the difference between we humans and dumb animals is that we can control our appetites; we can develop the good habits and practices necessary to live healthy lives. To suggest otherwise is to suggest that we are not in control of ourselves and are not responsible for our actions and thus undeserving of freedom.

Second, by classifying obesity as a disease, Thompson has created a new, multi-billion-dollar government entitlement, without congressional approval, that will bloat an already monstrously obese Medicare program. Let's remember that when Medicare was created in 1965 the federal government estimated that it would cost $9 billion per year by 1990; instead it cost more than $66 billion that year. Today it costs about $275 billion with another $160 billion going to Medicaid to provide health care for the poor. And let's remember that in 2003, when the Bush administration proposed its new Medicare prescription drug benefit, it estimated the cost over the first decade at $400 billion. The ink of the president's signature on the legislation was barely dry when the administration announced that, oops, it had miscalculated; the cost would actually be $534 billion.

Third, this new entitlement removes a principal and powerful incentive for individuals to treat their bodies in a responsible manner. If individuals believe the government - read, their fellow taxpayers -- will pick up the tab for their poor dietary choices, paying for their Weight Watchers or Jenny Craig, their stomach-stapling surgery or clogged artery treatments, they will be less likely to take their health into their own hands.

Fourth, aggressive government diet controls cannot be far behind. With government paying the bill comes government control. As Medicare costs rose in past decades, the feds tried to save money by creating and forcing people into Health Maintenance Organizations that provide poor service, thus harming health. They also fine and even jail doctors for paperwork mistakes in Medicare filings, which are impossible to avoid because of the thousands of pages of incomprehensible Medicare regulations, thus driving many doctors, sick of being persecuted for curing patients, into early retirement.We now can expect the food fascists in this country -- those who want to restrict or ban foods of which they don't approve -- to join with the government - the guys with the guns - to make sure you only eat what they want you to eat.Obesity and poor health habits are certainly problems in this country. But the solution lies in true personal responsibility, a sense that one's life is so important and of such value that one would commit moral treason to one's self by allowing one's body to fall into disrepair.

A greater threat to the health of our country is the obese size of government, with Medicare the overweight poster child that illustrates the danger to the heart of our liberties. Our biggest problem is not with fat in our waistlines but, rather, in the heads of politicians who want to micromanage our lives. The lesson of HHS's classification of obesity as a "disease" is that the government should go on a diet, shedding hundreds of billions in needless spending, starting with the entire Medicare program.

Amen, brother. Or, should I say, "Amen, Big brother"?

The authors reviewed by Sullum suggest that:

Many of the health risks associated with obesity may be due to the poor diets and sedentary habits associated with fatness rather than the extra pounds per se. Kolata notes that it’s unclear whether exceeding the government’s recommended weight range is inherently hazardous or whether fat people who become thinner thereby become healthier. Yet scientists who point out such inconvenient facts can expect to be pilloried for failing to toe the party line. Kolata describes the dismay of two researchers at the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Katherine Flegal and David Williamson, at the anger they provoked from their colleagues by suggesting that the death toll the government had attributed to excessive weight was greatly exaggerated.

Most of you probably don't remember how the Center for Disease Control rapidly backpedaled on its OBESITY = DEATH meme back in 2005 when some interesting data came to light. What researchers found was that being UNDERWEIGHT is associated with more deaths than being OVERWEIGHT. Here's the scoop on that:

Apart from this huge downward revision in the numbers of people supposedly dying from fat, there are several things in this study which signal the end of any legitimate linkage between obesity and premature death. First, for the merely overweight with BMI's from 25-30 there is no excess mortality. In fact, being overweight was "associated with a slight reduction in mortality relative to the normal weight category." Being overweight not only does not lead to premature death, something that dozens of other studies from around the world have been saying for the last 30 years, but it also carries less risk from premature death than being "normal" weight. In other words the overweight=early death "fact" proclaimed by the public health community is simply not true.

Second, for individuals aged 25-59 the risks of premature death from being underweight are substantially greater than those of being overweight and they are also slightly greater than those of being obese. For those aged 60-69 the risk of dying from being underweight is much higher than from being even significantly obese, that is with a BMI > 35. Again, the total number of premature deaths due to obesity is 25, 814, while the mortality attributable to being underweight is 37, 746. If anything this points to an epidemic of not fat but thin caused death.Third, the increased mortality risks from obesity were concentrated in a small sub-section of the population, the morbidly obese (BMI>35), who comprise only 8% of Americans. Yet the obesity hysteria of the public health establishment consistently tells us that 65% of Americans are overweight and headed to an early death.

Fourth even the 25,814 deaths per year from obesity needs to be taken not just with a grain of salt but with enough to keep Chicago's streets ice-free for an entire winter. That's because the results are in many cases not statistically significant, though the authors don't mention this. For example, in the 25-59 year old group the confidence interval for increased risk for the obese with BMI's up to 35 is 0.84-1.72, meaning that we can't be confident that even for this group there is any increased risk of early death. The same is true for those with BMI's up to 30. Moreover, the RR figure -- the Relative Risk for dying from obesity - is, in the authors' words, "in the range of 1-2." This means that there is at the very best a very weak association -- notice, not a causal connection -- between obesity and death.

This is definitely NOT good news for the intrusive nannies who want to control what other people eat; nor is it good news for the a$$holes who hope to cash in on the current fast food victimhood trend.

Many obsessive dieters and exercisers that I have met over the years have firmly believed that they had discovered the secret of eternal life. They are encouraged in this belief by the gurus of thin and their legions. How sad for them to discover that death still patiently awaits them, even though they are thin and buff.

Which reminds me of several scenes from Woody Allen's classic 1973 movie, Sleeper:

Dr. Melik: [T]his morning for breakfast, uh, he requested something called wheat germ, organic honey, and tiger's milk.
Doctor: Oh yes. Those are the charmed substances that some years ago were thought to contain life preserving properties.
Dr. Melik: You mean there was no deep fat? No steak, or cream pies, or hot fudge?
Doctor: Those were thought to be unhealthy. Precisely the opposite of what we now know to be true.

And, my favorite:

Dr. Orva: You must understand that everyone you know in the past has been dead nearly two hundred years.
Miles Monroe: But they all ate organic rice!

- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 7:11 AM |

 
STARTING THE NEW YEAR RIGHT
From The Sun:

BRITISH commandos launched a devastating blitz on the Taliban – as the evil terrorists held a party to celebrate Benazir Bhutto’s murder.

The dawn raid was staged after messages were intercepted about the sick knees-up in Afghanistan’s Helmand province.

Royal Marines crept into position as the fanatics partied the night away just hours after Ms Bhutto was killed in Pakistan.

The bash was being held in ruined compounds a few hundred yards from Our Boys’ remote base in Kajaki.

Ragtag Taliban sentries tried to hit back with machine gun fire – but stood no chance against the heroes of 40 Commando’s Charlie Company.


Bloodthirsty

The terrorists were pounded with mortars, rockets and heavy machine guns.

Two bloodthirsty revellers trying to creep towards Our Boys in a trench were spotted by thermal-imaging equipment – and targeted with a Javelin heat-seeking missile.

The £65,000 rocket – designed to stop Soviet tanks – locked on to their body heat and tore more than a kilometer across the desert in seconds.

Troop Sergeant Dominic Conway, 32 – who directed mortar rounds – grinned: “It must have had quite a detrimental effect on their morale.”

I have to admit that this is the sort of terribly biased reporting I like in a war. I'm sure NPR would have had a sensitive, caring journalist interview the Taliban commander for his perspective, and given a scorching analysis of the amount of horrific oppression the poor Taliban has had to endure for the last six years or so.

So, lift up your glasses and give a toast to the bloodthirsty Brits! As far as I'm concerned, they have started the new year right.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 11:08 AM |

 
HAPPY NEW YEAR !

- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 12:01 AM |