Wednesday, May 18, 2005

Fashionable Acting Out

Acting out is the process of expressing unconscious emotional conflicts or feelings via actions rather than words. The person doing the acting out is not generally consciously aware of the meaning or origin of their acts. Frequently, acting out may be harmful, as in the case where violence is used to express anger or rage. Occasionally, in controlled situations, acting out can be therapeutic (e.g., children's play therapy is a form of acting out for the child in a controlled environment).

In the last week we have seen a considerable amount of acting out -- and it has not been by children at play. Acting out has become fashionable for the Left since it conveniently allows destructive paranoid behavior that can be rationalized as politically necessary and correct.

First, we have the editors and journalist at Newsweek continuing to defend their actions in running a story that has been shown to be false. There is no awareness demonstrated in their rationalizations of why the story was run in the first place, without the necessary journalistic checking that professionalism would normally dictate. Undoubtedly they have been set up because the Pentagon didn't disavow the story before it was printed, and the Pentagon is run by....the Bush Administration.

Second, is the circling of the wagons among other journalists whose reaction to criticism of one of their own borders on the hysterical; and who then proceed to further attack any questioning of their profession. (See here) The attitude seems to be, "Who do you think you are to question a story written by a professional journalist?"

Well, who do you have to be? We know who you must NOT be: the Bush Administration.

Third, thousands of Muslims persist in believing in the truth of the story, despite its retraction. They will not let a little thing like truth stand in the way of their desire to wreak destruction and act out their rage in the most inappropriate ways imaginable. All of the problems in the Muslim world are clearly due to the lack of respect they receive from....the Bush Administration.

Fourth, George Galloway--new hero of the Left, Saddam apologizer; con artist extraodinaire and--according to multiple documents and first-hand testimony-- the recipient of bribes from the former Iraqi regime--can create a circus environment and pretend to be a poor helpless victim of circumstances and completely innocent; then turn around and blame --who else?--the Bush Administration for all the problems of the world.

Fifth, Norman Mailer takes up his pen again (unfortunately) and makes the following comment on the new Huffington blograg:

As for the riots at the other end, on this occasion, they, too, could have been orchestrated. We do have agents in Pakistan, after all, not to mention Afghanistan.

Obviously, I can offer no proof of any of the above. There still resides, however, under my aging novelist's pate a volunteer intelligence agent, sadly manque. He does suggest that the outcome was too neat. It came out too effectively for one side, one special side. (Emphasis mine)

His unproved assertion is already being warmly received in the bowels of the Democratic Underground, where paranoid rants like the above neatly fit into their preconceived templates of how people like Republicans or conservatives work unceasingly to destroy everyone's liberties; impose their religious agenda; and make life miserable for the real defenders of freedom (no, not the military, the vapid commenters at DU). Protests on the streets of academia are expected shortly to follow, demanding an end to fascism. After all, all right-thinking persons know who is really to blame for this situation, don't they?

Can you see that these behaviors all have a common unifying thread? Can you guess what the underlying emotional conflict might be?

Go ahead, take a guess.

No comments: