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.

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. And you might read this before submitting an entry.

Thanks for all the submissions. I try to use as many as possible! SO MANY INSANITIES! SO LITTLE TIME!!!

1. Is it just me, or are weird religions on the rise everywhere? And speaking of religions, say hello to...the weather God ! A fart for Ramadan? Why do I suspect that's blasphemous? Nevertheless, religion never disappoints!

2. Shocking research results! You mean that people who talk incessantly abouthow much they care , don't actually do anything? Amazing. More shocking research results!

3. Democratic memories are pretty short....but they stand up for what they believe in at the moment! Pre-op vs. Post-op . Bold plans to fix this country--of the botox variety. Appearance is everything to these people. Get off our team! The caribou are leaving by the droves!

4. A message from the Al Qaeda Commander in Iraq.

5.. OTOH, both our political parties are pretty dreadful.... Growl.

6. Liberal fools and TV spoofs!

7. Breaking up is hard to do. Except for some lunks maybe...

8. Everything can always be blamed on the Jews. There are "refugees" and then there are refugees.

9. The "equalizer" -- they all look the same!

10. The Playstation Jihad... Auto jihad... Jihad Puzzle.

11. The nursery rhyme police?

12. "Balls-out beauty"? Or, dickhead art critics?

13. Just another marketing ploy? Seeing red. Name abuse?

14. What some people did for entertainment in 1974. What some people do today.

15. Winning that battle with time.

16. Definitely appropriate punishment. Can you guess who "Celebrity A" is?

17. You gotta love this guy. Why can we find out about it only in India's newspapers?

18. Good Lord: to make relieving oneself a bit less stressful for transgender people and other folks who feel uncomfortable with standard gender labeling.

19. Why the poor dears.


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?

DISPLACEMENT AND THE COWARDS OF THE MSM***Updated***

Here is the headline in The Daily Mail : Iraq is a 'disaster' admits Blair. The article goes on to discuss the "shockwaves" this admission is causing and:

In his frankest admission about the war to date, Mr Blair admitted that Western forces have been powerless to stop the descent into violence.

The Prime Minister stopped short of accepting the blame for plunging Iraq to the brink of civil war - blaming instead the insurgent uprising that has killed 125 British troops.

But his admission in an interview with the Arab new channel Al Jazeera will be seen as an historic climbdown for Mr Blair, who has always fought to put a positive gloss on often disastrous events.

Pretty bleak, wouldn't you say? Except, if you go and look at the transcript of the David Frost interview on Al-Jazeera, here is what Blair actually said (via Tim Blair)

During the interview, Sir David suggested that the West’s intervention in Iraq had “so far been pretty much of a disaster”.

Blair replied: “It has, but you see what I say to people is why is it difficult in Iraq? It’s not difficult because of some accident in planning, it’s difficult because there’s a deliberate strategy - al-Qaeda with Sunni insurgents on one hand, Iranian-backed elements with Shia militias on the other - to create a situation in which the will of the majority for peace is displaced by the will of the minority for war."

Downing Street also has insisted that Blair's views were misrepresented and that it was "disingenuous" to portray it as some sort of admission. Those opposed to the war have taken the newspaper headlines like the one in the Daily Mail (and echoed everywhere) as evidence that Blair has "accepted that his strategy in the Middle Eastern state had failed."

Read what Blair actually said. He said that the enemy has had a deliberate strategy to continue to war, despite the will of the majority to have peace.

How this can be construed as an admission that Iraq is a hopeless disaster that Blair and presumably Bush and Co. should apologize for is beyond me.

I am continually amazed at the distortion of the media when it comes to reporting this war. Though journalists bristle at accusations that they are biased, one wonders how such deliberate manipulation of information can be thought of as anything else?

Victor Davis Hanson offers some clues as to what might be going on:

...what does unbalanced reporting really mean? We all harp that the media — specifically, the wire services, network television, and the international stations like the BBC and CNN — all focused on Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo Bay, the carnage left by IEDs and suicide bombers, and the allegations against the Marines at Haditha, and neglected entirely the damage we did to the terrorists and Islamic fascists, or the singularity of seeing parliaments in places like Kabul and Baghdad.

But the important question left unspoken is Why? Was the unbalanced converge, in the case of leftwing elites in the American media, a simple effort to embarrass Republican policy, allowing more sympathetic Democrats to regain power? In the case of the envious European media, was it to take down the Americans a notch or two to remind us that we are not as powerful as we think?

Or is the bias a more general result of a Western elite so deeply conflicted about its own culture, and so fundamentally unable to define its own civilization, that it either doesn’t care whether it wins, or in fact wishes that the West lose in Iraq?
[...]
The one common denominator? Whatever the United States does is suspect; and journalists without responsibility for governance, either for setting policy or for its implementation, are always brighter than generals, politicians, and policy planners saddled with it.

The truth is that wealthy Western elites in the media have evolved beyond worry over the basics of their civilization. They are so insulated, even after September 11, that they don’t believe there is much connection between liberty, freedom, consensual government, freedom of expression, and the everyday mundane things they depend on — whether excellent medical care, clean water, nice cars, neat electronic gadgets, eating out, or safety in their streets. A nuclear Iran, a missile-laden North Korea, a theocracy in oil-rich Iraq, an unleashed terrorist-sponsoring Syria, and an emboldened Hezbollah — all these could still never quite take away their good life, so strong is the assurance of their never-ending comfort zone that they could not conceive of ever losing it.

And thus the most vehement and angry critics find it possible, even desirable, to nibble away at their own civilization’s efforts, on the understanding that a loss in Iraq would be only an apparent loss. That defeat would not entail any material detriment to themselves, but surely would enhance their own sense of contrarian self-righteousness and self-worth, as they boldly caricature the very culture that so empowered them.

From a psychiatric perspective we once again get back to the essentially narcississtic and grandiose motivations of the leftist media. It is all about THEM. Their feelings about themselves; their fantasies of self-worth and speaking "truth to power". ShrinkWrapped has ferreted out their "dirty little secret", however, and it is:

Defensive rationalizations and intellectualizations are used to keep us from knowing uncomfortable things about ourselves. In the 1960s, in order to avoid any feelings of fear and attendant anxiety over masculinity, the war effort needed to be demonized. The original idea of "speaking truth to power" required minimal bravery. The level of danger the anti-war protesters faced was a tiny fraction of the real danger truly brave people living under brutal governments faced in Eastern Europe, or that our military men faced in Southeast Asia. Yet in order to avoid feeling scared, the war protesters needed to see themselves as bravely facing a quasi-fascist regime (LBJ and then Nixon); our protests were heroic efforts to establish and support peace and justice. In reality , the protests were nothing of the sort and millions of Vietnamese and Cambodians paid the price of our rationalizations. By demonizing the war as based on lies, immoral, imperialistic, etc (which all had a grain of truth but were clearly exaggerations and hardly the exclusive reasons for our involvement in Vietnam) the logic of our defensive edifice required the eventual cut-off of funds to the South Vietnamese, who until the military aid cut-off were more than holding their own.

We see the same need to rationalize today in Iraq. The anti-war movement, as if to re-confirm their essential morality and bravery, continue to "speak truth to power" at no real risk to themselves. In order to avoid the deeply hidden questions, maintain consistency in their rationalizations, and continue to retroactively justify their anti-Vietnam War beliefs, the anti-War campaigners are willing to once again abandon people who trusted us. Millions of Iraqis will be killed but they will feel morally superior and will continue to support the edifice of rationalizations that have sustained their image of themselves as brave rebels since the glory days of the 1960s.

The media enhance their own moral superiority by their distortions and manage to portray themselves as "brave rebels" who stand up against evil. But the truth is that it is far too risky to stand up against the real evil. Their courage only extends far enough to allow them to criticize people like Tony Blair and George Bush. Why, it would be far too dangerous for them personally to confront the real threat--those who are determined--no matter how much carnage it takes--to destroy the lives of millions in Iraq.

This psychological defense mechanism is referred to as "displacement", and it is the psycholgical basis of Bush Derangement Syndrome, as well as the tendency of many to conveniently blame America (and Britain) and Israel for every problem in the world.

One way you can usually tell that psychological displacement is being used is that the emotion being displaced (e.g., anger or fear) is all out of proportion to the reality of the situation. The purpose of displacement is to avoid having to cope with the actual reality. Instead, by using displacement, an individual is able to still experience his or her anger, but it is directed at a less threatening target than the real cause. In this way, the individual does not have to be responsible for the consequences of his/her anger and feels more safe--even thought that is not the case.

And, in the case of the MSM, the side effect of the displacement is that they can safely denounce "evil" and be the "brave rebels" without having to risk anything! From their perspective, their courage and daring knows no bounds! Why, at any minute, the fascist, torturing, despicable regimes of Bush, Blair etc. etc. might come for them and put them in death camps! Yeah, right.

In order for them to be brave, they must, of course, play up the evil of the forces they are "speaking truth" to. Hence all the exaggeration of mistakes that Bush and Blair have made. Exaggeration all out of proportion to reality--while almost completely ignoring the real atrocities that are committed on a daily basis by those we fight against in Iraq.

Psychological displacement explains the remarkable and sometimes lunatic appeasement of the Islamofascists--not just by the media, but by so many governments and around the world, while they trash the US and particularly Bush. It explains why there is more emphasis on protecting the "rights" of terrorists, rather than holding them accountable for their actions. U.S. and British soldiers in Iraq are being killed--not by the enemy--but by Bush and Blair; not because of the terrorist's agenda and their barbaric behavior. All terrorist activity, in fact, can be blithely dismissed because it is only a re-action to the evil actions of....you guessed it.

Thus, it isn't even a stretch of the imagination to blame 9/11 on Bush or the British subway plot on Blair. This is the insane "logic" of most psychological defense mechanisms. They temporarily spare you from dealing with the really painful reality around you and give the illusion that you are still in control. You can even keep that "brave, courageous rebel speaking truth to power" persona that is so important to your sense of self-worth.

So we come full circle. The media's deliberate distortion of a headline (which could have been, BLAIR BLAMES RAQ SITUATION ON THE DESIRE FOR WAR BY ALQAEDA AND IRAN) you can take and magnify it by hundreds of headlines that deliberately mislead, distort and undermine all efforts in the war on terror, and serve a twofold purpose:

First, carefully displace the threat from the actual perpetrators and originators of evil onto some relatively benign sources (i.e., those who won't actually persecute or behead you) and simultaneously magnify the benign source's supposed evil.

Second, enhance and massage the ego and self-image of thousands of journalists/editors/and others in the media who want to be viewed as the courageous tellers of truth, standing up to evil in the world.

But, just as Pat Conroy finally realized in a moment of blinding insight, the media (along with their psychologically dysfunctional pals, the antiwar crowd) are really only cowards, nibbling away at civilization; who just happen to share the same planet with genuine heroes fighting in Iraq and elsewhere for freedom, human dignity, and justice.

UPDATE: Speaking truth to Jihad- a perfect example of how the media are under the delusion that they are championing the "civil rights" of radical Islam. This is truly a disgusting example of almost psychotic proportions of how the MSM is completely unable to recognize their role in enabling and supporting the enemies of civilization.

THE LOGIC OF THE PARANOID LEFT

The paranoid person always takes himself seriously. It is rarely the case that such a person presents to a psychiatrist seeking help or complaining about their psychological projections, no matter how bizarre or out of touch with reality they may be. Because for the paranoid individual, his paranoia and the accompanying projections explain so much about his life and situation.

• Is he poor? Someone must have robbed him of what he is entitled to!
• Is he angry and feel hatred? Then the object of his hatred magically becomes the one who hates...him!
• Is his genius not recognized? He must have powerful enemies that prevent him from achieving the success he knows should be his.
• Has he made mistakes in his life? Someone has tricked him into acting a certain way.

The above mental gymnastics allow the paranoid person to external blame and avoid responsibility for his situation in life, as well as his own feelings. It is always someone else's fault and not his. It is always someone else who has the objectional feelings, and he is always the victim of it.

In addition to externalizing blame for one's own pitiful situation in life, there is yet another advantage to paranoia and projection: often, a creative distortion of reality can reliably pump up one's own self-esteem. You are righteous, persecuting the true racists and you, yourself, are incapable of any racist thoughts or emotions. Sometimes, it pumps it that self-esteem up at the expense of a great deal of fear; but nevertheless, it is comforting to know that someone appreciates your genius or the threat you represent. Clearly if the CIA, FBI, aliens, Jews , POTUS, Republicans [fill in your favorite bogeyman here] are out to get you, you must be special and unique.

In short, paranoia and its little brother projection organize and distort reality in a way that makes it palatable; and, at the same time help the user to avoid recognizing some unpleasant truths about himself.

Psychological projection, which is often not as bizarre as full-blown paranoia, is a particularly good way of doing this, because by projecting one's own feelings onto someone else, you can make yourself appear particularly virtuous.

The con artist does this consciously and deliberately and understands the effectiveness of the psychological maneuver. Con artists come in all sorts of political stripes, of course, but in our day the great examples are pretty much exclusive to the political left, because the vast majority of the left's minions have such an intense need to appear virtuous. In fact, the appearance of virtue in themselves is much more important than any other reality.

Let's look at some examples helpfully provided by Gagdad Bob today:

For the thoroughly ironicized secular left (which should always be distinguished from any form of liberalism), there is no truth but no truth. The con artist thinks everyone “has an angle,” and cannot imagine someone who is innocently motivated by an agenda-free love of truth, with no strings attached. This is why you will have noticed that the left is inherently suspicious and paranoid, and therefore habitually attributes motives to positions. Since it is often the case that their positions are actually cynical motives in disguise, they think this is true of everyone.

Therefore, you can’t possibly be against judges tinkering with the basic unit of civilization and redefining marriage. Rather, you are simply using this as a cynical ploy to get more redneck homophobes to go to the polls. You can’t possibly think that racial quotas are bad for blacks. You must be a racist. You can’t actually believe that raising the minimum wage causes unemployment. You just hate poor people. You don’t really think that global jihad is a genuine threat. You just want to frighten people so that you can maintain control over them. You can’t possibly believe that Darwinism is logically self-refuting. You just want to teach Genesis as science and impose a theocracy. You can’t simply believe that Roe vs. Wade represents atrocious legal reasoning veering on judicial tyranny. You just want to “control women’s bodies.” You don’t want to harshly interrogate known terrorists. You just enjoy torturing people. You don’t really want to intercept their phone calls either. You’re just spying on Americans. And of course, if you do not accept all of the dubious speculations of the global warming theorists, you hate the earth.

And on and on and on. Again, Truth is reduced to motive, which represents nothing less than an attack on reality.

In all the examples above, you can see how the political left has redrawn reality in order to pump up their own righteousness and virtue. Anyone who opposes their policies is automatically branded as racist, sexist, homophobic, islamophobic-- take your pick, depending on the circumstances.

Hell, anyone who offers ANY new ideas in these areas are automatically branded with one of the "isms".

It is useless to point out, for example, that trillions of dollars have already been spent on helping the poor and the disadvantaged in this country. What has resulted in the long run from that effort? We have given people fish to eat, but we haven’t taught them how to go fishing. And, as proof of that, we have the spectacle and pathos of New Orleans during Katrina; with the predictable reflexive response from the Left that, “George Bush hates black people.”

Perhaps--just perhaps--it is the Left's own policies that “hate” and discriminate against black people? Perhaps it is their victimization of blacks that “keeps them in their places” and not the horrible "racial prejudices" of those awful Republicans. Maybe it is the pervasive Marxist ideology absorbed by the left (and sadly, many Democrats) that has stripped them of all capacity for thoughtful analysis and that forces them to think only in terms of “oppressed” versus “oppressor”, Whatever, their brains are so constrained by their paranoia, they cannot conceive of any other way to view the situation.

And, they really really like how good it makes them feel when they can ignore their own racism, sexism or homophobia and project all that onto another group. When they behave in a racist manner (i.e., mocking Condi Rice for being a black Republican) or exhibit anti-semitism (trashing Joe Lieberman for his views) or even homophobic ("outing" Gay Republicans because they are by definition hypocrites)--it is perfectly ok! We're doing it for their own good! We mean well!

As Bob points out, it is quite easy to attribute one's own cynical motives to others. It is inconceivable to paranoid persons that people actually exist who view the situation differently from them. It is inconceivable that they could be wrong about their perception of reality. Con men always think others are out to con them. In fact, most paranoids consider themselves the ONLY reality-based community, because they get to define what reality is and it is always what they happen to feel. And it is always about making sure they feel good and virtuous and self-righteous.

Someday, it will occur to someone that the Left has not had a single new idea for over half a century and that none of the “great” programs they have created have actually worked. Yet they guard those programs jealously, afraid of any new ideas or approaches that might make them have doubts in their precious ideology.

Instead of reducing poverty, their programs have created a class of people dependent on the government for their survival and thus they ensure continuing poverty—even through the generations. Motivation is destroyed. Self-respect is trashed. Victimhood and passivity become a way of life whose worse aspects are glorified in the music and culture of the newly created welfare class.

This is social justice?

No. This is the inevitable outcome of Marxist theory in the real world. In spite of the catastrophic failures of applied Marxism in the 20th century to achieve the “ideal” society it espoused, the Left clings desperately to the ideology with which they bluffed their way into the American consciousness.

The twin children of Marxism—communism and socialism—have spawned the bloodiest and most sociopathic despots in world history, causing more death and human misery than at any other time in history. You would think that this abject failure on the part of their ideology when applied in the real world would have made them think twice. Au contraire.

Like Scarlet O’Hara, they won’t think about that today; they’ll think about it tomorrow when that great and glorious utopian vision will be imposed upon the world—and [of course] they will be in charge.

When confronted with the real evil that exists in the world, e.g..the reality of gays being tortured and murdered systematically in Islamic countries; or the reality of the oppression and humiliation of women; they recite facile multicultural and politically correct mantras that conveniently prevent them from making judgments about such behavior, or from having to take action to stop it.

LetÂ’s face it. If feminists can adore Bill Clinton, even after Paula and Monica and all the sordid details; then it is only one small psychological step further down this path for them to embrace the institutionalized misogyny of Islam.

Paranoia and projection also provide a rationale and justification (to the paranoid, at least) for acting out against those who--from their perspective-- stand in the way of implementing their social programs and enforcing their way of thinking.

Do not make the mistake of thinking that only psychiatric patients who have a serious mental illness utilize these defenses. Paranoia is, indeed, a symptom of a mental illness; but both paranoia and projection are physiological states of the brain that can be achieved by otherwise "normal" people under the proper circumstances. The distortion of reality that occurs with the use of these defenses is always done to serve inner needs.

Under the proper circumstances, paranoia and projection may be resorted to by entire groups and nations in order to externalize blame and/or resolve some unacceptable national state (in order to counter overwhelming shame or humiliation, for example).

We see this when Arabs and Muslims of the Middle East regularly resort to vicious and unbelievable anti-semitism as they try to avoid dealing with the irrefutable evidence of their own backwardness. Israel and the Jews remain a favorite object onto which unacceptable feelings can be easily externalized.

The political left have their favorites, too. Republicans and conservatives hate the poor, blacks, latinos, women, etc. Yet, it is not the conservatives or Republicans who stand to lose if the poor, or other favored victim groups of the left are empowered and join the middle class.

Paranoia and projection are not mental illnesses that can be "cured" by mass quantities of antipsychotic medication in the water supply. This is a distortion of reality in order to meet the inner needs of a crumbling self or society that cannot psychologically sustain itself otherwise.

To those who are using such a defense, their behavior and rhetoric seem perfectly logical and internally consistent. It is, in fact, as impeccable as any reasoning can be--considering that it originates from distorted premises. Paranoia has been referred to as "the rational in the service of the irrational" for good reasons.

And, by that kind of "logic" it makes perfect sense to use the maximum force possible to destroy those who the paranoid believes are responsible for the evil: e.g., all those absurd conspiracies that are wholeheartedly supported by the left that claim Bush and Cheney downed the twin towers; all those absurd theories that the Israelis created a disease that is specific to Arab genes or that the fictional Protocols are behind the lack of Nobel Prizes for Muslims; or even, against those who create cartoons that mock and humiliate sacred beliefs. This kind of paranoia all comes from the same psychological source.

As long as they maintain those delusions, they do not have to deal with the sad state of their own society; their own sick religion; or their sad ideological failures.

I BLAME THE ANCHORESS

Want to find out which SouthPark character you a most like? Go here. I blame The Anchoress for distracting me...for God's sake will someone bring her that Terfel guy?? Before we all go crazy!

Which South Park kid are you most like? Kyle You are clever, and often come up with intelligent and funny comebacks to other people's stupid remarks.

color=white>Click Here to Take This Quiz Brought to you by YouThink.com quizzes and personality tests.

"ARE WE BORN IDIOTS ?" --Good Question!

Today it seems that I am on a tear regarding today's Islamic culture and behavior. In the last post, I discussed an example of cultural behavior that some might consider innocuous and defend on such grounds--specifically, the wearing of the abaya. One commenter, suggested that , while he agreed with the sentiments expressed, "Cultural traditions cannot be interpreted psychodynamically."

I beg to differ; and offer up yet another of those ridiculous and assinine TV harangues from Al Jazeera that you can find on the invaluable MEMRI . This latest cultural pathology is an attempt to explain why more Muslims have not won Nobel Prizes :

Samir 'Ubeid: "Why has the prize been awarded to 167 Jews, and to only four Arabs out of 380 million Arabs - and all four are considered traitors? For example, Al-Sadat got the prize during the normalization process, and as a price for Camp David, together with Begin, who carried out the Deir Yassin massacre, and who was in the Hagana gangs. Later, the prize was awarded to [Ahmad] Al-Zewail, in order to buy his invention, and Al-Zewail has disappeared since."

Interviewer: "You mean the Egyptian Ahmad Al-Zewail?"

Samir 'Ubeid: "Yes, the Egyptian chemist. The prize was also awarded to Muhammad ElBaradei, and in this case, it is soaked in the blood of the Iraqi children and people. [...]

"Mother Teresa was brought, along with a group of people like her…"

Interviewer: "Some say the prize was awarded to her for her missionary activity in Africa, India, and so on..."

Samir 'Ubeid: "Let’s assume she was righteous, according to the logic of the media, which is now controlled by the Jews and Hollywood. When they awarded the prize to Teresa, they were trying to award an 'artificial hymen' or 'artificial honor' to this prize.
"My colleague said that there is democracy. What democracy is there, if out of 1.5 billion Chinese, only two or three were awarded the Nobel? If you examine the Russian scientists and writers, who shook the world with their literature and their knowledge...

"What about Sakharov, what about Tolstoy? In addition..."

Interviewer: "But Sakharov was awarded the Nobel prize."

Samir 'Ubeid: "I meant Chekhov. Chekhov! Chekhov! [...]

"Are we Arabs not included in the transfer of the scientific genetic code? We, the descendants of Al-Khawarizmi, Al-Jahez, Al-Razi, Avicenna, and Ibn Al-Haytham - are we all born idiots? Is there not a single scientist among us? Are we not included in the genetic code? Is intelligence not transferred down among us Arabs?"

Interviewer: "Scientific creativity occurs in freedom and democracy, brother."

Samir 'Ubeid: "Democracy does not explain how it was awarded to 167 Jews, from among those 15 million scattered around the world, while abandoning 1.5 billion Chinese, a billion Indians, and 380 million Arabs. This is racism. [...]

"The [Grameen] bank for the poor won the prize because some of its shareholders are giants like Haliburton and others. [...]

"They infiltrated this bank, which came to be in the pocket of the Freemasons. This prize stems from the core of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion."

Let us consider Mr. 'Ubeid's cri de coeur; a hearfelt and empassioned exclamation that stems from his righteous outrage at the unfairness of it all: "Are we all born idiots?"

I am not aware of any research that suggests that the differences in intelligence between different religious groups is large enough to account for such a significant discrepancy in outcome regarding the Nobel Prize. And it is worth noting, that, not only is the Nobel Peace Prize not awarded much to Islamic politicians (I wonder if that could it have something to do with the fact that many of them are psychopathic tyrants, despots, and religious bigots?) or even to citizens of the rigidly controlled Islamic regimes; there is also a noticeable lack of Arab/Islamic winners in all the other categories--i.e., medicine, physics, chemistry; as well as in literature and economics. Other subtle clues that might explain this state of affairs might found here, here, and here.

According to the interview quoted above, this outcome has something to do with a deliberate Jewish plot/conspiracy! Ahhhh! Where have we heard this explanation before? It is the favored explanation clung to not only by Mr. Ubeid, but by a vast majority of the Islamic population in the middle east. And, this incredible and ubiquitous unwillingness to look within themselves or their culture and religion to understand the serious defects that keep them among the most backward and ignorant people on the planet, despite their access to great wealth.

The psychodynamic explanation has been discussed many times on this blog, and it is a psychological defense mechanism called projection--which in more extreme and bizarre forms is referred to a paranoia. And this cultural projection and paranoia serves a very important purpose for the culture: it allows them to maintain a delusional sense of grandiosity and superiority, despite the obvious evidence to the contrary in the real world. Thus, they never have to confront their own inadequacies and failures. If everything is the fault of the Jews, then the solution is to eradicate the Jews and all will be well!

SC&A once observed:

By the year 2020, the projected Arab population will reach 400 million. Currently, there are less than 100 universities in the Arab world. Of that number, at least 10 are 'Islamic' universities that do not teach anything other than theology. Notwithstanding the obscene wealth generated by these oil rich nations, there is not a single Arab institution of consequence. There is no major research and no important scholarship that originates in the Arab world. In fact, the greatest scholarship concerning the Arab world and Middle East, originates outside the region, in America or Europe.
This is but one example of the consequences of the cost of dysfunction and repression.
...
Indeed, the total number of books translated into Arabic during the 1,000 years since the age of Caliph Al-Ma’moun [a ninth-century Arab ruler who was a patron of cultural interaction between Arab, Persian, and Greek scholars—WPR] to this day is less than those translated in Spain in one year.

The abysmal backwardness found in this culture and region of the world has been studied and several explanations just seem to leap out at the investigators :

The barrier to better Arab performance is not a lack of resources, concludes the report, but the lamentable shortage of three essentials: freedom, knowledge and womanpower. Not having enough of these amounts to what the authors call the region's three “deficits”. It is these deficits, they argue, that hold the frustrated Arabs back from reaching their potential—and allow the rest of the world both to despise and to fear a deadly combination of wealth and backwardness.

Or here:

The oil wealth is matched by social backwardness, and the only other region of the world with an income level lower than ours is sub-Saharan Africa. Productivity is decreasing, scientific research is virtually nonexistent, thzione region is suffering a brain drain, and illiteracy afflicts half of Arab women.

Or here:

The report mentions a number of factors that block the dissemination of knowledge. Among these factors are authoritarian and over-protective child rearing, the deteriorating quality of education in many countries in the region, curricula in schools that encourage submission, obedience, subordination and compliance rather than free critical thinking, the lack of autonomy at universities and the poor state of university libraries.

Note that nothing in these three separate reports implicates the fictitional Protocols of the Elders of Zion as the cause of Arab/Islamic intellectual stagnation! Nor do they provide any evidence of a Zionist conspiracy to restrict the development of Muslim IQ.

Yet, I would venture to say that a significant numbr of Muslims, like the Iraqi interviewed by Al-Jazeera above, are unwilling to consider their own cultural and religious beliefs and practices as causative and find it completely "logical" to blame Jewish conspiracies for their impoverished status in the middle east and elsewher.

No, the members of this culture and this religion are not born idiots...rather their idiocy is carefully and deliberately crafted and molded by the societal and religious dysfunction so rampant in the Islamic world. Ignorance, stupidity, violence and blind obedience are rewarded; clear thinking is not particularly valued and often punished.

The stupid and the willfully blind are never willing to confront the true malignancy within and will forcefully denounce anyone who exposes their self-delusion, since that self-delusion is all that stands between them and a complete collapse of their basic assumptions about themselves as a culture or religion (i.e., that they are "religion of peace" is one, often-mocked self-concept).

To maintain the psychological denial, projection and paranoia on a cultural level takes quite a bit of group psychic energy. Constant vigilance must be maintained to prevent reality from undermining the fantasy. Consequently, there is little encouragement of independent thinking (too dangerous) or autonomous functioning (rules must be developed for even the most simple interpersonal interactions). Reality, truth and reason are the natural enemies of delusion, and all the cultural institutions must strive to eradicate any fertile ground for these to develop.

The indoctrination into cultural idiocy starts young and continues throughout life, but the good news for Mr. 'Ubeid is that there is little evidence that the rampant idiocy found in Islam is biological or genetic.-or pre-determined. On the contrary, all evidence points to the fact that the underlying ideology of Islam as it is now practiced in many places around the world deliberately ensures as "dumbing down" of the intellectual and moral functioning of its adherents.

So developing just a teensy bit of psychological insight into the denial, projection and paranoia that has run amok in the dysfunctional culture and religion of Islam could be an extremely helpful first step to finding real solutions to your very serious problems. Blaming the Jews is fun and all, but if you want to get serious about those Nobel Prizes, then you need a complete intellectual, moral and spiritual overhaul.

You've got to be taught
To hate and fear,
You've got to be taught
From year to year,
It's got to be drummed
In your dear little ear
You've got to be carefully taught.

You've got to be taught to be afraid
Of people whose eyes are oddly made,
And people whose skin is a diff'rent shade,
You've got to be carefully taught.

You've got to be taught before it's too late,
Before you are six or seven or eight,
To hate all the people your relatives hate,
You've got to be carefully taught! - from South Pacific

SYMPATHY FOR OPPRESSION

I've been meaning to post about this story, which I first read about several days ago, and which is worth reading in full. The part that particularly interested me was this:

Because of her sympathy for Arabs and Muslims, Donna, an American woman, decided to wear an abaya in an attempt to see how it felt and how it influenced her behavior. She wanted to show sympathy to women wearing abayas, especially after various incidents against Muslims in the post-9/11 world. She wore an abaya and walked along one of the busiest streets in a major American city. She tried to be as normal as possible, talking to people, laughing and behaving as usual. She said that she never felt the abaya was restricting her or limiting her movements or her freedom.

"Among those who observed Donna, however, were some Muslims, Arabs, and even some Saudis. The Saudis were upset by what they saw and told Donna so. When she asked why, they explained that she was using the abaya in an invalid way. She then became curious to find out what they considered a valid way to use it. They explained to her that she must walk slowly, must look down when walking and keep her eyes more or less in front of her - no glancing from side to side, in other words. She must not talk to anyone or laugh loudly and certainly must not address any remarks to anyone lest they misunderstand her purpose in doing so.

"To say the least, Donna was astounded by their remarks and realized that they were not simply talking about a garment to be worn but about their perceptions of what an abaya symbolized. They seemed determined to deny that a normal human being was under the black material. The truth is that those Saudi men articulated something that the Saudi lifestyle and customs have created. The abaya indeed covers a typically weak and frightened character (a woman of course), who views herself as a sexual entity confined in a well-defined space she can never escape from. This is why the whole culture of the abaya imposes so many restraints upon women

This is an extremely illuminating story, and it shows the difference between the reality and the fantasy underlying the gratuitous support that women--both Muslim and non-Muslim--give to the increasingly involuntary dress code of Islam for women.

Binding the feet of women in the Orient was also a cultural practice that undoubtedly had its proponents among females, but by any objective standard, it was both physically abusive and psychologically repressive; and severely limited the role of women in that society.

The only response to women who enable their own oppression under Islam or elsewhere is that, how they live and under what conditions, is clearly their own choice. But as long as there are other women in their society who do not choose to live that way; who are forced to wear certain clothing; prevented from driving or acting independently and freely of their own choosing---then the protestations of happiness and contentment have no validity whatsoever and cannot possibly be binding on anyone else.

They are only exhibiting the same symptoms of "identification with the oppressor", denial, and reaction formation that almost all battered women display --even toward those who would help them.

When women (and men for that matter) are free to choose or not to choose Islam; free to discard the restrictive clothing; free to move about independently and without fear of reprisals for their choice; free to achieve their own individual dreams and aspirations--then it will not be any of my concern that some women appear to enjoy subjugation and humiliation; or that some express sympathy for that oppression.

PLAYING THE VICTIMHOOD CARD....

Suffice it to say that this is not one of my better days, what with the pain and feeling more than a little sorry for myself as I look forward to a long and rather bleak rehabilitation. It's cold, gray, and miserable outside; I look haggard and I'm sick of wearing pajamas; all food except for chocolate tastes like ashes in my mouth; I'm coming down with a cold; I have tons of work to do on my book; and on top of everything else, my cat is mad at me because I almost squished her with my walker.

Thus, I am going to play the victimhood card and take most of the day off.

Feel free to send money or chocolate.

Maybe some blogging tonight.

The Hands Of Esau, The Voice Of Jacob: SC&A Review Robert Godwin’s “One Cosmos Under God”

This piece was written by the author of Sigmund, Carl and Alfred, who has kindly agreed to crosspost on this site.


One of the most dramatic scenes in the Old Testament takes place on the deathbed of the biblical patriarch, Isaac. As his strength wanes, the now blind patriarch sends his eldest son, Esau, into the fields to trap and then prepare a game animal in celebration of the blessings about to be bestowed.

Rebekah, mother of both Esau and Jacob, decides that it is Jacob and not Esau, that deserves the 'blessing of the firstborn.' She concocts a plan to do just that. She slaughters two goats, and prepares a favorite savory meal and encourages Jacob to serve his father the meal. Jacob protests- he tells his mother that his father will be able to see through the deception. Undaunted, Rebekah fashions sleeves of goatskins that Jacob is to slide over his smooth arms and a scarf of goatskin to wrap around his neck, so that when the blind Isaac embraces his son, the smooth skinned Jacob will feel like the rougher skinned and haired brother, Esau. As the drama unfolds, Rebekah's plan works and Jacob is bestowed with the blessing meant for his older brother, much to the consternation of Esau.

Many religious commentators and theologians have written on the episode, but one nagging questions remains: Once Isaac knew he was deceived, why did he not simply bestow the appropriate blessing on Esau? Why not admonish Jacob for the deception?

While there are many lessons to be learned from the story, some lessons stand out.

Firstly, it is clear from Rebekah's action that blessings from God are to be earned. They are not simply handed out by reason of protocol or belief. While the acceptance of a religious creed is important, the deeds of the individual are more important. Rebekah understood that it was her second son, Jacob, by reason of his behavior, who was more worthy of Isaac's blessing. Isaac realized that his wife's motivation for deceiving him was more significant than his own desire to reward his firstborn. Isaac comes to realize that the reality of the moral worthiness of Jacob's supersedes the significance of birth order.

It could not have been easy for Rebekah to choose one son over the other. Nevertheless, Rebekah does exactly that because she understand that there are some things bigger than her own motherhood. By reason of her own faith, she came to understand the legacy of Abraham's covenant with God was not to be measured by protocol or birth order, but rather, by the legacy of the kind of deeds that God intended for man to elevate himself, to be worthy of having been 'created in His image.'

One Cosmos Under God, by Robert Godwin (author of the blog One Cosmos) is a marvelous and profound book that illustrates the simple truth that real faith serves to elevate man and that the struggle for that faith elevates our potential, because our behavior and deeds can influence and author our collective and individual destinies. The book is satisfying and rich. That said, it cannot be read in a single sitting. Godwin expects his readers to contemplate his ideas and to challenge him with their own long held beliefs.

Godwin's ideas are the result of a fresh look at the world around us. He looks at parenthood and 'babyhood' and the mystical process of acquiring 'humaness.' He discusses the nature of knowledge and the nature of experience and where they converge to become recognized and elevating of universal and spiritual truths.

In science, Godwin sees the exquisitely transcendent and choreographed ballet of the life and the universe and he challenges those who believe the lonely and cacophonous notes of science are the point of our existence. Perhaps most importantly, he deconstructs the stridency and literal interpretation of religious doctrine as well as the contemporary desire to make religion an abstract manifestation of self expression. That is no small matter. Are we answerable to God or is God answerable to us? These are the questions of our time.

Godwin sees the struggle with and for faith as a kind of conversation with God- and that is a good thing. He sees the meaningfulness of that conversation enhanced by elevating behaviors negating those behaviors that only serve to lower our humanness. By way of example, he notes that

The cultivation of humility and gratitude serve to oppose covetousness and envy.

If we are to elevate ourselves and our conversations with God, we must first understand and then work on our own weaknesses. As Rebekah understood, it is through our deeds and personal struggles that we become worthy of our potential destiny.

The book is not about religion. Godwin is comfortable seeking truth wherever it might be found. His treasure map is the world, drawn with the pen of history and colored with the universal wisdom of the cultures of the ages. The approach is refreshing- no matter our religion, we come to see the elevation of man by way of faith as something to rejoice. Mother Teresa, Martin Luther King, Jr or the Imam in Paris that called out to save the Jews in Nazi occupied France, are all examples of how an elevated sense and understanding of what it means to be 'created in His image' means.

One Cosmos Under God is a testament to the 'Unity' of Creation, life and purpose, of which Godwin writes so elegantly. The 'Unity,' that endless symphony of life he describes, is really a moving target, ever more demanding of our better selves and ever more elevating. It is through faith that we are given the tools with which we can meet the challenge.

In the end, One Cosmos Under God, is one man's effort to put onto canvas his search for meaning, life and unity. His convictions are fierce and unshakable- the hands of Esau, the product of his own fierce struggle for and with faith. His voice is that of Jacob, soft and compelling, by way of reason and ever yearning to find that higher and elevated self.

The universe is like a holographic, multidimensional musical score, that must be read, understood and performed. Like the score of a symphony, it is full of information that can be rendered in different ways. The score can interpret diverse interpretations, but surely one of them cannot be "music does not exist." For at the end of the day, we are each a unique and unrepeatable melody that can, if only we pay close enough attention to the polyphonic score that surrounds and abides within us, harmonize existence in our own beautiful way, and thereby hear the vespered strains of the "song supreme."

Like great art, readers of Robert Godwin's effort will be rewarded and nourished in the way they need to be. There is no 'one size fits all,' when it comes to faith, God and the never ending struggle to elevate ourselves- and therein we are each assured of adding our own notes to that symphony and "song supreme."

THE SANITY SQUAD'S POST-ELECTION PROGNOSIS

Head on over to Pajamas Media Politics Central , where the latest podcast of The Sanity Squad is now posted!

The election is over but the analysis has only just begun. The Squad has lots to say about the prognosis for the next two years: “It’s all theatre. What the Democrats are going to do for the next 2 years is ‘put on a show.’…. This whole notion that the Democrats have this noble history is about as credible as believing little green men built the pyramids.” (that's Siggy, of course, who hardly ever says what he really feels).

Join Neo-neocon , Shrinkwrapped , Siggy and I as we fearlessly forcast what's going to be happening now that the Democrats are in control of Congress. You may not agree with us; you may hate us, but we guarantee you'll be entertained, amused, or at the very least, enraged.



Previous podcasts of The Sanity Squad can be found here; and you can also download them from iTunes.

(The Sanity Squad cartoon drawn by Eric Allie, whose political cartoons can be found here)

DOOMED ?

Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it. - George Santayana

Dennis Prager can't help noticing the irony:

In this week's New York Times Book Review, a historian reviewing a major new work of 20th-century history, Oxford and Harvard Professor Niall Ferguson's "The War of the World," notes that "Ferguson argues that the Western powers should have gone to war in 1938, which would most likely have avoided much of the horror of World War II . . . . "

Imagine that. The New York Times publishes a favorable book review of a book arguing that a pre-emptive war in 1938 would have saved tens of millions of lives aside from preventing the Holocaust, "without parallel . . . the most wicked act in all history."

You have to wonder if the Times' editors and all their allies on the Left, who have spent the last four years mocking the very notion of pre-emptive war, read this review.

Whatever incapacity for self-doubt George W. Bush's critics charge him with, it has been more than matched by his political enemies. They are as certain as human beings can be that the invasion of Iraq was wrong from the outset because no nation should ever engage in a pre-emptive war, since such wars, they contend, are inherently immoral, not to mention illegal.

You must certainly read the entire article. I think Prager is exactly right that the unprecedented cruelty and wanton barbarism and bloodshed exhibited by those we are currently fighting in Iraq is historically unprecedented and could not have been envisioned by anyone developing post-war plans. This is an enemy who has no desire to win the "hearts and minds" of the people of Iraq to their cause. They simply ruthlessly kill as many Iraqis as they possibly can.

This is how muslim treats muslim, despite the bullshit religious brotherhood rhetoric. Does anyone doubt that the ideology that drives such unbridled evil will hesitate even one moment to use nuclear, biological and/or chemical weapons against non-muslim populations if it had the chance?

George Bush made the correct moral choice in going into Iraq and eliminating Saddam Hussein as a threat. Those who claim this war is somehow immoral have their priorities and their morality completely warped. No one is saying that mistakes have not been made--what war has ever occured without mistakes --except in the bubble that passes for a brain in the leftist utopian? The essential morality of confronting this kind of evil pre-emptively should be obvious to any student of 20th century history.

Iraq has revealed the enemy for what it truly is--a mindless, death-worshipping ideology that cannot be reasoned with; cannot be appeased; and cannot be ignored. We cannot walk--or run-- away from it; we cannot make deals with it-- not in Iraq; not in Iran; not in Lebanon; not in Gaza; and not anywhere this malignant anti-human, anti-life, anti-freedom ideology has taken root. Either we fight it now, no holds barred, knowing that we are all that stands between the forces of death and destruction and those of life-- or we will be doomed to suffer even more of their barbarism in the near future.

And the horrors of the last world war will seem like a children's cakewalk compared to what the latest batch of totalitarian monsters have planned.

WHY IT'S A VERITABLE PROGRESSIVE PARADISE !

Lest anyone have any doubts about exactly where the lunatic left stands, I urge you to read this incredible column up at Daily Kos, touting the wonderfulness of Iran (in comparison to the U.S., of course). You guessed it! Iran is a veritable "progressive" paradise!

Iran has invested its oil wealth in universal education, healthcare, infrastructure bringing clean water and electricity to more than 98 percent of its people, and economic progress. Military spending is a paltry $91 per capita compared to more than $1,500 per capita in the United States and Israel. The social and economic achievements of the revolutionary regime in Iran in the past 25 years look quite progressive in reducing poverty and social inequalities, and as the society liberalises toward a more secular democratic regime, even better progress can be expected in the future. Compared to rising inequality in the United States and Israel, ranked numbers one and two for social inequality among developed nations, the Iranians look pretty damn good.

That, of course, is the problem. If Iran, rather like Venezuela, becomes a regional leader and examplar of social democracy, it becomes a threat to the corporatist and militarist elites that dominate the political classes of Washington and Tel Aviv and exploit the mineral and oil wealth of underdeveloped nations.

All that nonsense about oppression of women and gays is simply ridiculous and overblown:

Now, the usual crowd can be expected to comment on women, gays and political dissidents as being targets for repression in Iran. Without minimising the issues, I'm not convinced that the case isn't overstated and that the repression isn't outweighed by wider social advances. Women and children rarely suffer the isolation, poverty and violence in Iran that so many suffer from family breakdown in America. Women in Iran are now universally educated, taking 65 percent of university places, marrying later, having fewer children, and driving social change. Even Iran has a vibrant gay subculture. The United States imprisons a higher proportion of its population than Iran (or any other nation) does, and that proportion continues to rise despite falling crime rates.

That fact that their president is the actual intellectual heir of Adolf Hitler is irrelevant; the fact that Iran IS a actualy religious theocracy is of no matter. What is reality, after all, when compared to the fantasy universe of their feelings, where Bush=Hitler and the U.S. is imminently going to have a christian theocracy imposed upon it! What does it matter that a few gays are strung up and hung by the neck until dead, when we are dealing with such important "progressive" ideas that are hallmarks of Iranian justice system. It is even possible for such moral degenerates to convince themselves that there is more oppression of women, children and gays right here in the U.S.! The idea that these wonderful, advanced and civilized people, who rape women daring to go out without the proper clothing, are more socially progressive than we neanderthals in the West is a concept that only the left is stupid enough to embrace.

Clearly, these giants of intellectual achievement are a few key snyapses short of a rational thought process.

Let me be perfectly clear here. The author is just a small sample of the type of people who have stolen the heart of the Democratic Party and whose fondest dream is to make America like Iran or Venezuela.

Isn't it time for Americans to totally denounce this sickening distortion of reality that this grossly impaired community has led us into? How thick does the shit they throw out have to be before we look at it and smell it for what it is?

This is the left's "progressive" agenda. And as models for this agenda we are to look at the Iranian and Venezuelan utopias under the direction of their "progressive" leaders.

Can we finally call them socialists? How about fascist pig-enabling opportunists who would sell out their own country to the Islamic animals who hang gays for being gay and women for adultery. How about treasonsous scum, who clearly want the enemies of western civilization to come out on top, because they are so incredibly stupid to believe "civil liberties" and "middle class" values are in grievous danger in the U.S., but triumphantly exemplified by one of the most repressive and violent regimes in history.

The term "useful idiot" is far too kind for these whackjobs. These people are dangerous morons whose cognitive thinking skills have been so impaired by the intellectual hogwash that passes for learning in our academic institutions these days, that they couldn't think their way out of a paper bag. They live in a universe in which there is no objective reality; a universe where truth is relative and their feelings are all that matter. And even their feelings, by any objective standard, are completely dysfunctional.

That such pathetic drivel appears on one of the major blogs of the left, run by someone who styles himself the Rovian equivalent "architect" for the new Democratic party should be enough to make any American outraged.

In the upside-down world of Kos we come closest to a realization of the Orwellian nightmare where the sick theocracy of Iran is venerated as a "progressive paradise". And the fondest dream of today's left is to impose that paradise nightmare here.

QUOTE OF THE DAY

From a remarkable interview of a man who used to be a member of Egypt's Al-Gama'a al-Islamiyya (Arabic for "the Islamic Group") ; and was trained under Ayman al-Zawahiri, Al Qaeda's #2 thug. Tawfik Hamid is furious at the West and their response to Islamic fundamentalism, which he also says is the dominant version (not the "minority") of the religion and is taught in almost every Islamic university in the world. "It is puritanical, extreme and does, yes, mean that women can be beaten, apostates killed and Jews called pigs and monkeys." (hat tip: The Corner)

"Stop asking what you have done wrong. Stop it! They're slaughtering you like sheep and you still look within. You criticize your history, your institutions, your churches. Why can't you realize that it has nothing to do with what you have done but with what they want?"

Think about it.

HEY, IT'S ALL RIGHT !

No worries! The Democrats have a plan to keep our soldiers safe. I would just caution that keeping the American people safe (which used to be in the job description of the soldier), might be a bit more problematic...

But everyone knows that there's nothing to be scared of out there (except the Bush Administration, of course)! Take that terror, BushCheneyRoveHitler and shove it where the sun don't shine. (Doesn't that sound a lot like, "Bring it on!"??) We're the left! The mighty mighty left! And everybody knows, that we got soul! So just sing along and clap your hands (forgive them, Aaron Neville and The Impressions). Cause, IT'S ALL RIGHT !


Say it's all right (that's all for the right)
Say it's all right (that's all for the right)
It's all right, the vote's gone left,
And it's all right, whoa, it's all right

We're gonna cut and run
Cause it's such fun
When when you cut and run, you pretend you won
And it's all right, whoa, it's all right

Now simply move your feet
You'll get used to retreat
You got PC, and everyone can see
That it's all right, whoa, it's all right

When you wake up early in the morning
Feelin' good like a virtuous lefty soul
You voted for peace
So hostilities magically cease!
Surely goodness and light will come to you.
So say it's all right (that's all for the right)
Say it's all right (that's all for the right)

That's all for the right, now we'll have a good time
'Cause all we ever had to fear was the Bush theocracy here
Now everybody clap your hands
Just give peace a chance
We have won, the neocons are done
So it's all right, whoa, that's all for the right

Congratulations pouring in
From Mahmoud, the mullahs and Kim
Al Qaeda claps their hands
They've now got a chance
To give peace a try, to live and let die
We have won, so they'll have some fun
And it's all right, whoa, it's all right

Someday I might look in a mirror
And see the delusion reflected there
But I'll never let go
Of what I believe in my heart I know
Bush is to blame--and it's not me that's insane
And I'll just have to ...

Say it's all right (I guess they were right)
Say it's all right (I guess they were right)
The right was right, but I'll just pretend
That it's all right, whoa, it's all right

Now everybody clap your hands
And give peace a chance
You got soul...

[Fade]


(hat tip: JAJ)

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.

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. And you might read this before submitting an entry.

Thanks for all the submissions. I try to use as many as possible! SO MANY INSANITIES! SO LITTLE TIME!!!

1. Best election-related quote. Happy days are here again!

2. Golly! Where have all those cries of voter fraud gone to? That must be why the daring Rovian Diebold plot to steal the election did not succeed! But think about all those poor unemployed lawyers! And the 34,000 cases of voter intimidation already documented! Obviously, it's a good thing the Democrats won, or there might be all kinds of wild accusations....

3. Don't worry! The party of Jimmy Carter has a definite plan for (terrorist) victory....

4. So let me get this straight--there really IS a threat of terrorism? It is ok (now that the Dems have won obviously) to be afraid? Bush wasn't just trying to scare us??

5. Has America finally taken a step in the right direction?

6. Does this mean that (gasp!) Bush ISN'T Hitler???? That AmeriKKKa is not the fascist state Sy Hersh believes it to be? Hah! Bush is actually about to open the death camps ---right after he imposes that theocracy we've all been hearing about.

7. Faith or fear is our choice? I have lots of faith, but probably not in the same things Rosie has. Now, here is a country with a great deal of faith....and their educational system reflects it.

8. And, we aren't supposed to listen to world opinion now? Are the Democrats going to speak up, or is this part of their strategy to be conciliatory?

9. At least he was open and honest about it. Now for the real agenda? Ah, but it's much too late to worry!

10. Oh, right. And we can trust their word, can't we?

11. Pure poetry.... Pure political brilliance?

12. Warping young minds. Univesity Diversity of Michigan ! And, The words "merit", "achievement", and "academic standards" do not make an appearance. But there are still ways for an undistinguished white kid to get into the University of Michigan Law School.

13. But, even more important than a mere election this week was the breakup of yet another fairytale couple...so very very sad. Can this marriage be saved? Does anyone care?

14. 21st century codpiece?

15. The police should never be allowed to leap to any logical concludions!

16..25 signs you may be a health freak....

17. Definitely, taste worth dying for! But, is the risk worth the reward? You get to decide!


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?

GENERAL MALAISE AND GENERALIZED DENIAL

I'm still having difficulty finding some mental equilibrium between the physical pain I'm experiencing from the surgery and the pain medications I've been given to combat it. Last night I tried to go without the opiates at bedtime and awakened by 2 am, unbearably restless, uncomfortable, and feeling pretty hopeless and that I was never going to get any better....

I ranted and raged for a while, tears coursing down my face. Damn it--why couldn't I go without these medications? It was then that I realized that my general malaise was just one small symptom of generalized denial about the reality of what I had just been through surgically.

I took the two oxycodone tablets that I should have taken four hours earlier--before I went to bed.

Amazingly, I slept through the rest of the night and woke this morning somewhat refreshed and in a lot less pain.

Since the downside of taking the medications is that I find it hard to be at all creative while on them (tending to abruptly fall asleep even as I am composing something), I decided to reprint another of the posts in the series on Strategies for Dealing with Denial.

My hidden agenda with refusing to acknowledge the pain and pretending I didn't need the pain medicine is pretty straightforward. I have a certain need to be in control--that's partly why I am a physician to begin with. By admitting to myself that I am definitely NOT in control of this situation, it means that I am only human, with the same unrealistic expectations, wishful thinking, and innumerable imperfections that everyone else in the human species is prone to.

Damn.

*************************************************************************

In this final essay, I will discuss strategies for dealing with denial in one's self and in others. I apologize in advance for the length; but bear with me because I think this is an important topic.

Part I is here.
and Part II is here.

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

Denial need not be absolute and completely cut off from reality. Even among alcoholics and drug users there is a varying level of awareness of their problem. Some accept that they are in jail or sick because of their substance use, but yet are still not willing to do anything about it. Some may recognize some facts about their drinking (like that they get put in jail), but completely deny the impact of those facts on themselves or their families; or the future implications of continued drinking or drug use (e.g., that they are killing themselves and will die).

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

As an example, consider a person who develops a chronic cough. He might rationalize to themselves that his cough is because of a lack of humidity in the air; or because he has a slight infection; and most certainly is not a result of his smoking habits. He could go see a doctor, but doesn't, telling himself he is fine. As the cough gets worse, he become even more creative in his thinking about it (or not thinking about it) and is "too busy" to see a doctor; or tend to minimize the symptom even as it worsens.

This strategy of ignoring the problem goes on for some time--maybe months. The person may next fail to notice that he is losing weight and looking a bit drawn-out. The rationalizations now even include benign explanations for the specks of blood that can be seen in the cough. Finally, after much resistance, a loved one firmly intervenes--or the person faces the truth, confronts the issue-- and schedules an appointment. After a few tests, lung cancer is diagnosed. The prognosis is very poor because the cancer has already progessed to advanced stages during the months of denial.

Why would such a person deny the symptom to begin with? Because by denying the symptom, the person can pretend that everything is normal. Early on, when the symptom is new or minor, this possiblity may even be true. But as the evidence accumulates that something is very wrong; the person has now entered a phase of magical thinking and/or fantasy where he effortlessly pretends to himself that everything is as he wishes it to be. Eventually, the individual may become totally psychologically invested in believing that nothing is wrong ("lalalalala I can't heaaaar you"), and reacts (or overreacts) with anger and rage toward anyone who questions his view of things.

The entire act of denial was initiated to begin with by the psyche for a good psychological reason-- to temporarilly supress awareness that something was wrong--while the person struggled with the effort to face that possibility.

That awareness was so frightening, that a temporary psychological bargain evolved into a binding contract that allows the person to suspend cognition and reason so that he is able to ignore any knowledge or evidence that alters his fantasy reality.

Unfortunately, if the person really does have a cancerous process going on within them, it is completely unaffected by the psychological bargain made by the psyche. There are certain rules that govern the progression of cancers and they will be in force, whether or not the person is aware of them or not. Hence, the denier has made a short-term pact to feel better at the expense of his long-term health. In the case of this type of cancer, he has chosen to enjoy a period of relative complacency and blissful ignorance at the cost of catching the cancer earlier when it might be more treatable. In the long-run his unconscious choice is a very bad one.

But the reality is that some people in denial prefer the lethal consequences of their denial as long as they don't have to question their own motivations, beliefs, and ideologies.

Those individuals, groups, or nations who live in the world of deep denial are practically untouchable by reality or rational argument. They go through their daily lives secure in the knowledge that their self-image is protected against any information, feelings, or awareness that might make them have to change their view of the world. Nothing--not facts, not observable behavior; not the use of reason, logic, or the evidence of their own senses will make them reevaluate that world view.

All events will simply be reinterpreted to fit into the belief system of that world--no matter how ridiculous, how distorted, hysterical or how psychotic that reinterpretation appears to others. Consistency, common sense, reality, and objective truth are unimportant and are easily discarded--as long as the world view remains intact. As discussed in Part II, there are countless strategies --rhetorical ploys and logical fallacies--that can be used to keep the truth at bay.

Identifying the underlying motivational factors are important to understand the phenomenon of denial; the reasons why denial is used; and the overally psychology of deniers--whether they are individuals, groups, or even entire nations. There are limitations to this kind of analysis, however; and it is that exposing a motivation or even a hidden agenda in denial is not the same thing as a rational argument or analysis of what the denier is saying or arguing.

In a therapeutic relationship (i.e. therapist /patient) theoretically, a person in denial and the therapist collaborate and work together to discover the underlying problem. Even when very motivated to change, it is often the case that the denier exhibits a great deal of resistance to the idea that he or she is in denial.

In real life (not a therapeutic or professional relationship) we all have to deal with people in denial, and getting a person to accept that he or she is in denial is even more problematic. Unless there is a serious crisis in the person's life, there is little or no incentive for a person to emerge from the comforting cocoon of denial and rationalization--particularly when the consequences of doing so are more threatening to the sense of self than remaining ignorant or oblivious to one's true motivations.

What the psychiatrist does when a patient uses any psychological defense to interfere with treatment is to interpret the defense.

In psychiatry, particularly in psychoanalysis, the psychological defenses --especially the immature ones such as denial and projection --often stand in the way of a person being able to understand the source of their dysfunction and to deal with reality. These unconscious mechanisms act to protect the individual from reality by distorting that reality.

That is why I sound like a broken record and talk about DENIAL, PROJECTION and PARANOIA (see here and here for example) over and over again. Each time I observe such defenses, I work to get those who are using them to be conscious of what they are doing. Only then can they change their behavior.

Ultimately, an individual must CHOOSE to deal with reality. Noone can make anyone face a terrible truth they wish to avoid. One of the purposes of this blog is to "shine a psychological spotlight" on the maladaptive responses to the realities of our world.

A crisis may stimulate self-analysis and make the person more open to reflection and insight; but waiting for a crisis to happen, especially when someone's denial threatens your own well-being, is frustrating and irritating, to say the least. Also, those who have to deal with people outside of a therapeutic alliance, have neither the patience or desire to wait for the hoped-for epiphany in the denier.

Sometimes a crisis occurs (e.g. the events of 9/11) that should shake everyone out of their complacency for all time--but sadly, even that horrible day was not enough to open the eyes of some.

We have discussed the many faces of denial; i.e., the different psychological mechanisms used to facilitate and maintain an avoidance of a painful truth or reality; and we have discussed some of the cognitive tricks that are used to pretend to the rest of the world that one's fantasy is reality. What are the consequences of denial--both the positive (and there must be positive ones) and the negative?

THE CONSEQUENCES OF DENIAL

Positive consequences of denial include:

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

In the short-term, defenses--even denial-- may be creative, healthy, comforting, and coping. While they may strike observers as downright peculiar, in the short-term, they may be adaptative. Denial is a way to integrate one's experience by providing a variety of filters for pain and mechanisms for self-deception. It creatively rearranges the sources of conflict so that it becomes manageable.

Some negative consequences of denial include:

• In the longer-term, denial requires continued compromises with reality to maintain the pretense that "Everything is fine!" or "If only X would happen, everything would be fine!" Eventually, delusional thinking, along with paranoia and the inevitable conspiracy theories begin to take the place of rational thought in those who deny reality for long periods of time.

• The denier must then place the blame for the unacceptable reality on someone else and that leads to increased conflict between deniers and non-deniers. Efforts to maintain their denial consumes them and will lead them to escalate their anger and rage as their denial becomes untenable and ever more obvious.

• The denier will begin distort language and logic to rationalize and justify their behavior. Eventually, cognitive strategies and rational argument will be abandoned altogether by the denier, because those strategies are not sustainable and are unable to convince others; at which point the person in denial will simply refer to his feelings or emotions as the sole justification.

• The denier will feel justified in acting out against those who threaten the peacefulness of their fantasy.

• Problem solving and decision making will deteriorate as the entire focus of energy becomes the maintenance of the denial. In place of rational alternatives, excessive emotionality in general; and specifically anger and rage escalate toward those who are "blamed" for the reality that does not conform to the denier's worldview.

• In the end, interactions with those in denial are characterized by the denier's frequent smugness; sense of superiority; arrogance; belittlement of alternative views; and undiluted hatred toward anyone or any idea that questions their worldview.

In order to deal with someone who refuses to acknowledge reality or truth, there several basic approaches.

GET YOUR OWN HOUSE IN ORDER!

First, when confronting denial in others, your own house must be in order. In other words, if you are to have any hope of convincing someone else that they have a problem, you must be able to honestly and objectively assess any personal issues you yourself are carrying around that could cause you to distort reality.

In psychiatry, we call this process insight and self-awareness.

What do you look for?
• Hidden motives for your own behavior or beliefs
• Hidden agendas or ideologies that underlie your own thinking; or any thing in your own life that might facilitate distortion of reality or truth.
• Know yourself! Everyone has vulnerabilities, sensitivities, biases etc. These are not contraindicators for confronting denial in others--you don't have to be perfect; just honest with yourself.

Considering all the different vulnerabilities, sensitivities, and biases all human beings have, it actually requires a considerable effort of will to remain in touch with reality.; as well as a continual and conscious effort at a committment to truth. This is fundamental to personal honesty and integrity. Obviously this is not easy, and we are all prone to those self-deceptions that spare us from unpleasant truths about ourselves.

One of my frequent commenters, "Oh Bloody Hell" left a quote from Isaac Asimov on the Part II thread which is particularly relevant here:

"What I'm doing, really, is to look at things as they are. It's what you must do. Forget your ideals, your theories, your notions as to what people OUGHT to do. Consider what they ARE doing. Once a person is oriented to face facts rather than delusions, problems tend to disappear. At the very least, they fall into their true perspective and become soluble."

So many people look at the world through glasses that filter unacceptable thoughts, feelings and reality; and hence they are only able to see what they want to see, instead of what is (and no, that does not depend on the meaning of the word "is").

Again, this does not require perfection--you don't even have to have "pure" motives--just conscious ones that help you to understand why you think and/or feel a certain way. Then you will be open to recognizing the truth and what is. Then you will have a choice in your actions.

If you are lucky, your scrutinized motives, beliefs, wishes, and desires will not seriously conflict with reality. But, if they do, then you must face the music.

Reality is completely indifferent to your feelings, wishes, or your unresolved issues.

DEALING WITH OTHERS IN DENIAL

Once you have applied some self-awareness and know your own limitations--or, as the philosoher Eastwood has said, "A man's gotta know his limitations."-- then you can begin to appreciate the magnitude of the task that lies ahead for someone who is chronically in denial about reality.

The second step in the process is to accept the fact that there are positive rewards for the person in denial (at least in the short-term), and that the psychological defense that you would like them to abandon is actually a creative strategy designed to help them keep their sanity and their sense of self and worldview intact.

You have two choices at this point. You can engage the denier in rational argument in the hopes of breaking through their denial; or you can work around them and let them suffer the consequences of their denial. The second strategy may be the best in some cases, but is obviously more difficult if your own fate is tied to theirs. Let's discuss engagement first.

Just because you wish to engage the denier in argument does not mean that you have to allow them to abuse you or threaten you (this has been an issue several times on this blog--while I want to engage people, I don't have to put up with their abuse). That means that the first principle of engagement is

• Limit Setting - you must make sure that the rules of engagement are followed and that what you are seeking is a rational discussion of issues; not a name-calling session where the person who screams the loudest or speaks with the most swear words considers himself the "winner".
Once the limits are set; be prepared for the person in denial to ignore them.

If you still want to engage, then the second principle is:

• Redirection - where you point out what the rules are again and only respond to the rational argument thatmight be buried in all the emotion. Gently (or at least as respectfully as you can--remember, it is your choice to engage them) point out to the person that they are avoiding the point by using such and such a rhetorical ploy or logical fallacy, etc. You can then challenge them to use a rational argument or present their premises and any evidence to support them. This is as close as you might get to "interpreting the defense". Either they will come back more appropriately and logically, or they'll ignore you; or they'll simply abandon the argument. Limit set and redirect as often as necessary.

If you can get the person back on the topic, and expressing his perspective honestly:

• Give constructive feedback (but not in a condescending tone). You can say something like, "that's a good point; let me see if I can counter it."

• Be ready then, to present your own rational perspective, with whatever evidence or facts you have available that might help them begin to question their own irrational beliefs; or even their own honesty.

• Be ready to point out the specific errors in logic; or fallacies and/or rhetorical ploys in their own arguments. Call them on it and ask for objective evidence from that that you would consider. Make sure you know what these fallacies and ploys are!

• Be willing to acknowledge when they have a point..

• Try as much as possible to engage them with what really exists--not what either of you would like to exist.

• Ask them for specific suggestions on how to deal with the problems you can both agree on. Be ready to give your own specific suggestions.

• When applicable, don't solve their problems for them; or shelter, protect or help them avoid the consequences of their denial --unless those consequences also impact you. If that is the case, understand that by letting them off the hook, you have encouraged them to think that their worldview is correct and yours is not.

• Have some standby information to direct them to that they can read on their own time that may help them to face the problem.

• Don't give into the temptation to call them names or to do unto them what they might be doing unto you…unless, of course, you are human; then in that case once in a while it might help your own mental health.

As you can see from the above list, it is quite difficult and time-consuming; as well as frustrating and endlessly repetitive to engage a person in denial.

Sometimes you may think you have put an issue to rest and successfully argued your point; only to discover that later the denier will bring up exactly the same slogans or mantras that you had previously and painstakingly countered!

That is why the level of denial is important to ascertain. Some people simply need to be nudged or reminded of certain facts--e.g., seeing a movie like United 93, which can bring back the reality of the events of 9/11 which may have slipped from conscious awareness simply from the everyday vissictitudes of living one's own life.

At the other end of the spectrum are those people, groups, and nations committed to the denial of reality the way others are committed to truth. Their entire sense of identity is dependent on a certain view of the world and they would rather die than relinquish that view.

If you want to continue with the challenge of engaging someone in denial, you must recognize that moments of epiphany and breakthroughs in insight are few and far between. In therapy, you can wait for months and even years for people to confront their own denial and understand the motivations that underlie their own unhappiness--but that is in therapy, where they presumably come to see you to get well and/or happier.

Unless the person you want to engage is a loved one, engaging a person in denial can be a thankless task. As I said in Part II, "You can lead a denier to reality, but you can't make him/her drink think."

As I said earlier, ultimately, an individual must CHOOSE to deal with reality. Neo-neocon has written about her own journey in her excellent series, "A Mind is a Difficult Thing To Change" which I highly recommend (click on the link and go down her right sidebar to access those posts).

Finally, what do you do if you conclude that you must find a way to ignore or work-around people in denial because you are at risk due to their behavior?

Let me return to my own major motivation for blogging: my observations of the psychological denial --particularly after 9/11--and increasingly psychopathological responses of the left (including many in the Democratic Party) to the war on terror. My hope when I started blogging was that I could offer a unique perspective on the problem and by "shining a psychological spotlight" on the dysfunctional behavior, I could help those with an open mind to to come to grips with the critical issues of our time--Radical Islam and the threat to western civilization.

I remain hopeful that there are many people out who can be motivated to do exactly that. I don't expect them to all think exactly the same as I do about the current situation in the world; nor do I expect them to agree with me on what to do. Surely, reasonable people can differ on these points and amicably work together to come up with optimal solutions.

But what I do expect is some fundamental agreement on what the reality is.

The left's current concensus view on terrorism, Iraq, Afghanistan, the war on terror and Freedom is flatly wrong and cannot be justified by the facts that are out there. Their rhetoric is designed to obfuscate and deny objective reality --which they don't even believe in to begin with (or, they believe in it until it become threatening then they seek refuge behind postmodern political rhetoric). The motivation for their continual Bush/Republican bashing is simple: Bush is the current symbol of their demise--the fly in their utopian ointment; the light shining in their darkness; or, to be more precise, the symbol of the end of their ideology.

How do I know this? Since Bush's election at the millennium, things have been going very badly for the left. As the real world presses in on them, their voices have become more shrill and hysterical; their rage is escalating out of control. No longer do most of them even bother to argue their points logically; they simply loudly denounce any idea or person who threatens their worldview; or deliberately and with the ruthless finesse of all tyrants and thugs, simply attempt to supress all dissenting opinions.

9/11 did not wake them up; rather it forced them to openly move toward what they have supported surreptitiously all along--the elimination of free speech in the name of political correctness and multiculturalism; a dictatorship where the pseudo-intellectual, politically correct priesthood rule; and complete control over the lives of others (for their own good, of course). Since their objectives dovetail nicely with those of the Islamic terrorists, they have made common cause with them and have not lost many opportunities to enable and encourage them, even as they denounce America and the principles of freedom and democracy.

They pretend their actions are motivated from love and peace and patriotism; but this is only how they rationalize it to themselves. Their self-deception and denial is simply stunning in its sweeping grandiosity and self-righteousness betrayal of the good.

Gerard Vanderleun has a post up about the eerie appropriateness of the recently discovered "Judas gospel". The money quote:

Treason, done with the kiss of "my personal freedom," proves that you do not really hate your country, you love it. You are, in the final analysis, your country's best friend. In these "new" old tales about Jesus we read that Judas betrayed the Son of God because Jesus told him to do it. Really? Or did his betrayal come, not from any request that may or may not have been made, but from humanity's persistant lust to sin freely and without even the thin penalty of remorse? Was this final treason done because this sin had been secretly blessed by God, or for the sheer dark thrill of asserting the self at the expense of life in the light?

"I betrayed my friend, because he gave me the freedom to do so. Feel my love for him."

"I betrayed my country because it gave me the freedom to do so. Feel my love for it."

Black is white. Hate is Love. Slavery is Freedom. Treason is Loyalty. That last phrase fits right in to the secular catechism, doesn't it? All it needs to become holy writ is an avatar, a solid historical personage with the power to turn darkness into light, lies into truth, and betrayal into something that was, in the final analysis, "all good."

Saint Judas, step right up to the Gates, ring that bell, and don your halo -- you the man.

Careful observation and analysis of behavior is what I do for a living. I am very good at it. My patients tend to get well for the most part. I am not always correct and I have a great tolerance for ambiguity and doubt. I can be convinced that I am incorrect because I accept my own humanity and its limitations. But if you want to convince me, you will have to give me some compelling argument that is rational and which conforms to what I observe in the real world. Calling me names and threatening me (try reading my email for a week) just will not do it; and, quite frankly, only confirms my premises.

If you can look in the mirror and truly know yourself, including all those hidden motives and agendas and unresolved issues in life which we all must grapple with; you can gain some control over your own life; make choices and attack problems based on a clear view of reality. Yes, people may still make the wrong choices, or screw up in dealing with the problems even when they are aware of their own unconscious conflicts. Human beings are not perfect.

But when denial distorts or obscures reality, we are far more likely to make the wrong choices and ignore the serious problems. Our energy becomes solely focused on maintaining and nurturing the denial as we get angrier and more out of touch with reality all the time.

As long as the left continues to live in the world of denial and play their rhetorical games and use their non-logic to justify the unjustifiable; to tolerate the intolerable; and support the unsupportable; then I will continue to blog and expose their motives and hidden agendas; and do everything I can to prevent them from regaining political power.

This means that no matter how badly I think of the current crop of Republicans--and I do think very badly of them--when the alternative is the Party of Denial, better known as the Democrats and the loud lunatic fringe that they cater to; then the Republicans are going to get my vote every time. Where once I had the luxury of voting for third party candidates (e.g. libertarian), the stakes are far too crucial now to waste my votes.

POST-ELECTION UPDATE: We shall see how far the Democrat's denial is likely to take them now that they have control of the House and Senate. I expect that two things in the media will change quite abruptly:

1. Now that the Democrats are in a position to take credit for it, the economy will suddenly be reported as being robust and "on the rebound". The American public will abruptly be subjected to stories of how intrepid Dems have been working behind the scenes to change the economic picture during Bush's first six years of morally degenerate economic policies.

2. As a corollary to the above, we will stop hearing about the budget deficit created by Bush and the Iraq war --not because it is quietly being taken care of by the booming economy generated by the Bush economic policies--and will instead hear how America must increase spending astronomically on the usual Democrat social programs that haven't worked in the last 50 years and aren't expected to work in the next 50 either, but so what? It makes the Dems feel good about themselves and appeases their various victim groups.

3. Another interesting and immediate shift we should see is that the terror threat will suddenly NOT BE OVERBLOWN by BushHitler anymore! The politics of FEAR are gone! No, it will now be the NEW REALITY, sanctioned by the Democrats. The Anchoress already notes some of this spin:

CBS news is telling us that Al Qaeda is planning a holiday blitz:

Intelligence agencies have been warned that al Qaeda may be planning to attack air and rail travel in Europe in actions that may occur during the busy holiday travel season, CBS News has learned exclusively.
In separate interviews with Arab and other intelligence sources, CBS News has been told that the warnings come from interrogations of al Qaeda suspects who recently left Afghanistan and Pakistan.

It’s an important story, you’ll want to read it all, especially now that the press is now deciding to report that there may actually be terrorists in the world, after all.

And just think, now that the election is over, no one can say this is just Bush/Rove trying to “scare” us via the poodle Tony Blair.

Tigerhawk writes: before all our friendly lefty commenters go bananas, I am not suggesting that the Democrats agree with all the various dirtbags who are rejoicing their victory. I am, however, willing to say this: When you cite “world opinion” of George W. Bush as a reason to vote against him or his party, you cannot then object if others cite the opinions of enemies and adversaries who delight in your victory.
I’d say that is about right.

Do you want to know why the NEW REALITY will now be sanctioned? By winning, the Democrats intuitively believe that they can blame Bush for any attacks that occur in the next 2 years. Thus, they can maintain that terrorism is not a significant threat, and at the same time insist that it is --all because of Bush! It's a beautiful strategy, really; sort of a "doubling down" of one's essential psychological denial.

Like Kernberg/Kohut a commenter who thinks it is safe to make an ad hominem attack on both me and ShrinkWrapped since I am somewhat incapacitated at the moment (what a real man he must be), I also don't think denial is a good thing. But I wonder why anyone with any intelligence whatsoever--let alone any analytical skill-- would think that truth, or reality for that matter, is something that can be decided by a vote?

Far from denying what happened on election day, I --as always--wait for the logical consequences of the ideas behind what happened to play themselves out in the real world. Did the American public just acknowledge a painful reality and take corrective medicine (with its own attendant risks)? Or, are they still blithely ignoring the really painful reality that we are fighting a ruthless enemy who wants to destroy us; and swallowed the Democrats' happy pill that deadens the senses even further, and takes us even further from a reality that needs to be faced.

That's one of the hardest things to accept about reality. Reality doesn't care much whether you vote for it or not. It will just go its merry way, no matter whether anyone recognizes it or not. In the end, ideas matter. Choices matter. And every action has consequences that will have to be faced eventually.