Saturday, September 30, 2006


A generation ago, Richard Hofstadter wrote compellingly about The Paranoid Style in American Politics; and he was primarily concerned with the conspiratorial fantasies of the Right side of the political spectrum. Our present political climate however, offers much support for those who suspect that paranoid strain now infects the left side with virulent case of the same illness.

Psychologically, it is very difficult to abandon paranoia once it is taken on by a particular group, since it--and the accompanying delusions that it generates-- serves the purpose of accounting for an unacceptable status quo. Without a scapegoat who is considered to be racially, sexually, physically, or intellectually inferior, onto which your own fears can be projected; it would be horrifying and untenable to look inside one's own heart and soul for the source of the fear.

This is the nature of projection and paranoia. The unacceptable thoughts or feelings are denied ("not owned") by the person experiencing them, and instead are projected onto another individual or--as in this case--a group. Thus, the person who originally had the offensive thought or feeling becomes the helpless victim of the evil "other" and they do not have to cope with the fact that the evil lies within themselves. This is the origin of almost all acts of racism, sexism, anti-semitism, etc. It is the source of most prejudice in the world; and certain prejudices that become socially acceptable--like the casual anti-semitism of the Middle East; or the causal anti-Republicanism adopted by the intellectual "elite" of this country.

Projection is never a good long-term psychological strategy--nor is it healthy--in an adult; and using such a defense mechanism represents a primitive attempt to shirk the responsibility for one's own feelings, thoughts, and actions. It causes and has caused much human misery, death, destruction and some of the most horrific acts that humans are capable of. When entire countries subscribe to a projected delusion (e.g., the "Jews" are to blame; the "Blacks" are the cause of all of our problems; "Republicans" are evil; Bush=Hitler) it can lead to genocide and other behaviors that are paranoid and psychotically delusional. Full-blown paranoia occurs when one's mind severs the connection with reality entirely.

In the most recent example of this sort of thinking on the left, the American public has been subjected to the wild ravings of pundits and politicians who compare Bush's actions to protect American citizens after 9/11 and during what many consider to be WWIV to the actions of a Hitler; calling him a fascist or hysterically moaning because the rights of terrorists --who do not subscribe to the Geneva Convention in the first place--may be violated. And, when the enemy speaks his usual propaganda, we can hear uttering almost word for word Democratic party talking points.

America has always had discussions about the balance of power within the three branches of government and always will. It is reasonable to have checks and balances; it is even reasonable and normal to expect that the balance will sometimes shift to the executive (in times of war, perhaps) or to the legislative (in times of peace) and even sometimes to the judiciary. This is a dynamic balance that is able to adjust to the historical circumstances and national requirements.

The hysteria and paranoia generated by the deeply hostile and inaccurate journalism of the NY Times and other media outlets--in addition to the possible leaking of national security information that is helpful to the enemy in a time of war--is deeply troubling, because it represents a newer, more lethal expression of paranoia in American politics by the Democrats and the left.

Let us hope that the disease is not terminal--either for them, or for the rest of us.


Gerard Vanderleun says that "the new racism in America stinks" (hat tip: Larwyn):
The whole revolting "little George Allen maybe said the "N" word 30-odd years in the past" pile of crap pushed out by his political rival over the last few days has filled me with a new found revulsion for our politics.

It seems that every time I think I've seen the bottom of American politics today, that bottom drops away revealing whole new stygian depths lurking deeper below. Hence, I've decided to opt out of my quest to be elected President for one week -- wherein I'd get some needful things done before resigning to let my veep and party take the heat. And just to make sure I never get elected, please excuse me while I commit a racial crime.

My crime is this: by writing out the following word, "nigger," I have just committed a social crime more heinous than smoking a cigarette within three miles of a day-care center. But what is done, sigh, is done.
While I am a member of the largest minority, it is the only one that is unrecognized by the Diversity Stamp of Approval Bureau. After a lifetime of voting the Democratic ticket, I became so nauseated by Teresa Heinz Kerry and her consort in 2004 that I actually voted for George Bush. To compound this sin I then moved to Seattle, Washington where Bush Derangement Syndrome has claimed the brain death of approximately 97.6% of the population. If you ever want to feel alone just put a "Rice/Rumsfeld 2008 'A World of Experience'" lawn sign out in this city. Better yet, put it on the lawn of a house you'd like to see burn.

You should read it all. Vanderleun basically comes to the same conclusion I did in this piece, where I said:
What we have witnessed over the 30- 45 years since the Left ascended to dominate political thought in the mid 20th century, is its rapid and unprecedented decline into wholesale intellectual and moral bankruptcy. The noble values and ideals they once stood for have been abandoned; and almost as if a surreal cosmic joke was being played on them, they have—without even noticing!-- embraced the exact opposite of what they once stood for.

Where once they stood for freedom; they now enable dictatorships and apologize for tyrants. Where once they sought to bring justice to the world; they now defend horrific acts of mass murder and enslavement. Where once they rightly demanded equal opportunity, they have embraced all kinds of racial quotas and discriminatory practices and demand equality of outcome. Where once they sought to empower the weak; they are now instrumental in maintaining and expanding their victimhood.

After all, how can you be a “champion of the oppressed” unless you maintain and nurture an oppressed class that will always require your services to help them?

This rather obvious fact, of course, goes a long way to explaining the rather peculiar attitude that the Left has toward any members of its various victim groups who actually escape victimhood and become successful, achieving and independently thinking adults! The previously altruistic and idealistic worldview is now merely a narcissistic one—and a malignantly narcissistic one at that—wholly preoccupied with the possession and retention of power for an elite few.

I know exactly how Vanderleun feels living in Seattle, because I live in Ann Arbor-- which I daresay is even worse in some ways. Never in my intellectual life have I felt so much like a minority; a stranger in a strange land, constantly fearful of angry confrontation, and who must always walk on eggshells for fear of bringing out the not-so-latent and socially acceptable form of intellectual racism practiced in these parts.

Around here, the lawns still have signs that demand Bush's impeachment and shout "PEACE!" at the top of their little lawn sign lungs, just to make sure you understand how morally righteous the homeowner is.

Have you ever seen articles written by those on the political left who happen to be living in red states/areas that describe their social ostracization because of their political views? Their marginalization in academia? No, I haven't either. Yes, they whine constantly because they are not in the majority; and of course, deep in their little ole hearts they know that they are being inhumanely oppressed by having to live among such savages; but chances are that they cannot relate a single instance of being excluded; raged at by colleagues or neighbors; or systematically made to feel invisible because of their political or intellectual views.

Want to know what they think about those on the right? Garrison Keillor captured the essence of the new racism in his book, Homegrown Democrat: a Few Plain Thoughts from the Heart of America. (I don't recommend buying it btw) According to Keillor, Republicans (and of course, by extension all those on the right or who see themselves as politically conservative) are:
...hairy-backed swamp developers and corporate shills, faith-based economists, see-through fundamentalist bullies with Bibles, Christians of convenience, freelance racists, hobby cops, misanthropic frat boys, lizardskin cigar monkeys, jerktown romeos, ninja dittoheads, the shrieking midgets of AM radio, tax cheats, cheese merchants, cat stranglers, taxi dancers, grab-ass executives, gun fetishists, genteel pornographers, pill pushers, chronic nappers, nihilists in golf pants, backed-up Baptists, Crips and Bloods of the boardroom...

How clever and tolerant. How diverse. How multicultural. How politically correct. How socially acceptable in certain intellectually elite circles.

How perfectly descriptive of America's new, expanded and improved racism.

Friday, September 29, 2006


Just the other day I had a not too pleasant discussion with a friend about the state of the world today. Eventually, the exchange degenerated (as it is wont to do in Ann Arbor) on his part into the usual Bush bashing and the expression of his passionate belief that the only problem facing this country was the inherent fascism of the Bush Administration and the imminent implementation of a Christian theocracy in the US. He has been saying this for approximately 6 years now.

"Spare me the hysterics," I responded wearily as I have done many times before in similar situations.

"You know, Pat, you've really changed in a profound way," he said sadly. "Ever since 9/11 there has been no reasoning with you. I just can't talk to you anymore."

For about the millionth time since that day in 2001, it struck me forcibly that one of the more subtle consequences of that terrible event was the creation of two separate realities in which people could live. On The Sanity Squad's most recent podcast, Gagdad Bob mentioned something profound about 9/11 when he suggested that the events of that day didn't just change the course of the future, they changed the perception of the past.

It was the end of history, it was the beginning of history.... Didn't we -- all of us --want to believe that the end of the Cold War was, in Francis Fukayama's words, "the end of history"? That all the trials and tribulations; fears and anxieties of that post-world war time were finally over; and that the nuclear clock had stopped for good and that mankind was saved from itself?

For a few short years, many of us held tightly to that interpretation. But 9/11 made some of us realize that it was, in fact, the beginning of a new, ever-so-much-more frightening and dangerous time. A beginning where not only did the nuclear sword still hang poised above humanity's head, but where reason, logic, and reality itself were now simply theatrical constructs, and could no longer be used to solve disagreements or deal with problems.

Fukayama argued that history is directional and has an evolutionary endpoint; and that endpoint, and the culmination of those forces driving history, inevitably lead to a capitalist, liberal democracy. But Fukayama made one simple mistake.

He did not forsee that the enemies of freedom; the enemies of individualism and capitalism--as a last-ditch, desperate measure to prevent the "endpoint" from establishing any equilibrium in the world--would resort to the complete abandonment of reason and reality altogether. And, in retrospect, it appears that from a rational and realistic perspective, there was no other course open to them if they wanted to avoid complete historical capitulation and abandon their useless and destructive ideology. In order to stay alive, the enemies of human freedom--in all their various incarnations--had to abandon reason, truth, and reality, because they understood clearly that they simply could not make their case with those particular human tools.

For me, the profound and most unsettling impact of 9/11 was that I could now understand the previous decade in a context that had been rather obscured and hazy prior to that date; and that the implications of my new historical perspective were breathtakingly horrifying: the technologies of the modern world--both the good and the bad-- were now accessible to and would be used by 21st century savages whose only goals were death, destruction and enslavement.

History did indeed branch off into two parallel threads on that day. One half of the population of this country (and perhaps the world) have been living in one; and I am among the number existing in the other.

But, I have no doubt that it will come to pass that at most, only one of those two threads will ultimately be understood to actually represent objective reality. Another event of critical,and perhaps catastrophic, significance to humanity will eventually transpire that will clarify--one way or the other--which thread, if either, is true.

Though I do not think that my friend's take on current events has any validity whatsoever, I sincerely hope that my own is also incorrect; or that I am simply overreacting to the events of that day. Because my greatest fear is what might have to happen to finally wake people up.

It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity, it was the season of Light, it was the season of Darkness, it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair, we had everything before us, we had nothing before us, we were all going direct to heaven, we were all doing direct the other way - in short, the period was so far like the present period, that some of its noisiest authorities insisted on its being received, for good or for evil, in the superlative degree of comparison only. - Charles Dickens, A Tale of Two Cities

[crossposted at The Sanity Squad]

Thursday, September 28, 2006

Speaking of Denial ...

Oh, and speaking of psychological denial (see the previous post), Dr. Sanity intends to remain steeped in it for most of today since it is her birthday. As a short-term strategy, it is as good as any other.

Unless you bring presents (nothing fancy--have I mentioned how much I like M&M's?) ; or say nice, untruthful things (i.e., how young I am), go away.


The consequences of psychological denial can be seen every day in today's world. As a psychiatrist, I would be the last person to maintain that even a primitive defense mechanism like denial didn't have some positive results for the individuals who use it--obviously a defense mechanism that results in the outright death of the person using it would probably not last long as a viable strategy in the real world; nor would it be particularly helpful for the species as a whole.

In fact, denial works--at least for a while--and that is why it is so often resorted to in extremus.

Some of the positive consequences of psychological denial include:

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

The operative word in all of the above is "in the short-term." In the short-term, even the unhealthiest of defenses--such as denial, projection, paranoia-- may be creative, healthy, comforting, and coping. And, while they may strike observers as downright peculiar at times, in the short-term, they may be transiently adaptative.

In fact, psychological denial is a way to integrate one's experience by providing a variety of filters for pain and mechanisms for self-deception. It creatively rearranges the sources of conflict the individual faces so that the conflict becomes manageable.

But let us now consider some of the negative consequences of psychological denial:

• In the longer-term, denial requires a continued compromises with reality to maintain the pretense that "Everything is fine!" or "If only X would happen, everything would be fine!" Eventually, delusional thinking, along with paranoia and its inevitable conspiracy theories begin to take the place of rational thought in those who deny reality for long periods of time. (see all the 9/11 conspiracy theorists for examples in our own country; or the more recent comments of former President Clinton--once considered a "moderate" democrat, who now fully adheres to the model that the Republicans have manufactured a culture of fear in order to fool the American public into thinking we are at war (read the transcript linked below). See here and here for common examples in the muslim world which is rife with conspiracies and which could not exist as a cohesive society without them).

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

• The denier will begin distort language and logic to rationalize and justify their behavior(examples of this are too numerous to mention, but I have discussed it here , here and here) . Eventually, cognitive strategies and rational argument will be abandoned altogether by the denier, because those strategies are not sustainable and are unable to convince others; at which point the person in denial will simply refer to his feelings or emotions as the sole justification.

• The denier will feel justified in acting out against those who threaten the peacefulness of their fantasy (check out the "peacefulness" and "reasonable" slogans chanted at most antiwar rallies these days).

• Problem solving and decision making will deteriorate as the entire focus of energy becomes the maintenance of the denial. In place of rational alternatives, excessive emotionality in general; and specifically anger and rage escalate toward those who are "blamed" for the reality that does not conform to the denier's worldview. (consider the lack of any specific ideas in the Democratic party's agenda; or it's reflex negativity toward any substantive postition or any compromise offered to them. The recent stats on voting for the detainee treatment bill in Congress should suffice to convince you that these people are not serious about the GWOT. They simply want to be able to mouth useless platitudes about American "values" and how Bush is destroying the country).

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

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

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

9/11 did not wake them up; rather it forced them to openly move toward what they have supported surreptitiously all along--the elimination of free speech in the name of political correctness and multiculturalism; a dictatorship where the pseudo-intellectual, politically correct priesthood rule; and complete control over the lives of others (for their own good, of course!). Since their objectives dovetail nicely with those of the Islamic terrorists, they have made common cause with them and have not lost many opportunities to enable and encourage them, even as they denounce America and the principles of freedom and democracy out of one side of their mouth, while remaining convinced that their actions are patriotic and are representative of "true" American values. I listened in disbelief yesterday as Democrat after Democrat denounced the compromise bill that defines for detainees what torture is and isn't. To a person, they paid lip-service to being against torture (whatever it might be); and to a person it was obvious that the detainees "rights" were paramount. How strange that they don't give individual's in our own society the same "rights" to express their religion as they would like in public; or that they denounce opinions with which they differ with such passion. How nice it would be to see them behave consistently for a change....but it isn't going to happen because they just don't see it.

That's what denial is all about. It allows the most blatant contradictions in thinking, and the individual does not ever have to account for those contradictions because they don't perceive them. Facts, schmacts.

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

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

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

But when denial distorts or obscures reality, people are far more likely to make the wrong choices and ignore the serious problems (I'm sorry, but I just can't get behind Gay Marriage as being the most 'serious' problem our country faces right now. News alert: We happen to be at war with savages who want to kill everyone who doesn't submit to their religious beliefs) . Their energy becomes solely focused on maintaining and nurturing the denial as they get angrier and more out of touch with reality all the time. Granting terrorists constitutional rights and the privileges of American citizenship; wasting time on attacking the Bush Adminsitration for defending us agains bloodthirsty savages, who signed no Geneva Convention, and who have zero--zero--respect for human rights is the height of self-delusion and psycholgoical denial.

What in God's name are these people thinking of, you might ask? I maintain that they are thinking of themselves. Their particular brand of denial comes from the smug, self-righteousness of a distorted sense of moral superiority that would be downright laughable, if it wasn't so dangerous to me, my family, and my fellow citizens.

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

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

As one of the commenters on a previous thread put it:
"Because reality and truth matter-- terribly."
The next most important thing pales to insignificance by comparison. This is why the MSM, the left, the Islamics, and all who are at war with reality must distort, misdirect, deflect, cast blame falsely, deny, and otherwise attempt to confuse. In the long run they can only lose the war. The only question is how much the rest of us will lose in the meantime.

How much will the rest of us lose? The loss in lives and destruction could be incalculable.

UPDATE: Michelle Malkin wonders how liberal sleep at night--and has some interesting data. (hat tip: EE)

Wednesday, September 27, 2006


THE ROLE OF THE PRESS IN THE WAR ON TERROR: Making Sure Reality Doesn't Matter

Wretchard (as usual) has an extraordinary analysis (which should be read in toto) of the actual contents of the NIE (found here).
Unless some means is found for delinking the process of fighting terrorism from the process of radicalizing Western Muslims, there is no particular gain from abandoning Iraq, unless one were prepared to abandon every other active battlefield. What is the sense of removing one load of grist if the mill keeps on running? Consequently the one thing the Press left out of discussing the NIE, which heavily emphasizes the role of perception, is the role of the Press itself. Iraq the battlefield -- with its success and failures -- is largely what the combatants have made it. Iraq the symbol is largely the manufacture of observers. Both are factors in the War on Terror.

In judging the effects of perception versus reality the key issue is which is controlling, perception or reality? Because if perceptions can be formed independent of reality, then it really doesn't matter what you do: the only thing that matters is what people present. In this specific case, Osama bin Laden explicitly accuses American-enforced UN sanctions in the nostalgic era of containment of killing 600,000 Iraqi children. Whatever one may think of Kofi Annan, the Oil for Food Program or the sagacity of President Bill Clinton, it is doubtful whether those sanctions caused the death of 600,000 children. Because if that were true, then obviously OIF, if it achieved nothing else, stopped a genocide of historic proportions. But despite the fact that nothing of those sort of deaths happened, reality didn't matter. (emphasis mine)

This all brought to mind something The Anchoress said the other day:
This is where things stand, September 2006, in the world of information dissemination. Blogs have made inroads, but not enough, and all of their fact-checking amounts (in the eyes of the MSM) to little more than soundwaves in the echo chamber. “One side” of the partisan chasm has the whole story and sits nearly impotent with it, while the other has the “preferred story,” accredited and promoted by the “mediating intelligences,” who still (and will for the foreseeable future) hold the largest sway over public opinion, by sheer dint of their control of public knowledge.
And if that doesn’t demonstrate, more than anything, that we are living in an age of diabolical disorientation, where up is down (the excellent economic news is bad) and right is wrong (men who served with John Kerry know nothing about him) and truths are lies, (US policy from 1998 on was regime change in Iraq, but only until we did it) I don’t know what can.

I feel no great thrill here to see Clinton in a purple rage, nor to see how brilliantly some parts of the blogosphere responded, because in the end our limited audience is still been trumped by the vast and attention-span-challenged audience of the MSM, who click on, absorb a thirty second “Clinton good, others bad” sound bite and click out, certain they’ve got the information they need. (emphasis mine)

In this postmodern world where perception trumps reality, the media have an important role to play, and they have been taking their job seriously. Their role is to make sure that reality does not factor into people's perception of that "higher truth" that they are attempting to get across.

Postmodern thought (discussed here , here and here. But the best source for understanding the full implications of postmodernism , and which I highly recommend is Stephen Hicks' book) has a built-in defense for the BS it continually promulgates, since, when it is convenient for its adherents to archly reply that truth or reality are "relative" and one person's "truth" is not better than anyone else's, they do so--except, of course, the "truth" that they are promoting is always considered pure and absolute.

Nowhere is this attitude more clearly highlighted than in journalism today, particularly in the war in Iraq (and now again in recent articles about Afghanistan) and in their reporting on the war on terror. The media--with their overtly biased article; their subtly slanted articles; their fauxtograhpy; their uncritical playback of all the enemy's talking points, while simultaneously angrily critiquing everything our own administration says--has become the primary source shaping people's perceptions around the world.

That the perceptions they are shaping have little to do with reality is a matter of complete indifference to them. Those of us who do care about the truth must recognize, as The Anchoress depressing points out, that for the time being, we seem to be relatively impotent as the MSM steamrolls over reality in order to accomplish the postmodern agenda.

And yet, as I have said many times before, while the feelings of one side or the other in this conflict may alter people's perceptions for a time, they cannot ultimately change the facts or truth; nor can they change reality itself.

Like the race of the tortoise and hare, reality will plod along, quietly undeterred and relentless; even as the hare-brained postmodernists attempt to distort it again and again for short-term manipulation of perception.

But they will never be able to make it go away; and in the end, reality and truth will quietly but assuredly make their presence known. Because reality and truth matter-- terribly.

UPDATE: Hamid Karzai weighs in on the issue.

UPDATE II: Memo to the NY TIMES: Conservatism is caused by fighting it.

Tuesday, September 26, 2006


"Mr. Clinton himself understands that his legacy will not be one of greatness but of mediocrity, which is quite unfair since he was quite a good President. But if he can’t have what he wants, he’s going to be a victim. He had to know that within hours his own record of deceit would be put up for all the world to see.” — Siggy

With Gagdad Bob (Petey was off in vertical space, as it turns out) as our special guest, this week's Sanity Squad Podcast hones in on the Clinton-Wallace interview with their usual psychological brilliance. Join Neo, Siggy, ShrinkWrapped and I as we gang up on ex-President Clinton and his narcissistic obsession with his legacy.

Pajamas has added a new feature at the podcast link, allowing you to leave comments there.

The rest of the The Sanity Squad Podcasts can be found here at Pajamas Politics Central; and, we have started a new Sanity Squad blog. Feel free to leave any comments, suggestions, hate mail there.


You have to read this MEMRI piece to believe it: Iranian TV Report Exposes 'Zionist Companies'. Here's an excerpt:
"If only it were that simple... The Zionists are the largest shareholders in the world's drink manufacturers. They make hundreds of thousands of billions of dollars from this annually. This way, they export their colonialist schemes with this product, at no additional cost.

"Take, for example, the Pepsi drink. Do you know what Pepsi stands for? 'Pay Each Penny Save Israel.'"
"Well-known companies worldwide have Zionist investors. Coca Cola - besides its clear, continuous support of the Israeli government - had announced its willingness to invest billions of dollars to topple the regime of the Islamic Republic of Iran.

How can they even take themselves seriously, a reasonable person wonders?

The answers to those questions lie in the words spoken recently by Pope Benedict; words that outraged ost of the Islamic world community and sent them into a frenzy of hate and bizarrely contradictory behavior.

Wretchard has an excellent summary of an article by Lee Harris at the Weekly Standard that addresses Benedict's message:
In it, Harris examines Benedict's argument that we cannot abandon reason, even in approaching the unknowable; even in trying to understand God, whether you believe in Him or not. Otherwise all conceptions, even the most monstrous, are possible. To reject an abomination, we must have a reason. And to have a reason we must first acknowledge reason itself.

And there you have the answer. Because Islam and the leaders of Islam have rejected reason they have evolved into an abomination; a monster that worships fantasy and lives entirely in a delusional universe--one in which reason and truth have no value and no hold on the mind.

Just browse MEMRI for a bit to get a sense of the outrageous lies and distortions that pass as common wisdom in Islamic culture. Take a listen to their "scholars" discussing a "beautiful world" in which muslims are free to kill Jews just because; or contemplating how many infidels can be obliterated by a nuclear strike and have it please their blood-thirsty god.

Since they do not acknowledge reason; since they will not face truth--particularly about themselves; since they cannot live in reality; it is easy to understand why they have only violence, intimidation, and rage available to "persuade" the world to accept their fantasies.

As I said, they are an abomination.


As usual, Thomas Sowell cuts right to the essentials:
Tolerance has been one of the virtues of western civilization. But virtues can be carried to extremes that turn them into vices. Toleration of intolerance is a particularly dangerous vice to which western nations are succumbing, both within their own countries and internationally.

Double standards are being wrapped in the mantle of morality. The drive to extend Geneva convention protection to terrorists who are not covered under the Geneva convention is one of a number of dangerous self-indulgences by people who seem to think that being morally one-up is the ultimate and survival is secondary.

Senator Lindsey Graham's comment that we are going to win in our struggle with terrorists "because we are better" was all too typical of this mindset.

It would be hard to know which would be worse -- if he said it as just some offhand political rhetoric or whether he is really fatuous enough to believe it and irresponsible enough to gamble American lives rather than extract murderous secrets from captured cutthroats.

Another dangerous self-indulgence is to think that somehow those who enable and tacitly support these cutthroats are "patriotic". They are not. Patriots would make sure their concerns are known, but they would not publicly trumpet them to the detriment of the war effort, or for partisan gain.

True patriots might even grudgingly admit that the real enemy is Islamic totalitarianism-- and not Bush, Cheney, or Rumsfeld--and act accordingly.

There is a time for reasonable criticism and even agonizing hand-wringing; there is a time for partisanship and bickering; but that time is never in the middle of a war, where one side constantly chips away at any possibility of unity by undermining, whining, or otherwise trying to ensure defeat against a ruthless enemy--just so they can position themselves to get greater power.

There is also a time to admit that the left in this country has sunk into a moral depravity so low, they have even abandoned all pretense of standing for true liberal principles anymore. Instead they "progressively" support terrorist's rights to American justice; openly admire the style of a dangerous despot like Ahmadinejad; cheer for petty tyrants like Chavez; and continually make a mockery of the very values this country stands for.

Sowell notes:
This past week has also seen revelations about our enemies. Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez' cheap demagoguery at the United Nations was a clear sign of the intellectual and moral bankruptcy of his anti-Americanism. Surely if he had anything concrete and serious to say against this country, he would have said it.

Equally clearly, he understood that no coherent argument was necessary. All that was necessary was to tap into visceral resentments and play to the gallery of those poisoned by envy and ready to blame their own lack of achievement on somebody else.

The president of Iran was slicker but his speech at the United Nations and his artful evasions at his press conference are also revealing and should be a warning. He too is obviously playing us for fools.

I know there are those who disagree with me on this, but I can no longer think of the left as mere "useful idiots". Even idiots are capable of facing reality and understanding that their very existence hangs in the balance. The left has become much more malignant, rather than simply idiotic. Because only those who are steeped in hatred and self-delusion could possibly have inverted reality, truth, and even morality the way they have.

The lunatic left deliberately courts tyranny with conscious self-righteousness and arrogance; they want to make nice and stand in solidarity with those whose goal is our enslavement or death.

And I for one, intend to keep hounding them unmercifully until they recognize that simple truth.

If I didn't understand that the real enemy (not Bush, not Christianity, not America) also intends to kill these idiots when they get the chance, I might even harbor the thought that the secularists of the left had actually aligned with radical Islam. And that would be unbelievably stupid of them, wouldn't it?

Visit an archive of Eric Allie's cartoons here.

Monday, September 25, 2006


Clinton's behavior has made some (including me) think back again to the strange incident of Sandy Berger's document-stuffed pants. As a psychiatrist, I am always trying to understand people's behavior, and the Berger brouhaha has always intrigued me. So we keep coming back to Sandy Berger's pants again and again. Now, Andy McCarthy has this to say:
Berger smuggled documents out of the archives, destroyed at least some of them, and apparently made false statements to investigators about what he'd done. For some reason, the Justice Department allowed him to plead guilty to a mere misdemeanor (Scooter Libby, eat your heart out!). Even more astoundingly, the public has never been fully apprised of the documents that were taken so we could evaluate why Berger might have done this. Not at all astoundingly, the mainstream press has been virtually silent and has never demanded disclosure.

It has been publicly reported, by the Washington Post, for example, that what Berger removed were different drafts of the "after action review" written by Richard Clarke (on whom Clinton prominently relied in his diatribe yesterday) which judged how the administration had performed in response various terror plots at the turn of the Millennium.

Did Clarke judge the administration harshly? Were there various drafts because Clarke was pressed to water down some of his original criticisms? We don't know. We've never been told.

Part of the Justice Department's justification for the kit-gloves approach to Berger's prosecution was that no harm had really been done — there were copies of even the documents Berger destroyed, so the whole paper record could be reconstructed.

Well fine. Let's see it. Sure, redact out anything that still constitutes sensitive intelligence (hard to believe there's much over five years later, but, of course, intel methods and sources shouldn't be exposed). But how come during the 9/11 Commission hearings the press agitated until the Bush White House finally gave in and disclosed all kinds of highly classified materials ... including a Presidential Daily Briefing memo — one of the most closely held intelligence products in the government — but we have still, to this day, never seen or had thoroughly explained to us what Sandy Berger took out of the National Archives?

President Clinton wants historical accuracy? By all means, let's have it.

If we let people who have partisan agendas and personal legacies to protect, historical accuracy will always be the first thing to go.

Nevertheless, Berger behaved in the unbelievable manner he did for a real reason that was very important to him--more important than historical truth or national interest. As a national security advisor to the POTUS, he--probably more than anyone else--must have been aware how unethical; how illegal; and how incriminating some of those documents (or what was hand-written on them) were.

The public deserves to know the truth.


Two brilliant posts today from my fellow Sanity Squad members. The first from ShrinkWrapped, who discusses Bill Clinton's "missed opportunity":
At a time of National testing, ex-Presidents are ideally suited for re-injecting civility into our national discourse. While they certainly want their parties to do well, they also have the luxury of no longer running for any office; as such, they can easily take a position of Elder Statesman, learned advisor.

Bill Clinton could have gone on Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace and taken a Statesmanlike, above the fray, position. Clinton, for reasons best known to him, though in no way a surprise, chose a different tack, and clearly missed an excellent opportunity.

Imagine the reaction if he had said that he had, in fact, not done enough to stop bin Laden; that all of us in government at the time underestimated the dangers and did not feel the country was yet able to muster the necessary will to confront the growing menace. He would now be lauded as a great ex-President, using his tremendous political skills, intellectual abilities, and position to elevate our political discourse and rescue the Democratic party from the grips of BDS.

Personally, after observing the man as a President for 8 years and an ex-President for 6, it is difficult for me to imagine Clinton as capable of adult or mature behavior--particularly when his narcissism is involved. But in my business it is always hoped that maturity and adulthood will triumph over petulance and adolescent behavior.

ShrinkWrapped asks,
Does he completely fail to understand? 9/11 was never about Bill Clinton; the war on terror is not about Bill Clinton and his legacy. We are facing a global challenge from totalitarian Islam; Clinton is a foot note.

Siggy, also makes the necessary connection and gets it exactly right:
Here’s the deal. The war on terror isn’t about Bill Clinton or how wonderful he thinks he is. The war on terror isn’t about Fox News, or how much he would like to make Fox News an issue. Mr Clinton did some smart things in fighting terror and he did some stupid things in fighting terror- and nothing he says can change that reality.

He had 8 years to fight terror and he did the best he could, given the circumstances. As he noted in the interview, Mr Bush was in office 8 months. The additional 8 months prior to 9/11 could not have prevented that from happening.
The war on terror is about facing the truth about our adversaries and those who would threaten us. Mr Clinton ought to be making every effort to be telling the truth when it comes to the security of our nation.

Bill Clinton doesn’t have much of a track record when it comes to telling the truth.

No, he certainly doesn't. But he is really really good at trying to promote and defend the Bill Clinton legacy, no matter what else happens to be at stake.

UPDATE: Bob has more to say on Clinton's narcissim and his pathetic performance with Wallace.

UPDATE II: And, check out The Anchoress, who has a very astute--and compassionate-- analysis of the entire affair.

[cross-posted at The Sanity Squad]


The darling of the left, champion of the poor, and posturing megalomaniac Hugo Chavez appears to be economically challenged as well as democracy challenged:
Mr. Chávez imagines that he can damage the United States by rerouting Venezuelan oil to other markets. He fails to understand that oil is fungible: If Venezuela's crude is sold to the Chinese, the Chinese will buy less of it elsewhere, freeing up supplies for U.S. consumers. But Mr. Chávez also appears oblivious to the technical difficulties in sending oil halfway round the world rather than selling it in his own hemisphere. Oil tankers do not come cheap, and China will have to build special refineries to process the heavy brand of crude that Venezuela produces. Despite Mr. Chávez's bluster about tripling exports to China in three years, Venezuela will depend on Yanqui consumers for the foreseeable future.

To the extent that Mr. Chávez's wild talk stirs up anti-American feeling, he must be regarded as an irritant. If he secures a temporary seat on the U.N. Security Council, as he hopes to do next month, he will doubtless render U.N. diplomacy even more challenging than it is already. Yet it is not the United States but rather Mr. Chávez's own countrymen who should most fear his intentions. Venezuela's courts, media organizations and civil society groups have been bullied into submission, and Mr. Chávez is talking about a constitutional change that would allow him to remain in power indefinitely. "The people should not be stripped of their right if they wish to reelect a compatriot whoever it may be three, four, five, six times," he said recently.

Yes, this man is taking the economy of Venezuela down the toilet, even as he panders to adoring crowds in the U.S., who love his Bush-bashing rhetoric and flamboyant style. Like most totalitarians, his selfless sociopathy is only designed to gratify his own perverse need for attention and unlimited power.

The situation in Venezuela will continue to decline as this pathetic--and potentially dangerous-- despot carefully wrings the society dry to enhance himself as a big important player on the world stage.

Oil apparently not only provides the energy for many mundane activities in life, but also fuels the grandiosity of a lot of two-bit punks who want to be kings. Oil is the new "divine right" of this latest crop of secular tyrant-kings.

(Cartoon from Cox and Forkum!)

UPDATE: Fausta: "Chavez' Inferno"

Sunday, September 24, 2006



I have been thinking about this particular rumor of Osama's death, primarily because of the interesting little specific tidbit included that he died of typhoid.
It said that "information gathered by the Saudis" indicates that bin Laden "might have succumbed to a very serious case of typhoid fever resulting in partial paralysis of his lower limbs while in Pakistan on August 23, 2006
"His geographic isolation provoked by constant fleeing is believed to have made medical assistance impossible (and) on September 4, 2006, the Saudi security services received preliminary information of his death."
For the purposes of this post, let us consider that Bin Laden is happily (for us) dead and delivered to darkest, smelliest and foulest section of hell. Think for a moment about the "geographic isolation" and "constant fleeing" that led to this pleasant scenario.

Who is to blame for that state of affairs? George Bush--and most certainly NOT Bill Clinton --in spite of all the self-serving BS delivered up in his interview with Chris Wallace, there is no indication that Osama ever felt the need to hide himself when Clinton was US President. Bush literally had this rabid fanatic so frightened and paranoid that he didn't show his face for years; nor could he even call in a 3rd-rate witch doctor from a 3rd-rate Muslim country to treat this easily manageable disease. I submit that, if reports turn out to be true, George Bush succeeded in literally scaring this sadistic SOB of terror shitless, until the fecal buildup resulted in an incredibly nasty demise--one that is seriously painful, undignified, and without even the slightest hint of glory or honor as he literally defecated himself to death.

To put it bluntly, typhoid is a particularly awful way to go:
Typhoid fever is an illness caused by the bacterium Salmonella typhi. Very common worldwide, it is transmitted by food or water contaminated with feces from an infected person. After infection, symptoms include a high fever from 103° to 104°F (39° to 40°C) that rises slowly , slow pulse rate (bradycardia), weakness, headaches, lack of appetite, severe diarrhea, stomach pains, and a rash of flat, rose-colored spots called the rose spots.

Extreme symptoms such as intestinal perforation or haemorrhage, delusions, and confusion also are possible

You must admit, this is supremely divine justice. Just to be clear, your last moments on earth while expiring from this disease in a cave are spent floating in pool of your own bloody fecal matter.

Although typhoid has been killing humans for thousands of years; in modern times, it is a bacterial infection easily treated by any number of readily available antibiotics; and prevented by attention to sanitation and cleanliness--understandably not high priorities when you are running from relentless pursuit of Bush and American justice.

But a modern mentality--let alone modern conveniences-- are not readily available in the dirty caves of Waziristan; nor are the primitive Talibanic practitioners of the medical voodoo arts likely capable of dealing appropriately with the various strains of the illness. Do they even know about the medical history of the disease; or that surviving a mild case of the disease might lead to carrier status? Might there be a "Typhoid Mohammed" running around Al Qaeda at this very moment bringing suicidally bloody stools to all?

Could this be a divinely-inspired new strain of suicide "bomber" for the terrorist group? Let us hope so.

Perhaps Another Reason To Think He's Dead, Eh What?

At least Michael Ledeen thinks so.
As Corner readers know, I was told many months ago that Osama died in Iran last December, and is buried there, under a marker carrying a woman's name. In early January, Pakistan's President P. Musharaff announced bin Laden had died of kidney failure, which I took as pretty good confirmation. Meanwhile, there has been no bin Laden video for two years, only audios with a voice that might be his son's. Now French intelligence, which is a serious organization, has leaked a document citing Saudi sources (often not serious at all) saying Osama died recently in Pakistan of Typhoid fever.

I think the circumstantial evidence of his death has been pretty good, especially the behavior of Zawahiri, who sure acts like a number 1, and secondarily the non-appearance of Osama for such a long time. It wouldn't be hard to conjure up explanations for all this, including a desire to convince us he was dead when he isn't, but all in all the most reasonable conclusion is that he's dead.

The misnamed Intelligence Community doesn't believe it, by the way. They think he's alive in Waziristan. And they're quite insistent about that.

Perhaps another reason to think he's dead, eh what?

Ledeen's got quite a bit of credibility with me.


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

Send all entries for next week's carnival to Dr. Sanity by 8 pm ET on Saturday for Sunday's Carnival. Only one post entry weekly per blogger, please. And you might read this before submitting an entry.

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

1. The male Valerie Plame?

2. The "mommy party" is not just a metaphor anymore. Disturbing news for them.

3. BDS so bad even the NY Times notices.

4. And this is more of the same -- if you've been paying attention the last few years. Our media simply blew it.

5. Making fun of tyrannical dictators! Yes, it is.

6. A touch of infanity from a cosmic explorer.

7. Hugo Chavez had his (commemorated here); now it's time for your Chomsky Moment! Here's the best idea to come out of the entire UN fiasco. For some, it was "Do as I say, not as I do!" Don't forget, when you see the Citgo sign....

8. You know, I kinda figure the deal must be fantastic if these guys don't like it. Misunderestimated again?

9. Top 9 reasons Bill Clinton doesn't like The Path to 9/11. Besides, we know who is the real threat to world peace.

10. Divided we stand! And the country's new icon.

11. Chances are that these high school students are headed for Airhead U .

12. There's a little bit of irony here, don't you think? I mean, crucifixion? Come on guys .... And, oh yeah, this is likely to happen. Catholics will get right on it.

13. All religions must-MUST--be respected. But, even this one?

14. Sorry, I don't see Dagny Taggart in her. But I guess she has other assets.

15. He just wants to be hot again.

16. An energy drink with a "fun" name.

17. Green Acres is definitely the place to be.

18. Mollycoddling a diaper deviant? Only in WVA, I guess.

19. Even health nuts can't win :( And speaking of that, before and after the South Bronx Diet!

20. Go ahead, use your imagination! (hat tip: Neo) Or not, as the case may be.

21. Crazy for work--literally.

22. Sigh. Even more fauxtography. Is there no photo that is not photoshopped anymore?

23. I'm sorry, but this is just depressing.

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

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

Heard the Word of Blog?

Saturday, September 23, 2006


about Osama here:
Rumors are swirling about that the terror mastermind bit the dust from typhoid. Saudi sources are saying:
“It said he died of a very serious case of typhoid causing partial paralysis of his internal organs.”

Hey! There's nothing wrong with wishful thinking as long as you know that's what it is. Time will certainly tell us if its true or not.

UPDATE: Oh! This might be what that lunatic Chavez was talking about!

UPDATE II: The US can't confirm the report, but rumors are still swirling! Keep those fingers crossed.


I should have posted about the Wallace-Clinton interview last night when it first came out, but got distracted. Here is the full transcript which is up at a nice lefty sight because they are ecstatic that he "blasted" Chris Wallace and Fox News.

But take a look at this Sandy Berger stuffed his pants with certain, probably incriminating, documents?

The war on terror is obviously--from his perspective anyway--all about him. And of course, his presidential "legacy".

A genuine adult might have responded to Wallace's question with something like this: "In retrospect it is now easy to see that there was a serious threat that we did not take as seriously as we should have. We did take some steps to address it, but they were not very successful; and there were missed opportunities. I regret that sincerely."

But we have to remember that Clinton was/is not a genuine adult. And while he is not the incarnation of evil that some have tried to make him, his administration will certainly not go down in history as a shining example of presidential prowess or capability or courage, but as a reflection of the self-absorbed obliviousness that was the hallmark of the U.S. at the time.

On the contrary, Clinton will be an historical footnote: "He [really] tried. But failed."

UPDATE: The Captain thinks we should give it all a rest, and I agree 100%. Probably the first person to shut up, however, should be Clinton, who has been trying to rescue his legacy for the last 6 years. He needs to softly and silently fade away.

UPDATE II: Osama was never scared of Bill Clinton(Fair Warning! Scatalogical musings on the purported demise of Bin Laden).

Friday, September 22, 2006

ALL I NEED - A Love Song by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

(NOTE: The Iranian President obviously ripped this song off from The Hollies, but I heard him singing it softly at his latest speaking engagement where his erudition and love obviously impressed the left)

If I could make a wish
I guess I'd pass
Can't think of anything I need,
So, inshallah, I plot, I smile, I lie;
No matter what I say, Kofi gives me a bye.

Belief in the 12th Imam
Has left me peaceful, warm, inspired
What more could I ask?
There's nothing left to be desired.
When Mahdi returns the world will end
I'm only a prophet for this apocalyptic trend...

Sometimes, Allah I need is the air that I breathe
And to kill Jews
Allah gives me the air that I breathe
And I kill Jews
All I need is the air that I breathe

When Mahdi returns the world will end
I'm only a prophet for this apocalyptic trend...

Sometimes, Allah I need is the air that I breathe
And to kill Jews
Allah gives me the air that I breathe
And I kill Jews

Allah I need is the air that I breathe...


Iran's leader comes to the UN and cynically uses the rhetoric of the left to pretend that he is a man of peace; promoting human dignity and freedom for all. The left is taken with his sweet hipster style, and the speaking invitations pile up. He is so persuasive, I guess, that France has seen the light. And Hugo Chavez, the junior partner in this UN-sponsored comedy routine, identifies the real impediment to world peace to thundering applause by the "unaligned" nations at the presentation; as well as to ovations by the persistently uncritical and morally bankrupt useful idiots in our own nation.

Oh, and the intellectually and rhetorically impaired Noam Chomsky is a best-seller again, as the adoring minions of the left seek to broaden the level of their cognitive impairment to meet the challenges of the 21st century!

How very iran-ic.

Meanwhile,Charles Krauthammer has this to say:
Religious fanatics, regardless of what name they give their jealous god, invariably have one thing in common: no sense of humor. Particularly about themselves. It's hard to imagine Torquemada taking a joke well.

Today's Islamists seem to have not even a sense of irony. They fail to see the richness of the following sequence. The pope makes a reference to a 14th-century Byzantine emperor's remark about Islam imposing itself by the sword, and to protest this linking of Islam and violence:

-- In the West Bank and Gaza, Muslims attack seven churches.

-- In London, the ever-dependable radical Anjem Choudary tells a demonstration at Westminster Cathedral that the pope is now condemned to death.

-- In Mogadishu, Somali religious leader Abubukar Hassan Malin calls on Muslims to "hunt down'' the pope. The pope not being quite at hand, they do the next best thing: shoot dead, execution-style, an Italian nun working in a children's hospital.

"How dare you say Islam is a violent religion? I'll kill you for it'' is not exactly the best way to go about refuting the charge. But of course, refuting is not the point here. The point is intimidation.

First, Salman Rushdie. Then the false Newsweek report about Koran-flushing at Guantanamo. Then the Danish cartoons. And now, a line from a scholarly disquisition on rationalism and faith given in German at a German university by the pope.

And the intimidation succeeds: politicians bowing and scraping to the mob over the cartoons; Saturday's craven New York Times editorial telling the pope to apologize; the plague of self-censorship about anything remotely controversial about Islam -- this in a culture in which a half-naked pop star blithely stages a mock crucifixion as the highlight of her latest concert tour.

In today's world, religious sensitivity is a one-way street. The rules of the road are enforced by Islamic mobs and abjectly followed by Western media, politicians and religious leaders.
Yes, shall we discuss irony, humor and its prominent absence in the muslim world?

Shall we briefly review the freedom and human dignity and tolerance that is paramount in Islamic culture right now? Or, the wonders of Islamic sharia law?

Shall we discuss the unholy alliance between the supporters of the 20th century's failed ideology and Islamic fundamentalism? A marriage of true minds, clearly.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, ape of God; and Hugo Chavez, his suck-up sidekick, have become so very hip and cool since they clearly symbolize the distorted values and contradictory discourses that are leading the political left into the sewer of history-- even as they strut and preen about their inherent moral and ethical superiority.

Appearance and bling are everything to this morally bankrupt crowd, living on the sinister edge of modern life. Feeling good about themselves is the only absolute essential. Form routinely trumps substance, and substance means nothing if countered by passionate rhetoric. Truth may be easily distorted and twisted; and reality is a mere nuisance to be brushed away when inconvenient.

Yes, it's all very iran-ic indeed.

UPDATE: Good point:
It is as if the media jihad had it’s own 9/11, intent on killing what they hate, replete with the requisite deceit and pious claims of justification. All the while, the left dances with same joy and fervor in same way and with same celebration of equally dysfunctional Muslims that danced on 9/11.

The media, two bit academic hacks and left desperately want you to believe that these tin pot dicators and dysfunctional and dangerous lunatics that are playing with nuclear programs are sincere when they say, “we love Americans, we just hate your government.” We are civilized.” (notwithstanding this).

Thursday, September 21, 2006


I just want to let everyone know that I am waaaaaay behind on answering my email. I've let it pile up due to the press of work this week; plus I've been out of town with speaking engagements.

With my M&Ms in hand to sustain me, I hope to catch up by the weekend.



Three words explain everything: Narcissistic Personality Disorder.

Did we really need any more evidence of his pathology?

And, don't forget that this guy is the darling of the left, beloved by Cindy Sheehan and a "champion" of the left's perverted totalitarian agenda.

Ahmadinejad, Chavez, Kim, Nasrallah, Bin Laden, Zawahiri, etc....It's enough to make you sick--or to laugh out loud at the insanity of it all-- thinking of the number of madmen loose in the world these days. They are like swirling cesspools of darkness, that seek to drag humanity down into their stinking, hopeless depths.

By way of contrast, the voices of sanity and reason are rare enough to shine like beacons in a raging storm. Here is one of them:
Some have argued that the democratic changes we're seeing in the Middle East are destabilizing the region. This argument rests on a false assumption, that the Middle East was stable to begin with. The reality is that the stability we thought we saw in the Middle East was a mirage. For decades, millions of men and women in the region have been trapped in oppression and hopelessness. And these conditions left a generation disillusioned, and made this region a breeding ground for extremism.

Imagine what it's like to be a young person living in a country that is not moving toward reform. You're 21 years old, and while your peers in other parts of the world are casting their ballots for the first time, you are powerless to change the course of your government. While your peers in other parts of the world have received educations that prepare them for the opportunities of a global economy, you have been fed propaganda and conspiracy theories that blame others for your country's shortcomings. And everywhere you turn, you hear extremists who tell you that you can escape your misery and regain your dignity through violence and terror and martyrdom. For many across the broader Middle East, this is the dismal choice presented every day.

Every civilized nation, including those in the Muslim world, must support those in the region who are offering a more hopeful alternative. We know that when people have a voice in their future, they are less likely to blow themselves up in suicide attacks. We know that when leaders are accountable to their people, they are more likely to seek national greatness in the achievements of their citizens, rather than in terror and conquest. So we must stand with democratic leaders and moderate reformers across the broader Middle East. We must give them voice to the hopes of decent men and women who want for their children the same things we want for ours. We must seek stability through a free and just Middle East where the extremists are marginalized by millions of citizens in control of their own destinies.

(Cartoon by Mike Lester)

UPDATE: See! It is possible absolutely necessary to laugh at these monsters!

Wednesday, September 20, 2006

THE SANITY SQUAD speaks on The Religion of the Perpetually Paranoid

I've been so busy today that I neglected to mention that the latest edition of The Sanity Squad is up at Pajamas Media. Siggy, Neo, ShrinkWrapped and I go on (and on and on) about the reaction to Pope Benedict's comments the other day.

Previous Squad podcasts are here at Politic Central.


Wretchard has this to say about the fact that the most honest confrontation of Islamic violence seems to be coming from the usually circumspect Christian leadership--even as western media and culture willfully obfuscate the reality of that violence:
How has it happened that the most unlikely persons are speaking on what is apparently the most volatile of subjects? It is doubly surprising because there is a powerful reluctance within the organizational culture of Christian churches to voice any criticism of another religion. The statements by Pope Benedict XVI, Lord Carey and Cardinal Pell are really near-despairing expedients to fill the aching void left by Western cultural and political leaders -- a vacuum which has emboldened militant Islamic preachers to cross boundaries they would have respected until recently. This erasure of cultural borders caused by the near total desertion of the frontier by the so-called opinion-leaders has invited the most reckless elements of Islam across and raised the risk of real clash of civilizations. As Lord Carey put it: "We are living in dangerous and potentially cataclysmic times". It is a time made perilous not only by the absence of moderate voices within Islam but by the even more conspicuous absence of any leadership among Western politicians. It is a failure which will sooner or later lead to what military historians call a "meeting engagement" in which two forces, each possessed of its own momentum, blunder into each other with catastrophic results. A false kind of tolerance has abolished the fence between the piggery and mosque, the adult video store and the cathedral, the flaming match and the stick of dynamite and called it progress. It is no such thing. It is called stupidity.

The stupidity of which Wretchard speaks comes in all shapes and sizes, a veritable spectrum that extends from the willful blindness on the part of Western leadership and media; to the passive, uncritical and morally bankrupt minions who nod sagely at any idiocy as they desperately try to maintain a world view that ignores reality as its founding principle.

Both ends of this spectrum of stupidity are incapable of responding in any appropriate manner to the deeply despicable and nauseatingly hypocritical speech the lying President of Iran delivered at the UN last night.

It was so breathtakingly duplicitous, that I could barely listen to the translation and 45 minutes into it had to turn it off. I would have sooner looked at a piece of vile pornography than continue to listen to him.

Only in a world that values nothing would there not be instantaneous outrage at the lies, deceptions and self-serving tripe offered for world consumption by a man who clearly has no conscience and enjoys lying and distorting for the fun of it. How could such a man be given the world stage to spew forth his lies, let alone be feted and honored for them? How could most--if not all--of the rest of the world swallow whole the protestations of sincerity and victimhood? How could it be conveniently forgotten what his real intentions and attitudes are even for a moment as he coyly presents himself as a simple man of peace and brotherhood?

Nat Hentoff has to remind us that this is Ahmadinejad the lord high executioner, from the land of institutionalized barbarity; and the religion of paranoid delusions:
On . . . June 29, 2006, a court in the Islamic Republic of Iran sentenced Malak Ghorbany, a 34-year-old mother of two, to a brutal death by stoning after finding her guilty of adultery. . . . Two men who were found guilty of murder in the same court were only given jail sentences of six years. . . . The size of the stones used during the execution are required to be . . . not so large that they would kill a woman too quickly, nor so small that they would fail to cause serious injury or pain . — A letter, unanswered, to George W. Bush from John Whitehead, head of the Rutherford Institute, one of the nation's premier civil liberties organizations. The part about the stones is from Article 104 of the Iranian penal code.

How dare this man speak about:
“Reform …justice … peace …virtue …dignity … brotherhood … the Prophet Moses … the Prophet Jesus … the Prophet Mohammad (PBUH).”

How dare the world-- even for a moment-- allow itself to bask in the treasured hope that reality does not exist, and that there are no consequences for appeasing evil.

How has it come to pass that the stupid and the willfully blind are once again so unwilling to confront the true malignancy that threatens world peace; even as they forcefully denounce anyone who exposes their delusions?

Ahmadinejad and his puppetmasters have no political nuance; nor do they have one whit of tolerance or brotherhood or virtue. His performance is only the cynical manipulation of stupid people to achieve his fanatical ends.

In this goal, Ahmadinejad--like all the megalomaniacal tyrants in history before him--is able to count on the entire spectrum of human stupidity that is willing and eager to embrace pseudoreality and suspend judgement and critical thinking if means they can temporarily feel good about themselves.

Tuesday, September 19, 2006


As we wait for the Iranian president to make his remarks at the UN tonight, I thought it would be appropriate to repost the following--particularly since it appears that the UN and the EU have no intention of stoppig this madmen and his puppet masters from obtaining nuclear weapons.

So, nuts to Chirac; and nuts to Annan; and apologies to Joni Mitchell


Yesterday ElBaradei was wondering
If the IAEA had a clue;
Fearful 'cause the mullahs all were thundering
That Islam had to have a nuke or two.

Then Iran moved quickly through the seasons
As they played their game with the EU
Words, excuses, promises and reasons
As their deadly program grew and grew.

And the seasons they go round and round
And the lying mullahs go up and down,
We’re captive to taquiyya every day
We can’t believe a single thing they say
Their vows are lame...
So we go round and round and round
In their circle game.

Many years and options are all gone now:
Diplomacy has failed to slow them down.
Waits for the 12th Imam now
And ElBaradei's become the UN clown.

And the seasons they go round and round
And the lying mullahs go up and down,
We’re captive to taquiyya every day:
We can’t believe a single thing they say
Their vows are lame...
So we go round and round and round
In their circle game.

The years went by and now they have their weapon,
And the Caliphate is close to
Coming true;
They will hardly care what countries they now step on
Before they finally wipe out every Jew.

And the seasons they go round and round
And the lying mullahs go up and down,
We’re captive to taquiyya every day:
We can’t believe a single thing they say
It's so insane...
So we'll just have to put a stop
to their circle game.


As I read this news article yesterday (one among many of the same ilk), I could only shake my head in wonder. On this same issue, I listened to a Republican senator yesterday on Fox discuss America's "high standards" and opine on how we must live up to them, no matter what the cost.

At the time, I thought that what she really was saying was that we should be happy to die living up to these impossible, one-sided standards --secure in the knowledge of our vast moral superiority.

Needless to say, it does not much appeal much to me to die so that in my last moments I can experience a rush of moral superiority. It seems so incredibly narcissistic, and not particularly bright.

It is this kind of warped thinking that encourages evil to believe they can win the war with good; and you can almost hear them laughing in delight and wonder at the idiotic notion that by deliberately tying our hands behind our own back and wearing the badge of morally righteous superiority as a blazing shield will give us some sort of advantage over them.

Thomas Sowell's op-ed this morning is exactly right:
When you enter a boxing ring, you agree to abide by the rules of boxing. But when you are attacked from behind in a dark alley, you would be a fool to abide by the Marquis of Queensbury rules. If you do, you can end up being a dead fool.

Even with a nuclear Iran looming on the horizon and the prospect that its nuclear weapons will end up in the hands of international terrorists that it has been sponsoring for years, many in the media and in the government that is supposed to protect us have been preoccupied with whether we are being nice enough to the terrorists in our custody.
If this was just a case of a handful of headstrong senators, who want us to play by the Marquis of Queensbury rules while we are being kicked in the groin and slashed with knives, that would be bad enough. But the issue of applying the Geneva convention to people who were never covered by the Geneva convention originated in the Supreme Court of the United States.
In short, the clash between Senator McCain, et al., and the President of the United States is more than just another political clash. It is part of a far more general, and ultimately suicidal, confusion and hand-wringing in the face of mortal dangers.

Let me be perfectly clear. We are morally superior to the animals we fight. They are the ones who have no respect for human life, human dignity, or human freedom; and they demonstrate this in their behavior on a daily basis.

Maudlin handwringing and suicidal agonizing as a response to their reckless hate and unyielding determination to kill or enslave us would not seem to be a very effective strategy.

In fact, it is a sign of complete moral irresponsibility and a betrayal of all that we value.

Monday, September 18, 2006


I am sure that there will be many who are delighted to hear this news from the Toronto Film Festival (hat tip: OBH):
"Death of a President," which stirred controversy in the days ahead of the festival, took home the Fipresci prize, which is chosen by international critics. The film, a fictional documentary showing the assassination of President Bush, was noted by the jury "for the audacity with which it distorts reality to reveal a larger truth."

This is a rather amazing assessment of a film in which a sitting president of the U.S. is shown assassinated, if you think about it.

Where to begin? How about with "audacious", a term that can mean adventurous, daring, bold, or original?

How adventurous, daring, bold, or original is it these days to hate, despise, revile, and generally compete with each other to denounce the U.S. President and everything he does or doesn't do in order to publicly demonstrate your BDS bona fides?

Yeah, yeah. Every Hollywood star worth his or her salt has the delightful fantasy that they will imminently be imprisoned, tortured, and/or oppressed in some vile manner because they have the audacity to criticize Bush...but come on! It has been 5 years and I am not aware that any have yet to be locked up for their audacity. But still they continue to think of themselves as heroic and brave standing up to a democratically elected president.


Might I suggest that original, bold, and even daring behavior would be creating a movie that breaks out of the breathtaking conformity of thought that has dulled the brains of Hollywood elites? Now, that would be audacious. Not to mention unbelievable.

In what universe to these leftist suck-ups live, pray tell?

Now, let's get to the good part: "distorting reality to reveal a larger truth".

Here's why I get paid the big bucks in psychiatry.

When people "distort reality" and have the delusion that by doing so they are revealing a "larger truth"--we tend to refer to them as mentally ill; and, in general do not give them awards for such behavior, but do our best to help them return to a modicum of functioning in the real world.

Now, I wouldn't dream of calling the makers of this film and the lunatics who made the award assessment mentally ill--primarily because most of the mentally ill people I deal with have far more sense. But I have no compunction whatsoever in discussing the self-absorbed (i.e., narcissistic) paranoia and denial that is clearly interfering with their ability to cope with reality and truth.

Denial is a complex psychological process where, while there may be some conscious knowledge or awareness of an event in the world, a person fails to feel the emotional impact, or to see the logical consequences of that event.

It is an attempt to reject unacceptable feelings, needs, thoughts, wishes; or to reject a painful external reality that might force us to alter the perception of ourselves or the world. As a psychological defense mechanism, denial protects us temporarily from:

-Knowledge (things we don’t want to know)
-Insight or awareness that threatens our self-esteem; or our mental or physical health; or our security (things we don't want to think about)
-Unacceptable Feelings (things we don’t want to feel or are ashamed of feeling)

Denial, as one of the most primitive and basic psychological defense mechansims can also be thought of as the "root cause"-- to use phrase popular on the left-- of most of the other psychologicaldefenses. All have an element of basic denial, or the avoidance of reality, for the purpose of blocking out something unpleasant for the individual using them. For example, denial can go to college (intellectualization); it can make the person experiencing it feel virtuous by transforming the denier into the object or victim of the unacceptable feelings--instead of its subject (projection and in extreme cases, paranoia). It can grossly distort the reality to serve some internal need (distortion); It can even completely ignore causality, and the real issue and displace all that intense affect onto something or someone much less threatening (displacement).

Denial, in other words, allows an individual to distort reality for a very specific purpose. And that purpose has little to do with larger truths and everything to do with avoiding truth.

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

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

You could actually say that the larger truth which does gets obscured by the process of psychological denial is something fundamental about the denier that they don't want to look at.

Let's give an example. Say a person who thinks of himself as a caring, compassionate individual really really hates his father. Usually, such knowledge must be audaciously distorted and disguised by the psyche so that the individual can go on thinking of himself as caring, compassionate and loving since it goes without saying that caring, compassionate, and loving people do not experience hate. Or, if they did, the experience might actually make said person reflect a bit on his motivations and assumptions about self.

The psyche is very creative and bold in such situations. Using projection, the individual may come to think that his father hates him (much more acceptable because then he is the victim of father's hate, and not vice versa); or using fantasy, he might imagine himself boldly killing and evil man or a monster. He might even (gasp) act out by making a movie about a heroic man who kills his father and saves the world from the father's evil!

The options are virtually limitless if one wants to avoid dealing with the evil and rot residing within, you see. If one wants to avoid looking in the mirror and taking responsibility for one's own anger, rage, hatred and murderous impulses.

Psychological insight is a precious commodity in this world. The power or act of seeing into a situation and apprehending the inner nature or motivation of one's self--especially the why--can be extremely liberating, allowing a person to gain control over their own behavior.

But insight can also be devastating and can generate deserved guilt and shame; which in turn may be the motivators that initiate a change in behavior for the good.

While it is painful to acknowledge horrible truths--but truths nonetheless-- about one's self, such understanding is essential for personal growth and normal personality development.

Those who audaciously distort and deny reality--even when they win prestigious awards from other delusional people for their efforts; or when they bask in the sunlight of popularity polls--cannot forever evade the larger truth that there is something very rotten and sick within their own souls. They seek to avoid it, but that is wishful thinking on their part.

Both reality and truth have a rather nasty habit of not going away.

UPDATE: Oh, by the way, this fellow is one of many who are presently audaciously distorting reality to reveal a larger truth. Unbeknownst to them, however, the "larger truth" that is being exposed by their antics is not the one they happen to be promoting.

UPDATE II: While I'm on the subject of the insanity overrunning the Islamic world because they are unable to face truth -- particularly the reality of their own religion SC&A has this to say
Much of the Islamic world has painted itself into a corner. The vicious hate that has been brought to the fore cannot be hidden away at will and pulled out when necessary, to be used as a tool to intimidate, as it was during the cartoon riots.

Vicious hate is the key phrase here; and if there is any psychological insight at play or ownership of feelings--either within those who want to assassinate the Pope or the loving leftists who would rather assassinate Bush--then this psychiatrist is unable to see it.