THE NEUROTIC RIGHT VS THE PSYCHOTIC LEFT

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

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

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

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

So, how does a rational person determine what is true and what is delusion? How do you decide if something is a myth or is real? How do you decide if someone is paranoid, or simply "connecting the dots" and facing reality? How do you determine if someone is simply neurotic, where thoughts and behavior are conflicted and distressed, but not inappropriate or outside socially acceptable norms; versus psychotic, where thoughts and behavior become unanchored to reality? [Freud distinguished the two in this way: “in neurosis the ego suppresses part of the id out of allegiance to reality, whereas in psychosis it lets itself be carried away by the id and detached from a part of reality.”]

In "How Sad", Jonah Goldberg bemoans John McWhorter's interesting defense of Van Jones, Obama's ex-Green Jobs Czar:

I've been a big fan of John McWhorter, but his piece over at The New Republic is sad commentary both about him and the magazine in which it appears. He writes:

Jones was wrong, actually, in disavowing his support for 9/11 conspiracy theory. He signed the document, which can only mean that he supports the idea that 9/11 was planned, or that the Bushies knew something more than they have said, or at least that the charge is plausible enough to require investigation.

But support for that idea is hardly unknown among people of the left – and often gestural in its own way; look one of these types in the eye and ask “Do you really think George Bush and his cabinet engineered the murder of thousands and have kept the secret for eight years?” and watch the nervous pause and the look off into the distance. Speculations in this vein hardly meant that Jones was not sincerely committed to working within the government to do good.

Just a few years ago, Peter Beinart wrote a TNR cover story (which became a book) on how intellectually serious "fighting liberals" needed to confront their own anti-American left flank. Now TNR is running pieces insisting that just a little trutherism is okay in the liberal big tent. Good to know.

I hope this means we will hear fewer meditations about the right wing's coddling of the lunatic fringe and the "paranoid style" of the Right from The New Republic.

So, now we know that 9/11 "trutherism" has become completely mainstream on the political left. [Just as a reminder, here is the sort of paranoid fantasy we have had to put up with during the entire Bush Administration:

If you want to talk about extremism, how does the above psychotic delusion--which we can now assume is a position held by a rather large number of leftists--compare with even the most extreme neurotic obsessions about Obama's birth certificate? ]

The left decries the "paranoid style" of the the right when any question arises about the seemliness and unbelievable haste with which President Obama has attempted to consolidate vast amounts of power in the Presidency (see here for a breakdown of the more than 30 czars who function outside the normal checks and balances of government and have been called Obama's "shadow government")--something they daily insisted Bush was doing on an unprecedented level.

Turns out Bush was a piker compared to the Great Obama when it comes to accumulating power to one's self.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Take Van Jones. He is now making the ludicrous claim that he was "smeared". Since when is it a "smear" to quote a person's own words? Nothing that was said about Jones was false; nor did it come anywhere near the definition of a "smear". Yet, to the postmodern political demagogues who are currently running our country--and I refer to the Democrat, Republican, socialist and communist variants--the meaning of words is elastic and can easily be manipulated or distorted to suit their current purposes or agenda.

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

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

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

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

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

Let's review some of the key points about whether a someone is "paranoid" or "projecting" or in "denial" versus accurately responding to and interpreting objective reality. In other words, how do you tell if the use of a defense is a symptom of some underlying psychological problem versus whether it is adaptive and healthy?

In order to be adaptive, a defense:

• should regulate, rather than remove affect – that is, instead of totally anesthetizing a person, the defense would just reduce the pain (and therefore make it easier to cope; rather than to avoid coping altogether)

• should channel feelings instead of blocking them (i.e., allow a healthy expression of those feelings in a way that can discharge them in socially acceptable ways rather than keep them hidden and motivating behavior)

• should be oriented to the long-term; and not simply short-term comfort or avoidance

• should be oriented toward present and future pain relief; and not focused past distress

• should be as specific as possible (i.e., be as a key is to a lock; not as a sledgehammer applied to a door)

• the use of the defense should attract people and not repel them.

Think about those criteria for a while and decide for yourself which side is psychologicaly healthier; more functional, and in touch with reality.

As for my own view and clinical assessment: when it comes to deciding between Democrats or Republicans; the political left or conservatives; I'm going to have choose the only partially deluded Republicans and conservatives all the way. It's the difference in severity between psychosis (where contact with reality is lost or highly distorted) and a neurosis (where inner conflict brings about distress and unhappiness, but not delusions or hallucinations) --both are definitely dysfunctional, but the psychotic is a really, really sick puppy.

At least the neurotic right has not completely abandoned the real world for the bubble of self-delusion. They have not regularly retreated into moral relativism and the nihilism of postmodern rhetoric to justify their denial and delusion. They have not embraced national defeat and humiliation as a path to power and control over others. They do not constantly whine, scream, and behave like immature children when they don't get their way (at least not a a matter of course). They do not say one thing and then do another, at least not with the frequency and enthusiasm of the Democrats and the left.

The list of issues that the Democrats and the left are desperately trying to avoid are legion; but among the most serious are: (1) an imminently nuclear Iran (as they badmouth America and apologize to pretty much every despot and petty tyrant in today's world) and the deterioration of the stuation in Afghanistan under their watch; and (2) the imminent fiscal catastrophe they are foisting on America today and the forseeable future, with their wild spending and intemperate haste to remake America into a leftist hell-hole utopia.

For more than 8 years , America has had to listen to the the left's constant carping abou the inadequacies of America; the evils of American power and the evils of capitalism etc. etc. etc.; we have had to withstand their contempt for America's fundamental values; and our military have had to bear the brunt of their incoherent rage and careless enabling of the enemy we fight (talk about "not caring" about people--does Code Pink or the other zombies of the left take any responsibility for enabling and encouraging terrorists to kill Americans whenever they can?).

Now that the left are ascendant and have complete power and control over the White House and both Houses of Congress, the incessant carping has only accelerated and reached a fever pitch! They can't even function effectively when power is handed to them on a silver platter because reality is not part of their world view.

We have listened to the endless repetition of the left's mantras and slogans--and their myths; the unrivaled self-righteousness of their superior intellects; and seen firsthand the intensity of the hatred that motivates them. We are now beginning to see the consequences of their self-delusion in the real world.

Through it all, there have been very very few on the left side of the political spectrum who have been able to summon up an iota of insight; or a moment of self-reflection about the potentially devastating consequences of their own rhetoric or behavior--nationally or internationally.

Don't dare question their patriotism, they screamed when they were not in power. But if you looked at their behavior and the consequences of that behavior, that was exactly what you had to question. Of course, now that they are in power, questioning them is completely out of bounds.

Look at the people that Obama is surrounding himself with; his czars and the ceaseless promotion of his cult of personality--even to children.

One of the most important psychological challenges for every human is dealing with reality and the real world--particularly when the consequences of confronting truth are personally unpleasant and painful. That is exactly what psychological denial seeks to avoid.

Today we are witness to the left's vivid (and psychotic) imagination, feverishly working overtime to reverse all those unwelcome facts and painful truths so they can remain in an endless childhood.

CHANGES

I have accepted a job in California and will be moving to the Fresno area in December of this year. If anyone wants to buy or lease a lovely home in Ann Arbor, let me know

Since I discovered I couldn't be away from blogging for too long without missing it, I will try to blog regularly during this time of personal chaos. but there will be times when that isn't possible because of time, etc.

Life is full of changes....and opportunities.

HEROES OF THE UN

Unbelievable...but I suppose we must consider the complete intellectual and moral bankruptcy of the organization involved.

You can just imagine our own morally vacuous supreme leader eagerly drooling to get one of those precious awards...."World Hero of Postmodern Doublespeak" perhaps?

THE "GROUP HUG" THEORY OF DIPLOMACY

The increasingly infantile foreign policy of the US should be a growing matter of concern to most Americans. Anne Bayefsky writes:

Looking for a quick and easy boost in the polls, President Obama has decided to go to the one place where merit bears no relationship to adulation: the United Nations. On September 24, the president will take the unprecedented step of presiding over a meeting of the UN Security Council.

No American president has ever attempted to acquire the image of King of the Universe by officiating at a meeting of the UN’s highest body. But Obama apparently believes that being flanked by council-member heads of state like Col. Moammar Qaddafi — who is expected to be seated five seats to Obama’s right — will cast a sufficiently blinding spell on the American taxpayer that the perilous state of the nation’s economy, the health-care fiasco, and a summer of “post-racial” scapegoating will pale by comparison.

After all, who among us is not for world peace?

Unfortunately, however, the move represents one of the most dangerous diplomatic ploys this country has ever seen. The president didn’t just decide to chair a rare council summit; he also set the September 24 agenda — as is the prerogative of the state holding the gavel for the month. His choice, in the words of American UN Ambassador Susan Rice, speaking on September 2 at her first press briefing since the United States assumed the council presidency, is this: “The session will be focused on nuclear nonproliferation and nuclear disarmament broadly, and not on any specific countries.”

...The linguistic formula, which Obama’s confrere Qaddafi will undoubtedly exploit, shamelessly panders to Arab and Muslim states. It is a familiar recipe for stonewalling efforts to prevent Iran or other Muslim and Arab states from acquiring nuclear weapons until Israel is disarmed or Israel’s (unofficial) nuclear capacity is exposed and neutralized. It is also a frequent tool of those whose real goal is to stymie America’s defenses.

Second, Obama’s agenda preference indicates that he is dead-set against chairing a session on the non-proliferation issues already on the council’s plate — those that name Iran and North Korea. This stretches his “beer summit” technique to the global scale. Naming names, or identifying the actual threats to world peace, would evidently interfere with the spectacle of proclaiming affection for world peace in the abstract. The problem is that this feel-good experience will feel best of all to Iran, which has interpreted Obama’s penchant for form over substance to be a critical weakness. As a Tehran newspaper close to the regime snickered in July: “Their strategy consists of begging us to talk with them.”

You have to read the entire piece to understand the incredible naivete and childish grandiosity of Obama's insane power ploy. Does he actually believe that the force of his personality can charm North Korea or Iran into making nice? Is this man a certifiable lunatic?

As lunatics go, Obama is even crazier than most--and more dangerous. He is, in effect, gambling away our national security in the hopes of being able to trade the mere Presidency of the US into a chance to become King of the Universe--or at least the next UN Secretary General. Obama clearly only sees his current (undeserved) position as just a stepping stone to planetary godhood. His narcissism is breathtaking--and we are all going to suffer for it.

Bayefsky concludes:

Far from bolstering his flagging image, the president’s group-hug theory of diplomacy deserves the disdain of anyone who can separate rhetoric from reality

.

Relevant to this discussion is a comment that Mark Steyn made in passing about Obama's nuclear naivete:

It's not just embarassing to hear the so-called "leader of the free world" talking like a 14-year old who's been up in his room listening to "Imagine" for too long. I fear this presidency has the makings of global tragedy.

We are headed for a global tragedy because the "group-hug" theory of diplomacy is therapeutic psychobabble elevated to serious political discourse by the children of postmodern nihilism and their narcissistic self-indulgence.

Addendum: I wonder which postmodern messiah will win the "Demagogue of the Decade" award? It's a toss-up for sure.



VS

BACK IN FASHION, BUT STILL OUT OF TOUCH WITH REALITY

I suppose this is just the usual insanity coming from that bizarro organization we know as the UN:

The UN has declared Fidel Castro, the longtime Communist dictator of Cuba, the “World Hero of Solidarity.” Castro killed thousands and thousands of people during his rule, torturing some to death (including a few American citizens), and Cuba remains an oppressive dictatorship even today.

The award was presented to Castro by the President of the UN General Assembly, Miguel D’Escoto Brockmann. Brockmann also successfully lobbied the Obama Administration to demand that Honduras allow the return to power of its ex-president and would-be dictator, Manuel Zelaya. (Two months ago, soldiers acting on orders of Honduras’s Supreme Court arrested Zelaya after he systematically abused his powers. After the Court quite legally declared that Zelaya was no longer president, he was duly replaced by Honduras’s Congress with a civilian, the Congressional Speaker).

The article goes on to note that:

The Obama Administration recently decided to impose sanctions on Honduras, and indicated it will not recognize future democratic elections in Honduras unless Honduras first lets ex-president Zelaya return to power.

Marxism seems to be back in fashion in Washington these days.

Yes, the Obama Administration has definitely ushered in a veritable Marxist fashion revival--these days it's just so coooool to be communist, dude.

Charles Krauthammer has it exactly right: Jones is a "pathetic intellectual anachronism"; and his rise to power in the Obama Administration, in a world where a pathetic organization like the United Nations is given one iota of credibility by any rational being on the planet, just goes to show that the baseline "psychotic paranoia" of the left is becoming mainstream --both nationally and internationally.

THE MINDLESS LEFT

In a great article at American Thinker, Henry Percy discusses the "Infantile Economics of the Left":

An email has been making the rounds for some time regarding the obscene profits enjoyed by drug companies... it is useful to go over the economics raised in the email one more time.

The email casts the authors as intrepid investigators in the mold of Mike Wallace:

Did you ever wonder how much it costs a drug company for the active ingredient in prescription medications? Some people think it must cost a lot, since many drugs sell for more than $2.00 per tablet ... In our independent investigation of how much profit drug companies really make, we obtained the actual price of active ingredients used in some of the most popular drugs sold in America.

There follows a list of 16 drugs. For example, we are told that 100 tabs of Prozac retail for $247.47, while the cost of the raw ingredients is only 11 cents, a markup of 224,973%! Gasp! Where's my pitchfork, Ma?

...Let's assume that the numbers in the email are correct (I have no idea if they are). If you paid 11 cents for the precursors of your Prozac, could you make the drug? I couldn't either. If you scooped up some sand on the beach, could you fabricate the CPU in your computer? Intel did-and charged you a couple hundred dollars for it. How can they get away with that?

When there's little value-add to raw ingredients-say, turning Bessie Moocow into a Happy Meal-the markup is relatively low. But in high-tech industries the intellectual property is far more important than the cost of the precursors. Heck, even in an established industry there's a healthy markup. The spot price for iron ore is about $90 per ton. What? Infiniti charges $35,000 for a G37 when the main ingredient is worth $150? That's over 23,000% markup, man! Ripoff!

If you had a ton and a half of ore dumped in your driveway, could you transform it into your Infiniti?

This question taps into a fundamental economic reality that the political left just doesn't seem capable of understanding: THE ENGINE OF CAPITALISM IS THE HUMAN MIND.

Not a day goes by that the political left in this country doesn't rage against capitalism and business; against the profit motive and the pursuit of money. They routinely scapegoat capitalists and businessmen-- just because they are capitalists and businessmen. They show utter contempt for materialism and wealth; and yet somehow , by some mysterious, magical method, they expect that human poverty and misery will be miraculously "cured" by the unrealistic economic fantasies inherent in Marxism, socialism, and communism.

Oh, the left always masks the underlying psychological objectives of their rage by couching all the anti-capitalist rhetoric in terms of "helping the 'oppressed' or the 'little people'"; or with vague terms like "celebrating diversity" and seeking "social justice"; but make no mistake, their ultimate goal is power over others--which translates in the real world to enslaving the human mind.

The left have little or no desire to use human ingenuity or achievement to find innovative solutions to problems in health care; or to create new pharmaceuticals that might mitigate human suffering. They aren't capable of understanding or appreciating the political and economic freedom necessary to facilitate the creative process.

They are not really interesting in keeping the planet healthy (except insofar as they can also control human enterprise and the markets). Nor are they truly concerned about human misery and poverty except to the extent that it can be manipulated to achieve power. They aren't capable of understanding human nature.

In their frenzied attempts to remake humankind into some sort of monstrous ideal; and the underlying fierce denial of basic human nature that defines their ideology, they betray themselves: They are motivated by a hatred of all that makes us human in the first place.

Everything about the left these days is rather infantile. Like children who never question where their toys come from (Santa? Obama?), they believe wealth is created out of mere nothingness. This is easy for them to believe since they haven't a clue how to create it themselves. They only know how to steal it from others.

The creation of weath requires a human mind. Stealing it only requires brute force.

LEFTISTS OF A FEATHER...

Isn't this nice?

The Obama administration on Thursday cut all non-humanitarian aid to Honduras over the ouster of President Manuel Zelaya, making permanent a temporary suspension of U.S. aid imposed after he was deposed in June.

The State Department made the announcement as Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton was meeting with Zelaya. Spokesman Ian Kelly did not say how much assistance would be cut but officials have said previously that more than $200 million is at stake. Kelly said it affected "a broad range of assistance to the government of Honduras."

"The Secretary of State has made the decision, consistent with U.S. legislation, recognizing the need for strong measures in light of the continued resistance to the adoption of the San Jose Accord by the de facto regime and continuing failure to restore democratic, constitutional rule to Honduras," Kelly said in a statement.

The San Jose accord, brokered by Costa Rican President Oscar Arias, aims to return Zelaya to power with limited authority until elections now set for November. But Zelaya's replacement, Roberto Micheletti, has refused to accept it, prompting Clinton's decision to cut aid

.

Of course, the article fails to mention that it was exactly democratic and constitutional actions that led to Zelaya's ouster in Honduras....

Don't you think it interesting that one of fthe first actions of the Obama administration was to reward the Palestinians with increased humanitarian aid for their ongoing violent jihad against a prominent US ally in the Middle East (at least Israel used to be an ally prior to the Obama Administration).

This is just more evidence that Obama is not only "palling around" with terrorists, but that, like the incompetent and hapless Jimmy Carter, Obama has never met a leftist tyrant or dictator he didn't like; and who he hasn't in his brief reign also encouraged and enabled.

"Leftist tyrant or dictator" is clearly (tripley) redundant.

SOME POINTS TO PONDER ON THE ROAD TO HELL HEALTH CARE UTOPIA

If the argument for a wholesale revamping of American healthcare depends on the large number of uninsured, typically estimated at 45 million (although a New York Times editorial elevated the number of medically uninsured and underinsured to over 100 million), then there had better be some plan that goes along with the reform to find the 25,000 to 50,000 new physicians that will be required. And by the way, since the number of physicians retiring in the next decade will be about 25,000 per year, you can see we have a bit of a problem.

A little preview of physician availability from Massachusetts healthcare reform via the New York Times:

Dr. Patricia A. Sereno, state president of the American Academy of Family Physicians, said an influx of the newly insured to her practice in Malden, just north of Boston, had stretched her daily caseload to as many as 22 to 25 patients, from 18 to 20 a year ago. To fit them in, Dr. Sereno limits the number of 45-minute physicals she schedules each day, thereby doubling the wait for an exam to three months.

“It’s a recipe for disaster,” Dr. Sereno said. “It’s great that people have access to health care, but now we’ve got to find a way to give them access to preventive services. The point of this legislation was not to get people episodic care.”

Read the entire article.

As it is, my caseload has taken a aharp upward turn, so there's no time to blog at any length today....but just one more point from Mark Steyn:

Paneled to death
From The Daily Telegraph:

Patients with terminal illnesses are being made to die prematurely under an NHS scheme to help end their lives, leading doctors warn today.
In a letter to The Daily Telegraph, a group of experts who care for the terminally ill claim that some patients are being wrongly judged as close to death.
Under NHS guidance introduced across England to help doctors and medical staff deal with dying patients, they can then have fluid and drugs withdrawn and many are put on continuous sedation until they pass away.

Sarah Palin got it right on the "death panel" business, and finnicky conservative critics missed the point: Governmentalization of health care leads to rationing, and rationing leads to death panels - very literally.

I'm sure the road to health care reform is paved with good intentions, though.

FAVORITE WEAPONS OF THE TYRANT

Can you possibly imagine the cries of , "Fascism!" that would have greeted any attempt by the Bush Administration to use the NEA to make artists a cheerleader of the State, promoting the President Bush's policies? So how much have you heard about this?

On Thursday August 6th, I was invited by the National Endowment for the Arts to attend a conference call scheduled for Monday August 10th hosted by the NEA, the White House Office of Public Engagement, and United We Serve. The call would include “a group of artists, producers, promoters, organizers, influencers, marketers, taste-makers, leaders or just plain cool people to join together and work together to promote a more civically engaged America and celebrate how the arts can be used for a positive change!”

I learned after the conference call that there were approximately 75 people participating, including many well respected street-artists, filmmakers, art galleries, music venues, musicians and music producers, writers, poets, actors, independent media outlets, marketers, and various other professionals from the creative community....

Backed by the full weight of President Barack Obama’s call to service and the institutional weight of the NEA, the conference call was billed as an opportunity for those in the art community to inspire service in four key categories, and at the top of the list were “health care” and “energy and environment.” The service was to be attached to the President’s United We Serve campaign, a nationwide federal initiative to make service a way of life for all Americans....

We were encouraged to bring the same sense of enthusiasm to these “focus areas” as we had brought to Obama’s presidential campaign, and we were encouraged to create art and art initiatives that brought awareness to these issues. Throughout the conversation, we were reminded of our ability as artists and art professionals to “shape the lives” of those around us. The now famous Obama “Hope” poster, created by artist Shepard Fairey and promoted by many of those on the phone call, and will.i.am’s “Yes We Can” song and music video were presented as shining examples of our group’s clear role in the election.

Obama has a strong arts agenda, we were told, and has been very supportive of both using and supporting the arts in creative ways to talk about the issues facing the country. We were “selected for a reason,” they told us. We had played a key role in the election and now Obama was putting out the call of service to help create change. We knew “how to make a stink,” and were encouraged to do so.

Are you starting to hear the Twilight Zone theme music yet? The author of the above article--which you should read in full--ends with this:

And if you think that my fear regarding the arts becoming a tool of the state is still unfounded, I leave you with a few statements made by the NEA to the art community participants on the conference call. “This is just the beginning. This is the first telephone call of a brand new conversation. We are just now learning how to really bring this community together to speak with the government. What that looks like legally?…bare with us as we learn the language so that we can speak to each other safely… “

Now that President Postmodern is in the White House, what's to become of all those poor artists and poets who used to courageously speak "Truth to Power"?

I guess they will be more than happy to devolve into mindless tools of the powerful, yet benevolent, Obama Utopia.

But don't waste your time feeling sorry for all the repulsive second-handers who are voluntarily willing to suborn their "creativity" to pimping for Obama; instead, consider this unbelievably creepy Obama initiative; with teacher's manuals and everything to make sure that children take away the (politically) correct message:

PRESIDENT OBAMA TO DELIVER NATIONALLY BROADCAST ADDRESS TO STUDENTS ON SEPT. 8The President will deliver a speech about the importance of persisting and succeeding in school on Sept. 8, the first day of school for many children across America. The Department of Education is encouraging educators, students and parents to use this opportunity to help students get focused and begin the school year strong. The speech will be broadcast live on www.whitehouse.gov at 1 p.m. EDT. The Department of Education has also asked a group of U.S. Department of Education Teaching Ambassador Fellows to develop some suggested classroom activities around the speech to help engage students and stimulate discussion on the importance of education in their lives. The suggested classroom activities will be available on www.ed.gov.

Sounds fairly benign, doesn't it? Except that I can't possibly imagine Obama the Wonderful wasting an opportunity like this to campaign and suck in the next generation to be the mindless robots of the Utopia he is planning for America. Like the NEA confernce call a few days ago, this is likely to be yet another fascist Obama ploy to increase worship and adoration of Himself and his perfect agenda-- and to make little political tools out of little children.

Michelle Malkin has more on how this is likely to play out and the implications of this clever move on the part of the Obama Administration. I hate to keep quoting Joseph Stalin, but he definitely has Obama's number:

“Education is a weapon whose effects depend on who holds it in his hands and at whom it is aimed.”

Art and Education have always been the favorite weapons of every tyrant, large and small, as they consolidate their power; cut off any potential protests against them; and propagandize the glory of their wonderfulness.

I'm sure you have a pretty good idea who is holding the art and education weapons; and at whom both are going to be aimed, don't you?

Again, can you imagine the sputtering and incoherent outrage if President Bush had done something even remotely like this? Remember when the Dixie Chicks swooned in outrage when fellow citizens dared to boycott their anti-Bush music? But soon I'm sure we can count on them to release an upbeat song extolling the virtues of Obama's health reform legislation. Yeah! Speaking Truth to Power! Preparing the next generation to be obedient and docile tools of the fascist benevolent State!

The NEA and the Department of Education are being cynically manipulated to advance Obama's fascist political agenda. What next? Can we soon expect IRS officials to patriotically audit the tax profiles of those opposed to Obamanomics? Administration?

With all the fascist tendencies hope and change being promoted by Obama right now, is it any wonder that this sort of thing precipitates a deep suspicion bordering on outright paranoia? Just because you are paranoid doesn't mean that Obama and his merry band of fascists socialists aren't out to get you....



UPDATE: Ace wants to know if we'll be able to see Obama's speech to children in advance:

Ed at Hot Air catches the suggestion in the teachers' materials that students "write letters to themselves about how they can help the President."

Ask not what your president can do for you. Ask what you can do for your president.

I continue assuming this speech is all about achievement in school and suchlike other unobjectionable stuff. And I assume the line about "helping the President" is in reference to the president's call for academic excellence.

However... I've been wrong before. And while I assume it's just referring to academic excellence, I would not be surprised at all if he packed his address up with environmental nonsense and other lefty crap.

And if he does... well. He will have crossed yet another line that all other presidents have refrained from crossing.

Well, the audacity of fascism hope and all that.

UPDATE II: "Indoctrination never takes a vacation". Indeed. This previous post of mine on "The New Educational Indoctrination--Obama Style" is also worth a look. Let's not forget this part of Obama's recent history either:

Do you think it is just a coincidence that the Obama's connection with unrepentant terrorist and avowed leftist William Ayers had to do with an educational project in Chicago's schools? What do you imagine that project's real goals were, when the author of the grant that underwrote it was William Ayers, bomber, terrorist, and now university professor? Ayers was the one who wrote the grant in 1993, and hired Obama to administer it. This was Obama's only serious executive experience in his entire life, and it was a total disaster. But, we continue to observe the unrestrained incorporation of postmodern, leftist, PC, multicultural, and environmentalist ideas into the curriculum even as early as kindergarden.

UPDATE III: Don Surber says the backlash about all this is starting to make the messiah unhappy, so he is changing course:

Let’s see, cannot run a townhall meeting, cannot run a Cash4Clunkers program and they cannot even run a kindergarten class.

Change. Hope. Hopeless.

WHEN DENIAL BECOMES SOCIOPATHY

I have written extensively on the pervasive psychological denial of the political left (see here, here , here, and here, for example). And, I frequently point out that denial is an "equal opportunity" defense mechanism engaged in by all human beings; it is an involuntary, built-in psychic response designed to protect an individual from precipitously having to face unwanted, unacceptable or threatening feelings, thoughts or behavior. The mind simply blocks out reality and truth--and sees what it wants to see or becomes blind to reality.

Nevertheless, the degree of denial engaged in by the political left, particularly since the end of the last century has been boundless. I have always given the political left and its more clueless adherents the benefit of the doubt, and assumed that their unwillingness to face reality was unconscious; and was so pronounced and pervasive because they could not accept the truth that history and the real world had revealed about their beloved and bankrupt ideology. That ideology, whether it is called Marxism, communism or socialism is fundamentally anti-human .

What happens when psychological denial ceases to be unconscious and becomes a deliberate, willful, and consciously evil behavior-- in spite of all the accumulated evidence of its malignant impact on real people in the real world?

At that point we can safely assume that we are no longer dealing with a purely defensive structure in the psyche; we are dealing with aggressive, unadulterated sociopathy.

Jay Nordlinger describes a perfect example of this:

Several readers have asked me to respond to Diane Watson. I do so wearily. She is the Democratic congresswoman from L.A. who said last week that President Obama’s health-care critics were racist — and who heaped praise upon a) Fidel Castro, b) Che Guevara, and c) Cuban health care. She said,

You need to go down there and see what Fidel Castro put in place. And I want you to know, now, you can think whatever you want to about Fidel Castro, but he was one of the brightest leaders I have ever met. And you know the Cuban revolution that kicked out the wealthy — Che Guevara did that. And after they took over, they went out among the population to find someone who could lead this new nation, and they found . . . an attorney by the name of Fidel Castro.

It was clear, from her tone, that she regards Castro as a kind of Christ figure. (To listen to the congresswoman, go here.)

I’m afraid I can’t say anything more about these subjects than I have already said. Let me offer a piece from 2000: “In Castro’s Corner: A story of black and red.” And a piece from 2007: “The Myth of Cuban Health Care: Michael Moore gives it a powerful boost.” And, in this FAQ column, you will find suggestions about what to read concerning Che Guevara.I’m afraid that mythologizing about Guevara, Castro, and the Communist dictatorship will never end. Indeed, it will get worse after the Castros and Cuban Communism pass. I used to think — I’ve had arguments with Armando Valladares about this (he is the heroic Cuban dissident who wrote Against All Hope) — I used to think that Castro-lovers in the United States were merely ignorant: They knew not what they said or did. How could all these “liberal Democrats” support a police state? A totalitarian dictatorship?

But, some years ago, I stopped thinking that: I had to swallow that these people — certainly some dismaying percentage of them — actually like it: actually like the dictatorship and all the murderous oppression that goes with it. You can’t remain entirely ignorant or naïve after 50 years of this dictatorship. And that is a very, very bitter pill to swallow.
One more point: Many of the leaders of the Cuban democracy movement are black — “Afro-Cuban.” President Bush gave the Medal of Freedom to one of them (the political prisoner Oscar Biscet). Many of Castro’s most ardent supporters in the United States are black: Charlie Rangel, Maxine Waters, Randall Robinson, and so on. What must the black Cuban democrats think of these Castro champions?

Very, very little, I can tell you. (Emphasis mine)

The traditional medical definition of sociopathy is a personality disorder characterized by a lack of social responsibility and failure to adapt to ethical and social standards of the community.

If we think about that definition for a moment, we can perhaps begin to understand what is going on in our world today; and the reason that a huge number of people have embraced a sociopathic lifestyle.

Under the pervasive influence of postmodern philosophy and rhetoric, the ethical and social standards of the community have, unfortunately, been slowly evolving and eroding.

In western culture, ethical and moral standards used to be anchored to the real world (i.e., to reality); but in the postmodern wilderness in which the political left and most of its most visible spokespeople--i.e., leaders in the Democratic Party-- wander aimlessly, ethics and morality are relative and "anchored" to feelings and whim; which inevitably unleashes the baser and more vile aspects of human nature.

The 20th century became the playground (and litter box) for the narcissist; and by the time the 21st century rolled around, malignant narcissism was not even considered deviant, it had gone mainstream. Since psychopathology continually evolves and worsens if it is not confronted and dealt with, what we have now in our culture, particularly the political system, is the endstage of psychological evolution under postmodernism: the sociopath who disguises his or her sociopathy by selflessness (now marketed as "hope and change").

These selfless sociopaths are people who couldn't care less about the individual human being. Individual human beings are expendable; even vast numbers of them--as long as they stand in the way of the implementation of the sociopath's great ideas and compassionate execution of those ideas. They are the fodder that can be used to build "great" societies, utopian fantasies and collectivist wet-dreams.

It used to be that with the rise of civilization, political sociopaths--selfless and selfless-- were (thankfully) few and far between. Even so, when they appeared in history, they wreaked havoc and destroyed lives with great abandon for "the greater good". Needless to say, a central aspect of the 'greater good' was always the advancement of their own glorious self and their ideas.

We can thank primarily the political left and its useful idiots for the persistent, unyielding, and willful celebration of--and ultimately mainstreaming of--malignant narcissism. We have entered the age of postmodern sociopathy and nihilism.

What does it matter if the lives and freedoms of so many individuals are sacrificed to the murderous oppressors of the world? If you "kick out the wealthy" then you have the wonderful socialist paradise of Cuba; or the magnificent utopia of North Korea with all their misery, poverty, oppression and leftist enlightenment!

Under the "enlightened" and "progressive" left, wealth will be redistributed and the human mind enslaved--but so what? As the eminent leftist and quintessential nihilist Joseph Stalin once remarked, "Death solves all problems - no man, no problem."

In the long run we are all dead anyway, right?

UPDATE: ShrinkWrapped is back blogging, and he has some related thoughts on the narcissistic over-investment in ideas:

Even for those with normal levels of narcissism, the probability of falling into an over-investment in one's own ideas is ubiquitous. The maxim that "scientific paradigms change one death at a time" is a recognition that even those (scientists) who are expected to be most dispassionate about their beliefs are subject to the all too human failing of growing wedded to inaccurate or incorrect theories simply because they have invested so much time and energy into them that they are unable to countenance the possibility that they are in error. Those who have more than the usual quanta of narcissistic pathology are far more liable to embrace, and persist in their embrace of, nonsensical ideas than those who lack such a passionate attachment.

Politicians tend to come in two varieties, both exhibiting elements of enhanced narcissism. Most politicians are primarily opportunistic. Their narcissistic investment is in their own importance and power. When the polls go against them, they can rather easily jettison their political beliefs in favor of the more important gratification of being loved, adored, and re-elected. Other politicians are much more ideological and ideologues are prime examples of those who refuse to examine their own beliefs in the light of failure.

Read it all.

A FITTING MEMORIAL FOR TED KENNEDY

I think it is entirely appropriate and deserving that the Health Care Reform monstrosity in Congress be renamed ChappaquidiCare in honor of Senator Edward Kennedy. I don't know who came up with the name, but I first saw it at Ace of Spades HQ.

Such a name would be a fitting monument to Kennedy's life's work; because, under this health plan, if you should suffer or die, it will be for the Greater Good.

UPDATE: This is a video-fisking of youtube video that trivializes health care and shows an appalling level of economic illiteracy (h/t The Corner):

HOW TO DENY REALITY IN ONE EASY LEFTIST LESSON

Amazing!

Apparently, even if you take the time to call their attention to reality, this is what transpires:

Mike, You do remember that Lee Harvey Oswald was a communist right? And the plot to kill Kennedy was either a Castro payback or a Mafia payback (given that Jack Ruby was a known associate of the mob). You do know that Sirhan Sirhan was a Palestinian Activist and Bill Ayers, a Weathermen member and friend of Obama, dedicated one of his books to him, right? Are you that ignorant or do you just think we are? I was born in 1957 and I do remember.

Malloy responded thusly:

[Expletive redacted], you're stupid. Oswald was as much a commie as you are. Go back to school, dummie. What the [expletive redacted] do you know about Sirhan. Nothing. Go away. I don't tolerate dumbasses Scram.

Mr. Malloy, you can tell reality to "scram" all you want, but it's just not going to go away because you don't have the courage to face it.

In "The Consequences of Denial" I wrote:

In the vacuous recesses of their own minds, those who deny reality manage to convince themselves that they are "reality-based". One might justifiably ask them why they have an almost obsessive need to so aggressively tout their connection to reality, like some sort of celebrity name-dropper expecting to increase his stature in the eyes of the world: "Oh, by the way, did you know that I'm reality-based?"

Sadly for them, just because one repeatedly claims a close connection to the Big R, does not prove anything one way or the other; nor does it absolve the boaster of providing the requisite evidence to back up their claim. Feelings won't do, I'm afraid; though it is often to those arguments of emotion that the denier will ultimately resort when impeded in his quest to avoid reality.

As a psychiatrist, I would be the last person to suggest that even a primitive and immature psychological defense mechanism like denial didn't have some positive results for the individuals who use it. Obviously, if it resulted in the outright death or dismemberment of the person using it, denial would probably not last long as a viable strategy in the real world; nor would it be particularly helpful for the species as a whole.

The truth is that frequently denial works--at least for a short while--and that is why it is so often resorted to in extremis.

Some of the positive consequences of psychological denial include:

• In the short-term, psychological denial can help a person maintain their sanity--which would be threatened by awareness of a painful truth or reality
• In the short-term, denial can help a person function day to day
• In the short-term, denial can prevent a person from having to acknowledge painful thoughts, feelings or behavior and help them maintain a world view threatened by an unacceptable reality or truth

The operative word in all of the above is "in the short-term." In the short-term, even the unhealthiest of defenses--such as denial, projection, paranoia-- may be creative, healthy, comforting, and coping. And, while their use may strike observers as downright peculiar at times, in the short-term, they may be transiently adaptive.

In fact, psychological denial is a way to integrate one's experience by providing a variety of filters for pain and mechanisms for self-deception. It creatively rearranges the sources of conflict the individual faces so that the conflict becomes manageable.

Today's political left are the hands-down, gold medal winners in the Denial of Reality Sweepstakes. Watch them spin, lie, distort and finally resort to personal attacks on their critics without any debate on the facts--and learn all you need to know about their creatively dysfunctional coping.

UPDATE: Via The Other McCain : greased porcupine grappling!

TOPSY-TURVY

I'm in California preparing for a move there in the next few months. But I will leave you with a great observation from Andy McCarthy, who starts by quoting a WSJ editorial:

The most revealing portion of the IG report documents the program's results. The CIA's "detention and interrogation of terrorists has provided intelligence that has enabled the identification and apprehension of other terrorists and warned of terrorist plots planned for the United States and around the world." That included the identification of Jose Padilla and Binyam Muhammed, who planned to detonate a dirty bomb, and the arrest of previously unknown members of an al Qaeda cell in Karachi, Pakistan, designated to pilot an aircraft attack in the U.S. The information also made the CIA aware of plots to attack the U.S. consulate in Karachi, hijack aircraft to fly into Heathrow, loosen track spikes to derail a U.S. train, blow up U.S. gas stations, fly an airplane into a California building, and cut the lines of suspension bridges in New York.

Then says:

Though the Journal does not get into it, Binyam Mohammed was released outright by the Obama administration in February. He is now living freely in England. That's our new counterterrorism approach: Release the terrorist who planned mass-murder attacks against U.S. cities but investigate the CIA agents who prevented mass-murder attacks against U.S. cities.

Release the terrorist, investigate the CIA.

If you want to put your finger on exactly what is wrong with the world today, this ubiquitous and bizarre moral inversion is the key. It's as if you were sitting in a crowded movie theater watching a Harry Potter film or one of the Lord of the Rings movies and whenever Deatheaters or orcs came onscreen, the people in the audience would wildly cheer and applaud.

The world is topsy-turvy; and insanity, hate and tyranny are the new heroes.

WHOOP-DI-DOO

The breathless headline! The adoring crowds awed by the majesty of hope and change!

Barack Obama is close to brokering an Israeli-Palestinian deal that will allow him to announce a resumption of the long-stalled Middle East peace talks before the end of next month, according to US, Israeli, Palestinian and European officials.

Is there a Nobel Peace Prize waiting in the wings for this incredible, never-before-seen accomplishment by the holy one???

Look, folks, we are essentially back to square one YET AGAIN in a process that has been going on for most of my lifetime. Has anyone failed to notice that those of us (including Israel) who passionately desire peace happen to be dealing with a "peace partner" who basically is indifferent to peace, unless they get to destroy Israel in the process. The Palestinians have never missed an opportunity to miss an opportunity for peace. They have been remarkably consistent in their lust to destroy Jews rather than to build any kind of society for their people.

So, this latest news is nothing more than what Mona Charen referred to as, "The Diplomacy of Wishful Thinking".

What, pray tell, is going to be different this time around? What could possibly motivate the Palestinians to behave differently than they have in every other "peace talk" revival? What will make Hamas suddenly change its Charter, which calls for the destruction of the Jewsish state and eternal jihad to this end?

For decades now, the West has held the firm belief that somehow, allowing the Palestinians to suffer the consequences of their choices and terrorist behavior would be "punishing them". A typical proponent of this attitude, for example, is former President Carter, who consistently and regularly advocates that Israel's actions should be punished, but that the poor Palestinians must be given a free pass by civilization.

Carter blithely discusses the "devastating consequences" of Israel or American actions, but I have yet to see him--or any others who put forth the same compassionate view-- grapple with the "devastating consequences" of the Hamas charter. Or of suicide bombers. Or of the intent, stated repeatedly by the leaders of the Palestinians and sanctioned by the Palestinian people who voted to elect Hamas, and to destroy Israel.

Carter and the other terrorist enablers of the West ignore predictable Palestinian behavior with the cultivated cognitive dissonance of today's postmodern left.

In fact, the obsession of the West with the eternal victimhood cult of the Palestininas has been the single biggest psychological impediment to a peace process that could achieve real peace in that region.

So I ask again, why should the Palestinians' behavior ever change? What could possibly motivate them to be civilized? Or deal honestly with Israel? They have every reason to believe that the Carters and Obamas of the world will always let them off the hook--and bail them out--no matter what they do; how many promises they make; or how badly they behave.

When it comes to seeking peace; or establishing a civil and productive society the Palestinians have shown themselves to be completely hopeless and only focused on war.

In fact, they are so committed to war; so determined to continue on their path homicidal violence for violence' sake, that they are indoctrinating the next generation into the cult of death (and they don't even need Mickey Mouse to do it).

Western leaders are amazingly slow learners. They have been excusing the Palestinians and vilifying Israel for decades now, and yet they wonder why peace is so elusive in that part of the world.

The Palestinian Con is one of the greatest deceptions in the history of the world.

And the Western world, which is the actual victim of the con seems bent on never calling these flim-flam artist to account for undermining every peace process; breaking every truce; squandering every chance; and worshipping death. It is truly amazing how the West, instead of understanding the con, are willing accessories to it and instead view the con artist as the victim and constantly act to protect and defend him. What would you say to a victimized senior citizen who delusionally protects the perpetrators of a scam who have robbed him of all his savings? You would rightfully think he is out of his mind and feel pity at how the ravages of age have compromised his cognitive functioning.

So, the "peace process" is once again "ON" in the Middle East thanks to the Obamessiah. Whoop-di-doo.

SIGNS OF AN ALREADY FAILED PRESIDENT

Seth Leibsohn has it exactly right about "what truly shocks the conscience":

Yesterday’s release by the Justice Department was meant to bolster Eric Holder’s decision to name a special prosecutor, and to shock our consciences about how poorly we treated high-value detainees.

I think we should stop with the “high-value detainee” talk and call them “terrorists” from here on out, because I believe we’ve forgotten who these people are. They are not white-collar criminals, and they are not alleged homicide perpetrators. They are terrorists who killed hundreds and thousands of Americans and did their level best to kill more — to put an end to this country’s existence.

The media has led with the story of our interrogation of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, and in an effort to shock our national conscience, the report says, among other things, that he was told that if there was another attack on American soil, the CIA would “kill your children.”

I’m sorry but I’m left cold by this. The man who masterminded the actual murder of 3,000 Americans and changed our country forever, wanting to do more, was told that his children would be threatened if another attack took place. Let’s recall what we’re actually doing right now: We use Predator drones to actually kill terrorists with missiles — and we actually kill their children, friends, and relatives at the same time.

Please read the entire piece. For details on the CIA Report, John Hinderaker has and excellent and detailed post.

Let's just review Eric Holder's moral preening about this issue; which, as it turns out mirrors the cynically opportunistic and deceitful posturing of his current boss in the White House.

Here is Holder's earlier weighing in on detainee civil rights and the war on terror in 2002 where he had his "no Geneva Convention" interview with Paula Zahn at CNN:

"One of the things we clearly want to do with these prisoners is to have an ability to interrogate them and find out what their future plans might be, where other cells are located; under the Geneva Convention that you are really limited in the amount of information that you can elicit from people.

It seems to me that given the way in which they have conducted themselves, however, that they are not, in fact, people entitled to the protection of the Geneva Convention. They are not prisoners of war. If, for instance, Mohamed Atta had survived the attack on the World Trade Center, would we now be calling him a prisoner of war? I think not. Should Zacarias Moussaoui be called a prisoner of war? Again, I think not."

And here’s Holder, as a top Obama adviser, in a speech delivered only six months ago [i.e., June 2008], in the comfy “progressive” confines of the American Constitution Society’s annual convention:

Our government authorized the use of torture, approved of secret electronic surveillance against American citizens, secretly detained American citizens without due process of law, denied the writ of habeas corpus to hundreds of accused enemy combatants and authorized the use of procedures that violate both international law and the United States Constitution.

Meanwhile, Peter Brookes, a Heritage Foundation senior fellow, and a former CIA officer, suggests we keep the following in mind when thinking about the CIA interrogations:

Once we get beyond claims about the alleged mishandling of interrogations by CIA officers, there are a couple of things that people should keep in mind:

1. The interrogation program provided critical information that led to the disruption of terror attacks against U.S. interests in the difficult, early days after 9/11.

2. It isn’t by chance that there hasn’t been another terror attack on U.S. soil since 9/11.

3. These actions were taken by well-intentioned individuals who were likely doing what they thought would help keep their fellow Americans safe.

4. The Justice Department investigation will likely have a chilling effect on CIA officers in the field, who will wonder if they should be getting the terrorist or getting lawyers.

5. Let’s not forget: We’re still at war, and our intelligence professionals represent our first line of defense

Is there any doubt that our courageous President needs to appease his leftist zombie base (lest they turn on him) and throw them some red meat so as to distract them from his epic fail on promoting their utopian health care agenda?

Forgive me if I fail to feel anything but disgust at his and Holder's idea of "morality". Like Leibsohn, I am unmoved by the Khalid Sheikh Mohammeds of this world. I do not for one moment believe that our use of enhanced interrogation methods--which were not EVER used indiscriminantly, or without careful legal and moral debate--are any evidence of a significant deviation from our fundamental principles as a people. I already discussed this issue at length in "Barbarism, Torture and Moral Compasses", but the most relevant portion of that post is this:

In a comment thread from a 2006 post at The Belmont Club, Wretchard, speaking about the barbaric Islamic fundamentalist terrorists with whom we were at war, wrote:

The brilliance of the new barbarism is that you cannot fight it without destroying your own value system into the bargain.

Traditionally the solution has been to consider wartime a discontinuity, when civilization's rules are suspended. It becomes possible, for example, to lay waste to the Monte Cassino Abbey. Berlin was bombed without regard for its buildings, churches or people.

The alternative is to create methods of fighting so discriminating that we can literally shoot between the raindrops. But that creates a different problem, for we will need an intelligence system so comprehensive that it will become intrusive.

Either way, the war cannot be won without cost. And the fundamental fraud foisted on the public is to claim we can have war without horror, conduct an intelligence war without dishonesty and cunning and obtain victory without sacrifice.

His two points are particularly relevant in the discussion of torture. To the extent that we can, we have tried to maintain "civilization's rules" as much as possible, while at the same time suspending them when the situation demands--i.e., adherence to a life-affirming value system that requires you to protect innocents who might be harmed by evil. Indeed, when it comes to the issue of torture, one might even say from an historical perspective that the administration went overboard to try and find techniques that were sufficiently uncomfortable and even unbearable; and which would elicit the necessary information without inflicting lasting harm on the recipient.
In this, they were obviously successful.

In fact, I would say that the Bush Administration used an ethical system that appropriately put the value of innocent life higher than that of the dubious, or so-called "rights" of a terrorist, who happens not to value life at all. Not only that, but the previous administration also managed to identify and use techniques that effectively "shoot between the raindrops" of the multiple definitions and conceptualizations of torture. True, they identified techniques that were harsh; but they were also techniques which did not truly endanger the life of the terrorist (who himself does not value life in the least and would consider such scruples about it "weak").

To say that the use of such techniques is unethical seems to me to entirely miss the purpose of ethics.

If you consider the purpose of ethics--to codify and act on one's values--then the Bush Administration behaved in an exquisitely ethical manner. They codified the most important of American values and acted on them; and in doing so managed to keep America safe from a terrorist attack for more than eight years.

Obama is turning out to be a massive disappointment to even his most slavishly devoted and myopic followers; but this latest cynical and immoral manipulation of our national security to provide political cover for his incompetent leadership shows him to be seriously irresponsible and irresponsibly unserious as POTUS, both in national and foreign policy. He is a postmodern pied piper, leading the gullible of this country down a path of economic ruin and international impotence. As for his and his Administration's moral compass, it is spinning wildly trying to find a direction that pulls him up in the polls.

Obama was never ready for prime time; and is turning out to be a bad joke perpetrated on all Americans.

Leibsohn states, "This is an extremely bad way to begin a presidency — worse than Clinton’s first-year rookie mistakes — and I believe these are the signs of an already-failed presidency."
Hard to believe that we are only 7 months into this madness. It's kind of scary to imagine what may yet come out of this radical leftist Administration.

UPDATE: Over at the Jawa Report, Vinnie quotes Fouad Ajami:

All this hero-worship before Mr. Obama met his first test of leadership. In reality, he was who he was, a Chicago politician who had done well by his opposition to the Iraq war. He had run a skillful campaign, and had met a Clinton machine that had run out of tricks and a McCain campaign that never understood the nature of the contest of 2008.
He was no FDR, and besides the history of the depression—the real history—bears little resemblance to the received narrative of the nation instantly rescued, in the course of 100 days or 200 days, by an interventionist state. The economic distress had been so deep and relentless that FDR began his second term, in 1937, with the economy still in the grip of recession.

Nor was JFK about style. He had known military service and combat, and familial loss; he had run in 1960 as a hawk committed to the nation's victory in the Cold War. He and his rival, Richard Nixon, shared a fundamental outlook on American power and its burdens.

Now that realism about Mr. Obama has begun to sink in, these iconic figures of history had best be left alone. They can't rescue the Obama presidency. Their magic can't be his. Mr. Obama isn't Lincoln with a BlackBerry. Those great personages are made by history, in the course of history, and not by the spinners or the smitten talking heads.

And he ends with the Jawa Report Failed Seal of Approval:



Nice.

UPDATE II: Andy McCarthy sums up this morning what would be an honest argument against the enhanced interrogation techniques:

There is a principled human-rights position on all this. You can say: "No one wants to see bad things happen to people, but I honestly believe abusive tactics are so corrosive of our society's principles that it would be better for 10,000 Americans to be killed in a terrorist attack than for us to prevent the attack by subjecting a morally culpable terrorist to non-lethal forms of coercion that cause no lasting physical or mental harm."

That would be the honest argument, but it is not going to persuade many people. Thus the continued pretense, against all evidence and logic, that the tactics don't work. Fewer and fewer people are fooled.

Not only will it not persuade many people, but such an argument is never made and isn't likely to be made because it is....well, honest. It is the completely dishonest arguments that keep being mouthed up by adherents of this Administration: Enhanced Interrogation techniques are torture; They don't work anyway; Any information gleaned by them could have been obtained in more compassionate ways; Terrorists are entitled to same civil liberties that all Americans enjoy; and so on and so forth.

CURRAHEE !

Watch this. You'll be glad you did. (h/t The Corner)

I will be busy at work most of today and tomorrow; then I'll be leaving to go out of town for a few days. Blogging will be light until after the weekend.

JUST A SIMPLE CODING ERROR...

K-Lo quotes from an AP article:

CHARLESTON, W.Va. (AP) — At least 1,200 veterans across the country have been mistakenly told by the Veterans Administration that they suffer from a fatal neurological disease.

One of the leaders of a Gulf War veterans group says panicked veterans from Alabama, Florida, Kansas, North Carolina, West Virginia and Wyoming have contacted the group about the error.

Denise Nichols, the vice president of the National Gulf War Resource Center, says the VA is blaming a coding error for the mistake.

Just a teensy weensy coding error.

If I may paraphrase a well-known saying: To err is human, to really screw things up requires a government bureaucrat with a computer.

Here's to the health care of the future!

SURE ENOUGH

Obama's tactics are now easy to predict, and Jonathan Adler did it this past Saturday:

Let's see now. Deficit projections are once again on the rise as Obama's approval rating falls. Health care reform is faltering, climate change legislation is stalled, and David Axlerod is under fire for his conflicts of interest. Seems like a good time to change the subject. Contents of the CIA inspector general's report on harsh interrogation methods have already leaked, so it won't do the trick. If I were a betting man, I'd expect something else to drop Monday or Tuesday.

And, here it is!

To be applauded throughout the week in in fits of hysterical euphoria by all the other "right" thinking lefty zombies.

That didn't take long, did it?

UPDATE: Lest you think that this tactic is not working, just listen to the news. There is not one single peep about the $2 TRILLION mistake made by the Obama administration on estimating the deficit. Instead, the topic of the day is the CIA. Michelle Malkin has more on the brou-ha-ha and faux outrage on the left about threats made to terror suspects. It is illegal, unfair, and extremely lacking in compassion, I guess, to try and trick terrorists into talking about their future plans.

As Ace says in utter disbelief: "Threats? We're going to prosecute people for threats?"

Welcome to the wonderful world of Obama--where a $9 Trillion deficit is nothing at all to worry about; and all our attention must be focused once more on the EVIL BUSH ADMINISTRATION who just happened to keep us safe for the last 8 years.

PREPARE FOR THE NEW ENLIGHTENMENT !

All those people who noticed that these days we seem to be living Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged, better prepare themselves for even worse. The anti-humans are now preparing us for the world of Rand's Anthem. In fact, soon the "scientific debate" about whether or not there is even an "I" will be declared over, at least according to this gushing article:

Who, dear reader, do you think you are? Do you think your mind is capable of independent judgment and largely directs the course of your life? Do you think that most of your decisions in life have been the product of your rational, conscious self? Do you believe you are in control of your life? Do you cherish ideas such as self-expression, a sense of autonomy and a distinct, self-authored identity? The chances are that, albeit with a few qualifications, most of your answers are yes. Indeed, given a pervasive culture which reinforces all these ideas, it would be a bit odd if you didn't.

But the point about this new explosion of interest in research into our brains is that it exposes as illusions much of these guiding principles of what it is to be a mature adult. They are a profound misunderstanding of how we think, and how our brains work. They are fairytales, about as fanciful and as implausible as goblins...

But take heart!

...we are on the verge of a new Enlightenment. He argues that the 18th-century concept of the individual self has run its course and that a new paradigm of human nature is emerging. Given that assumptions of an autonomous individual underpin every aspect of how we order society and our political economy, educate and tackle social issues, this kind of Big Idea tends to make you feel a tad dizzy.

Actually, they make me feel a tad nauseated.

The author makes sure we understand the political implications of all this wonderful research:

This humbling evidence of our hopeless decision-making exposes consumer capitalism as not being about millions of independent decisions of individuals expressing unique identities, but about how social norms can be manipulated to create eager shoppers. Or take the idea of introducing choice into public services; some bizarre consequences will result, such as the popularity of a hospital being determined by whether it has a car park, not the skill of medical staff.

There are two other areas of this new brain research which are arguably more important. First, we have much underestimated the social nature of the brain: how primed it is to recognise, interpret and respond all the time to the input of others and how that lays down patterns which govern our behaviour. We are herd-like animals who show a strong tendency to conform with group norms; what makes our brains so much bigger than other primates is this remarkable capacity for social skills such as empathy, co-operation and fairness. Instead of the old metaphor of individuals as discrete entities like billiard balls, we need to think instead of them as nodes in a relationship network.

The second area of astonishing discoveries is in the plasticity of the brain. We talk of "hardwiring" (computers have generated many misleading metaphors for the brain) but in fact, the brain can be changed. Parts of the brain can learn entirely new tricks. Neural pathways are not fixed, and even much of the damage done by deprivation in childhood can be repaired with the right circumstances of example, support and determination. We can shape our own brains to create new habits that we might have thought we were not capable of – it's a long, hard process but it is possible.

This all may seem remote from politics, but it's not. Jon Cruddas has a habit of startling audiences by arguing that the regeneration of the left requires a convincing new account of what it is to be human. Are human beings self-interested creatures or are they collaborative? The right's argument for market capitalism is rooted in the former but the research on the social brain supports the latter. Put crudely, we are social creatures with an inbuilt tendency to co-operate and seek out each other's approval and that is probably more important in determining day-to-day behaviours than narrowly conceived self-interest.

In a thought-provoking pamphlet on the implications for politics to be published early next month, Matt Grist, who runs the RSA's Social Brain project, concludes that both the right and the left have lessons to learn. The rightwing emphasis on the individual's capacity to triumph over their environment through willpower is undermined by the research which shows how childhood deprivation leaves such scarring on the brain. While the challenge to the left is to recognise that the myopic tendencies of the brain to privilege the short term has been held in check by institutions and traditions which can safeguard longer-term interests. Perhaps that requires greater understanding on the left of how such institutions operate and a revision of assumptions about why they restrict individual autonomy.(emphasis mine)

So, to summarize--and obviously, the facts are in, the scientific debate in this area, like that of man-made global warming, is over--individual responsibility is OUT; the nanny state is IN.

As one commenter to the article notes, "Fascists everywhere are going to love this...."

How convenient all this is for the left to have "scientific evidence" that the ultimate "enlightenment" for the human species is to evolve into the Borg!

My hapless little brain can't help wondering though, about all those compassionate and loving individual leftists jockying for control over the very institutions that "safeguard our longer-term interests" (read: do what's best for you even if you don't think it is). What about their lack of decision-making skills? Aren't they "lazy, imitative, over-optimistic, myopic" with "much of [their]decision-making..made by unconscious habits of the mind which are largely socially primed" too?

Or, are some individuals just more equal than others in this new "enlightened" animal farm?

Next thing you know, there will be a law (with "scientific" evidence to support it!) that prohibits the use of the word "I" because of its antisocial connotations. The individual is a mere "illusion" and the advancement of the species requires--no demands!--that we eliminate such unscientific ways of thinking.

Wasn't it Barack Obama (the most enlightened man in history--next to Jesus presumbably)who recently reminded us all that we are our brothers' and sisters' keeper? That it is our ethical and moral obligation (and the most correct way for our brain to operate) to pass some sort of socialist health care reform?


So, comrades, prepare yourselves for the new Enlightenment!

Which is actually not that different from all those wonderful "enlightenments" of the last century that resulted in the misery and death of millions of individual humans in the various leftist utopian gulags of that age.

HOW MEAN

Oh dear. It's those harsh tactics again. How simply awful that they would treat our enemies so...mean.

Clearly we need the CIA and the FBI to change into more compassionate and caring agencies. And I have a simple suggestion. Here is a recent email I received, presumably from "@fbi.gov"(at least that was the return address):

Federal Bureau of Investigation
J. Edger Hoover building 935
Pennsylvania avenue, NW Washington D.C
20535-0001

Attention,

We the Federal bureau of investigation (FBI) Washington, DC have been
informed through our Global intelligence monitoring network, that you
are presently having a transaction going on in Nigeria.

This is to let you know that we have taken out time in screening through
this project as stipulated on our protocols of operation and have finally confirmed that your payment of $2,300,000.00 is 100% genuine and hitch free from all facet and of which you have the lawful right to claim your fund without any further delay.

All you have to do now to receive your funds is to open a bank account with Wema Bank Plc in Nigeria where your funds will first be transfered into. As soon as the account is activated, you will then transfer yourfunds to your personal account in America.

This Is An Official Advice From The FBI, Foreign Remittance/Telegraphic
Dept. (FRTD),

WARNING: THE ONLY FEE REQUIRED TO OPEN THE ACCOUNT WITH WEMA BANK PLC
IS $350.00 Minimum initial deposit

You are to contact the genuine office for an account openning details with
the details below:

Prof. Tony Obi
Email: fmf.paymaster2009@gmail.com

We will be monitoring all your dealings with them as you proceed so you
have nothing to worry about.

Yours faithfully,
FBI Director
Robert S. Mueller III

Yes, yes. I know must certainly be a fake. Because our intelligence agencies are awful and just so mean and vile, they could never in a million years be so sweet and concerned about little ol' me.

I'm sure President Wonderful will fix that soon, though.

UPDATE: Now this is exactly what our Feds need to be doing to prove they're looking out for us.

CLINICAL POLITICAL ZOMBISM--ONWARD MARXIST SOLDIERS !

At The Corner, Peter Wehner writes about liberals "Channeling Hate" :

The Atlantic’s Megan McArdle has a post titled, “Who’s Crazy Now?”, in which she writes, “Liberal rage at right-wing loonies is starting to sound, well, a little loonie.” She cites comments by the Washington Post’s E. J. Dionne and the New York Times’s Frank Rich and asks, “Why are so many journalists losing basic touch with reality?”

It’s a good question. After all, liberals have the man they viewed as a secular savior, a “sort of God,” in the White House. Democrats control 60 seats in the Senate and a 257–178 advantage in the House. This was supposed to be their time. Yet if you go to the Left’s most important internet outlets and its cable news station of choice, MSNBC, you find anger, rage, and fury. This has become, I think, very nearly a permanent state for many of them. Keith Olbermann, the ESPN-sportscaster-turned-rabid-commentator, embodies this as well as anyone. His show is all about channeling hate. For years it was hate directed against Bush; today it is hate directed at others. It appears to have consumed him and turned him, and the guests who appear on his program, into comic figures. Olbermann’s show is interesting, then, not as a political program but as a sociological and psychological phenomenon. Perpetual anger and dissatisfaction is interesting to watch — for a while. Then it gets boring. And then it gets clinical.

In a post shortly before the November election, I wrote a piece titled, "Win or Lose, the Left Will Remain Dysfunctional" in which I argued exactly the same point, except that I already understood that this perpetual state of rage on the part of the left was a clinical syndrome:

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

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

Look, I have never pretended that lunacy is confined to one side of the political aisle or the other. Clearly it is not. Traditionally, the political party that is not in power tends to fall into what Richard Hofstadter called " The Paranoid Style in American Politics". When Hofstadter wrote compellingly about this issue, he was primarily concerned with the conspiratorial fantasies of the politicl right.

Our present political climate however, offers much support for those who, like myself, have come to appreciate that this same paranoid strain now is permanently a part of the DNA of the political left.

Consider the facts that Wehner lists--i.e., that the left now has achieved practically everything they could have wished for in order to foist their politices on the American public: a leftist President; a leftist majority in the House and Senate; a leftist media; and so on; and yet, even having an overwhelming amount of political power, they remain a rich source of unremitting projection, paranoia, and hate. What gives?

There is a simple psychological explanation for this. The left may have won the November election; they may have won a majority of seats in Congress; they may even really believe with a religious fervor that their time has come and that hopenchange is about to irrevocably alter American society, but, but...the problem with all this is that the left's "time" came and went in the last century; and their ideology utterly failed so horribly and miserably, that there is no way, short of bending the very fabric of reality--via the intellectual and moral bankruptcy of postmodern philosopy--that any living person with all brain circuits intact could believe somehow it would work this time around. Freud referred to such cognitive short-circuiting as a "repetition compulsion."

It has really been over for the political left for more than two decades now; but like all the undead zombies and blood-sucking vampires of literary fame that they resemble, they simply can't let go of their empty, souless and tyrannical policies. Instead, they mindlessly walk among the living and the free, knowing full well that they are dead, and that their only recourse is to to suck the life out of those still living; hoping to transform everyone into the voracious monsters they have become.

Psychologically, it is very difficult to abandon paranoia and projection; and almost impossible to face an unpleasant and unpalatable reality, when you have bet everything--EVERYTHING--on an ideology whose nonsensical ideas have never worked in the real world. The creative delusions that must be generated; the hate that must be constantly stoked, all serve many purposes; not the least of which is keep their dashed hopes alive.

But, they are raging against reality. And reality doesn't care about their utopian fantasies.

To survive even as undead, they must provide a scapegoat who can be considered racially, sexually, physically, or intellectually inferior; someone or some group onto whom their own fears can be projected; it would be horrifying and untenable to look inside one's own heart and soul for the source of the fear.

The left is suffering from clinical political zombism. On some level they know their ideology is dead and will not work; but they are determined to ignore reality even if it means the destruction of everything and everyone; even if it means marching mindlessly--and suicidally--onward.

ONWARD MARXIST SOLDIERS!

FRIDAY NIGHT NEWS DUMP

They're really hoping you won't notice....

Hey! What's one or two trillion $$ among friends?

A MODERN DAY ELMER GANTRY

The Messiah speaks:

Repeatedly invoking the Bible, President Obama yesterday told religious leaders that health-care critics are "bearing false witness" against his plan.

The fire-and-brimstone president declared holy war in a telephone call with thousands of religious leaders around the country as he sought to breathe life into his plan for a system overhaul.

Without naming anyone specifically in the 10-minute conference call, Obama said opponents had been spreading lies.

"I know that there's been a lot of misinformation in this debate and there are some folks out there who are, frankly, bearing false witness," Obama said.

"I need you to spread the facts and speak the truth."

He said the reforms aim to carry out one of God's commandments.

"I am my brother's keeper. I am my sister's keeper," Obama said.

He called health reform a "core ethical and moral obligation."

Victor Davis Hanson notes:

This contrived use of religiosity (e.g., “There are some folks out there who are frankly bearing false witness.”) has a Reverend Wright flavor of mixing politics and religion in cynical fashion to bolster Obama's fides as an authentic moral figure. And isn't the use of religion as a political tool precisely what Obama and others have objected to in the Christian Right?

...I think we are seeing a sort of presidential meltdown. As Obama's polls free-fall, and threaten wider political damage, it causes him a certain novel exasperation that for the first time in his life soaring hope-and-change rhetoric for some strange reason no longer substitutes for a detailed, logical, and honest agenda. The problem right now is not with un-Christian opponents, but dozens of congressional Democrats who simply do not wish to run on state-run medical care (as well as higher taxes, larger deficits, cap-and-trade, etc.), and no longer sense the president's popularity trumps the unpopularity of his agenda and gives them cover with the voters.

This false messiah is a modern day Elmer Gantry , with the same creepy charisma, malignant narcissism, and power-hungry instincts.

Personally, I find it a rather unique experience as a psychiatrist to observe Obama "on his way" to solidifying his divine moral credentials and his heavenly right to rule over us mere mortals.



UPDATE: OK, to be fair, Obama is not (as far as I know) a womanizer like Gantry was. But he shares the same seductive and narcissistic qualities that made Lewis' Gantry the ultimate religious hypocrite.

UPDATE II: Government as religion.

IMPOSTERS, PROJECTION, AND THE LUNATIC LEFT

Recently I wrote a post about the psychology of imposters that was mostly prompted by a woman posing as a doctor at a townhall meeting. However, it's recently become clear that we have an entire news organization posing as journalists.

Patterico notes:

I heard a radio program last night where Rod Dreher and an editor from the American Spectator both allowed Eric Boehlert and the liberal host to tar Republicans with the “they call Obama a Nazi!” brush. The American Spectator editor, to his credit, pointed out that Bush was called a Nazi for years, but nobody piped up to mention that the Obama/Nazi crazies always turn out to be LaRouche supporters.

Allahpundit has done a great job reminding us of a few points we all need to keep in mind as the Eric Boehlerts and Tim Ruttens of the world try to paint Republicans as fanatics who uniquely demonize the president as a Nazi, call for him to be killed, and such....

All this manipulation and lying is to support the left's racism narrative.

Meanwhile, Zombie reminds of of recent history, so carefully ignored by the left in their frenzy of projection.

YOU BETCHA

Proof positive that Sarah Palin is much smarter --and has tons more common sense--than Barack Obama.

Meanwhile, Kyle-Anne Shiver makes an excellent point about the supposed intellectual "brilliance" of our current President:

We had the president's own shadowy record, with far more deletions than "allowable" information, which should have raised the skeptical antennae of anyone with half an ounce of common sense. What is the single reason why anyone assumed and portrayed as brilliant-beyond-brilliant hides his own scholarship and grade transcripts? If these records were demonstrably brilliant, they would be on prominent display.

You betcha!

Say what you will about Sarah Palin; even if you think her decision to quit being Governor of Alaska was a dumb move , I find her to be a breath of fresh air in the increasingly corrupt and incompetent era of Obama-the-Not-So-Wonderful.