Dr. Sanity

THE LIBERAL SOLUTION: FOSTERING DEPENDENCE

2012-01-27T08:25:00.001-05:00

The hysteria on the left regarding Newt Gingrich's calling President Obama the "Food Stamps President" and asserting that more people are no on food stamps than at any other time in history, is fascinating.

Tom Blumer says that Gingrich was factually correct, both narrowly and broadly, then goes on to document why. Blumer cites Gingrich's response to the Food Stamp question and the resulting charge of "racism" leveled at him:

When conservatives care about the poor and conservatives offer ideas to help the poor, and conservatives suggest that the poor would rather have a paycheck than a food stamp, the very liberals who have failed them at places like the New York Times promptly scream “racism,” because they have no defense for the failure of liberal institutions which have trapped poor children in bad schools, trapped them in bad neighborhoods, trapped them in crime-ridden situations. Liberal solutions have failed, and their only answer is to cry “racism” and hide.

It used to be that "welfare" was thought of in this country as a compassionate and temporary means of supporting those in poverty, with the overall goal of helping them in various ways to get out of poverty and providing for themselves as quickly as possible. Gingrich's stark contrast between the "Paycheck vs Food Stamp" attitude reflects this attitude; and it also reflects the deeply held belief that welfare, particularly in the long run, has detrimental psychological effects on the recipients and can make them permanantly disabled.

Indeed, the primary psychological consequences of such long-term charity, especially for those who are aware on some level that they are not disabled, is the slow, steady erosion of genuine self-esteem and feelings of self-worth.

In typically pervere manner, the "progressive" political left has developed a strategy to cover that problem as they forge full steam ahead in creating a permanent class of people dependent on the State. In the same way that they have distorted "self esteem" in childhood development and hyped it to the point that it fosters and enables an unhealthy narcissism, they have managed to foster a narcissistic sense of entitlement in welfare recipients, by eliminating any sense that handouts are a negative thing; and neglecting to mention that they foster dependence, passivity and continued poverty.

No, everyone is ENTITLED to handouts. Poverty is just something bad that happens to them and not ever the result of bad choices on the recipient's part; but rather the result of greedy rich people taking away their share of the American pie--nothing more. And the solution is always--not private charity (how demeaning!), but state-sponsored redistribution of wealth.

Strange as it seems today, people used to object to being the objects of handouts and charity , and the concomitant pity and condescension that it implied; except perhaps in dire circumstances. They looked to their own extended families and friends; or their church for help.

You might put aside your sense of pride and accept it for a while but, again, the goal was to "get back on your feet" as soon as possible.

Not any longer!

In an article in the NY Times from exactly 1 year ago, we are informed that, "Once Stigmatized, Food Stamps Find Acceptance":

A decade ago, New York City officials were so reluctant to give out food stamps, they made people register one day and return the next just to get an application. The welfare commissioner said the program caused dependency and the poor were “better off” without it.

With millions of jobs lost and major industries on the ropes, America’s array of government aid — including unemployment insurance, food stamps and cash welfare — is being tested as never before. This series examines how the safety net is holding up under the worst economic crisis in decades.

Now the city urges the needy to seek aid (in languages from Albanian to Yiddish). Neighborhood groups recruit clients at churches and grocery stores, with materials that all but proclaim a civic duty to apply — to “help New York farmers, grocers, and businesses.” There is even a program on Rikers Island to enroll inmates leaving the jail.

“Applying for food stamps is easier than ever,” city posters say.

The same is true nationwide. After a U-turn in the politics of poverty, food stamps, a program once scorned as “welfare,” enjoys broad new support. Following deep cuts in the 1990s, Congress reversed course to expand eligibility, cut red tape and burnish the program’s image, with a special effort to enroll the working poor. These changes, combined with soaring unemployment, have pushed enrollment to record highs, with one in eight Americans now getting aid.

Commenting on the article, The Weekly Standard noted at the time:

As with any social program, there are many people on it who are indeed needy, but the article makes clear that the revival of food stamp popularity has more to do with state and local officials who are glad to curry favor with local constituents using federal dollars.

Since they're not paying for it, local officials and a network of aid organizations happily aid the federal government in recruiting more food-stamp recipients, regardless of how much they actually need the assistance. Meet Juan Diego Castro, who demonstrates how the system works:
Juan Diego Castro, 24, is a college graduate and Americorps volunteer whose immigrant parents warned him “not to be a burden on this country.” He has a monthly stipend of about $2,500 and initially thought food stamps should go to needier people, like the tenants he organizes. “My concern was if I’m taking food stamps and I have a job, is it morally correct?” he said.

But federal law eases eligibility for Americorps members, and a food bank worker urged him and fellow volunteers to apply, arguing that there was enough aid to go around and that use would demonstrate continuing need. “That meeting definitely turned us around,” Mr. Castro said.

Of course it is morally correct, Juan! Especially in this day and age. Dependence is GOOD! Accepting a handout shouldn't make you even in the slightest bit anxious or impact your fragile self-esteem at all! You are entitled to other people's money, even if you are able to support yourself now!

The Food Stamp program (or SNAP, or whatever it is called now) is not the only program that started out with a good premise intended to help people or make life a little easier. But somehow with programs like this it always ends up fostering dependence and making eventual independence a mere pipe dream.

Please don't misunderstand me. I am not saying that it is wrong in any way to help people in need. I am not saying that people who need help are bad. I am suggesting that the specific approach that has been favored by the political progressive left and the Democrats has serious, psychologically damaging consequences that lead to never-ending dependence, passivity, and continued poverty.

And that approach is to let the government do it, i.e., to use other people's money to redistribute wealth in the manner the progressives want. Donating to private charities is clearly UNprogressive. Witness their personal stinginess in this area: Romney gives 15% of his large income to charity, while Obama gives 1%. But Obama and those of his political persuasion believe they are better people because they want to give YOUR money away to help people. Romney to them (and to some deluded people on the right) is just another evil, money-grubbing capitalist.

Paychecks or Food Stamps? The Free Market or Crony Socialized Capitalism? Private charity or Government Redistribution of Wealth? Independence or Dependence? Obama-style hopeychangey or Real Hope and Real Change?

Two visions of where America should be heading couldn't be more sharply defined than these choices.

[Cartoons by Chip Bok here]

SAME OLD, SAME OLD USELESS RHETORIC FROM A USELESS PRESIDENT

2012-01-25T09:00:00.000-05:00

Mickey Kaus says it was boring to read since he couldn't watch it. My response to that is that it would have been boring to watch if it hadn't been so infuriatingly empty of meaning and divisive; while all the time attempting to sound profound (8th grade profound?) and conciliatory (Presidential? Really? Really??)

And if you had the sense that you heard it all before....(h/t Instapundit)

To those of you 9th grade and above (I'm talking to YOU, Republican candidates!) will you please do something so that he does not get re-elected??? PLEASE? Otherwise, I'm throwing my support to this grownup:

EVERY FOUR YEARS, AMERICA HAS A MAJOR EXERCISE IN POLITICAL NARCISSISM

2012-01-23T19:21:00.000-05:00

It's called the Presidential Campaign, and it starts earlier and earlier with every iteration. And, of course, in between the campaigns for both parties is the usual, everyday political narcissism we see emanating from Washington DC like some bad odor hovering over the country.

What do I mean by an exercise in political narcissism?

Far too often, narcissistically flawed individuals are hopelessly attracted by the grandiose opportunities of the political arena (as well as the Hollywood arena) like moths to a flame. Their sense of self is starkly invested in the desire for power over others (always, of course, "for their own good") , constant admiration and adulation and grandiose ambitions. This makes them remarkably adept at what is called the "politics of personal destruction".

For the narcissist it is always a zero-sum game he or she plays with other individuals. From the perspective of the narcissist, if someone else "wins", the narcissist "loses". It cannot be otherwise, since on some level they know that their own talent and skills are way overblown. Hence, they cannot hope to "win" based on those talents alone. Thus, the behavior of the classic narcissist is mostly directed toward making others lose so they can win by default. To that end, there is no behavior or tactic that is considered out -of-bounds or over-the-top.

This leads us to the current state of political discourse in this country and the ubiquitous personal attacks that have become the trademark of all political campaigns in both the Republican and Democrat parties.

If you want to understand why political campaigns have become so virulent and personally vicious you need not look any farther that this sad truth. While politics still occasionally brings out those who have strong personal integrity and values; often it is the people of no demonstrable integrity and elastic values who are obsessively attracted to the field and who triumph--and that is true on both sides of the political spectrum.

By that, I mean that those who would actually make the best leaders generally opt out of the process, because they tend to be too healthy to generate the continual all-consuming rage necessary to destroy all opponents; or they lack the required-- and mostly distorted --sense of personal "perfection" and grandiosity that drives the power-hungry.

Clearly, there can be other conflicts that motivate people in politics other than a broken sense of self. This is not an indictment of all politicians; but it does apply to many. Healthy self-respect and self-worth, i.e., healthy narcissism is essential for functioning in any profession; or, for that matter, for simply functioning effectively.

There are few politicians who are deficient in grandiosity and self-serving behavior. It becomes an issue of character when their identity gets re-invented regularly to please people. A healthy individual would not want to be POTUS if in doing so he would regularly have to violate his own sense of personal honor and integrity.

Such a committment to values and ideals is based on narcissism too, but it is the healthy kind of narcissism; the kind that generates values and ideals to begin with (for a discussion of this see here).

For a typical pathological narcisssist, the only value and the only ideal is himself.

I am frequently reminded that it is hopelessly naive these days to expect the electorate to vote for a person based on what that person actually stands for; instead, these days most people respond to the negative campaign ads that slice and dice the other guy; and are mainly influenced by botoxed faces and Hollywood-packaged good-looks rather than the content of any candidate's character. The less they know of that character, the better!

Unless you can dig up some dirt; then it becomes like a reality TV show and everyone is entranced.

As far as good looks, do you imagine that a Golda Meir or a Margaret Thatcher would have a chance to become the first woman president of the US. Not these days, for sure where there is favored a certain overly-thin, botoxed, plastic look--not only for the women, but for the men.

Real personal integrity and character comes from having a consistent set of values and exhibiting behavior driven by those values. Today's classic narcissistically-driven politicians can only flutter in the political winds, and, Zelig-like, easily adopt whatever characteristics their adoring public care to project onto them.

It is easy to be tough and ruthless with political adversaries in the US political battlefield. The kind of threat political adversaries pose is hardly life-threatening (though in other, less civilized nations it may well be). Political bullies in both parties feel perfectly safe in viciously attacking and denigrating those who oppose them. And, when it happens occasionally that a political adversary unexpectedly shoots back and won't go away, the bully easily falls back on the "victim" role and whines about "vast right or left-wing conspiracies" or sheds a few tears on cue; or belligerantly attacks anyone within reach.

This is not the kind of person who can face real threats in the real world very effectively because this is not the kind of person who can effectively deal with threats they do not perceive as personal--why should they care much about any other kind, unless the latest polls indicate they should?.

The best leaders are not obsessed with themselves; or with polls; or with accumulating power by pandering to all sides.

Those leaders may, in truth, have many other personal flaws--but not particularly of the dangerously narcissistic variety. Whatever those flaws (and we all possess them), they are characterologically able to be more concerned about dealing with external reality; rather than in preserving a distorted and fragile internal one. Avenging petty slights and insults is not a high priority to a psychologically healthy person. Those healthy individuals are far more likely to direct their psychological energy toward dealing with real-world geopolitical threats that endanger both their country and the people they have the responsibility to protect; rather than using that country or the power of their office to counter threats to their endangered self and act on their grandiose fantasies about themselves.

The latter is the same psychological pathology that is rampant among dictators and dictator wannabes of all stripes. Their concern about others in their group/nation is purely of the “l’état c’est moi” variety.

That the needs of the nation, or the people they serve, might be different from their own; or that doing the right thing is often different from doing the popular thing, are foreign and dangerous concepts to the political narcissist.

The only reality they know--or care about--is the one inside themselves.

Having said all this, the voters of this country should also do a little introspection, because frequently these voters of all political persuasions, enable and encourage the narcissism of their leaders.

The sad truth is that negative campaigning works.

It appeals to the average voter who does not bother to look past the headlines or news bites to seek truth about a given situation. Oftimes, there is no "truth" to be discovered; or that can be discovered; and one must make voting decisions based on little things like character, integrity, past behavior, and mitigating factors.

It's not easy when accusations against character and integrity are hurled around unthinkingly and without consideration for facts.

And then, there is always the reality that candidates for public office, even that of the Office of the POTUS, cannot be held to an impossibly high standard of behavior, i.e., they cannot be expected to be "perfect" in every way.

If such a candidate were ever found by either political party, then I would be the first to do everything I could to ensure theat he would not get elected. Such candidates are either lying or hiding something about themselves, since such perfection is not generally a characteristic of the human species.

"Let him who is without sin, cast the first stone" seems like a good idea for these political campaigns, along with the vignette: "There is no one who has not sinned."

So, what is a voter to do?

First, we have to stop rewarding excessive political narcissism. No one is a God; no one is The One; no one is The Messiah who will lead us out of the Wilderness. While it is tempting to want to place all our faith and hope into one vessel, it is an abdication of personal responsibility and a flight into dependency and the desire for someone to take care of us.

Been there, done that as a nation--fairly recently, in fact.

It is also fairly natural, i.e. human, thing that we should flock to someone who promises to give us lots of free stuff. Children especially are attracted to such individuals. But,when you are grown up you usually have realized that getting "something or nothing" is a con, and that anyone proposing such a thing is nothing more than a con artist.

A real leader will not make unrealistic promises; his personal integrity and honesty would compel him to do what he thinks is the right thing, even if it is unpopular and difficult to do; and he would be able to state his reasons for doing what he did; and be able to persuade you that it was indeed the right thing to do--or be willing to live with the consequences afterwards if he doesn't. A real leader has nothing to hide and is honest about his mistakes.

This does not mean that a real leader is unable to compromise when the situation calls for it; but an honest man or woman who is not narcissistically preoccupied with pleasing or manipulating everyone does not compromise with fundamental values and understands when those values are at stake and when they are not.

That's why it is so important to understand a politician's basic character, because character underlies values.

Isn't it time America had a real national debate about what constitutes character in a politician?

I am not particularly satisfied with the Democratic Party answer to this quesion, because they are more concerned with demonizing anyone they label as "hypocrite" (i.e., anyone who espouses some high ieal what they consider the Good, but who personally fails to live up to it and lies to themselves about their own failures). The Democrats seem to believe that you just make every "sin" a political virtue; or accept that "anything goes" in the personal integrity sphere as long as the person is ideologically pure. They justify the way they treat corrupt or immoral Democrats is justified because Republicans are "hypocritical".

The Republicans aren't that much better, constantly espousing personal virtue and even legislating it onto others (something that the Democrats do as a matter of principle, for "our own good"). While Republicans are often intolerant of human frailty, at least they don't actively promote it like their political adversaries, whose relativistic morality makes excuses for everyone's behavior, except when it suits them politically to use such information to demonize their opponents.

Nevertheless, "demonizing one's opponents" is what it's all about these days. Candidates who refrain from doing it are punished at the polls. Candidates who try to speak about the issues have trouble gaining traction unless they too join in the demonization, even when it is against potential allies and not opponents.

So, now we come to the Republican Presidential Primary. How is one to choose?

Character does matter and so do Ideas. So does behavior and performance in both the personal and public spheres.

Each of us much decide for ourselves which candidate's character and ideas; behavior in the past and present, are most appealing to us and will work for our nation. Each of us much decide, based on past performance, past displays of character, what each candidate's future performance and character is likely to be.

As we say in psychiatry: The best predictor of FUTURE behavior is PAST behavior. Other factors may be involved, of course; and obviously, people can change for the good and give up their bad behaviors.

That doesn't necessarily mean that they are entitled to our vote. I believe in redemption for even the devil himself--but I wouldn't vote for him for President.

For example, most people will take into consideration the fact that Gingrich's past behavior in his personal and public life indicates that he had some serious character flaws which led to erratic performance and (to be blunt) narcissistic gratification chosen over responsibilities and committments. People can make mistakes and be genuinely sorry and changed for the better. The behavior I refer to happened quit a number of years ago in the past (I believe). I do not denounce Gingrich: he is only human. The question is, has he changed as he claims? Has his character improved? How will he function under stress? Will he continue to seek narcissistic gratification over his responsibilities and committments--to his family, his party and his nation? I do like his ideas; and I will be watching closely how he behaves during this primary season. In the end, he may be the best possible candidate to support--but I have not made up my mind based on the information provided and the behavior observed recently.

As for Romney, he has also some things in his past that indicate a flawed and weak character. He is definitely a good-intentioned person, but his political ambitions have lead him to support and believe in things all over the political map, left and right and East and West--a serious charge when considering character and values. I do not denounce him either for his time at Bain and I find it rather reprehensible that any conservative would, assuming such a conservative believes in the free market at all.

Santorum for me is pretty much WYSIWYG. He is politically consistent and his character seems steady. He says what he thinks wheter or not it is popular; and there is a lot to admire in that, even if you don't agree with him on some issues. He may be too much like the kind of Republican who wants to legislate morality for others, and I, for one, don't care for that. But he has some interesting ideas and he argues that he would leave most of the morality issues to the state and local levels. He will be demonized forcefully by Democrats and the Obama Administration because they disagree on policy as well as ideology. They will attempt to make it a character issue.

Paul has much to recommend him from an economic and idea perspective. But he too was so narcissistically engaged in the pursuit of his own personal glory, that he allowed some very nasty stuff to be published in his name in the past. I think he is unable to see the Big Picture in the foreign policy area, but some of his ideas there bear open discussion and debate and I am glad he is in the race to bring them up.

The only other candidate right now is Obama. I do not hesitate to say that most of his adult life has been an exercise in political narcissism and the accumulation of personal power. If Democrats and Independents who voted for him (and not a few Republicans, I would venture) are now disappointed, then they should read this post again to understand the psychological dynamics (their own as well as Obama's). Obama's ideas are old and stale. They have been tried all over the world with dismal and horrific results. All we have to do is to look at what is happening in Europe to see where it will all lead. But Obama has used these ideas to advance himself over the years

As far as Obama's character: He also has lots of skeletons in the closet for which he has received a pass from his Party; the media; and most of the voters. I suspect that if as much information about his past was known as is known about all the other candidates, there would be hell to pay.

But he came out of nowhere, a tabula rasa who was felt to be The One, The Messiah. He received a Nobel Prize for Peace for doing nothing to speak of; and several years later has brought America to the brink of economic and political disaster. His associations with people like Jeremiah Wright and Bill Ayers are despicable, as is his ability to rapidly terminate any relationship which might do him political harm. I see him as a rather weak character overall; which strong narcissistic traits, whose ideas I totally deplore.

When it comes down to a choice, I prefer almost anyone on the Republican side and at least several on the Democratic side of the aisle.

It's going to be a long and painful year in many ways.

THE WINGS OF ENVY AND RESENTMENT

2012-01-20T11:55:00.005-05:00

This piece by Thomas Sowell is very thought provoking. In it, he describes "the way history went down" so that the Western Europeans happened to develop a literate language (i.e., a written language) a few hundred years before the Eastern Europeans. This he explains is mostly due to the fact that the West of Europe happened to be conquered by the Romans. The later disparieties in development between the Eastern and Western European peoples can be traced back to this quirk of history:

Literate people obviously have many advantages over people who are illiterate. Even after Eastern European languages became literate, it was a long time before they had such accumulations of valuable written knowledge as Western European languages had, due to Western European languages’ centuries earlier head start.

Even the educated elites of Eastern Europe were often educated in Western European languages. None of this was due to the faults of one or the merits of the other. It is just the way that history went down.

But such mundane explanations of gross disparities are seldom emotionally satisfying — least of all to those on the short end of these disparities. With the rise over time of an indigenous intelligentsia in Eastern Europe and the growing influence of mass politics, more emotionally satisfying explanations emerged, such as oppression, exploitation, and the like.

He goes on to draw a parallel between the economic disparities between Eastern and Western Europe and the situation in America today:

Today, in America, many denounce the black-white gap in economic and other achievements, which they attribute to the same kinds of causes as those to which the lags of Eastern Europeans have been attributed. Moreover, the persistence of these gaps, years after the civil-rights laws were expected to close them, is regarded as something strange and even sinister.

Yet the economic disparities between Eastern Europeans and Western Europeans remain to this day greater than the economic disparities between blacks and whites in America — and the gap in Europe has lasted for centuries.

Focusing attention and attacks on people who have greater wealth-generating capacity — whether races, classes, or whatever — has had counterproductive consequences, including tragedies written in the blood of millions. Whole totalitarian governments have risen to dictatorial power on the wings of envy and resentment ideologies.

Intellectuals have all too often promoted these envy and resentment ideologies. There are both psychic and material rewards for the intelligentsia in doing so, even when the supposed beneficiaries of these ideologies end up worse off. When you want to help people, you tell them the truth. When you want to help yourself, you tell them what they want to hear.

I have quoted extensively from Sowell's argument because it is a very crucial point he is making.

One of the "Seven Deadly Sins of Narcissism" is ENVY; and one of the key points about envy is that it is never directed at that which is bad; rather, it is a hateful attack on that which is good.

People who specialize in ENVY don't really want the good things the other person has; they want to insure that the other person doesn't have them or get to keep them.

Or, if they do want those things, it is a desire that comes in a distant second to their desire to destroy the good that others

ENVY is, without doubt, the underlying emotion behind the Marxist trope, "from each according to his ability; to each according to his need". The "enlightened" and morally bankrupt left has always believed that economic self-interest means simply voting yourself a share of the money earned by others. They wouldn't know how to create wealth if their lives depended on it; that's why they seek power over others--they see it as the only way they can survive in the real world; but since they cannot admit that to themselves, they will seize other people's wealth with one hand, while signing the political bills that make it impossible to create the wealth on which they themselves depend.

The truth is that they deeply hate those who create the wealth they want to steal, and seek to destroy them--even though at some level, they understand they cannot survive without them.

They count on the fact that this reality never spoken of in polite society.

The envy of the postmodern progressive left is palpable. It is malignant and it consumes them. But they don't care. They have convinced themselves that they stand for things like "peace" and "freedom" and "truth"--but they have really chosen to ally themselves to the side of darkness and despair, slavery and oppression, lies and distortions; and they can no longer even appreciate when a truly magnificent achievement takes place before their very eyes unless they can claim credit for it.

RESENTMENT is closely allied with ENVY. Professor Sowell has written about the politics of resentment, too, and the creation, back in the 1960s, of a whole government-supported industry of race hustling:

Pres. Lyndon Johnson’s “war on poverty” — a war that we have lost, by the way — bankrolled all kinds of local “leaders” and organizations with the taxpayers’ money, in the name of community “participation” in shaping the policies of government.

These “leaders” and community activists have had every reason to hype racial resentments and to make issues “us” against “them.”

One of the largely untold stories of our time has been the story of how ACORN, Jesse Jackson, and other community activists have been able to transfer billions of dollars from banks to their own organizations’ causes, with the aid of the federal government, exemplified by the Community Reinvestment Act and its sequels.

Racial anger and racial resentments are the fuel that keeps this lucrative racket going.

The modern Democratic party is almost entirely based on hyping both envy and resentment, and appealing to the worse of human nature. By doing so, they have created destructive and wealth-destroying armys of entitlement whose goal, whether they admit it or not, is to destroy wealth and the source of wealth.

Without envy, there would be no Democratic Party today.

And when Sowell says that, "Whole totalitarian governments have risen to dictatorial power on the wings of envy and resentment ideologies", it is clear to even the least observant that this is the destructive path which is being foisted on this country by the mostly clueless minions of the political left.

I have to ask again with some exasperation, why aren't Republicans making a case for the essential morality of capitalism? An entire cultural war is being fought against capitalism, and instead of making the case for why economic freedom and the free market is the best possible means to economic betterment for ALL PEOPLE, regardless of whether they are rich or poor; black or white; gay or straight; male or female or along any other divide the progressives can think of.

Instead, Republicans are busy legitimizing the narrative of the Democrats and their progressive left leaders. This is sheer stupidity and represents (sadly) how ubiquitous such narratives (such as "the 1% vs the 99%") have become.

Only in a free economic system within a free political system is it even possible to be moral, since benevolence toward others, compassion, charity, and generosity cannot exist without freedom. Benevolence, generosity, charity, and compassion that are mandated by the state, or by a religion (on pain of death or other consequence); or by any regulations on behavior; or by force--are meaningless insofar as individual morality is concerned.

So yes, we must make the moral case for capitalism. We must continually put forth these ideas in debate and argument because they are good ideas and shining through them is the essential morality of America and Americans.

ENVY and RESENTMENT are the bane (or should I say "Bain"?) of civilized society. In fact, these negative human emotions are essentially de-civilizing for those individuals who freociously cling to them and to their own sense of entitled victimhood.

Societies that are based on the emotions of envy and resentment are doomed to descend into "tragedies written in the blood of millions", as each individual and special interest group fights all the others for their "share" of an ever shrinking amount of wealth. Eventually, they run out of other people's wealth to steal .

For proof of this, all you have to do is look at human history.

YES WE CAN'T !

2012-01-18T15:53:00.000-05:00

RE: Obama on jobs

RE: Obama on energy dependence

RE: Obama on talking out of both sides of his mouth

[Cartoons by Lisa Benson]

Sheesh. This should be a no-brainer. Instead it is the President who demonstrates that he has no brain, only his precious progressive ideology crammed between his ears.

THE COST OF WARS UNWON

2012-01-17T12:56:00.004-05:00

Mark Steyn writes about the Ron Paul phenomenon and wonders if it denotes a fracture in conservatism. In particular, he says the following:

It’s traditional at this point for non-Paulites to say that, while broadly sympathetic to his views on individual liberty, they deplore his neo-isolationism on foreign policy. But deploring it is an inadequate response to a faction that is likely to emerge with the second-highest number of delegates at the GOP convention. In the end, Newt represents Newt and Huntsman represents Huntsman, but Ron Paul represents a view of America’s role in the world, and one for which there are more and more takers after a decade of expensive but inconclusive war. President Obama has called for cuts of half a trillion dollars from the military budget. In response, too many of my friends on the right are demanding business as usual — that the Pentagon’s way of doing things must continue in perpetuity. It cannot.

Steyn goes on to talk about why we are not getting enough bang for the buck when it comes to the military and sugguest that it has to do with the idea that, ..."not unreasonably, serving soldiers are weary of unwon wars — of going to war with everything except war aims and strategic clarity."

Bullseye.

What can be said of a military superpower who, after a decade of "expensive but inconclusive war" has not much to show for it? Iraq is unraveling before our eyes after our hasty departure; and there is little reason to believe that Afghanistan will do better when we get the hell out of there. Our tails won't be between our legs, but they might as well be.

And this record of "inconclusiveness" hardly began in the last decade (remember the first war in Iraq? Remember the handwringing and mea culpas; the anguishing about civilian casualties; as well as the daily televising of any US military dead? Remember Abu Ghraib (where, incidentally no one was killed--but these days humiliating the enemy and treating them sans dignity is considered far worse than actually killing them)?
Steyn again:

I would hazard that the recent video of U.S. Marines urinating on Taliban corpses is a coarser comment on the same psychosis, and the folly of fighting a determined and murderous enemy by distributing to your officers bulk orders of that charlatan’s bestseller Three Cups of Tea. There is a logical progression from three cups of sweet tea to those acts of micturition that the Pentagon would do well to ponder.

I submit that it is this record of "inconclusiveness" and attempting to wage politically correct war that has so many people, including those in the military, who support Ron Paul's candidacy.

Why in the hell do we bother going to war these days if we don't intend to win decisively? Why have all this military might and be afraid of killing the enemy and bringing them to their knees?

I'm not even in the military, yet the rules of engagement that our servicemen and women have to work under; the worry that they have to be so politically correct and nice to those who would ruthlessly cut off their heads or publically humiliate them without a moment's thought, is rather oppressive and completely unreasonable.

Instead our troops are expected to have tea with the Taliban and show some respect to Al Qaeda.

Victor Davis Hanson writing about the micturition outrage, picks up the many paradoxes of the current preferred manner of waging war in these glorious days of progressive enlightment:

The incident, though, reminds us of the contradictions of the American experience since 9/11, warped by both technology and politics. Abu Ghraib, where a few guards humiliated Iraqi prisoners (most of them terrorists with blood on their hands), was rightly condemned as both immoral and harmful to our mission. But it was a product of poor officer command and control at the prison, and no more a reflection of George Bush’s supposedly aberrant ideology than are urinating Marines of Barack Obama’s Afghan policy — and yet Abu Ghraib was often portrayed in the media as the touchstone to the Bush follies and crimes. One of the advantages of Obama as commander-in-chief (one at least) is that we will not see the Taliban corpses on posters throughout Europe and on American campuses as conveying some existential “truth” as we did the Abu Ghraib photos.

We are in an Orwellian situation when the media seems to think that the unfortunate but common dark side of war is somehow a carry-over from the Bush administration, one that now burdens Laureate Obama with responsibilities not of his own making. We’ve seen that assumption repeatedly over the last three years, when war critic Obama campaigned on blasting the Bush anti-terrorism protocols, then decided as president that they were useful and so adopted or expanded them, and then never quite explained to the American people the turn-around, but most certainly felt he was not a fair target for the anti-war fury he had a bit earlier helped to create but which mysteriously vanished in late January 2009.

One final example of the paradox: While we must ensure that urinating on enemy dead is an isolated and one-time occurrence, it seems to me, in terms of flesh and bone, as morally ambiguous or unambiguous as sending a Predator targeted assassination drone — its use expanded sevenfold by Barack Obama — as judge, jury, and executioner, to take out suspected terrorists — and everyone in their general vicinity, in a foreign country that we are not formally at war with. Selective outrage is a dangerous thing....

But selective outrage is one of the hallmarks of our current Administration and its media sycophants. If war is Hell; then unwon wars, like the politically correct kind we have been waging since 9/11 are endless Purgatory.

We all know the cost of war in terms of lives and treasure. But as we are beginning to see, the cost of wars unwon go on and on and on as this last decade has shown us. The slow attrition of human life; the inordinate cost of waging a PC war and the "nation building" that makes our professional soldiers perform all sorts of duties other than soldiering; the lack of accountability by a Congress and several Administrations that won't formally declare war and be done with it; and finally, the lack of ability of the American public to sustain interest in, or committment to, a half-hearted "overseas contingency operation" where "winning" is considered shameful to our PC politicians.

Ron Paul is entirely correct in this, at least: such decisions should be made based on our national interest and for our defense; and if we decide to get in it, then we should be doing our damnded to win it--no apologies.

The cost of wars unwon is far to high in terms of American lives and treasure, to do otherwise.

UPDATE: More from The Corner:

After Vietnam, our politicians demanded that our armed forces be trained to wield the most lethal weapons ever made, with the moral and cultural sensitivity of Peace Corps volunteers. To anyone who knows history, our troops have met this challenge with overwhelming and unprecedented success — as our real record in Iraq and Afghanistan attests.

But it has left our military trapped in a strange double bind, one reflected in the furor over this video. If Somalis drag our dead through the streets or Iraqi insurgents dismember captured Marines or the Taliban gang-rape and mutilate women to enforce their vicious version of sharia law, the media treat it as irrelevant to understanding who we are fighting, or why. They even suppress those stories and images — such as the beheadings of Daniel Pearl and Nick Berg. Their grounds for that censorship is that such reporting might “inflame hatred” — in other words, make us fight harder.

On the other hand, if an American warrior oversteps civilized bounds, his behavior becomes proof that our mission is a moral failure and no longer deserving of support.

A "BAINFUL" REALITY INDEED

2012-01-15T07:47:00.003-05:00

According to Power Line, the U.S. is slipping in economic freedom:

The source of America’s prosperity is no secret: our economy has historically been freer than those of almost all rivals. Unfortunately, that advantage–the essence of what America is all about–is being lost.

The Heritage Foundation has released its annual Index of Economic Freedom, and the United States has slipped to tenth place, trailing Hong Kong, Singapore, Australia, New Zealand, Switzerland, Canada, Chile, Mauritius and Ireland

Somebody should mention this to several of the idiot Republican Presidential candidates. You know the one's I'm talking about--the ones who are so obsessed with becoming the nominee, that they have abandoned even the pretense of supporting economic freedom and capitalism.

In their way of thinking, no one should ever be inconvenienced or upset when the impersonal market works its economic magic for the benefit of us all, i.e. when the creative destruction that is its hallmark brings constant change--and hope. Take Bill Gates and Microsoft, for example:

Bill Gates, with Microsoft Office, ended the need for thousands of accounting firm employees and typing pools (there are more than 1/3 fewer secretaries today than in 1980, totaling roughly 1.5 million jobs). Apple's Steve Jobs, well he probably ended the jobs of quite a few of Bill Gates' former employees by out-teching the master of tech.

If you only count jobs lost as a measure of success, then you are not understanding the way the Market works.

The problem with the entire discussion is that jobs are being used as the only measure of the "good" done by Romney. Profits are also good as they allow companies to grow and as they return capital to investors who can then fund the creation or growth of other companies. Indeed, despite our being surrounded by Keynesian-thinking politicians who believe that nothing is as important as consumers having spending money, the indirect benefits to society of profits to investors are arguably at least as large as the indirect benefits of employment.

The free market is always in a state of change, which for some may be a "Bainful" reality.

Progressives like Obama always say they want to "streamline" government, but they are lying or delusional or both. In fact, they are very regressive because they think they can accomplish efficiency and productivity without change, i.e., without ever anyone losing a job or economically suffering in the least.

But in capitalism there are winners and losers in the moment. The winners succeed, and, if they are capable of learning, the losers learn what they need to do to become winners next time around.

"Vulture" capitalism they call it; and they condemn Mitt Romney for practicing it when he was at Bain. But even vultures serve a useful purpose in life, though they get little credit for it and some find their function distasteful.

Let me be clear. I have not decided who I support in the Republican field; but this latest bit of disgusting emulation of all the egalitarian progressives who want everyone to always be equal--not in opportunity, but in outcome--is completely destructive without an ounce of creativity, i.e., it is utter delusional pandering.

It proves that even those on the right who trumpet being "pro-Market" have no idea how the Market works; and that they fully intend to continue to interfere with it in the same way the our current Dear Leader is doing.

Mona Charen captures the essence of the ~~duplicity and hypocrisy~~ heartlessness at issue:

So the president has proposed to streamline a number of agencies in the federal government. He claims to be trying to eliminate redundancy and duplication, but it’s clear that something else is going on.

Clearly President Obama has decided to join the Republicans in throwing widows and orphans into the snow. By suggesting that we cut vital government services, he wants to tell autistic children “You’re on your own.” He has decided to diminish “who we are” as a nation — a people who do “great things together.”

But, it is exactly a "Bainful turnaround" that is needed right now to save us all:

There’s a very troubled company out there called U.S. Government, Inc. It’s teetering on the edge of bankruptcy. And it badly needs to be taken over and turned around. It probably even needs the services of a good private-equity firm, with plenty of experience and a reasonably good track record in downsizing, modernizing, shrinking staff, and making substantial changes in management. Yes, layoffs will be a necessary part of the restructuring.

A quick look at the income statement of this troubled firm tells the story. Just in the past year (FY 2011) the firm spent $3.7 trillion, but took in only $2.2 trillion in sales revenues. Hence its deficit came to $1.5 trillion.

Advertisement Just in the first three months of the new year (FY 2012), the firm’s troubles continued. Outlays for all purposes came in at $874 billion, but income was only $554 billion. So the shortfall was $320 billion. No hope of a self-imposed turnaround here. Indeed, both the senior management and the board of directors show no signs of making major changes to their business strategy.

Hope for future profits? That’s out of the question. The firms only chance of survival is a takeover.

No wonder our economic freedom is declining in America!

I have no problem with those who want to act compassionately to help people whose lives are turned upside down because reality cannot be faked.

Right now, the biggest faker of reality is our own government and its representatives.

Think for a minute about all those who lost their jobs at Solyndra. Or all the other companies that the Obama Administration invested your and my money in who are going to go bankrupt any day now? Or, how about those who lost their livings when the US Government takeovers of the auto companies forced the closure of small plants and dealerships?

Obama's sudden fascination with "streamlining" the government is just another bit of fakery. And, frankly, I expect it from the likes of him and his cronies. No amount of reality will ever convince them that their policies lead to more suffering and pain than any venture capital firm could possibly imagine doing.

Because a venture/vulture capital firm is only in it for profit--and rightly so. The market is neutral. It doesn't care if you are black or white or yellow or green; it doesn't care if you have good intentions and want to save the earth or if you want to destroy it. It only cares about supply and demand. And whatever companies can meet the demand and supply what the consumer wants for the best possible price/quality ratio.

But your typical leftist progressive, social justice/redistributionist types are in it for far far more than some piddling profit! In fact, they turn up their noses at the idea of money (even as they cash their government checks) and disdain financial profit openly and loudly and repeatedly. What they get out of their particular brand of looting is power over others and a transcendant feeling of superiority as they contemplate their own wonderfulness.

It's bad enough to watch Obama and his crew engage in this narcissistic behavior. It's sickening to witness those who supposedly support the free market and claim to want to get the government off our backs strike at the core of how the market works.

The free market is the essence of "hope and change" in the real world not some progressive postmodern fantasy world.

How, pray tell, do they intend to get us out of debt and streamline government without being able to fire people--especially incompetent people; or lazy people; or people who have jobs that are not needed any more? How do they intend to do it without letting inefficient or badly run companies fail without bail outs from you and me?

No wonder people are seriously considering a nominee like Ron Paul, who for all his shortcomings and crackpot ideas and refusal to face reality in the foreign policy area, is at least firmly entrenched in economic reality.

It is a "Bainful" reality indeed that there are winners and losers in life. The good part is that the composition of each group changes constantly. Change and suffering go hand in hand. The forces of Nature (i.e., reality), like those of the Market, are indifferent to how any one of us might feel about it.

Reality can be very painful at times; but to ignore it always causes more pain and suffering for more people in the long run.

[More cartoons by Lisa Benson here}

OCCUPIETY, EUROTRAGEDY, AND THE WORLDWIDE NARCISSISTIC CRISIS

2012-01-12T13:20:00.000-05:00

Most people would agree, at least theoretically, that is is quite natural for parents to want to give their children a good life and even sacrifice in the present so that their children's future would be better than their own. Supposedly this is a key tenet of the American Dream.

But that's just an old-fashioned and outdated perspective. Under the auspices of Hope and Change, The American Dream is being transformed into cradle-to-grave dependence on the State. We have pius and (presumably) serious people occupying our cities demanding to be taken care of. All they want is free food, free housing, free education and so on. Not too much to ask of a free society, after all!

Their European counterparts, a few years ahead of them evolutionally, are rioting and are just a little pissed off that the gravy train is ending because they have run out of other people's money to spend on themselves.

Quelle Tragédie! A crisis of megalomaniacal proportions! A triumph of psychological denial!

If you want to understand how the extremely malignant form of entitled narcissism which is prevalent today--the same psychopathology, BTW, that got us into the current economic meltdown in this country and worldwide--then you need look no further than the following two articles.... It never has been about the children...it's all about MEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!

First, from Greece :

Children are being abandoned on Greece's streets by their poverty-stricken families who cannot afford to look after them any more.
Youngsters are being dumped by their parents who are struggling to make ends meet in what is fast becoming the most tragic human consequence of the Euro crisis.

Got that? This is a "tragic" consequence of the Euro crisis! That parents would abandon their small children, leaving them in the street because they can't afford to take care of them anymore.

The crisis is that these self-absorbed parents have always put their own needs and self-fulfillment and satisfaction above the needs of their children. Otherwise they would not be where they are. And, of course, by dumping the children on the streets, they are still doing so.

Who is responsible for their children except for them?

Then we have this, from the Annals of Occupiety:

A man is facing child cruelty charges after his 13-month-old daughter was found alone in a tent in the Occupy DC camp at McPherson Square.

This isn't the first instance of children's needs taking a remote second to the narcissistic antics of their loving, compassionate parents.

But..but...but, you might say, isn't "social justice" and all the leftist and Democratic bullsh**t propaganda (reference the ravings of Nancy Pelosi) all about the children??

No.

It's all about narcissism, victimhood, entitlement, self-indulgence, and the unwillingness to face the consequences of their own choices.

Sadly, children will suffer and there will not be much of a future for them when their parents are more interested in their own comfort and satisfying their every whim and desire.

We are in the midst of a worldwide narcissistic crisis; and, I can assure you that the consequences of this "tragedy" are going to be devastating to civilization.

FLAUNTING THEIR EMPATHY

2012-01-08T12:05:00.007-05:00

Recently, two prominent members of the progressive left thought it would be appropriate to mock the Santorum family for bringing home a newborn who had died shortly after birthso that the entire family (including all the other children) could understand and mourn his short life and death.

Mark Steyn rightly excoriates Alan Colmes and Eugene Robinson for their rather shocking lack of empathy toward the Santorums for doing this:

There is something telling about what Peter Wehner at Commentary rightly called the “casual cruelty” of Eugene Robinson. The Left endlessly trumpets its “empathy.” President Obama, for example, has said that what he looks for in his judges is “the depth and breadth of one’s empathy.” As he told his pro-abortion pals at Planned Parenthood, “we need somebody who’s got the heart — the empathy — to recognize what it’s like to be a young teenage mom.” Empathy, empathy, empathy: You barely heard the word outside clinical circles until the liberals decided it was one of those accessories no self-proclaimed caring progressive should be without.

Indeed, flaunting their empathy is what got Eugene Robinson and many others their Pulitzers — Robinson describes his newspaper column as “a license to feel.” Yet he’s entirely incapable of imagining how it must feel for a parent to experience within the same day both new life and death — or even to understand that the inability to imagine being in that situation ought to prompt a little circumspection.

Steyn notes that, "The Left’s much-vaunted powers of empathy routinely fail when confronted by those who do not agree with them politically"; but I would like to suggest that the problem Steyn identifies is actually more deep-rooted and characterological than mere political partisanship.

If you look below the surface of the supposed "compassion" and "empathy" that the political left constantly trumpets about itself, you will find neither.

From a psychological perspective, many of them are not mature enough to be capable of either true compassion or real empathy when it comes to anything that remotely touches on their political dogma--a dogma that infuses every aspect of their life and relationships.

This is all part of the same pattern that makes the progressive movement so completely pathological. They are constantly emphasizing how
- "reality-based" they are--while refusing to acknowledge any reality that doesn't conform to their constricted worldview (e.g. that you don't get out of debt by constantly spending more money);

- "progressive" they are--while being firmly and consistently against progress (particularly economic progress);

-how normal, peaceful, "grassroots" and appropriate the "Occupy" movement is compared to the evil Tea Partiers who are a bunch of Republican "Mobs", astroturfing phonies; Nazis with swastikas, and "these people are too well-dressed to be genuine protesters". is a case of the leftist projecting their own thuggish motives onto relatively normal Americans who are unhappy with what is going on right now in Washington. Meanwhile the angry and often violent and disgusting tactics of the poorly dressed, gentle, drug-abusing, raping Occupy crowds is honored and sacred.

- how everyone else is "racist" (or homophobic, Islamophobic; as well as anti-woman, children-abusing; anti-old and anti- poor people); and how the goal of their opponents is to kill old people, poor people, people of color and oppress them (instead of having a different perspective on how to best help them). This allows these compassionate and caring people to pretend that the social policies they support don't have any destructive effects (e.g., encouraging permanent victimhood and resentment in the people they claim to be "helping"; increasing dependence; promotion of class warfare instead of "brotherhood")--effects which can be seen all around us. It is never their own policies or beliefs that are to blame for the worsening situation, it is NOT ENOUGH of their policies have been implemented. Many beg to differ.

The list could go on and on.

Do you begin to see a pattern here? It is a psychological pattern that is certainly not exclusive to the political left (remember when Richard Nixon kept loudly proclaiming, "I am not a crook!" when Watergate proved that he was not only lying to himself, but to the country); but the political left currently bows to no one in expressing their immaturity and denial of reality.

This psychological maneuver is very common and pervasive. It is a maneuver that I have written about repeatedly on this blog and it is called projection.

I believe it is Ann Coulter who has said that, "You can always tell what liberals are up to by what they accuse you of."

That is the essence of psychological projection, the psychological strategy by which the user is able to disown his or her own thoughts, feelings, and/or behaviors-- even as they virtuously accuse others of possessing those same thoughts, feelings and behaviors.

I wrote in an earlier post about psychological defenses:

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

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

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

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

Psychological defenses are involuntary, regulatory coping processes.

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

George Vaillant, a brilliant researcher in this area, and a Professor of Psychiatry at Harvard, uses the analogy that defenses mechanisms are deployed in a fashion similar to physical symptoms-- such as a fever, cough or elevated white blood cell count. All of the latter physical symptoms occur when an individual is coming down with an illness.

Vaillant points out that the body reacts to the environment with these physiological responses in order to prevent or ameliorate the attacking illness. Without these normal physiological responses, we would be at the mercy of many illness and die.

In similar fashion, the psychological defenses are employed by the ego to respond to a threatening reality. With varying levels of success, our defense mechanisms ameliorate, distort and/or transform reality in order to protect our psychological self. The healthier and more mature defenses are a remarkably creative synthesis of our conflicts, needs and external reality; a synthesis that enable us to both give and receive pleasure in life.

Some defenses may be considered "immature" or even completely out of touch with reality; while others are "mature". This is not necessarily a value judgement, since it only reflects the fact that throughout development from childhood to adulthood; certain psychological strategies are generally discarded in favor of healthier and more effective strategies. The difference between the two types--mature and immature--is that the psychotic and immature defenses may cause considerable human misery and are, in the long run, not particularly adaptive or healthy. In some cases, they can even distort or warp reality to such an extent, that the person using the defense puts his life (and possibly others lives) at stake.

This is a very high price to pay to avoid a reality that is unpleasant or unacceptable.

Thus, when I see the predominance of "immature" strategies (e.g. projection, fantasy, acting out)--and/or some of the more primitive and potentially psychotic strategies (denial, distortion, paranoia)--being used by supposedly grownup adults, I begin to look around for explanations of their conduct that are not being acknowledged.

When I observe such strategies being used by large groups or even nations, I cringe; because the liklihood of a large number of deaths and considerable human misery is an almost inevitable outcome.

A healthy person will use many different defenses throughout life. A defense mechanism becomes pathological when it is used persistantly and leads to maladaptive behavior that will eventually threaten the physical and/or mental health of the individual. Having said that, there are psychological defenses that are:
1) almost always pathological - when they prevent the individual from being able to cope with a real threat and obscure his/her ability to perceive reality;
2) immature - used in childhood and adolescence, but mostly abandoned by adulthood, since they lead to socially unacceptable behavior and/or prevent the adult from optimal coping with reality;
3) neurotic - common in everyone, but clearly not optimal for coping with reality since they lead to problems in relationships; work; and problems in enjoying life; and finally,
4) mature defense mechanisms - used by "healthy" adults, they optimize one's ability to have normal relationships; enjoy work, and to take pleasure in life.

So, what is going on here with the so-called "empathy" of the progressive left?

There actually IS a connection between projection and empathy.

Projection is considered a primitive or immature defense mechanism because it is used frequently by children (and in their case it is not considered pathological, just childish, and is easily seen through). As an individual matures, gains insight and self-awareness into his or her own psychological realities and acknowledges the reality that is outside his or her own head, the same capacity to project one's own feelings onto others matures and becomes the ability to appreciate the feelings of others.

In the former (immature) case, one disowns "unacceptable" feelings in one's self and projects those feelings into someone else. In the latter (mature) case, one is now able to accept one's own imperfections and tolerate one's own emotions (even painful ones), all of which makes an individual able to accurately and deeply appreciate what others might be feeling.

This latter psychological trait is not a defense mechanism per se, but the abilty to experience appropriate empathy toward others as a conscious and daily process.

Of course, if a person consistently and repeatedly refuses to acknowledge inner and outer reality, then the maturation process is halted, or even reversed. Paranoia, is projection that is not only immature, but psychotic (i.e., completely out of touch with reality). Empathy, OTOH, is projection grown up and used to enhance relationships, rather than to destroy them.

When anyone flaunts their empathy, look closely to see what they are hiding from in themselves.

In the case of the Santorums' baby who died after only a few hours, the people in question were not only unable to get past projection, but it is clear that they were actually frightened by the emotions the Santorums' actions engendered within them. These emotions had to be quickly and firmly rejected if their worldview and their image of themselves was to remain unquestioned. Hence they projected their own inner weirdness and angst (even hate) onto the person who was causing them to have questions.

Steyn goes on to compare the Santorums actions with another individual in the news cycle:

Santorum’s respect for all life, including even the smallest bleakest meanest two-hour life, speaks well for him, especially in comparison with his fellow Pennsylvanian, the accused mass murderer Kermit Gosnell, an industrial-scale abortionist at a Philadelphia charnel house who plunged scissors into the spinal cords of healthy delivered babies. Few of Gosnell’s employees seemed to find anything “weird” about that: Indeed, they helped him out by tossing their remains in jars and bags piled up in freezers and cupboards. Much less crazy than taking ’em home and holding a funeral, right?

The unwillingness to face reality and its consequences; the unwillingness to look within one's own self and truly see and acknowledge one's own negative thoughts, feelings and behaviors is probably the most serious mental illness of our time.

Unlike those suffering from real, biological illnesses like schizophrenia or bipolar illness, who are not responsible for the physiological defects that haunt their thoughts and behaviors; these modern deniers repeatedly lie to themselves and the world despite all evidence to the contrary; and ultimately choose over and over again to ignore external and internal reality. They pretend that they are perfect and virtuous, and flaunt their empathy like a shield against that reality.

But, hey! They mean well.

How sad for them that they represent the source of everything which stands against the Good in the world today.

THE COCOON OF DENIAL

2012-01-01T08:48:00.001-05:00

Happy New Year! Same as the Old Year?

Ring out the new, ring in the old.

No, hang on, that should be the other way around, shouldn’t it? Not as far as 2011 was concerned. The year began with a tea-powered Republican caucus taking control of the House of Representatives and pledging to rein in spendaholic government. It ended with President Obama making a pro forma request for a mere $1.2 trillion increase in the debt ceiling. This will raise government debt to $16.4 trillion — a new world record! If only until he demands the next debt-ceiling increase in three months’ time.

At the end of 2011, America, like much of the rest of the Western world, has dug deeper into a cocoon of denial. Tens of millions of Americans remain unaware that this nation is broke — broker than any nation has ever been. A few days before Christmas, we sailed across the psychological Rubicon and joined the club of nations whose government debt now exceeds their total GDP. It barely raised a murmur — and those who took the trouble to address the issue noted complacently that our 100 percent debt-to-GDP ratio is a mere two-thirds of Greece’s. That’s true, but at a certain point per capita comparisons are less relevant than the sheer hard dollar sums: Greece owes a few rinky-dink billions; America owes more money than anyone has ever owed anybody ever.

If this does not worry you, then you are definitely in that "cocoon of denial." The US is playing a game of "let's pretend" and almost everyone in political power is happily closing their eyes to reality.

Why?

Because America has finally reached the point where telling the truth--even suggesting that we talk about the truth-- about our financial situation is political suicide.

Look at how quickly Paul Ryan was demonized after he made some fairly reasonable suggestions about Medicare.

Old people are up in arms at the thought (even though Ryan did not suggest it) that their entitlements might be cut. Young people are camping out in public parks, aimlessly demanding even more entitlements and free stuff.

Middle aged people are mostly going to work every day trying to make ends meet. Some of them believe the hype about the "99% vs 1%" when they aren't dreaming of becoming one of the 1%.

But it isn't really 99% vs 1%. It's come down to the 50% vs 50%.

50% of this country works hard and produces. The other 50% are what Ayn Rand called "looters"-- these are people who basically believe the idea that their “economic self-interest” means voting yourself a share of your neighbor’s earnings.

Those who have resisted entering the warm and comforting cocoon of denial understand that real "economic self-interest" dictates behavior quite different from the entitled, childish and destructive looter mentality.

The absolute last thing that those in the cocoon of denial are concerned about is economic self-interest. Rather, they always see economics as a zero-sum game:

In short, the means of creating unlimited wealth weren't really stumbled upon by human beings until the rise of industrial capitalism. Human beings had finally discovered the key to economic growth, which came down to the magical combination of individual liberty, free markets, strong private property rights, sound money, and the rule of law. And then get the hell out of the way.

And even then, it took several hundred more years to tame the "boom or bust" cycle [oops!], to the point that people no longer expect economic recessions, much less, depressions. It is now as if people imagine that unlimited economic growth and prosperity are the norm instead of an extraordinary deviation from the past. And with that, a sense of entitlement is nurtured, which in turn is rooted in what the psychoanalyst Melanie Klein called constitutional envy....

In other words, communism is our default state (as seen in our immediate families), whereas certain traits and habits of mind associated with capitalism must be learned, among them, trust of the stranger, the tamping down of envy, a focus on the future instead of the present, and an understanding that economic exchange isn't a zero-sum game....

For the vast majority of human beings, liberty is not a particularly important value, much less the most important one. They would just as soon barter it away for security, as they have done in western Europe.

Once you understand this, then much about the left begins to make sense. In Europe, we can see how the welfare state puts in place a system of incentives that creates a new kind of enfeebled man, but that's not exactly correct. In reality, it simply reveals man for what he is -- a lazy, frightened, selfish, superstitious, instinct-loving and lowdown rascal. Leftism aims low and always reaches its target.

Not only does the left "aim low", their fundamental economic assumption is that the only way to get wealth is to steal it from someone else because they cannot imagine how to create it.

The looter simply cannot imagine running out of other peoples' money. For them, "hope and change" means finding newer, more improved ways of stealing it.

Thus, all their political policies are imbued with an infantile economic primitivism. Like modern cavemen (whose cave is the cocoon they have created with their denial of reality) their only real strategy is brute force in the old days it was easy: Ug hits Grog over the head with his big club to get his "rightful" share of nuts and berries. In our modern progressive society, Ug elects people like Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Barney Frank and Barack Obama who will disguise the force and pass laws to force Grog to give Ug his "rightful" share of nuts and berries.

Unlimited nuts and berries for all! All the time! Forever!

This is the the looter mentality. It is the mentality of the parasite who wants the benefits of wealth without the effort of having to create any; who is always demanding "his 'fair' share" of wealth without the necessity of providing any value to anyone. Looters are people who think that wealth just appears out of nothingness and that it is perfectly justifiable to steal it from someone else, since it is a zero-sum game; and therefore it is a matter of "social justice" to redistribute it according to their whim.

Their redistribution plans have become more sophisticated and "progressive" than Ug's, but follow the same basic principle.

This is why the political left's economic policies (and not a few on the political right have bought into it) almost always end up enabling and exposing the worse and most brutish aspects of human nature.

Curiously, or perhaps not so much, these are almost always the same people who are always coming up with some new, improved utopian scheme that promises a veritable paradise of human love, compassion, kindness and brotherhood; along with free medical care, free food, free houses, free education, free everything!

Perhaps, the best answer to that question is that, when it comes to themselves, the looters of both the left and the right are constitutionally unable to understand or accept the dark side of their own natures with any degree of clarity, let alone honesty.

That's why I found this column of interest this morning--about how to deal honestly with one's self.

The squalid utopian fantasies of socialism, communism and the "redistribution of wealth" (a fancy way of saying to someone, "give me what you've got", while pointing a gun at them) appeals to people who refuse to acknowledge their own human imperfections, and hence their own capacity for evil.

We've reached a tipping point in our society where about 50% of the population are so firmly wrapped in that cocoon of denial, they are entirely capable of inflicting great evil on others.

They don't want to admit it too openly, but these deniers tend to see themselves as superior; above all those boring, ordinary human beings around them-- you know, the presumed neanderthals who "cling" to their guns and religion? The 50% who want to redistribute the other 50%'s wealth see themselves as more virtuous, more compassionate, more intelligent; and of course, much better qualified to decide what's best for lesser beings like you and me.

In essence, the psychological denial so rampant in our culture today is extremely psychologically attractive and amazingly comforting to those who embrace it. But the only "hope and change" it spawns is envy, entitlement, and a host of other negative and sadistic human traits. And, along the way,it promotes a cult of victimhood and generates the identity politics with which we are now very familiar.

Contrary to leftist dogma, economic self-interest is not a matter of race or gender or age victimhood--or victimhood pimping of any kind. It is not a matter of "oppressor" versus "oppressed"; nor of "social justice"--it is a matter of supporting the freedom of the individual mind the fountainhead from which all wealth is created.

The wealth of any individual not only benefits him or her, but also ultimately benefit everyone else in a free society because it slowly and inexorably pulls all up to a higher standard of living.

In a free society, wealth is never a zero-sum game; it is constantly created and exchanged; but in the Looter Utopia of Obama, where the looter mentality reigns, whatever wealth is created by those able to produce it is confiscated by brute force.

Ultimately, this process is able to continue only until all those who are able to produce are prevented (for the sake of society! for the children!) from producing. Then, the creation of wealth ceases, since the very process has been killed by the looters.

Ultimately, the Looter Utopia ends up enshrining and enabling human barbarism, ensuring that we all return to the cave--or, in our present situation, the comforting cocoon of denial.

As Steyn says, "The sooner we recognize the 20th-century entitlement state is over, the sooner we can ring in something new. The longer we delay ringing out the old, the worse it will be. Happy New Year?"

What will your choice be in 2012?

MERRY CHRISTMAS TO ALL !

2011-12-22T18:50:00.000-05:00

May your Holidays be Joyous and Peaceful....See you in 2012

EVERYTHING OLD IS NEW AGAIN!

2011-12-21T12:45:00.000-05:00

PURE PROGRESSIVISM PERMANENTLY DISFIGURES

2011-12-19T12:40:00.001-05:00

Here are the results of a real-world experiment on the differences between capitalism and socialism:

The graph comes from a post at The Corner and it illustrates the quite astonishing differences between the two Korean countries who went their separate political and economic ways decades ago.

What happened to North Korea is a perfect example of what happens when the Progressive agenda is implemented in its pure, unadulterated form. Everyone in NoKo was equal; wealth was perfectly redistributed (it just wasn't created); and from a "green" standpoint, NoKo was a radical environmentalist's wet dream:

We have the ability right here in the U.S. to conduct social experiments like the above by permitting states to go their own way with the social justice, Obamacare, progressive agenda and see how they do. The difference will be that people will be free to escape from the resulting oppression (as they are in California, at a record rate)and flee to states that have a less progressive (and more pro-capitalist, pro-freedom) agenda.

The legacy of North Korea is a reality that is hard to face for the dedicated proponent for "social justice" and all the other leftist/Marxist bull; but the facts are right there for all who care to look.

Or, read This paper from a number of years ago about the connection between POVERTY and GOVERNANCE:

A growing body of academic research is showing us that the two are both sides of one coin.

Indeed, the empirical link between poor governance and poverty received a boost the same week of the conference when economist William Easterly released an important new working paper for the Center for Global Development.

Easterly has spent his career inside foreign aid circles. Within those circles, it has been widely believed that impoverished nations suffer from a self-perpetuating "poverty trap." This poverty trap is almost impossible to escape without a big push from wealthy countries -- hence the logic of foreign aid.

This view, while not entirely new, has been most recently championed by the economist Jeffrey Sachs of the Earth Institute at Columbia University -- whom the New York Times just editorialized is an "A-list economics geek." The only problem with this storyline, according to Easterly, is that "evidence to support the narrative is scarce."

Easterly found that, "Over 1970-94, there is good data on public investment for 22 African countries. These countries' governments spent $342 billion on public investment. The donors gave these same countries' governments $187 billion in aid over this period. Unfortunately, the corresponding …increase in productivity… was zero."

If half a trillion dollars of investment and aid can't raise economic output, then what can? "The paper instead finds support for democratic institutions and economic freedom as determinants of growth that explain the occasions under which poor countries grow more slowly than rich countries." In other words, poverty -- and its alleviation -- are directly linked to governance.

Along these lines, It is also worthwhile to read some of the peer-reviewed scientific papers (from 2005 - 2011) that definitively link economic prosperity to FREEDOM.

Poverty has a cure, people.

It is not an instantaneous cure, but it works miraculously over time to pull entire societies and nations up from economic stagnation and misery.

Policymakers whose goal is fighting poverty need to pay attention to the link between economic freedom and prosperity. The freest economies have a per-capita income of $29,219, more than twice that of the "mostly free" at $12,839, and more than four times that of the "mostly unfree."

It is ECONOMIC FREEDOM that is the true cure for poverty.

Not MORE TAXES. Not MORE REGULATION. Not MORE FREE STUFF. Not GOVERNMENT CONTROL OF THE ECONOMY nor THE REDISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH.

Just look at North Korea and South Korea. Dark vs Light; Poverty vs Prosperity.

And, consider not only the economic toll inflicted by pure progressivism over the long term, but also the human toll. Leftists are fond of trotting out individuals who have not prospered under capitalism--they lose their jobs or their homes; but at least they are free to move on and try again; and others are free to help them if they want to. North Koreans are helpless; trapped inside a progressive utopian fantasy and ruled by a series of malignant narcissists (and the next in line doesn't appear to be much different than his father); with no help available and no possibility to get out alive.

As Mark Krikorian notes:

After almost a lifetime under the rule of the Kim Family Regime, North Koreans are broken, morally, psychologically, socially. You can’t just go back to the status quo ante — the society there entered modernity (sort of) under this perverse and demonic system and has been permanently disfigured as a result.

Pure progressivism permanently disfigures people. The free market may knock you down, but you are free to get up and try again...and again.

It is CAPITALISM, or the free market, that brings societies and people out of poverty.

For those on the Left who pay lip service to fighting poverty and achieving social justice; but who reflexly denounce capitalism, free trade, and globalization; who routinely demonize capitalists and entrepreneurs who create wealth (and jobs); I strongly recommend that you STFU, and let those evil, greedy capitalistic bastards, pursuing their own selfish, profit-making agendas, do their thing.

I say this only because it's for your own good--not to mention, everyone else's!

UPDATE: I just noticed this WSJ article by Jeb Bush, which is related:

Congressman Paul Ryan recently coined a smart phrase to describe the core concept of economic freedom: "The right to rise."

Think about it. We talk about the right to free speech, the right to bear arms, the right to assembly. The right to rise doesn't seem like something we should have to protect.

But we do. We have to make it easier for people to do the things that allow them to rise. We have to let them compete. We need to let people fight for business. We need to let people take risks. We need to let people fail. We need to let people suffer the consequences of bad decisions. And we need to let people enjoy the fruits of good decisions, even good luck.

That is what economic freedom looks like. Freedom to succeed as well as to fail, freedom to do something or nothing.

Check it out.

WHAT TO DO WITH A GREEN YOUNG MAN ?

2011-12-17T07:17:00.001-05:00

John Miller posts a sample of the poetry of Barack Obama:

What to do with me, a green young man

Who fails to consider the

Flim and flam of the world, since

Things have been easy for me

My response to the green, young man:

What shall we do with a green, young man

Who's become the flim and flam of the world?

Things have been made too easy for him

Give him his hat and show him the door

So he can face reality for a change

Feel free to adapt your own suggestions in the comments

TIME MAGAZINE'S "PERSON OF THE YEAR"

2011-12-14T11:39:00.002-05:00

Once again, Time Magazine claims to have taken the pulse of the country and has selected its "Person of the Year".

Oh Yay.

Instead of selecting, say...I don't know, the NAVY SEALS who killed OBL, for example, we get The Protester (sample OWS protester below)

My comments are not to denigrate those courageous individuals around the world, particularly the Arab world, protesting tyranny (and likely to only get more tyranny for their trouble); but Time made it clear the OWS was right up there alongside groups like the Syrian protesters, who are risking their lives on a daily basis.
No. Time just HAD to include the ridiculous OWS crowd, a series of wretched hives of scum and villainy--not to mention uselessness (except to the Democrats who want to pretend that the OWS protesters stand for something other than what the protester above clearly stands for).

I think this says a lot about the current psychology of our media. Or, should I say, its psychopathology?

Ask yourself why the OWS crowd got so much attention in the first place and you will understand why the Time would dearly love to be able to link them to freedom protests around the world. In fact, the article above linking to their announcement gives OWS a rather prominent place in the middle of real protesters for freedom.

Except for several teensy weensy details.

These protesters weren't for political freedom. They wanted more governmnet control.
These protesters weren't for economic liberty. They were for the redistribution of wealth.
These protesters weren't for the right to live their lives and pursue their happiness as they choose, they were for entitlements and handouts.

In my professional opinion, the picture above just about sums up the content of the OWS movement; or, to put it another way, what a load of crap.

THE GREAT ESCAPE

2011-12-13T06:42:00.001-05:00

Britain makes its move to escape the Titanic....

YES THEY HAVE NO BANANAS (OR CUCUMBERS)

2011-12-08T09:26:00.000-05:00

Ask yourself WHO is actually having the sexual thoughts about bananas and cucumbers, and you will understand the role psychological projection plays in the Islamic oppression of women.

An Islamic cleric residing in Europe said that women should not be close to bananas or cucumbers, in order to avoid any “sexual thoughts.”

The unnamed sheikh, who was featured in an article on el-Senousa news, was quoted saying that if women wish to eat these food items, a third party, preferably a male related to them such as their a father or husband, should cut the items into small pieces and serve.

He said that these fruits and vegetables “resemble the male penis” and hence could arouse women or “make them think of sex.”

It's hard to imagine a better example of the paranoid fear of female sexuality. The article once again reminds me that much of Muslim culture (particularly in the Middle East) has evolved into a structure for the sole purpose of containing female sexuality. This containment has not only become a key aspect of the worship of their god; but it also is a key factor in individual personality development; as well as the main pollutant of all social interactions.

The men of Islam are obsessed with sex beyond even the wildest imaginings of the Western male's mind. And the obsession is extremely bizarre and pathological.

So frequently do we joke about men's preoccupation with sex and female body parts in the West, that we have failed to notice that the Muslim world is literally consumed by female sexuality and the fear of it. It is ironic that both Muslim men and women are under the mistaken impression that Western society is oversexualized compared to them, when in fact, it is practically impossible to be more obsessed with sexual matters than they are in Muslim communities.

Consider for a moment a culture that would prefer to let little girls die in a burning building than to risk having them run out of said building not clothed in properly modest dress; and tell me that such a society is less preoccupied with matters of sex than we are in the West.

Enormous effort goes into veiling women, dressing women modestly, silencing women, covering women's bodies, punishing women, controlling women, reviling women, humiliating women, beating women, subjugating women, avoiding the dishonor of women, keeping women uneducated, policing women, infantilizing women--in short, dehumanizing women -- all under the guise of "protecting" and "honoring" them as they relegate them to animal-like status.

The women in this misogynistic Islam are brainwashed from birth into thinking that this cultural preoccupation somehow is necessary and that it "liberates" them in some bizarre manner.

Amazingly, this medieval culture has grasped the fundamentals of both Orwellian and postmodern rhetorical rationalizations, that are so prominent in certain intellectual quarters within our own culture! I have heard the canned rationalizations coming from th lips of muslim women myself; and they all claim that it frees them from having to be "sexual objects."

Honey, go eat some bananas and cucumbers.

UPDATE

2011-11-28T15:07:00.001-05:00

Life continues to go on....

I have been writing a book and will finish by the end of this year. In addition, a lot of other things have been going on in my life and taking up my time this past year, making it difficult for me to be able to blog: but I have hopes of intermittantly putting up some posts in 2012, particularly for the election.

Stay tuned...and have a wonderful Holiday Season!

SEXUAL HARASSMENT AND YOU

2011-11-08T07:48:00.001-05:00

(h/t American Thinker)

THE UNIVERSE IS SOOOOOOO UNFAIR !

2011-10-26T10:57:00.000-04:00

For all those brilliant and virtuous Occupiers out there, remember that the struggle against reality is a bittersweet, neverending battle; but the fight for social justice goes on--even to Infinity and Beyond!

SEPTEMBER 11, 2011

2011-09-11T08:23:00.003-04:00

ENTITLED TO FREEDOM

Our Legacy is Freedom,
But we fritter it away
With every new entitlement
That passes every day

Entitled to food...
But who will grow it?
Entitled to learn...
But who will know it?
Entitled to housing...
But who will pay it?
Entitled to truth...
But who will say it?
Entitled to health care...
But who will provide it?
Entitled to leadership...
But who will decide it?

With every new entitlement
We make each other slaves
Jefferson and Lincoln
Are weeping in their graves

The Founders fought for Liberty;
Each generation passed it on
And with the blood of Patriots
Liberty is won.

Freedom to succeed and win;
Freedom, too, to fail.
To learn and grow from our mistakes
And not expect a bail.

Freedom to pursue our lives
And Freedom just to be;
Not Freedom from our folly
Or from reality.

But in this generation
Entitlement is king.
We're all the slaves of victimhood
Let narcissism ring!

Our legacy is Freedom
But we fritter it away
With every new entitlement
That passes every day

Don't expect a handout
Except for one of love;
Don't demand a bail-out
Except by God above

Freedom's our entitlement;
Our Legacy; our Creed
Freedom's our entitlement;
The only one we need.

And on this day of memory
Let's remember why they died
And why our soldier's still fight on
And why our people cried;

Freedom was attacked that day
And Freedom's towers fell;
An Evil that fears Liberty
Plunged us into hell.

Let us stand and face all threats
Once again, let's roll
And remember Freedom's challenge
And answer Freedom's call.

Freedom's our entitlement;
Our Legacy; our Creed
Freedom's our entitlement...and
It's the only one we need.

OB-LA-DI, OB-LA-DA

2011-06-16T08:36:00.002-04:00

Recent events in my life have made me re-evaluate my priorities and goals (going to Hawaii definitely helped in this regard). While I enjoy blogging, it still takes up a lot of my time and energy; and, believe it or not, I don't care for politics as much as I care about ideas and the philosophy behind them.

I would like to begin to concentrate on other writing projects and distilling some of my own ideas into other formats. Unfortunately, blogging over the past year has often felt like a ball and chain that prevents me from going in that direction. I know I have taken extended time off from blogging in the past and have always come back to it...that's because I truly hate what is happening in the world, especially in my beloved country where I see a constant erosion of of liberty; the slow, cancerous growth of collectivism; and a spiritual and moral stagnation brought about by postmodern philosophical ideas that have infiltrated into our culture.

Blogging has allowed me to imagine that I am doing something to fight against these forces of collectivism and postmodernism. I hope that it has been the case that Dr. Sanity has had some positive impact in fighting this battle.

I am truly grateful for all my loyal readers and the support and comments you have made over the last 7 years. When I first started blogging, I had no idea that my psychological blog would reach so many people, and I have been pleasantly surprised that people actually read it and debate the ideas (Dr. Sanity has had over 4 million visits over the years!).

I'm not giving up on blogging, but I would like to focus on other areas of my life right now. It's definitely time for a change!

Perhaps I will return to write about the Presidential Election next year.

Ob-la-di, ob-la-da, life goes on. Be well.

WHAT REAL RACISM LOOKS LIKE

2011-06-15T10:14:00.000-04:00

These days, you hear the term "racism" and "racist" used with wild abandon by the political left as a strategy to attack those who disagree with their ideology or their policies. Many live in fear, for example of saying anything that might be remotely construed as "racist", since that has become the most horrifying accusation (whether true or not) that can be hurled at another human.

RACISM is defined by the Mirriam-Webster Dictionary thusly:

a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race

Here is a rather perfect example of the term in practice, described by Roger Clegg:

Disgusting Little Boxes

If you want to be disgusted, take a look at the front-page story in today’s New York Times, “On College Forms, a Question of Race, or Races, Can Perplex.” It’s about how selective colleges and universities are wrestling with the problem of how to deal with applicants who check more than one box for race and ethnicity: which mixes are to be most favored, whether it’s better to be mixed or pure, what do to about students who refuse to check any box, and how to tell if a student is really sincere in his or her self-identification or is just “gaming” the system. Now, maybe it’s just me, but I think a lot of people will find it really sickening to read about how these politically correct educrats sit around and give a thumbs-up or a thumbs-down to an 18-year-old based on his racial and ethnic mix. As for “gaming” the system, were we supposed to lament the fact that a black applicant 100 years ago might try to pass for white? I think our condemnation then and now should be more concentrated on the racially discriminatory system itself rather than on those who tried or try to game it.

Real racism is indeed truly disgusting; and nowhere is it more real and objectively manifest than in the left's politically correct posturing and in the perpetual victimhood scams perpetrated by their compassionate policies--you know, the ones that infantalize other races and ethnicities and keep them "in their place" so that the truly superior denizens of the political left can manage their lives.

HAWAII

2011-06-10T17:22:00.000-04:00

It's been more than 30 years since I was on the island of Oahu. Back in the day, when Pan Am was around they used to have discount flights to Hawaii from LA and I went several times while in Medical School.

It was lovely then; and, while a lot more crowded and big city-like, Waikiki is still lovely. I used to stay in the old Moana Hotel (still there) but this visit I am in the Marriott. Here's the view from my window:

WAIKIKI BEACH

DIAMOND HEAD

This is still truly a paradise and there is no direction that you can look that does not present a rather breathtaking scene.

Not looking forward to coming back!

SO MUCH COOLER ONLINE ?

2011-06-07T16:58:00.000-04:00

For all those online addicts; twitter freaks and cyberpaths out there -- GET A REAL LIFE !

It's so much more fun.

BTW, I'll be on a business/vacation trip to Hawaii for the next week so blogging will be light!

THE SHAMELESS WEINERS OF THE LEFT

2011-06-06T12:23:00.003-04:00

In a series of posts on the political left and the seven deadly sins of narcissism, I discussed the utter shamelessness of the left, who because of a profound belief in their own superiority--intellectually and morally-- to the rest of us plebes, behave rather shamelessly in situations that would make ordinary people blush with mortification, admit to our wrongdoing and resign our public post. This is not to suggest (as a commenter notes) that only one political party has narcissistic traits (it is, sadly, a reality of our current political process, which generally REWARDS excessive narcissism). But let's compare and contrast the Weiner story with Republican Chris Lee (N.Y.) who resigned immediately after the accusations against him posting a shirtless photo to someone on Craigslist surfaced in February. Lee didn't pretend he was innocent; nor did he place responsibility for his behavior on a mysterious "hacker".

Weiner is being urged to "do the honorable thing" (and no, I don't mean to suggest that he should put a bullet in his brain as might have been done in the remote past when a person of consequence did a shameful thing and could not live with the ramifications when it became known. No, he should merely R.E.S.I.G.N.; at which time he could pursue his fetish as a simple private citizen and not rationalize to himself that he is "doing the people's business" or that this affair has been a "distraction" from "important work."

Weiner will have speak to the press imminently, but typically progressives are urging him "Don't quit!"

Any bets as to what he will do? My money is on him buying into the Bill Clinton Plan--after all, he's a really really big and important man (as photos suggest) doing important work....

Andrew Stiles offers these possibilities of which the first is the most honorable and therefore probably the least likely scenario (I will apologize and feel ashamed if he proves me wrong--but then, I'm not much of a public figure):
•Resigns
•Apologizes for “careless behavior,” appeals for privacy
•Admits he “has a problem,” will enter rehab (the Tiger Woods option)
•Remains defiant, calls Andrew Breitbart a “jackass”
•Announces candidacy for Mayor (more press than Romney got!)

UPDATE: He will not resign. He lied. He's made mistakes. He never had a physical relationship with those women. He's going the Bill Clinton route.

Utterly shameless and predictably dishonorable.

THE 'MAGIC' KINGDOMS

2011-06-05T08:06:00.002-04:00

Did you know that North Korea is one of the happiest places on earth? A veritable Disneyland of pleasures and entertainment for its citizens! Imagine that!

It's official, North Korea is one of the 'the happiest places' to live in the world, but only according to country's own regime.

Kim Jong-il's own television station has told the nation that there is hardly anywhere else on earth where people are so smiley.

The joy index, released yesterday, scores the extremist country's allies very highly, with China scoring a perfect 100 out of 100 for quality of life and happy residents.

North Korea comes in a close second, with a score of 98, followed by the country's pals Cuba, Iran and Venezuela who all make the top five.
The happiest countries ranked out of 100.

Here are the official rankings:

1. China - 100
2. North Korea - 98
3. Cuba - 93
4. Iran - 88
5. Venezuela - 85
152. South Korea - 18
203. United States - 3

It's nice to know that happiness doesn't depend on stupid things like freedom...or even food, in the case of North Korea.

It's interesting though that the top tier countries all share something in common: They all employ deceit, trickery and subterfuge to camoflage their real economic and social state. Leaders like Kim cannot accept reality, so must disguise it with "scienctific" polls and propaganda like the one above.

Remember when most Americans thought of the Soviet Union as "equal" in prosperity because they flaunted their weapons and space program? It wasn't until I had a chance to see the country up close and personal, that I realized it was basically a third-world country; the people united in a profound poverty, standing in line daily to get basics like bread and milk. It was dirty and grimey; and the people I met could feel their very souls slipping away.

Communism tends to do that to a person. Socialism does it slightly more slowly, but the end result is the same.

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. China notably is also a shame culture; and as for Cuba and Venezuela, consider them completely shameless (see my discussion of shame and shamelessness here).

For both the grandiose and shameless individual, as well as the shame-avoidant one, reality itself must be distorted in order to protect the self from feeling low self-esteem or shame.

Overweening narcissistic grandiosity that is characteristic of all the leaders of these "happy" countries; they are all tyrants and demigogues. Typical symptoms of grandiosity that can be observed in your typical autocratic ruler/megalomaniac like Kim, Castro, Chavez, or Ahmadinejad are:
• 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

The "magic" kingdoms they all rule are places on the globe you want to avoid; places where misery and desperation are high. The people there are far from happy--they are not even allowed to pursue their own happiness; rather, they are the property of the State.

And, if the dear leaders who run things opened up their borders to free travel for even just a day, you would witness a mass exodus on the party of the "happy" citizens there.

I dare them to prove me wrong.

THE POLITICAL LEFT AND THE SEVEN DEADLY SINS OF NARCISSISM -- Part III

2011-06-02T15:07:00.001-04:00

Since Part II was posted, we have witnessed yet another example of the shamelessness of the progressive left. Instapundit has the roundup:

YA THINK? Peter Ingemi: Too Many Coincidences In Weiner’s Tale.
Related: Is America Ready for ‘WeinerGate’?

UPDATE: Weiner’s office refuses to say if lewd photo is of congressman. No police investigation underway. Meanwhile the press is covering for him like it did for John Edwards, and Mickey Kaus is mocking them for it.

ANOTHER UPDATE: More on Weiner from Kaus. Alibi one has collapsed already.

MORE: Bryan Preston: How Long Before Weiner Blames, Fires A Staffer?
So now Weiner has lawyered up (why does the victim lawyer up? Because he’s not the victim!), dodged specific fact-based questions about the photo and whether he has contacted Cordova (because the facts aren’t in his favor for one reason or another), and is calling the tweet a “prank.” From “hacked” to “prank” is a major, but strategically useful, climb down.

The next step is to find a staffer to blame the “prank” on, which will be a staffer who had some access to his social networking accounts. Deputy communications director, something like that. Weiner finds a way to compensate the staffer for taking the fall (promises to find them another job outside DC or his district), lets them take the fall, and attempts to move on. And the media, which can’t even get the basic facts in this whole thing straight after several of us blogger types have helpfully published detailed timelines for them, will do their best to let him move on.

It’s interesting to compare the press treatment of this issue to, say, the Mark Foley affair."

Indeed, the entire affair is a perfect example of the utter shamelessness of yet another member of the elite progressive ruling class. Of course, Weiner might be completely innocent, but his behavior indicates otherwise and it will be interesting to see how this affair unfolds. I predict it will go on and on and on without Weiner taking any responsibility or experiencing any shame or guilt--much like the John Edwards fiasco. You can count on Weiner to continue to portray himself as a poor, helpless victim, and not doing the things he needs to do to actually prove his innocence (e.g., call in the authorities).

Meanwhile, Ann Althouse notes the difference in the way the media treats these cases:

Imagine if Anthony Weiner were a Republican. (I know, it's such a hackneyed visualization, but it's important here.) The liberal/lefty blogs would be shredding him mercilessly. I'm not saying Weiner's not getting his hair mussed. But if he were a Republican, the feeding frenzy would be of a different magnitude entirely.

Being a lefty means never having to say you're sorry...or even admitting you were wrong, for that matter. It's no wonder the ideology has a certain appeal for a large number of people.

Next on our list of the deadly sins of narcissism is:

EXPLOITATION

Exploitation can take many forms but always involves the exploitation of others without regard for their feelings or interests. Often the other is in a subservient position where resistance would be difficult or even impossible. Sometimes the subservience is not so much real as assumed.

Of course the left doesn't see it as "exploitation" of others; they see it as forcing you to do what they think is best for you or for "your own good." The key is that they truly believe that THEY know what is in your best interests and your own good more than you do (see Arrogance for more details).

This social relationship ideal--where they are in charge because they are superior people, and you are subservient to their good intentions-- is characteristic of the political left and it exemplifies the psychological modus operandi of all the various do-gooder utopians: that is, they seek to have power over others, but rationalize this desire away by telling themselves they are doing it for your own good.

You feel exploited by the relationship; they feel powerful and self-righteous.

Sometimes it seems as if the ideology of the poltiical left is incapable of seeing others as separate individuals with feelings, needs and wants unique to the individual. Instead, they can only think in terms of the collective and tend to see others as fodder for the IDEAL that they support.

For all the lip service given to compassion and caring for others, the individual in the throes of this particular form of malignant narcissism (which I refer to as "narcissistic idealism") also completely reject the needs of the individual and exploit him or her in the service of their IDEAL/IDEOLOGY. Eventually, the enslavement--whether religious or secular--snuffs out human ambition, confidence, energy and self-esteem. These "do-gooders" cause considerable human misery and their ideologies can lead to genocidal practices and unbelievable atrocities on a grand scale, all in the name of the IDEAL or GOD. Appropriate benevolence and compassion toward others can only occur when there is an acceptance that other people are separate individuals; with thoughts, desires, wishes and beliefs that may not necessarily coincide with the sacred ideology; and that those others have a right to be so.

C.S. Lewis wrote:

"Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated, but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."

The social engineers of the left, motivated as they are by their creative utopian aspirations--expressed by the desire to impose (forcibly, if necessary) universal peace, social justice and brotherhood upon humanity--are completely oblivious to the malignant side of their own natures.

The leftist's desire for power is direct and absolute; and this is a direct consequence of the utopian ideology that drives him. Like a small child, but no longer an innocent one, the typical progressive truly believes that his whims and feelings and "good intentions" are all that matter in the world.

There is no area of your life which will escape his intrusive psychopathology, because he justifies it by saying he is really doing it for your sake.

The clever leftist always manages to hide these darker motivations--the envy, greed, and desire for power--and pretend they don't even exist--even to himself. He tells himself he does not possess such dark motives; that his motives are pure and uncontaminated by the kind of self-serving goals the selfish capitalists pursue. He tells himself that the "greed" of others is to blame for his plight; never his own. He tells himself that it is others who are "selfish", never him. He does what he does "for the children" and some undefined "greater good."

The banal platitudes and silly slogans he chants during his protest marches make him feel oh so good about himself and demonize those who he believes are stealing his rightful piece of the pie. Experiencing too much knowledge and insight about his inner state would make him extremely uncomfortable; perhaps even causing him to question some of his basic assumptions about himself or his beliefs.

This is the essence of the "dilemma of the utopians". They see themselves as so pure and righteous; so correct and virtuous; how is it possible that their beautiful utopian dreams always turn into such horrible human nightmares?

You can then count on the true leftist believer to close his eyes not only to his own internal reality, but also to the external reality that proves the uselessness of his beliefs in the real world. Few on the left have ever acknowledged the nightmare of the Soviet gulag; or Lenin's purges; or China's crackdowns. Few have ever even accepted the incredible human cost their ideologies have taken on humanity; the death the suffering and misery, the abject poverty.

When you consider the historical --and catastrophic -- human consequences that have ensued whenever their perfect utopias are implemented, it is little wonder that they will ignore, deny and distort any information that exposes the underlying envy and rage that drive their sociopathic selflessness. Their precious self-esteem would surely plummet, and their self-esteem must be preserved at all costs.

BAD BOUNDARIES

Having porous boundaries to their own self, narcissists do not easily recognize where they end and other selves begin. They have a hard time accepting that others are separate and are not extensions of themselves. Others either exist to meet their needs or may as well not exist at all. Those who provide narcissistic supply to the narcissist are treated as if they are part of the narcissist and are expected to live up to those expectations. In the mind of a narcissist there is no boundary between self and other.

Watch how the "compassionate" people of the left turn on a member of one of their many victimhood groups when that individual dares to disagree with them. They see them as traitors to their race or gender or whatever. If you are black or female or gay you are not supposed to have your own ideas about what is right and wrong--and god help you if you do, because you will be the recipient of an intense campaign of vitriol and hate for your audacity to think independently.

The underlying reason that the boundaries are not well formed is because the fundamental defect in the narcissist is a defect of the Self.

deepest motivations--i.e., they are a bunch of grandiose and narcissistically entitled children whose major goal in life is feeling good about themselves. And, like the narcissists they are, without constant stroking, the brittleness of their faux self-esteem is obvious. They can never quite be sure in their deepmost selves that they--or their ideology--are good enough to prevail. So they are scared. REALLY scared.

After Obama's victory in 2008, Byron York attempted to understand this curious phenomenon:"In Time of Victory, Why is the Left So Angry?" :

I asked William Anderson, a friend who is a political conservative, a medical doctor, and a lecturer in psychiatry at Harvard. "They are angry, but I think they are also scared, and I think it's because they have a sense that their triumph is a precarious one," Anderson told me. Democrats won in 2008 in some part because of the cycles of American politics; Republicans were exhausted and it was the other party's turn. Now, having won, they are unsure of how long victory will last.

"They see that they have a very small window of opportunity to do all the things they want," Anderson continued. "They see the window of opportunity as small because they know in their deepest hearts that the vast majority of the American people wouldn't go for all of the things they want to do." So they are frantic to do as much as possible before the opposition coalesces. And the tea parties might be the beginning of that coalescence.

Then there is the question of self-image. Watching Garofalo and Olbermann discuss the tea parties, it was impossible to avoid the sense that they saw themselves as two good people talking about many bad people. "One of the things about narcissism is that it looks like people who are just proud of themselves and smug, but in fact narcissism is a very brittle and unstable state," Anderson told me. "People who are deeply invested in narcissism spend an awful lot of energy trying to maintain the illusion they have of themselves as being powerful and good, and they are exquisitely sensitive to anything that might prick that balloon."[emphasis mine]

These are two sides of of this political narcissism that defines Obama and his leftist base. The grandiosity and smugness on the one hand; and, on the other, the brittleness and anxiety that comes with maintaining a false self-image. Just imagine what we are in for not that they have received a resounding rebuke from the American people.

One simple psychological maneuver that Obama and the progressive left can continue to deflect that anxiety and keep their fear at bay; AND at the same time pump up their already over-inflated egos and self-righteousness is to escalate their attacks on the Republicans in congress (especially their leadership) and to continue to bash former President Bush. The left externalized blame for their own inadequacies before Obama was elected; as well as in the first two devastating years he has been in power; so it is hardly likely that they'll stop now as they begin to see their power and control being wrenched from them.

We can count on the fact that they will remain completely inadequate and fall quite short of even the simple tasks of leadership. You will see that Obama and his minions will now blame Republicans for their own inadequacies on the homefront. And, when it comes to their failures in foreign policy, they will still have Israel as a scapegoat that can be flogged when the occasion demands it.

The anger and rage (that are so much a part of malignant narcissism) that the political left has nurtured and cultivated over the years will not go away. They need it desperately to keep their fragile, rotting narcissistic and grandiose self image--even if they have to destroy this country to do so.

Several people in the comments wonder what can be done about this situation...how do you deal with people like this? They wonder what use it is to describe and understand the behavior they exhibit; or even to appreciate the psychological strategies that are used by the narcissists among us as they exercise the seven deadly sins in the political arena.

The answer is very simple.

A knowledge and understanding of the psychology of the progressive left and the strategy and tactics they use to accomplish their agenda is extremely important and must be disseminated to voters. Obama and his allies have portrayed any opposition to him and his policies as racially motivated, but I think it is more likely that his entire election as POTUS has a great deal to do with a desire on most Americans' part to demonstrate (once and for all) a complete indifference to racial factors. The media were complicit in this desire and chose to ignore Obama's past, showing a striking lack of interest in past behavior, associations, and Obama's general lack of qualifications and experience for the job (This was clearly not the case with that uppity woman Sarah Palin, a conservative Republican governor, who obvioulsy was stupid because she didn't know her proper place in the feminist's mandatory victimhood and grievance league).

In our system there is one way to make change and that is to VOTE. The narcissists who are running things got there because a majority of people voted for them. Most of the elections are very close, so it is crucial that all efforts be made now to make people aware of how they are being manipulated and exploited by the Democrats and their leftist base--all for the purpose of a socialist/progressive agenda that promises everything but will deliver nothing as soon as the money runs out; that promises "hope and change", but will deliver the same old Marxist bulls**t we have been hearing for the last century--and the same misery and despair.

Even in Psychiatry it is difficult to deal with the severely malignant narcissists. Treatments are not particularly effective and they generally resist all efforts to help them change. Politicians are not patients, however, and they don't seek help for their malignant and often destructive behavior that can play out on a grandiose political scale and impact the lives and fortunes of most Americans.

BUT WE DON'T HAVE TO ELECT SUCH PEOPLE TO POLITICAL OFFICE;

AND, WE ESPECIALLY DON'T HAVE TO RE-ELECT THEM ONCE THEIR CHARACTER HAS BEEN EXPOSED AND WE SEE THEM FOR WHAT THEY ARE.

The entire purpose of posts like this is to give intellectual and psychological ammunition to people who are tired of the same leftist tropes and rhetoric; who are tired of the government spending your money and becoming ever more intrusive into YOUR life. Remember, "....it is this single-minded pursuit of the irrelevant by the self-important that constitutes the greatest catastrophe of our time."

Like Dorothy in Oz, we have always had it within our power to bring this country home.

HAPPY MEMORIAL DAY !

2011-05-30T10:23:00.000-04:00

The debt that can NEVER be repaid....

THE POLITICAL LEFT AND THE SEVEN DEADLY SINS OF NARCISSISM - Part II

2011-05-28T08:01:00.001-04:00

In Part I, I discussed the first two deadly sins of Narcissism (Shamelessness and Magical Thinking) and how they are owned primarily by the postmodern progressive left. Today's topics are the next three narcissistic sins: ARROGANCE, ENVY, AND ENTITLEMENT.

Let's start with how the political left actively works to diminish, debase or degrade their political opponents--not in any appropriate way by attacking their ideas; but in a deliberate attempt to destroy them personally so that in their opponents' destruction their own self-worth can be puffed up. In fact, the sine qua non of the progressive political left is the politics of personal destruction.

In this, they have been aided and abetted by the Gurus of Self-Esteem. Most people confuse "self-esteem" with what I will refer to as a "sense of self". It is the latter--not the former, that is so often screwed up in the angry, violent, grandiose, and generally narcissistic people in the world. If you have a healthy "Self", you are likely to have a healthy self-esteem--which is not the same at all as a high self-esteem.

The psychological defect in malignant narcissism is a broken or distorted sense of one's SELF. The excessive self-esteem and swaggering arrogance that you see in a typical bully comes from a distortion of reality that person has with regard to their own self. It was once widely believed that low self-esteem was a cause of violence--and you see that idea reflected today in the platitudes and rationalizations for terrorism or any destructive behavior-- but, the reality is that most violent individuals, groups and nations think very well of themselves.

The triumvarate of cognitive contradictions promulgated by today's narcissistic left, and which claim to be based on "scientific" psychology includes the hyping of (1) self-esteem (i.e., increasing your self-worth without having to achieve anything; (2) hope (i.e., achieving your goals without any real effort) and (3) victimhood (i.e.,it's not your fault that you haven't achieved anything or made any effort).

The first of these cognitve contradictions leads to inappropriate arrogance and an inflated sense of one's own self worth; which, since it is not based on anything real but only only on the denigration or debasement of others, is extremely fragile and must be defended--violently and ruthlessly, if necessary--when challenged.

ARROGANCE

To the extent that a person's behavior is mostly motivated by perceived insults to their self--i.e., their narcissistic core; then the "insult" will usually prompt a typical display of narcissistic rage directed toward the unfortunate individual whose person or ideas threatens them.

Such rage responses are invariably destructive, mean, and often incredibly petty. These rages are generally not beneficial to society-at-large (in fact, such actions often have strong sociopathic or antisocial elements to them) , although the person in the throes of narcissistic rage will often convince themselves that they are behaving perfectly appropriately and even for "the good" of others. You can often imagine them chanting to themselves, "I am so special! I am so special!"; or like Homer Simpson, "I am so smart. S-M-R-T, I mean S-M-A-R-T", as he accidentally sets the house on fire.

Far too often, narcissistically flawed individuals are hopelessly attracted by the grandiose opportunities of the political arena (as well as the Hollywood arena) like moths to a flame. Their sense of self is starkly invested in the desire for power over others (always justified to themselves, of course, as being "for their own good"); a constant need admiration and adulation; and grandiose, often insatiable ambitions.

This arrogance thuse makes them remarkably adept at the "politics of personal destruction".

For the narcissist it is always a zero-sum game he or she plays with other individuals. From the perspective of the narcissist, if someone else "wins", the narcissist "loses". It cannot be otherwise, since on some level they know that their own talent and skills are way overblown. Hence, they cannot hope to "win" based on those talents alone. Thus, the behavior of the classic narcissist is mostly directed toward making others lose so they can win by default. To that end, there is no behavior or tactic that is considered out-of-bounds or over-the-top.

Ad hominem attacks are preferred since the narcissistic is hopelessly outclassed on the battlefield of ideas. Watch carefully and you will notice that whenever an idea or proposal is brought forth regarding the economy that is inconsistent with their ideology, the postmodern left attacks the person whose idea it was, NOT the idea itself except through gross distortion and deception. Paul Ryan and Chris Christie are just two recent examples of conservatives who are personally attacked to ensure that their ideas are not discussed in any rational or civil manner.

And, as mentioned previously, watch the rage and vicious insults that are casually expressed toward anyone who should know their place in the leftist victimhood heirarchy (e.g., a woman or a black conservative for example) dares to disagree with their political positions.

Hence the current state of political discourse and the ubiquitous personal attacks that have become the trademark of all political campaigns to some extent, but which are constantly decried by the left, even as they desperately try to pin anything bad that happens on their enemies, the conservatives or Republicans.

The tragic shooting of Representative Giffords by a paranoid schizophrenic is a case in point. The left self-righteously and arrogantly pinned that one on Sarah Palin, a go-to whipping ~~boy~~ girl for the left. They desperately need for Palin or any female conservative to be identified as eeeeevil, so that they can bask in the glow of their own goodness and self-righteousness.

Frankly, a schizophrenic is truly sick in every medical/physiological/biological sense of the word; but the progressive left suffers from an illness that is
philosophical/moral/spiritual and ethical sense.

If you want to understand why politics has become so virulent and personally vicious you need not look any farther that this sad truth. While politics still occasionally brings out those who have strong personal integrity and values; often it is the people of no integrity and values who are obsessively attracted to the field and are triumphant--and that is true on both sides of the political spectrum.

By that, I mean that those who would actually make the best leaders generally opt out of the process, because they tend to be too healthy to generate the continual rage necessary to destroy all opponents; or they lack the required-- and mostly distorted --sense of personal "perfection" and grandiosity that drives the power-hungry.

I am frequently reminded that it is hopelessly naive these days to expect the electorate to vote for a person based on what that person actually stands for; instead, these days most people respond to the negative campaign ads that slice and dice the other guy; and are mainly influenced by botoxed faces and Hollywood-packaged good-looks rather than the content of any candidate's character. And, the less they know of that character, the better (witness the character with tabula rasa who was elected in the last Presidential election)!

Real personal integrity and character comes from having a consistent set of values and exhibiting behavior driven by those values. Today's classic narcissistically-driven politicians can only flutter in the political winds, and zelig-like easily take on whatever characteristics their public care to project onto them.

Arrogance is not necessarily a vice--or even a deadly sin--when you actually have achieved something in the real world to be arrogant about. But spending other people's money and claiming it is your divine right to do so; looting other people's wealth; or seeking to control other people's lives so that you can feel virtuous and powerful is about as deadly a sin as there is. Wretchard writes in "The Fatal Phrase", a post about arrogant serial seducer and former head of the IMF (and the socialist party in France) who incredulously asked a hotel maid he was forcing himself on, "Don't you know who I am?"

People actually like to feel important. they crave recognition and using the words “don’t you know who I am” indicates they believe they’ve arrived and the waves should part before them.

John Kerry is rather notorious for this same behavior. And who can forget Qaddafi's "Tokyo Rose" Cynthia McKinney who assaulted a police officer at the Capitol back in 2006 because he had the temerity to ask for identification from her. Not surprisingly, because he did not immediately recognize her, she framed the encounter that she was a "victim" of 'racial profiling' (see #3 in the cognitive contradictions listed above).

This is not the kind healthy self-esteem which allows a person to face real threats in the real world very effectively because the narcissist cannot deal effectively with threats they do not perceive as personal--why should they care much about any other kind, unless the polls indicate they should?.

That is why candidates like Obama are so attractive: because this same voting base that once adored Hillary now find her too too obvious and coarse, and have swung over to the unknown, tabula rasa candidate on whom they are able to project their own fantasies without any intrusion by harsh reality.

The best leaders are not obsessed with themselves; with polls; or with accumulating power by pandering to all sides. Those leaders may, in truth, have many other personal flaws--but not particularly of the dangerously narcissistic variety. Whatever those flaws (and we all possess them), they are characterologically able to be more concerned about dealing with external reality; rather than in preserving a distorted and fragile internal one.

Avenging petty slights and insults is not a high priority to a psychologically healthy person. Those healthy individuals are far more likely to direct their psychological energy toward dealing with real-world geopolitical threats that endanger both their country and the people they have the responsibility to protect; rather than using that country or the power of their office to counter threats to their endangered self and act on their grandiose fantasies about themselves.

The latter is the same psychological pathology that is rampant among dictators and dictator wannabes of all stripes. Their concern about others in their group/nation is purely of the “l’état c’est moi” variety.

That the needs of the nation, or the people they serve, might be different from their own; or that doing the right thing is often different from doing the popular thing, are foreign and dangerous concepts. The only reality they know--or care about--is the one inside themselves.

This aristocratic arrogance that is characteristic of a typical narcissist makes them view all issues through the prism of their own sad little egos.

Let us turn for a moment to another great poobah of unrestrained narcissism and aristocratic arrogance; the pious and morally righteous ex-President Jimmy Carter; who provides a case demonstration of the those who claim genuine superiority over others. "James Taranto tells this pertinent story about Carter by way of John Sugg:

Carter fittingly used a parable to illustrate how he'd like to see the political/religious debate unfold.

"I was teaching a Sunday school class two weeks ago," he recalls. "A girl, she was about 16 years old from Panama City [Fla.], asked me about the differences between Democrats and Republicans.

"I asked her, 'Are you for peace, or do you want more war?' Then I asked her, 'Do you favor government helping the rich, or should it seek to help the poorest members of society? Do you want to preserve the environment, or do you want to destroy it? Do you believe this nation should engage in torture, or should we condemn it? Do you think each child today should start life responsible for $28,000 in [federal government] debt, or do you think we should be fiscally responsible?'

"I told her that if she answered all of those questions, that she believed in peace, aiding the poor and weak, saving the environment, opposing torture . . . then I told her, 'You should be a Democrat.' "

Geez. I have met many 6 year olds with a clearer grasp of morality than this tired old man who never met a dictator that he couldn't support; and who appears to think that if someone disagrees with him, then they are clearly against peace; against the poor and weak; against the environment; and for torture!

Just as Barack Obama and his sycophants (or Cynthia McKinney and hers) believe that anyone who challenges them must be racist.

These are examples of the two fundamental types of malignant narcissists -- the "grandiose" narcissist, whose exaggerated sense of self-importance is dominant; and the "idealistic" narcissist, whose exaggerated self-righteous veneer of concern for others masks an underlying obsession with imposing their views on everyone else.

Both types are a plague on humanity; and both represent well-traveled avenues and justifications for limiting freedom and imposing tyranny. The "grandiose" narcissist shares the same psychology as any thug, bully, or tyrant; while the "idealistic" narcissist is the basic psychological fodder for the many groups (run by the grandiose types) who desire to impose their beliefs onto others.

Most narcissists go back and forth between the two basic types, since they are actually flip sides of the same psychological coin. Aristocratic arrogance and pious self-righteousness might appear to be opposites at first glance, but they both are hallmarks of individuals who are unhealthily obsessed with their own sad, little selves.

ENVY

Gaghdad Bob at One Cosmos, took up this topic in "The Envy of the Left (or No Good News Goes Unpunished)"), and I will quote him at length:

According to Webster's, envy is defined as "malice," and a "painful or resentful awareness of an advantage enjoyed by another, joined with a desire to possess the same advantage." The psychoanalytic understanding of envy is that it is an unconscious fantasy aimed at attacking, damaging, or destroying what is good, because of the intolerable feeling that one does not possess and control the object of goodness. As such, it is an aspect of what Freud called the death instinct, since it ultimately involves a destructive attack on the sources of life and goodness. Particularly envious individuals cannot tolerate the pain of not possessing and controlling the "good object," so they preemptively spoil it so that they don't have to bear the pain.

What is critical--and so perverse--about envy, is that it is not an attack on "the bad" or frustrating, but a hateful attack on what is good. As a result, the psyche of such individuals confuses what is bad and what is good, and cannot experience a sense of gratitude toward the good, the sine qua non of happiness and mental health. The envious person does not want to have a relationship with the good object, but wants to be that object. If it cannot be the object, then it attacks it to eliminate the tension.

Yesterday was an instructive but disturbing case study in the many ways of envy. Here we had such wonderful news coming out of Iraq, but the left found a multitude of ways to devalue, attack, and "spoil" the news through their excessive envy--by ignoring it, by downplaying it, by qualifying it, and by completely assaulting it with near-psychotic delusions.

Bob goes on to detail the general discontent on the left when good news came out of Iraq during Bush's term. If you can recall back to that time, there was NEVER anything that was positive about that war for the left. All good news was twisted and made to appear bad. Harry Reid even went on about how the "war was lost", and this meme was repeated over and over again as the left sought to undermine any and all progress there. The MSM was entirely complicit in this.

Contrast this sharply to the accolades (albeit grudging at times) that many conservatives and Republicans gave to Obama for ordering the operationthat killed Bin Laden. I heard it repeatedly said, even on eeevil Fox News! Granted that they all would have preferred that the previous Administration had been successful at this; and were annoyed that Obama (in his usual arrogant "It's all about me" way took more than his share of the credit); but nevertheless, they managed to control their envy because they realized what a positive event this was for the country.

You would be loathe to find a progressive who, even today, is willing to give Bush any credit at all for his actions on behalf of the U.S. Everything Bush ever did was bad; the same things when Obama does them are wonderful beyond belief.

Bob concludes:

Envy is such an important but generally ignored concept, probably because people don't want to consider the sinister ways it operates in their own lives. But it is a key that unlocks many mysteries, particularly in politics. So strong and ubiquitous is envy, that you cannot have a political system that doesn't accommodate or find some way to manage envy. You might say that one party will generally represent the envied, the other the envious. Guess which ones.

ENVY is, without doubt, the underlying emotion behind the Marxist trope, "from each according to his ability; to each according to his need". The "enlightened" and morally bankrupt left has always believed that economic self-interest means simply voting yourself a share of the money earned by others. They wouldn't know how to create wealth if their lives depended on it; that's why they seek power over others--they see it as the only way they can survive in the real world; but since they cannot admit that to themselves, they will seize other people's wealth with one hand, while signing the political bills that make it impossible to create the wealth on which they themselves depend.

The truth is that they deeply hate those who create the wealth they want to steal, and seek to destroy them--even though at some level, they understand they cannot survive without them.

They count on the fact that this reality never spoken of in polite society.

The envy of the postmodern progressive left is palpable. It is malignant and it consumes them. But they don't care. They have convinced themselves that they stand for things like "peace" and "freedom" and "truth"--but they have really chosen to ally themselves to the side of darkness and despair, slavery and oppression, lies and distortions; and they can no longer even appreciate when a truly magnificent achievement takes place before their very eyes unless they can claim credit for it.

ENTITLEMENT

What can I say about entitlement and the left's preoccupation with it that hasn't already been said? In this area, the political left's narcissism has run completely amok. Any challenge to their supposed superiority is met with rage. In typical projection, they perceive all opposition to them and their policies to be based on the most sinister of motives; people who oppose them are always characterized as lacking intelligence (never mind that Bush got better grades than Kerry--that fact was always downplayed because Bush had to be portrayed as stupid and inept).

This is how they puff up their own inadequate egos. But sadly, denigrating others is never enough for long to keep those egos inflated. They must find others to debase and destroy, like an addict who needs the high.

Narcissists always want more. Whatever you do is never good enough for them, and they also generally show no gratitute or express any thanks--even when someone goes out of their way for them. Like the most spoiled of royalty, they merely expect that they should be the center of your world at all times.

This attitude is normally seen in toddlers, who want what they want and they want it now. Every parent has had to deal with this kind of whining. When you see this attitude repeatedly in an adult, then you know you are dealing with psychopathology. Many adults whimper at the slightest inconvenience, delay, or restriction. Why? Because, like toddlers, they are convinced they deserve what they want when they want it. They are "entitled" to it.

And the left envision a entire society of entitlement. Their doctrines of multiculturalism and political correctness are all designed to use entitlement as a justification for redistributing the wealth of others. Their various special victim groups are taught to see everything through the prism of their race, gender, religion, sexual orientation etc. That way they can never mentally leave the ideology of the left and are trapped forever in it, demanding that their needs and feelings always be the first priority of others.

Case in point provided by Mark Steyn:

Since most of The Corner's metropolitan pantywaists seem to be cowering in terror from the light flurry devastating Washington this morning, let me offer this headline from the sports pages of The Seattle Weekly:

Gay, Mentally Challenged Biracial Male Cheerleader Claims Discrimination
He was allowed to join the high-school cheerleading team but was not given a set of pom-poms and was prevented from wiggling his hips. So naturally he wants Washington to take political action. This sounds like a job for Harry Reid and Rahm Emmanuel, with their well documented interest in biracial males and the mentally challenged.

In psychiatry we use the term "sense of entitlement" to describe the outrageous attitude of some of our more narcissistic clients who believe that the world "owes" them and they want to collect NOW.

This sense of entitlement has seeped into the culture and we have that good old progressive mentality to thank for it. The psychopathy such an attitude engenders is not a pretty sight. But there's a lot of blame to go around, starting with parents unwilling to set limits; as well as the entire worthless "self-esteem" movement that hypes self-esteem at the expense of self-responsibility and accountability.

All these factors have led to a culture of entitlement which encourages dysfunctional and highly antisocial behavior where the only concern is for one's own needs of the moment and their gratification. Many other factors in our culture reinforce this sort of behavior and even reward and enable it.

The influence of the cult of victimhood grows ever wider as the celebration of victimhood and the sense of entitlement promoted by a quasi-religious leftist/Marxist dogma has become a way of life.

As I have noted many times before, this sad situation has come about in part, because so many of the clueless individuals on the political left have an intense narcissistic need to see themselves as "champions of the oppressed"; hence the constant need to find and maintain an oppressed class of people to champion. Is it any wonder that our "gay, mentally challenged, biracial male cheerleader looks to government to solve all his problems and reimburse him for all his "suffering"?

This attitude also dovetails nicely into the Marxist dialectic (which is the foundation of the entitlement culture) and its greedy, grasping promotion of envy and egalitarianism. The world is divided up into two groups, you see: the oppressors (i.e., white, male,heterosexual, Republican, Americans, Israelis; etc. etc) and the oppressed (everyone else).

The political left proudly stands in solidarity with the oppressed victims of the world; and it is worth noting that their stance is particularly ego-gratifying if those they champion are undeserving victims (i.e., similar to Alfred P. Doolittle's "undeserving poor"-- who have needs as great as the most deserving of victims; in fact, their needs are even greater).

We are seeing more and more ridiculous stories like the one to which Steyn links. Each one more ridiculous than the last in a never-ending attempt to out-entitle each other.

As you can see, there is quite a bit of overlap in the political left's use of Arrogance, Envy, and Entitlement in the field of politics. At the heart of each of these deadly sins is the belief that their ideology produces superior people with superior intellect, entitled to have power and rule over others. But the "superiority" and sense of entitlement that they desperately cling to is just a thin disguise for the deeper and darker emotions of envy and hatred of the good.

In Part III, the narcissistic sins of Exploitation and Bad Boundaries will be covered.

Have a good weekend!

THE POLITICAL LEFT AND THE SEVEN DEADLY SINS OF NARCISSISM - Part I

2011-05-25T11:39:00.002-04:00

This will be a multi-part post that discusses how postmodern progressive leftism encourages and rewards malignant narcissism and sociopathic behavior. I have discussed elsewhere both the sociopathic selfishness and the sociopathic selflessness that characterizes the malignant variant of narcissism.

Between the rise of Islamic fundamentalism, a fundamentally fascist (i.e., a nationalistic socialist) movement; and with the second wind that has been given to the remnants of the 20th century's failed socialist and communist 'experiments' (in which millions of people were slaughtered by the compassionate and progressive left), we have truly entered a golden age of narcissism where, as Wretchard has commented, "....it is this single-minded pursuit of the irrelevant by the self-important that constitutes the greatest catastrophe of our time." In this "golden age", personal responsibility has been trashed; reason and truth trivialized; and the celebration of victimhood is the pinnacle of self-empowerment and self-actualization.

INTRODUCTION

In a book titled WHY IS IT ALWAYS ABOUT YOU? The Seven Deadly Sins of Narcissism, authors Hotchkiss and Masterson identify what they call the "seven deadly sins" of narcissism and their origin:

1. Shamelessness: Shame is the feeling that lurks beneath all unhealthy narcissism, and the inability to process shame in healthy ways.
2. Magical thinking: Narcissists see themselves as perfect using distortion and illusion known as magical thinking. They also use projection to dump shame onto others.
3. Arrogance: A narcissist who is feeling deflated may reinflate by diminishing, debasing, or degrading somebody else.
4. Envy: A narcissist may secure a sense of superiority in the face of another person's ability by using contempt to minimize the other person.
5. Entitlement: Narcissists hold unreasonable expectations of particularly favorable treatment and automatic compliance because they consider themselves special. Failure to comply is considered an attack on their superiority, and the perpetrator is considered an "awkward" or "difficult" person. Defiance of their will is a narcissistic injury that can trigger narcissistic rage.
6. Exploitation: Can take many forms but always involves the exploitation of others without regard for their feelings or interests. Often the other is in a subservient position where resistance would be difficult or even impossible. Sometimes the subservience is not so much real as assumed.
7. Bad boundaries: Narcissists do not recognize that they have boundaries and that others are separate and are not extensions of themselves. Others either exist to meet their needs or may as well not exist at all. Those who provide narcissistic supply to the narcissist are treated as if they are part of the narcissist and are expected to live up to those expectations. In the mind of a narcissist there is no boundary between self and other.

The ideology of the political left in all its various iterations--socialist, communist, radical environmentalism, progressive; call it what you will-- is, at its core an essentially narcissistic and self-indulgent pursuit of power, with all the unhealthy psychological attributes that implies

This is not to suggest that narcissism or sociopathy exit merely within the political left. Clearly it does not. But, having made that qualification, today's progressive leftist is steeped in and encouraged by an ideology that rewards only feelings and not critical thinking or truth; fantasy and not reality; and good intentions instead of actual outcome in the real world. The seven deadly sins of narcissism outlined above lead the the poor, innocent and unsuspecting lefist into cognitive dissonance in his thinking patterns and wreak all sorts of misery and spiritual destruction on the people who are the targets of the leftists' supposed goodwill.

But they neither care nor notice, since the primary determinant of why they do what they do is to make themselves feel good; to escape for one brief moment the emptiness of their own individual souls and the self-hatred and rage that motivate them.

Let's discuss these psychological 'sins' one by one and see how they accurately describe the psychology that is the basis of modern leftist thought.

EXCESSIVE SHAME AND SHAMELESSNESS
I have written about shame extensively in connection to the Arab World, a culture that is primarily a shame-based. In the case of the Arab world, I explained, they were plagued by an excess of shame, which was the underlying root cause of their societal dysfunction.

OTOH, utter shamelessness, the flip side of excessive shame, is highly characteristic of those who think themselves superior to others and not governed by the rules that ordinary mortals subscribe to.

To understand how related these two extremes of shame are, we need to discuss exactly what shame is and why it is necessary for both individuals and society as a whole.

Shame itself, is often an underappreciated psychological state. Particularly in the modern world, but also throughout history, shame-- in limited quantities and small doses--has facilitated civilized conduct and made both individuals and cultures behave more appropriately.

Healthy shame, in fact, keeps us in touch with reality, and reminds us of our limitations, faults, and humanity. To quote Dirty Harry on the subject, "A man's got to know his limitations."
When an individual experiences healthy shame, he or she may not be very happy to have embarrassing weaknesses and defects made obvious, but this awareness can be both insightful and humbling. As long as an individual is capable of self-doubt and self-reflection about his behavior; he is able to remain open-minded and willing to search for a better understanding of himself and others.

The key point, whether you are talking about excessive shame or shamelessness--that is the absence of shame even when shame would be appropriate, is that the emotion that drives both states is identical. Like the two sides of the same coin,excessive shame and shamelessess are inseparable. Individuals very often flip-flop between the two extremes when they cannot process the reality of their own unacceptable feelings or behavior.

It is for this reason, the political left shares with the Arab world a basically ""shame culture and why each are fascinated with, and admire (and emulate) the other's behavior.

One way that the shame culure plays out on the political left is in their response to ethical and moral challenges.

Next time there is a huge scandal in the news (sexual or otherwise), note the underlying mental gymnastics that permit the media to "forget" to report ethically inappropriate actions by Democrats compared to Republicans. If such actions go unreported--or only make it to Page 6 of the news, it is as if somehow the behavior is minimized and/or trivialized.

This almost never happens when it is a Republican who has strayed or had a broken moral compass--a topic that can stay on top of the national headlines for weeks on end. And note, that if a Democrat's unethical or scandalous behavior DOES make the front page, you will be unable to discover which political party he or she is actually a member. It may be mentioned, but farther down in the lede; more often it is not even mentioned at all.

Now, ask yourself how a typical Republican responds to scandal. Generally, he or she is capable of feeling both shame and guilt about the behavior in question, whether it is in the public or personal domain; and frequently this acknowledgment of his behavior leads him to resign from office sooner, rather than later. Often, he will retreat entirely from public life. The conservative tends to have high moral standards that he expects not only of himself, but of others and is ashamed when he violates them; even more so when the knowledge of his violation is made public (which Democrats can always count on the press to do). At this point, psychological denial about the behavior cannot be maintained.

This reality is also twisted by the left, who pounce on the supposed "hypocrisy" of conservatives who, for example, preach family values but then have affairs or behave badly. Indeed, this is precisely my point. When a Republican or conservative behaves counter to his standards, he experiences a healthy dose of appropriate shame.

Democrats and those on the left HAVE NO MORAL OR ETHICAL STANDARDS TO BEGIN WITH (that's what moral relativism is all about), hence when their reprehensible behavior is exposed for all to see, they are utterly shameless about it. They have managed to convince themselves that they are, on the whole, morally superior to the common riff-raff (and certainly compared to evil Republicans and conservatives they perceive themselves to be virtual saints; champions of the poor and oppressed and leaders in goodness). For such a person how can any traditional rules of behavior apply? When you subscribe to an ideology that emphasizes how loving, compassionate, and caring and "reality-based" you are as its central theses, then you are home free! So, even when your reprehensible behavior is made public, then you are not mandated to feel any shame--shame is for losers.

And, as a last resort, if you begin to feel too uncomfortable, you can always play the victimhood card--because, after all, if you did something bad someone or something else must have made you do it.

In this regard, I will cite only two recent examples--John Edwards and Barney Frank. Both of whom created a three ring circus proclaiming their innocence and purity endlessly ad nauseum, despite all evidence to the contrary, knowing that they would be defended by the ever loyal useful idiots of the left for as long as possible.

After all, they are better people than the rest of us and this entitles them to behave badly.

Many Democrats and certainly most leftists are completely shameless in the sense that they will never ever, for as long as they can possibly get away with it, going to admit to bad behavior. And in those rare cases where they simply cannot wiggle and maneuver and lie and deceive; or self-righteously tell you how wonderful they really are and all the wonderful things they have done for the 'little people'; they will simply pretend they are still virtuous and have been victimized in some way. What's sad is that they often believe it themselves.

Vanderleun recently wrote a piece about "Democrats and socialists gone wild". In it, he describes the exploits of three of the latest acts of shamelessness by those on the left. In both instances, there are rants and rages against those who accuse them (often by the intellectuals of the left); and for as long as possible they will pretend they are victims of bad behavior by others (this is psychological projection). Note John Edward's latest rant, for example. And how can we ever forget the "I did not have sex with that woman" moment during the glory days of Bill Clinton's victimization by Monica Lewinski?

Let's face the truth here. We all sin and engage in reprehensible behavior from time to time. We are all certainly capable of it. But the shamelessness about it that I am describing is really only typical of those individual with significant narcissistic defects in their personality. Again, without a doubt, narcissists and liars and cheats exist on both sides of the political aisle. But a narcissist in a guilt culture behaves somewhat differently than a narcissist in a shame culture (see the link on shame cultures vs guilt cultures for a discussion of this).

In general, Republicans and conservatives believe they have better ideas. But Democrats and leftists believe they are better people.

This makes all the difference in their experience of shame--or their lack of experiencing it.

MAGICAL THINKING, or Fairy Tales Can Come True.

The second deadly sin is "magical thinking". In psychiatry, this phrase describes a pervasive belief that one can control things or persons or events with one's thoughts or feelings (that's where the "magic" comes in). There is ofter a considerable amount psychological distortion going on, as well as psychlogical projection (see also here). These creative psychological maneuvers serve to maintain the magical thinking and obscure reality and truth, which is far too threatening for the fragile ego of the leftist.

How are these maneuvers manifest in the behavior of today's left?

In general the postmodern political left, which touts itself as "reality-based" is far from it. They emphasize the acendency of feelings over reason--and, as witness to this, they are primarily concerned about feeling good about themselves. They care little about the actual outcome of the social programs that they support, it's all about them and their supposed "compassion". They blindly perpetuate the victimhood mentality since creating and nurturing victimhood and perpetual grievance expands their base and brings in new recruits for their ideology. But let anyone one of those 'victims' from an approved victimhood group break away and empower themselves and you will begin to see the sometimes rather vicious hatred that underlies their loving compassion for the oppressed.

Any who oppose their anti-poverty schemes must "hate" the poor; any who want to empower minority groups to take responsibility for their lives and fortunes are described as 'racist'; any who think that the content of a person's characteer or the qualifications for the job trump race or gender or sexual orientation, are by their definition racist, sexist or homophobic--take your pick.

The highway to today's hell is paved with all their wonderful intentions. They mean well, and therefore if you oppose them by presenting better ideas, you must, by definition, be evil.

In order to preserve the fantasy that people with leftist beliefs are "better people" than those evil righty conservatives we see repeated instances of psychological projection (externalizing their own feelings onto others) and distortion of reality.

Further, we can witness even more of their political "magical thinking" in the foreign policy initiatives of the Obama Administration; as well as in the parallel fantasies that have characterized most of the economic policies of the White House and Democrats. They have the strange notion that reckless spending can go on forever on any program that they deem "essential" and for a "good cause" (when that is determined by the left it becomes sacrosanct).

First, let's take a look at current foreign policy.Bruce Thornton has written about the magical thinking that seems to dominate Obama's thinking:

Worse, however, is the magical thinking that lies behind the mantra of “diplomacy.” This faith in talk is predicated on assumptions about human nature and state behavior difficult to validate by the historical record. It reflects a Western Enlightenment idea that force is an outmoded relic of our primitive past, to be replaced by rational discussion in which give-and-take dickering, negotiation, respect for the other side’s position and demands, and a mutual, sincere desire to adjudicate grievance and avoid conflict can resolve disagreements. The key assumption is that in the end all people are rational and want peace and comfort more than any other good.

Obama has pushed the "reset" button on a number of fronts, but surprise! We are still hated, only now we are also routinely mocked because Obama is perceived as weak and uninvolved. Over the past two years we have routinely thrown our friends under the Obama bus; while appeasing and bowing to our enemies. We have routinely focused on the less important (to our national interest anyway) issues like Libya and Quadaffi; rather than take a strong stance on Iran, a major and imminent threat, not only to the region, but to our national interests in the region. Time and again, Obama has resorted to his supposedly "magical" rhetoric, as if words without the necessary backbone to stand behind them. When he actually does something like give the order to go in and take down Bin Laden (and, I still believe that all the psychological evidence suggests that Obama had to be dragged kicking and screaming into that action, but when it turned out ok was perfectly willing to take all the credit) many on the left had a hissy fit and rushed to condemn it as somehow being "inconsistent with our values."

It's hard to be consistent with one's values when those "values" change on a daily basis depending on which way the wind blows. Remember, the goal is not reason or truth or consistency to values, but promoting a particular ideology. That is why there the left demonstrates "subjectivism and relativism in one breath, dogmatic absolutism in the next."

For them, their magical thinking is absolute...magic. It makes all those unpleasant realities simply go away when they do not fit into their philosophy

Meanwhile, on the economic front it is undoubtedly clear that there is a considerable amount of magical thinking going on on both sides of the political spectrum when it comes to the economy, but recently there has some attempts to start a rational conversation that could address the serious problem with debt and spending this country is faced with. The Ryan Economic Plan, which calls for both tax cuts AND decreased spending is a case in point. Yet, far from using this as a starting point to discuss reality, it has instead been used for the purpose of villifying Republican who now stand accused of wanting to push granny off a cliff.

This new ad put out by the Democrats could just as easily been produced by a grossly psychotic individual, completely out of touch with reality; so severe is the distortion and deception it demonstrates. Meanwhile, in keeping with the magical thinking, the left seems to believe that doing nothing is a safe strategy (and it might well be from a political or ideological perspective; but reality probably isn't going to agree with them for very long; but hey, "In the long run we are all dead", right? So only think in the short run and imagine that all these problems will go away; meanwhile grab as much power as you can now.

Narcissists just know that their fairy tale can come true. They believe as fervently as any religious fanatic that their wishes and feelings are more powerful than reality.

Unfortunately for all of us, what those wishes and feelings actually create is usually a freakin' mess for others to clean up.

In Part II, I will tackle the narcissistic sins of Arrogance, Envy and Entitlement.

UPDATE: Vanderluen notes in the comments that he has a related post on the left and the Seven Deadly Sins (you know, those Biblical ones: PRIDE, ENVY, WRATH, SLOTH, LUST, AVARICE and GLUTTONY. Check it out.

WHAT A FREAKIN' MESS

2011-05-20T21:36:00.001-04:00

Obama has basically abandoned Israel and given carte blanche to attacks on all its borders. Rick Santorum thinks that Israel is in deadly peril:

Today, Israel is surrounded by an armed alliance of Jihadist fundamentalists and nationalists, from North to South to East. Its West is the Mediterranean ocean, where Israel’s enemies would like to push her Jewish population. And Pres. Barack Obama has just put Israel’s very existence in more peril.

And I have to agree with him and with Krauthammer's assessment tonight on the Fox All Stars.

Meanwhile, The Corner's Andrew Stiles has leaked a copy of the Democrats budget proposal and it reflects the ideology they espouse perfectly:

Harry Reid, best known for his brilliant mind; economic acumen and overwhelming patriotic concern for his country had this to say:

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said it would be "foolish" for Democrats to propose their own federal budget for 2012, despite continued attacks from Republicans that the party is ducking its responsibility to put forward a solution to the nation's deficit problems.

"There's no need to have a Democratic budget in my opinion," Reid said in an interview Thursday. "It would be foolish for us to do a budget at this stage."

Maybe this really will be the end of the world tonight.

Unfortunately, I fear things are going to get a lot worse. And I'm an optimist.

***(I wanted to get this post in 'under the wire' or at least before the trumpets sound, so to speak...see you next week...maybe)

EDDYING AWAY

2011-05-16T19:29:00.000-04:00

Sorry for the light blogging. I am in the process of getting my daughter (I can't believe she's all grown up!!) off to college this week. It's both painful and exhilarating for both of us; and there is a lot to do.

How time flies...it seems like just a short while ago she was a tiny little baby; then taking her first steps and then off to kindergarden! This is a big moment in my life and an even bigger one in hers.

Walking Away

For Sean
By C. Day Lewis

It is eighteen years ago, almost to the day-
A sunny day with the leaves just turning,
The touch-lines new-ruled - since I watched you play
Your first game of fotball, then, like a satellite
Wrenched from its orbit, go drifting away

Behind a scatter of boys. I can see
You walking away from me towards the school
with the pathos of a half-fledged thing set free
Into a wilderness, the gait of one
Who finds no path where the path should be.

That hesitant figure, eddying away
Like a winged seed loosened from its parent stem,
Has something I never quite grasp to convey
About nature's give-and-take - the small, the scorching
Ordeals which fire one's irresolute clay.

I had worse partings, but none that so
Gnaws at my mind still. Perhaps it is roughly
Saying what God alone could perfectly show-
How selfhood begins with a walking away,
And love proved in the letting go.

Here is the Boo on our Pismo Beach trip earlier this month:

Hope to be back to more regular blogging by the middle of next week!

FPRBIDDEN FRUIT

2011-05-15T13:51:00.000-04:00

Now that Obama and the Dems have got in touch with their inner neocon, they can't seem to get enough of that foreign policy forbidden fruit....

Of course, when you are a Cognitively Dissonant Democrat (but perhaps that is redundant?), the fruit tastes a lot better when a Democrat is in the White House--why just about anything behavior is now possible!

[Political Cartoons by Eric Allie]

WHY I THINK PAUL RYAN WOULD MAKE AN EXCELLENT PRESIDENT

2011-05-11T15:49:00.000-04:00

Here, he takes on Obama, point by point regarding the GOP budget proposal:

And for VP, perhaps someone with foreign policy chops and no BS--perhaps John Bolton?

But then I am rather partial to straight shooters and talkers.

UN INSANITY CONTINUES

2011-05-11T08:02:00.001-04:00

But then, what do you expect of an organization that has become anti-freedom, anti-human rights, and even anti-human? Anne Bayefsky writes:

The U.N.’s top human rights official took time this past week to concern herself about the treatment Bin Laden received as he was killed. She demanded to know “the precise facts surrounding his killing” for the purpose of determining its legality. According to Pillay, “counter-terrorism activity…in compliance with international law” means “you’re not allowed…to commit extra-judicial killings.” And this requirement would only be satisfied if the Americans had stuck by what she claimed was their “stated…intention…to arrest bin Laden if they could.”

On Friday, two professors and part-time U.N. “experts,” Christof Heyns and Martin Scheinin, issued a joint statement on Bin Laden’s killing. The two academics claimed that “the norm should be that terrorists be dealt with as criminals, through legal processes of arrest, trial and judicially-decided punishment.” They also insisted that the U.N. was entitled to receive “more facts” “to allow an assessment in terms of international human rights law standards.” Those standards would be violated, they claimed, unless “the planning of the mission allowed an effort to capture Bin Laden.”

The suggestion from these two U.N. authority-figures that America is criminally at fault for killing Bin Laden if their terms have not been satisfied is both offensive and legally false.

Bayefsky also notes that,"... U.N. reaction to Bin Laden’s death indicates that the Obama administration’s warm embrace of the organization is endangering American lives."

I think though that she is overlooking an important Obama characterological pattern, which is to sell out his own supporters in the service of self-aggrandizement. The UN and it's rising power have always been an important attraction to the man. In fact, I have always believed that Obama is on the prowl for something bigger than just being President of the US--a country that he has mixed feelings about to begin with. His ego will demand that he move beyond America, particularly after he finishes his various denunciations and denigrations of this country.

I think he has always had his sights set on becoming Secretary General of the UN, and that is why he belittles America and bows to the UN whenever possible. This is the major reason why I expect that Obama will backtrack and hem and haw and eventually (after his poll bounce, of course; and, if he can keep the bounce going, after his successful re-election in 2012) find some way to "disown" the takedown of OBL.

Think he can't do it? Watch and see. I could be wrong, but when it becomes a liability for him (and it will, eventually), all bets are off except being able to count on Obama's overweening narcissism.

WHY ARE WE TOLERATING A RETROGRADE POLITICAL IDEOLOGY WITH RELIGIOUS TRAPPINGS ?

2011-05-09T15:13:00.005-04:00

Jonathan Kay has written an article that discusses Geert Wilders'"problem with Islam"--which is incredibly similar to my own problem with the religion:

Of course, in the modern, politically correct Western tradition, hatred expressed toward a religion typically is held on the same level of human-rights opprobrium as hatred expressed toward a race or an ethnicity. But Islam is not really a religion at all, as Mr. Wilders sees it, but rather a retrograde political ideology with religious trappings.

He notes that while other religions draw a distinction between God and Caesar, between the secular and the spiritual, Islam demands submission in every aspect of human existence, both through the wording of the Koran itself and the Shariah law that has developed in its shadow. The faith also supplies a justification for aggressive war; vilifies non-believers; and pronounces death upon its enemies. In short, Mr. Wilders argues, it has all the ingredients of what students of 20th century history would recognize as a fully formed totalitarian ideology.

“I see Islam as 95% ideology, 5% religion — the 5% being the temples and the imams,” he tells me. “If you would strip the Koran of all the negative, hateful, anti-Semitic material, you would wind up with a tiny [booklet].”

It’s easy to see why many Europeans casually jump to the conclusion that Mr. Wilders is a hatemonger. He wants to halt non-Western immigration to the Netherlands until existing immigrants can be integrated, and he wants to deport any foreigner who commits a crime — the same sort of policies as those advocated by genuine xenophobes.

But even so, his insistence on the proper distinction between faith and ideology is an idea that deserves to be taken seriously. For it invites the question: If we permit the excoriation of totalitarian cults created by modern dictators, why do we stigmatize (and even criminalize) the excoriation of arguably similar notions when they happen to be attributed to a 7th-century prophet?

After the heralded killing by Navy SEALS in Afghanistan of the religious mass murderer, Osama Bin Laden; it seems appropriate to once again revisit the discussion about the religion that drove him to kill, and which in large part not only supported, but encouraged his killings.

Since 9/11, many people have been careful to make a distinction between "Islam" and "Islamist" in their writings in order not to be accused of discrimation against Muslims--especially those of the "moderate" variety.

After 10 years, though, this elusive sub-species of Muslims remains mostly off the record and largely silent even after numerous atrocities committed in the name of Islam and its god. I happen to think that there may indeed be a large number of Muslims who are good people, and it is not Muslims per se that I have a problem with.

My problem is with Islam, the religion/ideology.

Regarding what is often referred to as the "hijacking" of Islam: Islam was not so much hijacked by extremists (the preferred Obama Administration designation of Islamist ), as it was acutely exposed to the entire world for the viciously misogynistic, anti-life, totalitarian system it evolved into when it was mated with National Socialism in the mid-20th century and then begat an entirely new iteration of Marxism in the late 20th and early 21st centuries.

It has also been argued that (and I quote Juan Cole here): "Linking Islam… with a pejorative term such as fascism is extremely unfair. In fact, it is a form of racism."

But it is not at all unfair; nor is it in the least bit racist. Rather, it is a logical and very rational conclusion to make based on the empirical evidence.

What has happened to the "moderates" in Islam? Reuel Marc Gerecht offered an explanation not too long ago:

Though Europeans often fail to see it, the secularization of the Muslims living in their midst has been, by and large, a great success. It explains why Muslim activists gain so much attention, be they arch-conservatives, like the devotees of the Tabligh movement in Britain and on the continent who espouse segregation in Europe, or "progressives," like the Switzerland-based intellectual Tariq Ramadan, who refuses forthrightly to declare the Muslim Holy Law null and void as a political testament for Muslims in a European democracy. The moderates have abandoned the field. They have become European. The militants, who perhaps should be seen as deviants from a largely successful process of secularization, are the only ones left ardently praying.

This explains why the so-called "moderate" Muslim has not taken up opposition to the extremists with the ferver that the West anticipated. Instead we see large and protests and mourning of Bin Laden's death by supposedly mainstream Muslims in, of all places, Londonistan.

In a perverted twist of reality and with a toxic infusion of psychological projection, those in the West seeking to discuss in some detail the teachings of Islam which have inspired entire nations and literally hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of Muslims to spew hatred toward other religions; kill "infidels" with the blessings of their religious leaders; oppress and kill women with impunity; and otherwise inflame believers with a virulent madness that verges on the worship of death; are instead themselves vilified and accused of racism and hate.

Christopher Hitchens noted, "The useless and meaningless term Islamophobia, now widely used as a bludgeon of moral blackmail, is testimony to its success."

But the truth is that "Islamophobia" is not a phobia at all-- it is a completely rational fear of an insane and irrational force that seems to be sweeping the world. Being afraid of the so-called "religion of peace" after the innumerable acts of violence, terror and depravity committed in the name of Allah worldwide is not exaggerated; not inexplicable; and most certainly not illogical.

Being afraid of Islam as it undermines freedom of speech and thought, as well as and other critical values of Western civilization, is far from a phobia--it is a natural response to the sad reality.

What the UN (and the Islamic world) would like to mandate if they can get away with it, is a sort of meta-Islamophobia--an Islamophobicphobia, to be precise; or, as I would define it, " an exaggerated, usually inexplicable and illogical fear of mere criticism of Islam, as well as a pathological reluctance to hold it to account for the actions and behavior of its followers."

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

It is getting harder and harder to keep a straight face as the knee-jerk denial and sanctimonious utterings of organizations like CAIR and UN "human rights" committees--not to mention US political figures-- fill the news media on a daily basis with their attacks on anyone who criticizes Islam and their rising institutional anti-semitism and encouragement of Islamic extremism.

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

So, let me say for the record that I reject being labeled as "Islamophobic" utterly. Rather, I have a healthy, rational fear of a religion that aggressively seeks my submission or death. As I have stated previously, for most of my adult life, it seemed perfectly reasonable to ignore Islam. What little I knew of it did not appeal to me in any way whatsoever to encourage me to delve deeper.

I liked it that way.

If I had thought about Muslim values at all (and I didn't) it is likely that I would have been completely turned off to the religion, as opposed to being indifferent to it. I was mildly disgusted and appalled when examples of its rampant brutality were brought to my attention, but frankly, I never understood enough about the religion to place the responisibility for its adherents' behavior onto its teachings.

After 9/11 and becoming aware of organizations like Al Qaeda; ideologies like Wahhabism and its spread; and suddenly recognizing the Palestinian issue for the red herring it was, I could no longer permit myself to be ignorant of what Islam was all about.

In an ideal world, I shouldn't even have to say it, but Islam has forced me to explicitly and loudly state--just as Geert Wilders has-- that I absolutely, thoroughly and unequivocally reject Muslim values and culture, which facilitate and breed hatred and dysfunction in every nation in which they are practiced.

What follows is not an exhaustive list, but let me touch on some of the highlights that form the basis of my rejection:

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

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

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

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

5. The glorification of death rather than life.

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

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

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

9. The fact that you would force your religion on me, if you could.

As I said, the list is not exhaustive. There are many more reasons why I have come to my intense rejection of this particular religion. As stated in a previous post::
I DON'T CARE ABOUT ISLAM except insofar that people of that faith want to destroy me, my family, my country and my way of life. For more than 50 years of my life, Islam and I got along famously. I completely ignored it; and praise be to Allah, it completely ignored me.

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

No; a rational, healthy fear of Islam's barbaric medievalism and its desire to subjugate the entire human race under the yoke of its god is perfectly appropriate and continually justified by the fanatical behavior of millions of Muslims everywhere on the planet.

This is not Islamophobia; this is common sense; and as Hitchens's column makes clear, the intent of this crazy UN resolution serves only to advance Islam's clearly stated goal of subjugating the world's population to its rule.

So, getting back to Kay's pertinent question in his column about Wilders: If we permit the excoriation of totalitarian cults created by modern dictators, why do we stigmatize (and even criminalize) the excoriation of arguably similar notions when they happen to be attributed to a 7th-century prophet?

Answering that question is absolutely critical to understanding the reasons why the west appears to be so willing to commit cultural suicide in order to accommodate an ideology and a religion determined to destroy it.

DON'T LOOK ! IT'S FAR TOO GRUESOME !

2011-05-06T09:41:00.000-04:00

The White House had no problem declaring a "mission accomplished" today with reports of the creation of new jobs:

U.S. private employers shrugged off high energy prices to add jobs at the fastest pace in five years in April, pointing to underlying strength in the economy, even as the jobless rate rose to 9.0 percent.

Private sector hiring, including a big jump in the retail sector, boosted overall nonfarm payrolls by 244,000, the largest increase in 11 months, the Labor Department said on Friday. Economists had expected a gain of only 186,000....

The White House welcomed the report, which it said was a sign the jobless rate would soon recede.

I hope they're right, but they keep saying things like that; gloating almost when any statistic gives even the mereist hint of a suggestion of a possiblity that the dark days of the economy are over.

Nevertheless, in spite of the addition of these jobs, the jobless rate remains high at 9%.

Then there's this little reality check to consider...

The good news is that the economy added about 268,000 new jobs. The bad news is that 25 percent (62,000) were from McDonald’s. That’s honorable and respectable work, of course. But consider this: Had the Obama administration not granted McD’s a waiver from having to abide by the law, it might not have added all those workers. And if the company had added the jobs anyway, they all would have been jobs without health insurance since the company was going to stop providing benefits without the waiver.

And, Peter Kirsanov has a question for Brave Sir Robin:

In January 2009, you warned that if Congress didn’t pass your $800 billion stimulus bill the unemployment rate today would be approximately 8.5 percent. You claimed that if Congress did pass the stimulus bill the unemployment rate would never climb above 8 percent, and today’s unemployment rate would be approximately 6.5 percent.

Today your administration announced that the unemployment rate is 9 percent.

Why didn’t that $800 billion work as promised? How much more do you contend you need to spend to get the unemployment rate down to 6.5 percent?

[Political cartoons by Lisa Benson]

HE DIDN'T SCORE THE TOUCHDOWN

2011-05-05T06:58:00.001-04:00

Obama the Wonderful has decided not to release any photos of the dead Bin Laden--not for evidence, and especially not for "gloating" or "spiking the football".

How very upper class of him. How civilized. How completely absurd.

John J. Miller observes:

Perhaps releasing the photos of a dead Osama bin Laden is a bad idea. Maybe they would reveal an operational detail that’s better left undiscovered. If this is the case, of course, President Obama (or someone else) could just say so and the controversy mostly would vanish.

What bugs me is the metaphor: Obama says the United States won’t put out the pictures because “we don’t need to spike the football.” By this, he means that America shouldn’t gloat over the death of the world’s most-wanted terrorist. But if a police department releases gruesome photos of a shooting, does it “spike the football”? No, it simply provides evidence. It has nothing to do with gloating–and neither do the calls to release these pictures.

Separately, spiking the football is a great sport-specific ritual. The NCAA may frown upon it, but as end-zone celebrations go, this is about as modest as they come, like slapping the hand of the third-base coach on a home-run trot. I wish the president hadn’t implied there was something unbecoming about it.

Well, don't forget, John, that Obama is superior to the rest of us. He's beyond all this talk of war and such.

I now have sincere doubts about Obama's role in the entire operation. I suspect he had to be dragged, kicking and screaming, to actually make an operational decision. His behavior and his picture in the previous post would seem to confirm that he was most likely a bit player, or a bench warmer.

Let's face it: HE DIDN'T SCORE THE TOUCHDOWN. That's why he doesn't want to spike the football. He probably doesn't even feel like he's on the same team.

Michael Moore's response is classic (can't link to it because it has a virus). He claims Bin Laded wasn't "killed", he was "executed". My response: OK. And your point is???

As for all those questions about whether we should be celebrating the death of a terrorist, my response: Hell yes.

Did we violate international law? WTF cares?

Where does this sort of silliness come from? I question the survival instincts of all these holier-than-thou-moral-beyond-reason-or-sanity people and suspect that they are actually morally,culturally, and individually suicidal--or at least in the throes of a powerful death wish.

Meanwhile, let's celebrate shall we?

TENSE TIMES FOR THE NARCISSIST IN CHIEF AND HIS STAFF

2011-05-03T06:39:00.000-04:00

I am perfectly willing to give Obama a significant amount of credit for authorizing the kill on Bin Laden. But please, enough is enough.

Why is HIS bravery; HIS gutsiness in the face of danger; HIS part in this operation being so overly emphasized and overplayed???

Did you know that Navy SEALs were also involved?

According to another one of those White House briefings of reporters designed to suck up all available credit for good news, President Obama's homeland security advisor reveals that it was a really tense time in the air-conditioned White House as unidentified U.S. Navy SEALs closed in on the world's most wanted man after midnight a half a world away.

"Minutes passed like days," says John Brennan, who bravely stood with press secretary Jay Carney before reporters and TV cameras today chronicling his boss' weekend heroics.

The heavily-armed commandos flying in a quartet of darkened Blackhawk and Chinook helicopters more than 100 miles into Pakistan were probably listening to their iPods and discussing the NFL draft.

"The concern was that bin Laden would oppose any type of capture operation," said Obama's Sherlock Holmes. So U.S. troops were prepared "for all contingencies."

In fact, this weekend was such a tense time in the White House that Obama only got in nine holes of golf. But he still managed to deliver his joke script to the White House Correspondents Assn. dinner Saturday evening.

Sunday was, Brennan revealed to his eager audience, "probably one of the most anxiety-filled periods of times in the lives of the people assembled here." Poor poor bureaucrats. Extra Tums all around. Did someone order dinner?

And look! The only picture released from that "tense time" is this one:

Tense times indeed for the Narcissist in Chief and his staff.

Could we get a glimpse of the REAL heroes in all this do you think?

DING DONG THE WITCH IS DEAD

2011-05-01T20:00:00.000-04:00

Which old witch? That Bin Laden witch.

My professional opinion? YAY!
My personal opinion? YAY!

Wonderful news...let's hope that his will be a major game-changer. And even if it's not, it's still important psychologically. There's a lot to be said for persistence.

SUNSHINE

2011-04-27T17:12:00.000-04:00

I am going on vacation for a week over to Pismo Beach, so blogging will be light to non-existent for that time... after all, everyone needs a little sunshine!

And, speaking of sunshine, in the spirit of shining some light into dark places, here's Bill Whittle (h/t American Digest) on the enigma of Barack Hussein Obama.

To be honest, what's on BHO's birth certificate has always a secondary and relatively unimportant aspect of thereally critical questions that needed to be asked and answered about the left's metrosexual messiah: e.g., what substance, if any, lies beneath the carefully-crafted, fiercely controlled facade of this media-created personhood? What is the real history of Obama/Soetoro/Barack/Barry? And what is the true character of this man who came to mean all things to all people and who is now the President of the U.S?; Obama burst on the political scene like Athena springing forth full grown and fully armed from the head of some anonymous Zeus. He is a man who came out of nowhere; with no real accomplishments except a glib tongue and a exaggerated sense of self importance....

Personally, I find his appeal rather inexplicable; and his power over the useful idiots of the left rather frightening...even more so after two years.

Stay tuned for Part II from Whittle (not out yet).

ASS BACKWARDS

2011-04-25T20:26:00.000-04:00

Paul Krugman, professional ~~moron~~ economist argued in the NY Times recently that patients are not consumers and that it is "profoundly irresponsible" to say that they are. He actually has the audacity to cite the "special" relationship between doctor and patient as his justification for this position:

Here’s my question: How did it become normal, or for that matter even acceptable, to refer to medical patients as “consumers”? The relationship between patient and doctor used to be considered something special, almost sacred. Now politicians and supposed reformers talk about the act of receiving care as if it were no different from a commercial transaction, like buying a car — and their only complaint is that it isn’t commercial enough.

What has gone wrong with us?

What has "gone wrong" is that the government and wonks like Krugman have been instrumental in the systematic and ongoing destruction of that "special, almost sacred" relationship.

In fact, I remember very clearly when the relationship first began to go south: when Hilary Clnton used her position as firs lady to aggressively pursue "Hilarycare" (as it was then called) and generated all the redistributive euphoria (which came to full fruition with Obamacare more recently) back in the early 90's. Life was never the same for physicians after that early fiasco; the HMO started the disruption of doctor patient; and it even impacted how doctors were recruited and trained by medical schools (not necessarily for the better).

The doctor-patient relationship has never been the same since.

As patients had less and less to do with actually making decisions with doctors regarding their care because they were seduced by the idea of not having to pay for treatment; and, as the government and insurance company bureaucrats increasngly made those decisions INSTEAD OF either doctors or patients, it seemed that all the loca,l state and federal government programs that I was acquainted with simultaneously started referring to patients as "consumers." This remarkable change was clearly, I felt at the time, an attempt to downplay and disguise the reality that patients no longer had control over the money that was paid to doctors and no longer were even in the loop in deciding what care was thought to be "best" for them.

In fact, as a doctor, I absolutely hated calling patients "consumers"--not because they were not consumers of the product that I had to offer, but because the term was suddenly being deliberately and consciously used to denigrate and marginalize the doctor/patient relationship; and to make patients feel that they still had some power in that relationship.

They did not.

The only power they had was to see the doctor their plan told them to see.

Don't get me wrong, I think that patients are, and of right ought to be considered consumers. Who else has the biggest stake--both financially and physiologically-- in the outcome (and cost) of health care services? But calling them "consumers" in the current system of government/insurance-rationed health care is extremely deceiving.

Why?

Because it is the government (who whoever is mandated to pay for the health services) that has assumed the greatest stake and the bottom line IS ALWAYS A FINANCIAL ONE.

I have had more than 30 years working in this environment. Patients used to--when they actually were "consumers" of health care--used to decide all the time to pay for procedures and medications that they and their doctors decided were needed. They also used to negotiate if necessary, with doctors and hospitals on costs and repayment issues. This is not allowed to happen now as the government, hospitals, and insurance companies have squeezed the consumers out of the equation. You cannot get drugs that aren't on the formulary of a hospital (and at some large government hospitals, that formular is strictly controlled and does not include newer--and hence, more expensive drugs, even if they are better for some patients); and I can tell you first hand that it is extremely rare for considerations other than financial ones to be the bottom line. I think doctors still care about their patients, but they, too, are squeezed out. Patients are not consulted much at all, but told what treatments they will get and what will be paid for. Most health care "consumers" don't have much choice at all. Considering the enormous amount of money that is in question, Americans should be getting the best possible care if it is true that "you get what you pay for." But, you see, what used to be a simple consumer transaction between two individuals--a doctor and a patient--has become a circus of paperwork and middlemen; a factory of waste and stupidity (penny wise and pound foolish) and a carnival of thwarted commercialism.

Unfortunately, government medicine--whether at the local, state, or federal level, is not willing to pay the real costs of excellent health care. These administrative middlement have developed a number of very clever covers for this, always touting "evidence-based medicine" as their baseline for denying care. Their rallying cry is "there's no scientific evidence for that treatment over this cheaper one." But in a system where scientific research never seems to actually do those clinical studies that might prove that one treatment is better than another for a given individual (remember, that all these studies are statistical averages that don't take individual responses into account, but average them out)this trope is entirely bogus most of the time. Doctors don't treat "statistics" they treat individuals (as I tell my residents repeatedly).

And only individuals can make the decisions that are right for them at any given moment.

So why have health costs continued to skyrocket, even with all these new controls on spending in every facet of the doctor/patient relationship?

Carpe Diem says it is because patients are not spending their own money:

Krugman is correct that patients are not consumers, but for a completely different reason that Krugman misses entirely: Almost 90% of health care costs are paid with "other people's money" (insurance companies, government and employers, see chart above, data here), and only about 11% is paid "out of pocket" by patients. So patients are no longer the "consumers" of health care, and they haven't been for a long time, because the "consumer" paying almost the entire cost of medical care is a third party. Over time, the "consumer" paying the bill for health care services has gradually become third party payers, and the trends projected in the chart above indicate that it won't get any better in the future.

But Krugman seems to be arguing that regardless of who is paying for health care, "there’s something terribly wrong with the whole notion of patients as “consumers” and health care as simply a financial transaction." Krugman's further claims that “'Consumer-based' medicine has been a bust everywhere it has been tried."

Well, what about LASIK surgery, retail health clinics, concierge medicine, medical tourism and cosmetic surgery, to name just some of the successful "consumer-based" medical services?

When we think about soaring health care costs in the United States, isn't one of the main reasons precisely because patients have NOT been treated as consumers spending their own money? In that case, I think Krugman has it backwards. If the goal is to control health care costs, that will never happen until patients are treated like consumers.

There's a wonderful graph at the link that is quite instructive.

Krugman and other progressives have it (as usual) ass backwards. The real "doctor/patient relationship" was only healthy and thriving when patients were consumers of health care and were treated as such. They could demand equal stature with their doctors in making decisions; or choose to cede control to a doctor they trusted to act in their best interest. Now, of course, no one necessarily acts in the patient's (or the consumer's) best interest; but it's very telling that every one asserts they are, almost reflexively and defensively.

Just ask the patients who already are in all those lovely plans that ration their care and make decisions for them--especially the sick ones. I think you might discover that they don't feel they are really in the loop at all.

[Political cartoons by Dana Summers]

AN ANNUAL REMINDER TO KEEP FAITH

2011-04-24T08:58:00.003-04:00

Every spring, a renewal of the spirit is celebrated along with the awakening of new life and growth. These days in particular, it is a much-needed reminder that, no matter how terrible everything seems; no matter how insane or uncomprehensible the universe appears; and no matter how dark and gloomy and frightening the prospects for our species, life itself is ever reborn and the world renewed once more.

HAPPY EASTER !

[Roses just picked this morning from my garden]

ENDING OUR SO-CALLED "ADDICTIONS"

2011-04-21T18:37:00.003-04:00

In case you missed it, here is a rather perfect example of the underlying mindset of many on the political left, whose ideology is at heart is primitive, retrogressive, and anti-human--whether it is applied to environmental issues, political issues, or interpersonal issues:

As, Michael Walsh notes,

One thing you have to say about the Left: They never miss an opportunity to let the mask of hatred slip. It’s practically Pavlovian; they are so invested in the myth of their own righteousness that their “tolerance” fetish goes right out the window whenever they suffer the slightest affront to their delusional notion of how the world works.

Here's another example of the way the left does politics, in this case attacking a 16 year old Paul Ryan for taking government benefits after the death of his father:

Of all the banal and empty-headed Democratic debating tricks, this one is one of my least favorite: to pretend that somebody who believes a particular government service should be changed or reduced has a moral obligation to forgo the use of that service. That is the kind of sloppy thinking that should be self-refuting, but, alas, is not, particularly among our friends on the left, who are not famous for the rigor of their thinking or for the continence of their emotions, the most prominent of which is hatred.

Don't ever let those leftist 'progressives' get away with explaining to you how much more kind and compassionate their world view is....

Or, how "reality-based" their continuous appeasement and betrayal of fundamental values is...--from Andy McCarthy at The Corner who ironically noted:

I’ve been asking why the State Department has not designated the Taliban as a terrorist organization, and why Congress’s authorization for the use of military force supporting the war has not been updated to include the Taliban as part of the enemy, given that defeating the Taliban — a terrorist organization – is the stated rationale for our continuing combat operations in Afghanistan.

The obvious, if cynical, explanation seemed to be that we were planning to negotiate with the Taliban (or, at least, encourage Karzai’s negotiating with the Taliban). It is supposed to be U.S. policy — or, at least, it used to be — that we don’t negotiate with terrorists for to do so would reward and thus encourage their barbaric methods. Formally branding the terrorists as terrorists would thus complicate negotiations with them.

And, perhaps most importantly, don't ever allow yourself to believe that there is any real logic or consistency to their so-called "principled" stances.

Today's 'progressive' left is all about emotional immaturity and casual cruelty; the celebration of appearance over substance; feeling good about themselves as a necessary and sufficient condition for all political policies. The superficial mask of compassion and caring hides a profound degree of psychological denial and projection--and an intense hatred of the modern world; so much so that they are perfectly willing to drag us back to the middle ages (who does that remind you of?).

So, instead of being shocked that progressives actually are against progress (of the human sort, anyway), I figure it actually makes a psychotic sort of sense, if you appreciate the lunacy of it all.

And, oh yes. As long as we are ending our addiction to economic growth, we poor deluded non-leftists also obviously need to end our crippling addictions to reason, reality, truth and life too, because well... you know where those things will lead.

UPDATE: MORE 'ADDICTIONS' WE NEED TO BE FREED FROM! Specifically, did you know that "the rules of grammar discriminate against “marginalized” groups and restrict self-expression."? Neither did I:

Even noted composition scholar Peter Elbow, in his address, claimed that the grammar that we internalize at the age of four is “good enough.” The Internet, thankfully, has freed us from our previous duties as “grammar police,” and Elbow heralded the day when the white spoken English that has now become the acceptable standard, will be joined by other forms, like those of non-native and ghetto speakers.

Freed from standards of truth claims and grammatical construction, rhetoric is now redefined as “performance,” as in street protests, often by students demonstrating their “agency.” Expressions are made through “the body,” images, and song—sometimes a burst of spontaneous reflection on the Internet. Clothes are rhetorically important as “instruments of grander performance.”

I swear, these ~~morons~~ professional progressives will not be happy until the human species is once again living in caves, grunting unintelligibly and desperately scavenging for food.

It's no wonder they can relate so well to the Islamic fanatics of the world.

NOTE: You do realize that these are the people who are teaching your children, don't you?

STEMMING THE ONSLAUGHT OF DEMOCRAT DEMAGOGUERY

2011-04-19T22:28:00.003-04:00

A daunting task:

A new McClatchy poll brings some bad news for Republicans in light of the House’s vote to adopt Rep. Paul Ryan’s (R., Wis.) budget proposal last week, which includes politically risky reforms to Medicare. According to the poll of registered voters, 80 percent oppose cutting Medicare and Medicaid to reduce the deficit, including 68 percent of self-identified conservatives and 70 percent of Tea Party supporters.

Granted, respondents aren’t asked to decide whether they would rather “save Medicare by reforming it for future retirees” (per the Ryan plan) or “pretend like everything’s fine even though Medicare is going bankrupt in nine years” (the ‘reelect Obama in 2012′ plan). But these results, which are consistent with those of similar polls, further underscore the momentous educational challenge facing Republicans as they attempt to sell Ryan’s plan to skeptical voters and stem the onslaught of Democratic demagoguery....

Or, as Hot Air notes: New Dem ad: In Paul Ryan’s America, your grandpa will strip to pay for health care"

Meanwhile, a poll suggests that Americans believe the best way to decrease the deficitis to tax the rich.

Sigh.

Do Americans really have the capacity anymore to do the hard thing? Or, have we like NATO become impotent to actually deal with the real world anymore? Are we simply suckers for a smooth-talking con artist and his gang of pickpockets? Are we still able to distinguish between substance and demagoguery; between reality and illusion?

Time (and the next election) will tell...stay tuned.

[Political cartoons by Eric Allie]

THE MAN BEHIND THE CURTAIN

2011-04-17T08:53:00.001-04:00

Here is a detailed analysis of President Obama's budget proposals. Go and read it if you want to get beyond the rhetoric to see the man behind the curtain.

Today the President proposed:

1.a negotiating process;
2.deficit and debt targets;
3.a new budget process trigger mechanism;
4.and new spending cuts in Medicare, Medicaid, other entitlements, and defense.
Compared to the budget he proposed in February, he offers no new proposals in non-security discretionary spending (I think), taxes, or Social Security.

Hennesey then goes into detail about each of these issues and concludes:

Here are four broad reactions to the new proposal.

First, this is a short-term budget, not a long-term budget. There are three forces driving our long-run government spending and deficit problem:

1.demographics;
2.unsustainable growth in per capita health spending; and
3.unsustainable promises made by past elected officials, enshrined in entitlement benefit formulas.
The President’s proposal addresses none of these forces. It instead spends most of its effort on everything but those factors. His proposed Medicare and Medicaid savings, while large in aggregate dollars, are quite small relative to the total amount to be spent on those programs, and he lets the largest program in the federal budget (Social Security) grow unchecked. While Bowles and Simpson focused their efforts on the major entitlements and also addressed other spending areas and taxes, the President’s proposal does the reverse, focusing on other mandatory spending, taxes, and defense. That’s a short-term focus.

Second, this proposal “feels” to me like the recently concluded discretionary spending deal. It’s the size of a typical deficit reduction bill that Congress usually does every five or so years. I’m sure the affected interest groups are even now preparing to invade Washington to explain how a 3-5% cut will devastate them. The problem is that our fiscal problems are now so big that they require much larger policy changes.

Third, while framed as a centrist proposal, the substance leans pretty far left. It’s deficit reduction through (triggered) tax increases on the rich, plus defense cuts, plus unspecified other mandatory cuts and process mechanisms that might cut Medicare provider payments. Centrist Democrat proposals do all of these things, but they also reform Social Security and Medicare, usually through a combination of raising the eligibility age, means-testing, and raising taxes.

Fourth, the President’s speech was campaign-like in its characterization of and attacks on the Ryan plan.

Whatever you might argue about the Ryan plan, it is a serious, substantive effort to cut federal spending and get a handle on the enormous debt that the Obama White House has done more than "inherit". Granted that debt and deficit spending was already an issue when Obamessiah came to power; but the fact remains that he has done nothing serious to address it; and on the contrary has added record levels of debt and entitlement spending with complete and utter disregard for the impact that this will have on ordinary Americans and future generations--all the time sounding as if he meant to deal with it, when in fact he doesn't.

He is, quite simply, beggaring America's future, not "winning" it.

And if you combine his frantic efforts to alienate allies and suck up to enemies (I believe he calls this "negotiation" and/or "resetting the button"); with his emphasis on American weakness and impotence; what we arrive at is a studied, deliberate policy to destroy once and for all, American leadership in the world--both in the national economic realm and in international policy realm.

This President is not only the worse American President in history, he is the first President who is deliberately and I believe consciously out to destroy American values and exceptionalism. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness mean nothing to this man except as a rhetorical springboard to forward his leftist and basically socialist agenda. I have a hard time imagining he even likes this country and what it has stood for for more than 200 years.

His real agenda can never prosper as long as America exists in the world.

Deliberate and conscious, you say?

There is no other conclusion that can be drawn from his rhetoric and watching his behavior (what he actually does). Hennessey's analysis is one important clue as to what's up.

He knows exactly what he is doing, His goal is to subsume America into an impotent international government; which I suspect he also intends to put himself forward to lead once this country is in ruins.

I dearly hope that the American public begins to really pay attention to the man behind the curtain--because he is all about putting on a magic show to impress and awe the gullible even as he is losing the future of this country.

Mark Steyn asks, "Question: How much do you have to invest in the future before you’ve spent it and no longer have one?"

Don't worry, we are on track to not having a future in somewhere between 2-6 years --however long the false wizard of hope and change remains in office.

FAILURE IS THE MOST DESIRABLE OUTCOME FOR THE LEFT

2011-04-14T14:19:00.002-04:00

Victor Davis Hanson writes that "Failure is Very Much and Option":

Lost in the furor over the budget is any discussion of the fact that, after a certain baseline point, redistributive payouts might be making things worse for those on the receiving end. Black middle-class flight from northern big cities, failing public schools like nearby Fresno City College, where yesterday it was announced that 70 percent of students (the majority of them on some sort of federal and state loan support) fail to receive a two-year AA degree — these are just a few indications that increasing reliance on government subsidies does not eliminate, and may well perpetuate, such ills as illiteracy, poverty, and hunger.

Read the whole thing. It's worse than Dr. Hanson writes, though, because failure is actually a really desirable outcome insofar as it can give more opportunities for the progressive left to increase their power and control over others. The ever-expanding culture of victimhood that has been exploited by the progressive left to continually expand its base and increase its political power, has done little or nothing to actually help the victims it routinely identifies and proceeds to infantalize. The only people being "empowered" by this culture are the intellectual elite of the left and their Democratic Party minions. Indeed, the constant jockeying among these identified victim groups; their competing claims as well as the continued failure of all the politically correct policies developed to cater to them, are evidence of the intellectual, moral and political bankruptcy of leftist ideas. For more than a century, the false promises of socialism and communism have been found to be empty. But even in failure, the left refuses to give up the failed policies that have brought individuals and nations to utter ruin--they just recycle them, like good little environmentalists. President Obama in his ridiculously vague and partisan oration on budgetary matters yesterday gives us a perfect example of the recycling technique perfected by leftists in denial. This is a man who promised "hope and change"--and now he is the master of the status quo. Paul Ryan, in his response to the President has this to say:

We cannot accept an approach that starts from the premise that ever-higher levels of spending and taxes represent America’s new normal. We have an obligation to fulfill the mission of health and retirement security for current retirees and future generations. We have a historic commitment to limited government and free enterprise. And we have a duty to leave the next generation with a more prosperous nation than the one we inherited. [...] If you are someone who agrees with the president that we cannot avoid this outcome without resorting to large tax increases, know this: No amount of taxes can keep pace with the amount of money government is projected to spend on health care in the coming years. Medicare and Medicaid are growing twice as fast as the economy — and taxes cannot rise that fast without a devastating impact on jobs and growth. If you believe that spending on these programs can be controlled by restricting what doctors and hospitals are paid, know this: Medicare is on track to pay doctors less than Medicaid pays, and Medicaid already pays so little that many doctors refuse to see Medicaid patients. These arbitrary cuts not only fail to control costs, they also leave our most vulnerable citizens with fewer health-care choices and reduced access to care. And if you believe that we must eliminate waste, fraud and abuse in these programs, know this: Eliminating inefficient spending is critical, but the only way to do so is to reward providers who deliver high-quality, low-cost health care, while punishing those who don’t. Time and again, the federal government has proved incapable of doing that. Medicare is projected to go bankrupt in just nine years unless we act to curb the relentlessly rising cost of health care. This cannot be done with across-the-board cuts in Washington. It has to be done by giving seniors the tools to fight back against skyrocketing costs. That’s why our budget saves Medicare by using competition to weed out inefficient providers, improve the quality of health care for seniors and drive costs down. The president’s proposals are aimed more at empowering government than strengthening the free market.

And that last sentence about sums up what's going on here. The very very compassionate left is so wrapped up in feeling good about themselves (note how they routinely emphasize that their opponents want women, children and the elderly to 'suffer'--some have even gone so far as to call it a 'genocide' or insist that Republicans and conservatives 'hate' everyone but wealthy white males. This is as pristine an example of psychological projection as you are likely to witness) that they could care less about the actual outcomes of their policies. If the economy is worse because of their frenetic spending, they quite naturally believe that spending MORE will make it better--that, and escalating the rhetoric (remember their terrible anguish about the lack of civil discourse and the conservative 'hate' not so long ago??) against those who, in good faith, are trying to deal with reality. Just watch as Paul Ryan--not the specifics of his plan--becomes the lightening rod for the incivility of the progressive left. Success is not the goal; nor do they want the economy to turn around if it is the free market and reducing their profligate ways that will accomplish that end.

They are all about the redistribution of wealth; the creation of entitled victimhood groups who will blindly support them; and the expansion of big government for the sake of holding on to their power over others. Oh yes, all that and posturing.

[Political cartoons by Nat Beeler]

BAD ECONOMIC THINKING--A HALLMARK OF PROGRESSIVE POLICIES

2011-04-12T10:48:00.000-04:00

I get exceedingly tired of the constant refrain in this country about how the "rich get richer and the poor get poorer"; or statements to that effect by the intellectuals of the left. Well, on this topic, Kevin Williamson brings up a point that even I had not considered: yesterday's "rich" are not the same as today's:

The numbers generally cited in support of this argument do not actually tell us much about what has happened to the incomes of wealthy households over time. That’s because the people who are in the top bracket today are not the people who were in the top bracket last year. There’s a good deal of socioeconomic mobility in the United States — more than you’d think. Our dear, dear friends at the IRS keep track of actual households (boy, do they ever!), and sometimes the Treasury publishes data about what has happened to them. For instance, among those who in 1996 were in the very highest income group isolated for study — the top 0.01 percent — 75 percent were in a lower income group by 2005. The median real income of super-rich households went down, not up. The rich got poorer. Among actual households, income grew proportionally more for those who started off in the low-income groups than those that began in high-income groups.
[...]
When somebody says that that top 1 percent saw its income go up by X in the last decade, they are not really talking about what happened to actual households in the top 1 percent. Rather, they are talking about how much money one has to make to qualify for the top 1 percent. All that really means is that the 3 million highest-paid Americans in 2010 made more money than did the 3 million highest-paid Americans in 2000, the 100,000 highest-paid Americans this year made more money than did the 100,000 highest-paid Americans made in 2000, that the 50,000 highest-paid Americans made more money this year than did the 50,000 highest-paid Americans made in 2000, that the 1,000 highest-paid Americans this year made more money than did the 1,000 highest-paid Americans made in 2000, etc., which is not shocking. But, as the Treasury data show: They are not the same people. [emphasis mine]

These essential facts make the argument routinely trotted out by the left repeatedly to justify their various policies to "redistribute the wealth" completely ridiculous.

WEALTH IS CONSTANTLY BEING REDISTRIBUTED --not by their Marxist policies or 'compassionate' progressivism--but through the neutral, non-partisan and entirely non-judgmental workings of the Market. The "wealthy" are an ever-changing group of individuals. And, the poor are getting richer--not because of any actions by the clever denizens of the left, thank you very much.

Of course, the political lefts and their strategists have a rather vested interest in stirring up class warfare and stoking hatred against "the wealthy". As P.J. O'Rourke wrote in Eat The Rich, "Your money does not cause my poverty. Refusal to believe this is at the bottom of most bad economic thinking."

But that is one thing that the progressive left is incredibly good at--bad economic thinking.

Consequently, much to the puzzlement and annoyance of leftist intellectuals, in those places in the world where their wealth redistribution policies have already been implemented (i.e., in socialist and communist countries) wealth is disappearing; initiative is decline; and the human misery index is climbing. Instead of "sharing the wealth", people in those countries enjoy the benefits of "sharing the poverty" that inevitably occurs when bad economic thinking is translated into public policy--even with the best of good intentions (another thing the political left is particularly good at).

The "great experiments" in the Soviet Union failed abysmally even before it came crashing dowin in the early 1990's. In 1956, when Soviet tanks rolled into Hungary and violently crushed all dissent, it was obvious to anyone with half a brain that these socialist utopias were not all they were cracked up to be. Even today, many on the left cannot bring themselves to admit that the application of Marx to the real world had only succeeded in bringing about abject poverty, misery, death, and slogans. Many many slogans.

Instead of creating a utopia for the proletariat, Marx and his theories only generated the conditions for societal suicide. Look at Cuba. Look, if you can stand it at North Korea.

Marx was entirely wrong about the labor theory of value; and about the whole class warfare thing.

Far from rising up against their "oppressors", the proletariat--in a free system--will want to become wealthy themselves. In America, they have bought into the capitalist system and the "American Dream"--i.e., that they can achieve anything they want with hard work and perseverance-- in large numbers. The sharp differences between the classes have been eroding for generations primarily because of the social mobility that Williamson writes about; as well as the very human desire to improve conditions for themselves and their posterity. Nore and more of those who start out in poverty find their way into the middle class, thus gaining hope for themselves and their children.

Those who make their way up to the highest earners, will find that it is not a "given" to remain in that upper stratum and that they may tumble down without putting forth constant effort and thought (note the number of "instant" millioaires who, after winning the lottery, will waste away their windfall and end up worse off than they were when they won it). It takes more than the possession of money to hold onto wealth, it takes rational thought and effort.

That is why, to great astonishment of the socialists, many of the "oppressed" proletariat are relatively happy and content with their lot! That is why progressives have resorted to calling such individuals "class traitors" or "race traitors", because they dare to do well (without the progressive's compassionate programs; or in spite of them more likely) and are able to move themselves into entrepreneurship and beyond.

Happy and content people do not generally initiate violent revolutions nor rise up against their so-called oppressors--particularly when they don't feel oppressed, but feel empowered.

The legacy of Marx's "social justice" has been the neverending victimhood scam perpetrated by the left.

How inconvenient for the left that the clever capitalist system actually co-opts all those oppressed workers, and empowers them enter the dreaded "middle class"!

Marx always expected that the middle class would disappear as capitalism developed, since he believed that the only sustainable positions were the ones of his dialectic.

That is not what actually happens in the real world as it turns out.

Whenever people are given political liberty and allowed to pursue their own happiness (and not the mandates of the state), the ranks of the middle class expand and grow stronger.

In fact, the values and ideals of this particular economic group have come to anchor society in the United States.

Far from wanting to ignite a worker's revolution as Marx predicted, they enjoy the creature comforts of the capitalist system and feel themselves empowered by it. They even like their health care system for the most part and don't want it overhauled by some monstronsity created by Congressional know-nothings whose "cure" is going to be much worse than the actual disease.

But, even worse from the "progressive" viewpoint, is the typical person in the middle class who believes that he or she can better themselves by using the many opportunities offered by a free, capitalistic democracy. That's why the left are so desperate to create more victimhood constituencies who will proudly stand for all those unworkable policies. That's why they always resort to stoking the "evil rich" meme.

As O'Rourke suggests, they still believe that my money (and yours) causes everyone else's poverty. They have an intense psychological need to believe that because it justifies their stealing other people's wealth.

As long as they can seduce others into believing they are being victimized by the "rich", they are able to get away with supporting the same old, tired economic policies that make them feel good about themselves, but do little to improve the lot of the poor; or to give those who are struggling economically the opportunities that will help them escape perpetual poverty.

Bad economic thinking may be a hallmark of progressive policies, but perpetual poverty for all has always been the historical consequence of those policies.

STOP AND SMELL THE ROSES

2011-04-11T07:51:00.000-04:00

The economy is not improving.
We're in debt up to our ears.
The world is going to hell in a handbasket....

It's time to stop and smell the roses! My first two blooms from the rose garden were fabulous this weekend!

And my new kitteh, Berbatov (Manchester United's central forward), is always there to show me how to relax and enjoy the simple things in life....

IN IT TO WIN IT vs EMBLEM OF IMPOTENCE

2011-04-10T09:21:00.002-04:00

Mark Steyn writes about non-breaking news on the war front:

What with all the budget talk, I was just wondering whether that third war – or kinetic scope-limited whachamacallit – was still going. You remember, it was in all the papers for a couple of days. So I guess things have gone quiet because it’s all wrapped up now? Apparently not.

Oh yeah, that one....Things aren't going so well, are they?

Glenn Reynolds reminds us that he said when this all began: "Waging war halfheartedly, on the cheap, and by committee is not a formula for success."

My father was a Marine in WWII who fought on Iwo Jima, a rather non-significant island in the Pacific, where there were 2,400 US casualties after only the first day of the battle which raged for weeks. About 19,000 Marines in total were killed during all of World War II --and one-third of those Marines killed in action died during the Battle of Iwo Jima! Amazingly, one in three Marines at the Battle of Iwo Jima was either killed or wounded.

I know this because I was raised on stories of WWII and still have my father's Marine scrapbooks. 50 years after the battle, he still talked about it and how proud he was to have served and fought for his country.

In those days, America was in it to win it. We didn't go to war unless we were determined to fight as if our lives and our freedoms depended on it.

Just once in my adult lifetime, I'd like to see us fight a war, sure of our values and our cause; and utterly determined to continue the fight until we have won.

From the left's perspective, I'm sure this makes me a bloodthirsty warmonger; but what's the effing point of all these timid, quarter-hearted (not even half)
kinetic military actions? The "rules of engagement" should be simple and direct: do what needs to be done to bring the fight to a successful end.

In the long run, not only will our wars be more successful; but I'll bet that the loss of live (both our own and any civilians) will be minimized (what a thought!). No wonder we don't want to hear about Libya anymore; or Iraq; or Afghanistan. Every war turns into a long, drawn out and pathetic standoff with the barbarians; who we will eventually appease and then surrender to so that they can come back to haunt us over and over again.

As Steyn says, "...if you wanted to devise a forlorn emblem of the impotence of the hyperpower, this non-war for non-victory is hard to beat."

LET'S LOOKS AT SOME PSYCHOLOGY AND TEST A LITTLE REALITY

2011-04-08T12:04:00.002-04:00

The Democratic spin is that the elderly will starve, 32 million will die from lack of health insurance, children will grow up without educations; women and children will die horrible and painful deaths; puppies and kittehs will be mercilessly killed, and hell on earth will descend upon America. The Republican spin is that our country is drowning in unsustainable debt and to save everyone in it, we have to tighten our belts and cut spending.

Republicans were presumably elected on a wave of public discontent to deal with the crisis we face; but then they are routinely punished for doing so by death threats, recall threats and general harassment by certain elements of the electorate for trying to deal with it (Hooray for civility!). Their cuts are supposedly "too draconian" and people are mad mad enraged. It seems that many want the crushing debt to be fixed--but not if it means that their precious entitlements are going to be cut. Cut the other fellow's entitlements instead.

Of course, there are many who don't want the problem of the debt to be fixed at all. They are contemptuous toward those who are needlessly scaring everyone; primarily because they firmly believe that there is no crisis that can't be fixed by taxing the rich some more. Those dirty, grubbing rich people could fix our problems and all they would have to do is give us more of their money.

The country is almost evenly divided into people who insist that we don't have to make any cuts and can continue to fund entitlements and pet projects for forever; and those who think that we are headed for fiscal disaster along the lines of Greece, Portugal, and Ireland.

Who's right? Who's "reality based"? Whose policies are really "progressive" and will "win the future"?

Which side of this argument is attempting to adapt to an unpleasant reality? and which is exhibiting symptoms of dysfunction and maladaptation? Which side is in denial and which is avoiding reality instead of facing it?

The accusations and rhetoric are flying around on both sides; and this a favorite tactic left over from elementary school days. YOU did it! No, YOU did it....etc. etc. etc etc.

Each side claims the "facts" are on their side and that the other is generating hysteria.

But, guess what?!

There actually are logical and reasonable ways of assessing for yourself who may or may not be using maladaptive psychological defense mechanisms and avoiding reality--especially when "the facts" are claimed by both sides.

It's important to remember that anyone who is reasonably psychologically healthy is not afraid of examining their thinking processes; nor are they so wrapped up in their emotions that they are unable to appreciate their own psychological blind spots or challenges to their ability to determine what is real and what is a distortion.

Everyone who claims a modicum of psychological insight and awareness; or who claims to be "reality-based", needs to constantly monitor what they are thinking and feeling; and, in particular how their feelings might be influencing their ability to test reality.

Speaking as a psychiatrist, it is not very healthy or adaptive for either an individual or a group of individuals (i.e., a culture) to distort reality for very long. In the short-term the use of an immature or even a psychotic psychological defense (see here , here and here for details) can give a person time to adapt to painful reality without their sense of self falling apart. It gives them time to change themselves and adapt; or, alternatively, it can preserve the psychological self at the expense of the physical self. Generally, though, a significant injury or death is a rather high price to pay simply because accommodating the real world is too difficult or abhorrent.

Thus we come to the fundamental topic of this post. How does one assess if someone is using a maladaptive defense that is a symptom of an underlying refusal to acknowledge reality? Even more importantly, how can you tell when YOU YOURSELF are using maladaptive defenses to disguise your own biases and unacceptable feeliings?

Researcher George Vaillant makes the following pertinent observation:

“…whether a defense is normal or abnormal depends on the eyes of the beholder. We always regard our own vigilance toward our enemies as adaptive, but we view their mistrust of us as an unwarranted projection of their own shortcomings”

This is why accusations go back and forth in political debates that can best be summarized by the following exchange:

"You are in denial!" or "No! You are the one in denial!"
"No, you are!"
"See! What did I tell you?"

And so on. This gets rather tiresome to listen to; and we have been hearing it pretty regularly from both Democrats and Republicans. Each side in the argument believes they are free from the “contamination” of using an immature or primitive psychological defense like Denial; while the other person/side exemplifies its use.

Logically, of course one or the other may be correct in their assertion, both, or neither.

While feelings about the matter maybe useful pieces of data with which to understand reality, but they are certainly not the best tool for that purpose; and an overreliance on them to the exclusion of reason and critical thought is a strategy that cannot be successful if long-term survival is the goal. If feelings are going to be used in an argument (e.g., "I feel that you are deliberately killing women and children if you do that!") then to assess the appropriateness of one's feeling (especially in the absence of any factual evidence), the contents of the unconscious must be explored and brought to the conscious level and considered. Unconscious internal conflicts (e.g. coflicts between "ideology" and the real world, for example) can easily mask the inappropriate aspects of the feelings, making them worthless as a means of understanding what is real.

Taking this kind of action as a method of checking and understanding one's own feelings is a process called "insight" or "self-awareness". Some people do this quite naturally and honestly. Some learn in therapy or when they are in crisis. But if insight is absent then one's feelings have the potential to do great harm --both to one's self and to others.

Some unconscious factors, or psychological defenses, that can make one's feelings untrustworthy are: 1) the person you are responding to has become symbolic of someone else in your life (displacement, fantasy, or perhaps distortion); 2) focusing on one particular aspect of a person, you ignore other, more objective data that are available to you about the person (denial); 3) you place your own unacceptable feelings onto the other person--e.g., I'm not an angry person, -- he's an angry person! (projection or full-blown paranoia).

The truth is that there are countless ways that unconscious processes within ourselves can distort our responses to others and to reality itself.

Growing up and attaining maturity requires that we take a moment to consider such factors playing a role in our emotions before we act on those emotions. If we come to know ourselves and understand our own weaknesses, vulnerabilities, limitations and secrets; then our emotional responses to people or to the world can be very valuable tools to help interpret the world. But they are only tools, and if not used wisely, they can do more harm than good.

Feelings cannot be used in a court of law--for good reason. And they are not ultimate truth in the court of reality, either.

The key to gaining control over behavior that is motivated by maladaptive, unconscious defenses is to make them conscious. This requires that a person be able to reflect on his or her behavior or feelings and on the contents of one's mind; and with honesty and forthrightness develop some insight into why one feels, thinks, or acts a certain way. This is particularly important if the way one is thinking, feeling or acting is causing serious problems to one's self or to others.

Let us return to the acrimonious political debate mentioned earlier. How can you decide if someone is "projecting" or is in "denial" versus accurately responding to and interpreting objective reality? In other words, how do you tell if the use of a defense is a symptom of some underlying psychological problem versus whether it is adaptive and healthy?

In order to be adaptive, a psychological defense:

• should regulate, rather than remove affect – that is, instead of totally anesthetizing a person, the defense would just reduce the pain (and therefore make it easier to cope; rather than to avoid coping altogether)

• should channel feelings instead of blocking them (i.e., allow a healthy expression of those feelings in a way that can discharge them in socially acceptable ways rather than keep them hidden and motivating behavior)

• should be oriented to the long-term; and not simply short-term comfort or avoidance (or, short-term political gain)

• should be oriented toward present and future pain relief; and not focused past distress

• should be as specific as possible (i.e., be as a key is to a lock; not as a sledgehammer applied to a door)

• the use of the defense should attract people and not repel them (Vaillant points out that the use of the mature defenses --i.e., humor, altruism, sublimation etc.-- is perceived by others as attractive and even virtuous; while the immature defenses are generally perceived as irritating, repellant, and even evil).

A discussion of the factors that influence the development of mature defenses and healthy adaptation can be found here.

If we want to test reality and determine who is in denial and who is trying to face and adapt to an unpleasant reality, then we need to look at the behavior of both sides and apply the criteria listed above. Go for it.

Remember, one or both sides may be in denial; one or both sides may be coping with the situation in a childish and immature manner; and one or both sides may have the real "facts" of the economic situation or be ignoring the real facts. If both sides are in denial and/or childishly attempting to avoid reality, then it becomes a question of which side is closer to acknowledging and adapting to the real world.

Sometimes, especially with childish and immature children and adults, that is the best you can hope for.

DEMS GO TO BACKUP PLAN AFTER WISCONSIN FIASCO

2011-04-08T07:06:00.001-04:00

Mary Katherine Ham is exactly right:

Alternate headline via Mary Katharine Ham, ever mindful of developing media narratives: “Small, state-wide election with vital national implications soon to have no national implications whatsoever.”

Hard core leftists and their Union and Democrat minions will now aggressively MoveOn to the next strategy to undermine fiscal restraint and to move their progressive agenda forward! (With the obligatory conspiracy fantasy in hand, of course--brought to you by the usual crooks and liars)

[Political cartoons by Glenn McCoy]

ONE LAST WORD ON FREEDOM OF SPEECH--OK, MAYBE NOT THE LAST WORD !

2011-04-06T10:05:00.004-04:00

On the right to offend others, Mark Steyn today says that he is sick of "member(s) of the governing class far too comfortable with the idea that he and his colleagues should determine the bounds of public discourse." He gpes on to quote James Allan:

The only valuable sort of freedom of speech is the sort that allows people to do or to say what others find wrong-headed, offensive, distasteful and intolerant.

Being free to say and do what everyone else wants you to say and do is not a liberty or freedom you will ever have to fight for; it will make little difference to anything . . .

I think any good, well-functioning democracy requires its citizens to man up and grow a thick skin. If you’re offended, tell us why the speaker is wrong. Don’t ask for a court-ordered apology and some two-bit declaration.

When did our skins get so thin? When did a withering look, a contemptuous comment or displaying a complete indifference to people who are offensive and total idiots to boot get replaced by those politically correct "court ordered" apologies and the whining public displays of victimhood?

Like Steyn, I'm sick of it. In fact, any society that prides itself on being free and standing for individual rights should be rather nauseated by it.

Imagine the hurt feelings of all those Brits when our forefathers dumped their precious tea into Boston Harbor! Why, the horror of it all is just overwhelming! It led to war, but then we Americans weren't as afraid of the consequences of symbolic gestures and pushing the envelope of free speech. We believed we had a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

This is not my last word on freedom of speech...it is too important to leave to the likes of Lindsey Graham or intolerant Muslim clerics.

Damn their hurt feelings and outraged sensibilities and full speed ahead!

BUFFOONS OF THE RIGHT; BUFFOONS OF THE LEFT: AND THE PIRATES OF ISLAM

2011-04-04T00:47:00.003-04:00

Lindsey Graham says, "Free speech is a great idea, but we're in a war." Reason appropriately notes:

...when we have a political class as routinely venal as Lindsey Graham—or Time's Joe Klein, who really did write that "Jones's act was murderous as any suicide bomber's"—that means that war-inspired censorship is always just a shout away.

In case Graham hasn't noticed, his statement has already been taken to the absurd by the PC minions in this country. Look at our academic campuses, supposedly the bulwark of intellectual freedom. "Free speech is a great idea, but you know, it might hurt someone's feelings."

Or, as Mark Steyn discovered when he was brought up before the Human Rights Commission in Canada for daring to write a book that was not expecially submissive, it might hurt tender, Islamic feelings in particular. Steyn says in reply to a post by Andrew Stuttaford:

...ever since I ran into a spot of bother in Canada, I’ve found myself giving speeches in defense of freedom of expression in Toronto, London, Copenhagen, etc. I did not think it would be necessary quite so soon to take the same stand in the land of the First Amendment against craven squishes of the political class willing to trade core liberties for a quiet life. I have no expectations of Harry Reid or The New York Times, but I have nothing but total contempt for the wretched buffoon Graham."

Stuttaford, for his part, had made this point:
Don’t get me wrong. I think Jones’s actions were ill-judged and unhelpful to what the U.S. is trying to do in the Islamic world. Nevertheless, if we start allowing Muslim mobs to dictate the limits of American free speech, this country will have sunk a very long way down.

Indeed. When we start allowing Muslims--or any group, for that matter; or all those politically correct speech codes and their enforcers; or buffoons like Graham and Reid to take an "idea" that is enshrined into the US Constitution as a merely "guidelines"--i.e., something to be discarded when it is convenient or scary to stand up for them; then it is only a matter of tme until all our liberties are at the mercy of any thug anywhere.

Disagree with Jones. Talk to him and try to convince him to give up his narcissistic attention-seeking ways (good luck). Whatever is within the scope of standing up for our values and our hard-won freedom. And, save the outrage for the perpetually outraged perpetrators of the only "non-virtual" crime being discussed.

Unless you think that burning a holy book justifies the murder of Jones himself (remember Theo Van Gogh?); or of any number of innocent infidels who offend Islamic fanatics by their mere existence. "Oh, but you say indignantly, "we only want to silence a provocateur like Jones, not kill him!"

Do any of those who are so quick to demand Jones be silenced really imagine that such an action would appease these Islamic thugs anyway? That they would stop killing people? You have to be Muslim for their code to even apply (and even then, it's very 'iffy' whether or not they might decide to kill you or not)....dealing with infidels honestly is not part of their "code."

THE LAST ROUNDUP

2011-04-02T17:36:00.003-04:00

Terry Jones can burn a Koran if he wants to.

Not only that, he can also burn a Bible, a book on logic, or even a certain well-known book by George Orwell.

However, the latter books, in particular, might be a useful reference to have around these days to understand the doublespeak and groveling subservience to oppression exhibited by the worthless media:

Over a week ago, we discussed the relative lack of coverage of a burning of a Koran some days earlier in Florida. The overwhelming response from readers to that post was that they hadn’t even heard about the burning. It was interesting to compare the non-stop, over-the-top coverage from last fall with the more appropriate and restrained coverage in recent weeks.

But now that mobs in Afghanistan murdered nine humans and injured 81 others in response to the burning of the book, we’re seeing much more coverage. And the coverage is very interesting. It reminds me of something I was taught in college about rape. Basically, no matter how short the skirt the girl’s wearing, she doesn’t deserve to be raped. I always thought it was also wise to dress modestly but that wasn’t the point. The point was that the rapist is responsible for the rape, not the victim or society.

Murdering people who have nothing to do with the Koran burning is another animal from rape entirely, but it is still surprising to me to see how the media suggests that the pastor who oversaw the Koran burning — Terry Jones — is responsible for murders he didn’t commit.

So, for instance, here is NBC reporter Luke Russert on Twitter:
11 people lost their lives so Terry Jones could burn a Koran and feed the 24/7 news monster http://abcn.ws/gzoJhH

Here’s The Guardian’s headline:
Terry Jones defiant despite murders in Afghanistan over Qur’an burning
US pastor is showing no regrets about an act of hatred that provoked a massacre of UN staff amid deadly riots

USA Today’s been covering the story and religion reporter Cathy Grossman asks:

Who’s responsible for the death in in Afghanistan today? The mob fired the guns but who handed them the ammunition? The news media? Or Terry Jones?

Um, the people who killed are responsible for the killing (unless, again, we think Muslims are subhuman or something). But apart from that, consider the major missing link in between Terry Jones and the mob. Here are some key details from someone at UN Dispatch on the ground in Kabul:
Tonight, the governor of Balkh province (of which Mazar-i-Sharif is the capital) is telling the international media that the men who sacked the UN compound were Taliban infiltrators. That’s rubbish. Local clerics drove around the city with megaphones yesterday, calling residents to protest the actions of a small group of attention-seeking, bigoted Americans. Then, during today’s protest, someone announced that not just one, but hundreds of Korans had been burned in America. A throng of enraged men rushed the gates of the UN compound, determined to draw blood. Had the attackers been gunmen, they would likely have been killed before they could breach the compound.....

This key detail — about how some middlemen fan the flames — was also under reported in stories about the Danish cartoons. Not that killing people or destroying buildings in response to cartoons is ever justified, but it’s also worth noting that clerics drafted new cartoons — far more offensive than anything that was actually published — and passed them off as also having been published. One picture they passed around was of a French comedian in a pig-squealing contest (complete with snout). But they claimed it ran in a paper with the caption, “Here is the real image of Mohammed.” So our options for considering who is responsible for the death and destruction in Afghanistan in recent days has to extend beyond the choices given above. And we can only get that full story with more thorough reporting — reporting that’s hard to do if we’re all obsessed about covering the relatively easy-to-cover and relatively accessible and English-speaking Terry Jones.

The great British philosopher John Stuart Mill wrote in On Liberty, "Strange it is, that men should admit the validity of the arguments for free discussion, but object to their being 'pushed to an extreme'; not seeing that unless the reasons are good for an extreme case, they are not good for any case."

The burning of Korans or any "sacred" book; the blasphemous art of a "Piss Jesus"; or the publication of some relatively inoffensive Danish Cartoons all raise the most important issue of our times: freedom of expression.

Are we in the west going to cave into pressure from societies with a medieval mindset, or are we going to defend our most precious freedom -- freedom of expression, a freedom for which thousands of people have paid the ultimate sacrifice?

Why the hell are we supporting rebels in Libya, if not for this freedom? Why have we spent our blood and treasure in Iraq and Afghanistan if not to stand up for this most precious value?

The most frightening thought in all this is that we no longer value freedom here in the West--at least not enough to unequivocally condemn the murdering barbarians of a medieval culture.

It has been said that, "A democracy cannot survive long without freedom of expression, the freedom to argue, to dissent, even to insult and offend. It is a freedom sorely lacking in the Islamic world, and without it Islam will remain unassailed in its dogmatic, fanatical, medieval fortress; ossified, totalitarian and intolerant. Without this fundamental freedom, Islam will continue to stifle thought, human rights, individuality; originality and truth."

The timidity of the media and the placing of blame for the horrific violence and mayhem going on now in Afghanistan brings up yet again what I consider to be a key issue in the decline of our culture: Western institutions no longer seem to be able to defend and stand up for the very fundamental ideas on which they are based

This sad situation, I submit, is the direct result of the West's descent into the abyss of political correctness and cultural relativity. This descent has been fueled by the ascent of postmodern political rhetoric which, among other things, rejects reason and rationality in political discourse and behavior.

The dual insanity and subversivenss of these two hallmarks of leftist thought are brought together in the following common, but wholly contradictory, threads of politically correct postmodern rhetoric: On the one hand, all cultures are equally deserving of respect; on the other, Western culture is uniquely destructive and bad.

This is why there is such a rush to condemn the evil Terry Jones. Not so much the poor, helpless Islamic murderers.

Let me be blunt. I don't care if anyone is upset or offended by the silly actions of a Terry Jones; or the inoffensiveness of some equally silly and intrinsically harmless cartoons.

I don't care if Korans get flushed, diced, sliced or pureed.

What I care about is the violent and irrational behavior repeatedly exhibited by Muslims the world over, as they scream and burn and generally throw a hissy fit and act like the thugees in their worship of Kali. The controversy is not about Terry Jones or the cartoonists; or even about Salmon Rushdie (who still has a death fatwa over his head after all these years).

It is about freedom. It is about choice. It is about standing up for the values of Western Civilization.

I may disagree with Pastor Jones (almost as intensely as I do with Obams's Pastor Wright), but by god, I will fight for their right to be as offensive and obnoxious as they want as they pave their own way to hell. I will not support them in any other way except for that.

For what is their sin? They have only behaved in a manner that accurately reflects their souls and the content of their character. AS HAVE THE MURDEROUS AND WHINING THUGS WHO KILL AND BEHEAD IN THE NAME OF SOME BLOOD-THIRSTY GOD.

The unacceptable and violent behavior that now seems to be sweeping Afghanistan (and who knows where it will stop??); and which is being done in the name of the so-called "religion of peace" truly demonstrates the fanatical, oppressive, and totalitarian soul of their religion and culture.

AND THEIR BEHAVIOR AND DEMANDS MUST NOT BE TOLERATED BY FREE MEN AND WOMEN ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD.

Bob Dylan wrote in his album "World Gone Wrong", “Toleration of the unacceptable leads to the last round-up.”

Unless we think this is the last round-up for Freedom, then I suggest we first stop tolerating the violent and mindless behavior of Islam and place the blame for their mindless violence precisely where it should be placed.

And, second, I suggest we inform our clueless media that we won't tolerate their cowardly submission to evil.

FROM 'SMART' DIPLOMACY TO 'SMART' WAR

2011-03-31T09:32:00.000-04:00

We now learn that our "transparency" President signed an order 2-weeks ago to arm the Libyan rebels. Peter Kirsanow wonders if Obama even cares about who he is giving weapons to:

As Dan Foster notes below, we now learn that two to three weeks ago the president signed off on a finding authorizing covert support for the Libyan rebels, potentially including cash and weapons. Yet his Secretary of State concedes that precisely who the rebels are was still a mystery to the administration as late as yesterday.

The president — apparently taking his cue from Nancy Pelosi – believes that we have to arm the rebels so we can find out who they are.

This process clearly shows Obama's transition from "smart" diplomacy (how's that working out for you, Mr. President?) to "smart" war. The "smartness" of this war will become particularly evident if, as several have noted already, we are actually now in the business of arming Al Qaeda.

And, if our CIA on the ground find this to be true, will our "smart" President even care?

What do you suppose the next move from this hapless occupier of the Oval Office will be? "Smart" submission to Islamic jihad and sharia?

THE NEW LOOTERS --PUBLIC UNIONS, & CRONY CAPITALISTS

2011-03-29T15:29:00.003-04:00

As usual, Wretchard has an excellent and interesting post; this time on the difference between 'thing-makers' and 'dream-merchants':

Bing’s approach highlights the war that Frum alluded to but never quite described: the eternal battle between the thing-makers and the dream-merchants. The contrary arguement to the belief that the UAW built Detroit’s prosperity was that Henry Ford built it — built it by faith in the reality of things. In that view wealth comes from the existence of things like cars, machines, buildings and such, and the intellectual and physical means to make them. In contrast, the alternative theory is that wealth arises from such things as collective bargaining agreements, laws, aspirations and rights. In a word, “if you build it, thy will come”. Mayor Bing’s plan to build developments recalls nothing so much as the South Seas cargo cults who believed all that was necessary to make the skies rain with goodies was to build a dirt airstrip and palm-leaf control tower to attract resupply flights from somewhere. “If you build it, they will come”.

Who “they” is remains unclear. But they are out there.

“Building” in this case doesn’t mean producing the actual product. “Building” means building the dream, constructing the appurtenances of the actual things, not the things. It means creating the “rights”, specifying the entitlements, winning the court cases to increase the population so all will be well.

Ayn Rand was somewhat more pejoritive in her analysis of the conflict. She saw it as a battle between "the producers" and "the looters":

Since the advent of capitalism, businessmen have been denounced for the corrupt actions of a few political profiteers. To help understand that there is a distinction, consider two characters in Ayn Rand’s 1957 novel “Atlas Shrugged.” In the book, Rand describes two opposite kinds of businessmen – those she calls the “producers” and those she calls the “looters.”

The producers, such as Hank Rearden, inventor of a new metal stronger and cheaper than steel, work tirelessly to create products that improve human life. The looters are basically pseudobusinessmen, like the incompetent steel executive Orren Boyle, who get unearned riches by getting special favors from politicians. Their business isn’t business, but political pull.

It is the producers who make life possible: who keep grocery shelves stocked; who discover new lifesaving drugs; who make computers faster, buildings taller, and airplanes safer.

The looters, on the other hand, leech off the wealth created by producers.

The novel rejects the widespread notion that both the producer Reardens and the looter Boyles are fundamentally united by a desire for profit. Only the Reardens, she argues, deserve to be called profit-seekers, because they earn rewards through productive effort; the Boyles are antieffort parasites seeking unearned loot.

But it’s not only unearned wealth the looters want. In “Atlas Shrugged,” Boyle uses his influence to throttle Rearden with progressively harsher government controls and regulations, because he can’t survive except by hindering the competition.

Producers, however, don’t need special favors, only freedom: the freedom to produce, to trade voluntarily, and, if they succeed, to keep the profits. As a country becomes less free, it creates and unleashes more and more Boyles, who succeed at the expense of the Reardens.

How do unions fit into this concept?

The artificially high wages forced on the economy by compulsory unionism imposed economic hardships on other groups—particularly on non-union workers and on unskilled labor, which was being squeezed gradually out of the market. Today’s widespread unemployment is the result of organized labor’s privileges and of allied measures, such as minimum wage laws. For years, the unions supported these measures and sundry welfare legislation, apparently in the belief that the costs would be paid by taxes imposed on the rich. The growth of inflation has shown that the major victim of government spending and of taxation is the middle class. Organized labor is part of the middle class—and the actual value of labor’s forced “social gains” is now being wiped out.--“A Preview,” The Ayn Rand Letter, I, 23, 2

Nowhere is this more true than in unions for public employees who are paid by taxpayers, and who's unions translate their numbers into political clout to get more benefits and perks. That this is a rather obvious conflict of interest and not exactly ethical behavior seems to escape the attention of Democrats these days. Is it any wonder there is a large scale rebellion among the state and local governments who are going broke dealing with escalating benefits and retirement packages?

The unions are once class of "looter", but there is another who operate in much the same way as the public unions. This class of looters are those businesses that have learned to play the government's game to profit themselves at the expense of the taxpayer.

There is nothing illegal about lobbying or giving to charity. In fact, in our current system, it is hard for a capitalist to compete without “investing” in politics. The U.S. corporate tax rate is the highest in the world at 35 percent. And if GE did not have a Washington office dedicated to lobbying for benefits from the government, over the last five years it would have had to pay somewhere around $9.1 billion in taxes on its $26 billion in American profits alone. Instead it got a $4.1 billion benefit. That is a $13.2 billion payoff on a $200 million lobbying investment. What kind of capitalist could say no to that kind of return on investment?

When once-great exemplars of capitalism like GE are profiting more by investing in lawyers and lobbyists in Washington instead of engineers and innovators, our system is clearly broken. We can start to fix these incentives by reducing the corporate tax rate. But much broader reform of our tax and regulatory system is needed.

THIS IS HOW THE LOOTER MENTALITY GAINS A FOOTHOLD IN A CAPITALIST SYSTEM WITH AN EVER ENLARGING CENTRAL GOVERNMENT. PUBLIC UNIONS AND CRONY CAPITALISTS ARE THE DOUBLE WHAMMY THAT PROFIT OFF OF BIG GOVERNMENT; AND, IN RETURN, THEY FUND THE CANDIDATES AND PARTY HACKS WHO WILL PROMISE TO KEEP THEIR GRAVY TRAIN GOING.

You might not think that there is much to connect public unions with corrupt businesses whose 'capital' primarily comes from government handouts, bailouts, or favors; but there you have it: both have a looter mentality that refuses to acknowledge reality and expects entitlements and handouts to continue ad infinitum.

Both expect that unearned wealth (i.e., yours) will keep flowing into their coffers.

Perhaps they did not start out to be looters, leeching off the productive; but they learned to survive and thrive in the environment of pull and privilege that big, intrusive governments create. They learned to buy votes and favors; to get the big government contracts and the big government's protection of their 'special' status.

Most of these businesses and even the unions once produced products that were worth something of value.

For the businesses, once upon a time, they had to make a profit by convincing people like you and me to buy what they had to sell. Now they only need the sanction of the powerful people in Washington to make money; now they only have to convince congressmen and senators (and even presidents).

As for the unions, they once offered a product to workers that prevented them from being exploited and abused in the workplace. But they have now evolved into coercive organization who regularly exploit and abuse hard working taxpayers in order to optimize their extravagant entitlements; AND they have the sanction of the government to do it.

As noted in one of the quotes above, there is nothing illegal about lobbying or giving to charity. Nor is there anything illegal about workers voluntarily getting together to organize or ensure a decent and fair salary; or benefits and a safe workplace. But at some point in time, the psychology that stimulated these benign--and important-- endeavors crossed over into a full-blown looter frame of mind.

Now that they've had a taste of government(i.e., coercive) power; they find they like having power over others; and they're in it for whatever they can get (away with).

It's not the 'rich' who are exploiting the middle class; it's the new looters and their government enablers.

SILLY QUESTION OF THE DAY DEPARTMENT

2011-03-28T15:54:00.001-04:00

Isn't this story MUCH MUCH worse than Abu Ghraib???

Let's see if I've got the equations correct:

HUMILIATION OF PRISONERS BY MILITARY GUARDS +
IRAQ ("THE BAD WAR") +
GEORGE W. BUSH, Commander in Chief =
HORRIFIC NEWS THAT MADE HEADLINES FOR MONTHS

DELIBERATE MURDER AND DESCRATION OF BODIES BY US SOLDIERS +
AFGHANISTAN ("THE GOOD WAR") +
OBAMA, Commander in Chief =
HARDLY ANY NEWS AT ALL WHICH WILL QUIETLY DISAPPEAR AS SOON AS POSSIBLE

"REALITY IS A DISGRACE"- THE PHILOSOPHICAL ILLNESS OF OUR TIME

2011-03-28T06:00:00.003-04:00

Mark Steyn wonders if the London protestors seem to be agitating for a "human right" to suspend reality:

The “nice” people bussed in from the shires struck me as some of the most stupid people I’ve ever met anywhere on the planet. One elderly lady from Yorkshire told me she was there because her grandson’s university fees were likely to go up. I was in a cranky mood because I hadn’t had my coffee. “You can protest all you like,” I said. “But this country’s broke, so all you’re doing is postponing its reacquaintanceship with reality, and ensuring that your grandson and his contemporaries are going to be stuck with the tab because you guys spent their future.” I pointed out that in her part of the world – northern England – as in Wales and Northern Ireland, the state accounts for three-quarters of the economy. And it’s still not enough for the likes of her and her pals.

She stared at me blankly. “Well, I don’t want to argue,” she said politely. “I just think it’s a disgrace.”

Steyn is on to something here and its has been true about human beings since their creator endowed them with the unalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Human nature tends to recoil against an unpalatble reality. That's why psychological defense mechanisms exist. They protect the 'self' and one's sense of identity from a world that tends to change (especially in the negative direction) too fast for many humans to adapt to it.

The problem is that adapt to it you must. Perhaps not instantly; but reality won't go away if you scream and whine and throw violent temper tantrums.

The little children who make up the left side of the political spectrum have never learned that reality exists separate from their own wants or desires. They still want what they want when they want it no matter what. And they are prepared to stage a temper tantrum if Mommy or Daddy--or Reality, in this case--say, "No!"

You can ignore reality, but reality will not ignore you.

The question is why are so many so determined to ignore the fiscal reality that is taking down nation after nation; state after state; individual after individual?

Why, is reality no longer something that exists outside one's wishes, whims or wants for some people?

David Solway has an idea origins of this notion; the notion that reality is somehow "a disgrace"; and it's an idea that I've been writing about frequently on this blog: it's called postmoderitis (h/t saturnus). Solway writes about this philosophical illness citing cultural relativism as a primary symptom:

....the left has extended its tolerance to various cultural enclaves within it own territory that live by a different code of conduct, one often at variance with and indeed hostile to the norms and usages that prevail among the heritage population. The aggressive program of these groups to infiltrate the mainstream and metastasize at their host’s expense is, for the left, how freedom and equality work. The invasion from within is to be encouraged under the rubric of “social justice.” In so doing, the left in its hortatory cluelessness is incrementally surrendering its own life, liberty and happiness to the depredations of an alien mindset and undermining the cultural foundations of its own taken-for-granted world. It has facilitated the wasting disease of deculturation, spurred in large measure by anthropological theories of so-called “critical advocacy.” (See Philip Carl Salzman’s Understanding Culture for a brief but valuable discussion of such theories.) Tolerating the intolerant, the postmodern left has, in effect, lapsed into a state of culture schlock, a condition which author Howard Rotberg in his book of that title has aptly labeled “tolerism.” “Postmodernitis” would be another name for it.

The hypocrisy is truly staggering. When a gay man is killed, a woman punished for being raped, a Christian firebombed or a Jew hunted down in some Islamic nation, the left has little or nothing to say.

But cultural relativism is only one symptom and not the root cause of the illness. Cultural relativism arises from a mindset that adamantly refuses to acknowledge external reality. The center of this dysfunction; the etiology of this break from objective reality is primarly due to the defects in epistemology and metaphysics that are an integral part of the postmodern philosophy of today's leftist "progressives".

Metaphysics and Epistemology are key branches of Philosophy. The first concerns itself with answering the question, "What is Existence?"; and the second with, "How do we know it?"

These are two of the most important questions in life; and almost all of the major controversies of our time boil down to one or the other. Postmodern philosopy says, Existence is anything you want it to be; and you will know it by what you feel.

Unfortunately, it is not only the Muslim/Arab world that happens to be infected with a major deficit in epistemology (thought they are in a more advanced stage of the disease); even western civilization--the bastion of reason and science-- has become horribly infested with philosophical insanities that pervert the very concepts of reality, truth, and knowledge.

Like the lady who thought reality was a "disgrace" because it didn't conform to her whims, today's progressives believe that it is perfectly appropriate to ignore reality when they don't like it.

In fact, they consider their determined opposition to reality as something courageous, as if it actually takes courage to maintain psychological denial in the face of facts; when all it takes is a profound lack of insight and a willingness to cling to magical thinking.

Postmodern philosophy, which holds that there is no objective reality--only that which resides inside your head at any given moment-- has become a lethal infection on the minds of people on the left. They no longer question their beliefs, and like immature, spoiled children, they throw a temper tantrum when they don't get their way.

They think that the gravy train will just keep on rollin' along if they protest loudly and long enough. They think that old fashioned ideas like reality, truth, and reason have nothing to do with winning the future; and that you can win the future by intensely believing in hope and change ; but for them, hope and change means more--much more--of the same. Hope and Change = Wishful Thinking and Inaction.

It's all a matter of basic philosophical principles....

'AWESOME'....WAIT...WHAT?

2011-03-26T10:22:00.001-04:00

FLYING IN THE FACE OF REALITY

2011-03-24T22:49:00.003-04:00

Egypt Air has removed Israel from the map--achieving in fantasy what so many in the Arab world desperately desire:

Egypt Air, the largest airline in Egypt, has removed Israel from the map – literally. On its website, Ynet has learned, Jordan's land reaches the Mediterranean Sea.

The airline's subsidiary, Air Sinai, flies to Israel regularly, but customers seeking flights to Ben Gurion National Airport will have a hard time finding them. On the map are the names of the Mideast capitals – Amman, Beirut, and Damascus – but Israel is nowhere to be found.

This, of course, calls to mind Ahmadinejad's call to "wipe Israel from the map" back in 2005 when he spoke at a conference on "A World Without Zionism."

What is it that makes them emotionally unable to accept a successful, democratic and non-Muslim state in the middle of all their Muslim dysfunction and failure? In psychological terms, the answer to that question is that they suffer from a malignant and destructive paranoid style, fueled and fanned by Islamic fundamentalism.

Instead of coming to terms with the reason their societies and cultures are so dysfunctional and toxic; instead of facing a series of unpleasant truths about their backwardness and lack of achievement; or questioning the religion that keeps them that way; or the leadership that manipulates them and needs them to remain backward and willing to descend in barbarism on cue; they have allowed their society to regress to a concomitant primitve emotional level where a paranoid world view is all that stands between them and total psychological disintegration .

Under these poisonous circumstances, paranoia does not wax and wane. It must continually expand and try to incorporate and explain more and more data that documents their multiple failures as individuals; as a culture, as a religion. Rhetoric and behavior must always escalate to ward off the encroaching reality.

Thus, without ever having to question their own evil, they can psychologically project it onto the Jews, whose success in the face of Islam's failure is a shame too great to bear.

One of the hallmarks of the paranoid, and paranoia in general, is the ability to fixate (or obsess) on one particular point to the exclusion of all other reality and to select that point as the "evidence" of their predetermined delusion.

The paranoid is actually quite perceptive--rigidly so; and they focus their attention only on those details that give support and credence to their beliefs. The nation of Israel gave them a focus and a scapegoat onto which they could project their own cultural and religious failures.

If Israel did not exist, the Arab world would have to invent it, because without Israel to blame all their problems on (and, by extension, America), the nations of the Middle East would not be able live with their own shame.

David Frum suggested in an article titled, "Why is it Always About Israel?" that:

Might it not be closer to the truth to say that Arab radicalism is the cause of the Israeli-Palestinian dispute--not the result of it? There is no peace because Israel's neighbours--and too many of the world's Muslims--cannot accept the right of a non-Arab, non-Muslim minority to live unsubjugated in the Middle East. That is the true "core" of the dispute, and it cannot be fixed by negotiation.

Frum was correct in suggesting that the problem cannot be fixed by negotiation, but he is off the mark about the source of the problem. While it is true that Arab radicalism deliberately promotes the Israeli-Palestinian dispute and continually disrupts any possibility of resolving it, the cause of that dispute lies in the psychological dysfunction of the Arabs themselves, aided and abetted by the perversion and extension of all the worse elements within Islam.

Those who dwell in this paranoid culture have closed off their rational, thinking minds; and with the encouragement and justification of the most medieval aspects of their religion are operating on the basis of the most primitive and dysfunctional of unconscious needs and feelings.

They are indulging in group projection and paranoia--deliberately developed and encouraged by their dysfunctional leaders--in order to maintain their dysfunctional identity, as well as their dysfunctional political and pseudo-religous agenda.

Personally, I do not have much optimism that current events in the Middle East are going to lead to increase liberty and tolerance there. While I truly believe that there are many people there who yearn for freedom and who want to take themselves and their culture and religion move toward the 21st century (and since their starting point is psychologically in the 12th century, they have a huge task before them). But I fear these voices of reason will be subsumed into the collective paranoia of the Arab mind and fanned by ideology of Islam.

For too long that collective mind, marinating in Islamic fundamentalism, has been flying in the face of reality and willfully refusing to acknowledge it. Why? Because there are far too many unpleasant truths and painful self-knowledge that need to be faced about both their culture and their religon before thay can escape from the medieval rut they are in.

I would like to believe that all the recent upheavals in the region herald a psychological step forward....but then you read about the new, improved Egypt Air and you realize that the old paranoia and projection; the same old lack of insight and unwillingness to face reality still rules.

UPDATE: More reasons why I am not optimistic about all this "pro-democracy" upheaval in the Middle East. Here's who's coming out on top in in Egypt. And guess who the rebels in Libya are turning to....

And, if you've forgotten about the Muslim Brotherhood in all the euphoria of hope and change, here's a little ditty that goes a lot like an old Tom Lehrer song:

MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD WEEK

Oh, the Shia hate the Sunni,
And the Sunni hate the Shia.
But to blow up you and me-a
Is an old Quranic rule.

During Musim Brotherhood Week, Muslim Brotherhood Week,
Egyptians and Syrians are dancing cheek to cheek.
Musims love to fatwa-tize
Any sects that they despise,
And take turns burning down each other's mosques.

Oh, the Saudis hate Iranians;
And Yemenis hate Jordanians;
Muslim socialists hate Muslim fascists,
But during this week they're all pacifists

Except that they can kill some Jews
And count on making front page news!
They do it with such great aplomb
It's as Islamic as a suicide bomb!

During Muslim Brotherhood Week, Musim Brotherhood Week,
Tehran makes nice with Riyadh cause it's oh so very chic.
Kneel down and start to pray
With someone you'd prefer to flay;
You can be peaceful if you try.

Oh, Hamas will sleep with Fatah,
Persian or Arab will no longer matteh
They all have women they can batteh
And everyone can hate the Jews!

And during Muslim Brotherhood Week, International Caliphate Week,
It's everyone-smile-at-one-another-hood Week.
Be nice to any Muslim who
Allah's decreed inferior to you.
It's only for a week, so have no fear.
Be grateful that it doesn't last all year!

WE'RE NUMBER ONE !!

2011-03-24T08:45:00.000-04:00

Okay, so Obama insists that we aren't world leaders anymore and that the U.S. is just one of many nations and nothing special. For this Administration, "American exceptionalism" is just an obsolete way of thinking.

Well here's one area where we are at the top of the heap, and undoubtedly President Obama (and Michelle, of course) can finally be very proud of their country.

"WHAT ON EARTH IS WRONG WITH THESE PEOPLE?"

2011-03-23T14:07:00.000-04:00

Indeed:

BERKELEY, Ill. — Safoorah Khan had taught middle school math for only nine months in this tiny Chicago suburb when she made an unusual request. She wanted three weeks off for a pilgrimage to Mecca.

The school district, faced with losing its only math lab instructor during the critical end-of-semester marking period, said no. Khan, a devout Muslim, resigned and made the trip anyway.

Justice Department lawyers examined the same set of facts and reached a different conclusion: that the school district’s decision amounted to outright discrimination against Khan. They filed an unusual lawsuit, accusing the district of violating her civil rights by forcing her to choose between her job and her faith.

No, Jonah, they are not kidding. This is the new, improved idiocy of PC, Obama style. In fact, I think I'll be heading out for a pilgrimage to Rome shortly because I have a strong need to meet with Pope Benedict about some issues. I'm sure that the VA Hospital where I work will appreciate that I don't want to have to choose between my job and my faith....

A CONFLICT OF VICTIMS

2011-03-23T06:39:00.001-04:00

Andrew McCarthy describes what happens "When Grievance Industries Collide":

At Robert Spencer’s Jihad Watch, we learn Canadian authorities and school officials don’t know quite what to do about a McGill University Muslim student who has written that he’d like to “shoot everyone in the room” at a conservative student organization, that the organization is a “secret Zionist convention” to which he “should have brought an M16,” and that — in response to the club’s showing of “Indoctrinate-U,” a documentary about political correctness on college campuses — “the jihad begins today.”

We further learn that a gay couple in the Netherlands is suing the mayor and police in Utrecht for failing to protect them from young Muslim immigrants (“Moroccan youths”) who repeatedly attacked their home and vandalized their car until the couple finally left town, the police having told the couple they were unable to take action against the aggressors. (The religion of peace holds that homosexuals should be killed — “in the worst, most severe way of killing,” says Ayatollah Ali Sistani, our country’s cherished ally in the new Iraqi “democracy.”)

When “youths” are aboard, even gay rights and “hate speech” codes have to ride in the back of the bus.

These incidents represent an interesting phenomenon of the leftist world that I described in a post about the "The Victimhood Heirarchy or, The Leftist Food Chain. There is a logic to that food chain; and a simple way to determine whose "victimhood" is considered a higher priority when there is a conflict of victims:

...[A] theoretically "oppressed" culture or religion's status as "victimized" allows (nay, it demands) the consequent suppression of any uppity victim classes subsumed within it (e.g., Women or Gays) who try to rise above their assigned place in the utopia to come.

From the perspective of the socialist utopian, what matters more than Women's rights or Gay rights, are the rights of the designated "oppressed culture." The dogma of multiculturalism trumps the lesser dogmas of feminism or gay pride. 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, then the more power victimization can be exploited.

For example, we know from our experience of watching the compassionate people of the left, that blacks, women and gays lose their cherished victim status if they dare to become Republicans (shocking, I know); and, to a lesser extent, if they choose to be Christian (except for most those radical dominations, who have seen the secular light--or, who preach against American imperialism, and the evils of capitalism, of course).

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 President Obama and his supporters.

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 victimhood 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, Marxist ideology doesn'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.

When you have created a society that is made up of an infinite number of agggrieved groups--all of whom see themselves as "oppressed" all the time, there has to be a way to prioritize, after all.

The political left is nothing if not consistent about squeezing the last drop of grievance and victimhood out of each and every situation--especially where there is power over the lives of others to be gained.

In McCarthy's first examples, the PC leftist academics are in a bind because of the homicidal rantings of a member of a very powerful and acclaimed victimhood group. Why, those academics stand the risk of being accused of being "Islamophobic" if they were to actually do something about the situation with the Muslim student. Likewise, the PC police and city authorities in the Netherlands example.

Islam and Muslims in general, have slowly but surely percolated to the top of the victimhood food chain and thus, accusations of Islamophobia are considered more heinous than pretty much anything else, even sexism or homophobia.

Then, of course, there is the not quite conscious fear factor in play here, on the part of many leftists.

You might recall Han Solo commenting to C3PO during the latter's chess game with Chewbacca--"Let the Wookie win." His reasoning: Wookies will pull your arm out of its socket if they lose. Make no mistake about it, part of the left's bizarre willingness to submit to Islam's constant, universal whining about being "oppressed" is because they are fearful of standing up to a religion that tends to do a bit more than pull your arm out of its socket if you oppose them. They can rationalize it any way they like, but they identify with this powerful aggressor and it makes sense to them to give deference while pretending they are simply standing up for the poor, helpless victims of the world.

Like the threatening and homicidal McGill student; or the homophobic "youths".

So, forget oppression against women; forget oppression against gays--their grievances pale in significance before real, or even imagined, oppression against Islam.

ISLAM'S MORAL BLACKMAIL

2011-03-21T08:56:00.000-04:00

Melanie Phillips is being investigated because of what she wrote about the Israeli family that was slaughtered in Israel by a Palestinian terrorist:

A Melanie Phillips blogpost on the Spectator website which referred to the "moral depravity" of Arab "savages" is being investigated by the Press Complaints Commission.

The online comment piece, headlined "Armchair barbarism", focused on media coverage of the murder of five members of a Jewish family in the West Bank settlement of Itamar by Palestinian militants earlier this month.

"The moral depravity of the Arabs is finding a grotesque echo in the moral bankruptcy and worse of the British and American 'liberal' media," wrote Phillips.

"Overwhelmingly, the media have either ignored or downplayed the atrocity – or worse, effectively blamed the victims for bringing it on themselves, describing them as 'hard-line settlers' or extremists.

"To the New York Times, it's not the Arab massacre of a Jewish family which has jeopardised 'peace prospects' – because the Israelis will quite rightly never trust any agreement with such savages – but instead Israeli policy on building more homes, on land to which it is legally and morally entitled, which is responsible instead for making peace elusive. Twisted, and sick."

The column, which also referred to coverage of the murders by CNN, the BBC and the Guardian – part of the group that publishes MediaGuardian.co.uk – prompted two complaints to the press watchdog, one of them from Engage, a group promoting Muslim engagement in British society.

Phillips apparently forgot that we are not permitted, even in a free society, to say anything bad about Islam.

We are not permitted to question how peaceful Islam is--even when hordes of its adherents appear to believe that it is not only "OK" to kill innocents in the name of their vicious god, it is a moral imperative to do so.

And, lest you take such riduculous prohibitions unseriously, there is always some "peaceful" Muslim group somewhere who will file the appropriate complaint with the appropriate politically correct organization in the oh so politically correct western democracies. Even the UN has proposed a resolution that would criminalize opinions that differ with the Islamic faith:

Though it is written tongue-in-cheek in the language of human rights and of opposition to discrimination, thenonbinding U.N. Resolution 62/154, on "Combating defamation of religions," actually seeks to extend protection not to humans but to opinions and to ideas, granting only the latter immunity from being "offended." The preamble is jam-packed with hypocrisies that are hardly even laughable, as in this delicious paragraph, stating that the U.N. General Assembly:
Underlining the importance of increasing contacts at all levels in order to deepen dialogue and reinforce understanding among different cultures, religions, beliefs and civilizations, and welcoming in this regard the Declaration and Programme of Action adopted by the Ministerial Meeting on Human Rights and Cultural Diversity of the Movement of Non-Aligned Countries, held in Tehran on 3 and 4 September 2007.

Yes, I think we can see where we are going with that. (And I truly wish I had been able to attend that gathering and report more directly on its rich and varied and culturally diverse flavors, but I couldn't get a visa.) The stipulations that follow this turgid preamble are even more tendentious and become more so as the resolution unfolds. For example, Paragraph 5 "expresses its deep concern that Islam is frequently and wrongly associated with human rights violations and terrorism," while Paragraph 6 "[n]otes with deep concern the intensification of the campaign of defamation of religions and the ethnic and religious profiling of Muslim minorities in the aftermath of the tragic events of 11 September 2001."

You see how the trick is pulled? In the same weeks that this resolution comes up for its annual renewal at the United Nations, its chief sponsor-government (Pakistan) makes an agreement with the local Taliban to close girls' schools in the Swat Valley region (a mere 100 miles or so from the capital in Islamabad) and subject the inhabitants to Sharia law. This capitulation comes in direct response to a campaign of horrific violence and intimidation, including public beheadings. Yet the religion of those who carry out this campaign is not to be mentioned, lest it "associate" the faith with human rights violations or terrorism.

The author of the above piece (Christopher Hitchens) goes on to note, "The useless and meaningless term Islamophobia, now widely used as a bludgeon of moral blackmail, is testimony to its success."

But the truth is that "Islamophobia" is not a phobia at all-- it is a completely rational fear of an insane and irrational force that seems to be sweeping the world. Being afraid of the so-called "religion of peace" after the innumerable acts of violence, terror and depravity committed in the name of Allah worldwide is not exaggerated; not inexplicable; and most certainly not illogical.

Being afraid of Islam as it undermines freedom of speech and thought, as well as and other critical values of Western civilization, is far from a phobia--it is a natural response to the sad reality Islam as it is practiced in much of the Middle East and around the world.

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

There is much written both in the Middle East and in the West about the proposition that Islam is "under siege" and that hatred of Islam is a rising concern. Complaints agaiso nst individuals like Phillips are getting all too common. The delicate sensibilities of Muslims are tuned into any possible affront or mockery to their religion, that they appear to be unable to appreciate that killing people indiscriminantly in the name of Allah and for Islamic motives is becoming a real problem all over the world.

This has been happening frequently and those those who decry this reality, or prentend that it doesn't exist are not only reluctant to admit that the wave of terror and irrational hatred sweeping the world is specifically associated with the religion of Islam; they simultaneously blame the victims of the terror and the objects of the irrational hatred as the one's responsible for its existence.

Islam and its teachings are frequently given a free pass by both the left and the submissive media. Shouts of "God is Great" that precede each atrocity apparently have nothing to do with what is written in the Koran.

It is getting harder and harder to keep a straight face as the knee-jerk denial and sanctimonious utterings of organizations like CAIR and UN "human rights" committees fill the news media on a daily basis with their attacks on anyone who criticizes Islam, even as their own institutionalized anti-semitism becomes more and more blatant.

Islamophobia? Anyone who by now has not realized that Muslims, by reason of their deafening silence alone, have given carte blanche to the fanatics in their midst, is either completely out of touch with reality, or living on another planet (e.g., planet Hollywood, or planet Obama).

Muslims in Europe claim they are justified in rejecting Western society for a variety of reasons:
(1) oppression;
(2) poverty;
(3) the Iraq War (and now the "Libya War" will undoubtedly produce the same result in the end); and/or
(4) the institutionally "racist" culture of the West, which "forces" Muslims to accept the values of the countries they choose to imigrate to.

It is interesting to watch as Muslims seem to expect that those countries should be forced to abandon their own traditions and adopt Muslim values instead. Multiculturalism, of course, is on their side in this bizarre sense of entitlement....which is exactly why all of a sudden we are seeing multiculturalism being rejected in Europe for the leftist scam it is (see here and here for further discussion of how the left has aided and abetted Islamic fanatics by making it easy for them to undermine western values and institutions--hell, the left sees them as an important ally in that regard).

So, let me say for the record that I utterly reject being labeled as "Islamophobic". Rather, I have a healthy, rational fear of a religion that aggressively seeks either my submission or death.

I have a healthy fear of a religion that regularly inspires the decapitation of babies and hides behind children so they they can kill with impunity.

And, of course, I have a very healthy respect for people like Melanie Phillips and Mark Steyn (who can testify to the PC insanity as it is practiced by our neighbors to the north). Phillips' blogpost accurately highlights not only the barbarism and moral depravity of the heinous murders and their celebration by members of the "peaceful" religion in by Gaza residents; she also clearly denounces the timidity of the media in their reporting of the incident so as to downplay the Islamist depravity and emphasize the notion of how Israeli settler's "deserved" it.

In other words, Phillips captured the moral depravity of not only the Islamic terrorists who think murdering babies and children in their sleep is justified; she also captures the moral depravity of the left's apologists for their behavior.

Melanie Phillips is being persecuted for speaking truth.

The word "Islamophobia" is bandied around as if it were somehow a complementary concept for Muslims, similar to what "antisemitism" is for Jews.

This is objectively not the case.

There has been no wholesale exploitation or abuse of Muslims anywhere in the world--except by other Muslims (Saddam and the Taliban come to mind; as well as all the other oppressive regimes in the Middle East). There has been no genocide of Muslims--except by other Muslims (consider Darfur; consider what Al Qaeda did to Iraqi civilians; what the Taliban is now doing in Pakistan; what Shia are doing to Sunni and vice versa). There have been no systematic outrages perpetrated on the people of Islam--except by other people of Islam. Palestinians suffer (and have suffered) more at the hands of their "sympathetic" Muslim brothers in other countries of the Middle East--none of whom can be bothered to allow them to live in their own countries except in "camps" (several generations of Palestinians have now lived in sordid and primitive conditions in Lebanon and elsewhere because of the "generosity" and "support" of their Muslim brothers).

And further, if you are someone who believes Israel has oppressed the Palestinians; consider just for a moment the fact that the poor Palestinians would much rather kill Jews and each other than work to better their own lot in life--even after they have been finally given their own territory (see here also)

Let me be clear that I am not saying that real Islamophobic behavior cannot be the result of projection or paranoia on the part of some individuals or groups. For it is the case that ANY CONVENIENT GROUP MAY BE USED TO PROJECT ONE'S OWN UNACCEPTABLE FEELINGS ONTO. Historically, the Jews have been the recipients of such pathology fairly frequently; but they are hardly the only group that has had to deal with it.

The leaders of Islam, however, seem to be suffering from a case of "victim envy"; for all intents and purposes desirous of acquiring the label of victim even as they go around victimizing the rest of the world with their suicidal rage; and even as they plan the final solution for the demonized Jewish population.

Objectively, there is just no case at all to support the idea that other groups are systematically or institutionally "projecting" their own unacceptable feelings or acting out toward the muslim population at large; nor are the scant number of individual cases of prejudice very compelling either; despite the unbelievable rhetorical flourishes of the left and other Islamic radical apologists. On the contrary, there is much evidence to suggest that the world is trying its best (perhaps trying too hard) to be decent and give as much leeway to muslim anger as is possible; and is even bending over backwards to make sure muslims understand that they are being treated equally, or even more equally in some cases, with all other religions and groups.

When "Islamophobia" is used as a bludgeon to accuse and attack anyone who makes the mildest criticism of Islam--no matter how well-meaning that criticism may be--the attack becomes yet another psychological projection by Muslims that deflects their own sense of shame, humiliation and inferiority and helps them to believe that such feelings would go away if only they got some respect.

Unfortunately for them, their historical shame and humiliation; as well as their medieval cultural and religious backwardness must be confronted and their behavior must change before they can be an effective part of the modern world. If it were not for the fact that oil happens to be found in that part of the world, I seriously doubt that Islam or Arab culture would have any impact on the world today; and the rest of the world could comfortably watch as their culture continued on its rush toward primitivism and obsolescence.

In the end, both antisemitism and the accusations of Islamophobia are parallel symptoms of a single disease that is running rampant in Islamic countries and among those raised in a religion that thrives on hatred and violence, but somehow manages to believe in its heart that it is loving and peaceful and following the will of God.

As Phillips astutely observes, this is "twisted and sick" and no amount of PC sunshine can change that fact.

PENIS ENVY !

2011-03-20T15:51:00.001-04:00

GET SOME HERE !

(h/t Hot Air)

SUICIDE IS PAINLESS

2011-03-19T06:45:00.000-04:00

In "The Put-off, Postpone, and Procrastinate Generation" Victor Davis Hanson says that the "therapeutic generation of Americans loves to talk and worry about problems and then assumes that either someone else will solve them or they will go away on their own...."

But the problem with our Federal debt is that it will not disappear over time; in fact, it can only get worse.

The United States needs some Harry Truman-like plain speaking, instead of each administration putting off a national reckoning onto the next. Don't drill for oil and grow food — and the price for both goes up. Spend what you don't have, and later you will have to pay even more back. The generation that ran up the debt and was largely responsible for the Social Security crisis has a responsibility to make things right on its watch.

Such blunt talk is considered political suicide for candidates; in fact, anything less for the rest of us is national suicide.

The dilemma described above is an insoluble one for a politician whose only goal is re-election. Doing what's right in that case runs second to doing what's necessary to keep his job.

And the reality is that the public often wants to have its cake and eat it too--which is why polls are often so contradictory (and meaningless). With a rare amount of consistency, it seems that Americans really really want the debt to be decreased; but they also want taxes to be cut AND they refuse to part with their entitlements and pet projects.

Inconsistent? Certainly. But very human.

The question is why should they behave any differently? For decades, politicians of both parties have promised them the Moon, never telling them the potential cost in the long run. They have been led to believe that they can get "something for nothing" if only they elect candidate X. And, if they can't ignore reality and get something for nothing, it is because of the evil, money-grubbing capitalists whose only goal is to suck them dry.

Who hasn't heard a politician these days, especially from the Democratic Party, insist that the only real fiscal problem is that all those millionaires and billionaires and the rest of those "rich" people need to pay more to society?

The solution is always to "Tax the Rich!" and all will be well again.

But as Kevin Williamson argues, the only problem with that is there just aren't enough rich people to go around:

There are lots of liberal definitions of “rich.” When Pres. Barack Obama talks about the rich, he’s talking about people living in households with income of more than $250,000 or more, the rarefied caviar-shoveling stratum occupied by the likes of second-tier public-broadcasting executives, Boston cops, nurses, and the city manager of Lubbock, Texas (assuming somebody in her household earns the last $25,000 to carry her over the line). Club 250K isn’t all that exclusive, and most of its members aren’t the yachts-and-expensive-mistresses types.

Nonetheless, there aren’t that many of them. In fact, in 2006, the Census Bureau found only 2.2 million households earning more than $250,000. And most of those are closer to the Lubbock city manager than to Carlos Slim, income-wise. To jump from the 50th to the 51st percentile isn’t that tough; jumping from the 96th to the 97th takes a lot of schmundo. It’s lonely at the top.

But say we wanted to balance the budget by jacking up taxes on Club 250K. That’s a problem: The 2012 deficit is forecast to hit $1.1 trillion under Obama’s budget. (Thanks, Mr. President!) Spread that deficit over all the households in Club 250K and you have to jack up their taxes by an average of $500,000. Which you simply can’t do, since a lot of them don’t have $500,000 in income to seize: Most of them are making $250,000 to $450,000 and paying about half in taxes already. You can squeeze that goose all day, but that’s not going to make it push out a golden egg.

But it's the "golden egg" mentality that is driving the liberal mantra. Since liberals don't really understand where wealth comes from, you can watch them getting angrier and angrier when they are presented with facts like the one above. The only economic policy they know is to squeeze that goose. They have never considered that at some point the goose will be completely empty of eggs--and if you keep squeezing, it will certainly expire.

Margaret Thatcher, who was talking about the economic problems in her country in 1976and attributing it to the Labour Party policies, said:

I think they've made the biggest financial mess that any government's made in this country for a very long time, and Socialist governments do traditionally make a financial mess. They always run out of other people's money.

Thatcher understood, too, that when Labour/Democrats/Liberals/Progressives/Marxists finally do run out of other people's money, they always fall back on the tried and true rationalization that it is simply MORE government spending; MORE taxing the rich; MORE central planning, and MORE control of people's everyday lives that's needed.

They NEVER imagine that the goose will stop laying the golden eggs for them to spen;, nor do they ever imagine that they will ever have to stop living life as a fairy tale and face reality.

Their primary concern is to maintain their power and control over others; and to that end, the political left have discovered that by ramping up the traditional Marxist "class warfare" rhetoric, they can deflect anger that might otherwise be directed towards their profligacy onto the usual convenient scapegoats.

We see the effectiveness of this tactic by merely perusing the posters carried by the Wisconsin union protesters; and also by listening to their leaders blame those who dare to be supportive of fiscal responsibility. The distortion and denial are incredible.

But, as they force, step by excruciating step, their states and finally the country off that fiscal cliff, they won't fully appreciate the suicidal path they are on until that final moment when their fall is broken by hitting the hard, unyielding surface of reality.

Plain speaking may indeed be political suicide; it's much easier to promise everyone what they want instead of showing real leadership and going against the polls; against the protests; and doing what is consistent with reality.

WHEN "SCIENCE" IS USED IN THE SERVICE OF DOGMA

2011-03-16T20:39:00.002-04:00

...then scientific shenanigans like the Berkeley Professor in the video below describes happen with surprising regularity. Listen to the 4 min clip, then watch the entire lecture for a real eye-opening experience:
(h/t The Corner)

Back in 2005 I wrote a piece titled "Scientific Progress Goes Boink" (a title from oone of the Calvin and Hobbes cartoon collections) in which an Islamic "scientist" explains how it had been "proven" (by Neil Armstrong, no less)that Mecca was the center of a unique and infinite radiation emanating from the earth. This "fact" (and several other astonishing "facts") make it clear that Mecca is special and important Allah be praised! Q.E.D.

Check it out and you will see that the whole discussion demonstrates a modus operandi not much different from that of the environmental "scientists". Gaia be praised!

That frequently happens when science is confused with, or used in the service of, dogma.

TWO BABIES

2011-03-15T15:44:00.004-04:00

Two babies were in the news this past week. One's survival was dubbed a "miracle" because she lived through the horrific tsunami when so many others died:

The four-month-old girl had been swept from her parents’ arms in the shattered village of Ishinomaki when the deadly wave crashed into the family home.

For three days, the child’s frantic family had believed she was lost to them for ever.

But yesterday, for a brief moment, the horrors of the disaster were brightened by one helpless baby’s story of survival.
Soldiers from the Japanese Defence Force had been going from door to door pulling bodies from the devastated homes in Ishinomaki, a coastal town northeast of Sendai.

Most of the victims were elderly, unable to escape the destructive black tide.

But for this precious moment, at least, it was only the child who mattered to the team of civil defence troops who found her.

The other baby...well read for yourself:

A terrorist infiltrated the West Bank settlement of Itamar, southeast of Nablus, early Saturday and stabbed five family members to death....

Paramedic Kabaha Muayua was among the first responders at the site and described the horrific scene he encountered.

“We could not help the first four stab victims. Following an inspection of the scene I spotted an infant of about three who still had a pulse. We engaged in lengthy resuscitation efforts but had to pronounce him dead,” he said. “The murder scene was shocking. Kids’ toys right next to pools of blood.”

Dennis Praeger writes about the second baby and his family:

The human being does not have to learn to hate. It seems to come pretty naturally. Nor does the human being have to learn to murder, steal, or rape. These, too, seem to be in the natural human repertoire of evils.

But the human being does have to learn to hate children and babies, and to regard the torture and murder of them as morally desirable acts. It takes years of work to undo normal protective human attitudes toward children.

That is precisely what the Nazis did and what significant parts of the Muslim world have done to the word “Jew.” To them, the Jew is not just sub-human, the Jew — and his or her children — is sub-animal.

Two babies; two precious miracles of life, separated by nation, culture, language and fate.

One survived the horrors and impassive devastation of Nature unscathed, and was reunited with family as an entire country celebrated life. The other did not survive the malignant evil of men, who were impassioned by hate and spurred by a dysfunctional religion; as an entire country celebrated death.

MORE BURKA BARBIE--COSMO EDITION!

2011-03-15T08:14:00.000-04:00

From The Mail we learn that Al Qaeda has launched a new women's magazine that combines beauty and fashion with tips on suicide bombing. Isn't that simply fabulous!

Dubbed 'Jihad Cosmo', the glossy magazine's front cover features the barrel of a sub-machine gun next to a picture a woman in a veil.

There are exclusive interviews with martyrs' wives, who praise their husbands' decisions to die in suicide attacks.

The slick, 31-page Al-Shamikha magazine - meaning The Majestic Woman - has advice for singletons on 'marrying a mujahideen'.

Readers are told it is their duty to raise children to be mujahideen ready for jihad.

And the 'beauty column' instructs women to stay indoors with their faces covered to keep a 'clear complexion'.

Al Qaeda is making great strides toward winning the future; and with this effort has catapulted itself into the 14th century at least!

Sometime back I wrote a piece about a new special edition Barbie doll that had come out, which made the toy even more mindless and sexualized (who knew that was even possible?) Burka Barbie had the distinction of being the absolute ultimate sex toy, in that it's very existence completely degrades womanhood in a way even Bimbo Barbie never could.

Now our Burka Barbie has a glossy magazine with helpful tips and hints to make her an even more invisible and unthreatening object to the pathetic males of the "mujahideen" (I think the literal tranlation of "mujahideen" must be "little big dick").

Welcome, to the wonderful world of Islamic Sharia!

Remember this news article about a young girl in Iran who was accused of "crimes against chastity" and executed? This is one of the many career options in store for the Burka Barbies under the vicious misogyny of Islam. Just imagine how many girls we don't read about or hear about, who suffer the same fate as that 16 year old in Iran? Or, yet another career path is the glorious, but sadly brief, career as a female suicide bomber.

You have to admit that for a woman living under Al Qaeda rule, dying could well be considered a reasonable alternative to the misery.

Back in 1997, a group called Aqua came out with a catchy little tune that I found amusing. The song was called "Barbie Girl" and it lampooned the mindless Barbie bimbos who seem to have no real existence or sense of self without a male in their life. Of course, if the Barbie doll lives in a free society, she can choose to function on the bimbo level; or she can choose to break free of the Barbie stereotype (like Elle Woods in the movie Legally Blonde).

Well, now we can imagine Burka Barbie Girl in an Islam World; reading the PC Al Qaeda version of Cosmopolitan, where the only way to "break free" is through death.

BARBIE AND KHALID IN AN ISLAM WORLD
[- Hi Barbie!
- Hi Khalid!
- You shouldn't be talking to me, you know?
- I know, Khalid!
- Now you will have to die because you have deliberately aroused me and shamed your family.
- Ha ha ha ha! ]

I'm a Muslim girl in an Islam world
Life in hijab, simply so fab!
You can't see my hair, you don't even know I'm there
You must be caped, or you'll be raped

Just a glimpse of skin, drives our men to sin
They're afraid, you see, of my sexuality

I'm a Muslim girl in an Islam world
Life in hijab, simply so fab!
You can't see my hair, you don't even know I'm there
You must be caped, or you'll be raped

I'm a veiled ghostly girl in a fantasy world
Made by men who are frightened by my sex.
I'm a drudge, with no grudge, cause my feelings don't count
I can't work, I can't drive, I can't even go out.

You can hide me away
Cause it makes you feel so manly
You can beat me at night
So your honor works out just right

I'm a Muslim girl in an Islam world
Life in hijab, simply so fab!
You can't see my hair, you don't even know I'm there
You must be caped, or you'll be raped

Let's be honest, why be modest? ha ha ha, yeah
If I get hit, I provoked it-- oooh, oooh, ooh
Let's be honest, why be modest? ha ha ha, yeah
If you feel shame, I am to blame-- oooh, oooh, oooh

Make me hide, make me pray, do whatever you please
I am worth half a man, that's what Allah decrees
All I do is bring shame; I am always to blame
If a man goes insane with desire

You can hide me away
Cause it makes you feel so manly
You can beat me at night
So your honor works out just right

I'm a Muslim girl in an Islam world
Life in hijab, simply so fab!
You can't see my hair, you don't even know I'm there
You must be caped, or you'll be raped

Let's be honest, why be modest? ha ha ha, yeah
Men are leaders, girls are breeders-- oooh, oooh, ooh
Let's be honest, why be modest? ha ha ha, yeah
If you feel shame, I am to blame-- oooh, oooh, oooh

[- Oh, Khalid, I'm having so much fun!
- Well, Barbie, you're alone with me and that makes you an evil temptress.
- Oh, please, can I be a suicide bomber?]

TWO HELLS IN TWO DIFFERENT HANDBASKETS

2011-03-14T06:38:00.001-04:00

I don't consider myself a "doom and gloom" sort of person; in fact, I tend to be irrationally exuberant at times. But there are two items that caught my attention recently that scare the hell out of me.

The first is this series of slides from Paul Ryan regarding the two futures which this country faces economically.Right now, Ryan, the Chair of the Budget Committee sees us facing three different challenges: a jobs deficit; a budget deficit; and a leadership deficit.

This slide shows our indebtedness to foreign powers and how that has grown:

And the two futures that Ryan is talking about can be seen clearly in these two graphs:
(1) If we curb our spending versus if we don't

(2) If we get our debt under control versus if we don't

Go look at all the slides; and, as the Democrats like to say when they want to showcase how caring and compassionate they are compared to those evil Republicans who are pushing for fiscal restraint: "Think of the children...."

Here is Ryan explaining the debt situation:

For the next hell, we turn to one of the key countries in Bush's Axis of Evil. Let's see what they are up to these days:

North Korea is developing a bomb that emits an electromagnetic field upon explosion and damages nearby electronic devices, a South Korean military source has revealed to the JoongAng Ilbo.

The source said North Korea has been working on the electromagnetic pulse bomb, or EMP bomb, since the mid-1990s, with help from Russian scientists, adding that the weapon may be near completion.

The EMP bomb produces a short but strong electromagnetic pulse that, if exploded 40 kilometers (25 miles) above ground, would affect equipment within a 700-kilometer radius, including exposed electrical conductors, such as wires.

According to Australia-based defense analyst Carlo Kopp and his paper at the GlobalSecurity.org Web site, the EMP effect can cause irreversible damage to electrical and electronic devices, such as computers, radio and radar. He noted that EMP devices can render many modern military platforms useless because they are packed with electronic equipment.

What does this capability mean?

Detonating an NEMP high above North America would devastate not only power and communications but the economy (obliterating internet-based financial transactions and electronically stored financial data), transportation (disrupting electronic monitoring and control of everything from traffic signals to freight-train switching to commercial air traffic control), and even our military, much of which relies heavily on GPS navigation and site determination — though United States forces do still train extensively in low-tech navitation and warfare. The electromagnetic pulse would wash across the entire continental United States, plus the southern part of Canada and northern Mexico, like a tidal wave of voltage-lava, melting all the circuits in its path unless specially shielded.
Such a strike would be utterly devastating, resulting in trillions of dollars in damages… and tens or hundreds of thousands of deaths, both direct (from crashes) and indirect, from loss of medical records, the inability of emergency services to respond to life-or-death situations, utility and power shutdowns, and economic dislocation. Recovery would likely take decades. And there is absolutely nothing we can do at this time to prevent or even mitigate it; shielding every electrical circuit in the U.S. heavily enough to resist an NEMP would dwarf the cost of all natural disasters and terrorist attacks of the last century combined.

Can you imagine how the current leadership in the White House will respond to this potential threat? No, I can't either. In fact, it's pretty clear that our Dear Leader (the one in the US) will do pretty much what he has done for every national security crisis (or national budgetary crisis, for that matter): either do nothing; or do the worse possible thing for America's national interest in the matter.

I fear we live in very interesting times; and they just keep gettng more and more interesting.

WHERE'S MY GOVERNMENT GRANT, DUDE ?

2011-03-12T10:15:00.002-05:00

Harry Reid clearly states his fiscal priorities:

I thought I'd try it....

HOME AGAIN(with all due respect to La Verna Johnson, cowboy poet)

We hear calls of legislators' lowing, voices carried on you tube,
As they wander far from their state, avoiding tough choices.
Others stop to smell the sage, but Walker signs the golden law,
Does it feel good to be back home again?

So, where's my government grant, dude?

[Political cartoons by Chip Bok]

HOW ABOUT A LITTLE REALITY ?

2011-03-09T12:14:00.001-05:00

In "Delusions of the Politically Correct", Ruth Marcus at the Washington Post gets it right:

To ignore the religious nature of the terrorist threat is to succumb to politically correct delusion. To ignore the homegrown religious nature of the terrorist threat is to succumb even further.

She is speaking, of course, about all the recent outrage and vitriol emanating from the political left and directed at Peter King (R, NY), the Chairman of the Homeland Security Committee, because he dares to have hearings in Congress about radicalization in the Muslim community:

To listen to King's critics, you would think he was urging modern-day internment camps for Muslim Americans. In a letter to King Monday, more than 50 progressive groups slammed him for "singling out a particular community for examination in what appears to be little more than a political show-trial."

She calls this attitude a "parody" of political correctness. I just would call it plain old simple and stupid political correctness in all its glorious idiocy.

In contrast to this idiocy and delusion, how about a little reality?

Or, give yourself a real politically incorrect treat and listen to this gentleman:

THE INTERNAL LANDSCAPE OF THE SOUL

2011-03-08T08:35:00.000-05:00

Wretchard has a fascinating look at some of the sad history of public housing and tosses this interesting intellectual tidbit at the end (read it all):

.... Yet if public housing projects are a solution to anything, the evidence is far from encouraging. Too many of them are sinkholes of human misery. In part, the problem lies in that planners and bureaucrats see housing, not as the consequence of lifestyle, but a cause of it. The slums they so heartily disapprove of are often better suited to the survival of their residents. Slums are often the way they are because they evolved according to definite environmental pressures. The horrible characteristics of a slum are in many cases, a feature, not a bug. Yet none of that will dampen the appetite for public dream-house....

The architectural terrain is a mere reflection of human terrain. Buildings are an expression of the economic, social and cultural conditions of the human beings they enclose. They are like the Picture of Dorian Gray, they show the soul within the man. The place to start isn’t by giving a man a house; it is by giving him an opportunity.

But most governments are convinced that the soul can be altered by a change of clothes. After all, politicians do it all the time. And public housing is popular with the construction industry and only costs the taxpayers a few dollars more.

In Theses on Feuerbach, Karl Marx wrote, ". . . the human essence is no abstraction inherent in each single individual. In its reality it is the ensemble of social relations." By changing the "ensemble of social relations", Marx believed that you can change "the human essence."

He was incorrect.

In fact, he was incorrect in exactly the same way that the social engineers of today are incorrect--whether they are developing grandiose plans to save the environment from humans, or building the next housing project for the poor.

The internal landscape of the soul of any human being at any moment in time will be externalized and reflected in that human's behavior; or, how he presents himself to the world. Character and one's state of mind will find expression in the environment the human creates around himself and in which he chooses to live. It can also be found by examining those with whom he chooses to associate.

Observing the state of a person's home can provide valuable information on the internal state of that person. One of the techniques I learned in psychiatry, called "guided imagery", was to have a person close his eyes and imagine walking along a road until he comes to a house. He then is asked to describe the house outside and in. The idea being that he will describe a house that is a replica of his internal state of being.

Real personal pride (not the narcississtic cockiness or desperate faux superiority or bravado that is so commonly seen these days), will translate into an environment that expresses that pride. Conflicts in one's life find expression in one's possessions; or the state of one's room or home.

Pride of ownership and self-actualization cannot be bestowed on any individual or group, they must earn that pride with their own actions and behavior. When they achieve that sense internally, then the environment and landscape around them will reflect it.

Poverty does not have to translate chaos, crime, or ugliness--but sadly, it often does because those realities lurk inside the soul of many poor persons. They are nurtured within a culture of victimhood--a culture in which they are taught early that there are only two options in life: being a victim, or victimizing others.

Handouts and programs that are created with the "best" of intentions, including all those wonderful public housing programs for the poor--fail to take all this into account. All those do-gooders with the grandiose plans for the poor probably don't deliberately intend to make people feel like losers; but that is what is reinforced by all those government programs. Those who break out of the victimhood mentality do so because they grabbed the opportunities to make something of themselves and did not sit around waiting for the do-gooders to pat them on the head paternalistically so that the do-gooders could feel good about themselves.

I am not opposed to charity; nor am I opposed to helping those in need. What I am opposed to is the perpetual victimhood scam that is perpetrated on poor people by the ideology of the political left; an ideology that is guided by Marxism instead of the realities of human nature.

As Wretchard says, instead of giving a person a house, you need to give them an opportunity. The former will only reinforce the victim/victimizer dialectic; the latter may actually help them to change within.

The landscape of the outer environment will then quite naturally alter to reflect the inner change.

MICHAEL MOORE VS REALITY

2011-03-07T15:32:00.001-05:00

and the Winner is....

[From Reason TV via Veronique de Rugy at The Corner]

YOU DA MAN !

2011-03-06T16:57:00.000-05:00

Yet another reality not many want to face:

[Political cartoons by Chip Bok]