PSYCHIC INCOME, UTOPIAN PATRIOTISM, AND THE INFANTILE NARCISSISM THAT FUELS THEM

Michael Barone today tackles the intellectual dishonesty that is prevalent in the ivory towers of our academic institutions:

I am old enough to remember when America's colleges and universities seemed to be the most open-minded and intellectually rigorous institutions in our society. Today, something very much like the opposite is true: America's colleges and universities have become, and have been for some decades, the most closed-minded and intellectually dishonest institutions in our society....

Racial quotas and preferences continue to be employed, as a recent article on UCLA makes clear, in spite of state laws forbidding them, and university administrators seem to derive much of their psychic income from their supposed generosity in employing them. This, even though evidence compiled by UCLA Professor Richard Sander suggests they produce worse educational outcomes for their intended beneficiaries and even though Justice Clarence Thomas makes a persuasive case in his book "My Grandfather's Son" that they cast a stigma of inferiority on them.

Of course, college and university administrators insist they aren't actually using quotas when in fact they are, as O'Connor's decisive opinion in 2003 invited them to do. The result is that one indispensable requirement for being a college or university administrator is intellectual dishonesty. You have to be willing to lie about what you consider one of your most important duties. So much for open inquiry and intellectual rigor.

This is not the only way the colleges and universities fall far short of what were once their standards. Sometime in the 1960s, they abandoned their role as advocates of American values -- critical advocates who tried to advance freedom and equality further than Americans had yet succeeded in doing -- and took on the role of adversaries of society.

The inhabitants of the ivory tower are not the only ones who derive a considerable amount of "psychic income" from opposing Western values. Richard Fernandez (aka Wretchard) has an article at Pajamas Media about the same kind of cognitive process that has latched onto a bankrupt concept of patriotism. He writes in his own blog :

Patriots of the first kind owe their loyalty to the nation they hope the current one may some day become. The second sort is prepared to accept and defend the nation that is. Both elements are normally present in the patriotism of an intelligent, well-educated person. Every nation is compounded of aspiration and reality; and that consequently we owe our duty to something that is partly here and partly to come. No country is so perfect that it can be liked entirely for what it is. But no man is so abstract that he can limit his loyalty only to what might become.

We exist in the present; so do our friends, neighbors, home, the family pet, etc. They all occupy the time we call Today. Actual love and loyalty have no field except Today. Without a minimum regard for what surrounds him Today it's hard for any person to claim a full role in his society. That minimum must include a commitment to keep the ordinary population safe and to "do no harm"....

Therein lies the problem in claiming that "real patriotism" consists exclusively in a commitment to dissent; in an obsession with rebellion and in a total rejection of the present. Those who go to that extreme forgo all love for the present for the exhilaration of allegiance to the country of their fantasy.

What Barone and Fernandez are both writing about is the triumph of narcissism in our academic institutions and in our culture at large. The academics Barone writes about and Fernandez' "patriots" both live in a make-believe country of the mind where transient fame and cheap glory are easily purchased by self-righteously bashing of America and displaying a casual contempt for the values that this country and Western civilization stand for.

Such behavior is everywhere in our society. We see it in entertainment; we see it in politics. We even see it, as Thomas Sowell points out in another piece at Real Clear Politics, in the cheap shots taken by former presidents and presidential candidates; (and in military generals and lesser personnel that are trotted out by the political left to shore up their patriotic bona fides) that are self-serving and completely focused on temporary self-aggrandizement.

Those who engage in the behavior, spend a lot of time rationalizing it, too. That is why the most blatant examples are so sensitive to any comments about their patriotism.

Patriotism, for them, is always 100% compatible with their narcissistic sense of entitlement.

They bash America because they love America--or, rather, they love their own personal and private image of what America should be.

In their child-like minds, America should behave as they imagine "The Perfect Parent" does. Completely and without exception totally responsive to their childrens' needs at all times and in all circumstances. A parent who never allows anything bad ever to happen to anyone anywhere; who can control the weather; who can control the behavior of everyone threatening or dangerous; who is completely selfless and willing to endure any degree of abuse; and willing to suffer the daily temper tantrums of their narcissistically preoccupied children.

God help America if it doesn't live up to the demands of those children 24/7. That unleashes their destructive narcissistic rage. It also provokes the rabid sense of victimization and dramatic feelings of ill-usage that are always just below the surface.

neo-neocon in a recent post stated it this way:

To the child, the parent is omnipotent, and perfection is demanded and easily achievable. Everything that goes wrong must be the parent's fault, that much is clear; otherwise, the world would become a much more frightening place.

Because the truth is that if the parent is not omnipotent, or can't ever become perfect, then the child is exposed to truly frightening dangers that he/she is unequipped to handle. So it's far better to preserve the myth of parental omnipotence and perfection, and to get angry at a parent who, after all, (at least ordinarily, in the absence of major pathology) loves the child and is not about to retaliate harshly against that child.

The child knows the parent is strong enough to absorb the blow, so it's safe to direct the blame and the anger where it won't be dangerous to do so (if the US were really as bad as extreme leftists say, they'd all be in jail or worse). It's a win-win situation for the child, who gets to "vent," and to feel that the world isn't such a dangerous place, knowing the parent will not strike back and harm the child.

I'm not saying leftists--or those liberals who join the "blame America first, often, loudly, and last" chorus--are children. They are not. But in their relationship to their own government they seem to be acting out a similar dynamic.

The pursuit of these infantile fantasies provides a constant stream of psychic income needed to sustain their dysfunctional and narcissistic behavior.

You regularly see Hollywood elites, for example, patting themselves on the back for the brave, valiant behavior of standing up against BushHitler, even as they snuggle up to real despots and tyrants, engaged in real oppression and consolidation of power (e.g., Hugo Chavez for instance).

You can also see the pursuit of this cheap psychic income in the sneering contempt they display toward those who are willing to defend freedom in the real world--instead of the fantasyland that exists only in the windmills of the leftist mind.

Meanwhile, in that real world, real evil exists, as well as real threats to freedom and human dignity. People are being killed every day pursuing the freedom of speech that the likes of Lee Bollinger bravely extends to their murderers. People are being slaughtered and oppressed for even desiring freedom and democracy and the right to pursue their own individual happiness.

Standing up against those real world villians, though, is far too frightening for the narcissistically preoccupied academics and utopian patriots (why, they might get hurt! And they want to make sure they stand on the correct side of history, after all).

It is much much easier to bask in the cheap glory; and to keep on raking in all that feel-good psychic income from their fantasy world; all the while ignoring, denigrating, or mocking anyone who possesses the real courage to stand up and defend the values of America with their lives and their honor.

As Wretchards notes, "A person who loves only his vision of the future can only love himself."

But that is exactly the point of all these utopian and patriotic fantasies, isn't it? To have a never-ending source of psychic income with which to buy self-esteem futures.

The Ultimate Lie

The man who would be Commander in Chief has been lying his entire political career. The man who would be Commander in Chief has based his entire qualification for this post by his "honorable service" in the Navy during Vietnam. In spite of claiming that all his records have been released from this time, the fact is that Mr. Kerry NEVER released all his military records. The press gave him a free pass on this, even as recently as yesterday; but there has been speculation by many that Mr. Kerry is hiding something in these non-released records. What could this be? Thomas Lipscomb in the NY Sun has been writing about this for a while, and today's column is a stunner:

The "honorable discharge" on the Kerry Web site appears to be a Carter administration substitute for an original action expunged from Mr. Kerry's record, according to Mark Sullivan, who retired as a captain in the Navy's Judge Advocate General Corps Reserve in 2003 after 33 years of service as a judge advocate. Mr. Sullivan served in the office of the Secretary of the Navy between 1975 and 1977.
On behalf of the Kerry campaign, Michael Meehan and others have repeatedly insisted that all of Mr. Kerry's military records are on his Web site atjohnkerry.com, except for his medical records.
"If that is the case," Mr. Sullivan said, "the true story isn't what was on the Web site. It's what's missing. There should have been an honorable discharge certificate issued to Kerry in 1975, if not earlier, three years after his transfer to the Standby Reserve-Inactive."
Another retired Navy Reserve officer, who served three tours in the Navy's Bureau of Personnel, points out that there should also have been a certified letter giving Mr. Kerry a choice of a reserve reaffiliation or separation and discharge. If Mr. Meehan is correct and all the documents are indeed on the Web site, the absence of any documents from 1972 to 1978 in the posted Kerry files is a glaring hole in the record.
The applicable U.S. Navy regulation, now found at MILPERSMAN 1920-210 "Types of Discharge for Officers," lists five examples of conditions required to receive an honorable discharge certificate, four required to receive a general discharge "not of such a nature as to require discharge under conditions other than honorable," and seven for "the lowest type of separation from the naval service. It is now officially in all respects equivalent to a dishonorable discharge."
Kerry spokesman David Wade did not reply when asked if Mr. Kerry was other than honorably discharged before he was honorably discharged.
Certainly something was wrong as early as 1973 when Mr. Kerry was applying to law school. Mr. Kerry has said, "I applied to Harvard, Boston University, and Boston College. I was extremely late. Only BC would entertain a late application."
It is hard to see why Mr. Kerry had to file an "extremely late" application since he lost the congressional race in Lowell, Mass., the first week of November 1972 and was basically doing nothing until he entered law school the following September of 1973the real r.

A member of the Harvard Law School admissions committee recalled that eason Mr. Kerry was not admitted was because the committee was concerned that because Mr. Kerry had received a less than honorable discharge they were not sure he could be admitted to any state bar. (emphasis mine)

Do you think that this is far-fetched? From a psychological perspective it makes complete sense. I have wondered why in the world Kerry has been completely obsessed with his Vietnam service in the Navy. His repetitive mentioning of his medal and his bravery. His "reporting for duty". His screams of rage when anyone doubted his "patriotism". These are all the red flags of someone who has SEVERE doubts about that service, and now we know why. Kerry postponed his political career until he could get a man like Jimmy Carter to "fix" the situation.

Kerry must have been relatively certain that the details of this would never come out and just to be sure, he has never released any military documents from the period in question. But like the "Tell-Tale Heart" of Edgar Allan Poe, his own feelings of guilt have actually betrayed him. His exaggerated emphasis on that record and oversensitivity that any attack on him "questioned his patriotism".

Kerry IS A LIAR. I HAVE ALWAYS QUESTIONED HIS PATRIOTISM. I BELIEVE THAT ALL HIS 30 YEARS OF POLITICAL ACTIVITY HAVE BEEN CAREFULLY DESIGNED TO CRIPPLE AND WEAKEN AMERICA (whether consciously or unconsciously), and this is the main reason I could never have supported him under any circumstances for President and Commander in Chief. John Kerry has perpetrated the ultimate lie on the American people. And the mainstream media have let him get away with it. John Kerry is now within striking range of the US Presidency.

If noone else does, I QUESTION THE PATRIOTISM OF THE MAIN STREAM MEDIA. They have consistently ignored this "glaring hole in the Kerry's records"; they have aided and abetted his lying, by never questioning him about it; and they have even covered up for him (see the link in the first paragraph of this post, if you doubt it). This would have been a story of critical importance in this election. The press could have been powerful force working for the people of the country by INSISTNG that John Kerry come clean. But they chose to focus all their journalistic abilities (however small) on trying to turn Bush's honorable service in the TANG into something that could hurt him politically; and to give John Kerry's more questionable activities during and after the Vietnam war a completely free pass--even to the point of ignoring hundreds of men who served with him.

George Bush has never claimed that he should be Commander in Chief based on his TANG service 30 years ago. He bases it on the three years of having no terrorist attacks on our homeland.

Whatever happens tomorrow, I know I will have voted for the right man to lead this country during the difficult times ahead. My conscience is clear.

UPDATE: American Daughter has the full story about Kerry's discharge, including documents at her site. Go take a look!

Undermining the Will to Win

You would think that the Left would be deleriously happy that the Iraqi military is now picking up its share of the fighting in Iraq. This was, after all, one of the key factors touted by Kerry in his failed Presidential bid. We weren't training them fast enough, or well enough or enough of them, etc. etc.

Well, you would be wrong.

The Belmont Club looks at the recent claims by Daily Kos and other sites --who in their usual disparaging manner portray American forces in an evil light; and view Iraqi forces trying to rid their country of terrorists as "fresh meat". These Lefty blogs also have made various calculations that suggest (to them, at least) that the "insurgents" are winning the battle.

Wretchard comments:

The rate of Jihadi reinforcement into Iraq has been disappointing in comparison to that other benchmark, the Spanish Civil War. There are said to be 2,500 Saudis in Iraq: compare this to 30,000 International Brigaders who fought against Franco. And Saudi Arabia is next door. Things look bad for the insurgents across the board, because the Iraqi government can generate ten times a many soldiers in a few months. But the real uncertainty is American will. There's already a Congressional resolution calling for a timed withdrawal. The Press is referring to Guantanamo as Auswitchcz as if that were established fact. Little by little, note by note, the Mighty Wurlitzer is cranking out the Party Line.

What strikes me most is the way the Left is persistant in its attempts to capitalize on anything to justify their claim that the war is going badly for the U.S. Neo-neocon, for example discusses this issue in the continued use of words like "rebel" and "insurgent" to describe the" freedom-fighting "terrorists. She also comments on the use of the "rising toll" and "escalating violence" --which, notably, have been used to describe the situation for several years now, so if they are to be believed, we are now at incredibly high levels of death and violence. This is completely misleading (the rates have not increased substantially-but even if they had, the context of these increases is never mentioned), but you wouldn't know it if the only news you received about the war was from the mainstream media.

I am not claiming that there aren't challenges--especially in the asymetrical type of war we are fighting--but the truth is that there is no way we can lose this war on the actual battlefield.

This has been said over an over again by those who know and understand military operations. The question is do we have the will to win it? And that question brings me to what the Left does best. Chipping away at America's will to win.

It has been easy to do this. We have just had a week of unmitigated, calculated, and irresponsible belittlement of America's motives, behavior, and morality. Our military has been compared to Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot. Our "loyal" opposition wants to get even for the Clinton years and stages a mock impeachment of the President during a war. Some members of Congress are calling for a resolution that would ask the President to come up with a specific timetable for withdrawal from Iraq--without a thought to the impact such a timetable would have improving the morale of the "insurgents" they seem to dearly love; while once again making soldiers in the field believe that there is little or no support for their valiant efforts.

I've just about had it with this kind of adolescent, irresponsible, and frankly psychotic behavior on the part of the Democratic party. They have lost all perspective and don't seem to care that they bear considerable responsibility for ripping the fabric of this society by their incessant, whining and power-hungry grabs for power.

No, it is clearly not enough that the number of American troops have decreased and will continue to decrease. It isn't enough that the Iraqis have now reached a point where they can fight for their own freedom with help from our soldiers. It isn't enough that the Iraqi people overwhelmingly came out to vote for freedom and have a say in the democratic process. It isn't enough that in the overwhelming majority of the country the news is good. It isn't enough that American casualties would have to go on for several decades at the rate it is now to even approach the loss of life that occurred in Vietnam.

None of this matters, because nothing the U.S. does is considered good. "Abu Ghraib!" "Guantanamo!" they yell like children who can't distinguish a mountain from a molehill because they themselves are so small and insignificant.

Take a look now at the sarcasm and disdain displayed by this editorial cartoon from Emad Hajjaj, at Al-Ghad Newspaper in Amman, Jordan.



You can see how closely the ranks of the Left parallel the ranks of who seek to portray America and the US Military as evil cowards, hiding behind the Iraqi people and Iraqi forces (gleefully so, according to the cartoon). Completely ignoring who it is that is responsible for targeting Iraqi civilians and fellow Muslims.

Anyone who remains in the Democratic Party today must face the reality that the party has aligned itself firmly with those who would love to destroy the U.S.; and each person must take responsibility for that.

It is not too late for someone--practically anyone--in the ranks of the Democrats to step forward and offer some constructive criticism of the War on Terror (all rational people would welcome that as a change of pace, if for no other reason).

But, until someone does, the frantic and hysterical undermining of our military and the will of the American people makes the Democrats stand squarely in the camps of the enemy.

UPDATE: Mark Steyn has some words to say about Senator Durbin's slandering of his own country. (hat tip: LGF)

Throughout the last campaign season, senior Democrats had a standard line in their speeches, usually delivered with righteous anger, about how "nobody has a right to question my patriotism!" Given that nobody was questioning their patriotism, it seemed an odd thing to harp on about. But, aware of their touchiness on the subject, I hasten to add that in what follows I am not questioning Dick Durbin's patriotism, at least not for the first couple of paragraphs. Instead, I'll begin by questioning his sanity.

Last Tuesday, Senator Durbin, Democrat of Illinois, quoted a report of U.S. "atrocities" at Guantanamo and then added:

"If I read this to you and did not tell you that it was an FBI agent describing what Americans had done to prisoners in their control, you would most certainly believe this must have been done by Nazis, Soviets in their gulags, or some mad regime -- Pol Pot or others -- that had no concern for human beings."

Er, well, your average low-wattage senator might. But I wouldn't. The "atrocities" he enumerated -- "Not only was the temperature unbearably hot, but extremely loud rap music was being played in the room" -- are not characteristic of the Nazis, the Soviets or Pol Pot, and, at the end, the body count in Gitmo was a lot lower. That's to say, it was zero, which would have been counted a poor day's work in Auschwitz or Siberia or the killing fields of Cambodia.

Check it out.

CARNIVAL OF THE INSANITIES - July 6

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

DURING MY BLOGGING HIATUS, I WILL CONTINUE TO POST THE CARNIVAL EVERY SUNDAY! So keep those entries coming in, and try to get them to me by Saturday. If you have questions, go here before submitting an entry. You can also submit an entry via Blog Carnival.

Try to make it funny, ironic, or clearly insane, people...I get a lot of "self-help" stuff that doesn't seem particularly funny or even ironic to me--and, if it doesn't seem that way to me, then its likely it won't be included-- unless it just happens to fit in with one of the COTI themes for the week.

Also, a link back to the Carnival if your submitted post is included would be appreciated...and some extremely harsh penalties await those who do not comply with this simple and reasonable request!

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

1. Iranian paranoia and delusion for all to see. Iranian oppression for all to [not]see (BTW, here's Mrs. A in a less discrete moment and here's her puppy--see #5). You've got to wonder why the Code Pinkos aren't vehemently protesting the humiliation of women by an evil regime...oh wait! They're way too busy humiliating themselves.

2. Al Jazeera: "a crusader for truth in the murky mass of Zionist influenced media ? Yeah right. That's rich.

3. These pathetic villains are now down to "Plan C". They can't win as long as there are those who stand up to them.

4. Living in a gangster's paradise Muslim fantasy.

5. Yawn. More Muslim outrage ,,,can you say, "idiocy"? Politically incorrect, I know, but this sort of thing makes me want to go out and buy a dog and bring it to the University. Let's really generate some rage by suggesting that this fashion company design a burka ....

6. TouCHE ! What a bunch of stupid douCHE bags they are in FARC... Video w/ translation. Paranoia and delusion on the left (typical).

7. Buyer's remorse sets in....but he's just trying to win... friends and influence people. That's not a smear, that's reality. Who is actually smearing whom? It's a little Obamachiavelliesque, don't you think?

8. Here's a motivational poster to help all the lefty bloggers in a tizzy because He ain't really the Messiah after all. But he'll do for these losers. A cult is born ...a man for all seasonings.

9. The end of conservatism? Somebody better tell Rush.

10. Heh heh. Communist Red tide.

11. If you’re looking for a wife, a girlfriend or if you’re just a misanthropic asshole with a voyeuristic thing for the absurd and the grotesque, THIS SITE IS FOR YOU!!!!!!!

12. Prostitutes hit hardest by rising gas prices! Who knew? Somebody better tell Harry. Meanwhile the speculators in 'Big Peaches' are set to cause fruit prices to skyrocket!

13. Will it be stable and sturdy enough to handle not just the global warming alarmists themselves, but their massive egos, too? Probably not. Clearly, everyone should sacrifice their child for the sake of the whales, right? Babies are only so we can gratify our narcissistic urges to have fun, after all.

14. Progressive 'patriotism', which is to say, no patriotism at all--and proud of it. Frankly, I want a President who puts the country first .....The self-delusion never seems to end with these Bozo's.

15. Our love/hate relationship with clowns.

16. One nation, under YOU! Did you know you can be excommunicated from the Church of Satan for doing bad stuff??? I thought that was the whole point, but even then you get your just desserts.

17. An amazing play...

18. The new kind of vacation.

19. Regarding the imminent homeless problem created by astronomers.

20. Man-boobs can be very nurturing. Is that a Freudian slip bra?

***************************************
Carnival of the Insanities can also be found at The Truth Laid Bear's ÜberCarnival and at the BlogCarnival.

If you would like to Join the insanity, and add the Carnival of the Insanities button to your sidebar (clicking on it will always take you to the latest update of the Carnival), click on "Word of Blog" below the button to obtain the html code:

Heard the Word of Blog?

AMERICAN PATRIOTISM

President Obama and Vice President Joe Biden say it is "patriotic" to pay more taxes.

Clearly, they don't remember their American History:


Isn't it time for all of us to become again the "Sons (and Daughters!) of Liberty??

Real American patriotism is founded on economic liberty; and the Obama administration, with its economic policies, astronomical debt, and curtailment of indiviudal freedom is determined to make slaves of us all.

If I may channel the inimitible Biden: They're gonna put you all back in chains.

OBAMA'S FIRST WEEK OF UNDOING

In dealing with the war, he shows his keen grasp of the danger America faces by endorsing a path that will result in the release of the medieval dinosaurs kept in check there--a perfect example of life imitating art:



I don't know about you, but I certainly feel much safer. And I'm convinced that the Obamessiah's soaring rhetoric is what will keep those evil-doers in Al Qaeda at bay...why they are simply quaking in their collective sandals by the utterings of the One!

And, in domestic policy the One demostrated by example--i.e., nominating Mr. Geithner-- the kind of personal responsibility and patriotism he and Joe Biden championed during the campaign:




I don't know about you, but I certainly feel much more responsible about paying my taxes, not to mention feeling much more patriotic; and when Geithner gets confirmed, I have every expectation that he will swoop down and rescue the economy from all the cheats and opportunists who have deliberately damaged it.

As for Obama, well what do expect of a politician who basically did nothing of any significance and had zero executive experience prior to running for President? He's all ideology and no sense. And if you have any doubts about what his true agenda is, you might take a look at the article Power Line links to which discusses the scope of our new President's ambition and the seriousness of his purpose.

Just remember: he hasn't really done anything yet; he's too busy undoing--and that doesn't require anything special--just the usual leftist denial and displacement.

Things are bound to get even more entertaining, not to mention more dangerous, on both the domestic and the war fronts, as his ambition to transform America into a bright and shiny postmodern Marxist utopia unfolds.

The Anchoress has an excellent roundup of all the contradictory discourses the have emerged in the opening days of the Obamessiah's reign.

UPDATE: "And on the 5th Day, subpoenas were served to Obama's senior staff":

A veritable "who's who" of Obama staffers, surrogates and affiliates were among those served with subpoenas. Put simply, within one week of President Barack Obama's administration taking office, it is already under significant legal scrutiny that will -- at a minimum -- take precious time away from dealing with the country's monumental economic and foreign policy challenges.

And, once again, the mainstream media is AWOL, unwilling to report on this very newsworthy story.

Among those served with subpoenas were:

David Axelrod, Obama's "Karl Rove" and the biggest surprise on the list. Obama's team issued a report in December that said his staff had no "inappropriate contact" with Blago, so the inclusion of Axelrod is a bit of a shock.

Valerie Jarrett, Blago's "Senate Candidate 1", a real estate management executive and political hack of the first order. Her ties to failed and fraudulent real estate deals in Chicago were the subject of numerous investigations and should have instantly disqualified her for any public office.

Rahm Emanuel was already deeply involved in the case with some reports describing as many as 21 conversations with Blago's office during the period in question.

Tony Rezko, Obama's first advocate, fundraiser and adviser, was convicted last year on numerous charges related to kickbacks, and is now awaiting sentencing. Rezko is "cooperating with authorities, FBI Agent Daniel Cain said in an affidavit."

Let's hear it for transparency, responsibility and patriotism!

THE DEMOCRAT'S SURGE

Jules Crittendon has more on the petulant Dems who just can't seem to fathom the depths of their cognitive dissonance. He writes of Pelosi phoning the President, demanding that he keep Cheney in line:

Apparently the president wasn’t home when she called. Or didn’t pick up. Or maybe he was making funny chimp faces at Josh Bolten when Josh Bolten was on the line trying to have a serious conversation with Madame Speaker:

Pelosi said she had tried to reach the president but was only able to get through to White House chief of staff Josh Bolten.

Bolten said he was certain no one was questioning her patriotism or commitment to national security, she told reporters.

“I said to him perhaps when he saw what the vice president said he might have another comment,” Pelosi said.

But this is a very important issue. Pelosi is trying to have a responsible grown-up debate. And here Cheney has the gall to talk about the enemy’s goals. Good Lord, what is this man thinking? What place does the enemy have in any discussion of strategy and tactics.

Josh Bolten is far too polite and PC. As I've mentioned before I DO question their patriotism...it's either that or their intelligence.

FREE SPEECH, DEMOCRAT STYLE

Controversy continues to swirl around The Path to 9/11; and whether to permit audiences to make up their own mind about the series by actually watching it uncensored. An interesting piece detailing the facts (with sources) about one of the controversial scenes which are depicted in the docudrama -- and who, exactly, is lying about what can be found here (hat tip: OBH). The forces workingto prevent you from watching the controversial scenes and deciding for yourself whether they have a basis in reality or not appear to be winning.

Let's hear it for free speech, Democrat style.

Meanwhile, Senate Democratic leadership threatens Disney with legal and legislative sanctions if they dare to air the show. These are the same congressional Democratic leaders who attended and cheered the premier of Michael Moore's "documentary"; while the DNC collected money outside the film.

It occurs to me that the Democrats and the left can certainly dish it out, but they can't take it. They believe in free speech, as long as it is their own. They decry lies, except when they are the ones telling them. They question conservative and Republican motives all the time, but are unable to tolerate their own motives being questioned.

When it comes to free speech, they continually want to have their cake and eat it too. undermine the war and the brave men and women who are fighting it; and they don't want you to question their motives. Or their patriotism.

Well I do. I question their motives. I question their patriotism. I question their integrity. I question their honor. I question their honesty. I question their courage to stand up for what is right in the face of declining public support (due mainly to their efforts). I question their support for the troops. I even question their intelligence if they cling to the notion that somehow their unceasing public attacks and deliberate undermining of both the military and the commander in chief aren't enabling and encouraging the enemy,while putting our own soldiers in more jeopardy.

In fact, the only thing I don't question about them is their capacity for self-delusion.

I worry about their mental health. I really do. But of even more concern to me, I worry about my country's future under their pathetic leadership.

Personally, I don't believe for a moment that either the Democrats or the left really want to debate any issues; or that they have any desire to discover the truth.

The truth, as they know well, is not their friend. Just ask Sandy Berger why he stole those classified documents. Just ask Bill Clinton why he lied about Monica. Appearance is all to these people. Truth means nothing to them except as a thing to be manipulated and crafted as a neabs to optimize opinion polls (the only truth they know).

When confronted with opposing views that threaten their beliefs about theselves, they must obscure and distort; censor and threaten. And when all else fails they will always resort to physical and/or legal measures to force their point of view onto everyone else. Now they are on a rampage against a TV docudrama that threatens to expose the bankruptcy of some of their dearly held beliefs. In fact, it threatens to expose the most dearly held belief: the sanctity and holiness of the Clinton Administration.

From their behavior, it appears that they see this film as incredibly threatening to that precious image of themselves. History is to be sacrificed to that image, as is truth. Anything goes as long as people are prevented from even contemplating the enormous contributions of Clinton and his gang of clowns to the rise of Islamic terrorism prior to 9/11.

Tell me again, dear trolls, how these intellectual and moral cretins have this country's best interests at heart?

UPDATE: ABC may yank the entire series. What a coup that would be for the totalitarians of the left!

BESOTTED WITH ANGER AND ON A SUICIDE MISSION

To hear the left tell it, America is bad. Really really bad. Bush is worse than Bin Laden. Bush is a dictator. Civil rights are being trampled. No, even worse, people as we speak are being rounded up and herded into jail cells where they will rot forever, if they aren't taken out an summarily executed by the Gestapo administration. The U.S. is imperialistic and warmongering; and our enemies are peaceful, loving people. Christians are trying to take over control of the U.S. to impose a theocracy. Muslims fanatics are poor persecuted and misunderstood people whose religion is being constantly defamed by evil western values. In their warped reality, real patriotism is the act of exposing all this rottenness under the surface of decadent American life; as you enable and apologize for dictators and tyrants around the world, praising them for their progressive policies and concern for their people. Real patriotism consists of defaming the actions of the U.S. military whenever possible; and hamstringing American foreign policy to ensure defeat by any group of politically correct thugs who taunt and disparage American values.

And so on, and so on ad infinitum, repeated on daily basis with great passion.

You wonder why--if America is so terrible--we have a problem with too much immigration; and people desperately trying to get into the country. You wonder why--if America s so awful a place; on the verge of dictatorship--people (especially the loudmouths on the left--aren't scrambling for the last planes in a desperate attempt to get out to the safety of, say, Chavez' Venezuela (a much more progressive and enlightened part of the world); or peaceloving Iran (whose president genuinely seeks dialog with us).

Why, if whatever we do is imperialistic, immoral, and BAD, are re-enlistments in our warmongering military at an all-time record high? Are all those men and women stupid and foolish to throw their lives away for a system that doesn't care if they live or die--as long as it gets its oil?

Why, if everything in this country is going to hell in a handbasket, does its damn economy keep growing--at a rate faster than any other country in the world to be precise--even as gas prices rise and apparently destroy anyone's ability to put food on the table, let alone enjoy American Idol or their other favorites on TV.

If you are able to see how completely and unbelievably hysterical and ludicrous all of the above is; if there is a glimmer of reality that pokes through the window of your brain--in other words, if you are not a member of the lunatic left (and the word "lunatic" is becoming increasingly redundant), then you might want to carefully read this piece by Arnold Kling at TCS.

Kling appropriately starts off quoting Austin Bay as saying ""The American left is where the American far right was in the 1950s -- besotted with anger, boiling in conspiracy theories." I've said the same thing myself in this series.

Kling points out--rather helpfully, I think, for the brain-damaged left, several basic differences between America (the left's enemy) and what he refers to as "The Real Enemy":

1. Many people have fled radical Muslim regimes to live in the U.S. Hardly anyone has fled the U.S. to live under radical Muslim regimes.
2. In the United States, women are allowed to choose whether or not to where modest clothing. Radical Muslims deny them that right, as well as others.
3. Americans who abuse enemy prisoners cower in shame and are prosecuted. Radical Muslims celebrate war crimes, proudly display photos and videos of war crimes, and honor the criminals.
4. More Iraqis would like to see the terrorists give up tomorrow than see the Americans leave tomorrow. (If there is any doubt about that, we can put the issue up for a vote in Iraq.)
5. Americans see negotiations as a way to resolve differences. Radical Muslims see negotiations as a sign of weakness.
6. When Muslims come to live in America, we provide them with safety, tolerance, and equal rights. Jews and Christians do not enjoy equal rights -- or even safety -- inside countries run by radical Muslim regimes.
7. The American military is trained to try to minimize civilian casualties. For radical Muslims, civilian casualties are a measure of success.
8. Americans go to war reluctantly, when other means fail. Radical Muslims accept cease-fires reluctantly, when other means fail.
9. Americans desire the approval and support of the European people. Radical Muslims desire the intimidation and submission of the European people.
10. If radical Muslims would renounce violence, then we would not disturb them. If we renounce violence, then we will be conquered and brutalized.

Check out the entire article and see why the new McCarthyism being plotted by the Democratic Party wing of the left is likely to become known as "Pelosism" and will make Joseph McCarthy look like a piker.

You might also want to actually read the contents of Ahmadinejad's letter to Bush here; which contains in detail almost all the current talking points of the left; and which basically can be considered either a gentle invitation to convert to Islam, or a declaration of war--whichever analysis makes you feel more giddy with relief at the peaceful intent of the Iranian regime.

Yes, the left is truly besotted with anger and beyond reason. They will not rest until they destroy Bush, the Republicans, and those who took their power away.

For the left, it's a suicide mission.

CHEAP GLORY

Thomas Sowell today:

We have now been through at least two generations of constant denigration of American society, two generations in which cheap glory could be gained by flouting rules and mocking values.

Is it surprising that we seem to have dwindling numbers of people willing to take responsibility and make sacrifices to preserve the social framework that makes our survival and advancement possible? Harvard is just one small example.

There was a time when being at war meant accepting a great weight of responsibility, even among politicians. After Wendell Willkie waged a tough presidential election campaign against Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1940, winning more votes than any Republican ever had before, nevertheless after it was all over, he became FDR's personal envoy to Winston Churchill.

In the midst of war today, we see former presidents and defeated presidential candidates telling the world how wrong we are -- sometimes collecting big bucks in foreign countries for doing so -- and members of Congress playing demagogic party politics with national security.

Sowell rightly wonders how long a country like ours, born in freedom, can be sustained when a belief in freedom is displaced by a pervasive narcissism that seeks cheap glory and is willing to sacrifice all values for the transient and childish thrill of getting attention.

He sees the triumph of narcissism in our academic institutions; in the faculty who are less interested in teaching and more interested in "flouting rules and mocking values". But academia--the home of political correctness and multiculti worship-- is not the only place where shortcuts to fame and cheap glory may be attained by the self-righteous bashing of America, while proudly displaying a casual contempt for the values that this country once stood for.

The truth is that we see such behavior everywhere in our society these days. We see it in entertainment; we see it in politics. We even see it, as Sowell points out, in the cheap shots taken by former presidents and presidential candidates that are self-serving and completely focused on temporary self-aggrandizement.

Those who engage in the behavior, spend a lot of time rationalizing it, too. That is why the most blatant examples are so sensitive to any comments about their patriotism.

Patriotism, for them, is always 100% compatible with their narcissistic sense of entitlement. They bash America because they love America--or, rather, they love their own personal and private image of what America should be.

In their child-like minds, America should behave as they imagine The Perfect Parent does. Completely and without exception totally responsive to their childrens' needs at all times and in all circumstances. A parent who never allows anything bad ever to happen to anyone anywhere; who can control the weather; who can control the behavior of everyone threatening or dangerous; who is completely selfless and willing to endure any degree of abuse; and willing to suffer the daily temper tantrums of their narcissistically preoccupied children.

God help America if it doesn't live up to the demands of those children 24/7. That unleashes their destructive narcissistic rage. It also provokes the rabid sense of victimization and dramatic feelings of ill-usage that are always just below the surface.

neo-neocon recently put it best:

To the child, the parent is omnipotent, and perfection is demanded and easily achievable. Everything that goes wrong must be the parent's fault, that much is clear; otherwise, the world would become a much more frightening place.

Because the truth is that if the parent is not omnipotent, or can't ever become perfect, then the child is exposed to truly frightening dangers that he/she is unequipped to handle. So it's far better to preserve the myth of parental omnipotence and perfection, and to get angry at a parent who, after all, (at least ordinarily, in the absence of major pathology) loves the child and is not about to retaliate harshly against that child.

The child knows the parent is strong enough to absorb the blow, so it's safe to direct the blame and the anger where it won't be dangerous to do so (if the US were really as bad as extreme leftists say, they'd all be in jail or worse). It's a win-win situation for the child, who gets to "vent," and to feel that the world isn't such a dangerous place, knowing the parent will not strike back and harm the child.

I'm not saying leftists--or those liberals who join the "blame America first, often, loudly, and last" chorus--are children. They are not. But in their relationship to their own government they seem to be acting out a similar dynamic.

The pursuit of cheap glory is characterized by denigrating the parent--and feeling somehow as if this is a courageous thing to do. You see the Hollywood elites, for example, patting themselves on the back for the brave, valiant behavior of standing up against BushHitler. I'm sure they truly believe they will imminently be dragged to a jail cell for saying the ridiculous things they say; just as they fiercly denouce the coming Christian theocracy (that has for some inexplicable reason failed to materialize in the last 6 years)--all the while totally ignoring those who would like to impose an Islamic theocracy. I suppose if Bush were Muslim, that might change their infantile-like minds.

You also see the pursuit of cheap glory in the left's sneering contempt and devaluation of their fellow citizen siblings who are willing to defend freedom in the real world, instead of the fantasyland that exists only in the windmills of the leftist mind.

Meanwhile, in that real world, there exists real evil, as well as real threats to our freedoms. People are dying to defend Freedom of Speech. People are being murdered for desiring freedom and democracy. Standing up against those real world villians, though, is far too frightening for the narcissistically preoccupied (why, they might get hurt! And they want to make sure they stand on the correct side of history, after all).

It is much much easier to bask in the light of cheap glory and continue play the pretend games against the fantasy threat; all the while ignoring, denigrating, or mocking anyone who possesses the real courage to stand up and defend the values of America with their lives and their honor.

I think it is interesting that our law schools saw it as an infringement on their right of free speech to allow a group with which they happened to disagree to speak freely. And not only that, these legal eagles were so outraged by this horrible group, that they absolutely insisted that it was their right to continue to recieve millions of dollars from them--even as they tried to exclude them from their campuses.

Now, seriously, don't you think such a position takes real moral courage and a willingness to stand up for what you believe--even as you pocket the payola? No, I don't think so either.

Not only is this an example of supreme narcissism in its most entitled and malignant form; but consider this: these are the legal intellectuals who are supposedly teaching the next generation of legal scholars the meaning of the constitutional values on which our country was founded. That is truly frightening.

Not only are they cheap literally and figuratively; they're also remarkably deficient in the intellectual and moral departments.

UPDATE: Ben Stein notices the "cheap glory" narcissism of the Hollywood elite. It was hard to miss during the Oscars; and makes some complementary points to the ones made above regarding the academic elite. More, from George Will regarding the "professors of pretense".

THEY CAN DISH IT OUT, BUT CAN'T TAKE IT

I notice how all the democrats and their counterparts here have suddenly changed the rules again. For two years they have continually called the President and members of his administration liars, cheats and all sorts of names. That he "deliberately misled" this country into an unnecessary war. Their extreme wing has compared him to Hitler and proclaimed that the terrorists are better than he is. Bush is called an "incompetent bastard" and every possible vile name. America is referred to as a "terrorist state" and on and on. (Michelle Malkin has posted some interesting comments from the DU--for even more unbelievable vitriol you can check out her link--or you can just take my word for it that the people at the DU have slipped the bounds of earth and are well on their way to interstellar space).

Now, finally, when the Bush Administration is fighting back and calling them to account for what they have said and what they are saying--all of a sudden we start to hear the whining.

"We just want to debate..." "Are you calling us unpatriotic?" "How dare you refer to someone who makes cowardly statements as a coward?"

They can dish it out, but they can't take it. They question Republican motives all the time, but seem to be unable to tolerate their own motives being questioned.

You know. The usual bait and switch. They didn't mean it, after all, it seems (if the vote in the house on Murtha's proposal meant anything). You see, they want to have their cake and eat it too! They want to bash Bush as much as they like; undermine the war and the brave men and women who are fighting it; and they don't want you to question their motives. Or their patriotism.

Well I do. I question their motives. I question their patriotism. I question their integrity. I question their honor. I question their courage to stand up for what is right in the face of declining public support (due mainly to their efforts). I question their support for the troops. I even question their intelligence if they cling to the notion that somehow their unceasing public attacks and deliberate undermining of both the military and the commander in chief aren't enabling and encouraging the enemy,while putting our own soldiers in more jeopardy.

In fact, the only thing I don't question about them is their capacity for self-delusion.

I worry about their mental health. I really do.

Personally, I don't believe for a moment that they really want to debate the issues. What they want to do is more grandstanding and showboating to try to score even more points at the expense of our military and the Bush Administration. If you believe that they have any goodwill--except insofar as it will get them votes--then you have not been listening to them very carefully.

Just go check and see what Pelosi has been saying. Or Biden. Or (shudder) Kerry and his sidekick Edwards. If you think these are reasonable adults who will do what is right instead of what is expedient, then I also question the soundness of your own psychological health and maturity.

When the Democrats are capable of discussing their reservations about U.S. foreign policy without the accompanying media circuses and infantile grandstanding; and when they actually come up with alternative ideas or suggestions for how to win the war, instead of how to lose it--then, and only then will I take them seriously.

I am moderately irritated with the Republicans and the mistakes that have been made in Iraq and in the WOT. But, I am fed up beyond belief with the Democrats, who have been dragged kicking and screaming every single inch of the way into the realities of the 21st century.

If they cannot be bothered to do what is needed and to persevere to the end to defend this country and its national security interests, then I want nothing to do with them.

UPDATE: Here is yet another example of how intensely "patriotic" the folks on the left are. They never miss an opportunity to paint the soldiers defending our freedom as war criminals.

Media Meltdown

In the shadow of the Newsweek debacle, two stories highlight the mainstream media meltdown.

The first finds a growing discrepancy between what the public thinks and what journalists think:

Six in ten among the public feel the media show bias in reporting the news, and 22% say the government should be allowed to censor the press. More than 7 in 10 journalists believe the media does a good or excellent job on accuracy -- but only 4 in 10 among the public feel that way. And a solid 53% of the public thinks stories with unnamed sources should not be published at all.

Read it all; then read about NPR, who is upset that they could be monitored for bias.

Is anyone else out sick of NPR? After 40 years of listening, I have monitored its descent into a reprehensible mouthpiece for the academic Left. I can barely stand to listen to the holier-than-thou reporters on the news shows, and find myself continually outraged at the relentless harping on their political agenda. Not to mention the tacit assumptions they make about the orientation of their listeners--both in the type of stories they cover; and the pathetic manner in which they cover them. I used to think their might be a role for such programming and even supported it in the past. Not any more.

Glenn Reynolds gets it exactly right in his MSNBC column:

In light of these events, people may be forgiven for doubting the patriotism of many folks in Big Media. And there's evidence that they should. In his book Breaking the News: How the Media Undermine American Democracy, James Fallows describes an episode of PBS's program, "Ethics in America," in which host Charles Ogletree asked leading journalists if they would allow American troops to be killed in order to get a story. CBS correspondent Mike Wallace said yes, he'd go for the story, and denied any ethical conflict: "You don't have a higher duty. No. No. You're a reporter!" After some hemming and hawing, Peter Jennings agreed. Should American reporters worry about the death of American troops? No -- their only loyalty is to the story.

This seems to be the spirit that's alive at Newsweek, with the added caveat that it doesn't even matter that much if the story is true. And with this kind of pattern established, journalists shouldn't be surprised that so many Americans are questioning their patriotism -- to the extent that they feel there's any question left.

What is so amazing to me is that the journalists in the MSM seem completely unaware of how appalling their priorities are to other Americans. Don't they understand that by "not worrying about American troops" and only having a loyalty "to the story" (as Jennings and Wallace stated above) that they have already established a bias toward those who would kill American troops? And what do you suppose will happen if truth gets in the way of "the story"?

So far, first at CBS and now at Newsweek, we have seen which priority will be chosen and which will be sacrificed with this philosophy.

John Kerry's World

John Forbes Kerry lives in a galaxy far far away. Consider the following points.

In Kerry's World:

• France believes it is the moral center of the galaxy
• The United Nations believes it is the moral center of the universe
• Business and the economy is something to be CONTROLLED
• US military strength is something that must be CONTROLLED even more
• Every future war must be judged by looking back to the "lessons" of Vietnam
• September 11 never happened
• Michael Moore is a deep-thinking philosopher; as is Bruce Springsteen, Whoopi Goldberg, and Janeane Garafolo
• All economic indicators show statistics that are comparable, if not BETTER, than when Bill Clinton was in office, but you would think we are in the Great Depression
• The "lights of America are flickering"
• Pessimism and hopelessness will triumph over freedom and optimism
• You must be 100% sure of intelligence information before you are allowed to act on it
• Changing your position frequently is considered "unwavering"
• There is no issue on which you cannot come down forcefully on both sides of
• Only HE knows where Osama bin Laden is !
• A four month period of time 3 decades ago is apparently the most important reason to trust John Kerry with the safety of the US; but we must discount the last 20 years of his record on defense in the Senate
• You only know if you support something when the outcome is assured
• Questioning his patriotism is verboten; his questioning of anyone else's patriotism is "fair game"
• He sees no contradiction in damning people with SUV's when he owns one
• He sees no contradiction in bashing rich people when he is one
• He sees no contradiction in opposing a war that he wants you to appreciate his heroism in
• He sees no contradiction in fawning over the UN as it condemns US actions as "illegal"
• He sees no contradiction in asking allies to provide forces for the "wrong war, at the wrong time, in the wrong place"
• He seen no contradiction in praising the troops one day, then telling them they are dying for a "collosal error in judgement"
• He sees no contradiction in condemning Bush for not having any allies; then condemns those who join with us as a "coalition of the coerced and bribed..."
• He sees no contradiction in "voting for the $87 billion to support the troops before voting against it"
• He sees no contradiction in saying he will never seek a "permission slip" for US actions, but wants to submit our actions to a "global test"
• He sees no contradiction in claiming one day that he has NEVER said that Bush "lied" and then the next day calling Bush a liar.
• He says that he will win the war in Iraq, but he is afraid to fight it
• He says that the war on terror must be won, but he plans to hamstring the US's ability to wage it

John Kerry's World is a world of denial; a world where words mean more than actions; a world where gloom and pessismism reign; a world that enables terrorism and encourages victimhood. In this world, freedom and individualism are in short supply and struggle for existence.

In short, Kerry's worldview possesses NOTHING that could possibly induce me to support him in his ambitions to be presiden-- in any way, shape, or form.

What is puzzling to me is, why anyone sane would....

A WAR BY ANY OTHER NAME

This rant is pure, unadulterated psychological denial, which uses displacement as a tool to avoid dealing with reality.

Let me just address a few of the rather insane points the author brings up.

1. "The Bush administration has exploited the fear and shock of a nation in the wake of a surprising and dramatic act of violence to whip national fear and paranoia into a constant boil." (Emphasis mine)

This is said (presumably without any sense of irony) by a person who has at the top of his post a copy of the US Constitution with the hand written note across its front saying " George, we can blow this off big time. Dick"

In so saying, don't you think the author of this hysterical nonsense is whipping up his own fear and paranoia just a wee bit? Most psychiatrists would refer to this technique as projection. Further evidence of this psychological projection comes in the next accusation:

2. "The evidence suggests the whole point has been to seize power and steal money."

This too, is said with presumably a straight face, as the links made are to Bechtel and Halliburton, the great boogeymen companies of the paranoid left (when they aren't bashing every other major American capitalist company that suits their latest psychotic delusion. You know , all the usual suspects behind the conspiracies: like big (read:Evil) Oil and of course, the profiteering pharmaceutical companies that are trying to kill everyone with their drugs).

The left has yet to notice that despite all their exhortations about the evil of American capitalism and all the misery it brings; that the economy of this country keeps on chugging along while most of the rest of the world is cheerfully going down the economic toilet as they pursue the leftist's economic agenda?

No, the whole point of the left's insane rantings about Bush and company since the election of 2000 has been a desperate attempt to gain back their own power. To this day, they cannot accept something that is clearly written in the Constitution--that a president can actually be elected without winning the popular vote. Horrors! It has even happened in American history prior to 2000!

Talk about a war on the Constitution. That darn Constitution essentially deprived them of their power, and they don't like it one bit. The Supreme Court (not a part of the Executive Branch, I would like to point out) was involved in this issue, too. And they don't like that either.

But when lower courts subvert the Constitution in a manner that conforms to their leftist agenda, well, to hell with the Constitution. Apparently the only danger of an unchecked Judicial Branch--or Executive Branch (since it has been pointed out repeatedly that Clinton did most of the same things that Bush is doing) is when you don't happen to agree with their decisions or the focus of the policy.

And how about unchecked Legislative power? Apparently, the Executive Branch is never above the law, but the Legislative Branch is right to assume that they are. It isn't a disagreement...it is a "power grab". Well, such "power grabs" have gone on back and forth between the three branches for the entire history of our Republic.

The three branches have always had serious disagreements about the extent of each other's powers. The difference now is that during a war--a real war in which this country was attacked and is under threat of being attacked again--the people can usually count on the the three branches of the government to do what is necessary to protect them. Not to act like complete morons and increase the risks by fighting and arguing constantly.

No, the issue is not that the war is being prosecuted for power and money--it is quite the opposite. Those who violently and aggressively oppose the war desire to get their power back and are happy as clams to get the money, no matter how much blood from our courageous military personnel is lost because of their betrayal. Oh, don't you dare say they aren't patriots! They are patriotic, it is just that their country is being stolen from them by the evil Bushitler McChimpy Haliburton etc. etc. etc.

Well, I have news for them. Their "country" doesn't exist except in their fevered brains. I am most thankful for that fact. It is people like the author who have deliberately set out to destroy the US Constitution--a document written by mere mortals--for the sake of some utopian dream country run by perfect people like them.

3. "Take your "terror" and shove it."

My response to this is for the left and all their "patriotic" ilk to "take your utopia and shove it instead. I'm sick of patriotism that only knows how to attack America; patriotism that is truly paranoid that a duly elected president is about to establish a theocracy; create a totalitarian society; eliminate the constitution and the rule of law; and all the other paranoid bullshit that emanates from the mouths of this hysterical lot. This, my friends, is the New McCarthyism promulgated in our generation by --not the political right, but the left. The new John Bullshit Society, whose goal--conscious or unconscious--is nothing less than the destruction of this country and the establishment of a socialist utopia. Even an Islamic socialist utopia is preferable for them.

I happen to disagree with the Republicans on many issues. I don't even agree with Bush on a lot of domestic policy. But there is one thing that I know is true; and it is that we are in a war where our enemies are brutal and methodical; and where they can count on support and encouragement from the clueless political left who prefer to ignore reality and focus on the "threat" that can't hurt them. I'm sure all those brave and patriotic folks on the left believe they will soon be incarcerated and tortured like poor Stephen Colbert was not too long ago, when he spoke truth to power so bravely.

WHAT! You mean Colbert is still free? He has not been imprisoned for saying all those true things? How can that be? The evil Bushitler was sitting right there when Colbert made his courageous remarks? How can that be when we all know we live in a Bush/Cheney police state????

When the author at Firedoglake is courageous enough to tell Mohammed and those who practice terror for Allah's sake to go to hell; or to tell Ahmadinejad, or the Taliban or Al-Quaeda; or Bin Laden or Zarqawi; or Zawahiri or Hamas or all the other violent, fascist fanatics to go to hell; when he will stand where it counts in the real world-- with the men and women in uniform in Iraq and Afghanistan-- and deliver his "give me liberty or give me death" speech; when he takes a stand against Islamofascism and its thought control (disguised as political correctness); and stand for human freedom and individuality--in other words, when he stops knocking down the strawmen he has set up in his mind and confronts the real evil in the world; then perhaps then I might have something other than contempt for the big brave talk that covers up his cowardly denial and displacement.

I've listened to such rants for the last 3 years and I'm heartily sick of them and the people who stand for nothing, but have convinced themselves how patriotic they are. They are only the most recent batch of useful leftist idiots, who can't get over the fact that their ideology lost the Cold War

BTW, wasn't that a badly named war, too? "Cold" is only a temperature, after all....? In all honesty, I must admit that the only point of the rant that I agree with is that "war on terror" is very very badly named. Indeed, If it were up to me, I would definitely call it World War IV.

But this war--no matter what name you choose to call it; or how loudly you deny that it even exists--is unfortunately very real.

THE LEFT'S POSTMODERN CAMOUFLAGE

Glenn Reynolds:

Hmm. Maybe I spoke too soon in criticizing the Bush Administration for doing nothing about Iran. On the other hand, this sort of thing has been simmering in Iran for a while, and Iranian claims of American involvement are hardly conclusive evidence. In fact, they're hardly evidence at all.

Reynolds is discussing this news regarding a bomb explosion in Iran, just two days after a car bomb blew up a bus killing 11 of Iran's elite Revolutionary Guards. This is the same Iranian military group who have been found in Iraq, stirring things up and helpfully providing bombs and other support for the terrorists.

The news report suggests there is an "insurgency" in Iran.

"The insurgents began shooting at people after the explosion. Clashes are continuing between police and the armed insurgents. Police have cordoned off the area," the Fars agency said.

IRNA quoted an unnamed "responsible official" late Friday as saying that one of those arrested on charges of involvement in Wednesday's bombing, identified as Nasrollah Shanbe Zehi, has confessed that the attacks were part of alleged U.S. plans to provoke ethnic and religious violence in Iran. (emphasis mine)

Just a few short days ago, the US announced it had proof that Iran was provoking ethnic and religious violence in Iraq and sending weapons to extremist groups.

We will, of course, hear nothing in the press from the usual assorted outraged leftists and Democrats that the Iranians have no proof; nor will there be accusations that, by making such outrageous statements, Iran is trying to "escalate tensions with the US." Nor, will Juan Cole deem the Iranian charges against the US "bogus".

There will be no Iranian generals dismissing the claims to the gleeful delight of the left (who are only trying to prevent war, you know) ; nor will anyone claim that Iran by saying such a thing is trying to start a war. Iranian newspapers will not be accused of "trumpeting" claims of US involvement.

No, this announcement by Iran, who has been actively at war with the US for more than a quarter century--though most people in the US semm to be unaware of that, or simply don't want to know--will be treated by the left and the Democrats in the following manner:

First, the left will accept as absolutely true any accusation that Iran makes against the US and the Bush Administration.

Second, any attempt by the Bush Administration to deny involvement will be denounced as lies, as will the US evidence of Iranian involvement in Iraq.

Third, the Iranian accusation will simply become more "evidence" of US imperialism and warmongering, as the BushHitler sets the stage to initiate a war against an otherwise peace-loving country.

This has been the pattern the left has used repeatedly in the past--i.e., accept at face value anything the enemy says, while simultaneously rejecting as false anything the current administration says-- and I see no reason they won't continue to use the technique since this manipulation of reality works for them.

The manipulation is, without doubt, a distortion of external reality made to conform to the internal desires of the left to destroy who they perceive as the "real" enemy to their totatlitarian dreams.

In this sense, the narcissistic and self-indulgent left is very similar in nature to the most dysfunctional of borderline patients. Such patients will distort reality and manipulate others to suit their immediate needs; act out in the most egregious and destructive manner possible to gain attention to themselves; see themselves as bitterly oppressed and abused by the very people they count on to rescue them; and otherwise behave in quasi-psychotic and delusional ways to achieve their immediate goal.

For the left, the immediate goal continues to be to undermine anything and everything that George Bush happens to do--and America in the process--in the most perverse manner imaginable. As I said in previous posts (see here, here, and here for example) their goal of power and domination just happens to be in parallel with the enemy's for the moment.

There are some serious betrayals of all that this country stands for going on right now. by the supercilious left. The contradictory discourses and cognitive dissonance emanating from them is magnified by an uncritical and brainwashed media. When all is said and done, there is always confusion and uncertainty in way; but shouldn't the benefit of any doubt be given to our own country and its elected President?

Presenting enemy propaganda as absolute, uncritical fact; while angrily disputing and branding anything said by US officials as lies and warmongering is, at best, delusional and perverse; and at worst, treason disguised in typical postmodern camouflage as "patriotism". But it is so emotionally satisfying for the minions of the left, who like to picture themselves as courageously speaking truth to power.

In every way that is possible, I question their "patriotism" --as well as their intelligence. And I have no doubt whatsover that, in spite of their earnest and righteous declarations for "peace" and "justice", their "selfless" actions are the hallmark of malignant sociopathy and utopian aspirations.

ALL HE IS NOT SAYING IS....

Andy McCarthy makes two excellent points about Obama and the Constitution:

After only 120 days, the Obama style is all too apparent: the more earnestness he exhibits in his rhetoric ("We are a nation at war," he's no socialist, the last thing he wants to be doing is taking over banks and running auto companies, etc.) the less likely it is that his actions will comport with that rhetoric.

As yesterday's editorial notes, in the speech, the president accused President Bush of adopting an "ad hoc legal approach for fighting terrorism that was neither effective nor sustainable — a framework that failed to trust in our institutions, and that failed to use our values as a compass.” Let's put aside that the first part of that assertion, as the editorial demonstrates, is absurd: the Bush policies were far from ad hoc, they have been spectacularly successful, and Obama himself (for all his disclaimers) is sustaining them. I want to focus on the second part.

When businesses fail, we have a framework, an institution, and a set of values that are triggered: The framework is called bankruptcy, the institution is the United States Bankruptcy Court, and the applicable values are found in the corpus known as federal bankruptcy law, which prescribe bedrock principles like: secured creditors take priority over unsecured creditors. Rather than trusting in those things and using settled law as a compass, Obama has adopted an ad hoc approach which has proved grossly ineffective and — given the moral hazard it infuses in the entire financial system — unsustainable.

Why isn't the GM debacle a violation of the "rule of law" that Pres. Obama and Attorney General Holder are so fond of lecturing us about?

Over and over again I hear how "wonderful" Obama's rhetoric is; how much everyone responds to it and how it makes them hopeful about the future etc. etc. etc.

Frankly, I can barely stand to listen to the man. I have to read transcripts of most of his speeches because my reaction to his style is so negative. I don't like the sensation of being manipulated; nor do I like being lectured to by someone who instinctively believes they are far more virtuous than I am-- and intends to show me the error of my ways.

Understand that I listen to people for a living. I hear various degrees of honesty, sincerity, and real emotional pain being expressed on a regular basis. I also hear some of the most self-serving, dishonest and completely irresponsible utterings that it is possible to imagine. Yet, in my professional career, I have to freely admit that I have heard nothing like the deceitful and self-aggrandizing utterings of Barack Obama, which seem to get more and more pathological with every speech he gives. His most recent scam, in the National Archives in front of a fake copy of the U.S. Constitution just about takes the cake. This is not irony, so much as it is the grandiosity of tyranny.

Bill Clinton--who I actually liked for the most part; even his amusing narcissism, which seems so childishly innocent in retrospect--was completely harmless compared to the sociopathic statist that is our current POTUS.

Mark Levine in his excellent book Libery and Tyranny summarizes it best:

The Statist in America is no less resolute than his European counterpart but, by necesity, he is more cunning--where the European lurches and leaps, the American's steps are measured but steady. In America, the Statist understands that his counterrevoultion must at least appear gradual and not revlutionary--sometimes even clothed in the flag and patriotism--lest his intentions become too obvious and thus alarming to his skeptics.

For the Statist, the international community and international organizations serve as useful sources for importing disaffection with the civil society. The Statist urges Americans to view themselves through the lenses of the those who resent and even hate them. He needs Americans to become less confident, to doubt their institutions, and to accept the status assigned to them by outsiders--as isolationists, invaders, occupiers, oppressors, and exploiters. The Statist wants Americans to see themselves as backward, foolishly holding to their quaint notions of individual liberty, private property, family, and faity, long diminished or jettisoned in other countries. They need to listen to the voices of condemnation from world capitals and self-appointed global watchdogs hostile to America's superior standard of living. America is said to be out of step and regressive, justifying the surrendering of its sovereignty though treaties and other arrangements that benefit the greater "humanity." And it would not hurt if America admitted its past transgressions, made reparations, and accepted its fate as just another aging nation--one among many.

Next time you listen to the Obamessiah's speeches, listen to what he doesn't say. Listen to the vagueness, the vacuity. Listen to the lack of specifics and the blatant emotional manipulation. Listen to the cognitive dissonance between what he is saying in his seductive, sedating style; and what he is doing with his deliberate, statist national policies and his foreign policy that not only demeans America by apologizing for her very existence; but severly handicaps her ability to act in the future. Watch how he badmouths the previous Administration, then surrepticiously implements the same policies that kept us safe over the last 8 years. The only problem with this last is that by simultaneously denouncing the security policies he is embracing, he is making schizophrenics of all the honorable people who are working hard to keep this country safe.

How long can this schizophrenogenic behavior go on before it essentially cripples those same patriots--because their service and their patriotism can be rendered criminal on the slightest whim of this unprincipled coxcomb?

How long can you pretend to stand for peace, when you enthusiastically embrace lying, murdering, genocidal terrorists?



Of course, the Democratic Party has given Obama great role-models in this regard:

ZAWAHIRI, CHEAP GLORY, AND THE TRIUMPH OF NARCISSISM

I'm a little late with this story, but I can't help comment on it anyway. Guess who has some friendly advice for the Democrats?

Al-Qaeda's number two nutcase sent a new message to the West as expected, and this time he had a special message for the winners of America's last election. Ayman al-Zawahiri wants Democrats to understand that they owe a debt of thanks to radical Islamist terrorists for their control of Congress, and he expects some gratitude ASAP:

"The first is that you aren't the ones who won the midterm elections, nor are the Republicans the ones who lost. Rather, the Mujahideen -- the Muslim Ummah's vanguard in Afghanistan and Iraq -- are the ones who won, and the American forces and their Crusader allies are the ones who lost," Zawahri said, according to a full transcript obtained by ABC News. Zawahri calls on the Democrats to negotiate with him and Osama bin Laden, not others in the Islamic world who Zawahri says cannot help.

"And if you don't refrain from the foolish American policy of backing Israel, occupying the lands of Islam and stealing the treasures of the Muslims, then await the same fate," he said.

Captain Ed goes on to try and dissuade the right side of the blogsphere from gleefully pointing out the alliance between Al Qaeda and the Democratic Party. As Al Qaeda sees it, "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" and it justifiably considers the recent antics of idiotish Democrats (who constantly seek to discredit their mortal enemy Bush by undermining the Iraq war, as well as the larger war with Islamofascist thugs like Al Qaeda)as somewhat helpful to their plan for world domination.

The Captain is correct in a way, but what bothers me the most is the fact that the Democratic Party is so far gone in its narcissistic indulgences that it is wholly unable to step back and consider how their behavior has made this country weak and vulnerable to homicidal organizations like Al Qaeda.

But then, hysteria and self-aggrandizement--as opposed to rational reflection--is more in the style of the Democratic leadership these days.

Thomas Sowell recently wrote a column about the cheap glory pursued by our political and intellectual leaders:

We have now been through at least two generations of constant denigration of American society, two generations in which cheap glory could be gained by flouting rules and mocking values.

Is it surprising that we seem to have dwindling numbers of people willing to take responsibility and make sacrifices to preserve the social framework that makes our survival and advancement possible? Harvard is just one small example.

There was a time when being at war meant accepting a great weight of responsibility, even among politicians. After Wendell Willkie waged a tough presidential election campaign against Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1940, winning more votes than any Republican ever had before, nevertheless after it was all over, he became FDR's personal envoy to Winston Churchill.

In the midst of war today, we see former presidents and defeated presidential candidates telling the world how wrong we are -- sometimes collecting big bucks in foreign countries for doing so -- and members of Congress playing demagogic party politics with national security.

Sowell rightly wonders how long a country like ours, born in freedom, can be sustained when a belief in freedom is displaced by a pervasive narcissism that seeks cheap glory and is willing to sacrifice all values for the transient and childish thrill of getting attention.

The triumph of narcissism and the embrace of political correctness and multiculti worship in our political, academic, and cultural elites has led them to take the easy path to fame and cheap glory. All one has to do is "heroically" and sincerely
bash America, as you proudly displaying a casual contempt for its values. It also helps to publicize how your courageous stand is being "oppressed" by the BushHitler Administration, well on their way to making the U.S. a fascist theocracy.

The righteous anti-semitism of people like Baker and Carter fits nicely into the larger anti-American paranoia constructed by the political left and its useful idiots, the Democratic Party. Zawahiri clearly understand this to be the case, as he warns against any continued American support of Israel.

As I said, Captain Ed is basically correct. Zawahiri is actually engaging in a cheap sort of glory himself, by taking credit for the Democrats' recent victory at the polls. He would like to turn that Democratic victory into his organization's victory--and he knows he has a chance to do that.

It is all a matter of attaining that "cheap glory". Cheap glory for the Democrats who feel they best express their patriotism by heroically and honorably caving into the religious fanatics whose principal desire is to destroy our country; and cheap glory for Zawahiri and the other terrorists who, knowing they cannot possibly win on any other battlefield of this war, cleverly plan to achieve victory by letting America defeat itself.

The Democrat's quest for cheap glory is nothing more than the sociopathic selflessness (a form of malignant narcissism) of an organization that puts its overweening obsession for power above the needs of the country--and primly tells us that they are doing so "for our own good". Through the magic of postmodern irrationalism, they can always spin any defeat and surrender into examples of honor and integrity.

But they are betrayed by their own pathology. Those who engage in such narcissistic behavior, spend a lot of time rationalizing it, too. That is why those who exhibit the most blatant examples of unpatriotic behavior are so wildly sensitive to any comments about their lack of same. The criticism hits too close to a truth they cannot face.

Patriotism, for them, is always 100% compatible with their narcissistic sense of entitlement. They bash America because they love America--or, rather, they love their own personal and private image of what America should be.

The pursuit of cheap glory is characterized by denigrating the parent--and feeling somehow as if this is a courageous thing to do. You see the Hollywood elites, for example, patting themselves on the back for the brave, valiant behavior of standing up against BushHitler. I'm sure they truly believe they will imminently be dragged to a jail cell for saying the ridiculous things they say; just as they fiercly denouce the coming Christian theocracy (that has for some inexplicable reason failed to materialize in the last 6 years)--all the while totally ignoring those who would like to impose an Islamic theocracy.

You also see the pursuit of cheap glory in the left's sneering contempt and devaluation of their fellow citizen siblings who are willing to defend freedom in the real world, instead of the fantasyland that exists only in the windmills of the leftist mind.

Meanwhile, in that real world, every day people are being murdered for desiring freedom and democracy. Standing up against real world villians, though, is far too frightening for the narcissistically preoccupied.

It is much much easier, as Zawahiri's message to the Democrats demonstrates, to bask in the light of cheap glory.