Saturday, April 21, 2012


I am going to be taking the next month to do some blog maintenance. My comment host is going to be going away later this year; and suddenly blogger is going all cukoo on me. It's about time I changed things around anyway. I've been blogging on this site since 2004. I'm also going to be going on vacation for 2 weeks in May and so this is a good time to shut down for a while, particularly since nothing much is happening in the world (that's a joke!). However, I'm quite certain that the insanity will continue without me for a while! Be back in June.

Wednesday, April 18, 2012


Barbara Boxer says the "war on women" is real!
Suppose it’s the championship basketball game and one player is committing foul after foul. Each time, he denies he’s committed any offense.

Eventually, he fouls out. But even as he heads to the bench, he’s protesting that he did nothing wrong.

That’s what we’re seeing today from Republicans who claim there is no “war on women.” The Republican National Committee chairman likened it to a “war on caterpillars.” The Senate Republican leader claims it’s all manufactured – even as female members of his caucus warn about the growing backlash against the GOP from women.

But whether it’s sports or politics, denials don’t change the facts. So let’s look at them

She cites as her basis for the "war" bills that would "restrict a woman's reproductive health care", including of course, abortion, family planning, violence against women, and preventive health care (e.g. mammograms, STDs etc etc). She cites the despicable opposition to Obamacare as yet more evidence that Republicans are anti-woman, hence the "war on women".

Republicans and conservatives, instead of saying that these issues have nothing to do with one segment of the population (i.e. "women" or "blacks" or whatever little victim group the left has split out from the whole) and that they have to do with important and crucial concepts and values such as limited government, individual freedom, and personal responsibility, seem eager to meet the left on its own turf.

Ramesh Ponnuru suggests that Mitt Romney should ignore this supposed "gener gap" because the whole notion is a myth:
Mitt Romney’s presidential campaign is obsessed with the women’s vote.

On the day after Rick Santorum dropped out of the race and removed all doubt Romney would be the nominee, the campaign issued five press releases within three hours on the theme that President Barack Obama’s economic record has failed American women: one featuring comments by Romney, four highlighting remarks by female Republican politicians supporting him.

It might be a good strategy, if the women’s vote existed.

Romney and the Republican National Committee argue that Obama’s energy policy is making women pay higher gas prices; that his economic policy is disproportionately costing them jobs; that the Obama White House pays female aides less than male ones. The RNC has been especially eager to repeat former aide Anita Dunn’s claim (which she later said was taken out of context) that although Obama himself was blameless, his White House was “a genuinely hostile workplace to women.”

Everyone understands why Republicans are mounting this attack. They are responding to weeks of Democratic charges that they are waging a “war on women.” A recent USA Today/Gallup poll that found Romney losing support among women younger than 50 in swing states has especially alarmed them.

Ponuru is absolutely correct. Republicans are responding to weeks (years, decades) of Democratic charges on this issue. AND THE DEMOCRATS ALWAYS SEEM TO WIN THE DAY.
Not because they are actually correct or have truth on their side; not simply because they have the media referrees on their side, but because they always set the ground rules and they always insist on playing in their home court.

The "war on women" meme is not real, that is, it has no reality. Neither is the charge of Republicans being "anti-Black" or racist; or anti-poor. These memes are just a few of the ongoing, politically correct rhetorical strategies adopted by Democrats and the progressive postmodern left in general, to achieve their ends.

There is no desire for rational argument on the Democrats' part because Truth is not the objective of their rhetoric. Stephen Hicks in his book quotes Frank Lentricchia, a noted Duke University literary critic. Postmodernism, says Lentricchia, "seeks not to find the foundation or conditions of truth but to exercise power for the purpose of social change [emphasis mine]."

Postmodern rhetoric explicitly rejects truth, and because of this those who use it are completely indifferent to consistency and dismissive of reason.Hence they tend to loathe rational debate and make sure that any discussion of issues plays out with their rules.

Look past the superficiality of Boxer's "arguments" about Republicans. Why is government even involved in the issues she cites? When did we conservatives give up the fundamental fight about the role of government in our lives? When did we stop caring about individual freedom and personal responsibility?

Well, it began when the accusations of being "anti-woman", or "racist" or whatever, started being hurled around. These accusations--even if they are completely unfounded--are political poison for the person on the receiving end of them. So in the hysteria to respond, the accused almost always says, "NO! I'm not racist, sexist, [fill in your favorite here]! But by doing so, he or she has already lost the ability to have the debate be on the issues that are important, and have ceded the rules.

For the Republican or conservative the debate is about freedom vs slavery--it is about the right to pursue your own life, liberty and happiness. It is about the importance of every individual human life to be free to live their lives without the State telling them what to do.

Think about what the postmodern left's PC and multicultural gurus preach in their high-minded, superior rhetoric that inevitably brands anyone who dares to disagree with a racist label. Then WATCH WHAT THEIR RHETORIC ACTUALLY BRINGS ABOUT in real life. It is in the tribal and entitlement behavior that you begin to see the toxicity of this dogma; as well as the essential oppressive nature of the politically correct behavior that adherence to the religion of multiculturalism demands of us.

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

After that the complementary dogma of political correctness is used to stifle free speech and to further obscure reality.

This PC dogma is antithetical to the concept of the universalism of human experience that is the bedrock of civilization; and instead glorifies sexual, cultural and tribal differences, no matter how insane or irrational.

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

What the Obama Administration and the Democrats are doing right now is to divide America up into as many victimhood groups as possible.

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

Ponnuru comments, "Republicans deserve credit for resisting the idea -- the lazy instinct -- that what female voters care most about are "women's issues." The party should take the crucial step of seeing that women don't have to be courted on the basis of their sex at all."

But principled Republicans and conservatives should resist even more strongly. They should refuse to play the game the Democrats are playing and always bring the discussion back to the essential concepts and ideas that made this nation at one time the most desirable place for free men and women to live.

UPDATE: This cartoon, which I received in an email today seems appropriae somehow:


[Here are some other Glenn McCoy cartoons]

Sunday, April 15, 2012


[Cartoons by Michael Ramirez]

In psychological displacement, the focus of psychic attention is shifted from an important element on to another, which is relatively unimportant. Displacement operates in the mind unconsciously and involves emotions, ideas, or wishes being transferred from their original object to a more acceptable substitute. It is most often used to allay anxiety; and can lead to the re-direction of aggressive or hostile impulses to less threatening objects or subjects.

Distraction, OTOH, is the divided attention of an individual or group from what currently holds their attention onto a subject of distraction. Distraction is caused by: the lack of ability to pay attention; lack of interest in the object of attention; or the great intensity, novelty or attractiveness of something other than the object of attention. Distractions can come from both external sources, and internal sources.

What the Obama Administration is doing, deliberately and calculatedly, is to distract and divide American's attention onto issues that Obama and his cronies believe will benefit them in the coming election. By doing this, they hope to redirect and displace Americans' anger, frustration, and sense of hopelessness about the economy, jobs, and the precarious state of the world, AWAY from Obama and focus all our psychic energy onto the manufactured class, race and gender crises over which Obama believes he has the upper hand.

The abysmal record of the Obama Adminsitration on dealing with the economy and on dealing with our allies and enemies abroad hardly matches up with the promises of "hope and change" that the Obamessiah promised.

Even the most devoted of his acolytes have likely begun to suspect that this messiah is a false god; and that his promises are nothing but obvious diversionary tactitcs and attmepts to mislead.

But mis-leadership is really all that can be expected from the pretentious and bullying demagogue who is currently our President.

Thursday, April 12, 2012


Over at the Belmont Club, Wretchard discusses the continued fascination with Charles Manson in a post titled "The Prophet". Read the entire piece, but one particularly insightful paragraph stood out for me:
The really destructive maniacs of this world don’t run around with knives. They work calmly, with paper and pencil, churning out one Five Year Plan after the other; drawing with geometric precision, one failed worker’s paradise on the foundations of the last one failed. A Bavarian once remarked to me that Karl Marx, not Adolf Hitler, was the single most destructive person the German nation ever unleashed upon the world. Not that anyone stopped to think about it, he said.

And, speaking about the "really destructive maniacs of this world", I wrote about Obama mentor and unrepentant terrorist bomber, William Ayers, in much the same terms:
[This] is another perfect example of malignant narcissistic idealism, or sociopathic 'selflessness' that I have written about. This is the form of narcissism that dominates the mind of a collectivist like Bill Ayers and his ilk (of which I firmly believe Barack Obama is an example).

The typical leftist collectivist--i.e., of the 'peaceful' antiwar, America-hating, crowd--considers his or her sociopathy as a form of altruism, or "selflessness".

Everyone is, of course, familiar with the "selfish narcissist"--this is the type of narcissism we all know and don't love much. Indeed, selfishness and a preoccupation with one's own needs and desires at the expense of everyone else's is what is classically associated with the concept of narcissism.

But there is in society today a disguised type of narcissism that masks itself in a selfless, compassionate concern for others, yet is really all about fueling the need to feel superior and to exert control and power over others.

This second type of narcissism is more subtle, but equally (if not more so in human history) destructive and dysfunctional as the first. It derives from an aggressive idealism/utopianism which is pursued despite the misery it causes in other people's lives; and despite the dead bodies it leaves behind. This malignant narcissism is always justified because it is "for your own good"; or, "for the common good"; or, "to make the world and people better."

Along with the selfish narcissist (whose overt preoccupation is "ME, ME, ME!" and using others for their own aggrandizement and reward), the selfless narcissist ("LOOK AT HOW WONDERFUL I AM FOR MAKING YOU BETTER!") does not see other people as distinct individuals with needs and desires of their own, but only as fodder for the expression of aome IDEAL; or as pawns to achieve the utopian fantasies of their own ideology. And because they think they are the "superior" ones who know what is best for all, if they happen to benefit financially, socially and culturally--all the better! They deserve it for their extraordinary compassion and good works.

People with this malignantly narcissistic defect completely reject the needs of the individual and enslave him or her to the service of their IDEAL. Eventually, the enslavement--whether religious or secular--snuffs out human ambition, confidence, energy, self-esteem, and life. These mindlessly malignant "do-gooders" do far more harm than good and their ideologies can lead to genocidal practices and unbelievable atrocities on a grand scale, all in the name of an IDEAL or GOD.

At least the selfish narcissist is limited in the chaos and havoc he wreaks. But, the "really destructive maniacs of this world" are the ones who do it for your own good.

Monday, April 09, 2012


Remember the "Axis of Evil"?

President Bush was mercilessly vilified for stating that Iraq, Iran and North Korea constituted a clear and imminent danger to the free world:
Axis of evil is a term initially used by the former United States President George W. Bush in his State of the Union Address on January 29, 2002, and often repeated throughout his presidency, describing governments that he accused of helping terrorism and seeking weapons of mass destruction. Bush labeled Iran, Iraq and North Korea as the axis of evil.

That was in 2002; and, at the time Bush acted to deal with what he believed was the most dangerous member of the Axis: Iraq.

Ten years later, President Obama (one of villifiers) is now facing threats from both North Korea and Iran.

The three countries of the Axis all shared two factors in common: (1) the essential psychopathy (i.e., malignant narcissism) of their leadership; and (2) a shame culture.

The Kims of North Korea (Kim Il Sung, Kim Jong Il and now Kim Jong Un) appear to have a heritable trait, (passed down from generation to generation) of malignant grandiosity/psychopathic behavior.

The darling young son of the darling son of NoKo's founder, Kim Il Sung, is now in charge of a country that gets it's way on the world stage by orchestrating temper tantrums and threats of annihilation towards the people it demands send them help for their starving people.

Meanwhile, Ahmadinejad and the Ayatollahs, keep pushing the West to the brink with their delaying tactics and ongoing lies about their intents. They certainly must feel that Allah is with them in their deceit of the West, because they have had to deal with European and American Administrations who keep on believing the lies--just as they do for the North Korean dictators.

Promise them anything! It's good for a few billion in foreign aid and then you can do whatever you want anyway! What a deal!

What interests me most are the psychodynamics of these sorts of narcissistically grandiose leader; particularly when they operate within a "shame" culture. The dynamics of a Kim are not much different from those of a Saddam or a Ahmadinejad; and the manipulative and malignant--even catastrophic-- behaviors they engage in are reasonably predictable and consistent.

Even in the context of a treaty or signed agreement, there will be provocation and brinkmanship on the part of such leaders. They will "push the envelope" of bad behavior, always testing to see what they are able to get away with; secretly delighting in and reinforcing their sense of grandiosity whenever they succeed in putting something over on the rest of the world (particularly the U.S., of course; and to a lesser extent the more gullible international community.

So, what is the point of their trickery and subterfuge?

For at least part of that answer, we must go back to the essentials of a "shame" culture--the type of culture that not only dominates the world of the Middle East, but also is rampant in many Asian countries. I discuss "shame" versus "guilt" cultures here.

What ties the megalomaniacs of North Korea and Iran together is their obsessive shame-avoidant behavior, a cultural attribute which is the flip side of their individual malignant grandiosity.

Let me first address the narcissistic grandiosity that is characteristic of all dictators and tyrants, particularly the three mentioned above. Typical symptoms of grandiosity that can be observed in your typical autocratic ruler/megalomaniac like Kim, Ahmadinejad and the ex-leader of Iraq:
• Continual claims for attention and admiration
• Cold and uncaring behavior toward others
• Other people are seen only as an extension of the self to be manipulated and/or eliminated as needed; an inability to relate to people as people or separate from oneself
• Inflated/exaggerated sense of self-importance
• Hypochondria, or an obsession with individual body parts and illness

For this type of leader, the existence of individuals who are "not them" is simply of no real consequence. Other people exist only for the convenience of the tyrant and can be eliminated at will. Their psychopathy is always on parade and the masses are needed only to cheer them on--otherwise, they are disposable.

These kind of toxic personality characteristics certainly can occur in any type of society; but appear to be more easily cultivated in shame cultures, which by their very nature are usually collectivist-oriented. Thus, it is not unusual to find the toxic combination of individual narcissistic personality traits with those behavioral attributes encouraged within a shame culture; specifically, preserving honor and avoiding shame at all costs.

For both the grandiose and shame-avoidant person, reality itself must be distorted in order to protect the self from feeling low self-esteem or shame. Blaming other individuals or groups for one's own behavior becomes second nature, and this transfer of blame to someone else is an indicator to the observer that such individuals are experiencing internal shame.

In a typical shame culture, what other people believe has a far more powerful impact on one's behavior than even what the individual himself believes. These powerful, preening dictators, who hold complete power over people and who present themselves as little gods, are totally wrapped up in what other people think of them. Humiliation and shame are to be avoided at all costs; and this cultural imperative is only emphasized by the individual grandiosity of the near-omnipotent "great" or "dear" leaders.

From a psychological perspective, it is ridiculous to maintain that it is America's --or any other country's-- "fault" when such leaders behave badly or break their agreements. If they can get away with breaking agreements without consequences they will. Their distorted perspective arises from a perverted notion of what self-esteem is really all about.

The excessive self-esteem you see in a bully comes from a distortion of reality that person has with regard to their self. It was widely believed that low self-esteem could be a cause of violence, but in reality violent individuals, groups and nations think very well of themselves. Do you really suppose that people like Kim Jung Il or Mahmoud Ahmadinejad suffer from poor self-esteem? On the contrary. Exaggerated self-esteem is one of the hallmarks of a pathological narcissist or psychopath. Such individuals turn violent toward others who fail to give them the inflated respect they think they deserve.

Nor does high self-esteem deter people from becoming bullies, according to most of the studies that have been done; it is simply untrue that beneath the surface of every obnoxious bully is an unhappy, self-hating child in need of sympathy and praise. Rather, it is more consistent with exactly the opposite--a narcissistically inflated sense of self that much be preserved at all costs.

Let's remember that these tyrants are not psychiatric patients. They do not seek help; nor do they believe that anything is wrong with them. They believe they are entitled to unlimited praise and deference. They believe that their will and their desire is all that is important. Many people who enthusiastically surround such dictators and admire them are sycophantic and self-abasing appeasers (these people genuinely admire the power and ruthlessness of the omnipotent dictator and want some of that aura to rub off on them--see an example here).

One of the most important expressions of the shame culture, as well as shame-avoidant and grandiose persons in general, is the rampant psychological projection and refusal to accept responsibility for any inappropriate behavior--up to and including the most disgusting of atrocities. It is always someone else's fault. In this way the shame-avoidant person can successfully avoid the shame that is inevitable when a mature individual takes responsibility for their own malignant behavior.

When they do break the agreements or accords they engage in, the narcissist will blame the other party for their behavior. It will never be their fault or responsibiity. If they blame America as "causing" their duplicity, they will have a lot of anti-Americanism in the international community and the political left to support their description of events--this is called "enabling" behavior). All of this is just a part of the classic shame-avoidant dance that leads into the blurry realms of delusion these leaders and their supporters/enablers engage in.

Iran's leader clearly understands this dynamic, because he suffers from it himself. It is always someone else's fault that forces you to behave insanely when you are humiliated. There is no responsibility for one's own actions; or even for one's own thoughts or feelings.

Psychological health (which dictators, tyrants and thugs clearly lack, since their operating principle is to obtain power over others, rather than exert power over their own aggressive impulses) and healthy self-esteem depend on overcoming shame by progressing to a level of maturity that recognizes objective reality and truth; a level where taking responsibility for one's actions and accepting that the truth about one's self is not determined by other people's opinions. When that level of maturity is reached individually and culturally, both shame and guilt become important reality checks to an individual--or to a culture.

When a culture determines that the avoidance of shame is necessary no matter what the cost, the result is a culture of fanaticism, bizarre behavior in the name of "honor"; and simultaneously the cultural oppression, subjugation, and humiliation of women and others perceived as "weak" (and therefore "shameful"). It also inevitably results in the projection of one's own unacceptable behavior and shameful feelings onto another individual or an outside group. When a narcissistic and grandiose individual is steeped in such a culture, they easily become monsters and think of themselves as "gods" (or the special envoy of a god in the case of Ahmadinejad).

It should come as no surprise that North Korea has for decades, counted among it’s allies terrorists and rogue nations and regimes that openly call for the destruction of other nations and entire peoples.

Compromise and negotiation are not a valued part of any shame culture. There can be no compromise with their concept of "honor", for any compromise brings "shame". Thus, in order to maintain honor, lying and any other kind of deceit is completely acceptable--even encouraged. Multiply this times ten when dealing with the malignant narcissistic leader of the culture or nation.

This reality is hard to grasp for the western mind which places a higher value on truth and honesty. Thus, western diplomats seem incredibly naive and laughable to both Asian and Arab minds because they believe in the sanctity of agreement, treaties, and the like. The idea that deliberate deceit or lying as a political strategy is considered acceptable--even honorable --in some places of the world doesn't seem to occur to them.

North Korea and its infant leader is unlikely to live up to any diplomatic agreement no matter how earnestly negotiated by the Obama Administration. Nor will the leaders of Iran--and for the same reasons.

Eventually, these leaders will bring things to the brink, where they (and most narcissists and psychopaths) like to operate. And, they will be counting on the west and in particular, the U.S. to take the step back and give in when he does. Both countries have every historical reason to be encouraged that this will happen. Jimmy Carter did it; Madeleine Albright did it; Bill Clinton did it. Even Bush put off dealing with these regimes as he focused on Saddam Hussein.

Our current shame avoidant-leader is betting his Presidency that he can talk to these malignant leaders and show them the way to hope and change through the wonderfulness of Himself and his glorious recipe for whirled peas.

Too bad that Obama and his minions in the Democratic Party and the progressive left have been enabling their behavior for a number of years now.

I don't know about you, but I have a really bad feeling about what is coming down the road--and I'm an optimist.

Thursday, April 05, 2012


Two stories in the news recently illustrate precisely why American students are continually losing ground in knowledge, science, and logic; and why America is losing competitiveness in the global economy, as well as leadership in science.

The first is a study reported on by the WSJ on how California universities indoctrinate students:
The politicization of higher education by activist professors and compliant university administrators deprives students of the opportunity to acquire knowledge and refine their minds. It also erodes the nation's civic cohesion and its ability to preserve the institutions that undergird democracy in America.

So argues "A Crisis of Competence: The Corrupting Effect of Political Activism in the University of California," a new report by the California Association of Scholars, a division of the National Association of Scholars (NAS). The report is addressed to the Regents of the University of California, which has ultimate responsibility for governing the UC system, but the pathologies it diagnoses prevail throughout the country.

The analysis begins from a nonpolitical fact: Numerous studies of both the UC system and of higher education nationwide demonstrate that students who graduate from college are increasingly ignorant of history and literature. They are unfamiliar with the principles of American constitutional government. And they are bereft of the skills necessary to comprehend serious books and effectively marshal evidence and argument in written work

Next we have a piece, written by Michael Barone and titled: "Colleges skimp on science, spend on diversity":
How many times have you heard Barack Obama talk about "investing" in education?

Quite a few, if you've been listening to the president at all.

In fact Americans have been investing more and more in education over the years, led by presidents Democratic and Republican. But it's become glaringly clear that we're getting pretty lousy return on these investments.


On higher education Democrats and many Republicans as well have followed the same course as on public schools: Shovel in more money, in this case in the form of Pell Grants and subsidized student loans.

College and university administrators have been happy to scoop up all the money by rapidly raising tuitions and fees. Higher-ed expenses have been rising much more rapidly than inflation for three decades.

And what has the money been spent on? Some of it presumably goes to professors in the hard sciences and the great scholars who have made American universities the best in the world. Well and good.

But many university administrators have other priorities. The University of California system has been raising tuitions and cutting departments. But, reports John Leo in the invaluable Minding the Campus blog, its San Diego campus found the money to create a new post of "vice chancellor for equity, diversity and inclusion."

That's in addition to what the Manhattan Institute's Heather Mac Donald calls its "already massive diversity apparatus." It takes Mac Donald 103 words just to list the titles of UCSD's diversitycrats.

The money for the new vice chancellorship could have supported two of the three cancer researchers that the campus lost to Rice University in Houston, a private school that apparently takes the strange view that hard science is more important than diversity facilitators.

American students are busily being marinated in postmodern progressive multicultural and diversity dogma even before they reach college. The indoctrination into the gospel of moral relativism and postmodernism begins in kindergarten and continues unabated until graduation from high school. By the time these students go to college, their minds are supple and pliant enough to be fully cooked by the tenured leftist activists on the university faculties around the country.

Do you think it is just a coincidence that the Obama's connection with unrepentant terrorist and avowed leftist William Ayers had to do with an educational project in Chicago's schools? What do you imagine that project's real goals were, when the author of the grant that underwrote it was William Ayers, bomber, terrorist, and now university professor?

Ayers was the one who wrote the grant in 1993, and hired Obama to administer it. This was Obama's only serious executive experience in his entire life, and it was a total disaster.

Today, the unrestrained incorporation of postmodern, leftist/socialist, politically correct multiculturalism, diversity and radical environmental ideas into the curriculum continues unabated.

These ideas are the foundation of the socialist and communist revival in America after the cold war (and we thought we won that one--hah!)

Regarding that Chicago Annenberg Challenge-Ayers-Obama connection, Sol Stern wrote in 2008 an article titled "The Bomber as School Reformer":
Ayers wrote the grant proposal[to the CAC] that secured seed money for the schools and ran the implementation arm of the project; Obama became chairman of the board that distributed the grants. Not only did the Times exonerate the Democratic presidential candidate of having anything like a “close” relationship with Ayers—their paths merely “crossed” while working on the Challenge, the paper said—but it also bestowed the honorific of “school reformer” on the ex-bomber. “Mr. Ayers has been a professor of education at the University of Illinois at Chicago, the author or editor of 15 books, and an advocate of school reform,” the article maintained. On Meet the Press Sunday morning, Tom Brokaw—who will be moderating tomorrow’s debate between the presidential candidates—picked up this now conventional wisdom and described Ayers as “a school reformer.”

Calling Bill Ayers a school reformer is a bit like calling Joseph Stalin an agricultural reformer. (If you find the metaphor strained, consider that Walter Duranty, the infamous New York Times reporter covering the Soviet Union in the 1930s, did, in fact, depict Stalin as a great land reformer who created happy, productive collective farms.) For instance, at a November 2006 education forum in Caracas, Venezuela, with President Hugo Chávez at his side, Ayers proclaimed his support for “the profound educational reforms under way here in Venezuela under the leadership of President Chávez. We share the belief that education is the motor-force of revolution. . . . I look forward to seeing how you continue to overcome the failings of capitalist education as you seek to create something truly new and deeply humane.” Ayers concluded his speech by declaring that “Venezuela is poised to offer the world a new model of education—a humanizing and revolutionary model whose twin missions are enlightenment and liberation,” and then, as in days of old, raised his fist and chanted: “Viva Presidente Chávez! Viva la Revolucion Bolivariana! Hasta la Victoria Siempre!”

Joseph Stalin once observed that, “Education is a weapon whose effects depend on who holds it in his hands and at whom it is aimed.”

Right now, it is a weapon of indoctrination that is being aimed at the next generation of Americans who are growing up steeped in the garbage of leftist thought.

The health of our educational system--from K-12 through college-- is absolutely essential to the long-term welfare and competitiveness of the United States. American education used to be the strongest on the globe, and to the extent that remains true, it is because the hard sciences in this country (e.g., math, engineering, computers etc.) have been largely resistant to the political taint that runs rampant in the humanities. The latter subject areas, which include literature, philosophy, and history, have become unabashedly ideological over the last two decades; and the "social justice" advocates of today's collectivists have taken over our K-12 education system and are determinedly undermining American values with their politically correct, multicultural and anti-capitalist curriculum.

But even the hard sciences are beginning to be infected.

Make no mistake about it, what many teachers today are doing is indoctrinating their students minds into an unquestioning obedience to the collective. This they cannot do unless they also can manage to corrupt even the hard sciences with their dogma.

There can be no area where a child is allowed to think freely and without the proper political perspective. That is far too dangerous for the underly ideology they are promulgating.

And, as an example of the critical non-thinking exhibited by today's college students indoctrinated into the dogma of the left, we have this egregiously mindless mantra: "No cuts, no fees, education should be free."

Like obedient dogs, they have been trained to believe that "education" is some kind of dogfood that appears magically in their dish when the "master" deems it time to eat. Beyond that, they have no idea where it comes from.

America is fast evolving from a free nation to an indoctri-nation.

Tuesday, April 03, 2012


From Wretchard at The Belmont Club:
Shortly before his death, the late Steve Jobs met President Obama at a dinner in California, where “each guest was asked to come with a question for the president.”

But as Steven P. Jobs of Apple spoke, President Obama interrupted with an inquiry of his own: what would it take to make iPhones in the United States?

Not long ago, Apple boasted that its products were made in America. Today, few are. Almost all of the 70 million iPhones, 30 million iPads and 59 million other products Apple sold last year were manufactured overseas.

Why can’t that work come home? Mr. Obama asked.

Mr. Jobs’s reply was unambiguous. “Those jobs aren’t coming back,” he said, according to another dinner guest.

The president’s question touched upon a central conviction at Apple. It isn’t just that workers are cheaper abroad. Rather, Apple’s executives believe the vast scale of overseas factories as well as the flexibility, diligence and industrial skills of foreign workers have so outpaced their American counterparts that “Made in the U.S.A.” is no longer a viable option for most Apple products.

That single exchange between President Obama and Steve Jobs summarizes the cumulative effect of the end of the Victory Culture. No only is America resigned to losing, its captains of industry are willing to tell President Obama to his face that it is no longer possible to win.....

How America went from a country which bestrode the world in 1945 to what one author called a post-Vietnam nation of “extraordinary losers” will puzzle historians far into the future. Perhaps it can be summarized in one phrase. Think small and elect smaller.

How did we become a culture of losers?

Here's a one word answer: Ineptocracy.

Ineptocracy (in-ep-toc'-ra-cy) - a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers.

That pretty much covers it.

Monday, April 02, 2012


This week is opening week for Major League Baseball, and it can't come soon enough for me. There is always a curious emptiness in my life from November to March every year which begins shortly after the World Series and continues until Spring Training, interrupted only by the transient joys of Christmas.

No other sport has that effect on me. I like Soccer and Football. Don't care much for Basketball; can enjoy Tennis and Rugby. But baseball....ahhhhh baseball! It does something for my soul and expands my universe in a way that no other sport has ever come close to doing.

So, when my daughter sent me this article, I just had to write about it:
This is what baseball can do to the soul: it has the ability to make you believe in spite of all other available evidence. My son, John Michael, is 10 years old. We are in the bleachers. He leans in to me and says that the pitch is going to come in high and fat. It’s still a new language to me. The pitch is thrown, and indeed it does — it comes in high and fat, and 94 miles per hour. A-Rod leans into it like he’s about to fell a tree and smacks the ball and it soars, that little sphere of cowhide rising up over the Bronx, and it is a moment unlike any other, when you sit with your son in the ballpark, and the ball is high in the air, you feel yourself aware of everything, the night, the neon, the very American-ness of the moment.

And then it strikes you that the ball has an endless quality of fatherhood to it.

Now, part of my fascination with the game has to do with my father and his father, both of whom were passionate Yankee fans (I grew up in New Jersey). My father was himself, a professional baseball player; having played in my early years in the minor leagues-- except for one glorious summer in 1941 when he was called up to the Show as a relief pitcher for the then Washington Senators.

He used to tell my brother and I stories about it all the time. The way he pitched to Joe DiMaggio, who hit a home run off him; then caught up with him after the game and told him how he was signaling his pitches by his foot position on the mound. This high moment in his life occurred long before either my brother or I was born; and shortly afterwards, my father went and joined the Marines because of Pearl Harbor.

During the War he proudly took his baseball mitt with him everywhere he was stationed. I've seen pictures of him on Iwo Jima playing catch after he was wounded in action. He played baseball with anyone he could find in those days; and after the War, went on to manage and play on a minor league team in NJ (along with two of his brothers). That's when I first was introduced to the game at about the age of two.

Being the oldest, I was my father's initial hope for future baseball fame. I don't think he noticed that I was a girl for many years, so he taught me all he knew. And I was a willing pupil.

My brothers came along, but I was better than they were at the game (they will, of course, dispute this :-) ) and it was only when we were old enough for organized sports like Little League, Pony League etc that I was no longer allowed to play (girls didn't in those days). So, I found ways to stay in the sport, warming up the pitchers; announcing the games and being official scorekeeper--even got a job in my teens writing articles about the school games for the local newspaper.

There is no doubt in my mind that if I had been born male I would have tried to become a professional ball player or coach.

As it was, my brothers were both talented in sports, but wasted themselves on football in high school and ended up with injuries that endend their baseball dreams.

I got interested in Medicine and ended up a physician, initially planning on becoming a surgeon; then discovering that I had a talent for psychiatry.

But my love for the game never left me.

I find the sights and smells and sounds of a ballpark on a summer day to be the most soothing experience imaginable. The ebbs and flows of the game are comforting and yet exciting. The joy of your team coming from behind; or your favorite players doing well. The glory of winning the pennant and even the anguish of losing it.

Baseball has the rhythm of life--not too fast; not too slow but smooth and flowing.

I never meant to fall in love with baseball, but I did. I learned to realize that it does what all good sports should do: it creates the possibility of joy.

Sometimes, when walking home from the subway, after being at Yankee Stadium, I have the feeling that a whole country has been knocked around inside me. I am Irish, but I am also American. I am both father and son.

I cherish these moments. It confirms that life is not static. There is so much more left to be lived.

I am Italian, but I am also American. I passed my love of the game and the Yankees on to my daughter. We enjoy watching the game together on TV. It is my secret delight--coming home every day and watching the Yankees on TV. Incorporating the rhythm of the game into my own currently hectic life.

Maybe once or twice a year I actually manage to a real game when the Yanks are nearby--or, splurge on a trip to New York just to see them over a weekend.

When I can't see my team, I enjoy almost any baseball that's readily available on TV (though I can't abide the Red Sox for some reason!). The minor league team here in town is quite good, and I'll even journey up to San Francisco to see the Giants play sometimes with my brother who has access through his work to season tickets.

For me, there's just something about this game that soothes the soul and makes life just a little bit brighter, more joyful and filled with hope for the future.

Terence Mann: Ray, people will come Ray. They'll come to Iowa for reasons they can't even fathom. They'll turn up your driveway not knowing for sure why they're doing it. They'll arrive at your door as innocent as children, longing for the past. Of course, we won't mind if you look around, you'll say. It's only $20 per person. They'll pass over the money without even thinking about it: for it is money they have and peace they lack. And they'll walk out to the bleachers; sit in shirtsleeves on a perfect afternoon. They'll find they have reserved seats somewhere along one of the baselines, where they sat when they were children and cheered their heroes. And they'll watch the game and it'll be as if they dipped themselves in magic waters. The memories will be so thick they'll have to brush them away from their faces. People will come Ray. The one constant through all the years, Ray, has been baseball. America has rolled by like an army of steamrollers. It has been erased like a blackboard, rebuilt and erased again. But baseball has marked the time. This field, this game: it's a part of our past, Ray. It reminds of us of all that once was good and it could be again. Oh... people will come Ray. People will most definitely come. - Field of Dreams


Sunday, April 01, 2012


I don't know about you, but I for one and really sick and tired of all those pseudoscientific articles and gleeful books proclaiming the superiority of the leftist brain.

To all the Chris Mooney's of the political left who are desperately attempting to "prove" that their leftist brains are superior to the clearly intellectually defective brains of conservatives, I have this to say:

A skeptical mind is a mind that is, at least, thinking. A mind that automatically believe anything asserted by authority--even supposedly "scientific" authority--abandoned rational thought long ago.

The left's attempts to "scientifically prove" conservatives are stupid can be thought of as the latest volley in their ad hominem attack campaign ( ad hominem is only one of many logical fallacies championed by the superior intellects of the left) because they are intellectually unable to address the arguments conservatives make in the political arena.

I've know brilliant people of both conservative and leftist persuasions; and I've also known complete morons from both sides of the political aisle. It is one thing to be a moron; but quite another to be a truly despicable moron, i.e. someone who is desperately seeks superiority by hiding behind the authority of science.

As for me, I will think for myself.

P.S. The only "low brain power" evidenced in this study is its obvious ideological interpretation by the so-called scientists who are responsible for it. Taking their data at face value, I can come up with multiple interpretations that have nothing to do with politics. But I guess when you are a liberal hammer, everything looks like a conservative nail.