I'm just a sucker for this kind of parody ! (hat tip: The Anchoress and apparently inspired by this post at Dinocrat) Those of you who frequent my blog might have noticed my occasional attempts to be "artistic" by shamelessly stealing other people's creative efforts and perverting them to my own purposes.
Well, Gerard Allen Van der Ginsberg has taken this to new heights. My feeble efforts pale in comparison to his magnificence:
GROWL
I SAW the second-best minds of my not-so-Great Generation destroyed by Bush Derangement Syndrome, pasty, paunchy, tenured, unelectable, and not looking too sharp naked,
bullshitting themselves through the African-American streets at cocktail hour looking for a Prozac refill,
aging hair-plugged hipsters burning for their ancient political connection to the White House through the machinations of moonbats,
who warred on poverty and Halliburton's Wal-Mart and bulbous-eyed and still high from some bad acid in 1968 set up no-smoking zones on tobacco farms in the unnatural darkness of Darwinistic delusions floating a few more half-baked secular notions like "Let's all worship zero!",
who bared their withered breasts and, he or she, bleated their vaginas' mawkish monologues to John Kennedy's ghost under the capitol dome and french-kissed Mohammedan agents in the gore-drenched redrum rooms of Guantanamo,
who passed gas and on into universities with radiant cool eyes hallucinating President Al Gore and Vice-President Noam Chomsky envisioning world peace among the masters of war and stayed on and stayed on and stayed on sucking off the great teat of academe in upaid student loans and over-paid professorial positions the better to molest the minds of children for decades with every third year off for bad behavior,
who were embraced by the academies and hired by the New York Times for crazy & publishing obscene odes or anything else that trashed George W. Bush without regard for truth since there were no consequences for these posturing poseurs of puke,
Go read it in totality, man. It'll make you want to dance down the street like dingledodies and beat you to your socks.
Thursday, March 23, 2006
COUNTERING THE MEDIA
For those of us who are exasperated/annoyed/outraged at the MSM's coverage of the Iraq war--and the left's further distortion and perversion of that coverage--the question becomes, how do we counter a media that is increasingly more strident and opposed to the current administration, and refuses to report on anything in Iraq or Afghanistan that might make that administration look good? [NOTE: This morning's award for the most outrageous assertion based on a news item comes from the blog "Think Progress", which should be more appropriately renamed "Don't Think At All", and asserts that Bush Ignored Concerns About Afghan Constitution, Praised It For Protecting “Freedom of Religion" Good heavens! Oh me oh my! Why didn't the President write the damned thing and shove it down the Afghan's throats, I wonder? Nevermind that there is a protection for freedom of religion in that constitution (see article 2), but we won't let a little thing like "the facts" get in the way, will we? Tomorrow Mr. Think Progress will be screaming that we shouldn't be interfering in the business of other countries to begin with--just more of the championship whining on the left because things in real life don't turn out perfectly]
We saw a little of the same kind of dismissive and contemptous attitude in the recent press conference when Helen Thomas asked in her adolescently conspiratorial tone, "Mr. President, why did you really invade Iraq?"
In the news coverage of that press conference that focused on Thomas' face as the President responded and politely but firmly denied the implicit assumption of her passive aggressive question, you saw all the snide and sarcastic superiority that is so typical of today's journalism "professionals". You see, they already have the answer to their own questions, so they don't really need your confirmation or denial--except in cases where they want to display their own smug, self-satisfied and small-minded intellects.
So, what are some things that can be done?
Chester makes a bold, innovative suggestion to the President after listening to an interview of Michael Yon by Hugh Hewitt:
Meanwhile, The Astute Blogger wonders if Arthur Chrenkoff came back with his regular posts of "Good News From Iraq" whether Bush's poll numbers would rise as the American public realizes that there is something happening in Iraq besides IEDs and death?
Certainly, Bush's low poll numbers are connected to the hostile and negative reports by the MSM from Iraq. There seems to be a lot of people who perceive this press bias (not just disgruntled bloggers like myself) if the reaction of the crowd to a question asked by a serviceman's wife to the President yesterday is any indication.
The President suggested that people look to alternate sources of information like blogs (good for him). But the truth is that far too many Americans still depend on the MSM for their news, and are the worse off for it.
So, how about it Mr. President? Why not appoint your own roving Sergeant-Major/Gray Lensman in Iraq, who reports directly to you and who can give you information that even your generals might lack or in some cases be reluctant to tell you? Some of the bonuses would be that he or she (1) would know and understand the military and military issues and culture; (2) would have complete freedom to relate the good as well as the bad; (3)would be able to give the honest perspective and context that is largely absent from MSM reporting; as well as a view from the ground that may be absent or abbreviated from command reports.
Chester (and I) are assuming that having an honest perspective and objective report of the ground situation in Iraq will have the result of making the American public better understand both the context and the purpose of our military actions there by giving the President the ammunition needed to counter the pervasive MSM templates.
And that seems a worthy objective.
We saw a little of the same kind of dismissive and contemptous attitude in the recent press conference when Helen Thomas asked in her adolescently conspiratorial tone, "Mr. President, why did you really invade Iraq?"
In the news coverage of that press conference that focused on Thomas' face as the President responded and politely but firmly denied the implicit assumption of her passive aggressive question, you saw all the snide and sarcastic superiority that is so typical of today's journalism "professionals". You see, they already have the answer to their own questions, so they don't really need your confirmation or denial--except in cases where they want to display their own smug, self-satisfied and small-minded intellects.
So, what are some things that can be done?
Chester makes a bold, innovative suggestion to the President after listening to an interview of Michael Yon by Hugh Hewitt:
Now tie it all together. You can see it, yes? What the President needs is his own Sergeant Major - a directed telescope on the battlefield reporting directly to him. Not his staff, not the White House Spokesman or the Press Pool. The chain goes straight to The Man himself.This, Chester says, will help the President counter the news reported by the MSM.
This is not hard to envision. Grab any of a number of Sergeants Major out there who are now retired. They have made careers of making gut calls in all manner of odd situations. Grab a guy who used to be in Delta Force, or the 1st Marine Division SgtMaj. You could grab an officer if you preferred (ahem: my email address is in the sidebar), but if it was me, I'd have a senior enlisted man, the type who's harder than woodpecker lips. Whoever he is, he must be able to communicate very very very well. Then give him an armored four door humvee, a translator, and a couple of shooters to be a mini-brute squad. That's all he'll want if he's the kind I have in mind. He can always hop on a bird if needs to. Get him some nice equipment too -- a camera, a sat phone, etc.
Then set him loose. Tell him to go to whatever is interesting and report whatever he thinks necessary. Give him no format whatsoever. No timeframes whatsoever. Or, if you know of a particular operation that needs checking up on, send him there.
Meanwhile, The Astute Blogger wonders if Arthur Chrenkoff came back with his regular posts of "Good News From Iraq" whether Bush's poll numbers would rise as the American public realizes that there is something happening in Iraq besides IEDs and death?
Certainly, Bush's low poll numbers are connected to the hostile and negative reports by the MSM from Iraq. There seems to be a lot of people who perceive this press bias (not just disgruntled bloggers like myself) if the reaction of the crowd to a question asked by a serviceman's wife to the President yesterday is any indication.
The President suggested that people look to alternate sources of information like blogs (good for him). But the truth is that far too many Americans still depend on the MSM for their news, and are the worse off for it.
So, how about it Mr. President? Why not appoint your own roving Sergeant-Major/Gray Lensman in Iraq, who reports directly to you and who can give you information that even your generals might lack or in some cases be reluctant to tell you? Some of the bonuses would be that he or she (1) would know and understand the military and military issues and culture; (2) would have complete freedom to relate the good as well as the bad; (3)would be able to give the honest perspective and context that is largely absent from MSM reporting; as well as a view from the ground that may be absent or abbreviated from command reports.
Chester (and I) are assuming that having an honest perspective and objective report of the ground situation in Iraq will have the result of making the American public better understand both the context and the purpose of our military actions there by giving the President the ammunition needed to counter the pervasive MSM templates.
And that seems a worthy objective.
HONEST PERSPECTIVE vs MARXIST DIALECTIC
Lorie Byrd has an editorial up at Townhall.com about the sudden interest the left has in wanting to know what the troops think about the war in Iraq.
Read it all. Meanwhile, Say Anything has a post that complements some data presented in the update to this post; and which compares active duty military deaths in the Clinton years versus the Bush years (hat tip: PowerLine ). Here's an excerpt, but read it all:
Neither can I.
We keep coming back to the fact that most of the rhetoric against the war focuses on the toll it's taken on our military. Yet noone in the MSM has ever put that toll in perspective. Noone in the MSM has ever acknowledged that those who join the military do so voluntarily and that they see it as a profession; with professional risks that they are willing to take.
They report the "suicide" rate of troops in Iraq to demonstrate what an awful war the poor victimized soldiers have to fight in, without reporting that the actual suicide rate in peacetime is not significantly different.
In fact, you will notice that for the most part, there are only two templates that exist for journalism on the U.S. military: (1) they are the poor helpless victims of an oppressive military system and the current political administration which horribly abuses them; OR, (2) they are the brutal, savage, sadistic psychopaths that enjoy inflicting death and misery and who are encouraged to do so by the oppressive military system and the current political administration.
Do you notice something about those two templates? They just happen to coincide with the marxist view of the world, where you are either one of the "oppressed" victims or one of the brutal "oppressors". Apparently that is the only context in which journalism is taught these days.
Caught up in the hidden marxist agenda of their postmodern rhetoric (with which they hope to "make the world a better", the graduates of these journalism schools march in lockstep with the other "oppressed" people of the world, including the poor victimized terrorists and all the helpless and persecuted dictators and tyrants who also only want to make the world a better place (with them in charge, of course).
If you want to know what the members of the military really think--instead of having it filtered through the ideological lens of journalists with an agenda, then you should read the milblogs.
They will give you a perspected that does not depend on the marxist dialectic template; and which also presents a more realistic and honest portrayal of events.
UPDATE: Wretchard has more on the statistics of the war.
I don't recall a poll taken of the troops during the Clinton administration to find out how they felt about the operation in Mogadishu. Maybe somebody did take one, but the 99.999 percent disapproval number they got was just more than the media could stand to report. I don't recall a bunch of polls being touted loudly by the media in the Clinton years letting us know how many of the troops respected their commander-in-chief. Certainly polls of the military were done during the Clinton years, but if they were, they were not featured prominently on my nightly newscast. I wonder why that is.
I asked Matt of the excellent military blog Blackfive for his take on the recent efforts of those in the media to determine how the troops feel (Military blogs, referred to as milblogs, are the weblogs maintained by individual members of the military and often include their personal accounts of their experiences in the field, sometimes even including pictures from war zones).
Matt had this to say about the sudden interest in polling the troops, “No one polled my troops about doing a tour in Bosnia or whether we supported the mission. No one asked me if I thought my unit should be involved in El Salvador in the 80s or Iraq in 1991. Would I rather have been drinking a beer, sitting in the bleachers of Wrigley Field? Of course. But there was a job to do and it was mine to complete.” He went on to say that instead of polling the troops on their feelings about Iraq, the media would do better to focus on providing more complete and truthful reporting of what the military is doing there.
Read it all. Meanwhile, Say Anything has a post that complements some data presented in the update to this post; and which compares active duty military deaths in the Clinton years versus the Bush years (hat tip: PowerLine ). Here's an excerpt, but read it all:
Here's an interesting report compiled by the Department of Defense's Manpower Data Center.
What I found most interesting was a comparison of the active duty deaths between the first four years of Bill Clinton's term and the first four years of Bush's term.
Active duty deaths during Clinton's first four years (1993 - 1996): 4302
Active duty deaths during Bush's first four years (2001 - 2004): 5187
The difference? 885 deaths over four years, or about 221 deaths a year. Of course, during Bush's first four years in office we liberated both Afghanistan and Iraq. What did we accomplish, in terms of military victories, during Clinton's first four years in office?
I can't think of a thing.
Neither can I.
We keep coming back to the fact that most of the rhetoric against the war focuses on the toll it's taken on our military. Yet noone in the MSM has ever put that toll in perspective. Noone in the MSM has ever acknowledged that those who join the military do so voluntarily and that they see it as a profession; with professional risks that they are willing to take.
They report the "suicide" rate of troops in Iraq to demonstrate what an awful war the poor victimized soldiers have to fight in, without reporting that the actual suicide rate in peacetime is not significantly different.
In fact, you will notice that for the most part, there are only two templates that exist for journalism on the U.S. military: (1) they are the poor helpless victims of an oppressive military system and the current political administration which horribly abuses them; OR, (2) they are the brutal, savage, sadistic psychopaths that enjoy inflicting death and misery and who are encouraged to do so by the oppressive military system and the current political administration.
Do you notice something about those two templates? They just happen to coincide with the marxist view of the world, where you are either one of the "oppressed" victims or one of the brutal "oppressors". Apparently that is the only context in which journalism is taught these days.
Caught up in the hidden marxist agenda of their postmodern rhetoric (with which they hope to "make the world a better", the graduates of these journalism schools march in lockstep with the other "oppressed" people of the world, including the poor victimized terrorists and all the helpless and persecuted dictators and tyrants who also only want to make the world a better place (with them in charge, of course).
If you want to know what the members of the military really think--instead of having it filtered through the ideological lens of journalists with an agenda, then you should read the milblogs.
They will give you a perspected that does not depend on the marxist dialectic template; and which also presents a more realistic and honest portrayal of events.
UPDATE: Wretchard has more on the statistics of the war.
Wednesday, March 22, 2006
CHAMPIONSHIP WHINING
ShrinkWrapped has a few sane words to say about the article about the study that supposedly shows that whiny kids grow up to become rigid political conservatives. (There is no link to the study that I could find). This is more wishful thinking than science, I suspect; and with the excessively low number of subjects reportedly in the original study I can state authoratatively that the conclusions of the authors don't mean a thing. Here is some of what SW has to say:
I especially liked the No Pasaran link. There are several obvious real-life counterpoints to the assertions of this article; and if you are looking for whiny adults, you need look no further than the French rioters upset that they won't have jobs for life; the antiwar demonstrators who practically define the word "whiny" and the bunch of pathetic crybabies and assorted poor losers who can't even get over the 2004 election, let alone the one in 2000. You can still hear the high-pitched, plaintive and distressed moaning sounds coming from the various orifices of the left.
Now, that is really championship whining. Those of us on the conservative side of things are fully capable of doing our own share of whining, it is true; but we just can't live up to the competition.
UPDATE: Michelle Malkin has received some very interesting information about the subjects in this study, who were all the children of UC Berkeley faculty--91% of whom are classified as liberal (!). This information just might have a mitigating effect on the possible interpretations/conclusions that can be made from the data, I suspect.
I cannot tell if the error is Kleiner's or Block's but it is a fundamental error to assume that a political liberal is more or less rigid than a political conservative; if anything, adaptability and the creation and adoption of new ideas is much more prevalent on the Conservative side of the political divide than the Liberal side. As even Democrats have remarked, they don't even know what they stand for any more, beyond a rigid and reflexive anti-Bush stance. Progressives and conservatives have switched places around the world.
Just one example: Once again, Paris is burning, and the fires this time are being set by the university age children of the comfortable middle class who have grown up in a Socialist state where jobs, when they are available, are for life, and where all one's needs are met by the state. It is unquestionable that Berkeley liberals would point to the French as the height of progressive thought and culture on the planet. Yet the paradox here is that the French rioters are not only anything but non-conformist, they are anxious, rigid, and terrified of change; they are violently reactionary. Joe N. at No Pasaran captures their mindset brilliantly, in Life is static. Nothing should ever change. Feed me.
I especially liked the No Pasaran link. There are several obvious real-life counterpoints to the assertions of this article; and if you are looking for whiny adults, you need look no further than the French rioters upset that they won't have jobs for life; the antiwar demonstrators who practically define the word "whiny" and the bunch of pathetic crybabies and assorted poor losers who can't even get over the 2004 election, let alone the one in 2000. You can still hear the high-pitched, plaintive and distressed moaning sounds coming from the various orifices of the left.
Now, that is really championship whining. Those of us on the conservative side of things are fully capable of doing our own share of whining, it is true; but we just can't live up to the competition.
UPDATE: Michelle Malkin has received some very interesting information about the subjects in this study, who were all the children of UC Berkeley faculty--91% of whom are classified as liberal (!). This information just might have a mitigating effect on the possible interpretations/conclusions that can be made from the data, I suspect.
Pathological Hysteria
Melanie Phillips notices it, too. In discussing some of the revelations coming out of the Saddam papers being released, and the incredible indifference ("la belle indifference") (see here also) with which the MSM is treating this information, she notes:
As the lies and distortions of the left continue to unravel, you will see even more denial and projection on their part. They will say that it is Bush, Rumsfeld, Rice, Cheney, etc. etc. etc. who are denying obvious truths; and they will say it loudly; they will scream it puctuated by four-letter words; they will demand that they are right and that the US has lost and should surrender. They are pathologically unable to see anything else in their hysterical state.
Bush must be wrong. The U.S. must be evil. Otherwise, they would have to re-evaluate their premises and see their ideology for the soul-less, anti-freedom, anti-human credo it really is.
And that is a reality they cannot face.
As I said in an earlier piece:
And that is the frightening truth that all the hysteria is meant to disguise.
UPDATE: One thing that I have always thought was completely saturated with hysteria and overblown emotionalism is the left's bizarre notions about the military (burned into their brains no doubt after Vietnam). neo-neocon discusses that hyperventilating excess rather eloquently:
According to Gateway, the harsh truth is that "Before the War in Iraq, Saddam was filling his mass graves and keeping state hired rapists on his payroll. In those 20 years about 5% of the people of Iraq were killed or mysteriously disappeared. The red area in the graph above shows the estimated average deaths in Iraq under Saddam Hussein from 36 average deaths per day from mass grave discoveries, to 137 deaths per day from a different source. The yellow area shows estimated total fatalities since the beginning of the War in Iraq from Iraq Body Count, an antiwar website."
Whatever the horrors now engulfing Iraq and whatever mistakes were made since the fall of Baghdad, the fact remains that the toppling of Saddam was a necessity for the west. Just because things are bad does not mean they could not have been worse. This simple fact has been all but obliterated from public discourse by the avalanche of lies and distortions from the anti-war crowd who have rewritten both history and present circumstances in order to say ‘I told you so’. The pathological hysteria with which they are doing so, however (see today’s Independent newspaper, for example) suggests that at some level they know they are denying this patently obvious truth.
As the lies and distortions of the left continue to unravel, you will see even more denial and projection on their part. They will say that it is Bush, Rumsfeld, Rice, Cheney, etc. etc. etc. who are denying obvious truths; and they will say it loudly; they will scream it puctuated by four-letter words; they will demand that they are right and that the US has lost and should surrender. They are pathologically unable to see anything else in their hysterical state.
Bush must be wrong. The U.S. must be evil. Otherwise, they would have to re-evaluate their premises and see their ideology for the soul-less, anti-freedom, anti-human credo it really is.
And that is a reality they cannot face.
As I said in an earlier piece:
Some day in the future after events have unfolded; and after all intended and unintended consequences have played themselves out; the spineless traitors and apologists of the left, who have done nothing to advance the cause of freedom and democracy in Iraq--or in the world, for that matter--and instead have actively and enthusiastically supported the enemy's psychological operations and become their propaganda outlets, will be finally subjected to evaluation by history; and their true psychological motivations will not be in doubt.
Because, however events turn out in Iraq--for good or ill, and there is certainly no guarantee that what is right and good will always overcome-- the underlying motivations of the left (and all those who proclaim themselves to be the champions of the little guy, and yet for some reason always end up defending the Milosovics and Saddams of the world; and always enabling the Hitlers and Bin Ladens) are perfectly clear to anyone who will look.
And that is the frightening truth that all the hysteria is meant to disguise.
UPDATE: One thing that I have always thought was completely saturated with hysteria and overblown emotionalism is the left's bizarre notions about the military (burned into their brains no doubt after Vietnam). neo-neocon discusses that hyperventilating excess rather eloquently:
Just as an anchor to reality, here are two graphs I appropriated from Gateway Pundit; one shows a comparison of American deaths from different wars; and the other shows Iraqi deaths under Saddam compared with current violence:
A great deal of the rhetoric against the war focuses on the toll it's taken on our military.That's an interesting message.
On the one hand, we all mourn every military life lost; the human toll is devastating and dreadful (see this).
But the harsh and terrible truth is that, if we are not prepared to incur military losses, we may as well not have a military and not fight at all. We have now advanced so far in the laudable goal of minimizing casualties that the numbers posted on the previously linked antiwar website for the three years of this war--2317 US deaths, 1860 in combat--are considered unconscionable.
"Ah, warmonger!" I can hear some of you cry at what I am about to say next. But pointing out that this is a relatively low death toll, as three-year wars go, is not the same as saying that any of these deaths should not be mourned. They are mourned, and should be mourned, deeply.But if the message of that mourning is that that is an unacceptably high number, the message is that if an enemy mounts a war of attrition against us, the numbers don't even have to be very high to defeat us. A slow, steady trickle will do.
According to Gateway, the harsh truth is that "Before the War in Iraq, Saddam was filling his mass graves and keeping state hired rapists on his payroll. In those 20 years about 5% of the people of Iraq were killed or mysteriously disappeared. The red area in the graph above shows the estimated average deaths in Iraq under Saddam Hussein from 36 average deaths per day from mass grave discoveries, to 137 deaths per day from a different source. The yellow area shows estimated total fatalities since the beginning of the War in Iraq from Iraq Body Count, an antiwar website."
Tuesday, March 21, 2006
BACTERIAL MOTIVATIONS AND MULTICELLULAR RELATIVITY
The erudite and enigmatic Gagdad Bob has a wonderful post up with this description of leftism/liberalism:
Try telling your immune system to be reasonable, to sit down and talk it out with the viruses that want to invade you. Tell your white blood cells to hold conferences to try to understand the root causes of bacterial motivations. For me these two sentences were entirely delightful to read and led me to an incredible epiphany and a deeper understanding and appreciation of political correctness andmulticultural, multicellular relativism.
I realized that both bacteria and viruses are members of an oppressed class (or phylum, if you prefer) ; and that they are therefore victims of the imperialistic and violent nature of homo sapiens (particularly conservative ones) !
I now realize that as homo sapiens ascended in the biological cosmos, the poor persecuted bacterial and viral kingdoms have had to endure a shameful and humiliating occupation of space that was once rightfully theirs and which comprised all the air, water, and earth of the entire planet. This sad situation is the result of multicellular fascism with its sadistic capitalistic desire to wipe out all competing biological kingdoms.
This is nothing less than cellucide or microcide or protozoacide or something--perhaps, genuside?
Homo sapiens' multicellular delusions of superiority are completely unjustified due to the uniquely destructive and bad behavior displayed by most of the members of animalia chordata mammalia primata homo sapiens -- particularly those who reside in the United States, the home of the least sapien.
What makes us think that our pathetic little animalia kingdom--and in particular the imperialistic chordata phylum-- is better than the EU-bacteria or archaebacteria kingdom? Do bacteria have wars? Do they kill each other? NO! They live quiet lives, of peaceful and communal, self-sacrificing propagation. Their eight phyla are as deserving of life as homo sapiens; in fact they are more deserving and their right to exist predates ours by many millennia, thus their rights supercede any "rights" presumed by the animal kingdom.
And compared to their simple, elegant, and non-material way of life; we greedy, sexist bipeds have a history of wreaking destruction and devastation, ruining every genus, species, phylum, and class with which we come in contact.
Have we even taken the time to try to understand why they behave toward us as they do? Have we tried to understand the despair of the suicide-bacteria, willing to embrace death even as they infect and kill us? Does their heroic martyrdom not demonstrate how desperate they have become under our occupation?
Our ruthless oppression must cease.
HOMO SAPIENS LIED AND STREPTOCOCCI DIED!
IMPEACH THE MAKERS OF PENICILLIN FOR CRIMES AGAINST MICROBIALITY!
ETC. ETC. !
Anyway, sorry for the digression. Go read Bob's piece.
Rather, it is a topdown dogma that is not dictated by what works, but by how liberals would like reality to be. This is why liberalism must be enforced with the mechanism of political correctness, in order to preempt or punish those who deviate from liberal dogma, and see what they are not supposed to see.
It is a mistake to think of this as a problem afflicting only intellectuals. Rather, a moment's reflection reveals that it is a much more pervasive problem that afflicts artists, psychologists, literary types, etc. So what is common to all these folks? Why it's the tyranny of the abstract. All of these types fall in love with their own ideas, and take their ideas to be more real than reality. In fact, for such an individual, reality becomes a defective form of their sacred ought. Instead of "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth," the overly abstract thinker says, "In the beginning, reality ought to be the way I want it to be."
Let's face it, if you are a ward of the state, a university professor with the luxury to idly pursue the intellectual life, have it pretty easy. You are living a rather sheltered existence, free from hunger, disease, pain, and want. Therefore, it's pretty easy to forget the violence that made such leisure and abundance possible, in the same way that it's easy to enjoy your health while forgetting that you're only healthy because you have a "primitive" but sophisticated immune system ready to do incredible violence to any foreign invaders who threaten your body's health. For these intellectuals and so-called spiritual types to have contempt for the military is as idiotic as having contempt for your body's immune system. But that doesn't stop elite universities from suing to get the ROTC and military recruiters off their campuses.
Try telling your immune system to be reasonable, to sit down and talk it out with the viruses that want to invade you. Tell your white blood cells to hold conferences to try to understand the root causes of bacterial motivations.
The ideals of abstract thinkers are utopian and unworkable because they forget all about embodied human existence--about reality. It is no coincidence that the great totalitarian movements of the past century--communism, nazism, and now Islamism--were and are the products of intellectuals. On the other hand, Christianity takes seriously the idea that we are unavoidably embodied and imperfectible. As a matter of fact, Judeo-Christian metaphysics solves the otherwise insoluble philosophical stalemate between idealists and materialists, because a logoistic reality means that the Word is made flesh: that the ideal is located in the real, not in some abstract, utopian beyond. The world is neither ethereal nor earthly: it is earthereal.
Abstract ideas are designed to understand and describe reality. But intellectuals turn this around and begin using their abstractions to judge reality. And if reality falls short, they don't abandon their ideals but jettison reality
Try telling your immune system to be reasonable, to sit down and talk it out with the viruses that want to invade you. Tell your white blood cells to hold conferences to try to understand the root causes of bacterial motivations. For me these two sentences were entirely delightful to read and led me to an incredible epiphany and a deeper understanding and appreciation of political correctness and
I realized that both bacteria and viruses are members of an oppressed class (or phylum, if you prefer) ; and that they are therefore victims of the imperialistic and violent nature of homo sapiens (particularly conservative ones) !
I now realize that as homo sapiens ascended in the biological cosmos, the poor persecuted bacterial and viral kingdoms have had to endure a shameful and humiliating occupation of space that was once rightfully theirs and which comprised all the air, water, and earth of the entire planet. This sad situation is the result of multicellular fascism with its sadistic capitalistic desire to wipe out all competing biological kingdoms.
This is nothing less than cellucide or microcide or protozoacide or something--perhaps, genuside?
Homo sapiens' multicellular delusions of superiority are completely unjustified due to the uniquely destructive and bad behavior displayed by most of the members of animalia chordata mammalia primata homo sapiens -- particularly those who reside in the United States, the home of the least sapien.
What makes us think that our pathetic little animalia kingdom--and in particular the imperialistic chordata phylum-- is better than the EU-bacteria or archaebacteria kingdom? Do bacteria have wars? Do they kill each other? NO! They live quiet lives, of peaceful and communal, self-sacrificing propagation. Their eight phyla are as deserving of life as homo sapiens; in fact they are more deserving and their right to exist predates ours by many millennia, thus their rights supercede any "rights" presumed by the animal kingdom.
And compared to their simple, elegant, and non-material way of life; we greedy, sexist bipeds have a history of wreaking destruction and devastation, ruining every genus, species, phylum, and class with which we come in contact.
Have we even taken the time to try to understand why they behave toward us as they do? Have we tried to understand the despair of the suicide-bacteria, willing to embrace death even as they infect and kill us? Does their heroic martyrdom not demonstrate how desperate they have become under our occupation?
Our ruthless oppression must cease.
HOMO SAPIENS LIED AND STREPTOCOCCI DIED!
IMPEACH THE MAKERS OF PENICILLIN FOR CRIMES AGAINST MICROBIALITY!
ETC. ETC. !
Anyway, sorry for the digression. Go read Bob's piece.
THE HOLLOW MEN
If you want to know why Europe is in decline and ripe for exploitation by the next totalitarian thug that comes along -- just take a peek at what is going on in France right now.
Hundreds of thousands of students in France are angrily protesting, and the major French labor unions, are threatening a general strike. About what, you may ask?
In the U.S., we have only a mild socialist cold; but in Europe, they have evolved into the full-blown pneumonia. When they are near economic and political collapse from it and desperate for the cradle-to-grave security that erodes individual initiative; avoids personal responsibility; and deeply fears any kind of freedom, then they will be ready for shar'ia and for someone--anyone--to run their lives for them.
Socialism and communism were just symptomatic preludes for the mighty Allahgod and his fanatical believers who bring certain death for the ailing soul.
These are the hollow men, indeed; whispering together like rats' feet in their dry cellar. Waiting to be filled, eager to be filled by someone or something that will give their empty lives meaning, and promise them yet another kingdom.
Sightless, unless
The eyes reappear
As the perpetual star
Multifoliate rose
Of death's twilight kingdom
The hope only
Of empty men.
Here we go round the prickly pear
Prickly pear prickly pear
Here we go round the prickly pear
At five o'clock in the morning.
Between the idea
And the reality
Between the motion
And the act
Falls the Shadow
or Thine is the Kingdom
Between the conception
And the creation
Between the emotion
And the response
Falls the Shadow
Life is very long
Between the desire
And the spasm
Between the potency
And the existence
Between the essence
And the descent
Falls the Shadow
For Thine is the Kingdom
For Thine is
Life is
For Thine is the
This is the way the world ends
This is the way the world ends
This is the way the world ends
Not with a bang but a whimper.
Hundreds of thousands of students in France are angrily protesting, and the major French labor unions, are threatening a general strike. About what, you may ask?
It is all about a new law in France that allows a company to fire a person under the age of 26, without cause, within two years of being hired.
Wow. Imagine that. You might get fired from your first job.
As it happens, the whole point of the law was to encourage companies to hire young people. The unemployment rate among young people in France is 23 percent. And in many suburbs, it is double that. Meanwhile, French companies are understandably loath to hire 22-year-olds when they cannot fire them except "for cause," which under union rules means something like committing mass murder in the workplace.
What these massive demonstrations reveal is the narcissism, laziness and irresponsibility inculcated by socialist societies.
Enough generations of socialist policies have now passed for us to judge their effects. They are bleak. Socialism undermines the character of a nation and of its citizens. In simpler words, socialism makes people worse.
These young people in France really believe that they should be able to be hired at their tender ages and that a company must not be allowed to fire them from their first day at work (except "for cause," which, as we are learning in America, is increasingly difficult to establish). In America, most of us would call the French young people's attitudes "spoiled."
Socialism teaches its citizens to expect everything, even if they contribute nothing.
In the U.S., we have only a mild socialist cold; but in Europe, they have evolved into the full-blown pneumonia. When they are near economic and political collapse from it and desperate for the cradle-to-grave security that erodes individual initiative; avoids personal responsibility; and deeply fears any kind of freedom, then they will be ready for shar'ia and for someone--anyone--to run their lives for them.
Socialism and communism were just symptomatic preludes for the mighty Allahgod and his fanatical believers who bring certain death for the ailing soul.
These are the hollow men, indeed; whispering together like rats' feet in their dry cellar. Waiting to be filled, eager to be filled by someone or something that will give their empty lives meaning, and promise them yet another kingdom.
Sightless, unless
The eyes reappear
As the perpetual star
Multifoliate rose
Of death's twilight kingdom
The hope only
Of empty men.
Here we go round the prickly pear
Prickly pear prickly pear
Here we go round the prickly pear
At five o'clock in the morning.
Between the idea
And the reality
Between the motion
And the act
Falls the Shadow
or Thine is the Kingdom
Between the conception
And the creation
Between the emotion
And the response
Falls the Shadow
Life is very long
Between the desire
And the spasm
Between the potency
And the existence
Between the essence
And the descent
Falls the Shadow
For Thine is the Kingdom
For Thine is
Life is
For Thine is the
This is the way the world ends
This is the way the world ends
This is the way the world ends
Not with a bang but a whimper.
REWIND AND REPLAY
Christopher Hitchens takes a turn at an alternate history of the Iraq war:
Hitchens is not the only one who rewinds and replays the last three years. A few days ago, Gerard Baker posted this piece that proposes an alternate history of Iraq where Saddam was permitted to stay in power by the international community. He makes this important point at the end:
Thus you have the infallible logic of the critc of prevention, and the ready-made fall guy in whoever is courageous enough to try to prevent something terrible from happening.
The infallible logic is this: since the terrible event was prevented from occurring, what possible evidence exists that it would have taken place? Hence you can only "prove" that prevention would have worked if you don't use it.
The ready-made fall guy is created by the infallible logic. If the terrible even occurs and was preventable, and you did nothing--YOU ARE TO BLAME FOR ALLOWING IT TO HAPPEN. If you prevent the terrible thing from occurring, but you cannot prove that it would have occurred if you hadn't prevented it--THEN YOU LIED, PEOPLE DIED FOR NOTHING, ETC ETC.. In short, you will be damned if you do prevent the terrible thing from happening; and damned if you don't.
That is why the ability to rewind and replay the past in our thoughts is such a valuable exercise. It matters what people said and what they did or did not do. Putting events in perspective requires that kind of analysis, and so, Hitchens and Baker provide a real service to anyone who needs a dispassionate and rational evaluation of present events without resorting to the mass hysteria and selective amnesia that so characterizes the MSM, the Democrats, and the antiwar fanatics.
UPDATE: Glenn Reynolds gets a big hug and lots of love from the left--sort of similar to what I've been the recipient of lately from the intellectually stimulating and warmly compassionate and understanding trolls running around on this blog. He takes them down nicely.
Meanwhile, SC&A have more on the progressives of the left, their loving ways, and why they hate mirrors.
Let us start with President Bush's speech to the United Nations on Sept. 12, 2002, which I recommend that you read. Contrary to innumerable sneers, he did not speak only about WMD and terrorism, important though those considerations were. He presented an argument for regime change and democracy in Iraq and said, in effect, that the international community had tolerated Saddam's deadly system for far too long. Who could disagree with that? Here's what should have happened. The other member states of the United Nations should have said: Mr. President, in principle you are correct. The list of flouted U.N. resolutions is disgracefully long. Law has been broken, genocide has been committed, other member-states have been invaded, and our own weapons inspectors insulted and coerced and cheated. Let us all collectively decide how to move long-suffering Iraq into the post-Saddam era. We shall need to consider how much to set aside to rebuild the Iraqi economy, how to sponsor free elections, how to recuperate the devastated areas of the marshes and Kurdistan, how to try the war criminals, and how many multinational forces to ready for this task. In the meantime—this is of special importance—all governments will make it unmistakably plain to Saddam Hussein that he can count on nobody to save him. All Iraqi diplomats outside the country, and all officers and officials within it, will receive the single message that it is time for them to switch sides or face the consequences. Then, when we are ready, we shall issue a unanimous ultimatum backed by the threat of overwhelming force. We call on all democratic forces in all countries to prepare to lend a hand to the Iraqi people and assist them in recovering from more than three decades of fascism and war.
Not a huge amount to ask, when you think about it. But what did the president get instead? The threat of unilateral veto from Paris, Moscow, and Beijing. Private assurances to Saddam Hussein from members of the U.N. Security Council. Pharisaic fatuities from the United Nations' secretary-general, who had never had a single problem wheeling and dealing with Baghdad. The refusal to reappoint Rolf Ekeus—the only serious man in the U.N. inspectorate—to the job of invigilation. A tirade of opprobrium, accusing Bush of everything from an oil grab to a vendetta on behalf of his father to a secret subordination to a Jewish cabal. Platforms set up in major cities so that crowds could be harangued by hardened supporters of Milosevic and Saddam, some of them paid out of the oil-for-food bordello.
Well, if everyone else is allowed to rewind the tape and replay it, so can I. We could have been living in a different world, and so could the people of Iraq, and I shall go on keeping score about this until the last phony pacifist has been strangled with the entrails of the last suicide-murderer.
Hitchens is not the only one who rewinds and replays the last three years. A few days ago, Gerard Baker posted this piece that proposes an alternate history of Iraq where Saddam was permitted to stay in power by the international community. He makes this important point at the end:
The war in Iraq goes on, three years later, to the unfolding judgment of history. But that judgment should encompass not just the consequences of what was done but the consequences of what might have happened had it not been done.The consequences of what might have been are indeed unrecordable. The thing about prevention is that...it prevents really bad things from happening. In a post from last year, I argued the following about prevention:
The consequences of what was done in Iraq are easy to see and hard to look at. The consequences of what might have been are by their nature unrecordable. But we know that history’s greatest tragedies could and should have been avoided, but never were.
...but by the very act of preventing such a thing from occurring you can never then prove that it might have occurred in the first place.
Critics can then claim that the countermeasure/preventive action was not really necessary to begin with. The same is true of selection techniques--or in fact, of almost any preventive measure in any area. If you are successful, the event you fear will not happen. So, were you wrong to try to prevent it?
Likewise, because the plots listed above were successfully prevented from happening, many people --especially those that hate Bush etc. to begin with--will argue that nothing of significance occurred and will attempt to blow it all off.
This is worse than foolish thinking. This is stupid and dangerous thinking. If you take any of the above Al Qaeda plots to their logical conclusion, they would have resulted in serious death and mayhem. By the logic of the critics of prevention, since nothing happened, there is no evidence you were successful.
The sarcastic "critics of prevention", by the way, become the pontificating "critics in hindsight" that blast away without mercy when there is a "failure of imagination"; or for "not connecting the dots"; or because "not enough planning in advance" when something terrible occurs.
Would they have preferred another attack here like 9/11? I would guess that it really matters little--either way, they can still blame Bush for what happens; or sneer at him when it doesn't.
Thus you have the infallible logic of the critc of prevention, and the ready-made fall guy in whoever is courageous enough to try to prevent something terrible from happening.
The infallible logic is this: since the terrible event was prevented from occurring, what possible evidence exists that it would have taken place? Hence you can only "prove" that prevention would have worked if you don't use it.
The ready-made fall guy is created by the infallible logic. If the terrible even occurs and was preventable, and you did nothing--YOU ARE TO BLAME FOR ALLOWING IT TO HAPPEN. If you prevent the terrible thing from occurring, but you cannot prove that it would have occurred if you hadn't prevented it--THEN YOU LIED, PEOPLE DIED FOR NOTHING, ETC ETC.. In short, you will be damned if you do prevent the terrible thing from happening; and damned if you don't.
That is why the ability to rewind and replay the past in our thoughts is such a valuable exercise. It matters what people said and what they did or did not do. Putting events in perspective requires that kind of analysis, and so, Hitchens and Baker provide a real service to anyone who needs a dispassionate and rational evaluation of present events without resorting to the mass hysteria and selective amnesia that so characterizes the MSM, the Democrats, and the antiwar fanatics.
UPDATE: Glenn Reynolds gets a big hug and lots of love from the left--sort of similar to what I've been the recipient of lately from the intellectually stimulating and warmly compassionate and understanding trolls running around on this blog. He takes them down nicely.
Meanwhile, SC&A have more on the progressives of the left, their loving ways, and why they hate mirrors.
Monday, March 20, 2006
LET'S FINISH IT AND WIN
I think Ann Althouse has the answer to why Bush's low poll numbers don't translate to anything particularly positive for the Democrats:
As most of my readers are aware, I am a staunch supporter of the Iraq war. If I have any dissatisfaction at all it is precisely because of all the politically correct limitations that have been placed on our troops that have kept them from responding "decisively" throughout this entire conflict. To the extent that Bush has attempted to pacify the war's critics both nationally and internationally, we have seen our troops hands tied behind their backs--and even then they have been blasted mercilessly; ridiculed and accused of the most horrible crimes for their staunch heroism and courage.
The truth is that most of the "antiwar" crowd is more anti-Bush. anti-US Military, and anti-America than anything else. Certainly being "antiwar" does not appear to translate well to being pro-peace or pro-justice. (just consider Ramsey Clark or Jimmy Carter as two prominent examples - neither have ever met a dictator or tyrant they couldn't sympathize with).
The MSM responds to any success in Iraq by changing the rules of their engagement with the Administration so as to make things appear in the worse possible light at all times. The most recent efforts in this can be seen in the change of memes regarding the Iraqi "insurgency"--which, if you follow the MSM is hardly talked about much anymore now that they have "sectarian violence" and "civil war" to bruit about. When that dies down, we will go back to hearing how clever Zarqawi is and how viable the insurgency is and how hopeless it is to fight them.
And, of course, when everything is going well; when troop casualties are at their lowest point, it is always a good idea to (1) announce that a new and tragic "milestone" has been passed; (2) Remind everyone about Abu Ghraib (without noting that the perpetrators have all been punished of course); or, if things there really look good, go back to harping on (3) the fact that there were no WMD's found and that Saddam was not a threat;(shouting "VALERIE PLAME" is always useful, too to demonstrate how Bush absolutely crushed any opposition to his policies); (4) Make sure you quote someone politically powerful who will predict some impending disaster or horrible event that will happen in Iraq--and never NEVER go back and review how wrong all the prediction were; or the most frequent stand-by: (5) cite polls to show how much disapproval there is at Bush's handling of the war.
How frustrating it must be to all the people who desperately want America to be humiliated and defeated to realize that no matter what they write; or how often they write it; no matter how many polls they take or how low they make them come out; that the President will press forward with his strategy.
I aggree with Ann Althouse. It is not really the President's overall strategy that is disliked so much as it is the diluted, tepid and indecisive aspects of this war. And for that I lay the blame directly on the left's perverted input through their Democratic puppets in Congress; and the rather pathetic majority Republicans for not shutting them out of the discussion completely and totally when it became obvious they had not a single alternative to offer.
Two things the left should remember no matter how much it goes against their ideological conditioning: Americans are not stupid; and they really like to win.
When people acknowledge that they disapprove of the President's handling of the war, what does that mean? You might answer that way to say you're unhappy that we haven't yet won decisively. If you think Bush ought to be handling things better, moving us along toward victory along a clearer, more well-defined path, do you feel motivated to go out on the street and protest? What would you chant? I know you're in the middle of a difficult task, but would you please try to figure out a more effective way to complete it?
As most of my readers are aware, I am a staunch supporter of the Iraq war. If I have any dissatisfaction at all it is precisely because of all the politically correct limitations that have been placed on our troops that have kept them from responding "decisively" throughout this entire conflict. To the extent that Bush has attempted to pacify the war's critics both nationally and internationally, we have seen our troops hands tied behind their backs--and even then they have been blasted mercilessly; ridiculed and accused of the most horrible crimes for their staunch heroism and courage.
The truth is that most of the "antiwar" crowd is more anti-Bush. anti-US Military, and anti-America than anything else. Certainly being "antiwar" does not appear to translate well to being pro-peace or pro-justice. (just consider Ramsey Clark or Jimmy Carter as two prominent examples - neither have ever met a dictator or tyrant they couldn't sympathize with).
The MSM responds to any success in Iraq by changing the rules of their engagement with the Administration so as to make things appear in the worse possible light at all times. The most recent efforts in this can be seen in the change of memes regarding the Iraqi "insurgency"--which, if you follow the MSM is hardly talked about much anymore now that they have "sectarian violence" and "civil war" to bruit about. When that dies down, we will go back to hearing how clever Zarqawi is and how viable the insurgency is and how hopeless it is to fight them.
And, of course, when everything is going well; when troop casualties are at their lowest point, it is always a good idea to (1) announce that a new and tragic "milestone" has been passed; (2) Remind everyone about Abu Ghraib (without noting that the perpetrators have all been punished of course); or, if things there really look good, go back to harping on (3) the fact that there were no WMD's found and that Saddam was not a threat;(shouting "VALERIE PLAME" is always useful, too to demonstrate how Bush absolutely crushed any opposition to his policies); (4) Make sure you quote someone politically powerful who will predict some impending disaster or horrible event that will happen in Iraq--and never NEVER go back and review how wrong all the prediction were; or the most frequent stand-by: (5) cite polls to show how much disapproval there is at Bush's handling of the war.
How frustrating it must be to all the people who desperately want America to be humiliated and defeated to realize that no matter what they write; or how often they write it; no matter how many polls they take or how low they make them come out; that the President will press forward with his strategy.
I aggree with Ann Althouse. It is not really the President's overall strategy that is disliked so much as it is the diluted, tepid and indecisive aspects of this war. And for that I lay the blame directly on the left's perverted input through their Democratic puppets in Congress; and the rather pathetic majority Republicans for not shutting them out of the discussion completely and totally when it became obvious they had not a single alternative to offer.
Two things the left should remember no matter how much it goes against their ideological conditioning: Americans are not stupid; and they really like to win.
CURSES AND DRAT !
Pssssst! Wanna see the episode from South Park about Scientology that Tom Cruise, Comedy Central and other sensitive folk don't want you to see? Jim Lindgren has it all here. What is it that is so powerful about cartoons that they can make mostly normal people (well, I suppose that is debatable) mostly insane? What superhuman hold do cartoons like South Park and the silly little Danish drawings have over weak minds?
I think it has something to do with a failure to appreciate humor:
To quote the creators of South Park, responding to Comedy Central censorship:
FULL DISCLOSURE: I am not actually a big fan of South Park, but I get all rebellious and annoyed when I am told authoritatively that I am not allowed to do something like read a certain book; watch a certain TV show; or say certain things. It is one of those little psychological foibles I have about free speech and all.
- Dr. Sanity, servant of the Lords of Light and Lady Liberty
I think it has something to do with a failure to appreciate humor:
Humor as a psychological defense mechanism is considered one of the most mature and effective. Sigmund Freud himself, suggested that of all the defenses, "humor is the highest." George Vaillant, in his book The Wisdom of the Ego, states that, "The mechanism of humor is defense so subtle and so elegant that words fail."
Basically, humor permits the overt expression of feelings without individual discomfort or immobilization, and simultaneously without unpleasant effect on others. It allows people to face the most painful reality-- and yet respond almost playfully to that reality.
Humor requires maturity. It is a creative adaptation to sometimes a dangerous and frightening world. At its best, it is an expression of hope when the unbearable must be born. Most often, very young children are not able to appreciate the healthiest kind of humor simply because they are too young and their egos too fragile to be able to enjoy the self-deprecation and subtlety.
To quote the creators of South Park, responding to Comedy Central censorship:
" So, Scientology, you may have won THIS battle, but the million-year war for earth has just begun! Temporarily anozinizing our episode will NOT stop us from keeping Thetans forever trapped in your pitiful man-bodies. Curses and drat! You have obstructed us for now, but your feeble bid to save humanity will fail! Hail Xenu!!!
- Trey Parker and Matt Stone, servants of the dark lord Xenu."
FULL DISCLOSURE: I am not actually a big fan of South Park, but I get all rebellious and annoyed when I am told authoritatively that I am not allowed to do something like read a certain book; watch a certain TV show; or say certain things. It is one of those little psychological foibles I have about free speech and all.
- Dr. Sanity, servant of the Lords of Light and Lady Liberty
Sunday, March 19, 2006
THE GOOD LITTLE PROPAGANDISTS
In my estimation, Wretchard makes an excellent point in his usual thoughtful fashion (and you should read the whole post):
Yes, isn't it interesting how the talking points of the left have changed to coincide with Zarqawi's latest tactical maneuvers?
Like good little propagandists, the MSM and many of the lefty blogs have followed along and pinned their own hopes for America's failure in Iraq on the successful implementation of Al Qaeda's long-range strategy.
As Wretchard notes:
Some day in the future after events have unfolded; and after all intended and unintended consequences have played themselves out; the spineless traitors and apologists of the left, who have done nothing to advance the cause of freedom and democracy in Iraq--or in the world, for that matter--and instead have actively and enthusiastically supported the enemy's psychological operations and become their propaganda outlets, will be finally subjected to evaluation by history; and their true psychological motivations will not be in doubt.
Because, however events turn out in Iraq--for good or ill, and there is certainly no guarantee that what is right and good always overcome-- the underlying motivations of the left (and all those who proclaim themselves to be the champions of the little guy, and yet for some reason always end up defending the Milosovics and Saddams of the world; always enabling the Hitlers and Bin Ladens) are perfectly clear to anyone who will look.
The vast majority of individuals who remain committed to the left's communist, socialist and/or marxist agenda are simple dupes, without any appreciable psychological insight which might make them even question their masters, let alone history and the tragic legacy left by their ideology. They will neither look too closely at history, nor will they search too closely in their own souls to understand why they believe as religiously as they do. They don't want to know the truth.
Those who have control and direct these mindless minions are not content with any limitation on their power, and seek to expand their oppressive agenda to any who would oppose their will. They know the truth and it does not concern them.
Both admire the new totalitarians of Islam and the ruthless ambition, cruelty and domination expressed so freely. Some on the left allow themselves to openly admire the oppressors, even as they claim to be against oppression in principle; and the others are more discreet. But both hope to align themselves with that unleashed and powerful dark side of the human soul. In fact, the secret admiration that unexpectedly shines through is one of the keys to understanding their own hidden desire to master others.
They are able to deeply relate the despot's dreams because those dreams of absolute control over others are their own. They might tell themselves it is for the "good of others", but they are lying or deluded; will not look too closely at the darkness in their own souls.
They had a choice in the last century and they have had a choice in this one. When it comes right down to it, the left will always throw their lot in with those whose dream is to enslave the world, no matter what lies they tell themselves to be able to sleep at night. Because that is their hidden psychological need - to exert control over others and bend them to their will; and that is why they collaborate so effortlessly with the enemies of freedom and humanity.
Instead of insurgency the talking points have changed to how Sunnis might soon become victims of an ethnically hostile Iraqi army in a Civil War. Going from a boast of conquest to a portrayal of victim is usually an indicator of something. In my view, the shift of meme from the "insurgency" to a "civil war" is a backhanded way of admitting the military defeat of the insurgency without abandoning the characterization of Iraq is an American fiasco.
Yes, isn't it interesting how the talking points of the left have changed to coincide with Zarqawi's latest tactical maneuvers?
Like good little propagandists, the MSM and many of the lefty blogs have followed along and pinned their own hopes for America's failure in Iraq on the successful implementation of Al Qaeda's long-range strategy.
As Wretchard notes:
What famous individuals say about a situation is a shortcut for encapsulating a factual assessment; it describes reality as public figures see it but is not the reality itself. That remains a mystery until developments unfold.
Some day in the future after events have unfolded; and after all intended and unintended consequences have played themselves out; the spineless traitors and apologists of the left, who have done nothing to advance the cause of freedom and democracy in Iraq--or in the world, for that matter--and instead have actively and enthusiastically supported the enemy's psychological operations and become their propaganda outlets, will be finally subjected to evaluation by history; and their true psychological motivations will not be in doubt.
Because, however events turn out in Iraq--for good or ill, and there is certainly no guarantee that what is right and good always overcome-- the underlying motivations of the left (and all those who proclaim themselves to be the champions of the little guy, and yet for some reason always end up defending the Milosovics and Saddams of the world; always enabling the Hitlers and Bin Ladens) are perfectly clear to anyone who will look.
The vast majority of individuals who remain committed to the left's communist, socialist and/or marxist agenda are simple dupes, without any appreciable psychological insight which might make them even question their masters, let alone history and the tragic legacy left by their ideology. They will neither look too closely at history, nor will they search too closely in their own souls to understand why they believe as religiously as they do. They don't want to know the truth.
Those who have control and direct these mindless minions are not content with any limitation on their power, and seek to expand their oppressive agenda to any who would oppose their will. They know the truth and it does not concern them.
Both admire the new totalitarians of Islam and the ruthless ambition, cruelty and domination expressed so freely. Some on the left allow themselves to openly admire the oppressors, even as they claim to be against oppression in principle; and the others are more discreet. But both hope to align themselves with that unleashed and powerful dark side of the human soul. In fact, the secret admiration that unexpectedly shines through is one of the keys to understanding their own hidden desire to master others.
They are able to deeply relate the despot's dreams because those dreams of absolute control over others are their own. They might tell themselves it is for the "good of others", but they are lying or deluded; will not look too closely at the darkness in their own souls.
They had a choice in the last century and they have had a choice in this one. When it comes right down to it, the left will always throw their lot in with those whose dream is to enslave the world, no matter what lies they tell themselves to be able to sleep at night. Because that is their hidden psychological need - to exert control over others and bend them to their will; and that is why they collaborate so effortlessly with the enemies of freedom and humanity.
CARNIVAL OF THE INSANITIES
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.
And, speaking of insanity, I'm out here on a Sunday in the Bluegrass State, where the temperature is pleasant, sunny, and about 30 degrees; shivering under blankets at 7:30 in the morning; watching my teenage daughter play in a soccer tournament. If that is not the height of insanity, I don't know what is!Send all entries for next week's carnival to Dr. Sanity by 8 pm ET on Saturday for Sunday's Carnival. Only one post entry weekly per blogger, please. Thanks for all the submissions. I try to use as many as possible! SO MANY INSANITIES! SO LITTLE TIME!
1. "I suppose it is just Sirhan's bad luck that somebody killed Robert Kennedy."
2. This can't possibly be true. Tell me it's not true!
3. The NY Times, Fukayama, and The Bend of History.
4. I'm going to have to go with the "clueless law professor" theory myself.
5. Lawsuit logic
6. The alternate PETA - People for the Eating of Tasty Animals! Actually, the real PETA would probably not approve of this place.
7. These cows might be undercover PETA agents, don't you think?
8. Cindy Sheehaningans. Good word.
9. A new, in-depth study compares Bush to Hitler! Impressive results. You know it's coming.
10. I think you have to be Jewish to understand this.
11. He did it all for love. Apparently, his communication was unclear.
12. Everybody who's glad he's not making money, raise their hands.
13. Feingold Audacity Advisory System. Currently at "Guarded" and dropping fast. Emily Latella comes to mind!
14. An employers tell about her worst employees. And who knew Strippers had unions? Do they have retirement benefits, too? .
15. This doesn't happen every day, even at a basketball game.
16. Dangerously incompetent? Seems appropriate. And this song is dangerously incomprehensible!
17. Hollywood cartoon protest! And did you know about this 1976 movie that foreshadowed the cartoon protest?
18. This is a very very bad side effect for a drug.
19. The implications of this are extremely funny when you think about it....
20. Fraudulent capitulation? Bad business practices.
21. Somehow, this video captures an important political truth, but I can't quite put my finger on it exactly....
22. Once again, life imitates Star Trek!
23. Justice denied is...well, justice denied. What would happen if the UN were in charge of Milosevic's autopsy? We know what happens when they set up a council on Human Rights....
24. Someone has helpfully put together a list of possible book titles for Jay Bennish.
25. Ahhh. Mental health! And speaking of mental health, here's an example of communist paranoid delusion.
26. Somebody's sorry. So sorry. So So sorry.
27. If we are really serious about improving the level of political discourse--we need this.
28. Poor George Clooney--beat up by Arianna! Someone has taken celebrity blogging to an even lower low. And then there's this.
29. Warning!! Danger!! Cannibalism may be on the menu! Kites can kill!
30. INDIGO CHILDREN .and YELLOW SNOW ! Very colorful
Carnival of the Insanities can also be found at The Truth Laid Bear's ÜberCarnival.
***************************************
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:
Saturday, March 18, 2006
Soccer Update
The girls did very well throughout the day (won 2 games, lost 1) and we just got back to the motel after a big pizza party. I scanned through a few items, but frankly my mood was too good, and I didn't want to ruin it by spending too much time on all the usual politics.
Besides, we have to be out at the field at 7:00 am tomorrow morning and I'm too tired right now.
I'll post the Carnival in the morning before we leave for the game. Have a great evening!
Besides, we have to be out at the field at 7:00 am tomorrow morning and I'm too tired right now.
I'll post the Carnival in the morning before we leave for the game. Have a great evening!
FIGHT BACK FOR FREE SPEECH
From The Corner, this letter from Irshad Manjii:
As the dust settled on the Danish cartoon controversy, I -- along with Salman Rushdie, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Taslima Nasrin and several others -- released a statement entitled, "The Manifesto of 12: Together Facing a New Totalitarianism ." In this statement, we promote universal human rights and democratic values. We point out that democrats and theocrats can be found in every civilization. Therefore, this is not a clash of civilizations but call to rally the "free spirits of all countries".
This statement has been praised and condemned worldwide. But in the condemnation category is something truly troubling, and that's why I'm writing.
The signatories have received a serious death threat from a chat thread on http://ummah.com, an Islamic website operating from Britain. ("Ummah" refers to the global Muslim community.) Its wording is unambiguous: "Excellent makes killing the kuffar [infidel] all the bit easier... Now we have a hit list of a 'Who's Who' guide to slam into. Take your time but make sure their gone soon oh and don't hold out for a fatwah it isn't really required here."
Unlike the usual stuff that comes from irate individuals, this threat emanates from a place of "authority." It's widely known that ummah.com attracts many radicals.
The Manifesto signatories need you to fight back with us. We've created a petition that will be published in the coming days. If you love pluralism enough to be vocal about it, I ask you to visit my website and go to the box entitled "Violence Alert." That's where you can sign the petition and, of course, read the Manifesto. My website is: http://www.muslim-refusenik.com
Please forward this message to others who might sign our petition. Thanks for your courage. And, strange as it may seem to say, happy spring...
Warmly,Irshad
As the dust settled on the Danish cartoon controversy, I -- along with Salman Rushdie, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Taslima Nasrin and several others -- released a statement entitled, "The Manifesto of 12: Together Facing a New Totalitarianism ." In this statement, we promote universal human rights and democratic values. We point out that democrats and theocrats can be found in every civilization. Therefore, this is not a clash of civilizations but call to rally the "free spirits of all countries".
This statement has been praised and condemned worldwide. But in the condemnation category is something truly troubling, and that's why I'm writing.
The signatories have received a serious death threat from a chat thread on http://ummah.com, an Islamic website operating from Britain. ("Ummah" refers to the global Muslim community.) Its wording is unambiguous: "Excellent makes killing the kuffar [infidel] all the bit easier... Now we have a hit list of a 'Who's Who' guide to slam into. Take your time but make sure their gone soon oh and don't hold out for a fatwah it isn't really required here."
Unlike the usual stuff that comes from irate individuals, this threat emanates from a place of "authority." It's widely known that ummah.com attracts many radicals.
The Manifesto signatories need you to fight back with us. We've created a petition that will be published in the coming days. If you love pluralism enough to be vocal about it, I ask you to visit my website and go to the box entitled "Violence Alert." That's where you can sign the petition and, of course, read the Manifesto. My website is: http://www.muslim-refusenik.com
Please forward this message to others who might sign our petition. Thanks for your courage. And, strange as it may seem to say, happy spring...
Warmly,Irshad
Carrot, Egg, or Coffee?
Which are you: a carrot, an egg, or coffee? More importantly, which of the three are you teaching your children to be? See Sigmund, Carl and Alfred for an explanation.
@#&*^%$# BLOGGER
Welcome back, Betsy! I didn't have serious problems like Betsy and Fausta, but yesterday and the day before, Blogger was doing some pretty weird things. Everything seems ok this morning.
This seems to happen every 6 months or so (sometimes more frequently); and it proves something I've always known:
You get what you pay for.
Someday I will move off blogger. Someday people will actually put tips in the tipjar....well, that latter is just a recurring fantasy....
Anyway, we're up at the crack of dawn. It is 20 degrees out and we're going to watch a soccer game in one hour. An OUTDOOR soccer game.
This seems to happen every 6 months or so (sometimes more frequently); and it proves something I've always known:
You get what you pay for.
Someday I will move off blogger. Someday people will actually put tips in the tipjar....well, that latter is just a recurring fantasy....
Anyway, we're up at the crack of dawn. It is 20 degrees out and we're going to watch a soccer game in one hour. An OUTDOOR soccer game.
THE COUNCIL HAS SPOKEN !
This week's winners in the Watcher's Council are now posted at the Watcher of Weasels . Every week the Council nominates posts from the blogs of the Council members, and posts from around the blogsphere. The Council then votes to select the "Best" of all these posts. This week includes some incredible writing!BEST COUNCIL POSTS:
First Place
King Solomon and the Roe-Men Gates of Vienna
Second Place
Why the Iranians Aren’t Deterred The Glittering Eye
BEST NON-COUNCIL POSTS:
First Place
The Crippen Diaries (Week 11) NHS Blog Doctor
Second Place
Why George Bush Will Be Important for Decades Middlebrow
Be sure to check out all the amazing winners at the Watcher's Site! Great weekend reading.
Friday, March 17, 2006
POLLS BE DAMNED
I had to post this before we left. From Investor's Business Daily:
As one of my frequent commenters says when responding to the tired old leftist talking points that keep popping up whenever you try to discuss Terrorism, Iraq and 9/11 - "WHACK!"
Now come more revelations that leave little doubt about Saddam's terrorist intentions. Most intriguing from a document dump Wednesday night is a manual for Saddam's spy service, innocuously listed as CMPC-2003-006430. It makes for interesting reading.
Here, for instance, are the marching orders for Directorate 8, the Mukhabarat's "Technical Affairs" department: "The Eight Directorate is responsible for development of materials needed for covert offensive operations. It contains advanced laboratories for testing and production of weapons, poisons and explosives."
It goes on. Directorate 9, we discover, "is one of the most important directorates in the Mukhabarat. Most of its work is outside Iraq in coordination with other directorates, focusing on operations of sabotage and assassination."
The document also discusses the Mukhabarat's Office 16, set up to train "agents for clandestine operations abroad." The document helpfully adds that "special six-week courses in the use of of terror techniques are provided at a camp in Radwaniyhah."
Got that? Terror techniques.
Even as the media studiously avoid these new documents — just as they avoided 500 hours of Saddam's personal tapes showing his scheming on WMD — it's clear the U.S. did the right thing in invading Iraq and taking out a formative terrorist threat.
Saddam had close ties to al-Qaida. That's not just our opinion, but also that of the 9-11 Commission Report that so many in the media have selectively cited to bolster the case against the war.
As Chairman Thomas Kean said the day the report was released: "There was no question in our minds that there was a relationship between Iraq and al-Qaida."
As such, we were heartened to see that President Bush on Thursday reaffirmed the U.S. will continue to fight a pre-emptive war on terror — accompanied by news that the U.S. had launched Operation Swarmer, its largest anti-insurgent offensive since 2003.
Polls be damned — that's how a war is fought.
As one of my frequent commenters says when responding to the tired old leftist talking points that keep popping up whenever you try to discuss Terrorism, Iraq and 9/11 - "WHACK!"
BLOGGING WILL BE CLOUDY WITH A POSSIBILITY OF SUNSHINE LATER
The family will be heading out to Kentucky by car this afternoon for a big soccer tournament that the Boo's team will be participating in. Blogger has been really acting up lately--look what happened to Betsy. I have been losing posts; having them post as drafts only; and at times not been able to access other blogger blogs or even my own. If anyone knows what is going on over there, feel free to clue me in. This post, for example, can't be viewed in other than the edit mode, otherwise it disappears into the ether.
Anyway, blogging will be light over the next few days, but I may have some time in between matches to post, so keep checking back. I know you'll all be busy watching March Madness anyway.
The Carnival of the Insanities will be up sometime on Sunday morning--blogger willing.
If you have some time in-between basketball games, check out some of the fine blogs along the sidebar.
Later!
THE SULTAN OF SANITY
From Cox and Forkum, a tribute to the courage of Dr. Wafa Sultan, who is willing to shine a spotlight on the insanities of Islam.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)