Ace has a bad feeling about the new Star Wars movie, The Revenge of the Sith, and George Lucas's attempt to inject some local issues into a galaxy far, far away.
I'm not too hopeful that I'll like it, but I'm seeing the movie anyway this Friday with the Boo. To me it has always been a story about good and evil, and I'll decide--thank you very much, Mr. Lucas--what is the good and what is the evil.
The entire prequel trilogy has some serious flaws as far as I'm concerned--not the least of which from my perspective is that I couldn't care less about Anakin Skywalker and his descent into evil.
Now I read that Lucas is possibly thinking that this movie WON'T be the last one. This only supports the idea that real evil will persist long beyond its time.
But, maybe Lucas can collaborate with Michael Moore on the next one. I understand that Moore has some experience in doing fantasy.
UPDATE: The Vodkapundit has some simple requirements for Revenge of the Sith: just don't suck.
Monday, May 16, 2005
FLUSH
(From Cox and Forkum)
And while we are flushing, isn't it time to also eliminate the phrase "religion of peace" in connection with Islam?
Sunday, May 15, 2005
"There is Nothing in This Religion But Stupidity and Ignorance"
This is a letter from an Iranian cleric that Michael Ledeen posted on The Corner:
Fascinating, if true. I wonder how many people forced by the oppressive regimes of the Middle East to believe in Islam and who--despite everything, still retain a capacity for independent thought--have thoughts like this?
If this letter by the shiite cleric Hadi Ma'ssumi published on the iran-chabar site is true then this is just mega explosive: http://www.iran-chabar.de/1384/02/20/masoomi840220.htm
The letter to Rafsanjani is written by a Karaj based cleric. He says in the letter that he is ill and near death, so presumably that is what has given him the extra ordinary courage needed to write this letter.
If this letter was from an exiled opposition, it would not have been so controversial but to read this sort of thing from a Shiite cleric is truly remarkable.
In the letter, the cleric Hadi Ma'ssumi starts from the beginning of Islam in Iran. How the religion was forced upon Iranians, how the invading Arabs raped the Iranian women, massacred the population, looted our wealth, tried to run the windmills with the blood of Iranians and how they burned all our books and destroyed so much of our knowledge.
He then starts scrutinising 26 years of Rafsanjani's unrelentless power. He reminds Rafsanjani of what went on in Iran's political prisons in the 80s. How young virgin girls were raped before their executions using Koranic justifications - virgin girls go to heaven no matter what, so young female political activists were raped to ensure they didn't go to heaven - how thousands suffered torture and the massacre of Iranian political prisoners in 1988.
The many extra-judicial killings of Iranian dissidents both inside Iran and outside Iran. "Ayatollah Rafsnajani, you know how murder, kidnapping and torture has become synonymous with your name" Ma'assumi writes in his letter.
Hadi Ma'ssumi asks about Rafsanjani's close relationship with the likes of Saeed Emami, responsible for murder of dissidents inside Iran and Vahid Gorji who is responsible for many assassinations of Iranian exiles outside Iran.
Ma'ssumi recalls how Rafsanjani unnecassarily prolonged the war with Iraq, casuing the death and injuries to millions and how he himself hugely profitted from the war instead.
Ma'ssumi asks Rafsanjani to comment on the imprisonment of many of Iran's dissidents today. What he thinks of stoning, public flogging, cutting limbs and forcing women to wear the veil.
He asks Rafsanjani why women in Iran are forced to wear the veil in summer heat and yet Rafsanjani's daughter Faezeh dresses up in skimpy clothing when she travels through European cities of Paris, London and Geneva.
Even perhaps all this is not that controversial, there are after all many Iranian clerics who oppose the Islamic Republic and the rule of mullahs. But just read this below. This is an exact translation of one paragraph of an elderly Shiite cleric's statement on his death bed:
"You know like I do what lies behind this religion (Islam), after all this crime carried out against Iranians. lets do one good thing and tell the people what is behind this religion. Lets tell everyonel that this religion is neither "martyr generating", nor pro-science nor pro the people, this religion tells the elite that it is for the plebs and it tells the plebs that it is for the elite, it tells the elite that all its silly laws are for the stupid plebs, in fact this religion is "ignorance generator". It has come about to humiliate people. As you (Rafsanjani) once told me, it is one religion for the elite and another for the plebs. You rightly regard yourself, the supreme leader and your Guardian Council as the elite, and the "martyr generating" nation of Iran are the plebs. Now for the sake of God tell the truth to the people that there is nothing in this religion but stupidity and ignorance, other than silly laws about what is considered clean and what is untouchable, what is allowed and what is not allowed, believe me that God and the people will then forgive you, although I know you are conscious enough NOT to believe in God!"
Fascinating, if true. I wonder how many people forced by the oppressive regimes of the Middle East to believe in Islam and who--despite everything, still retain a capacity for independent thought--have thoughts like this?
The Fundamentalism Difference
New Sisyphus give an example of the fundamentalism difference:
Read the whole thing. I agree, there is definitely a fundamental difference between a religion that encourages Life, and one that exalts Death.
James Dargie (32), a 1995 geography graduate now working as a marine data manager with the Countryside Council for Wales, told how passengers "screamed with terror" when a man of Muslim origin started shouting "Allah Achbar" or "God is Great" as their plane taxied for take-off at Larnaca Airport in Cyprus yesterday afternoon.
Mr Dargie, who had boarded London-bound BA flight 663 with his wife Mona and young son Tomos just minutes earlier, told how a "wave of panic" spread among passengers as the chanting began.
Had a man of Western origin started shouting "Jesus Saves" and "God is Love," the passengers reaction would have been exactly the same. If you don't believe this, you are an insensitive racist. (Emphases from the New Sisyphus post)
Read the whole thing. I agree, there is definitely a fundamental difference between a religion that encourages Life, and one that exalts Death.
Why I Read Blogs
This is exactly the reason why I read blogs now instead of newspapers: Bill Roggio comments on an analysis by Wretchard about Operation Matador:
I am by no means an expert on military operations, but because of my experiences as a flight surgeon I have had to work closely with various services and commands. When the war in Afghanistan first began, it became clear to me that I knew much more than almost all the journalists I was reading or listening to; and I began to get very frustrated because of all the contradictory things they were saying. Some of the confusion may have been from the "fog of war", but most it seemed to me to be due to a complete misunderstanding about what the military does and how they do it.
For example, it was clear from the beginning of the Iraq war that the second front that was planned to come down from Turkey toward Baghdad, and which was blocked by the Turkish government, caused profound repercussions on the development of the war since it opened up an escape route for Saddams forces--consequences that we are still dealing with today. I am not a military tactitian, and I understood this. The question is why didn't the media? Soon, there were many bloggers with past military experiences discussing this; and there were also numerous military bloggers right there in the field reporting daily. Why waste any time on the newspapers?
If the journalists who cover the war would bother to learn something about how the military works and why they do things the way they do, the American public would be much better served by their reporting.
But then it's clear that many journalists consider the US Military the real "enemy."
Wretchard's conclusion is very insightful, but it is not based on rocket science. It is a very simple and sound conclusion reached with an understanding of military affairs and history, and careful culling of the available news accounts available to all journalists.
The media has a serious problem with covering military actions of this nature. There is a basic lack of understanding of military affairs within the journalistic community. This often leads to a misunderstanding of how operations are conducted and disjointed reporting of the battles.
The articles written from the embed accounts only give a small portion of the overall picture. These first hand accounts are very important, but they are single trees within the forest. There is no effort made by the editors and producers of the print and television media to draw together the disparate reports and attempt to gain a larger understanding of the scale, pace, tempo and importance of the operation.
During Matador, Wretchard, Chester, Donald Sensing, Joe Katzman, a host of other bloggers and I attempted to do exactly what the media cannot - provide a comprehensive briefing based on sound logic and experience. No doubt some of the information and conclusions presented in the various maps and analyses are inaccurate as we were dealing with incomplete information. However it is highly likely our conclusions are more accurate and complete than those presented by the traditional media. Our conclusions were based on an understanding of military history, basic tactics and strategy, map reading skills, the careful observation of the situation in Iraq over a long period of time, and in some cases prior military service. I strongly believe this gives us an advantage the traditional media sorely lacks when covering events such as Fallujah and Matador.
I am by no means an expert on military operations, but because of my experiences as a flight surgeon I have had to work closely with various services and commands. When the war in Afghanistan first began, it became clear to me that I knew much more than almost all the journalists I was reading or listening to; and I began to get very frustrated because of all the contradictory things they were saying. Some of the confusion may have been from the "fog of war", but most it seemed to me to be due to a complete misunderstanding about what the military does and how they do it.
For example, it was clear from the beginning of the Iraq war that the second front that was planned to come down from Turkey toward Baghdad, and which was blocked by the Turkish government, caused profound repercussions on the development of the war since it opened up an escape route for Saddams forces--consequences that we are still dealing with today. I am not a military tactitian, and I understood this. The question is why didn't the media? Soon, there were many bloggers with past military experiences discussing this; and there were also numerous military bloggers right there in the field reporting daily. Why waste any time on the newspapers?
If the journalists who cover the war would bother to learn something about how the military works and why they do things the way they do, the American public would be much better served by their reporting.
But then it's clear that many journalists consider the US Military the real "enemy."
Carnival of the Insanities
Time for the weekly insanity udate, where the insane, the bizarre, the ridiculous, and the completely absurd are highlighted for all to see! This has been a week of rare idiocy (as always!). Calling all bloggers! Be sure to send in your entries to the Carnival, which will be posted every Sunday. Entries need to be in by 8 pm on Saturday to make their way into the list that week.SO MANY INSANITIES! SO LITTLE TIME!
1. "Use the Force, Cuke!"
2. How lightsabers work. Cool. I didn't know they were real...
3. Hands-on training takes on a whole new meaning.
4. Yes, this is a real place. I wouldn't want to go there, though.
5. Just when you thought it was safe to be fat!
6. Restraint? In the Media? Yeah. Right.
7. Did you know there were economic reasons why people don't have more sex?
8. And speaking of sex.
9. Who's on First--updated for the computer generation.
10. Protesting the use of untested nano-fibers by using unclothed nano-idiots. (Have you noticed there's a lot of sex in this week's Carnival??? Must be one of those weeks.)
11. And moving right along....Did you know that this part of the anatomy apparently does not have free speech!
12. Bendable concrete. And the point of this is...?
13. Magical thinking, unfortunately.
14. ARGGGGG....Cuteness Alert! BEWARE!
15. Alas, another progressive hero is about to bite the dust.
16. This article seems "blissfully unaware" of its snarkiness. But that's what I'd expect from Dana Milbank.
17. "It is an honour for a lady to undergo the practice of FGM." Oh, yeah? I'd like to see how honored you'd feel, mister....
18. Meanwhile, doesn't this seem a bit over the top to you? Especially considering #17 and #19.
19. Let's see...they're upset about the idea of flushing a Qu'ran down a toilet, but it's OK to run this cartoon in the Arab News, with the caption "Next time...." I see.
20. Even more ridiculous reactions that seem (see #17 also) like something out of a Douglas Adams novel. Besides, some might say comparison to a dog is a compliment!
Saturday, May 14, 2005
Imagine That !
This photo of Yoko Ono addressing the UNmakes me wonder how seriously the UN actually takes the issue of Nuclear Weapons? (Note: this is a rhetorical question). If Yoko Ono is considered an expert on the Nucluear Nonproliferation Treaty, then I don't see why Mickey Mouse wasn't also invited to speak to the General Assembly. Or, better yet...I'll bet Michael Moore also has some useful ideas! Is this the best that the UN can do?
But then, what else would you expect from the scandal-ridden, morally bankrupt world body? All talk, no action. Enablers of the world's dictators. And so on, etc. etc. etc.
Taking a page from the Lennon-Ono files:
Imagine That! (sung to the tune of Lennon's "Imagine")
Imagine there's no Jihad
It's easy if you try
No more suicide bombers
Who plan for you to die
Imagine every nation
with all their people free...
Imagine no Osama,
It isn't hard to do,
And no Zarqawi
(He discovered he's a Jew!)
Imagine all those mullahs,
buried under ground...
Imagine Mr. Castro,
like many Cubans try,
locked inside his own jail,
It makes me want to cry
Just thinking of that image,
Sweet and just and true...
Imagine Kim Jong Il,
I wonder if you can,
Losing all his marbles,
in a nuclear weapon ban,
Imagine North Koreans
Finally having food...
You may say Im a dreamer,
But it's easy don't you see,
To imagine life in freedom
And the end to tyranny.
But then, what else would you expect from the scandal-ridden, morally bankrupt world body? All talk, no action. Enablers of the world's dictators. And so on, etc. etc. etc.
Taking a page from the Lennon-Ono files:
Imagine That! (sung to the tune of Lennon's "Imagine")
Imagine there's no Jihad
It's easy if you try
No more suicide bombers
Who plan for you to die
Imagine every nation
with all their people free...
Imagine no Osama,
It isn't hard to do,
And no Zarqawi
(He discovered he's a Jew!)
Imagine all those mullahs,
buried under ground...
Imagine Mr. Castro,
like many Cubans try,
locked inside his own jail,
It makes me want to cry
Just thinking of that image,
Sweet and just and true...
Imagine Kim Jong Il,
I wonder if you can,
Losing all his marbles,
in a nuclear weapon ban,
Imagine North Koreans
Finally having food...
You may say Im a dreamer,
But it's easy don't you see,
To imagine life in freedom
And the end to tyranny.
The Refuge of the Incompetent
Here's a proposal I could get behind: (read it all!)
Let's put the universities that supposedly teach our children how to think back into the marketplace of ideas. The professors should have to continuously earn the trust of not only their peers, but their customers.
Instead of protecting academic freedom, tenure has become the refuge of the incompetent. It's time to change.
No equivalent for chief executive officers or for dishwashers exists. Politicians, lawyers and others who take unpopular stands also lack guaranteed jobs. Doctors do not enjoy them. They can lose their posts, despite 30 years of reputable work, because of a single missed diagnosis.
Professors, however, after an initial probationary period of six years, win the equivalent of lifelong employment from their peers. Why does this strange practice linger on?
The standard rationale is that the stuff of higher education is unfettered inquiry. Only by enjoying shelter from the storm of politics can professors be bold enough to take up the tough task of challenging young minds to question orthodoxy. McCarthyism is evoked as the only bleak alternative to tenure. Once untenured professors find themselves on the wrong side of popular majority opinions, politicized firings will supposedly follow.
Why then does uniformity of belief characterize the current tenured faculty? Contemporary universities are among the most homogeneous of all American institutions, at least in attitudes toward controversial issues of race, gender, class and culture.
Faculty senate votes aren't just at odds with American popular opinion; they often resemble more the 90 percent majorities that we see in illiberal Third World stacked plebiscites.
Sometime in the 1960s, many faculties felt the proper role of the university was to gravitate away from the Socratic method of disinterested inquiry, and instead to press for a preordained and "correct" worldview. Since America was supposedly guilty of being oppressive to those not white, conservative, male, capitalist, Christian and heterosexual, the university offered a rare counterpoint.
Tenure became part of protecting this strange culture in which the ends justified the means: Bias in the classroom was passed off as "balance" to an inherently prejudiced society. Academia came to resemble the medieval church that likewise believed its archaic protocols were free from review, given its vaunted mission of saving souls.
Let's put the universities that supposedly teach our children how to think back into the marketplace of ideas. The professors should have to continuously earn the trust of not only their peers, but their customers.
Instead of protecting academic freedom, tenure has become the refuge of the incompetent. It's time to change.
How Paranoia and Denial Kill
This article from Strategy Page demonstrates how DENIAL and PARANOIA have led to the deaths of many: (hat tip: Instapundit)
As I mentioned in an earlier post about psychological defenses, the capacity of individuals and groups for self-deception is extreme when they feel threatened by reality. It is expecially difficualt for groups to develop the kind of insight and awareness necessary to counteract such insanity; particularly when the institutional or religious heirarchy of the group prohibit the questioning of authority or any reasonable discussion of new or controversial ideas.
The excessive rage and murderous behaviors displayed adherents to Islam at the slightest questioning of their faith or their founder is evidence that the "self" or identity of Islam is based on a foundation that is psychologically impaired. Just as individuals with such defects and immature defenses are capable of self-annhilation as well as extensive mindless violence--so too are the members of groups with similar methods of coping.
Any religion based on denial and delusional projection is not capable of bringing peace to their own believers, let alone to the rest of the world.
It turns out there are there are Islamic “Weapons of Mass Destruction” after all. In particular, biological weapons. But these mass killers have been developed within Islamic nations, and are doing most of their damage there. The war on terror has taken many American doctors to Islamic nations, and they have discovered a heretofore hidden AIDS epidemic. This is not the first time this has happened. AIDS quietly entered India, and South East Asian nations, but was finally discovered, and received attention. But in most Islamic nations, AIDS is not supposed to happen, and the governments, religious leaders and general population will not even admit the disease is there. But it is, and in large numbers. While promiscuity and prostitution are common in Islamic nations, talking openly about it is not. As a result, AIDS has spread for years through the Middle East and other Islamic nations without much, if any, official or media attention. This is nothing new. Same thing happened in Africa, even in nations with few, if any, Moslems. Cultural traits made it difficult for many African nations to admit AIDS, and its favorite methods of transmission (drugs, homosexuality, promiscuity) existed. Now some African nations have a third or more of their adult population infected. Billions has been donated by Western nations to provide medical assistance to African nations that now admit they have a problem, but infrastructure and corruption problems are preventing many of the infected from getting any care. Same pattern is developing in the Islamic world. No official statistics yet, but the medical underground hints at high, and rising, infection rate. And little, if any, local willingness to recognize a problem exists.
But it’s not just AIDS. In Nigeria, faith based paranoia on the part of Islamic clergy, and politicians, caused a polio epidemic, which is now spreading to other Islamic nations. The UN has been trying for years to wipe out polio (which has been eliminated in most Western nations). In the last few years, UN medical resources were massing to wipe polio out in one of the last places where it still thrives; northern Nigeria. But some local Islamic clergy got the idea that these foreigners and their medicine (polio vaccine) were actually out to poison young Moslem females and make them sterile. Yeah, it’s nuts, but it went over big in northern Nigeria and stopped the polio eradication program cold. The Islamic clerics finally relented (after the UN brought in Islamic medical experts, and jumped through a lot of hoops), but by then it was too late. The polio was moving to areas where it had earlier been eliminated. Since you can track where a polio strain came from, it is now known that the “Nigerian strain” is responsible for outbreaks as far away as Indonesia. So far, there are only about 1,300 cases in Nigeria and elsewhere. Polio is not nearly as bad as AIDS. Many of those infected with polio never know they have it, but they can spread it. About one half of one percent of those who get it can end up paralyzed for life, usually in the legs. Polio mostly hits young children.
Many Islamic radicals continue to blame Western conspiracies for the polio outbreaks, which are hard to hide. AIDS, on the other hand, causes a breakdown in the immune system, and the actual cause of death is always something else (that makes you sicker, quicker, because your weakened immune system cannot deal with it.) But the Islamic radicals, when confronted with the AIDS outbreak in their midst, blame it on outsiders. This sort of things does not happen in an Islamic culture. (Emphases mine)
As I mentioned in an earlier post about psychological defenses, the capacity of individuals and groups for self-deception is extreme when they feel threatened by reality. It is expecially difficualt for groups to develop the kind of insight and awareness necessary to counteract such insanity; particularly when the institutional or religious heirarchy of the group prohibit the questioning of authority or any reasonable discussion of new or controversial ideas.
The excessive rage and murderous behaviors displayed adherents to Islam at the slightest questioning of their faith or their founder is evidence that the "self" or identity of Islam is based on a foundation that is psychologically impaired. Just as individuals with such defects and immature defenses are capable of self-annhilation as well as extensive mindless violence--so too are the members of groups with similar methods of coping.
Any religion based on denial and delusional projection is not capable of bringing peace to their own believers, let alone to the rest of the world.
Friday, May 13, 2005
The Council Has Spoken !
This week's winners in the Watcher's Council are now posted at the Watcher's site. Every week the Council nominates posts from the blogs of the Council members, and posts from around the blogsphere. The Council then votes to select the "Best" of all these posts.
BEST COUNCIL POSTS:
First Place
Bush: A Solitary Voice For Remembrance Right Wing Nut House
Second Place (two-way tie!)
Villains and Scoundrels Dr. Sanity
How Political Correctness Lowers IQ Gates of Vienna
BEST NON-COUNCIL POSTS
First Place
Jihad Begot the Crusades (1)The American Thinker
Second Place
Al Qaeda Tours and TravelAn American Expat in Southeast Asia
Be sure to check out all the winners at the Watcher of Weasels.
A Paradise for Bullies
John Podhoretz has some relevant observations about the Senate and the abusive process they have developed from "advise and consent."
I didn't know that little detail about Voinovich. Just yesterday I heard a democratic senator call him "one of the most decent people in the senate." Of course, they were trying to use him as an example of how extreme all the other republicans are.
I spent some time as a young doctor lobbying Congress [I was a national officer in an Intern and Resident Association that wanted to be able to legally collectively bargain with hospitals--those were the days when interns were paid $10,000-12,000 to work 80+ hours a week].
It has been some years since then, but I will tell you that one my strongest memories of that time is the uniform arrogance, elitism, and complete and total demagoguery of every, single "Member" (that's what they call themselves, and it fits). Ordinary mortals are not allowed to even ride in the same elevators as these god-like creatures we pathetic humans elect to serve us.
There is a description of a disorder called "Acquired Situational Narcissism" which seems to apply to many of our elected officials. If you take someone with a few narcissistic traits (and what politician doesn't have them?) and put them in a situation where they are adored, worshipped, and make to think (by the adoring and worshipping staff) that they are the center of the universe; and that words from their mouth are the font of all wisdom and knowledge--you would get something similar to the grandstanding meatheads we see every day on our TV screens.
We must hope that the blogsphere is not a situation where this type of narcissism can also flourish--but then, that is the function of our trolls, isn't it? We can never become so enamored of our own words when there is always someone around who sees it in their job description to remind us what idiots we are.
I can recommend a few for Senator Voinovich.
In the midst of controversy, the Senate frequently uses its authority in appalling ways — by engaging in unanswerable character assassination. The assassination is unanswerable by definition because those whose characters are being assassinated are required by the dynamic of the Senate to behave respectfully toward those who are dragging their names through the mud.
There is something profoundly immoral about all this. Increasingly, it seems, strong-willed people with strong views must submit themselves to the humiliation of standing mute while they are excoriated for their life's work — and while senators and their staffs go hunting for personal dirt on them.
It's not a fair fight. It's a proxy fight. The nominees are often stand-ins for the administration whom the senators wish to bloody — as is the case with John Bolton and the Democrats.
Other times, a nominee becomes an occasion for a senator to perform a holier-than-thou tap-dance. Such was the case yesterday with John Bolton and the Republican senator from Ohio, George Voinovich, who insulted and attacked Bolton without ever having bothered to attend one of the committee hearings in which Bolton testified.
It was comic to hear Voinovich describe Bolton as a "bully" yesterday, because the only bullying in sight was being done by Voinovich — attacking somebody who can't attack back.
And Voinovich himself knows something about bullying. In 1995, when he was governor of Ohio, he had a temper tantrum at an airport because his plane was kept on the ground while Air Force One was in the sky.
He ordered his pilot to take off, screaming at air traffic controllers all the while and daring them to "shoot us down." In an unprecedented act, Voinovich was actually fined by the Federal Aviation Administration for his behavior.
He's still at it in the United States Senate. And why not? The Senate is paradise for bullies.
I didn't know that little detail about Voinovich. Just yesterday I heard a democratic senator call him "one of the most decent people in the senate." Of course, they were trying to use him as an example of how extreme all the other republicans are.
I spent some time as a young doctor lobbying Congress [I was a national officer in an Intern and Resident Association that wanted to be able to legally collectively bargain with hospitals--those were the days when interns were paid $10,000-12,000 to work 80+ hours a week].
It has been some years since then, but I will tell you that one my strongest memories of that time is the uniform arrogance, elitism, and complete and total demagoguery of every, single "Member" (that's what they call themselves, and it fits). Ordinary mortals are not allowed to even ride in the same elevators as these god-like creatures we pathetic humans elect to serve us.
There is a description of a disorder called "Acquired Situational Narcissism" which seems to apply to many of our elected officials. If you take someone with a few narcissistic traits (and what politician doesn't have them?) and put them in a situation where they are adored, worshipped, and make to think (by the adoring and worshipping staff) that they are the center of the universe; and that words from their mouth are the font of all wisdom and knowledge--you would get something similar to the grandstanding meatheads we see every day on our TV screens.
We must hope that the blogsphere is not a situation where this type of narcissism can also flourish--but then, that is the function of our trolls, isn't it? We can never become so enamored of our own words when there is always someone around who sees it in their job description to remind us what idiots we are.
I can recommend a few for Senator Voinovich.
Thursday, May 12, 2005
"Not That Damn Stupid"
We May Be Europeans, But Please, We're Not That Damn Stupid: (hat tip: Stefania)
I agree. But perhaps "near" insane is too delicately put. What planet do people like Margot Wallstrom come from?
UPDATE: Victor Davis Hanson has some important words about the WWII revisionism that seems to be so popular today.
One of the advantages of middle age (maturity as we old geezers prefer to call it) is that one gains insights into oneself, little bits and bobs of self-knowledge make themselves apparent. A slightly disturbing one of these reared its head today as I was reading a couple of political speeches. I have become a geek, someone who actually reads such dreck; worse, I have become a hopelessly naive geek, as I actually expected a politician, in public, to speak the truth. I must be halfway to my second adolescence (ouch, zits again) if I can entertain such an absurdly stupid notion.
The speeches were by TEBAF (The Ever Blessed and Fragrant) Margot Wallstrom, Vice President and Commissioner of the European Union. One she gave at Terezin on the 60th anniversary of that concentration camp's liberation was reported in The Daily Telegraph thusly:A senior European Commissioner marked VE Day yesterday by accusing Eurosceptics of risking a return to the Holocaust by clinging to "nationalistic pride".
That really does sound just a little extreme even for Margot with her constitutional referenda to win so I had a look at the actual text of the speech. No, quite obviously she doesn't actually say that those who don't like the Constitution want to whip the Jews, Gypsies and gays through the camps again but she did make these points:We also came to this terrible point in our history through nationalistic pride and greed, and through international rivalry for wealth and power. It was precisely to put an end to such rivalry that the European Union was born - the first ever supranational organisation in which sovereign nations voluntarily share their sovereignty.
[...]
Yet there are those today who want to scrap the supranational idea. They want the European Union to go back to the old purely inter-governmental way of doing things.
I say those people should come to Terezin and see where that old road leads.
So no, Margot did not come right out and accuse Eurosceptics of being proto-Nazis but she came pretty close to claiming that the only thing between Europe and a re-run of the holocaust is an acceptance of the new Constitution. Quite obviously reasonable people can disagree on the subject of European integration but that is a near insane allegation.
I agree. But perhaps "near" insane is too delicately put. What planet do people like Margot Wallstrom come from?
UPDATE: Victor Davis Hanson has some important words about the WWII revisionism that seems to be so popular today.
Forever Pompous
Michelle Malkin reminds us that the always pompous, dissembling(when are you going to sign the Form 180, John? You promised 102 days ago.) John Kerry can hardly complain about John Bolton's behavior. But, of course, he does...without a hint of irony or self-reflection.
Typical.
Typical.
Wednesday, May 11, 2005
Why Grown People Use Immature Defenses - Part I
In Narcissism and Society, I discussed the normal and pathological development of the Self, and how defects in Narcissism have a profound impact on the both the individual and society.
This essay begins a related topic: the EGO and its relationship to the SELF and to INTERPERSONAL RELATIONSHIPS.
Often the concept of the SELF is confused with that of the EGO, but the two are significantly different--in much the same way that the Body differs from an organ system.
The SELF:
-has subjective experiences
-has thoughts, feelings
-experiences physical sensations
-is represented in the mind of an individual in the same way that significant other people are represented
The EGO, in contrast:
-is an organizing mental apparatus (e.g., like the immune system is an organizing “anti-infection” apparatus); a system that deals with external and internal reality
-is an abstraction and does not have a physical reality
-is concerned with the adaptation of the SELF and coping with the world
-integrates central nervous system functioning and is automatically deployed to cope with stress (much the same way that the immune system is automatically deployed to combat infection).
It is the EGO's job to deal with stress for the SELF and it does this through the use of unconscious, involuntary psychological processes called "defense" mechanisms. A defense seeks to obscure reality in order to protect the SELF from psychological trauma; and it does this by altering the individual’s thoughts, feelings and behaviors in order to keep the offending reality at bay.
Defenses may be difficult to detect by the user unless conscious thought and emotional honesty are applied to the problem; but they often can be detected by a disinterested observer who can see the distortion of reality that is being displayed. Sometimes the observer may be actually flabbergasted at the way an individual can deceive him or herself.
One example of this is the paranoid individual screaming in fear and cowering in the corner of the room with arms outstretched because he believes that alien monsters are attacking him.
While this example is extreme, I have witnessed such scenes many times. The situation in this case is exacerbated—and made bizarre-- by the fact that the individual’s neurophysiology is abnormal (either because of genetics, toxins, infection, etc.) and the EGO must rely on a defective brain to deploy its defenses.
Yet there are people considered normal who firmly believe that the Protocols of the Elders of Zion is a blueprint of an International Jewish Conspiracy to take over the world. In fact, there are large populations and nations that believe this as a matter of national policy. This kind of projection and paranoia on a large scale is an interesting phenomenon and will be discussed later.
Psychological defense mechanisms are important because they help people to deal with--and defend against--otherwise unacceptable internal and external thoughts, feelings, and behaviors. In other words, they are psychological strategies used individuals (and by extension--groups of individuals and even entire nations at times) to cope with reality and to maintain his/her self -image intact.
In a previous post on psychological Defenses , I wrote:
Let me make one thing perfectly clear: everyone uses defense mechanisms. We can no more prevent their use by the EGO to respond to a psychological threat, than we can prevent our immune system from responding to a physiological threat. A perfect example that almost everyone can relate to is the natural response people have when they hear some really painful news—such as the death of a loved one. “NO!” is the involuntary response. “It’s not true!”
This is DENIAL, and its purpose in this situation is to give an individual time to come to grips with a terrible, painful reality. As an initial response, it is completely normal. But, if six months go by and the person still refuses to believe that their loved one is dead and behaves as if that loved one is still alive; then it becomes pathological.
The individual’s level of development and the intensity of the perceived threat both combine to determine which defense the EGO might deploy in a given situation. A child, for example, does not generally have either the life experiences or the internal wisdom to use one of the more mature defenses in a traumatic situation. But as life is lived and mild, moderate and severe trauma is survived; as the individual learns from his or her mistakes and gains mastery over the world; then the EGO has more options (i.e., more possible defense mechanisms available—from the most immature to the most mature) that can be utilized.
By the time adulthood is reached, psychological maturity would require that a modicum of self-awareness and insight have been achieved and that the individual is aware of their own vulnerabilities and biases--which might impair an optimal response to reality.
Of course, there can be profound consequences for the individual –up to and including even death—if reality is denied or distorted; so this is a powerful motivator to acknowledge it as it really is. We are all aware, however, of those individuals whose unwillingness to deal with reality surpasses even the basic survival instinct. The suicide bomber who expects to be rewarded with 72 virgins comes to mind; so does the alcoholic who insists his reflexes are fine as he gets into his car intoxicated. Both not only are willing to sacrifice themselves, but also others for their delusion.
A question that comes up all the time is, "Why do grown people use immature defenses?"
In order to answer this question, we must first understand how and why people use psychological defenses to begin with.
UNDERSTANDING STRESS
These days we hear a lot about "coping with stress"; and about how "stress" is behind all sorts of medical and psychological problems. Of course, what is really meant by this is that there are many situations in life--some of the common and some not so--that we must respond to in order to live our lives. Stress can be understood as a frustrated "fight or flight" response.
Our bodies, which have not changed much since the days of the caveman, are hardwired to respond to danger in certain ways. Either we gird our loins and fight; or we take flight and run away. These two strategies covered pretty much everything for our ancient ancestors had to deal with to survive, and they lived or died depending on effectively these strategies were utilized.
In our modern world, it is no longer appropriate or even civilized--most of the time and in most situations--to do either. Imagine if you will, the office worker called on the carpet by the boss, who reacts to this threat to his livelihood by punching the boss; or by running screaming from the boss's office. Neither response would be considered very stable.
We hear on the news fairly frequently of such occurrences; e.g., the postal worker who comes in and shoots his superior, and--as long as he's at it--a few coworkers he holds grudges against.
The point is, that our body's hardware is designed to respond to perceived danger in this way, whether we like it or not. Of course, the boss yelling at us is not the same degree of danger our ancestors used to deal with, but our bodies aren't able to tell the difference. Hence, as we became civilized and our interactions with others and with our environment became more complex, the normal physiological responses of our bodies to danger remained the same, but the behavioral expectation --i.e., how we acted on the physiological imperative -- changed significantly.
And so, the concept of stress was born. We can't often fight; and we can't often run away; and when we do, significant problems can arise for us and for society. Our bodies still physiologically respond, but the usual behaviors that discharge the built-up toxins and return us to a physiological normality are gone. Psychologically and physiologically, this tends to take a toll on our bodies; either as physical or emotional problems.
Most people are aware when they are experiencing stress and the physical and emotional discomfort can be a powerful reason to change whatever behavior is causing the sensation. Stress can also be a source of extra energy (e.g., in sports) if the physical and emotional aspects of it can be converted to a less destructive form. This is where the concept of psychological defense mechanisms comes in.
COPING WITH STRESS
From George Vaillant’s The Wisdom of the Ego: Sources of Resilience in Adult Life:
Before we turn to the defense mechanisms, it is important to realize that there are other ways (i.e., non-psychological ways) of coping with stress. The first are the myriad of cognitive and conscious coping strategies that are available to us. The office worker yelled at by the boss can decide consciously that he will correct whatever it is that is upsetting the boss. He can deliberately and consciously decide to look for another job, if he thinks the boss is being unreasonable. He can decide to go back to school and obtain the skills necessary to be promoted to somewhere else in the company; or to another job inside or out of the company. He can consciously place "work" lower on his priorities. He can read books on how to deal with difficult bosses. As you can see, there are many cognitive and conscious options or choices open to him. All of the strategies above can be effective in the right situations.
But let us say that our worker--let us call him Mr. Smith--lacks the resources to go to school; or that he cannot afford to lose his job; or doubts he could find a better one. Well, in that case, Mr. Smith can use a second powerful way to cope with the stress in his life: he can use his social support network. He can go home and complain to his wife. He can complain and bitch about his situation with his buddies. He can spend more time with his children. He can submerse himself in his friendships and clubs. In short, he can find support and empathy from the interpersonal relationships he has surrounded himself with. (This is why married people in general are reported happier, and tend to live longer).
But, what if Mr. Smith doesn't have many friends; doesn't have a wife or much of a social life at all. Well, if both the cognitive and social strategies of coping with stress are not used, then there is a third way, and that way is using involuntary, unconscious psychological strategies to cope.
HOW DO DIFFERENT PSYCHOLOGICAL DEFENSES WORK?
George Vaillant in The Wisdom of the Ego summarizes the different ways that defense mechanisms might disguise an internal conflict. I will paraphrase his example:
Let us suppose that the underlying conflict (expressed as a conscious idea, feeling or behavior) is, "I hate my father." The following examples are how that specific feeling might be altered when different defense mechanisms are used by the person experiencing it:
DEFENSE / Conscious Representation of thoughts, feelings or behaviors
No defense - I hate my father
Psychotic Defenses
Denial - I was born without a father.
Immature Defenses
Projection - My father hates me.
Passive Aggression - I hate myself (or a suicide attempt).
Acting Out - Gets into fights with authority figures
Fantasy - Daydreams about killing giants or monsters
Neurotic (Intermediate) Defenses
Dissociation - I tell my father jokes.
Displacement - I hate my father's dog.
Intellectualization - I disapprove of my father's behavior.
Repression - I don't know why I feel so hot and bothered.
Reaction Formation - I love my father; or I hate my father's enemies .
Mature Defenses
Suppression - I am angry at my father, but I won't tell him.
Sublimation - I beat my father at tennis.
Altruism - I comfort father haters
Humor - I make gentle fun of fathers with jokes that make others laugh!
(note that not all humor is mature, but when used appropriately it is one of the most effective coping skills. Sadistic humor, for example arises from projection and is immature)
Each one of the above defense mechanisms (except the "mature" ones) can, under the right circumstances, be taken to pathological extremes and result in a psychiatrically diagnosable condition.
For example, the use of projection ("My father hates me") if used persistently as a coping mechanism can lead to a paranoid personality disorder. Or, use of the passive aggression defense (I hate myself) can lead to dysthymia or depression. Repression might lead to an anxiety disorder.
There is a clinical correlate for each of the defenses listed above, and the expression of that clinical disorder is dependent on a variety of factors such as the age/developmental stage of the user; the genetic, biological or physiological vulnerabilities of the user; the environment of the user, etc.
Valliant observes:
Many people seem to think that ALL stress is bad for you and must be eliminated from your life. But this position fails to understand the importance and necessity of stress in our lives.
Where once our stress response existed merely to protect us from extreme danger (and still does); today it is a key biological element that can promote and and encourage psychological growth and development and help us to learn mastery over ourselves and our environment.
So this is the good thing about stress. Stress and our response to it can help us to mature and expand our capabilities. Without stress, there is little motivation to change or improve either ourselves or our environment. Too little stress and we stagnate. Too much, and we are at risk of falling apart. But just the right amount of irritation can encourage us to create a pearl!
Perhaps the greatest stress an individual can feel comes when they must deal with the loss of a loved one. Sadly, such an occurrence is inevitable in the course of life, and how each person deals with the losses he or she experiences has a significant impact on the psychological defense mechanisms they will use.
Love and interacting with other people are not pain free. Frequently the pain involved in interpersonal relationships can be the impetus that helps us to psychologically assimilate others, a process integral to human development.
Vaillant again:
We have incrementally inched closer to answering our initial question—“Why do grown people use immature defenses?” Now that we have some appreciation of how defenses work in general, we will expand on this discussion in Part II and explore how we internalize those we love and how our important life relationships and the degree to which we assimilate them plays a key role in which psychological defense mechanism the EGO uses to cope with the stresses of life.
This essay begins a related topic: the EGO and its relationship to the SELF and to INTERPERSONAL RELATIONSHIPS.
Often the concept of the SELF is confused with that of the EGO, but the two are significantly different--in much the same way that the Body differs from an organ system.
The SELF:
-has subjective experiences
-has thoughts, feelings
-experiences physical sensations
-is represented in the mind of an individual in the same way that significant other people are represented
The EGO, in contrast:
-is an organizing mental apparatus (e.g., like the immune system is an organizing “anti-infection” apparatus); a system that deals with external and internal reality
-is an abstraction and does not have a physical reality
-is concerned with the adaptation of the SELF and coping with the world
-integrates central nervous system functioning and is automatically deployed to cope with stress (much the same way that the immune system is automatically deployed to combat infection).
It is the EGO's job to deal with stress for the SELF and it does this through the use of unconscious, involuntary psychological processes called "defense" mechanisms. A defense seeks to obscure reality in order to protect the SELF from psychological trauma; and it does this by altering the individual’s thoughts, feelings and behaviors in order to keep the offending reality at bay.
Defenses may be difficult to detect by the user unless conscious thought and emotional honesty are applied to the problem; but they often can be detected by a disinterested observer who can see the distortion of reality that is being displayed. Sometimes the observer may be actually flabbergasted at the way an individual can deceive him or herself.
One example of this is the paranoid individual screaming in fear and cowering in the corner of the room with arms outstretched because he believes that alien monsters are attacking him.
While this example is extreme, I have witnessed such scenes many times. The situation in this case is exacerbated—and made bizarre-- by the fact that the individual’s neurophysiology is abnormal (either because of genetics, toxins, infection, etc.) and the EGO must rely on a defective brain to deploy its defenses.
Yet there are people considered normal who firmly believe that the Protocols of the Elders of Zion is a blueprint of an International Jewish Conspiracy to take over the world. In fact, there are large populations and nations that believe this as a matter of national policy. This kind of projection and paranoia on a large scale is an interesting phenomenon and will be discussed later.
Psychological defense mechanisms are important because they help people to deal with--and defend against--otherwise unacceptable internal and external thoughts, feelings, and behaviors. In other words, they are psychological strategies used individuals (and by extension--groups of individuals and even entire nations at times) to cope with reality and to maintain his/her self -image intact.
In a previous post on psychological Defenses , I wrote:
A healthy person will use many different defenses throughout life. A defense mechanism becomes pathological when it is used persistently 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.
Let me make one thing perfectly clear: everyone uses defense mechanisms. We can no more prevent their use by the EGO to respond to a psychological threat, than we can prevent our immune system from responding to a physiological threat. A perfect example that almost everyone can relate to is the natural response people have when they hear some really painful news—such as the death of a loved one. “NO!” is the involuntary response. “It’s not true!”
This is DENIAL, and its purpose in this situation is to give an individual time to come to grips with a terrible, painful reality. As an initial response, it is completely normal. But, if six months go by and the person still refuses to believe that their loved one is dead and behaves as if that loved one is still alive; then it becomes pathological.
The individual’s level of development and the intensity of the perceived threat both combine to determine which defense the EGO might deploy in a given situation. A child, for example, does not generally have either the life experiences or the internal wisdom to use one of the more mature defenses in a traumatic situation. But as life is lived and mild, moderate and severe trauma is survived; as the individual learns from his or her mistakes and gains mastery over the world; then the EGO has more options (i.e., more possible defense mechanisms available—from the most immature to the most mature) that can be utilized.
By the time adulthood is reached, psychological maturity would require that a modicum of self-awareness and insight have been achieved and that the individual is aware of their own vulnerabilities and biases--which might impair an optimal response to reality.
Of course, there can be profound consequences for the individual –up to and including even death—if reality is denied or distorted; so this is a powerful motivator to acknowledge it as it really is. We are all aware, however, of those individuals whose unwillingness to deal with reality surpasses even the basic survival instinct. The suicide bomber who expects to be rewarded with 72 virgins comes to mind; so does the alcoholic who insists his reflexes are fine as he gets into his car intoxicated. Both not only are willing to sacrifice themselves, but also others for their delusion.
A question that comes up all the time is, "Why do grown people use immature defenses?"
In order to answer this question, we must first understand how and why people use psychological defenses to begin with.
UNDERSTANDING STRESS
These days we hear a lot about "coping with stress"; and about how "stress" is behind all sorts of medical and psychological problems. Of course, what is really meant by this is that there are many situations in life--some of the common and some not so--that we must respond to in order to live our lives. Stress can be understood as a frustrated "fight or flight" response.
Our bodies, which have not changed much since the days of the caveman, are hardwired to respond to danger in certain ways. Either we gird our loins and fight; or we take flight and run away. These two strategies covered pretty much everything for our ancient ancestors had to deal with to survive, and they lived or died depending on effectively these strategies were utilized.
In our modern world, it is no longer appropriate or even civilized--most of the time and in most situations--to do either. Imagine if you will, the office worker called on the carpet by the boss, who reacts to this threat to his livelihood by punching the boss; or by running screaming from the boss's office. Neither response would be considered very stable.
We hear on the news fairly frequently of such occurrences; e.g., the postal worker who comes in and shoots his superior, and--as long as he's at it--a few coworkers he holds grudges against.
The point is, that our body's hardware is designed to respond to perceived danger in this way, whether we like it or not. Of course, the boss yelling at us is not the same degree of danger our ancestors used to deal with, but our bodies aren't able to tell the difference. Hence, as we became civilized and our interactions with others and with our environment became more complex, the normal physiological responses of our bodies to danger remained the same, but the behavioral expectation --i.e., how we acted on the physiological imperative -- changed significantly.
And so, the concept of stress was born. We can't often fight; and we can't often run away; and when we do, significant problems can arise for us and for society. Our bodies still physiologically respond, but the usual behaviors that discharge the built-up toxins and return us to a physiological normality are gone. Psychologically and physiologically, this tends to take a toll on our bodies; either as physical or emotional problems.
Most people are aware when they are experiencing stress and the physical and emotional discomfort can be a powerful reason to change whatever behavior is causing the sensation. Stress can also be a source of extra energy (e.g., in sports) if the physical and emotional aspects of it can be converted to a less destructive form. This is where the concept of psychological defense mechanisms comes in.
COPING WITH STRESS
From George Vaillant’s The Wisdom of the Ego: Sources of Resilience in Adult Life:
The "right stuff" epitomized by the famous American test pilot Chuck Yeager was not just a function of willpower, stress management, and skillful flight instruction. Many of us could never tolerate becoming pilots, and many pilots could not tolerate becoming test pilots. Even test pilots marveled at Yeager's reflex "cool." For had Yeager paid full attention to his inner and outer reality, he too would have been afraid. But had he ignored such reality for even a moment, he would have died. The wisdom of his ego lay in creating an optimal balance between self deception and accurate appreciation of inner and outer reality. In the language of every day such a delicate balance is called coping, but it is coping of a very special kind.
Before we turn to the defense mechanisms, it is important to realize that there are other ways (i.e., non-psychological ways) of coping with stress. The first are the myriad of cognitive and conscious coping strategies that are available to us. The office worker yelled at by the boss can decide consciously that he will correct whatever it is that is upsetting the boss. He can deliberately and consciously decide to look for another job, if he thinks the boss is being unreasonable. He can decide to go back to school and obtain the skills necessary to be promoted to somewhere else in the company; or to another job inside or out of the company. He can consciously place "work" lower on his priorities. He can read books on how to deal with difficult bosses. As you can see, there are many cognitive and conscious options or choices open to him. All of the strategies above can be effective in the right situations.
But let us say that our worker--let us call him Mr. Smith--lacks the resources to go to school; or that he cannot afford to lose his job; or doubts he could find a better one. Well, in that case, Mr. Smith can use a second powerful way to cope with the stress in his life: he can use his social support network. He can go home and complain to his wife. He can complain and bitch about his situation with his buddies. He can spend more time with his children. He can submerse himself in his friendships and clubs. In short, he can find support and empathy from the interpersonal relationships he has surrounded himself with. (This is why married people in general are reported happier, and tend to live longer).
But, what if Mr. Smith doesn't have many friends; doesn't have a wife or much of a social life at all. Well, if both the cognitive and social strategies of coping with stress are not used, then there is a third way, and that way is using involuntary, unconscious psychological strategies to cope.
HOW DO DIFFERENT PSYCHOLOGICAL DEFENSES WORK?
George Vaillant in The Wisdom of the Ego summarizes the different ways that defense mechanisms might disguise an internal conflict. I will paraphrase his example:
Let us suppose that the underlying conflict (expressed as a conscious idea, feeling or behavior) is, "I hate my father." The following examples are how that specific feeling might be altered when different defense mechanisms are used by the person experiencing it:
DEFENSE / Conscious Representation of thoughts, feelings or behaviors
No defense - I hate my father
Psychotic Defenses
Denial - I was born without a father.
Immature Defenses
Projection - My father hates me.
Passive Aggression - I hate myself (or a suicide attempt).
Acting Out - Gets into fights with authority figures
Fantasy - Daydreams about killing giants or monsters
Neurotic (Intermediate) Defenses
Dissociation - I tell my father jokes.
Displacement - I hate my father's dog.
Intellectualization - I disapprove of my father's behavior.
Repression - I don't know why I feel so hot and bothered.
Reaction Formation - I love my father; or I hate my father's enemies .
Mature Defenses
Suppression - I am angry at my father, but I won't tell him.
Sublimation - I beat my father at tennis.
Altruism - I comfort father haters
Humor - I make gentle fun of fathers with jokes that make others laugh!
(note that not all humor is mature, but when used appropriately it is one of the most effective coping skills. Sadistic humor, for example arises from projection and is immature)
Each one of the above defense mechanisms (except the "mature" ones) can, under the right circumstances, be taken to pathological extremes and result in a psychiatrically diagnosable condition.
For example, the use of projection ("My father hates me") if used persistently as a coping mechanism can lead to a paranoid personality disorder. Or, use of the passive aggression defense (I hate myself) can lead to dysthymia or depression. Repression might lead to an anxiety disorder.
There is a clinical correlate for each of the defenses listed above, and the expression of that clinical disorder is dependent on a variety of factors such as the age/developmental stage of the user; the genetic, biological or physiological vulnerabilities of the user; the environment of the user, etc.
Valliant observes:
It is noteworthy that the denials and self-deceptions that result from the deployment of mature defenses result in no diagnosis--not everyone who practices self-deception appears ill to others. The oyster, after all, deals with the irritation of a grain of sand by creating a pearl.
Many people seem to think that ALL stress is bad for you and must be eliminated from your life. But this position fails to understand the importance and necessity of stress in our lives.
Where once our stress response existed merely to protect us from extreme danger (and still does); today it is a key biological element that can promote and and encourage psychological growth and development and help us to learn mastery over ourselves and our environment.
So this is the good thing about stress. Stress and our response to it can help us to mature and expand our capabilities. Without stress, there is little motivation to change or improve either ourselves or our environment. Too little stress and we stagnate. Too much, and we are at risk of falling apart. But just the right amount of irritation can encourage us to create a pearl!
Perhaps the greatest stress an individual can feel comes when they must deal with the loss of a loved one. Sadly, such an occurrence is inevitable in the course of life, and how each person deals with the losses he or she experiences has a significant impact on the psychological defense mechanisms they will use.
Love and interacting with other people are not pain free. Frequently the pain involved in interpersonal relationships can be the impetus that helps us to psychologically assimilate others, a process integral to human development.
Vaillant again:
We, too, sometimes forget that, contrary to folklore and psychiatric myth, loss in itself does not cause psychopathology. We forget that healthy grief hurts but does not make us ill. Grief produces tears, not patienthood. It is never having anyone at all to love that cripples us. It is the inconstant people who stay in our lives who drive us mad, not the constant ones who die. It is failure to internalize those whom we have loved, not their loss, that impedes adult development.(emphasis mine)
We have incrementally inched closer to answering our initial question—“Why do grown people use immature defenses?” Now that we have some appreciation of how defenses work in general, we will expand on this discussion in Part II and explore how we internalize those we love and how our important life relationships and the degree to which we assimilate them plays a key role in which psychological defense mechanism the EGO uses to cope with the stresses of life.
Al Qaeda's Last Stand?
Captain Ed wonders if Iraq will be Al Qaeda's last stand:
I certainly hope this is the case. Meanwhile, Belmont Club and Chester are keeping track of Operation Matador.
Today's Washington Times analyzes the fighting in Operation Marador and asserts that Iraq has transformed itself into al-Qaeda's last stand -- which was one of the objectives of the Bush administration:The war in Iraq is increasingly looking more like a showdown with Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda followers than a battle primarily against Saddam Hussein loyalists.
The shift is making the fight a focal point of the U.S. global war against Islamic terrorists and one that might dictate whether the U.S. wins or loses, said a senior official and an outside expert.
"If they fail in Iraq, Osama and his whole crew are finished," said retired Air Force Lt. Gen. Tom McInerney, a military author and analyst.
The changing dynamic was highlighted this week when the U.S. military launched a major offensive in western Iraq, primarily against foreign jihadists who crossed the border with Syria to join the al Qaeda network in Iraq led by Abu Musab Zarqawi. In a troubling sign, U.S. officers said Zarqawi's terrorists seemed well-trained and well-equipped.
The U.S. offensive, code named Operation Matador, entered its third day yesterday in the dusty border towns west of Baghdad near Syria. The command said three Marines and more than 100 enemy fighters have been killed.
"In the Muslim world and extremist world, this fight for Iraq is their key battle," said Gen. McInerney. "If they lose it, they lose the war. And so the imams are inciting young people, not particular well-educated, to head to Iraq. Most are going through Syria via Damascus.
"This is why Iraq is such a fundamental part of the global war on terrorism. When we finally defeat Muslim extremists, it will be the battle in Iraq that defeats them."
Of course, this is exactly what was meant by the "flypaper" strategy. One of the most difficult issues with fighting an asymmetrical war is finding the enemy. They survive by hiding and seeking shelter from like-minded but officially neutral states. However, if one can find a way to draw them out, it becomes much easier to defeat them, especially if they can be pinned down by geography.
I certainly hope this is the case. Meanwhile, Belmont Club and Chester are keeping track of Operation Matador.
Spring Finally Reaches Ann Arbor
Yesterday was a beautiful 79 degrees and mostly sunny for the entire day. It is definitely Spring here, and to confirm that fact, here is what I found on my front porch!
The wreath in the picture
is suitable for all seasons and holidays and has "Happy Everything" written across the top. At first we thought that some birds were using the branches in the wreath to make a nest somewhere, because we found parts of the wreath all over the front porch. And then we noticed the birdnest cradled at the lower end of the wreath!
So, we carefully approached the birdnest...
...and discovered two beautiful robin blue eggs inside!
Yep. Definitely Spring!
The wreath in the picture
is suitable for all seasons and holidays and has "Happy Everything" written across the top. At first we thought that some birds were using the branches in the wreath to make a nest somewhere, because we found parts of the wreath all over the front porch. And then we noticed the birdnest cradled at the lower end of the wreath!So, we carefully approached the birdnest...
...and discovered two beautiful robin blue eggs inside!
Yep. Definitely Spring!
An Excellent Point
Cori Dauber makes an excellent point over at Rantingprofs. I agree with her and here is the list:
If the runaway bride can continue to get attention; and the Jackson trial can continue to get attention; then these people deserve the media's and our attention.
A list of five U.S. citizens being held hostage in Iraq and two others whose status is unknown:
– Contractor Jeffrey Ake, 47, of Laporte, Ind., was kidnapped April 11 from a water treatment plant near Baghdad, according to U.S. Embassy officials.
– Mohammed Monaf, an Iraqi-American working as a translator for three Romanian journalists, was kidnapped March 28 along with the journalists.
– Roy Hallums, 56, was kidnapped Nov. 1. He was working for a Saudi company that does catering for the Iraqi army.
– Sadeq Mohammed Sadeq, a Lebanese-American who formerly worked for SkyLink USA, a Virginia contractor, was kidnapped Nov. 2 from his home.
– Aban Elias, an Iraqi-American engineer from Denver, was kidnapped on May 3, 2004, by the Islamic Rage Brigade. He was 41 years old at the time.
– Timothy Bell of Mobile, Ala., is officially listed as missing. He disappeared April 9, 2004, after an attack on a fuel convoy.
– U.S. Army Spc. Keith M. Maupin, 20, of Batavia, Ohio, is listed as missing. He was with Bell during the April 2004 attack.
If the runaway bride can continue to get attention; and the Jackson trial can continue to get attention; then these people deserve the media's and our attention.
Tuesday, May 10, 2005
Intellectual Indigestion
Bush in Georgia is greeted by huge crowds. They like him. They really like him!
I hope that this gives a lot of people right here in the US (some of whom read this blog) a LOT of intellectual indigestion--or at least some food for thought!
I hope that this gives a lot of people right here in the US (some of whom read this blog) a LOT of intellectual indigestion--or at least some food for thought!
The Abu Ghraib Soap Opera
Abu Ghraib has been promoted extensively by the Left as the greatest evidence of the evil of 1) the Bush Administration; 2) the U.S. Military; and 3) American values.
Unfortunately for them, the reality is somewhat more banal. I thought I would reproduce a large part of the article, but go and read the whole piece to get the full exposure to the sometimes sick drama of failed human relationships. For the most part it sounds like the kind of story I hear frequently in my office--the everyday betrayals, manipulations, and general insanity that pathological relationships can induce.
What these unthinking, pathetic people did to others who were helpless and who were under their supervision, certainly can never be condoned in any civilized society. The sadistic and cruel behavior of Private Graner, who appears to be at the center of the storm, pre-dated Abu Ghraib and is likely a strong component of his personality. The two women permitted themselves to be sucked into his sadism (maybe he gave them an excuse to express their own sadistic impulses, who knows?), and are just as responsible for what subsequently happened. This is like a "Bonnies and Clyde" scenario--without the deaths; but with all the sick sexual pleasure of acting out towards and humiliating others for personal gratification and power.
This is a indeed a soap opera; but it most certainly is not a evil plot devised by the Bushies to defame Islam and humiliate war prisoners. The main player in this sicko drama is Graner, who by all accounts has a history of violence and inappropriate behavior, and whose personality seems to attract passive women eager to act out his sadistic fantasies for him and with him. Please note the similarity of what was done at Abu Ghraib to what the couple did to a sleeping friend (highlighted in the article).
That Graner could survive for any length of time in the military only demonstrates the laxity with which some reserve units were commanded. The grotesque breakdown in military discipline that permitted the blatant flauting of military rules and regulations; and provided a fertile environment were such acting out behavior could thrive without serious consequences--can be laid squarely on the immediate officers in the chain of command to Graner and England. (General Karpinski was found guilty of dereliction of duty and demoted to Colonel) It also suggests that the military reserves needs to clean up their act and begin to demand professional and appropriate behavior from both their officers and enlisted personnel.
That anyone could believe for a moment that this kind of behavior and the resultant events at Abu Ghraib would be condoned by a professional military service is completely absurd.
Unfortunately for them, the reality is somewhat more banal. I thought I would reproduce a large part of the article, but go and read the whole piece to get the full exposure to the sometimes sick drama of failed human relationships. For the most part it sounds like the kind of story I hear frequently in my office--the everyday betrayals, manipulations, and general insanity that pathological relationships can induce.
In a military courtroom in Texas last week was a spectacle worthy of "As the World Turns": Pfc. Lynndie R. England, the defendant, holding her 7-month-old baby; the imprisoned father, Pvt. Charles A. Graner Jr., giving testimony that ruined what lawyers said was her best shot at leniency; and waiting outside, another defendant from the notorious abuses at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, Megan M. Ambuhl, who had recently wed Private Graner - a marriage Private England learned about only days before.
To some, the grave misdeeds at Abu Ghraib, where the three soldiers worked for six months in 2003, have become a twisted symbol of the American military occupation of Iraq. But the scandal is also one rooted in the behavior of military reservists working at the prison, an environment that testimony has portrayed as more frat house than military prison, a place where inmates were routinely left naked and soldiers took pictures of one another simulating sex with fruit.
The reservists' treatment of Iraqi prisoners and their entanglements with one another - pieced together from documents, court testimony, e-mail and interviews - have produced a dark soap opera, one whose episodes have continued to play out in the months since the scandal erupted, and culminated in the Texas courtroom last week.
As with any soap opera, past episodes help explain the most recent.
Private England, who is now waiting for charges to be filed against her again, and Private Graner began dating while they were training with their Army Reserve unit, the 372nd Military Police Company, based in Cresaptown, Md.
A hell-raising young woman from West Virginia, Private England, now 22, was married at 19, on a whim, she told friends, and violated her parents' wishes when she joined the Reserve in high school to make money for college.
Private Graner, 36, a Pennsylvania prison guard and a former marine, had rejoined the military in a burst of patriotism after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.
He was fresh from an ugly divorce in 2000. His ex-wife, Staci Morris, had taken out three protective orders against him, and after he was arrested for harassing her in 2001, Private Graner admitted that he had dragged her around by her hair.
He introduced the two women, and Ms. Morris said she felt "selfish relief" that with someone new, her ex-husband would stop being obsessed with her. And she liked Private England, finding her quiet and adoring.
"If he was as charming with her as he is with most women at the beginning, I can understand it," Ms. Morris said. "Charming, compliments, you name it. The things you would love to hear as a young woman."
Just after the 372nd received orders to go to Iraq in February 2003, Private Graner, Private England and another soldier had a last party weekend in Virginia Beach. They drank heavily, and when their friend passed out, Private Graner and Private England took turns taking photographs of each other exposing themselves over his head.
In Iraq, Private England was disciplined several times for sleeping with Private Graner, against military rules. She flouted warnings to stay on the wing where she worked as a clerk, and spent most of her nights in the cellblock where he worked the night shift.
One night in October, he told her to pose for photographs holding a leash tied around the neck of a naked and crawling detainee. He e-mailed one home: "Look what I made Lynndie do." The now infamous pictures of detainees masturbating, he said, were a birthday gift for her.
Specialist Ambuhl, who has been discharged from the Army, was Private Graner's partner on the nightshift. If he and Private England were loud and bawdy - they made a video of themselves having sex - Ms. Ambuhl was soft-spoken and serious. Private England had joined the army to see the world; Ms. Ambuhl had already been on college study trips to Kenya and the Galapagos Islands. She had worked as a technician in a medical laboratory in Virginia, where she grew up, and like Private Graner, signed up to defend the nation after Sept. 11.
She had been involved with another soldier in the unit. But by late December, she had ended that relationship and started one with Private Graner. In e-mail messages, the two dreamily recalled their nights stolen away in the crowded prison cells where the military police lived.
"I was missing u too," she wrote just after Christmas 2003. "When I heard your voice coming up the stairs, it made me happy and kinda nervous too (good nervous)." She reassured him that she would not get back together with her ex-boyfriend.
But Private Graner had not completely cut off relations with Private England. On Jan. 2, 2004, he was caught sleeping in Private England's quarters and demoted.
A few days later, Ms. Ambuhl e-mailed him again. "I really do care about you," she wrote. "It's just that part of me says I just got hurt from a relationship so don't put myself in the position to get hurt again."
She fantasized about when they might be truly alone. "Is it going to feel strange for just the two of us to be in a room together, with no chance of anyone walking in??" she wrote a few days later. "Just kidding, I can't wait." They talked about taking a leave together in February.
But on Jan. 13, a soldier slipped investigators a disk with the graphic photographs of detainees. The investigation began the next day.
Private Graner, quickly identified as the ringleader in the abuse, e-mailed his father in early March to discuss the accusations against him, then popped "more good news:" Private England was two months pregnant - he spelled her name Lynndee - and the pregnancy would most likely get them sent home from Iraq.
They found out she was pregnant two days after breaking up. (Emphasis mine)
What these unthinking, pathetic people did to others who were helpless and who were under their supervision, certainly can never be condoned in any civilized society. The sadistic and cruel behavior of Private Graner, who appears to be at the center of the storm, pre-dated Abu Ghraib and is likely a strong component of his personality. The two women permitted themselves to be sucked into his sadism (maybe he gave them an excuse to express their own sadistic impulses, who knows?), and are just as responsible for what subsequently happened. This is like a "Bonnies and Clyde" scenario--without the deaths; but with all the sick sexual pleasure of acting out towards and humiliating others for personal gratification and power.
This is a indeed a soap opera; but it most certainly is not a evil plot devised by the Bushies to defame Islam and humiliate war prisoners. The main player in this sicko drama is Graner, who by all accounts has a history of violence and inappropriate behavior, and whose personality seems to attract passive women eager to act out his sadistic fantasies for him and with him. Please note the similarity of what was done at Abu Ghraib to what the couple did to a sleeping friend (highlighted in the article).
That Graner could survive for any length of time in the military only demonstrates the laxity with which some reserve units were commanded. The grotesque breakdown in military discipline that permitted the blatant flauting of military rules and regulations; and provided a fertile environment were such acting out behavior could thrive without serious consequences--can be laid squarely on the immediate officers in the chain of command to Graner and England. (General Karpinski was found guilty of dereliction of duty and demoted to Colonel) It also suggests that the military reserves needs to clean up their act and begin to demand professional and appropriate behavior from both their officers and enlisted personnel.
That anyone could believe for a moment that this kind of behavior and the resultant events at Abu Ghraib would be condoned by a professional military service is completely absurd.
Profoundly Undemocratic
I have only been peripherally paying attention to Europe and the EU lately since most of the countries there seem rather irrelevant to world events. But this article makes me wonder what in heaven's name is going on there (hat tip: Free Thoughts):
This seems like a major rewriting of history to me AND suspiciously like a psychological projection. As one British MP commented, it also sounds "profoundly undemocratic."
I have a bad feeling about those running the EU and about its future prospects.
A senior European Commissioner marked VE Day yesterday by accusing Eurosceptics of risking a return to the Holocaust by clinging to "nationalistic pride".
Margot Wallstrom, a Swede and the commissioner who must sell the draft constitution to voters, argued that politicians who resisted pooling national sovereignty risked a return to Nazi horrors of the 1930s and 1940s.
Mrs Wallstrom, vice-president of the commission for institutional relations and communications, was speaking in the former Jewish ghetto of Terezin in the Czech Republic.
She blamed the Second World War on "nationalistic pride and greed, and … international rivalry for wealth and power". The EU had replaced such rivalry with an historic agreement to share national sovereignty.
Her fellow commissioners also issued a joint declaration, stating that EU citizens should pay tribute to the dead of the Second World War by voting Yes to the draft constitution for Europe.
The commissioners also gave the EU sole credit for ending the Cold War, making no mention of the role of Nato and the United States.
This seems like a major rewriting of history to me AND suspiciously like a psychological projection. As one British MP commented, it also sounds "profoundly undemocratic."
I have a bad feeling about those running the EU and about its future prospects.
Free Associating
I had hoped to put up the first post in a series on the subject of "Why do grown people use immature defenses" today. You may notice that I didn't. Although I have been working diligently on it for the last two weeks, I realized it had just became a little unmanageable when I discovered I had written about 20 typed pages on the subject.
I think I need to let it all simmer around in my brain for a few days so that the really essential elements will come together in my mind in some sort of coherent manner. So, I decided to put it aside for a while and approach it with a fresh perspective this weekend.
I'm telling you all this (not that you want to know) because I have this inexplicable desire to make you understand how terribly difficult it is to be creative, original, articulate, and incredibly damn brilliant every single friggen day.
Sometimes I just HATE blogging. @%!!&**#@
OK. Now that I've got that out of my system, I begin to see that I have too high expectations of both myself and blogging. As my ONE YEAR Blogiversary is coming up in the next month, I suppose I really expected that by now I would rival Instapundit and Powerline as the greatest, most famousest (?), most special blog ever. Certainly I expected that I would solve at least a few of the world's problems with my incisive thinking. And that everyone would love me (or hate me--either one, I don't mind!)
My grandiose fantasies break through every once in a while, before I reel in them in. Or rather, before my loving family does. Somehow Mother's Day has made me feel guilty about all the time I spend on this blog!
Does any of this make sense? No, it doesn't to me either. So, I think I'm going to get a good night's sleep and stop thinking about it today. I'll think about it all tomorrow (/channeling Scarlet O'hara).
Boy, talk about why grown people use immature defenses!
I think I need to let it all simmer around in my brain for a few days so that the really essential elements will come together in my mind in some sort of coherent manner. So, I decided to put it aside for a while and approach it with a fresh perspective this weekend.
I'm telling you all this (not that you want to know) because I have this inexplicable desire to make you understand how terribly difficult it is to be creative, original, articulate, and incredibly damn brilliant every single friggen day.
Sometimes I just HATE blogging. @%!!&**#@
OK. Now that I've got that out of my system, I begin to see that I have too high expectations of both myself and blogging. As my ONE YEAR Blogiversary is coming up in the next month, I suppose I really expected that by now I would rival Instapundit and Powerline as the greatest, most famousest (?), most special blog ever. Certainly I expected that I would solve at least a few of the world's problems with my incisive thinking. And that everyone would love me (or hate me--either one, I don't mind!)
My grandiose fantasies break through every once in a while, before I reel in them in. Or rather, before my loving family does. Somehow Mother's Day has made me feel guilty about all the time I spend on this blog!
Does any of this make sense? No, it doesn't to me either. So, I think I'm going to get a good night's sleep and stop thinking about it today. I'll think about it all tomorrow (/channeling Scarlet O'hara).
Boy, talk about why grown people use immature defenses!
Monday, May 09, 2005
Is Anti-Americanism Declining?
Victor Davis Hanson thinks so:
Of course, this will not convince all the Bush-hating, knee-jerk anti-U.S., ANSWER minions who hysterically claim that Bush has ruined the reputation of the U.S. around the world--but then nothing ever would. No action--or inaction-- as long as the actor is America, will ever be free from their poisonous, hate-filled and querulous carping.
And it's too bad, because I was under the impression they were all moving to the paradise to the north of us after the last presidential election.
Guess they were just joking.
Things are changing, however, both here and abroad. Thousands of American
troops have left Europe. Its denizens now sense that the American people nolonger wish to subsidize their defenseonly to earn ingratitude. The E.U. dream of heaven on earth may be mired in hightaxes, low growth, high unemployment, and demographic and entitlement timebombs—not the sort of platform from which to hector a supposedly sinking U.S.
Things are even more evolutionary in the Middle East. Dissidents in Egypt or Beirut are not singing the praises of the E.U. or U.N. Nor are the new democratsin Iraq and Afghanistan. It is still too early to appreciate much of this shifting, but historical forces are now in play which are not conducive to vaunted European “soft power,” so often a mask for crass profiteering.
Soon, freed Middle Easterners are going to make a few simple deductions: France profited mightily from Saddam; America removed him. The E.U. wanted nothing to do with the new democracy in Baghdad; Americans from places like San Antonio and Tulsa died to preserve it. An Iranian knows that the U.S., not Germany or Belgium, wishes him to be free and is more likely to take the risks to see it happen. An Afghan could assure him of that.
The muscle-flexing of China has given Taiwan, South Korea, and Japan second thoughts. They worry not that the United States invites them into partnerships, but that we might not. The Americans allow outsourcing to India, buy thousands of Hondas, and send young men to the Korean DMZ. Europe sells China new bombs, the French fleet goes on maneuvers with the communists, and the E.U. keeps it tariffs and subsidies high. A once-caricatured America starts to look very good again.
There is another wild card at play that explains the decrease in anti-Americanism. After September 11, the American people are in a much less apologetic mood—more likely to pull troops or cut off aid than to ask forgiveness for imaginary grievances. No one here laments that we left the Philippines or are departing Germany. We took out Saddam without Belgians and Frenchmen, without bases in Turkey, and despite, not because of, the U.N. or Arab league. America runs high trade deficits with Asia and Europe. It lets 20 million illegal aliens cross our borders. It spends liberallyon defense, patrolling sea-lanes and protecting commerce rather than setting up autocracies and stealing oil.
Americans are finally beginning to wonder whether all these ungrateful
folks are worth the toil and tre asure. In response, critics abroad are beginning to
sense that their cheap rhetoric may have real consequences, that maybe the U.S.
was a good deal for the world, after all.
George W. Bush did not cause this new round of anti-Americanism. But he may
well have done more than anyone to end it.
Of course, this will not convince all the Bush-hating, knee-jerk anti-U.S., ANSWER minions who hysterically claim that Bush has ruined the reputation of the U.S. around the world--but then nothing ever would. No action--or inaction-- as long as the actor is America, will ever be free from their poisonous, hate-filled and querulous carping.
And it's too bad, because I was under the impression they were all moving to the paradise to the north of us after the last presidential election.
Guess they were just joking.
Washingcrook and the Insurgency
This is funny: (hat tip: Betsy's Page)
I bet they had a lot of Josephus Kerry types in those days. You know the type--the ones angling to increase their own power and willing to pander to all and sundry for a vote (the most recent antics of the modern-day version can be found here).
Somehow, we managed to persevere as a country despite the insurgency and without electing Josephus. Read the whole thing!
PITTSBURGH, AUGUST, 1794 - In a striking display of divisions that have plagued the fledgling United States government, thousands of insurgents in Western Pennsylvania have set fire to homes, kidnapped public officials, and vowed continued defiance of a federal excise tax on whiskey.
Facing an insurgency that is proving itself resilient, President Washington mulled sending federal troops to quell the rebellion. Such an action would be sure to draw harsh criticism, creating deeper fissures within the already fragile nascent American republic.
The president's opponents seized on the crisis to revive questions about the rationale for the War of Independence, renewing criticism that colonial intelligence overstated the threat that was posed by the British monarchy.
"This is exactly what I've been telling people all along," said Josephus Kerry, whose intention to seek the presidency in 1796 is somewhat of an open secret. "When he was a general, Washington misled the colonies to war without a plan to win the peace."
Others were more emphatic in their criticism, especially Michael Morbid, whose blockbuster pamphlet "Fahrenheit 1776" alleges that the War of Independence occurred because the British government backed out of secret plans to build a beer pipeline from Massachusetts to Virginia.
"People seem to forget that in the 1750s, Washington was fighting alongside the British in the French and Indian War," Mr. Morbid said. "It was only after King George III put the kibosh on the pipeline project that things changed."
He added, "From the top down, this Administration is rife with ties to big beer. It's no coincidence that the vice-president's cousin is Sam Adams."
A member of the Move On Society, speaking under the condition of anonymity, said the group planned simultaneous protests in several cities during August, which they have declared, "Impeach Washingcrook" month.
The increasing boldness of the insurgency in Pennsylvania is just the latest blow to the Washington Administration, which has also grappled with maintaining a cabinet. At the end of last year, Thomas Jefferson resigned as Secretary of State amid bitter infighting with Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton.
I bet they had a lot of Josephus Kerry types in those days. You know the type--the ones angling to increase their own power and willing to pander to all and sundry for a vote (the most recent antics of the modern-day version can be found here).
Somehow, we managed to persevere as a country despite the insurgency and without electing Josephus. Read the whole thing!
Vietnam ad nauseum
Omar at Iraq the Model seems rather incredulous that--even now-- some people think Iraq is similar to Vietnam:
Eventually he will also come across this article from Rolling Stone by Robert Dreyfuss, titled "The Quagmire: As the Iraq war drags on, it's beginning to look a lot like Vietnam".
What Omar doesn't understand is the tenacious grip the Left of this country has on the Vietnam conflict. They absolutely positively under no circumstances will allow any other comparison because Vietnam is the only conflict that they ever have won. During those glorious days, the power of the Left alone snatched defeat from the jaws of military victory. How did they do it? The same way they are doing it now. By continuously and unrelentingly undermining every aspect of the Iraq war.
Ritter's article and Dreyfuss's article are the tip of the iceberg. But I remember the media frenzy during Vietnam and this time I think the American public deserve the truth. The Vietnam ad nauseum ploy just doesn't cut it.
-There is no "quagmire"--that meme deserves to be completely eliminated from the public discourse now. Call back in 10 years, and if the situation is not improved, then I will agree with you.
- 1600 American soldiers' deaths in Iraq is sad, but hardly comparable to the deaths of 58000 lives and 350000 casualties, and between one and two million Vietnamese deaths.
- If there was a moral issue in the Vietnam war, it was that the US had a miliary draft. All the soldiers in Iraq are volunteers in the US military, and presumably know the risks for which they signed up.
- The wanton disregard for life only continued after the US military pulled out and the Left's "victory" resulted in the deaths of more than a 60,000 South Vietnamese at the hands of the North. Presumably, these deaths were ok with the Left. As was the takeover in Cambodia by the Khmer Rouge who managed to slaughter quite a few themselves.
In short, the only similarity between Iraq and Vietnam is the Left's intense desire to see another defeat for the United States. The only quagmire happens to be in their thinking, and the only hopelessness is in their souls--those that long ago abandoned any prinicples or concerns about humanity in their own obsession with their brand of religious fanaticism. And, make no mistake, the Left's ideology is practiced with the same religious ferver and mindless hatred that the worse religious fanatics of either Christiandom or Islam could generate.
Get a grip people. Try to pull yourselves out of the time tunnel you have been trapped in for decades and look around at what is happening in the world. No one is claiming that the war on terror and the Islamic Jihadists will be easy or that it will be cheap.
Many more lives are likely to be lost--though that is not our goal, but our enemy's; but this is a war we cannot and must not lose. Not if we care about Freedom. And not if we truly care about the value of human life.
While reading one of the military blogs I found a link to this article by Scott Ritter.
He starts the article by suggesting that Iraq is a second Vietnam!
Okay now, I wasn't born yet when the war ended in Vietnam but I had read a lot about that war and I live in Baghdad as you already know so I think I'm not entirely clueless about this subject.
What I really see is that the only things in common between the two conflicts are that they were/are both in Asia and that American military power was/is involved.
I can't understand how he could see Iraq similar to Vietnam when the vast majority of the population here is happy with getting rid of Saddam, i.e. glad the change took place in Iraq.
The wildest estimations for the size of "insurgency" in Iraq suggest that there are less than a hundred thousand "insurgents" and double that number of supporters, i.e. a total of 300 000 which roughly represents only 1% of the total population of Iraq.
Even if we double the above estimations, we will end up with 98% of the population are against those "insurgents".
I think Ritter in his article (which as you see was endorsed by Al-Jazeera) ignored the whole country of Iraq and built his entire "analysis" on stories from Al-Qaim and tried to generalize the situation in that spot over the rest of Iraq.
Eventually he will also come across this article from Rolling Stone by Robert Dreyfuss, titled "The Quagmire: As the Iraq war drags on, it's beginning to look a lot like Vietnam".
What Omar doesn't understand is the tenacious grip the Left of this country has on the Vietnam conflict. They absolutely positively under no circumstances will allow any other comparison because Vietnam is the only conflict that they ever have won. During those glorious days, the power of the Left alone snatched defeat from the jaws of military victory. How did they do it? The same way they are doing it now. By continuously and unrelentingly undermining every aspect of the Iraq war.
Ritter's article and Dreyfuss's article are the tip of the iceberg. But I remember the media frenzy during Vietnam and this time I think the American public deserve the truth. The Vietnam ad nauseum ploy just doesn't cut it.
-There is no "quagmire"--that meme deserves to be completely eliminated from the public discourse now. Call back in 10 years, and if the situation is not improved, then I will agree with you.
- 1600 American soldiers' deaths in Iraq is sad, but hardly comparable to the deaths of 58000 lives and 350000 casualties, and between one and two million Vietnamese deaths.
- If there was a moral issue in the Vietnam war, it was that the US had a miliary draft. All the soldiers in Iraq are volunteers in the US military, and presumably know the risks for which they signed up.
- The wanton disregard for life only continued after the US military pulled out and the Left's "victory" resulted in the deaths of more than a 60,000 South Vietnamese at the hands of the North. Presumably, these deaths were ok with the Left. As was the takeover in Cambodia by the Khmer Rouge who managed to slaughter quite a few themselves.
In short, the only similarity between Iraq and Vietnam is the Left's intense desire to see another defeat for the United States. The only quagmire happens to be in their thinking, and the only hopelessness is in their souls--those that long ago abandoned any prinicples or concerns about humanity in their own obsession with their brand of religious fanaticism. And, make no mistake, the Left's ideology is practiced with the same religious ferver and mindless hatred that the worse religious fanatics of either Christiandom or Islam could generate.
Get a grip people. Try to pull yourselves out of the time tunnel you have been trapped in for decades and look around at what is happening in the world. No one is claiming that the war on terror and the Islamic Jihadists will be easy or that it will be cheap.
Many more lives are likely to be lost--though that is not our goal, but our enemy's; but this is a war we cannot and must not lose. Not if we care about Freedom. And not if we truly care about the value of human life.
Sunday, May 08, 2005
10 Commandments of Multiculturalism
The Baron at the Gates of Vienna has posted the "10 Commandments of Multiculturalism":
He then goes on to discuss each one. This is a unique and valuable public service indeed. Very highly recommended! (I wish I had written it!)
1. America is uniquely evil.
2. America is never justified in defending itself.
3. Illiterate people from poor societies are superior to Americans.
4. The Earth would be better off without human beings.
5. Making a profit is always immoral.
6. Differences between individuals or groups are unfair.
7. For Designated Victim Groups, strong feelings excuse all behavior.
8. Policies informed by Judæo-Christian principles are inherently suspect.
9. Conservatives are hypocrites; liberals are sincere.
10. There are no acts of God; there are only acts of Government.
He then goes on to discuss each one. This is a unique and valuable public service indeed. Very highly recommended! (I wish I had written it!)
Hug Your Mothers
Shrinkette's mother in law passed away yesterday, just before Mother's Day. My heart goes out to her and her family.
My mother died 7 years ago, but hardly a day goes by that I don't think of her. Ours was a conflicted relationship for most of my life, but I loved her and I know that she loved me.
Hug your mothers today, and remember to show whatever love you feel while they are still with you. Don't put it off. If there are "issues" between you, take care of them now. You will be glad you did.
The Boo made me breakfast in bed (pancakes and bacon) and my husband showered me with gifts and flowers.
I am so lucky.
My mother died 7 years ago, but hardly a day goes by that I don't think of her. Ours was a conflicted relationship for most of my life, but I loved her and I know that she loved me.
Hug your mothers today, and remember to show whatever love you feel while they are still with you. Don't put it off. If there are "issues" between you, take care of them now. You will be glad you did.
The Boo made me breakfast in bed (pancakes and bacon) and my husband showered me with gifts and flowers.
I am so lucky.
Carnival of the Insanities
Time for the weekly insanity udate, where the insane, the bizarre, the ridiculous, and the completely absurd are highlighted for all to see! This has been a week of rare idiocy (as always!). Calling all bloggers! Be sure to send in your entries to the Carnival, which will be posted every Sunday. Entries need to be in by 8 pm on Saturday to make their way into the list that week.1. Video games increasing IQ? This is information I plan to keep from my daughter as long as possible! OTOH, maybe at least the former is not all it's cracked up to be (hat tip: Sense of Soot)
2. Some of the disadvanatages of pissing off America. (keep scrolling down--I especially like the last one!)
3. Someone should mention that "free scientific inquiry" is not the same as "censored" scientific inquiry.
4. Whoops! Sorry, wrong number!
5. Who knew that there even were papal trading cards?
6. Little girls before and after the Islamic revolution of Iran (hat tip: Beautiful Atrocities). The Mullahs call this "progress."
7. Damned if you do; damned if you don't - the new criteria for public office.
8. This cat is for real. Scary, actually.
9. I refuse to live in a universe without them! I don't care what Orson Scott Card says. (Example of how empty our culture would be without the series here)
10. There should be a version of this for the pajama-clad bloggers....
11. Ace is on a roll.. gob-smacking vileness AND Whore College? (Make sure you see the quote at the bottom of the second link--it's hilarious.
12. How terribly, terribly sad. Did I mention that it was sad?
13. I'm pretty sure my future self attended, even if I missed it.
14. A "desperate housewife" who clearly loves the subject of her humor VS a desperate comedian pandering to a desperate candidate who only loves himself. You decide which one was funnier.
15. Now, just imagine if they'd used chocolate in the experiment!
16. Seems to me that if they have to keep emphasizing they are "reality-based", then maybe they aren't? You know, sort of like "I am not a crook".
17. We're sooooo baaaaad! As Jayson at Polipundit comments, "This could explain quite a bit."
Saturday, May 07, 2005
The Virtue of Endurance
Jim Oberg, the best space analyst in the media, has written a terrific and comprehensive history of Space Station Alpha (the article has links to over two dozen detailed articles on various themes and subjects related to the Station), and also makes an excellent case that it is time for a new name for the outpost:
Jim has put together numerous links that elaborate on the history of the Space Station, with its many challenges and the piece is chock-full of links to problems encountered by the various crews and how they were dealt with.
The name "Endurance" has a proud history. It was the name of the ship used in 1914 by Sir Ernest Shackleton and a crew of 27 as they set sail for the last unclaimed prize in the history of exploration: the first crossing on foot of the Antarctic continent. That was another adventure that was hardly free from mishaps and untoward events.
All in all Oberg documents the endurance of NASA's orbiting Space Station--and the resiliancy and flexibility of its crewmembers. I hope someone at NASA is listening, because the name "Alpha" unfortunately rather too aptly reflects the lack of imagination and vision of NASA's leadership; and the Station itself hardly deserves such a clunker of a name.
Even with all it's problems on-orbit, Oberg optimistically concludes:
Read the entire piece!
The international space station has flown for years with only an unofficial name, "Alpha." Now rarely used, and based on an obscure rationale, that name might at last have a worthy replacement, replete with honor and expressing what the 100-ton orbital outpost has truly exhibited: "Endurance."
With the space shuttle’s return to flight delayed another two months, the space station’s orbital isolation from large-scale repair and resupply will drag on even longer. Between the last shuttle departure in early December 2002 and the earliest possible return in mid-July, more than two and a half years have elapsed. It's traveled almost 400 million miles (640 million kilometers) in that period, and it has defied the doubters every mile of the way.
Jim has put together numerous links that elaborate on the history of the Space Station, with its many challenges and the piece is chock-full of links to problems encountered by the various crews and how they were dealt with.The name "Endurance" has a proud history. It was the name of the ship used in 1914 by Sir Ernest Shackleton and a crew of 27 as they set sail for the last unclaimed prize in the history of exploration: the first crossing on foot of the Antarctic continent. That was another adventure that was hardly free from mishaps and untoward events.
All in all Oberg documents the endurance of NASA's orbiting Space Station--and the resiliancy and flexibility of its crewmembers. I hope someone at NASA is listening, because the name "Alpha" unfortunately rather too aptly reflects the lack of imagination and vision of NASA's leadership; and the Station itself hardly deserves such a clunker of a name.
Even with all it's problems on-orbit, Oberg optimistically concludes:
Perhaps the greatest long-range value is simply in accustoming the world to the notion of people living in space on a regular basis, rather than in two-week episodes. The "larger goal" is the endurance itself, and that may prove in the end to be all the justification it ever needed.
Read the entire piece!
The Underlying Tyranny of the Left
Ladies and Gentlemen, I submit for your review, this perfect example of how unseriously the academic elite in this country take the issue of intellectual freedom when it is not their own opinions that are being held to scrutiny. From Michelle Malkin's blog:
Clearly, free speech is all well and good if you are one of the protected elite of academia.
Remember the expression, "I disapprove of what you say, but I defend to the death your right to say it." ? This well-known quotation is attributed to Voltaire, but there is no evidence he ever said it (although he could have). What he actually said/wrote is even more appropriate in this case:
I imagine that Professor Muller would be out on the picket lines laying his life on the line (hahahahaha) to defend the execrable Ward Churchill's right to speech. And, I'll wager that is only because he happens to agree with Churchill.
I don't happen to agree with all of Malkin's ideas in the book in question, but she adds considerably to the discussion and raises issues that need to be considered in a free society.
Muller's behavior, on the other hand, exemplifies the underlying tyranny at the heart of many leftist positions.
You can buy her book here:
UNC law professor Eric Muller--the chief critic of my latest book whom I debated several times on the radio and engaged extensively (see below)--called on his blog readers to get my book banned --yes, banned--from the shelves at the Manzanar relocation center[note: Manzanar is a National Park Service site operated by the US government-PS].
Clearly, free speech is all well and good if you are one of the protected elite of academia.
Remember the expression, "I disapprove of what you say, but I defend to the death your right to say it." ? This well-known quotation is attributed to Voltaire, but there is no evidence he ever said it (although he could have). What he actually said/wrote is even more appropriate in this case:
"Monsieur l'abbé, I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write." --Voltaire, letter to M. le Riche, February 6, 1770; French author, humanist, rationalist, & satirist (1694 - 1778)
I imagine that Professor Muller would be out on the picket lines laying his life on the line (hahahahaha) to defend the execrable Ward Churchill's right to speech. And, I'll wager that is only because he happens to agree with Churchill.
I don't happen to agree with all of Malkin's ideas in the book in question, but she adds considerably to the discussion and raises issues that need to be considered in a free society.
Muller's behavior, on the other hand, exemplifies the underlying tyranny at the heart of many leftist positions.
You can buy her book here:
Jihad and the Crusades
The American Thinker has an interesting series of posts on Jihad and the Crusades: Part I is here and Part II is here.
This may be more than you ever wanted to know about events in the Middle Ages, but since they still seem to be having an impact today; and since there appears to be a "coverup" of the truth of those times for political correctness purposes; the series is strongly recommended.
I saw the movie, Kingdom of Heaven, the other night, and the movie definitely isn't (recommended, that is). Thank goodness that Jeff at Beautiful Atrocities has a round-up of comments; and Donald Sensing has a balanced review, so I don't have to say anything more [except that Orlando Bloom should have made his career as a blond, elegant elf].
I especially liked this comparison from One Hand Clapping:
Check all the links out this weekend! As for me, the weather is fabulous (72 degrees and sunny); it is beautiful outside, and I have BBQ brisket to make!
This may be more than you ever wanted to know about events in the Middle Ages, but since they still seem to be having an impact today; and since there appears to be a "coverup" of the truth of those times for political correctness purposes; the series is strongly recommended.
I saw the movie, Kingdom of Heaven, the other night, and the movie definitely isn't (recommended, that is). Thank goodness that Jeff at Beautiful Atrocities has a round-up of comments; and Donald Sensing has a balanced review, so I don't have to say anything more [except that Orlando Bloom should have made his career as a blond, elegant elf].
I especially liked this comparison from One Hand Clapping:
The lengthy siege by Saladin’s army against Jerusalem cannot help but bring to mind the siege by the Orcs against Minas Tirith in The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King. And KOH sufers for it - Ridley Scott seems not near the action director that Peter Jackson was (baffling since Scott’s actions scenes in Gladiator were very well done) and one instinctively keeps looking for enormous oliphaunts and nazguls flying around.
Check all the links out this weekend! As for me, the weather is fabulous (72 degrees and sunny); it is beautiful outside, and I have BBQ brisket to make!
Just Stand There
This is a nice way to sum up the Democratic Party's philosophy toward change in general, and Social Security in particular:
At least it is consistent. They would still be "just standing there" with Saddam, too.
At least it is consistent. They would still be "just standing there" with Saddam, too.
Friday, May 06, 2005
Either Impractical or Hysterical
As usual, Victor Davis Hanson cuts through to the heart of a dilemma--and today it is the Democratic Party's dilemma, "Democratic Suicide":
As VDH observes, the Democrats are stuck in a time warp. They keep reliving the 60's over and over again. Their rhetoric has remained static and has become increasingly absurd when considered alongside the urgent problems of the 21st century. Whether it is foreign or domestic policy, they try to fit it into the procrustean bed of Vietnam or racism or the evil capitalism memes. They can't seem to think outside the box of the 60's, let alone the last century.
Personally, I think that, like the Jihadists, they prefer to commit political suicide--taking down as much of the country as possible--rather than to consider amending their hypocritical class warfare bullshit. The rehashed (and fully discredited) Marxist, pseudoreligious ideology they embrace like dogma is not capable of connecting to the real people who live and work in a free society. Real people see them as either impractical or completely hysterical.
Read it all, for it is very good.
Until Democrats promote someone who barks out something like, "We can and will win in Iraq," or, "Let the word go out: An attack on the United States originating from a rogue state is synonymous with its own destruction," or some such unguarded and perhaps slightly over-the-top statement, I don't think that the American people will entrust their safety to the party. John Kerry, to be frank, is no Harry Truman, and time is running out for Hillary Clinton to morph into Scoop Jackson.
Philosophically, two grand themes explain the Democratic dilemma. One, the United States does not suffer from the sort of oppression, poverty, or Vietnam nightmares of the 1950s and 1960s that created the present Democratic ideology. Thus calcified solutions of big government entitlements, race-based largess, and knee-jerk suspicion of U.S. power abroad come off as either impractical or hysterical.
Second, there is the widening gulf between word and deed — and Americans hate hypocrites most of all. When you meet a guy from the Chamber of Commerce or insurance association, you pretty much know that what you see is what you get: comfort with American culture and values, an upscale lifestyle that reflects his ideology and work, and no apologies for success or excuses for lack of same.
But if you listen to Dr. Dean and his class venom, it hardly seems comparable with how he lives or how he was brought up. John Kerry's super power boat, Teresa Kerry's numerous mansions, Arianna Huffington's gated estate, George Soros's jet, Ted Turner's ranches, Sean Penn's digs — all this and more, whether fairly or unfairly, suggest hypocrisy and insincerity: Something like, "High taxes, government regulation, racial quotas, and more entitlements won't hurt me since I have so much money at my own disposal anyway, but will at least make me feel good that we are transferring capital to the less fortunate."
Worse yet, such easy largess and the cost of caring often translate into contempt for the small businessman, entrepreneur, and salesperson who is supposedly illiberal because he worries that he has less disposable income and is less secure. And when you add in cracks about Wal-Mart, McDonald's, and the "Christian Right" — all the things the more cultured avoid — then the architects of a supposedly populist party seem to be ignorant of their own constituencies.
As VDH observes, the Democrats are stuck in a time warp. They keep reliving the 60's over and over again. Their rhetoric has remained static and has become increasingly absurd when considered alongside the urgent problems of the 21st century. Whether it is foreign or domestic policy, they try to fit it into the procrustean bed of Vietnam or racism or the evil capitalism memes. They can't seem to think outside the box of the 60's, let alone the last century.
Personally, I think that, like the Jihadists, they prefer to commit political suicide--taking down as much of the country as possible--rather than to consider amending their hypocritical class warfare bullshit. The rehashed (and fully discredited) Marxist, pseudoreligious ideology they embrace like dogma is not capable of connecting to the real people who live and work in a free society. Real people see them as either impractical or completely hysterical.
Read it all, for it is very good.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)