Tuesday, February 10, 2009

A QUESTION FOR TODAY'S FEMINISTS

Ellen Goodman, a noted supporter of "a woman's right to choose", has this to say about the decision of fertility doctors to help the mother of octuplets to conceive and deliver (from "The ethical failures of fertility treatment") :
If, as we are told so far, Nadya Suleman was implanted with eight embryos left over from her earlier treatments, it is something akin to malpractice. If she wanted all eight implanted knowing she would refuse to terminate any, it's close to mal-mothering.

The reason why we haven't seen Nadya's fertility doctor on "Larry King Live" (yet) is that it's against all guidelines to implant more than one or two embryos in a woman under 35. Given our experience with the extraordinary high risk of multiple pregnancies for mothers and babies, anyone who endangers patients ought to lose their license.

This is more than an individual decision.


Is it? If you read through the entire piece, Goodman seems to be saying several things: (1) the decision to help the mother conceive is questionable because the mother was unemployed; (2) she already had several (6) children; (3) such procedures put the mother and the child at risk and (4) the $cost to society is very high.

I assume that all this is what leads Goodman to call for a discussion of some of those very ethical issues that, as she says, "make us queasy."

So, I'm wondering, why can we question this woman's "right to choose" and "children on demand" and sound an alarm about the ethical and moral issues involved for both the woman and the doctor; but we must not ever even begin to question the concept of "abortion on demand"--even though some of the same ethical issues are relevant--lest we be labeled anti-woman? As far as feminists of her kind are concerned, no discussion can be permitted.

I submit that the entire societal "ethical" issue involved in both instances entirely disappears when there is one simple consideration:

An individual woman has the perfect right to choose what she does with her body--when that right does not infringe on anyone else to pay--financially or otherwise--for that choice.

I have no serious problem with octuplet mom doing what she did--I don't necessarily approve of her choice; nor do I have a problem with her or anyone else having as many children as she wants--as long as she does not expect me to pay for it. By paying for her choice--or being forced to pay for it-- I am in conflict which my own ethical code.

Likewise, any individual woman can choose to have an abortion; and anyone who wants to, may help her financially to do so; but why should I or anyone who thinks this is ethically and morally wrong be forced to pay for her individual choice?

Paying for something automatically means you have given your sanction for it.

If that is not the case and perfectly obvious to almost everyone, then why is President Obama simply outraged at the incredible bonuses and outlandish salaries of CEO's and executives of companies that have received Federal bailout money? He is annoyed at their irresponsible, unethical and inconsiderate behavior toward American taxpayers who are footing the bill. And rightly so. I could care less about their irresponsibility and generally bad business practices--as long as they are the ones who have to pay the consequences, not me.

President Obama is not noticably outraged that taxpayer money is being used to fund abortions for irresponsible women who can't be bothered to use birth control; or, if they can't afford birth control, to behave responsibly. In this day and age, there is NO EXCUSE for not being aware of birth control, its consequences, or its ethical issues. Our entire society has been immersed in a "culture war" about the issue for many decades now. Only an amazing level of entitlement; supreme indifference to reality; or catastrophic stupidity lead to an unwanted pregnancy in the 21st century in the U.S.

Forcing Americans who believe it is morally reprehensible to abort a baby for any reason, to support a "woman's right to choose" is only adding insult to injury. Just as it is to pay for octuplet mom's irresponsible, narcissistic and ethically challenged choice to have litter after litter of human children. I'm sure there are people out there who are willing to support her "right to choose" (in fact, I'll bet there's a $$$ million book/movie deal soon to be announced); but I don't particularly want to, do you?

And that option ought to be MY right to choose. Somehow the Pro-choice movement has got it wrong (why am I not surprised since today's feminist movement is so completely f***ed up?).

These ethical and moral issues ARE individual decisions and of right, ought to be. The government has no right to use my money to support either abortion or fertility treatments (or birth control or male enhancement etc. etc.). These are all personal, private decisions and the consequences of them ought to be the burden of the individual making them.

When you conceptualize the problem in this way, all of a sudden both positions: pro-choice and pro-life are suddenly politically compatible.

Monday, February 09, 2009

ALL THE PRESIDENT'S MEMES

Obama hasn't finished his press conference yet, but here is the gist:

DOMESTIC POLICY:

"I'm with the government and I'm here to help you."

FOREIGN POLICY:

"Peace in our time."

BACK TO THE SAME OLD TIRED GOVERNMENT POLICIES THAT GOT US INTO THIS MESS

President Obama speaks of his 'new ideas' for change when he talks to House Democrats about the pork-spending bill of historic proportions:
"...don't come to table with the same tired arguments and worn ideas that helped create this crisis.

We're not going to get relief by turning back to the very same policies that in eight short years doubled the national debt and threw our economy into a tailspin. We can't embrace the losing formula that offers more tax cuts as the only answer to every problem we face, while ignoring critical challenges like our addiction to foreign oil, the soaring cost of health care, failing schools and crumbling bridges, roads and levees. I don't care whether you're driving a hybrid or an SUV - if you're headed for a cliff, you have to change direction....

What do you think a stimulus is?" Obama asked incredulously. "It’s spending — that's the whole point! Seriously.”


This, after a week of promoting a Carteresque malaise to the American people by speaking rather histrionically about the coming 'catastrophe' and using other descriptions of economic armegeddon if he doesn't get his way and get the stimulus bill passed. Seriously.

Some more cynical than I would classify his remarks as 'fearmongering' for political purposes; but I have always pointed out that this is simply the characteristic hysterical style of the neo-marxist fascists of the left.

I noted recently, that there is no one who denies we are in an economic mess right now--The question is WHY is the economy in a mess, and WHAT to do about it. And, you have to be completely out of touch with reality not to appreciate that it was government looters (like the Dodd's, Rangels, and Franks) working closely with the many looters from the business community, who got us into this dilemma.

Should we now trust those same government looters to get us out? I don't think so. Should we now trust those looters in the business community whose businesses should go bankrupt and fail but who will get repeated chances to further loot American citizens? No, let them fail. Then at least when the market resets itself into a new equilibrium--one that is based on reality, anyway--we will all be better off for it. It seems to me there are two things that are at the 'root' of our current predicament:

1 - The government keeps rewarding and encouraging incompetence and poor business practices for the sake of some sort of perverted 'social justice', and when the end result is social injustice, they insist that continuing to reward looters in the business community will fix the problem. Good luck with that.

2 - The American people keep voting for incompetent, narcissistic, and looting politicians who cover their intent to loot the American economy with the nice, flowery rhetoric of the postmodern demagogue. Stop listening to the false rhetoric and look at what they actually do and what has been the consequences of their tired, worn-out policies.

The only policy that has NEVER been tried is: 1) letting the market do what it is best at--rewarding competence and innovation; 2) letting the government do what it should be best at--supporting the rule of law; and 3) letting the American public do what it is best at--spending their own money.

At any rate, here is a detailed analysis of Obama's "new ideas':



UPDATE: I meant to include this video of Milton Friedman defending capitalism. It is quite remarkable for a number of reasons, not the least of which is that you will never see this kind of calm discussion of ideas anymore on TV. {h/t Instapundit}

Sunday, February 08, 2009

CARNIVAL OF THE INSANITIES UPDATE

I hope soon to get back in the groove to do the COTI posts every week. Right now, life is just too complicated; so, as an alternative for all the COTI addicts out there, Soccer Dad has up his own unique collection of insanities! Check it out:

SHINY, HAPPY DHIMMI

THE FUTURE IS BRIGHT...

...at least for those whose business is terror:
Terrorists, like investors, base their present investment decisions on what they believe the return on their effort is going to be. If the al-Qaeda on the Arabian peninsula believed that the prospects for terrorism in the future were poor, then relatively fewer of them would return to the life of Jihad. But if on the other hand, the Men in the Business believed that the future would be conducive to acts of terror and that they could safely return to their old trades, then relatively more of them would.

The next few years will provide an empirical test of whether “reaching out” and going after Osama bin Laden in Southwest Asia turns out to be a strategically sound move. Every new administration has a right to try a new approach out, but they should also be alert to signs indicating whether their new strategy is working or not. George Bush is gone and Hope and Change are in office, but al Qaeda doesn’t seem too worried. So far.


No, they are not particularly worried. Neither is Iran, whose leaders "so far" have responded to those "outreach" efforts by demanding that the US apologize for how terribly we've treated the mullahs' regime. Isn't that nice? They can expect no less from us, since our new messianic President has already gone on Al-Arabiya TV and trashed America (and Bush) even as he praised tyrants in the Middle East for their "courage".

Then, in Caroline Glick's op-ed yesterday, there's this little tidbit, which was never reported in the MSM:
According to a report in Aviation News, last week the US Navy prevented Israel from seizing an Iranian weapons ship in the Red Sea suspected of carrying illicit munitions bound for either Gaza or Lebanon. A week and a half ago, the US Navy boarded the ship in the Gulf of Aden and carried out a cursory inspection. It demurred from seizing the ship, however, because, as Adm. Michael Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, explained on January 27, the US believed it had no international legal right to seize the vessel.

In inspecting the ship the US was operating under UN Security Council Resolution 1747, which bars Iran from exporting arms. The US argued that it lacked authority to seize the ship because 1747 has no enforcement mechanism. Yet the fact of the matter is that if the US were truly interested in intercepting the ship and preventing the arms from arriving at their destination, the language of 1747 is vague enough to support such a seizure.

And that's the point. The US was uninterested in seizing the ship because it was uninterested in provoking a confrontation with Teheran, which it seeks to engage. It was not due to lack of legal authority that the US reportedly prevented the Israel Navy from seizing the ship in the Red Sea, but due to the administration's fervent wish to appease the mullahs.


If you want to understand why there is no possibility of resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict using appeasement and diplomatic "outreach", you need to understand the unbelievable hatred and bigotry that is daily directed toward Israel by the terrorist group Hamas, funded ans supported by Iran. These are our new "partners" in peace.

Here we can listen to HAMAS leaders in their own voices:



And here is a powerful video that gives some context to the provocations that led to the recent Israeli attack on Gaza:



So far, in a mere 2 weeks, the Obama Administration has definitely managed to bring hope and change...at least to the terrorists.

For the first time in my adult life, I am ashamed of my country. And I owe it all to President Obama. What has America done???

UPDATE: Do you begin to suspect that the new hopeychangey goal in Afghanistan is now to lose? Back in September, 2008, I wrote:
Barack Obama still wants to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. He wants to say the Surge has worked beyond our wildest dreams, so let's declare defeat and leave. Let's ignore the sacrifice of our troops and move on. Now he says we have to focus on Afghanistan (which we do), but who realistically believes that any Democrat (except Lieberman) has the guts to win there either?

Friday, February 06, 2009

INKBOARDING

And they say they are against torture....??




[Cartoons by Eric Allie]

UPDATE: Gee, this is great:
The $780 billion figure doesn't include the $46.5 billion in amendments added to the stimulus bill this week. According to our numbers, the deal is at least $827 billion, $7 billion MORE than the House passed bill. With debt, that comes to $1.175 trillion total cost for the new deal.

Only in Washington can an increase over the original bill cost be sold as a cut.

This figure includes:

$780 B (for base deal)
$46.5 B (for amendments added during debate)
$348 B (for debt service)

Total equals $1.175 Trillion

To put that in perspective, the total cost of House bill is $1.168 trillion ($820 billion for bill and $348 billion for debt service)


Only in Washington could a bill be considered a "compromise" when the other side wasn't even invited into the private session to discuss it.

CLINICAL RISK ASSESSMENT AND EVALUATING THE THREAT OF TERROR

Wretchard has an interesting post that juxtaposes two different views of the amount of risk the US faces from terrorism in the next few years. One of those views comes from former-VP Dick Cheney; and the other from Glenn Carle ,in a Washington Post article. Wretchard makes several excellent points:


But what is the true value of that probability? Its magnitude is really at the core of any difference between Carle’s and Cheney’s point of view. I doubt it can be quantified, except in subjective terms. At any rate, it is probably hard to do without a continuous assessment of specific enemy operations in progress. In this case an assessment based on general capabilities is not that helpful. I don’t think the probabilities can be judged on general principles. We have to know the specifics to make a judgment.
[...]
But if the probabilties of a successful attack are uncertain, the consequences of a terrorist success would be less so. Even without the Cheney warning, a new September 11 sized attack would have been devastating to the Obama administration. What Cheney is doing is upping the political ante. From a political point of view, Cheney is ensuring that Obama had better make pretty damned sure another mass casualty attack doesn’t happen, or face an electoral apocalypse. That doesn’t answer any of the questions about what actually will happen in the future. The sad fact is that nobody can really predict that. We can only do our best based on imperfect information and see what happens.

Some of us in the mental health profession have been tasked by society to assess whether or not an individual is acutely suicidal or homicidal and therefore imminently a danger to themselves or others. The "sad fact" is that, as Wretchard notes, nobody can really predict that. The only thing we know is that a person who is absolutely intent on killing themselves or someone else will find a way to do it. But does that mean we should abandon the effort to save as many lives as possible?

I have written before on this, but it is worth repeating:

Sometimes all you have to go on is "soft" intelligence and imperfect information in making life or death decisions in my field.
According to the laws of most states, if a person is "suicidal or homicidal it is an indication that involuntary hospitalization is in order. So, how does a psychiatrist make that judgement and assess the risk...to the individual and to society?

It is especially difficult in that that many patients with mental illness are not particularly cooperative and deny that they have any problem to begin with. They see you and society as the problem.

Frankly, it is an extremely difficult task and a great responsibillity and burden. I happen to think that everyone is ultimately responsible for his or her own behavior; but I am also aware that I am in a position where I can intervene and possibly save someone's life--at least in the short term. So I take the responsibility very seriously.

Sometimes people TELL me that they are having feelings of wanting to kill themselves; and they tell me the details of how they'd go about it. Occasionally, some patients will confide in me their desire to kill a specific person. This kind of honesty and self-awareness makes my job a bit easier. But most of the time I have to act on soft intelligence and imperfect information.

What do I mean by that? Well, most of the time I have to take many little things into consideration:

-How honest do I think a person is being with me in regard to their feelings and intent?
-How honest have they been with me and/or others in the past?
-Do they have a history of ACTING on suicidal or homicidal feelings in the past? (one of the most significant predictors of future actions are past actions)
-Are they trying to manipulate me (either (1) they WANT to be hospitalized and have no real intent to harm themselves or others; or( 2) they DON'T WANT to be hospitalized because they have real intent to harm themselves or others. I look especially hard at those who I think might be "shining me on"
-Do they have the means to actually hurt themselves (e.g., if they have a plan to shoot themselves or someone else--do they actually have a gun at home? or access to a gun?
-How seriously do their family and friends take the possibility of their suicidality or homicidality?
-How impulsive are they now? How impulsive have they been in the past?

The above list does not include all the considerations and factors that come into play in my assessment, but they are some of the primary ones. A particular person might not meet ALL the criteria above; and each case is different, depending on the situation. I see many people who are what we call "chronically suicidal"--meaning that they express suicidal ideation all the time. When do you hospitalize them, and when do you not?

Again, the sad truth is that if a person really wants to kill themselves, they will succeed eventually. I have hospitalized suicidal individuals who when they were finally discharged because they were doing so well, went out and committed suicide quite successfully.

I have hospitalized people involuntarily who convinced a judge that they were not suicidal or homicidal. The judge released them, and they killed themselves or someone else.

But, I have also known many people for whom an intervention--even an involuntary hospitalization -- resulted in their abandoning for good their suicidal or homicidal plans.

Since people's lives are at stake, I try to err on the side of caution in most cases. The potential consequences are very high, and earlier in my career, I was a bit overwhelmed by the responsibility. I will admit that in the last 30 years, I have made mistakes. Sometimes I hospitalized someone against their will who really had no intention of hurting themselves or someone else. My judgement was incorrect about their homicidality or suicidality. The worse consequence of that situation was that the patient hated me and refused to ever see me again.

OK, I can live with that.

But it has also gone the other way. I remember when I didn't hospitalize a patient of mine, because she didn't have the past history of trying to kill herself; had never been suicidal before; and was seemingly cooperative in therapy. In addition, she didn't seem severely depressed any of the times I saw her; and she was always willing to contract with me for safety. I was an intern at the time and somewhat inexperienced. I was uncertain what to do, but finally decided to believe the person when she said she didn't really have any "plan" to kill herself--and I really couldn't see that she had any real intent.

But to my horror, that person not only killed herself the next day, but she killed her best friend --another patient of mine.

If I had acted two lives would have been saved. Perhaps I could have only delayed what happened if I had acted when I had the chance. I don't know. I will never know.

A person--even a psychiatrist--can only in the end be responsible for their own actions--not for others'. Since that time I have studied all that there is to know about predicting suicide. I have tried to hone that "instinct" that makes a person aware that someone is not telling the truth. I think I am pretty good at it, and I have come to trust my instinct in these situations. Now, if I have any doubt; if I find myself not quite convinced that a person will be safe, then I go with the doubt.

Because I am completely sure only of this one thing: If I have the opportunity to do something to save a life, then I must do it.

I cannot know the future and I cannot know how someone will behave in the future. But I can use all available information I have at that one point in time; and my own professional skills and experience to the best of my ability to assess each situation individually. I can balance and weigh the hard and soft evidence--and sometimes it is only the soft evidence that I have to work with; balance and weigh the risks and benefits; and make the best decision possible at that moment.

And if I am to make a mistake in the future; I want it always to be on the side of saving lives.

I can only hope that my government is equally careful in calculating the potential risks and identifying red flags when they make decisions to protect me and my family from external threats. And I fervently hope that they can learn from their mistakes and constantly improve how they do this difficult task, because it is one of the most fundamental roles of US Government to make the same sort of "clinical assessment" of regimes and groups hostile or violent toward America.

Briefly, going through the same sort of clinical decision making described above when it comes to the potential suicidality/homicidality of terrorist groups and terrorist regimes and their fervent desire to hurt or destroy America, its allies (particularly Israel) and abolish the fundamental values of Western civilization:

-Nations like Iran, Syria (or North Korea); or terrorist groups like Hamas, Hezbollah and Al Qaeda all tell us explicitly and flat out what they intend. Not only that, but they tell us repeatedly. Their leaders do not mince words about it; and they very often follow up those words with specific behaviors that practically scream, "I will kill you if I get the chance."

-As far as assessing how honest they have been with the U.S. or the West in the past when it comes to situations in which we are willing to trust them: every agreement, treaty, and promise that has been made by these entities has been deliberately broken and it is apparent that they never meant to keep it even transiently except insofar as pretending to agree to create a smokescreen so that they continue their homicidal aspirations unabated, but without interference. In other words, the leaders of these countries are not to be trusted as "partners for peace." (See Victor Davis Hanson's excellent piece yesterday, "Been There, Done That in the Middle East").

-All of these terrorist entities have a long history of ACTING on their suicidal /homicidal feelings in the past? (Remember, one of the most significant predictors of future behavior is past behavior)

-When it comes to negotiating directly on indirectly with them; they consider it honorable to manipulate, lie, and distort in order to gain advantage over their enemies (which they consider the West) and they are smilingly willing to agree to all sorts of things they have no intention of following through on--because in doing so, it shames us and gains honor and status for them in their bizarro world.

-As for determining if they have the means to hurt us; let's just say that even without the possession of nuclear weapons (which some of them will have imminently and may have even as we speak) they manage to be very creative with boxcutters and airplanes; or whatever is at hand in order to achieve mass destruction. Allowing such entitities to actually develop WMD is a clear indication that we ourselves have become passively suicidal. For those who may have forgotten or never known, let me remind you that Iranian clerics have already issued a fatwa approving the use of nuclear weapons against the enemies of Islam.

Protecting we the people from the insanity of crazed regimes and lunatic groups who are determined to eliminate as many of us as possible would seem like a critical role for an elected government.

As Doug Feith has written:

"Preventing calamities is one of the most important and least appreciated functions of government. When an evil is averted - perhaps as a result of insight, intensive effort, and administrative skill - the result is that nothing happens. It is easy, after the fact, for critics to ignore or deprecate the accomplishment. Political opponents may scoff at the effort as unnecessary, citing the absence of disaster as proof that the problem could not have been very serious to begin with." --P. 523, War and Decision
The thing about preventing a really terrible thing from happening is that...it prevents a really terrible thing--or things-- from happening. So, nobody reads articles about how effectively the system works or how many lives were saved--because there is no way of calculating that metric.
Only when someone slips through the safety net; or when something horrific occurs, does it come to public awareness.

Since 9/11 our leaders have been--quite rightly-- taking the madmen of the world seriously. That is why we have had no further attacks [yet] on American soil. Those who want to pretend--for political and ideological reasons--that the fact we have had no further attacks in our country has nothing whatsoever to do with the actions of the evil Bushitler fascist administration, will go on belittlening, undermining and undoing everything that adminstration has done to keep us safe over the last eight years.

We know enough to assess that there are acutely homicidal countries and groups out there who want to wipe us off the map if they can. And, it makes you wonder sometimes if we are the ones who are acutely suicidal.

Thursday, February 05, 2009

LEMMING LEADERSHIP

The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office has this to say about the stinker of a stimulus package:

President Obama's economic recovery package will actually hurt the economy more in the long run than if he were to do nothing, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said Wednesday.

CBO, the official scorekeepers for legislation, said the House and Senate bills will help in the short term but result in so much government debt that within a few years they would crowd out private investment, actually leading to a lower Gross Domestic Product over the next 10 years than if the government had done nothing.

CBO estimates that by 2019 the Senate legislation would reduce GDP by 0.1 percent to 0.3 percent on net. [The House bill] would have similar long-run effects, CBO said in a letter to Sen. Judd Gregg, New Hampshire Republican, who was tapped by Mr. Obama on Tuesday to be Commerce Secretary.

The House last week passed a bill totaling about $820 billion while the Senate is working on a proposal reaching about $900 billion in spending increases and tax cuts.


This highlights one of the common sense reasons that ordinary Americans are starting to think this so-called 'stimulus plan cure' for the economy may actually kill the patient.

It also highlights why Harry Reid is panicking and resorting to political thuggery. To call what Reid does in the Senate "leadership" is to bring to mind the kind of "leadership" lemmings follow on their suicidal march.

Needless to say, if there were anything good in this bill then there wouldn't be all this unseemly haste to pass it; nor would there be such unwillingness to debate it openly; nor to let the public understand the issues and respond.

The last thing in the world people like Reid, Pelosi and Obama want is a reasonable discussion of their economic policies. The very last thing they want is for people to understand what they are doing. They think that, because "they won", it means they don't have to be accountable for all the pork they pass; nor do they have to do anything but blame Republicans if their policies make things worse.

But I don't really think that was the message the American public was sending, and the Democrats might be verrrrrry surprised how quickly the worm turns--or should I say, the lemming suicides?

THAT'S SO B.B.

Journalistic ethics? That's so B.B**

Read about it here:



**(Before Barack).

Wednesday, February 04, 2009

UNCLEAR ON THE CONCEPT OF 'REALITY'

One of the things that regularly irks the psychiatrist in me is when members of the "reality-based" community write articles like this:
DENIAL AS POLITICAL STRATEGY
Behind all the back and forth over the Stimulus Bill is a simple fact: the debate in Washington is rapidly moving away from any recognition that the US economy -- and the global economy, for that matter -- is in free-fall....


So, who exactly is denying that the economy is a mess right now? I haven't noticed anyone contesting or even avoiding that reality. The question is WHY is the economy in a mess, and WHAT to do about it. Those are the two key issues in question here.

It is not denial to suggest that this putrid stimulus spending package--the greatest spending debacle in the history of this country--that Obama, Pelosi and the Democrats are trying to force down America's throat is not only not going to work, but is likely going to make matters worse. That is common sense.

It is not denial to point out that it is irresponsible spending and micromanagement on the part of government (here in the US as well as around the world) and the unwillingness to let the market function without constant interference that is the 'root cause' of our present difficulties; and, if it is "capitalism" that has failed, then explain why this is a world-wide economic catastrophe that is hitting all those "progressive" socialist economies of Europe even harder than the U.S. economy.

Somehow, to the inordinately clueless members of the "reality-based" community, this is an example of sober, logical analysis and careful political policy; and this is an example of "fear-mongering". Wow. Talk about in denial.

Rick Moran has this to say about the stimuus:
The man wants to talk about catastrophe? OK, I'll bite. How about these items in his "stimulus bill" as examples of "catastrophe:"
• $2 billion earmark to re-start FutureGen, a near-zero emissions coal power plant in Illinois that the Department of Energy defunded last year because it said the project was inefficient.
• A $246 million tax break for Hollywood movie producers to buy motion picture film.
• $650 million for the digital television converter box coupon program.
• $88 million for the Coast Guard to design a new polar icebreaker (arctic ship).
• $448 million for constructing the Department of Homeland Security headquarters.
• $248 million for furniture at the new Homeland Security headquarters.
• $600 million to buy hybrid vehicles for federal employees.
• $400 million for the Centers for Disease Control to screen and prevent STD's.
• $1.4 billion for rural waste disposal programs.
• $125 million for the Washington sewer system.
• $150 million for Smithsonian museum facilities.
• $1 billion for the 2010 Census, which has a projected cost overrun of $3 billion.
• $75 million for "smoking cessation activities."
• $200 million for public computer centers at community colleges.
• $75 million for salaries of employees at the FBI.
• $25 million for tribal alcohol and substance abuse reduction.
• $500 million for flood reduction projects on the Mississippi River.
• $10 million to inspect canals in urban areas.
• $6 billion to turn federal buildings into "green" buildings.
• $500 million for state and local fire stations.
• $650 million for wildland fire management on forest service lands.
• $1.2 billion for "youth activities," including youth summer job programs.
• $88 million for renovating the headquarters of the Public Health Service.
• $412 million for CDC buildings and property.
• $500 million for building and repairing National Institutes of Health facilities in Bethesda, Maryland.
• $160 million for "paid volunteers" at the Corporation for National and Community Service.
• $5.5 million for "energy efficiency initiatives" at the Department of Veterans Affairs National Cemetery Administration.
• $850 million for Amtrak.
• $100 million for reducing the hazard of lead-based paint.
• $75 million to construct a "security training" facility for State Department Security officers when they can be trained at existing facilities of other agencies.
• $110 million to the Farm Service Agency to upgrade computer systems.
• $200 million in funding for the lease of alternative energy vehicles for use on military installations.

Surely, it is not denial to suggest that significant tax cuts to already over-burdened businesses and taxpayers would clearly, obviously and incontroverably have a real and instantaneous "stimulus" on the economy--as opposed to the ongoing funding of pork, pork, and more pork? Again, this is self-evident, and Americans are recognizing this reality as they become more aware of exactly what this massive debt program is all about.

If there is psychological denial in play here, then it is applicable to those who somehow believe they can continue to ignore the reality that you cannot spend your way out of debt. That you cannot keep taxing those who are productive and redistributing their wealth to those who are not; without slowly but surely positively reinforcing non-productivity and negatively reinforcing productivity. You cannot keep penalizing those who create jobs and expect that job creation will increase magically.

In short, it is magical thinking to pretend that the way to get out of debt and facilitate productivity, competence and ethics in business is to (1) get deeper into debt by spending more; (2) penalize those who are productive; and (3) reward those who are incompetent and unethical. Propping up businesses that are incompetent (except at lobbying their co-dependent porkers in Congress) is a sure way of looting the economy and escalating the economic chaos. Don't think so? Just watch.

Articles like the one linked above from a high-flyer of the "reality-based" community--only ludicrously highlight the fact that this community is wholly unclear on the concept of reality...not to mention that of psychological denial.

They are going to discover imminently that reality is really an unforgiving bitch. And we all are going to suffer for it.

REALITY CHECKS

The new Administration is certainly getting a lot of them. aren't they? But, reality has a way of forcing itself into consciousness from time to time. (Darn, darn, darn that mischievous Axis of Naughty). Reality is such a bitch.

But perhaps these checks may result in some emotional growth and maturity; and a little less gradiosity and determined denial?

Nah.


[Cartoons by Gary McCoy]

UPDATE: Victor Davis Hanson on the impending Obama meltdown:
We are quite literally after two weeks teetering on an Obama implosion—and with no Dick Morris to bail him out—brought on by messianic delusions of grandeur, hubris, and a strange naivete that soaring rhetoric and a multiracial profile can add requisite cover to good old-fashioned Chicago politicking.

First, there were the sermons on ethics, belied by the appointments of tax dodgers, crass lobbyists, and wheeler-dealers like Richardson—with the relish of the Blago tapes still to come. (And why does Richardson/Daschle go, but not Geithner?)....

At home, Obama is becoming laughable and laying the groundwork for the greatest conservative populist reaction since the Reagan Revolution.

Abroad, some really creepy people are lining up to test Obama's world view of "Bush did it/but I am the world": The North Koreans are readying their missiles; the Iranians are calling us passive, bragging on nukes and satellites; Russia is declaring missile defense is over and the Euros in real need of iffy Russian gas; Pakistanis say no more drone attacks (and then our friends the Indians say "shut up" about Kashmir and the Euros order no more "buy American").

This is quite serious.


Indeed it is...and it's only been 16 days since the Ascension.

Tuesday, February 03, 2009

WESTERN ENABLERS AND PALESTINIAN DYSFUNCTION

How does a therapist help an emotionally unbalanced or unstable patient change? How can someone who behaves in a dangerously suicidal or homicidal way and whose thoughts are paranoid or distorted and by varying degrees out of touch with reality, be convinced to alter his behavior and thinking?

There are many therapeutic approaches. Some therapies are purely biological; some are psychological and some are behavioral. The optimal treatment is one that addresses all three spheres.

Biological therapies are reserved for those situations that clearly have a physiological or genetic basis. In such cases, failure to address the biological abnormality will prevent most psychological or behavioral interventions from succeeding.

The application of psychological and social therapies has the patient and the therapist explore the patient’s history, background, environment and thinking patterns. Past traumatic events are examined and relationships are explored. This kind of therapy is predicated on a simple belief: once a patient can put the environment from which they came into a sharper and clearer focus (psychological insight) and think in a different way about that environment, then that patient is better able to behave in a more appropriate and functional manner, one in which the patient can thrive and flourish.

Behavioral therapies focus simply on addressing and changing specific dysfunctional behaviors. One type of behavioral therapy that is generally reserved for patients exhibiting serious pathologies is Aversion Therapy. This kind of therapy is not structured to address underlying psychological issues or cognitive dysfunction. Rather, Aversion Therapy is by design meant to address only unwanted behaviors. The idea is simple and easily understood: A patient is subjected to discomfort when engaging in those unwanted behaviors.

Pedophiles and other sexual offenders are often treated with Depo-provera, a drug that reduces the sex drive in some patients. This kind of ‘chemical castration’ has proved effective in many patients for as long as they take the medication.

The same method of treatment has been used to treat substance abuse disorders. For example, alcohol abuses may be offered a daily drug called Antabuse, which causes makes drinking alcohol a most unpleasant experience; causing nausea, vomiting and other very uncomfortable side effects. In the case of sex offenders and alcoholics, this type of pharmacological Aversion Therapy works because certain dysfunctional and pathological biological functions/responses are restricted for as long as the medications are taken.

Aversion Therapy almost always results in immediate modification of the targeted behavior. Advocates of this therapy point to a near 100% success rate and how the cost saving benefits over conventional psychological treatment are enormous. On the surface, the arguments are impressive. There is only one problem. The so called successes of Aversion Therapy do not stand up to close scrutiny and even proponents reluctantly concede that Aversion Therapy is no psychological panacea.

For the most part, Aversion Therapy is only successful as long as the capability to apply the discomfort is there. The pedophile, once released into the community will soon learn that his response to stimulus is not punished when he is out of the treatment setting. The alcoholic and drug abuser understand that when not taking Antabuse or other medicines of that type, they can abuse substances at will and without repercussions. The truth is that for many patients, until and unless their underlying psychological issues and pathologies are addressed and treated, the recidivism rate will remain extremely high. When the impetus for appropriate behavior is removed, dysfunctional people will revert to dysfunctional behavior.

It is also important to recognize that for the most part, healthy people seeking psychological help want to address their negative pathologies and overcome them and redirect their lives. In such cases they are motivated to change their behavior because of the negative consequences that behavior brings to their life and to the lives of people around them.

On the other hand, there are many very unhealthy and dysfunctional people who do not see their negative pathologies as unhealthy; nor do they ever consider the consequences of their own malignant behavior, Sometimes they even view their own dysfunction as worthwhile or even noble, despite the havoc they wreak in their own lives and the lives of those around them. An example is the pedophiles who believe they are victims of a dysfunctional society. Their belief centers on the idea that their 'love' for children is actually healthy and contributes to a 'well adjusted' child. The alcoholic will often justify their drinking as a perfectly acceptable way of “relaxing” and taking a well-earned break from the stresses of his life.

Often these dysfunctional people get away with their behavior because they surround themselves with “enablers.” In psychiatry--and particularly addiction medicine where the concept originated--we talk about people who "enable" addicts. Enabling refers to any behavior or action that assists the addict in the continuation of their addiction and the behavior associated with it.

Enabling can be either intentional or unintentional, but enabling behavior allows the addict to continue their destructive behavior. An example of enabling behavior is a man or woman who, although they verbally disapprove of their spouse's drinking, repeatedly will go out and purchases alcohol for him/her. This is often found to be the situation even when the alcoholic in one of their rages routinely physically abuses the enabler.

Frequently enablers tell psychiatrists that they "only want to help" or that they are "afraid" of what will happen to them if they don't do the things that help the addict (e.g., the addict will beat them up or hurt them in some way).

In these cases, it is not only the behavior of the alcoholic that must change, it is the behavior of the enabler. And to insure that behavior does not revert back to some dysfunctional equilibrium, the maladaptive thinking that underlies both alcoholic and enabler must be exposed and insight developed. That, in combination with the aversive therapy described above can make all the difference in the world to whether long-term success is achieved.

The idea that it is psychopathology that drives behavior rather than the reverse is important because successful and long-term treatment requires addressing not only the dysfunctional behaviors (which many need immediate intervention to prevent acute loss of life), but also the impaired cognition and emotion that generates the behavior,

In parallel, in order to formulate policies in the West that will have any chance at all in bringing an end to the never ending Israeli-Palestinian conflict, it is the underlying pathology of the Palestinians (and much of the Islamic and Arab world) that must be addressed.

The Arab world and much of the West have enabled decades of dysfunctional and pathological behavior almost to the point of no return. The Palestinians, like the most malignant alcoholics and pedophiles, have come to believe that their behavior and the institutionalized hate, bigotry and calls to genocide that drive it, are both appropriate and healthy. They have made it clear that in order to be a "good Muslim" and a "decent" human being, all these malignant ideas must be embraced.

Within days of the recent Gaza incursion, Many Palestinians (except perhaps their distant leaders) understood that maybe years of firing rockets into Gaza wasn't such a good idea. The Israeli onslaught was a kind of Aversion Therapy that addressed only the negative behavior issues. Unfortunately, the incursion into Gaza did nothing to address the underlying cause of dysfunctional behavior—the irrational, pathological and institutionalized hate; and consequently, the rocket barrages began almost immediately after the Israelis withdrew.

In fact, within days of the Israeli pullout, even more threats of violence were proudly promised by the Palestinians. As in most cases of Aversion Therapy, the effects were short lasting and had no real long-term impact. In fact, the Palestinians knew full well that their enablers in the West would heap criticism and scorn on Israel for even trying to stop the Palestinian rockets which were being fired daily into civilian populations. They also understood that the enablers in Israeli society could be counted on to prevent Israel from delivering the coup de grace—the amount of force necessary and sufficient to unquestionably alter the Palestinian’s murderous behavior.

Sometimes, real cultural and societal change comes about as the result of real, permanent, and severe trauma. The Israelis held back (when do they not, really?) and thus they will continue to pay the price for their humanity towards those who want nothing less than to exterminate them.

So, how do peaceful and free countries develop policies that will bring about healthy change in an emotionally unbalanced or unstable society like Palestinian society (and by extension the entire Arab and Islamic world)? When members of those cultures and even the culture as a whole behave in dangerously suicidal and homicidal ways; when the established institutions and leaders are paranoid and by varying degrees out of touch with reality; can such societies be brought to alter their dangerous behavior and distorted thinking?

Clearly, there are very strong societal, cultural, and religious factors that keep the Palestinians so dysfunctional. Nor is the implication being made that Israeli or Western culture is somehow perfect and that there is nothing to be changed there.

But, consider this: The Jews who came to Israel after the Holocaust were probably some of the most damaged people in history. They were the first real victims of a wide scale technological application of genocide. After the horrific killings of millions of their number, they had every reason to demand their needs be attended to; and they had every reason not to be interested in contributing to the betterment of much of the mankind that stood by and watched them be murdered. In other words, they had every reason to hate.

The trauma of the Holocaust survivors cannot be understated- they had lost their mothers, fathers, husbands, wives, children, aunts and uncles—in some cases their entire immediate and extended families. Whole towns and villages were destroyed and forgotten. The Kaddish prayer for the dead was never recited for countless numbers by their family members, because there were no family members left to do it; no friends or townspeople left to recite the Jewish prayer.

But instead of nurturing their victimhood and refining their hate, the survivors focused on making a new and positive life for themselves and their descendents. These damaged and pitiful remnants from the Holocaust went on to make a desert bloom, build world class education and scientific institutions and become an economic first world nation. The State of Israel was a clarion Kaddish prayer in way-it was a prayer that affirmed life and the potential of man.

Where the Jews succeeded in transforming their trauma into something positive for themselves and the world, the Palestinians have failed spectacularly and accomplished the exact opposite.

And, they have had plenty of help in doing so. Perhaps the most guilty of enabling and encouraging Palestinian and Islamic/Arab victimhood and aggression have been the world community (through the UN) and the ‘compassionate’—and often counterproductive-- foreign policy of Western democracies and of the Israelis themselves. In a way this process is the equivalent of a psychotic patient attempting to convince his psychiatrist that it is the psychiatrist that is paranoid, and astonishingly, the psychiatrist agrees!

The intermittent Israeli bombing and incursions against Gaza or Lebanon are unsuccessful because they, by their very nature, only address the behavior of Hamas or Hezbollah; not the underlying pathology that drives them; and the underlying pathology is psychological projection and paranoia as manifested by anti-semitism.

On the underlying pathology, the Palestinians and their Islamic brothers have been given a complete pass by the Free World.

As we have seen since 9/11, when President Bush took the battle to Afghanistan and Iraq, the U.S. has not since been attacked. But the underlying pathology still exists and awaits further appeasement and enabling—which will likely accelerate in the Obama Administration over the next four years. Addressing malignant behavior though effective aversive military interventions can be helpful temporarily, in that negatively reinforcing any behavior will extinguish the expression of that behavior. And, if we were dealing with a relatively healthy, rational person (or culture), negatively reinforcing the behavior through aversion therapy (bombing the hell out of them) it would have a strong beneficial effect in eliminating it.

But when you are dealing with a severe underlying pathology--one that defines the very identity of the person and which is not in the least bit amenable to reason or even enlightened self-interest, then the behavior can only be stopped for a short while before its malignancy must re-exert itself--against all reason; against the best interests of the individual or even the society. As we have seen, the Islamic world’s behavior is often quite suicidal; and since the major cultural contribution of Palestinian society to the rest of the world is the development and celebration of the suicide-homicide bomber (and they are actually proud of this and celebrate these murderers of women and children as heroic); simple behavioral management of the targeted behavior (e.g., sending bombs/rockets into Israeli civilian populations) does not work short of catastrophic violence (and clearly, the Israelis and the West will go to great lengths not to inflict such human casualties). Japan, for example (another shame culture like the Palestinian/Arab culture) probably would not have surrendered in WWII without the horrific casualties inflicted on that country by the atom bomb. And that is a type of behavioral management the West (or Israel) does not really want to engage in.

That said, how do the policy makers in the West address the pathology that motivates Hamas or Hezbollah, i.e. the bigotry and hate that is constantly projected outward toward the Jews?

First and foremost, the West must stop enabling the Palestinians and the Islamic world. They must cease surrendering key values and freedoms when challenged by that world. For example, in the interests of “peace” and “tolerance” many countries in Europe have already permitted the abrogation of freedom of speech and prosecuted those who merely criticize Islam. Meanwhile Islam and its fanatics celebrate the silencing of their critics by increasing their own hate-infested and bigoted rhetoric. It is bad enough that such hatred is preached regularly in mosques within Islamic countries (which permit no criticism of Islam or any freedom of religion within their boundaries), but all too often, the appeasing multiculturalists of Europe and the US have been tolerant of such bigotry and look the other way when the hate directed at the West become too obvious.

Second, the West enables these oppressive and destructive regimes and positively reinforces the underlying psychopathology by treating the leaders of Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran et al, as if they are civilized and equal to leaders in the West. By granting respect for the bigoted ideas espoused by these leaders--e.g., holocaust denial and the need to “wipe Israel off the map”--as if it is perfectly ok and just a normal, healthy expression of their cultural identity—they give these leaders and their people the impression that their culture is equal to those in the West. Sadly, these dysfunctional regimes already have the grandiose fantasy that they are superior to the West.

The leaders, regimes, and bigotry must be completely, thoroughly and constantly denounced whenever it is expressed, and--even more importantly--there must be negative consequences to them for expressing those ideas; e.g., complete isolation from the civilized world. No ‘gentlemanly’ invitations in the name of ‘free speech’ from the idiot intellectuals at Columbia University or the morally depraved United Nations, which gives malignant leaders such as Ahmadinejad a podium behind which to vomit his hate and to distort reality. All they desire is to strut their psychopathology on a world stage, because they believe that their dysfunction is something that should be embraced by the entire world. Their behavior should have made them pariahs long ago; instead, the UN rewards them by putting them in charge of “human rights”. This is worse than mere psychological denial of reality—it is delusion and fantasy, pure and simple. Why are countries like Iran not expelled from the UN, rather than given a platform that reinforces the pathology that motivates their behavior? Why is Israel constantly singled out for condemnation? Why have the values of the West, which are ably and proudly found in the small country of Israel, become so inverted?

But in the West, there are many enablers around. Some of these people truly don't have a clue that their behavior is not all sweetness and light and that it encourages the exact opposite of what they think it does (e.g., some of the innocent groups--like the Episcopal Church--who are members of "United for Peace and Justice"). These "Do-gooders" are usually completely deluded about the nature of the terrorist and often cry that we must "try to understand" why the terrorists are angry at us and want to kill us. They believe that with enough soul-searching we can discover how to change ourselves and the terrorism will then cease. They are the same "useful idiots" who said the same things about communism and socialism in the last century as communist and socialist regimes murdered millions and enslaved even more. They are the dedicated pacifists and the genuinely good people who continue to maintain a denial so intense that they cannot see that they are supporting Evil.

A second kind of Western enabler is the individual or group engaging in enabling behaviors for manipulative reasons and for personal gain--primarily because it is financially or politically beneficial for them in the short run. They are deluding themselves as they appease the terrorists or the regimes that support terrorism so that they can earn a few more bucks from them; or politically benefit from opposing efforts to stop terrorists. In truth, they cynically doubt that the terrorist are really "all that bad", and believe that by befriending them, they can have the best of both worlds.

And then there is the third kind of Western enabler. This kind is as morally reprehensible as the terrorists themselves because their motivation is much the same as that of Hamas or Hezbollah or Al Qaeda: They do their enabling because they gain sadistic pleasure and feel admiration; and a sense of personal power over others from the acts of death and destruction that terrorism involves; yet since they don't directly participate in these actions, they consider themselves not responsible. They know that they are supporting terrorism and terrorist regimes, and that is why they behave the way they do. They hate freedom and individuality; they hate their own country and its values; and they desperately wish for its destruction.

Obviously, one of the major reasons why sanctions haven't worked is because many in the international community suffer from one variant or another of this enabling psychopathology. There is little use, therefore, in expecting that any positive change in behavior will result from UN action or sanctions.

More effort must be made to positively reinforce any factors that mitigate the anti-semitism; and tolerance for the intolerable hate and bigotry of anti-semitism must be absolute. Some of Israelis psyops during the last Gaza campaign are a good example of how one might approach this issue. Exposing the deceit and showing the truth is always a good method of combating distortion and paranoia; while at the same time offering opportunities to build a civilized society (such as the US has mightily achieved in Iraq).

Reward therapy (the opposite of Aversion therapy) can be used to increase the visibility for rational spokesman (or at least less irrational ones) for Islam. At least, give them the podium at universities and at the UN and celebrate their ideas—not the hate-filled ones. The West must stop being “fair” and tolerant when it comes to the intolerant and malignant behavior of groups like the Palestinians.

The truth is that it is very difficult to treat the underlying psychopathology, especially when that psychopathology is regularly infecting even the youngest members of the culture, indoctrinating them into the hatred, bigotry and dysfunction even before they have time to develop their individual rational faculties. Under the pressure of such coercive indoctrination by the state, very few escape the crippling damage done to their cognitive capabilities and thus are never able to function as normal or psychologically healthy adults. At the very least, these cultures must not be permitted to engage in this sort of child abuse in Western societies, and if Western countries cannot limit the damage they do to their children in Western nations (out of some perverted idea that "all cultures are equally good"), they don't stand a chance of halting such practices in the madrassas and on the TV and radio stations in GAZA or elsewhere in the Middle East.

The West must return to embracing and standing for the values and freedoms that have lead to their unquestioned economic and societal success and the greatest level of human happiness in the history of the world. We must not compromise those values of reverence for life or liberty; nor must we cooperate with those who would enslave the human mind and limit the pursuit of happiness in this world.

If peace is ever to come to the Middle East, we must treat the real and underlying issue, the hate and bigotry that permeates the region and which distorts and cripples the humans who live there.

The Palestinians and the Arab world must be shown that there has never been a successful civilization that has hate as its core value. There has never been a civilization that called for genocide that has ever succeeded in producing anything but destruction. This is not a 'slam' directed at Islam- that religion will survive, but it cannot hope to survive when used and manipulated by the dark side of human nature as a tool for destruction and death. The critique is directed as those who would use that religion as a political hammer and view the world entire as a nail. These dysfunctional regimes- the greatest assemblage of failed nations in history (given their obscene wealth, for starters)- will eventually dry up and their dust be cast into the winds.

Unless and until the underlying cause of Middle East tensions is addressed, the cycle will repeat itself. The institutionalized hate, racism and bigotry must be dealt with in a meaningful way. It must also be understood that the ultimate and most impacted victims of that hate are not the Israelis at whom it is directed, but the Palestinians and Arabs who do the hating. In their denial of reality, they have shut out of most of the 20th century and all of the 21st century to date. They have been by bystanders and not participants in the miracle of an ever evolving and progressive world. There are no medical or scientific breakthroughs coming from that part of the world and there are no economic powerhouses that fuel growth and innovation. From a region and nations that birthed scientific and economic achievement and superiority, there is now a vast desert of nothingness.

A recent UN Report on Human Development placed Arab world education levels at the bottom of the barrel, save for sub Saharan Africa, a region where schools barely exist at all. To make matters worse, first world teachers in the region are often poorly treated and thus are precluded from doing what they do best- teach the children in countries and cultures that need education the most.

Success and peace in the Middle East will come shortly after the hate and bigotry is addressed; seen for what it is; rejected and then finally gives way to rational self-interest and a transformation of psychological energy into something constructive and positive individually and culturally. Behavioral management and Aversion Therapy are only necessary until the psychopathology is appropriately “treated”—and not enabled—by the rest of the world.

How does change come in the Middle East? To quote Golda Meir, "Peace will come when the Arabs will love their children more than they hate us".

--this post was jointly written by Sigmund, Carl and Alfred and Dr. Sanity

UPDATE: "Daniel Pearl and the Normalization of Evil"...says it all about Western enabling.

Monday, February 02, 2009

BUT HE'S SORRY...SO SORRY

I'm talking about Tom Daschle, Obama's latest tax cheat nominee for a Cabinet level position.

Check out the video at the link. Ironic, huh?

Sunday, February 01, 2009

NOT BAD FOR A FIRST INTERVIEW

In this post I discussed in detail some of the key issues inherent in all shame cultures, and Islamic cultures in particular. Distorting the truth is the only way that individuals in these kind of cultures can avoid shame and maintain honor. Thus they resort to secrecy, deception, distortion and outright lying as legitimate strategies for protecting and augmenting their honor.

Take this news article from last year as an example. The Iranian Secretary of 'Human Rights' (an oxymoron if there ever was one) Mohammad-Javad Larijani stated without any apparent irony that, " the US claims it has launched campaign against terrorism but the reality is that the country itself is the root cause of terrorism worldwide."

By the same sort of 'logic' we ought to conclude that Al Qaeda and Hamas must be the root causes of Freedom and Democracy.

If you understand that safeguarding honor, avoiding shame, and protecting the image of Islam are absolute imperatives for the these countries, then you will understand why the Islamic world is prone to falling back on the most primitive and infantile of psychological defenses--including denial, distortion, and projection.

Even more honor can be accumulated if one can deftly turn the tables and insinuate that the shame that rightly belongs to you really belongs to the enemy! Thus, you can describe yourself as the "freedom-loving", while your enemy is the "real" malignant terrorist. You can pretend your religion is one of "peace"; and all others are evil, crusading and genocidal dogmas (even as you loudly and vocally proclaim the goal of establishing a world-wide caliphate of Islam and sharia law). Rhetorically speaking, there is no end to the number of ways you can distort or invert reality.

You can do all this not only with a straight face, but with a sincerity and righteousness that would make the most ruthless and brutal dictator humbled and proud to be associated with you.

What does truth matter, when honor is at stake? Who cares about logic or reality when you have the world to conquer and infidels to force into submission.

And, it doesn't even really matter if anyone actually believes your lies and distortions or not; as long as they keep quiet and don't contest it, you're home free--with your honor intact and your enemy's in tatters.

Left unaddressed, any and all forms of psychopathology will inevitably escalate; and the lies and deceit (including self-deception) necessary to maintain honor and avoid shame will eventually rise to an even higher and more dangerous pathological level-- as demonstrated by the frank paranoia and psychological projection that is rampant in the Middle East.

That's why it is hardly surprising that this is the response to President Obama's first compassionate outreach to the Islamic world:
US President Barack Obama's offer to talk to Iran shows that America's policy of "domination" has failed, the government spokesman said on Saturday.
"This request means Western ideology has become passive, that capitalist thought and the system of domination have failed," Gholam Hossein Elham was quoted as saying by the Mehr news agency.

"Negotiation is secondary, the main issue is that there is no way but for (the United States) to change," he added.


As Mark Steyn comments wryly, "Not bad for a first interview." It's nice to know that the always razor sharp psychological instincts of the political left are not in the least dulled by the new 'hope and change' reality.

Saturday, January 31, 2009

IMAGINE! A Few Thoughts on the Stimulus Debt Package


[More Cartoons by Glenn McCoy]



I want you to consider two items.

First, Mark Hemingway, "Shameful Meet Shameless":
Bloomberg::

Obama Calls Bonuses ‘Shameful’ as Dodd Vows to Reclaim Money

Jan. 29 (Bloomberg) — President Barack Obama fed a swelling populist revolt against Wall Street bonuses, calling it “shameful” that banks doled out $18.4 billion as taxpayers bail out companies and the U.S. remains mired in a recession.

The bonuses are “the height of irresponsibility,” Obama said today before meeting Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and Vice President Joe Biden at the White House. Firms need to “show some restraint and show some discipline,” Obama said.

The president joined politicians such as Senator Christopher Dodd, who today called for using “every possible legal means to get the money back.”

Yes, if there's anyone who knows how to extract money from C.E.O.s — it's Christopher Dodd.


Next, Jonah Goldberg writes:
Mickey Kaus reportsthat according to a new Obama executive order: "when a government service contract expires—and there's a new contract to perform the same services at the same location—the new contractor has to keep the old workers." Because, according to the White House:
The Federal Government's procurement interests in economy and efficiency are served when the successor contractor hires the predecessor's employees. A carryover work force reduces disruption to the delivery of services during the period of transition between contractors and provides the Federal Government the benefits of an experienced and trained work force that is familiar with the Federal Government's personnel, facilities, and requirements.

Mickey asks the key, though clearly irrelevant, question: "But what if the contract got switched because the previous work force, you know, sucked?"

Dude, that is so B.B. (Before Barack).


B.B., I wrote:
The social engineers of the left, motivated as they are by their creative utopian aspirations--expressed by the desire to impose (forcibly, if necessary) universal peace, social justice and brotherhood upon humanity--are completely oblivious to the malignant side of their own natures. Both they and the capitalist entrepreneurs of the right who they despise so vehemently are both driven by the darker human emotions: envy, greed and a need to dominate others.

However, there remains an extremely crucial difference between them:

The do-gooder leftist in all the various ideological incarnations--the antiwar crowd, the environmental crowd, the communists, socialists, and assorted collectivists--offers the rationale that he does what he does for the "common good" and for "social justice", "peace" and "brotherhood". His high-minded, self-righteous rhetoric justifies (to him anyway) imposing his will and beliefs on others for their own good; and he will not hesitate to use whatever coercive capablity he has at hand to get others to do what he wants and what he says.

The capitalist, on the other hand, is overtly out to pursue his own selfish profit, and understands he must use persuasion. That is, he must convince people that his ideas and the products of his mind are better than all the rest so that they will be willing to part with their hard-earned money to possess them. His desire for power over others is manifested in an indirect manner because people must wnat what he has to offer and believe that they will benefit from an interaction with him.

There is no parallel social limitations on the behavior of the leftist. This tyrant wannabe does not feel the need to convince others of the veracity or even the effectiveness of his ideas (and, because they ignore reality, they are totally and completely ineffective and ultimately destructive); nor does he accept defeat when others are not interested or resist their implementation. He knows in his heart what is best for everyone, and he will use coercion if necessary. He will not allow options; nor will he permit others do do what they think is right for themselves. Their feelings or concerns are a matter of complete indifference to him. Only his own matter.

The leftist's desire for power is direct and absolute; and this is a direct consequence of his utopian ideology.

The Democrats and the left, through the election of Barack Obama to the Presidency, are about to get the ultimate reward for being out of touch with reality--power. Just imagine the economic destruction and chaos they will be able to unleash then!


It's beginning to be very easy to imagine, isn't it?

Oh, and for the record, Mr. President and and all you shameless members of Congress: If you permitted these losers to fail, i.e. take the consequences for their irresponsible, incompetent and stupid business decisions, and not reward them handsomely financially for such behavior, you might actually stand a better chance of improving the economy. Instead, you are facilitating a generation of looters in the business world, ready, willing, and able to work with the looters in government.

UPDATE: Clearly, there's only one thing to do...demand a BAILOUT!!!! LOL (p.s., I agree with The Anchoress: change is not a terrible thing at all...except when it's in the hands of 'progressive' do-gooder/idiots. Then, watch out.)

Friday, January 30, 2009

THE RACISTS OF ACADEMIA

I hereby propose that all academics who call for a boycott of Israel be called out for the disgusting racists they are, because somehow, for some obscure reason, despite all their so-called 'progressiveness' and vaunted 'compassion' they have managed to be completely blind to Hamas' blatant anti-semitism, racial bigotry and institutionalized hatred toward Jews.

What kind of intellectual and moral blinders do you have to wear not to appreciate this stark reality? Denying the racism of Hamas is no different than denying the racism and bigotry of the KKK or of Nazi Germany ("God in Heavin, Hitler on Earth").

Let's just take a look at the Hamas Charter, which has been calling for the eradication of Jews for decades:
Preamble:
Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will
obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it.

Article 7:
The Day of Judgment will not come about until Moslems fight Jews and
kill them. Then, the Jews will hide behind rocks and trees, and the
rocks and trees will cry out: 'O Moslem, there is a Jew hiding behind
me, come and kill him.

Article 13:
[Peace] initiatives, and so-called peaceful solutions and
international conferences are in contradiction to the principles of
the Islamic Resistance Movement... Those conferences are no more than
a means to appoint the infidels as arbitrators in the lands of
Islam... There is no solution for the Palestinian problem except by
Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are but a
waste of time, an exercise in futility.'

Article 28:
The Zionist invasion is a mischievous one. It does not hesitate to take any road, or to pursue all despicable and repulsive means to fulfill its desires. It relies to a great extent, for its meddling and spying activities, on the clandestine organizations which it has established, such as the Freemasons, Rotary Clubs, Lions, and other spying associations. All those secret organizations, some which are overt, act for the interests of Zionism and under its directions, strive to demolish societies, to destroy values, to wreck answerableness, to totter virtues and to wipe out Islam. It stands behind the diffusion of drugs and toxics of all kinds in order to facilitate its control and expansion.

The Arab states surrounding Israel are required to open their borders to the Jihad fighters, the sons of the Arab and Islamic peoples, to enable them to play their role and to join their efforts to those of their brothers among the Muslim Brothers in Palestine.

The other Arab and Islamic states are required, at the very least, to facilitate the movement of the Jihad fighters from and to them. We cannot fail to remind every Muslim that when the Jews occupied Holy Jerusalem in 1967 and stood at the doorstep of the Blessed Aqsa Mosque, they shouted with joy:

Muhammad is dead, he left daughters behind.

Israel, by virtue of its being Jewish and of having a Jewish population, defies Islam and the Muslims.

Let the eyes of the cowards not fall asleep.

Or, in Article 32:
Hamas is calling upon the Arab and Islamic peoples to act seriously and tirelessly in order to frustrate that dreadful scheme and to make the masses aware of the danger of coping out of the circle of struggle with Zionism. Today it is Palestine and tomorrow it may be another country or other countries. For Zionist scheming has no end, and after Palestine they will covet expansion from the Nile to the Euphrates. Only when they have completed digesting the area on which they will have laid their hand, they will look forward to more expansion, etc. Their scheme has been laid out in the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, and their present [conduct] is the best proof of what is said there.


I could go on, but you get the point: Kill the Jews.

Then there is the favorite Hamas rallying cry, taught to children in kindergarten, “Hamas, Hamas, Jews to the Gas!” and "The Hamas Martyrs Oath", which reiterates the very best antisemitic aspects of the Charter and is chanted as you prepare for detonating yourself among innocent Israeli civilians.

Or, how about therepetitively stated and published Hamas attitude toward peace and the peace process:
Hamas said Friday that it would never recognize Israel and will not, as a movement, abide by previously reached Palestinian peace accords with Israel as urged by President Mahmoud Abbas of Fatah. “We will never recognize Israel. There is nothing called Israel, neither in reality nor in the imagination,” Nizar Rayyan, a senior Hamas leader in Gaza, told the Reuters news agency…

Rayyan welcomed the unity government agreement reached in Mecca on Thursday but said Hamas shunned Abbas’ call for Premier Ismail Haniyya, who will form the new cabinet, to abide by previous peace accords.

“We, in the Hamas movement, will not abide by anything,” he said.

The comments were endorsed by Hamas spokesman Ismail Rudwan, who said: “The recognition is not an option at all, is not discussable…”


But the Academic left remains oblivious. Gagdad Bob noted:
In the ancient world, the Jews were mocked and ridiculed because of their oddly humane treatment of women and children. In fact, it is my belief that it was precisely this humane treatment of women and children that caused Jews to create psychologically healthier people and to rocket ahead of other human groups. This is why, on a per capita basis, they have contributed more to human progress than any other group, despite the most horrible treatment from other groups.


The Jews are hardly perfect as a people; nor has Israel been perfect in exercising the right to defend itself; but all those who have eyes can see the careful and humane methods used in every controlled military action against constant Hamas provocation. Hamas, whose brave warriors hide behind women and children; and who deliberately put their munitions in mosques, schools and the homes of innocents is the exact opposite.

As for the Palestinians? What have they contributed to human society to earn them such impassioned defense by people who tend to consider themselves rather more intelligent than the average American? Oh yes...the suicide bomber and historically unparalleled bestial behavior. And the intellectuals of the left give them a 'thumbs up':
...the Palestinians receive no criticism from the left (and the world community at large), not because they think so highly of them, but because they have think so badly about them--in fact, they actually have no expectations whatsoever about them. In other words, it is not because the Palestinians are so wonderful that they are immune from criticism, but because everyone knows that it would be absurd to hold Muslims to the same standards as Christians, or Jews, or Zen Buddhists--to any standards of decency at all, really. No one is shocked at the barbarity of the Islamic world, whether it is committed by terrorists, or perpetrated in the name of the Saudi or Iranian governments. Imagine being foolish enough to have any moral expectations of the Chinese, or the Palestinians, or the Saudis, or the North Koreans. We expect them to behave barbarously. And they never fail us. And when they do behave in their predictably bestial way, it is never their fault. It is either overlooked completely, or blamed on some provocation, some "underlying cause...."

...the attitude that dismisses the crazy beliefs of the Muslim world is another example of the hard bigotry of no expectations. It causes real damage, because it panders to the worst in human beings and lets them off the hook. It is like a bad therapist who simply supports a patient rather than interpreting, clarifying, and sometimes confronting.


When it comes to the hard bigotry of no expectations, the intellectuals of the left are second to none. Nor are they slackers when it comes to overt racism and antisemitism.

I propose the founding of an Coalition Against Academic Intolerance, Racism and Antisemitism--basically an anti-idiocy group for those on campus sick to death of the left's morally and intellectually bankrupt stranglehold on Academia--that exposes and mocks these academic charlatans who possess no conscience, only adherence to their robotic ideology; and who are deliberately ignorant of truth and conveniently blind to reality.

They are racists, pure and simple.

WE ARE WOMEN, HEAR US WHINE?

Heather MacDonald asks today's feminist movement a rather pertinent question:
Which is it? Are women “strong”? Or can they be crushed by fears of a permanent bad hair day and inspired by something as superficial as Hollywood fashion? Given the amount of time and money that most women spend on applying makeup, blow-drying their hair, shopping for clothes, and gullibly attending to preposterous wrinkle-cream ads in women’s magazines, Angier’s claim that girls could be thwarted by a TV comedy is not wholly unreasonable. It just happens to contradict the usual feminist claim that women are just as tough as men.

The evidence to date suggests that the highest-level math skills—those required for research physics—aren’t evenly distributed among men and women. Men greatly outnumber women at the very highest and lowest ends of the mathematics aptitude curve. As Christina Hoff Sommers has documented, men also show greater interest in abstract, non-empathetic careers than women. Of course, the conflicting demands of raising a family and pursuing pure science undoubtedly influence women’s career paths as well. If scientific pursuit can be made more family-friendly without in any way damaging its essential strengths, such changes should be contemplated. But the fertility clock and women’s greater involvement with their babies are not chauvinist plots; they are biological realities....


Reality? Today's swooning, sissy feminists don't need no stinkin' reality--especially biological reality.

Siggy has this to say about the 'culture wars' raging over gender:
One of the great ‘culture wars’ of the last century has been fought over gender identity. Differences in human biology were minimized or eradicated entirely. There is entire generation that has been taught that what is good for men is good for women and what is good for women is good for men. As a result, the reality that men and women have different needs is ignored. What separates men and women, according to the cultural dogma 0f this western new world order, is gender as defined by sexual organs only.

There are of course, other truths....

In defining humankind with a one size fits all parameter, popular culture has unfairly put an onerous burden on women.

We understand the qualities that define adulthood and maturity are many, not the least of which are independent and autonomous thinking, logical thinking and responsible actions and behaviors. These are masculine traits. They are measured and played out on a level playing field.

Women have become trapped by current culture.


Well, not only have women become trapped by the new rules, jublantly laid down by the feminists of today, but men have also been 'liberated' from their traditional roles:
Many men simply don’t feel the need to grow up because women have quite plainly said they don’t need or value men. “You say you can take care of yourselves? Fantastic! I’m gonna go invent computer games and play them for as long as I want.”
So, women indulged in a gigantic fit of self-indulgence and selfishness, which they are still very much involved in, and along comes not just one woman (you), but many of them, calling upon men to engage in the self-sacrifice of yesteryear, while at the same time, retaining all of their newfound privilege, comfort, self-determination, and yes, power, both over themselves (fair) and men (not quite so fair). Don’t like your husband? Divorce him and don’t worry about it. The law will ensure that he still does his 18th century duties; and you’ll still get the kids. Not quite feeling fulfilled enough? Drop your kids at day care without a thought to their welfare and go get it.


And, lest you think all this narcissistic emphasis on 'self-fulfillment'--at the expense of responsibility-- has not had a profound effect on the worldview of our children, you need to read this about 'generation sex':
The sexualisation of our young is ubiquitous: boys caught cheating on their girlfriends on mobile phones, ritual humiliation and worse by YouTube (In February 2008, a gang of London teenagers aged 14-16 drugged and raped a woman in front of her children and then posted the film of the attack, videoed on a mobile phone, on YouTube), television programmes like Sex And The City with man-eating Samantha as the living embodiment of casual libidinous sex, all provide the back projection to our children’s lives.

Instant fame is all. In today’s celebrity culture, no one cares how you made your name, as long as you’ve made it; there’s no distinction between fame and notoriety.

Do you really want things that you’ve done when drunk to be plastered all over the internet?
These images are like puppies; they’re not just for Christmas, they’re for life.

Would the 13-year-old girl administering oral sex in a London garden have done so if she’d fully considered the possible repercussions of the video the boy was taking of her?


I do not think that this was what most feminists had in mind at the beginning of the last century when they marched for women's rights. Yet, that is the reality.

In the beginning of that century, feminist intellectuals argued that women need NOT be victims or second-class citizens; that they were free to choose and live up to the best within themselves. In a free country, women should have the same opportunities as men and be judged not on their gender, but on their merit and capabilities.

And then the intellectually bankrupt marxist/leftist ideology infected the women's movement.

The good news is that the early women’s movement was instrumental in mobilizing and encouraging women (such as myself) to reach for the stars. One small measure of the success of that movement is that most medical school classes today are >50% or more composed of women! There is no systematic discrimination any more that keeps women out of medicine. Women are in every medical specialty. They have become presidents of universities and professional societies; deans of medical schools and chairwomen of departments. This is really wonderful. And these gains have been made in almost every profession and area of human endeavor.

The bad news is that the leftist feminists could not accept that the mission had been mostly accomplished because they were too invested in the same old marxist "oppressor/oppressed" template that has obsessed the political left throughout the 20th century. The strategy then shifted from encouraging women to reach for the stars, to injustice collecting; denigrating men; and most importantly maintaining women's special and priviliged victimhood status. One of the most despicable consequences of this has been to encourage the cultural denial of the 'biological realities' of gender; and to aggressively pretend that there are no important differences between men and women--and if there are it is because women are being oppressed.

It's hard to determine the biggest losers of this narcissistic and delusional victimhood scam, but I vote for the children.

Today women who want to become professionals--or do anything for that matter--can do it--including becoming wives and mothers if they choose. They have achieved equality of opportunity and little stands in their way except their own choices. The war has long been won and women have all the opportunity anyone could desire; but for some reason, the diehard leftist feminists continue to battle on, quivering with outrage that there is still no equality of outcome . They seem to be enraged at the fact that men are really different from women and that, when it comes to biology and physiology, there is no equality of outcome. There is only reality.

The main justification for the existence of the women’s movement these days is to support and expand the cult of victimhood that has been created for women. The justification for bashing men and undermining traditional roles is to maintain the cult and promote their socialist agenda which long ago replaced any agenda driven by the concerns of ordinary women.

Is it any wonder that both women and men have been shortchanged (gang-raped, might be a good term to describe it) by the angry, screeching feminists of today's women's movement, who now answer to their neo-marxist masters and are determined to usher in the Caliphate of the X Chromosome. Submit to leftist feminization or they will will feel horribly, terribly bad. They might even swoon. But even worse than that, they will get pissy and make your life quite miserable.

MacDonald goes on:
Obama has indeed presented himself as a science president. Rejecting feminist propaganda, however belatedly, regarding sexism in science would be a strong start in justifying that title. In the meantime, stay tuned for the latest twist in feminists’ contradictory—dare one say, irrational?—apologetics.



Maybe Obama should discuss the issue with the head of his National Economic Council, who has some experience dealing with [post]modern feminism's hysteria and obsession with victimhood. These days, though, the victimhood con is a powerful force in society; and it has spread outwards from the women's movement to infect all other groups aspiring to power. There is even an approved victimhood heirarchy or 'food chain' to determine whose victimhood has priority over others'.

The sorry result of this has been the slow but steady deterioration of the family and personal responsibility. Instead there has been a new culture of narcissism and entitlement that has risen to take center stage.

And the feminist roar has become a constant, shrill whine.


EARTH TO TODAY'S FEMINISTS: WE WILL SURVIVE (Without You)

We were oppressed,
Our souls distressed
We kept hearing we must always
Let our lives be male-possessed...
But then we thought about that meme
and understood that it was wrong,
So we grew strong
We were women and we roared!
But now-a-days
It's pretty weird
Cause our movement's sure has gone around the bend,
becoming itself what we once feared.
We should have never burned our bras;
We should have kicked Marx out the door--
If we had only known that feminism
Symbolized the victim-whore.

We've got Camille and Brittany
And swooning gently
Is Harvard's female faculty
who are now the ones who cannot bear to hear the truth
So they just crumble
And react hysterically;
But we are women--
And we'll survive
as long as we keep growing
We know we'll stay alive
We've got real lives to live
We've moved on--that's what they can't forgive
But we'll survive...
We will survive

It took all the strength we had
To break glass ceilings;
We just showed them all our stuff
And used our brains and not our feelings.
Once we spent oh so many nights
just feeling sorry for ourselves;
We used to cry,
Now we can hold our heads up high.
And we grew up
empowered and quite strong
Not the foolish little women
who thought NOW could do no wrong.
Today you play the victim card
and can't stand we're truly free:
We left you many years ago
To be all that we could be.

We will survive.